International Place Branding Yearbook 2011

Ever since I began using the term ‘nation brand’ in the late 1990s (Anholt 1998), I have been arguing against the all too common interpretation of the phrase, which holds that the reputations of places can be influenced significantly in the long term by advertising, marketing or public relations campaigns, or even, most naïvely, by logos and corporate identity.

This chapter applies cultural metaphors, that is, the major phenomena, activities, or institutions, with which city dwellers and visitors closely identify cognitively and emotionally. By explaining the interaction between economic development and cultural flows it becomes clear that spatial identities are contested, constructed, duplicated and frustrated. Hence, the place brand reputation game is inextricably linked to a cultivation of imagined identities. The final sections suggest that urban societies — Poznań, Rotterdam, Valencia, Warsaw — differ in terms of dominant cultural orientation that has been the focus of social science research. Every place branding situation is unique. Therefore, territorial decision makers have to understand how to analyze the complex identity formation process, and apply the appropriate techniques in order to minimize marginalization and its undesirable consequences that may negatively affect the urban brand reputation.

In the late 1980s, when academic attention regarding the application of marketing approaches to the selling of places was in its infancy, a number of exploratory studies of deliberately promoted place images was undertaken in The Netherlands. The starting point was Burgess’s (1982) seminal study on the content of local authority promoted images in the UK, where she identified the four main elements as being centrality, dynamism, identity and quality of life. An investigation of the content of the text and illustration of all 16 medium-sized cities in The Netherlands (Voogd and van de Wijk 1989) revealed the unanticipated conclusion that historical elements were being used widely in campaigns designed principally to attract exogenous investment. Official brochures and printed advertising material (in a pre-website era) stressed historical events and personalities associated with the place, and even lengthy descriptions of armorial bearings and local monumental buildings. It seemed strange that city councils and their consultants should so emphasize historical elements over contemporary attributes, which would seem of more immediate relevance to a commercial enterprise such as accessibility, shopping, retailing, recreation or other facilities.

Since the start of the new millennium we have seen a growing number of cities announcing a branding strategy. Branding is not just being adopted by the ‘usual suspects’ such as the global cities, the capitals and well-known tourist destinations, but also by smaller, specialized cities and so-called second cities.¹ The latter are a very interesting group when it comes to place marketing and place branding. These cities are potentially more eager to embrace branding as they have to exert more effort to attract the attention of their desired target audiences. Some of these second cities struggling with an ‘image problem’ are tempted to rebrand themselves or to design a totally new place brand, aiming to start with a clean sheet. This chapter reviews the possibility of place rebranding and attempts to develop a completely new place brand from scratch. Is it really possible for cities to break with the past and to start all over again? The next section of this chapter is concerned with the concept of place branding and the ambiguity that is still associated with it. The third section discusses the possibility of rebranding or developing an entirely new place brand from scratch. The fourth section explores the proposition that place brands are path dependent by looking at the experience of Rotterdam. The final section summarizes the conclusions.

One of the deep-rooted and long-established ideas of brand building is the need for control. The argument is that, for consumers and other stakeholders to have a clear understanding of a brand, there needs to be consistency of communication and action over time. This is the basis of using brand definitions — articulations of brand vision and values — to steer marketing campaigns and to construct well-policed visual identity programmes. The underlying premise is that brands should be fixed in time: ‘markets may change, but brands shouldn’t’ (Ries and Ries 1998). This ideal of brands emphasizes management, conformity and the containment of creative expression and rejects ambiguity, spontaneity and fluidity (Bauman 2001; Czarniawska 2003). We might question whether this view is credible and sustainable. The Ries and Ries perspective suggests that in some way brands are independent of markets rather than deeply integrated with and involved in the process of change, while an emphasis on control is increasingly undermined by the growing transparency of brands (Kitchin 2003) and the active involvement of stakeholders. Brands are no longer made by organizations. Rather they are constructed in a space in which organizations are influencers and listeners — something that Govers and Go (2009) recognize in the context of place branding in their 3-gap place-branding model.

The way a country is perceived can make a critical difference to the success of its business, trade and tourism efforts, as well as its diplomatic and cultural relations with other nations. The Anholt—GfK Roper Nation Brands Index^SM represents a unique collaboration combining the heritage and authority of GfK Roper’s three-quarters of a century of experience in public affairs research with the expertise of Simon Anholt to offer a unique barometer of global opinion.

Brands of any kind typically have two dimensions — the promise they make and the way they are perceived by consumers; that is, they build reputation. Good country brand management is fundamentally about ensuring that there is no gap between the two. The FutureBrand Country Brand Index is designed to measure perceptions of country brand strength across multiple dimensions. As such, its aim is to reflect back to country brand managers how close perceptions are to reality, and provide a consistent framework for improving those perceptions. To the extent that the Index is a ranking of countries according to brand strength, it aims to provide a sense of relative position against regional and global competition, as well as a benchmark by which to measure change over time. But it also has an advisory emphasis, helping to show which areas might benefit from renewed focus or a change of strategy — the levers to pull for growth. However, while it looks at perceptions of country brands relating to business, culture and politics, the Index does not seek to present an absolute measure of country brand value, political or economic power — this is the work of other research.

The East West Nation Brand Perception Indexes and Reports were developed as tools to quantify international perceptions of nations. Place branding is the general topic of this Yearbook, but our interest has been focused more narrowly on countries and the roles they play in the global community of nations. However, it should be pointed out that, in the realm of perceptions, what applies to a country is in many ways likely also to apply to a city, a region or other places that can be viewed through the lens of branding.

The Global Peace Index (GPI) represents a ground-breaking milestone in the study of peace. It is the first Index ever to rank the nations of the world by their peacefulness and to identify potential drivers of peace.

In May 2004, the announcement that South Africa had been selected as the host country for the 2010 FIFA World Cup™, the first on African soil, elicited exhilaration, yet at the same time trepidation, both locally and internationally. Government and business wondered whether the country had sufficient character to host such an esteemed mega-event. Granted, South Africa had hosted both the Rugby World Cup (1995) and Cricket World Cup (2003) successfully, but, the FIFA World Cup™ was clearly a different ‘ball-game’, perhaps one only matched in magnitude and importance by the Olympic Games.

In the ‘new age of innovation’ (Go and Govers 2010) the skills and knowledge people employ on a daily basis in their jobs are affected by the twin forces of globalization and information technologies. In turn, society depends increasingly on higher education to equip citizens with the skills needed to access a vast array of information through technologies and, with social and cultural understanding, the embedded knowledge of history, geography and foreign languages.

Holiday destinations inevitably evoke vivid imagery and associations. Think, for example, of the beauty of the Geiranger fjord in Norway, the romantic lights of the Paris Eiffel tower or the Parthenon in Greece. Such landmarks are exemplifications of what the country offers. The Geiranger fjord exemplifies the natural beauty of Norway, the Eiffel tower represents romantic Paris, and the Parthenon represents the many remains of ancient Greece. These images communicate attributes and ideas that people relate to them (MacKay and Fesenmaier 1997), turning destinations into naturally grown brands with rich association networks. Many countries, as holiday destinations, evoke images of which commercial brands might be jealous. But nature sometimes needs a little help, and deliberate positioning of a destination country as a brand may have its pay-offs. Not every country enjoys the benefits of free publicity to the extent that Paris or Norway do. Moreover, even successful destinations may face the need for repositioning. Coastal regions in the Mediterranean, for example, feature the risk of commodification, as the rapid growth of sun-and-sea tourism has transitioned into a stage of maturity (Buhalis 2000; Sedmak and Mihalič 2008). Greece might provide a good example. In 2005, the Greek rate of tourism growth had slowed to 4 per cent, lagging behind competitors such as Turkey (Vasiliades 2008).

Experience of place is multifaceted. A place has many offerings and meanings and, for consumers, each product, service, event or place is likely to have several meanings attached to it. Typically, for a consumer, these meanings are not stable, but tend to be dynamic (Levy 1959) and therefore represent a challenge for place marketing. What particular meanings should destinations emphasize in marketing campaigns? And why? In general, almost any destination refers repeatedly to a select number of sights and attractions in advertisements. But from a traveler’s perspective there may be other attractions, as well as the familiar ones, that might be far more relevant when deciding whether to visit a particular destination. Accordingly, effective place marketing depends on informed decision-making. Therefore, relevant market research and market studies are necessary. In particular, tools that are used in market research should correspond to the multifaceted nature of place experience.

Place branding is concerned with managing the reputation of cities, states, regions and nations. More specifically, it intends to build name awareness; a distinctive, believable, authentic, meaningful, memorable and co-created image; as well as loyalty among (potential) tourists, investors, traders, expatriates and the like. In addition, Govers and Go (2009) state that place branding departs from the identity of place and is hence supply driven, in contrast to marketing, which, as is well known, should be demand driven. Ultimately, when the analysis of identity and image is completed, and the choices for brand values and intended image are made, it is wise to think about how this ‘corporate place brand’ will be accessible and communicable to the various target groups. However, it is a mistake to start a branding process by looking at customer needs and wants. Govers (2010) argues (see www.​placebrandz.​com) that there are three reasons why it is not wise to take a marketing approach to place branding.