Journal of Vacation Marketing
http://jvm.sagepub.com
Relational network brands: Towards a conceptual model of place brands
Graham Hankinson
Journal of Vacation Marketing 2004; 10; 109
DOI: 10.1177/135676670401000202
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jvm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/2/109
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Journal of Vacation Marketing can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jvm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jvm.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://jvm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/10/2/109
Downloaded from http://jvm.sagepub.com at Glasgow Caledonian University on January 29, 2010
Journal of Vacation Marketing
Volume 10 Number 2
Academic Papers
Relational network brands: Towards a
conceptual model of place brands
Graham Hankinson
Received (in revised form): 10th July, 2003
Anonymously refereed paper
Department of Business and Service Sector Management, London Metropolitan University,
277–281 Holloway Road, London N7 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 7753 7049; Fax: +44 (0)20 7753 5051; E-mail: g.hankinson@londonmet.ac.uk
Graham Hankinson began his career as a market and social researcher. He has held professorial positions at Thames Valley University and at
the University of Lincolnshire and Humberside
and now teaches and researches in the Department of Business and Service Sector Management at London Metropolitan University. His
recent research and publications focus on the
branding of places as destinations and his current
project, ‘Destination Branding and the Business
Tourism Market’, is being conducted in collaboration with the BACD.
as a value enhancer and the brand as a relationship.
A review of the place marketing literature suggests
that the focus to date has been on brands as
perceptual entities or images. The paper argues that
such conceptualisations seriously limit the development of place brands in general and destination
brands in particular. A model of the place brand is
presented based upon the concept of a brand as a
relationship with consumers and other stakeholders,
focusing on behaviours rather than communications
and reality rather than image. The practical implications of this approach are discussed.
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS: place brands, relational exchange, marketing networks, services marketing, brand reality
INTRODUCTION
There is a significant and growing body of
literature on place marketing which extends
across several academic domains, each with its
own perspective. In the urban planning literature, for example, the focus is upon the macro
perspective and the ‘efficient social and economic functioning of the area concerned in
accordance with whatever goals have been
established’.1 In this context, the role of marketing is to promote an image in order to help
achieve those goals. In contrast, other domains
reflect the multipurpose nature of places, focusing on specific areas of economic activity
such as tourism, retailing, cultural activities
and sporting events. Place branding has also
received considerable attention over the past
This paper develops a conceptual model of the place
brand which goes beyond the conceptualisations
currently to be found in the literature and, it is
argued, reflects more closely the reality faced by
those who market places as destinations. The paper
begins with an analysis of the classical branding
literature and a review of the emerging literature
associated with the relational exchange and the
network marketing paradigms. Four streams of
thought are identified as regards the nature of
brands. These include the brand as a communicator,
the brand as a perceptual entity or image, the brand
Journal of Vacation Marketing
Vol. 10 No. 2, 2004, pp. 109–121,
& Henry Stewart Publications,
1356-7667
Downloaded from http://jvm.sagepub.com at Glasgow Caledonian University on January 29, 2010
Page 109
Relational network brands: Towards a conceptual model of place brands
two decades in both the marketing press and
the academic literature. Classical branding
theory, with its roots in product marketing, is,
however, still in its infancy and the application
of branding to the more specialist areas of
marketing is even less developed. Even in the
area of services marketing, which in recent
years has grown to take a very central place on
the marketing stage, there is little published on
branding.2 In the domain of place marketing
there is a relatively small, although growing
literature on brands and branding.3
As yet, however, no general theoretical
framework exists to underpin the development of place brands apart from classical,
product-based branding theory. It is the
purpose of this paper to address this issue.
The paper is in three parts. First, it analyses
alternative perspectives on classical branding
and reviews the emerging literature on the
relational and network marketing paradigms.
Secondly, it compares the literature on place
marketing and branding with classical branding theory and these new marketing paradigms. Thirdly, it presents a conceptual
model of the place brand and discusses its
implications for the branding of tourism
destinations.
ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON
CLASSICAL BRANDING
Classical branding literature focuses upon the
concept of the product brand. Characteristic
of an area of academic study in its infancy in
relative terms, there has been a proliferation
of articles defining a brand and branding
terminology. There have also been several
useful review articles summarising these, focusing in particular on definitions of the
brand4,5 and brand management.6 Not surprisingly, there are considerable similarities
between these classifications once the semantics are set aside. This paper identifies
four main streams of brand conceptualisation. These are not independent of each
other. Indeed, they are arguably inextricably
linked to each other through input-outputfeedback relationships.
Brands as communicators
First, brands are conceptualised as communicators. A brand represents a mark of ownership
and a means of product differentiation manifested in legally protected names, logos and
trademarks.7,8 As such, brands are subordinate
to products.9 This conceptualisation is encapsulated in the American Marketing Association’s definition of a brand as ‘a name, term,
symbol or design, or a combination of them,
intended to identify the goods or services of
one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors’.10 This
view of the brand is perhaps the most widely
held.11 The brand as a communication device
is taken a stage further, however, through the
conceptualisation of the brand as an identity.
The identity develops the product’s differentiation further by communicating the firm’s
vision of the brand.12 A brand’s identity is
used by an organisation to communicate its
positioning relative to the competitive set.13
Overall, the concept of the brand as a communicator can be classified as an input orientation to branding.14,15
Brands as perceptual entities
Secondly, brands are conceptualised as perceptual entities. This approach has its origins in
consumer behaviour theory.16 As long ago as
the 1950s, brands were regarded as having a
‘public image’17 defined in terms of a collection of associations perceived by the consumer.18,19 This has led in turn to a
decompositional approach to brands. Thus,
as perceptual entities, brands are said to
appeal to the consumer’s senses, reason and
emotions.20 To the consumer, the brand
image is characterised by a set of associations
or attributes to which consumers attach personal value.21 These attributes have been
variously categorised under either two or
three dimensions. Two-dimensional models
typically categorise attributes as either functional or symbolic22 or functional and representational,23 appealing to reason and
emotion. Three-dimensional models add a
third, experiential dimension, which appeals
to the senses.24,25 Overall, the concept of the
brand as a perceptual entity can be classified
Downloaded from http://jvm.sagepub.com at Glasgow Caledonian University on January 29, 2010
Page 110
Hankinson
as an output orientation to branding.26,27 As a
result of semantic nuances, some writers turn
the concept into an input and refer to the
need to manage the brand’s long-term image.28 In this paper, however, images are
defined as what the consumer perceives
while identities are defined as what the firm
tries to communicate.
Brands as value enhancers
Thirdly, brands are conceptualised as value
enhancers. As a result of a series of mergers in
the mid-1980s, brands came to be regarded
as corporate assets to be nurtured and invested in.29 The concept of the brand as a
value enhancer has led to the development
of the concept of brand equity. Like the
concept of a brand, however, this has also
developed multiple meanings.30 To the accountant, brand equity is about the brand’s
financial value, as reflected in its future income potential. To the marketer brand equity is about indicators of future income, such
as relative price, brand loyalty, distribution
and awareness levels.31 This conceptualisation has laid the foundations for a strategic
approach to brand management. The role of
brand management from this perspective is
to define and manage a brand identity32 as a
means of achieving competitive advantage.33
The links between this conceptualisation and
the brand as a communicator are apparent
here. Brands, however, also represent enhanced value to the consumer. Where there
is perceived risk associated with the product
purchase, brands operate as risk reducers34
and reduce search costs.35 Enhanced value is
also reflected in consumers’ perceptions of
quality.36 To some, brand equity is a consumer-centred concept and as a consequence
is output rather than input focused.37,38
Brands as relationships
Fourthly, brands have been conceptualised as
relationships. Here, the brand is construed as
having a personality which enables it to form
a relationship with the consumer. This relationship can be the result of congruity with
the consumer’s self -image39 or the develop-
ment of a brand-consumer fit between the
consumer’s physical and psychological needs
and the functional attributes and symbolic
values of the brand.40
This perspective is seen as being particularly
relevant to services brands.41 Central to the
delivery of services brands is the service encounter — interaction between consumers
and service contact personnel. Consumers
thus become co-producers of the service
product.42 The service encounter between the
service provider’s contact personnel and the
consumer provides an opportunity for the
development of a real relationship through
the provision of a positive experience. Some
authors go as far as to argue that experiences
can be managed in such a way that they
become products in themselves, quite distinct from services. ‘An experience occurs
when a company intentionally uses services
as the stage, and products as the props, to
engage individual consumers in a way that
creates a memorable event.’43 Services brands
also require interactions with a broader
group of stakeholders than just consumers.
For example, the importance of the service
encounter implies the need for an equally
strong relationship with staff.44
The conceptualisation of brands as relationships is arguably part of the increasing
acceptance of the relational paradigm of exchange and the inappropriateness of the
transactional paradigm of exchange to a
growing number of marketing situations.
The relational exchange paradigm characterises exchange as a continuous process
focused on the creation of value through
relationships with all stakeholder groups not
just consumers.45 These include employees,
suppliers, alliance partners, shareholders,
government agencies etc. This conceptualisation puts brands at the centre of marketing
activities. It also widens the focus of branding activities beyond communications to include behaviours, a focus of considerable
relevance to place branding.
Allied to the growing acceptance of relational exchange as a means of value creation
has been the increasing interest in marketing
networks as vehicles for integrating producers, consumers, employees and other stake-
Downloaded from http://jvm.sagepub.com at Glasgow Caledonian University on January 29, 2010
Page 111
Relational network brands: Towards a conceptual model of place brands
holders in a collaborative partnership of value enhancement. The network marketing
paradigm recognises that the world no longer
consists of firms and markets. It increasingly
consists of a complex web of relationships
with a variety of other organisations.46 Its
strength lies in its emphasis on organisations
combining resources with other organisations to create value through the continuous
development and transformation of a set of
relationships, each of which is in some way
unique. In this paradigm, competition is seen
as taking place between networks rather then
between companies. This has considerable
relevance to the context in which place
branding takes place.
PLACE MARKETING AND THE
DESTINATION BRAND
While the literature on the marketing of
places can be found in several academic
areas, it is most comprehensively discussed in
two domains: urban planning and tourism
and vacation marketing. These two domains,
however, take very different approaches.
Surprisingly, a review of the literature from
both domains, which it is acknowledged can
never be totally comprehensive, indicates an
absence of conceptual articulation between
the two domains. Such a link, it is argued,
could advance the level of place brand conceptualisation considerably.
The urban planning perspective
The urban planning literature focuses on the
nature of the place product, its historical
development47 and the marketing implications of its distinctive features.48–50 Sleipen51
argues that the place product is dualistic, and
distinguishes the ‘nuclear’ product (the place
as a holistic entity) from the product’s contributory elements (the services, activities
and features of which the place is comprised). Van den Bergh and Braun,52 divide
the place product into three levels: the individual good or service (eg a tourist attraction), clusters of related services (eg urban
tourism) and urban agglomeration, referring
to the collection of goods and services which
make up the place. Ashworth and Voogt,53
similarly, point out that places operate at
different spatial levels, which means firstly
that the product from the marketing viewpoint can differ from the product experienced by the consumer. Each consumer
assembles their own product from the range
of spatial levels offered by the place. It means
secondly that a space can also be sold for
different purposes to different groups of people by different producers.54 Thus, places are
multifunctional.
These inherent product complexities
make the marketing and therefore the branding of places a difficult task. First, the product experience cannot be controlled like
manufactured products. The place marketer
has little control over the consumer experience. Each consumer is free to choose which
contributory elements of the place product
to consume, and it is therefore possible for
the same space to be consumed simultaneously by two groups of consumers for two
different purposes. Secondly, from the local
authority marketer’s perspective, the product
is legally defined. The geographic boundaries
cannot easily be changed.55 The product
promoted, therefore, may not be the product
consumed,56 and product development may
be seriously limited. Thirdly, the product is
managed by a complex organisation of public and private sector stakeholders, making it
difficult to present a consistent brand proposition. Place branding therefore inevitably
becomes a coordinated process rather than a
managed activity. Furthermore, the role of
coordinator usually falls to local authorities,
which operate on low budgets and are subject to political control and interference57
which further exacerbates the task of brand
management.
The tourism and vacation marketing
perspective
Table 1 gives examples of some of the
published articles in this area. These examples have been classified on the basis of their
branding perspective. It is accepted that this
Downloaded from http://jvm.sagepub.com at Glasgow Caledonian University on January 29, 2010
Page 112
Thode and Masulka (1998)
Westwood (2000)
Westwood et al (1999)
Sirgy and Su (2000)
Morgan et al. (2002)
Kotler and Gertner (2002)
Hall (1999)
Morgan et al. (2002)
Kotler and Gertner (2002)
Pride (2002)
Gnoth (2002)
analysis is neither comprehensive nor totally
objective — such is the nature of any literature review. The aim here is to give the
reader a ‘feel’ for the range and balance of
the literature in this area.58 As can be seen,
brands as perceptual entities represent the
most established perspective. Other perspectives are only just beginning to emerge.
Destination brands as perceptual
entities
Brand image or perceptual perspectives
dominate the literature. One article alone
includes a systematic review of 15 papers in
this area.59 The literature on destination
images includes studies of specific destinations60,61 and studies identifying common
attributes across a sample of destinations at
regional,62,63 national64 and international
levels.65
This perspective is also reflected in several
conceptual models. Woodside and Lyonski66
set out a general model of traveller destination choice. The model suggests that intentions to visit reflect a destination’s level of
traveller awareness, its propensity to become
part of the choice set and its affective associations or level of perceived emotional attraction. Echtner and Ritchie67 set out a
conceptual model of the components of a
destination image based upon three categories of brand association; individual attributes versus holistic impressions, functional
versus psychological characteristics and common versus unique characteristics.
Woodside and Lyonski (1989)
Echtner and Ritchie (1991)
Echtner and Ritchie (1993)
Walmsley and Jenkins (1993)
Young (1995)
Walmsley and Young (1998)
Nickerson and Moisey (1999)
Leisen (2001)
Brands as value enhancers
Brands as relationships
Brands as communicators
Brands as perceptual entities
Table 1: Brand conceptualisations from the place marketing perspective
Hankinson
Destination brands as communicators
Papers taking this perspective focus on brand
strategy. Gnoth,68 for example, sees destination branding as a management process
which leads to a strategic plan to build a
brand identity based upon destination attributes selected on the basis of competitiveness, uniqueness and desired identity. Hall69
sees the core objective of destination branding as the production of a consistent, focused
communication strategy, based upon the selection of a collection of core intangible
Downloaded from http://jvm.sagepub.com at Glasgow Caledonian University on January 29, 2010
Page 113
Relational network brands: Towards a conceptual model of place brands
values existing in the mind of the consumer.
In contrast, Pride70 combines a communicator perspective with a relationship perspective in which tangible attributes play a key
supporting role within the communication
framework, providing reasons for the consumer to believe. Other articles also link these
perspectives. Kotler and Gertner,71 for example adopt the American Marketing Association’s definition of a brand but link this to a
brand personality which speaks to the consumer. Morgan et al.72 argue that increasing
product parity requires destinations to create
unique identities in order to differentiate
themselves from their competitors. In addition they set out a brand architecture, which
includes the development of a personality, as
the focus of consumer relationships with the
brand.
Destination brands as relationships
This perspective is illustrated by Sirgy and
Su,73 who argue that a destination’s environment influences the formation of stereotypic
images of the kinds of people who typically
visit the destination. The propensity to visit
is dependent upon a match between the
destination visitor image and the tourist’s
self-concept. Westwood et al.74 link the relationship brand perspective with the value
enhancer perspective, arguing that the role
of brands is to build a meaningful relationship with the consumer in order to secure
higher profits through the formation of consumer-brand bonds.
Destination brands as value enhancers
Only two articles were found in this category. Both focus on the development of
brand equity in specific industries: Thode
and Masulka,75 in the context of vineyards
and Westwood,76 in the context of package
holidays.
The dominance of the perceptual perspective, it is argued, has seriously limited the
development of place brands in general and
destination brands in particular. Research has
shown that destinations which focus purely
on the brand as a perceptual entity or as a
communicator fail to address the issues associated with organisational structure and managerial control.77 Place brands, like product
brands, are complex concepts78 requiring a
broader, multidimensional perspective. The
success of cities such as Manchester, Sydney
and Barcelona in building successful brands
through key sporting events was based upon
the development of strong relationships between stakeholders who would benefit from
that success. Marketing Manchester for example, the organisation responsible for promoting the 2002 Commonwealth Games,
has 300 members including hotels, restaurants, visitor attractions, the airport, the passenger transport authority and the local
authorities. This brand as a relationship approach has been successful for several reasons. First, it is more appropriate to serviceoriented and service-related products such as
places. Secondly, it is clearly linked to the
experiential nature of the place product and
emphasises the importance of the service
encounter as a central activity in the
development of place brands. Thirdly, it
recognises the role of a range of stakeholders
in the development of a successful place
brand. Fourthly, it more adequately reflects
the reality of place brand management. Finally, it utilises a network marketing approach.
PLACES AS RELATIONAL BRAND
NETWORKS AND THE IMPLICATIONS
FOR DESTINATION MARKETING
In this section a broader, more general model of the place brand is developed which
draws upon concepts from classical branding
theory, the relational exchange paradigm and
the network paradigm discussed above. This
model, referred to as the ‘relational network
brand’ is set out in Figure 1.
The place brand is represented by a core
brand and four categories of brand relationships which extend the brand reality or brand
experience. These relationships are dynamic.
They strengthen and evolve over time. Stakeholder partners may also change as the
brand develops and repositions. Unlike a
Downloaded from http://jvm.sagepub.com at Glasgow Caledonian University on January 29, 2010
Page 114
Hankinson
The relational network brand
Figure 1
Consumer relationships
Non-conflicting target markets
Residents and employees
Internal customers
Managed relationships
from the top
Primary service
relationships
Brand infrastructure
relationships
Access services
external transport
(air, sea, land and
rail)
internal transport
Hygiene facilities
car parks
open spaces
Brandscape
Core brand
•Personality
Positioning
Reality
Services at the core
of the brand experience
retailers
events and leisure
activities
hotels and
hotel associations
Media relationships
Organic communications
Induced/marketing
communications
publicity
public relations
advertising
conventional service brand, however, the
process of brand management, as has been
noted, is less controllable. Thus, the extension of the brand from the core to include
primary services, the brand infrastructure,
media and communications and consumers is
best described as a ripple effect in which
brand relationships are gradually extended
through a process of progressive interaction
between the network of stakeholders. The
brand core represents a place’s identity, the
blueprint for developing and communicating
the place brand. It may be the vision of one
or a number of organisations, and can be
defined by three elements.
The first element is a statement of the
brand personality, which is characterised by
functional attributes, symbolic attributes and,
most importantly in the context of service
products, experiential attributes (see Table
2). Functional attributes are tangible, and
include what Sirgy and Su79 refer to as
utilitarian and environmental attributes.
Symbolic attributes in contrast are intang-
ible, and meet the need for social approval,
personal expression and self-esteem.80 Linking these two categories of attribute together
is a set of holistic attributes,81 which describe
the visitor experience and answer the question ‘what will it feel like?’. These might
include descriptors such as ‘aroused’, ‘excited’ or ‘relaxed’.
The second element required to define
the core brand is a clear statement of the
brand’s positioning. This defines the brand’s
point of reference with respect to the competitive set by identifying the attributes
which make it similar to other places and
then identifying the attributes which make it
unique within that set. For example, the
attributes which define the set may be related
to a destination’s historical buildings, such as
a cathedral or castle, and the unique attribute
could be related to a particular event which
occurred there.
The third element of the brand core is the
brand reality. Both the personality and the
positioning need to be firmly rooted in
Downloaded from http://jvm.sagepub.com at Glasgow Caledonian University on January 29, 2010
Page 115
Relational network brands: Towards a conceptual model of place brands
Table 2: Components of the relational brand personality
Potential functional attributes
— Museums, art galleries, theatres and concert halls
— Leisure and sports activities and facilities
— Conference and exhibition facilities
— Public spaces
— Hotels, restaurants, night clubs and entertainment
— Transport infrastructure and access
Potential symbolic attributes
— The character of the local residents
— The profile of typical visitors (eg age, income, interests and values)
— Descriptors of the quality of service provided by service contact personnel
Potential experiential attributes
— How the destination will make visitors feel (eg relaxed, excited or fascinated)
— Descriptors of the destination’s feel (eg the city experience, vibrant or peaceful)
— The character of the built environment (eg historic, modern, green and spacious)
— Descriptors related to security and safety
reality if the promised experience is to be
fulfilled. Developing the core brand is not
about creating an image which presents a
highly selective identity as a means of selling
the place, as suggested by some authors,82
nor is it a sales pitch which sees the place
through rose-tinted spectacles. The successful branding of destinations results from a
combination of imaginative marketing supported by investment in the key services and
facilities required to deliver the experience
on offer. Unless sufficient funds are invested
in the brand and its services and facilities,
there will be no reinforcement of the core
brand values and no repeat consumption.
But, the ultimate success of a place branding strategy relies on the effective extension
of the core brand through effective relationships with stakeholders, each of which extends and reinforces the reality of the core
brand through consistent communication
and delivery of services. The model groups
these relationships into four categories: consumers, primary and secondary services, and
the media.
Primary services will include services at the
heart of the core brand. Without a positive
relationship with these service providers, the
core brand will be difficult to establish.
Depending upon the specification of the
core brand, these may include retailers and
retailer associations, hotels and hotel associations, events and leisure organisations and
organisations responsible for the management of historic monuments and buildings.
It is the character of their service offer and in
particular the behaviour of their customercontact personnel which are crucial to the
delivery of the brand. Central to this is the
producer-consumer relationship. What are
the expected behaviours? How are the brand
values communicated? How are enquiries
and complaints dealt with?
The brand infrastructure has three elements:
access, hygiene facilities and the brandscape.83 Access includes both transport to a
destination and the transport within it, such
as the provision of park-and-ride services
and walkways. This is probably one of the
most difficult areas of the destination brand
to develop. While internal transportation
and associated services can be locally determined, external access requires relationships
to be built with national and international
service providers. These include private rail
operators as well as government agencies
responsible for road construction. They include relationships with organisations such as
airport authorities and the airlines. It is also
necessary to build relationships with those
who manage hygiene facilities such as car
parks, toilets, baby-changing facilities and
Downloaded from http://jvm.sagepub.com at Glasgow Caledonian University on January 29, 2010
Page 116
Hankinson
street cleaning. The final element in the
brand infrastructure is the brandscape. In the
context of destination brands, the term refers
to the built environment in which the various services forming part of the core brand
take place. Although each of those services
will have its own servicescape,84 the experience of these will be enhanced or reduced
by the ambience of the destination in terms
of the built environment. In centres of historical interest, the ambience is part of the
destination’s heritage. For destinations without such heritage, the ambience has to be
created. The character and extent of the
investment required to do this will depend,
to some extent, upon the degree of concentration of the principal services and attractions forming part of the core brand. The
more dispersed these are, the more investment may be required to ensure an attractive
brandscape linking these. For example, research into the brand image of Bradford
identified the ‘corridors through the city’ as
an essential catalyst for change.85
The third category of relationships is media
and communications. Unless a consistent identity is portrayed through marketing communication
channels
(notably
through
advertising, publicity and public relations),
and through organic channels (in particular
the arts and education), the core brand will
fail. The role of effective public relations is
crucial to the portrayal of a positive organic
image. Evidence suggests that it is frequently
organic communication processes, developed through the arts, education and the
media, which have the strongest and most
pervasive influence on the image of a destination.86 Little can be done to change such
imagery until the reality is changed through
strategic investment. Crucial to the beginning of this change in organic image is the
establishment of a relationship with the media, local, national and international. The
purpose of this is not to try to change the
image while the reality remains unchanged,
but to communicate the changes to the
brand reality as they occur.
The final category of relationships is consumer groups, which include the residents and
employees of local organisations as well as
the targeted visitors. Building effective relationships with these is, of course, the ultimate objective, but insufficient attention to
the different needs of different groups may
lead to conflict. Tourists who are desirous of
a tranquil and scenic environment may not
be attracted to a busy city bustling with
people. On the other hand, the busy, vibrant
atmosphere of a major city may be very
attractive to younger tourists and business
tourists.
It is also important to remember that
residents and employees of local organisations are also consumers of the destination
brand. They are also part of the brand reality
and need to be supportive of the core brand
values. This can only happen if the target
visitor segments are compatible with the
characteristics of the majority of the resident
population. Lack of care in selecting target
market groups can potentially destroy a destination’s indigenous culture and thereby
destroy one of the key features of the core
brand. This is a problem which arguably
affects tourism markets in particular, where
visitors are likely to come into closer contact
with residents more frequently. This may
not be straightforward, however. Conflicts
can arise between a destination’s economic
aspirations and the socio-cultural needs of
residents, leading to commodification at the
expense of culture.87 Building relationships
with key community stakeholders can therefore be crucial to the success of the core
brand.
But problems may still remain even if the
choice of market segments is consistent. Failure of two departments within on organisation to communicate consistent core brand
values can result in brand confusion. This is a
problem evident in local authorities, which
are frequently the prime movers and shakers
of the branding process. A department responsible for inward investment failing to
coordinate its communications with a separate department responsible for tourism is
not uncommon in some local authorities.88
In such cases the relationships between different internal stakeholders lacks coordination. This emphasises the need for
responsibility for the place brand to reside
Downloaded from http://jvm.sagepub.com at Glasgow Caledonian University on January 29, 2010
Page 117
Relational network brands: Towards a conceptual model of place brands
with the most senior levels of management
in an organisation.
Directions for future research
This paper has postulated a conceptual model of the place brand, drawing upon the
literatures relating to classical branding, relationship marketing, services marketing, tourism marketing and urban planning. It
extends the concept of a place brand beyond
the narrow focus of a perceptual entity or
image to include behavioural and economic
dimensions. In the context of destinations,
the model implies that successful branding
requires:
— investment in buildings and brand infrastructure sufficient to make the promised
brand experience a reality
— a strong network of stakeholder relationships which all share a common vision of
the core brand
— the selection of target markets which are
consistent both with each other and with
the character of the local community
— a service-oriented approach to the delivery of quality.
Further research will clearly be necessary to
test these propositions and define the exact
nature of the relationships between the variables identified and brand success, however
it is defined. Further empirical work is essential. While there has recently been considerable work on the perceptual aspects of
destination brands, there is a general paucity
of research relating to the role of stakeholder
relationships and networking in the development of destination brands. Moreover, a key
area of particular concern to local authorities
is the role which relationships with local
communities and employees play in the
building of successful destination brands.
While studies have examined the congruity
between potential tourists’ self-image and
their perceptions of a destination’s clientele,
there appears to be little research into tourists’ perceptions of the residents of a destination. Similarly, there has been little work on
the relationships between residents’ and
other stakeholders’ perceptions of their own
town or city.
Indeed, the need for the development and
refinement of a comprehensive model of the
place brand has never been greater. The
increasing levels of competition between
destinations to attract visitors and events
combined with an environment which is
becoming increasingly risk-averse and security-conscious, make the development of successful brands and the trust which they
engender of vital social and economic importance. But future branding activity must
be based upon the creation of brand reality
rather than solely the communication of
destination images. Further broadly based
empirical work would greatly assist destination marketers in achieving this.
REFERENCES
(1) Ashworth, G. J. and Voogt, H. (1994)
‘Marketing and place promotion’, in Gold,
J. R. and Ward, S. (eds) ‘Place Promotion:
The Use of Publicity and Marketing to Sell
Towns and Regions’, John Wiley, Chichester, p. 41.
(2) de Chernatony, L. and Segal-Horn, S.
(2001) ‘Building on services’ characteristics
to develop successful services brands’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 17, Nos
7/8, pp. 645–670.
(3) Anholt, S. (1998) ‘Foreword’, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 9, Nos 4/5, pp.
229–240; Walmsley, D. J. and Young, M.
(1998) ‘Evaluative images and tourism: The
use of personal constructs to describe the
structure of destination images’, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 36, Winter, pp. 65–69;
Crockett, S. R. and Wood, L. J. (2000)
‘Brand Western Australia: A totally integrated approach’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 276–289; Curtis, J.
(2001) ‘Branding a state: The evolution of
Brand Oregon’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 75–82; Hall, D.
(1999) ‘Destination branding, niche marketing and national image projection in
Central and Eastern Europe’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 227–
237; Morgan, N. J. and Pritchard, A. (1999)
‘Building destination brands: The cases of
Wales and Australia’, Journal of Brand Man-
Downloaded from http://jvm.sagepub.com at Glasgow Caledonian University on January 29, 2010
Page 118
Hankinson
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
agement, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 103–118; Nickerson, N. P. and Moisey, R. N. (2000)
‘Branding a state from features to positioning: Making it simple?’, Journal of Vacation
Marketing, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 217–226;
Morgan, N. , Pritchard, A. and Pride, R.
(eds) (2002) ‘Destination Branding, Creating the Unique Destination Proposition’,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Hankinson, G. A. and Cowking, P. (1995)
‘What do you really mean by a brand?’,
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 3, No. 1,
pp. 43–50.
de Chernatony, L. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F.
(1998) ‘Defining a ‘‘brand’’: Beyond the
literature with expert interpretations’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14, No. 7,
pp. 417–443.
Louro, M. and Cunha, P. (2001) ‘Brand
management paradigms’, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 17, Nos 7/8, pp.
849–876.
Hankinson, G. A. and Cowking, P. (1993)
‘Branding in Action’, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.
de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, ref. 5
above.
Louro and Cunha, ref. 6 above.
American Marketing Association (1960)
‘Marketing Definitions: A Glossary of Marketing Terms’, American Marketing Association, Chicago.
Davies, S. (1995) ‘A vision for the year
2000: Brand asset management’, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.
65–82.
Kapferer, J.-N. (1997) ‘Strategic Brand
Management’, Kogan Page, London.
de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, ref. 5
above.
Ibid.
Louro and Cunha, ref. 6 above.
MacInnis, D. and Price, L. (1987) ‘The role
of imagery in information processing: Review and extensions’, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 473–491.
Gardner, B. and Levy, S. (1955) ‘The product and the brand’, Harvard Business Review, March–April, pp. 33–39.
Boulding, K. (1956) ‘The Image’, University of Mitchigan Press, Ann Harbour.
de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, ref. 5
above.
Doyle, P. (1994) ‘Building successful
brands: The strategic options’, Journal of
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
(28)
(29)
(30)
(31)
(32)
(33)
(34)
(35)
(36)
(37)
(38)
(39)
(40)
(41)
Marketing Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.
77–95.
Keller, K. (1993) ‘Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand
equity’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 1–22.
Hankinson and Cowking, ref. 7 above.
de Chernatony, L. and McWilliam, G.
(1989) ‘Clarifying how marketers interpret
‘‘brands’’’, Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 153–171.
Park, C., Jaworski, B. and MacInnis, D.
(1986) ‘Strategic brand concept-image
management’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50,
October, pp. 135–145.
Keller, ref. 21 above.
de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, ref. 5
above.
Louro and Cunha, ref. 6 above.
Park et al., ref. 24 above.
Aaker, D. (1991) ‘Managing Brand Equity’,
Free Press, New York.
Wood, L. (2000) ‘Brands and brand equity:
Definition and management’, Management
Decision, Vol. 38, No. 9, pp. 662–669.
Ambler, T. (1993) ‘Are branding and marketing synonymous?’, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 41–48.
Kapferer, ref. 12 above.
de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, ref. 5
above.
Keller, ref. 21 above.
Jacoby, J., Szybillo, J. and Busato-Schach, J.
(1997) ‘Information acquistion behaviour in
brand choice situations’, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 1–9.
Aaker, D. (1996) ‘Building Strong Brands’,
Free Press, New York.
Keller, L. (1998) ‘Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Management Brand Equity’, Prentice-Hall,,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Biel, A. (1993) ‘Converting image into
equity’, in Aaker, D. and Biel, A. (eds)
‘Brand Equity and Advertising: Advertising’s Role in Building Strong Brands’,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale,
NJ.
Sirgy, M. and Su, C. (2000) ‘Destination
image, self-congruity, and travel behaviour:
Toward an integrative model’, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 38, May, pp. 340–352.
Hankinson and Cowking, ref. 7 above.
de Chernatony and Segal-Horn, ref. 2
above.
Downloaded from http://jvm.sagepub.com at Glasgow Caledonian University on January 29, 2010
Page 119
Relational network brands: Towards a conceptual model of place brands
(42) Zeithaml, V. and Bitner, M. J. (2000) ‘Services Marketing’, 2nd edn, Irwin McGrawHill, London.
(43) Pine, B. and Gilmore, J. (1998) ‘Welcome
to the experience economy’, Harvard Business Review, July–August, p. 98.
(44) de Chernatony and Segal-Horn, ref. 2
above.
(45) Payne, A., Holt, S. and Frow, P. (2001)
‘Relationship value management: Exploring
the integration of employee, customer and
shareholder value and enterprise models’,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 17,
Nos 7/8, pp. 785–817.
(46) Cravens, D., Ship, S. and Cravens, K.
(1994) ‘Reforming the traditional organization: The mandate for developing networks’, Business Horizons, July–August, pp.
19–27.
(47) Ward, S. V. (1998) ‘Selling Places: The
Marketing of Towns and Cities, 1850–
2000’, Routledge, London.
(48) van den Bergh, L. and Braun, E. (1999)
‘Urban competitiveness, marketing and the
need for organising capacity’, Urban Studies,
Vol. 36, Nos 5/6, pp. 987–999.
(49) Ashworth and Voogt, ref. 1 above.
(50) Ward, S. and Gold, J. R. (1994) ‘Introduction’, in Gold, J. R. and Ward, S. (eds)
‘Place Promotion: The Use of Publicity and
Marketing to Sell Towns and Regions’,
John Wiley, Chichester.
(51) Sleipen, W. (1988) ‘Marketing van de Historische Omgeving’, Research Institute for
Tourism, Breda, Netherlands, cited in Ashworth, G. J. and Voogt, H. (1990) ‘Selling
the City’, Bellhaven, London.
(52) van den Bergh and Braun, ref. 48 above.
(53) Ashworth, G. J. and Voogt, H. (1990) ‘Can
places be sold for tourism?’, in Ashworth,
G. J. and Voogt, H. (eds) ‘Marketing Tourism Places’, Routledge, London.
(54) Ashworth and Voogt, ref. 1 above.
(55) Hankinson, G. A. (2001) ‘Location branding:
A study of 12 English cities’, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 127–142.
(56) Ashworth and Voogt, ref. 1 above.
(57) Hankinson, ref. 55 above.
(58) de Chernatony, L. and Dall’Olmo Riley
(1998) ‘Modelling the components of a
brand’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol.
32, Nos. 11/12, pp. 1074–1090.
(59) Echtner, C. M. and Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993)
‘The measurement of destination image: An
empirical assessment’, Journal of Travel Re-
search, Vol. 31, Spring, pp. 3–13.
(60) Ibid.
(61) Nickerson and Moisey, ref. 3 above.
(62) Leisen, B. (2001) ‘Image segmentation: The
case of a tourism destination’, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.
49–66.
(63) Young, M. (1995) ‘Evaluative constructs of
domestic tourist places’, Australian Geographic Studies, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 272–
286, cited in Walmsley and Young, ref. 3
above.
(64) Walmsley, D. J. and Jenkins, J. M. (1993)
‘Appraising images of tourism areas: An
application of personal constructs’, Australian Geographer, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 1–13,
cited in Walmsley and Young, ref. 3 above.
(65) Walmsley and Young, ref. 3 above.
(66) Woodside, A. G. and Lyonski, S. (1989) ‘A
general model of traveler destination
choice’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 27,
Spring, pp. 8–14.
(67) Echtner, C. M. and Ritchie, J. R. B. (1991)
‘The meaning and measurement of destination image’, Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol.
2, No. 2, pp. 2–12.
(68) Gnoth, J. (2002) ‘A country — Can it be
repositioned? Spain — The success story of
country branding’, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9, Nos. 4/5, pp. 262–280.
(69) Hall, ref. 3 above.
(70) Pride, R. (2002) ‘Brand Wales: Natural
revival’, in Morgan, N. , Pritchard, A. and
Pride, R. (eds) (2002) ‘Destination Branding, Creating the Unique Destination
Proposition’,
Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford.
(71) Kotler, P. and Gertner, D. (2002) ‘Leveraging export brands through a tourism destination brand’, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 9, Nos 4/5, pp. 249–261.
(72) Morgan et al., ref. 3 above.
(73) Sirgy and Su, ref. 39 above.
(74) Westwood, S. , Morgan, N. , Pritchard, A.
and Ineson, E. (1999) ‘Branding the package holiday — The role and significance for
brands for UK air tour operators’, Journal of
Vacation Marketing, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.
238–252.
(75) Thode, S. F. and Masulka, J. M. (1998)
‘Place-based marketing strategies, brand
equity and vineyard valuation’, Journal of
Product and Brand Management, Vol. 7, No.
5, pp. 379–399.
(76) Westwood, S. (2000) ‘The holiday brand,
Downloaded from http://jvm.sagepub.com at Glasgow Caledonian University on January 29, 2010
Page 120
Hankinson
(77)
(78)
(79)
(80)
(81)
(82)
what does it mean? An exploratory study of
brand equity in the context of the package
holiday experience’, in Robinson, M.,
Evans, N., Long, P., Sharply, R. and Swarbrooke, J. (eds) ‘Management, Marketing
and the Political Economy of Travel and
Tourism, Reflections on International
Tourism’, Business Education, Sunderland.
Hankinson, ref. 55 above.
de Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley, ref.
58 above.
Sirgy and Su, ref. 39 above.
Keller, ref. 21 above.
Echtner and Ritchie, ref. 67 above.
Barke, M. and Harrop, K. (1994) ‘Selling
the industrial town: Identity, image and
illusion’, in Gold, J. R. and Ward, S. (eds)
‘Place Promotion: The Use of Publicity and
(83)
(84)
(85)
(86)
(87)
(88)
Marketing to Sell Towns and Regions’,
John Wiley, Chichester.
Asmussen, B. (2002) ‘The brandscape approach — Developing a balanced stakeholder-oriented approach to corporate brand
management’, unpublished MA dissertation,
London Metropolitan University, UK.
Zeithaml and Bitner, ref. 42 above.
Killingbeck, A. J. and Trueman, M. M.
(2002) ‘Redrawing the perceptual map of
Bradford’, paper presented to the Academy
of Marketing Conference, Nottingham
University, UK.
Gunn, C. A. (1997) ‘Vacationscape’, Bureau of Business Research, University of
Texas, Austin, TX.
Ward, ref. 47 above.
Hankinson, ref. 55 above.
Downloaded from http://jvm.sagepub.com at Glasgow Caledonian University on January 29, 2010
Page 121