Designing value propositions in branding a rural community
Nieminen Lenita; Lemmetyinen Arja; Go Frank M.
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2021042715202
Tiivistelmä
The purpose of this paper is to examine the power of symbols and communication in
contemporary society within the European context to establish branding as a new resource for
community development and the building of public-private coalitions that further community
goals. The research builds on social system theory (Luhmann’s theory, 1986) and adopts
discourse analysis (Mabey and Freeman (2012) as an informed method for examining
leadership in place branding. A fundamental dilemma in designing value propositions to meet
place-branding objectives is, in a nutshell, variety versus specificity. The visionary Steve
Jobs claimed that the ‘biggest innovations in the 21st century would be at the intersection of
biology and technology’ (cited in Myers, 2012). From this perspective, rural nature will
complement scientific bio design, thereby allowing communities to build a strategy that
addresses the need for specificity and contributes to achieving the aim of rural sustainable
development. Three research questions are addressed. What should the community brand
represent? How should the represented brand be marketed so as to give decision makers a
perspective from which to tackle the branding dilemma between variety and specificity?
What new brand values, architecture and incentive systems should be implemented for
capturing possibilities and, simultaneously, fending off attacks on the core community brand,
including anti-brand sentiments?
Theoretical background
It is not only an organization’s internal logic, but also and especially its collaboration with a
variety of societal stakeholders that have assumed increasing importance as a mechanism for
developing a reputable brand. The branding process is evolutionary (Lemmetyinen & Go
2010) and serves to enhance corporate brand equity, defined as “the set of brand assets and
liabilities linked to a brand, its name, symbol, that adds to or subtracts from the value
provided by a product or service to a firm and/or to a firm’s customers” (Aaker 1991, p. 15).
Brand equity is typically measured on several dimensions. These include, first, brand loyalty
or the ability of the brand to differentiate itself (variety) so as to attract and retain a high
47
percentage of dedicated customers. Second, name awareness is likely to attract more people
to a place than if the location is obscure and unheard of. Third, perceived quality places the
brand in a certain way in the customer’s mind (specificity), which persuades him or her of its
superior strength in comparison to rival brands. Brand strength, in turn, is nurtured by
attribute associations, which are understood to determine the direction of “added value”
(Riezebos 1994). Companies render goods and services with an aura of spectacle, beauty or
authenticity by drawing on the context specificity of places, such as their landscape, heritage,
climate, local competences and technologies. In this way their immaterial, symbolic cultural
signifiers are imbued with economic value: surviving buildings, relics, memories and place
associations are preserved and presented as tourist attractions and promising investment
objects. As a consequence, such centers no longer function solely as places of consumption
but are, in turn, consumed (Urry 1995). The commodification of places exemplifies an
extreme of the “density principle” or the degree to which the mobilization of resources occurs
in a particular situation – “e.g. for a customer at a given time in a given place – independent
of location, to create the optimum value/cost result” (Normann 2001, p. 27). On the
conceptual level there are three overlapping paradigms. The first is the discourse of global
business, which through physical and virtual interactions contributes to the transformation of
the reputational landscape of place brands. Second are the place-branding debates on the
potential impact of the twin forces of globalization, , mediated technologies, on actors,
varying significantly in geography and between criticaster and scientist. Third are the social
systems, which according to Luhmann (1986) reproduce interdependent communications and
relationships among rural stakeholders and with their counterparts at the national, provincial,
and local level. In line with Luhmann’s theory we argue that a branding system could be
interpreted as a specific type of rural social system.
Methodology
Our aim in this research is to explore how the building of an umbrella place brand based on
trustworthy relationships helped to satisfy the full range of a community’s needs, including
living, working, conducting business and welcoming visitors. We distinguish three analytical
perspectives on questions of marketing management, the “outside-in”, the “inside-out”, and
the inside-in”. The “first two shed light on the dynamism stemming from the interfacing of
heritage and open-world narratives enacted by stakeholders in a variety of roles, often with
conflicting interests and agendas.
We conducted a case study in a rural area in Finland and observed the process of building a
brand identity. The informants represent different business sectors. As part of the community
they are more or less consciously building a joint brand identity. Qualitative methodology in
the form of interviews was used for collecting the empirical data, the aim being to define the
critical phases in the process. The analysis is based on multiple, “outside-in”, “inside-out”
and “inside-in” perspectives, the aim being specifically to determine whether the impact of
cultural heritage could be characterized as a relevant association in branding (rural)
communities.
Findings
A multilevel reflexive analysis of how the cultural heritage of a place could add value to its
brand equity helps communities to set a common vision for the brand-building process. The
preliminary analysis from each of the perspectives shows that as regards the outside-in view
the potential visitors do not see a joint brand promise that covers all the service providers in
the area. The service offerings have not been developed into product and service concepts
targeted at potential visitors, such as culture tourists and families. From the inside-out
perspective it is evident that only a few of the service providers are committed to keeping the
48
joint brand promise with their respective stakeholder networks. Finally, from the inside-in
perspective it seems that the values of the brand should be strengthened and supported by the
appropriate brand architecture.
Discussion
Early-awareness models are inadequate because they respond to attacks and opportunities
with rather static, narrow and generalized assessments. Given the growing emphasis on
interaction and collaborative learning about place branding across conventional, professional,
and territorial boundaries, it is relevant to enter into a dialogic discourse. This would
facilitate examination of the underlying assumptions and the arrival at different
interpretations of how a given place is being branded and led. The perspective in this study is
multilayered, and focuses in particular on 1) interaction with informants (vs. inside-in), 2)
interpretation of stakeholders’ views (vs. inside-out), and 3) critical interpretation of the
‘outsiders’ = students, press (vs. outside-in). Alvesson and Sköldberg add a fourth layer
addressing the notions of self-criticism and selectivity. This stands in contrast to the
corporate-brand narrative theorized in the unilateral consumer culture granting marketers
cultural authority, which simultaneously undermines its transparency, authenticity and
distinctiveness consequent to its intrinsic contradictions. Hakala, Lemmetyinen and Kantola
(2013), for example, analyzed Finland’s image as a nation-branding tool from the “outsidein”
perspective. On the other hand, the “inside- out” and “inside-in” perspectives concentrate
on the question of whether brand strategies either independently within an organization or in
a network configuration based on a logic embedded in electronic systems provide a structure
for linking global supply chains to specialized regional economic clusters. They also focus on
the extent to which such an organizational design will create a competitive space of global
proportions that allows flexibility, responsiveness and capability, rendering an independent
organizational scenario hardly sustainable. Such fundamental restructuring shapes a whole
new order of business. It also raises questions concerning process functions with reference to
managerial roles and styles, decision models, and determining the organization’s key set of
core competences. Typically, big internal restructuring operations are followed by refocused
outsourcing strategies, coupled with internationalization strategies and new forms of
interrelationships in the hierarchy between mission and objective setting, and inputs from
stakeholders with regard to operating procedures and corporate culture. From an external
analytical perspective, the restructuring of internal processes in large organizations
increasingly implies that vendors are reinventing themselves as brand-management
corporations. An outsourcing strategy permits the development and conveyance of images
and sensory experiences aimed at shifting the attention of consumers from the material space
of goods and products to the projection of continuously alternating images. Furthermore, an
experiential marketing strategy serves as a substitute for the former and allows corporations
to operate flexibly under a standard umbrella brand with the aid of alternating themes (e.g.,
trust, quality of life, and transparency). Such immaterial adaptations can be incorporated
much faster and more flawlessly than would be the case in adapting physical products
(Harvey 1989; Lash & Urry 1994) to changes in the market environment., Given their
intangible rather than tangible attributes, media publicity and word of mouth are key
instruments with which to market products within this place-branding framework .
Theoretical Implications
Discourses are not intended to be theoretically watertight boxes. Instead, their permeability
allows for more imaginativeness about the way they flow into each other. Our study findings
contribute to the theoretical discussion on leadership in the research domain of place
branding. The evidence gathered also enhances understanding of how the process of building
49
a brand identity is connected to the community’s attachment to the cultural heritage of a
place. Our justification for using a multi-authored discourse approach is that it offers a more
holistic view of marketing. In terms of managerial implications, the impact of Web 2.0
technologies and the diffusion of social media are relevant because they lead to dynamic
interactions among possibly geographically distant stakeholders, thereby enabling
technology-mediated interactions of global proportions.
Limitations
Frequently mentioned limitations of a case study include the issues of reliability, validity, and
generalizability. We discuss these issues thoroughly in the full paper (cf. Gobo, 2004).
Originality/Value
This study allows for the positioning of brands as a component of a social system designed to
overcome provocations and present opportunities that leverage the potential of people as
citizens, consumers, workers, artists and co-producers of brands.
Key words
value propositions, community, rural, place branding
References
Aaker, DA 1991, Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand. The Free
Press, New York.
Alvesson, M. & Sköldberg, K. 2008, Tolkning och reflektion. Vetenskapsfilosofi och
kvalitativ metod. Student litteratur, Denmark.
Gobo, G. 2004, Sampling, representativeness and generalizability. In: C. Seale, G. Gobo, J.F.
Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.) Qualitative research practice, pp. 435-456. Sage, London.
Hakala, U., Lemmetyinen, A. & Kantola, S-P 2013, ‘Country image as a nation branding
tool’, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, vol. 31, no.5, pp. 538-556.
Harvey, D 1989, The Condition of Post modernity, Blackwell, Cambridge.
Lash, S & Urry, J 1994, Economies of Signs and Space. TCS/Sage, London.
Lemmetyinen, A & Go, FM 2010, ‘Building a brand identity in a network of Cruise Baltic’s
destinations. A multi-authoring approach’, Journal of Brand Management, vol. 17, no. 7, pp.
504-518.
Lemmetyinen, A, Go, FM & Luonila, M 2013, ‘The relevance of cultural production – Pori
Jazz – in boosting place brand equity’, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, vol. 9, no. 3,
pp. 164-181.
Luhmann, N 1986, ‘The Autopoiesis of Social Systems’. In: F. Geyer & J. Van d. Zeuwen
(Eds.) Sociocybernetic Paradoxes: Observation, Control and Evolution of Self-Steering
Systems, pp. 172-92. Sage, London.
Mabey, C & Freeman, T 2012, ‘Four Readings of Place and Brand Leadership’. In: F.M. Go
& R. Govers (Eds.) International Place Branding Yearbook Managing Smart Growth and
Sustainability, pp. 33-44. Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke.
Maturana, H & Varela, F 1980, ‘Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living’.
Reidel: Dordrecht.
Myers, W 2012, ‘Bio Design Nature, Science creativity’. Thames & Hudson, London.
Normann, R 2001, ‘Reframing Business: When the Map Changes the Landscape’. John
Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, UK.
Urry, J 1995, ‘Consuming places’. Routledge, London and New York.
Kokoelmat
- Rinnakkaistallenteet [19207]