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