INTRODUCTION

1

The Importance of Stakeholder Relations & Communication Tactics to the

Practice of City Branding

Chapter 2: Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 2: Literature Review

This literature review acknowledges relevant and existing place, city, nation and destination

branding literature from different academic view points, in order to focus on the recent

development of city branding. The focus has been narrowed down to concentrate on the local

stakeholders within city branding and the role communications plays as a relationship

management tool between the city brand and its local stakeholders. See figure 2.1 for further

details.

2.1 City Branding: An Introduction

Throughout recent years, it is evident from increased academic literature, blogs, online

presence, interviews, conferences and practice that there has been greater emphasis placed

on the relatively new phenomenon of place branding; under which sits city, destination,

nation and regional branding. This literature review focuses on city branding, but applies

research and theory from other domains in order to take an original approach within the

subject.

The concepts surrounding branding places as a whole was introduced by Simon Anholt’s

(2007/2005) work on nation branding. This has now been developed into the current ‘hot

topic’ by many academics, known as city branding. Although place branding is considered a

new topic, it is not a new practice, it has been happening for many years under the term

“place promotion” (Gold & Ward, 1994). The way branding is now practiced and the

“conscious application of marketing approaches” (Kavaratzis, 2008) has produced a new point

of interest for academics and practitioners alike (Kavaratzis, 2008; Trueman, 2006 &

Hankinson, 2005).

INTRODUCTION

The founding father of the nation branding concept, Simon Anholt (2007), clearly identifies

that the increased attention on branding places, countries and more recently cities is due to

increased pressures to compete in the global market. Recent developments within new

media, increasing online presence and globalisation of markets, (Papadopoulos, 2004) have

also resulted in branding and image taking centre stage in the fight against increased

competition. The creation of city brands is therefore seen as a way of achieving business,

inward investment, residents, talent and tourists as suggested by city branding academic

Kotler (1999). These interests have directly resulted in increased academic writings on this

new subject. Alongside this academics and practitioners have been encouraged to work on

developing a successful process, or theory, for branding a city. Practitioners today argue that

a city can achieve more if they create brands which in the long-term can change perceptions

of that particular city and result in higher inward-investment, businesses, residents, students

and tourists.

This practice, as mentioned above, is carried out by mostly government funded organisations.

There has been an increase in these organisations over the last few years due to the attention

placed on city branding. Typically, they tend to manage aspects of city branding for

investment, businesses and policies whilst ‘destination management organisations’ (DMO’s)

deal with the tourist aspect of a place or city. The branding of cities and of destinations are

relatively overlapping fields; a city can be a tourist destination and therefore comes under the

umbrella brand of a place. City branding, however, is much more complex than destination

branding because there are usually more strategic issues involved (Teemu & Rainisto. 2009).

2.2 City Branding: Development

City branding is complex in academic literature as well as practice. Literature in the branding

field defines branding as “a customer experience represented by a collection of images and

ideas and it refers to a symbol such as a name, logo, slogan, and design scheme” alongside

“something that is owned by buyers and other stakeholders” (American Marketing

INTRODUCTION

Association, 2009). This literature forms the backbone of branding and is important because a

brand must be easily associated with by its stakeholders, those visiting and living in a city. It

must also be visually reflective of the city and the people whilst allowing the right experience

for external audiences. A brand “is a transforming idea that converts the tangible into

something of value” (Ind, 2003: 3), thus explaining how a brand is a vision more than a static

component and must mean something to those it effects.

Within considering city branding, techniques of brand management (promotion, positioning

and reputation management); or otherwise known as corporate branding have been

established and expanded upon in an attempt to suit the practice. These theories have been

developed by companies and organisations into branding strategies to both brand themselves

and the people behind the brand (Kavaratzis, 2008). Consequently from these ideas, nations,

destinations and cities have adapted to traditional and corporate branding techniques,

practices and developments (Kavaratzis 2004; Trueman et al 2004) to use in their own

practice in order to compete with other places (Gelder & Allan, 2006). A recent influx of

academic literature has occurred on the topic of corporate branding and how its basic

elements can be altered for city branding. Academics have researched these links in recent

literature (Kavaratzis, 2008), for example the process of corporate branding is described as

“the visual, verbal and behavioural attitude of a business model” (Knox and Bickerton, 2003,

cited in Kavaratzis, 2007) initiated through communication, culture, missions, values and

overall design (Simoes and Dibb, 2001 cited in Kavaratzis, 2008). Hulberg (2006), a corporate

brand academic, summarises the reasons for increased interest in corporate branding, one of

which is the current need for organisations to be transparent. As in today’s world, the

external audience demands and commands access to information and those behind the brand

(cited in Kavaratzis, 2008: 27), meaning increased importance is placed on this theory today.

These key points are relevant to city branding as they show an active brand ideology, a

feature which a city should include. It also demonstrates how the city should be viewed as an

organisation, a living and breathing thing, the opposite of a product or corporate brand.

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

2.3 City Branding: Current Problems

The transfer of branding and promoting activity to a city or place, however, shows that “the

operational environment of cities proves a cause of difficulties and misalignments, mostly due

to the peculiar nature of places in general and cities in particular as marketable assets”

(Kavaratzis, 2004). In later literature Kavaratzis (2008) highlights the work of Virgo and

Chernatony’s (2006), recent study of Birmingham, where it was noted how city branding is

more complex than corporate branding, notably arising from the “diversity of stakeholders,

the number of organisations steering the brand, the limited control brand steerers have over

their products and the diverse target groups” (Kavaratzis, 2008: 29). Demonstrating the

increased challenges affecting city branding than corporate branding; academics argue that

branding cities means the people behind it usually have “no direct control over the products

they represent, nor the packaged offerings of intermediaries…” (Grovers & Go, 2009; Pike,

2008 and Hankinson, 2005); as these are too vast in scale and offering. This issue also relates

to the nature of corporate branding, which cannot be applied to people living in the cities.

The practice of branding a city is now regarded as much more complex than it originally

seemed, leaving branding organisations with many surrounding issues (Anholt, 2007).

Developing alongside Kavaratzis (2004) work, Dinnie (2004) a branding expert, argues that a

destination brand must encompass much more than that of a corporate or product brand and

it needs to involved more than just marketing techniques to achieve its goals. City brands

therefore need to include history, sociology, natural identity and politics of a place in order to

succeed. Although Dinnie (2004) focuses on one of the most widely discussed topics of

‘destinations’, his approach can be applied to city branding as cities can be destinations. In

relation to city branding the literature highlights the importance of including the culture

within a brand. From this, it could be argued that consideration of the inhabitants and

relevant local stakeholders is extremely important. This claim is supported by Anholt’s (2009)

views; although his most recent literature (2009) looks at the issue from the alternative angle

that “branding is the problem, not the solution”. Anholt (2009) therefore suggests that city

INTRODUCTION

branding should not be done in the same way as branding tangible assets. With this in mind, it

can be questioned whether you can brand people in the same manner as organisations.

Leading on from the above; the need for cities to compete in the globalised world brought a

new shift of marketing and branding to the public sector. This new practice is widely

misunderstood by many, which together with a limited understanding of the “nature of

places” by practitioners (Kavaratzis, 2004) explains why the subject is causing such debate.

These problems are highlighted in the implementation of city brands; skills have been

transferred from traditional branding techniques, resulting in misunderstanding and lack of

knowledge of the process by those administrating the brands. This advancing the argument

that city brands are complex and cannot be viewed in the same light as corporate brands.

Acknowledging the above points, Anholt (2009) argues in his most recent literature on the

topic; that it is the terminology of ‘branding’ that is misunderstood when applied to cities,

nations and places. He explains that the term branding is misunderstood by most

governmental bodies and governments need to focus on helping “…the world understand the

real, complex, rich diverse nature of their people and landscapes, their history and heritage,

their products and their resources; to prevent them from becoming mere brands” (Anholt,

2009: 4). Anholt implies that understanding the existence and value of the people and

communities of a particular place or city is most important. This poses the question of

whether the work carried on promoting cities is in fact classed as branding. It also questions

whether this could be the reason for such uncertainty over the topic and why main

stakeholders have no direct role of involvement in city brands (Kavaratzis, 2008).

From this introduction into current literature on the topic, this dissertation research will focus

on city branding, not solely from the ‘tourist’ perspective which has been widely developed as

‘destinations branding’ by academics such as Morgan (2005) and Hankinson (2005), but also

from the perspective of recognising local stakeholders as a main group within the

development and implementation of a city brand. The stakeholder topic has been taken into

INTRODUCTION

account from the identified similarities between corporate branding and city branding from

Kavaratzis’s (2008) research, one being the local communities (a main stakeholder group) and

the importance they play in both branding activities (Kavaratzis, 2008). The researcher,

however, sees the local community stakeholder group to be more important within city

branding. This is a topic not widely covered in academic literature, therefore allowing an

examination of research to be taken from a range of aspects surrounding the branding

subject; which the researcher sees as relevant in defining the topic.

2.4 Stakeholder Importance in the Current World

The complexities for practitioners in dealing with stakeholders has been analysed in a study

conducted by Partridge et al (2005), leading to the development of The Stakeholder

Engagement Manual. This explains how effective stakeholder engagement creates value for

everyone involved. The manual explains that, in the 21st

century, the environment is more

unpredictable leaving business leaders with facing increased and new risks. In relation to city

branding, it suggests that businesses and organisation are expected to respond to global

issues affecting society, the environment and the economy. Stakeholder engagement and

relations is becoming a vital tool to understanding the complexities of these issues. With

relation to city branding, this is an important theory to have in mind, as the manner of city

branding will impact on the environment of that city.

There is substantial literature explaining the significance of all stakeholders in any corporate

organisation. This is particularly relevant when considering that stakeholders; “persons and

groups that affect, or are affected by, an organisation’s decisions” (Lawrence et al, 2005) can

also affect an organisation’s purpose and objectives (Freeman, 1984). This has a greater

impactful when the product, organisation or brand in question is uncontrollable (Pike, 2008).

In place branding, many branding academics such as Morgan, Pitchard and Pride (2005) argue

that those behind the brands development often lack control, funds, are vulnerable to

external and internal political pressures and, significantly have to consider the vast number

of stakeholders involved when dealing with these pressures. This emphasises why literature

INTRODUCTION

has developed on destination branding; because their stakeholder groups can be classed as

more manageable and the tourist audience can be more targeted. When it comes to city

branding, these groups and influences are much more complex ((Moilanen & Rainisto, 2009),

therefore harder to discuss, resulting in a lack of academic writings.

External to the branding field, Charkham (2005), an academic within corporate governance,

views stakeholders as two groups; those bound to contracts with the organisation called

‘contractual’; and those not contractually bound called ‘community’. The community group

is of particular interest to city branding, although they have no legal contract with the brand

they can still provide authority and ultimately demand action. In terms of theory, the

community can be viewed as “a group of people who live in the same locality” (Underwood &

Fray, 2008: 382). Corporate communications literature can be utilised to understand the

importance of different groups external to the brand and how they can effect the

development. Stakeholder mapping models can be used to develop effective communication

plans to best relate to these groups; as a tool of building relations. Stakeholder importance

can be mapped out in several different ways to identify their power verses their interest. This

helps to identify the groups that are most dangerous, dominant or dependant to the brand or

organisation (Cornelissen, 2008: 42, 55).

Charkham (1992) identified the community group as a main stakeholder, which in addition to

research from the branding academics (Ind. 2004), suggests that it is important for the brand

to include such groups into the brands development. Olins’s (1987) work on branding is

useful, even if the focus is from a product branding context, as his ideology can still be used

for determining appropriate brand campaigns for cities. It must not be taken on face value,

however, as the risks associated with city branding are much higher.

2.5 Stakeholders Importance to City Branding

INTRODUCTION

The importance of individuals and stakeholder groups to branding theory is cited by branding

academics, such as Nicholas Ind (2005). He expresses the importance of “intertwining of

individual talent and the values of the brand”, as this allows for a full participation of value

exchange; meaning that those external get involved. It opens up the “internal branding”

corporate structure which many governments and organisations get caught in and tend to

demand what the brand is, rather than let it evolve through the type of exchange process

mentioned above. Expanding on from this point, Nicholas Ind (2005) also states that

stakeholders need to “play equally in the evolution of the brand and are contributors to the

living theatre of the brands fulfilment through their simple caring about the value exchange

the brand represents.” This is important and can form the backbone to understanding brands

and how important the people the brand represents are to creating a successful vision.

Theory on issues surrounding branding cities and places has been discussed in further detail

by Grovers & Go’s (2009) as they highlight a “3-Gap Place Branding Model”, which attempts

to examine the potential gaps in place branding and identifies three issues which cause an

unsuccessful brand. The model highlights that gaps can occur if the hosts (inhabitants) of a

place or city have a different reading as the guests (tourists, business visitors, investors etc),

and therefore the implementation and delivery of the brand can be classed as “off-brand”,

resulting in disappointing results (Grovers & Go, 2009: 245). This issue poses questions that if

the local culture is not represented within the brand; can this “…cause unexpected tension

between the host-community and guests” (Grovers & Go, 2009: 71). Following on from this

statement; “the quality of the place experience is derived from the interfacing between host

and guest, the outcome of which can make or break the place brand image” (Grovers & Go,

2009). The model has been developed with destination branding in mind, however this

model can be relevant for city branding too; because making sure a city brands identity is

correct is important to portraying a true vision of that particular place, and a vision that

people want to support.

INTRODUCTION

Similar to Grovers and Go’s (2009) brand strategy gap, other academics in the place and

nation branding field argue that the ‘identity-image gap’ can occur when the true identity of a

place fails to be appreciated by those external to it (Dinnie, 2007). In support of this theory,

Wally Olins (1987), brand-guru articulates how brands should be developed not only with the

audience in mind, but the personality and identity too. Branding academics label the term

‘place identity’ which is constructed through historical, political, religious, cultural aspects,

key influencers and knowledge (Grovers and Go, 2009); therefore those key city stakeholder

groups. Significantly, this works to achieve a true city brand, one which represents the people

involved and gains their support. As mentioned in earlier literature, city brands are umbrella

brands for destinations, therefore the importance of visitor and local interaction in improving

overall perceptions.

In conjunction, the research conducted over the past twenty years (Van Riel’s, 1992) from a

scope of academic domains, states that successful branding requires “a strong network of

stakeholder relationships which all share a common vision of the brand” (Hankins (2003),

whilst recognising the urgent need to take into account the wide range of stakeholder groups

(Trueman’s (2004). A local study of twelve different English cities, “Hankinson, (2004) finds

that a community’s history, heritage and culture are important in brand projection” in terms

of the “residents city brand attitudes” (Merrilees et al, 2007). In particular, recent literature

also notes the host-community or local stakeholder groups (Pike, 2008) to be relevant in

successful branding and of keeping them aware of infrastructure developments. Therefore, in

terms of theory development on this issue, it is obvious that the problem is noted but the

academic literature has yet to fully explore this topic in further detail.

2.6 Important of Local Stakeholders: Communities

Current branding literature has highlighted a general gap in theory and practice and a need to

establish a model of “place branding and identity dynamics” with a focus on the engagement

of host-communities, as a main stakeholder group (Trueman, & Cornelius, 2006). It can be

INTRODUCTION

argued from the evidence mentioned above that city brands needs to encapsulate the host-

communities “sense of place” for the brand to reflect the true identity (Pike, 2008); whilst

having the chance to create a competitive brand vision which will work. Alongside this, other

academics in the field and in similar fields also identify a literature gap; stating that not

enough has been written on city branding organisation’s involvement with gaining local buy-

in and support (Pike, 2008; Papadopoulous, 2004) to achieve a brand the locals respect and

are involved in. The “local people” factor is highlighted in many academic writings, as this

variable strongly effects perceptions of a place and is a strong determining and differentiating

factor for a nation, destination or city (Freire, 2007). This relays the importance of

understanding a city is an over-head or ‘umbrella’ brand for destinations and incorporating

the two types of literature is essential. Branding practitioners must therefore begin to

understand that city brands must not be external to the place been branded or it can easily

fail.

Academics within the more widely researched destination branding field have identified the

citizens, or local people as the “inner force” of the city (Morgan et al, 2005). In this literature,

a relevant example is shown by Fiona Gilmore (2005); where research was conducted into the

city of Shanghai forcing an image of modernity. However, she noted that cities with this

ideology are looking to change people’s perceptions, but what is crucial are the inhabitants of

that city and their “sense of pride”. Shanghai worked on developing the brand with focus on

the citizens and produced the campaign “Better city, better life” (Morgan et al, 2005).

Literature of this context is limited; as city brands are being designed alongside corporate

brand ideology, meaning the community is an aspect which is missing. The majority of

corporate brands do not need to develop a brand based on intangible products;

strengthening the reason why this particular area needs more research for further

development in city branding literature.

When comparing the literature to practice, you could argue that it is easier to work with

stakeholders and the local community when you are a corporate brand rather than a city

INTRODUCTION

brand. Recent research conducted by Kavaratzis (2007) highlights the differences between

corporate and city brands. Essentially, the main points are their “complex and multi-

stakeholder character and their dependence on a wide cooperation that runs across a city or

organisation”, highlighting the complexity of shaping an overall city brand. This complex

variation and lack of historical development in the field obviously adds to demands of the

current practice.

Bringing the above points into present practice, Placebrands, an agency focused on

developing brand strategies, highlights in their “Placebrands City Branding Book” (Gelder &

Allan, 2006) and recent journals such as Gelder & Roberts (2009), state that developing city

brands is “a shared responsibility and practice of the city’s main stakeholders who include its

residents, its businesses large and small, and all too often forgotten, those who are frequent

visitors and have a good sense of how the place is perceived”. This highlights how

organisations are verifying the issue and difficulties that arise in building a city brand without

their local stakeholder support and input. Governments and branding organisations must

ensure the visions and aspirations of the brand are in line with the expectations and

requirements of the local community, therefore the need to start with an “inward focus” is

essential so brand promises are translated accordingly (Balakrishnan, 2009; Trueman et al,

2004; Pike, 2005). In practice this can be viewed as the cities local government. Therefore it’s

the responsibility of the local council to encourage city branding development with the local

stakeholders; but this is questionable if this practice works in reality.

From reviewing the research, it can be seen that current city branding literature generally

does not recognise and highlight the significance of the different stakeholder groups; their

relationship with the brand and the effect they can have to development (Fitchett, 2005;

Friedman and Miles, 2002; Virgo and de Chernatony, 2006 cited in Merrilees et al, 2007);

alongside ways to incorporate into practice. After a study of three European cities, Kavaratzis

(2008) explains the importance of the local community and how current cities are not

including their local stakeholders, in particular the residents into the work. It is stated that

INTRODUCTION

the “Future city marketing and city branding application needs to include local communities

in all steps of the marketing process to ensure representation of their interests and prevent

such criticism” (Kavaratzis, 2008: 145).

One of the latest literatures on the topic (Moilanen & Rainisto, 2009) has attempted to create

a structured plan for nations, cities and destinations to brand themselves and discusses the

surrounding “difficulties in controlling” city brands, but does not mention stakeholders

directly. Not much depth has been explored dealing with the importance stakeholders play

within city branding and how almost all brands fail due to reasons surrounding this issue,

alongside others. However, the case studies that Moilanen & Rainisto (2009) explored,

highlighted more predominantly where brands have tried to develop “without little discussion

with the citizens resulting in lack of support, which was additionally criticised in the media”.

This heightens the importance of how local brand ‘ambassadors’ must be firstly considered,

included and be comfortable with the brands development. The literature does critically

state that the amount of interest groups and their influence is a major issue to city branding;

therefore more exploration, practice investigation and theory development on this topic

needs to be conducted.

The role stakeholder relations play within the city branding process is of particular interest, as

this is a useful practice of gaining stakeholder support and respect. The tools which are

regularly used by organisations and corporate brands to develop this include planned

communications (van Riel, 1992); a combined topic which is very limited within city branding

literature.

2.7 The Complexity of Stakeholder Relations to City Branding

A new stage of stakeholder relations or engagement has been noted in stakeholder theory, as

Lawrence (2005) explains how organisation’s relationships have shifted from an inactive to a

INTRODUCTION

interactive stance in order to create “ongoing relationship of mutual respect, openness and

trust” (Lawrence, 2005:15).

The idea of including stakeholders into city branding techniques may sound simple, but as

many academics argue, “…despite the benefits of using city branding to attract visitors and

capital, limitations persist. Firstly, multiple identities and conflicting interests among

different stakeholders may contribute to a lack of unity of purpose and decision-making,

which are necessary to build strong brands” (Papadopoulous and Heslop, 2002; Csaba, 2005

cited in Merrilees et al, 2007). Issues within current practice alongside literature are also

apparent as Trueman et al (2004) identified in a research study how city brands are carrying

out conflicting messages to its many stakeholders, and how each of those stakeholders have

conflicting objectives; from local businesses, local residents and local media. This issue also

argues that “local policy and communications strategy indicates a real need for stakeholders

to become involved in developing the city; since involvement is the first step towards trust

and brand ownership” (Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Aleman, 2001 cited in Trueman et al,

2004). However, marketing academics such as Balakrishnan (2009) acknowledge the need for

another brand strategy development approach, since cities are not products and cannot be

related to corporate brands. Notably, reasons differentiating this type of project from

corporate branding is that the “stakeholders are diverse and influential” and can have

extreme pressure on the work behind the brand and more recently that the “media is

becoming a more powerful constraint” (Balakrishnan. (2009), and also need to be considered

under the term of local stakeholders.

Alongside this point, another issue occurred as Trueman et al (2004) also researched how

misunderstanding of communication networks within certain communities can impact a city

brand by not achieving the adequate relations needed to develop. Trueman et al (2004)

suggests that before developing the brand an understanding of the host-community is

required. Highlighting again the importance of a true brand identity, otherwise conflicting

views can develop which can create a “brand strategy gap” (Grovers and Go .2009) as

INTRODUCTION

explained earlier. However, despite this theory on stakeholder engagement issues, recent

debates about city branding have highlighted that “stakeholder buy-in when developing city

brands, is the only way to gain long-term impact”; and the communication tactics involved in

this process are an appropriate method (Global City Forum, 2009 cited in Underwood & Fray,

2008). Therefore getting the planned communication right can have a significant effect on

your brand.

2.8 Communication as a Tool for Developing Local Stakeholder Relations

In order to achieve a successful city brand and gain stakeholder support, many

communications texts support the role communication plays in engaging stakeholder

relations and as a result creates a successful “mutually beneficial relationship” (Lamb &

McKee, 2005). City branding academics such as Kavartzis (2004) also stress the importance of

communication within city branding in order to assimilate the vision to all relevant

stakeholders (Balakrishnan, 2009). This particular research literature noted two forms; the

intentional communication from marketing, advertising, PR, logos, together with

unintentional communication which comes from a city’s actions, for example, government

organisations (Kavartzis (2004). Cities behaviour and actions come from those in charge; the

city’s governing structure where results can be seen in urban design, regeneration,

infrastructure projects, community development programmes and citizens participation

(Kavartzis, 2004). These two aspects of communication must interlink in order to work as a

brand strategy plan.

Communication theories by academics in the field see communications as a ‘two-way’

process of “building positive relationships between organisations and their publics” Tench

and Yeomans (2006). This is a function which can be implemented to the work of city

branding as intentional or planned communication practice. Further exploration into

communications and its involvement with communities has shown a link in the

Communications Year Book, which describes “…communication functioning as a tool to

INTRODUCTION

accomplish particular community goals, such as restoring community image” (Underwood &

Fray 2008: 378). Furthermore Lamb (2005) states that increased resources for community

activity will enhance local pride and quality of life

In terms of theory development, communications has a strong relation to brands. Schnitz,

one of the leading writers on corporate branding explains how branding is “cross-disciplinary,

and includes input from communication, marketing and other functional areas within the

organisation” to achieve success (Cornelissen, 2008: 86). Communication is argued to be the

most important aspect of a brand in Nicholas Ind (2005) work, even stating that too much

emphasis is placed on the strategies, whereas the important role should be focused within

communication of the brand. Alongside this, recent editions of PR Week (Sudhamon &

Magee, 2009) discuss place branding as a pressing topic by stating that “if there is a master

marketing discipline for countries then it is certainly PR”, therefore arguing that academics in

the field are noting the impact successful communications and PR tactics can have on

branding places. A reflection of this view in corporate communication theory describes the

significance the role communications plays in management. It helps to develop “shared

vision”, “maintaining trust” and to be “empowering and motivating” (Riel. 1992); techniques

which help incorporate stakeholders and gain buy-in from external and internal groups; as

discussed earlier in the literature to be important to city branding.

Communications research “have also revealed how people’s interpretations of a physical site

or group is constructed as a community via their communication practices” (Underwood &

Fray. 2008). Therefore, how a brand is communicated depends on how others perceive that

place and brand. Communications literature also relays the significance of “place

attachment”; “the emotional bonding of people and groups to places” and how this

“intensified people’s commitment to community and to the preservation of that community’s

culture.” (Underwood & Fray, 2008: 382). Recent planned communication theory is of

particular interest to this topic as it explains how using the community can help to get

messages to the audiences. Literature states that “opinion leaders from a group [community

INTRODUCTION

ambassadors] may serve as effective intermediaries in bridging the gap between planners and

receivers”, this can gain reinforcement through personal trust (Windahl et al, 2009). This

theory highlights how communicating with the community group is a complex process which

demands an understanding of this group in order to do so effectively and the use of

appropriate communications channels.

Evidence relating to this literature is shown in a recent project executed on Bradford by

Trueman et al (2004), which shows that perceptions can be enhanced and influenced by

clearer communications; the first steps towards “trust and brand ownership” (Delargo-

Ballester and Munuera-Aleman, 2001 cited in Trueman et al, 2004). Therefore communicating

in an interactive way as shown in earlier communication models by McQuail 1984, see figure

2.2 (Windahl, 2009: 62) is an engaging way to target audiences. Earlier theories demonstrate

the important role that “two-way symmetrical communication” plays in aiding the

communications practitioners in taking charge of engagement with stakeholders to gain trust

(Toth, 2007: 36). Solely providing information is now not adequate in today’s society, as the

receiver’s demand more from organisations. Further research (Freire, 2007) explored how

significant the “local people” were to the brand-building process and highlighted that a

place’s image is more often stereotyped by the “typical local people”; another argument to

support more interaction with the local community when developing a city brand. It must be

effectively communicated what cities are ‘doing’ and the efforts to gain community buy-in

and trust with their council and local and partnership organisations (Underwood & Fray,

2008), who are all involved in the brand development.

Many city branding academics argue, people need to know what the place is ‘doing’ in order

to be valued and the place needs to communicate its true “identity” (Trueman et al, 2004;

Pike, 2008) and vision, through planned communication and developed relations with its

audiences. In reflection of literature on this topic, it has been noticed that Hankinson (2003)

devised a conceptual model for place brands and placed importance on communication,

stakeholder relationships and networking. Further growth has seen Kavaratzis (2008)

INTRODUCTION

compose a structure to demonstrate the local communities and the role communication plays

to achieving the end result of the overall city brand vision. These are crucial parts of the

branding process. However, this model is basic in relation to the local stakeholders as this was

only one small aspect the thesis highlighted, therefore, city branding in this context needs

further research. In terms of the impact communications has on developing relations with

local stakeholders, the brand needs to understand the local pressure groups and those the

brand has an instant impact upon in order to develop a successful communications plan

involving interaction with local stakeholders to work towards brand success.

2. 9 City Branding Literature Conclusion

When developing city brands, selected audiences may be overlooked, as marketers and

branding practitioners may consider the main audiences to be those outside the place being

branded. However, arguments should be considered into why a city brand does not attempt

to get the locals on their side. Obviously in our democratic society you cannot gain ‘buy-in’ or

support from everyone, but the brand vision and its aims should consider the groups within

the local community and make efforts to include them and target them directly with

appropriate communication plans. This would help to create a more transparent and honest

brand; one which people would relate to and eventually achieve local pride in the city. This

will, as mentioned, also achieve a knock-on effect in promoting the city to external audiences

and therefore benefit the overall city brand.

With the importance of stakeholders in mind, it is evident that a more theorised model of

execution for city branding, or another appropriate name, needs to be developed in order to

achieve a higher success rate. Arguably, the brand needs to be interactive and a part of the

host-community to be successful. The evidence that more research needs to be carried out is

substantial, but not surprising since the topic is still relatively new. More written material

needs to be developed within city and place branding with the aspect of stakeholders,

particularly the host-community as the main focus point including ways in which to engage

INTRODUCTION

with them. The issues surrounding the communication of mixed messages need to be looked

into, and possibly an aspect for further research on a larger scale. However, for this

dissertation, the research will look at the role and involvement that the local stakeholders

play in developing and implementing city brands and how communication can help develop

and maintain community relationships in order increase chances for success.

INTRODUCTION

Figure 2.1 City Branding & Stakeholder Relations Model for Literature Purpose

INTRODUCTION

Figure 2.2 Communication Model

Sender

Active Passive

Exchange / Interaction

Search

Address / Dissemination

Time-Filling

surveillance

Figure 2: Four types of communication pattern (McQuail, 1984)

Cited in Windahl, S. 2009: 62

Active

Receiver

Passive

INTRODUCTION