Journal of Marketing Management Vol. 27, Nos.

56, May 2011, 458476

Towards a strategic place brand-management model

Sonya Hanna, Bangor University, UK Jennifer Rowley, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK
Abstract Using earlier research into models of place branding-management processes, this paper develops a multi-level conceptual model of strategic place brand management designed to support managers in embracing a holistic approach to place brand management. The model identifies the following components for attention and activity: place brand evaluation; brand infrastructure relationships, including infrastructure (regeneration) and stakeholder engagement (management); place brand articulation; and brand communications. The model identifies the influences and action processes between these components, including brand identity and architecture, influencing brand experience. Existing place branding models take different perspectives on the branding process respectively, relationship management, communications, and strategic planning; none of these models are comprehensive and neither are they widely adopted or tested. This paper proposes an integrative model that builds on and subsumes these earlier models and is also grounded in the wider research on branding and place branding concept and processes. Keywords place branding; place brand management; holistic branding; conceptual model

Introduction
Place branding, and associated areas such as destination branding, location branding, and place image development, are receiving increasing attention. There is a case for arguing that place branding has its foundation in the tourism marketing field, but increasingly, places need to consider branding in a wide range of contexts and in respect to the management of brand image and the brand experience for a wide range of stakeholders. As such, interest in place image and branding is no longer restricted to those towns, cities, regions, and countries that are viewed as tourist destinations. With fierce global competition fuelled by improvements of public transport and free movement of goods and people, places are facing increased substitutability and competition and must provide an environment that not only effectively competes for new resources, foreign investment, residents, and visitors but also provides an environment that sustains and satisfies exiting economic, commercial, and residential activity. Some commentators suggest that as the economic base of many places is eroded, places are in competition with each other
ISSN 0267-257X print/ISSN 1472-1376 online # 2011 Westburn Publishers Ltd. DOI:10.1080/02672571003683797 http://www.informaworld.com

Hanna and Rowley Towards a strategic place brand-management model

459

for survival (Kerr, 2006; Olins, 2002). It seems that the question facing place is not whether to brand but how to brand. There is a growing body of practice and research around place branding. Recurrent themes within the various disciplines that discuss place branding include: comparisons between branding a product/service and destinations/cities (Cai, 2002; Gnoth, 2002; Kavaratzis & Ashworth, 2005; Parkerson & Saunders, 2005); comparisons between corporate branding and city brands (Kavaratzis, 2004; Olins, 2003; Trueman, Klemm, & Giroud, 2004) and similarity to corporate umbrella branding (Gnoth, 2002; Papadopoulos & Heslop, 2002); impressions between place branding and (re)positioning (Gilmore, 2002a, 2002b); image building and reconstruction (Curtis, 2001; Hall, 2004); the importance of unique identity and use of branding elements (Cai, 2002; Morgan, Pritchard, & Pride, 2004); and the role of emotional links with consumers (Gilmore, 2002b; Hall, 2004). Nevertheless, as a relatively new field of study, there remains an apparent lack of empirical research (Caldwell & Freire, 2004). Kavaratzis (2004) calls for a more detailed analysis of common points and differences using the approaches found in practice or theory or suggested by consultants. This call for further theoretical development for the field is also supported by Hankinson (2009). Embedded in the literature are a wide range of insights into aspects of the place branding process. However, typically such insights are specific to aspects of the process, such as stakeholders, image building, communication, and repositioning, and are often discussed in specific case-study contexts. Only six researchers have specifically proposed broader models of the place branding process, or explicitly offered place branding-management models. These models take different perspectives on the branding process; respectively, relationship management, communications, and strategic planning. None of these models have been widely cited, adopted, or adapted, and most are relatively new. Whilst such models are extremely useful in identifying the different perspectives it is possible to take on place branding, and are an important basis for further research and practice, none are holistic as they are limited to the context of the perspectives that they reflect. The aim of this article is, then, to propose a strategic place brandmanagement (SPBM) model. This model is intended to act both as a framework for contextualising various streams of research in place branding, and to inform and support place marketing and brand managers. The article commences with a review of the place branding concept, and an overview of existing place branding models. Next, the proposed brand-management model is offered and described. The following section argues the case for the inclusion of each of the components in the place brand-management model, drawing on the earlier models and other relevant literature. Conclusions and recommendations are offered to inform further research and practice in the area of strategic brand management.

Place branding concepts and models

Place branding is defined as the practice of applying brand strategy and other marketing techniques to the economic and sociopolitical developments of towns, cities, regions, and countries (Anholt, 2004). More specifically, Lodge (2006) suggests that holistic place branding encompasses everything a place wishes to sell and that the understandings and experiences of places are mediated by a range of

460

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

everyday texts through which landscapes are presented (Gibson & Davidson, 2004), affirming that place brands have transcended into a composite construct (Gnoth, 2002; van Ham, 2001; Olins, 2002; Papadopoulos & Heslop, 2002). Hankinson (2009) emphasises the need for place branding to extend beyond a focus on the creation of images to an understanding of the execution of the promised experience. Whilst a number of authors comment on the process of place brand management, often in the context of a specific case study, most previous research does not attempt to offer a holistic model of brand management that can inform practice and theory development in this field. There is a pressing need for these assorted insights to be collected and analysed towards another generation of an overarching framework. Further, whilst there are few more explicit models of place branding in the literature, none are holistic, and the extent to which they are either grounded in previous theory or transferrable to contexts other than those in which they were developed has yet to be established. This article draws on both these previous explicit models, and other insights into the place branding process to propose the SPBM model. Previous models of place branding that have played a central role in developing the model in this paper are: the relational network brand (Hankinson, 2004a), city image communication (Kavaratzis, 2004), a model of destination branding (Cai, 2002), destination branding process (Laws, 2002), the 7A destination branding model (Baker, 2007) and city brand management (Gaggiotti, Cheng, & Yunak, 2008). As is evident from these labels, between them these models take different perspectives on the branding process. The relational network brand (Hankinson, 2004a) considers the process of brand management in terms of stakeholder relationships and as a progressive ripple effect relational exchange between the brand and stakeholder groups. It identifies the following relationships: consumer, brand infrastructure, media, and primary service. In the centre of the model is the core brand, with its personality, positioning, and reality, which is developed and extended through a process of progressive interaction between the stakeholders each reinforcing the reality of the core brand through consistent communication and delivery of services. The model identifies the influencers in brand development and embraces both the brand communication and the brand experience aspects of brand development. City image communications (Kavaratzis, 2004), as its name suggests, focuses on city image and how this is communicated, arguing that the beginning lies in the realisation that all encounters with the city take place through perceptions and image. The model identifies three types of communication: primary communication (subsuming landscape, infrastructure, structure, and behaviour elements), secondary communication, and tertiary communication. Primary communication relates to the communicative effects of a citys actions when communication is not the main goal of the actions, while secondary communication is the formal intentional marketing communications such as advertising and public relations, and tertiary communication refers to the word of mouth reinforced by media and competitors communication. The process of place brand management is considered from the perspective of communicating a unified image, with primary and secondary communications evoking and reinforcing positive tertiary communications. The word brand does not appear in this model, although the notion of image is central. Components in this model are linked by a dotted line when the link is not controlled by marketers and by a full line when marketers can be expected to control a link (Kavaratzis, 2004).

Hanna and Rowley Towards a strategic place brand-management model

461

A model of destination branding (Cai, 2002) has as its focus the building of brand identity and image, and is founded on the recognition that destination branding is a cooperative process, but the model makes little direct reference to stakeholder groups. Rather, in common with the relational network brand model, this model depicts brand in this case, brand identity at the heart of the model. Of the models considered here, this model is most strongly grounded in branding theory. With brand identity at its core, it shows a relationship between band image building and brand element mix. On the one side, the components of a brand attributes, affective, and attitude (3As) are identified, and on the other side, the processes for brand building such as marketing programmes, marketing communication, and managing secondary associations are identified. In applying the model to the Old West Country (New Mexico), Cai, (2002) established that cooperative branding between rural destinations ensured attributebased images with a stronger link to brand identity. The model is, however, complex, and it is difficult to interpret how it might be applied in practice. The destination branding process model (Laws, 2002) and the 7A destination branding model (Baker, 2007) are similar, although the latter is extended to embrace adoption and attitudes. Both models focus on destination branding and offer a step-bystep process reminiscent of many other marketing strategic planning models. Indeed, Laws (2002) in particular has relatively generic steps, and nowhere in the model is the word brand mentioned. The mnemonics of the 7A destination branding model are appealing, but it also avoids the use of the word brand, although steps such as articulate and, adoption and attitudes hints at the notion of brand behind a number of stages in the model. Table 1 compares these two models and indicates that both frameworks depict the similar components and stages, and that it is therefore reasonable to argue that the 7A destination branding model supersedes the destination branding process model. Accordingly, in this paper, we discard the destination branding process model from further consideration. The final model, city brand management (CBM) (Gaggiotti et al., 2008) has economic growth as its focus, which it views as the essence of long-term prosperity with an emphasis on the identification of strategic direction and tasks for building the brand. The model offers a step-by-step linear process considering four sequential

Table 1 A comparison of brand development stages.

7A Destination Branding Model (Baker, 2007) Assessment and audit Analysis and advantage (defining positioning) Alignment (architecture) Articulate Activation (market communications) Adoption and attitude (engagement) Action and afterwards (experience management/monitoring evaluation) Destination Branding Process Stages (Laws, 2002) 1 1 Market audit 2 Consumer research 2 4 Identifying target markets 3 4 5 6 7 3 5 6 Portfolio strategies Developing strategies Implementation (appropriate communication messages)

Track and review

462

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

questions: What are we now? What are our options? What do we want to be? What do we need to do? The model postulates that the beginning lies in conducting a situational analysis of the tangible and intangible elements and the strengths and weaknesses of the components place, people, processes, and partners, and concludes by asserting the development of action plans for the aforementioned components. The model is applied to Kazakhstan as an umbrella brand for its cities, and although it does not depict branding terminology, it does discuss components of the place brandmanagement process such as infrastructure development.

The strategic place brand-management model

The previous section reviewed the conceptual models relating to place brand management. Together they serve to identify some of the components of a more holistic place brand-management model, although none are comprehensive, with each taking a different perspective on place branding. There is, therefore, a need for a new model of the place brand-management processes to support the development of both practice and research in the place branding field. Founded on these earlier models, and informed by wider reviews of the literature, this article proposes such a model. Table 2 highlights the various components of the proposed place brand-management model in comparison to the existing models discussed in the previous section. This table demonstrates the extent to which the SPBM model offers a more all-embracing and integrative perspective on place brand management. The SPBM model is shown in Figures 1 and 2. The key components of the model are: brand evaluation, stakeholder engagement (management), infrastructure (regeneration), brand identity, brand architecture, brand articulation, marketing communications, brand experience, and word of mouth. Figure 2 shows the sub-components of infrastructure (regeneration). Within each component a number of processes and activities take place. Depending on
Table 2 Place brand-management components.
Brand evaluation Brand infrastructure relationships and leadership Brand architecture Brand articulation Brand commun-ications Word of mouth Brand experience
               

Stakeholder engagement (management)

Infrastructure (regeneration)
     

Holistic Place Brand Management (proposed model) Relational Network Brand (Hankinson, 2004a) City Image Communication (Kavaratzis, 2004) Model of Destination Branding (Cai, 2002) 7A Destination Branding Model (Baker, 2007) City Brand Management (Gaggiotti et al., 2008)

 

 

 

Brand identity


Brand management components

Leadership

Hanna and Rowley Towards a strategic place brand-management model

463

Figure 1 Strategic place brand-management model.

Word-of-Mouth Brand EXPERIENCE

Brand Infrastructure Relationships and Leadership Brand IDENTIY Stakeholder ENGAGEMENT (management)

Brand ARTICULATION

INFRASTRUCTURE (regeneration) Figure 2

Brand ARCHITECTURE Brand EVALUATION

the specific components, these processes and activities may involve marketing professionals, citizens, visitors, and a range of other stakeholders. It is important to acknowledge that the processes in these components occur, whether or not any agency takes an active and strategic approach to brand management. However, without such proactive interventions, the outworking of the process may be a disappointing brand experience, negative word of mouth, and ineffective marketing communications. A clear view of the components in the place brand-management process is a firm platform for achieving a coherent brand identity, creating satisfying brand experiences, and driving positive word of mouth. The arrows on the model indicate influence relationships between components. For example, the model shows that the brand communications component influences and is influenced by the brand experience component.

Figure 2 Infrastructure (regeneration).

Infrastructure (regeneration)

TANGIBLE

INTANGIBLE

Infrastructure Strategies (regeneration)

Landscape Strategies

Symbolic Traits (culture and services)

Functional Attributes

Experiential Attributes

Brand COMMUNICATIONS

464

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

Place brand-management components

This section defines and describes the components of the model. It also argues the case for the inclusion of each of the components, and summarises key insights on activities associated with the components as identified in earlier research. Prior to discussing the individual components of the model, however, it may be useful to explain the central significance of the space denoted in Figure 1 by the term brand infrastructure relationships and leadership. This arena is where the brand identity is created, and the complex dynamics between stakeholders, their engagement, and interests and infrastructure are worked through. Developing brand identity is dependent on the effectiveness of brand leadership in engaging and managing stakeholders on the basis of shared objectives. It is the responsibility of management to engage all levels of stakeholders in capital development (Rainisto, 2003). The multifaceted nature of places requires leadership to permeate; the process of place brand management requires cooperation negating any form of coercion. Infrastructure strategies must consider the diversity of stakeholder needs and the limitations of the place brand with regard to its infrastructure and environment (Balakrishnan, 2008; Gaggiotti et al., 2008). Therefore, the role of leadership should be supporting the establishment of partnerships and networks by providing focus and fostering commitment. As Figure 2 shows, and as will be discussed in further detail below, the infrastructure component is concerned with both the tangible and intangible attributes of the brand. Physical and environmental infrastructure strategies such as those associated with regeneration are important in driving the functional attributes of the place brand. On the other hand, there is also a need to establish the symbolic traits of place in order to deliver on the experiential attributes of the brand. Implicit in this model then are: (a) the importance of conceptualising the place brand as being about both image and experience; (b) the central significance of the physical environment on the brand experience; and (c) the complex but pivotal role of stakeholders in the brandbuilding process. The components are discussed below in the order that they appear in the model in Figure 1, working from left to right. The only exception is brand evaluation. This is discussed first for two reasons. First, the model recognises that places do not create their own brands but rather that they are created by multifaceted place interactions that occur irrespective of whether they are recognised. It is important to recognise that all places have a brand or at the very least a label, in other words, a place name. Therefore, brand evaluation, including audit and assessment, is often the first stage in an identified place branding project. Second, and arguably more importantly, brand evaluation should be a continual process. It completes the feedback loop that supports the dynamic development and evolution of the brand over time. Brand evaluation Brand evaluation refers to the processes that are undertaken in order to gather feedback on brand image and experience. Monitoring expectations and satisfaction requires close collaboration with stakeholders to ensure brand infrastructure meets and exceeds expectations. Brand evaluation is central to the evolution of the brand and its experience. The literature argues that good management starts with good measurement. Yet there has been almost no research reported with regard to tracking the strategic effectiveness of

Hanna and Rowley Towards a strategic place brand-management model

465

place branding initiatives (Pike, 2007). There is ample consumer-based place brand image evaluation research (Coshall, 2000; Hankinson, 2004b; Ikuta, Yukawa, & Hamasaki, 2007; Laaksonen, Laaksonen, Borisov, & Halkoato, 2006; MacKay & Coldwell, 2004; Walmsley & Young, 1998). However, place branding has been recognised to be a composite construct. Therefore, image evaluation alone is no longer sufficient, hence the inclusion of brand evaluation rather than image evaluation in the proposed model (Figure 1). The 7A destination branding model focuses on brand evolution and as such discusses the concept in greater detail. Assessment and audit is the initial step in the evaluation process in this model. It considers the perspectives of internal stakeholders, differentiation in terms of strengths and assets, achievements as an indication of performance, the context of communications and marketing, perceptions of external stakeholders, positioning relative to competitors, customer base, destination experience, and market alignment (Baker, 2007). The step action and afterwards includes brand-relevant indicators and criteria used to evaluate brands beyond visitor performance measures including: brand adoption by stakeholders, community pride and brand support, brand consistency, media coverage, stakeholder feedback, and attitudes towards the place (Baker, 2007), all of which feed back into the assessment and audit stage, resulting in the provision of snapshots of the current brand. Ergo, to maintain brand experience performance at the forefront of the decision-making process, defining the success measurements that track the effectiveness of place brand initiatives should be based on real outcomes that are monitored and managed accordingly (Baker, 2007). The CBM model (Gaggiotti et al., 2008) also discusses evaluation in terms of the need for analysis of the current situation in order to identify future prospects that will reflect the critical prerequisites of the brand return. The remainder of the authors imply brand evaluation through the structure of their models, but they fail to identify brand evaluation as a separate component or to discuss the concept to any great lengths. For instance, Hankinson (2004a) depicts brand evolution as embedded in the progressive relational exchange between the brand and the stakeholder groups, but brand evaluation does not seem to be implied within the process nor is it considered as a post-peripheral process on a continuum that reflects the brand as the resultant reality of stakeholder actions. Stakeholder engagement (management) Stakeholder engagement (management) is the component that embraces the processes whereby stakeholders are identified, their interests surfaced, and interactions managed. Stakeholder engagement is important in place branding, and arguably, the central significance of multiple stakeholders, some with their own brands, in the branding process has been recognised to be one of the distinguishing features of place branding as compared with mainstream banding. Place brand attributes are not only created and influenced by brand managers and their organisations, but are the product of stakeholder networks and partnerships (Parkerson & Saunders, 2005). The significance of each network or partnership is influenced by evolving dynamics (Murphy et al., 2005; Zineldin, 2004). Where the relationship between stakeholders lacks coordination, the dynamic is mirrored in the response relationships between the consumer and the brand (Hankinson, 2004a). Hankinson (2009) asserts that stakeholder consultation provides the means for understanding what the place has to offer, including the diversity, talent, mentality, and attitude of its people (Gaggiotti

466

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

et al., 2008), supporting the establishment of effective partnerships and a cohesive community. Brand performance is therefore linked to stakeholder relations (Greenley & Foxall, 1997; Whysall, 2000) hence, its inclusion in the model (Figure 1). Stakeholder and collaboration theories provide the tools for managing brand stakeholder relations (Jones, 2005; Marzano, 2006; Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997; Sautter & Leisen, 1999). All the analysed place branding models discuss stakeholders, but the 7A destination branding model has the most to offer. This model acknowledges that stakeholders need the opportunity to make a contribution regardless of whether they are voicing competing or contradictory views. In relation to stakeholder adoption and attitudes towards the brand, Baker (2007) discusses how to maximise stakeholder support to ensure that multiple partners project one voice. The latter has implications for accurately defining stakeholder entity roles within the place brand-management process. Prior to proceeding with branding initiatives, managers must proactively consider the strategic orientation of stakeholder groups affected by the venture (McAlexander, Schauten, & Koening, 2002). As congruency across groups increases, so does the likelihood of collaboration and compromise (Sautter & Leisen, 1999), serving the projection of a unified identity (Muniz & OGuinn, 2001). If they are considered to be partners in brand creation, stakeholders will support the brand strategy and deliver on brand experience. Alternatively, stakeholders may actively resist branding initiatives if they are viewed as artificial or lacking credibility. Thus the reciprocated relationship between stakeholders and infrastructure (regeneration) is based on understanding the value the brand creates and the context within which the brand exists (Jones, 2005). In relation to the remainder of the analysed models, the relational network brand acknowledges the importance of compatible stakeholder orientations under the umbrella terms consumer, primary services, brand infrastructure, and media relationships (Hankinson, 2004a), depicting multidimensional partnerships and clusters of common interests such as hotels and restaurants and travel and transport. Kavaratzis (2004) meanwhile refers to organisational and administrative structures, and the effectiveness of the citys growing structure. Both authors emphasise the centrality of community development networks, citizen participation, and the establishment of public/private partnerships. Gaggiotti et al. (2008) also analyse the effectiveness of partnerships and processes and their development, denoting stakeholder affiliations, their level of integration, and strategic direction. Cai (2002) discusses stakeholder engagement in the very limited context of the evaluation of tourist experiences.

Infrastructure (regeneration) Brand infrastructure (regeneration) is the component that represents the existence, accessibility, and sufficiency of the functional (tangible) and experiential (intangible) place attributes, and the possible need for their renovation and regeneration. The ability of the place brand to support the positioning of its experiential attributes is dependent on stakeholder impact, negative environmental consequences, and the changing nature of the place in terms of external influences (Foley & Fahy, 2004). Delivery of the brand experience requires investment in facilities and services to create or improve the various characteristics utilised by the place.

Hanna and Rowley Towards a strategic place brand-management model

467

Accordingly, what Kotler, Asplund, Rein, and Heider (1999) refer to as the places fixed environment and its characteristics is represented by the functional and experiential attributes in the proposed model (Figure 2). Tickamyer (2000) states that it is impossible to think about places without implicitly assuming their spatial and social character. Functional attributes are achieved through infrastructure strategies and landscape strategies. These embrace the built environment, public spaces considering urban design, green spaces, and architecture. Experiential attributes are achieved through a combination of symbolic traits and the functional attributes. Symbolic traits include the provision of cultural entertainment and services. The authors of the analysed models validate infrastructure as the vital component of the place brand-management process (Table 3), albeit under different titles. Functional attributes and symbolic traits (DeChernatony & Riley, 1998) are the attribute components discussed by Cai (2002), encapsulating the tangible and intangible elements of the brand. Hankinson (2004a) discusses tangible and intangible attributes but as components of brand personality, including functional attributes, embedded in primary services denoting utilitarian aspects, and symbolic and experiential attributes. Further, he refers to art and education as forms of organic communication in the context of media relationships. He does not discuss art and education as intangible elements. However, it can be presumed that art and education are elements of culture and thus denote intangible aspects. Hankinson (2004a) also refers to brand infrastructure relationships (relationships with access and service providers) encompassing brandscapes mirroring the infrastructure and landscape strategies discussed by Kavaratzis (2004). Kavaratzis (2004) asserts that a brand is relayed through distinct types of communication. Of importance to brand infrastructure is primary communication, which relate[s] to the communicative effects of a citys actions, when communication is not the main goal of these actions, referring to the tangibles of infrastructure and landscape strategies. Baker (2007, p. 82) refers to physical attributes (tangible) and people (intangible) as the brand elements of the assessment and audit component. The former depicts Hankinsons (2004a) primary service relationships and Kavaratzis (2004) brand
Table 3 Infrastructure, a component of the place brand.
Brand Elements TANGIBLE Attribute component Infrastructure strategies Landscape strategies Personality: functional attributes Primary Services relationships Brand Infrastructure relationships Physical attributes Place

Author Cai (2002) Kavaratzis (2002) Hankinson (2004a)

INTANGIBLE Attribute component Primary communications Personality: symbolic/ experiential attributes Media relationships

Baker (2007) Gaggiotti et al. (2008)

People People Place

468

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

infrastructure strategies. Gaggiotti et al. (2008) suggests that places encapsulate tangibles such as infrastructure and industry and intangibles such as heritage and the natural environment, depicting an overlap with the remainder of the authors, while their people component is in line with Baker (2007). Brand identity Brand identity is the component associated with the creation of the essence of the brand. Key elements in brand identity are the functional and experiential attributes of the brand. Brand identity is the active part of the image-building process (Rainisto, 2003) involving the creation and maintenance of a unique set of associations (Aaker, 1996, p. 68) projected through brand elements (Keller, 1998, p. 166). Image is the sum of beliefs, ideas, and impressions that people have of the place (Harmaakorpi et al., 2008). Brand identity development takes place through the analysis of the strengths and weaknesses embedded in the tangible and intangible attributes of the place (Gaggiotti et al., 2008). The intensity of brand identity is affected by the attractiveness of the environment offering aesthetic pleasure through architecture (Harmaakorpi, Kari, & Parjanen, 2008) and a spectrum of parameters including culture, history, and the economy. Brand identity is co-produced and reified by multiple stakeholders (Cai, 2002) through the production of marketplace symbols (historic plaques, decorations, sculptures, benches, planters) and the enhancement of rituals (street parties, parades, ceremonies, sales events, artistic performances) (Pryor & Grossbart, 2007), influencing experience and what the place has come to be known for. Accordingly, brand infrastructure relationships have an influence on the development of brand identity, as the latter is dependent on the dynamic of stakeholder relationships. With the exception of Cai (2002), the remainder of the analysed models do not explicitly refer to identity, but they do discuss related concepts such as personality, positioning, and how the place would like to be perceived, although image does not feature. For instance, Baker (2007, p. 92) refers to positioning, while Hankinson (2004a) discusses personality characterised by functional, symbolic and experiential attributes, and positioning. Kavaratzis (2004) discusses primary communications and its components of landscape strategies and infrastructure projects. Finally, Gaggiotti et al. (2008) discuss the investigation of future prospects and the generation of options based on the situational analysis of the place and its people to delineate how the place would like to be perceived. Cai (2002) places identity at the core of the brand-building process, asserting that his 3As ensure assessment between perceived image and the projected identity, providing input to building an image consistent with identity. However, the model does not depict a reciprocated relationship between identity and image. Hence, if the assessment of the 3As does not reflect intended image, identity and image alignment cannot be achieved. Brand identity is then at the core of the brand-building process. It is evaluated through brand experience affecting brand infrastructure relationships asserting a continued process of identity refinement. Brand identity expresses the distinctive characteristics that the stakeholders ascribe to a place, provides a framework for overall coherence, and monitors means of expression hence its influence on articulation. Brand architecture Brand architecture is the component that focuses on the process of designing and managing brand portfolios. Although places may seek to support a central place brand, places are composed of sub-brands associated with or owned by communities within

Hanna and Rowley Towards a strategic place brand-management model

469

the place. Such brands may be owned by local authorities, tourists, organisations, businesses (of all sizes), and community services (such as schools) and groups. Brand architecture then not only describes the relationship between these brands, in terms of image and experience, but also negotiates conflicts and contradictions between the brands in the place and the stakeholder interests aligned behind those brands. Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000) propose the brand relationship spectrum as a tool for managing architecture, consisting of four strategies: house-of-brands, endorsed brands, sub-brand, and branded-house. The authors advocate that in choosing the most suitable strategy, management should consider the existing inventory of brands to determine the driver role that each brand plays in influencing consumer intentions. Baker (2007) argues that achieving a consensus for a suitable overarching brand is dependent on place amplitude. Where stakeholder entities are too diverse and powerful, overarching brand elements may be used as a platform for the promotion of clustered place products, eliminating stakeholder dissonance addressing wider market segments. While the remainder of the authors fail to incorporate the component in their models, this article argues that brand architecture is a vital component of the brand-management process. As such, it is influenced by brand infrastructure relationships and in turn affects brand articulation. Brand articulation Brand articulation is the component that focuses on the processes associated with the expression of the brand through its verbal and visual identity through the choice and design of it place name, logo, colour palettes, and photographs. The literature provides ample examples of case studies that discuss articulation in place-specific contexts (Morgan et al., 2004). Kapferer (2005) provides a set of sequential questions considered useful and transferable to place brands when representing the brand in a pragmatic format. Most of the analysed models (Cai, 2002; Gaggiotti et al., 2008; Hankinson, 2004a; Kavaratzis, 2004) do not discuss brand articulation. However, Baker (2007) suggests that articulation as a component of the place-branding process is worthy of considerable discussion. He discusses the residents emotional ties to the place name and its inappropriateness, along with the factors useful for considering the criteria for deciding on logos, the avoidance of overused words, colour palettes, fonts, typography, and photography. This paper argues that articulation is a vital component of the place brandmanagement process. Articulation is the means of representing brand identity, taking into account brand architecture. Both of these precedents of brand articulation are influenced by the brand infrastructure relationship. Brand communications Brand communications is the component that focuses on the activities associated with the communication of the brand identity. As such, it builds on and is tightly coupled with the brand articulation component, and has a direct influence on the perceptions and reality of the brand experience. All of the discussed models consider brand communications to be an integral component of the place brand-management process. Kavaratzis (2004) discusses secondary communications as the promotional component and the one variable of the marketing mix that has been so far adopted by places with great ease. Similarly, Cai

470

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

(2002) and Hankinson (2004a) discuss marketing and media communications respectively. Baker (2007) goes a step further and raises the issue of integrated brand communications. He argues that the challenge is to embed messages into as many concurrent marketing applications as possible (Baker, 2007), and offers a range of practical actions for achieving this. Foley and Fahy (2004) also put the case that sustainability of the brand is related not only to the messages delivered but also to the degree of shared meanings that is contained in the message. Certainly, integrated brand communications is consistent with the communication of a coherent brand identity and is the underlying rationale for the concern about stakeholder engagement with place branding, but there are a number of commentators who question the feasibility and/or desirability of integrated brand communications. In their study of the re-branding urban units, however, Bennett and Savani (2003) found that the use of integrated communications was seriously discouraged, as different stakeholders were regarded as possessing quintessentially varying needs for information; likewise that a uniform projection of communication would antagonise particular stakeholder groups. Supporting the latter, Anholt (2004) also questions the feasibility of achieving integrated communications, as it may potentially create conflicts of interest. Based on the assumption that consumers do not distinguish between message sources in the same way that marketers do, messages from various media sources may amalgamate into one. Therefore, messages regarding various propositions can result in a confused image if marketers fail to integrate various communications effectively, thus negating their efforts in building a strong brand (Gaggiotti et al., 2008). In pursuit of an alternative, Gregory (2007) suggests the application of informing, consulting, involved, and partner strategies. Word of mouth Word of mouth (WOM) is the component that encompasses the processes associated with the informal communication between consumers of the brand experience. WOM remains a powerful form of communication (Baker, 2007; Mazzarol, Sweeney, & Soutar, 2007). WOM provides highly credible means of persuasion, since the communicator is not seen as having a vested interest. The literature depicts three basic personal motives for engaging in WOM activity: the obligation to share information through a sense of community duty, pleasure derived from sharing information, and the desire to help others (Walsh, Gwinner, & Swanson, 2004). Attention to WOM is a reminder that the brand is not what the marketer depicts but that it is dependent on the stakeholders experience (Baker, 2007, p. 152). WOM is represented in the model as interacting with brand communication and brand experience. In relation to the first of these, it is suggested that WOM can triple the effectiveness of advertising and also that brand communications can act as a WOM trigger (Hogan, Lemon, & Libai, 2004). Further, it is suggested that as a two-way influencing process, the relationship between WOM and brand communications may be used to monitor the content of communications to establish whether the brand experience accords with brand communications. The most important influencer of WOM is brand experience. The desire to act as an advocate on the basis of positive place experience is highlighted (Balakrishnan, 2008; Mazzarol et al., 2007). However, satisfied customers are not always loyal and may not always engage in WOM activity (Reicheld, 1994), and dissatisfied customers may also generate negative WOM. The

Hanna and Rowley Towards a strategic place brand-management model

471

relationship between brand experience and WOM is therefore complex. Additionally, the reciprocated relationship between brand communications and WOM depicts the latter as not controllable by marketers. Kavaratzis (2004) asserts that the goal of the branding process is to evoke and reinforce WOM, especially with regard to residents as the most important advocates of the branding process. With the exception of Baker (2007) and Kavaratzis (2004) who respectively depict WOM as reinforced by media and competitors and an element of brand activation process and as a form of tertiary communication, the remainder of the models fail to discuss the concept. Brand experience Brand experience is the component in which the consumer engages with the brand. Through this engagement, consumers formulate perceptions of the brand experience and interpret the brand identity to create their own notion of brand image. In other words, the brand experience component subsumes brand image. Whilst brand perceptions may be influenced by brand articulation and marketing communications, there is a need to consider consumers overall experiences with the brand, as they are delivered through various channels and through embracing the service experience and sensory delights, based on sights, sounds, smells, and tastes (Balakrishnan, 2008). Brand infrastructure relationships have a direct and significant impact on brand experience. In the context of brand experience, marketers influence is relatively limited, and consumers and other stakeholders are the co-producers of not only the form of the brand but also the content of the experience (Pryor & Grossbart, 2007). Of the analysed models, Baker (2007) discusses the notion of brand experience management and the importance of analysing the consumers decision-making and satisfaction processes when addressing the challenges of delivering the brand experiential products. Monitoring customer expectations and satisfaction with key elements of the place experience and the close collaboration with stakeholders to meet and exceed those expectations is critical for successful experience management (Baker, 2007). Cai (2002), Gaggiotti et al. (2008), Hankinson (2004a), and Kavaratzis (2004) fail to incorporate the component, suggesting that their notion of brand is restricted to that of brand image.

Conclusions and recommendations

Place brands are complex constructs, and it is therefore not easy to construct a model of place-branding processes. However, in the interest of effective theory building and the benchmarking of practice, it is important to seek to make progress towards a generic and holistic model of place brand management. On the basis of earlier models and assorted insights into place brand management and place branding, this article proposes a SPBM model. This holistic model is intended to act both as a framework for contextualising various streams of research in place branding, and to inform and support place marketing and brand managers. The components of the SPBM model include: brand evaluation; brand infrastructure relationship, including infrastructure (regeneration) and stakeholder engagement (management); brand identity; brand articulation; brand architecture;

472

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

brand communications; word of mouth; and brand experience. The underlying philosophy of the model has four key strands. First, the SPBM model represents the process of place branding and its key components. Places and their stakeholders have a choice: they can either explicitly seek to manage these processes or leave the processes to run their own course. In other words, many of the processes in the model will take place without any intervention, and visitors, residents, businesses, and others will have an experience of a place, whether that experience is managed or not. Active place branding should: enhance the coherence of the experience; support the efficient use of resources to maximise the enjoyability and appropriateness of the experience; facilitate the evolution of the experience in response to changing circumstances; and, in general, as far as key stakeholders are concerned, engender pride of place that is effectively shared and communicated. Second, branding is an interactive and evolutionary process. In other words, it is not a once and for all project. This is signified primarily by the inclusion of the feedback loop through brand evaluation. This feedback loop is between the brand experience and brand infrastructure relationships, which, in turn influences brand identity. Most managed branding processes will commence with brand evaluation in order to audit and assess the current situation. Elsewhere in the model, two-headed arrows signify an ongoing interaction between components, such as place brand engagement and place brand infrastructure. Third, stakeholder engagement and place brand infrastructure are pivotal to place branding, and this is the aspect of place brand management that distinguishes place branding from product and corporate branding models. These two components are tightly coupled, with the management of stakeholder commitment and interests and their potential conflicts being pivotal to both the explicit brand-creation process and to the development of place brand infrastructure through appropriate regeneration activities. The dynamic between stakeholder engagement and place brand infrastructure, which are drawn together in this model under place brand infrastructure relationships, is central to the creation of brand identity. In other words, to a greater extent than in other branding contexts, brand identity is determined by the place and its stakeholders and is the essence of the place. On this basis, brand communications contribute to the shaping of the brand experience and word of mouth. Finally, the key outcome of the branding process is not brand image but rather brand experience. Brand initiatives must be based upon the brand reality and not only on the communication of the image. Further, brand performance measurement should also capture the experience of the brand (Baker, 2007). This stance aligns with earlier research on place branding that privileges the importance of experiential attributes, and also recognises that experiential attributes are grounded in both functional and service attributes (Balakrishnan, 2008). Accordingly, places must focus on the contribution of experiential attributes and consumer contact points, especially people, as they help to deliver the experience. The model is intended to assist brand managers in aligning place branddevelopment strategies, including regeneration, with brand identity and brand experience and vice versa. By identifying the eight key components of the branding process, it seeks to assist place managers to understand the key areas of activity and the key processes. Further, as a strategic and holistic model, it will aid various stakeholders in the branding process to understand their contribution to the wider process. And, finally, the model will promote the development of best practice through benchmarking and comparison.

Hanna and Rowley Towards a strategic place brand-management model

473

The SBPM model makes a significant contribution to branding theory in three respects:
1. It clearly differentiates the place-branding process from product, service, and corporate branding processes, thereby offering a robust basis for the theoretical development of place branding. 2. It proposes a model of branding that integrates stakeholders into the branding process; this stance is firmly grounded in stakeholder and collaboration theory. 3. As a holistic model, informed by earlier work in disciplines such as branding, marketing communication, regeneration, and tourism, it offers an opportunity to benchmark practice and integrate knowledge bases in place branding.

It is hoped that the SPBM model will encourage the originators of earlier models, which are valuable for their disciplinary focus, to review and develop their models, in particular, the models from Baker (2007) and Gaggiotti et al. (2008), whilst implying evaluation, fail to represent and explore brand evaluation explicitly. Whilst the SPBM model makes a useful contribution to the theory and practice of place branding, there is considerable scope for further theory building and research to support places as they manage their brand. The authors are currently in the process of undertaking an empirical study to test the applicability of the SPBM model across a number of different places. Beyond this, both individual case studies and cross-case comparisons could contribute to the understanding of place brand management. Such studies might:
Explore the relative significance of each place brand component (Hankinson, 2009), including any additional components that might surface through further elaboration of the place-brand process in different contexts. Focus on specific brand components with the aim of gaining deeper insights into and understanding of the sub-processes of those components, their agents, relationships, and interactions. Test the models discussed in this paper in a number of different case-study contexts in order to evaluate their applicability and adaptability, and to develop, if appropriate, more explicit and detailed models of branding of different types of places, such as countries, cities, and towns, or to achieve different branding objectives. For example, if the objective is economic growth, then the brand management model (Gaggiotti et al., 2008) might be particularly pertinent, but it should be applied in full appreciation of its specific strengths and limitations. Undertake specific research projects that pay particular attention to (a) place brand evaluation measures, and (b) brand infrastructure relationships, considering in particular the effect of organisational boundaries. Seek to assess contextual influences such as the wider economy, resources, and the natural environment on place image, brand, and branding.

References
Aaker, D. (1996). Building strong brands. New York: Free Press. Aaker, D., & Joachimsthaler, E. (2000). The brand relationship spectrum: Key to the brand architecture challenge. California Management Review, 42(4), 823.

474

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

Anholt, S. (2004). Foreword. Place branding and public diplomacy, 1(1), 411. Baker, B. (2007). Destination branding for small cities: The essentials for successful place branding. Portland, OH: Creative Leap Books. Balakrishnan, M. (2008). Dubai A star in the east: A case study in strategic destination branding. Journal of Place Management and Development, 1(1), 6291. Bennett, R., & Savani, S. (2003). The re-branding of city places: An international comparative investigation. International Public Management Review, 4(2), 7087. Cai, L. (2002). Cooperative branding for rural destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), 720742. Caldwell, N., & Freire, J. (2004). The differences between branding a country, a region and a city: Applying the brand box model. The Journal of Brand Management, 12(1), 5061. Coshall, J. (2000). Measuring of tourists images: The repertory grid approach. Journal of Travel Research, 39, 8589. Curtis, J. (2001). Branding a state: The evolution of brand Oregon. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 7(1), 7581. DeChernatony L., & Riley, F. (1998). Modelling the components of the brand. European Journal of Marketing, 32(11/12), 10741090. Foley, A., & Fahy, J. (2004). Incongruity between expression and experience: The role of imagery in supporting the positioning of the tourism destination brand. Journal of Brand Management, 11(3), 209217. Gaggiotti, H., Cheng, P., & Yunak, O. (2008). City brand management (CBM): The case of Kazakhstan. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 4(2), 115123. Gibson, C., & Davidson, D. (2004). Tamworth, Australias country music capital: Place marketing, rurality and resident reactions. Journal of Rural Studies, 20(4), 387404. Gilmore, F. (2002a). A country Can it be repositioned? Spain The success story of country branding. Brand Management, 9(45), 281293. Gilmore, F. (2002b). Branding for success. In N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, & R. Pride (Eds.), Destination branding: Creating the unique destination proposition (1st ed., pp. 5765). Oxford, England: Butterworth Heinemann. Gnoth, J. (2002). Leveraging export brands through a tourism destination brand. Journal of Brand Management, 9(45), 262280. Greenley, G., & Foxall, G. (1997). Multiple stakeholder orientation in UK companies and the implications for company performance. Journal of Management Studies, 34(2), 259284. Gregory, A. (2007). Involving stakeholder in developing corporate brands: The communication dimension. Journal of Marketing Management, 23(12), 5973. Hall, J. (2004). Branding Britain. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(2), 171185. van Ham, P. (2001). The rise of the brand state: The post-modern politics of image and reputation. Foreign Affairs, 80(5), 26. Hankinson, G. (2004a). Relational network brands: Towards a conceptual model of place brands. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(2), 109121. Hankinson, G. (2004b). Repertory grid analysis: An application to the measurement of destination images. International Journal of Non-Profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 9(2), 145153. Hankinson, G. (2009). Managing destination brands: Establishing a theoretical foundation. Journal of Marketing Management, 25(1/2), 97115. Harmaakorpi, V., Kari, D., & Parjanen, S. (2008). City design management as a local competitive factor. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 4(2), 169181. Hogan, J., Lemon, K., & Libai, B. (2004). Quantifying the ripple: Word-of-mouth and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 44(3), 271280. Ikuta, T., Yukawa, K., & Hamasaki, H. (2007). Regional branding measures in Japan Efforts in 12 major prefectural and city governments. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 3(2), 131143. Jones, R. (2005). Finding sources of brand value: Developing a stakeholder model of brand equity. Journal of Brand Management, 13(1), 1032. Kapferer, J.-N. (2005). The new strategic brand management: Creating and sustaining brand equity long term. London: Kogan Page.

Hanna and Rowley Towards a strategic place brand-management model

475

Kavaratzis, M. (2004). From city marketing to city branding: Toward a theoretical framework for developing city brands. Place Branding, 1(1), 5873. Kavaratzis, M., & Ashworth, G. (2005). City branding: An affective assertion of identity or a transitory marketing trick. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 96(5), 506614. Keller, K. (1998). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kerr, G. (2006). From destination brand to location brand. Journal of Brand Management, 13(4/5), 276283. Kotler, P., Asplund, C., Rein, I., & Heider, D. (1999). Marketing places Europe: Attracting investments, industries, residents and visitors to European cities, communities, regions and nations. London: Pearson Education. Laaksonen, P., Laaksonen, M., Borisov, P., & Halkoato, J. (2006). Measuring image of a city: A qualitative approach with case example. Place Branding, 2(3), 210219. Laws, E. (2002). Tourism marketing: Service and quality management perspectives. London: Continuum. Lodge, C. (2006). Opinion pieces: How has place branding developed during the year that place branding has been in publication? Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 2(1), 617. MacKay, K., & Couldwell, C. (2004). Using visitor employed photography to investigate destination image. Journal of Travel Research, 42, 390396. Marzano, G. (2006). Relevance of power in the collaboration process of destination branding. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from http://eprint.uq.edu.au/archive/00003351/01/ Seattle_final.pdf Mazzarol, J., Sweeney, J., & Soutar, G. (2007). Conceptualising word-of-mouth activity, triggers and conditions: An exploratory study. European Journal of Marketing, 41(11/12), 14751494. McAlexander, J., Schauten, J., & Koening, H. (2002). Building a brand community. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 2854. Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principal of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853886. Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., & Pride, R. (2004). Destination branding: Creating a unique destination proposition (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Elsevier, Butterworth Heinemann. Muniz, A., & OGuinn, T. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 412432. Murphy, B., Maguiness, P., Pescott, C., Wislang, S., Ma, J., & Wong, R. (2005). Stakeholder perceptions presage holistic stakeholder relationship marketing performance. European Journal of Marketing, 39(9/10), 10491059. Olins, W. (2002). Branding the nation The historical context. Journal of Brand Management, 9(4/5), 241248. Olins, W . (2003). Hull: Pioneering city, case study. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from http:// www.wolff-olins.com/files/Hull_0202New815000.pdf Papadopoulos, N., & Heslop, L. (2002). Country equity and country branding: Problems and prospects. Journal of Brand Management, 9(45), 294314. Parkerson, B., & Saunders, J. (2005). City branding: Can goods and services branding models be used to brand cities? Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 1(3), 242264. Pike, S. (2007). Consumer brand equity measures. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 22(1), 5161. Pryor, S., & Grossbart, S. (2007). Creating meaning on the street: Towards a model of place branding. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 3(4), 291304. Rainisto, S. (2003). Success factors of place marketing: A study of place marketing practices in Northern Europe and the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Helsinki University of Technology, Institute of Strategy and International Business. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2003/isbn9512266849/

476

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

Reicheld, F. (1994). Loyalty and the renaissance of marketing. Marketing Management, 2(4), 1022. Sautter, E., & Leisen, B. (1999). Managing stakeholders: A tourism planning model. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 312323. Tickamyer, A. (2000). Spatial inequality in the future of sociology. Contemporary Sociology, 28(6), 805813. Trueman, M., Klemm, M., & Giroud, A. (2004). Can a city communicate? Bradford as a corporate brand. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 9(4), 317330. Walmsley, D., & Young, M. (1998). Evaluative image and tourism: The use of personal constructs to describe the structure of destination images. Journal of Travel Research, 36, 6569. Walsh, G., Gwinner, K., & Swanson, S. (2004). What makes market mavens tick? Exploring the motives of market mavens initiation of information diffusion. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21(2/3), 109122. Whysall, P. (2000). Stakeholder mismanagement in retailing: A British perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 32, 1928. Zineldin, M. (2004). Co-opetition: The organisation of the future. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 22(7), 780789.

About the authors

Sonya Hanna is a PhD candidate at Bangor Business School. She holds an MBA in General Management. Corresponding author: Sonya Hanna, Bangor Business School, University of Wales, Hen Goleg, College Road, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2DG, Wales, UK. E abp405@bangor.ac.uk

Jennifer Rowley is professor of information and communications at Manchester Metropolitan University, and was previously professor of marketing and information management at the University of Wales, Bangor. E j.rowley@mmu.ac.uk

Copyright of Journal of Marketing Management is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.