Jon Bertilsson
Senior lecturer
A critical typology of "good place branding" : Lessons from place-branding expertise
Author
Editor
- Vincent Mabillard
- Martial Pasquier
- Renaud Vuignier
Summary, in English
Place branding is defined as “the development of brands for geographic locations
with the aim of triggering positive associations about the area and distinguishing
a place from other places” (Stevens et al., 2020, p. 752). Like all occupations,
place branding is organised by discourses, or talk, that determine best practices and
norms about what constitutes expertise (Loacker and Sullivan, 2016). Exploring
place-branding discourses is important because it offers insights into what constitutes
ideal place-branding practices and who gets to say what these practices are.
This is particularly important given that place branding influences places in ways
that impact citizens and other stakeholders.
Extant literature argues that branding experts are the authoritative characters
and most prominent trend-setters in the place branding field (Anholt, 2008; Cleave
et al., 2019; de Noronha et al., 2017; McCann and Ward, 2012). Far from simply
being arbiters of logos or slogans, branding professionals are “often understood as
the leading actors that influence local and national governments in (re)allocating
resources and deploying specific image-related policies” (Goulart-Sztejnberg and
Giovanardi, 2017, p. 425). As such, they have significant influence on the discourses
of place branding and they set the stage for what constitutes good branding
work (Hardy and Maguire, 2010).
Despite their importance, few studies specifically explore branding experts,
what they consider desirable and legitimate branding, or the advice they give to cities
(for exceptions, see Aronczyk, 2008; Bertilsson et al., 2020; Hankinson, 2010).
That said, critical scholars warn that given the complexities inherent in managing
places, relying on experts from outside of city governance or general formulas
for how to work with places might be less ideal than relying on the expertise and
intuitions of city managers (Anholt, 2008; Aronczyk, 2008). A general concern is
that branders might focus only on selling the right image or identity of a place, in
essence by focusing on redressing rather than by bringing in-depth knowledge of
place governance and management (de Noronha et al., 2017).
We seek to add to studies of place branding from a critical lens by paying
attention to place branding experts’ speech and interactions in a professional setting— a place-branding conference—to explore how they construct an everyday or common-sense view of what constitutes “good” place branding. Based on our analysis of place branders’ talk to each other at a place branding conference, we develop a model of “good” place branding, consisting of four ideal types: totemic, artistic, mimetic, and platformic.
In the chapter, we review literature on place branding and its affinity with the tenets of corporate branding. We then detail our qualitative methodology and proceed by outlining our inductively developed typology of good place branding. Finally, we elaborate on how following these ideal types might negatively impact cities, arguing that a dogmatic use of them may lead to a homogenisation of places and a separation between cities’ empirical conditions and their branded image.
with the aim of triggering positive associations about the area and distinguishing
a place from other places” (Stevens et al., 2020, p. 752). Like all occupations,
place branding is organised by discourses, or talk, that determine best practices and
norms about what constitutes expertise (Loacker and Sullivan, 2016). Exploring
place-branding discourses is important because it offers insights into what constitutes
ideal place-branding practices and who gets to say what these practices are.
This is particularly important given that place branding influences places in ways
that impact citizens and other stakeholders.
Extant literature argues that branding experts are the authoritative characters
and most prominent trend-setters in the place branding field (Anholt, 2008; Cleave
et al., 2019; de Noronha et al., 2017; McCann and Ward, 2012). Far from simply
being arbiters of logos or slogans, branding professionals are “often understood as
the leading actors that influence local and national governments in (re)allocating
resources and deploying specific image-related policies” (Goulart-Sztejnberg and
Giovanardi, 2017, p. 425). As such, they have significant influence on the discourses
of place branding and they set the stage for what constitutes good branding
work (Hardy and Maguire, 2010).
Despite their importance, few studies specifically explore branding experts,
what they consider desirable and legitimate branding, or the advice they give to cities
(for exceptions, see Aronczyk, 2008; Bertilsson et al., 2020; Hankinson, 2010).
That said, critical scholars warn that given the complexities inherent in managing
places, relying on experts from outside of city governance or general formulas
for how to work with places might be less ideal than relying on the expertise and
intuitions of city managers (Anholt, 2008; Aronczyk, 2008). A general concern is
that branders might focus only on selling the right image or identity of a place, in
essence by focusing on redressing rather than by bringing in-depth knowledge of
place governance and management (de Noronha et al., 2017).
We seek to add to studies of place branding from a critical lens by paying
attention to place branding experts’ speech and interactions in a professional setting— a place-branding conference—to explore how they construct an everyday or common-sense view of what constitutes “good” place branding. Based on our analysis of place branders’ talk to each other at a place branding conference, we develop a model of “good” place branding, consisting of four ideal types: totemic, artistic, mimetic, and platformic.
In the chapter, we review literature on place branding and its affinity with the tenets of corporate branding. We then detail our qualitative methodology and proceed by outlining our inductively developed typology of good place branding. Finally, we elaborate on how following these ideal types might negatively impact cities, arguing that a dogmatic use of them may lead to a homogenisation of places and a separation between cities’ empirical conditions and their branded image.
Department/s
- Department of Business Administration
- Organizational Studies
- Professional Services
- Marketing
Publishing year
2023
Language
English
Pages
213-226
Publication/Series
Place branding and marketing from a policy perspective : Building effective strategies for places
Document type
Book chapter
Publisher
Routledge
Topic
- Business Administration
Keywords
- place branding
- places
- city branding
- cities
- critical management studies
- place branding professionals
Status
Published
ISBN/ISSN/Other
- ISBN: 978-1-003-28618-9
- ISBN: 978-1-032-26031-0