Place Branding and Place Marketing

4 Place branding and place
marketing
4.1 Introduction
This chapter1 focuses on the emergence of place branding and place marketing as
a field of academic interest and scientific inquiry. It first takes stock of the field
and the various perspectives adopted by authors from both academia and practice.
It then discusses key aspects of the current debates regarding the very definition
of place branding and place marketing and acknowledges that much confusion
remains around the usage of these two concepts. It therefore presents the main
differences and commonalities between place branding and place marketing and
suggests a way to accept the inherent confusion between the two concepts while
fully grasping their limitations and potential for further research.
4.2 The field of place branding and place marketing

The range of practices and the literature analysing place branding and place market-
ing has become very broad and includes numerous concepts, even those that initially
appear unrelated to marketing, such as land planning, urban planning, and regional
development. The total number of scientific papers on topics related to place mar-
keting and place branding has increased exponentially in the last decades, as shown
by Vuignier (2017) in a review that included more than a thousand publications
between 1976 and 2016. The number of organised conferences and platforms asso-
ciated with this theme has also increased, and several academic institutions have
set up dedicated research centres. As a result, there is an emerging field of research
devoted to the scientific analysis of practices related to place promotion. One of the
main ideas behind this development is the expectation that branding will help places
increase their attractiveness. In this regard, a recent contribution has shown that
branding can provide value for boosting regional promotion through the collabora-
tion of stakeholders (Thomas et al., 2021). However, the literature on place branding
and marketing is full of idiosyncrasies. As a relatively new multidisciplinary field
that is “largely based on anecdotic evidence from single case studies” (Lucarelli and
Berg, 2011, p. 14) and influenced by the prescriptive approach of consultants and
other practitioners, it is still largely fragmented, lacks empirical data, and requires
more academic rigour, as already stated in various contributions.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003286189-5
This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND license.
66 Conceptual and theoretical bases
The literature review from Vuignier (2017) mentioned just previously was con-
ducted to understand this emerging field and assess its current trends. The findings,
based on the numbers of items per year obtained via Google Scholar, indicate that
59% of the articles are descriptive, 20% are prescriptive, 12% are critical, and 9%
are explanatory. The descriptive papers provide the readers with a presentation of
specific phenomena or case studies. Although they can sometimes be sophisticated
and analytical, such papers are limited to reporting on a specific reality, which is
characteristic of an emerging scientific field. Articles with a prescriptive perspective
are characterised by the repeated use of expressions and vocabulary indicating a
value judgment. They seek to have a practical effect, to influence and change rather
than understand and explain. As a result, they attach little importance to empirical
measurements and attribute tremendous importance to prescriptive elements. While
almost all of the articles address the managerial implications of their findings, such
implications can be found most prominently in articles classified as prescriptive:
these articles not only offer recommendations with regard to their specific research
findings, but they also advise the reader on elements that at times lack empirical
evidence. These documents typically emphasise best practices and rankings.
Articles that adopt a critical perspective highlight the risk of borrowing notions,
principles, and tools related to branding and marketing directly from the private
sector and of using them for places that are public, political, and endowed with
a particular identity. The notion of identity has been addressed numerous times
through diverse perspectives and at different levels. At the regional level, Messely
et al. (2010) explain that identity building is part of regional institutionalisation,
since tangible elements, social constructs, and representations (both internal and
external) contribute to the development of the region. In practice, however, it may
be complex to grasp the way a place’s identity is perceived and used, for instance,
in regional branding. Aronczyk (2007, p. 105) argues that, even at the national
level, it remains difficult to address the concept of identity:
though the idea of branding is an accepted, or at least tolerated, feature of

modern consumer culture, the idea that nations can be produced, branded,
and consumed in commodity form is somewhat less palatable. National iden-
tity [is] a concept that is notoriously elusive and difficult to define.
This complexity is connected with the diverse approaches to the notion of place
itself, as we will discuss in detail in Chapter 5.
Critical articles underscore the complexity and multidimensionality of places,
since they question the relevance of applying marketing tools to places: one can-
not sell a place with a history, culture, and identity as one would sell an ordinary
“product”. These contributions usually refer to the power politics associated with
place-marketing strategies. They tend to assert that place-marketing activities sup-
port a neo-liberal ideology and are part of a symbolic process of domination that
can be exploited by the elites. Some authors condemn the fact that spending money
on place marketing may be done at the expense of public social policies, which in
turn creates social injustice. In addition to attracting external target groups, place
Place branding and place marketing 67
marketing is also a tool for internally legitimising activities that entertain the public
to avert protests against local social problems. Making everything polished and
simplistic, like the images conveyed in certain places, will inhibit any expression
of multiculturalism and render the process selective and discriminating (Holcomb,
1994), and can lead to symbolic poverty (Baur and Thiéry, 2013).
Figures 4.1 illustrates the change between 2005 and 2015 in the proportion of
articles using each perspective. The proportions remained more or less constant
during this period. However, the percentage of explanatory and critical articles rose
very slightly, while the proportion of prescriptive and descriptive articles declined
somewhat, although the latter category clearly remains dominant.
The assessment of the literature also reveals that, because of the lack of concep-
tual clarity and precise definitions, research papers in the field of place marketing
and place branding touch on a wide variety of specific topics. Figure 4.2 provides
an overview of the diversity of place-branding research in the literature, organising
topics along two axes, from a very narrow definition of place branding (on the left)
to a very broad definition (on the right) and from strategic notions (at the top) to
operational and concrete notions (at the bottom).
Whatever the opinions on the differences and/or similarities between place
branding and place marketing, measures to promote places predate this conceptual
debate. The way practitioners and researchers talk about these measures can dif-
fer significantly, as highlighted in the diversity of concepts presented previously.
In addition, promoting places may actually be as old as places themselves. The
decision to locate somewhere and become settlers rather than nomads certainly
depended on specific criteria (protection, access to water, etc.) that were then com-
municated, leading to the place’s establishment and development. The marketing
Figure 4.1 Changes of perspective on place branding and marketing between 2005 and
2015
Source: Vuignier (2017)
68
Strategy / Abstract
Conceptual and theoretical bases

Place brand as a
Place-brand strategy Place marketing strategy governance strategy
“Balancing image and substance” (Zavattaro, 2014)
Place-brand vision Public diplomacy
(identify and define core values)
Place Organising capacity
- Place-brand identity
promotion
- Place-brand positioning Culture and history
- Place-brand image
Urbanism
Very narrow definition
Very broad definition

Perception analysis Promotion Planning Quality of life
(associations, personality) campaign (urban or rural)
Attachment
Communication Framework Place making / aesthetics

campaign conditions
(legal, political, and Architecture
Organisation and economic) Public-sector
management quality
Infrastructure
Logos and slogans Tourism, cultural, and
sporting products Parks, gardens, green spaces
Graphic design
Flagship projects Litter
Promotional (events, monuments)
products Operational / Concrete Note: Interactions between elements are dynamic
Figure 4.2 The diversity of place-branding and -marketing research

Source: Vuignier (2017)
of towns and cities per se goes back at least to the 19th century (Ward, 1998),
mostly because of the development of transport. Certain railway companies were
promoting their services through tourism campaigns, as evidenced by the early
20th-century posters now commonly found in vintage stores. Destinations were
already promoted more than 100 years ago (see Figure 4.3).
From the start, we could have asked: was this marketing or branding? It was
place marketing, in the sense that there was a clear plan to attract target groups to
visit and discover places. It was also branding, because through this promotion,
some names gradually became remembered and associated with emotions. But we
could also say it was merely a case of practitioners promoting places without over-
thinking. There was a need to fill trains, to attract tourists and new habitants. Post-
ers provided a convenient way of reaching out to targets.
It was not until the 1970s that marketing and branding practices for places began
to become more sophisticated, following the general evolution in the field of mar-
keting. Today, activities related to place marketing, on the one hand, and place
branding, on the other hand, encompass interlinked but distinct aspects. Although
the literature continues to debate the commonalities and differences between the
two concepts (see Skinner, 2008; Boisen et al., 2017), the confusion is not likely
to come to an end. But this, we would argue, should not be considered a problem.
It is inherent in the very nature of both notions and explained by the simple fact
that in practical terms—in the same way as more than 100 years ago—we can only
Figure 4.3 Posters from the early 20th century

Notes: On the left: 1905, Engelberg, Wintersport, Hotels Cattani, by Amrhein, Willy (1873–1926),
Poly AG (Laupen, Bern); On the right: 1920, CFF, Ligne pittoresque Yverdon—Sainte-Croix, Sainte-
Croix—Les Rasses, Jura, Suisse, by Jaques, François Louis (1877–1937), Klausfelder SA (Vevey),
Schweizerische Bundesbahnen.
Source: Swiss National Library, Bibliothèque nationale suisse, Cabinet des estampes: Collection
d’affiches
wobble between the two: doing more of one without totally avoiding the other,
doing one but realising it contributes to the other, too.
But from a theoretical point of view, it is worth understanding the differences
between the two concepts. They can be seen as a spectrum on which cases of pure
place branding lie at one end and cases of pure place marketing at the other. The
art of practitioners will be to decide on the degree of focus towards one or the other
ends. Both refer to marketing measures and efforts to enhance a place, in the broad-
est sense, which contributes, as an ultimate goal, to the strengthening of the place’s
image, reputation, and attractiveness for target groups, stakeholders, and the com-
munity. Place marketing is concerned with designing a place to meet the needs
of its target markets. It is successful when residents and businesses are satisfied
with their communities and meet the expectations of visitors and investors (Kotler
et al., 1993). Long-term place-branding activities aimed at improving the visibility,
image, and reputation of a place are different from place-marketing activities aimed
at meeting demand in a short-term horizon.
Govers (2018) considers place branding as starting from the place identity and
guided by the offering (what the place is and what it can offer) and place marketing
as guided by the demand, by existing markets, and by the target groups and their
needs. Place marketing is described by Ashworth and Voogd (1994) as a process
by which local activities are linked as closely as possible to the demands of target
customers. Since the intention is to maximise the effective social and economic
functioning of the area concerned, a place-marketing strategy, unlike some other
forms of marketing, must target a variety of audiences. It cannot focus on a single
target group, as a certain balance between the groups attracted is vital, whether in
terms of tax base or socio-demographic composition. Consequently, places mobi-
lise marketing tools to do market segmentation, targeting, and positioning in a
context where public resources are limited (Meyronin, 2015), as will be detailed
further in Chapter 8 of this book.
Place marketing focuses on information and data related to target groups: their
needs and behaviours, as well as the positioning of the place offering in comparison
with offerings proposed by similar types of places. Place branding, on the other
hand, will focus on more general trends regarding the place’s image and reputa-
tion. As Metaxas (2009, p. 1364) underlines, “market research constitutes a very
important part of an effective place marketing plan implementation”. The market-
ing and promotion axis includes several measures (networking, advertising, public
relations, etc.) that focus on the promotion of places’ distinctive characteristics to
their potential target markets globally.
Practitioners will have to decide which of the two (place marketing or place
branding) to focus on and to prioritise and the extent to which both should be
blended. There is a necessary complementarity between branding and marketing in
place promotion: a strategic approach must ensure there is a match between sym-
bolic attributes triggered by the place brand and the reality of what the place offers
to the target groups. Marketing efforts around place offerings would therefore give
substance to the place brand. In the words of Zavattaro (2014), the art of place
branding is balancing image and substance.
Another layer of confusion is added by many contributions in the scientific and

practice-oriented literature that present the place-branding process as linear. Build-
ing a consensual vision, then deciding on a brand strategy, and finally benefiting
from the enhanced attractiveness created by the brand points to a much more com-
plex reality.
First, believing that consensus around a common vision for the future of a place
is always possible, and that it should be a necessary first step for any strategy, is
an illusion. Place branding is also a matter of politics, and interests can be too
divergent to build consensus and therefore to develop an integrated place-branding
approach. Therefore, the brand is always under construction, although marketing
campaigns can be deployed and produce their effects.
Second, the actors deciding on marketing measures do not have the power to
create a brand. A notable example materialises when a newspaper headline states
that a place is becoming a brand.2 Journalists consider the simple act, for example,
by a Swiss canton’s authorities, of launching a new marketing campaign the crea-
tion of a new place brand. But in most cases, such a launch merely consists in the
presentation of a new visual identity, with a video highlighting key place attributes
and suggesting shared values among the place’s inhabitants and leaders. In this
sense, this partly fits with the definition of a brand, at least from an operational
standpoint. Nonetheless, while a public body has the competence and the ability
to launch an appealing marketing campaign, it does not have the power to create
a place brand. Only the effect of the brand on people’s perceptions and potentially
their behaviours will determine the very existence of the brand. In this regard, a
government can be successful in implementing a marketing strategy, for example,
through various measures such as tax incentives to attract or support the develop-
ment of specific clusters, but this tells us nothing about the brand’s perceptions and
potential effects and hence the brand’s very existence.
Marketing tools implemented as part of a place-attractiveness strategy can there-
fore be distinguished from branding efforts as part of a place-branding strategy.
While both overlap and, in some ways, complement each other, they refer to dif-
ferent instruments and priorities from a practical public-management perspective.
Trying to kill two birds with one stone rarely succeeds in these cases: it is easier to
waste time and public money than to achieve results in terms of attractiveness or
reputation. The promotion of any place could thus be seen through the lens of the
differences and commonalities between branding and marketing, as illustrated in
Figure 4.4. This schematisation highlights the fact that efforts to promote a place
navigate between place-branding and place-marketing components, the strategic
decision being what to focus on (prioritise) and the extent to which aspects from
marketing and branding should be blended.
Place-marketing activities may contribute to building a brand in a direct way
(via a brand defined as a marketing tool) or an indirect manner (without control and
in the long term, via word-of-mouth or by enhancing customers’ experience first
rather than communicating about the brand). But place-marketing tools encompass
the whole range of instruments used to attain and convince target groups. They
therefore include various aspects and tools that are not linked with branding but
Identity, Reputation Attractiveness

PLACE BRANDING PLACE MARKETING
Favourable attitudes Target groups’ behaviours
BLEND
To develop To promote
and promote the identity a place to defined target
and the image groups (companies,
of a place and its decision-makers,
characteristics residents, tourists, etc.)
Build identity (inside-out) Satisfy needs and demand

(outside-in)
Figure 4.4 Place branding ∞ Place marketing
relate to the place’s development and specific place offerings. At the same time,
branding also relates to reputation, identity, and sense of belonging, which is out-
side the scope of place marketing.
While there is no doubt that branding approaches are part of marketing (as part
of promotion activities), the idea that place-brand development is a prerequisite
for place marketing is at odds with observed reality. Many weak-branded places
develop successful marketing activities, especially in economic development. For
example, taken in an international context, the Swiss canton of Fribourg is a weak
brand with few differentiation elements in terms of image or reputation. However,
due to a fiscal policy adopted in the 1980s (basically a tax exemption for ten years
in return for job creation), the canton has managed to attract many companies with
high-skilled jobs, such as the financial headquarters and a research-and-develop-
ment centre of the multinational company Michelin.
When the focus is on the governance and management structure behind place
promotion efforts, place marketing and place branding are highly blended. Depend-
ing on the strategic mandate given by the place authorities, the focus will be on
either marketing or branding. The focus lies primarily on a marketing strategy
when the idea is to promote and enhance the place’s value in order to attract and
retain various targets. The focus lies on a branding strategy when the development
of a place’s distinctive identity is targeted and the management of its image is
planned over the medium or long term.
The use of marketing and branding tools is generally accompanied by a narra-
tive that some describe as “magical” (Miles, 2013). This relates to the belief in the
power of strategic aims to enhance attractiveness. The brand tool would then act
like a magic wand. We no longer speak of “image” but of “brand image”. The result
is a rhetoric of praise for the brand. For example, the creation of logos and slogans
is sometimes seen not as the visual part of a sophisticated strategy but as key in
itself to generating an attractive identity (Govers, 2013; Hildreth, 2013). Further-
more, the emphasis on emotions and symbols sometimes leads to undervaluing the
role of tangible aspects when they are essential, because of a strong focus on the
intrinsic value of the brand itself. The example of New York and its place-branding
process initiated during the 1970s and 1980s is a well-known illustration of this:
the “I love NY” logo/slogan is remembered as a reference and textbook case. How-
ever, it is often forgotten that although the process was successful, this was primar-
ily due to the economic-development strategy that underpinned it (Bendel, 2011).
Two elements explain in part the tendency to have exaggerated expectations of
the effects of place marketing and place branding despite the paucity of empiri-
cal evidence: performative language in place branding and confusion between the
branding tool and the overall process. First, performative language corresponds to
the idea that the words of place managers or politicians announcing the launch of
a place brand contribute to the creation of the brand through the very act of com-
munication. The launch induces other speeches and actions that validate the impor-
tance of a branding strategy in terms of attractiveness, a phenomenon that is close
to a self-fulfilling prophecy (Staszak, 2000). The contribution of the analyses of
performative discourse by political scientists and linguists (e.g., Bourdieu, 1982)
makes it possible to identify the underlying stakes in relation to place-branding
strategies (Boland, 2013; Houllier-Guibert, 2011): the actors involved in the brand-
ing strategy have a vested interest in talking about the brand, and in so doing,
they contribute, consciously or not, to its creation. In the literature on branding in
general, Manning (2010, p. 34) shows that discourses are rarely devoid of interest
and that many authors enjoy promoting this concept. The frequent presence of con-
sultants in the field of place branding and marketing observed by Désilets (2012)
undoubtedly explains why the same phenomenon is witnessed concerning places:
a large number of analyses on place branding are written by authors who have an
interest in the role of place branding being decisive, even overvalued.
Second, the confusion between a place brand tool and the general approach leads
to vagueness. While the brand is a specific marketing tool, it is often perceived in
the literature and in practice as both a tool and an approach. This vagueness stems
from the very definition of place branding: we speak of place branding by referring
to a global strategy of attractiveness of which the brand is in fact only one compo-
nent. This is reinforced by the difficulty of isolating the role of the brand. Indeed,
determining the real role played by the brand tool in particular in the attractiveness
of a place is complex. Moreover, a place brand considered strong corresponds in
principle to an attractive place. However, correlation is not causality. A place brand
is strong above all because the place attracts, not the brand. On the other hand, it
can be assumed that, by being a strong brand, a place attracts even more.
Both the performative language and the confusion between the tool and the
process contribute to the definitional shift observed by several authors who tend to
consider that “everything is a brand” (Kotler, 2003, p. 8). Branding has “invaded
all aspects of public and private life” (van Ham, 2002, p. 249). The literature is
full of cases of a wide variety of branding objects: famous personalities, such as

sports stars (Vincent et al., 2009) or politicians (Goscilo, 2013), can manage their
image as brands, as can universities (Bennett and Ali-Choudhury, 2009), hospi-
tals (Sataøen and Wæraas, 2015), political parties and governments (Marsh and
Fawcett, 2011), or even public policies and governance reforms (Eshuis and Klijn,
2011). Any organisation could be interested in adopting branding strategies in all
sectors—well beyond producers or distributors of products. With regard to place,
a comparable phenomenon tends to conceive each place as a brand. Anholt (2010)
believes that cities have always been brands because they produce images in peo-
ple’s heads. For Kotler and Gertner (2002), even a country that does not consider
managing its image as a brand does so unconsciously. Maynadier (2009, p. 40)
argues that it “seems natural” to manage place brands as market brands insofar as
their name carries meaning. Some authors have stated that “every place is a brand”
(Boisen, 2015). In fact, we should say that every place can become a brand, since
it takes more than a name to be a brand.
While it is clear that every place has an image associated with it and that the
evocation of a place’s name can provoke spontaneous associations in the minds
of those who know something about the place or even elicit strong emotions on
account of its reputation or a sense of belonging and attachment to the place (Flo-
rek, 2011), this is not enough to make every place a brand. Considering any place
a potential brand certainly allows us to avoid leaving the monopoly of the use of
the place brand tool to certain types of places such as well-known metropolises,
but a place is not a brand by nature. It becomes one when a declared strategic-
marketing objective is accompanied by a certain brand effect on target audiences,
which varies in intensity from a positive or negative perception to an influence
on decisions. A review of the literature reveals four main elements that highlight
the way in which place branding can be understood from a strategic point of view
before focusing on its possible effects. The place that is the object of branding has
recognised boundaries (1), specific attributes (2) that are recognised both internally
and externally (3), and a structure or organisational setup for managing the place
brand within a strategy (4).
Analysing the cases of potential place brands on the basis of these four ele-
ments allows us to refute the claim that any place has the status of a de facto place
brand. Recognised boundaries are meant to clearly differentiate between what is
and what is not the brand. The more blurred the boundaries, the greater the risk that
the message conveyed will be confused and based on an unshared vision of what
specifically is the place to be promoted, which in turn diminishes the effect of the
brand. This element is particularly delicate insofar as a place is part of a political-
institutional context that exhibits a tangle of perimeters. Multiple contours delimit
a place: in particular, there are political, institutional, legal, cultural, and identity-
based borders. Moreover, these boundaries are not exclusive, since space is not
necessarily divided in a similar way in administrative terms (territory) and in terms
of a sense of belonging (place).
The existence of specific place attributes also appears essential. Without a prod-
uct having convincing attributes, the brand is nothing. The bitten apple symbol
would mean little if the Apple brand did not offer a range of electronic products,
computers, and computer software with distinctive attributes.
Moreover, these attributes must be recognised by the general public, the com-
munity, and external target groups. It is widely accepted in the brand literature that
having attributes is not enough: they must also be perceived as such (Kapferer,
2013). With regard to places, for many scholars and consultants, the challenge
lies not so much in the attributes possessed by the place as in the way these attrib-
utes are valued internally and recognised externally. In this respect, place-branding
strategies generally adopt two components. An internal component includes a
phase that invites the community (the place’s stakeholders and the population as
a whole) to come together, to list the place’s strengths and weaknesses, and espe-
cially to become aware of its assets. The phrase “our place deserves to be known”
then becomes a recurring refrain in the construction of the place-brand identity by
residents (Meyronin, 2015). Another component looks outward, with a focus on
knowledge and recognition of the place’s attributes. Given these considerations,
several authors suggest as a first step in any place-branding strategy the establish-
ment of a diagnosis of the place (place audit), that is, an analysis of its strengths and
weaknesses as perceived by various target groups (Chamard et al., 2014).
Finally, the existence and strength of a brand depends on the structure or the
organisational setup that manages the brand (Wiedmann, 2014), that is, on the imple-
mentation of the branding strategy. With regard to places, various authors interested
in place-brand management stress the importance of the structure put in place to
implement place-marketing and -branding activities (Ashworth and Kavaratzis,
2009). Whereas for classic brands, the organisation is both the company and the
brand, a place brand generally requires the setting up of an ad hoc structure for its
management. This structure aims mostly at gathering stakeholders. The organisa-
tion modes resulting from political–institutional arrangements are varied. A steering
committee may oversee the process, with the risk of being overly influenced by a
particular political institution. The creation of an independent association is another
option, the autonomy of which depends very much on the details of its organisation
and the financial and human resources allocated. The most integrated form involves
partnerships between public, semi-public, and private actors resulting in an autono-
mous agency, sometimes resulting from the merger of existing agencies focusing
on a specific aspect, such as a business or tourism location. In fact, many places
do not have a centralised structure for the management of marketing and branding
activities. Several different entities are thus active in a fragmented manner, imple-
menting measures related to branding and marketing, lacking an integrated, coordi-
nated approach. Among existing structures, the case of Liège Together (see Box 3.3)
relies on existing political institutions for coordinated marketing activities. While
the question of whether less management room for manoeuvre may be detrimental
to efficient marketing and branding measures remains open, a structure such as that
used in Liège highlights the benefits in terms of legitimacy (since elected officials
are involved) and proximity with local stakeholders, in comparison with an ad hoc
structure such as an autonomous agency. Whatever the form chosen, the establish-
ment of a structure appears to be a necessary condition for developing a place brand.
4.3 Branding for places

Like marketing, branding has evolved and is now applied to basically everything.
Branding has become “so strong that today hardly anything goes unbranded” (Kotler
and Armstrong, 2013, p. 255). From a marketing tool focusing foremost on visual
identity and symbols that could distinguish, differentiate, and make a product recog-
nisable in the minds of target groups and in relation with competitors, it has become a
broad strategic concept concerned not only with perception, image, and mental asso-
ciations but also with general awareness, identity, and reputation. This broad approach
may also apply to territorial entities, at different levels (city, region, or country). At
the country level, the case of nation branding in Kazakhstan is presented in Box. 4.1.
Box 4.1 Nation branding in Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan, the world’s ninth-largest country and the biggest of the five
Central Asian Republics, has pursued an ambitious nation-branding strategy
over the last three decades. Following the fall of the Soviet Union, Kazakh-
stan became independent in 1991 “almost by accident” (Schatz, 2006). Fac-
ing internal divisions and a weak basis for political legitimacy, building up a
narrative around the state’s role and place in the international system became
a policy priority for the governments led by its first and until 2019 only presi-
dent, Nursultan Abishuly Nazarbayev. Under Nazarbayev, Kazakhstan was
generally described as a “soft-authoritarian” regime by academic observers.
In the years post-independence, Nazarbayev worked to portray “an image
of a state elite that was engaged internationally and therefore deserving of
support domestically” (Schatz, 2006, p. 270). To give form to this vision,
Nazarbayev launched the Kazakhstan 2030 Strategy during his annual presi-
dential address in 1997 and the Kazakhstan 2050 Strategy in 2012. In addi-
tion to publishing glossy national vision documents to be displayed and
distributed online as well as at official events, state institutions, and politi-
cal and diplomatic representations abroad (Alderman and Eggeling, 2023,
pp. 11–15), the Kazakhstani government has also invested considerable
resources into more targeted nation-branding projects, particularly in the
education, sports, cultural, and urban development sectors.
The main ambition driving the Kazakhstani brand has been the building
of an attractive, holistic image of a state that is claiming its rightful place in
the international community. Beyond the attraction of foreign investment
or the hosting of events, Kazakhstan’s branding strategy has been a mul-
tifaceted and multi-layered attempt at (re)writing the state’s identity along
political, geographic, historical, and ethical lines. What projects such as the
urban re-vamping of the capital city centre in Astana, bidding for and hosting
the International Specialized Exhibition (Expo 2017), the affiliation with or
building of international elite universities, and the nurturing of elite sports
clubs and teams like the Astana Cycling Team all have in common is that
they present and repeat the same narratives about Kazakhstan’s past, present,
and future. Spread across all these projects is an understanding of Kazakh-
stan as an independent, stable, professionally run state that sits at the cross-
roads of Western and Eastern civilisations, has ancient roots but is quickly
developing, and has generally been thriving under the leadership and guiding
vision of former President Nazarbayev.
Kazakhstan’s nation branding has mainly been institutionalised in the
Office of the President, the local and regional Akimats, the Department of
International Information under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the state-
sanctioned clubs and institutions (such as Nazarbayev University, Air Astana
and the Astana Presidential Sports Club) founded to support the branding
of Kazakhstan via high-profile prestige projects in a particular sector. It is
hard, if not impossible, to guess the overall budget Kazakhstan—a modern
rentier state whose primary source of income rests on the sale of natural
resources (mainly natural gas)—has invested in building up its international
image since independence. The financing of nation-branding projects is tied
to Samruk Kazyna, the country’s national wealth fund. Yet, given the politi-
cal priority, the investments in the state’s international image are substan-
tial. The Astana Presidential Sports Club alone, for example, was in 2010
assumed to consume an annual budget of US$ 100 million (Eggeling, 2020).
A simultaneous key challenge and opportunity for the Kazakhstani nation-
branding exercise has been the almost complete global ignorance of Kazakh-
stan until the mid-2000s. At this time, the knowledge vacuum was filled
by a British comedian and his alter ego Borat Sagdiyev. Created by Sacha
Baron Cohen, Borat, a mocking representation of a Kazakhstani reporter,
presented a real problem for Nazarbayev’s image-conscious government.
Given Borat’s grotesque rendering of Kazakhstani national identity, the gov-
ernment initially threatened Baron Cohen with a lawsuit, as the image that
Kazakhstan had “poured millions into to convince the West that is pluralistic,
stable, prosperous, and open to investments” was being mocked (Saunders,
2007). Eventually, this situation dissolved and Nazarbayev managed to see
the funny side of it. On a state visit to the UK in November 2006, he said that
“this film was created by a comedian, so let’s laugh at it . . . any publicity is
good publicity” (Aitken, 2009).
Kazakhstan’s nation-branding project, especially during the Nazarbayev
years (1991–2019) provides a fascinating case study in how stories of state-
hood, place, identity, and political and economic ambition mix and congeal
in sites and practices of everyday life. For a while, the Kazakhstani brand
was everywhere—on cycling jerseys, in the headlines surrounding global
events like the Expo 2017 and the 2024 Winter Olympics, or in Western
newspapers as photo spreads of its capital’s unlikely futuristic skyline
(Moore, 2010). On the one hand, it will be interesting to follow where
the Kazakhstani nation brand will go beyond Nazarbayev (who is 82 now
but still serves as the ceremonial “Leader of the Nation”), as well as how
Kazakhstan will claim its place in a shifting world order of more fierce geo-
political competition between Russia, China, and the US and Europe. On the
other hand, the example of Kazakhstan should be a textbook case allowing
scholars and practitioners interested in nation and place branding to adopt a
holistic understanding of the practice. Nation branding, as the Kazakhstani
case shows, is not a superficial marketing technique but a deeply political
practice that not only represents and sells but first makes and solidifies ideas
and claims about national identity.
Box written by Kristin A. Eggeling.
Place branding is usually defined as “the application of branding to places such

as cities, regions and countries” (Kavaratzis and Florek, 2022, p. 507). It involves a
series of steps, based on research and data analysis, the development of a strategy,
stakeholder involvement, communications, and an evaluation exercise that should
lead to the improvement of the whole process. These steps are expected to estab-
lish good relationships and trust between the place’s stakeholders, increase confi-
dence in the place brand, guarantee the locals’ satisfaction with place-making, and
improve the place’s reputation.
From a managerial point of view, there is a distinction between branding activ-
ity at the operational level and a brand strategy. The first exists via a visual identity
(often a logo and a slogan) and is regulated by a brand policy that sets out the rules
for its practical use (including trademark issues). The second defines the identity
of the brand (current identity) as well as a strategic vision, including values shared
(desired image and ambitions). A brand has also become a vast notion to the extent
that it can arguably be considered a concept of its own, independent from market-
ing. Kapferer (2012, p. 2) suggests an interesting distinction in this regard: “para-
doxically, it takes more than branding to build a brand”. This means it is not enough
to launch a brand as a marketing tool including a visual identity, to create a proper
brand, in the sense of a symbolic construct that evokes mental associations, imbues
meaning, communicates an identity, contributes to a reputation, and (potentially)
influences judgments and behaviours. In other words, the intended effect (building
a strong brand) goes well beyond marketing activities such as branding.
Initially considered a marketing tool among others (focusing on visual identity
and symbols), the brand has become a vast notion (focusing on values, image, and
reputation), to the point where branding can arguably be considered a concept of
its own, independent from marketing. Place branding therefore no longer refers
only to the place brand as a marketing tool but tends to be defined in the literature
(Vuignier, 2018) as a concept encompassing all marketing measures and efforts
deployed to develop and enhance the place, with the ultimate goal of reinforcing
the place’s image and reputation in the minds (and hearts) of various target groups
(current and potential residents, students, visitors, talents, entrepreneurs, investors,
etc.). In fact, place brands can be considered from various perspectives. The fol-
lowing paragraphs take the reader on a journey presenting what a place brand is
and what it is not: (1) through a legal lens, (2) through a communication lens, (3)
from the angle of its architecture, and (4) through a marketing lens, through which
the place brand becomes a holistic strategic concept.
Place branding through a legal lens
The differentiation of the terms trademark and brand has the advantage of clarify-
ing matters, as opposed to other languages, including French and Spanish, which
use the same word for both notions (marque, marca). Trademark refers to the brand
from a legal point of view and has clear legal definitions in specific legal regimes
that give exclusive exploitation rights on, for example, a name, a slogan, and a
logo. As such, “a trademark is a sign which distinguishes the goods or services
of one undertaking from those of other undertakings. Trademarks are protected
intellectual property rights”.3 Place trademarks are not subject to a specific legal
regime within trademark law and the Industrial Property Code. They are regis-
tered by local authorities themselves or by dedicated promotional associations as
individual or collective trademarks. Several types of brands can be envisaged for
places: trademarks, copyrights, industrial design rights, certificate marks, collec-
tive brands, or specific brands (of their own kind: sui generis) such as geographical
indications (GI), including appellations of origin (AO).
One of the first tourist locations in the world to protect its name was the Swiss
Alpine resort of St. Moritz in 1987, which registered “St. Moritz”, with its slogan
“Top of the World”, in Switzerland and the European Union. In France, the pio-
neering place brand in terms of legal protection is likely to have been the commune
of Saint-Tropez, a legal entity under public law, which in 1992 registered the name
“Saint-Tropez” as a trademark with the National Institute of Industrial Property.
Currently, it is common to see collective trademarks, such as Jeruzalem Slovenija,4
featuring local high-quality products with a certain legal protection while convey-
ing messages and stories about the place and how local residents experience and
live to emphasise sustainability and proximity, or localness.
According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), place trade-
marks can contribute to reinforcing the competitiveness of a place. From a mar-
keting point of view, it remains difficult to determine with empirical evidence to
what extent registering a place brand as a trademark contributes to strengthening
the place brand (in terms of image or attractiveness). Nevertheless, doing so can
undoubtedly bring useful legal protection for a place if the competitive context
justifies the fear of being copied or contains the risk of nonconforming use of the
place name. It also formalises the place brand and clarifies the modes of use of the
terms and signs.
Legal protection for brands corresponds to what Kapferer (2011) calls a defen-
sive function. For place brands, the ownership of the brand being by nature collec-
tive, and names of places being excluded from exclusive use by economic actors
(Vuignier, 2018), the importance of legal protection for a specific place brand is
diminished. On the contrary, practical cases show a trend towards unrestricted use
of place brands subject to the condition of respecting general principles and sharing
values pinpointing the brand. For example, a place-brand code and graphic outputs
have been developed and made publicly available by the French region Brittany
for the brand BRETAGNE.5 A place-brand box containing communication content

(pictures, films, factsheets), as well as practical advice on how to use this con-
tent, is provided freely by Oslo.6 The rationale behind making place-brand outputs
freely accessible is twofold. First, this underlines the inclusiveness of the place-
brand process: everybody who wishes to contribute to the promotion efforts should
be welcome to do so, provided that they follow general terms. Second, the easier it
is to access place-brand visual contents, the more likely they are to be spread and
generate awareness. The fact is, for many (if not most) places, the basic challenge
is to become known by the public, even their own inhabitants.
The legal protection of GI, including AO, is an issue in itself that falls far
beyond the scope of this book and has been addressed by other scholars. GI and
AO contribute to the construction of a place’s reputation and act as a tool for the
legitimate location of economic activity or as an intellectual property right, an eco-
nomic instrument, a tool for rural development, or even a policy for the defence of
cultural heritage.
Place branding through the communication lens
Launching a place-branding initiative often starts with the idea of communicating

about the place because of a lack of awareness and knowledge about the opportu-
nities it offers. As already mentioned, it is common to hear from place authorities
that their place deserves to be better known. In their words, the place is generally
already communicating, but in a fragmented way and without enough outreach.
And the simplest way to communicate about a place brand is to create a visual
means: a logo. By definition, a logo is a symbol constituting a brand, or more
specifically a graphic element that symbolises a name, a brand, a company, or an
organisation. However, a logo is not the brand itself. It can convey a message and
play the role of a sign for a strategic initiative, but it represents only the tip of the
iceberg, the visible and concrete part that is not crucial from a strategic point of
view compared to the content of the initiative.
In the literature on place branding, the difference between place image and place
brand remains blurry (Florek and Kavaratzis, 2014). The place’s image is the main
component of the brand, which is consistent with the literature on the classical
brand. According to certain authors (e.g., Arvidsson, 2006), branding adds psycho-
logical and social value through symbolic meaning. For others (e.g., Hosany et al.,
2006), the opposite is true: the brand is a component of the image, the latter being
approached as a broader and more abstract notion. As a result, many consultants
and practitioners tend to consider any place a potential brand. From this perspec-
tive, any place could communicate about its brand at any time, and any communi-
cation activity could be considered a place-branding activity.
While this book attempts to make readers aware that communication and place
branding are not the same thing and to provide clarifications about related con-
cepts, place-branding efforts are intertwined with communication efforts. A place
brand is aimed at harmonising the way place authorities and place stakeholders
communicate, with a shared vision, to achieve commonly agreed goals, such as
improving the place’s quality of life or developing its attractiveness (with or with-
out quantified targets). The case of Ghent (see Box 4.2) provides an interesting
example of how place branding can be employed as a communication tool by using
the perception of values shared by inhabitants and other place stakeholders to sup-
port the place brand, placing them at the core of the content of the city’s commu-
nication, resulting in authentic stories that build a dynamic and “lived” identity.
Box 4.2 The case of Ghent, Belgium
Ghent is a Belgian city with a rich past. In medieval times, it was among the
largest and wealthiest cities in Europe, and its old town is still dominated by
the architectural wonders of that time. As the capital and the largest com-
mune (with around 265,000 inhabitants) of the East Flanders province, it has
developed as a port and as a university, attracting approximately 80,000 stu-
dents. Ghent is known for its cultural past and present; modern architecture;
a lighting plan; an inspiring food scene; green mobility; and, more generally,
the fine quality of life that characterises the city. However, these are aspects
that are applicable to many cities across the world.
In terms of branding, the promotion of all these aspects points to one big
question: what makes Ghent “Ghent”? What are the “Ghentian” values? To
answer these questions, Ghent launched a process of reflection in 2019–2020.
The city hired consultants and considered stakeholder involvement essential
to build up the Ghentian brand.
This brand focuses on the way Ghent “handles things”. Ghent handles
things differently and provides a free city to those who want to express them-
selves. The brand values focus on openness, care for each other (united),
creativity (offbeat), and exploration (ground-breaking). This conceptualisa-
tion results from two phases: (1) the engagement of stakeholders—public,
private and political—in determining the brand values and (2) the distribu-
tion of surveys and the organisation of focus groups to validate these values.
As a result, the definition of the shared Ghentian values originated from the
stakeholders involved in the process, making sure that they can embrace the
brand more easily in their activities. Moreover, the Ghentian brand is in fact
a distillation of what Ghent has been doing for many years, now merely
spotlighted and defined. The brand values have been given political approval
by the mayor and aldermen with the signing of an executive board decision.
The brand management team (two employees since January 2021)
belongs to the communication team within the city’s “Business Operations”
department. Their operational strategy and priorities are aligned with the city
administration’s ambitions, as set out in the different sectoral policy reports.
The team has six strategies for implementing the brand in Ghent: (1) activa-
tion of the brand internally, (2) activation externally, (3) monitoring of the
brand, (4) applying the brand in sectoral marketing, (5) focusing on main
events and theme years, and (6) implementation of the brand in the city mar-
keting fund.
Brand management in Ghent focuses on place-making rather than city
marketing. By constantly challenging stakeholders in the city to make
their project and activities on brand, actors tell the same story about the
city, breathing the Ghentian values. Accordingly, sectoral departments (e.g.,
tourism, economic actors, urban development) are responsible for their own
sectoral marketing strategy (deciding their main focus, priorities, and target
groups), while the brand management team helps with the on brand develop-
ment of these strategies. The process is like riding a bicycle with two seats,
where the brand manager is on the back seat reminding the rider in front not
to forget the Ghentian brand by asking: how does this reflect the Ghentian
brand? What are the values that cannot be “copied and pasted” to another
city? For example, while the economic department set its own priorities (e.g.,
a focus on high-tech), the brand manager challenges them on how to make
these priorities appear “Ghentian” to both internal and external actors. Also,
the tourist office works closely with the brand management team to develop
an on brand destination development strategy.
Even in urban development, the Ghentian brand is showcased. The team
of the city architect of the city of Ghent, whose role is to ensure the quality of
building projects in terms of architecture, urban planning, and public space
in Ghent, made the Ghentian brand one of the eight principles for urban-
development assignments and projects in Ghent.
In addition, the city marketing fund (€ 250,000 per year), managed by
the brand management team, supports projects of external stakeholders to
promote Ghent. The fund has existed for over 20 years, but since brand man-
agement has been in place, the Ghentian brand is the first criterion for accept-
ance. Only when a project application passes the on brand check (made by
the brand management team) does it proceed to a second assessment by the
city marketing fund jury (made up of the managing director and several city-
administration department heads) to check other criteria such as impact, mar-
keting value, and contribution to the city’s policy. In this way, all events and
projects funded showcase the Ghentian brand.
The brand management team has an operational budget that allows for
regular interactions with the city’s stakeholders (including citizens) through,
for example, brand filter workshops, brainstorming sessions, information
sessions, and communications sent to all actors on a regular basis. These are
the main tools that the team uses to implement the brand. Stakeholder partici-
pation is the key ingredient in anything that happens in Ghent. For example,
conferences have been organised with residents on the future of tourism in
the city, and channels have been kept open to ensure lasting discussions and
feedback.
The biggest challenge for the team is to have a seat at the table, at the right
time, especially with iconic events or theme years such as the 2030 European
Capital of Culture bid. At the right time means at the beginning of the pro-
cess, and not at the end when substantive changes can no longer be made. It
is all about keeping up the work and awareness of the Ghentian brand.
Box written in collaboration with Melanie De Vocht and

Eveline Vincke, brand managers of the city of Ghent.
More information: www.stad.gent/placebranding.
As a place is by nature composed of various institutions, development of the

field of place branding has been inspired by institutional (also called corporate or
organisational) branding (as opposed to product or service branding). Develop-
ing an institutional branding strategy is a sign of an entity’s desire to manage its
reputation at an organisational level. The corporate brand is the visual, verbal, and
behavioural expression of an organisation, whether it is a private company, a public
entity, or any other organisation or group of people. It is supposed to summarise in
its name and visual symbol all the added value created by the experiences of cus-
tomers (more generally of all the people with whom the organisation is in contact),
its products, its channels, its stores, its communication, and its employees. Manag-
ing this brand therefore translates externally into strategic and coordinated manage-
ment of touch points: from product or service to channel management, advertising,
website, word-of-mouth, organisational ethos, and so on and internally into man-
agement of the organisational culture guided by the brand’s values and missions
(Kapferer, 2012). Institutional branding encompasses part of product branding in
that it creates synergies between product brands. Place branding and organisational
branding go beyond branding a single type of tangible object to brand multiple
tangible objects (concrete features, products, and services) and intangible elements
(symbols, values, attitudes, visions). Both forms of branding seek to bring together
diverse stakeholders and identities (which requires intra- and inter-organisational
cooperation) and include collective and social aspects (Kavaratzis, 2009). Place
branding can in this regard be understood as the place’s institutions’ joint branding.
However, place branding and institutional branding are distinct types of brand-
ing, even though certain similarities can lead to confusion. First, the institutional
brand valorises the actions and services of the authorities, whereas the place brand
highlights the whole place, its products, and its services, together with its public,
private, and associative actors. Second, institutional branding is led by elected offi-
cials with a focus on the institutions with internal target audiences, whereas place
branding is generally driven by a multi-stakeholder governance with a focus on a
collective co-construction process aimed at both internal and external audiences.
Finally, the perimeter of what falls under place branding is broader and fuzzier than
the corresponding perimeter of institutional branding (see Table 4.1).
While this distinction makes it possible to avoid confusing an approach that
emanates exclusively from institutions with a place-branding strategy that is sup-
posed to be the result of a broader consultation process, the differences can be very
Table 4.1 Differences between institutional branding and place branding
Institutional branding Place branding
Promotion of actions and services Promotion of all products, services, and

delivered by institutions (i.e., the public and private actors of the place or
authorities) linked with the place
Institutions at the centre Collective initiative (co-construction)
Communication and strategy steered by Communication and strategy steered via a
elected officials multi-stakeholder governance
Branding of the “institutional territory” Branding of the place as a whole (name of
(name of the institution, clear the place, of the destination, perimeter
perimeter, official logo) with variable geometry, shared logo)
Main target groups: internal (residents, Target groups: internal and external
taxpayers and citizens)
Examples of logo: Examples of logo:
Source: Adapted from Gollain (2012)
thin, and the evolution of practices tends to reduce them. On the one hand, the
branding process is often initiated, guided, and supported by institutional authori-
ties. On the other hand, institutional branding increasingly valorises the entire
place. The difference that seems to persist lies more in the targets: institutional
branding is mainly aimed at residents, taxpayers, and citizens, while place brand-
ing seeks to attract and retain not only internal but also external targets.
Place branding from the angle of brand architecture
In the case of place-brand management, the specificities of the place as a brand-

ing object imply a particular “brand architecture”. The concept of brand archi-
tecture expresses the way in which a portfolio of brands is structured (Aaker and
Joachimsthaler, 2000). It analyses the spectrum of relationships between brands,
from the case of an organisation that manages different brands (house of brands) to
an organisation that is itself the brand and manages different sub-brands (branded
house), and leads to thinking about the way in which product brands, the cor-
porate brand, and sub-brands are linked and managed. The architecture of the
place brand is particular in that it corresponds simultaneously to several models.
It is by nature an umbrella brand because, in seeking to brand the whole place,
it can bring together under one roof a whole range of heterogeneous products,
services, and organisations that are associated with different promises: a product
brand for the particular potential products that it signs with a regional label, a
range brand if a set of these products represents a coherent whole summarised
in a promise, or a guarantor brand if the brand that is affixed acts as a guarantee
for a set of products and services that are interconnected (Michel, 2010, p. 11).
The place brand is an umbrella brand like no other, because it not only brands a
set of products and services but also a set of organisations and institutions. This
particularity is further reinforced: a place brand is the sub-brand of a place brand
of another place encompassing it. If, in a given country, the local, regional, and
national levels develop their respective place brands, whether coordinated or not,
they are de facto all linked to each other. In this respect, it can be observed that
sub-national approaches sometimes refer to the national level. For example, many
of the visual identities of cantonal tourism offices and economic-development
agencies refer to Switzerland. The city of Brisbane promotes itself using the slo-
gan “Brisbane, Australia’s new world city”. Glasgow has adopted the following
slogan: “Glasgow—Scotland with Style”.
Thus, a comprehensive place-brand architecture can, under the same banner,
bring together and promote local products, services from companies located in
the territory, official communication, goods produced in the territory (made in,
designed in), the destination (tourism), the place as a location for life (live in), and
the place as a location for establishment (invest in). The place brand is therefore
linked to:
• regional labels;
• the effect of the place of origin of products, services, and organisations;
• the institutional brands of authorities, companies, or other organisations of the
place.
First, the place brand can be linked to regional labels, either independent or ema-
nating from the same organisation. For example, the AO and GI systems mentioned
previously contribute to the construction of a place’s reputation and act as “a device
allowing the legitimate localisation of economic activity . . . or as an intellectual
property right, an economic instrument or a tool for rural development, or even a
policy for the defence of cultural heritage” (Boisseaux and Leresche, 2002, p. 38;
our translation). The place brand can be linked to certifications, such as “certifi-
cates of excellence” (e.g., “Valais excellence” for the brand initiated by the Canton
of Valais, Switzerland). Local product labels are also often integrated into place-
branding approaches.
Second, place branding is also related to the place of origin of a product, service,
or company. An extensive literature has studied the country-of-origin (COO) effect,
also called the made-in effect (Usunier, 2011). To the best of our knowledge, it does
not focus on place branding as an object of study but only on the effect of the place
of origin, essentially of countries, in relation to the marketing of a product, service,
or organisation. It analyses the effect of the place of production or design (designed
in) on consumer perception in terms of reputation and purchasing behaviour. The
American Marketing Association (2015) defines the country-of-origin effect, which

we extend to places, as follows: “the effect that the country [place] of origin of the
product has on the buyer’s quality perceptions of the product”.
A few authors have brought together the literature on place marketing and the
literature on the place-of-origin effect, such as Kotler and Gertner (2002). An inter-
esting observation is the possibility of an inverse place-of-origin effect, whereby
the reputation of a place’s products, services, and organisations can influence the
reputation of the place as a whole and thus the place brand. Gentric et al. (2014)
noted that certain place-branding approaches allow companies to highlight not only
the origin of their products but also their attachment to a place, their anchoring to
a region. Observing a participation of a company in the place-branding process in
interaction with the stakeholders of a place, including the inhabitants, the authors
evoke a shift from a made-in effect to a made-with effect.
Moreover, the image of a place can, in some cases, be strongly influenced by the
image of a company headquartered there or by that of some of its brands. We can
mention the strong association between the IKEA brand and Sweden, the French
town of Camembert, home of the eponymous cheese, or the American city of Aus-
tin, Minnesota. The latter is nicknamed “SPAM Town USA” in the United States,
in reference to the SPAM brand of pre-cooked canned meat of the Hormel Foods
Corporation, which is headquartered there and is the city’s largest employer. These
aspects of place-branding strategy and management are rooted in the expectations
placed on the mobilisation of this marketing concept.
Place branding through the marketing lens: a holistic strategic concept
When place brand is mobilised as a marketing concept, it becomes more than a

name and a tool for communication. This implies a positioning among other places
(the place develops a brand to differentiate itself vis-à-vis others) and assumes the
place brand has, like commercial brands, various functions. Based on the literature
review by Vuignier (2017), the expected functions and potential effects of place
brands are the following:
• Identity-based and symbolic: the identity function can be translated by a feeling

of belonging (place attachment) and a common understanding, among stake-
holders, of what the place is, and what it will be, or how it should evolve (rally-
ing effect of the brand internally);
• Unifying and guiding: the place-branding approach brings people together if it
is based on a consensus around a vision or projects for the place. In principle,
it is materialised by an open networking of actors encouraged to interact and
collaborate and the implementation of deliberative processes open to multiple
stakeholders. It potentially brings cohesion between the place stakeholders;
• Harmonising: the place brand can give coherence to the place offering through
harmonised communication, where various initiatives in different sectors (ser-
vices to residents, tourism, economic development, and promotion) all refer to
the same brand and a shared vision;
• Distinctive and informative (differentiation): the perception of the place brand

by the target groups allows them a cognitive shortcut that distinguishes the place
from other places and has the potential to provide information on the expected
attributes. This function can operate through two different types of brand effects
(Vuignier, 2018):
• The “halo effect” (or contamination effect) refers to a bias that affects per-
ception. Vague memories of past experiences, presuppositions, or prejudices
tend, consciously or unconsciously, to accentuate people’s judgment in a
positive or negative direction, through a selective perception of information
based on first impressions. In this regard, the place brand is seen as a signal
that allows target groups to make inferences about what the place offers.
• The “summary effect” (or summary construct) differs from the halo effect in
that it corresponds to the brand’s ability to refer to information known and
already memorised by target groups. In this regard, the place brand synthe-
sises information about what the place offers.
Styvén et al. (2020) underline the importance of place attachment in place-branding
processes. Place identity is defined by place stakeholders, who feel varying degrees
of attachment to the place. The authors show that this sense of belonging is of high
importance and argue therefore that stakeholder involvement in place branding is a
key factor of success. In their analysis, residents should be incentivised to partici-
pate in an increasing number of communication activities, including advertising.
For example, the destination-management offices (DMOs) of the Swedish city of
Gothenburg and the Spanish city of Barcelona have both prioritised the quality of
life of residents, which has translated into high levels of place attachment and the
involvement of the residents and the local community in communicating about the
place brand.
Eshuis and Edelenbos (2009) show that place branding can be considered a
planning instrument that brings stakeholders together, building, from the start, a
consensus on the strategic vision for the place, for example, for urban-regeneration
projects, which is aimed at improving place development. If the reality of the place,
its strengths and weaknesses, are taken into account and the identity of the place
is discussed and defined by stakeholders as preliminary steps, the place-branding
process can then create positive perceptions (for example, of regenerated areas),
and the place brand functions as a compass, presenting clear directions and guid-
ing the place development (how the place wants to evolve, what the place wants to
become in the long run).
In the same vein, but from a critical perspective, Warnaby and Medway (2013)
highlight a danger for place branders. Defining a place too unanimously and nar-
rowly in conceptualising it as a marketing tool is problematic. In commodifying
a place as a product or a brand, the essence can get lost. Consequently, those who
feel a strong attachment to the place, which differs from the one consensually
elaborated by the main stakeholders as part of a place-branding initiative, can
feel marginalised and placeless. The authors point out that the marketing per-
spective, which tends to focus on value propositions that places can offer to their
target groups, remains reductive. Any place is, by definition, a collective construct
bringing together diverse actors and encompassing a multitude of attributes.
The case of Oslo, briefly mentioned previously, highlights the relevance of
focusing first on the development of a common strategy, which will bring cohesion
between place stakeholders, and naturally lead to more harmonised communication.
Suffering from a lack of international awareness and a lack of coordination between
the actors in charge of promotion, global strategy work for a place brand for Oslo
was carried out in 2014 and 2015. This led to the formation of a Brand Alliance to
improve synergies. This alliance, consisting of Visit Oslo, Oslo Business Region,
and Oslo Region Alliance, gave rise to Oslo Brand Partners, which works on the
region’s international positioning, based on the idea that a clear and attractive image
of Oslo and Norway is a prerequisite to retain and attract expertise, investment, and
visitors. The activities of Oslo Brand Partners are financed by, among other things,
a voluntary contribution from the member municipalities (who number about 30).
An empirical study conducted by Vuignier (2018) in the Canton of Vaud,
Switzerland, sheds light on the place-brand effect, suggesting that a place-brand
summary effect occurs during companies’ location decision process. The study
highlights a certain disconnect between a place-branding initiative launched at the
cantonal level, which finances most of the economic-promotion efforts, and the
effect on companies, which are more sensitive to the national brand (Switzerland)
and to place offerings crossing cantonal borders (cross-border economic clusters
that offer competitive attributes). This underlines the fact that every place brand
is, by virtue of geography, encompassed in multiple layers of place brands. Place
branding at different levels can therefore co-exist, and some degree of contradic-
tion between place-brand messages cannot be ruled out. For the canton of Vaud, the
cantonal level clearly refers, through the Swiss flag, to Switzerland. This is a trend
that can be observed in plenty of place-branding initiatives for economic promo-
tion and tourism at the subnational level in Switzerland (see Figure 4.5).
Place brands in Switzerland, with subnational initiatives often referring to

Figure 4.5
Switzerland in their logos
Source: Own elaboration based on existing logos
Understanding the place-brand summary effect can help promoters to prioritise

the determining factors of attractiveness to be communicated. This could provide
useful arguments for place-branding campaigns and break away from the tendency
to emphasise general messages (often conveyed via superficial slogans) and instead
focus on factors of differentiation (of relevance for target groups). Moreover, if
some determining factors were already strongly linked to the place brand in the
minds of target groups, place promoters would be well advised—resources being
limited—to prioritise their communication efforts by focusing on other factors that
are insufficiently known by the targets they seek to attract (Vuignier, 2018). This
brings us to the importance of linking place-branding initiatives, which seek to cre-
ate a place that is attractive (with a focus on image and reputation), and place mar-
keting, which aims to develop an attracting place (with a focus on target groups’
perceptions and behaviours).
Given the blurry frontiers between place branding and place marketing on the
one hand and the multiple functions of a place brand (as presented previously) on
the other, several initiatives have endeavoured to adopt a holistic approach, launch-
ing projects composed of various branding and marketing dimensions. A project
called “One Village One Product”7 is a compelling example, as it links a holistic
approach of economic development with a focus on local products. This concept
originated in the 1980s in Japan, with a group of women producing home-made
biscuits and selling them in the local market. As the product gained ground in the
market, the women involved learned new skills such as bookkeeping and market-
ing, rapidly improved the quality and packaging of their products, and continu-
ously tweaked their products to satisfy the expectations of their customers. The
project is now implemented around the world by the Japan International Coopera-
tion Agency (JICA), in partnership with the authorities as a mix of skill-develop-
ment programs and place-based promotion of the products.
Notes
1 This chapter is inspired by Vuignier’s article (2017) and doctoral dissertation (2018).
2 “Fribourg devient une marque” [The Swiss canton of Fribourg becomes a brand], article
published in the newspaper La Liberté on November 29, 2022. In the same vein, “Geneva
Is Now a Brand” was the title of an article published in the newspaper Le Temps in 2010,
when a new logo and nametag for the international promotion of Geneva were presented.
3 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), 2015.
4 See: www.jeruzalem-slovenija.si/en/collective-trademark/ for more information on Jeru-
zalem, Slovenija.
5 See Marque Bretagne, Code de marque www.marque-bretagne.fr/code-de-marque/#signs.
6 See Oslo Brand Box www.oslobrandbox.no.
7 See “One Village One Product: How a Japanese idea is changing lives and helping
rural communities” published on May 8, 2017: https://reliefweb.int/report/afghanistan/
one-village-one-product-how-japanese-idea-changing-lives-and-helping-rural.
References
Aaker, D. A. & Joachimsthaler, E. (2000). The brand relationship spectrum: The key to the
brand architecture challenge. California Management Review, 42(4), 8–23.
Aitken, J. (2009). Nazarbayev and the making of Kazakhstan. London & New York:
Continuum.
Alderman, P. & Eggeling, K. A. (2023). Vision documents, nation branding and the legitimation
of non-democratic regimes. Geopolitics. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2023.2165441.
American Marketing Association. (2015). Dictionary. Retrieved from www.ama.org/
resources/Pages/Dictionary.aspx.
Anholt, S. (2010). Places: Identity, image and reputation. Basingstoke & New York: Pal-
grave Macmillan.
Aronczyk, M. (2007). New and improved nations: Branding national identity. In C. Calhoun
& R. Sennett (Eds.), Practicing culture (pp. 105–128). London: Routledge.
Arvidsson, A. (2006). Brand value. Journal of Brand Management, 13(3), 188–192.
Ashworth, G. J. & Kavaratzis, M. (2009). Beyond the logo: Brand management for cities.
Journal of Brand Management, 16(8), 520–531.
Ashworth, G. J. & Voogd, H. (1994). Marketing of tourism places: What are we doing?
Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 6(3–4), 5–19.
Baur, R. & Thiéry, S. (2013). Face au brand territorial: sur la misère symbolique des sys-
tèmes de représentation des collectivités territoriales. Zurich, Switzerland: Lars Müller
Publishers.
Bendel, P. R. (2011). Branding New York City—The saga of “I love New York.” In K. Din-
nie (Ed.), City branding: Theory and cases (pp. 179–183). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bennett, R. & Ali-Choudhury, R. (2009). Prospective students’ perceptions of university
brands: An empirical study. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 19(1), 85–107.
Boisen, M. (2015). Place branding and nonstandard regionalization in Europe. In S. Zenker
& B. P. Jacobsen (Eds.), Inter-regional place branding: Best practices, challenges and
solutions (pp. 13–23). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Boisen, M., Terlouw, K., Groote, P. & Couwenberg, O. (2017). Reframing place promotion,
place marketing, and place branding—Moving beyond conceptual confusion. Cities, 80, 4–11.
Boisseaux, S. & Leresche, J.-P. (2002). Dynamiques régionales et globalisation: le cas de la
politique des AOC-IGP en Suisse. Swiss Political Science Review, 8(3–4), 35–60.
Boland, P. (2013). Sexing up the city in the international beauty contest: The performative
nature of spatial planning and the fictive spectacle of place branding. Town Planning
Review, 84(2), 251–274.
Bourdieu, P. (1982). Ce que parler veut dire: l’économie des échanges linguistiques. Paris,
France: Fayard.
Chamard, C., Gayet, J., Alaux, C., Gollain, V. & Boisvert, Y. (2014). Le marketing territo-
rial: comment développer l’attractivité et l’hospitalité des territoires? Louvain-la-Neuve,
Belgium: De Boeck.
Désilets, V. (2012). La communauté des consultants en marketing territorial et la diffusion
internationale des politiques de branding des villes. Université de Montréal. Retrieved
from https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/xmlui/handle/1866/10997.
Eggeling, K. A. (2020). Nation-branding in practice: The politics of promoting sports, cities
and universities in Kazakhstan and Qatar. London & New York: Routledge.
Eshuis, J. & Edelenbos, J. (2009). Branding in urban regeneration. Journal of Urban Regen-
eration and Renewal, 2(3), 272–282.
Eshuis, J. & Klijn, E.-H. (2011). Branding in governance and public management. London
& New York: Routledge.
Florek, M. (2011). No place like home: Perspectives on place attachment and impacts on
city management. Journal of Town & City Management, 1(4), 346–354.
Florek, M. & Kavaratzis, M. (2014). From brand equity to place brand equity and from there
to the place brand. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 10(2), 103–107.
Gentric, M., Bougeard-Delfosse, C. & Le Gall, S. (2014). Marketing et marquage territo-

rial: du “made in” au “made with”: le cas de la marque Bretagne. International Market-
ing Trends Conference, Venice, Italy, 24–25 January 2014. Retrieved from http://archives.
marketing-trends-congress.com/2014/pages/PDF/229.pdf.
Gollain, V. (2012). Clarifier: de la marque au marketing territorial. Journée CapCom, Mar-
keting territorial, Lyon, France, 19 October 2012.
Goscilo, H. (2013). Putin as celebrity and cultural icon. New York: Routledge.
Govers, R. (2013). Why place branding is not about logos and slogans. Place Branding and
Public Diplomacy, 9(2), 71–75.
Govers, R. (2018). Imaginative communities: Admired cities, regions and countries. Ant-
werp, Belgium: Reputo Press.
Hildreth, J. (2013). The joys and sorrows of logos and slogans in place branding. Place
Branding and Public Diplomacy, 9(4), 217–222.
Holcomb, B. (1994). City make-overs: Marketing the post-industrial city. In J. R. Gold &
S. V. Ward (Eds.), Place promotion: The use of publicity and marketing to sell towns and
regions (pp. 115–131). Chichester: John Wiley.
Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y. & Uysal, M. (2006). Destination image and destination personal-
ity: An application of branding theories to tourism places. Journal of Business Research,
59(5), 638–642.
Houllier-Guibert, C.-E. (2011). La fabrication de l’image officielle de la ville pour un ray-
onnement européen: Gouvernance, idéologies, coopération territoriale et rayonnement.
Cahiers de Géographie Du Québec, 55(154), 7–35.
Kapferer, J.-N. (2011). France: Pourquoi penser marque? Revue Française de Gestion,
9–10(218–219), 13–23.
Kapferer, J.-N. (2012). The new strategic brand management: Advanced insights and stra-
tegic thinking (5th ed.). London: Kogan Page Publishers.
Kapferer, J.-N. (2013). N’est pas marque qui veut. La Revue Des Marques, 82, 119–122.
Kavaratzis, M. (2009). Cities and their brands: Lessons from corporate branding. Place
Branding and Public Diplomacy, 5(1), 26–37.
Kavaratzis, M. & Florek, M. (2022). Place branding. In D. Buhalis (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
tourism management and marketing (pp. 507–510). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Kotler, P. (2003). Marketing insight from A to Z. New York: Wiley.
Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. (2013). Principles of marketing (15th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Pren-
tice Hall.
Kotler, P. & Gertner, D. (2002). Country as brand, product, and beyond: A place marketing
and brand management perspective. Journal of Brand Management, 9(4), 249–261.
Kotler, P., Haider, D. & Rein, I. (1993). Marketing places. Attracting investment, industry
and tourism to cities, states, and nations. New York: Maxwell Macmillan Int.
Lucarelli, A. & Berg, P. (2011). City branding: A state‐of‐the‐art review of the research
domain. Journal of Place Management and Development, 4(1), 9–27.
Manning, P. (2010). The semiotics of brand. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39, 33–49.
Marsh, D. & Fawcett, P. (2011). Branding, politics and democracy. Policy Studies, 32(5),
515–530.
Maynadier, B. (2009). Marque de ville, étude des modalités sémiotiques de génération d’une
marque par une ville. PhD thesis, University of Toulouse 1 Capitole, France.
Messely, L., Dessein, J. & Lauwers, L. (2010). Regional identity in rural development:
Three case studies of regional branding. Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce,
4(3–4), 19–24.
Metaxas, T. (2009). Place marketing, strategic planning and competitiveness: The case of
Malta. European Planning Studies, 17(9), 1357–1378.
Meyronin, B. (2015). Marketing territorial: Enjeux et pratiques (3rd ed.). Paris, France:
Vuibert.
Michel, G. (2010). Au cœur de la marque: créer, développer et évaluer la marque. Paris,
France: Dunod.
Miles, C. (2013). Persuasion, marketing communication, and the metaphor of magic. Euro-
pean Journal of Marketing, 47(11/12), 2002–2019.
Moore, R. (2010). Astana, Kazakhstan: The space station in the steppes. The Guardian, 8
August 2010. Retrieved April 5, 2023, from www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/08/
astana-kazakhstan-space-station-steppes.
Sataøen, H. L. & Wæraas, A. (2015). Branding without unique brands: Managing similarity
and difference in a public sector context. Public Management Review, 17(3), 443–461.
Saunders, R. A. (2007). In defence of Kazakshilik: Kazakhstan’s war on Sacha Baron Cohen.
Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 14, 225–255.
Schatz, E. (2006). Access by accident: Legitimacy claims and democracy promotion in
authoritarian Central Asia. International Political Science Review, 27(3), 263–284.
Skinner, H. (2008). The emergence and development of place marketing’s confused identity.
Journal of Marketing Management, 24(9–10), 915–928.
Staszak, J.-F. (2000). Prophéties autoréalisatrices et géographie. Espace Géographique,
29(2), 105–119.
Styvén, M., Mariani, M. & Strandberg, C. (2020). This is my hometown! The role of place
attachment, congruity, and self-expressiveness on residents’ intention to share a place
brand message online. Journal of Advertising, 49(5), 540–556.
Thomas, M. B., Fay, D. L. & Berry, F. S. (2021). More than a logo: Branding viewpoints
from city managers leading to testable propositions. Public Performance & Management
Review, 44(6), 1395–1421.
Usunier, J.-C. (2011). The shift from manufacturing to brand origin: Suggestions for improv-
ing COO relevance. International Marketing Review, 28(5), 486–496.
Van Ham, P. (2002). Branding territory: Inside the wonderful worlds of PR and IR theory.
Millennium—Journal of International Studies, 31(2), 249–269.
Vincent, J., Hill, J. S. & Lee, J. W. (2009). The multiple brand personalities of David Beck-
ham: A case study of the Beckham brand. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 18(3), 173–180.
Vuignier, R. (2017). Place branding & place marketing 1976–2016: A multidisciplinary lit-
erature review. International Review of Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 14(4), 447–473.
Vuignier, R. (2018). Attractivité des territoires et place branding: étude exploratoire de la
sensibilité des décideurs d’entreprise à la marque territoriale. PhD thesis, University of
Lausanne, Switzerland.
Ward, S. V. (1998). Selling places: The marketing and promotion of towns and cities, 1850–
2000. Chichester: Taylor & Francis.
Warnaby, G. & Medway, D. (2013). What about the “place” in place marketing? Marketing
Theory, 13(3), 345–363.
Wiedmann, K.-P. (2014). The future of brand and brand management—Some provocative
propositions from a more methodological perspective. Journal of Brand Management,
21(9), 743–757.
Zavattaro, S. M. (2014). Place branding through phases of the image. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.

Place Branding and Place Marketing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Place Branding and Place Marketing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Place Branding and Place Marketing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 Place branding and place

4.2 The field of place branding and place marketing

though the idea of branding is an accepted, or at least tolerated, feature of

Conceptual and theoretical bases

Very broad definition

Communication Framework Place making / aesthetics

Figure 4.2 The diversity of place-branding and -marketing research

Figure 4.3 Posters from the early 20th century

Another layer of confusion is added by many contributions in the scientific and

Identity, Reputation Attractiveness

Build identity (inside-out) Satisfy needs and demand

Figure 4.4 Place branding ∞ Place marketing

full of cases of a wide variety of branding objects: famous personalities, such as

4.3 Branding for places

Box 4.1 Nation branding in Kazakhstan

Box written by Kristin A. Eggeling.

Place branding is usually defined as “the application of branding to places such

Place branding through a legal lens

for the brand BRETAGNE.5 A place-brand box containing communication content

Place branding through the communication lens

Launching a place-branding initiative often starts with the idea of communicating

Box 4.2 The case of Ghent, Belgium

Box written in collaboration with Melanie De Vocht and

As a place is by nature composed of various institutions, development of the

Table 4.1 Differences between institutional branding and place branding

Institutional branding Place branding

Promotion of actions and services Promotion of all products, services, and

Source: Adapted from Gollain (2012)

Place branding from the angle of brand architecture

In the case of place-brand management, the specificities of the place as a brand-

American Marketing Association (2015) defines the country-of-origin effect, which

Place branding through the marketing lens: a holistic strategic concept

When place brand is mobilised as a marketing concept, it becomes more than a

• Identity-based and symbolic: the identity function can be translated by a feeling

• Distinctive and informative (differentiation): the perception of the place brand

Place brands in Switzerland, with subnational initiatives often referring to

Understanding the place-brand summary effect can help promoters to prioritise

Gentric, M., Bougeard-Delfosse, C. & Le Gall, S. (2014). Marketing et marquage territo-

You might also like

4.2 The field of place branding and place marketing

4.3 Branding for places