Sebastian 

Zenker · Björn P. Jacobsen
Editors

Inter-Regional
Place Branding
Best Practices, Challenges and Solutions
Inter-Regional Place Branding
Sebastian Zenker • Björn P. Jacobsen
Editors

Inter-Regional Place
Branding
Best Practices, Challenges and Solutions

123
Editors
Sebastian Zenker Björn P. Jacobsen
Department of Marketing Geddes Institute for Urban Research
Copenhagen Business School University of Dundee
Frederiksberg, Denmark Nethergate, Dundee, UK

ISBN 978-3-319-15328-5 ISBN 978-3-319-15329-2 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-15329-2

Library of Congress Control Number: 2015935737

Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.

springer.com)
Foreword: Interregional Place Branding: A New
Frontier?

Places in Europe compete for tourists, investors, media attention, companies,

residents and qualified workforce. As a result, they increasingly adopt business
strategies in general and marketing techniques in particular trying to establish their
place as a brand and promote their place to its different target groups. By this
means, place marketing and branding have become part of the contemporary place
strategies.
It is obvious that place branding refers to different spatial scales: neighbour-
hoods, districts, cities, regions and nations. Each of these spatial scales has their
particular characteristics and challenges for place branding that practitioners need
to deal with. The small but growing place branding research community has studied
the application of place branding on some of these spatial scales.
Interregional place branding has not been a frequent subject of place branding
research. Across Europe there are examples of regions in the same country that
decided to join forces to “brand themselves”. This cooperation brings new issues
to the table such as: What are the benefits of a joint interregional brand? What
distinguishes our regions from others? Is there enough common ground to brand
two or more regions together? What are fitting brand associations? Do the regional
stakeholders support the interregional branding? How to manage (possible) cultural
differences? These are just some of the questions that present themselves when two
or more regions aim to develop a joint place brand.
Interregional branding gets yet another dimension when it crosses national
borders. Cultural differences are present by definition, administrative systems are
geared to the national context and finding common ground for joint place branding
becomes even more challenging. While non-European examples of transnational
place branding exist, the rise of transnational regions and the development of
branding strategies for these regions can be described as a European phenomenon.
The typical form of transnational regional cooperation is the Euregion, which
was created to reduce administrative, cultural-linguistic or infrastructural barriers
separating the governments, firms and residents of border regions. INTERREG
funding is available for enabling projects to reach these aims. A considerable
number of transnational initiatives identified transnational place branding as one

v
vi Foreword: Interregional Place Branding: A New Frontier?

of their tasks. The idea is that by communicating the assets of the combined
transnational region as a single offering, the combined offering is more attractive
and diverse than that of the separate parts of the region. The implicit promise is that
all these assets are within reach from any location within the transnational region.
The gradual reduction of legal, administrative and cultural-linguistic barriers along
internal borders of the European Union as well as continued investment in border-
spanning transportation infrastructure makes this promise more realistic. At the
same time, transnational place branding is an under-researched theme in the place
branding literature. This edited volume aims to contribute to fill in this research gap.

Erasmus University Erik Braun

Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Overview

Even though places are social and political constructs, most of them are currently
run in ways that parallel a business – they require management and business
strategies in order to achieve defined goals. One strategy that place officials have
adopted involves implementing marketing and branding strategies in order to
promote the place and thereby attract residents, tourists, businesses and investments.
The growth of this practice has spurred academia’s rising interest in the topic of
place branding. Scholars have devoted considerable attention to the role of place
branding at the city and country levels, but the regional level has thus far been
largely neglected. Regions are especially important because they both compete and
cooperate (within one country or between countries), in turn building so-called
interregional brands with a large degree of complexity. This book examines and
clarifies key aspects of regional branding with a special focus on interregional
brands. It provides a theoretically well-informed but practically oriented overview
of this phenomenon, including numerous cases and best practices. As such, it is
aimed at both academics and practitioners in the field.
In Chap. 1, Sebastian Zenker and Björn P. Jacobsen share their “Introduction
to interregional place branding”. They aim to define the interregional brand and
examine different concepts in order to provide clarity on the field of place branding.
In doing so, they highlight the special character of interregional place branding and
apply the aforementioned concepts to a particular interregional place branding case,
namely the Fehmarnbelt region.
In Chap. 2, Martin Boisen reflects on “Place branding and nonstandard regional-
ization in Europe”. The vantage point of this chapter is that every place is a brand; it
follows, then, that the processes of non-standard regionalization, which are evident
all over Europe, have created new places and thus new place brands. The chapter
argues that traditional meta-geographies cannot be ignored when employing place
branding within these new types of regions. In short, the chapter is intended as a first
attempt for a structured conventionalization of the different types of interregional
branding.

vii
viii Overview

In Chap. 3, Mikael Andéhn and Sebastian Zenker present “Place Branding in

Systems of Place – on the Interrelation of Nations and Supranational Places”. In
this chapter, the authors challenge the assumption that places can be branded from
scratch, on the basis that a place is often a “brand” long before it is formally branded.
A place brand is, by definition, rooted in a system of geographical abstractions,
in which each place is understood in relation and contrast to other geographical
entities. Using the example of nation branding for Sudan and Slovenia, the authors
identify supranational places such as “sub-Saharan Africa” or “Eastern Europe”,
which carry their own highly salient and often negative meaning. In sum, the chapter
explores how a place’s systematic associations influence branding efforts.
In Chap. 4, Cecilia Pasquinelli contributes “Network brand and branding: A
co-opetitive approach to local and regional development”. This chapter questions
the common assumption that places are motivated by competition to pursue place
branding. To this end, the chapter explores the issue of network branding, which is
based on a co-opetitive rationale for economic development. Derived from business
studies, co-opetition refers to the benefits that organizations may receive from
simultaneously cooperating and competing with other organizations in value chains
(including competitors).
In Chap. 5, Aleksandra Khamadieva presents a “Development of a methodology
for measuring the residents’ utility within place marketing”. Focusing on the
important target group of residents, the author investigates which factors are most
important for a place and how those can be measured. These questions become even
more complicated in the context of interregional marketing and branding strategies,
as two or more regions can unite in order to establish one strong place brand.
The author therefore strives to explain the importance of researching this issue and
proposes possible approaches.
In Chap. 6, Renaud Vuignier talks about “Cross-border place branding: The
case of Geneva highlighting multidimensionality of places and the potential role of
politico-institutional aspects”. The author states that the issues of attracting tourists
and companies have been extensively examined by place promoters, location
branders, economists and other scholars. However, the analysis of residents’ role in
place branding has been overlooked until recently and represents a new interest for
researchers. Thus, the chapter aims to further develop the concept of place branding,
both theoretically and empirically, through a case study of the Grand Genève (Great
Geneva).
In Chap. 7, Tony Jackson writes about “Interregional place-branding concepts:
The role of amenity migration in promoting place- and people-centred develop-
ment”. This chapter draws on new regionalism theory to assess the role of amenity
migration in promoting place- and people-centred rural development strategies
through the use of interregional place branding. It concludes with a brief review of
current interregional place branding practices. The chapter considers the capacity of
interregional place branding to facilitate the “territorial attractiveness” of Europe’s
transnational areas and suggests that funding for its integration should be sought
from the European Commission’s avowedly place-driven Cohesion Policy.
Overview ix

In Chap. 8, Jan-Jelle Witte and Erik Braun present a study about “Cross-
border place branding in Europe”. Although labelled in various ways, cross-border
partnerships are being arranged in all member states of the EU and beyond, hailed
as the Regionalization of Europe. This chapter explores the extent of cross-border
place branding in Europe as well as differences between cases in terms of the
type of cross-border region, the scale of the region and the scope of the branding
initiative relative to the target audiences addressed. Moreover, the chapter provides
a first measurement of the outcome, leading the authors to suggest some possible
relationships between the characteristics of the cross-border branding initiatives and
their outcomes.
In Chap. 9, Evan Cleave and Godwin Arku focus on “Reaching a ‘critical mass’:
Analysis of interregional place branding amongst communities in Ontario, Canada”.
They concentrate on a cooperative approach that allows individual communities
to reach a critical mass of population, resources and political infrastructure. The
analysis in this chapter attempts to fill a gap in place branding literature by
examining whether there are clusters of communities that currently have the
potential to cooperate in their branding efforts. To this end, the authors use spatial
autocorrelation of place brands amongst the communities of Ontario, Canada,
to identify potential groups of neighbouring communities with similar branding
agendas and compare them to existing collaborative efforts.
In Chap. 10, Eduardo Oliveira presents “A strategic spatial planning approach
to cross-border place branding with references to Galicia and Northern Portugal”.
This chapter adopts a strategic spatial planning approach to think about potential
joint place branding initiatives between cross-border regions. The case study within
focuses on the extended cross-border European region consisting of northern
Portugal and northwest Spain (according to the NUTS 3 classification). Employing
knowledge from the strategic spatial planning literature, the chapter aims to
contribute to the academic debate on interregional place branding by discussing
the potential development of place branding initiatives across administrative border
regions.
In Chap. 11, Pantazis Pastras and Manolis Psarros write about “Challenges for
interregional place branding for cruise tourism in the Black Sea region”. In doing
so, the authors add another viewpoint to the discussion by focusing on tourism and
destination branding in interregional place branding. This chapter explores how the
development of a brand for cruise tourism in the Black Sea region is incorporated
into a wider context of conditions and factors that shape interregional place branding
in the same area. Not only does the chapter shed light on the interrelationship of
a place and a destination brand, it also offers empirical evidence of the dynamic
nature of brand-building processes, through the case of a rather complex segment
of the tourism market, in terms of the interactions amongst areas, interests and
policies.
Finally, in Chap. 12, Anna Augustyn and Magdalena Florek present “Branding
a cluster of regions: The Eastern Poland macro-region case study”. The purpose of
this chapter is to analyse and provisionally evaluate the Programme of Economic
x Overview

Promotion of Eastern Poland. In this chapter, the authors make an attempt to

evaluate the validity of the entire idea of joint economic promotion, in which regions
compete with each other in many aspects but at the same time present similar offers
and have limited resources to promote themselves separately. The authors also try
to assess whether the midterm synergy effect was achieved after the programme’s
implementation.
Contents

1 Introduction to Interregional Place Branding . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Sebastian Zenker and Björn P. Jacobsen
2 Place Branding and Nonstandard Regionalization in Europe .. . . . . . . . 13
Martin Boisen
3 Place Branding in Systems of Place – on the Interrelation
of Nations and Supranational Places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Mikael Andéhn and Sebastian Zenker
4 Network Brand and Branding: A Co-opetitive Approach
to Local and Regional Development .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Cecilia Pasquinelli
5 Development of a Methodology for Measuring
the Residents’ Utility Within Place Marketing . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Aleksandra Khamadieva
6 Cross-Border Place Branding: The Case of Geneva
Highlighting Multidimensionality of Places
and the Potential Role of Politico-Institutional
Aspects .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Renaud Vuignier
7 Interregional Place-Branding Concepts: The Role
of Amenity Migration in Promoting Place-
and People-Centred Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Tony Jackson
8 Cross-Border Place Branding in Europe.. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Jan-Jelle Witte and Erik Braun
9 Reaching a ‘Critical Mass’: Analysis of Interregional
Place Branding Amongst Communities in Ontario, Canada . . . . . . . . . . 99
Evan Cleave and Godwin Arku

xi
xii Contents

10 A Strategic Spatial Planning Approach to Cross-Border

Place Branding with References to Galicia and Northern Portugal . . 115
Eduardo Oliveira
11 Challenges for Interregional Place Branding for Cruise
Tourism in the Black Sea Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Pantazis Pastras and Manolis Psarros
12 Branding a Cluster of Regions: The Eastern Poland
Macro-region Case Study .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Anna Augustyn and Magdalena Florek

About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Index . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Chapter 1
Introduction to Interregional Place Branding

Sebastian Zenker and Björn P. Jacobsen

Abstract Place branding is an inherently difficult venture, since places are complex
systems of geographical abstractions, each one understood in relation and contrast
to other geographical entities. Even at the smallest size – a district, town, or city –
a place is quite complex, but it becomes even more challenging when the entity
exists on a higher level, like a region, two or more joined regions, or a country.
When performing place branding, regions often not only differentiate themselves
but also cooperate (within one country or between countries), thereby building so-
called interregional brands with a high degree of complexity.
In this chapter, we will define the place brand and examine different concepts
to understand branding as they relate to places. In a next step, we will highlight
the special character of interregional place branding. Finally, we will apply these
concepts to a particular interregional place branding case, namely, the Fehmarnbelt
region. In this way, we aim to provide a strong foundation for the cases and concepts
detailed by subsequent authors.

Keywords Place brand • Brand management • Brand perception • Interregional

place branding

Introduction

In the ongoing discussion about the competition between places, common sense
suggests that places perpetually compete for residents, tourists, companies, invest-
ments and funding, or attention in general. In doing so, places more and more adopt
business strategies in their daily work. One strategy that place officials employ
is implementing marketing and branding strategies to promote their place and
distinguish it from other places (Anholt 2010; Kotler et al. 1993). As a result, place

S. Zenker ()
Department of Marketing, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark
e-mail: [email protected]
B.P. Jacobsen
Geddes Institute for Urban Research, University of Dundee, Nethergate, Dundee DD1 4HN, UK
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 1

S. Zenker, B.P. Jacobsen (eds.), Inter-Regional Place Branding,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-15329-2_1
2 S. Zenker and B.P. Jacobsen

marketers increasingly focus on establishing the place as a brand (Braun 2012).

Unfortunately, place brand managers and branding consultants often disregard the
complexity of place brands, as do their counterparts in the academic arena. To
illustrate this complexity, consider that a place brand derives from the perceptions
of different customer groups (Zenker 2011; Zenker and Braun 2010) and these
perceptions of a place can differ strongly given the various target groups’ myriad
perspectives and interests (e.g., between residents and tourists or internal and
external target groups; see Zenker and Beckmann 2013). Fulfilling these diverse
demands with the support of a fitting place brand poses quite a challenge.
Nevertheless, in practice as well as in academia, the interest in place branding is
greater than ever, as the first meta-analyses of the field by Lucarelli and Berg (2011)
and Gertner (2011) show. Evidently, places are eager to garner positive associations
in the place consumer’s mind in order to further develop and promote their brand.
The introduction of city brand rankings such as the Anholt-GMI City Brands Index
(Anholt 2006) and the Saffron European City Brand Barometer (Hildreth 2013)
exemplifies this effort on a city level. On a country level, nation branding has
also received significant attention from both practitioners and academia (Fan 2006;
Kotler et al. 1993; Olins 2002). In between the city and country is the regional
level: Although the complexity of this level is often very high, region branding
has received relatively little research attention compared to the other two levels.
Understanding regions is especially important since they often not only differentiate
but also cooperate (within one country or between countries), thereby building so-
called interregional brands with a high degree of complexity. Thus, the aim of this
chapter is to introduce the field of interregional place branding and provide a strong
foundation for the cases and concepts described in subsequent chapters.

What Is Place Branding?

In practice, as well as in theory, the definitions and concepts of place branding

and the place brand often lack a proper definition and a consistent usage. As
a result, place branding is often mistakenly understood as place selling (for a
deeper discussion, see Ashworth and Kavaratzis 2009; Berglund and Olsson 2010),
concentrating solely on the promotional aspects of branding while disregarding the
broader aims and scope of place branding. While there are no shared definitions,
there are multiple viewpoints about what a place brand is: a brand, for instance, is a
“name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller’s good or
service as distinct from those of other sellers,” according to the American Marketing
Association (2013). Some researchers criticize this definition as too narrow for use
in the field of companies and especially places (e.g., Kavaratzis 2008; Zenker and
Braun 2010), while others have proposed that the essential feature of a brand is
“nothing more and nothing less than the good name of something that’s on offer
to the public” (Anholt and Hildreth 2005, p. 164). According to Keller (1993),
1 Introduction to Interregional Place Branding 3

Fig. 1.1 Different target groups for place branding

this “good name” or reputation exists as a network of associations in the minds

of the consumers as so-called brand knowledge. This knowledge about a brand is
built through their brand awareness (the degree that customers are aware of all
features of a brand) and their brand image (the perceptions about a brand as reflected
by the brand associations held in customer memory). Customers evaluate those
associations and change their behavior accordingly; this leads to so-called brand
equity (Jacobsen 2012), defined as “the differential effect of brand knowledge on
consumer response to the marketing of the brand” (Keller 1993, p. 8).
But who are these place consumers? From a theoretical point of view, the main
and broadly defined target groups in place marketing are (1) visitors, (2) residents
and workers, and (3) business and industry (Kotler et al. 1993). However, as shown
in Fig. 1.1, the groups actually targeted in recent marketing practice are much
more specific and diverse (Avraham 2000; Braun 2008; Hankinson 2005; Zenker
2009). Different subgroups can be found within these groups, like leisure tourists
vs. business tourists or internal and external target groups. These target groups
differ not only in their demographics and social and economic structure but also
in their particular place needs, demands, and expectations. Leisure tourists, for
example, are searching for leisure-time activities like shopping malls or cultural
offerings; investors are more interested in business topics, such as infrastructure
and potential qualified workforce; and also other places’ customers need a suitable
environment for their purposes rather than simply a “dot on the map.” It is of great
importance that a proper brand measurement parallels these diverse demands, as
those measurements must be related to every one of the multiple target groups.
Additionally, nontraditional target groups present a considerable interest for
places; these include the general public opinion, public employees, creditors, the
place’s competitors, and the political agenda setting (public diplomacy). Nontradi-
tional target groups are often ignored, even though the place brand’s impact on those
target groups (and vice versa) can be very strong.
4 S. Zenker and B.P. Jacobsen

Place Brand Perception

Referring to the concept of brand knowledge, Zenker and Braun (2010, p. 3) note
that a place brand is “a network of associations in the consumers’ mind based
on the visual, verbal, and behavioural expression of a place, which is embodied
through the aims, communication, values, and the general culture of the place’s
stakeholders and the overall place design” (for a deeper discussion, see also Zenker
2011). According to the authors, the place brand is not the communicated expression
or the “physical characteristics” of the place (i.e., landscape, architecture, and other
concrete expressions of the place) but the perception of those expressions in the
minds of the target audience(s). These perceptions lead to measurable brand effects
such as a willingness to stay at a place (Zenker and Gollan 2010), place satisfaction
(Insch and Florek 2008), or positive place behavior, like caring for the place (as
shown in Fig. 1.2; Stedman 2002); they therefore seem worthy of mental note
when dealing with place brands. In sum, the complexity of place branding, as
highlighted by these definitions, represents a significant challenge for effectively
communicating the brand and managing different place perceptions.
To fully understand when and how place branding communication works, it is
crucial to understand how place perceptions are built. Appleyard (1979) argues in his
communication model of an environmental action that a producer builds a message
but the consumers interpret the content through their individual social context.
Even though the intended message could mean something completely different,
the received message is ultimately the important one. For example, the activity of
planting trees in an area (with the intention to improve the district and raise current
residents’ satisfaction) can also be seen as an action of gentrification, that is, an
effort to replace the inhabitants with higher-income classes. The meaning of any
message is derived from its social context (see Fig. 1.3) and can therefore lead to
different interpretations.
According to Kavaratzis (2008), place image producers have three ways to
communicate a message: first, through the architecture and real place offerings, as
well as the local peoples’ behavior, which could be labeled as communication via
“place physics”; second, through official channels such as all forms of advertising,

Fig. 1.2 The concept of place brand perception

1 Introduction to Interregional Place Branding 5

Fig. 1.3 Communication model of an environmental action referring to Appleyard (1979)

Fig. 1.4 A combined model of place perception

public relations, or public diplomacy, which can be labeled “place communication”;

and third, through word-of-mouth details reinforced foremost by the media and
the residents themselves, which can be described as “place word-of-mouth.” Taken
together, these three forms of communication create the basis of place perception in
the minds of consumers and ultimately engender brand effects like place attachment
(Stedman 2002), place satisfaction (Insch and Florek 2008), or the intention to
stay in or leave a place (Zenker and Gollan 2010). Combining these thoughts,
we conclude with an advanced model of place perception (see Fig. 1.4) in which
consumers’ perceptions serve as gateway to place attitude and place behavior.

Producing Messages

Pace branding efforts typically center on an attempt to produce messages through

place communication. This is not a simple task, since the intended understanding
of the message must be facilitated with a high degree of accuracy. Official place
communication should plan to incorporate the social context of target groups as a
key parameter. For instance, by claiming that one rural area is better connected than
other rural areas, one could lead consumers to believe that rural areas are badly
connected compared to urban areas. This will very likely happen if the target group
is from urban areas, while customers from rural areas might perceive the message as
6 S. Zenker and B.P. Jacobsen

intended. Furthermore, administrators also need to try and anticipate the messages
delivered by other producers that may or may not accurately represent a place’s
condition. For instance, the global media, which often focus on “easy sell” stories
like high unemployment rates, can shift consumers’ attention to a particular prob-
lem, even though overall unemployment is not a real issue in the region. Moreover,
incongruence between messages can lead to a larger scope of interpretation. In such
a case, people tend to rely on their preexisting stereotypes; this is especially true for
external target audiences (Zenker and Beckmann 2013). There is also the problem
of a message losing its credibility due to incongruence between the message itself
and the perception of a potential receiver. This occurrence is nearly unavoidable if,
for example, a wide gap exists between local residents’ perceptions of their place
and the character of the place suggested by official promotion (Freire 2009).

Receiving Messages

While scholars have given significant attention to the production of messages,

the reception of messages has received significantly less attention. Since branding
in general, and place branding in particular, needs a customer-focused approach
(Braun 2008, 2012), the consumer must be taken more into account. As Keller
(1993) indicated, the brand knowledge of consumers consists of two components:
(1) brand awareness and (2) brand image. This approach may also facilitate a
deeper understanding of place perception. Using Keller’s framework, the first
question of place branding is: does the customer perceive the message at all?
Naturally, information presented in a place branding campaign is worth nothing if
nobody perceives it. More particularly, one should ask: is the target audience being
reached by this information? The second issue then becomes, “how is the message
interpreted?” For example, a region with a couple of windmills is not necessarily
viewed as a green technology leader, since it could not be enough for a change in
perceptions. Or a region’s recently improved infrastructure (e.g., a new highway)
does not have to change the perception of the region as being more accessible, since
the content of this message (better connectivity) is not heard by the buzz and noise
of other messages.

The Special Character of Interregional Place Branding

We define interregional place branding as an approach to jointly branding two

or more regions. These regions could be within one country (e.g., the Hamburg
Metropolitan area, containing the city of Hamburg and Lübeck, as well as some
other municipalities) or between countries (cross-border regions, e.g., the Fehmarn-
belt case presented later, which encompasses regions from Germany and Denmark).
1 Introduction to Interregional Place Branding 7

The first aim of region branding, then, is to create a perception of one geographical
entity in the minds of the target audiences; the second aim is to transfer positive
associations from the single entities to the new interregional brand. This effort is
often undertaken in order for single locations to compensate for their shortcomings
and join forces to accomplish their greater goals.
The city of Hamburg, for instance, markets itself as a region to consumers in
China and India, and in doing so, it effectively raises its size from two million to
nearly five million inhabitants. The city relies on population size to communicate
its status as an important trade partner for India and China. Furthermore, the lack of
affordable housing and industrial space, in tandem with the absence of rural nature
and “small town charm,” can be compensated for by adding smaller regions and
rural areas around the city center to the interregional place brand. Joining with
the city of Hamburg makes sense for the smaller partners, too, since they can
compensate for their lack of (international) awareness, complex infrastructure, and
perceived connectivity by being a part of the Hamburg Metropolitan brand.
Given this very simplified example, it becomes clear that, in an ideal interregional
project, every partner offers some strengths to build a more attractive product
bundle. Very much like in product branding, every partner co-brand (Aaker 2004;
Blackett and Russell 1999) has an opportunity to enhance the interregional place
brand. Of course, this will only work if the region is perceived as unified.
Another important issue in this concept is how consumers use known brands
as anchors to evaluate the new and unknown brand. If consumers’ knowledge of
a particular region is low, they may compensate by using information about other
areas, such as a known part of the region, or by using their knowledge of the next
highest geographical context (the meta-brand; see next chapter for more detail).
For instance, if someone does not know much about the Fehmarnbelt region but
then decides to visit or invest in that region, they could base that decision on their
knowledge about the cities of Hamburg and Copenhagen (which are connected to
that region) or on their knowledge about Germany and Denmark in general. Thus,
when building a “new” geographical entity (interregional brand), it is important to
consider the possible other brand anchors (internal or external).

The Case of the Fehmarnbelt Region

To further illuminate the special character of interregional place branding, we chose

the Fehmarnbelt region as a short, illustrative example. In 2021, one of the greatest
infrastructure projects in Europe, the Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link (a tunnel connecting
Rødby, Denmark, and Puttgarden, Germany), is expected to open. The tunnel’s
completion will have a profound impact on several geographical scales. At the
macroscale, it will bring Scandinavia and Germany much closer together, both for
freight and passenger transport. Moreover, it will considerably reduce travel times
between Copenhagen and Hamburg, allowing the two metropolises to strengthen
8 S. Zenker and B.P. Jacobsen

Fig. 1.5 The geography of

the Fehmarnbelt region

their economic and cultural relations. But of equal importance is the fact that the
fixed link will deeply impact the region directly adjacent to it – namely, the region
encompassing Zealand in Denmark and the city of Lübeck and the counties of
Ostholstein and Plön in Germany (see Fig. 1.5). This cluster of areas is not often
perceived as a single region, but the completion of the fixed link could link them
in meaningful ways. In anticipation of this shift, there is an ambitious and ongoing
effort to build an interregional place brand for the Fehmarnbelt region. However,
the geography covered by the Fehmarnbelt region suffers from a low visibility
among potential investors, businesses, talents, and relevant public stakeholders.
Furthermore, the area referred to as the Fehmarnbelt region does not (yet) function
as cross-border region; it is the expression of a vision and not yet a reality.
For the region itself, there is not yet a transnational umbrella place brand that
unites the German and the Danish parts of the Fehmarnbelt region. In addition,
the region is positioned between two strong city regions that both possess very
powerful place brands. The strength of these place brands is reflected in their
expansion: These cities have enlarged the definition of their region (Copenhagen
now also includes Zealand in its region, while the metropolitan region of Hamburg
1 Introduction to Interregional Place Branding 9

includes Lübeck and Ostholstein), and places close to these metropolitan regions see
advantages in labeling themselves as Copenhagen or Hamburg. Consequently, one
challenge is that the Fehmarnbelt region could be overpowered by adjacent place
brands, since those will work as brand anchors in the minds of target audiences.
In addition to well-educated residents (so-called talents) and tourists, six target
groups are of vital interest for the region: (1) tourism investments, (2) food produc-
tion, (3) medical companies, (4) talents, (5) logistics, and, to some extent, (6) green
energy and green technology. In order to secure these groups, the region focuses on
the target groups’ perceptions of the region. Using the top-of-mind associations of
internal and external target groups, recent studies have uncovered two main themes
surrounding the perception of the region: (1) the touristic theme, including “nature,”
“sea,” and “tranquility”, and (2) the cross-border theme, including “cross-border
cooperation,” “fast connection,” and “Germany” (Braun et al. 2014). In order to
brand the region, academics suggested using specific place products as content in
the brand communication (e.g., well-known companies working in the area, Lübeck
University, or the new tunnel).
It is vital to notice that those specific place products will be most effective when
coupled with communication that fits and/or supports the place’s current perception.
Higher incongruence between the communicated product and current perceptions
increases the likelihood of customers resisting or denying the new picture. Thus, a
drastic image change is not as efficient a solution as a soft and slow “nudge” in the
right direction. Furthermore, not every specific place product is relevant for every
target group: While a university could be an interesting place product for companies
or talents, it is not a focal point from a touristic perspective. Thus, it could be said
that both underlying themes suffice for all different target groups, while the specific
place products serve the interests of particular target groups.
Another challenge posed by the aforementioned studies is the concentration
on touristic associations for attracting companies unrelated to tourism. While
the “tunnel,” “cross-border cooperation,” and “fast connection” could be highly
valuable for businesses, there is a possibility that the two themes counteract each
other. Such a possibility casts serious doubt on the use of a “one-size-fits-all”
Fehmarnbelt interregional brand, since the perception of the region differs between
the analyzed groups; the stability of only the touristic image (and to some extent, the
cross-border cooperation) necessitates more target group-specific communication.
Furthermore, the study shows that, in establishing the Fehmarnbelt interregional
place brand, place officials cannot ignore the powerful and attractive place brands
of Hamburg and Copenhagen (Braun et al. 2014). One of the main effects of
the new tunnel is that travel time will be significantly shortened; as a result, the
“mental distance” between Copenhagen and Hamburg will be shorter as well. Many
stakeholders in the region expect that both cities (and their brands) will benefit from
the improved connection. Thus, one efficient solution for the Fehmarnbelt region
could be to establish itself as “the link between Copenhagen and Hamburg,” thereby
using these two well-known cities as brand anchors in its positioning process.
10 S. Zenker and B.P. Jacobsen

Conclusions

Several issues can be summarized from the theoretical propositions outlined in this
chapter: (1) Place brands are based on consumers’ mental perceptions. (2) Those
perceptions are influenced by different communication factors, namely, the place
physics, the official (brand) communication, and place word-of-mouth. (3) The
consumers’ understanding of the communication is derived from its social context,
which allows for a range of interpretations by each consumer. (4) Interregional place
branding tries to create a new place brand by incorporating two or more regions.
(5) In doing so, the interregional brand includes related place brands of different
geographical hierarchy, since consumers use their knowledge of other brands as
anchors for the new interregional brand.
Applying these assumptions to the presented interregional case, we can clearly
see that consumers’ perceptions of the Fehmarnbelt region are mostly related to
two different themes (touristic and cross-border). When communicating the brand,
the challenge is finding the right content: The specific place products should fit the
current perception, and place marketers should bear in mind that communication
will be interpreted through the social context of the target audience(s). Tourists, for
instance, could perceive communication about the new “tunnel” in terms of “fast
connection,” but they might also see the development as disturbing their touristic
image of the region (more in the direction of noise and traffic instead of easy and fast
accessibility). Thus, the content should be selected carefully. Finally, the case shows
that the interregional Fehmarnbelt brand will work with (and maybe against) the two
other important place brands in the region: Hamburg and Copenhagen. If employed
properly, these two strong place brands could work as positive brand anchors, with
the Fehmarnbelt region positioning itself as the link between both places – a process
that ultimately demonstrates the complexity of interregional place branding.

References

Aaker DA (2004) Brand portfolio management. The Free Press, New York
American Marketing Association (2013) Dictionary American Marketing Association, http://www.
marketingpower.com/_layouts/Dictionary.aspx?dLetter=B. Accessed 24 Dec 2013
Anholt S (2006) Anholt city brand index – “how the world views its cities”, 2nd edn. Global Market
Insight, Bellevue
Anholt S (2010) Places – identity, image and reputation. Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Anholt S, Hildreth J (2005) Let freedom and cash registers ring: America as a brand. J Place
Branding Public Dipl 1(2):164–172
Appleyard D (1979) The environment as a social symbol. J Am Plan Assoc 45(2):143–153
Ashworth GJ, Kavaratzis M (2009) Beyond the logo: brand management for cities. J Brand Manag
16(8):520–531
Avraham E (2000) Cities and their news media images. Cities 17(5):363–370
Berglund E, Olsson K (2010) Rethinking place marketing – a literature review. Paper presented at
the 50th European regional science association congress, Jönköping, 19th–23rd August
1 Introduction to Interregional Place Branding 11

Blackett T, Russell N (1999) What is co-branding? In: Blackett T, Boad B (eds) Co-branding – the
science of alliance. Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 1–21
Braun E (2008) City marketing: towards an integrated approach. Erasmus Research Institute of
Management (ERIM), Rotterdam
Braun E (2012) Putting city branding into practice. J Brand Manag 19(4):257–267
Braun E, Zenker S, Witte J-J (2014) Feasibility study and activity plan for the Fehmarnbelt region.
Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam
Fan Y (2006) Branding the nation: what is being branded? J Vacat Mark 12(1):5–14
Freire JR (2009) Local people: a critical dimension for place brands. J Brand Manag 16(7):420–
438
Gertner D (2011) A (tentative) meta-analysis of the ‘place marketing’ and ‘place branding’
literature. J Brand Manag 19:112–131
Hankinson G (2005) Destination brand images: a business tourism perspective. J Serv Mark
19(1):24–32
Hildreth J (2013) The Saffron European city brand barometer. Saffron brand consultants website,
http://saffron-consultants.com/news-views/publications/. Accessed 21 Dec 2013
Insch A, Florek M (2008) A great place to live, work and play – conceptualizing place satisfaction
in the case of a city’s residents. J Place Manag Dev 1(2):138–149
Jacobsen BP (2012) Place brand equity: a model for establishing the effectiveness of place brands.
J Place Manag Dev 5(3):253–271
Kavaratzis M (2008) From city marketing to city branding: an interdisciplinary analysis with
reference to Amsterdam, Budapest and Athens, PhD thesis, Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit
Groningen
Keller KL (1993) Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. J Mark
57(January):1–22
Kotler P, Haider DH, Rein I (1993) Marketing places: attracting investment, industry, and tourism
to cities, states, and nations. The Free Press, New York
Lucarelli A, Berg PO (2011) City branding – a state of the art review of the research domain. J
Place Manag Dev 4(1):9–27
Olins W (2002) Branding the nation – the historical context. J Brand Manag 9(4–5):241–248
Stedman RC (2002) Towards a social psychology of place: predicting behavior from place-based
cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environ Behav 34(5):561–581
Zenker S (2009) Who’s your target? The creative class as a target group for place branding. J Place
Manag Dev 2(1):23–32
Zenker S (2011) How to catch a city? The concept and measurement of place brands. J Place
Manag Dev 4(1):40–52
Zenker S, Beckmann SC (2013) My place is not your place – different place brand knowledge by
different target groups. J Place Manag Dev 6(1):6–17
Zenker S, Braun E (2010) Branding a city – a conceptual approach for place branding and place
brand management. Paper presented at the 39th European marketing academy conference,
Copenhagen, 1–4 June
Zenker S, Gollan T (2010) Development and implementation of the resident migration scale
(ReMiS): measuring success in place marketing. In: Witte EH, Gollan T (eds) Sozialpsycholo-
gie und Ökonomie. Pabst Verlag, Lengerich, pp 156–172
Chapter 2
Place Branding and Nonstandard
Regionalization in Europe

Martin Boisen

Abstract Place branding might, could, and maybe even should play a central role
in urban and regional governance. The vantage point of this chapter is that every
place is a brand and that the processes of nonstandard regionalization that can be
witnessed all over Europe create new places and, thus, new place brands. When
employing place branding to these new types of regions, however, the traditional
meta-geographies cannot be ignored. In this chapter, the aim is to take a first step
to bring some order into the chaos. To this end, three categories of nonstandard
regionalization are proposed and compared concerning place branding.

Keywords Place branding • Nonstandard regionalization • Urban and regional

governance

Introduction

This chapter offers a critical view of place branding in relation to nonstandard

regionalization. It is not meant to be the outline of a theoretical framework, but
together with the rest of the contributions in this book, it aims to set out some lines
of thought for both theory and practice.
The recent decades have seen a strong increase in the implementation of place
marketing and place branding instruments in relation to economic development in
Europe (Kavaratzis 2004; Boisen 2007; Braun 2008). Although some voices have
been heard proposing that place marketing and place branding can be (and, arguably,
should be) viewed outside of the traditional focus on competitiveness (Kalandides
2012), the neoliberal economic policy doctrine places strategic thinking and policy
action in line with the competitiveness paradigm firmly on the agenda of local and

M. Boisen ()
Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen, Utrecht, The Netherlands
BOISEN – For the Love of Place, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Phønix - The International Place Branding Panel, Utrecht, The Netherlands
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 13

S. Zenker, B.P. Jacobsen (eds.), Inter-Regional Place Branding,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-15329-2_2
14 M. Boisen

regional authorities. At the same time, various developments have seen a rise of
nonstandard regionalization in Europe. Many of these “new” regions engage in so-
called place branding.
The belief that places are actors in an increasingly competitive struggle against
each other in ever-expanding markets might partly explain the rising attention for
place marketing and place branding (Boisen 2007; Lucarelli and Berg 2011; Zenker
et al. 2013), but it does not tell the whole story. Regardless to what extent this
interurban and interregional competition is real or just perceived, the consequences
has become facts (Boisen et al. 2011). Brenner’s re-scaling of statehood and
Harvey’s famously coined from managerialism to entrepreneurialism both signify
structural changes still in the process of happening. Brenner (2004) explains that
the distribution of responsibilities, costs, and benefits over different scalar levels
of spatial authorities (e.g., EU, state, region, municipality) and between the public
and the private sector is changing. Harvey (1989) observed that the roles of local
and regional authorities are shifting from the provision of public services to a more
direct involvement in the economic activities themselves, viewing the place as a
collective project. Both scholars signify a shift from government to governance,
while pointing out that the trajectories vary highly from one geographical context to
another.
The emphasis on competitiveness and entrepreneurialism has created an incen-
tive for places to engage in promotion, marketing, and branding. The perceived
competitive field has evolved from a situation wherein most cities and regions
asserted themselves within a national context to a situation where the national
contexts are becoming less important. As a consequence, cities and regions sense
that their position in a larger geographical context is of more importance than
ever. The application of traditional marketing and branding techniques to places
has brought about a golden age of mass implementation (Boisen et al. 2011).
Looking at strategies, policies, projects, advisory reports, and the body of
emerging scientific literature, the concepts of “promotion,” “marketing,” and
“branding” are often used as synonyms for various instruments employed in place
assertion. This is probably due to the fact that the theory was largely formed
after the first waves of implementation. There exists a substantial amount of
terminological confusion among both practitioners and scholars. And within the
scientific community, no shared definitions exist so far (Gertner 2011; Kavaratzis
and Ashworth 2005). However, as far as the author of this chapter is concerned,
there is a significant difference between the three most frequently used concepts:
(a) promotion is mainly about generating favorable communication, (b) marketing
is mainly about the strategic process of value exchange through the balancing
out of supply and demand, and (c) branding is mainly about creating, sustaining,
and shaping a relevant presence in the minds (and hearts) of people. However
distinct, these three concepts are unquestionably interrelated. But only the concept
of branding requires an indivisible presence: a “brand.” In this chapter, place
branding therefore refers to the conscious process of creating, gaining, enhancing,
and reshaping the distinct presence of a place in the minds and hearts of people.
2 Place Branding and Nonstandard Regionalization in Europe 15

Every Place Is a Brand

Every place is a brand, but not every brand is a place. Places and brands work
in much the same way. They are both distinctive presences in the human mind.
They are denominators, loaded with associations, and take up unique positions
within a nestled hierarchy of relationships. Mentioning the name of a known place
immediately produces a set of associations and values in the mind of the listener.
Mentioning the name of an unknown place produces a vacuum, because of the
lack of associations. The human mind will do its best to fill this vacuum using all
information at hand (see also Chap. 1 in this book). This includes spatial knowledge
and representations from other places, often at other scalar levels. The name of the
place thus signifies values that are attributed to the place. And the place itself is
more than a spatial defined area that has been named. Places are spatially annotated,
mental containers that have meanings, values, features, and stories attributed to them
in a complex interplay between expectations, experiences, and emotions. In this
understanding, a place is not a point on a map but a social construct (Boisen et al.
2011).
A place is an entity; it exists as long as there are people that agree to its
existence. This suggests that places can emerge and disappear as a result of social
processes. Places hold power over people (Brenner 2004; Massey 2005), over their
self-perception, and over their ambitions. Places tell stories, raise expectations, and
promise specific values. In a recent work, Umberto Eco (2013) eloquently makes the
case that places that might never have existed in the material world have inspired
people either to go look for them (thereby discovering new, “real” places) or to
improve their own places. In a temporal sense, a place comes into existence when
meaning is attributed to space and ends when no meaning is left. Places that have lost
all reference yet still appear on historical maps are still seen as places simply due to
their historical dimension. As such, historical dormant places can be brought back to
life if they are relevant enough to contemporary people. Places can thus (re-)appear
and disappear if they gain or lose relevance. More often than disappearing and
reappearing, the meanings attributed to a specific place change over time through
a continuous re-structuration process of “direct” and “mediated” experiences with
and of the place (Adams 2009). If this change is something that happens collectively,
one could argue that the place itself changes through an evolutionary process.
Weichhart et al. (2006), as utilized by Kalandides (2012), distinguish three
processes of place identity: (a) identification of, (b) being identified as, and (c)
identification with. These processes of place identification closely resemble how
people relate to corporate and consumer brands. Also, they fit into the evolutionary
approach sketched in the above: If more people stop identifying the place as such,
stop being identified as belonging to a place (and stop identifying other people to
belong to that place too), and stop identifying with the place, the relevance of the
place weakens. When the opposite happens, the relevance of the place strengthens.
In this sense, outside of the conceptual discussion, there is no clear distinction
between the identity and image of a place. They are two sides of the same coin.
16 M. Boisen

It’s a matter of perspective. If we can discern an evolutionary process referring to

spatial identities, we can also discern an evolutionary process referring to spatial
images.
So if places are brands entangled in a process wherein their meanings and
thus their identities and images are continuously evolving, where does that leave
place branding? The “-ing” refers to the process of consciously trying to influence
and even orchestrate this process. Ambitious. Kalandides (2011) argues that place
branding is “a strategic scheme to improve a place’s image.” Writing about city
branding, Kavaratzis (2004, p. 67) states: “Everything a city consist of, everything
that takes place in the city and is done by the city, communicates messages about
the city’s image.” Combining the two, place branding becomes a strategic scheme to
improve everything that happens in the place and is done by the place. The reference
to the place as an actor here is a metaphor. It includes all actors doing something
in, with, about, or towards the place. It is therefore dramatically wrong to view
place branding (or traditional branding for that matter) as similar to promotion,
advertisement, and campaigns. Place branding is not about selling the place, but
about being the place or becoming the place.
Following this argument, place branding can only hope to achieve a measure
of success if it unites, employs, and targets both the mental and the material
attributes of place. This requires that the place brand strategy has a say in all other
policy domains. Otherwise, policies can be counterproductive in terms of their
consequences for the brand of the place. Although this might seem impossible to
implement in any given institutional context, it is not. The place brand strategy
could be a framework of core values, emphasizing the identity of the place. Such
a framework should then work as a set of guiding principles against which all other
strategies and policies should be judged to the extent to which they are on-brand or
off-brand and to the extent to which their contribution to the place brand is positive,
negative, or neutral.
But if place branding emerges as an integral, strategic approach to everything in
and about the place, how does it differ from governance as such? Maybe it does
not? Maybe a place brand strategy should be the centerpiece of the governance of a
place? Since place branding combines both the material and the mental aspects of a
place and consciously aims to influence both, it is broader, more strategic, and more
inclusive than traditional governance strategies, which tend to focus on either the
mental (often limited to promotion) or the material (often limited to development)
aspects of place. Place branding might, could, and maybe even should play a central
role in urban and regional governance.

Nonstandard Regionalization

The processes of re-scaling and entrepreneurialism mentioned in the introduction

are highly interwoven. As a result, local and regional authorities find themselves
in a position where they are gradually becoming more responsible for their own
2 Place Branding and Nonstandard Regionalization in Europe 17

revenues, their own services, and their own economy (Brenner 2004; Hall and
Hubbard 1998; Jessop 1998). The welfare and well-being of the inhabitants are
on their shoulders. The future prospects and the current challenges are to be
dealt with through local and regional governance, with limited support from
the national government. The national governments are experiencing their own
problems, instigating austerity measures to cut spending in traditional areas of
the welfare state, including the redistribution of wealth between richer and poorer
regions. This development has been going on for decades and has been only slightly
emphasized by the contemporary financial crisis. An evidence to that is that the
economic disparities between EU member states have declined while at the same
time disparities between regions within the member states have increased (Barca
and McCann 2012). Convergence on the national level has gone hand in hand with
divergence on the regional level.
This cocktail of comparative divergence, increased responsibilities, and relatively
limited financial resources is a strong incentive for local and regional authorities to
organize tasks in what appears to be a spatially more functional way or to engage in
regional cooperation to achieve European funding. This has been one of the drivers
of what we can term “nonstandard” regionalization in Europe (Deas 2006). The
“nonstandard” here refers to the fact that the constructed regions do not (have to)
follow a standardized, hierarchical, spatial division. Examples are countless, and
they manifest themselves quite differently. Without proposing a comprehensive,
consistent typology, a number of main categories that can be witnessed are presented
below:
1. Nonstandard regionalization of urban agglomerations. Metropolitan regional-
ization is often instigated to improve the governance of urban agglomerations,
thereby crossing established territorial-administrative borders on different scalar
levels using a “functional” argument frequently related to infrastructure planning
and the provision of public services important to the daily lives of the citizens
(Salet et al. 2003; Brenner 1999). The common denominator is the central,
dominant city, which is believed to be the strongest asset of the metropolitan
area. Positioning the metropolis as an entity to the rest of the world as a good
place to invest, do business, visit, and live is becoming part of the raison
d’être for the new wave of metropolitan regionalization in Europe. Examples
include metropolitan areas such as London and Paris, but also the regions around
cities such as Amsterdam, Barcelona, and Copenhagen are employing branding
techniques to the metropolitan region as an entity. The same is true for the
many metropolitan regions that have spawned throughout Germany, including
traditional monocentric examples as Hamburg, alongside polycentric examples
such as the Ruhr area.
2. Nonstandard regionalization of areas dominated by specific business sectors. In
areas where a certain sector has a predominant position either in real economic
terms or in terms of perceived uniqueness, nonstandard regionalization can occur
around the spatial distribution of this sector. Such regionalization is often driven
by growth coalitions of companies, institutions, and public authorities. Typically,
18 M. Boisen

companies and institutions that do not belong to the dominant sector align
themselves towards this sector because of their dependence on the success of this
sector. The sector becomes the common denominator of the region (Boisen et al.
2011). The central argument in such cases is often to project a strong proposition
to potential investors, which – if successful – is believed to benefit the entire area.
Examples of this category are equally popular, including areas such as the Food
Valley (the Netherlands), the BioValley (France, Germany, and Switzerland), and
the Medicon Valley (Denmark and Sweden).
3. Nonstandard regionalization of project-based cross-border cooperation. As a
result of European integration and specific policy from the European Union,
many projects have been launched with the explicit goal of “crossing national
borders” (European Commission 2014). Along the current borders of the Euro-
pean states, many regions share a cultural, social, linguistic, and economic
history. When the national borders are becoming less significant, these regions
might share their future as well, a strong incentive to get the cooperation right
and legitimize it. The European Union has provided and still provides substantial
funding for cross-border cooperation through the Cohesion Policy (e.g., the
European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the European
Cohesion Fund) – and especially through the different pillars of the INTERREG
initiative. Curiously, the common denominator of such regions is often the
border itself. As a result, new cross-border regions are emerging, and some of
them appear to become institutionalized and continue to exit after the funding
period has ended (Perkmann 2003). Again, examples are ample, with the recent
explorations to brand the Fehmarnbelt Region (Denmark and Germany) and the
former endeavors to brand the Öresund Region (Denmark and Sweden) and the
Centrope Region (Austria, Hungary, Slovakia, and Czech Republic). Sometimes,
this category of regionalization even occurs on a supranational scale, such as the
efforts to build a brand for the entire Baltic Sea Region.
These three categories, and arguably nonstandard regionalization as a phe-
nomenon, share the trait that they render existing territorial-administrative borders
less important. Yet, at the same time, they create new borders and disrupt existing
spatial hierarchies. Although these new borders often have a fuzzy quality to them,
they are both inclusive and exclusive. As a result, the multi-level governance
approach inherent to such regions becomes an exercise in complexity. The formal
responsibilities of such regions are unclear or (deliberately kept) vague. The
democratic legitimization of their existence is weak, the legal frameworks that
govern them are fragile – if at all existing – and they are often presented as promises
of better futures, yet they just as often lack the organizational capacity to realistically
keep such promises. More problematic, the established territorial-administrative
entities can employ such nonstandard regions as vehicles to implement policies that
would not have been received well by the established electoral constituencies. This
can result in a democratic deficit.
At the same time, the “nonstandard” means that these new regions are not
only in opposition to the established territorial-administrative hierarchy but also in
2 Place Branding and Nonstandard Regionalization in Europe 19

opposition to consolidated meta-geographies. Since childhood, most people have

been taught to view their country and even the world in a nicely organized and
administratively divided map. Since the European Middle Ages, multiple loyalties
have largely been ignored to produce political maps of the world, systematically
arranged with different administrative entities holding different powers on different
scalar levels. In consequence, people are taught and trained to automatically
perceive spatial entities (and thus spatial identities) within a meta-geographical
framework of meaning. The nonstandard regions disturb this relationship.

A Place Branding Perspective on Nonstandard Regionalization

From a place branding perspective, nonstandard regionalization can make a lot

of sense if the resulting regions share common denominators, relevant to both
their stakeholders and their target groups, internally and externally. Otherwise, the
resulting regions do not become places, meaning they have no other relevance than
a specific funding stream for a limited period of time. The denominators can be
historical, cultural, economic, or likewise, but ideally they should set the region
apart from other regions, if possible in a way that strengthens the general proposition
of the area. Although this theoretically makes sense, this is not always the case in
the practice. To understand why, let us review the three categories formulated in the
above:
1. Place branding and nonstandard regionalization of urban agglomerations.
Often called “metropolitan regions,” these young entities often float between
the traditional territorial-administrative levels of the municipalities and the
provinces. Europe has seen different waves of re-scaling around large cities,
but only in a limited amount of cases has this resulted in regions that have
been incorporated into the territorial-administrative system. If we consider these
new regions to be places, their place brands will be strongly dominated by
attributes “borrowed” from the dominant center city. This is especially true
from an outsider’s perspective. The large city will probably be better known,
already hold a mental presence in the mind of the outsider, and as such be
considered more relevant. To insiders, it is more complex. The metropolitan level
borrows attributes from the dominant city and increases the point of reference to
which these belong. This can spawn opposition among insiders who might feel
excluded, although they feel that the place belongs to them. Finding the right
balance between engaging the outsiders and inclusion of the insiders is tricky.
Achieving consensus among the numerous stakeholders involved is challenging
and often results in an exercise in trying to say everything at once, evidently
resulting in saying nothing at all.
2. Place branding and nonstandard regionalization of areas dominated by specific
business sectors. In some cases, when growth coalitions of companies, public
and private institutions, and public authorities in an area with one or two strong
20 M. Boisen

business sectors ally to strengthen this sector, a “new” nonstandard region

emerges. These are the prime examples of the regions that Terlouw (2009) had
in mind when he coined the term “thin regional identities.” Because such regions
are created around specific business sectors, their relevance is rather high for
very specific segments of inside and outside actors, while their relevance can be
close to nonexisting for other actors. In a sense, such regions are only places
for the segments that deem them relevant and view them as such. From a place
branding perspective, this creates the situation closest to traditional branding. A
place, which is largely unknown, can never be seen outside its spatial context, yet
when the region is designed and projected around one or two specific attributes,
the brand becomes more focused, narrower, more distinctive, and thus stronger
(Boisen et al. 2011). In this category, the business sector(s) function as the
common denominator, and the region does not become a region in the sense that
it does not aspire to be so. It can peacefully coexit alongside other, overlapping
regions, and it does not have to deal with the same magnitude of opposition
and balancing out of the interest of stakeholders. In potential, such regions can
become very strong place brands if they manage to keep their focus.
3. Place branding and nonstandard regionalization of project-based cross-border
cooperation. In some cases, these new regions are simply the products of funding
schemes, related to various versions of the European Cohesion Policy (Nelles
2014). This means that the area involved is often put together to achieve a specific
balance of territorial-administrative entities and create a basis for project-based
governance. The goals vary from case to case, spanning a broad spectrum from
the establishment of large-scale infrastructure and the exchange of cultures and
best practices to the strengthening of entrepreneurial corridors. Place branding
is only relevant when the cross-border region has a vision for a shared future.
And it is only sensible if there exist a number of shared denominators. In many
cases, there are historical denominators (e.g., a shared past), but in a lot of cases,
there are none. In such cases, the common denominator could be found in the
contemporary economic sector – resembling the second category. In the cases
where there is no vision for a shared future and no common denominators, place
branding is not directly of added value. In fact, when the border itself remains
the common denominator, the nonstandard cross-border region will not aspire
to become a place – whereby the instrument of place branding seems to be the
wrong choice.
A curious situation can be identified where all these three categories happen
at the same time for the same place. This has been – and still is – the case with
Copenhagen. Having undergone the Danish Structural Reform of 2007 (Boisen
2006), Copenhagen found itself in a new context where the regional level of
the territorial-administrative system in Denmark did not fit the metropolitan level
of the city. Therefore, municipalities and regions joined up in the creation of a
different, nonstandard region to support the development of the city at a regional
level (category 1). Copenhagen was already investing in the setting up of various
independent institutions to promote growth thereby employing a regionalization
2 Place Branding and Nonstandard Regionalization in Europe 21

strategy for specific sectors, such as the life sciences with the Medicon Academy
and Medicon Valley initiatives (category 2). And at the same time, the efforts
to brand the Öresund Region (category 3) was obviously relying quite intensely
on Copenhagen as the biggest city, far outreaching Swedish Malmö in terms
of worldwide acknowledgement and attractiveness. Speaking from a branding
perspective, it seems inefficient to have at least three different regional entities trying
to brand themselves while concerning themselves with the same actual physical
places.
In all three categories, the nonstandard region is less “place” than streets,
squares, parks, neighborhoods, cities, regions, and countries are. This fact has
some interesting consequences for the place branding process. By striving for a
certain level of homogeneity on a larger scalar level, the nonstandard region might
unwillingly weaken existing place brands on other spatial levels.

Concluding Remarks

Place branding is becoming a commonly used instrument for both old and new
regions to assert themselves. Although there is a lot of terminological confusion at
work, the beginnings of some disciplinary consensus are emerging. The popularity
of place branding and kindred instruments (place promotion, place marketing) is
not likely to decline anytime soon. The competitiveness paradigm and the processes
of re-scaling and entrepreneurialism means that more and more places engulf in
activities to become or remain relevant in expanding markets and disrupted meta-
geographies. “New” places are not blank pieces of paper that can be “brought to
market” or “branded” distinctively from their spatial context.
Compared to more established regions, the nonstandard regions seem to come
with a lot of deficits. By establishing the new region as a place that matters, the
governance institutions in charge hope to strengthen their own institutioinalization.
By claiming or aspiring to matter to the world at large, they hope to convince
themselves and their stakeholders that they actually matter to themselves. Therefore,
when such nonstandard regions indulge in place branding, it is both to “secure a
place in the world” and as a way of legitimizing their own existence. Needless to
say, the latter should not be the reason for employing place branding as a strategy. If
the goal is to create better places, place branding should be employed at the scalar
level that makes most sense to both insiders and outsiders. This might well mean
that the multi-level approach to governance should result in a multi-level approach
to place branding.
As we have explored in this chapter, the combination between nonstandard
regions and place branding poses some interesting questions. The other contribu-
tions in this book form a good vantage point to approach these questions further,
yet, as always, more research is needed to truly grasp the value and relevance that
place branding offers to nonstandard regions.
22 M. Boisen

References

Adams PC (2009) Geographies of media and communication. Wiley Blackwell, Chichester

Barca F, McCann P (2012) The case for regional development intervention: place-based versus
place-neutral approaches. J Reg Sci 52(1):134–152. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9787.2011.00756.x
Boisen M (2006) Re-drawing the map of Denmark: regional planning and the Danish structural
reform of 2007. In: Pre-graduate paper on urban and regional planning. Faculty of Geosciences,
Utrecht University, Utrecht
Boisen M (2007) City marketing in contemporary urban governance. Paper presented to the
51st world conference of the International Federation of Housing and Planning (IFHP),
Copenhagen, 23–26 September
Boisen M, Terlouw K, van Gorp B (2011) The selective nature of place branding and the layering
of spatial identities. J Place Manag Dev 4(2):135–147. doi:10.1108/17538331111153151
Braun E (2008) City marketing: towards an integrated approach. Erasmus Research Institute of
Management (ERIM), Rotterdam. http://hdl.handle.net/1765/13694. Accessed 17 Feb 2014
Brenner N (1999) Globalisation as reterritorialisation: the re-scaling of urban governance in the
European union. Urban Stud 36(3):431–451
Brenner N (2004) New state spaces: urban governance and the re-scaling of statehood. Oxford
University Press, New York
Deas I (2006) From a new regionalism to an unusual regionalism? the emergence of non-
standard regional spaces and lessons for the territorial reorganisation of the state. Urban Stud
43(10):1847–1877. doi:10.1080/00420980600838143
Eco U (2013) The book of legendary lands. Rizzoli Ex Libris, New York
European Commission (2014) Regional policy – inforegio. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/
index_en.cfm. Accessed 10 Mar 2014
Gertner D (2011) A (tentative) meta-analysis of the ‘place marketing’ and ‘place branding’
literature. J Brand Manag 19(2):112–131
Hall T, Hubbard P (1998) The entrepreneurial city: geographies of politics, regime, and represen-
tation. Wiley, New York
Harvey D (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban gover-
nance in late capitalism. Geogr Ann B Hum Geogr 71(1):3–17
Jessop B (1998) The rise of governance and the risk of failure: the case of economic development.
Int Soc Sci J 115(50):29–45. doi:10.1111/1468-2451.00107
Kalandides A (2011) The problem with spatial identity: revisiting the ‘sense of place’. J Place
Manag Dev 4(1):28–39. doi:10.1108/17538331111117142
Kalandides A (2012) Place branding and place identity. An integrated approach. Tafter J
(43). http://www.tafterjournal.it/2012/01/03/place-branding-and-place-identity-an-integrated-
approach/
Kavaratzis M (2004) From city marketing to city branding. Place Branding 1(1):58–73
Kavaratzis M, Ashworth GJ (2005) City branding: an effective assertion of identity or a transitory
marketing trick? Tijdschr Econ Soc Geogr 96(5):506–514
Lucarelli A, Berg PO (2011) City branding: a state-of-the-art review of the research domain.
J Place Manag Dev 4(1):9–27
Massey D (2005) For space. Sage, London
Nelles J (2014) Political rescaling and metropolitan governance in cross-border regions: comparing
the cross-border metropolitan areas of Lille and Luxembourg. Eur Urban Reg Stud 21(1):104–
122. doi:10.1177/0969776411431103
Perkmann M (2003) Cross-border regions in Europe: significance and drivers of regional cross-
border co-operation. Eur Urban Reg Stud 10(2):153–171. doi:10.1177/0969776403010002004
Salet W, Thornley A, Kreukels A (2003) Metropolitan governance and spatial planning: compara-
tive case studies of European city-regions. Spon Press, London
2 Place Branding and Nonstandard Regionalization in Europe 23

Terlouw K (2009) Rescaling regional identities: communicating thick and thin regional identities.
Stud Ethn Natl 9(1):452–464
Weichhart P, Weiske C, Werlen B (2006) Place Identity und Images. Das Beispiel Eisenhüttenstadt.
Institut für Geographie und Regionalforschung der Universität Wien, Vienna
Zenker S, Eggers F, Farsky M (2013) Putting a price tag on cities: insights into the competitive
environment of places. Cities 30(February):133–139
Chapter 3
Place Branding in Systems of Place –
on the Interrelation of Nations
and Supranational Places

Mikael Andéhn and Sebastian Zenker

Abstract The pervasive managerial logic of branding has established a stable

foothold in the context of place management. Yet the question of whether places,
such as cities, regions and nations, can be effectively managed using marketing
techniques remains elusive, as place brands and company brands have been observed
to differ in various ways. A key characteristic of this difference is the possibility
of a company brand of being created from scratch and having its associations and
characteristics carefully tailored to suit the needs of its authors. While the control
of a company brand can easily be lost and its meaning relies on a reading of the
brand by anyone receiving its message, the control that can be exerted over which
meaning is attributed to a company brand appears almost absolute when compared
to a place brand. A place is a brand often long before it is formally branded. A
place brand – like a city, region or nation brand – is per definition attached to
a system of geographical abstractions in quasi-cartographic form in which each
city, region or nation is understood in relation and contrast to other geographical
entities. For those who seek to alter perceptions about a place, this presents a
challenge, since the role of a place in this system of geographical abstractions
constitutes a piece of information more vital than any other in defining the place.
Our understanding of places cannot be separated from their scale, and any effort
at managing the reputation and meaning of a certain place will be interpreted in
an unintended way due to interrelations between these abstract representations. For
instance, a particular region is likely to be seen as part of a bigger context – for
instance, the nation. Most of the time, the nation is in turn also part of a higher-
order place (e.g. the European Union or Africa). Using the example of nation
branding for Sudan and Slovenia, one can identify supranational places such as
“sub-Saharan Africa” or “Eastern Europe”, carrying their own highly salient and

M. Andéhn, CA ()
Stockholm Business School, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
e-mail: [email protected]
S. Zenker
Department of Marketing, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 25

S. Zenker, B.P. Jacobsen (eds.), Inter-Regional Place Branding,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-15329-2_3
26 M. Andéhn and S. Zenker

often negative meaning in much of the Western world. We explore how association
to a system of place is thought to influence the prospects of branding campaigns
and introduce and discuss how reassociation can serve as means of mitigation of
negative supranational belongingness. In doing so, we discuss also the challenges
of interregional branding in this regard, where perceptions of two (or more) different
nations interfere.

Keywords Meta-brands • Nation branding • Brand perception • Perception man-

agement • Developing countries

Introduction

The pervasive logic of branding has established a stable foothold in the realm of
place management to the point that it can even be said to have become ubiquitous.
For the people and institutions charged with the management of places, the potential
of branding gleams appealing at the horizon, but branding places comes with its
own unique challenges. Nation branding is, perhaps besides destination branding,
the most recognized form of place branding (Balakrishnan 2009; Fan 2006; Kotler
et al. 1993; Olins 2002). Even though place branding in general is a relatively
new research field, it has seen a dramatic increase in the number of articles
published annually in academic journals since the turn of the millennia (Gertner
2011; Lucarelli and Brorström 2013). While the attention has shifted somewhat to
the branding of cities in the last couple of years (Anholt 2010; Braun 2011), nation
and regional branding remains one of the areas of place branding which has garnered
the most attention from academics to date (Hospers 2004).
In practice, the rise of nation branding – and its politically minded twin, public
diplomacy (see Tusch (1990) for a more nuanced explication of the concept) –
can be seen as due to a discourse which puts great emphasis on how nations
compete with each other (Porter 1990) and adopt marketing techniques in order
to attract investments, companies, tourists and new residents (Kotler and Gertner
2002). As the images of nations are increasingly viewed as commercially relevant
in a more and more varied array of settings, such as tourism (Nadeau et al. 2008),
exports (Bilkey and Nes 1982; Pappu and Quester 2010) and attracting foreign direct
investment (Kalamova and Konrad 2010), the cultivation of this image has become
all the more pertinent.
Adopting the techniques and language of managerial practice and applying
them on places is also often done as an attempt to control how structural changes
are understood and how the narrative around them develops. One could, for
instance, argue the way in which China’s recent industrialization is brought into
understanding as a repositioning (Deng and Dart 1995) is reflective of an increasing
propensity to view place management as a process that, in part, entails what is
typically understood as marketing. Nations can, for instance, be thought of as
products in their capacity of attracting tourists and be made subject of marketing
3 Place Branding in Systems of Place – on the Interrelation of Nations. . . 27

campaigns with the goal of strengthening their competitiveness and attractiveness

as destinations, a practice which is becoming increasingly prevalent (Gilmore 2002;
Morgan et al. 2002; Pike et al. 2010).
Places such as nations or regions are rarely thought of in a single function but
are marketed, indeed branded (Kavaratzis 2008; Kavaratzis and Ashworth 2008),
with multiple goals in mind (O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy 2000). Increased
tourism, investment, residency and visibility are all ultimately seen as the means to
the end of the financial success, longevity and relevance of the place. Naturally, the
governments of “troubled” nations or regions (e.g. the “developing world”) are no
exception to this will of securing a future for nations or regions they represent. If
anything the situation is perhaps more extreme in the developing world due to the
fact that governments in these parts of the world often find themselves in situations
that are volatile – either from crisis or opportunity. As most of the developing
world suffer from a rather poor reputation (Osei and Gbadamosi 2011), a reputation
that may stymie the return on investment on improving infrastructure or creating
attractive conditions for potential tourists, in such situations, the allure of branding
may be particularly pronounced.
But the promise of branding and the reality of branding are two often very
different things. For places such as nations or regions, challenges abound. In this
text, two issues will be held up as central challenges to nation branding as it applies
to the developing world. The first is a well-known issue in place branding; that place
brands are not created from nothing as a company or a product brand may be. Rather
nations and regions exists, they may arguably already function as brands in many
ways long before they are subject to reputations management in the strict sense.The
second issue is a problem that is, arguably, richer in complexity. A place is not only
often known long before it is “formally” branded, but the nature of places can also
be drawn from their capacity of drawing meaning very closely from their position
in a system made up by multiple places. These meta-national (and interregional)
places not only often have their own meaning attributed to them but are also often
far more salient than the regions they are made up of. In the following sections, we
will search for the crux of this problem and explore the problem of how nations and
regions can actually alter the perception of themselves in the face of more salient
meta-national places.

Branding Nations and Regions

The concept of a nation generally refers to a large group of individuals of the same
race and language, while the concept of a country mostly describes a particular
area. In the literature, both terms are used interchangeably (for a more profound
analysis, see Fan 2006). Nation branding applies branding and marketing techniques
to promote a nation’s image to its relevant target audiences (van Ham 2001; Fan
2006; Wang 2008), while the term nation branding is typically evoked in the context
of commercial relevance which entails a number of widely different areas such as
28 M. Andéhn and S. Zenker

tourism, the image of products being produced in the country and the attractiveness
of the country as a target of investment (Nadeau et al. 2008). The importance of
the cultivation of a nation’s image has been emphasized as a crucial endeavour
of national governments for some time (Manheim 1994); it is also often argued
that this task has become increasingly challenging in recent years (Wang 2008) as
technology and cultural shifts have made the landscape of communication all the
more nebulous. Regional branding – as another place level of place branding – is
dealing with politically, economically or socially defined regions that can be within
one nation or between one (or more) nation (i.e. interregional branding like the
Øresund region (Hornskov 2007; Hospers 2004)).
Place marketing and branding in general aims “to maximize the efficient social
and economic functioning of the area concerned, in accordance with whatever
wider goals have been established” (Ashworth and Voogd 1990, p. 41). It therefore
constitutes an attempt to “promote a place’s values and image so that potential
users are fully aware of its distinctive advantages” (Kotler et al. 1993, p. 18). For a
place brand, no shared definition yet exists in the place branding literature (Anholt
2010; Gertner 2011; Kavaratzis and Ashworth 2005; Zenker 2011), and some have
proposed that the essence of a place brand in general is “nothing more and nothing
less than the good name of something that’s on offer to the public” (Anholt and
Hildreth 2005, p. 164). This “good name” – or reputation of a place – could also
be described as the nation’s image or brand. In line with this argumentation, Zenker
and Braun (2010, p. 3) focus on a place brand as “a network of associations in the
consumers’ mind based on the visual, verbal, and behavioural expression of a place,
which is embodied through the aims, communication, values, and the general culture
of the place’s stakeholders and the overall place design”. This definition, arguably
analogue to Keller’s (1993) conceptualization of consumer-based brand equity of
firm brands, essentially asserts that a brand is not the communicated expression or
“place physics,” but the perception of those expressions in the mind of the target
audience. Those perceptions can vary strongly between target groups (Zenker and
Beckmann 2013), as do the needs and wants of different target groups regarding a
place (Zenker 2009).

Systems of Places

No place exist in a vacuum; to fully understand what this statement entails, we

require some qualification of what constitutes a place on a basic level. Yi-Fu Tuan
(1977) identifies place as emerging from the void of space through the virtue of
meaning attribution to some identifiable feature in a landscape. According to Tuan’s
(1977) seminal work on the nature of place, this first step of “placing” units of
space through the attribution of meaning to them allows, in turn, the scaling of
places into more abstract aggregates of place. Any levels of these scalable places
are understandable by virtue of their contrast or likeness to other units in the same
system (cf. Tuan 1977, p. 171). While the understanding of place is, according to
3 Place Branding in Systems of Place – on the Interrelation of Nations. . . 29

Tuan (1977), born from direct experience, this experience and the understanding of
place it creates in turn enable an understanding of place in a more abstract form.
Through contrast and likeness to directly experienced places, abstractions can be
drawn. These abstractions can even venture beyond any semblance of having a
“real” territorial correlate in space in the absolute sense, yet the influence of strictly
symbolic places like Heaven, Hell, Shangri-La, Valhalla or Atlantis can often be
felt in the real world (Deacon 1997, p. 453). Places, “real” or symbolic, are created
through the attribution of meaning towards them. The thread of this argument, if
followed far enough, leads to a notion of place as ultimately contingent on meaning,
as put quite strikingly by Edward Casey (1993, p. 330): “Stripping away cultural
and linguistic accretions, we shall never find a pure place underneath : : : ”.
In the absence of a truly objective nature of any place, the understanding of
the means and conditions of the meaning attribution which come to define place
becomes a clear priority on the path to enlightenment in the understanding of
how places are defined. A crucial element of this understanding can arguably be
found in the interrelation of places; Tuan’s (1977) demonstration of the scalability
of place suggests that places are contingent on not only meaning derived from
contrast and likeness in a horizontal sense, in the sense that, for instance, nations
are understandable by virtue of comparison to one another. Rather, scalability and
the great potential for abstraction it enables also support the importance of vertical
interrelation between places, that is, cities, regions, nations, continents and virtually
any other abstraction of place enjoy an inter-contingency of meaning. In many
ways, the human understanding of places demonstrates qualities that make it a
quintessential example of a Baudrillardian system in which the position in a system
of symbolic interrelation becomes the key determinant of essence (cf. Baudrillard
1968). Put differently, places are made sense of, given significance, primarily as
a consequence of their relation to other places. If a new place is encountered, it
is automatically integrated into a system of quasi-geographical representation – in
Deacons’ (1997) example of mythical places, this integration may lack a territorial
component; nevertheless, the mythical place is defined as a consequence of its
likeness and contrast to other places known to the person encountering the mythical
place.
This characteristic of places as contingent on interrelation to derive their meaning
in their very nature makes obvious certain particularities related to the industrialized
cultivation of them – that is, place branding. A region, for instance, may be subject
to a certain interference of meaning drawn from its association to the nation it is
located in when a given person formulates their attitude towards it. This general
principle may be more or less pronounced depending on how much is known about
the place; if very little is known, it may be more natural to assume that needed
information is inferred from other sources like in what nation or greater region it
is located. A place may also be subject to co-definition from places that from a
perspective of scale can be said to operate on a “lower” level, for instance, cities
and specific landmarks may become synecdoches for a region. Examples of this can
be found in the case of Copenhagen which can be thought of as functioning as a
synecdoche for the Øresund region or, for instance, how the Øresund bridge can be
said to fulfil the same role for the entire region.
30 M. Andéhn and S. Zenker

“Vertical” and “horizontal” interrelation can both be conceptualized as contribut-

ing to defining any one place; regions and nations are not particular in this regard.
Although one could argue that the nation state as a category of places that often
has a distend amount of meaning attributed to them in contemporary society, due
to the historical primacy of nations in legal and governmental contexts. While
the importance of the nation state as a unit of organization in both political and
economic terms has been argued to be on the decline (Miyoshi 1993; Ohmae 1993),
its symbolic relevance arguably remains largely intact. Asking a given person to
make sense of the world is still likely in the 2010s to yield a reference to the concept
of nations. Nations are, like all places, also subject to having images, narratives
and ideology attributed to them through an increasingly mass-mediated system that
results in a collective notion of things or a social imaginary (Appadurai 1996). Mass
media is often a means of homogenization of narratives towards places, a process
that can often be observed to follow the colonial patterns of west–east and north–
south (Hardt and Negri 2000), but it also serves as a means of creating a reference
from which alternative accounts can be drawn and what Appadurai (1996, p. 8)
calls “communities of sentiment” can form in opposition, or in reference, to these
mass-mediated images.

Salient Meta-place Brands

To illustrate the power of salient meta-place brands and the influence of these meta-
brands in place branding, let us take the example of Sudan: Sadiq al-Mahdi – Prime
Minister of Sudan from 1967 to 1968 – illustrates the plight of those taxed with
managing the reputation of Sudan during a talk given at the Center for Cultural
Diplomacy (2011):
There is an Arab image problem which sought to make the Arabs the embodiment of oriental
despotism, the prevalence of despotic regimes in the Arab world tended to extend this view
of Arab particularity : : : The most important image problem in the world today especially
in the west is that of Islam that has an image [of being] an irrational, violent religion : : : .

Al-Mahdi, musing about the potential of Sudan to escape turmoil and poverty
through developing its reputation, attracting tourists and foreign direct investment,
observes that marketing Sudan as an attractive place for things such as investment
and vacation is inherently challenging. Granted, Sudan has a great deal of home-
grown problems, but it is also perceived as belonging to several supranational places
or regions which carry associations with negative events. “Sub-Saharan Africa”,
“the Arab world”, “the Muslim world”, “the horn of Africa” or just “Africa” are
all regions attached to widely disseminated, highly salient and often very negative
narratives (Osei and Gbadamosi 2011).
The importance of nation and regional image in the context of FDI has been
demonstrated to be rather robust (Kalamova and Konrad 2010). However, hypothet-
ically speaking, if a potential investor would evaluate Sudan without knowing much
3 Place Branding in Systems of Place – on the Interrelation of Nations. . . 31

about the nation, a highly likely means of first approach for the problem of whether
Sudan is a viable option for investment would be to reference one’s attitude towards
one of the “meta-national” places that Sudan belongs to. In this particular context,
the attitudinal outcome of referencing these meta-national places is likely to become
highly negative. Sudan is not unique in this sense; many transitional, pre-transitional
or problem-stricken nations are perceived to belong to supranational units of place
that not always provide the most fertile ground for developing a positive reputation
to put it mildly.
Statistics on FDI appears to support this rather depressing conclusion. In the
1990s, during which time, FDI in developing countries generally increased dramat-
ically, sub-Saharan Africa (not counting South Africa) enjoyed only approximately
an 8th of the increase compared to Central America and only about a 16th compared
to East Asia and the Pacific (Asiedu 2002), and while the situation has improved
(Darley 2012), sub-Saharan Africa still lags behind in attracting FDI to this day.
Tourism is another commercial activity in which the perceptions held by about
the nation, outside the nation, are the principal determinants of success. The
importance of tourism as a driver of economic growth, particularly in the context
of transitional economies or pre-transitional economies, has been the emphasis
of a large body of research over the last decade (Dieke 2003; Dritsakis 2004;
Oh 2005; Mishra et al. 2011; Kaplan and Celik 2008). This importance coupled
with the fact that potential tourists are highly sensitive to risk perception and that
negative news about a destination is known to have a highly detrimental effect on
consumer attitudes (Santana 2004) provides the fodder for the elevation of both
the importance of tourism and the severity of the obstacles facing nations, such as
Sudan, in attracting tourists.
Sudan is not just a victim of association to a negative meta-image, it too has as a
symbolic component of the meta-image also contributed to it; the stories associated
to the genocide in Darfur and the Janjaweed militia have helped create the image of
turmoil that characterizes the region (Campbell 2007). In the case of the image of
“the horn of Africa” region, another of its component places, Somalia, has become
a sort of “dominant source” of narratives that have come to characterize the media
discourse of the entire region in recent times. Narratives of modern piracy and the
idea of Somalia as the epitome of a “failed state” (Murphy 2011) and seem to have
been subtly integrated into the image of the entire region, and as a result exert an
effect beyond the border of the nation it affects directly (Nevin 2009).
While the horn of Africa is, perhaps, the quintessential example of a suprana-
tional (interregional) place having a highly negative reputation, other regions exert
the same suppressive effect on individual nation’s attempt to brand themselves.
Places such as “Eastern Europe”, “Central America”, “Central Asia” and “the
Middle East” all carry their own narratives and images, many of them often negative
from a Western perspective that typically takes precedence over the image of any
one region or nation when a potential investor, tourist or any other “consumer
of place image” makes causal reference to these places. The problems this may
cause are made even more pertinent by the fact that studies on the nature of human
judgement and decision making over the last several decades put great emphasis on
32 M. Andéhn and S. Zenker

the importance of unconscious processes that lie beyond direct conscious control
(Bargh et al. 1996; Fitzsimons et al. 2002; Dijksterhuis et al. 2006). This research
suggest that we automatically make use of information which is made pertinent by
association; if, for instance, a person (erroneously) believes that Bhutan is located
in Central Asia rather than Southeast Asia, this will lead to the activation of a
completely different set of associations which may have implications for behaviour
of any kind.
For many regions and nations in the developing world, large-scale changes are
occurring in a rapid pace; these changes may come in the form of both opportunity
and crisis as they both destabilize the nation and risk sending it into regression but
also provide the chance to shed the “third world” status and allow the nation to travel
through the state of a “transitional economy” towards the elusive horizon of being
perceived as a modern industrialized society. Changes that pertain to the image of
supranational (interregional) places are no exception; in the next segment, some
implications of these changes for place branding will be explored in further detail.

Altered Image

There is a great multitude of ways in which places attempt to change their

reputation; infrastructural projects, re-urbanization and reorganization of poorly
functioning institutions are all well tested and earnest attempts to improving
conditions that are relevant to the interests of tourists, investors, residents and other
actors that may have an interest in the nation (Anholt 2006; Fan 2006). But these
initiatives do not come bundled with positive publicity by default. Material changes
is one thing, changes in perception another. For many countries that are undergoing
real change, effective communication of these changes appears to emerge as the true
challenge on the path to large-scale improvement (Brown et al. 2006; Fetscherin
2010). Given these circumstances, the allure of place branding campaigns is not
difficult to imagine, but what do these campaigns ultimately result in? The products
of place branding are often TV-spot advertisements, new logos, billboards and
events of different kinds aimed at promoting the place being orchestrated (Dinnie
2008).
These initiatives, aimed at improving the reputation of and to draw visibility to
the place in question, risk becoming part of the support for the structures that keep
the regions or nations of the third world in their subordinate role towards the rest
of the world. Nation branding as iterated on, for instance, the National Geographic
channel has been argued to maintain the “first world/third world” divide (Roy 2007).
As the persistence of how these TV-spots insist on the modernity, authenticity and
enlightened culture of the place they advertise may seem more like meaningless
boasting than a window into the soul of the experience a tourist or investor would
have, should they choose to allocate their respective commercial activity to the
3 Place Branding in Systems of Place – on the Interrelation of Nations. . . 33

nation being advertised. But promises of “modern infrastructure”1 may do more

to enforce the notion that nation is somehow behind or part of a world in which
modern infrastructure is not taken for granted. The relative uniformity displayed in
these campaigns also serves to group the places involved in place branding together
into a category of places that “have to advertise”.
The reference to the greater region in which a nation is situated may seem
innocent; indeed, it is arguably the most pertinent information about a nation, but a
problem lies in wait. There are a large number of nations on planet Earth, perhaps
too many for most human beings to comfortably make sense of individually. Instead
we categorize, aggregate and summate individual regions and nations into greater
regions based on some “iconicity of similarity” (cf. Deacon 1997, p. 75). These
supranational (interregional) places have a tendency of becoming dominant in the
formulation of our understanding of individual nations that do not have a salient
image by themselves.
But for some nations, this can be a boon waiting to be leveraged upon, for
instance, in the eyes of many onlookers; European Union membership can mean that
a nation gives up its status as an “Eastern European nation” and instead somehow
becomes an extended part of “Western Europe”. Examples of this tendency include
Slovenia, Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, to name some. EU membership
is a means by which nations can truly redefine themselves through an alteration of
supranational belongingness; this may not necessarily mean much in terms of actual
changes in the affected nations, but an alteration of perception is highly likely and
arguably becomes more likely among audiences further removed from these nations.
It may seem self-evident that change in perception on a supranational scale
requires perceivable changes that extend beyond the level of a single nation. Yet it is
hard to argue that influence from supranational regions does not affect the perception
of nations belonging to the region and that nation branding is not exclusively
concerned with improving the reputation of single nations. Taken together, these
two tendencies appear to create conditions that create a significant risk of resources
being wasted on ineffective communication programmes within the frame of nation
branding campaigns. Due to the simple fact that other more meaning-potent place
entities than the individual nations in question, constitute the main source of
meaning for the majority of consumers are targeted by nation branding campaigns.

Conclusion

Regional and nation branding, defined as the organized communication aimed at

influencing a region’s or nation’s reputation, appears to be a promising potential
counter to the torrent of negative press typically characterizing the pre-transitional

1
Invest in Georgia, “Summer in Georgia”, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Cez4PFSyvA,
retrieved 27-11-2013.
34 M. Andéhn and S. Zenker

economies in the so-called third world. The tendency of these communication

initiatives to fail to live up their lofty promises raises an interesting question –
why the lack of return on reputational investment? In the present text the argument
that potential consumers of a place often make sense of a nation as a part of
a larger system and that this system of places in its aggregated form carries its
own meaning. This principle, illustrated through the case of Sudan, illustrates a
fundamental property of place; place is not by some default defined in perception
as it is organized in a legal and political system, such as a nation or region. In
some cases, the meaning attributed to individual nations is drowned out by more
salient imagery attributed to places that lack institutional representation concerned
directly with advancing its reputation. This lesson from nation branding in the
developing world, a context in which this phenomenon is highly prevalent, is also
applicable to place branding in general as a place on any level can be highly salient
in meaning while completely lacking in, or having a highly ambiguous, institutional
representation.
There should be little doubt that the stakes of place branding are high; apart from
the direct commercial relevance of image, which transects many different venues
(cf. Nadeau et al. 2008), there is a bigger picture. While a nation or regional brand
can be an asset in a vast variety of arenas of commercial interest, it extends far
beyond commercial. It can, for instance, come to pertain even to contexts such as
the formulation of national or regional identity (Bond et al. 2003). Nation branding
can also be seen as highly relevant to issues of public diplomacy and so-called soft
power (Nye 2004). Soft power, a concept signifying the dimension of power that
extends a nation’s influence beyond the venues of direct military, economic and
diplomatic means of influence, is increasingly relevant as it is often far less costly
to leverage upon to assert influence (van Ham 2001).
It appears clear that a place brand can serve a very important role, yet the concept
itself is nebulous; it has been noted that a place image, or brand, is not a single
monolithic construct but rather highly multifaceted depending on the context in
which it is invoked (cf. Roth and Diamantopoulos 2009; Diamantopoulos et al.
2011; Andéhn 2013). It is, for instance, highly possible for a nation to succeed
as a brand in one respect while failing in another as demonstrated by Martínez
and Alvarez’s (2010) example of how Turkey has become a highly regarded
tourist destination while the perception of the country in general remains relatively
negative.
The present paper has explored how the place is formulated and found that the
disjuncture between institutional representation and places as they appear to their
“consumers” provides a challenge even if one, generously, concedes that places
can be effectively branded. In terms of branding, this disjuncture can be likened to
having narratives linked to one’s brand over which one can exercise a very limited
amount of control. If, for instance, one would attempt to alter the perception of the
nation of Slovenia, one would first somehow have to address the fact that Slovenia
itself may not be a salient construct to many consumers and may be understood
primarily by virtue of its role as belonging to the supranational places “former
Yugoslavia” or “Eastern Europe”. It may be exceptionally difficult for many nations
3 Place Branding in Systems of Place – on the Interrelation of Nations. . . 35

to rid themselves of their association to supranational places, but membership may

shift over time; in the case of Slovenia, European Union membership may help de-
place Slovenia as a part of Eastern Europe and move it into a new belongingness.
This process is arguably a far more powerful means to truly alter how people
perceive Slovenia that what could be achieved by any conceivable strategy that
can be likened to a place branding campaign. This understanding of the region
or nation as having a place in a system of places that constitute the spatial
understanding of the relevant groups of consumers of the regional or nation brand
emerges as a crucial aspect of reputations management. Ultimately this issue can
be thought of as a problem of understanding how and by whom the place in
question is consumed. It may seem like a classical adage of marketing, but success
in reputations management is arguably contingent upon understanding from what
point one departs from; in the context of place branding, the problem of salient
supranational places represents a factor that has a strong influence on the feasibility
of a regional or nation branding initiative.

References

Andéhn M (2013) Place-of-origin effects on brand equity: explicating the evaluative pertinence
of product categories and association strength. Unpublished doctoral dissertation (Stockholm
University)
Anholt S (2006) Competitive identity: the new brand management for nations, cities and regions.
Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Anholt S (2010) Places – identity, image and reputation. Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Anholt S, Hildreth J (2005) Let freedom and cash registers ring: America as a brand. J Place Brand
Public Dipl 1(2):164–172
Appadurai A (1996) Modernity at large – cultural dimensions of globalization. University of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis
Ashworth GJ, Voogd H (1990) Selling the city: marketing approaches in public sector urban
planning. Belhaven, London
Asiedu E (2002) On the determinants of foreign direct investment to developing countries: is Africa
different? World Dev 30(1):107–119
Balakrishnan MS (2009) Strategic branding of destinations: a framework. Eur J Mark 43(5–6):611–
629
Bargh JA, Chen M, Burrows L (1996) Automaticity of social behaviour: direct effects of trait
construct and stereotype activation on action. J Pers Soc Psychol 71(2):230
Baudrillard J (1968/2005) A system of objects. Verso, London
Bilkey WJ, Nes E (1982) Country-of-origin effects on product evaluations. J Int Bus Stud
13(1):89–99
Bond R, McCrone D, Brown A (2003) National identity and economic development: reiteration,
recapture, reinterpretation and repudiation. Nation Nationalism 9(3):371–391
Braun E (2011) Putting city branding into practice. J Brand Manag 19(4):257–267
Brown TJ, Dacin PA, Pratt MG, Whetten DA (2006) Identity, intended image, construed image,
and reputation: an interdisciplinary framework and suggested terminology. J Acad Mark Sci
34(2):99–106
Campbell D (2007) Geopolitics and visuality: sighting the Darfur conflict. Polit Geogr 26(4):
357–382
36 M. Andéhn and S. Zenker

Casey E (1993) Getting back into place – towards a renewed understanding of the place world.
Indiana University Press, Bloomington
Centre for Cultural Diplomacy (2011). Conference proceedings. Available at: http://www.
culturaldiplomacy.org/index.php?the-berlin-international-economics-congress-10032011
(speech was observed in vita and re-accessed online on the 12th of April 2011)
Darley WK (2012) Increasing sub-Saharan Africa’s share of foreign direct investment: public
policy challenges, strategies, and implications. J Afr Bus 13(1):62–69
Deacon TW (1997) The symbolic species – the co-evolution of language and the brain. W.W.
Norton and Company, New York
Deng S, Dart J (1995) The impact of economic liberalization on marketing practices in the People’s
Republic of China. Eur J Mark 29(2):6–22
Diamantopoulos A, Schlegelmilch B, Palihawadana D (2011) The relationship between country-
of-origin image and brand image as drivers of purchase intentions: a test of alternative
perspectives. Int Mark Rev 28(5):508–524
Dieke PUC (2003) Tourism in Africa’s economic development: policy implications. Manag Decis
41(3):287–295
Dijksterhuis A, Bos MW, Nordgren LF, Van Baaren RB (2006) On making the right choice: the
deliberation-without-attention effect. Science 311(5763):1005–1007
Dinnie K (2008) Nation branding: concepts, issues, practice. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford
Dritsakis N (2004) Tourism as a long-run economic growth factor: an empirical investigation for
Greece using causality analysis. Tour Econ 10:305–316
Fan Y (2006) Branding the nation: what is being branded? J Vacat Mark 12(1):5–14
Fetscherin M (2010) The determinants and measurement of a country brand: the country brand
strength index. Int Mark Rev 27(4):466–479
Fitzsimons GJ, Hutchinson JW, Williams P, Alba JW, Chartrand TL, Huber J, Tavassoli NT (2002)
Non-conscious influences on consumer choice. Mark Lett 13(3):269–279
Gertner D (2011) A (tentative) meta-analysis of the ‘place marketing’ and ‘place branding’
literature. J Brand Manag 19(2):112–131
Gilmore F (2002) A country – can it be repositioned? Spain – the success story of country branding.
J Brand Manag 9(4–5):281–293
Ham V (2001) The rise of the brand state: the postmodern politics of image and reputation. Foreign
Aff 80(5):2–6
Hardt M, Negri A (2000) Empire. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Hornskov S (2007) On the management of authenticity: culture in the place branding of Øresund.
J Place Brand Public Dipl 3(4):317–331
Hospers G (2004) Place marketing in Europe – the branding of the Oresund region. Intereconomics
39:271–279
Kalamova MM, Konrad KA (2010) Nation brands and foreign direct investment. Kyklos
63(3):400–431
Kaplan M, Celik T (2008) Impact of tourism on economic performance: the case of Turkey. Int J
Appl Econ Finan 2(1):13–18
Kavaratzis M (2008) From city marketing to city branding: an interdisciplinary analysis with
reference to Amsterdam, Budapest and Athens. PhD thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen,
Groningen
Kavaratzis M, Ashworth GJ (2005) City branding: an effective assertion of identity or a transitory
marketing trick? Tijdchr Econ Soc Geogr 96(5):506–514
Kavaratzis M, Ashworth GJ (2008) Place marketing: how did we get here and where are we going?
J Place Manag Dev 1(2):150–165
Keller KL (1993) Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity. J Mark
57(1):1–22
Kotler P, Gertner D (2002) Country as brand, product, and beyond: a place marketing and brand
management perspective. J Brand Manag 9(4–5):249–261
Kotler P, Haider DH, Rein I (1993) Marketing places: attracting investment, industry, and tourism
to cities, states, and nations. The Free Press, New York
3 Place Branding in Systems of Place – on the Interrelation of Nations. . . 37

Lucarelli A, Brorström S (2013) Problematizing place branding research: a meta-theoretical

analysis of the literature. Mark Rev 13(1):65–81
Manheim JB (1994) Strategic public diplomacy & American foreign policy: the evolution of
influence. Oxford University Press, New York
Martínez SC, Alvarez MD (2010) Country versus destination image in a developing country. J
Travel Tour Mark 27(7):748–764
Mishra PK, Rout HB, Mohapatra SS (2011) Causality between tourism and economic growth:
empirical evidence from India. Eur J Soc Sci 18(4):518–527
Miyoshi M (1993) A borderless world? From colonialism to transnationalism and the decline of
the nation-state. Crit Inq 19(4):726–751
Morgan N, Pritchard A, Piggott R (2002) New Zealand, 100 % pure. The creation of a powerful
Niche destination brand. J Brand Manag 9(4–5):335–354
Murphy MN (2011) Somalia: the new Barbary?: piracy and Islam in the horn of Africa. Colombia
University Press, New York
Nadeau J, Heslop L, O’Reilly N, Luk P (2008) Destination in a country image context. Ann Tour
Res 35(1):84–106
Nevin T (2009) After the ball. Afr Bus 357:90–91
Nye JS (2004) Soft power: the means to success in world politics. PublicAffairs, Cambridge
O’Shaughnessy J, O’Shaughnessy NJ (2000) Treating the nation as a brand: some neglected issues.
J Makromark 20(56):56–64
Oh CO (2005) The contribution of tourism development to economic growth in the Korean
economy. Tour Manag 26:39–44
Ohmae K (1993) The rise of the region state. Foreign Aff 72(2):78–87
Olins W (2002) Branding the nation – the historical context. J Brand Manag 9(4–5):241–248
Osei C, Gbadamosi A (2011) Re-branding Africa. Mark Intell Plan 29(3):284–304
Pappu R, Quester P (2010) Country equity: conceptualization and empirical evidence. Int Bus Rev
19(3):276–291
Pike S, Bianchi C, Kerr G, Patti C (2010) Consumer-based brand equity for Australia as a long-haul
tourism destination in an emerging market. Int Mark Rev 27(4):434–449
Porter M (1990) The competitive advantage of nations. Free Press, New York
Roth KP, Diamantopoulos A (2009) Advancing the country image construct. J Bus Res 62(7):726–
740
Roy IS (2007) Worlds apart: nation-branding on the National Geographic Channel. Media Cult Soc
29(4):569–592
Santana G (2004) Crisis management and tourism. J Travel Tour Mark 15(4):299–321
Tuan Y-F (1977) Space and place – the perspective of experience. University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis
Tusch HN (1990) Communicating with the world: U.S. public diplomacy overseas. St. Martin’s
Press, New York
Wang J (2008) The power and limits of branding in national image communication in global
society. J Int Commun 14(2):9–24
Zenker S (2009) Who’s your target? The creative class as a target group for place branding. J Place
Manag Dev 2(1):23–32
Zenker S (2011) How to catch a city? The concept and measurement of place brands. J Place
Manag Dev 4(1):40–52
Zenker S, Beckmann SC (2013) My place is not your place – different place brand knowledge by
different target groups. J Place Manag Dev 6(1):6–17
Zenker S, Braun E (2010) Branding a city – a conceptual approach for place branding and place
brand management. Paper presented at the 39th European marketing academy conference, 1–4
June, Copenhagen, available at: http://www.placebrand.eu/publications.html. Accessed 14 June
2012
Chapter 4
Network Brand and Branding: A Co-opetitive
Approach to Local and Regional Development

Cecilia Pasquinelli

Abstract Place branding debate is mostly based upon the assumption of a territorial
competition that motivates a spreading interest for place branding and pushes cities
and regions to build distinctive brands in order to position within competitors’
arena. However, this hegemonic assumption partially mirrors local and regional
development policies, while increasing attention should be drawn to brand strategies
crossing the borders of individual territorial units. This chapter explores network
branding, which is defined as that process establishing a reputation, that is, an
enduring perception of the network and its territorial partners and turning the
network into an organizational identity. It is argued that network branding is
based on co-opetitive rationale for economic development; coming from business
studies, co-opetition refers to the benefits that organizations may receive from
cooperating and competing with other organizations in value chains (including
competitors) simultaneously. To what extent may place brand and branding give
support to (and mirror) a territorial co-opetitive strategy? To what extent is network
branding viable and sustainable in the framework of local and regional development
policies? In an attempt to make an overview of key aspects and issues characterizing
network branding, the chapter discusses the following points: (a) market-driven
motivations according to which territorial competitive ethos drives cities and
regions to seek collaboration in order to achieve a critical mass, cost-effectiveness,
internationalization, and diversification; (b) political vision playing a role in shaping
network brand strategies; network brands may, in fact, embody political ambitions
and political discourse on development, as well as power games among the nodes
(territorial units) of the network; (c) reputation building understood as image
improvement, brand expansion, and rebranding in the space of the network, which
adds brand layers to a complex brand architecture; (d) institutionalization of the
branded network space into an accepted norm, an almost taken-for-granted entity,
following the establishment of a platform for policy learning according to which
an organizing and relational capacity is accumulated; and (e) risks and potential

C. Pasquinelli ()
Gran Sasso Science Institute, L’Aquila, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 39

S. Zenker, B.P. Jacobsen (eds.), Inter-Regional Place Branding,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-15329-2_4
40 C. Pasquinelli

pitfalls of network branding strategies, such as citizens’ sense of irritation for an

artificial region; managerial and technical challenges in managing a network brand
in turbulent environments characterized by uncertainty and resources scarcity.
Keywords Network brand • Competition • Co-opetition • Local development

Introduction

Place branding debate is mostly based upon the assumption of territorial competi-
tion, which motivates a spreading interest for place branding and pushes cities and
regions to build distinctive brands in order to position within competitors’ arena.
This implies an interpretation of branding policies as a zero-sum game according
to which some territory wins at the expense of all the rivals. However, the practice
shows that competition mirrors place branding and economic development policies
partially, while attention should be drawn to cooperative strategies that cross the
borders of individual territorial units.
On different scales place brands have been emerging “on the border” among
different cities, towns, and regions that have engaged with branding, by playing
the role of partner in a network brand framework, which blurs the boundary
between competition and cooperation. For instance, the Cruise Baltic brand has
involved 26 destinations in ten different countries in order to establish a unique
destination brand in the Baltic region (Lemmetyinen and Go 2010). Collaboration
has been sought by regions willing to enhance a “place of origin” effect in favor
of manufacturing goods, as in the case of HabitatMed involving 12 regions on the
Mediterranean Sea (Bellini 2007; VVA Consulting 2007). A collaborative branded
space has been chosen as a device to support regeneration plans and promote
the arrival of investors as in the case of NewcastleGateshead in the North East
England (Pasquinelli 2014), which is the partnership between the Newcastle City
Council and Gateshead Council that took shape within the broader regional frame of
culture-led regeneration policy. On a smaller scale, similar collaborative philosophy
inspired a region named Val di Cornia in Southern Tuscany, Italy, where five
municipalities engaged with a cooperative approach to economic development in an
attempt to foster change in a postindustrial context (Bellini and Pasquinelli 2011).
This case shows the potential of a network of five municipalities of being one
tourism destination within a peripheral and rural geographical context. A network
brand may result from cultural branding (see Ashworth and Kavaratzis 2010). Two
examples are from Italy: first, the partnership between the two national industrial
poles, Milan and Turin, which have been promoting the MiTo music festival brand,
thus seeking a positive-sum game in the cultural economy domain, and secondly,
the network of museums in the Trentino region including the MART (Museo di
Arte Moderna e Contemporanea di Rovereto e Trento) and the MUSE (Science
Museum) – both designed by start architects, i.e., Mario Botta and Renzo Piano –
which are powerful landmarks communicating the region as a cultural destination
internationally. There are also cases of cities and regions undertaking collaborative
4 Network Brand and Branding: A Co-opetitive Approach to Local. . . 41

“integrated branding” (Ashworth and Kavaratzis 2010), which focuses on multiple

targets such as investors, residents, talents, and visitors. This is the case of the
Öresund region resulting from a matching of Denmark’s and Sweden’s interests
(Hospers 2006): Copenhagen had to develop a metropolitan area to compete in
Europe, while Sweden had to relaunch the economy of Scania, a peripheral region
on the southern border of the country. Another example is the Ruhr Metropolis,
Germany, which is a network of cities and towns aiming to propel transformation
and change. The Ruhr Metropolis brand is conceived and communicated as a
network mobilizing resources for change, that is, “a conglomeration of post-modern
leisure facilities and creative experience economies” (Krajewski 2008, p. 1) in the
Ruhr Valley. Here, the tourism industry, advanced technologies, and service sectors
coexist and cocreate economic value in the region.
All these examples give evidence of the fact that branding cannot be looked at
through the lens of competition only, in the light of a proliferation of collaborative
strategies of economic development. In contrast, there is an evident gap in the
literature that keeps treating “cities and regions in competition” as monolithic
assumption, thus sweeping away all possible meaningful nuances of place branding
and economic development policies. This chapter aims to frame network brand
and branding, that is, the brand emerging from collaborative strategies crossing
territorial borders, by presenting key aspects of the process of building a network
brand as well as potential impacts. This will provide a starting platform for future
research in the field and will give direction for network brand management to policy
makers and practitioners.

What Are Network Brand and Branding?

Place branding is usually interpreted as a competitive, quasi-mercantilistic approach

to regional and local development, but this is an “increasingly unrealistic or at
least partially misleading [perspective] in the network-like co-opetitive scenario
of today” (Bellini et al. 2010, p. 91). The branded network space is that “larger
location” (Moilanen and Rainisto 2009, p. 27) defining a critical mass of assets, “a
unique and meaningful product” (Hankinson 2001, p. 129) that may not coincide
with any territorial borders. In fact, “[the] prerequisite of a different city marketing
concept would be a deep understanding of the interrelatedness between places.
The consequence would be prioritizing cooperation and networks over competitive
strategies” (Kalandides 2007, p. 14).
If on the one hand competition has become the “new conventional wisdom”
in development policies (Bristow 2011), on the other hand it is clear that cities
and regions need to undertake a “purposive territorial competition” and play a
“collective role in securing the conditions to promote competitive success for
firms and individuals based in their area” (Gordon 2011, p. 33). If geographies
play a major role in enhancing competitiveness (Martin 2003), there is an evident
need to identify the competitive geographical scale enabling complementarities
42 C. Pasquinelli

across different regions (Gordon 2011). Cooperation across administrative borders

can be interpreted as strategic approach to global competition, by enhancing
the competitiveness of those cities or regions that share networks of services,
businesses, and so on.
Competition and cooperation are not mutually exclusive. In the frame of global
competition, cities and regions may have an advantage in undertaking cooperative
strategies, so that a “co-opetitive ethos” may be at the core of economic development
policies and, hence, at the core of branding. Co-opetition was defined in business
network studies and business-to-business marketing. It refers to firms that benefit
from establishing both cooperative and competitive relationships with competitors
in a value chain (Bengtsson and Kock 2000; Nalebuff and Brandenburger 1996). An
interdependence among the actors is acknowledged, so that a co-opetitive system of
value creation emerges (Dagnino and Padula 2002, p. 2). The co-opetitive system
is characterized by the coexistence of “friendship” and “hostility” (Bengtsson and
Kock 2000) among its members.
This chapter argues that co-opetition represents one possible branding route
whose potential and pitfalls will be discussed in the next sections. By building on
the concept of co-opetition, network branding is defined according to its two main
components:
• The network, that is, the relational or collaborative space coinciding with the
branded object. By mirroring the trajectory designed and promoted by economic
development policies, network branding refers to an interactive space or a
network of cities or regions whose historical, cultural, political, and sometimes
physical boundaries are crossed in order to pursue economic development. This
is in contrast with the notion of “place” used in the place branding debate, a
notion that concerns delimited, self-contained, and closed spatial units under the
jurisdiction of an administrative and/or political authority (Anderson 1996 cited
in Pike et al. 2006, p. 25). This is the fundamental aspect: as we will see, the fact
of being composed of distinct political and administrative units heavily impacts
the nature of network brands as well as their sustainability and evolutionary
dynamics. This refers to the intrinsic political nature of place branding, an aspect
that is too often forgotten by scholars and practitioners (Pasquinelli and Teräs
2013).
• Branding, that is, the process aimed at establishing a fair reputation for the
network and its members. There is a need to deal with the dynamics of brand
building by adopting a relational perspective on the bundle of ever-changing
immaterial and symbolic associations composing the brand. This means an
analysis of the multiple relationships established between all stakeholders and
the brand. Similarly, Govers and Go (2009) argued that place marketers have
to deal with “the space of flows,” as the network society makes participatory
relations and global interactions crucial to place brands.
4 Network Brand and Branding: A Co-opetitive Approach to Local. . . 43

Why Network Brand and Branding?

This section will deal with the main motivations for cities and regions to undertake
a network branding strategy. Such motivations are classified as follows: (1) market
driven and (2) political vision.

Market-Driven Network Branding

In this category we mainly find the economic circumstances persuading cities and
regions to frame and promote collaborative initiatives; the main motivations are
(a) reaching critical mass and size to compete, (b) diversity, (c) cost-effectiveness,
(d) internationalization, and (e) incentives and funding. This set of motivations
seems to suggest that network branding defines a “new institutional geography”
(Allmendinger and Haughton 2009, p. 622) based on the criteria of effectiveness
and efficiency in pursuing development goals.
Cooperation is a strategic option especially in a time when “funds for economic
development become scarcer, (since) cooperation can increase the scope of a
campaign through the aggregation of resources” (Osgood 2010, p. 266) Moreover,
diversity may be promoted in rural and peripheral areas throughout networking:
in Val di Cornia (Italy), a network of archaeological and natural parks configured
the emerging tourism destination (Pasquinelli 2011). Cost-effectiveness is, then,
fostered by a shared budget dedicated to a network project and its communication,
This was evident in the case of Cruise Baltic brand that has marketed the cruise
sector in the Baltic region as one single product and contributed to improve the
quality standards of facilities and services across the network (Lemmetyinen and
Go 2010). Standards of quality – e.g., quality of infrastructures and services –
throughout the whole “Baltic Sea” experience arguably improved the Cruise Baltic
brand equity.
Cross border cooperation may also foster international relations among regional
systems, thus promoting the capacity to interact and collaborate internationally
in order to remove physical and cultural barriers to integration and economic
growth (see Bellini et al. 2008). An example of “decentralized cooperation” was
put in place by the INTERREG program EuroMedsys, which aimed at fostering
the “Mediterranean identity” as branding device for the home design and furniture
industry (Bellini 2007).
Collaborations across administrative borders may also emerge to exploit oppor-
tunities coming from higher levels of the governmental hierarchy. For example, in
the case of the Öresund project, the European Union gave significant incentives for
the foundation of a new Euroregion, and, beside funding which was fundamental
especially in the starting phase, the European institutions celebrated the Öresund as
best practice (Pederson 2004; Hospers 2006) in the “Europe of the Regions.”
44 C. Pasquinelli

Political Vision

Beside the market-driven rationale pushing toward the adoption of a network

branding strategy, we should not forget about the political motivations at the core
of the policies framing this type of strategy. The political side of network branding
is not evident at a first glance since the political interest for the network project is
supposed to be weak. As Berg and Lofgren argued regarding the Öresund, “who
wants to be a politician in a region that does not exist?” (2000, p. 10). In fact, the
network is not a region from administrative and political perspectives. However,
while the region-building process was pushed and sustained by industrialists who
were certain of the economic opportunities within the network, “political ambitions
and wishful thinking of key actors” (Lundquist and Winther 2006, p. 115) drove the
process, that is, “a statement of belief in the region” (Berg 2000, p. 58) or a political
bet on a visionary project, rather than a rational calculation of economic and social
payoffs.
The political vision is certainly relevant to network branding since the network
brand contributes to break negative path dependence and provides visibility to an
innovative vision for future development. The political vision was, for instance,
crucial in the establishment and maintenance of NewcastleGateshead brand (UK):
in a first stage, the political vision pushed the brand partners to endorse a culture-
led regeneration, while later a firm political vision confirmed the partnership and
invested on renewing a common trajectory, despite the economic and political
turbulences challenging the motivations for the two councils to maintain the
collaboration (Pasquinelli 2014).
In the case of Val di Cornia, it was evident how the political vision not
only made the brand emerge but also conveyed a distinctive message on the
network, understood as an appropriate spatiality for seeking an economic and social
regeneration in the postindustrial turn. The shift from a “political” brand to a
destination brand – which went in parallel with a fading political interest for Val
di Cornia – coincided with a loss of intensity and differentiation for the brand
(Pasquinelli 2011). This meant, in fact, a standardization of brand values, shifting
from a convincing statement of political will concerning the network space of
resurgence (“the brand of change”) to a destination brand made of culture, rurality,
local products, and natural landscape, just like many other brands in the region
(Pasquinelli 2012).

Potential Impacts of Network Branding

This section will discuss the impacts of network branding, which are classified as
follows: (1) image building, (2) institutionalization, and (3) policy learning.
There is evidence about the effectiveness of network brand in triggering trans-
formation and change (Pasquinelli 2013). For instance, the Ruhr region in North
4 Network Brand and Branding: A Co-opetitive Approach to Local. . . 45

Rhine-Westphalia, which was historically one of the most important industrial areas
in Europe, had to face a deep structural change since the 1980s: a rebranding
process drove the Ruhr from the image of a declining industrial region to being
(perceived) as a cultural hub, branded as “Ruhr Metropolis.” The Ruhr region is
nowadays represented as a network of cultural infrastructures, e.g., the Gasometer
in Oberhausen now hosting art exhibitions and the Zollverein mines in Essen, which
became a UNESCO site hosting the Ruhr Museum and the industrial archaeology
park. This cultural network made a radical image change occur, even though the
regional economy “is still formed by coal, steel and heavy industry” (Krajewski
2008, p. 2).
Events and iconic infrastructures support a process of network image building
(Pasquinelli 2013). In the Öresund, events played a key role in attaching meanings
to the brand, thanks to their persuasive power and symbolic intensity, which shaped
the episodes of the Öresund narrative (Berg and Lofgren 2000), an orchestration of
attention that created a positive feeling of expectations for the future (Ristilammi
2000). Brownfield projects (e.g., those in the Ruhr region), greenfield projects (e.g.,
the Öresund Bridge), and a mix of brownfield and greenfield projects (e.g., the
Quayside in Newcastle and Gateshead, UK) constitute an integrated platform of
communication that helps the network to become an established, “physical” and
visible identity, thus embedding a sense of place in the space of the network. In
particular, infrastructures as tangible elements of the network brand seem necessary
to counterbalance the intangible (relational) nature of the network.
Network branding may work as a rebranding strategy. In Val di Cornia, the
recognition of the new brand and the related values were triggered by the change of
the (imagined) physical space nurturing local narratives, rather than by a “positive
visual evidence of change” (Trueman et al. 2004, p. 321) characterizing the cases
mentioned above. It seems that the network narrative holds local communities
and induces them to develop a new relationship with the area. Rurality, history,
nature, and wine replaced the steel factory and its symbols, thus helping residents
to overcome a sense of frustration. However, while the image of Val di Cornia
is “postindustrial,” the industrial image of the “factory town” participating in the
network is still strong. There is a sort of coexistence between the network brand
and the individual partners’ brands, even though their messages about the same
geographical area are in an evident conflict. Reflecting on network brands implies
to think of complex brand architecture composed of multiple geographies of image
building, which may or may not influence each other.
Through a process of image building, network branding is likely to have an
additional, deeper impact, that is, the institutionalization of the network brand.
This was suggested about the NewcastleGateshead brand (Pasquinelli 2014): if a
first layer of results confirms an image change in the relational space, owning to a
local collective action, a second layer of findings suggests how the “institutional
marriage” of Newcastle and Gateshead councils triggered a construction of a
new collective mind-set within the “branded relational space” that turned the
network into an organizational identity. In other words, the network brand delivered
effects going far beyond communication, promotion, and visibility, throughout an
46 C. Pasquinelli

“institutionalization of the branded space” that became “an accepted norm, almost
taken-for-granted entity until crystallization occurred” (Pasquinelli 2014, p. 741).
This implies significant policy learning across the political and administrative
borders of the two cities, which should be highly valued and taken into account
in the building of a network brand. Such policy learning drives the members of the
network to change their way of understanding economic development and pursuing
it in practice, from a strategic and spatial perspective.

Potential Risks of Network Branding

Network branding is characterized by several risks and potential pitfalls that may
occur due to the complexity of the practical implementation of brand building,
but also due to the economic, social, and political complexity of the underlying
economic development policy.
Network branding is challenged by the presence of administrative borders sep-
arating the members of the network. Borders are regulatory barriers that challenge
the progress of the collaborative project (Mcleod and Jones 2007), while a lack of
cross border planning and monitoring tools can weaken the network (Mellano and
Rolando 2007).
The fragmentation of political power within the network may mean a lack of
authority and a lack of perceived legitimacy of the network brand (Pasquinelli 2013).
This has determined ambiguity, uncertainty, and hardly manageable complexity
in the case of the Öresund (Berg and Lofgren 2000). Remarkable, evident, and
measurable success of the network project is key to sustain the legitimacy, while
failures during network development may undermine the brand credibility. For
instance, in the Öresund region the success of the bridge in 2000 was measured
through the number of contacts (commuters, business contacts, collaborations)
between the two sides of the region. But over time a “fragile legitimacy” (Berg
2000) emerged and the Öresund project slowed down because of a delay in political
decisions removing regulatory differences within the territorial units of the network
(Hospers 2004). This went in parallel with a sense of irritation among residents
for the artificial region where substantial barriers persist, so that the Öresund
Euroregion is still not reality (Hospers 2006).
On the other hand, if institutionalization (see above) is a potential effect of
a well-established network brand, we have to draw attention to the risks of an
“institutionalized” brand. One may argue about the risk of crystallization of the
brand that, turning into a taken-for-granted entity, can worsen the evident tension
between a transforming regional context and an increasingly institutionalized
collective mind-set that influences the way in which local development is spatially
and strategically conceived. That is, the relationship between communication – as
part of branding initiatives – and institutionalization tells about the creation of a
local legacy of meaning that shapes and potentially constrains the possible ways in
which the local path of economic development is interpreted (Pasquinelli 2014).
4 Network Brand and Branding: A Co-opetitive Approach to Local. . . 47

Conclusions

After arguing the relevance of network branding in practice, this chapter attempted
to discuss network branding in order to define it and clarify its nature and the related
potential and pitfalls.
Network branding builds on a collaborative rationale according to which a range
of strategies mixing diverse degrees of cooperation and competition among the
involved territories are adopted. The notion of co-opetition is worthy of attention.
Co-opetition can be used to refer to a very broad set of strategies available to foster
local and regional development. Cities and regions, similarly to businesses, can
benefit from consciously undertaking branding initiatives in collaboration with other
competing territories.
Network branding is pushed forward by market-driven motivations as well as
by a political vision. These are the preliminary conditions for the emergence and
evolution of network brands. Although the network space is not a political arena,
networks can become the space where political ambitions and political discourse
develop, so that the “political side” of network branding should not be overlooked,
especially in turbulent environments where market-driven motivations can change
rapidly. Finally, it is important to stress the network brand is a platform for policy
learning, not only in terms of exchange of good practices but also in terms of
imaging new spatial and strategic ways to conceive local economic development.

References

Allmendinger P, Haughton G (2009) Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: the new
spatial planning in the Thames Gateway. Eur Plan A 41:617–633
Ashworth G, Kavaratzis M (2010) Towards effective place brand management: branding European
cities and regions. Elgar, Cheltenham
Bellini N (2007) Conclusions. In: Bellini N, Giuliani E, Pietrobelli C, Rabellotti R (eds)
Opportunities for cooperation between Mediterranean regions. The theory and practice of
local development. Opportunities for cooperation between Mediterranean regions. Grafiche
Martinelli, Bagno a Ripoli
Bellini N, Pasquinelli C (2011) Il Brand Reticolare. Strumenti di analisi per la costruzione di un
marchio di luogo. Mercati e Competitività 3:65–84
Bellini N, Bramanti A et al (2008) Le relazioni internazionali dei territori. Economia, istituzioni e
società. Meridiana Libri e Donzelli editore, Rome
Bellini N, Loffredo A, Pasquinelli C (2010) Managing otherness: the political economy of
place images in the case of Tuscany. In: Ashworth G, Kavaratzis M (eds) Towards effective
place brand management. Branding European cities and regions. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham,
pp 89–116
Bengtsson M, Kock S (2000) Coopetition in business networks – to cooperate and compete
simultaneously. Ind Mark Manag 29:411–426
Berg O (2000) Dreaming up a region? Strategic management as invocation. In: Berg O, Linde-
Larsen A, Lofgren O (eds) Invoking a transnational metropolis. The making of the Øresund
region. Studentlitteratur, Lund, pp 55–94
48 C. Pasquinelli

Berg PO, Lofgren O (2000) Studying the birth of a transnational region. In: Berg PO, Linde-
Laursen A, Lofgren O (eds) Invoking a transnational metropolis. The making of the Øresund
region. Studentlitteratur, Lund, pp 7–26
Bristow G (2011) Territorial competitiveness and local and regional economic development. A
classical tale of ‘theory led by policy”. In: Pike A, Rodriguez-Pose A, Tomaney J (eds)
Handbook of local and regional development. Routledge, Oxon
Dagnino GB, Padula G (2002) Coopetition strategy. A new kind of interfirm dynamics for value
creation. Coopetition strategy. Towards a new kind of Interfirm dynamics? The European
Academy of Management, Stockholm
Gordon I (2011) Territorial competition. In: Pike A, Rodriguez-Pose A, Tomaney J (eds) Handbook
of local and regional development. Routledge, Oxon
Govers R, Go FM (2009) Place branding. Glocal, virtual and physical identities, constructed,
imagined and experienced. Palgrave, London
Hankinson G (2001) Location branding: a study of the branding practices of 12 English cities. J
Brand Manag 9(2):127–142
Hospers G-J (2004) Place marketing in Europe. The branding of the Øresund region. Intereco-
nomics 39(5):271–279
Hospers G-J (2006) Borders, bridges and branding: the transformation of the Øresund region into
an imagined space. Eur Plan Stud 14(8):1015–1019
Kalandides A (2007) Marketing the creative Berlin and the paradox of place identity. Lo sviluppo
territoriale nell’Unione Europea. Obiettivi, strategie, politiche. Associazione Italiana di Scienze
Regionali, Bolzen
Krajewski C (2008). Postmodern tourism and experience economies in the Ruhr Valley as a
strategy for structural change. Regions: the dilemmas of integration and competition? Regional
Studies Association annual conference, Prague
Lemmetyinen A, Go FM (2010) Building a brand identity in a network of Cruise Baltic’s
destinations: a multi-authoring approach. J Brand Manag 17:519–531
Lundquist K-J, Winther L (2006) The interspace between Denmark and Sweden: the industrial
dynamics of the Øresund cross-border region. Dan J Geogr 106(1):115–129
Martin R (2003) A study on the factors of regional competitiveness. A draft final report for the
European Commission DG Regional Policy. University of Cambridge, Cambridge
McLeod G, Jones M (2007) Territorial, scalar, networked, connected: in what sense a ‘regional
world’? Reg Stud 41(9):1177–1191
Mellano F, Rolando A (2007) Problematiche derivanti dalla realizzazione e dall’attuazione
dell’asse Torino-Milano nelle politiche di pianificazione territoriale. Regione Piemonte, Turin
Moilanen T, Rainisto S (2009) How to brand nations, cities and destinations. A planning book for
place branding. Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Nalebuff B, Brandenburger A (1996) Co-opetition. ISL Förlag AB, Oskarshamn
Osgood JL (2010) A region redefined: the case of the Greater Louisville community branding
project. J Town City Manag 1(3):265–277
Pasquinelli C (2011) Place branding and cooperation. Can a network of places be a brand? In: Pike
A (ed) Brands and branding geographies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 230–247
Pasquinelli C (2012) Competition, cooperation, co-opetition. Widening the perspective on place
branding. PhD thesis, Scuola Sant’Anna. Available at http://www.phdmanagement.sssup.it/
documenti/awarded/pasquinelli_thesis.pdf
Pasquinelli C (2013) Competition, cooperation, co-opetition. Unfolding the process of inter-
territorial branding. Urban Res Pract 6(1):1–18
Pasquinelli C (2014) Branding as urban collective strategy-making. The formation of Newcastle-
Gateshead’s organisational identity. Urban Stud 51(4):727–743
Pasquinelli C, Teräs J (2013) Branding knowledge-intensive regions. A comparative study of Pisa
and Oulu high tech brands. Eur Plan Stud 21(10):1611–1629
Pederson SB (2004) Place branding: giving the region of Øresund a competitive edge. J Urban
Technol 11(1):77–95
Pike A, Rodrìguez-Pose A et al (2006) Local and regional development. Routledge, London
4 Network Brand and Branding: A Co-opetitive Approach to Local. . . 49

Ristilammi P-M (2000) Cultural bridges, events, and the new region. In: Berg PO, Linde-Laursen
A, Lofgren O (eds) Invoking the transnational Metropolis. The making of the Øresund region.
Studentlitteratur, Lund, pp 95–108
Trueman M, Klemm M, Giroud A (2004) Can a city communicate? Bradford as a corporate brand.
Corp Commun Int J 9(4):317–330
VVA Consulting (2007) Creazione della marca HabitatMed. Indagine e benchmarking analysis.
EuroMedSys, Milan
Chapter 5
Development of a Methodology for Measuring
the Residents’ Utility Within Place Marketing

Aleksandra Khamadieva

Abstract Different places compete with each other in order to attract the most
valuable residents (talented young people, academics, entrepreneurs, etc.). Such
residents can make a city well developed and prosperous. The knowledge of
what place attributes are important for a particular group of residents will help to
attract relevant target audience by developing important attributes for these groups.
Even though place marketing and branding have various tools in creating effective
marketing strategies for places, there are still some research gaps. For instance, the
question about understanding and measurement, which group of residents can be
the most valuable for a specific place, remains unanswered.
This question becomes even more complicated when it comes to interregional
marketing and branding strategies as two or even more regions unite in order to
build up one strong place brand. The answer to this question could help places to
build up strong place branding strategies. In this chapter the author tries to explain
the importance of researching this issue and propose possible approaches to this.

Keywords Place marketing • Residents • Residents’ utility • Place attributes

Introduction

Competition between places for human resources as the basis for the well-being
leads to the need of creating attractive images for countries, regions, and cities
(Anholt 2010; Zenker et al. 2013). More and more developed countries are
seeking not just economic resources but also people (residents; Zenker 2009). Place
managers pay attention to retain and attract residents, because residents play crucial
role in maintenance of places as they are the main labor force, tax payers, and
mediators of the values of places (the ambassadors of culture, traditions, knowledge,
and history; Braun et al. 2013). Example of the increased attention of the authorities
to attract and retain residents can be the creation of so-called regional development

A. Khamadieva ()
National Research University Higher School of Economics, Perm campus, 38 Studencheskaya
Ulitsa, 614070 Perm, Russia
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 51

S. Zenker, B.P. Jacobsen (eds.), Inter-Regional Place Branding,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-15329-2_5
52 A. Khamadieva

agencies in different regions of Russian Federation, which aim to create attractive

living areas. For instance, the activities of these agencies focused on helping
new entrepreneurs, on the development of information technologies, and on the
development of culture and education in the regions. The results of such activities
become scientific conferences, industry, and business forums and development of
information and legal assistance centers.
Nowadays increased attention is given to residents as the object of place
marketing. Kotler and colleagues (1993) were the first who identified residents as
one of four key target groups in place marketing. Thereafter, and until the present
time, many theorists and practitioners of place marketing study different target
groups (Lucarelli and Berg 2011), but residents are always one of these groups
(Braun et al. 2013; Zenker 2009).
Thus, it can be argued that the place exists as long as there are people in it.
Place brand includes the idea, the conception, and consumers’ opinion, so in order
to create an attractive place brand it is necessary to understand the target audience,
which will be the carrier and mediator of a certain brand. Due to this, it is becoming
more important for place to know their target audience (for whom the place brand is
developed), because this is the only way to attract and hold people. However, due to
the increased availability of information and flexibility of movement, it is becoming
even more difficult to retain and attract residents. Obviously places try to build up
positive images in the minds of residents for further development and promotion
of their places. This objective becomes even more challenging when it comes to
interregional strategies as regions need to create such brand which will unite images
of both regions and will develop a synergy. In this case place marketing and branding
play essential role as they have tools to effective management of the place by the
implementation of competitive advantages of the place (Kalandides and Kavaratzis
2009; Atorough and Martin 2012).
Recently the central debate of place marketing shifts in the direction of place
branding (Kavaratzis 2012). The last 25 years are characterized by the increasing
number of publications in place marketing and place branding (Lucarelli and Berg
2011).
Place marketing and branding are studied by academics of different fields, for
instance, managers, economists, geographers, and others, who use different methods
and conceptual frameworks in their studies. Nevertheless, some theoretical aspects
of place marketing and branding remain underdeveloped, for instance, the residents’
utility. It is believed that development of the place depends on what kind of people
live there and what benefits people can give to the place in exchange for a particular
place attributes (well-paid jobs, friendly environment, good infrastructure, etc.). On
the one hand, there are a huge number of places with completely different set of
attributes. On the other hand, there are people (existing and potential residents) who
have a set of requirements when choosing a place to live in.
Thus, the designated problem requires setting the following research questions:
1. What are the most significant attributes (or groups of attributes) for people when
choosing a place of residence?
5 Development of a Methodology for Measuring the Residents’ Utility Within. . . 53

According to place marketing experts (e.g., Ashworth and Voogd 1990; Zenker
and Martin 2011), the main goal of any place is to ensure satisfaction of as many
residents as possible. Satisfaction of residents in some place is determined by the
presence or absence of a particular place-specific attributes.
The answer to this question, first of all, will give an opportunity to understand
why people prefer some places to others and, secondly, will highlight a group of
people (segments) with similar characteristics and preferences. Despite the fact
that currently in the place marketing literature there are already several different
approaches to the definition of relevant attributes for residents, these approaches
require systematization and generalization.
Also the answer to the question about the significance of attributes for residents
allows us to distinguish a group of residents (segments) with similar requirements to
the place and similar characteristics. In the future, these data will be used to evaluate
segments in terms of their utility to the place. Hence, it is expected to assess the
utility of each segment and then evaluate the most valuable segments. The relevance
of researching this issue is directly reflected in practice. There is no doubt that, on
the one hand, some place managers face the problem with a shortage of the highly
qualified personnel (Zenker 2009), and on the other hand, the problem of the so-
called “undesirable” population (Medway and Warnaby 2008). This is due to the
fact that the place authorities are not always able to understand and evaluate what
group of people is the most valuable for the place. In marketing theory scientists also
ask the question, which groups of stakeholders deserve or require more attention
(Mitchell et al. 1997)? If this question is reformulated in the framework of place
marketing, it can be specified as follows:
2. How to calculate the utility of a certain segment to the place? What residents’
characteristics are important for places in assessing the utility of these segments
to a particular place?
The problem with utility is that it can be measured in terms of various subjective
factors. Speaking about residents’ utility, it is important to find some universal
approach because for one place residents’ utility can be measured by residents’
financial position and the tax payment, for another place residents’ utility can be
measured by residents’ level of education, and for a third place it can be measured
with the amount of art facilities, which were created by a particular resident. Thus,
first of all, it is necessary to review existing approaches to understanding and
measuring the utility and determine its criteria which can be applicable for places
within the place marketing.
Based on the identified issues, there is need to set the research aim and objectives.
The aim of this chapter is to show the importance of developing a methodological
approach to the assessment of the “utility” of the residents within the place
marketing.
To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following problems:
1. To analyze the theoretical approaches to assessment of the place attractiveness
54 A. Khamadieva

2. To systematize place attractiveness attributes according to their significance for

people when choosing a place of residence
3. To analyze the approaches of understanding and measuring the utility and
determine the criteria of the utility within the place marketing
4. To identify the components of the “residents’ utility” within place marketing

The Importance of Different Attributes in Place Branding

Thereby, the first stage of this chapter is to analyze the theoretical approaches to
assessment of place attractiveness and systematize place attractiveness attributes. It
should be noticed that place attributes approached in terms of Service-Dominant
(SD) Logic, according to which the place could be presented as a set of services.
Due to SD Logic developed by Vargo and Lusch (2004), any marketing object
(product/service) should be considered as a set of services. According to their
model, the consumers play the main role in marketing process; that is why the
appearance of any need depends only on consumers, not on what companies are
trying to produce and sell. It is believed that this approach can create a competitive
advantage for the company (Vargo 2011). It should be noticed that in terms of place
marketing, places are approached like any other brand as if it were a product or
service. Thereby, it is proposed to consider the place as a set of services focused on
meeting people’s satisfaction, where residents are also the creators of these services.
It is considered that an understanding of people’s satisfaction with goods/services
can improve the quality of goods or services and, therefore, reduce the gap between
the expected and the perceived level of purchased goods/services quality in order
to lay the premium price for those goods/services. This logic is clearly seen in
the touristic brands. However, when it comes to residents, this logic does not work
and hence requires another approach. Therefore, for such group of stakeholders as
residents, a special model of place brand should be developed.
According to SD Logic within place marketing, the understanding of the impor-
tant place attributes from the residents’ point of view can be approached through
several sides. These are place attachment theory, residential satisfaction theory, and
residential choice models. All of these theories present different attributes which
are crucial to residents. The residential satisfaction theory is based on the fact
that satisfaction with living conditions is measured with the difference between
actual and desired residents’ living conditions (Galster and Hesser 1981). Residents
make conclusions about their living conditions according to their own needs and
expectations.
Satisfaction measurement model based on these studies allows, to some extent,
to predict the behavior of residents in their preferences to some living conditions.
For instance, Amerigo and Aragones (1997) introduced a model in which environ-
mental satisfaction attributes are seen as subjective, because they are evaluated by
residents. Therefore, it should be emphasized that in addition to the external factors,
satisfaction attributes are influenced by the so-called personal characteristics.
5 Development of a Methodology for Measuring the Residents’ Utility Within. . . 55

“Personal characteristics” include sociodemographic data of residents, as well as

personal views of residents, through which the individual compares the current and
ideal environment. This assessment defines satisfaction with an environment of a
particular individual, who then determines his/her behavior according to a particular
environment.
Such residential satisfaction attributes as infrastructure, landscape, and com-
munication with the outside world (the ability to move to other places), urban
development, comfort for hearing (no noise), comfort in terms of the environment
(the neighborhood), comfort at home, security, deterioration of buildings, and
housing insulation were tested in Amerigo and Aragones (1997) model. Over
time, the residential satisfaction model was enriched with more attributes, such
as construction standards, maintenance and management (Fang 2006), presence of
schools and hospitals in the area (Canter and Rees 1982), availability of green space,
cleanliness of streets (Bonaiuto et al. 1999), and social climate (Adriaanse 2007).
Thereby, all of the attributes ever presented in the model can be classified into
three groups: the site features (external, environment; interior, the housing quality),
the individual characteristics of people (sociodemographics, income, etc.), and
social networks (neighbors, acquaintances, friends).
Another possible approach to determine the importance of place attributes can
be realized through definition of place attachment. Milligan (1998) defined place
attachment as the emotional link formed by an individual to a physical site that
has been given meaning through interaction. In other words, place attachment can
be seen as a connection between people and different places through emotions,
senses, and memories, which, in turn, affect their personality. Also Low and
Altman (1992) underlined that the word “attachment” emphasizes affect; the word
“place” focuses on the environmental setting to which people are emotionally
attached. Hence, according to their logic, people can be attached to different
attributes of the place where they live. Raymond et al.’s (2010) study analyzed
place attachment through different contexts such as personal, community, and
natural environment in order to create four-dimensional conceptual model of place
attachment.
Another way to bring place attribute into focus is by the models of the place
of living choice. According to residential choice model, consumers act in a certain
way because of their individual preferences in place attributes. Attributes are divided
into two groups: accessible and attractive. Hence, a reasonable consumer chooses
place of living by comparison of existing alternatives. The hierarchy of place
attributes supposes that availability of workplaces is the basis for decision making,
so choosing the place of living is nominal, because people choose the workplace
first.
The model of residential choice evolved and was elaborated with various
factors during the time. Other factors determining consumers behavior relative to
different places were pointed out, such as: cost of living, density of population,
taxation, distance to the workplace, quality and availability of shopping centers,
fire safety, work of the police, infrastructure, type of housing (lifetime of available
housing, apartment square), crime rate, and cultural, leisure, and sport opportunities
56 A. Khamadieva

(Vargo 2011; Kunzmann 2009; Kyle et al. 2004). Except attributes, some models of
residential choice consider sociodemographic characteristics of citizens, which can
also influence preferences.
One of the disadvantages of this model is that it estimates all population in
general, not taking into account different population groups. But there are some
exceptional works: preferences of ethnical groups (Gabriel and Rosenthal 1989),
aged population (Duncombe et al. 2001), young people (Garasky 2002), and
students (Kaplan et al. 2011). So residential choice model is more of economic
kind, while the author expects to study citizens’ behavior from the place marketing
point of view.
The analysis of literature has shown that in spite of studying the attributes of
place attractiveness and contentment by many authors, nowadays there is no single
concept and model, which could show the correlation between these attributes.
All mentioned place attributes can be classified in several groups such as:
• Well-developed infrastructure
• Heritage of history, culture, and art
• Favorable social environment
• Leisure opportunities
• Stability of political and economic situation
• The brand
Thus, these groups of attributes can influence residents’ choices in choosing a
place to leave in. Even though some empirical study is needed in order to rank these
groups of attributes due to their importance to the particular segments of residents, it
is believed that comprehension of these groups will give place managers a chance to
be more clear and precise in assessing significant attributes while developing places’
marketing and branding strategies.

Theoretical Approaches to Understanding and Measuring

the Residents’ Utility

Another important stage of this research as it was mentioned earlier is to understand

which groups of residents are the most valuable for the place, so that places with
perfect balance of attribute could attract the most preferable residents. Hence, in
order to approach this objective, the first thing which should be done is analysis
of the approaches of understanding and measuring the utility within the place
marketing. Therefore, it is essential to define “utility.”
Based on the economic definition, utility refers to the individual demand of
getting something of the highest quality while making specific choice (Alchian
1953). Value, usefulness, and equity can be the synonyms of the word utility in
different contexts.
5 Development of a Methodology for Measuring the Residents’ Utility Within. . . 57

According to the mentioned definition, several approaches can be identified in

understanding and evaluating residents’ utility.
The first approach is assessment of the utility from the economic point of
view. Economic theory suggests the utility in terms of ordinal or quantitative
approaches. Ordinal utility is a subjective utility; in other words, this utility
means satisfaction that consumer receives from the good consumed. According to
quantitative approach, the amount of utility operations occurs with absolute values.
Both of these approaches are not absolutely applicable to place marketing as there
is a need to investigate general-purpose method of residents’ utility measurement.
Secondly, some practitioners believe that residents’ utility can be determined
by the industrial sector which is most developed in the place. Although this view
has the right to exist, it is obvious that that in practice it is not always true. For
instance, one of the major industries of Perm Krai (Russian Federation) is the oil
refining industry. It must follow that the Perm Krai authority should be interested
in attracting oil refining industry workers; however, this has never been a priority in
the place development projects.
Similar to this approach is the Florida’s approach (2007) about the value of a
creative class. According to his view, a creative class has the most positive effect
on the development of the place through their creative implementation. One of the
essential characteristics of the creative class is the creation of “meaningful new
forms.” Florida refers to creative class such professions as professions connected
with computer technologies, social sciences, education, art, design, architecture,
theater, and cinema. Obviously, the presence of people with mentioned professions
enriches the place environment, but it can be hardly proved that other professions
are less useful to places’ existent and prosperity.
Thirdly, evaluation of the residents’ utility in terms of marketing can be
approached from several aspects. Medway and Warnaby (2008) stated that the place
marketing has the management tool such as demarketing, which can attract desirable
residents or tourists in the place or repel unwanted segments from the place, so-
called the process of “crisis place demarking.” However, the question about the
utility of the residents for a particular place remains unanswered.
It should be mentioned that some residents’ utility criteria can be derived from
demarketing. For example, Freire (2009) states that the more friendly local people
are, the more positive effect it will have on the places’ development, because
external stakeholders will make a choice in favor of those places, where residents
are more amiable, welcoming, and friendly. Thus, it can be concluded that from the
perspective of Freire, residents’ utility will be determined by its level of friendliness,
as it can stimulate the desire to use places by the external stakeholders. In the
research Freire clarified what residents’ characteristics are the most desirable to
have positive effect on tourists.
The problem with this approach is that “residents’ friendliness” seems to be the
factor of place attractiveness rather than the factor of residents’ utility, so it can be
hardly used in the development of residents’ utility method.
Fourthly, Zenker and Martin (2011) proposed the “citizen equity,” which looks
at a citizens’ value to the place based on predicted future transactions and predicted
 58

Table 5.1 Requirements for obtaining citizenship in different countries

Renunciation
of the Test of the knowledge
Residency nationality of about the laws,
Contribution to requirement another traditions, and values
Country/requirements the economy, $ (years) Language (exam) country of the society Employment
United Kingdom 320,000 6 No No No Yes
Austria 8,139,600 No No No No No
Canada 816,000 No No No No No
Latvia 95,654 No Yes Yes No No
Cyprus Yes No No No No No
Denmark No 9 Yes No Yes Yes
Iceland No 7 Yes No No No
Sweden No 5 No No No No
Norway No 7 No Yes No No
Germany No 8 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Netherlands No 5 Yes Yes No No
Switzerland No 12 Yes No Yes No
New Zealand No 5 Yes No No No
Australia No 4 Yes No Yes No
Finland No 6 Yes No No No
Luxembourg No 10 Yes No No No
A. Khamadieva
5 Development of a Methodology for Measuring the Residents’ Utility Within. . . 59

future costs. As it is described in the article, future transactions can be made

operationally feasible in terms of customers’ taxes: the tax revenues of present
and potential customers form the central source of a place income and become
the basis for place actions. These revenues, minus the predicted costs associated
with residency, could be considered as an average gross contribution. However,
the authors highlighted that more empirical research is needed. Moreover, another
disadvantage of this approach (as the authors mentioned) is the fact that the discount
rate could depend on the variety of risk factors, and thus it remains unclear how the
rate can be adequately formulated and adjusted.
Another way to understand which people’s characteristics are important for
places while developing place marketing or branding strategies is to assess what
requirements different countries set when they allow a person to get a citizenship
of a certain country. It is a well-known fact that every country makes demands to
those people who want to get citizenship. So it is believed that criteria of getting
the citizenships can be the residents’ utility (equity) factors. One of the hypotheses
of this research is that countries and places are likely to have similar criteria of the
residents’ utility (equity).
Hence, the different requirements of countries for getting citizenship deliver
valuable insights for the utility a resident has for a place (see Table 5.1).
For instance, it was discovered that many countries grant citizenship for pur-
chasing real estate, establishing business, or large cash deposits. As practiced, for
example, in the UK, where in order to get citizenship, you need to invest $320,000 in
the economy and stay in the UK for more than half a year during the 6-year period.
In order to obtain Austrian citizenship and get the status of “temporary residence
permit,” you need to invest at least 6 million euros in the country’s economy. So,
all these gathered factors in turn allowed to highlight important factors of residents’
utility (equity).

Conclusion

Taking everything into account, it is concluded that in this chapter the author tried
to systemize and generalize approaches in understanding residents’ utility factors.
Even though more empirical studies are needed in order to measure the importance
of these factors to residents, it is believed that this chapter will give new theoretical
insight to place marketing and branding and could help place managers to build up
more integral approach while developing place branding strategies.

References

Adriaanse ´ (2007) Measuring residential satisfaction: a residential environmental satisfaction

scale (RESS). J Hous Built Environ 22:287–304
Alchian A (1953) The meaning of utility measurement. Am Econ Rev 43(1):26–50
60 A. Khamadieva

Amerigo M, Aragones JI (1997) A theoretical and methodological approach to the study of

residential satisfaction. J Environ Psychol 17:47–57
Anholt S (2010) Places – identity, image and reputation. Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Ashworth GJ, Voogd H (1990) Selling the city: marketing approaches in public sector urban
planning. Belhaven, London
Atorough P, Martin A (2012) The politics of destination marketing: assessing stakeholder
interaction choice orientations toward a DMO formation, using the Thomas-Kilmann conflict
mode instrument. J Place Manag Dev 5(1):35–55
Bonaiuto M, Aiello A, Perugini M, Bonnes M, Ercolani AP (1999) Multidimensional perception
of residential environmental quality and neighbourhood attachment in the urban environment.
J Environ Psychol 19:331–352
Braun E, Kavaratzis M, Zenker S (2013) My city – my brand: the different roles of residents in
place branding. J Place Manag Dev 6(1):18–28
Canter D, Rees K (1982) A multivariate model of housing satisfaction. Int Rev Appl Psychol
31:185–208
Duncombe W, Robbins M, Wolf D (2001) Retire to where? A discrete choice model of residential
location. Int J Popul Geogr 7(4):281–293
Fang Y (2006) Residential satisfaction, moving intention and moving behaviours: a study of
redeveloped neighbourhoods in inner-city Beijing. Hous Stud 21(5):671–694
Florida R (2007) The flight of the creative class: the new global competition for talent. Harper
Collins, New York
Freire JR (2009) Local people: a critical dimension for place brands. J Brand Manag 16(7):420–
438
Gabriel SA, Rosenthal SS (1989) Household location and race: estimates of a multinomial logit
model. Rev Econ Stat 71(2):240–249
Galster G, Hesser G (1981) Residential satisfaction: compositional and contextual correlates.
Environ Behav 13(6):735–758
Garasky S (2002) Where are they going? A comparison of urban and rural youths locational choices
after leaving the parental home. Soc Sci Res 31(3):409–431
Kalandides A, Kavaratzis M (2009) From place marketing to place branding – and back: a need
for re-evaluation: guest editorial. J Place Manag Dev 2(1):5–7
Kaplan S, Bekhor S, Shiftan Y (2011) Development and estimation of a semi-compensatory
residential choice model based on explicit choice protocols. Ann Reg Sci 47(1): 51–80
Kavaratzis M (2012) From “necessary evil” to necessity: stakeholders’ involvement in place
branding. J Place Manag Dev 5(1):7–19
Kotler P, Haider DH, Rein I (1993) Marketing places: attracting investment, industry, and tourism
to cities, states, and nations. The Free Press, New York
Kunzmann KR (2009) The strategic dimensions of knowledge industries in urban development.
DISP Plan Rev 177(2):40–47
Kyle G, Graefe A, Manning R, Bacon J (2004) Density. J Leis Res 36(2):209–242
Low SM, Altman I (1992) Place attachment: a conceptual inquiry. Hum Behav Environ Adv
Theory Res 12:1–12
Lucarelli A, Berg PO (2011) City-branding: a state-of-the-art review of the research domain. J
Place Manag Dev 4(1):9–27
Medway D, Warnaby G (2008) Alternative perspectives on marketing and the place brand. Eur J
Mark 42(5/6):641–653
Milligan M (1998) Interactional past and potential: the social construction of place attachment.
Symb Interact 21(1):1–33
Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience:
defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manage Rev 22(4):853–888
Raymond C, Brown G, Weber D (2010) The measurement of place attachment: personal,
community, and environmental connections. J Environ Psychol 30:422–434
Vargo S (2011) Market systems, stakeholders and value propositions. Eur J Mark 45(1/2):217–222
Vargo SL, Lusch RF (2004) Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. J Mark 68:1–17
5 Development of a Methodology for Measuring the Residents’ Utility Within. . . 61

Zenker S (2009) Who’s your target? The creative class as a target group for place branding. J Place
Manag Dev 2(1):23–32
Zenker S, Martin N (2011) Measuring success in place marketing and branding. Place Brand Public
Dipl 7(1):32–41
Zenker S, Eggers F, Farsky M (2013) Putting a price tag on cities: insights into the competitive
environment of places. Cities 30:133–139
Chapter 6
Cross-Border Place Branding: The Case
of Geneva Highlighting Multidimensionality
of Places and the Potential Role
of Politico-Institutional Aspects

Renaud Vuignier

Abstract Place branding is not a new phenomenon. The emphasis placed on place
branding has recently become particularly strong and explicit to both practitioners
and scholars, in the current context of a growing mobility of capital and people.
On the one hand, there is a need for practitioners to better understand place
brands and better implement place branding strategies. In this respect, this domain
of study can be currently seen as ‘practitioner led’, and in this regard many
contributions assess specific cases in order to find success factors and best practices
for place branding. On the other hand, at a more analytical level, recent studies
show the complexity of the concept of place branding and argue that place branding
works as a process including various stakeholders, in which culture and identity
play a crucial role. In the literature, tourists, companies and residents represent the
main target groups of place branding. The issues regarding tourists and companies
have been examined since long by place promoters, location branders, economists
or other scholars. However, the analysis of residents’ role in place branding has been
overlooked until recently and represents a new interest for researchers.
The present research aims to further develop the concept of place branding, both
theoretically and empirically. First of all, the paper presents a theoretical overview
of place branding, from general basic questions (definition of place, brand and place
brand) to specific current debates of the literature. Subsequently, the empirical part
consists in a case study of the Grand Genève (Great Geneva).

Keywords Place branding • Public marketing • Brand management • Cross-

border case study

R. Vuignier ()
University of Lausanne, Swiss Graduate School of Public Administration (IDHEAP),
Lausanne, Switzerland
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 63

S. Zenker, B.P. Jacobsen (eds.), Inter-Regional Place Branding,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-15329-2_6
64 R. Vuignier

Introduction

The present research aims to further develop the concept of place branding, both
theoretically and empirically. First of all, the paper presents a theoretical overview
of place branding, from general basic questions (definition of place, brand and place
brand) to specific current debates of the literature. Subsequently, the empirical part
consists in a case study of the Grand Genève (Great Geneva). The specific cross-
border situation of this area is of special interest. It not only involves various actors
in Switzerland and France, but it also integrates many distinct cultures and identities
and various politico-institutional perimeters. In the current literature, little has been
said regarding these issues in this specific context, although many places, at an
international level, face the same situation. This research aims therefore to focus
on these issues overlooked by scholars and of interest for practitioners.
Based on the literature review, interviews as well as documentations regarding
the case of Geneva, the research also intends to better apprehend the complexity of
the concept of place. The cross-border case of Geneva suggests new issues to be
tackled by place branding scholars and raises new crucial questions, such as the role
of politico-institutional aspects and perimeters in place branding and the potential
impact of place branding on cross-border areas.

Context

In the current context of a growing mobility of capital and people and the resulting
competition among places (Thiard 2007) at all scales – local, city level, regional,
national and international – the emphasis invested on place branding has recently
become particularly strong and explicit to both practitioners and scholars.
On the one hand, there is a need for practitioners to better understand place
brands and better implement place branding strategies. In this respect, this domain
of study is currently very much ‘practitioner led’ (Chan and Marafa 2013; Lucarelli
and Berg 2011; Niedomysl and Jonasson 2012), and many contributions assess
specific cases in order to find success factors and best practices of place branding
(Hospers 2004; Rainisto 2003).
On the other hand, at a more analytical level, recent studies show the complexity
of the concept of place branding (Lucarelli 2012). Place branding works as a process
including various stakeholders, in which culture and identity play a crucial role
(Kavaratzis and Hatch 2013; Warnaby and Medway 2013). The role of residents
has been shown as crucial in this process (Braun et al. 2013; Zenker and Beckmann
2013b).
However, some basic issues seem to have been largely overlooked. Together with
Warnaby and Medway (2013), we may ask the following: what about the place in
place branding? Focusing on the place branding process (or even processes) requires
seizing the concept of place in its very large definition and in all its dimensions.
6 Cross-Border Place Branding: The Case of Geneva Highlighting. . . 65

Place: A Multidimensional Concept

The term place is polysemous (Subra 2008) and political (Tesson 2004). There is
firstly an issue regarding semantics because of the various possible designations,
such as place, territory, area, location, space and land. Then, a question of scale: is
it relevant to talk about place without specifying if we talk about the local level, a
city, a region, a nation or an international space? Is it valuable to avoid this question
deciding on focusing only on a city or an urban environment? If so, how to delimit
such a category of space?
The notion of place remains blurred and ambiguous (Faure 2006). However, in
the manner of branding a product or an organisation (corporate branding), before
branding a place, there is a need to know about the place’s characteristics, tangible
and intangible, and dimensions, material or symbolic. There are indeed many
lessons to be learnt from other fields of studies and disciplines, such as land-use
planning (Moine 2007), urban studies, political science and geopolitics studies,
among others.
A place possesses (quasi) unchangeable characteristics like its natural and
geological aspects and its history, but also ‘unforced’ dimensions that can poten-
tially change on the short or long run, such as its institutional conception, its
political aspects, its legal framework, its economic setting and so on. For example,
landscapes, zoning, infrastructures, schools, hospitals, sport facilities and healthcare
system all are part of the place and are manageable. Other examples that are linked
with the identity of the place are also manageable, such as the cultural offer and the
sport opportunities, political participatory system, tax rules and insurances.
For all these dimensions there is a specific degree of restriction, a certain leeway
of ‘manageability’, that sometimes involves many actors. A model of place branding
best practices that would overlook all that and forget about the specificity and
the complexity of the place may result in a lack of scientific understanding of
this process. Indeed, it could lead to share common sense advices and general
recommendations, which seems interesting and important, but not enough.
The multiple dimensions of the place linked with the complexity of the brand
result in a complex place branding process where there are many overlapping
perimeters or ‘circonscriptions emboîtées’ (Giraut 2008). Indeed, the place is
divided in various perimeters: geographical ones, institutional ones, perimeters
depending on specific public policies, tax perimeters, political ones, cultural ones
and perimeters depending on traditions, identifications or spaces of life.

Target Groups of Place Branding

Having pointed out the issues regarding the multidimensional concept of place, we
focus now on the target groups of place branding. In the literature, tourists, com-
panies and residents represent the main target groups. Whereas the issue regarding
66 R. Vuignier

Table 6.1 Place brands and place branding strategies depend on targets and time dimension and
encompass measures from various public policies
Targets Organisations (companies, People, individuals (visitors, residents,
Time dimension headquarters, etc.) etc.)
Existing Measures linked with the place Measures linked with the place
(retention): internal branding strategy: branding strategy:
targets Economic support Services to residents (taxes, real
(conditions, incentives, etc.) estate, life conditions,
infrastructures, etc.)
! Place brand (A) ! Place brand (B)
New and potential Measures linked with the place Measures linked with the place
(attractiveness): branding strategy: branding strategy:
external targets Economic promotion (taxes, For punctual tourists (leisure and
prearrangements, etc.) business)
! Place brand (C) Tourism offers (with packages)
Facilities
! Place brand (D)
For potential new permanent
residents
Services to residents (taxes, real
estate, life conditions,
infrastructures, etc.) with special
offers
! Place brand (E)

tourists and companies have been examined since long by place promoters, location
branders and economists or other scholars (Kotler et al. 1993; Kotler and Levy 1969;
Pike 2007), the analysis of the residents’ role in place branding has been overlooked
until recently and represents a new interest for researchers. In this sense, some
scholars (Braun et al. 2013) attempt to establish a resident-orientated approach.
Different tools are used to assess the perceptions of a brand, for example, the
brand concept map (John et al. 2006; Schnittka et al. 2012; Zenker and Beckmann
2013a), or the consumer-based brand equity for destinations (Pike 2007). These
tools allow to identify the place brand association networks and to better understand
the identification process and the perceptions of place brands by different target
groups.
Actually, even if it was not theorised like that, strategies for branding a place
have always been used differently depending on the target groups. Now that the
field of place branding is emerging, it is important to establish a clear overview that
encompasses all target groups and their aspects. We therefore present the following
table based on our literature review and inspired by Braun’s table entitled ‘several
ways to categorise the city’s customer groups’ (2008, p. 50). Place brand and place
branding strategies are shaped depending on their targets and time dimension (see
Table 6.1).
6 Cross-Border Place Branding: The Case of Geneva Highlighting. . . 67

This table underlines the differences between place branding strategies depend-
ing on their targets and time dimension. It also raises the question of perceptions:
how do the target groups perceive the place brand? The five place brands (or sub-
brands part of the whole place brand) mentioned (A to E) present five different
categories of brands linked with different branding strategies. The place, and obvi-
ously its name, can be the same, and among these categories there are interactions.
The focus on the role of residents by some recent contributions seems to refer to the
specific categories B and E. Now, a problem remains, which place branding scholars
still need to solve: how does a place branding strategy really make a place become a
brand? Every major of a place, whether it is a very small town or a city, is tempted to
call its place a place brand. How can we scientifically take position on that? When
exactly and how does a place become a brand? The place branding literature seems
to seriously tackle this issue, but a systematic and integrated approach is still lacking
(Chan and Marafa 2013; Lucarelli and Berg 2011; Niedomysl and Jonasson 2012).
This table emphasises therefore that not only a place, but also its place brand
is multidimensional. Both of these statements are in fact intrinsically linked: the
place brand refers to a place that encompasses a territory, various products, services,
an identity, a culture and even more (see above under Place: A Multidimensional
Concept). Then, this table presents different branding strategy measures, such as
economic support, economic promotion and services to residents, and offers for
business and leisure tourists. They all refer to specific public policies and are linked
with specific politico-institutional perimeters and arrangements. For example, taxes
belong to fiscal policies, and the same place often knows different regimes and
perimeters. Infrastructures refer to other policies, which are often led by higher
scale, such as the national level. Real estate is linked with public policies and a
specific regulation framework, but also depends mainly on the general private real
estate market. All in all, the different place branding strategies are linked with
various public policies and various politico-institutional perimeters, which often
mismatch with the place brand or, more precisely, brands. From these theoretical
reflexions, the following part will focus on the case of Geneva and endeavour to
develop these reflexions in a more concrete way.

The Case of Geneva

The Great Geneva (Grand Genève) is a binational agglomeration so-called

‘agglomération franco-valdo-genevoise’ (France – Swiss Canton of Vaud – Swiss
Canton of Geneva). The specific cross-border situation of this area is of special
interest. It not only involves various actors in Switzerland and France (without
mentioning all international stakeholders indirectly involved), but it also integrates
many distinct cultures and identities. In the current literature, apart from certain
contributions, such as Kaufmann and Durst (2008) on interregional brands, little
has been said regarding these issues in this specific context, although many places,
68 R. Vuignier

at an international level, face the same situation, with a problematic mismatch

between various perimeters and borders.
The Great Geneva is a territory of 2,000 km2 , which encompasses the city of
Geneva and all its surroundings, including part of France. It is divided in 212
municipalities, of the Canton of Geneva, the Canton of Vaud and the two French
Departments Ain and Haute-Savoie, both part of the French Rhône-Alpes region.
Currently, 918,000 residents live in this area, which represents an increase of 31 %
in 20 years. This area offers 440,000 jobs (Swiss Statistics Federal Administration
and www.grand-geneve.org). In 2011, the border between Switzerland and France
in this area was crossed 550,000 times per day, both ways.
The Grand Genève – Agglomération franco-valdo-genevoise – is entitled so since
2012. After the first agreement between Switzerland and France regarding cross-
border matters signed in 1973, we observe a phenomenon of institutionalisation of
the cross-border cooperation. Different steps made consist in creating committees
and commissions for helping cooperation and implement cross-border projects.
Two projects are worth mentioning here: the so-called CEVA, a cross-border
transport project, and the Park & Ride project. This paper does not focus on the
complexity of cross-border cooperation, but aims to point out the aspects of it that
should be taken into account by place branding scholars.
The CEVA is a transport project that aims to build railway transportation between
the city centre of Geneva and the French suburb. In addition to all the complicated
cooperation arrangements of a binational project, two critical issues are the choice
of the constructor of the equipment (railway wagons from France or Switzerland?)
and financial negotiations (who pays what?), especially difficult in this time of crisis
(Lecomte 2013; Wuthrich 2013). There are certainly compromises to be made, but
this problematic shows the issue raised by the mismatch between the Great Geneva
and all its perimeters (2 countries, 212 municipalities, 2 French departments and 2
Swiss cantons). For instance, the space of life requires certain mobility and therefore
this project is needed, but it does not correspond to a single integrated politico-
institutional perimeter. The challenge of branding the Great Geneva cannot overlook
those issues.
The so-called Park & Ride project aims to build parking slots in the French side
of the Great Geneva next to public transportation stops, in order to promote the
use of public transportation and relieve the traffic congestion in the city centre.
It is presented as a better solution for the 550,000 cross-border journeys per day.
The political authorities leading Great Geneva debated about the financing, and the
Canton of Geneva accepted the principle of paying for this project from which
it would mostly benefit. Approved by the Canton of Geneva parliament (which
represents only a part of the Great Geneva territory) in the of summer 2013, this
project has been hardly criticised by different citizens’ groups. Eight thousand three
hundred forty citizens of the canton used their referendum right. Therefore, all
citizens of the Canton of Geneva had to vote in 2014 (18 May) and decide whether
the canton should pay for this project or not (51.1 % of the voters said no on May
18). Once again, the mismatch of perimeters is a crucial issue here. Firstly, even if
this project is political, we can argue that it is in favour of the whole Great Geneva.
6 Cross-Border Place Branding: The Case of Geneva Highlighting. . . 69

Secondly, the citizens of the Canton of Geneva (281,000) are only a part of the
residents of the Canton (471,000) and even a smaller part of the Great Geneva
population (918,000). Eight thousand three hundred forty citizens had the power
to postpone this project and to put it as an issue on the political agenda with the
following question in the public debate: should the Canton of Geneva taxpayers
invest for parking slots in the French side of the Great Geneva? The goal here is not
to answer the question, but to underline the role played by the gaps and mismatch
between politico-institutional perimeters. They impact on the Great Geneva shaping,
and in terms of marketing, it matters as well.
In the same way, the Canton of Geneva government (elected in fall 2013 by
113,063 voters among 243,674 registered voters) recently reformed its adminis-
tration and created a new department: a presidential department. A member of
the government will lead it for 5 years. It was done so in order to allow a clear
leadership and continuity for important projects for the Canton, among others La
Genève internationale and the Great Geneva. This is somehow in phase with the
presumed trend towards ‘city diplomacy’ (Serdyukova 2013). It will certainly have
a political impact on the steering of the Great Geneva. Once again, the mismatch
between perimeters – taxpayers, residents and citizens don’t represent the same
group of people – plays a crucial role. It may be similar to what other cities face,
but the specific cross-border issue tends to make it more complicated. Indeed, the
French and the Swiss administrative cultures seem to differ significantly (Lecomte
2013; Wuthrich 2013), so as the way the different parts of the area are cooperating,
with, for example, the multilevels involved in the Swiss side: two (to a certain extent)
sovereign Cantons and the national administration.
Regarding the challenge of branding the Great Geneva, these examples call
for taking into account the complexity of the cross-border situation and to link
also this marketing challenge with cross-border cooperation issues and in general
with politico-institutional issues. Indeed, the creation of the Great Geneva is linked
with various marketing challenges: place branding solutions are needed to create
a strong Great Geneva brand, first of all, in order to potentially attract new
organisations, residents and tourists (see the above table), and second, to retain
existing organisations and residents (see the above table), which includes support for
a common identity and the need of convincing residents and among them especially
citizens and taxpayers. Moreover, a strong brand will help to promote the area in
order to get funds from institutions in Switzerland (lobbying at national level), in
France (lobbying at regional and national level) and at the European Union level.
In the process of place branding, many scholars and consultants acknowledge the
importance to build flagship monuments (landmarks), carry out flagship projects,
bid for worldwide competitions (Olympic Games, Football World Cup), organise
all sorts of events and so on. Factors including an efficient planning, an active
communication strategy, an easy public-private cooperation, a clear leadership
(Hakala and Öztürk 2013) and the need to invest in highly visible initiatives in
various fields (innovation, higher education) are also often mentioned and represent
key indicators for rankings. To the contrary, little attention has been devoted to
the politico-institutional aspects, which in fact seem to matter as milestones in the
70 R. Vuignier

process of building a place brand. At this stage, our analysis of the case of Geneva
doesn’t allow us to strictly state that, but invite us to further explore in this direction.
In brief, the cross-border case of Geneva highlights three main points:
– Complexity of the place and of the brand: On the one hand, there is a mismatch
between many perimeters, which means there are potentially many place brands
and sub-brands. On the other hand, the brands perceived or displayed by the
branders are not always the ones perceived by the target groups. Not everything
that is considered by some as a brand is a brand. All specific cases should
be analysed with a critical perspective looking at the different interests of the
actors and the politico-institutional aspects. In this regard, the reluctance of
certain residents regarding the Great Geneva in general or regarding the above-
mentioned projects such as CEVA or the Park & Ride is highly significant. The
residents are not (yet?) all convinced by these projects. It has something to do
with the various perimeters. For example, all residents of the Great Geneva do
not pay their taxes in the same place, because they are not all citizens and so not
all have the right to vote. Moreover, it encompasses the question of identity.
– The role of politico-institutional aspects and perimeters: The question of
politico-institutional is deeply linked with the process of place branding. There
is a need to further develop politico-institutional solutions in order to have a
stronger brand. As Anholt (2009) underlines, branding cannot be successful if
what is branded does not correspond to the expectations, at least on the long
term. It also works the other way around: there is a need for a strong brand
to support politico-institutional developments. For example, the cross-border
cooperation and its concrete projects would be facilitated with a stronger place
brand: to attract, to get funds and to convince. In this regard, the most efficient
solution seems to be to evolve towards a large encompassing politico-institutional
perimeter, corresponding to the space of life of the people and containing as little
mismatches between sub-perimeters as possible.
– The role of citizens: The mismatch between perimeters underlines the role of
citizens in place branding. The examples of the CEVA project and the Park &
Ride project show that citizens are a crucial actor in the process. Especially in the
Swiss democratic system, a small group of less than 9,000 citizens can postpone
the implementation of a project and put it on the political agenda to let 281,000
citizens decide on a specific project that concerns all the 918,000 residents of
the Great Geneva. Underestimating the role of citizens is risky for both efficient
place branding strategies and a successful agglomeration project. The success
of a so-called populism movement at the last election in the Canton of Geneva
(Lecomte 2012, 2013) is in this regard of crucial importance as this movement
stigmatises the cross-border residents and seems to be strongly active against the
development of the Great Geneva.
The cross-border situation of the Great Geneva presents numerous ‘challenges’
to practitioners involved in the cross-border cooperation and in the place branding of
this area. At the same time, this cross-border case brings new place branding issues
for the scholars to tackle.
6 Cross-Border Place Branding: The Case of Geneva Highlighting. . . 71

Closing Remarks

Based on a literature review and on preliminary interviews, this contribution is a

starting point for further research. It raises many questions and presents various lines
of reflexions for this rather new scientific field that place branding is. The author will
deepen this analysis and looks forward to going further into this fascinating field.

Note: Babey and Giauque (2009), van den Berg and Braun (1999), Boisen (2007), Braun (2008),
de Buren (2007), Jacobsen (2012), Kapferer (2012), Kotler et al. (1993), Pasquier et al. (2009), and
Pasquier and Villeneuve (2011).

References

Preliminary interviews with officials and with actors involved on the field, various articles from the
Swiss newspaper Le Temps and official reports represent the sources for the case of Geneva. The
literature review is mainly based on the following articles:
Anholt S (2009) Places: identity, image and reputation. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills
Babey N, Giauque D (2009) Management urbain: essai sur le mimétisme et la différenciation:
Presses de l’Université Laval
Boisen M (2007) The role of city marketing in contemporary urban governance. Paper presented
at the conference ‘Future of cities: impacts–indicators–implications, conference’
Braun E (2008) City marketing: towards an integrated approach. (Ph.D. thesis), Erasmus Research
Institute of Management (ERIM). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1765/13694 (EPS-2008-
142-ORG)
Braun E, Kavaratzis M, Zenker S (2013) My city – my brand: the different roles of residents in
place branding. J Place Manag dev 6(1):18–28. doi:10.1108/17538331311306087
Chan C, Marafa LM (2013) A review of place branding methodologies in the new millennium.
Place Branding Public Dipl 9(4):236–253. doi:10.1057/pb.2013.17
de Buren G (2007) Vers des politiques régionales transfrontalières. Cahier de l’IDHEAP 231/2007
Faure A (2006) Quelques éléments de réflexion sur la notion de territoire. Territoires/
Territorialisation
Giraut F (2008) Conceptualiser le territoire. Historiens et Géographes (403):57–68
Hakala U, Öztürk SA (2013) One person can make a difference – although branding a place is not
a one-man show. Place Brand Publ Dipl 9(3):182–188. doi:10.1057/pb.2013.14
Hospers G-J (2004) Place marketing in Europe. Intereconomics 39(5):271–279
Jacobsen BP (2012) Place brand equity: a model for establishing the effectiveness of place brands.
J Place Manag Dev 5(3):253–271. doi:10.1108/17538331211269657
John DR, Loken B, Kim K, Monga AB (2006) Brand concept maps: a methodology for identifying
brand association networks. J Mark Res 43(4):549–563
Kapferer JN (2012) The new strategic brand management: advanced insights and strategic thinking.
Kogan Page Publishers, London
Kaufmann HR, Durst S (2008) Developing inter-regional brands. EuroMed J Bus 3(1):38–62.
doi:10.1108/14502190810873812
Kavaratzis M, Hatch MJ (2013) The dynamics of place brands: an identity-based approach to place
branding theory. Mark Theory 13(1):69–86. doi:10.1177/1470593112467268
Kotler P, Levy SJ (1969) Broadening the concept of marketing. J Mark 33(1):10–15
Kotler P, Haider DH, Rein I (1993) Marketing places: attracting investment, industry and tourism
to cities, states and nations. Free Press, New York
72 R. Vuignier

Lecomte C (2012) Les mots et les actes du ressentiment anti-frontaliers. Le Temps, December 21
Lecomte C (2013) Querelles franco-genevoises sur les projets d’infrastructures transfrontalières.
Le Temps, February 8
Lucarelli A (2012) Unraveling the complexity of “city brand equity”: a three-dimensional
framework. J Place Manag Dev 5(3):231–252. doi:10.1108/17538331211269648
Lucarelli A, Berg PO (2011) City branding: a state-of-the-art review of the research domain. J Place
Manag Dev 4(1):9–27. doi:10.1108/17538331111117133
Moine A (2007) Le territoire: comment observer un système complexe: Editions L’Harmattan
Niedomysl T, Jonasson M (2012) Towards a theory of place marketing. J Place Manag Dev
5(3):223–230. doi:10.1108/17538331211269639
Pasquier M, Villeneuve JP (2011) Marketing management and communications in the public
sector. Routledge, Oxon
Pasquier M, Richard MW, Yersin N (2009) Das Image der Schweiz im Ausland: mit Fallbeispiel
China. Haupt Verlag, Bern
Pike S (2007) Consumer-based brand equity for destinations. J Travel Tour Mark 22(1):51–61.
doi:10.1300/J073v22n01_04
Rainisto SK (2003) Success factors of place marketing: a study of place marketing practices in
Northern Europe and the United States. Helsinki University of Technology
Schnittka O, Sattler H, Zenker S (2012) Advanced brand concept maps: a new approach for
evaluating the favorability of brand association networks. Int J Res Mark 29(3):265–274.
doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.04.002
Serdyukova V (2013) City diplomacy: a new alternative to branding. Placesbrands: reputation is
everything
Subra P (2008) L’aménagement, une question géopolitique! Hérodote 130(3):222. doi:10.3917/
her.130.0222
Tesson F (2004) Quand le politique parle du territoire, c’est pour le fabriquer. Paper presented at
the Quand le politique parle du territoire, c’est pour le fabriquer
Thiard P (2007) Attractivité et compétitivité: offre territoriale, approches marketing et retombées.
PUCA (2009), L’attractivité des territoires: regards croisés, Paris, Actes des séminaires, 47–48
van den Berg L, Braun E (1999) Urban competitiveness, marketing and the need for organising
capacity. Urban Stud 36:987–999
Warnaby G, Medway D (2013) What about the ‘place’ in place marketing? Mark Theory
13(3):345–363. doi:10.1177/1470593113492992
Wuthrich B (2013) Bras de fer franco-suisse autour du futur CEVA. Le Temps, October 10
Zenker S, Beckmann SC (2013a) Measuring brand image effects of flagship projects for place
brands: the case of Hamburg. J Brand Manag 20(8):642–655. doi:10.1057/bm.2013.6
Zenker S, Beckmann SC (2013b) My place is not your place – different place brand knowledge by
different target groups. J Place Manag Dev 6(1):6–17. doi:10.1108/17538331311306078
Chapter 7
Interregional Place-Branding Concepts:
The Role of Amenity Migration in Promoting
Place- and People-Centred Development

Tony Jackson

Abstract Rural amenity migration is an increasingly important source of economic

development. Analysis of population growth in the North American montane west
indicates the extent to which high amenities serve to boost an influx of talented
migrants. New regionalism theory offers a rural development model which is capa-
ble of accommodating efforts to apply place-branding to this form of interregional
migration. Its precepts emphasise place and person rather than product, supporting
efforts to market the attraction of interregional rural locations to footloose creative
professionals seeking congenial surroundings to pursue their careers and raise their
families.
This chapter draws on new regionalism theory to assess the role of amenity
migration in promoting place- and people-centred rural development strategies
through the use of interregional place branding. It begins by offering some brief
sketches of the impact of amenity migration in a few locations across different
continents. The significance of this source of growth for rural communities is then
assessed by triangulating it against interregional models of development focused on
the place-branding of high-amenity attractions and congenial lifestyles, as opposed
to traditional resource-based drivers of growth. This analysis provides the basis for
an appraisal of the potential for using place-branding to stimulate the expansion
of rural communities through interregional development strategies. The chapter
concludes with a brief review of current interregional place-branding practice. It
considers the capacity of this technique to facilitate the ‘territorial attractiveness’ of
Europe’s transnational areas and suggests that funding should be sought to this end
from the European Commission’s avowedly place-driven cohesion policy.

Keywords Rural interregional place-branding • Rural amenity migration • New

rural economy

T. Jackson ()
School of the Environment, University of Dundee, Perth Road, Dundee DD1 4HN, Scotland, UK
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 73

S. Zenker, B.P. Jacobsen (eds.), Inter-Regional Place Branding,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-15329-2_7
74 T. Jackson

Introduction

The academic literature seeking to evaluate the role of place-branding has focused
primarily on the capacity of this technique to boost the economic performance
of metropolitan areas (see, e.g. Lloyd and Peel 2008; Daramola-Martin 2009;
Kavaratzis 2009). This chapter considers its potential for promoting interregional
rural, and some cases remote rural, development. Until recently, metropolitan areas
have drawn on place-branding predominantly to target inward investment, markets
for the area’s goods and services or tourism, rather than new residents or workers
(Zenker 2009). By contrast, a primary driver of growth in the rural communities of
many high-income nations since the 1970s, and thus a key target for place-branding
in such areas, has been amenity migration: new residents attracted by the prospect of
a congenial lifestyle (Deller et al. 2001; Gude et al. 2006; McGranahan and Wojan
2007).
We begin by offering some brief sketches of the impact of amenity migration
in a few locations across different continents. The significance of this source of
growth for rural communities is then assessed by triangulating it against recent
consumer-based models of development focusing on high-amenity attractions and
congenial lifestyles, as opposed to traditional resource-based drivers of growth. This
analysis provides the basis for an appraisal of the potential for using place-branding
as a means of stimulating the expansion of rural communities through interregional
development strategies.

Some Examples of Rural Amenity Migration

As in metropolitan areas, rural communities possess a varied range of assets and

deploy these to differing effects according to circumstance. One of the simplest
drivers for amenity migration is the decision taken by a rural community to market
itself as a cultural attraction. A classic demonstration of the impact of such an
approach is provided by the small town of Chemainus, situated on the east coast
of Vancouver Island between its two main settlements, Victoria and Nanaimo
(Barnes and Hayter 1992). The 3,000 people in this rural settlement previously
relied on the work provided by a nineteenth-century sawmill, exemplifying the
precarious development strategy pursued in the Province of British Columbia. This
was memorably characterised by Innis (1930) as a staples-based economy which
supported a periphery of economically vulnerable resource-based communities.
In 1983, the town’s antiquated sawmill employing 654 was closed, being
replaced by a new mill 2 years later offering employment to only 145 (Hayter 2000,
p. 131). The community recognised the need to diversify its economic base and
seek additional nonstaple sources of employment. In 1982, inspired by a visit to
Rumania and the frescoes in its monasteries, local leaders drew on a small provincial
government grant intended to revitalise its downtown main street to fund a series of
7 Interregional Place-Branding Concepts: The Role of Amenity Migration. . . 75

giant outdoor murals painted on its main buildings by artists from across North
America. The initiative won the 1982 New York Downtown Revitalisation award
and led to the planning of a Pacific Rim Artisan Village, which has only partly
been realised (Barnes and Hayter 1992, p. 658). Nevertheless, with approaching 50
street murals attracting half-a-million tourists yearly, the town has seen its tourism
industry flourish. Its street murals have also broadened the town’s economic base,
attracted new residents and reversed the decline in its population.
Chemainus provided the inspiration for similar initiatives in an Australian and
a New Zealand setting. In the 1960s and 1970s, the employment base of Sheffield,
a rural town of 1,200 located near the Bass Strait in northern Tasmania, became
heavily reliant on employment provided by dam construction undertaken through
the Tasmanian Hydropower Development Scheme. Following completion of the
scheme, Sheffield experienced a steady population decline despite being located
near the Cradle Mountain World Heritage Area and having the Mount Roland range
as a backdrop.
In 1985, its town revitalisation committee watched a film on Chemainus and
decided to follow a similar route (Dunphy 2009). The first of nearly 50 street murals
was completed in 1986, and there is now an annual week-long open-air Mural Fest
competition which attracts competitors and tourists from across Australia. In 2008,
the area hosted a Global Mural Fest and Conference, and the wider municipality
is now place branded as Tasmania’s Outdoor Art Gallery. Annual visitor numbers
approach 130,000, and the revitalised town centre offers an attractive mix of shops,
hotels and restaurants, with a healthier employment base, more residents and a
growing population.
In 1991, the town of Katikati, located on the Pacific Coast Highway near
Tauranga in New Zealand’s North Island Bay of Plenty, set up Katikati Open-Air
Art Inc. at the instigation of a community group, members of which had visited
Chemainus (McClintock 1998). The small community of 3,500 was settled in 1875
by migrants from County Tyrone in Ireland with the assistance of the Orange
Institution. Katikati provided the service centre for an area which accounts for the
bulk of New Zealand’s kiwi fruit output. During the 1980s, it had been hard hit by
a slump in global demand for its horticulture produce and was seeking to diversify
its employment base.
Following the establishment of Open-Air Art Inc. and its subsequent commu-
nity fund raising efforts, there are now 47 street murals down its main street,
depicting facets of its Ulster and Maori heritage. The resulting boost to tourism
has been accompanied by a significant amenity migrant influx, taking advantage
of the community’s pleasant climate and lifestyle and local recreational activities.
Increased prosperity has seen the construction of new restaurant, conference, sports
and accommodation facilities, a new council building housing a tourist information
centre and several retirement villages. Branding itself ‘mural town’, Katikati hosts
an annual week-long New Zealand Mural Contest and Arts Festival. In 2005, the
Keep New Zealand Beautiful Society awarded it the accolade of the country’s most
beautiful small town.
76 T. Jackson

These straightforward applications of rural place branding through sponsorship

of communal art activities serve as an introduction to much broader and more
complex phenomena bound up with fundamental structural changes in the spatial,
industrial and occupational composition of economic development amongst high-
income nations. First observed in North America, these shifts in the territorial
determinants of growth have strengthened the appeal of what Heenan (1991) terms
‘small’ towns over ‘big’ towns in their efforts to attract mobile businesses and
amenity migrants. More than two decades ago, Heenan asserted that major advances
in telecommunications were creating ‘a footloose economy that permits firms to
locate where they want to be, not where the traditional centres of finance dictate they
have to be’ (Heenan 1991, p. 9). A decade later, Green (2001) examined the success
of specifically migrant-targeted ‘amenity-led’ rural development strategies, pursuit
of which has enabled an increasing number of American rural communities to avoid
the population decline common to other undiversified resource-based American
rural settlements.
Such observations have been deployed to support the tenets of ‘new regionalism’
development theory. Its proponents claim that traditional commodity-based models
of specialisation and location which leave rural communities exposed to the
exigencies of world markets are rapidly being replaced by new forms of territorial
competition founded on place-based or quality-based (as distinct from price-based)
strategies. They conclude that communities wishing to benefit from these changes
in the spatial determinants of growth need to offer relocation incentives to workers
as well as businesses. Markusen (2004) takes the argument further by contending
that structural shifts in the spatial pattern of growth now require physical planners
and economic development practitioners to target occupations rather than industries
when promoting a location. Tomaney and Bradley (2007, p. 513) advocate a similar
spatial development strategy for the United Kingdom, arguing that:
[l]ocal development is increasingly determined by human capital, which is relatively
mobile, and whose location is influenced by environmental assets : : : The ubiquitous
character of information and computer technology means that creative professionals can
work from remote locations and will search for liveability and residential amenity rather
than conventional ‘job opportunities’ to a greater extent than in the past.

We examine the precepts of new regionalism in more detail in the next section of
the chapter, offering at this stage a few examples of rural locations which illustrate
the role of amenity migration in delivering the outcomes predicted by this theory.
Although identifiable in many other settings, rural montane communities in the
North American west have experienced above-average population growth since
the 1970s and provide the clearest demonstration of how the process operates
(Nelson 1999; Rudzitis 1999; Vias 1999; Power and Barrett 2001; Moss 2006).
One researcher exploring the motivations of amenity migrants settling in these
communities found that:
[r]ecent migrants to the rural West increasingly cite both physical and social environmental
amenities as reasons why they moved. Job-related reasons are cited by only about 30
7 Interregional Place-Branding Concepts: The Role of Amenity Migration. . . 77

per cent of the respondents in two surveys : : : . The survey results suggest a need to
incorporate noneconomic factors more directly into regional development theories and their
applications. (Rudzitis 1999, p. 9)

Tumbler Ridge, a small British Columbian community of 2,500 residents nestling

in the western slopes of the Canadian Rockies, epitomises such findings (Jackson
and Illsley 2006). Originally established as the last of the province’s ‘instant
towns’ in 1981 to house the workforce for two new mines exporting steel-making
coal to Japan, this extremely remote settlement was built on virgin forest land in
accordance with the principles promoted by the architect Christopher Alexander
on environmental layout and social behaviour. These saw town planners using an
outstanding montane setting to create an attractive townscape with high-amenity
buildings and good community facilities (Jackson et al. 2008).
Unlike many similar British Columbian rural settlements reliant on extractive
resources, when the Japanese leases expired at the turn of the millennium and its
mines closed, causing the population to plummet from a peak of 4,500, the town
did not simply die. Instead, the community bought up the mining properties using
legacy funds from the mining royalties and offered them on the market at fire-sale
prices, attracting global media attention. Despite its remote location and the total
loss of its original economic base, the resulting amenity migration to the town kept
it alive and thriving, building on pre-existing social capital and creating its own
sources of employment.
The share of owner-occupied properties quickly rose from 30 to 80 %, attracting
people unable to afford family accommodation in Calgary. Migrants from Ontario
and Canada’s Maritime Provinces also came to the town, tempted by the cheap
excellent housing and community facilities. Some of the amenity migrants opened
bed and breakfast accommodation or ran stores for outdoor recreation and organised
recreational and artistic activities. A German amenity migrant, who was fortuitously
touring North America at the time to identify potential locations for her own outdoor
recreation business, typifies the kind of person attracted:
I saw the ad about the housing and I thought that’s a price I can afford, I have to go up
there. So I drove up, and I drove into town, and I was overwhelmed, cleanness, the beauty,
the mountains : : : and I thought wow, this is beautiful. I didn’t really think about the price,
the price was the price of a truck at that moment, I thought who can’t risk that? (Jackson
et al. 2008, p. 37)

Another British Columbian montane community, Smithers, a town of 5,200

situated in the Bulkley Valley along the line of rail between Edmonton and Prince
Rupert, has exploited its high-amenity location to the full in diversifying from heavy
dependence on public sector employment following major closures of its regional
provincial government offices at the start of the millennium. Founded when the
railway was built in 1913, its attractive initial layout had already been enhanced
in the 1970s by a community decision to promote alpine frontages along its main
street to harmonise with its montane setting and skiing facilities. The frontages
have subsequently been enhanced by the landscaping of roads and footpaths and
78 T. Jackson

by restricted on-street parking, to create a close-knit, European-style, pedestrian-

friendly intimacy for its downtown centre, which offers a contrast to the stark
bleakness of nearby company-built settlements constructed around sawmills.
Local residents strongly support the place-brand identity that Smithers has
managed to establish for itself, offering comments such as ‘the layout of the town is
superb’; ‘that downtown main street creates that sense of community, that sense of
place’; ‘Smithers is a community of choice: people don’t end up here; they actively
seek out communities like this and make a point of staying here regardless of how
they support themselves’; ‘Smithers is as green a community as you’re going to find
in the north: just given the nature of people there, it’s a very, very diverse community
for a northern community’ (Jackson et al. 2008, p. 37).
Research reported by Chipeniuk (2006, p. 228) indicates that ‘over 12 % of the
residents in the Bulkley Valley are amenity migrants by strong definition, having in-
migrated not for a job or business opportunity, but for such amenities as clear rivers
and lakes, opportunities to ski and a good community’. One of those interviewed by
Jackson et al. (2008, p. 44) picked up on the same point:
Amenity migration has become the key driver. People still don’t recognise amenity
migration for what it is. But we have had a nice chunk of folks coming to this town, who are
operating out of their homes, doing work that is nothing to do with being here. Also, you’ve
got people retiring here for lifestyle results, which is kind of neat. This world class architect
that came to Smithers to retire, he had no family here, nothing, he just saw the place the one
time he’d been through here and liked it and decided this was where he was going to live
once he retired.

The growth of amenity migration across the whole of the North American
montane west displays many of the features of an unplanned form of interregional
place branding. In Canada, it has caught the attention of developers and conserva-
tionists (The Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia et al. 2009). Across the
border, the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem attracts increasing numbers of amenity
migrants, widening the area’s traditional offering of dude ranches affording tourists
an ephemeral opportunity to live the life of a cowboy (Johnson and Rasker 1995;
Rasker and Hansen 2000; Gude et al. 2006).
Research on factors determining the locations of businesses operating in the
Greater Yellowstone area indicates ‘that scenic beauty, a quality environment, a
sense of ruralness and recreational opportunity dominate the decision’ (Johnson and
Rasker 1995, p. 414). The character of these businesses is also changing:
the economy of the Greater Yellowstone is diverse and growing, with the bulk – over 95 % –
of the existing and new jobs in industries other than resource extraction. The ‘base’ has
broadened to include employment in a variety of business and producer services, such as
finance, insurance, real estate, telecommunications, software development, research, and
management consulting. Many of these are ‘footloose’, in the sense that the owners of these
businesses are often not tied to a particular locale and therefore able to locate to areas with
a desirable lifestyle. (Rasker and Hansen 2000:31)

Similar factors influence the relocation choices of amenity migrants themselves:

between 1970 and 1999, the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem ‘experienced a 58 %
7 Interregional Place-Branding Concepts: The Role of Amenity Migration. . . 79

increase in population and a 350 % increase in the area of rural lands supporting
exurban housing densities. By 1999, one third of exurban developments were
distributed in remote rural locations’ (Gude et al. 2006, p. 131).
The expansion of service centres in this ecosystem demonstrates the economic
impact of footloose businesses and amenity migrants exercising their locational
preferences. Jackson, Wyoming, with a population of 10,000 and its own airport,
now claims to have the highest per capita income in the USA, as its main streets
replete with upmarket art galleries and fashion shops appear to confirm. The town
hosts annual meetings of the Federal Reserve banking system and provides its
residents and visitors with outstanding recreational and conservation opportunities
throughout the year. Other communities surrounding the two national parks that
sustain the unique environmental appeal of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem,
such as Cody and Bozeman, share in this growth of local businesses and residents
as well as benefitting from high levels of upmarket tourism. As one researcher
observes:
[in] the rural west, and probably elsewhere, employment alone is insufficient to explain
why people move and live where they do. Often the amenities of places single them out as
desirable living environments. Any rural development strategy should honour the simple
notion of place and social/physical environments. We need to consider how and where
people want to live the ‘good’ life. (Rudzitis 1999, p. 13)

Before considering the contribution that interregional place-branding can make

in fulfilling such an ambition, the next section triangulates amenity migration
against the shifting models of rural development, exploring in the process the
relevant facets of some of the precepts of the new regionalism literature.

Tying Amenity Migration into the New Regionalism

Traditional models of economic development are aspatial in nature, accounting for

the lack of interest shown by neoclassical economists in the factors determining the
location of economic enterprises or the resulting pattern of settlements. Based on the
Heckscher-Ohlin premise that factor prices reflect relative resource endowments,
they assume trade and development will be governed by the laws of comparative
productive advantage (Knapp and Graves 1989). When applied to ‘open frontier’
regions such as northern British Columbia, these assumptions provide the rationale
for precarious staple-led patterns of rural development.
This neoclassical model has come under sustained attack from new economic
geography critiques (Krugman 1998). These draw a distinction between technology
‘embodied’ in the process of capital goods investment, which by definition is spa-
tially exogenous since it is available to any region that invests in the relevant capital
goods, and ‘disembodied’ technological progress, which remains independent of
the capital stock with which it is combined in production. Whereas embodied
technology in combination with efficient factor markets is seen to reinforce the
80 T. Jackson

processes of spatial convergence via exogenous neoclassical growth processes

which bring factor prices and incomes into balance regardless of location, the
disembodied variety is by definition endogenous and inherently spatially immobile,
being the preserve of knowledge-rich, creative and congenial environments.
It follows that spatial lumpiness in the distribution of endogenously disembodied
capital can provide an explanation for non-convergent regional performance. Much
of the focus of regional analysis has therefore switched to investigating the potential
sources of this form of spatial lumpiness, applying the term ‘new regionalism’ to the
task. Sources of spatial lumpiness in the distribution of disembodied technology can
be found in the unequal allocation of human capital caused by market imperfections
and inequalities (Lucas 1993). However, because labour mobility increases with
educational attainment, most analyses incorporating new regionalism precepts
reinforce this explanation by identifying other processes that attach disembodied
technology to specific locations.
Porter (1998) emphasises the effects of regional business networks and cluster-
ing, which allow the realisation of agglomeration and location-specific external
economies of scale. Florida (2002) analyses regional data on occupational pat-
terns to identify equivalent locational clusters of professional excellence. These
formulations combine to constitute a nodal model of spatial development, in
which innovative, knowledge-rich, creative centres of learning stimulate and diffuse
technology, through the types of forward and backward linkages identified in high-
tech campus spin-offs such as California’s Silicon Valley (Vázquez-Barquero 2003).
Apedaile (2004) draws on these precepts to outline the characteristics of a ‘new
rural economy’ for North America, which encompasses many of the processes
driving amenity migration in rural areas. He suggests that communities adopting
new rural economy precepts bound up with the new regionalism can switch
from resource-based systems of extraction and processing towards provision of
knowledge-based services. In contrast to commodity-based models of specialisa-
tion, new regionalism theory argues that place rather than product counts, allowing
locations to use their endogenous high-amenity environmental assets to attract
people working in knowledge-intensive occupations (Knapp and Graves 1989).
On this basis, Apedaile (2004) argues that rural settlements intent on pursuing
the precepts of new regionalism in order to acquire location-specific competitive
advantages need forms of local governance offering wider access to knowledge-
based tools and skills. This requires their councils to extend their provision of
public services from basic utilities into promoting, facilitating and participating in
the acquisition of knowledge. He points to the danger of not responding to such
opportunities and leaving the field clear for metropolitan areas to garner the crop of
creative classes:
Place does matter ( : : : ) talent concentrates in larger areas : : : because of ease of entry and
place amenities. Specifically ease of entry is defined as acceptance of diversity, or as a ‘plug
and play’ community. The pattern of vital spaces develops through competition for talent,
even if unknowingly, by autonomous agents ( : : : ) such that places gain and lose ground.
The process, part of the general argument around economies of agglomeration, leaves rural
7 Interregional Place-Branding Concepts: The Role of Amenity Migration. . . 81

places in catch-up status, losing ground to urban places, unless they can out-compete larger
population densities for talent ( : : : ) The evidence points to talent for organising knowledge
as the real heartbeat of the leading edge new rural economies. (Apedaile 2004, p. 119)

McGranahan and Wojan (2007, p. 199) suggest that ‘the appeal of natural
amenities and associated recreational opportunities is sufficiently strong for many in
the creative class to locate in rural areas rich in outdoor amenities’. Their research
offers a rationale for the findings of Gude et al. (2006) reporting high rates of
population growth in the Greater Yellowstone catchment:
The creative class is growing most rapidly in areas that are mountainous, with a mix of
forest and open area (but with relatively little cropland), and where winters are sunny.
All of the landscape coefficients are stronger in the creative class equation than in the net
migration equation, suggesting this class is drawn more than others to high-amenity areas.
(McGranahan and Wojan 2007, pp. 209–210)

Favoured rural communities in locations other than the montane American west
can also realise Apedaile’s aspirations for the new rural economy by exploiting an
obvious source of spatially fixed, lumpy disembodied capital assets. This involves
the place-branding and marketing of high-amenity environmental attractions to
footloose creative professionals seeking congenial locations to pursue their business.
Given the resource limitations facing small rural municipalities and the cross-
jurisdictional nature of many of these amenities, interregional place-branding is an
obvious option to explore. On this basis, the next section of the paper considers the
extent to which amenity-rich interregional areas are currently exploiting their place-
brand equity by appealing to footloose creative professional amenity migrants.

Using Interregional Place-Branding to Promote

Knowledge-Based Forms of Amenity Migration

Chipeniuk (2004) notes that few if any of the small municipal planning authorities
in the Canadian montane west consider the impact of their policies on actual and
potential in-migrants. Rather than attempting to secure this source of development,
many of their community plans conflate it with tourism promotion, failing to realise
that trade-offs are often involved in securing investments in tourism facilities that
might reduce the appeal of the area to amenity migrants. This suggests the need
for some professionally crafted interregional branding to assist rural communities
in helping to realise the place-brand equity associated with such amenity migration.
Examples of this approach are hard to find.
Jacobsen (2009, p. 76) defines place-brand equity as encompassing real or
perceived assets and liabilities that are associated with a place and distinguishes
it from others. In terms of amenity migration, such equity resides in the perception
of places by actual or potential in-migrants and the extent to which such perceptions
match the intrinsic values being sought by them when choosing places of residence.
82 T. Jackson

Kadirov and Triveni (2010) explore the interregional factors influencing migrant
groups within New Zealand who relocated to the Hawke’s Bay region on the east
coast of North Island. This area possesses high-quality environmental amenities,
including a good climate, attractive beaches and many boutique vineyards, plus the
architectural heritage of its main town, Napier, marketed as the Art Deco capital of
the world.
Factor analysis of survey responses identified social conditions, the natural
environment and business opportunities as the three principal elements influencing
the relocation decisions made by migrants moving into the region from other
parts of New Zealand. Cluster analysis was then applied to sort in-migrants into
four distinct groups according to their expressed preferences: material success
seekers, community/environment folk, apathetics and all-rounders (Kadirov and
Triveni 2010, pp. 171–173). The material success seekers looked to regional
business opportunities and appeared indifferent to social and natural resources.
Community/environment folk emphasised social and natural resources and were
indifferent to business opportunities. The final two groups saw no trade-offs in
these attributes: all-rounders considered all three to be important, whereas apathetics
found none of interest.
As Kadirov and Triveni (2010) acknowledge, these conflicting value frames com-
plicate the branding and marketing of any location to potential internal migrants.
However, the authors go on to argue that this type of research is crucial in providing
the analytical frame necessary for effective interregional place-branding targeted at
amenity migration, since it identifies the range of perceptions about the place held by
recent migrants and facilitates the creation and marketing of a suitable place brand.
The regional, district and city councils of the area, they argue, can shape the offer
placed before prospective internal migrants ‘by recognising the cultural dynamics
of migrant collectivity formation’ (Kadirov and Triveni 2010, p. 179).
Niedomysl (2004) investigates the actual impact of place-marketing campaigns
on interregional migration within Sweden. Swedish municipalities have made
greater efforts to attract new residents in recent decades than local authorities in
most comparable economies, and his research reveals growing competition amongst
them for in-migrants. In analysing the returns from a survey on municipal place-
marketing expenditure undertaken in 2002, Sweden’s 289 municipalities were
grouped into nine clusters on the basis of their size, employment structure and
population density. This indicated that the 29 low-density rural municipalities spent
by far the most per head overall: A C14.1 compared with an average of A C3.9 for
all Swedish municipalities (Niedomysl 2004, p. 1996). The share of total place-
marketing outlays they specifically targeted towards in-migrants was similar to that
allocated by all Swedish municipalities, running at A C3.2 (22.7 %) per head against
an overall average of A C0.8 per head (25 %).
In determining the priorities for their place-marketing campaigns, the survey
revealed that all the Swedish municipality clusters regarded targeting in-migration to
be almost equal in importance as securing additional inward industrial investment.
Both of these objectives were placed above boosting tourism, even though much
of the published literature focuses on the impact of destination branding on tourist
7 Interregional Place-Branding Concepts: The Role of Amenity Migration. . . 83

flows (Niedomysl 2004, p. 1997). Less surprisingly, municipalities with declining

populations placed greater importance on efforts to attract in-migrants than those
with growing populations (Niedomysl 2004, p. 1998). Forty-nine percent of all
Swedish municipalities surveyed indicated that they had undertaken a marketing
campaign to attract in-migrants over the 2 years prior to the survey, which
Niedomysl (2004, p. 1999) considers a ‘remarkably high figure’.
The main factors Swedish municipalities considered important in branding their
locational attractions to in-migrants were predominantly ‘soft’ values, such as
the local living environment, quality of life and outdoor recreation opportunities.
None of the clusters identified employment or education opportunities as impor-
tant marketing considerations, although these have traditionally been viewed as
significant inducements to in-migrants. Exhibitions, websites, brochures and press
advertisements were the most common forms of place marketing used, with the
principal targets being families with children (mentioned by 52 % of municipalities)
and highly educated or qualified labour (mentioned by 30 %). A third of the
municipalities were specifically undertaking marketing campaigns aimed at the
capital region, Stockholm (Niedomysl 2004, p. 2000).
Despite rising outlays on this form of expenditure and continued belief by
Swedish municipalities in the effectiveness of their place marketing, Niedomysl
(2004) noted that hardly any formal evaluation of their campaigns had been
undertaken. In his own analysis of interregional Swedish migration rates, he could
find no statistical support for the contention that this expenditure was boosting
actual migration flows. One plausible explanation for these findings is that Swedish
municipal place-marketing campaigns have made little prior effort to identify the
factors influencing the potential relocation motives of their targets or to use such
factors to construct effective interregional place-branding concepts designed to
appeal to those segments of population most susceptible to relocation inducements.

Conclusions

Rural amenity migration is an increasingly important source of economic develop-

ment. Analysis of population growth in the North American montane west indicates
the extent to which high amenities serve to boost an influx of talented migrants.
New regionalism theory offers a rural development model which is capable of
accommodating efforts to apply interregional place-branding to this form of in-
migration. Its precepts emphasise place and person rather than product, supporting
interregional efforts to market the attraction of rural locations to footloose creative
professionals seeking congenial surroundings to pursue their careers and raise their
families.
The concept of ‘Cascadia’ stands as an example of co-operative rather than
competitive interregional place-branding of the North American montane west,
spanning the international border between Washington State and British Columbia.
Proponents of Cascadia have articulated the place brand largely on environmental
84 T. Jackson

premises, drawing on the development opportunities offered by the North American

Free Trade Agreement (Smith 2008). The European Union, set up to ensure the
free flow of goods and services, capital and labour between its member states,
should be equally well positioned to facilitate this type of place marketing. Within
Europe, there are many attractive cross-border interregional locations offering high-
amenity lifestyles which individual national governments, local councils, businesses
and footloose migrants have not previously sought to develop because of frontier
barriers.
Unfortunately, despite the pioneering work undertaken by Jacobsen (2012) in this
respect, there is as yet little evidence of robust evaluation of the economic impact of
interregional place-branding exercises. This weakness applies even to those place-
marketing campaigns being undertaken within the boundaries of individual member
states, as the research undertaken by Niedomysl (2004) and Kadirov and Triveni
(2010) confirms. As a result, attempts to secure European Commission funding for
collaborative cross-border interregional branding initiatives are being impeded by
gaps in knowledge about good practice.
Some efforts to close these gaps are starting to emerge. Zenker et al. (2013) have
recently developed an analytical framework for comparative evaluation of individual
city place-branding within a reunified Germany. Researchers are also beginning
to assess the potential of interregional place-branding in cross-border areas of the
European Union benefitting from major infrastructure investments. Although little
enthusiasm has been shown for developing a place brand to exploit the interregional
linkages between the Pas-de-Calais and Kent created by the Channel Tunnel, the
recently constructed bridge across the Oresund linking Denmark and Sweden has
prompted what appears to be an effective interregional branding initiative. As
Hospers (2004) notes, while this exercise has yet to convince all the local residents
of the virtues of flaunting their transnational regional characteristics, the creation of
the Oresund brand provides the framework for a series of national projects designed
to exploit new cross-border opportunities for integrated promotion and development
of this densely populated area.
Setting aside any administrative inconveniences, there is no logical reason for the
European Union to confine its cohesion policy projects to those that can be executed
solely within the boundaries of its member states. European spatial policymakers
should welcome the opportunity to explore what Servillo et al. (2011) term the
‘territorial attractiveness’ of Europe’s transnational areas and should be keen to
apply their policy instruments to these locations. As the Commission acknowledges
in its Fifth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion:
the regional diversity in the European Union, where regions have vastly different character-
istics, opportunities and needs, requires going beyond ‘one-size-fits-all’ policies, towards
an approach that gives regions the ability to design and the means to deliver policies that
meet their needs. This is what Cohesion Policy provides through its place-based approach.
(CEC 2010, p. 13)

Given the application of a sufficiently robust analytical framework, transnational

interregional place-branding projects such as Oresund offer a fruitful area for
exploring the application of European Union cross-border cohesion instruments.
7 Interregional Place-Branding Concepts: The Role of Amenity Migration. . . 85

References

Apedaile LP (2004) The new rural economy. In: Halseth G, Halseth R (eds) Building for
success: explorations of rural community and rural development. Brandon University Rural
Development Institute, Manitoba, pp 111–134
Barnes TJ, Hayter R (1992) The little town that did. Flexible accumulation and the community
response in Chemainus, British Columbia. Reg Stud 26(7):647–663
CEC [Commission of the European Communities] (2010) Investing in Europe’s future: fifth report
on economic, social and territorial cohesion. Directorate General Regional Policy, Brussels
Chipeniuk R (2004) Planning for amenity migration in Canada: current capacities of interior British
Columbian mountain communities. Mt Res Dev 24(4):327–335
Chipeniuk R (2006) Some tools for planning for amenity migration in remote rural settlements:
lessons from participatory action. Community Dev J 43(2):222–238
Daramola-Martin A (2009) Liverpool one and the transformation of a city: place branding,
marketing and the catalytic effects of regeneration and culture on repositioning Liverpool. Place
Brand Public Dipl 5:301–3011
Deller SC, Tsai T, Marcouillier DW, English DB (2001) The role of amenities and quality of life
in rural economic growth. Am J Agric Econ 83:352–365
Dunphy K (2009) Developing and revitalising rural communities through arts and creativity:
Australia. Creative City Network of Canada at the Centre for Policy Studies on Culture and
Communities, Vancouver
Florida R (2002) The economic geography of talent. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 92:743–755
Green GP (2001) Amenities and community economic development: strategies for sustainability.
J Reg Anal Policy 31(2):61–75
Gude PH, Hansen AJ, Rasker R, Maxwell B (2006) Rates and drivers of rural residential
development in the Greater Yellowstone. Landsc Urban Plan 76:131–151
Hayter R (2000) Flexible crossroads: the restructuring of British Columbia’s forest economy. UBC
Press, Vancouver
Heenan DA (1991) The new corporate frontier: the big move to Small Town, USA. McGraw-Hill,
New York
Hospers G-J (2004) Place marketing in Europe: the branding of the Oresund region. Intereco-
nomics 39(5):271–279
Innis HA (1930) The fur trade in Canada: an introduction to Canadian economic history. Toronto
University Press, Toronto
Jackson T, Illsley BM (2006) Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia: the mining town that refused to
die. J Transatlantic Stud 4(2):163–186
Jackson T, Illsley BM, Curry J, Rapaport E (2008) Amenity migration and sustainable development
in remote resource-based communities: lessons from northern British Columbia. Int J Soc Syst
Sci 1(1):26–48
Jacobsen BP (2009) Investor-based place branding equity: a theoretical framework. J Place Manag
Dev 2(1):70–84
Jacobsen BP (2012) Place brand equity: a model for establishing the effectiveness of place brands.
J Place Manag Dev 5(3):253–271
Johnson JD, Rasker R (1995) The role of economic and quality of life values in rural business
locations. J Rural Stud 11(4):405–416
Kadirov D, Triveni A (2010) Customers of place: exploring interregional migrant collectivities. J
Place Manag Dev 3(3):167–181
Kavaratzis M (2009) Cities and their brands: lessons from corporate branding. Place Brand Public
Dipl 5:26–37
Knapp TA, Graves PE (1989) On the role of amenities in models of migration and regional
development. J Reg Sci 29(1):71–87
Krugman P (1998) What’s new about the new economic geography? Oxf Rev Econ Policy 14:7–17
86 T. Jackson

Lloyd G, Peel D (2008) Functionalism and representationalism in contemporary urban agendas: a

Scottish perspective on city-region branding. Urban Res Pract 1(1):36–53
Lucas RE (1993) Making a miracle. Econometrica 61(2):251–272
Markusen M (2004) Targeting occupations in regional and community economic development. J
Am Plan Assoc 70:253–269
McClintock W (1998) Resource community formation and change: a case study of Katikati. Taylor
Baines and Associates Working Paper 12, Auckland
McGranahan D, Wojan T (2007) Recasting the creative class to examine growth processes in rural
and urban counties. Reg Stud 41(2):197–216
Moss LAG (ed) (2006) The amenity migrants: seeking and sustaining mountains and their culture.
CAB International, Wallingford
Nelson PB (1999) Quality of life, non-traditional income and economic growth: new development
opportunities for the rural west. Rural Dev Perspect 14(2):32–37
Niedomysl T (2004) Evaluating the effects of place-marketing campaigns on interregional
migration in Sweden. Environ Plan A 36:1991–2009
Porter ME (1998) Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harv Bus Rev 76:77–90
Power TM, Barrett RN (2001) Post-cowboy economics: pay and prosperity in the new American
West. Island Press, Washington, DC
Rasker R, Hansen A (2000) Natural amenities and population growth in the Greater Yellowstone
region. Hum Ecol Rev 7(2):30–40
Rudzitis G (1999) Amenities increasingly drawing people to the rural west. Rural Dev Perspect
14(2):9–13
Servillo L, Atkinson R, Russo AP (2011) Territorial attractiveness in EU urban and spatial policy:
a critical review and future research agenda. Eur Urban Reg Stud 19(4):349–365
Smith PJ (2008) Branding Cascadia: considering Cascadia’s conflicting conceptualisations – who
gets to decide? Can Polit Sci Rev 2(2):57–83
The Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia, Canadian Park and Wilderness Society
and Omenica Beetle Action Commission (2009) Amenity-influenced migration in British
Columbia’s mountain communities. Pacific Analytics, Victoria
Tomaney J, Bradley D (2007) The economic role of mobile professional and creative workers and
their housing and residential preferences. Town Plan Rev 78(4):511–530
Vázquez-Barquero A (2003) Endogenous development: networking, innovation, institutions and
cities. Routledge, Abingdon
Vias AC (1999) Jobs follow people in the rural Rocky Mountain West. Rural Dev Perspect
14(2):14–23
Zenker S (2009) Who’s your target? The creative class as a target group for place branding. J Place
Brand Manag 2(1):23–32
Zenker S, Eggers F, Farsky M (2013) Putting a price tag on cities: insights into the competitive
environment of places. Cities 30:133–139
Chapter 8
Cross-Border Place Branding in Europe

Jan-Jelle Witte and Erik Braun

Abstract In recent years, Europe has seen a strong increase in cross-border

cooperation. Under different headings, most commonly the Euregion, cross-border
partnerships are being set up in all member states of the EU and beyond. This trend
is hailed as the regionalization of Europe, or the rise of the region state, and is
actively supported by EU initiatives such as INTERREG. A key responsibility of
these emerging cross-border regions is the attraction and retention of inhabitants,
investors, and visitors, and place branding is a key tool for attaining these goals. An
extensive literature has emerged, providing insights on strategies for the branding of
cities and regions. At the same time, policy practitioners and branding professionals
have developed a wide variety of place branding strategies in cross-border regions.
However, few studies have dealt with the specific challenges faced by cross-border
branding initiatives. Moreover, the cross-border cooperation literature suggests that
besides the commonly assumed entrepreneurial motivations behind place branding,
cross-border place branding may in fact be motivated by political reasons instead.
This difference may be significant if the motivations behind a place branding
initiative impact its design and implementation and hence its outcomes. This chapter
explores the extent of cross-border place branding in Europe, as well as differences
between cases in terms of the type of cross-border region, the scale of the region,
and the scope of the branding initiative in terms of the range of target audiences
addressed. Moreover, it proposes a first measure of the outcome of branding
initiatives and suggests some possible relations between the characteristics of the
cross-border branding initiatives and their outcomes.

Keywords Place branding • Region branding • Branding strategy • Cross-border

cooperation • Cross-border regions • EU integration • Europe • Interreg

J.-J. Witte ()

Urban, Port and Transport Economics, School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O.
Box 1738, 3000DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
e-mail: [email protected]
E. Braun
School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000DR Rotterdam, The
Netherlands

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 87

S. Zenker, B.P. Jacobsen (eds.), Inter-Regional Place Branding,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-15329-2_8
88 J.-J. Witte and E. Braun

Introduction

The techniques of place branding have become widely known among both aca-
demics and practitioners (Lucarelli and Berg 2011) and are being increasingly
widely applied to areas from cities and regions (Braun 2008; Zenker 2011) to
countries and supranational entities (Fan 2006; Olins 2002). Recently, in addition,
a range of cross-border region brands have been constructed in Europe (Hospers
2006). Rather than merely an extension of the techniques of place brand to a
new scale level, cross-border place branding may introduce new challenges not
encountered by other place branding initiatives. Moreover, the Euregions and other
cross-border cooperation organizations involved in cross-border place branding may
represent a new type of actor in place branding.
The first case studies on cross-border place branding (Hospers 2006; Ioannides
et al. 2006; Lepik and Kregul 2009; Andersson 2007; Prokkola 2007; Nilsson et al.
2010) have appeared, but they still spend little thought on the questions of what
a cross-border region is and what challenges its branding may entail. Moreover,
the single-case studies conducted up till now (so far only Nilsson et al. 2010 have
done a multi-case study) shed little light on the overall scale of the phenomenon of
cross-border place branding in Europe, as well as possible differences in the aims
and strategies behind these branding initiatives. This chapter aims to address these
knowledge gaps. It first brings together the literatures on place branding and cross-
border cooperation and explores the nature and origins of cross-border regions. This
is followed by a survey of cross-border place brands in Europe, giving an overview
of the spread of the phenomenon as well as exploring some key characteristics of
these branding initiatives. In particular, this chapter will stress the recently much
debated (e.g., Berglund and Olsson 2010) distinction between branding initiatives
as promotion campaigns as opposed to strategic approaches to branding.

Literature Review

Marketing techniques originally developed for the branding of products have over
the past two decades been widely applied to the branding of places as well (Lucarelli
and Berg 2011). Starting with simple promotion campaigns (Ward 1998), in recent
years some cities have moved on to more elaborate branding strategies (e.g.,
Ashworth and Kavaratzis 2007; Braun 2012; Kavaratzis 2005). In this process, the
place brand evolved from an image and slogan to a promise about what visitors,
investors, and also residents may expect from their city. This requires a detailed
strategy for involving stakeholders (Klijn et al. 2012) and residents (Braun et al.
2013), as well as developing sufficient organizing capacity (Van den Berg and Braun
1999) among local actors to support these complex branding processes. Still, far
from all place branding initiatives may be called true branding strategies, as the
conception of branding as promotion is still widespread (Ashworth and Kavaratzis
2007).
8 Cross-Border Place Branding in Europe 89

Since this chapter will stress the difference between place promotion and strate-
gic place branding as a key distinction between (cross-border) branding initiatives,
a clear definition is needed. In practice, as well as in theory, the definitions and
concepts of place marketing often lack a proper definition and a consistent usage.
As a result, place marketing is often mistaken as place promotion or “place selling”
(see for a discussion: Berglund and Olsson 2010; Kavaratzis and Ashworth 2005).
Place promotion is understood here as a process that tries to find the right consumers
for an existing place product (supply oriented). Place branding on the other hand
is understood as a tool from the general field of marketing, which aims to shape
customers’ mental brand representations and evaluations (Zenker 2011). As such,
it encompasses not just the promotional aspects of marketing but also the central
aim of satisfying the consumer’s needs and wants (demand orientated). While place
promotion and strategic branding may work in conjunction, they cannot be used
interchangeably.
While the academic knowledge and policy experience on place branding are still
developing, at the same time its techniques are being applied to an ever wider range
of spatial scales and types of places. Beginning with city branding, place branding is
now also being applied at the regional, national, and even supranational (Andersson
and Paajanen 2012) scale. While in the literature the debate on whether or not it is
possible to brand an entire region is still ongoing (e.g., Caldwell and Freire 2004),
practice is again moving ahead of theory with the first interregional and cross-border
brands already having appeared in Europe.
Launched in 1999, the Øresund Region is the most widely known example of
a brand consciously created using the techniques of place branding, aiming to
communicate the existence and attractiveness of a region that crosses a national
border. Rather than a promotion campaign, the Øresund Region represents a
systematic branding strategy involving local government, local universities, and
other stakeholders on both sides of the sea border. Actors have cooperated in long-
term activities aimed at creating a functional cross-border region as well as an
imagined space, living in the minds of both local residents and external audiences
(e.g., Hospers 2006).
Partly in response to perceived success stories such as the Øresund Region, and
partly flowing out of older cross-border cooperation initiatives, a number of other
cross-border branding initiatives have sprung up across Europe. These initiatives
include the Bothnian Arc (Ioannides et al. 2006), the Helsinki-Tallinn region (Lepik
and Kregul 2009), the Baltic Sea region (Andersson 2007), the Arctic Circle
(Prokkola 2007), Nordkalotten, Pomerania, and Skärgården (Nilsson et al. 2010),
as well as many other initiatives undertaken by policy makers and other local actors
but not yet studied in the literature (which appears to be biased toward Scandinavian
case studies).
In terms of theory development, some first progress has been made to explore the
process of region branding. Some challenges in the process of region building are
suggested by Andersson (2007), revolving around “ : : : the lack of a central decision-
making authority” and “ : : : the diversity of the region, or in other words, how to
deal with multiple stakeholders and multiple identities” (Andersson 2007, p. 124).
90 J.-J. Witte and E. Braun

He further suggests that such challenges “ : : : can be assumed to get worse as a

function of the size and diversity of a place : : : ” (Andersson 2007, p. 123), as is the
case for developing a regional or even a cross-border region brand.
Moreover, drawing mainly on the regional geography literature, Hospers (2006)
makes a distinction between real places and imagined spaces. Real places function
as identities that elicit feelings of belonging in the minds of their residents, while
imagined spaces are place-based identities consciously constructed to serve some
purpose. Imagined spaces often fall short of becoming real places in the above
sense, for example, because only one (often elitist) aspect of the area is selectively
communicated to external audiences. Popular resistance against the creation of such
“meaningless” regions may then lead to failure of the region branding process
(Hospers 2006, p. 1018).
As for the specific challenges involved in cross-border region branding, as
opposed to region branding in general, relatively little is known from the literature.
Hospers (2006) just notes that besides physical and legal borders, also mental
borders need to be overcome before a real, integrated region may result, and hence,
the branding of a cross-border space as a region becomes meaningful. In practice,
the development of a cross-border place brand is likely to be a much more complex
process than what these general remarks suggest.
Moreover, so far the literature has given little thought to the question of why
cross-border region brands are being created in the first place. Like the place
branding literature in general, studies on regional and cross-border branding tend
to cite entrepreneurial motives in response to rising territorial competition (e.g.,
Jenssen and Richardsson 2003). However, as discussed in the next section, the work
of scholars of border studies and cross-border integration (see, e.g., Perkmann 2003)
suggests that, especially in the European Union, political motives may be just as
important, if not more important motivations for the rise in popularity of cross-
border place branding.
In sum, while there are signs of a rise in popularity of cross-border place branding
among policy makers in Europe, little theoretical and empirical work has been done
to understand this phenomenon. In particular, little thought has been given to the
question of how cross-border regions develop or are constructed, for what reason
they are constructed, and what challenges actors face during this process.

Conceptual Exploration of Cross-Border Place Branding

So, firstly, what are cross-border regions, and where do they originate from?
Perkmann (2003) notes that much of the literature on cross-border cooperation
shows a normative tendency. From a normative perspective, local cooperation
initiatives can be seen as evidence of a resurgence of the region vis-à-vis the
long-dominant nation-state. In this discourse, local actors cooperating across the
borders of their respective nation-states represent a highly significant break from
a past, when cross-border policy making (such as transport and spatial planning
8 Cross-Border Place Branding in Europe 91

coordination) was the exclusive domain of the national government. The European
Commission was naturally attracted to this discourse and over time has built up
extensive funding opportunities to facilitate such local initiatives. This discourse
leads to a definition of the cross-border region as “..a potential region, inherent in
geography, history, ecology, ethnic groups, economic possibilities and so on, but
disrupted by the sovereignty of the governments ruling on each side of the frontier”
(Council of Europe 1995; cited by Perkmann 2003, p. 156). In other words, cross-
border regions were latent in the geography of Europe and have recently reasserted
themselves against the nation-state with help from European funding sources such
as INTERREG.
However, as noted by Hospers (2006), many of the (cross-border) regions
implicated in place branding initiatives are instead imagined spaces with little
relation to the historical or sociocultural reality as experienced by their constituents.
Rather than being rediscovered, the regional identities that form the basis of cross-
border regional action may in many cases be recent inventions. And rather than
assuming a priori that these initiatives are first and foremost local and bottom-
up processes, they may instead by multilevel phenomenon in which national and
supranational actors could be found to play an important role.
To accommodate these multiple possible origins of cross-border cooperation,
Perkmann (2003) offers a more neutral definition of the cross-border region as
“ : : : a more or less institutionalized collaboration between contiguous subnational
authorities across national borders” (Perkmann 2003, p. 156). He finds that most of
these cross-border cooperations are the result of local actors responding to European
funding opportunities to create organizations conforming to the required standards
set for participation in INTERREG and other funding sources. In Scandinavia, the
Nordic Council has played a similar role in facilitating cross-border cooperation,
but because it set somewhat different funding requirements, it generated a distinct
type of Scandinavian cross-border regions. The INTERREG-type regions (many of
them using variations of the name “Euregion”) tend to be quite small in geographical
scale, with stable long-term institutions aiming to set in motion a process of gradual
local cross-border integration. The typical Scandinavian cross-border region is
larger in spatial scale, with less strictly defined delineations.
So local cross-border cooperation in many cases is policy driven, functioning
as one of the tools of European integration. Moreover, these initiatives function
as demonstrations of the rise of the region and the declining dominance of the
nation-state, while highlighting the opportunities for cross-border mobility and
cooperation created by the efforts of EU institutions. The rising popularity of cross-
border place branding is largely related to these cross-border cooperation initiatives.
Economic development tends to be one of the pillars of activity of cross-border
regions, especially in the case of relatively peripheral and less developed border
regions. Cross-border place branding then comes into view as a way to quickly
give substance to cross-border cooperation on economic development. While cross-
border cooperation organizations may cite entrepreneurial motives for their place
marketing activities, the above discussion suggests that the primary motive is instead
the political aim of building up legitimacy for cross-border cooperation.
92 J.-J. Witte and E. Braun

The role of political motives behind cross-border place branding is likely to

have an impact on the specific design and implementation of cross-border place
branding initiatives. While more research needs to be done to explore this question,
one possible way in which political motives would impact place branding could
be in the delineation of the region to be branded. One may suggest that from an
entrepreneurial point of view, the development of a region brand should start from
the identification of a territory as distinct and coherent as possible, so that a clear and
concise story may be communicated about this region. However, if integration and
other political aims are foremost, regions are more likely to be delineated with aims
in mind such as fostering cooperation in previously sensitive border areas or the
association of peripheral areas with economically vibrant core regions. Moreover,
from a political point of view, questions of key concern are likely to include inclu-
sion of a wide range of stakeholders and the safeguarding of a balanced representa-
tion in the branding strategy of the full range of diversity found in a region. Whether
or not this also leads to an optimal branding strategy from an entrepreneurial point
of view is open to debate. Having discussed the nature and origins of cross-border
place branding and some of their possible implications, the next section gives an
empirical overview of examples of cross-border place branding in Europe.

Evidence of Cross-Border Place Branding in Europe

Based on an extensive desk research of audiovisual, print, and online materials, as

well as the academic literature, a total of 17 cases of cross-border place branding
were identified in Europe (as of December 2013). Cases were included in this survey
if a clearly identifiable brand name could be found, which is connected to a clearly
defined region that crosses at least one national border. The aim is to find out how
widespread the phenomenon of cross-border place branding currently is, as well
as provide some insight into the most common backgrounds and characteristics of
these branding initiatives.
For each of the cases, some additional data was collected. Firstly, we researched
which actors were the driving forces behind the branding initiative. Since Euregions
are the most common vehicle for cross-border cooperation in Europe, we focused on
whether the branding initiative was initiated by a Euregion or by actors not mainly
working under the flag of a Euregion. In most cases classified as “not Euregion,” a
Euregion does exist in the area but was not found to be the main actor involved
in initiating and implementing the branding initiative. Secondly, as an indicator
of the spatial scale of the branding initiative, data is provided of the approximate
population of the area represented by the brand name. In most cases, the branding
organization reports population data itself. When data was not available, an attempt
was made to estimate the total population by adding up the population of all
territories covered by the branding initiative. Thirdly, insight into the scope of the
branding initiative is provided. For each case, we record which target audiences
(investors, tourists, residents, students) are included in the branding initiative.
8 Cross-Border Place Branding in Europe 93

Finally, we have constructed an indicator that gives a first insight into the
outcomes of the branding initiatives. The “status” indicator divides branding
initiatives into four categories. The first category includes cases where a brand
name can be identified, but the name and its supporting promotion materials (if
available) have not been communicated widely to its intended target audience. This
could mean that the branding initiative was only started very recently and is still
actively being prepared for use, but often several years have already passed since
inception of the branding initiative, and implementation seems unlikely to occur.
The second category includes cases with a brand name (often with a logo or symbol
and a brand slogan) that has been widely distributed to its target audience. However,
these cases at present are not classified as branding strategies but rather as promotion
campaigns, since not all elements of a branding strategy (discussed in the literature
review) could be found. The third category includes cases that do constitute fully
developed branding strategies, but which appear not to have been systematically
implemented yet. Finally, the fourth category includes benchmark cases with a
branding strategy that does appear to be in an advanced stage of implementation.
Table 8.1 provides an impression of the geographical spread of the cases of
cross-border place branding identified, as well as identifying countries that are
relatively active in this field. The two countries most actively involved in cross-
border branding initiatives are Germany and Switzerland. In total, six cross-border
region brands were found that include a region in Germany, while Swiss regions
were involved in five cross-border region brands (out of these totals, two brands
involve German-Swiss cooperation). Austria, the Czech Republic, and Sweden
are each involved in three identifiable cross-border region brands, while Belgium,
Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, and the Netherlands figured in two cases
identified in our survey. While the territorial size and length of internal European
borders of countries probably explain a large part of these differences, these results
may also suggest a higher level of enthusiasm or awareness of cross-border place
branding in some countries (most notably Switzerland) than in others.
The main dataset is presented in Table 8.2. The first finding is that 10 cases out
of a total of 17 were spearheaded by a Euregion, with the remaining seven being the
initiative of different types of actors. This includes three Scandinavian regions co-
funded by the Nordic Council (Øresund, Bothnian Arc, and Inner Scandinavia), one
initiative flowing out of a city twinning project (Baranya region), and three cases
originating from a local cooperation initiative other than a Euregion (Bodensee,
Eurometropolis, and Sonderjylland-Schleswig: Cross-Border Logistics Region).
The cross-border brands most commonly involve regions from two countries, but
in two cases (Bodensee and Centrope), regions from a total of four countries
are involved, while in another two cases (BioValley and Meuse-Rhine Euregio),
the borders of three countries are crossed. The size of the area covered by the
branding initiative in terms of population ranges from 200,000 (Euregio Silva
Nortica) to 7 million (Centrope), while for two regions no population data could be
found.
One cross-border branding initiative was found to include all four target audi-
ences distinguished in this survey, namely, the Bodensee brand. Another four brands
94 J.-J. Witte and E. Braun

Table 8.1 Number of Country Number

cross-border region brands in
Europe by country Germany (DE) 6
Switzerland (CH) 5
Austria (AT) 3
Czech Republic (CZ) 3
Sweden (SE) 3
Belgium (BE) 2
Denmark (DK) 2
Finland (FI) 2
France (FR) 2
Hungary (HU) 2
Netherlands (NL) 2
Bulgaria (BG) 1
Spain (ES) 1
Greece (GR) 1
Croatia (HR) 1
Italy (IT) 1
Lichtenstein (LI) 1
Norway (NO) 1
Portugal (PT) 1
Slovakia (SK) 1

(Centrope, Eurometropolis, Bothnian Arc, and Meuse-Rhine Euregio) included at

least three target audiences (in each case investors, tourists, and residents were
covered). The remaining cases either had two target audiences (five cases) or a
single audience (seven cases). For single-audience brands, only pure investment
brands and pure tourist brands were found. The final row shows the status indicator,
showing that six cases were classified as branding strategies in an advanced
stage of implementation. Each of these cases not only shows the presence of a
promotion campaign but also has a documented branding strategy backed up with
projects, resources, and achievements that indicate its actual implementation at
the time of data collection. One more case (the Cross-Border Logistics Region
in Sonderjylland-Schleswig) shows a well-documented branding strategy, but its
implementation still appears to be limited. Five cases show an implemented pro-
motion campaign, while for the final five cases, only a brand name with or without
promotion materials was found, but not yet evidence of large-scale communication
to its target audience.
The main finding so far is that while cross-border place branding is a relatively
widespread phenomenon occurring in most countries of Europe, only part of these
initiatives are largely implemented, and only six can be said to constitute branding
strategies. These six benchmark cases are concentrated in Scandinavia (Øresund
and Bothnian Arc) and the German- and French-speaking countries (BioValley,
Bodensee, Eurometropolis), with one case also including regions in Central and
Eastern Europe (Centrope).
8 Cross-Border Place Branding in Europe 95

Table 8.2 Cases of cross-border place branding in Europe

Approx.
population
Country Euregion? (million) Scope Status
a
BioValley DE, FR, CH Yes 6.0 I
a
Centrope region AT, CZ, SK, HU Yes 7.0 I, T, R
a
Bodensee DE, AT, CH, LI No 3.8 I, T, R, S
a
Eurometropolis FR, BE No 2.1 I, T, R
a
Øresund DK, SE No 3.7 I, R
a
Bothnian Arc SE, FI No 0.7 I, T, R
b
Sonderjylland-Schleswig: DK, DE No 2.2 I
Cross-Border Logistics
Region
c
Euro-region PT, ES Yes 6.5 I
Galicia-Northern Portugal
c
Meuse-Rhine Euroregio DE, BE, NL Yes 4.0 I, T, R
(MRE)
c
EUREGIO DE, NL Yes 3.4 T, R
Enschede-Gronau
c
Bohemian-Saxon DE, CZ Yes 1.5 T
Switzerland
c
Insubrica Euregion: Lakes IT, CH Yes 2.7 T
and Alps
d
Euregio Silva Nortica AT, CZ Yes 0.2 T, R
d
Helsinki-Tallinn FI, ES Yes 2.1 I, T
d
Rhodopes and Aegean Sea BG, GR Yes n/a I, T
d
Baranya region HU, HR No 0.7 I
d
Inner Scandinavia NO, SE No n/a T
Scope: I Investors and entrepreneurs, T Tourists, R Residents, S Students
Status: a Brand strategy in advanced stage of implementation
b
Identifiable brand strategy
c
Brand widely communicated to target audiences
d
Identifiable brand name

Another way to analyze the data is to look for patterns, most importantly the
circumstances under which largely implemented branding strategies occur. The
most striking pattern is the relation between the type of region (Euregion or
otherwise) and the status of the branding initiative. Most of the cases with a largely
implemented branding strategy are non-Euregion initiatives, with BioValley and
Centrope as the exceptions. At the same time, all cases of promotion campaigns and
three out of five of the promotion brands without an implemented communication
strategy are Euregions. This suggests that branding campaigns spearheaded by
Euregions either are at a much earlier phase of implementation or tend to be
implemented less successfully or with more limited ambitions in mind.
A second pattern can be found in the relation between the scope of the branding
initiative and its status. Largely implemented branding strategies are most common
96 J.-J. Witte and E. Braun

among initiatives with a relatively broad scope of target audiences (BioValley

being the clearest exception, aiming exclusively at investors). Conversely, none of
the brands that have not yet been widely communicated to their target audiences
have a scope wider than two distinct target audiences. Finally, a possible relation
could exist between the population size and the status of the branding initiative.
However, cases of the largely implemented branding strategies and the promotion
campaigns show a very similar population range and average, while only the cases
with only an identifiable brand name appear to coincide with smaller or less sparsely
populated areas (but the two missing values in this category limit the strength of this
observation).

Discussion

This chapter has explored the phenomenon of cross-border place branding both
from a conceptual and an empirical perspective. From discussions in the literature,
it found that rather than entrepreneurial motives, political motives may play a key
role in triggering cross-border place branding initiatives in Europe. These initiatives
often stem from Euregions, created by local governmental actors in order to be able
to participate in EU-funded cooperation projects.
Empirically, the survey of cross-border place branding in Europe conducted for
this study found examples throughout the EU, but with a large proportion occurring
in Scandinavia, Germany, and Switzerland. Based on additional data collected for
17 cases with a clearly identifiable brand, some first generalizations were made on
the characteristics of cross-border regions engaging in place branding and some
possible implications of these characteristics. It found striking differences in the
scope of target audiences addressed by branding initiatives, as well as the size of the
region in terms of population covered by the brand area.
Moreover, while cross-border place branding itself is a relatively common
phenomenon in Europe, coherent and largely implemented branding strategies
were comparatively rare. A large fraction of the cases identified instead represent
promotion campaigns rather than branding strategies, underlining worries in the
literature that place branding is still often confused with the communication of
logos and slogans rather than the development of a coherent brand story with
an accompanying strategy for delivering on the promises put forward to target
audiences (Ashworth and Kavaratzis 2007; Braun 2012; Kavaratzis 2005).
Some patterns were found in the data, leading to some first generalization for
further research to study in more depth. Firstly, promotion campaigns (with or
without an accompanying dissemination strategy) were found to be more common
among Euregions than other types of cross-border regions engaging in place
branding. The conceptual exploration of cross-border place branding suggests that
these different outcomes may be related to differences in motivations for engaging in
place branding. Euregions are the typical form for local cross-border cooperation to
take on if they want to benefit from EU funding opportunities such as INTERREG.
8 Cross-Border Place Branding in Europe 97

This brings in motivations such as political integration and the catch-up of peripheral
regions to economic core areas, rather than the purely entrepreneurial motives
usually cited in the literature. The pattern identified may suggest that having
non-entrepreneurial motives to engage in place branding may adversely affect the
outcomes, although more research is needed to substantiate such a claim. Further
relations between on the one hand the scope of the branding initiative in terms of
the number of target audiences and the outcomes of the branding initiative and on
the other hand between the scale in terms of population and the outcomes are still
difficult to interpret and require further research.

Final Remarks

The findings from this study may suggest that there is a trade-off between the way
the techniques of place branding are deployed and the outcomes that are achieved.
Place branding may be most effective when employed only for its direct benefits
in terms of economic returns, rather than as a means to achieve indirect effects
such as political integration. Further research could study the mechanics of how
the motivations behind place branding can impact the outcomes achieved. In terms
of methodology, a number of other challenges remain. Firstly, this chapter used
a very crude measure of the outcomes of place branding initiatives, attempting to
distinguish branding strategies from promotion campaigns and initiatives existing
only on paper from those actually implemented. Further research can either refine
this measure or propose a more precise, preferably quantified, measure of the
success of place branding initiatives. Moreover, the classification of different types
of cross-border regions employed in this chapter is still very general. Particularly,
the group of “non-Euregions” could be unpacked to discover different institutional
setups and different motivations for engaging in place branding.

References

Andersson M (2007) Region branding: the case of the Baltic Sea Region. Place Branding Public
Dipl 3(2):120–130
Andersson M, Paajanen M (2012) Common or competing products? Towards supra-national
branding in BaltMet Promo. J Place Manag Dev 5(1):56–69
Ashworth GJ, Kavaratzis M (2007) Beyond the logo: Brand management for cities. J Brand Manag
16(8):520–531
Berglund E, Olsson K (2010) Rethinking place marketing – a literature review. Paper presented at
the 50th European regional science association congress, 19th–23rd August 2010, Jönköping
Braun E (2008) City marketing: towards an integrated approach. ERIM PhD series in research and
management, No. 142, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), Rotterdam, http://
hdl.handle.net/1765/13694
Braun E (2012) Putting city branding into practice. J Brand Manag 19(4):257–267
98 J.-J. Witte and E. Braun

Braun E, Kavaratzis M, Zenker S (2013) My city – my brand: the different roles of residents in
place branding. J Place Manag Dev 6(1):18–28
Caldwell N, Freire J (2004) The differences between branding a country, a region, and a city:
applying the brand box model. J Brand Manag 12(1):50–61
Council of Europe (1995) Manuel de coopération transfrontalière à l’usage des collectivités locales
et régionales en Europe. Council of Europe, Strassbourg
Fan Y (2006) Branding the nation: what is being branded? J Vacat Mark 12(1):5–14
Hospers GJ (2006) Borders, bridges and branding: the transformation of the Øresund region into
an imagined space. Eur Plan Stud 14(8):1015–1033
Ioannides D, Nielsen P, Billing P (2006) Transboundary collaboration in tourism: the case of the
Bothnian Arc. Tour Geogr 8(2):122–442
Jenssen O, Richardsson T (2003) Being on the map: the new iconographies of power over European
space. Int Plan Stud 8(1):9–34
Kavaratzis M (2005) Place branding: a review of trends and conceptual models. Mark Rev
5(4):329–342
Kavaratzis M, Ashworth GJ (2005) City branding: an effective assertion of identity or a transitory
marketing trick? Tijdschr Econ Soc Geogr 96(5):506–514
Klijn EH, Eshuis J, Braun E (2012) The influence of stakeholder involvement on the effectiveness
of place branding. Public Manag Rev 14(4):499–519
Lepik K, Krigul M (2009) Cross-border cooperation institution in building a knowledge cross-
border region. Probl Perspect Manag 7(4):33–45
Lucarelli A, Berg PO (2011) City-branding: a state-of-the-art review of the research domain. J
Place Manag Dev 4(1):9–27
Nilsson J, Eskilsson L, Ek R (2010) Creating cross-border destinations: interreg programmes and
regionalization in the Baltic Sea area. Scand J Hosp Tour 10(2):153–172
Olins W (2002) Branding the nation – the historical context. J Brand Manag 9(4–5):241–248
Perkmann M (2003) Cross-border regions in Europe: significance and drivers of regional cross-
border co-operation. Eur Urban Reg Stud 10(2):153–171
Prokkola EK (2007) Cross-border regionalization and tourism development at the Swedish-Finnish
border: “destination arctic circle”. Scand J Hosp Tour 7(2):120–138
Van den Berg L, Braun E (1999) Urban competitiveness, marketing and the need for organising
capacity. Urban Stud 36(5–6):987–999
Ward SV (1998) Selling places: the marketing and promotion of towns and cities 1850–2000. Spon
Press, London
Zenker S (2011) How to catch a city? The concept and measurement of place brands. J Place
Manag Dev 4(1):40–52
Chapter 9
Reaching a ‘Critical Mass’: Analysis
of Interregional Place Branding Amongst
Communities in Ontario, Canada

Evan Cleave and Godwin Arku

Abstract Place branding is now a major policy tool of communities attempting

to enhance the economic and fiscal health of their communities. It is considered
vital within the current global economic climate characterized by an intense
inter-territorial competition for mobile talent, business, and investment. In recent
years, however, cooperative approach to local and regional development has been
suggested as a prudent way to ensure competitiveness and attain relevancy. Coop-
erative approach allows individual communities reach a critical mass of population,
resources, and political infrastructure. The analysis in this chapter attempts to
fill a gap in place branding literature by examining whether there are clusters of
communities that currently have the potential to cooperate in their branding efforts.
This research uses spatial autocorrelation of place brands amongst the communities
of Ontario, Canada, to identify potential groups of neighbouring communities with
similar brand agenda and compares them to existing collaborative efforts. The
results of this analysis show that Ontario has the potential for at least eleven
clusters in a variety of economic sectors, different from the existing cooperative
efforts that exist. The identification of these clusters, therefore, provides a template
for future place branding policy development within the province, allowing the
participating communities an opportunity to remain relevant against increasing
global competition.

Keywords Place branding • Local economic development • Cooperation •

Cluster analysis • Ontario • Canada

E. Cleave () • G. Arku

Department of Geography, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 5C2, Canada
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 99

S. Zenker, B.P. Jacobsen (eds.), Inter-Regional Place Branding,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-15329-2_9
100 E. Cleave and G. Arku

Introduction

Place branding is not a new phenomenon. Municipal, regional, and national

governments have traditionally designed programmes to promote their locale to both
internal and external audiences and markets (Anholt 2006; Khirfan and Momani
2013; Pasquinelli 2010). The last two decades, however, has seen intensified
efforts by local governments to promote their geographic area to residents, visitors,
businesses, and investors. The increased adoption of place promotion programmes
has been linked to the adoption of entrepreneurial attitudes to local and regional
economic development (Hall and Hubbard 1996; Pasquinelli 2013). It is also
interpreted within the context of increasing urban distress (e.g. plant closures, rising
unemployment, and increasing poverty), which has pushed urban governments to
become more proactive in their economic development pursuit. To this end, place
branding is seen as an aggressive approach to local economic development aimed
at recruiting investors, business, tourism, and talent (Papadopoulos 2004). As part
of this aggressive marketing effort, local municipal governments are expending
considerable public resources to develop (or redevelop) place brands that are meant
to facilitate a positive external reputation and drive consumption through some form
of investment within the target audience. This investment can take the form of talent
migration, business relocation, or tourist visitation, all with the common theme of
increasing the economic capacity of the community.
Like their counterparts elsewhere, local governments in Ontario, Canada, are
enthusiastically adopting place branding as a key policy tool of local and regional
economic development. A recent study suggests that place branding initiatives
are widespread and being practised by communities of all geographic scales and
sizes (Cleave and Arku 2014b). Existing studies attributed recent surge in place
branding strategies to range of factors, including a response mechanism to economic
dislocation in the province (Arku 2014; Stern and Hall 2010), emergence of the new
economy and emphasis on the knowledge industries (Harvey and Young 2012), and
availability of funding opportunities provided by the provincial government (Cleave
and Arku 2014a, c). However, one major issue with aggressive place branding
initiatives is that the practice is highly competitive as municipal governments
typically pursue their individual economic opportunities. However, intense compe-
tition has attracted criticisms, as some believe it creates inefficiency and inequities
(Goetz and Kasyer 1993) and others argue that it distracts policymakers promoting
a regional economy (Arku 2014; Wolfson and Frisken 2000). In many regards,
the limitations of competition in economic development as a whole propagate
through place branding issues. The uneven distribution of population and resources
makes it difficult for smaller communities to remain competitive within the global
marketplace.
Subsequently, it is argued that the current global economy requires communities
to operate as a region rather than as individuals. Specifically, it is suggested
that an interregional approach has the potential to consolidate a large number of
homogeneously branded communities into a single, stronger brand. This approach,
9 Reaching a ‘Critical Mass’: Analysis of Interregional Place Branding. . . 101

it is argued, would remove local competition for attention (Leigh and Blakely 2013;
Cleave and Arku 2014b; Gordon 2007, 2009; Pasquinelli 2013). Operating as a
group facilitates increased capacity for decision-making and profit generation, while
the associated economy of scale reduces financial and resource burdens. As a result,
cooperation allows a ‘critical mass’ of resources, reputation, and influence to be
achieved, fostering stronger economic results (Arku 2014; Bellini 2007; Cai 2002;
Gordon 2009; Pasquinelli 2013). Rather than splitting up potential for investment,
it consolidates opportunity. Another virtue of cooperative approach is that it allows
economies of scale to be built, as each participating community will have to leverage
fewer resources in brand development, maintenance, and communication, thus
allowing more resources to be directed towards other municipally led programmes.
Argument for cooperative approach to economic development has recently been
extended to place branding practices.
While the concept of interregional cooperation and the subsequent development
of place brands is not new (see Allmendinger and Haughton 2009; Bennett and
Morris 2006; Binks 2005; Cai 2002; Kunzmann 2004; Lemmetyinen and Go 2010;
Osgood 2010; Pasquinelli 2013; Smith 2008), the research has tended to identify
the participating regions ex post facto. The analysis in this chapter differs, as it
attempts to identify potential hotspots for interregional place branding based on
existing community brands. Using the Province of Ontario, Canada, as a backdrop,
this chapter considers the spatial distribution of place brands amongst the province’s
402 communities. Through measures of global and local spatial autocorrelation, this
analysis sets out to find existing clusters of communities that have similar place
brands, suggesting potential for cooperation. By considering underlying reasons for
the distribution of place brands (geographically, historically, and institutionally),
this research outlines a framework to guide the future efforts of communities
to develop co-ordinated approaches and brand harmonized for mutual economic
development benefits.

Interregional Place Branding and Economic Development

As noted earlier, place branding is typically interpreted within the context of

globalization and the emergence of entrepreneurial approach to economic devel-
opment (Pasquinelli 2013) and is situated in the climate of strong inter-place
competition (Cheshire 1999; Gordon 1999). The increased use of place branding as
a policy approach in Ontario and elsewhere has been attributed to the shift towards
neoliberal policy programmes being adopted by national and province/state legis-
lature and local municipal governments in North America and Europe (Greenberg
2008; Hackworth 2007). This economic environment developed from the global
economic crises of the 1970s and has been characterized by the abandonment
of Fordist-structured economies towards neoliberal policy-making (Harfst 2006;
Harvey 1989). An additional important structural change that occurred was a shift
102 E. Cleave and G. Arku

towards the community level as the primary unit of economic development and
competition (Giovanardi 2012). During this transition, there was also a crisis of
urban economies in Western economic markets. This urban distress was caused by
the triple problems of deindustrialization, a falling tax base, and declining public
expenditure. Concurrently, the pursuit of neoliberal policy allowed the emergence
of political-economic structures and ideologies based around privatization and
deregulation (Kirby and Kent 2010).
To prevent the terminal decline of traditional urban economies, the economic
restructuring of this period allowed for the emergence of a new ‘entrepreneurial’
style of local economic development (Hannigan 2003; Harvey 1989). This approach
is based on free-market ideologies. Its core tenets involve decrease in state
regulation and the introduction of private-sector strategies for development. As a
result, marketing-led strategies of economic development have come to play a more
important role (Greenberg 2008).
Entrepreneurialism captures the sense in which communities are being run in a
more businesslike manner and the practices that have seen local government imbued
with characteristics once distinctive to businesses – risk-taking, inventiveness,
promotion, and profit motivation (Hall and Hubbard 1996; Harvey 1989; Kirby and
Kent 2010). The use of place branding within this place management is a natural
consequence of this entrepreneurial governance, as it presented a means of allowing
cities to remain economically relevant (Pasquinelli 2010, 2013). In this context,
place branding is seen as an approach able to respond to the pressures of globaliza-
tion and the restructuring of the global economy and is a potential key to stimulating
local economic development (Greenberg 2008; Pasquinelli 2010). Additionally,
while still meeting the entrepreneurial need for profit generation, the use of coop-
erative branding programmes to promote economic development remains novel in
Ontario and most regions (Pasquinelli 2013). Thus the consideration of cooperation
as an approach is both risk-taking and inventive, as it considers both development
and branding strategies that have not previously been used at the local level.

Place Branding and the Need for Cooperation in Ontario

The Province of Ontario provides an interesting context for the discussion of

interregional place branding due to its size. At over 1 million km2 , it covers nearly
as large an area as Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, and the Netherlands
(1,076,395–1,147,012 km2 ). Giving its geographical size, the province has the
potential for regional identities to be grown out of clusters of communities in close
proximity to one another. To date, there have been few attempts at a regional
approach to branding and promotion. Some attempt has been made in the area
of industry-based clustering, where communities with similar economic goals
cooperate in an effort to better position themselves against global competition. An
example of this is the Ontario Food Cluster, an alliance between 11 government
9 Reaching a ‘Critical Mass’: Analysis of Interregional Place Branding. . . 103

entities within the province tasked with helping to build capacity for investment
and development. Within this cluster are six cities: Brantford, Hamilton, Guelph,
London, Waterloo, and Windsor. Geographically, however, these members of the
Food Cluster are not contiguous, but instead spread out over south-western Ontario.
More in line with the scope of analysis in this chapter are the Greater Toronto
Marketing Alliance (GTMA), Canada’s Technology Triangle (CTT), and the
provincial Regional Tourism Organizations (RTOs). The GTMA is a coalition of 29
municipalities in the Toronto area of southern Ontario, focused on marketing the
region. Similarly, the CTT is a not-for-profit, private-public economic development
organization with a goal of marketing the Waterloo Region and the cities of
Cambridge, Kitchener, and Waterloo to the world. Finally, the RTOs are a loose
affiliation of communities located within 15 large regional zones, each with an
average of 30 members. While these are examples of collaboration currently
occurring in the province, from the perspective of place branding policy, it is
not exactly clear whether these have an optimum number of members to allow
for a cohesive, realistic message to be constructed. In particular, the GTMA and
the RTOs may produce clusters that are too large to be effectively branded, and
therefore, smaller, more locally based clusters should be identified and cultivated.
As an example, the CTT is held as a strong example of regional cooperation in the
province (Nelles 2005); however, it accounts for only 3 of 400 municipal areas. Thus
there is the need for a critical analysis to identify similar groupings of neighbouring
communities. Additionally, neoliberal policy-making has seen the downloading
of economic responsibilities from the province to its communities, forcing them
to become the primary units for economic development. This institutional reality
contrasts the prescribed role of the province in a neoliberal environment, where
the upper tier governments should keep interventions into the market to the bare
minimum (Harvey 2007). Communities in Ontario, however, face a tension between
the increased responsibility prescribed to them from the provincial government and
the historical institutional controls that remain in place and define the limits to local
economic development. In particular, municipalities are prohibited from offering
direct financial assistance to business (Gertler 1990; Tassonyi 2005). This tension
has created an environment where communities have been forced to be creative in
their approach to economic development and for the most part have undertaken this
locally, rather than considering external collaborations.
Due to the resulting pressures of competition, the place branding efforts amongst
Ontario’s communities have been disjointed. While intercommunity and interre-
gional cooperation has permeated other domains of local economic development,
place branding has been predominantly undertaken in isolation at the community
level. This isolated development has occurred despite the similarities between
communities, including overlapping resources, policy, and economic development
aspirations. The result is repetition in place brand development and redundancy
in the local resources being spent to compete with neighbours. As such, there is
potential to extend cooperative efforts already occurring between communities to
encompass place branding.
104 E. Cleave and G. Arku

Methods

The data for this research was collected through an extensive content analysis on
the webpages of the 402 communities in Ontario for the municipal logo. Each
homepage was carefully and meticulously examined for the presence of a logo
and within it the associated symbology of the visual brand imagery. While it has
been argued that places are too complicated to be branded (Kavaratzis 2009) and
that place brands are not necessarily comprehensive enough particularly when
distilled to a visual identity (Anholt 2005), the use of logos provides a good
source of data for several reasons. First, it allows a wide range of communities
to be examined with relative ease, allowing for a general overview of the place
brands being communicated. Second, the images in the logo are meant to be a
distilled representation of the place brand. In the context of this research, community
brand identity will focus on what Johansson (2012) and Khirfan and Momani
(2013) describe as the symbolization of the community brand, in essence the brand
image. In particular, the brand images will be identified through the logos that each
community has developed.
It should be noted that a place brand is much more complex than simply a
logo. Within contemporary research, a place brand is described as the reputation
about a place (Anholt and Hildreth 2005), the association in the mind of the place
consumer (Braun 2012; Kavaratzis and Ashworth 2005; Zenker and Braun 2010;
Zenker 2011), or a shared but selective symbol for the place (Boisen et al. 2011).
A logo, however, can play a role in understanding how a community wishes to be
perceived by external audiences and what the desired reputation and top of mind
associations are hoped to be. Though they do not explicitly provide information
into the politics and motivations behind the brand – elements that comprise the
community identity – they do provide insight into how the community wishes to be
perceived by consumers through a projected image. There is also meaning in the
logo, as a condensed representational form that evokes the values associated with
the city’s brand (Avraham 2004).
A classification scheme developed by Hanna and Rowley (2008) guided the
content analysis. Embedded messages in the logo imagery were identified through
a simple semiotic analysis and were used to classify the image elements into six
broad categories: culture, industry, agriculture, environment (tourism), recreation
(tourism), and heritage. Each of these categories covers a broad sector of the econ-
omy, and usage therefore implies a desired connection between the community and
the audience that is interested or involved in that sector. An immediate distinction
was made between the similar concepts of tourism and heritage. Heritage was
considered to represent the built environment, particularly references to history and
classical architecture, while tourism divided into two categories, the environment
and recreation. Each of these tourism categories had different messages and imagery
associated with it. Industry was considered to be a loose term, referring to any sort
of industrial development, urban cityscape, business, or general consideration of
economic progress. This content analysis drew on elements of semiotic analysis to
appraise the visual content of each logo that was found.
9 Reaching a ‘Critical Mass’: Analysis of Interregional Place Branding. . . 105

Table 9.1 Relationships between place brand dimensions and probability of occurrence
Agriculture Culture Environment Heritage Industry Recreation
(a) Expected number of joins between brands
Agriculture 25.17
Culture 13.02 1.74
Environment 107.63 26.91 112.84
Heritage 44.27 11.28 93.74 19.10
Industry 32.98 7.81 70.31 28.64 11.28
Recreation 34.72 8.68 72.91 30.38 22.57 12.15
(b) Observed number of joins between brands
Agriculture 44
Culture 7 0
Environment 88 28 125
Heritage 33 8 56 25
Industry 40 5 56 26 22
Recreation 21 10 60 14 10 7
Note: An additional 183 joins are accounted for communities that have no identified brand

For each logo found, a simple binary system was employed to record the presence
or absence of symbology representing one of the six categories considered in this
analysis. The analysis of brand images was focused on the presence and not the
strength of the elements found within a logo. As a result, in instances where a
community’s logo contained symbols consistent with more than one category, each
was recorded as being present. However, due to the binary nature of the coding
system, in instances where multiple symbolic elements referenced the same-brand
category, its presence was only noted once.
Due to the categorical nature of the dataset, a join-count statistic for spatial
autocorrelation was applied to identify potential clusters of communities with
similar brands (Getis 2008). The join-count pattern analysis considers the brand
of a community as well as the brands of its neighbours to identify patterns of
spatial clustering or dispersal (Cliff and Ord 1970; Getis 2008). It examines
whether the observed brand in a community is independent of the brands of
the neighbouring communities (Rey 2001). Essentially, it compares the expected
number (EJ, or expected joins; summarized in Table 9.1a) of brands found in
neighbouring communities (e.g. culture and culture, or culture and nonculture)
against the number that are actually observed (OJ, or observed joins; summarized in
Table 9.1b) within the n total joins between Ontario’s 402 communities.
The number of joins (n) is calculated through the use of a connectivity matrix
that was based on the set of polygons extracted from the 2011 Statistics Canada
census subdivision dataset for Ontario. Connectivity between communities, as
represented by their polygons, was necessary for the spatial analysis as it provided
a standardized method of identifying neighbouring areas. Neighbours were defined
as any two communities that shared a common border; therefore, the connectivity
matrix was based on a binary-connectivity weight matrix using Queen’s case
106 E. Cleave and G. Arku

contiguity. This allowed the identification of all sets of neighbours within Ontario. In
total there were 868 sets of neighbours identified; however, approximately 20 % of
communities did not have an identifiable brand. As a result, only 685 joins occurred
between communities with brands.
Within this analysis, positive spatial autocorrelation indicates that there is
clustering, as there is a pattern of communities having similar brands appearing
in close spatial proximity. Alternatively, a result of negative spatial autocorrelation
indicates that neighbouring communities tend to have different brands. Finally, no
autocorrelation describes a random pattern of branding. As a result, the research
hypothesis can be defined as (at a confidence of ˛ D 0.05):
HO : There is no spatial autocorrelation amongst brands, and therefore no clusters
exist
HA : Spatial autocorrelation is occurring and clusters of like brands exist
To complete the calculation for spatial autocorrelation, the join-count is defined
as

Observed ŒOJ   Expected ŒEJ 

Joins ŒZ D (9.1)
Standard Deviation ŒES 

where EJ:
2
EJsame brand D kpbrand1 (9.2)

EJdifferent brand D 2kpbrand1 pbrand2 (9.3)

where k is the total number of observed joins within the dataset and p is the
probability of a brand occurring, derived from occurrence rates observed in the data
(see Table 9.1b). The standard deviation of the expected joins (ES) is
q
2 3 4
ESsame brand D kpbrand1 C 2mpbrand1  .k C 2m/ pbrand1 (9.4)
q
2 2
ESdifferent brand D 2 .k C m/ pbrand1 pbrand2  4 .k C 2m/ pbrand1 pbrand2 (9.5)

where
n
X
m D 0:5 ki .ki  1/ (9.6)
i D1

This analysis can be completed at two scales: global and local. The global value
for spatial autocorrelation considers the overall pattern of spatial autocorrelation
within Ontario and identified which brand categories tend to appear more frequently
as neighbours than random chance would suggest. Based on the brand relationships
9 Reaching a ‘Critical Mass’: Analysis of Interregional Place Branding. . . 107

that were found to be positively spatial autocorrelated, the local analysis identified
specific communities that had a significant number of neighbours with similar
brands. Clusters of three or more communities showing positive autocorrelation of
the same-brand dimension were isolated as potential locations for intercommunity
cooperation to reduce the risk of municipalities with few neighbours (i.e. zero or
one) being identified as clusters.

Results

The initial survey of the 402 communities in Ontario identifies that 329 (82 %)
have some form of easily identified logo containing visual imagery that specifically
references at least one sector of the economy. Within these 329 logos, 405 indi-
vidual elements were identified. In Ontario, references to the tourism-environment
brand image category were most commonly occurring, with 145 (36 %) elements
identified. Agriculture is the next most prevalent category (n D 88 elements, 22 %),
followed by heritage (n D 63, 15 %), recreation (n D 47, 12 %), and industry
(n D 39, 10 %). Culture was the least common brand element to be observed, with
only 23 (6 %) examples of it being adopted into visual identity being identified.
Figure 9.1 shows the distribution of these brands throughout the province.

Culture
Industry
Tourism - Environment
Tourism - Recreation
Heritage
N
Agriculture
No Brand

0 250 500 750 1,000

Kilometres

Fig. 9.1 An overview of the community place brands in Ontario

108 E. Cleave and G. Arku

Table 9.2 Join-count statistic results for global spatial autocorrelation of place brands
Agriculture Culture Environment Heritage Industry Recreation
Agriculture 2.74*
Culture 2.10* 1.02
Environment 9.51* 1.63 2.05*
Heritage 2.32* 0.55 5.00* 2.00*
Industry 2.44* 0.99 6.71* 2.32* 2.15*
Recreation 3.91* 0.46 5.82* 3.23* 3.19* 0.70
Bold indicated significant same-brand joins
˛ 0.05, CV C/1.96
*significant at (˛ D 0.05)

The results of the join-count analysis show evidence of positive spatial auto-
correlation – clustering – of community brands in Ontario. At a global scale
of analysis, the null hypothesis that there is no spatial autocorrelation amongst
brands is rejected as the results of the join-count show evidence of positive spatial
autocorrelation – or clustering. Described in Table 9.2, the join-count analysis shows
that four brand-neighbour relationships – for industry, agriculture, environment,
and heritage – are all significant at ˛ D 0.05 (z  1.96), therefore rejecting the
null hypothesis and indicating that these like brands neighbour each other at a
rate higher than would be expected by random chance. Two examples of like
brands, culture and recreational tourism, did not reject the null hypothesis and,
therefore, could not be considered as clustering. Additionally, the 23 relationships
representing relationships where neighbouring communities had different brands
either demonstrated dispersion (z  1.96) or did not reject the null hypothesis
(1.96> z <1.96) indicating no discernable spatial autocorrelation (summarized
in Table 9.2). Simply put, the results of the global join-count analysis establish that
communities with similar brands tend to cluster in spatial proximity, while those
with differing brands do not.
Based on the global join-count analysis, the test for local spatial autocorrelation
examined the distribution of communities that had brand imagery that referenced
industry, agriculture, environment (tourism), and heritage. The local join-count
measure identified that 53 communities had a sufficient number of adjoining
neighbours with similar brands to form a cluster. Eleven clusters were identified (see
Fig. 9.2). Though summarized in greater detail in Table 9.3, three were identified
as agriculture clusters, four as environment (tourism), one as heritage, and three as
industry-based. As seen in Fig. 9.2, the majority of the identified clusters occurred
in southern Ontario, while the northern communities of the province showed a
dispersion of community brands.
From this analysis, it is clear that there is untapped potential for intercommunity
and interregional place branding collaborations to occur. From the clusters identi-
fied, the collaboration can take various forms: multiple large cities (Mississauga,
Toronto, and Vaughn); several small communities with populations less than 1,000
(Jocelyn, Hilton, St. Joseph); an urban region containing two urban towns (Cobourg
9 Reaching a ‘Critical Mass’: Analysis of Interregional Place Branding. . . 109

Fig. 9.2 The locations of local brand clusters based on the results of the local spatial autocorrela-
tion

and Port Hope) and the surrounding rural areas (Alnwick, Brighton, Cramahe,
and Hamilton); or a collection of rural communities (Minden Hills, Bracebridge,
Brudenell, Carlow/Mayo, Galway-Cavendish, Hastings Highlands, Highlands East,
Killaloe, Madawaska Valley, Smith-Ennismore-Lakefield) which are surrounding a
city (Kawartha Lakes). This shows that the potential for collaboration is not limited
to communities of the same type, but can cross the urban-rural boundary. From a
policy perspective, the potential for collaboration amongst communities of all sizes
and types suggests utility for future exploration, development, and implementation.
This approach is relevant in Ontario as the province continues to recover from
the economic instability of the last decade. Intercommunity cooperation addresses
the need to balance fiscal prudence with growth and development, by mitigating the
resources that each community has to expend, while simultaneously expanding the
resources each participating community has to offer. The goal from this approach
is to reach a critical mass that makes the community most attractive to potential
audiences without having to assume as great a risk as the individual approach
presents.
In the case of the industrial centres, the joining of communities allows promotion
of more local assets, such as population and transportation infrastructure. In this
research, consider the case of Toronto: by itself, it has a population of 2,615,060;
however, the clustering suggested by this research created a geographic area
110 E. Cleave and G. Arku

Table 9.3 Clusters identified through join-count analysis for local spatial autocorrelation
Industry cluster Number of communities Communities in the cluster Population
Agriculture 3 Evanturel, Englehart 2,642
Charlton and Dack
Agriculture 3 North Dundas, Russell 37,266
South Dundas
Agriculture 5 Brooke-Alvinston, South Huron 39,989
Lambton Shores, Huron East,
Plympton-Wyoming
Environment 3 Jocelyn, St. Joseph, Hilton 1,669
Environment 7 Burpee and Mills, Espanola 14,468
Central Manitoulin, Baldwin, Billings,
Sables-Spanish River, Northeastern
Manitoulin
Environment 3 Grey Highlands, Meaford 27,073
The Blue Mountains
Environment 12 Killaloe, Minden Hills, Highlands 217,428
East, Carlow/Mayo, Bracebridge,
Hastings Highlands,
Galway-Cavendish, Kawartha Lakes,
Smith-Ennismore-Lakefield,
Madawaska Valley, Brudenell
Heritage 6 Cramahe, Brighton, Cobourg, Port 69,053
Hope, Alnwick/Haldimand, Hamilton
Industry 4 Zorra, Woodstock, South-West 60,192
Oxford, East Zorra-Tavistock
Industry 3 Toronto, Vaughan, Mississauga 3,616,804
Industry 4 Ottawa, North Glengarry, 928,495
Clarence-Rockland, La Nation

with an additional million occupants. Additionally, by expanding the area being

branded, this new Toronto region brand can include Canada’s largest airport located
in neighbouring Mississauga. In this situation, cooperation allows for Toronto
to appear more competitive within the global economy. Additionally, the cities
of Mississauga and Vaughn benefit from the association with Toronto. As the
largest city in Canada, Toronto already has resonance within global markets, and
association can prove beneficial.
As previously mentioned, a benefit in a collaborative relationship is the economy
of scale that is produced. Through cooperation with neighbours, the financial and
infrastructural resources needed to develop, maintain, and communicate a brand that
can be reduced for each community. Alternatively, the resources of each community
could be pooled to facilitate more extensive branding campaigns. The Kawartha
Highlands cluster has over 215,000 residents, but no community with a population
greater than 75,000. The pooled resources of these communities not only reduce
financial burden but also redundancy by forming a single larger brand from 12
similar ones.
9 Reaching a ‘Critical Mass’: Analysis of Interregional Place Branding. . . 111

Discussion: Exploring the Patterns of Place Brands

The distribution of place brands across Ontario and the existence of clusters
can be explained in three ways: geographically, historically, and institutionally.
Geographically, the distribution of brands is underpinned by Tobler’s First Law
(1970, p. 236), where ‘everything is related, but near things are more related than
distant things’. As a result, it makes sense that communities in close proximity
would have similar resources available to them. This particularly explains the
clusters of agriculture and environment (tourism), as these utilize regional landforms
(soil suitable for farmland, lakes, and forest) that naturally tend to occur as large
homogenous areas. As a result, it stands to reason that the communities in these
areas would all tend to promote the strong natural features that are available to them
producing many similar brands in close proximity.
The second explanation for the brand clusters that were observed is strong
historical links that bind an area together, even if there are considerable differences
in the community attributes that comprise the region. Consider, for instance, the
one-cluster communities that were identified to be using heritage as a primary
brand element. The communities of Cobourg and Port Hope are purely urban, while
Brighton contains an urban-rural mix. The other three communities are all purely
rural. This group of communities, however, have a strong historical connection
dating back to the founding of British colonial political control and colonization
of the region two centuries ago. In particular, Brighton and Cobourg which are
located at opposite ends of the cluster have historically had a strong political link,
with both separately serving as the seat of governance in the early 1800s. The
area of governance included what now comprise the six communities within the
cluster, showing a strong, historical interrelationship that can now be leveraged
to promote economic growth. This in-depth, historical relationship strengthens
the potential connection between the communities and allows the branding of
the region to be more meaningful than a simple collection of similarly promoted
communities.
Finally, there is an institutional component that explains the spatial structure of
the place based on the formal and informal passing of information between com-
munities. Informally, Reese and Sands (2007) have demonstrated that communities
will examine the strategies that they observe their competitors to be using and
try to emulate them. Over time, there may be an eventual convergence of some
strategies. In Ontario, Toronto and Ottawa are two of the primary locales for industry
and act as primary economic engines for the province. It stands to reason that
nearby communities that are in competition for business and talent will latch on
to the successes and help generate the development of local clusters. Similarly, a
more formal passing of information through cooperation could explain potential
branding convergence. As cooperation becomes more engrained in the culture of
local economic development within the province, there will be even greater potential
for intercommunity branding.
112 E. Cleave and G. Arku

Conclusion: The Future of Interregional Place Branding

in Ontario

This analysis has shown that even with a broad approach, there is the potential
to identify potential hotspots for place branding at a regional level. Within the
Province of Ontario, there are groups of communities that appear to have similar
economic aspirations and therefore have the potential to group together in their
branding efforts. Due to the sheer size of the province, the intercommunity branding
described in this research takes on a much more interregional feel, as the brand
clusters identified encompass urban, semiurban, and rural areas, extending from the
economic core into the province’s periphery. As local governments face increasing
financial constraints, the collective approach to economic development, and by
extension place branding, is likely to become increasingly accepted as a strategy
to foster growth.
From a more general perspective, the issues examined in this research are not
exclusive to Ontario as the changing global economy has stressed many regions. As
a result, the general framework of geographic, historical, and institutional controls
that guide place branding is likely to hold elsewhere. The analysis in the chapter
took a broad approach to its examination and found that there can be spatial
structure to brands. Examining different brand dimensions or exploring a cluster
of communities’ brands in depth may illuminate further connections and avenues
for cooperation. Future research at an interregional level, therefore, should have the
potential to systematically identify economically stressed areas where collaboration
can be used to promote economic prosperity.

References

Allmendinger P, Haughton G (2009) Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and meta-governance: the new
spatial planning in the Thames Gateway. Eur Plan A 41(3):617–633
Anholt S (2005) Some important distinctions in place branding. Place Branding 2(1):116–121
Anholt S (2006) The Anholt-GMI city brands index: how the world sees the world’s cities. Place
Branding 2(1):18–31
Anholt S, Hildreth J (2005) Let freedom and cash registers ring: America as a brand. Place
Branding 1(2):164–172
Arku G (2014) Competition and cooperation in economic development: examining the perceptions
of city officials in Ontario. Can J Urban Aff 36(1):99–118
Avraham E (2004) Media strategies for improving an unfavorable city image. Cities 21(6):471–479
Bellini N (2007) Conclusions. Opportunities for cooperation between Mediterranean Regions.
In: Bellini N, Giuliani E, Pietrobelli C, Rabellotti R (eds) The theory and practice of
local development. Opportunities for cooperation between Mediterranean Regions. Grafiche
Martinelli, Bagno a Ripoli
Bennett J, Morris J (2006) Gateway people. The aspirations and attitudes of prospective and
existing residents of the Thames Gateway. Institute for Public Policy Research, London
Binks J (2005) Knowledge-driven regeneration in the Thames Gateway. Thames Gateway London
Partnership, London
9 Reaching a ‘Critical Mass’: Analysis of Interregional Place Branding. . . 113

Boisen M, Terlouw K, van Gorp B (2011) The selective nature of place branding and the layering
of spatial identities. J Place Manag Dev 4(2):135–147
Braun E (2012) Putting city branding into practice. J Brand Manag 19(4):257–267
Cai LA (2002) Cooperative branding for rural destinations. Ann Tour Res 29(3):720–742
Cheshire P (1999) Cities in competition: articulating the gains from integration. Urban Stud
36(5–6):843–864
Cleave E, Arku G (2014a) Community branding and brand images in Ontario, Canada: a case
study. Place Brand Public Dipl. doi:10.1057/pb.2014.5
Cleave E, Arku G (2014b) Competitiveness through cooperation: analysis of spatial patterns and
inter-jurisdictional collaboration in the place branding of Ontario communities, Canada. Local
Econ 29(4–5):541–560
Cleave E, Arku G (2014c) Place branding and economic development at the community level in
Ontario, Canada. GeoJournal. doi:10.1007/s10708-014-9555-9
Cliff AD, Ord K (1970) Spatial autocorrelation: a review of existing and new measures with
applications. Econ Geogr 46:269–292
Gertler MS (1990) Economic development. In: Loreto RA, Price T (eds) Urban policy issues:
Canadian perspectives. McClelland and Stewart, Toronto
Getis A (2008) A history of the concept of spatial autocorrelation: a Geographer’s perspective.
Geogr Anal 40(3):297–309
Giovanardi M (2012) Haft and sord factors in place branding: between functionalism and
representationalism. Place Branding Public Dipl 8(1):30–45
Goetz EG, Kasyer T (1993) Competition and cooperation in economic development: a study of the
twin cities metropolitan area. Econ Dev Q 7(1):63–78
Gordon I (1999) Internationalisation and urban competition. Urban Stud 36(5–6):1001–1016
Gordon V (2007) Partners or competitors? Perceptions of regional economic development
cooperation in Illinois. Econ Dev Q 21(1):60–78
Gordon V (2009) Perceptions of regional economic development: can win–lose become win–win?
Econ Dev Q 23(4):317–328
Greenberg MA (2008) Branding New York. How a city in crisis was sold to the world. Routledge,
London
Hackworth J (2007) The neoliberal city: governance, ideology, and development in American
urbanism. Cornell University Press, New York
Hall T, Hubbard P (1996) The entrepreneurial city: new urban politics, new urban geographies?
Progress Hum Geogr 20(2):153–174
Hanna S, Rowley J (2008) An analysis of terminology use in place branding. Place Branding Public
Dipl 4(1):61–75
Hannigan J (2003) Symposium on branding, the entertainment economy and urban place building:
introduction. Int J Urban Reg Res 27(2):352–360
Harfst J (2006) The cities of the European Union and the re-invention of the urban environment:
examples of urban entrepreneurship. Ital Assoc of Geogr Teach 3(4):3–8
Harvey D (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban gover-
nance in late capitalism. Geogr Ann Ser B Hum Geogr 71(1):3–17
Harvey D (2007) Neoliberalism as creative destruction. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 610:22–45
Harvey J, Young R (2012) Image-building in Canadian Municipalities. McGill-Queen’s University
Press, Kingston
Johansson M (2012) Place branding and the imaginary: the politics of re-imagining a garden city.
Urban Stud 49(16):3611–3626
Kavaratzis M (2009) Cities and their brands: lessons from corporate branding. Place Branding
Public Dipl 5(1):26–37
Kavaratzis M, Ashworth GJ (2005) City branding: effective assertion of identity or a transitory
marketing trick? Tijdschr Econ Soc Geogr 96(5):506–514
Khirfan L, Momani B (2013) (Re)branding Amman: a ‘lived’ city’s values, image and identity.
Place Branding Public Dipl 9(1):49–65
114 E. Cleave and G. Arku

Kirby A, Kent T (2010) The local icon: reuse of buildings in place marketing. J Town City Manag
1(1):80–91
Kunzmann KR (2004) An agenda for creative governance in city regions. disP Plan Rev
40(158):5–10
Leigh N, Blakely EJ (2013) Planning local economic development: theory and practice, 5th edn.
Sage, Washington, DC
Lemmetyinen A, Go FM (2010) Building a brand identity in a network of Cruise Baltic’s
destinations: a multi-authoring approach. J Brand Manag 17:519–531
Nelles J (2005) Civic capital in the Waterloo Region: enabling regional economic governance.
2005 Canadian political science association conference, 2005, London
Osgood JL (2010) A region redefined: the case of the Greater Louisville community branding
project. J Town City Manag 1(3):265–277
Papadopoulos N (2004) Place branding: evolution, meaning and implications. Place Branding
1(1):36–49
Pasquinelli C (2010) The limits of place branding for local development: the case of Tuscany and
the arno valley brand. Local Econ 25(7):558–572
Pasquinelli C (2013) Competition, cooperation and co-opetition: unfolding the process of inter-
territorial branding. Urban Res Pract 6(1):1–18
Reese LA, Sands G (2007) Making the least of our differences? Trends in local economic
development in Ontario and Michigan, 1990–2005. Can Public Adm 50(1):77–99
Rey SJ (2001) Spatial empirics for economic growth and convergence. Geogr Anal 33(3):195–214
Smith PJ (2008) Branding Cascadia: considering Cascadia’s conflicting conceptualizations – who
gets to decide? Can Polit Sci Rev 2(2):57–83
Stern P, Hall P (2010) Historical limits: narrowing possibilities in ‘Ontario’s most historic town’.
Can Geogr 54(2):209–227
Tassonyi A (2005) Local economic development: theory and the Ontario experience. ITP Paper
0511:1–21
Tobler W (1970) A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Econ Geogr
46(2):234–240
Wolfson J, Frisken F (2000) Local response to the global challenge: comparing local economic
development policies in a regional context. J Urban Aff 22(4):361–384
Zenker S (2011) How to catch a city? The concept and measurement of place brands. J Place
Manag Dev 4(1):40–52
Zenker S, Braun E (2010) The place brand centre – a conceptual approach for the brand
management of places. 39th European marketing academy conference, Copenhagen, 1st–4th
June
Chapter 10
A Strategic Spatial Planning Approach
to Cross-Border Place Branding with References
to Galicia and Northern Portugal

Eduardo Oliveira

Abstract This chapter adopts a strategic spatial planning approach to think strategi-
cally about potential joint place-branding initiatives between cross-border regions.
The case study focuses on the extended cross-border European region composed
of the NUTS III Alto Minho, Cávado, Ave, Área Metropolitina do Porto, Alto
Tâmega, Tâmega e Sousa, Douro, Terras de Trás-os-Montes of Northern Portugal
and the provinces of A Coruña, Lugo, Ourense and Pontevedra of the autonomous
community of Galicia in northwest Spain. Bearing in mind the mismatch of styles
of regional government systems, the approval by the European Commission of
the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation Galicia–Northern Portugal, and
the current socio-economic environment, this chapter discusses the possibility of
joining forces, procedures and strategic tools in order to enhance the reputation
and give visibility to this European regional conurbation. In addition, this chapter
intends to shed some light on the empirical significance of a cross-border place-
branding strategy able to encourage entrepreneurship, job creation, trade and
investment. It draws important lessons from the idea of interregional branding and
aims to encourage a unique cross-border storyline. The chapter directly addresses
the need to develop place branding, independently of the geographical scale
of application, through a strategic spatial planning approach. Here the complex
interregional branding exercises carried out by the Øresund and the Baltic Sea
regions are taken as comparative cases. This chapter also aims to contribute to
the academic debate on interregional place branding by discussing the potential
development of place-branding initiatives across – administrative – border regions
underpinned by knowledge from strategic spatial planning literature.

Keywords Cross-border • Euroregion • Galicia • Northern Portugal • Place

branding • Strategic spatial planning

E. Oliveira ()
Department of Spatial Planning & Environment, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of
Groningen, PO Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 115

S. Zenker, B.P. Jacobsen (eds.), Inter-Regional Place Branding,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-15329-2_10
116 E. Oliveira

Introduction

The debate on spatial planning theory has underlined the challenges, complexity
and non-linearity of spatial transformations by applying a paradigm based on
the principles of classic rationality of positivism origin. The practice of strategic
spatial planning, which gained popularity at the beginning of the 1990s, seemed
to offer a way out of the shallows in which ordinary regional and urban planning
has sunk (Balducci et al. 2011). Therefore, to embrace the complexity of spatial
developments, strategic spatial planning was positioned at the critical junction
between a need for a comprehensive vision of the future and the impossibility
of predicting the distorting factors. Strategic spatial planning was perceived as a
way to overcome the limitations of traditional spatial planning instruments and thus
envision, in an innovative and creative way, better futures for cities and city-regions.
This chapter adopts a strategic spatial planning approach as an attempt to think
strategically, innovatively and creatively in potential joint place-branding initiatives
between cross-border regions, in a European context. The European region com-
posed of the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (henceforth NUTS)
level III Alto Minho, Cávado, Ave, Área Metropolitina do Porto, Alto Tâmega,
Tâmega e Sousa, Douro, Terras de Trás-os-Montes of Northern Portugal (NUTS II)
and the provinces of A Coruña, Lugo, Ourense and Pontevedra (NUTS III) of the
autonomous community of Galicia (NUTS III) in northwest Spain is taken as a case
study. The Euroregion Galicia–Northern Portugal has legal and institutional support
by the Regulation number 1082 of 2006 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 5 July 2006 amended accordingly to Regulation number 1302 of 2013
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 (European
Union 2006, 2013). The European Council (henceforth EC) regulation formally
established the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation Galicia e Norte de
Portugal (henceforth GNP-EGTC). This institutional body, in operation since 1
March 2010, represents the continuous effort from the European Union (henceforth
EU) to enhance cooperation, strengthen ties and develop networks between cross-
border European regions.
The institutionalisation of the GNP-EGTC has supported our decision to classify
this geographical area as an ‘extended’ cross-border region. This is because the
region of Galicia–Northern Portugal overlaps physical borders and is composed by
the territories between the Bay of Biscay (northwest Spain) and the River Douro
(Northern Portugal). Galicia and the North of Portugal have a long tradition in
cross-border cooperation (OECD 2012; CCDRN 2013). In recognition of the strong
existing links between these two regions, the networks established as well as the
legal framework (i.e. GNP-EGTC), it makes sense to classify it as a cross-border
region and hence think strategically about possible joint cross-border branding
exercises.
The last decade of the twentieth century has seen a strong surge in the number
of cross-border regions all over Europe. Nowadays, there are more than 70
10 A Strategic Spatial Planning Approach to Cross-Border Place Branding. . . 117

cross-border regions in Europe, operating under names such as ‘Euroregions’,

‘Euregios’ and ‘Working Communities’ (Perkmann 2003). However, these Euro-
pean conurbations were undersupplied by legal frameworks until 2006, when
the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation was established. The EGTC
was designed to facilitate and promote territorial cooperation (e.g. cross-border,
transnational and interregional cooperation), in view of strengthening the economic
and social cohesion of the European territory (European Union 2011). In addition,
Medeiros (2011) argues that the implementation of an EGTC could effectively
operationalise cross-border activities such as common transport, sustainable devel-
opment, environmental protection and regional promotion.
Despite the relatively recent legal and institutional developments, regarding a
more formalisation of the European regions, elsewhere denominated Euroregions,
this chapter applies the notion of cross-border European region to refer to the EU
region Galicia–Northern Portugal. The theoretical background follows the topical
developments on the strategic spatial planning literature in Europe (e.g. Friedmann
1987; Healey 1997; Hillier 2002; Albrechts 2004, 2006, 2010, 2013; Balducci et al.
2011) and on interregional and inter-territorial place branding (e.g. Hosper 2004;
Andersson 2007; Pasquinelli 2013; Pasquinelli and Teräs 2013). The discussion
around the concept of Euroregions and the changes at the Portuguese–Spanish
border are supported by Medeiros (2011) and Amante (2013).
This strategic planning approach to cross-border branding seemed most needed
in a moment where the European discourse on internal borders promoted the
conceptualisation of cross-border cooperation and transnational integration. The
cross-border cooperation emerged as a new paradigm of economic and social
development. In addition, cross-border areas were presented as an effective effort
to strategically overcoming the traditional isolation of border territories.
The European efforts to design territorial strategies and multilayer relational
networks across the European Union borders reoriented the practice of spatial
planning towards a more strategic approach to everyday challenges (Albrechts et al.
2003; Healey 1997; Salet and Faludi 2000). Changes related to the globalisation
process, the dematerialisation of European internal borders and the enlargement
of the EU resulted in rhetoric and idealism upon the inevitability of living in a
borderless world (Amante 2013) with consequent impact at the spatial level. The
European and national political discourses emphatically reinvoked the idea of a
Europe of the Regions, linking the notion of four freedoms: free movement of goods,
services, people and capital (Rumford 2006). Certain spatial functions, traditionally
led by national borders, were questioned, and Europeans were introduced to
supranational spaces, namely, the single market and the Schengen space (Amante
2013), with implications in the European political and competitiveness agenda and
cohesion policy.
The global competition, the growing complexity and the challenges posed to
diverse spatial scale entities, as cities, regions and transnational geographical entities
boost the practice of undertaking cross-border territorial cooperation in order
to enhance their competitiveness and strengthen their positioning and territorial
118 E. Oliveira

visibility. According to Pasquinelli (2013), territorial competition, cooperation

and co-opetition are viable strategies for place branding at different scales. The
scale component, cross-border spatial area and the approach, strategic spatial
planning followed in this chapter, bring innovation, creativity and future thinking
to interregional place-branding discussion. Place branding offers a potential collab-
orative linkage between previously disparate activities and departments within place
authorities at different spatial scales. Also, strategic spatial planning seems able to
deal with multi-scale spatial challenges and transformations in an innovative and
emancipatory way (Albrechts 2013).
The spatial dimension involved in this study brings challenges to a potential
cross-border branding exercise. It includes eight subregions from the Portuguese
side and four provinces on the Spanish side, both member states of the European
Union. Additionally, we highlight that this area has now an institutional and legal
support from the GNP-EGTC. In addition, this study encounters complexity as
different approaches towards strategic spatial planning and dissimilar models of
regional government and decision-making capacity are involved. However, the
historical background of togetherness between Galicia and Northern Portugal,
the language similarities and identity ties are clearly an advantage towards a
common cross-border brand-storyline. Underpinned by knowledge from the strate-
gic spatial planning literature and spatial planners as catalysts and initiators of
change (Albrechts 1999), this study tries to shed some light on potential place-
branding synergies between the cross-border areas of Galicia and Northern Portugal.
Furthermore, bearing in mind all the aforementioned opportunities and threats of
branding places, the study will clarify if a cross-border place-branding initiative is
likely to encourage the following, in times of financial and economic crisis in both
countries:
• Cross-border trade
• Cross-border infrastructure developments
• Cross-border investment and tourism development
• Cross-border research and development projects
• Cross-border entrepreneurship, employment and labour mobility
In pursuit of novelty in the field of interregional place-branding research, two
inter-territorial branding exercises are taken as comparative cases (i.e. the Øresund
region and the Baltic Sea region). The Øresund region is geographical composed by
the Danish Great Copenhagen and the Swedish region of Scania (see Pedersen 2004;
Hospers 2004, 2006; Pasquinelli 2013). The Baltic Sea region encompasses several
countries which presents higher complexity and challenges (see Andersson 2007,
2009; Pasquinelli 2013). These cases were strategically selected for the reason that
the plethora of literature is highly relevant to support our reflections. In addition,
the process of cooperation in both cases is older than the cross-border cooperation
process undertaken by Northern Portugal and Galicia and, as a consequence, should
have a higher degree of maturity and better outputs in generating positive and
effective territorial impacts.
10 A Strategic Spatial Planning Approach to Cross-Border Place Branding. . . 119

To go hand in hand with acknowledged difficulties of developing a cross-

border branding strategy, through transnational strategic spatial planning, for two
sovereign territories (Portugal and Spain) and member states of a supranational
institution (European Union), this chapter aims to contribute to a more consistent
understanding of the theory and practice of place branding across administrative
geographical border areas.

Defining Borders, Cross-Border Geographical Areas

and the Shaping of the European Map

Territoriality is frequently the basis for development of social, economic and cultural
milieus. In addition, a territory can assume different political, legal, institutional and
administrative figures.
If political theory defines borders as the outcome of institutional processes, often
as a consequence of political power skirmishes such as wars or royal negotiations,
borders are addressed differently in other theoretical approaches (Yndigegn 2013).
Common sense defines borders as territorial demarcations between neighbouring
countries. Borders are socially constructed as a result of everyday social and com-
munal interactions (Yndigegn 2013). The border between Portugal and Spain is a
historical and political construction achieved through concessions, negotiations and
exchanges between Portuguese and Spanish authorities (Amante 2013). Emotional
elements such as national pride, notoriety, positioning and as icons of national
identity, borders have defined the geography of the two European countries and,
as consequence, the social and cooperative networks. Borders have also defined
competitive diplomatic discussions and have been driving a number of transnational
infrastructures (e.g. tunnels, roads).
As a matter of fact, alike in the past, a considerable number of European regions
try to outcompete each other in a fear of being wiped off the map. The remarkable
overall growth in establishing multilevel relational networks across the EU border
areas has changed the European geography, paving the way for the Europe of the
Regions (see Perkmann 2003; Medeiros 2011). Nevertheless, according to Amante
(2013), it is not cordial to embark, uncritically, upon the political oratory of a
European geography composed by regions. Moreover, discussing the relevance of
borders within the idea of a Europe of the Regions becomes paramount (Bucken-
Knapp and Shack 2001; Anderson et al. 2003).
On the European discourse towards a refreshed EU geography, concepts of cross-
border cooperation and transnational integration have emerged as a magic solution
to overcome the territorial depression of several EU border areas. However, the
growing of networks and partnerships that connect a wider range of local and
regional actors into cross-border cooperation process has increased the need to
clarify the Euroregion concept (Medeiros 2011), cross-border areas and the role
of the new European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation.
120 E. Oliveira

Cross-Border Regions, Euroregion and European Grouping

of Territorial Cooperation

Developing thoughts regarding the geographical concept that better fits the Euro-
pean cross-border areas is fundamental regarding the confusion the term brings (see
Perkmann 2003; Medeiros 2011). Some of the cross-border cooperation entities in
operation at the European level call themselves Euroregions. A Euroregion should
be able to develop a strategic-oriented cross-border cooperation in a multilevel
partnership (i.e. European, governmental, regional, local) in different development
domains, such as mobility, economy, culture and sports, tourism and leisure,
transports, environment, health, energy, communications, education, innovation and
technology.
The first official cross-border region, the EUREGIO, was established in 1958
on the Dutch–German border, in the area of Enschede (the Netherlands) and
Gronau (Germany). Since then, such ‘Euroregions’ and other forms of cross-
border cooperation have emerged throughout Europe contributing to redraw the
political European map, for instance, by reducing the barrier effect, contributing to
cost-efficiency of transnational investments and reinforcing common development
strategies (Medeiros 2011).
For local and regional governments, engaging in cross-border cooperation exer-
cises signifies a change of the paradigm by entering a field long reserved for central
authorities. Early cross-border cooperation policies were significantly informed by
spatial planning theories and practices. However, in the 1960s and 1970s, various
bilateral and multilateral governmental commissions were established without
granting access to local authorities (Perkmann 2003).
In the efforts towards developmental strategies, from the Operational Programme
for Cross-border Cooperation, applied in different cross-border European regions,
such as Portugal and Spain, to the recently approved European Grouping of
Territorial Cooperation, the European Union is still conducting initiatives to enhance
territorial cooperation and competition.
The European effort to revitalise a government-led strategic interventions at the
urban and regional level has also been used to reposition cities and regions in the
expanding economic and political landscape of the EU and of globalising economic
relations (Albrechts et al. 2003). The European integration and the challenges posed
by globalisation reassert the importance of local and regional identity and image of
Europe and the European Union, as a whole, the relevance of the competitiveness
agenda and strengthening the ties of cross-border cooperation.
As noted above, there is a theoretical framework to discuss the value of cross-
border branding exercises, as this seems a valuable approach to enhance strategic
orientations. Furthermore, it could be possible to align border planning systems into
the same storyline. Strategic spatial planning, a field of practices of varying nature
(e.g. political-institutional, social), is designed to create conditions for integration
between decision-making networks and cooperative ties among regional actors.
Furthermore, it is able to change the cross-border competitiveness agenda and
support territories to stay shining on the map of attractiveness.
10 A Strategic Spatial Planning Approach to Cross-Border Place Branding. . . 121

Strategic Spatial Planning, the Competitiveness Agenda

and Cross-Border Cooperation

Different forms of multilevel governance have a long history in Europe with

impact upon spatial planning. During the 1980s, strategic spatial planning was at
a stationary point of evolution (Healey 1997; Salet and Faludi 2000). Instead, urban
and regional planning practices were particularly concentrated on projects, mainly
for the revival of run-down parts of cities and regions, and on land use regulation.
The end of the twentieth century saw new efforts in many areas of Europe to produce
strategies for cities, subregions and regions (Salet and Faludi 2000).
Efforts in spatial strategy making involve the construction of new institutional
arenas within structures of government that are themselves changing. The objec-
tives, in a nutshell, are the need to improve the articulation towards a more coherent
spatial logic for land use regulation, resource protection and investments in regener-
ation and infrastructure and spatial competitiveness and development. According to
Albrechts et al. (2003), strategic frameworks and visions for territorial development,
in a Europe undergoing progressive expansion, are demanding specific spatial
development initiatives and proactive approaches towards contemporary challenges
and global competitive arena.
Following the line of reasoning of Albrechts et al. (2003), Fürst (2001) and
Kunzmann (2001), the concentration of efforts on the spatial relations of territories
offers a more effective way of integrating economic, environmental, cultural and
social policy agendas. In addition, a territorial focus also provides a promising basis
for encouraging levels of government to work together and in partnership with actors
in diverse positions in the economy and civil society (Fürst 2001; Kunzmann 2001).
Recently, Albrechts (2013) has suggested reframing of strategic spatial planning.
Strategic spatial planning could be seen as a possible approach to deal with societies’
economic, social and political challenges in an innovative, creative, coordinated and
transformative way. Strategic spatial planning could support a progressive change in
practice, while the government loads onto the term a series of aspirations for policy
change at various levels, as economic and social implemented through strategic
initiatives. Strategic initiatives are focused on the understanding of the holistic
situation, the definition of realistic general goals, orientation of available strengths
and persistence of the action until significant results have been achieved, as at
the competitive agenda (Albrechts 2004). Investment in infrastructure and urban
redevelopment, mainly focused on city and regions, relates to well-established argu-
ments about the importance of place qualities, values and knowledge in economic
development and spatial transformation in an integrative manner (Albrechts et al.
2003).
The European integration agenda, broadly speaking, is aimed at reducing
hierarchies of spatial administrative levels while building stronger institutional
capacity at regional and subregional levels. For several times, this process involves
cross-border cooperation. The core objectives of cross-border cooperation are to
reduce the negative effects of borders as administrative, legal and physical barriers,
tackle common problems and exploit untapped potential (European Union 2011).
122 E. Oliveira

According to Perkmann (2003), cross-border regions have thrived in particular

because of their increasingly relevant role as implementation units for European
regional policy in a context of multilevel governance.
The approach explored in this chapter steps towards a development of synergies
onto cross-border place branding by emphasising the knowledge and values of
spatial strategy making. The literature in place branding, such as Van Assche and Lo
(2011, p. 118), underlines that ‘place branding can enhance the stability of planning
strategies and that omitting a branding perspective in planning efforts is bound to
increase their economic risks’. Following this line of reasoning, a strategic spatial
planning approach to cross-border place-branding would give visibility to strategic
initiatives and give notoriety to cross-border regions. In addition, it would also
strengthening the competitive position and facilitating cross-border multi-sector
cooperation, namely, for entrepreneurship, investment and talent attraction as well
as talent retention initiatives.

Why a Strategic Spatial Planning Approach to Cross-Border

Place Branding?

Strategic spatial planning, as opposed to strategic corporate planning, is an intrin-

sically political activity (Friedmann 2004). The reasons are varied. For Mastop
(1998, cited in Albrechts 2004), strategic spatial planning in Europe dates back
to the 1920s and 1930s where it was used by public and private actors in support
to spatial challenges. The primary strategic spatial planning literature states that
strategic spatial planning is not a single concept, procedure or tool but a set of
concepts, procedures and tools that must be tailored carefully to different situations.
Strategic plans are not the outcome of a legal obligation (see Quinn 1980; Healey
1997; Kunzmann 2000; Albrechts 2004, 2010, 2013). According to Albrechts
(2013), strategic spatial planning is able to support a strategic change, at urban and
regional level, changing the agenda and thus socially and economically improving
places by using different instruments, for instance, place branding. All European
Union member states, except the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland,
use detailed planning instruments, such as regulatory zoning instruments, building
control instruments, and implementation instruments. However, new approaches are
requested following the market conditions of a global society. Spatial planners now
have to assume different roles.
Spatial planners, as geographers, ethnographers and marketers, among a vast
list of other experts are exponentially developing place branding at different scales
(i.e. neighbourhood, countries, cities, regions, cross-administrative territories) and
different scopes (i.e. investment, trade, talent, tourism). The application of branding
techniques to places, such as cross-border regions, has been used as part of
policies aimed to nurturing economic restructuring, community participation and
political engagement (Ashworth 2011). In addition to facilitate strategic change
in places, specifically, through reimagining, repositioning or rescaling processes
10 A Strategic Spatial Planning Approach to Cross-Border Place Branding. . . 123

(Ashworth 2005). Despite theoretical developments in place branding (see Lucarelli

and Berg 2011; Kavaratzis 2012; Zenker and Rütter 2014), it has been asserted
that the practice demonstrates significant misconceptions. Place branding lacks at
present any intellectual grounding or even positioning within spatial planning and
policy-making (Ashworth 2011). Furthermore, there is an apparent gap in place-
branding literature which overlooks inter-territorial branding or branding across
administrative borders (Pasquinelli 2013). To fill that noticeable rational fissure in
place-branding literature, we adopt a strategic spatial planning approach to facilitate
developments of branding initiatives for cross-border regions. We base our approach
on the work of Mintzberg (1994), Ashworth and Kavaratzis (2010), Pasqui (2011)
and Albrechts (2013). In our viewpoint, there are three main reasons to follow a
strategic spatial planning approach for cross-border branding:
• Strategically thinking about the future of cross-border areas. The construc-
tion of visions of the future for territories, in the context of joint initiatives,
strategic arrangements and consensus building between place stakeholders. As
cross-border territories are organised by multiple actors and different levels of
government, strategic spatial planning could establish solid links for effective
decision-making and strategic networks to envision better futures for the area.
• Integrating decision-making and cross-border branding. If we accept that the
constituent elements of places are linked with others in distant geographies,
we may aim to reconsider the definition of inter-territorial competition and
cross-border cooperation. Territories are involved in highly complex relations of
co-dependency, cooperation and co-opetition, at the national and transnational
levels. Therefore, oversimplifying the relations only to competition may lead
to economic and social imbalances. An integrated approach to place branding
may support cohesive decision-making concerning agreements of cooperation,
coalition of place actors and development of joint strategic tools. Through
strategic spatial planning, as opposed to the one-size-fits-all approach and the
blind and frenetic rush to attract investment, talent and tourists, context-sensitive
interventions will prepare the territory and further encourage a cross-border
branding strategy.
• Reinforcing coordination mechanisms in cross-border areas. Strategic spatial
planning has a core of objectives which include coordination and/or conver-
gence between sectoral policies around a disparity of governments, such as in
cross-border areas. Furthermore, flexibility and adaptability to circumstances of
strategic planning could be an advantage when building cross-border branding
strategies. Tailor-made approaches to cross-border branding are suited to enhance
place assets and spatial qualities and bring together divergent voices. Ultimately,
designed to satisfy the primary needs of the communities and design a unique
storyline for shared futures.
This approach goes beyond the norm on interregional place-branding research.
Even the literature offers us what is now a structured discussion of the reasons
why some geographical units, such as cities, researchers and spatial planners,
have engaged with strategic spatial planning (Balducci et al. 2011); we decided to
124 E. Oliveira

experiment it and carefully observe the linkage with branding across administrative
territories, such as Galicia and Northern Portugal. In this sense spatial planners are
called to assume a role as enhancers of processes of integration between decision-
making networks and regional actors from both sides of a border, and this is adding
value to cross-border branding exercise.

The Role of Spatial Planners and Strategical Thinking

in Cross-Border Place Branding

It has been assumed that some of the attempts to respond to the complex issues
places are facing depend on the ability to combine the creation of strategic
visions with short-term actions (Albrechts 2004). The role of (strategic) spatial
planners goes beyond the technicality of land use plans, territorial zoning, spatial
regulations or urban transformation. There is an imaginative power in strategic
spatial planning (see Healey 2006). Therefore, spatial planners should be creative
thinkers, envisioning better futures for places. Furthermore, the spatial planner
could play the role of a negotiator engaging various relevant parties in a spatial
context. In the same line of reasoning, a spatial planner, nowadays, could embrace
future-strategic thinking in place-branding exercises as they deal with spatial
qualities, multiple stakeholders, place opportunities and threats and territorial
transformation.
Place stakeholders are becoming more proactively involved in the planning pro-
cess (Albrechts 2004). A proactive reaction to spatial issues involves designing the
future to make it happen (Albrechts 2004, 2010). According to Kavaratzis (2012),
it is imperative to rethink the role of stakeholders towards a more participatory
place-branding approach. The involvement of stakeholders as well as community
participation in strategic spatial planning and place branding strengthens a place
brand. Given these facts, a place brand has the capability of providing something
for everybody, only because, and only when, it is created by everybody. Hence,
proactive participation, strategic networks and strategic thinking place branding,
including over borders, are vital.
From the intellectual grounding of strategic spatial planning, the rationale linkage
to place branding, for instance, applied to cross-border regions, lies in the need to
counteract the pure instrumental rationality able to encourage strategically thinking
economic and social ailments (Albrechts 2004). Strategic spatial planning creates
or supports design of a vision for a future environment. Over time strategic spatial
planning process ‘must stay abreast of changes in order to make the best decisions
it can at any given point’ (Albrechts 2004, p. 750). The envisioned future should
be placed within the economic, social and political environment and the variable
time and scale with regard to specific issues and a particular combination of actors
(Albrechts 2004).
On the other hand, Syssner (2010) calls to develop a multilevel approach to
place branding, an effort that would explore the complex relationships within and
10 A Strategic Spatial Planning Approach to Cross-Border Place Branding. . . 125

between place-branding initiatives at various levels of regulation. In this regard,

a cross-border branding strategy, as the result of political arrangements, would
influence the interregional cooperation agenda. Strategic thinking in spatial planning
allows for a more effective way of integrating the economic, cultural and cohesion
policy agendas (Albrechts 2004). These agendas could be developed into specific
programmes and regulatory practices, opening up room for integration of place-
branding initiatives in spatial planning and territorial development. If territorial
development is underpinned in strategic frameworks and visions, with an emphasis
on place assets and values, it would be more fruitful to rescale issues on the complex
agenda of today’s economic and social scene.
The approach to cross-border place branding through strategic spatial planning
is deeply anchored in the ideas of Albrechts (2004, 2013) in widening the range
of place stakeholders involved in policy-making for territorial (place) development
and the need to think strategically in new instruments to cope with the challenges.
As outlined in Albrechts (2004), Furst (2001) and Kunzmann (2001), territorial
development as a goal (likewise in place branding) encourages levels of government
to work together (multilevel governance) and in partnership with actors in diverse
positions in the economy and civil society. Its rationale is to frame the activities of
place actors, from public to private, into more shared concerns regarding common
and transborder issues (such as the current economic and financial crisis that affects
both territories) and joint initiatives for spatial (structural) change. Furthermore,
there is an opportunity for spatial planners to cross administrative boundaries and
develop efforts to combine two or more geographical units in order to build a
more attractive territory (see Hankinson 2010). Accordingly, benchmarking best
practices in interregional place branding is also fundamental to accredit the rationale
of building branding strategies over administrative territories.

Lessons from Interregional Branding of Selected Cases

The Øresund Region

The Scandinavian Øresund region is a cross-border conurbation made up by two

nearby cities, Copenhagen (Denmark) and Malmö (Sweden). The branding exercise
taken by the Øresund region authorities was developed intentionally to nudge the
residents to identify themselves with the region (Pedersen 2004). The Øresund
region is often highlighted as a best practice of place marketing (see Van Ham 2002;
Hospers 2006).
The regional branding process of the Øresund region was marked by the planning
of the bridge linking Copenhagen and Malmö. Trade organisations, governmental
administrations and industry started working together to organise the projection of
the region into the global market (Pedersen 2004). The aim was to integrate the
interior organising and the exterior communication in one symbolic regime, in the
same regional storyline. The heterogeneous business structure of the Øresund region
126 E. Oliveira

turned out to be a core source for cross-border cooperation. Both sides of the region
complemented each other in several domains. Jointly the areas have developed
significant strengths in three clusters:
1. Information technology
2. Medical technology
3. Tourism-based activities (Hospers 2006)
This point is fundamental for the rationale of developing a joint cross-border
branding for the region Galicia–Northern Portugal. By taking the best of each one, a
stronger region could emerge. If the cross-border branding exercise is integrated in
strategic spatial planning it could attempt to a structural change in direction and,
eventually, fulfil the desires of regional actors, citizens and decision-makers. In
times of economic and social crisis, and where the EU financial mechanisms 2014–
2020 will be the single source to financially support projects, for instance a place
branding one, it seems a smart approach to engage with regional actors and build
uniqueness with cooperative ties underpinned on regional potentials and assets.
In Øresund, the strategy of adjusting the relations of meaning between the
bridge, the logo and the discourse (the fundamental coherent storyline) of the
region illustrates how branding works. The brand connects all potentially profitable
and significant objects and events of the region to the region (Hospers 2006).
In our view, the rather successful development of the Øresund region can be a
lesson for Galicia–Northern Portugal to learn to strategically communicate and give
visibility of their industrial know-how, creative industries, high-tech research units
and tourism potential to the surrounding world. However, to overcome the failure
that occurred during the branding process of the Øresund region, we argue that a
strategic spatial planning approach to cross-border branding could be the key to
successful place branding across administrative regions with, often, paradoxical
planning, government and identity systems.

The Baltic Sea Region

The Baltic Sea region has been developed as an inter-territorial branding exercise.
The inter-territorial brand covers a geographical area managed and planned by
diverse public authorities which decided to collaborate voluntarily (Pasquinelli
2013). The interregional branding case of the Baltic Sea region is complex regarding
the number of sovereign states involved. According to Pasquinelli (2013), the region
as a destination brand is aimed at attracting visitors, as well as investors, by pro-
moting the region to foreign capital and also by promoting exports. The Baltic Sea
region faces a considerable number of issues and challenges. As suggested on place-
branding literature, the most notable being a lack of one single decision-making
authority and a lack of unity of purpose among its potential stakeholders (Andersson
2007). Andersson (2007, 2009) argues that if the region wants to be positioned
in the minds of potential visitors, investors, residents, talents and entrepreneurs,
10 A Strategic Spatial Planning Approach to Cross-Border Place Branding. . . 127

therefore to gain visibility and be seen as a more coherent and attractive entity, it
needs to work hard on integration, identity building and economic development. In
addition, it needs to maintain the communication of its achievements, either tangible
or intangible. Despite some failures, the branding process undertaken by the Baltic
Sea region could hold lessons for the European region Galicia–Northern Portugal.
For instance, the region was able to strongly develop commitment and engagement
with multiple organisations (Andersson 2010). In addition, another lesson has
emerged from the awareness of the region organisations about the need to implement
marketing and branding approaches to improve the image of the unknown region by
giving visibility. It is curious that the visionary idea of branding the region went
viral and was spread to a variety of networks, contexts and stakeholders.
For the region Galicia–Northern Portugal, spending time discussing the best
nomination for the regional conurbation (i.e. be Euroregion or something else) could
start the engines and open the dialogue to reimagine, revitalise and reorganise the
region towards more visibility, credibility and respect of their multidimensional
potential as a unique territory. The branding storyline should be built based on what
is unique, best and outstanding in the region. Economies of scale and cross-border
infrastructures are essential to raise the idea that the region is familiar and closer
and the citizens (Portuguese and Spaniards) are part of it. They are the story that the
world wants to hear.

Cross-Border European Region Galicia–Northern Portugal

Although Galicia and Northern Portugal have enjoyed centuries of shared his-
tory and culture, it was only with the EU membership of Spain and Portugal
that the foundations of successful cross-border cooperation could be built. The
establishment of the Working Community Galicia–North of Portugal in 1991 and
cross-border cooperation programmes under INTERREG (1990–2013) has created
benefits that are today enjoyed by a resident population of 6.5 million. The Reg-
ulation (EC) number 1082/2006 (amended accordingly to Regulation EC number
1302/2013) established the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation Galicia-
Northern Portugal (Fig. 10.1). The overall objective of the programme is to further
develop and broaden the common border areas towards improving connectivity and
infrastructures, enhancing socio-economic and institutional integration, promoting
employment and reinforcing territorial competitiveness and cooperation and to
overcome the obstacles to the cross-border cooperation process.
The GNP-EGTC is the organisation in charge of promoting interconnection
and territorial cooperation for the cross-border European region Galicia–Northern
Portugal. The GNP-EGTC aims to support institutional arrangements and establish
communication bridges, dialogue, investment and convergence between business,
citizens, universities and government on both sides of the border. The GNP-EGTC
could also assume a primary role in developing cross-border branding efforts and
strategic spatial planning arrangements in the region.
128 E. Oliveira

France

Spain

Northern Portugal*
Galicia Spain**
N Alto Minho
Pontevedra 1 Cávado
A Coruña
3 Ave
Ourense A Coruña
Área Metropolitina do Porto
Lugo Lugo
2 Alto Tâmega
Tâmega e Sousa Douro
1 A Coruña Pontevedra
Terras de Trás-os-Montes
2 Santiago de Compostela
4 Ourense
3 Lugo 12
11 5 Viana do Castelo
4 Vigo
5 Alto Tâmega 6 6 Bragança
Ave Terras de
Eurocities 7 Trás-os-Montes
7 Braga
11 Chaves* - Verín** 8 8 Guimarães
10
12 Tui** - Valença* Tâmega
9 AM e Sousa Douro 9 Porto
Porto 10 Vila Real

Fig. 10.1 Geographical area of the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation Galicia-
northern Portugal, the main cities (1–10) and the two Eurocities (11;12) (approximately).

Galicia is Spain’s most western Autonomous Community and is bordered by

Portugal to the south. With approximately 2.8 million inhabitants, the region is
sparsely populated; it accounted for 6 % of Spain’s population and 5.2 % of the
national GDP in 2010. It is characterised by a very long coastline (more than
1,700 km) as well as rugged terrain. The Autonomous Community of Galicia has
always preserved a strong sense of regional identity, based on its unique culture
and language (Galician) and has an autonomous government (Xunta de Galicia).
Galicia has strong trade and cultural relationships with Portugal, especially with its
Northern region (OECD 2012).
The Northern Portugal region, without an institutionalised level of government,
only supported in terms of regional development and cohesion by the North
Regional Coordination and Development Commission (CCDRN), has a territorial
area of 21.285,88 km2 with 3.694.152 as the resident population. By taking the
10 A Strategic Spatial Planning Approach to Cross-Border Place Branding. . . 129

Table 10.1 Key social and economic figures, Galicia and Northern Portugal
Indicators Spain Galicia Portugal Northern Portugal
Population
Resident population (N.) 46.704.308 2.736.637 10.487.289 3.694.152
(2013)
Life expectancy (%) (2011) 82,4 82,2 79,8 81,3
Labour market
Unemployment rate (%) 25.8 20.7 15.3 16.1
(01/2014)
Employment rate (%) 59.3 57.7 66.5 60.9
(10/2013)
Regional GDP (2004, – 17.600 – 13.100
purchasing power standard
per inhabitant)
GDP per capita in PPS 96 – 76 –
(EU28 D 100)
Real GDP growth rate (2015 1.7 – 1.5 –
forecast)
Trade (thousand Euros)
Total imports – 14.848.729,8 – 11.677.141,0
Total exports – 16.499.233,9 – 16.799.356,0
Intra-EU 27 exports to Spain – – – 4.030.413 (30 %)
(% of the total)
Intra-EU 27 imports from – – – 4.323.206 (43,92)
Spain (% of the total)
Tourism
Total nights spent (number, – 8.538.669 – 5.479.709
2011)
Establishments (number, – 2.837 – 531
2011)
Air transport (1,000 – 4429.0 – 6005.0
passengers)
Science and technology
Human resources (% of active – 39.1 – 24.2
population, 2012)
Source: Author’s own design based on Eurostat (2014)

newest data from secondary sources, Table 10.1 shows the key figures of the cross-
border region, with particular focus on macroeconomic indicators.
From the key figures above, we underline the importance of the trade
(export/import) from the Northern Portugal to Spain. The gross domestic product
has registered negative variation rates since 2007. The unemployment rate is above
15 % in both regions.
During our research and analysis on the latest strategic documents from the
institutions involved in cross-border cooperation in the European region, only the
Estructura empresarial conjunta en la eurorregión de Galicia–Norte de Portugal
para el impulso y la captación de la inversión internacional (henceforth ECICII)
130 E. Oliveira

seems to step towards joint efforts to attract inward investment to the region.
Recently the ECICII (2012), an enterprise association aimed at attracting foreign
investment to the region, presented a strategic memorandum where Galicia–
Northern Portugal is characterised as the ‘Atlantic gateway to Europe’. After the
interpretation of the strategic memorandum, we argue that there are some consistent
lines to build up a cross-border branding strategy. At least there is awareness of its
relevance to give visibility to the region as a whole. Although some of the reasons
are redundant, the mentioned document Ten reasons to invest in the Euroregion
(ECICII 2012) expresses the business sector ambitions to position the region as
(following the source order):
1. An open door to the world
• The Euroregion’s strategic geographical location makes of it the easiest
gateway to connect to other world destinations.
2. A well connected region by sea, land and air
• Infrastructures that connect the region through air and land to any destina-
tion.
3. Industrial estates for expansion
• More than 6 million square metres of spaces available for industrial
activities, trade and services that will continue generating wealth and
employment.
4. Institutional support
• Growth and entrepreneurial development through financial instruments and
public capital risk under especially favourable conditions.
5. Talent
• Seven universities. A wide offer in postgraduate education. Agreements
between universities and the enterprises which capitalise knowledge and
research.
6. Innovation
• The Euroregion has more than 30 technological and research centres,
coordinated through two hubs of innovation (i.e. RetGalicia and Associação
dos Centros de Empresa e Inovação Portugueses – BIC Northern Portugal).
7. Outstanding quality of life
• The Euroregion’s mild climate allows several possibilities to enjoy its unique
natural background of coast and Atlantic forests.
8. Sustainability
• The Euroregion is watchfully committed ( : : : ) strategies and practices
applied to every social, economic and environmental dimension.
10 A Strategic Spatial Planning Approach to Cross-Border Place Branding. . . 131

9. Progress
• Creation of employment and economic growth based in the development of
a new productive model.
10. Solid representation of the main industrial sectors
• The Euroregion’s economy stands on basic (e.g. construction, agro-
food), strategic (e.g. textile, tourism) and prospective sectors (e.g. health,
knowledge-based economy).
However, it was not possible to identify if this bashful attempt to position the
region to the outside world has seen new developments. Could this initiative be seen
as an active instrument to wake up regional minds to act towards a cross-border
place-branding strategy? Are infrastructures the unique element to strengthen cross-
border cooperation ties? Following this way of thinking, is an investment on the
high-speed railway system between the main cities in each side of the border (Porto,
Northern Portugal and Vigo, Galicia, Spain) able to enhance the position of the
region and be the incentive for a future thinking in joint place-branding exercises?
Or is a more intangible action also able to lift the region? These questions will
remain unanswered as in-depth primary research is required to bring the interested
parts to the discussion.

Discussing a Joint Cross-Border Place-Branding Strategy

In contemporary times of uncertainty and growing challenges that require spatial–

economic transformation, the global competition between countries and regions is
heating up. Being unknown or having a weak image becomes a serious handicap for
a place.
Cross-border cooperation between Galicia and the North of Portugal is shifting
towards improving local competitiveness but also headed for creating stronger
cooperation ties. In the past infrastructure investment brought people together (e.g.
bridges, railways), with positive impact on labour mobility, trade and cross-border
investment. Nowadays other joint areas of interest have been identified. Ambitions
on joint programmes and organisations set up to improve cooperation in areas
such as employment, small business support, environmental planning, heritage
conservation, urban regeneration, tourism, university research, risk prevention,
socio-economic integration and technical assistance are leading the work on both
sides of the border. The International Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory located
in Braga (Northern Portugal) has been mentioned as a potential infrastructure
to enhance the competitiveness and strengthen the position of the region as a
whole.
The new type of cooperation focused on science, technology and strategic
nanotechnology could be seen as a positive move for the cross-border region
Galicia–Northern Portugal. With future thinking and making the right strategies in
132 E. Oliveira

spatial planning in both sides, a joint place-branding strategy could position and
thus add value to the region. A cross-border place-branding strategy would require
strong effort among the key regional actors.
From our analysis of the documents Ten reasons to invest in the Euroregion
(ECICII 2012); the Strategic Plan for Cooperation Galicia–Northern Portugal,
2007–2013 (GNP-EGTC 2007. Following the European Union strategy 2020 and
the respective financial mechanisms 2014–2020, this strategic plan 2007–2013 has
been updated to the Joint Investment Programme Galicia-Northern Portugal 2014–
2020, see GNP-EGTC 2014); and the European Territorial Cooperation – Building
Bridges Between People, published by the European Union (2011), we argue that
there are windows of opportunity to develop joint cross-border branding exercises.
It seems that there is political will; however, better coordination, organisation and
cooperation could support decision-making towards a unique regional brand and the
same regional promotional storyline.
A cross-border branding for Galicia–Northern Portugal could play an important
role in facilitating/simplifying the communication that the region is planning,
implementing structural changes, encouraging long-term strategic vision, providing
integration among a range of sectoral and multi-spatial level plans (e.g. European,
Spain, Portugal, NUTS II, NUTS III, Autonomous Community) and improving
engagement with stakeholders and the community. It would be a long-term plan for
earning and maintaining a distinctive, positive and competitive cross-border regional
reputation, both within the region and around the world.
These aims could be achieved through a joint strategic spatial planning exercise
at the cross-border level. A joint exercise able to harmonise and highlight cross-
border innovation, creativity, authenticity, policy making, international relations and
public diplomacy, investment and export promotion, tourism and cultural relations.
Furthermore, collaboration and cooperation among inter-territorial unities offer the
chance to achieve a higher quality of international promotion campaigns at lower
costs for regional stakeholders, thus improving the cost-effectiveness of initiatives
(Pasquinelli 2013).

Conclusions and the Way Forward

In a world with growing turbulence, complexity and uncertainty, where crisis

is becoming the norm rather than the exception, strategic spatial planning is
increasingly seen as a critical feature that reflects the capacity of a system to absorb
disturbance and reorganise without collapsing. In addition, the globalisation leads to
processes involving a change in the perception of distance (the stretching of all kinds
of social, cultural, political and economic relations across space and time). In fact,
the search for strategic thinking in place branding to face global competition, cost-
effectiveness and the emergence of virtual regions, due the complexity of networks
and panacea of information communication technologies, becomes paramount. In
addition, scarce means of funding at the European level, triggering transformation
and change and, finally, the internationalisation of territories, are drivers of cross-
10 A Strategic Spatial Planning Approach to Cross-Border Place Branding. . . 133

border branding and, at the same time, increase the demand for a resilient approach
to resources management and long-term strategic visions. Moreover, the added
competition creates a dispute for visibility and for recognition of the quality,
differentiation and competitiveness of their territorial economic specialisation and
institutional density as in European countries.
Since the 1990s many cities, especially in Europe, have used promotion policies
to support their images and improve their competitive position. This process
is especially noticeable in the contexts of globalisation, entrepreneurship and
increased competition. Thus, within the frame of global competition, regions and
cities engaged in inter-territorial cooperation initiatives aimed to enhance their
competitiveness. According to the Lisbon Strategy (European Union 2000), in the
Europe 2020 strategy (European Union 2010), there are conceptual frameworks
for thinking in developing joint place-branding initiatives across member states.
Objectives such as the development of joint economic, social and environmental
cross-border activities geared towards regional territorial development also drive
cross-border branding. Accordingly, we underline that joint cross-border place-
branding initiative to the extended cross-border European region Galicia–Northern
Portugal could be able to support and encourage:
• Cross-border trade
– Facilitating the coalition of trade associations and unions
– Sharing the participation in national and international trade fairs
– Sharing trade facilities and joining forces for efficient resource management
• Cross-border infra-structure developments
– Sharing facilities for cross-border mobility (e.g. railway networks connecting
the main Galicia–Northern Portugal cities)
– Improving virtual networks and communication technologies
• Cross-border investment and tourism development
– Sharing facilities and social and human capital for joint investment. Pro-
mote synergies to support industrial production (e.g. exchanging know-how).
Therefore, support economies of scale, sustainability, and efficient use of non-
renewable resources
– Taking advantage of the tourism potential in both sides of the border (e.g.
the pilgrimage routes to Santiago de Compostela, River Douro, wine and
gastronomy, promoting cross-border cultural touring)
– Promoting cross-border sensemaking by taking advantage of the historical
roots of Galicia and Northern Portugal to construct project orientations for
the future (e.g. cultural events, historical recreations) – short-term actions
embedded in long-term strategic visions
• Cross-border research and development projects
– Sharing facilities to capitalise nanotechnology, bioscience and biomaterials
research (e.g. enhance the regional role of the International Iberian Nanotech-
134 E. Oliveira

nology Laboratory; the 3B’s Research Group – Biomaterials, Biodegradables

and Biomimetics, both located in Braga, Northern Portugal; and other research
centres in Galicia)
– Sharing facilities for utilisation of laboratories and best practices in academic
research (e.g. agro-food, health, regenerative medicine, high-tech textile
materials, nano-products and renewable energy)
– Sharing procedures and tools for talent attraction and retention
• Cross-border entrepreneurship, employment and labour mobility
– Facilitating strategic network enterprise–university
– Exploring synergies with other territories (i.e. EU and non-EU regions) to
incentive start-up and spin-off developments.
– Facilitating cross-border mobility of talented people to support knowledge
creation and patent development
– Facilitating entrepreneurship networks (e.g. cross-border workshops)
However, political decisions (both place branding and strategic spatial planning
are inherently political activities) and administrative mechanisms are necessary.
Designing a cross-border branding process by linking place branding and strategic
spatial planning, in a context of permanent changes, uncertainty and desired trans-
formations, within two distort approaches to spatial planning, regional development
and government, is a challenge in itself and requires continuous research. In this
regard, the EGTC and the strategic priorities of the Europe 2020 strategy (the EU’s
strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth) could be the institutional,
financial and organisational support to encourage a multi-package of objectives.
Given these recommendations, a joint cross-border branding initiative could give
visibility and build a coherent and respected storyline of the region, to the region and
to the outside world. Shared facilities may bring together the key regional voices.
However, we acknowledge that there will be difficulties and misalignments towards
a common strategy, in consensus building towards strategic planning, and mutual
agreement for decision-making arrangements.
A strategic spatial planning approach to cross-border place branding, supported
by consistent image building, a strong vision and consensus building, will allow
development of unique and distinct identities over geographic boundaries. In
addition, this could be the key to bring together contradictory voices to develop
and agree on shared visions for future regional development, contributing to job
creation and general well-being of Gallegos and Portuguese citizens. A successful
cross-border brand requires the right ideas, the right mind-set, the right people
and the right strategy and resources at the right time. Designing a comprehensive
cross-border branding strategy, responding to all the opportunities and satisfying all
demands, and in a multi-scalar context, can be a tough task, however, not impossible.
This chapter has certain limitations. The arguments presented in this chapter were
based on secondary research and analysis of strategic documents from multiple
sources. These documents only reveal a unilateral discourse and they are not a
unique regional oratory. Therefore there is a need to undertake primary research,
10 A Strategic Spatial Planning Approach to Cross-Border Place Branding. . . 135

such as in-depth interviewing with regional actors from both sides of the border to
understand their vision regarding a cross-border branding initiative and a strategic
regional planning exercise.

References

Albrechts L (1999) Planners as catalysts and initiators of change. The new structure plan for
flanders. Eur Plan Stud 7(5):587–603
Albrechts L (2004) Strategic (spatial) planning re-examined. Environ Plan B Plan Des 31(5):
743–758
Albrechts L (2006) Bridge the gap: from spatial planning to strategic projects. Eur Plan Stud
14(10):1487–1500
Albrechts L (2010) More of the same is not enough! How could strategic spatial planning be
instrumental in dealing with the challenges ahead? Environ Plan B Plan Des 37(6):1115–1127
Albrechts L (2013) Reframing strategic spatial planning by using a coproduction perspective. Plan
Theory 12(1):46–63
Albrechts L, Healey P, Kunzmann K (2003) Strategic spatial planning and regional governance in
Europe. J Am Plan Assoc 69(2):113–129
Amante M (2013) Recovering the paradox of the border: identity and (un)familiarity across the
Portuguese-Spanish border. Eur Plan Stud 21(1):24–41
Anderson J, O’Dowd L, Wilson T (2003) New borders for a changing Europe. Cross-border
cooperation and governance. Frank Cass, London
Andersson M (2007) Region branding: the case of the Baltic Sea region. Place Brand Public Dipl
3(2):120–130
Andersson M (2009) Building a visible and attractive region: identity, image, branding and
transnational cooperation in the Baltic Sea region. In: Ellefors A, Hofrén E (eds) Crossing
perspectives: Baltic Sea region. Arkitektkopia, Norrköping, pp 1–19
Andersson M (2010) Place branding and place promotion efforts in the Baltic Sea region–a situ-
ation analysis. Copenhagen: Baltic Development Forum. http://www.bdforum.org/cmsystem/
wpcontent/uploads/files/thematic_reports_brandin_place_promotion_bsr_2010.pdf. Accessed
6 Feb 2014
Ashworth G (2005) Can a Dutch city become Italian? A strategic change of heart in Groningen,
Netherlands. In: Martinelli F (ed) La Pianificazione strategica in Italia e in Europa. Francoan-
geli, Milan, pp 181–202
Ashworth G (2011) Should we brand places? J Town City Manag 1(3):248–252
Ashworth G, Kavaratzis M (2010) Towards effective place brand management-branding European
cities and regions. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham
Balducci A, Fedeli V, Pasqui G (2011) Strategic planning for contemporary urban regions: city of
cities: a project for Milan. Ashgate, Surrey
Bucken-Knapp G, Shack M (2001) Borders matter: transboundary regions in contemporary
Europe. Danish Institute of Border Regions, Aabenraa
CCDRN – Comissão de Coordenação e Desenvolvimento Regional do Norte (2013) Norte 2020 –
Diagnóstico Prospetivo da Região do Norte 2014–2020. http://www.ccdrn.pt/pt/norte-2020/o-
que-e/. Accessed 7 Mar 2014
ECICII – Estructura empresarial conjunta en la eurorregión de Galicia – Norte de Portugal para el
impulso y la captación de la inversión internacional (2012) Ten reasons to invest in the Euro-
region. http://invest.ecicii.com/sites/default/files/book_en.pdf. Accessed 6 Mar 2014
European Union (2000) Lisbon strategy. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/
pressdata/en/ec/00100-r1.en0.htm. Accessed 6 Mar 2014
136 E. Oliveira

European Union (2006) Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 5 July 2006 on a European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC).
Off J Eur Union L210/19. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:
32006R1082:en:NOT. Accessed 6 Mar 2014
European Union (2010) Europe 2020 strategy. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.
do?uri=COM:2010:2020:FIN:EN:PDF. Accessed 6 Mar 2014
European Union (2011) European territorial cooperation: building bridges between people. http://
ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperate/cooperation/index_en.cfm. Accessed 6 Mar 2014
European Union (2013) Regulation (EC) No 1302/2013 of the European parliament and of
the council of 17 December 2013 amending regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 on a Euro-
pean Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) as regards the clarification, simplifi-
cation and improvement of the establishment and functioning of such groupings. Off J
Eur Union L347/303. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:347:
0303:0319:EN:PDF. Accessed 6 Mar 2014
Eurostat (2014) General and regional statistics. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/
eurostat/home/. Accessed 6 Mar 2014
Friedmann J (1987) Planning in the public domain. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Friedmann J (2004) Strategic spatial planning and the longer range. Plan Theory Pract 5(1):49–62
Fürst D (2001) Regional governance-Ein neues Paradigma der Regionalwissenschaften? [Regional
governance-a new paradigm of regionalism?]. Raumforsch Raumordn 5-6:370–380
GNP-EGTC – European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation Galicia-Norte Portugal (2007)
Strategic plan for cooperation Galicia-Northern Portugal, 2007–2013 [Plano Estratégico
de Cooperação Galiza-Norte de Portugal 2007–2013]. http://www.gnpaect.eu/multimedia/
adjuntos/1328177164.pdf. Accessed 7 Mar 2014
GNP-EGTC – European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation Galicia-Norte Portugal (2014)
Joint investment programme Galicia-northern Portugal 2014–2020. http://www.gnpaect.eu/en/
euroregion/PIC.pdf/view. Accessed 23 Feb 2015
Hankinson G (2010) Place branding theory: a cross-domain literature review from a marketing
perspective. In: Ashworth G, Kavaratzis M (eds) Towards effective place brand management-
branding European cities and regions. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, pp 15–35
Healey P (1997) An institutionalist approach to spatial planning. In: Healey P, Khakee A, Motte
A, Needham B (eds) Making strategic spatial plans: innovation in Europe. UCL Press, London,
pp 21–36
Healey P (2006) Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. Macmillan,
London
Hillier J (2002) Shadows of power. An allegory of planning in land-use planning. Routledge,
London
Hospers G-J (2004) Place marketing in Europe. The branding of the Øresund region. Intereco-
nomics 39(5):271–279
Hospers G-J (2006) Borders, bridges and branding: the transformation of the Øresund region into
an imagined space. Eur Plan Stud 14(8):1015–1019
Kavaratzis M (2012) From “necessary evil” to necessity: stakeholders’ involvement in place
branding. J Place Manag Dev 5(1):7–19
Kunzmann K (2000) Strategic spatial development through information and communication. In:
Salet W, Faludi A (eds) The revival of strategic spatial planning. Royal Netherlands Academy
of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam, pp 259–265
Kunzmann K (2001) State planning: a German success story? Int Plan Stud 6(2):153–166
Lucarelli A, Berg P (2011) City branding: a state-of-the-art review of the research domain. J Place
Manag Dev 4(1):9–27
Medeiros E (2011) (Re)defining the Euroregion concept. Eur Plan Stud 19(1):141–158
Mintzberg H (1994) Rise and fall of strategic spatial planning. Free Press, New York
OECD – The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2012) Public investment
across levels of government: the case of Galicia, Spain. http://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-
policy/galicia_edited.pdf. Accessed 7 Mar 2014
10 A Strategic Spatial Planning Approach to Cross-Border Place Branding. . . 137

Pasqui G (2011) The changing urban agenda. In: Balducci A, Fedeli V, Pasqui G (eds) Strategic
planning for contemporary urban regions: city of cities: a project for Milan. Ashgate, Surrey,
pp 55–65
Pasquinelli C (2013) Competition, cooperation and co-opetition: unfolding the process of inter-
territorial branding. Urban Res Pract 6(1):1–18
Pasquinelli C, Teräs J (2013) Branding knowledge-intensive regions: a comparative study of Pisa
and Oulu high-tech brands. Eur Plan Stud 21(10):1611–1629
Pedersen S (2004) Place branding: giving the region of Øresund a competitive edge. J Urban
Technol 11(1):77–95
Perkmann M (2003) Cross-border regions in Europe: significance and drivers of regional cross-
border co-operation. Eur Urban Reg Stud 10(2):153–171
Quinn J (1980) Strategies for change: logical incrementalism. Dow Jones-Irwin, Illinois
Rumford C (2006) Introduction: theorizing borders. Eur J Soc Theory 9(2):155–169
Salet W, Faludi A (2000) The revival of strategic spatial planning. Royal Netherlands Academy of
Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam
Syssner J (2010) Place branding from a multi-level perspective. Place Brand Public Dipl 6(1):
36–48
Van Assche K, Lo M (2011) Planning, preservation and place branding: a tale of sharing assets and
narratives. Place Brand Public Dipl 7(2):116–126
Van Ham P (2002) Branding territory: inside the wonderful worlds of PR and IR theory.
Millennium J Intern Stud 31(2):249–269
Yndigegn C (2013) Reviving unfamiliarity-the case of public resistance to the establishment of the
Danish–German Euroregion. Eur Plan Stud 21(1):58–74
Zenker S, Rütter N (2014) Is satisfaction the key? The role of citizen satisfaction, place attachment
and place brand attitude on positive citizenship behavior. Cities 38:11–17
Chapter 11
Challenges for Interregional Place Branding for
Cruise Tourism in the Black Sea Region

Pantazis Pastras and Manolis Psarros

Abstract In terms of dealing with the appeal of a group of areas to visitors, desti-
nation branding involves spatial-dynamic processes which transform perceptions of
partnership and the practice of tourism policy across different scales. At each place,
reputation management for tourism purposes depends on the awareness of benefits
associated with mutual actions and knowledge exchange by stakeholders from the
public and the private sectors. However, the institutional and operational implica-
tions of collaborative brand building among traditional or emerging destinations
transcend both the borders of a single locality or region and the thematic scope of
tourism marketing. They actually pose challenges which require solid understanding
of common aspirations in relation to reputation management at a large geographical
scale. In this respect, the development of an interregional destination brand aimed at
systematic tourism planning and market share gains becomes an integral aspect of
interregional place branding based on consensus building among actors from various
sectors and locations.
This chapter explores how the development of a brand for cruise tourism in the
Black Sea Region is incorporated into a wider context of conditions and factors that
shape interregional place branding in the same area. The discussion is informed by
the experience of similar initiatives in the Baltic Sea Region and the Mediterranean.
Without ignoring how the overall approach to cruise tourism is affected by
geopolitical conditions, a key element of the analysis is the value of transnational
partnerships including public authorities and organized interest groups. Particular
emphasis is given to how brand building for cruise tourism emerges through
processes that fall within and outside the geographical area in question. In the first
case, the establishment of a unified brand identity is seen as a matter of embracing
multiculturalism and integrating historical aspects of the Black Sea Region into a
network of attractive destinations for cruise passengers. In the second case, the
recent appearance of the Black Sea Region in the geography of cruise industry
entails that the promotion of a unique identity does not occur in a vacuum, but
is closely related to developments elsewhere in the major Mediterranean market.
While the chapter attempts to shed light on the interrelationship of a place and a

P. Pastras () • M. Psarros

Toposophy, Athens, Greece
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 139

S. Zenker, B.P. Jacobsen (eds.), Inter-Regional Place Branding,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-15329-2_11
140 P. Pastras and M. Psarros

destination brand, empirical evidence from secondary and primary sources is used
to show the dynamic nature of brand-building processes in a rather complex segment
of the tourism market with various interactions taking place among areas, interests,
and policies.

Keywords Black Sea Region • Cruise tourism • Interregional destination

branding

Introduction

In an attempt to explore the emergence of the Black Sea Region (BSR) as a

geographical zone of attractive cruise destinations, interregional place branding
is seen in this chapter through the prism of transnational partnerships in which
relationships of cooperation are being built inside and outside large and loosely
defined areas. A conceptual basis is provided by the theme of regionalization, which
reflects the intention of interest groups from cities and regions between adjacent
countries to enhance the competitiveness of their localities and set a strategic
agenda based on shared values and objectives. The tourism sector has a significant
bearing on this subject. The growing awareness of opportunities that arise through
the integration of tourism products and services among various destinations has a
notable influence on the association of destination branding and place branding,
where the former is regularly seen as an integral aspect of the latter. In the words of
Govers and Go (2009, p. 14):
Where branding using the term “destination” implies a tourism perspective, place branding
provides an even wider perspective that would include all interactions of a place with its
environment, including political, outside investment, trade, immigration and media issues.

On these grounds, the chapter focuses on cruise tourism as a highly competitive

market in which the gradual establishment of emergent destinations and zones
of activity presupposes understanding and coordination of all the factors shaping
the perception of prospective visitors and industry partners. Recent experience
suggests such sector-specific processes are often part of wider strategic plans and
initiatives that occur at a supranational level. The chapter draws attention to the
cases of the Baltic Sea Region and the Mediterranean. In these areas, cruise tourism
development and destination branding through partnership practices among port
authorities, local governments, and private sector associations have been triggered or
strengthened by the institutional framework of the European Union. In considering
these practices of interregional cooperation and economic development as elements
of an increasingly popular agenda on the importance of reputation management
within and across areas, the chapter provides a framework for the analysis of similar
issues in the BSR.
A key aim of the chapter is to argue that enhancing the attractiveness of the
BSR for cruises involves processes that transcend the realm of destination brand
building. In order to lure cruise passengers, destinations along the Black Sea coast
11 Challenges for Interregional Place Branding for Cruise Tourism in the. . . 141

have first to convince international cruise lines that they are physically coupled in
a zone where political tension belongs to the past and the objective of business
growth guides investment decisions. Thus, the chapter embodies a broad set of
issues which are associated with cruise tourism in the BSR and shed light on the
multi-scalar and evolving nature of interactions among interest groups and policies
related to interregional place brand building. The analysis is grounded on evidence
from secondary sources and data collected through a semi-structured questionnaire
as part of a research project conducted on behalf of the United Nations Development
Programme – Black Sea Trade and Investment Promotion Programme.

The Ascent of Interregional Place Branding

In this chapter, the ongoing debate between academics and practitioners about the
practices of interregional place branding worldwide is seen as a direct consequence
of the movement of regionalization as described in the literature of international
relations and globalization studies. For Hanggi et al. (2006), regionalization stems
from cross-border integration of localities and communities at the regional level.
The central idea is that these localities and communities belong to independent
states, yet they share common aspirations whose pursuit leads to growing social
exchanges, economic transactions, and institutional interdependencies.
Insofar as the particular movement can contribute to bridging cultural divisions,
overcoming traumatic memories, and fostering respect and understanding between
communities, it does also trigger the construction of territorial identities across
respective spatial units. These identities do not necessarily correspond to the
formal (supra- or subnational) entities of the geographical hierarchy of territorial
administration. Instead, they often tend to “overlap, contradict or complement each
other, both in terms of the space these ‘places’ occupy and the context in which they
are deemed relevant by their audiences” (Boisen et al. 2011, p. 3). Pragmatism and a
balanced approach to cultural bonds, rather than adherence to tradition and history,
are the driving forces behind these territorial identities, whose collective basis at the
regional level is mainly dedicated to functional purposes such as economic growth,
infrastructure projects, and heritage protection.
Although the movement of regionalization is often linked with debates on
the changing sovereignty of national states because of the bottom-up political
processes that stimulate it (Hanggi et al. 2006), the current chapter is concerned
with the governance of collective-identity building at an interregional level. These
newly formed identities are both sources of cross-border stability and resources
for strategic interventions on behalf of various interest groups at different scales.
The European Union, in many respects, has enabled throughout the stages of
structural funds distribution the systematic treatment of these identities as a key
aspect of the whole integration process. More specifically, the legacy of INTER-
REG programs from 1989 onward is responsible for the involvement of diverse
actors in numerous projects aimed at cross-border cooperation between adjacent
142 P. Pastras and M. Psarros

regions, territorial cooperation among greater European regions, and interregional

cooperation between local and regional actors across Europe (INTERACT 2013).
Nilsson et al. (2010) note that INTERREG programs have put the foundations for
the institutionalization of regionalization through the communication of territorial
identities to different audiences.
While communication within territorial boundaries is essential initially in con-
veying information and raising the population’s awareness of the functional role
of the new unit, much depends in the long term on external communication as a
means of ensuring the existence and reproduction of the unit itself (Nilsson et al.
2010). In other words, regionalization and coherence in external communication lie
in integrating local identities without ignoring their embeddedness in the ongoing
historical record of other territorial administrations with their own identities.
Equally important is to address the expectations of each locality in terms of targeting
entrepreneurs and investors, potential new residents or students, and visitors or
tourists. At this moment, however, the more decision makers at the local level
confine their preferences to specific target groups, based on what they deem as
more beneficial for their localities, the more professionals of interregional place
marketing need to diversify the new unit’s preferences while bringing a balance
between market segmentation overlaps and engaging in techniques of promoting
the territorial identity to the outside world (Boisen et al. 2011; Kauffman and Durst
2008).
In practice, interregional place branding is about dealing with differences as a
starting point before shaping the particular design of a new territorial identity and
informing key target groups about it. To paraphrase Karavatzis and Ashworth (2010,
p. 4), interregional place branding can be defined as a deliberate process of providing
a meaningful conceptualization of a hybrid unit in terms of its spatial boundaries by
selecting and associating a series of physical and social attributes and beliefs, which
are associated with individual localities, yet they are also assumed to add value to the
essence of the hybrid unit. What matters thus in interregional place branding is how
to establish a representative and appealing reputation through adequate planning and
marketing; that is how to attach to the hybrid unit a unique identity that will help it
stand out from the crowd of its perceived competitors (Morgan et al. 2011; United
Nations World Tourism Organization and European Travel Commission 2009). In
the words of Moilanen and Rainisto (2009, p. 19):
(An inter-regional) place defines its desired situation, its target identity, based on its core
values. This is the active stage of the image process where the owner of the brand (message
sender) can influence the outcome. The building of an image of a place in the receiver’s
mind is a passive stage of the process.

As in the case of individual countries and nations, interregional place brand-

ing goes well beyond the application of communication skills and advertising
techniques (Anholt 2011). Following the observations of a long list of scholars
(Andersson 2010; Kauffman and Durst 2008; Govers and Go 2009; Moilanen and
Rainisto 2009; Morgan 2011; Nicolaisen and Blichfeldt 2012; Pasquinelli 2012),
this task is understood to include a variety of behaviors and synergies among
11 Challenges for Interregional Place Branding for Cruise Tourism in the. . . 143

competent pubic authorities and interest groups from the private and voluntary
sectors. This kind of interaction constitutes a vivid social process aimed at managing
the constructed territorial identity and using it as a means of building favorable
perceptions of the hybrid unit by desired market segments.
Crucially, Psarros (2010) has noted the particularity of tourism as a sector in
which, although branding seems to be working, destinations must be aware of the
price associated with a passive approach in brand building. That is a significant
point for interregional place branding as well. Actually, it highlights the fact that the
consumers and the industry actors of international tourism market can be very active
in developing their own perceptions of interregional destination zones while being
influenced by issues that extend the thematic scope of destination brand building or
the range of initiatives undertaken by destination stakeholders.

The Tourism Dimension of Interregional Place Branding

What illustrates the interrelationship of a place and a destination brand is the fact
that they result from separate interactive processes, which do not occur, however,
either independently of a common agenda for reputation management at specific
areas and scales or independently of international competition among places and
destinations. The United Nations World Tourism Organization and the European
Travel Commission (2009, p. 15) are explicit in stating that “a place brand is not
a substitute for a destination brand.” While the purpose of the latter is to appeal
to a tourism-specific market, the purpose of the former is to embrace the feel of a
place in order to target audiences from several sectors, inspire a shared vision for the
place’s future, and drive investment decisions on behalf of the public and the private
sector according to the vision at hand. In this respect, this section examines how
interregional place branding and interregional destination branding coevolve and
shape each other, before the discussion turns to the implications of similar processes
in what concerns the sector of cruise tourism.
A destination brand is the outcome of a long strategic process with a clear
focus on both functional and emotional aspects according to the expectations
of tourism market segments (Morgan 2011; Nicolaisen and Blichfeldt 2012). “A
destination brand is thus what signifies a destination in the eyes of the visitor”
(Nilsson et al. 2010, p. 159), while destination branding is about identifying and
building consensus on the tangible and intangible elements which endow a particular
destination with a competitive edge in relation to other destinations, before a series
of agencies such as tourism ministries and national tourism organizations, local
authorities, destination management organizations, and tourism associations engage
together and devote resources to the systematic organization and coordination of
the same qualities (Andersson 2010; Moilanen and Rainisto 2009). Given that
none of these stakeholders has full control of the substantial brand variables, the
integration of communication and management efforts is essential as a means
of ensuring consistency between service delivery and expectations related to the
144 P. Pastras and M. Psarros

destination brand. That is a critical point, because poor services can damage the
destination brand that lies at the core of tourism marketing activities the same
way a pleasant holiday experience can boost a destination brand narrative, which
is subsequently “passed on by satisfied visitors to other prospects, and eventually
becomes a powerful agent for widespread social marketing effects” (United Nations
World Tourism Organization and the European Travel Commission 2009, p. xii).
Nevertheless, it is doubtful whether tourism stakeholders have the authority or the
flexibility to influence the total of tangible and intangible elements that comprise a
destination brand. Tourist experience can have a positive or a negative effect on the
way places are perceived by the outside world, but it is only one source of informa-
tion about a particular place among its residents, students, employees, entrepreneurs,
and visitors. For the United Nations World Tourism Organization and the European
Travel Commission (2009), the statement that destinations are turning into places is
consistent with a holistic perspective on reputation management, where enhanced
perceptions of individual sectors are believed to contribute cumulatively to the
recognition and competitive position of a particular place – thereby also reinforcing
the perceived value of other sectors. Without ignoring the seductive character of
tourism marketing and the international spread of its activities, the question for
destination branding is arguably whether or not tourism stakeholders can seek
synergy with partners from other sectors, make a strong case for the harmonious
incorporation of tourism issues into processes of place brand building, and maintain
a similarly energetic approach during times of reduced resources.
In a world of increasing mobility and economic integration, patterns of cross-
border and interregional cooperation capture the attention of researchers interested
in the processes that define the interrelationship of a place and a destination
brand. This is more than evident in the case of INTERREG and other projects
funded by the EU, where tourism is highly regarded as a driving force for regional
economic development and the construction of new territorial identities. For Nilsson
et al. (2010), this debate has been an integral element of the regionalization
movement, because the chain of attractive images associated with tourism activities
comprises an unproblematic substitute for historical animosities, thus encourag-
ing reconciliations between previously conflicting identities and contributing to
cohesion between adjacent regions. Likewise, Pasquinelli (2012, p. 53) regards
how “frequently tourism promotion capitalizes on imagined geographies crossing
administrative boundaries because of identity elements that, inherited from history
and cultural heritage, build a shared imaginary for a variety of towns and cities.”
The only prerequisite is the implementation of appropriate brand management at
an interterritorial (or interregional) level as the output of an intention “to exploit an
already existing opportunity in the tourism market rather than being a priori chosen
and designed as a collaborative strategy” (Pasquinelli 2012, p. 53). That is a crucial
observation, because it remains unclear whether or not place branding is necessary
to precede destination branding.
Empirical evidence from the framework of European Union-funded projects
suggests interregional destination brand building can go along with interregional
11 Challenges for Interregional Place Branding for Cruise Tourism in the. . . 145

place brand building; when the strategic vision of the latter has a clear idea of
the role, tourism can play as a factor for progress and innovation. This is the
aftermath of the “BaltMet Promo” project that was initiated in 2010 for the joint
promotion of 11 capital cities and metropoles across the Baltic Sea Region. In order
to enhance the competitive position of the area in the global marketplace through
the presentation of a representative and familiar brand, the “BaltMet Promo” project
saw from the beginning the tourism agenda as equally important to the mobility of
talented workforce and investment funds.
Additionally, the “BaltMet Promo” project has built on the legacy and reinforced
the scope of other European Union initiatives related to interregional destination
branding such as the Cruise Baltic (see next section) and Agora 2.0; a project
aimed at promoting the usage of heritage assets for tourism purposes as a means
of improving the common identity of the region (Andersson 2010).
The interplay of tourism and culture as a component of the interrelationship of
a place and a destination brand is also evident in the case of another INTERREG
project. Indeed, the success of the CrossCulTour in the development of thematic
routes for tourists across nine countries in Central Europe has paved the way in
the forthcoming multiannual financial framework 2014–2020 for a more strategic
approach to dealing with natural and cultural heritage as a resource for transna-
tional cooperation and sustainable development (Boros 2013; CrossCulTour 2011).
Moreover, similar concerns of the impact of destination brand building on the
overall competitive identity of cross-border areas are identified nowadays in flagship
projects including partners from both within and outside the core of the European
Union (DATOURWAY 2011; Lapland University Consortium 2013).
Whereas these examples illustrate the importance of destination brand build-
ing in the framework of strategic initiatives for reputation management between
adjacent regions, tourism stakeholders must be also aware of a questionable side
of interregional place branding. According to Boisen et al. (2011), the theme-
specific agendas and the business purposes that often underlie the emergence of new
territorial identities increase the vulnerability of hybrid spatial units to controversial
brand overlaps and external threats, compared to their formal counterparts of
territorial administration. In relation to interregional place branding in the Baltic
Sea Region, Andersson (2010, p. 61) also refers to “a fragmentation and lack of
long-term perspective” in the absence of coordination and regular allocation of
resources on behalf of project partners. Therefore, tourism stakeholders involved
in interregional destination brand building need to coordinate their own efforts
not only without ignoring developments in other sectors but also without relying
excessively on inter-sectoral collaboration for the branding of places which, among
other things, form territorial networks of interconnected destinations. Such an
approach is vital in the case of cruise tourism, which is by nature an industry that
brings together destinations physically coupled in a large geographical zone and
reflects the variety of challenges associated with the management of pragmatic and
political forces in interregional branding (Kauffman and Durst 2008; Pasquinelli
2012).
146 P. Pastras and M. Psarros

The Case of Cruise Tourism

The key idea for the analysis of cruise tourism in this chapter is that the selection of
destinations on behalf of cruise lines consists in evaluating factors which transcend
the control of tourism stakeholders. Another critical point is the geographical spread
of the cruise industry, with the United Nations World Tourism Organization (2010,
p. xiv) pointing out that “the tourist destinations visited by cruise ships are closely
linked with the zones in which cruise lines operate.” Building a destination portfolio,
cruise lines do not examine only the local availability of adequate infrastructure, low
tariffs, and of a plethora of on-shore activities for their clients. Much depends as well
on favorable climatic conditions, security terms, reinforcement facilities, and the
combination of different types of attractions. The latter factors are assessed by cruise
lines at an interregional level, which explains why the cruise industry is usually
divided into large zones, among which the Caribbean and the Mediterranean have
traditionally had the lion’s share in fleet capacity, port calls, and cruise passengers
(Cruise Lines International Association 2012; United Nations World Tourism
Organization 2010). On these grounds, the following summaries of partnership
practices from the Baltic Sea Region and the Mediterranean provide useful insight
into the challenges of reputation management in cruise tourism.

Cruise Baltic

What the case of the Baltic Sea Region indicates is the dynamic nature of
cruise deployment trends and the value of interregional cooperation in product
development and destination branding. One way to describe the situation is that in
recent years, Northern Europe has become the third most popular market for cruises
worldwide because of the gradual empowerment of a best practice partnership
among port authorities, local governments, and tourism associations from the ten
countries surrounding the Baltic Sea (Cruise Lines International Association 2012;
Cruise Baltic 2013a). Conversely, it can also be said that under the slogan “10
Countries on a String” “Cruise Baltic” has achieved since 2004 to transform
the respective region into the largest segment of the Northern European market
(European Cruise Council 2012a).
The main goal of the partnership, which was established in 2004 by the two
rival cities of Copenhagen and Stockholm with 26 partners from 12 destinations
and the substantial support of European Union funding via INTERREG III B, was
to increase the number of cruise passengers in the Baltic Sea by 20 % over 3 years
(Andersson 2010; Cruise Baltic 2013b). A status report of the early period points
out that standards were raised quickly due to fast and unprecedented growth (Cruise
Baltic 2007). Since 2007, the initiative has continued operating without being reliant
on European Union funds because of widespread appreciation among partners of the
benefits that come with being a member of an influential brand, which is based
11 Challenges for Interregional Place Branding for Cruise Tourism in the. . . 147

on historical roots, multistaged strategic processes, and strong management and

leadership (Lemmetyinen 2011). In fact, Cruise Baltic has evolved to become within
less than a decade a complex network of 27 destinations and almost 50 partners
committed to brand equity. Moreover, Cruise Baltic has joined the most important
international institutional bodies and associations of cruise industry and maintains
two strategic business partnerships with Scandinavian Airlines and Scandic Hotels
(Andersson 2010; Cruise Baltic 2013b).
In terms of performance, 4.2 million cruise passengers visited the Baltic Sea in
2012 against 1.1 million in 2000. That is equal to average annual growth of 11 % per
year, while port calls in Cruise Baltic destinations during the same period grew at an
average annual rate of 4.3 % per year (Cruise Baltic 2013c). As a result of continuing
growth, Copenhagen, Stockholm, St. Petersburg, Tallinn, Helsinki, and Oslo have
secured since 2009 positions in the top eight of destinations along the Atlantic
coast of Europe. It is also anticipated that future growth in the region will be driven
by the stronger performance of destinations with less than 200 port calls currently
(Cruise Baltic 2013b; Cruise Europe 2013). Future growth will also be dependent to
changing perceptions of the area due to climate change conditions. Although more
than 75 % of cruises in Northern Europe used to be concentrated in summer months
(European Commission 2009), it is believed that the emerging market of the Baltic
Sea will be benefited in the long term from seasonal adjustments: “as the season
lengthens in the Baltic, this destination could see a significant increase in visits. The
summer season will be longer, and the spring and autumn shorter, with ever warmer
temperatures” (WTO 2010, p. 237).
Such issues are within the scope of a multi-destination brand being developed
by a technocratic network whose response to growing competition comes from
an intrinsic belief that the integrated “destination” is the most important factor
influencing cruise selection among all classifications of cruise tourists. In short,
the aftermath of early efforts is that nowadays mutual commitment to the thematic
identity along with voluntary compliance to the principles of sharing knowledge
and capitalizing on opportunities in a collective manner are essential qualities of
the network. More importantly, these qualities are preserved through the systematic
participation of partners in collaborative processes of strategy development and
monitoring based on performance indicators and information intelligence (Cruise
Baltic 2013a). The outcome is that Cruise Baltic remains active in various fields
such as the implementation of commonly agreed service standards, the development
of products and new itineraries, the provision of logistical support to cruise lines
at each destination, and the strengthening of relations with external groups, which
extend the effects of destination brand building for cruise tourism to further areas
and sectors. This is also the implicit message of the network’s objective as recently
summarized by the partnership director (Cruise Baltic 2013d):
To ensure that we continue to motivate and educate our partners and provide them with the
right knowledge and access to information enabling them to work together as a unified and
collective force in the Baltic Sea region. This will result in increasing revenue from our
existing, loyal cruise passenger base and hopefully attract more.
148 P. Pastras and M. Psarros

MedCruise

Rather than an emerging partnership primarily aimed at boosting the sector’s

economic performance, the establishment of MedCruise in 1996 as an association of
16 port authorities representing seven countries set the ambitious target of building
a safe and attractive environment for cruise industry throughout the year along the
Mediterranean coast. Given that the cruise industry in the Mediterranean had to learn
at its infancy the significance of the term crisis management, MedCruise initially
sought to lessen the negative effects of instability in the Eastern Mediterranean and
minimize damaging sources of reputation in the long term. Since then, MedCruise
has focused on bringing together port authorities from every corner of the Mediter-
ranean and motivating them to put aside any rivalries or antagonistic relationships
from the past (MedCruise 2011a), a strategic priority which is fully consistent with
the European Union guidelines and funded projects for cross-border cooperation
and sustainable development in the area (ENPI CBCMED 2013). Today MedCruise
membership consists of more than 100 port authorities as regular members together
with 30 associate partners including tourism boards and associations, cruise lines,
port agents, and terminal operators (Hatzakos 2013; Salvado 2013).
As a result, the geographical coverage of MedCruise extends across the whole
Mediterranean as well as adjoining seas such as the near Atlantic, the Red Sea, and
the Black Sea. In the case of the latter, representatives from Istanbul along with ten
other ports and six associate members inside the Black Sea Region are currently
flying the MedCruise banner, while more ports and associated companies have
been invited to join the association in the future (Hatzakos 2012a). This growing
involvement of MedCruise in the Black Sea reflects new opportunities for the
member destinations of Burgas, Constantza, Odessa, Sevastopol, Yalta, Theodosia,
Sochi, Batumi, Rize, and Sinop. To develop quality passenger experiences and make
the most of their natural and cultural heritage, member destinations can access
services provided by MedCruise in networking, professional development, and
market research (Hatzakos 2012a). Recently, the director of MedCruise highlighted
the influential role that ports and their authorities play in between the maritime side
of cruise lines and the shore side of tourism boards, local governments, chambers
of commerce, and other actors (Salvado 2013). A better understanding of this link
is crucial from the perspective of the interregional thematic brand, because policy
issues such as the development of new itineraries, investments in port facilities, and
the impact assessment of visitors to a locality are part of an agenda that transcends
several sectors and partners outside the core of destination stakeholders.
The response of MedCruise to such complexity is to build stakeholder consensus
as a means of planning and implementing innovative approaches of interregional
cooperation, which improve reputation and the capacity both of individual destina-
tions and the network itself to engage in negotiations with the cruise industry and
gain mutual benefits. That is the case of the “Unified Mediterranean Cruise Ship
Berth Booking and Confirmation Process” that was the subject of consultation with
cruise lines after its approval by the MedCruise General Assembly in June 2011
11 Challenges for Interregional Place Branding for Cruise Tourism in the. . . 149

(European Cruise Council 2012b; Hatzakos 2012b). The idea came from the
cruise industry’s perception of the Mediterranean as a lucrative region due to
the coexistence of numerous destinations at small distances. On the one hand,
this means lower speeds and lower fuel consumption for cruise lines. On the
other hand, it also entails fierce competition over the inclusion of ports and the
operation of cruise lines in the most popular and profitable itineraries. As a response,
MedCruise introduced the particular process as a mechanism to reduce cases of port
congestion and simultaneous cruise ship calls as a consequence of uncompromising
attitudes and irresponsible practices. In short, proactive attitude and commitment
to berth availability are encouraged as qualities of a process in which cruise lines
and port authorities exchange booking requests and confirmation responses within
specific time limits and according to commonly agreed routines (European Cruise
Council 2012b; Hatzakos 2012b).
This kind of mentality has contributed to strong growth. According to the Euro-
pean Cruise Council (2010), 171 cruise ships were active in 2011 in Mediterranean
waters, with a capacity of 221,419 lower berths as opposed to 152 cruise ships in
2009 with a capacity of 176,1019 lower berths. In the context of a steadily growing
global market, the Mediterranean has also maintained an average market share of
20.5 % from the beginning of economic crisis in 2007 (Republic of Turkey Prime
Ministry Privatization Administration 2013) and remains the number one choice
for passengers from the biggest European source market of the UK (Passenger
Shipping Association 2013). Despite these trends, the Black Sea Region has
not yet capitalized on its proximity and close relationships with Mediterranean
destinations. The cruise tourism market share of the area within the Mediterranean
has always been less than 1 % (GP Wild International 2012), while a notable
indicator is that in 2010, the total cruise traffic of the top five Black Sea ports
being members of MedCruise was equal to 0.15 % of the respective total traffic
taking place in the top five MedCruise ports of Barcelona, Civitavecchia, Venice,
Balearics, and Piraeus (MedCruise 2011b). Further evidence suggests, however,
there is much more nowadays in cruise tourism along the Black Sea shore than what
individual indicators may suggest in terms of interregional cooperation for product
development and destination branding.

The Case of Cruise Tourism in the Black Sea Region

This chapter aims to show what challenges shape interregional brand building for
cruise tourism in the Black Sea Region (BSR), a large area integrating various
cultural traditions with attractions of historical importance and unique landscapes.
Given the late appearance of the BSR in the geography of cruise industry, the
analysis is stimulated by the fact that references to the term “Black Sea” can be
found only eight times in total in the two studies of international cruise tourism
made in the recent past by the United Nations World Tourism Organization (2003,
2010), while a few of these references treat the BSR solely as a latent segment of
150 P. Pastras and M. Psarros

the Mediterranean market, without a strong identity of its own. Emphasis is given
to transnational partnership practices as a consequence of the idea that common
issues may remain unless they are addressed jointly, especially in relation to well-
established competition from the rest of Eastern Mediterranean destinations. Being
part of an interregional agenda about the impact of tourism industry, the debate of
cruise tourism is not irrelevant to concerns of other sectors with respect to reputation
management for the whole area as a zone of international trade and investments
(Kereselidje 2013).
The analysis is informed from secondary sources together with data collected
through a semi-structured questionnaire that was sent by e-mail to destination
stakeholders involved in cruise tourism in the BSR. Responses were provided by
officials from the port authorities of Batumi, Burgas, Constantza, Odessa, Sinop,
and Sochi as well as by tour operators from Constantza and Istanbul and the Deputy
Minister of Tourism and Resorts of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. As part
of a study conducted in May 2013 on behalf of the United Nations Development
Programme – Black Sea Trade and Investment Promotion Programme – this small-
scale research was designed to explore the prospects of cruise tourism at both
an interregional and a destination level. Furthermore, the analysis is guided by
certain morphological and institutional elements, which are identified by Kauffman
and Durst (2008) as key factors that shape the emergence and evolution of an
interregional brand. Interestingly, there seems to be a proportional relationship
between the level of integration required among involved stakeholders and the
variety of intangible elements such as interests, languages, and cultural identities
that influence partnership building and communication styles.

Trends of Tourism Demand

Valid conclusions on the evolution of tourism traffic along the coastal areas of
the Black Sea Region (BSR) cannot be drawn aggregately from the summation of
national trends due to the geographical spread of tourism destinations in the Russian
Federation and Turkey. It is a fact, however, that the countries that surround the BSR
have experienced substantial, if not drastic in some cases, increases of international
tourist arrivals over the last decade. This growth is responsible for the contribution
of tourism to gross domestic product which varies among countries from 4.5 %
(Romania) and 10.9 % (Turkey) to 12.9 % (Bulgaria) and 22.3 % (Georgia) (World
Travel and Tourism Council 2012; from Kereselidje 2013, p. 19). In particular,
destinations along the Black Sea coast offer a rich portfolio of attractions and
products related to mass and alternative forms of tourism. Suggestive examples of
this attractiveness are the cases of Bulgaria in which 87 % of international tourists in
2010 (URBACT 2011) visited coastal resorts and the Romanian city of Constantza
which in high season attracts 120,000 tourists per day (GP Wild International 2012).
With respect to cruise tourism, a recent study made by GP Wild International
(2012) suggests the BSR deserves to be seen as a distinct, yet still underdeveloped,
segment of the wider Mediterranean market. On the one hand, there is great potential
11 Challenges for Interregional Place Branding for Cruise Tourism in the. . . 151

Table 11.1 Trends of growth for cruise passengers in the Baltic and the Black Sea
Change 2012 vs Change 2012 vs
Rank 2012 Baltic Sea destinations 2011 (%) Black Sea destinations 2011 (%)
1 Copenhagen 23.7 Istanbul 23.5
2 Stockholm 4.0 Odessa 8.6
3 St. Petersburg 4.2 Yalta 10.5
4 Tallinn D Constantza 40.7
5 Rostock 50.0 Sochi 16.3
6 Helsinki 0.44 Nessebar 29.2
7 Kiel 7.9 Sevastopol 24.7
8 Oslo 0.29 Varna 11.9
9 Gdynia 38.5 Trabzon 21.6
10 Gothenburg 33.8 Sinop 4.7
Sources: Cruise Baltic (2013e) and GP Wild International (2012)

for the development of 17 seaports and their wider areas across the 6 countries that
surround the inland sea. On the other hand, the rivers Dnieper, Dniester, and Danube
have become within the last decade popular routes for cruise vessels, with the latter
being in 2012 a key source for tourists in Serbia as well as the visiting site for
more than 20,000 passengers from the UK river cruise market (Dragin et al. 2010;
Passenger Shipping Association 2013). Much of the attractiveness of the BSR for
cruise lines depends on ongoing infrastructure improvements and the relatively short
sailing distances among cruise ports. Although other evidence refers to a marked
seasonal pattern, with cruise traffic being concentrated in autumn months with a
high peak in October (MedCruise 2011b), the observations included in the report
of GP Wild International mark the appearance of a new kid on the block. A similar
conclusion can be drawn while comparing recent growth between the markets of
the Baltic Sea and the BSR in terms of cruise passengers. Although there is little
point in undertaking a comparison of absolute numbers, because of the much bigger
size of the Baltic Sea market, Table 11.1 provides substantial evidence of growing
trends in the BSR. It must be noted that due to the lack of data for Istanbul in 2012,
the comparison between Istanbul and Copenhagen reflects change between 2010
and 2011. From 2011 to 2012, Copenhagen had weaker growth of 2.6 % in cruise
passenger numbers (Cruise Baltic 2013e).

Geopolitical Conditions and Interregional Partnership Practices

To argue that a network of destinations is not going to benefit from cruise passengers
unless the various stakeholders set common targets and coordinate their initiatives
is the first step in recognizing the interregional dynamics of thematic destination
branding. A second step is to assess the influence of geopolitical conditions and
available institutional frameworks, thereby placing the debate of interregional
cooperation in cruise tourism into a wider context of actors, interests, policies,
152 P. Pastras and M. Psarros

and multi-scalar interactions. From this perspective, the BSR seems to bear a
heavy burden. According to Kereselidje (2013, p. 14), “economic and political
projects that could contribute to the growth of international tourism in the Black
Sea area have either been cancelled or delayed” as a consequence of memories
of historical rivalries and individualistic practices on behalf of different states at
different moments. In considering that bilateral disputes may still derive from ethnic
tensions and competition over natural resources (Onetiu 2012), the position of
tourism as an economic activity is likely to be uncertain, because prosperity is
dependent on political stability together with the prospect of developing a positive
reputation for the whole area.
Nevertheless, there have also been balancing forces. The “Working Group on
Cooperation in Tourism” has incorporated debates under the thematic umbrella
of sustainable tourism development through transnational cooperation since the
establishment of the “Organization of the Black Sea Economic Organization”
(BSEC) in 1994. Ministers, Deputy ministers, general secretaries of tourism, and
other officials have gradually contributed to the emergence of a commonly agreed
agenda through their participation in 24 meetings of the working group, 3 ministerial
gatherings, and international forums under the aegis of the BSEC (Kereselidje
2013). For instance, the recently approved by member states “Memorandum on
Multiculturalism of the Black Sea Cities” is seen as a valuable resource that will help
the BSEC to “increase the support of the projects toward cocreation and promotion
of common tourist products” in the international tourism market (Dordevic 2013). In
terms of extroversion, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Black
Sea Trade and Investment Programme (BSTIP), funded by Greece and Turkey,
also dedicated resources to the development of networking arrangements. In fact,
enhancing tourism business partnerships and adopting contemporary approaches to
thematic brand building were two key aims of the “Black Sea Discovery: Exciting
Cruise Destinations on the Black Sea” event in the framework of the Posidonia Sea
Tourism Forum that took place in Athens in May 2013.
Interestingly, the study undertaken before this event identified ongoing delib-
eration among the Black Sea port authorities and other stakeholders. Responses
to the questionnaire indicated strong consensus on the value of partnerships
between destinations and the positive influence of international associations such
as MedCruise, Cruise Europe, and the Black and Azov Seas Ports Association
(BASPA) under the flag of the BSEC, all of which unite ports from various countries.
More importantly, however, there were several references to opportunities arising
from a recently established project under the brand name “Cruise Black Sea” (CBS).
According to the Head of Development and External Relations at the port of Odessa,
discussions that lasted for 3 years led in 2011 to the formation of CBS during the
Cruise Shipping Miami Convention: “At the united booth of the Black Sea ports,
the Memorandum of Understanding between regional ports and tourism authorities
was signed, aiming at developing and strengthening the cooperation between the
participants in the field of cruises development in the Black Sea region and at
promoting the regional ports on the international cruise market as a united cruise
destination”.
11 Challenges for Interregional Place Branding for Cruise Tourism in the. . . 153

A couple of comments can be made on the CBS project. First, it appears

to provide an adequate framework for conducting interregional market research
projects, and increasing awareness of cruise tourism issues in the BSR both within
and outside the cruise industry, both within and beyond the BSR itself. Thus, it is
worth to mention the International Conference Black Sea Cruise, held every 2 years
since 2008 by the port of Odessa in cooperation with MedCruise and BASPA,
as an event where professionals can exchange views, more recently develop B2B
contacts, and play an industry-specific yet by no means negligible role in cultivating
or stabilizing bilateral relationships (CBS 2013). Second, the CBS project mission
is consistent with practices on developing a thematic brand for the whole area
rather than focusing on the promotion of individual destinations. This is by no
means an easy task, however, because the member ports and other stakeholders
come from countries “with a varying degree of infrastructure developments” and
different traditions and approaches to issues such as the management of human
resources, the monitoring of quality standards, the legislative framework for private
sector investments, visa arrangements, and the integration of tourism activities in the
framework of urban generation plans (representatives of port authorities). Therefore,
brand building for cruise tourism in the BSR is about processes that transcend
sectors and institutions and require coordination across scales with respect to place
reputation management at an interregional level.

Core Identity and Tourism Attractiveness

As identified in the recently approved memorandum of the BSEC (Dordevic 2013),

the term multiculturalism captures conceptually both the essence of the area’s
history and the major source of attractiveness for cruise passengers. What can be
seen as an advantage in relation to other zones of cruise destinations is that “the
Black Sea is one of the newest and underexplored destinations that can offer such a
diverse mosaic of experiences” (National Cruise Manager of Intercruises), which are
a direct consequence of “the very interesting mix of completely different cultures
and countries” (Assistant to Managing Director of Batumi Sea Port). Table 11.2
summarizes some of the key characteristics of major cruise destinations in the BSR,
but the chapter echoes the point that the actual quality and authenticity of shore
excursions shape the appeal of cruise destinations rather than individual attractions
(Adams 2012; Young 2012).

Targeting Markets

Through the wealth of destinations and attractions, the BSR is expected to expand
the market share of cruise tourism in the near future. From one perspective this may
be inevitable, because “the cruise industry is growing and they are continuously
 154

Table 11.2 Overview of Black Sea cruise destinations

Availability
City of airport Important characteristics Landmarks Indicative shore excursions
Istanbul  Contemporary metropolis with a glorious past as the Hagia Sophia; Topkapi Byzantine/Ottoman Empires;
capital city and cultural center of two great empires Palace; Blue Mosque; Basilca Istanbul by night; Bosphorus cruise
Cistern
Burgas  City with the largest Bulgarian port and significant Pyrgos Fortress; Roman The Great Ancient Apollonia Tour
heritage from the ancient Greek and Roman times Baths; Sea garden and zoo
Nesebar An ancient Thracian city being the only UNESCO Ancient city of Menebria; Magic of Nessebar and local
(cultural) heritage site close to the Black Sea coast many Byzantine churches folklore; wine tasting
Varna  Another ancient Thracian city which has become a Oldest gold artifacts; The pearl of the Bulgarian Black
popular tourist resort Orthodox cathedral Sea
Constantza  Second largest city in Romania combining old and Ovid’s Square; Roman 1–2 day tours to Bucharest, Bran
multicultural architecture with a modern feel mosaics; casino; cathedrals Castle; Histria
Sulina Small port situated at Romania’s easternmost point Visits to the Danube Delta
and close to the Danube Delta that is the only
UNESCO world (natural) heritage site close to the
Black Sea Coast
Odessa  City boasting with Baroque architecture, cozy Potemkin Stairs; catacombs; Odessa highlights; military past and
squares, and wide boulevards which still retain the opera house; palaces and catacombs; Jewish heritage;
old-fashioned charm memorials sparkling wines
Yalta Simferopol Most popular seaside resort in Ukraine spread over a Swallow’s Nest; Livadia Royal/historic/aristocratic Yalta;
airport is vast area suited for walking tours Palace; Chekhov’s mansion; Romanovs and the Crimea
Crimea’s sea promenade
international
airport
P. Pastras and M. Psarros
Sevastopol A strategically important naval point, a key site of Panorama museum; Former Sevastopol through the ages with a
the Crimean War, and a popular tourist resort submarine base; Crimean visit to the Chersonesus
battlefields; St. Vladimir archeological reserve
Cathedral
Theodosia Gate to Crimean mountains and home of the Aivazovsky’s house museum; Along with landmarks walking
landscape painter Ivan Aivazovsky Genoese fortress Caffa tours include visits to various
churches
Kerch A member of UNESCO’s list of Eternal Cities of the Pantikapaion; Mithridatis hill; Walking tours include visits to
world and a popular tourist resort Yenikale fortress cultural sites and lunches in local
restaurants
Sochi  Sprawling spa town that will host the 2014 Winter Stalin’s Dacha; Winter theater; South capital of Russia; famous
Olympics and in the same year will start hosting Spa resort Matsesta; tea Russian resort; height of a bird’s
annually the Russian formula 1 plantations flight; tea-tasting ceremony
Novorossiysk An ancient Greek colony and a modern industrial Battleship Mikhail Kutuzov; Half-day walking tours
city, which is honored with the title Hero city Valley of Death; memorial
Batumi  City under continuous redevelopment since 2008, Botanical gardens; alley of new Myth of Argonauts and the golden
with the longest boulevard in Europe berth; holographic show fleece
Rize Small provincial town located near to the border Tea gardens; thermal springs; Tea-tasting ceremony; trekking
with Georgia and well known for its tea gardens Kalesi (castle)
Trabzon  City located on the historical Silk Road with great Hagia Sophia; Trabzon castle; Trabzon full/half day;
heritage from major civilizations and empires Ataturk mansion Mountainside Sumela monastery
Samsun  A major port whose city marks the beginning of the Bati Park; Palace of Culture; Samsun full/half day; horse-riding
Turkish War of Independence by Kemal Ataturk Ataturk Museum tour
11 Challenges for Interregional Place Branding for Cruise Tourism in the. . .

Sinop City founded by the Amazons and named after their City walls; Pervane Medresseh; Trabzon full/half day
queen, also country of philosopher Diogenes fjord; Byzantine castle
Amasra Small port much valued for its natural setting Castle; church mosque; Bird’s
rock road monument; walking
tours
Sources: Compiled with data from CBS (2013), GP Wild International (2012), MedCruise (2013), and various websites
155
156 P. Pastras and M. Psarros

looking for new regions to decongest other saturated ports” (representative of a port
authority). Destinations are obliged, however, to make their future the same way
cruise lines make their own. In anticipation of a better share from the source markets
visiting with cruise ships the Mediterranean for decades, the BSR has to take into
account how important is for cruise lines and destinations to continue approaching
and attracting visitors from emerging economies worldwide (Tercek 2012a). Indeed,
there seems to be plenty of space for cruise destinations in the BSR to kick off their
targeted marketing efforts in considering:
• The total number of Russian outbound tourists reached 40.8 million in 2011,
being increased by 16 % in 2010 and 11 % in 2011, with almost 30 % of tourists
traveling to Ukraine and Turkey (Hilton Worldwide 2012).
• The respective market of Turkish outbound tourists has demonstrated a pattern
of steady growth since 2006, reaching almost 6.3 million in 2011 (Organization
for Economic Development and Cooperation 2012).
On these grounds, the key issue is whether or not the CBS project will continue
representing the interregional interests of the network of destinations with a clear
agenda and a visionary mission founded on shared values, against an industry
with a rather consolidated structure in which four companies account for 86 %
of the global market (latest annual figures available at Cruisemarketwatch.com).
Thus, the incorporation of the BSR in future deployment trends depends both on
private sector strategy and the effectiveness of authorities and stakeholders at a
destination and interregional level to upgrade their localities, promote the whole
territory in a consistent manner, and negotiate partnership terms with cruise lines.
Destination stakeholders across the BSR are already aware of the added value
provided by a strong thematic brand in this context. Nevertheless, they have also
addressed a series of issues that influence thematic brand building, yet they do
not fall exclusively within the scope of a destination brand. In this respect, they
have confirmed evidence from other interregional partnership practices discussed
in this chapter on the usefulness of initiatives on behalf of supranational bodies
or international associations in terms of dealing with growing competition and
communicating the agenda of cruise tourism to external audiences.

Conclusion

The chapter has shed light on the challenges associated with building a thematic
brand representing several destinations. The overall tourism sector and particularly
cruise tourism have shown late signs of growth in the BSR. The chapter suggests
their further development is part of a process in which the BSR has to be branded as
a unified area where stakeholders from different countries and places are prepared
to commit themselves common targets. Multiculturalism is not, however, merely
a concept that summarizes what makes the BSR a composition of attractive
tourist destinations. People in cruise industry need to deal with this condition
11 Challenges for Interregional Place Branding for Cruise Tourism in the. . . 157

in daily routine, because doing interregional business means doing interregional

partnerships. Port authorities are right to believe that a unified thematic brand will
help both individual destination and the whole area as well, but this can be part of
a greater strategy incorporating the concerns and interests of various localities and
stakeholders in a systematic manner.
A promising approach for both individual destinations and potential partners is to
view brand building for cruise tourism as an evolving process, which is necessarily
integrated into wider aspects of place brand building. Although this poses risks as
a reflection of the dependence of cruise tourism stakeholders on external actors,
experience suggests both traditional and emergent destinations face the same
challenge. For instance, the rules of the game for respective destinations and their
port authorities in Greece were less than favorable before cabotage restrictions were
lifted in 2012, providing the opportunity to international cruise vessels to homeport
in the country and changing negative perceptions of business constraints in the
whole shipping industry (National Bank of Greece 2012). Likewise, the scale of
infrastructure investments differs among the ports along the Black Sea coast, a
direct consequence of varying reforms in the legislative framework of public-private
partnerships and concessions in each country. According to the vice president of
Commercial Development of Royal Caribbean International, the particular issue has
a significant bearing on cruise industry perceptions of future business prospects in
the whole area compared to other segments of the Mediterranean market, where the
involvement of the private sector in flagship projects is rather more conspicuous
(Tercek 2012b). Thus, there is much more to be said and done about destination
branding for cruise tourism in the Black Sea insofar as destination stakeholders
make sense of the ways in which their own concerns coincide in a dynamic manner
with the more inclusive agenda of interregional place branding.

References

Adams G (2012) Shore service supply for niche cruise passengers. Presentation by the Vice-
President Voyage Planning, Port and Land Programs of the SeaDream Yacht Club in the ‘Third
international conference Black Sea cruise, Odessa, 21 Sept. Available after request by Ms.
Elvira Leshchinskaya, Head of Development and External Relations at the port of Odessa
Andersson M (2010) Place branding and place promotion efforts in the Baltic Sea Region –
a situation analysis. Baltic Development Forum, Copenhagen. http://www.bdforum.org/
cmsystem/wp-content/uploads/files/thematic_reports_branding_place_promotion_bsr_2010.
pdf. Accessed 24 February 2014
Anholt S (2011) Competitive identity. In: Morgan N, Pritchard A, Pride R (eds) Destination brands:
managing place reputation, 3rd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp 21–32
Boisen M,Terlouw K, van Gorp B (2011) The selective nature of place branding. http://home.kpn.
nl/C.Terlouw5/The%20selective%20nature%20of%20place%20branding.pdf.. Accessed 24
Feb 2014
Boros K (2013) EU tourism policy actions and the financing of tourism development in the new
MFF. https://www.hgk.hr/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files_mf/eu_tourism_policy_actions_and_
the_financing_of_tourism_development_in_the_new_mff_krisztina_boros_ec.pdf. Accessed
24 Feb 2014
158 P. Pastras and M. Psarros

CBS (2013) Black Sea cruises brochure. http://www.blacksea-cruises.com/attachments/broucure.

pdf. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
CrossCulTour (2011) Cross marketing cultural tourism project documentation. http://www.
1kserver.com/4ebbdabd717fc/epaper/ProjectDocumentation.pdf. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
Cruise Baltic (2007) Status report. Cruise Baltic, Copenhagen. http://www.cruisebaltic.com/
media(636,1033)/. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
Cruise Baltic (2013a) One sea – oceans of adventures: the impact of cruise on Baltic Cities.
Presentation in the ‘European cities marketing cruise tourism forum’. Nice, 20 Feb. Available
after request by European Cities Marketing
Cruise Baltic (2013b) Fact sheet. Cruise Baltic, Copenhagen. http://www.cruisebaltic.com/
media(3586,1033)/CB_Fact_Sheet__August_2012.pdf. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
Cruise Baltic (2013c) Market review. Cruise Baltic, Copenhagen. http://www.cruisebaltic.com/
media(4669,1033)/Cruise_Baltic_Market_Review_2013.pdf. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
Cruise Baltic (2013d) The Baltic Sea region reports positive growth. Press release. March
13. Cruise Baltic, Copenhagen. http://www.cruisebaltic.com/media(4666,1033)/CB_Market_
Review_2013.docx. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
Cruise Baltic (2013e) Statistics. Cruise Baltic, Copenhagen. http://www.cruisebaltic.com/
composite-1743.htm. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
Cruise Europe (2013) Statistics. Available from: http://www.cruiseeurope.com/statistics. Accessed
24 Feb 2014
Cruise Lines International Association (2012) Cruise industry update. Cruise Lines Inter-
national Association, Fort Lauderdale. http://www.cruising.org/sites/default/files/pressroom/
2012CruiseIndustryUpdateFinal.pdf. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
DATOURWAY (2011) Transnational strategy for the sustainable territorial development of the
Danube area with special regard to tourism. http://www.datourway.eu/documents/88-701-
9655-dtw_strategy_final.pdf. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
Dordevic B (2013) 2nd international Black Sea tourism forum and 22nd international tourism fair.
Memo provided by the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation. 4 Mar
Dragin AS, Jovicic D, Lukic T (2010) Cruising along the river Danube – contemporary tourism
trend in Serbia. Geogr Pannonica 14(3):98–108
ENPI CBCMED (2013) Two brochures on the 56 running projects to tell the story of
“a Mediterranean which cooperates”. http://www.enpicbcmed.eu/communication/publication-
two-brochures-56-running-projects-tell-story-mediterranean-which-cooperate. Accessed 24
Feb 2014
European Commission (2009) Tourist facilities in ports: growth opportunities for the
European maritime economy – economic and environmentally sustainable develop-
ment of tourist facilities in ports. Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fish-
eries, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/documentation/studies/documents/report_
tourist_facilities_en.pdf. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
European Cruise Council (2010) The cruise industry – A A C34 billion partner in Europe’s economic
growth. European Cruise Council, Brussels. http://www.ashcroftandassociates.com/images/
Supp-EIR-2010.pdf. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
European Cruise Council (2012a) The cruise industry – contribution of cruise tourism to the
economies of Europe. European Cruise Council, Brussels. http://global.cruising.org/docs/
germany-docs/2012-ecc-economic-impact-report.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
European Cruise Council (2012b) 2011–2012 report. European Cruise Council, Brus-
sels. http://www.europeancruisecouncil.com/content/ECC%20Report%202011%202012.pdf.
Accessed 24 Feb 2014
Govers R, Go F (2009) Place branding: glocal, virtual and physical identities, constructed,
imagined and experienced. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire
GP Wild International (2012) Regional cruise market report – Turkey and the Black Sea. GP Wild
International Ltd, Haywards Heath
11 Challenges for Interregional Place Branding for Cruise Tourism in the. . . 159

Hanggi H, Roloff R, Ruland J (2006) Inter-regionalism: a new phenomenon in international

relations. In: Hanggi H, Roloff R, Ruland J (eds) Inter-regionalism and international relations.
Routledge, London, pp 3–13
Hatzakos S (2012a) MedCruise Association. Presentation by the President of MedCruise in the
‘Third International Conference Black Sea Cruise’. Odessa, September 21. Available after
request by Ms. Elvira Leshchinskaya, Head of Development and External Relations at the port
of Odessa
Hatzakos S (2012b) Unified Mediterranean berth booking process. Presentation by the President
of MedCruise in the ‘Cruise Update’ that took place during Posidonia International Shipping
Exhibition, Athens, June 6. http://www.posidoniaseatourism.com/presentations.aspx. Accessed
24 Feb 2014
Hatzakos S (2013) The cruise line/port interface. Presentation by the President of MedCruise
in the ‘Cruise Shipping Miami’. Miami, March 10–14. http://www.csmmediafiles.com/
speeches2013/speeches-converted/hatzakos-stavros.pdf. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
Hilton Worldwide (2012). Balancing Russia’s tourism deficit: a report of the future of the industry.
http://news.hiltonworldwide.com/assets/HWW/docs/2012/2863HWRussianReportEng.pdf.
Accessed 24 Feb 2014
INTERACT (2013) European territorial cooperation. http://www.interact-eu.net/etc_2014/
european_territorial_cooperation/486/14849. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
Karavatzis M, Ashworth G (2010) Place branding: where do we stand? In: Ashworth G, Karavatzis
M (eds) Towards effective place brand management: branding European cities and regions.
Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 1–14
Kaufmann HR, Durst S (2008) Developing inter-regional brands. EuroMed J Bus 3(1):38–62
Kereselidje D (2013). A perspective on tourism in the ‘Black Sea economic cooperation’ countries.
Policy Brief (27). International Centre for Black Sea Studies, Athens. http://icbss.org/media/
973_original.pdf. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
Lapland University Consortium (2013) Inter-regional tourism cooperation: experiences from the
barents (ed) Public-Private Partnership in Barents Tourism, Rovaniemi. http://matkailu.luc.fi/
loader.aspx?id=fc874201-2c59-476e-89f3-68f1a1d0c6fe. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
Lemmetyinen A (2011) Network brand equity – case Cruise Baltic. Presentation in the
5th meeting of the ‘European destinations of excellence network workshop’. Mellieha,
April 6–7. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/eden/eden_network/meeting-06-04-
2011/index_en.htm. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
MedCruise (2011a). MedCruise news, Newsletter (34). http://www.medcruise.com/index.php/
newsletter. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
MedCruise (2011b) The new MedCruise statistic report, 2nd edn. MedCruise, Barcelona. http://
www.costabravacruiseports.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/MedCruise_Statistic-Report-
2011_Port-of-Palamos.pdf. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
MedCruise (2013) Yearbook 2012/2013. MedCruise, Piraeus. http://www.medcruise.com/index.
php/yearbook. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
Moilanen T, Rainisto S (2009) How to brand nations, cities and destinations: a planning book for
place branding. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire
Morgan N (2011) Destination brands: developments, challenges and cases. http://www.slideshare.
net/nigelmorgantourism/introduction-to-destination-brands. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
Morgan N, Pritchard A, Pride R (2011) Tourism places, brands and reputation management. In:
Morgan N, Pritchard A, Pride R (eds) Destination brands: managing place reputation, 3rd edn.
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp 3–20
National Bank of Greece (2012) Cruise industry: a sector with potential revenues of A C2 billion.
Sectoral report, (August 2012). http://www.nbg.gr/wps/wcm/connect/d4a89aed-bd62-48c3-
b630-29a956fc6a96/Cruise_August_2012_EN.pdf?MOD. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
Nicolaisen J, Blichfeldt BS (2012) Destination branding: mission impossible. TRU Progress, work-
ing paper no. 9. Tourism Research Unit, Aalborg University. http://vbn.aau.dk/en/publications/
destination-branding(db69cacf-7b51-4995-9ae9-036980abd5a7).html. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
160 P. Pastras and M. Psarros

Nilsson JJ, Eskilsson L, Ek R (2010) Creating cross-border destinations: interreg programmes and
regionalisation in the Baltic Sea area. Scand J Hosp Tour 10(2):153–172
Onetiu AN (2012) Geopolitical and geostrategic dimensions within the Black Sea basin. Int J Acad
Res Account Finance Manag Sci 2(1):238–242
Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (2012) Tourism trends and policies.
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/industry-and-services/oecd-tourism-trends-and-policies-2012_
tour-2012-en. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
Pasquinelli A (2012) Competition, cooperation, co-opetition: widening the perspective on place
branding. PhD thesis at Scuola Superiore Sant’ Anna. http://www.phdmanagement.sssup.it/
documenti/awarded/pasquinelli_thesis.pdf. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
Passenger Shipping Association (2013) The cruise review. Passenger Shipping Association,
London
Psarros M (2010) Destination branding workshop http://www.slideshare.net/mpsarros/destination-
branding-workshopparta. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry Privatization Administration (2013) Privatization of Istan-
bul Salipazari cruise port. http://www.oib.gov.tr/2013/ilan/Sali_Pazari/istabul_sali_pazari_
Tanitim_Dokumani_eng.pdf. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
Salvado C (2013) Lets work together, presentation by the Director of MedCruise in the ‘European
cities marketing cruise tourism forum’. Nice, 20 February. Available after request by European
Cities Marketing
Tercek J (2012a) Euro cruise overview, presentation by the Vice-President of Commercial
Development of Royal Caribbean International in the ‘Cruise Update’ that took place during
Posidonia International Shipping Exhibition. Athens, June 6. http://www.posidoniaseatourism.
com/presentations.aspx. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
Tercek J (2012b) Royal Caribbean’s worldwide cruise port investment activities: Black Sea
opportunities. Presentation by the Vice-President of Commercial Development of Royal
Caribbean International in the third international conference Black Sea Cruise, Odessa, 21
September. Available after request by Ms. Elvira Leshchinskaya, Head of Development and
External Relations at the port of Odessa
United Nations World Tourism Organization (2003) Worldwide cruise ship activity. United Nations
World Tourism Organization, Madrid
United Nations World Tourism Organization (2010) Cruise tourism: current situation and trends.
World Tourism Organization, Madrid
United Nations World Tourism Organization and European Travel Commission (2009) Handbook
on tourism destinations branding. United Nations World Tourism Organization, Madrid
URBACT (2011) Local action plan – city of Varna. http://urbact.eu/fileadmin/Projects/CTUR/
outputs_media/City_of_Varna_LAP_CTUR.pdf. Accessed 24 Feb 2014
Young S (2012) Port selection considerations. Presentation by the Head of Port Operations and
Services at Carnival UK in the third international conference Black Sea cruise. Odessa, 21
September . Available after request by Ms. Elvira Leshchinskaya, Head of Development and
External Relations at the port of Odessa
Chapter 12
Branding a Cluster of Regions: The Eastern
Poland Macro-region Case Study

Anna Augustyn and Magdalena Florek

Abstract The purpose of this chapter is to analyse and provisionally evaluate

the Programme of Economic Promotion of Eastern Poland, implemented within
the framework of the EU funds in the territory of a macro-region of five regions
in Eastern Poland in 2009–2015. The Programme of Economic Promotion of
Eastern Poland is the first programme to present in a systematic and coherent
way the economic potential of the entire area of five regions among the least
developed in Poland. Its main goal is to increase interest in the Eastern Poland
new brand and its economic offer and subsequently to boost the rate of its social
and economic development. In this chapter, the authors will make an attempt to
evaluate the validity of the entire idea of joint economic promotion of regions which
compete with each other in many aspects but at the same time present similar offers
and have limited resources to promote themselves separately. The authors also try to
provide an answer to the question if the midterm synergy effect has been achieved
after the programme’s implementation.

Keywords Branding • Cluster of regions • The Eastern Poland macro-region

Interregional Brands: The Specificity and Challenges

It is accepted in literature and practice that branding of places is more complex and
difficult than that of traditional products or services (Hankinson 2001; Blichfeldt
2005; Kavaratzis 2005; Zenker 2011). Cross- or interregional branding might pose
even greater challenges at the stage of planning and implementation alike.
When the process covers several units, place brand identity (defined here as the
internal view on places) which serves as a platform for building up place brands

A. Augustyn ()
Department of Economics and Management, University of Bialystok, Bialystok, Poland
e-mail: [email protected]
M. Florek
Department of Commerce and Marketing, Poznan University of Economics, Poznan, Poland
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 161

S. Zenker, B.P. Jacobsen (eds.), Inter-Regional Place Branding,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-15329-2_12
162 A. Augustyn and M. Florek

(including also the external view on the place), is much more difficult to define.
The sources of place brand identity (in our definition: a unique combination of
the functional attributes and symbolic values) are identified in the place’s actual
resources and features (including the organic image). It is the “content” of the place
product that affects a brand’s possible growth as it identifies the functional and
emotional benefits for the brand to satisfy. The features of a place, especially the
intangible ones, are the basis for determining the values represented by the brand
and brand personality which explains the nature of interaction between a brand and
its users. Like any brand, an interregional brand should communicate uniqueness
and importance to the consumer. In the case of place brands, its cultural heritage,
the characteristics of the local population and tradition are of special importance
as they become the brand’s specific emotional distinguishing mark. Each region
might differ due to its underlying culture. While certain regions may be culturally
alike, one should bear in mind that delimitation of regions consists in a regions’
diversity, also with respect to its culture and the subsequent diversity of values,
social identity and so on. Therefore, establishment of a shared identity is hindered
especially in situations when none existed before or in which identities are contested
(Burnett and Danson 2004) highlighting identity to be the precondition for branding
regions (Kaufmann and Durst 2008). As the process of collecting shared features
and values for various regions under a single umbrella poses a special challenge, the
identity of an interregional brand is not always the basis for communication-related
activities. It is frequently replaced with a shared goal to achieve in a specific area
(e.g. attracting investors to the regions) for which adequate, shared differentiating
features are sought.
Different interests of particular regions and different types of stakeholders make
coordination of the emergence of a shared brand and subsequently management
thereof an extremely difficult task. While these challenges are part of any place
brand management, in the case of regions, the issue is even more complex. On the
one hand, regions compete with each other. On the other hand, they share interests
and goals and they are mutually related. In this sense, interregional cooperation
is reminiscent of a cluster where creating a network of relations and preference for
shared goals over particular ones determines the growth of a place brand. According
to Keating (2001), there is a widespread agreement that all relevant stakeholders of a
region are required to build networks, although their single objectives are different.
As such, interregional brand requires a higher level of integration of all relevant
stakeholders since they all represent the region (Kirchgeorg 2005). This integration
should also last long as the brand is built and its success is measured over a long
time.
The complexity and multilayered factors indicate the challenges when creating
a common, interregional brand and managing its implementation and maintenance.
These challenges are demonstrated in the case of the Eastern Poland Macro-region
in which it has been decided to integrate branding-related activities, especially in
marketing communication.
12 Branding a Cluster of Regions: The Eastern Poland Macro-region Case Study 163

Fig. 12.1 The Eastern

Poland Macro-region
(Source: www.
polskawchodnia.eu)

The Case of the Eastern Poland Macro-region

The Eastern Poland Macro-region consists of five autonomous regions: Warmińsko-

Mazurskie, Podlaskie, Lubelskie, Swi˛etokrzyskie and Podkarpackie (Fig. 12.1). It
covers an area of 99,039 km2 (31.7 % of Poland’s area and 2.3 of the total area
of the EU) and is inhabited by 8,145,903 people (21.3 % of Poland’s population
and 1.6 % of the EU population) (STAT 2010). The Eastern Poland regions border
directly with Russia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine and Slovakia and represent the
eastern border of the European Union and the Schengen Area.
Eastern Poland is considered the poorest region in Poland, with a very low (at
times, the lowest in the EU 28) GDP per capita, with an economy dominated by
agriculture.
The region has been relatively underdeveloped since the Middle Ages; the
process of modernisation (in particular urbanisation, technological changes in
agriculture and industrialisation, all of which came to Poland from the West)
did not reach the eastern border of the country. Thus the backwardness of this
region is deeply rooted and consequently very difficult to overcome in a short-term
perspective. This is an example of what is referred to as “long persistence” with
reference to the material, social and institutional structures (Gorzelak 2007, p. 103).
Another of the Macro-region’s idiosyncrasies is the fact that it has not gone a
complete phase of industrialisation and urbanisation. The largest numbers of the
region’s economically active residents are employed in agriculture. This happens to
be several times less productive than agriculture in other (Gorzelak 2007, p. 103)
Polish regions.
164 A. Augustyn and M. Florek

The regions of Eastern Poland are further characterised by a low investment

rate and a small inflow of foreign investment. This should be attributed chiefly to
an underdeveloped economic and social infrastructure and poor market absorption,
while the regional authorities do not try hard enough to attract investors and promote
exports.
Poland’s accession to the European Union has opened up a new perspective
for the development of Eastern Poland, mainly due to the incoming aid funds.
During the financial perspective for 2007–2013, one of the Operational Programmes
(the Development of Eastern Poland) was solely dedicated to this Macro-region
(2.3 billion EUR was allocated to the implementation of this programme). This
programme provided the basis for many initiatives that have contributed to the
development and economic activation of the Macro-region, including branding and
promotional activities.

Strategic Promotional Activities Initiated by Eastern Poland

One of the activities funded by the EU under the aforementioned Operational

Programme, Development of Eastern Poland, is a project called the Programme for
Economic Promotion of Eastern Poland (Programme), which is being implemented
by the Polish Information and Foreign Investment Agency. Eighty-six million PLN
(approx. 20.5 mill euro) has been allocated to the project for the period of 2009–
2015.
It is the first programme which shows the economic potential of Eastern Poland’s
five regions in a systematic and coherent manner. Its main objective is to increase
the interest in Macro-region’s economic offer and thus to increase the rate of the
socio-economic development of Eastern Poland in a sustainable way.
The programme’s priorities include (Polska Wschodnia 2012):
• Increasing the inflow of direct foreign investment to the Macro-region
• Encouraging Polish companies to invest in Eastern Poland
• Increasing the export of products and services from Eastern Poland
• Development of business tourism in the Macro-region
The programme is implemented through long-term and consistent communi-
cation activities aimed at a systematic increase of economic competitiveness and
attractiveness of the Macro-region, that is, of its companies, products, services,
capital, cities and locations.
The starting point for the programme’s implementation was to develop a
strategic document setting out the promotion’s goals and direction called Marketing
Communication Strategy for the Program of Economic Promotion of Eastern Poland
for the years 2009–2015 (Strategy).
This document is of fundamental importance to the process of building the inter-
regional brand of Eastern Poland, to attracting the interest of targeted communities
and promoting the region’s economic development. This is because the document
12 Branding a Cluster of Regions: The Eastern Poland Macro-region Case Study 165

identifies the characteristic and distinguishing features of the Eastern Poland Macro-
region which serve as the basis for creating its desired image and defining its
identity in an effort to shape it into one consistent brand, in accordance with the
accepted vision of its development. In addition, this document clearly and precisely
defines the goals and direction of marketing activities. It specifies the target groups
as well as the information and promotion tools to effectively communicate with
such groups. These activities employed in compliance with the Strategy prevent
confusion and ensure complete coordination of efforts. Finally, the document allows
for effective budget management, that is, planning funds for promotional activities
and avoiding high and inefficient spending.

An Analysis of the Prospects and Image of Eastern Poland

At the beginning of the Strategy’s development, a precise analysis was carried

out pertaining to all attributes and resources enjoyed by Eastern Poland, using
both quantitative and qualitative research. The main research issues were related
to (Marketing ex-ante evaluation as part of the Program of Promotion of Eastern
Poland 2010):
• The perception of Eastern Poland by potential investors
• Differences in the perception of the five separate regions of the Eastern Poland
Macro-region
• The evaluation of Eastern Poland as an economic partner
• Associations related to Eastern Poland in business circles
• An evaluation of the investment ambience in the Macro-region
• Opinions about the most important barriers to invest in the Macro-region
• Opinions about the most important barriers to exports
• Estimated declarative level of investment interest in Eastern Poland
• Estimated declarative level of trade interest in Eastern Poland markets
• Opinions regarding channels/tools of Eastern Poland promotion
As mentioned above, the research presented the baseline situation of the Eastern
Poland regions in terms of their economic conditions, investment potentials and
verification of their images. In addition, the study revealed the strengths of
the area which may serve as the basis for creating marketing messages. These
strengths include high quality of human capital (education, academic centres), cheap
workforce, unique natural value, a clean and unpolluted environment, a potential
of qualified tourism, the cultural heritage, proximity to Eastern markets, multiple
investment areas and attractiveness of the special economic zones (Marketing ex-
ante evaluation as part of the Program of Promotion of Eastern Poland 2010). The
study also included an analysis of various promotional strategies devised by the five
regions to ensure that the final communication activities that are related to the entire
area are consistent and based on the synergy effect.
166 A. Augustyn and M. Florek

The research offered an added value in the form of establishing a benchmark

for further evaluation studies carried out when implementing the programme and
after its completion in order to analyse the effects of promotion, introduce possible
changes and evaluate the final results. The image of Eastern Poland has also been
verified. The study has clearly shown that many negative stereotypes and stigma are
attached to the name of Eastern Poland. Due to its geographical location, the Macro-
region has been referred to by entrepreneurs as unsophisticated and rustic, thus
offering poor economic potential. These perceptions reflect a stereotypical image of
the Macro-region as an area stricken by poverty, “B Poland”, backward in economic
terms. In their replies, the respondents resorted to the following expressions: “an
area of unmet expectations”, “missed opportunities”, “neglected by the previous
system” (Marketing ex-ante evaluation as part of the Program of Promotion of
Eastern Poland 2010).
The main conclusion was that one consistent economic, interregional brand of
Eastern Poland should be created to serve future needs, and combined promotional
efforts should be made for the benefit of the five regions. Therefore, it was
recommended to undertake the following activities (Marketing ex-ante evaluation
as part of the Program of Promotion of Eastern Poland 2010):
• Spreading the name of Eastern Poland as a market interregional brand
• Creating awareness of the Eastern Poland Macro-region as an innovative form of
interregional cooperation
• Creating the Macro-region’s image as an area of increasing competitiveness and
high economic, tourist and social potential, creating favourable conditions for
investment
• Changing the image of the Macro-region and its inhabitants from unqualified and
uneducated agricultural workers to well-qualified, talented workforce
• Adopting a dual strategy to promote the Macro-region, aimed at highlighting the
tourist attractions and economic potential of the ecologically friendly sectors of
the economy
• Interregional lobbying at the national and EU levels to raise aid funds for
development
It is worth noting that in the context of branding, the project did not include
defining the brand of the Macro-region in a systematic way. Brand identity and the
related elements (values, personality) have not been directly expressed; however,
the brand was positioned to make its position clear and distinctive. According to
brand coordinators, at time of crisis profit is crucial to businesses and as such
it should be discussed with investors. Their curiosity should be aroused and they
should receive a message about new opportunities availing themselves somewhere
in Poland. Therefore, the campaign’s chief message should be “invest because it
pays off”. It was imperative to position Eastern Poland as a reminder that Poland is
a part of the European Union, while her eastern regions, subsidised by EU funds, are
the best investment sites. This message was reflected in the campaign’s claim: “New
Investment Sites in the European Union”. On the one hand, the word“new” was used
12 Branding a Cluster of Regions: The Eastern Poland Macro-region Case Study 167

to encourage the audience to learn about the offer and, on the other hand, to show
that since these are “new” investment sites, they necessitate a bigger contribution,
effort and commitment. However, they will be translated into genuine profits. The
intention was to present Eastern Poland as a region facing a good time in terms
of investment while audacious and determined investors may be big winners there
(Sadowski 2013).
With reference to the aforementioned recommendations, the policy adopted as
part of the Strategy involves a number of communication tools tailored to the
overriding goals and recipients of the promotional activities.
The main focus of the project was to indicate the promotional tools to be imple-
mented first as well as to identify the target groups at which the media messages
would be directed. Business communities and opinion leaders were indicated as
the main recipients, including in particular: potential foreign investors and foreign
investors operating in Poland; domestic companies with a developed network of
regional agencies; international opinion leaders (including economists, experts in
foreign investment and in marketing of locations); foreign chambers of commerce;
organisations and business associations; bilateral chambers of commerce; business
leaders of Polish communities; the international and national public opinion; poten-
tial importers; local, national and foreign media; managements; decision-makers
and CEOs of international corporations and institutions; international consulting
companies; and business travellers.
A decision was made to develop an interregional visual identification system for
the Macro-region, conduct a domestic and international media campaign, develop
a website devoted to Eastern Poland and organise seminars, conferences and
economic forums, trade fairs, exhibitions and more. While putting forward specific
solutions, extensive efforts have been made to ensure their consistency and thus
effectiveness. The strategic projects have been spread out over time in such a manner
as to ensure the most effective implementation of the adopted goals and promotion
of Eastern Poland within the planned promotional period 2009–2015 (Marketing
Communication Strategy for the Program of Economic Promotion of Eastern Poland
for the years 2009–2015 2010, p. 3).

Implementation of the Marketing Communication Strategy for

the Program of Economic Promotion of Eastern Poland

The overriding goal of the Marketing Communication Strategy for Eastern Poland,
as pointed out above, is to develop a consistent image of Eastern Poland as a place
of high economic and investment potential. Creation of such an image consists in,
among other things, creating the Macro-region’s distinctive identity by means of
visual communication, hence the need for creating and implementing a complete
visual identity system for Eastern Poland. The system would serve the purpose of
increasing recognition of the Macro-region by associating its specific features with
168 A. Augustyn and M. Florek

Fig. 12.2 The logo of

Eastern Poland (Source: The
Book: Visual Identification
System for Program of
Economic Promotion of
Eastern Poland, Polish
Information and Foreign
Investment Agency, Warsaw
2010)

the logo’s adopted graphics and colours (Fig. 12.2). The task was challenging and
involved identification of features shared by the five regions in question.
The Eastern Poland logo consists of geometric elements circumscribed to a
circle. Each of the elements represents an arrow pointing to one of the five
regions, unique parts of Eastern Poland. The varied colours highlight each element’s
diversity and uniqueness. The colour red, used for the name and the largest arrow,
forms one consistent and clear symbol of going eastward, towards a place of
great social, cultural and investment potential. The circle representing the logo
base symbolises the long-lasting unity and cooperation between the five regions,
which jointly develop and achieve their goals. The overall structure of the logo
reveals the true nature of the eastern part of Poland, a region of diverse and rich
culture, immutable values and, most of all, unlimited investment opportunities.
The keynote – Macroregion, Macrofuture – is an essential part of the entire logo,
revealing new and wide-ranging perspectives for the present and future, as well as
current and prospective investors. This well-worded slogan conveys the concept of
a modern region that is ideal for bold and creative people with passion (The Book
Visual Identification System for the Program of Economic Promotion of Eastern
Poland 2010, p. 4).
Building the interregional brand of Eastern Poland as a region of high economic
and investment potential requires implementation of different, integrated marketing
activities involving a variety of promotional tools to ensure that specific audiences
are reached with a good effect. This is because some promotional tools allow
for direct communication with the audience. The same mechanism is at play in
personal selling or public relations when two-way exchange of information takes
place. The remaining tools enable interaction in an indirect manner by means of
one-way communication, as exemplified by advertising and sales promotion. The
main advantage of integrated marketing communication is that it allows generating
a transparent, consistent and eye-catching media message about Eastern Poland and
its territorial offer.
The promotional activities carried out to date include development of multiple
information and advertising materials as well as publications, organisation of many
conferences, seminars, trade and investment economic missions and, last but not
least, participation in trade fairs, exhibitions and study visits. Moreover, a dedicated
special economic website (www.polskawschodnia.eu) was set up.
12 Branding a Cluster of Regions: The Eastern Poland Macro-region Case Study 169

The next step was launching an international marketing media campaign for
Eastern Poland under the banner “Why Eastern Poland” with a budget of about
2.5 million euro. The campaign was primarily targeted at the heads of multinational
companies, opinion leaders and international consulting firms providing services to
foreign investors. The campaign’s main purpose was to encourage entrepreneurs
to start up businesses in Eastern Poland and to increase the inflow of direct foreign
investment. The campaign was intended to promote exports of products and services
and to develop business tourism.
In the campaign, a child, a father-in-law and a psychoanalyst ask potential
investors the following questions: Why didn’t you invest in Eastern Poland? A
question posed in this manner shows that it is not too late to reverse the situation
(Fig. 12.3). The campaign relied on advertising in newspapers, television and the
Internet as well as an outdoor campaign at airports in Paris, Frankfurt, Dubai,
New York and London. The commercials were placed in Polish and foreign media,
including CNN, “The Economist” and “Financial Times”.

The Impact of the Promotional Activities for Eastern Poland

While the implementation of the Programme of Economic Promotion of Eastern

Poland is only halfway through, the effects of its implementation are already
noticeable.
The results of a midterm evaluation research indicated that the promotional
activities have resulted primarily in increased investors’ awareness and their
changed perception of the Macro-region, as the percentage of respondents who
associate Eastern Poland with the economic Macro-region started to grow (Mid-
term evaluation for the Program of Economic Promotion of Eastern Poland 2012).
The number of queries about the Eastern Poland Macro-region increased by 20 %
barely 6 months after the campaign’s launch. The queries came from the Asian,
Arab and European markets (Sadowski 2013). Furthermore, a slight increase (from
27 to 29 %) was noted in the percentage of people who perceive Eastern Poland
as an attractive place to do business. However, a significant increase (from 4 to
14 %) was noted in the percentage of people who consider the Macro-region
an attractive location for investment (Mid-term evaluation for the Program of
Economic Promotion of Eastern Poland 2012).
The great majority of the surveyed entrepreneurs evaluated the activities promot-
ing Eastern Poland as positive, as much as 90 % of them responded that they planned
to participate in the subsequent promotional events under the programme. Eighty-
four percent of the examined companies said that they established business contacts
during events organised as part of the programme. Among these events, the most
effective were trade fairs (81 % participants established business contacts) and field
missions (77 % participants) (Mid-term evaluation for the Program of Economic
Promotion of Eastern Poland 2012).
170 A. Augustyn and M. Florek

Fig. 12.3 Campaign press

posters “Why didn’t you
invest in Eastern Poland?”
(Source: (a) DEMO Effective
Launching archives, The
Economist, December
22nd–January 4th 2013, (b)
DEMO Effective Launching
archives, The Economist,
January 5th–11th 2013, (c)
DEMO Effective Launching
archives The Economist,
December 1st–7th 2012)
12 Branding a Cluster of Regions: The Eastern Poland Macro-region Case Study 171

In conclusion, as of halfway through the programme, 80 exhibition and promo-

tion events have been organised, attended by 1,133 businesses and 338 representa-
tives of regional institutions. The vast majority of events were trade fairs and trade
missions which offered opportunities to conclude 100 contracts and negotiate sub-
sequent agreements (Mid-term evaluation for the Program of Economic Promotion
of Eastern Poland 2012).
In the evaluation report, the companies declared in total (Mid-term evaluation for
the Program of Economic Promotion of Eastern Poland 2012):
• Conclusion of 264 contracts for a total amount of 78, 888,250.32 PLN (approx.
19 mill euro)
• Investment in new equipment for the implementation of new contracts amounting
to PLN 12, 326,081.65 (approx. 3 mill euro)
• Investment in construction of a new factory: 10,800,000.00 PLN (approx. 2.5
mill euro)
• Investment in the development of jobs such as construction of new lines or
production facilities amounting to 6,332,400.00 PLN (approx. 1.5 mill euro)
• Employment of 136 new employees, of which 133 are locals from the Eastern
Poland Macro-region
• Average export growth of 54 %
• Average sales growth of 17 %
• Average production growth of 14 %
• Average time of negotiated contracts: 4.22 months
By reference to the evaluation of the campaign itself (it was not included in the
evaluation report as it had been in progress when the report was being drawn) in
the media, “Why Eastern Poland” presents itself as the first Polish campaign so
clearly acknowledged and appreciated outside Poland. The campaign’s success can
be attributed to the following facts:
• The campaign has made a name for itself and has been covered in Polish and for-
eign media alike. Adweek, the American industry magazine, recognised the series
of commercials advertising Eastern Poland as the best commercial of the week
(Nud 2013). On the other hand, The Atlantic advises to invest in Eastern Poland
“because it is bound to catch up after years of neglect” (O’Brien 2013). On top
of that, an article placed on Slate.com referring to the campaign bears a telling
title The Greatest Economic Development Poster of All Time (Yglesias 2013).
• Owing to its original nature and visibility in the official channels, the campaign
has had an alternative mode of circulation. Namely, it has stimulated a plethora
of posts in the Internet. They seemed abundant enough to interest the renowned
Business Insider. What is more intriguing, rather than join the critics, the
service decided that “the kid could be right” and the reproachful question in the
advertising may be the right question to ask, chiefly because of Poland’s growth
potential, her aptitude for combating the crisis better than the neighbouring
countries and the fact that the Bloomberg Markets Magazine recognised Poland
as one of the best emerging markets with 21 % GDP growth projected from 2013
to 2017 (Lubin 2013).
172 A. Augustyn and M. Florek

Conclusions and Managerial Implications

The implementation of the Programme of Economic Promotion of Eastern Poland

has not been an easy task at any stage. The five regions, different in terms of
their endogenous potential and area characteristics, competing with one another for
investors, operate in the market under a common interregional brand of Eastern
Poland. It seems obvious that, because of the area’s difficult socio-economic
situation, no initiatives to build a shared interregional brand would have been carried
out, and all five regions would have focused solely on their autonomic promotional
and image-related goals and activities. However, the need for collective effort has
been recognised in order to achieve the synergy effect of marketing activities carried
out for the benefit of Eastern Poland and to increase the rate of the region’s economic
growth.
Seemingly, an attempt at combining different regions into one is questionable
due to the contradictory interests of respective regions. Considering this idea in the
light of possible gains and losses in relation to the midterm evaluation research,
it should be noted that although the current profits may not be very high, a lot
of pro-development initiatives have been undertaken whose importance cannot be
diminished.
Gradually, the image of Eastern Poland is beginning to improve and the stereo-
typical perception of the region as backward and poor give way to its perception
as a place of huge potential and unlimited economic opportunities, boasting of
many natural values and unpolluted environment. Research results suggest a slight
increase (from 27 to 29 %) in the number of people perceiving Eastern Poland as an
attractive business venue and a distinct increase (from 4 to 14 %) in the number of
people who regard the Macro-region a definitely attractive investment site. Twenty-
nine percent of the respondents regarded the Macro-region attractive (Mid-term
evaluation for the Program of Economic Promotion of Eastern Poland 2012).
Eastern Poland, struggling to overcome its economic backwardness and
marginalisation in the national regional policy and, until recently, the European
Union’s policy, must be open to all kinds of initiatives, sometimes even risky ones,
to stimulate its economic development. The shared economic, interregional brand
of Eastern Poland is a good example of such an initiative.

References

Blichfeldt BS (2005) Unmanageable place brands? Place Branding 1(4):388–401

Burnett KA, Danson M (2004) Adding or subtracting value?: Rural enterprise, quality food
promotion and Scotland’s cluster strategy. Int J Entrepreneur Behav Res 10(6):381–403
Gorzelak G (2007) Strategic direction of development for Eastern Poland, expert opinion prepared
for the strategy of development of Eastern Poland until the year 2020. Ministry of Regional
Development, Warsaw
Hankinson G (2001) Location branding: a study of the branding practices of 12 English cities. J
Brand Manag 9(2):127–142
12 Branding a Cluster of Regions: The Eastern Poland Macro-region Case Study 173

Kaufmann HR, Durst S (2008) Developing inter-regional brands. EuroMed J Bus 3(1):38–62
Kavaratzis M (2005) Place branding: a review of trends and conceptual models. Mark Rev
5(4):329–342
Keating M (2001) Rethinking the region. Eur Urban Reg Stud 8(3):217–234
Kirchgeorg M (2005) Identitatsorientierter Aufbau und Gestaltung von Regionenmarken. In: Mef-
fert H, Burmann C, Koers M (eds) Markenmanagement: Identitatsorientierte Markenfuhrung
und praktische Umsetzung. Gabler, Wiesbaden
Lubin G (2013) http://www.businessinsider.com/why-didnt-you-invest-in-eastern-poland-2013-
1. Accessed 10 Mar 2014
Marketing Communication Strategy for the Program of Economic Promotion of Eastern Poland
for the years 2009–2015 (2010) Polish Information and Foreign Investment Agency, Warsaw
Marketing ex-ante evaluation as part of the Program of Promotion of Eastern Poland (2010) Polish
Information and Foreign Investment Agency, Warsaw
Mid-term evaluation for the Program of Economic Promotion of Eastern Poland (2012) Polish
Information and Foreign Investment Agency, Warsaw
Nud T (2013) http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/invest-eastern-poland-or-your-child-will-hate-
you-forever-ads-warn-147705. Accessed 12 Mar 2014
O’Brien M (2013) http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/why-you-should-invest-
in-eastern-poland-in-2-charts/273693/. Accessed 12 Mar 2014
Sadowski J (2013) Dlaczego nie zainwestowałeś w Polsce Wschodniej? – case study, http://www.
brief.pl/artykul,758,dlaczego_nie_zainwestowales_w_polsce_wschodniej_-_case_study.html.
Accessed 23 Apr 2014
STAT (2010) Central Statistical Office. www.stat.gov.pl. Accessed 18 Sept 2013
The book visual identification system for the program of economic promotion of Eastern Poland
(2010) Polish Information and Foreign Investment Agency, Warsaw
Yglesias M (2013) http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/04/eastern_poland_
investments_what_will_you_tell_you_child.html. Accessed 1 Mar 2014
Zenker S (2011) How to catch a city? The concept and measurement of place brands. J Place
Manag Dev 4(1):40–52
About the Authors

Mikael Andéhn earned his Ph.D. from Stockholm University and is currently
employed as a lecturer at the Stockholm Business School. He has a background
in psychology and sociology with a research interests that span consumer behavior,
place marketing, and brands.

Dr. Godwin Arku is associate professor at the Department of Geography, Western

University, London, Ontario. He teaches courses in urban and economic devel-
opment. His research focuses on the global economic changes and their impacts
on municipal economic development efforts, relationships between housing and
economic development, and impacts of economic reforms on the urban built
environment. His regional area of expertise cuts across both the developed and
developing world. He holds a B.A. in Geography from the University of Ghana,
masters from the University of Toronto, and doctorate from McMaster University,
Canada.

Anna Augustyn, Ph.D., is adjunct professor in Economics in the Department

of Economics and Management at the University of Bialystok, Poland. In her
current research she concentrates on place brand and marketing and city economic
development. Her work was presented at various international conferences, book
chapters, books, and journals. She also works as a consultant to local government
units in the field of creating development and marketing strategies.

Since 2005, Martin Boisen has researched, taught, and advised on the marketing
and branding of cities and regions. He currently holds a position as lecturer in
Human Geography and Planning at the University of Groningen, is an expert
member of BEST Place: European Place Marketing Institute, and works as an inde-
pendent advisor on the topic. Recently, he co-founded Phønix – The International
Place Branding Panel – where he provides second opinions, reviews, and evaluations
to cities and regions around the world.

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 175

S. Zenker, B.P. Jacobsen (eds.), Inter-Regional Place Branding,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-15329-2
176 About the Authors

Erik Braun, Ph.D., is a senior researcher and lecturer in urban economics, place
marketing, and real estate at Erasmus University Rotterdam. His current place
marketing research interest concerns the application of marketing and branding
concepts by cities and regions, place brand management, place brand perceptions,
and the governance of place marketing. His research is published in books, book
chapters, and academic journals including Cities, Environment and Planning C,
Public Administration Review, and Urban Studies.

Evan Cleave is a graduate student at the Department of Geography, Western Univer-

sity, London, Ontario, Canada. His graduate research focuses on the impacts of the
global economic change on Canadian communities and how these communities are
using place branding as a policy tool to promote local economic development and to
position themselves positively against domestic and international competition. He
holds a B.A. (Honours) in Geography from Queen’s University and a masters in
Geographic Information Systems from the University of Calgary.

Magdalena Florek, Ph. D., is adjunct professor in the Department of Commerce

and Marketing at the Poznan University of Economics, Poland. She is a lecturer
for place marketing, place branding, brand management, and marketing planning.
She is the author and coauthor of several books (in Polish) on place marketing and
various international publications in place marketing applied to locations of varying
sizes. She is a speaker at numerous domestic and foreign conferences. She is the
co-founder of Best Place: European Place Marketing Institute. Her current research
interest is place brand equity.

An economist, Tony Jackson, worked in agricultural development in Africa

before holding academic posts in the universities of St. Andrews and Dundee. He
undertakes extensive collaborative research with colleagues in Canada, Australia,
and New Zealand on environmental assessment and management, project appraisal,
and sustainable development and is a past chair of the National Council of the
Institute of Economic Development.

Björn P. Jacobsen, Ph.D., is managing principal of Wirtschaftsförderung Lübeck

GmbH (Lübeck Business Development Corporation) in Lübeck, Germany. He
is currently working on various regional, interregional, and transnational cluster
development projects. Björn is also a visiting lecturer in Management Strategies
and Marketing at the Lübeck University of Applied Sciences (Germany) as well
as honorary research fellow in Regional and Local Economic Development at
the University of Dundee (UK). He has conducted research on place branding,
especially on the effectiveness of place brands, and has been published in various
international journals, such as the Journal of Place Management and Development,
Urban Research and Practice, and Papers in Canadian Economic Development.
His research on the effectiveness of place brands published in the Journal of Place
Management and Development was selected as Highly Commended Award Winner
of the Emerald Literati Network Awards for Excellence 2010.
About the Authors 177

Aleksandra Khamadieva is a Ph.D. student at NRU HSE. She obtained M.Sc. in

Marketing in 2010 at Glasgow Caledonian University (UK). Since 2011 she has
been working at the National Research University Higher School of Economics
as a lecturer of Place Marketing, Branding and Brand Management, and Business
Ethics and partly as a researcher. Currently she does Ph.D. research studying the
measurement of residents’ utility.

Eduardo Oliveira is Ph.D. candidate at the Department of Spatial Planning and

Environment, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen, the Nether-
lands. He holds a degree in Geography and Planning, Post-Degree in Tourism
and Regional Development, and a M.Sc. in Marketing and Strategic Management,
University of Minho, Portugal. His research and writing focuses on the theory and
practice of place branding in strategic spatial planning.

Cecilia Pasquinelli, Ph.D., is a postdoctoral research fellow at the GSSI Cities,

Gran Sasso Science Institute in L’Aquila (Italy). She worked in the Depart-
ment of Social and Economic Geography at Uppsala University, Sweden. Cecilia
received her Ph.D. in Management, Competitiveness and Development from Scuola
Sant´Anna in 2012.

Pantazis Pastras has been conducting research and providing critical analysis for
tourism destinations since he completed his Ph.D. in 2011 at the University of
Birmingham, studying the governance of tourism development in Athens. Among
Pantazi’s latest projects included are a report on the development of Black Sea cruise
tourism on behalf of the United Nations Development Programme, his involvement
as account manager of the Strategic Plan 2013–2015 of the Athens Development
and Destination Management Agency, and the preparation of the Strategic Plan
2013–2014 for the development of tourism at the City of Nafplio. Pantazis also
holds a M.Sc. (Merit) in Tourism Development from the University of Surrey and a
Bachelor Degree in the Management of Tourism Enterprises from the Technological
Institute of Athens.

Manolis Psarros is the Founder and Managing Director of abouTourism destination

consultants (www.aboutourism.com), an international destination development and
marketing consultancy with a regional focus on SE Europe and Eastern Mediter-
ranean. Manolis has provided strategic counsel to destinations around the world
including Greece, UK, Finland, Denmark, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Mexico, Armenia,
and Kenya, while he has been directly involved in shaping the first Destination
Management Organization in Greece, for the City of Athens, which he also served
as a Tourism Development Director. Manolis has a B.A. (Hons) in Hospitality
Management with Tourism and Leisure from the University of Huddersfield and a
M.Sc. in Tourism Planning and Development from the Oxford Brookes University.

Renaud Vuignier is a Ph.D. candidate and research assistant in public admin-

istration at the University of Lausanne in the Swiss Graduate School of Public
178 About the Authors

Administration (IDHEAP). Holding a bachelor degree in political science and a

master degree in public management and policy, in his previous positions, he worked
as an academic associate at the Swiss Embassy in Washington D.C. and as a Blue
Book trainee at the European Commission in Brussels.

Jan-Jelle Witte is a researcher at the School of Economics of Erasmus University

Rotterdam. He is specialized in Urban, Port, and Transport Economics. Besides
academic research, he also takes part in national and international research assign-
ments, including research sponsored by the European Union under the INTERREG
program. He currently takes part in a feasibility study for the development of a
branding strategy for the Fehmarnbelt Region. This chapter includes preliminary
findings from this research project.

Sebastian Zenker, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at the department of marketing

at the Copenhagen Business School as well as a visiting assistant professor at the
Erasmus University Rotterdam. In his current research, he concentrates on places
as brands and place brand perception and on brand complexity in general. His
work was presented at various international conferences, book chapters, and peer-
reviewed journals, for example, the International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Cities and Psychology & Marketing.
Index

A Baudrillardian system, 29
Adweek, 171 BioValley, 93, 94
Agglomération franco-valdo-genevoise, 67 Black and Azov Seas Ports Association
Agora 2.0, 145 (BASPA), 152, 153
Amenity migration Black Sea cruise destinations, 154–155
knowledge-based forms Black Sea Economic Organization (BSEC),
cluster analysis, 82 152
Hawke’s Bay region, 82 Black Sea Region (BSR)
in-migrants, 83 cruise tourism
marketing campaigns, 83 core identity and tourism attractiveness,
Napier, 82 153–155
place-brand equity, 81 geopolitical conditions and interregional
Swedish municipalities, 82 partnership practices, 151–153
tourism promotion, 81 Mediterranean market, 150
and new regionalism targeting markets, 153, 156
Apedaile’s aspirations, 81 tourism demand, trends of, 150–151
disembodied technology, 80 MedCruise banner, 148
economic development, 79 Black Sea Trade and Investment Programme
embodied technology, 79 (BSTIP), 152
Heckscher-Ohlin premise, 79 Bloomberg Markets Magazine, 171
labour mobility, 80 Bodensee brand, 93
neoclassical model, 79 Bothnian Arc, 89, 93, 94
new rural economy, 80 Brand anchors, 9
spatial lumpiness, 80 Brand awareness, 3
American Marketing Association, 2 Brand equity, 3
Anholt-GMI City Brands Index, 2 Brand image, 3
Arctic Circle, 89 Brand knowledge, 3
Brighton community, 111
BSEC. See Black Sea Economic Organization
B (BSEC)
Baltic Sea region, 18, 43, 89, 118, 126–127, BSTIP. See Black Sea Trade and Investment
145–147, 151 Programme (BSTIP)
BaltMet Promo project, 145 Bulkley Valley, 78
Baranya region, 93 Business tourism, 169

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 179

S. Zenker, B.P. Jacobsen (eds.), Inter-Regional Place Branding,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-15329-2
180 Index

C optimal branding strategy, 92

California’s Silicon Valley, 80 political motives, 92
Canada, 78, 100, 101, 110 Scandinavia, 91
Canada’s Technology Triangle (CTT), 103 context, 64
CBS. See Cruise Black Sea (CBS) entrepreneurial motives, 90
Centrope, 93, 94 Europe
CEVA project, 68 Bodensee brand, 93
Circonscriptions emboîtées, 65 branding initiative, 92
Cobourg community, 111 cross-border region brands, 94
Cohesion Policy, 18 documented branding strategy, 94
Community brands Euregions, 92
aggressive place branding initiatives, 100 Germany and Switzerland, 93
cooperative approach, 101 implemented communication strategy,
economic development, 100 95
interregional place branding and economic implemented promotion campaign, 94
development, 101–102 non-Euregion initiatives, 95
Ontario target audiences, 93
binary-connectivity weight matrix, Great Geneva (Grand Genève)
105 binational agglomeration, 67
classification scheme, 104 CEVA, 68
CTT, 103 citizens, role of, 70
embedded messages, 104 city diplomacy, 69
expected joins, 106 French and the Swiss administrative
financial and infrastructural resources, cultures, 69
110 interregional brands, 67
global spatial autocorrelation, 108 marketing challenges, 69
GTMA, 103 parking slots, 69
heritage, 104 Park & Ride project, 68
industry-based clustering, 102 place and brand, complexity of, 70
intercommunity cooperation, 107, 109 politico-institutional aspects and
join-count pattern analysis, 105 perimeters, 70
local brand clusters, 109 public transportation, 68
local spatial autocorrelation, 109 imagined spaces, 90
neoliberal policy-making, 103 marketing techniques, 88
place brand dimensions and probability Øresund Region, 89
of occurrence, 105 place marketing, 89
regional identities, 102 place, multidimensonal concept of, 65
RTOs, 103 real places, 90
tourism-environment brand image target groups, 65–67
category, 107 true branding strategies, 88
visual brand imagery, 104 Cross-border theme, 9
place brands, patterns of, 111 Cruise Baltic brand, 40, 145
place promotion programmes, 100 Cruise Black Sea (CBS), 152
Co-opetitive ethos, 42 Cruise Europe, 152
Cost-effectiveness, 43 Cruise tourism
Crisis place demarking process, 57 BSR
Cross-border place branding core identity and tourism attractiveness,
conceptual exploration of 153–155
cross-border cooperation, 91 geopolitical conditions and interregional
economic development, 91 partnership practices, 151–153
European Commission, 91 Mediterranean market, 150
INTERREG, 91 targeting markets, 153, 156
local cooperation initiatives, 90 tourism demand, trends of, 150–151
Nordic Council, 91 Cruise Baltic, 146–147
Index 181

interregional place branding place branding perspective

BaltMet Promo project, 145 business sectors, 19–20
communication and management, 143 project-based cross-border cooperation,
communication skills and advertising 20
techniques, 142 urban agglomerations, 19
CrossCulTour, 145 place brand strategy, 16
destination brand, 144 place identity, 15
destination stakeholders, 143 project-based cross-border cooperation, 18
European Union-funded projects, 144 promotion, 14
hybrid spatial units, 145 spatial images, 16
INTERREG programs, 141 territorial-administrative entities, 18
natural and cultural heritage, 145 time disparities, 17
planning and marketing, 142 urban agglomerations, 17
reputation management, 143 European Cohesion Policy, 20
territorial identities, 141 European Council, 116
MedCruise, 148–149 European Cruise Council, 149
CTT. See Canada’s Technology Triangle European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation
(CTT) (EGTC), 116
Customer-focused approach, 6 European integration agenda, 121
European Parliament, 116
European Travel Commission, 143, 144
D
Danish Structural Reform, 20
Decentralized cooperation, 43 F
Federal Reserve banking system, 79
Fragile legitimacy, 46
E
Eastern Poland macro-region
interregional brands, 161–162 G
macro-region’s idiosyncrasies, 163 Gasometer, 45
managerial implications, 172 GP Wild International, 150
marketing communication strategy, Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance (GTMA),
167–169 103
promotional activities, 169–171 Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 78
prospects and image of, 165–167 Great Geneva (Grand Genève)
strategic promotional activities, 164–165 binational agglomeration, 67
EGTC. See European Grouping of Territorial CEVA, 68
Cooperation (EGTC) citizens, role of, 70
Entrepreneurialism, 102 city diplomacy, 69
EUREGIO, 120 French and the Swiss administrative
EuroMedsys, 43 cultures, 69
Eurometropolis, 93, 94 interregional brands, 67
Europe marketing challenges, 69
branding, 14 parking slots, 69
business sectors, 17–18 Park & Ride project, 68
competitiveness and entrepreneurialism, 14 place and brand, complexity of, 70
economic development, 13 politico-institutional aspects and
marketing, 14 perimeters, 70
national government, 17 public transportation, 68
nonstandard regionalization
business sectors, 17–18
project-based cross-border cooperation, H
18 HabitatMed, 40
urban agglomerations, 17 Hamburg and Copenhagen, 9
182 Index

Hamburg Metropolitan brand, 7 new regionalism development theory,

Helsinki-Tallinn region, 89 76
place-brand identity, 78
precarious development strategy, 74
I relocation choices, 78
Inner Scandinavia, 93 revitalisation committee, 75
International Iberian Nanotechnology rural place branding, 76
Laboratory, 131 Smithers, 77
INTERREG, 18, 43, 91, 96, 127, 141, 142, spatial development strategy, 76
144, 145 staples-based economy, 74
Interregional place branding street murals, 75
amenity migration and new regionalism tourism, 75
Apedaile’s aspirations, 81 Ulster and Maori heritage, 75
disembodied technology, 80 special character of, 6–7
economic development, 79
embodied technology, 79
Heckscher-Ohlin premise, 79 K
labour mobility, 80 Katikati Open-Air Art Inc., 75
neoclassical model, 79 Kawartha Highlands cluster, 110
new rural economy, 80 Keller’s framework, 6
spatial lumpiness, 80
city brand rankings, 2
Fehmarnbelt region, 7–9 L
knowledge-based forms, amenity migration Lisbon Strategy, 133
cluster analysis, 82
Hawke’s Bay region, 82
in-migrants, 83 M
marketing campaigns, 83 Managerialism to entrepreneurialism, 14
Napier, 82 MedCruise, 152
place-brand equity, 81 Medicon Academy and Medicon Valley
Swedish municipalities, 82 initiatives, 21
tourism promotion, 81 Mediterranean identity, 43
marketing and branding strategies, 1 Metropolitan regionalization, 17
metropolitan areas, 74 Meuse-Rhine Euregio, 93, 94
nation branding, 2 MiTo music festival brand, 40
place branding Modern infrastructure, 33
American Marketing Association, 2 Multiculturalism, 153
brand measurement, 3 Museo di Arte Moderna e Contemporanea di
definition, 2 Rovereto e Trento (MART), 40
nontraditional target groups, 3
target groups, 3
place brand perception N
communication model of an Nation branding, 27
environmental action, 5 Network branding
measurable brand effects, 4 collaborative branded space, 40
place attitude and place behavior, 5 cooperation, 42
place image producers, 4 cooperative strategies, 40
producing messages, 5–6 cultural branding, 40
receiving messages, 6 culture-led regeneration policy, 40
rural amenity migration economic development, 42
exurban developments, 79 market-driven network branding, 43
footloose economy, 76 Milan and Turin, 40
legacy funds, 77 Öresund region, 41
locational preferences, 79 place marketers, 42
Index 183

political vision, 44 place management process, 26

postindustrial context, 40 reputations management, 27
potential impacts of, 44–46 salient meta-place brands
potential risks, 46 developing countries, 31
purposive territorial competition, 41 FDI, 30
Ruhr Metropolis brand, 41 investment and vacation, 30
Trentino region, 40 meta-national places, 31
Newcastle Gateshead brand, 40, 44, 45 narratives, dominant source of, 31
New regionalism theory, 80 negative meta-image, 31
Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics Sudan, 30
(NUTS), 116 tourism, 31
Nordkalotten, 89 transitional economy, 32
North Regional Coordination and Development systems of places
Commission (CCDRN), 128 communities of sentiment, 30
mass-mediated system, 30
quasi-geographical representation, 29
O scalable places, 28
Ontario synecdoches, 29
binary-connectivity weight matrix, 105 Place stakeholders, 124
classification scheme, 104 Polish Information and Foreign Investment
CTT, 103 Agency, 164
embedded messages, 104 Pomerania, 89
expected joins, 106 Port Hope community, 111
financial and infrastructural resources, 110
global spatial autocorrelation, 108
GTMA, 103 Q
heritage, 104 Quasi-geographical representation system, 29
industry-based clustering, 102
intercommunity cooperation, 107, 109
join-count pattern analysis, 105 R
local brand clusters, 109 Raison d’être, 17
local spatial autocorrelation, 109 Regional branding, 28
neoliberal policy-making, 103 Regional Tourism Organizations (RTOs), 103
place brand dimensions and probability of Region-building process, 44
occurrence, 105 Re-scaling of statehood, 14
regional identities, 102 Resident-orientated approach, 66
RTOs, 103 Residents’ utility
tourism-environment brand image category, interregional strategies, 52
107 marketing theory, 53
visual brand imagery, 104 place branding
Øresund bridge, 29 personal characteristics, 55
Øresund Region, 18, 21, 28, 29, 41, 46, 89, 93, place attachment theory, 54, 55
94, 118, 125–126 place attractiveness attributes, 54
residential choice models, 54, 55
residential satisfaction theory, 54
P satisfaction measurement model, 54
Park & Ride project, 68 SD Logic, 54
Perm Krai (Russian Federation), 57 place marketing, 52
Place’s systematic associations place-specific attributes, 53
altered image, 32–33 theoretical approaches
branding nations and regions, 27–28 citizen equity, 57
marketing techniques, 26 citizenship, 59
meta-national places, 27 demarketing, 57
nation branding, 26 economic theory, 57
184 Index

Residents’ utility (cont.) progress, 131

Florida’s approach, 57 sustainability, 130
industrial sector, 57 talent, 130
requirements, 58 interregional branding
residents’ friendliness, 57 Baltic Sea region, 126–127
tax revenues, 59 Øresund region, 125–126
utility, definition of, 56 joint cross-border place-branding strategy,
RTOs. See Regional Tourism Organizations 131–132
(RTOs) joint place-branding initiatives, 116
Ruhr Metropolis brand, 41, 45 Øresund region, 118
supranational spaces, 117
Swedish region, 118
S territoriality, 119
Saffron European City Brand Barometer, 2 transnational integration, 117
Schengen space, 117 Supranational belongingness, 33
Science Museum (MUSE), 40 Swedish Malmö, 21
Service-Dominant (SD) Logic, 54 Swiss democratic system, 70
Single market, 117 Synecdoches, 29
Skärgården, 89
Smithers, 78
Sonderjylland-Schleswig, 93, 94
T
Strategic spatial planning approach
Tasmanian Hydropower Development Scheme,
Baltic Sea region, 118
75
competitiveness agenda and cross-border
Territorial-administrative hierarchy, 18
cooperation, 121–122
The Atlantic, 171
cross-border cooperation, 117
Thin regional identities, 20
cross-border place branding, 122–124
Tobler’s First Law, 111
cross-border regions and euroregion and
Touristic theme, 9
european grouping, 120
Galicia–Northern Portugal
Atlantic gateway to Europe, 130
Autonomous Community, 128 U
CCDRN, 128 United Mediterranean Cruise Ship Berth
cross-border entrepreneurship, Booking and Confirmation Process,
employment and labour mobility, 148
134 United Nations Development Programme
cross-border infra-structure (UNDP), 152
developments, 133 United Nations World Tourism Organization,
cross-border investment and tourism 143, 144, 146
development, 133
cross-border research and development
projects, 133–134 V
cross-border trade, 133 Val di Cornia, 40
EGTC, 127
geographical location, 130
industrial estates, expansion, 130 W
industrial sectors, 131 Working Group on Cooperation in Tourism,
infrastructures, 130 152
innovation, 130
institutional support, 130
macroeconomic indicators, 129 Z
outstanding quality of life, 130 Zollverein mines, 45