The differences between branding a country, a region and a city: Applying the Brand Box Model

Transcription

1 The differences between branding a country, a region and a city: Applying the Brand Box Model Received (in revised form): 12th May, 2004 NIALL CALDWELL teaches at London Metropolitan University. His research interests are in branding cultural organisations. JOAO R. FREIRE is currently researching destination branding for his PhD at London Metropolitan University. Abstract Branding has become one of the most powerful tools in marketing strategy. There has been a general agreement among academics and practitioners that places can be branded in the same way as consumer goods and services. Destination branding is a relatively new concept, however, and there is a lack of empirical academic research on the topic. This exploratory study uses the de Chernatony Brand Box Model and applies it to countries, regions and cities. The study was developed in order to understand and clarify whether the same branding techniques should be applied to these three different types of places. The results point to differences between countries when compared with regions and cities. Countries are so functionally diverse they should leverage the emotive or representational parts of their brand identity, while regions and cities, being smaller in scale, should leverage their more functional facets. It seems that regions have more in common with cities from a branding point of view, and this has implications for branding strategies for all three types of tourist destinations. Niall Caldwell Department of Business and Service Sector Management, London Metropolitan University, Holloway Road, London N7 8HN, UK n.caldwell@londonmet.ac.uk freire@ecoterra.co.uk INTRODUCTION Travel and tourism has become a global industry and is widely considered to be one of the fastest growing industries in the world, if not the fastest growing industry. 1 In terms of employment, travel and tourism is the largest industry in the world. In 2000, the sector directly and indirectly generated 11.7 per cent of global gross domestic product and nearly 200 million jobs. 2 Since 1998, tourism ranks first among world export groups, ahead of petroleum, motor vehicles and electronic equipment. 3 In this highly competitive environment where the objective is to attract more inward investment, visitors and jobs countries, regions and cities began applying to their product certain marketing techniques previously developed for consumer goods. One of the marketing techniques applied is branding, and the aim of the research reported in this paper is to examine if there are differences between branding different types of tourist destinations: a country, a region or a city. Although destination branding is a new concept, there is a general agreement among academics and practitioners that places can be branded in much the same way as consumer goods 50 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 12, NO. 1, SEPTEMBER 2004

2 THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BRANDING A COUNTRY, A REGION AND A CITY and services. 4 8 A successful brand has recently been defined as: an identifiable product, service, person or place, augmented in such a way that the buyeroruserperceivesrelevantunique added values which match their needs most closely. 9 The importance of destination branding is made clear by Morgan and Pritchard: 10 the battle for customers in the tourism industry will be fought not over price but over the hearts and minds in essence, branding... will be the key to success. Furthermore, Cai 11 argues that: Marketing agencies at all levels, thus, have a vested interest in building strong and positive images for their destinations. However, the extent to which image building benefits their targets can be greater if it takes place in the context of branding. A range of countries (Greece, Australia, Malaysia, Spain, Yugoslavia and Croatia), regions (Wales, Western Australia, Oregon, Montana and the Algarve) and cities (Glasgow, Manchester, London and New York) have already adopted the destinationbrand-building concept Nevertheless, branding destinations is a relatively new development and academic investigation in the area is just beginning to emerge. 19 There are not many in-depth empirical studies that investigate the reality of branding destinations Hence the research in this paper is innovative, since it asks whether there is any difference in branding distinct types of destinations what are the differences between branding a country, a region or a city? The method followed applies the Brand Box Model. This marketing model was developed by de Chernatony and McWilliam 23 for physical and service products. It is used in the current research to explore the application of the brand s functional and representational dimensions to countries, regions and cities. The intention is to examine whether there are differences between how people evaluate countries and the regions and cities within the same country. Since this exploratory study was conducted both in Portugal and in the UK, it is hoped that it will provide some insights into how national and regional destination brands are perceived in different countries. The main benefit of this research to practitioners is, however, the conclusion that because countries are so functionally diverse, they should focus on the emotional or representational dimensions of their brand. Regions and cities, however, which are smaller in scale and more specific in nature, should focus their brandbuilding efforts on the more functional facets. BRANDING: FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS AND REPRESENTATIONAL (OR IMAGE) ASPECTS When people buy a product they are buying a particular bundle of benefits that they perceive as satisfying their particular needs. 24 Brands must fulfil self-expression needs; they are not bought simply to satisfy functional needs, but also intangible ones. A brand is more than just the sum of its component parts; it embodies additional attributes that are intangible, but very real. 25 In this sense brands also provide emotional benefits. 26 Branding essentially can transform the consumption experience. 27 In the context of tourism, the World Tourism Organization 28 recognised that HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL.12,NO.1,50 61 SEPTEMBER

3 CALDWELL AND FREIRE there is a tendency to see tourism destinations as a fashion accessory, in the sense that they are a way to define people s identities. The next century will mark the emergence of tourism destinations as a fashion accessory. The choice of holiday destination will help define the identity of the traveller and, in an increasingly homogeneous world, sethimapartfromthehordesofother tourists. 29 It is usual to see consumers buying merchandise linked to their trip, and taking pictures and videos from the place they visited. This material is often used to show to other people where they were. Anecdotal evidence of typical tourist behavior would suggest that, whatever other motives exist, tourists are using their tripsasexpressivedevicestocommunicate messages about themselves to peers and observers. 30 It can be concluded that destinations, treated as brands, are satisfying basic and self-actualisation needs. People choose to travel to certain destinations according to their desire for particular characteristics, such as climate, scenery, amenities and cultural attributes. 31 Nevertheless the choice of a particular destination also depends on intangible characteristics such as social satisfaction. 32 Destination brands can be characterised as having two dimensions: representational (attributes linked to the individual s self-expression) and functional (utilitarian aspects of the destinations sun, reefs, sky, culture, and so on). THE BRAND BOX MODEL Gardner and Levy 33 were the first to argue that brands should be divided into a technical capability and a personality dimension. The conceptions of the different brands must be compounded of subtle variations in feelings about them, not necessarily in product qualities. 34 Furthermore, they argued that the public image and character of the brand could be more important for sales than many technical facts about the product. Munson and Spivey 35 also discussed two independent dimensions of brands. The first dimension was characterised as having value expressive aspects whereby the consumer would consume a brand to display their own self-concept. The second dimension, utilitarianism captured the consumer s concern for the performance of the product. Solomon 36 also suggested that consumption of a certain brand depended on two dimensions: the functional utility and social meaning. This general way of thinking about brands has been continued by de Chernatony and McWilliam. 37 They argue that there are two key dimensions that could clarify the strength of a brand: representationality and functionality. The first dimension is built on the idea that consumers use brands to help them to express something about themselves. Brands, which were predominately representational, were defined as having a set of consistent beliefs and meaning held by their purchasers and users which are associated with the product or service, but which exist over and above its obvious physical functioning. These feelings are shared by purchasers and users in the product field and help them in choosing the competing version which is best suited to the expression of their particular personalities, roles, set of needs and emotions in a given situation. 38 The second dimension is based on the idea that consumers associate 52 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL.12,NO.1,50 61 SEPTEMBER 2004

4 THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BRANDING A COUNTRY, A REGION AND A CITY Representationality High representationality Low functionality High representationality High functionality Functionality Low representationality Low functionality Low representationality High functionality Figure 1 De Chernatony s Brand Box Model certain attributes with different brands. The use of the brand name would satisfy the consumer s need to make a rapid decision about primarily utilitarian issues (for example, quality, reliability, speed, taste, and so on). De Chernatony and McWilliam defined predominantly functional aspects of brands as names which marketers have developed to both distinguish between competing offerings and facilitate purchasers and users decision making through rapid recall of consumer relevant performance benefits. Their values are less to do with the purchaser s personality and more to do with the product s functional capabilities and physical attributes. 39 It is important to remember that brands are not only characterised by one of these dimensions, but by a combination of the two. No brand can be seen as entirely representational; there will be some dimension of functional quality inherent in any product or service that is offered in the marketplace. Consumers discriminate between competing offers by the degree of representationality and functionality expressed by a particular brand. De Chernatony and McWilliam 40 used the symbolic and functional dimensions to create the Brand Box Model. De Chernatony, 41 supported by evidence from other researchers, applied the model to products and services. This model uses two dimensions representationality and functionality to create a four-cell matrix based on consumers perspectives. Interviews were conducted to see where the different brands are situated within the four cells of the matrix (high-low, functional-representational) (see Figure 1). This model has been discussed in a product and service context and, more recently, was applied to tourism products. 42 The Brand Box Model helps managers to place their brands and provides them with a tool to manage them. COUNTRY VERSUS REGION In the literature on destination marketing, researchers often do not clearly define destination. Sometimes researchers talk about countries, at other times about cities and regions. Should they be treated as similar products? O Shaughnessy and HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL.12,NO.1,50 61 SEPTEMBER

5 CALDWELL AND FREIRE O Shaughnessy have recognised that the image of a nation is so complex and fluid as to deny the clarity implicit in a term such as brand image. 43 These two researchers argue that even if a country has a strong international presence, current political events may change different parts of the country s overall identity. In this sense, it is difficult to create a coherent image of a country because people rearrange the attributes of a country in response to uncontrolled political events. It can be argued that a country will have more variables involved in its brand construction than a region of the same country. Countries have certain attributes that a region of the same country does not have. For instance, normally, for the international news media, a region of a country does not have any political agenda or independent military or economic occurrences. (Although it is true that a cultural or sporting event in a region may be important for the international news media.) O Shaughnessy and O Shaughnessy argue that since the main source of information for most people is the international news media, one can expect that the variables involved in the brand construction of a country and its regions would be different. 44 Furthermore, Mansfield argued if there exist universal attributes to be considered at the country level then the smaller the perceived destination, the more likely it is that it will be considered by rather specific, nonuniversal characteristics. 45 Could it be more effective and easier to brand a city or a region than to brand a country? Understanding how a national brand is perceived in different countries 46 is also important. The way citizens of different countries perceive a particular destination country can differ widely, but views regarding a region tend to be more stable and are therefore easier to manage. STUDY METHODOLOGY This exploratory study reported in this paper adapts the Brand Box Model, developed by de Chernatony and McWilliam, 47 and applies it to destinations. The research evaluates the dimensions representationality versus functionality of countries, regions and cities. The goal is to understand possible differences between countries and regions and understand what kind of impact the nationalities of the respondents have on both dimensions. Ten European destinations were selected, plus the USA and Miami. Six were countries and six were regions or cities of the countries. The sub-group regions and cities could be sub-divided into two other sub-groups, one including the regions that were predominately identified as beach and sun destinations, the other sub-group including several historical/cultural cities. The destinations were chosen in order to cover as much as possible the widest range of countries and regions in Europe (from France to Turkey). Additionally, the USA was included in order to understand whether there would be any difference in how Europeans perceived European countries versus a non-european country. Nevertheless, there was one restriction when choosing the destinations: the respondents had to have some previous knowledge about the destination. The countries chosen were the following: France, Czech Republic, USA, Germany, Turkey and 54 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL.12,NO.1,50 61 SEPTEMBER 2004

6 THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BRANDING A COUNTRY, A REGION AND A CITY Table 1 Adaptation of attitude statements for destination brands De Chernatony and McWilliam (1990) physical study attitude statements 48 Representationality This brand says something about its owner. You ve got to feel right among your friends owning this brand. People would buy this brand because they feel it associates them with a certain group of people. Functionality You buy this brand more for its product characteristics than for its advertising. People buy this product because the company puts more effort into the product, rather than saying who d be using it. This product says more about the product s characteristics than the type of buyer. Adapted attitude statements for destination brand study Representationality [Destination] somehow defines the people who travel there. People feel right amongst their friends because they can say that they went to [destination]. People would go to [destination] because they feel it associates them with a certain group of people. Functionality People travel to [destination] not for its publicised image but more for its actual characteristics. People go to [destination] not because the place emphasises the sort of people who travel there but because the place puts more effort into creating a pleasant experience. When you think about [destination] you think more about the region s characteristics than the type of visitor. Spain. The regions and cities chosen were: French Riviera, Prague, Miami, Berlin, Istanbul and Ibiza. Initially Belgium and Antwerp were included in the study, but after testing the survey, the researchers concluded that many people were not familiar with Antwerp and hence these two destinations were dropped. A survey was used in order to rate how people evaluate each country, region and city. The survey instrument used six statements (three representational and three functional) on a fivepoint agree-disagree scale, which were repeated for each destination, giving a battery of 72 statements. Although the original model used by de Chernatony and McWilliam had 11 statements per unit of study, they recognised that the number of statements could be reduced without putting the findings at risk. 49 Since de Chernatony developed this model for product and service brands, it was necessary to adapt the original statements to fit a destination brand (see Table 1). In addition to the six questions in Table 1, respondents were also asked to rate the question If I could I would like to visit [destination] on the fivepoint scale, and were asked whether they had been to the destination. The exploratory survey was conducted using a sample of students from a London university (UK) and from Universidade do Algarve (Portugal). The questionnaire collected some information about the respondent: age, nationality, sex, time in England (if not English) and sources of current affairs news. London Metropolitan University HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL.12,NO.1,50 61 SEPTEMBER

7 CALDWELL AND FREIRE attracts students from all over the world, which means that the sample included a wide range of nationalities (31 different nationalities); 40 per cent of the sample were Portuguese (76), 23 per cent were British (43), and 27 per cent (67) were from the rest of the world. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES The research hypotheses are stated according to the predictions associated with the destinations, and not as null hypotheses. H 1 : Regions and cities will have higher scores in the representationality dimension when compared to countries (the effect of non-political international exposure and fashion). H 2 : Countries will score higher in the functionality dimension when compared with regions and cities (the effect of political international exposure). H 3 : The respondents nationality will influence the scores in both dimensions (the effect of historical images linked to different countries). H 4 : The respondents nationality will have a greater effect on how they score countries than how they score regions and cities (the effects of international exposure and fashion). ANALYSIS OF RESULTS This section presents the results of the survey. One hundred and eighty-nine usable questionnaires were registered. It is possible that members of the sample group were more exposed to other nationalities and that this biased the results; however, this was a welcome bias since it meant that the respondents were knowledgable about different countries. Each dimension (functional and representational) was measured using three statements. The respondents were asked to rate each statement, from strongly agree to strongly disagree on a five-point scale. In order to gain a clear picture of the results, each statement was re-coded: the strongly agree statements got a score of 2, agree a score of 1, neither agree nor disagree ascoreof0, disagree ascore of 1 and strongly disagree a score of 2. The average scores were obtained for each country, region and city. Furthermore, and in order to facilitate the use of statistical tools, each individual s batterywasaggregatedand the attribute correlation matrices were calculated and subjected to principal component analysis. The Kaiser Meyer Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy was satisfactory for all the destinations (KMO > 0.6) and the Barlett s statistic was less than The components extracted were then, using the varimax procedure, orthogonally rotated. From this procedure, the two components extracted clearly identified the representational and functional dimension. Each factor for each country, region and city was then used to test the hypotheses. H 1 and H 2 H 1 and H 2 were supported for all the destinations. Using the ANOVA technique, and comparing the individual s scores for each dimension of each destination, it could be concluded that the respondents scored each variable differently (p < 0.05). When calculating the destinations scores in the two different dimensions it can be seen that countries scored higher in the functional dimension when compared to 56 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL.12,NO.1,50 61 SEPTEMBER 2004

8 THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BRANDING A COUNTRY, A REGION AND A CITY regions and cities. Regions and cities scored higher in the representational dimension. This is the key difference between regions and cities compared with countries. These findings confirm that the factors affecting regions and cities are different from those affecting countries. The representational dimension, for instance, measures how fashionable a destination is. In this sense fashion may be a strong variable influencing the evaluation of a region or city. Cities are products, which tend to be consumed more erratically than countries; they depend on specific promotions and events, and are more dependent on the trends in the market, whereas countries have a more stable and enduring image. Regions and cities fulfil more self-expression needs when compared to countries. On the other hand, countries, from the data gathered, are less affected by variables linked to the representational dimension a country is evaluated with regard to its own particular physical attributes. It seems, therefore, that factors linked to the representational dimension are not so relevant when evaluating a country. When imagining a country, people will tend to visualise its functional characteristics. In the case of a region or city, however, people might visualise the representational aspects, such as the types of people that visit the region, how they themselves would be perceived if they went to that destination, and so on. The media has an important role in the construction of a destination s image. It has been recognised that the media coverage of events (cultural, sports, and so on) and the diffusion of news (normally with some social impact) can create by itself a mean- ing for a country. 50 It is reasonable to think that international exposure, through the media, affects perceptions of countries, regions and cities differently. Typically, a country will be newsworthy if some catastrophe occurs, or if the country s government takes an important political step. Regions and cities attract media attention due to cultural and sporting events. H 3 and H 4 In order to evaluate the impact of the respondents nationality, the British sample was compared with the Portuguese regarding the dimensions of each destination. An independent t-test was conducted in order to evaluate whether there were differences between nationalities. There were some destinations for which respondents nationality did not influence the scores Miami, Spain, Prague and Ibiza, in the representational dimension, had the same score for both nationalities (p > 0.05). Furthermore, in the functional dimension, the USA was scored identically by both the British and the Portuguese (p > 0.05). Nevertheless, for all other destinations, in the two different dimensions, the nationality of the respondent influenced the scores (p < 0.05). The conclusion suggested by this data is that nationality is a variable that influences how a destination is perceived. The results show that there are some destinations that have a common meaning for the Portuguese and the British market. Interestingly this common appeal is mainly in the representational dimension and towards regions and cities. Probably these destinations (Miami, Spain, Prague and Ibiza) HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL.12,NO.1,50 61 SEPTEMBER

9 CALDWELL AND FREIRE are now fashionable among students in both the Portuguese and British markets. In the functional dimension only the USA had the same score in both markets. This result may suggest that the image of the USA brand may have been transmitted and codified in the same way to the Portuguese and British markets. The constant presence of the USA in the international media, including television series and films, may justify this result. When comparing the British and Portuguese samples, the functionality variable had a smaller difference with respect to regions and cities than countries. This result means that, in the functional dimension, the British and the Portuguese evaluate regions and cities in a more similar way than they evaluate countries (except the USA where no differences were registered). A possible explanation for these results is that the functional characteristics and physical attributes of a region and a city are transmitted to the market in a more coherent way than those of countries. The way each individual perceives a region, in the functional dimension, is not as influenced by stereotypes but more by the knowledge of its actual characteristics. It is easier to identify within a region or city its own dominant characteristics compared to a country, which will have many different characteristics. A country can have different physical characteristics within its borders. For example, Spain is famous (among the British) for its sun and beaches in the south. But this country also has snow in the mountains, and rain and misty weather in the north-west. The Portuguese have a different image of Spain, as a country of snow and skiing. In the representational dimension, however, there was an opposite effect. The representational dimension had a higher difference (except for Miami, Spain, Prague and Ibiza) when evaluating a region and a city than when compared to evaluations of countries. This means that the Portuguese and the British tend to disagree more on how they perceive a region, in the representational dimension, when compared to perceptions of countries. The representational dimension measures how fashionable a place is. In this case, countries probably are less influenced by fashion than regions or cities. These results are only confirmed for the destinations that had statistical differences, however. Once again, Miami, Spain, Prague and Ibiza are destinations that seem to be fashionable in both the Portuguese and British tourism markets. Due to this ambiguous result, H 4 was rejected. It cannot be said that the respondents nationality will have a greater effect on how they score countries than regions and cities. CONCLUSIONS The results confirm the usefulness of analysing destination brands, like products or service brands, in two different dimensions representationality and functionality. The first dimension is characterised as having value-expressive aspects whereby people choose to visit a place to display their own self-concept. The second dimension, functionality, captures the consumer s concern for the performance of the place (for example, weather, beaches, mountains and sky, museums, shops, and so on). The study revealed that there are differences between how people perceive countries, regions and cities. The 58 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL.12,NO.1,50 61 SEPTEMBER 2004

10 THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BRANDING A COUNTRY, A REGION AND A CITY results point to differences between countries compared with regions and cities. Countries are so functionally diverse they are perceived in terms of the representational parts of their brand identity, while regions and cities, being smaller in scale, are perceived more from a functional point of view. The factors that influence the evaluation of countries are different from the ones that influence the evaluation of regions and cities. Also it seems that respondents nationality has an influence on how they perceive other countries (in most cases). The conclusions should be taken with caution; the sample used in this research included students from different nationalities. It is possible that the sample bias (students who are more exposed to many other nationalities) may reduce the differences of the scores. The use of this sample ensured, however, that the study would incorporate two groups from very different markets. But questions remain: for example, would different results be obtained if Portuguese and Spanish samples were used? What would the difference be if British and Irish comprised the sample? It is necessary to understand how the European market is divided. Marketing tourism destinations within Europe requires an understanding of how each nationality perceives each other. The factors that influence the image of a country are different from the factors that affect a region and city. In this sense, the work of branding a country is different from that of branding a region or city. National organisations in Europe in charge of branding a European country, region or city should utilise different strategies depending on which kind of destina- tion they are branding and their marketing objectives. For example, if a national tourism organisation from a European country wants to build its country brand throughout the European market, it should incorporate in the message more representational attributes than functional ones. ( Cool Britannia embodied this approach.) The use of representational attributes in themessageswillbemoresuccessfulin terms of transmitting a coherent and reliable image in the European market. The use of the same functional attributes in the same message for all European audiences may, however, be contradictory. It is possible that the brand may enter into conflict with the perceptions of each different European audience. For example, if Spain is marketed as a country of beaches and sunshine, then the Portuguese and the British will react differently. The Portuguese have plenty of beaches; they are looking for ski resorts in Spain. Another important aspect when branding destinations is to understand how places come in to and go out of fashion. How is fashion determined in the European market? Which factors contribute to the construction of a fashionable destination? This research had the objective of studying the potential differences between countries and their regions and cities. It was not the objective to study the image of each country, and for that purpose other tools should be used. The purpose here was only to understand possible differences between regions or cities and countries and the effect of respondents nationality on the perception of destinations. When branding a European region or city in the European market a different strategy should be taken. HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL.12,NO.1,50 61 SEPTEMBER

11 CALDWELL AND FREIRE From this exploratory study it appears that the British and Portuguese tend to agree more on how they perceive a region or a city in the functional dimension. Consumers from different nationalities are more alike in their assessment of functional aspects than representational ones when the brand is a region or a city. Therefore when transmitting messages to the European market it will be more effective and coherent if the message incorporates functional aspects rather than representational aspects; however, this strategy should only be used if the objective is promoting the brand throughout the European market. This strategy assures that the message will be coherently understood in each market. Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank those who collected data used in this study, several anonymous reviewers for critical suggestions and John Coshall for advice on statistical methods. References (1) Travel and Tourism Council (2003) Corporate social leadership in travel and tourism, pdf/cslreport.pdf, accessed 15th January, (2) Tourism Organization (2001) Special report, No. 18, newsroom/releases/more_releases/december 2001/WTO_TTRC_Summ.pdf, accessed 23rd October, (3) Baines, A. (1998) Technology and tourism, Work Study,Vol.47,No.5,pp (4) Morgan, N. and Pritchard, A. (2000) Advertising in Tourism and Leisure, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK. (5) Olins, W. (2002) Branding the nation The historical context, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9, No. 4 5, pp (6) Kotler, P. and Gertner, D. (2002) Country as a brand, product, and beyond: A place marketing and brand management perspective, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9, No. 4 5, pp (7) Anholt, S. (2002) Foreword, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9, No. 4 5, pp (8) Cai, L. (2002) Cooperative branding for rural destinations, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29, pp (9) De Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M. (2001) Creating Powerful Brands in Consumer, Service and Industrial Markets, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK. (10) Morgan and Pritchard, ref. 4 above. (11) Cai, ref. 8 above. (12) Pritchard, A. and Morgan, N. (1998) Mood Marketing The new destination branding strategy: A case study of Wales, thebrand, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol.4,No.3,pp (13) Nickerson, N. and Moisey, R. (1999) Branding a state from features to positioning: Making it simple?, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol.5,No.3,pp (14) Cai, ref. 8 above. (15) Gilmore, F. (2001) A country Can it be repositioned? Spain The success story of country branding, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9, Nos. 4 5, pp (16) Hall, D. (2002) Brand development, tourism and national identity: The re-imaging of former Yugoslavia, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9, Nos. 4 5, pp (17) Martinovic, S. (2002) Branding Hrvatska A mixed blessing that might succeed: The advantage of being unrecognisable, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9, Nos. 4 5, pp (18) Hankison, G. (2001) Location branding: A study of the branding practices of 12 English cities, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp (19) Cai, ref. 8 above. (20) Pritchard and Morgan, ref. 12 above. (21) Anholt, ref. 7 above. (22) Cai, ref. 8 above. (23) De Chernatony, L. and McWilliam, G. (1990) Appreciating brands as assets through using a two-dimensional model, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol.9,pp (24) De Chernatony and McDonald, ref. 9 above. (25) Feldwick, P. (1996) Defining a brand, in Conley,D.(ed.) Understanding Brands, Kogan Page Limited, Great Britain. (26) Clark, J. (2000) Tourism brands: An 60 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL.12,NO.1,50 61 SEPTEMBER 2004

12 THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BRANDING A COUNTRY, A REGION AND A CITY exploratory study of the Brand Box Model, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol.6,No.4, pp (27) Feldwick, P. (2002) What is Brand Equity Anyway?, World Advertising Research Center, Norwich, UK. (28) World Tourism Organization (1997) Tourism 2020 Vision: Executive Summary, WTO, Madrid, Spain, p. 28. (29) Luhrman, D. (1998) World tourism crystal ball gazing, The Journal of the Tourism Society, Vol. 96, p. 13. (30) Feldwick, ref. 25 above. (31) Coshall, J. (2000) Measurement of tourists images: The repertory grid approach, JournalofTravelResearch,Vol.39,August, pp (32) Meyer, W. (1977) Aktivitat im Urlaub, in Hartmann, K. D. and Koepler, K. F. (eds) Fortschritte der Marktpsychologie, in Van Raaij, W. and Francken, D. (1984) Vacation decision, activities, and satisfaction, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 11, pp (33) Rook, D. W. (ed.) (1999) Brands, Consumers, Symbols, and Research: Sidney J. Levy on Marketing, Sage Publications, USA. (34) Ibid. (35) Munson, J. M. and Spivey, W. A. (1981) Product and brand user stereotypes among social classes, in Monroe,K.(ed.) Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI, pp (36) Solomon, M. (1983) Theroleofproducts as social stimuli: A symbolic interactionism perspective, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10, pp (37) De Chernatony, L. and McWilliam, G. (1989) The strategic implications of clarifying how marketers interpret brands, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol.5,No. 2, pp (38) Ibid. (39) Ibid. (40) De Chernatony and McWilliam, ref. 23 above. (41) De Chernatony, L. (1993) Categorising brands: Evolutionary processes underpinned by two key dimensions, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol.9,pp (42) Feldwick, ref. 25 above. (43) O Shaughnessy, J. and O Shaughnessy, N. (2000) Treating the nation as a brand: Some neglected issues, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol.20,No.1,pp (44) Ibid. (45) Mansfield, Y. (1992) From motivation to actual travel, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 19, pp (46) Anholt, ref. 7 above. (47) De Chernatony and McWilliam, ref. 23 above. (48) Ibid. (49) Ibid. (50) O Shaughnessy and O Shaughnessy, ref. 43 above. HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL.12,NO.1,50 61 SEPTEMBER