A critical typology of "good place branding" : Lessons from place-branding expertise

• Place branding is defined as “the development of brands for geographic locationswith the aim of triggering positive associations about the area and distinguishinga place from other places” (Stevens et al., 2020, p. 752). Like all occupations,place branding is organised by discourses, or talk, that determine best practices andnorms about what constitutes expertise (Loacker and Sullivan, 2016). Exploringplace-branding discourses is important because it offers insights into what constitutesideal place-branding practices and who gets to say what these practices are.This is particularly important given that place branding influences places in waysthat impact citizens and other stakeholders.Extant literature argues that branding experts are the authoritative charactersand most prominent trend-setters in the place branding field (Anholt, 2008; Cleaveet al., 2019; de Noronha et al., 2017; McCann and Ward, 2012). Far from simplybeing arbiters of logos or slogans, branding professionals are “often understood asthe leading actors that influence local and national governments in (re)allocatingresources and deploying specific image-related policies” (Goulart-Sztejnberg andGiovanardi, 2017, p. 425). As such, they have significant influence on the discoursesof place branding and they set the stage for what constitutes good brandingwork (Hardy and Maguire, 2010).Despite their importance, few studies specifically explore branding experts,what they consider desirable and legitimate branding, or the advice they give to cities(for exceptions, see Aronczyk, 2008; Bertilsson et al., 2020; Hankinson, 2010).That said, critical scholars warn that given the complexities inherent in managingplaces, relying on experts from outside of city governance or general formulasfor how to work with places might be less ideal than relying on the expertise andintuitions of city managers (Anholt, 2008; Aronczyk, 2008). A general concern isthat branders might focus only on selling the right image or identity of a place, inessence by focusing on redressing rather than by bringing in-depth knowledge ofplace governance and management (de Noronha et al., 2017).We seek to add to studies of place branding from a critical lens by payingattention to place branding experts’ speech and interactions in a professional setting— a place-branding conference—to explore how they construct an everyday or common-sense view of what constitutes “good” place branding. Based on our analysis of place branders’ talk to each other at a place branding conference, we develop a model of “good” place branding, consisting of four ideal types: totemic, artistic, mimetic, and platformic.In the chapter, we review literature on place branding and its affinity with the tenets of corporate branding. We then detail our qualitative methodology and proceed by outlining our inductively developed typology of good place branding. Finally, we elaborate on how following these ideal types might negatively impact cities, arguing that a dogmatic use of them may lead to a homogenisation of places and a separation between cities’ empirical conditions and their branded image.

Ämnesord

SAMHÄLLSVETENSKAP  -- Ekonomi och näringsliv -- Företagsekonomi (hsv//swe)

SOCIAL SCIENCES  -- Economics and Business -- Business Administration (hsv//eng)

Nyckelord

place branding

places

city branding

cities

critical management studies

place branding professionals

Publikations- och innehållstyp

kap (ämneskategori)

ref (ämneskategori)