Bridging the gap between culture, identity and image: a structurationist conceptualization of place brands and place branding
| Pages | 348-363 |
| Published date | 13 May 2019 |
| Date | 13 May 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-01-2018-1735 |
| Author | Giuseppe Pedeliento,Mihalis Kavaratzis |
| Subject Matter | Marketing,Product management,Brand management/equity |
Bridging the gap between culture, identity and
image: a structurationist conceptualization of
place brands and place branding
Giuseppe Pedeliento
Universita degli Studi di Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy, and
Mihalis Kavaratzis
University of Leicester School of Business, Leicester, UK
Abstract
Purpose –Although place branding is increasingly popular in research as well as in local, regional and national political agendas, the theoretical
foundations of the place branding discipline are still underdeveloped. By embracing the stream of identity-based studies, this paper aims t oatte mpt
to demonstrate that place brands can be usefully approached through an emphasis of their cultural traits and the practical connection between
culture, identity and image.
Design/methodology/approach –In constructing its theoretical arguments, the paper challenges the place branding model propounded by
Kavaratzis and Hatch (2013), and uses practices as units of analysis. The paper conducts a brief review of the principal tenets of practice theory(IES)
and uses structuration theory as a theoretical device to demonstrate how this theory can provide a (still lacking) theoretical anchorage for the place
branding process.
Findings –The usefulness of structuration theory for understanding the place branding process is analysed at both the strategic and tactical levels
by means of two illustrative examples. Structuration theory proves to be a solid theory which links the constitutive elements of the place branding
process, i.e. culture, identity and image, and to inspire further theoretical elaborations and empirical effort s grounded on this theory.
Originality/value –This is the first paper which uses practice theory(ies) in general and structuration theory in particular to explain the place
branding process. The theoretical arguments advanced provide valuable guidance for further theoretical elaborations and empirical applications.
Keywords Culture, Image, Identity, Place branding, Practice theory, Structuration
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
In this article, we examine the formation and operation of place
brands under the theoretical light of practice theory and,
specifically, of Giddens’(1984) structuration theory. In doing
so, we aim at advancing the theoretical understanding and
grounding of place branding by emphasizing the central
importance of what we see as the main constituent of place
brands and of the main element that may form the basis of the
place branding process: practices. The use of structuration
theory allows us to explore in depth the dynamics of place
brands at several levels: first, at the strategic level where the
place brand is treated as the strategic vision for the
development of the place; then, at a tactical level of specific
place branding initiatives and actionsaimed at communicating
the place brand; finally, and perhaps more importantly, at the
level of individuals and their mutual influence on the place
brand, its formation and communication. Using structuration,
we are able to provide a strong anchorage for practice theory
and understand how people’spractices ultimately shape what is
to become the place brand.
The need for an elaborate discussion of theories relevant to
place branding stems from our agreement with the criticism
raised by scholars (see among others Ashworthet al.,2015and
Lucarelli, 2018) that little theoretical refinement seems to have
occurred in the past20 years, despite the proliferation of studies
in the field. Place branding is thought to support place
development through the establishment and maintenance of a
favourable and consistent image and reputation of the place
(Papadopoulos,2004;Gupta et al., 2018). This has led some to
attempt to formulate managerial processes to exploit it and
increase the competitiveness of the place (Van Ham, 2008;
Moilanen and Rainisto, 2009;Rojas-Méndez et al.,2015),
while others have treated it as part of an implicit political
agenda that exacerbates social problems (Colomb, 2012;
Greenberg, 2008). A large part of the literature has focused on
attempts to define place brandingand its potential (Govers and
Go, 2009;Anholt, 2010) and discussionsof how this might be
put into practice (Braun, 2012;Eshuiset al, 2013). This article
attempts to position itself amongst another series of
publications characterized by a cultural approach to place
branding aimed at establishing cultural explanations of the
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
28/3 (2019) 348–363
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-01-2018-1735]
Received 24 January 2018
Revised 4 September 2018
Accepted 24 October 2018
348
process through whichplace brands are created (Askegaard and
Kjeldgaard,2007;Kalandides, 2011;Mayes, 2008).
In particular, we draw on the “identity-based place
branding”model suggestedby Kavaratzis and Hatch (2013) to
simultaneously challenge it and complement it. Using
structuration theory as our theoretical device and practices as
our units of analysis enablesus to bring an additional focus and
nuance to their descriptionof the dynamics of place brands.
Despite its theoretical nature, and althoughthis article has as
its primary objective that of reinvigorating the theoretical
debate in the stream of place branding research, it also offers a
new light under which the practice of place branding can or
should be seen. Emphasizing the need for place branders to
focus more on practices in the development of their branding
strategies and in the deployment of place branding tactics can
allow place branders to address their brandingefforts better, to
prevent brand failures and to develop brands that are more
solidly linked to what the place actually is and how external
audiences shouldsee it.
The article starts with our perspective on the place branding
process that highlights the actions and practices that constitute
the place brand. We thenexplain how practice theory in general
and structuration theory in particular informs our
understanding of places. Thereafter, we demonstrate how
structuration theory can help to achieve a better theoretical
understanding of place culture, identity and image, indicating
that the interplay between the three occurs through peoples’
practices. Two illustrative examples of different levels of place
branding activities (strategicand tactical) are then presented to
explain the theory in practice. Cases are used as practical
illustrations to support the theoretical and empirical relevance
and plausibility of arguments proposed and to illustrate the
operation of the underlying mechanisms (Siggelkow, 2007).
Finally, we outline the main implications of our theoretical
proposition with particular regard to the contested nature of
identity claims and taglines and the fallacy of the persisting
division between internal and external audiences for place
branding activities.
Understanding the place brand: from logos to
culture
Although scholars have not (yet) reached agreement on the
meaning of place brands or the process of place branding
(Gertner, 2011;Kavaratzis,2017), the literature of the past two
decades reveals progressin defining place brands and a gradual
shift by scholars from a normative inspired definition to a
cultural rooted one. The first definition of place brands
adopted was that provided by the American Marketing
Association (AMA) for the brand in general by simply
substituting the terms “goods”and “services”with that of
place. Accordingly,a placebrand has been defined as:
[...]a name, symbol, logo, word mark or other graphic that both identifies
and differentiates the destination [that] conveys the promise of a memorable
travel experience that is uniquely associated with the destination [and that]
serves to consolidate and reinforce the recollection of pleasurable memories
of the destination experience (Ritchie and Ritchie, 1998, p. 103).
This definition highlights the brand’s functions of
identification/differentiation and adds some elementsrelated to
the experientialvalue of the place for brand recipients.
More recently, place branding has been more compellingly
defined as the process of building the brand of a given place by
drawing on its identity and by promoting the formation of a
positive place image (Anholt, 2010). By acknowledging the
limits of the “AMA inspired”definition, scholars have
gradually moved towards a focus on the culturalfoundations of
the place brand and criticized normative approaches to place
branding (Ashworthand Kavaratzis, 2009).
Place brands are now increasingly analysed in terms of the
cultural values they carry, and the place branding process is
regarded as a production of culturalmeanings (Campelo et al.,
2013;Kavaratzis and Kalandides, 2015). Parkerson (2007,
p. 263) clearly stated:
[...] place brands are inherently different from products and product brands
and conventional branding models and approaches are insufficient. Viewed
through the lens of culture, in its many meanings and manifestations, place
branding takes on a new complexity.
The growing acknowledgmentthat brands are cultural artefacts
(Cayla and Arnould, 2008;Schroeder,2009) created through a
negotiation of meanings among individuals (Lury, 2004;Merz
et al., 2009;Ind and Coates, 2013) has also been transferredto
the place branding field (Warnaby, 2009;Kavaratzis and
Hatch, 2013). Scholarshave stressed the need to connect place
branding activities with the local culture (Morgan et al., 2003;
Hankinson, 2005;Kavaratzis and Ashworth, 2015)and
emphasized the connection with the place identity (Houghton
and Stevens, 2010;Therkelsen et al.,2010). If the brand of a
place is not anchored to its identity, the process of place
branding will lead to an empty brand meaningless especially to
its internal audience (Pasquinelli and Teräs, 2013). In other
words, the starting point for developing the place brand is the
place’s identity (Kavaratzis,2004;Zimmerbauer, 2011,2016).
The adoption of this perspective also requires framing the
notion of place in a different way. Places cannot be
simplistically identified with geographical and/or political
borders (Harrison and Dourish, 1996); rather, they should be
regarded as imaginary representations of social relations
constituted by sedimented social structures and cultural
practices (Escobar,2001).
Drawing on this ontological perspectiveof places, Kavaratzis
and Hatch (2013) have theoretically outlined the identity-
based process of place brand creation. The brand of a place,
they argue, emerges as an outcome of the process of dialogue
between stakeholderswhich is at the core of the developmentof
the place identity.In this sense, the brand cannot be considered
a managerial variable that place branders can fully control
(Gardner and Levy, 1955), but instead as an entity created
through the syncretic meeting of stakeholders (Askegaard,
2006;Hatch and Schultz, 2010). A better understanding of
identity is of paramountimportance also at a practical level, i.e.
to “execute”the place branding process and to compose a
specific and appealing market proposition (Medway and
Warnaby, 2014). A better understanding of the place identity
can prevent place branders from incurring brand failures in
their attempt to give a place a unique (but detached from its
identity) brand image. For example, Vanolo(2008) has shown
that the main reason why the process of rebranding an
industrial city like Turin from its former image as the
“automotive capital of Italy”to the “city of creativity”, was
the lack of a clear connection between the new positioningand
Place brands and place branding
Giuseppe Pedeliento and Mihalis Kavaratzis
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 28 · Number 3 · 2019 · 348–363
349
To continue reading
Request your trial