See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235282495

From 'necessary evil' to necessity: Stakeholders' involvement in place

branding

Article in Journal of Place Management and Development · March 2012

DOI: 10.1108/17538331211209013

CITATIONS READS

253 622

1 author:

Mihalis Kavaratzis
University of Leicester
60 PUBLICATIONS 5,225 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

@place_branding - Brazilian Research Group View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mihalis Kavaratzis on 26 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 From ‘necessary evil’ to necessity:
Stakeholders’ involvement in place branding

Mihalis Kavaratzis
School of Management – University of Leicester

This is the institutional repository version of the article. To cite this article:
Kavaratzis, M. (2012). From ‘Necessary Evil’ to Necessity: Stakeholders’ Involvement in Place
Branding, Journal of Place Management and Development, 5 (1), 7-19.
DOI: 10.1108/17538331211209013

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to focus on the role of stakeholders in the creation,
development and ultimately ownership of place brands. The paper contributes towards laying the
foundations of a participatory view of place branding. It establishes an urgent need to rethink place
branding towards a more participation-oriented practice. This is based on the centrality of
stakeholders in the creation, development and ownership of place brands. The role of stakeholders
goes well beyond that of customers/consumers as they are citizens who legitimize place brands and
heavily influence their meaning.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper highlights a turn towards stakeholder-oriented place

branding in recent literature. This is contrasted to a critical evaluation of place branding practice
where stakeholders are paid “lip service” regarding their participation, rather than being given
opportunities to get more fully involved in the development of their place brand.

Findings – An emerging discussion is identified on the significance of stakeholders. This is integrated

with additional arguments for stakeholders’ participation found in the political nature of place
branding, in the concept of “participatory branding” and in the changes that on-line communication
has brought about.

Practical implications – The participatory approach introduced here re-evaluates the role of both
stakeholders and place brand managers. It also implies a significant change in the perceived role of
analysis within the place branding process. A re-direction of branding budgets is also suggested.

Originality/value – The paper provides a clear description of the role of stakeholders in place
branding. It brings together for the first time in an integrated manner several arguments for
stakeholders’ participation. These lead to the conclusion that effective place brands are rooted in the
involvement of stakeholders and substantiate the call made here for participatory place branding.

Keywords: Citizen participation, Cities, Brands, Place branding, City branding, Stakeholders’
participation, Participatory place brands, Place marketing

To cite this article: Kavaratzis, M. (2012). From ‘Necessary Evil’ to Necessity: Stakeholders’ Involvement in Place Branding,
Journal of Place Management and Development, 5 (1), 7-19.
 From ‘necessary evil’ to necessity:
Stakeholders’ involvement in place branding

Introduction
Place branding has been described as the current episode of place marketing development
(Kavaratzis and Ashworth, 2008). Of course, several aspects of place branding have been dealt with
by several disciplines for a very long time (also Go and Govers, 2009) but it is only recently that these
have been associated so that they can form a separate field of inquiry. Indicative of the current
popularity of place branding is the multitude of journal articles published since 2000 (see Lucarelli
and Berg, 2011) and the proliferation of books on the topic. It is also a popular activity within places
of all scales (countries, regions, cities, districts) and the investment in place branding activities is
significant. However, it has been asserted that the practice of place branding demonstrates
significant misconceptions that limit its role and development opportunities (for several cases see
e.g. Ashworth and Kavaratzis, 2010).

This article deals with one such inadequately examined area within place branding focusing
on the role of stakeholders in the creation, development and ultimately ownership of place brands.
The main argument developed here is that there is an urgent need to rethink the role of stakeholders
towards a more participation- and involvement-orientated practice. The aim of the article is to
provide a clear description of the role of stakeholders. This will be done through summarizing the
current understanding of the importance of stakeholders in place branding theory, integrating the
arguments for stakeholders’ participation and amending them with additional arguments. The article
starts with highlighting the current understanding of the role of stakeholders in place branding
literature identifying a recent emphasis on stakeholders’ participation. This is contrasted to current
practice where stakeholders are paid ‘lip service’ rather than being offered the chance to participate
in branding their place, in effect being considered a ‘necessary evil’. The article then provides an
account of the reasons why stakeholders are a critical factor of place branding success and why their
participation is a necessity. The conclusion is drawn that the involvement of all stakeholders in all
steps of the place branding process should be welcomed and encouraged by place brand managers.
Finally, the implications of such an approach for place branding practice and further theoretical
development are discussed.

A stakeholders oriented view of how place brands are built

It is not the aim of this article to provide a detailed review of the place branding literature but to
focus on the role of stakeholders as this has been noted in an evident recent turn towards a
stakeholders oriented view within that. Several, albeit differing, reviews of the elements and
processes of place branding have been offered in the literature (among others see Hankinson, 2004;
Kavaratzis, 2004; Anholt, 2007; Govers and Go, 2009; Moilanen and Ranisto, 2009; Hanna and
Rowley (2011); Lucarelli and Berg, 2011). Kavaratzis (2004), for instance, provides a review based on
place brand communication, Hankinson (2004) adopts a relational approach to place branding, while
Anholt (2007) proposes a re-evaluation of the field based on the concept of competitive identity
rather than place brand. The relevance of several other frameworks could be added here,
particularly, the theoretical contribution of the framework developed by Trueman and Cornelius
(2006), the practical contribution and popularity of the ‘Brand Hexagon’ developed by Anholt (2006)
as well as the 7As of destination branding suggested by Baker (2007).

To cite this article: Kavaratzis, M. (2012). From ‘Necessary Evil’ to Necessity: Stakeholders’ Involvement in Place Branding,
Journal of Place Management and Development, 5 (1), 7-19.
 All these reviews and suggestions on frameworks and processes (and more that are not
mentioned above) have contributed to an understanding of how place branding is supposed to be
followed. It has been argued, however, that several gaps and discrepancies are still evident. These
relate to a general lack of theoretical foundations (see e.g. Lucarelli and Berg, 2011) or to more
specific issues such as place identities (see e.g. Kalandides, 2011; Kavaratzis and Hatch, 2012), the
role of place culture (see e.g. Mayes, 2009), brand leadership (see e.g. Hankinson, 2009) and more. A
new conceptualization of place branding is slowly making its way through relevant literature and it is
embraced here (e.g. Hanna and Rowley, 2011; Aitken and Campelo, 2011; Warnaby, 2009; Kavaratzis
and Hatch, 2012). Arguably, a major factor for this novel approach has been the recent emergence of
a service-dominant logic for marketing (Vargo and Lush, 2004), which places the concept of co-
creation at the heart of contemporary marketing and resonates to a great extent with place branding
(see Warnaby, 2009). This is a conceptualization that arguably considers the full dynamics of place
brands and addresses the need to involve stakeholders in the place branding process.

Elements explicitly or implicitly addressing this need are included in almost all suggestions of
place branding frameworks. Even those frameworks that adopt a more ‘managerial’ approach to
place branding mention stakeholders. For instance one of the success factors suggested by Rainisto
(2003) is ‘Public-Private Partnerships and Leadership’. Rainisto (2003) also asserts that brand leaders
have the task to get all levels of stakeholders involved in the process. Several place branding
frameworks are actually based on the determining role that stakeholders play in place branding. For
instance, the relational approach adopted by Hankinson (2004) describes place branding, in essence,
as a set of relationships with stakeholder groups that spread the core of the place brand. The author
also asserts that place branding is in essence not a managerial process but one of co-ordination. For
Hankinson (2004) it is actually stakeholder orientations that form the basis of the whole process.
Baker (2007) also focuses on the role of stakeholders and identifies the dire need to involve them in
the place branding process. As Baker’s consultancy experience has shown, city brands that are
developed behind closed doors and do not reach out to a wide range of stakeholders, fail (Baker,
2007). In accordance with the approach towards place branding outlined here, Baker (2007) suggests
that it is the conflicting voices of different stakeholder groups that contribute to the place brand,
arguably adopting a brand-as-dialogue approach. This is emphasised by Houghton and Stevens
(2011) who conclude that the value of engaging stakeholders lies precisely in the fact that it is
difficult and challenging “because it generates disagreement and debate, and from that new
perspectives and ideas” (p. 52). This approach is in line with Aitken and Campelo’s (2011) proposition
that the place brand engages in a ‘multilogue’ with a variety of stakeholders and with Kavaratzis and
Hatch (2012), who explicate how this ‘multilogue’ takes place. Hanna and Rowley (2011) also
emphasise the role of stakeholders in placing them at the heart of their framework. For Hanna and
Rowley (2011) ‘stakeholder engagement’ as a component of place branding belongs to the wider
brand infrastructure relationships that, together with physical infrastructure, are the space where
the brand is really created. As the authors assert, “this is the arena where …the complex dynamics
between stakeholders, their engagement and interests …are worked through” (p. 464). The whole
approach suggested by Aitken and Campelo (2011) is based on the importance of stakeholders
(emphasising the place’s residents). They identify what they term the ‘four Rs’ of place branding
which are Rights, Roles, Responsibilities and Relationships. All those elements are suggested as
means to establish and reinforce brand ownership by relevant stakeholders. As Aitken and Campelo
state,

“the control of brand meaning can be seen as the prerogative of the consumer who adds
to it or not, reinforcing or changing the brand message through their use and experience
of the brand” (p. 914).

The conceptualisation of place branding offered by Kavaratzis and Hatch (2012) is also based
on the importance of stakeholders for the ways in which place brands stem from the place’s identity,
which is understood as an interactive process of identity construction through a dialogue between

To cite this article: Kavaratzis, M. (2012). From ‘Necessary Evil’ to Necessity: Stakeholders’ Involvement in Place Branding,
Journal of Place Management and Development, 5 (1), 7-19.
stakeholders. The suggestion of the authors is that the place brand is a process that forms part of the
identity construction process, which is accepted to be everlasting. At the heart of their
conceptualisation, Kavaratzis and Hatch (2012) place the interaction between the place’s culture, the
place’s identities and the place’s image, all of which are defined as collective processes. These three
core elements are linked through the four sub-processes of expressing, impressing, mirroring and
reflecting. Importantly for the argument here, all three core elements and all four sub-processes that
link them are collective definitions of the meaning of the place, which means that it is actually
stakeholders that constantly re-define them (Kavaratzis and Hatch, 2012). The authors note the
implication of their conceptualization of place branding in terms of the role that stakeholders are
called to play. They suggest that stakeholders should be thought of as active groups of people to be
motivated towards defining their own meaning of the place brand instead of passive groups of
people to be consulted on this meaning. This view is reinforced by Houghton and Stevens (2011) who
suggest that stakeholders should be engaged during the whole branding process and “not treated
like participants in a focus group” (p. 48). Finally, Kavaratzis and Hatch (2012) assert that place
managers should be ready to relinquish control over the brand and, as a group of stakeholders
themselves, become exemplary participants in the brand ‘multilogue’ process.

A critical overview of place branding practice

Despite this emphasis within contemporary place branding literature, it is rather obvious that these
suggestions have not found their way into place branding application. This becomes evident with a
look at current place branding practice. The emphasis in practice seems to be rather different,
focusing on communication of the place brand through means such as logos, slogans and advertising
campaigns (e.g. Ashworth and Kavaratzis, 2009; Govers and Go, 2009). This difference also
demonstrates itself in both the perceived role of stakeholders and in the understanding of the
specific groups of stakeholders that should be involved in place branding. Practice shows that all too
often place brand managers adopt a communication - promotion based approach to place branding
perhaps because they find themselves in need of fast, effective tools. Most place branding efforts
start and finish with promotional activities and with the visual elements of logos and slogans. Cases
of places that undertake a thorough and more careful implementation of the city marketing process
as a whole are rather exceptions to the rule (see Ashworth and Kavaratzis, 2010).

There are several issues that can be identified as problems in current place branding practice.
A first area of inadequacy is that place branding is largely understood as a linear process of
managerial decision making with steps that need to be taken in turn. As Kavaratzis and Hatch (2012)
assert, in common thinking, the process of place branding refers to a set of steps that need to be
taken one after the other in order to reach the desired brand for the place. However, it is argued in
this paper that this is not representative of the nature of place branding, which is a complex and
dynamic phenomenon. The recent stakeholder-oriented body of literature highlighted above
reinforces the point that instead of a managerial exercise in decision making about the future of the
place, place branding rather is a collective exercise in defining the meaning of the place for the
various stakeholders (see e.g. Aitken and Campelo, 2011; Warnaby, 2011; Kavaratzis and Hatch,
2012). As this article also suggests, place branding should not be understood as a linear process of
necessary steps but as a complex web of intertwined, simultaneous processes.
This is related to the second area of inadequacy. As Kavaratzis and Hatch (2012) have
commented, the role of place branding as most commonly understood in much of the theory and,
especially, in practice, is to
a. define a single place identity,
b. identify ways in which the defined identity is relevant to several audiences and
c. attempt to convince these audiences that the place is relevant to them.

To cite this article: Kavaratzis, M. (2012). From ‘Necessary Evil’ to Necessity: Stakeholders’ Involvement in Place Branding,
Journal of Place Management and Development, 5 (1), 7-19.
The authors go ahead to comment that this approach limits the role of branding to a communication-
promotional tool with emphasis on visual strategies that might convey to others the place’s identity
or parts of it. This is arguably one of the misconceptions that have misled contemporary place
branding practice, where the whole branding process is limited to the design of new logos and the
development of catchy slogans (e.g. Eurocities, 2009); which has been repeatedly criticized in the
literature (e.g. Ashworth and Kavaratzis, 2009). The elements of the place branding process that are
emphasized under this set of mind relate to the communication of the place brand through media
and messages that are supposed to articulate and reinforce the place’s identity and are attributed
with the - almost magical - ability to convince people that these messages are true. This has led to
the ‘sameness’ of places in their physical form as evidenced by only a look at the high street of any
large European city. This has also led to the ‘sameness’ of cities’ communication efforts, where
slogans are either too generic to convey any meaning or too similar to reveal differentiation and
where logos are simply too easily copied. The authoritative idea that the place brand is something
that can be forced upon people, insiders and outsiders alike, is evident in this way of thinking but has
little connection to reality.
A third area of inadequacy has to do with the role of residents in place branding, which is not
clear and their importance is certainly underestimated. Place branding currently shows a clear
tendency to focus on exogenous investment and tourism development. This has led to
communication messages that are largely disconnected from internal audiences and, particularly,
existing residents. As Aitken and Campelo (2011) comment, place residents are commonly left
outside the branding decisions of their place, which leads to a disconnection to the ‘sense of place’
and a lack of understanding of

“the ties, relationships and networks that determine the communal organisation of society.
As a result, this lower level of identification with the brand does not promote authenticity,
recognition, acceptance and commitment by the local community” (Aitken and Campelo,
2011: 918).

Kavaratzis and Ashworth (2008) have identified this issue as a priority for the future development of
place branding. In their words,

“a very important aspect is that local communities are not only target groups of the city’s
marketing effort but should be participants in all stages of formulating, designing and
implementing a marketing strategy” (p. 162).

As Braun et al (2010) identify, existing residents play a multitude of roles within the creation of place
brands. For Braun et al (2010), residents are simultaneously

a. an integrated part of place brands through their characteristics and behaviour,

b. ambassadors for their place brand who grant credibility to any communicated message and
c. citizens and voters who are vital for the political legitimisation of place branding.

These three roles make residents the most important target market of place branding (Braun et al,
2010). The authors conclude that there is a necessity for meaningful consultation with residents as
this is the only way to produce a sustainable place brand and to avoid the pitfall of developing
‘artificial’ brands imposed from the outside. Merilees et al (2009) have actually reinforced and
empirically documented this point, showing that that the residents’ expectations from the place
brand are very different from those of place officials. Bennett and Savani (2003) have also clearly
evidenced the problem in the results of their study. They showed that only one third of the place
branding projects investigated initiated “formal procedures of consulting representatives of residents
and these procedures were usually ad hoc” (Bennett and Savani, 2003: 79). As instruments of
deciding an appropriate brand identity for the locality, open public meetings had taken place in

To cite this article: Kavaratzis, M. (2012). From ‘Necessary Evil’ to Necessity: Stakeholders’ Involvement in Place Branding,
Journal of Place Management and Development, 5 (1), 7-19.
exceptional cases and only once at the outset of the development; not thereafter (Bennett and
Savani, 2003).

The necessity of stakeholders’ participation

The three areas of inadequacy discussed above are regarded here as factors that imply the necessity
for a change of approach towards place brands and place branding. This change should start with a
re-examination and re-appreciation of the role of stakeholders. Similarly to the issue mentioned
above on the residents of places and the fact they are not integrated into place branding efforts, it is
argued here that although there is a necessity to involve all stakeholders in all stages of the place
branding process this is not the case in contemporary practice. As Houghton and Stevens (2011:45)
also assert

“a key reason of failure [of place branding strategies] is the absence of a programme for
engaging and energising local people, businesses and community groups in shaping,
articulating and conveying the brand”.

Earlier, the stakeholders’ oriented view of place branding as found in recent literature has been
examined. While this perhaps provides adequate reasoning for the argument in favour of
stakeholder’s participation, three additional reasons are identified here for the increased importance
of stakeholders in place branding.

Place branding is public and political

The first is that place branding is a public management activity and such activities need to have
support by the public for various social and political reasons. As discussed in detail in URBACT
(2007), there are many different and sometimes contradictory motivations to involve stakeholders in
public management. These include improving the quality and effectiveness of policies through the
activation of their knowledge and resources, gaining back legitimacy for state action, strengthening
the sense of belonging and citizenship and deepening democracy by increasing the negotiating
capacity of excluded groups (URBACT, 2007). All these motivations apply to the involvement of all
stakeholders in the branding activities of places. For place brand management this shows the urgent
need to strengthen the communication between stakeholders and the place’s authorities and to give
more control to the people. In every stage of the place branding strategy a possibility for stakeholder
participation should be planned. In fact, it is the contention of this paper that it is largely this
involvement that significantly forms the place branding process itself.

The political nature of place branding is connected to the discussion on the ‘power struggles’
that stakeholders actually engage in. For instance, Public Private Partnerships are currently major
vehicles of place branding implementation, which at first glance sounds like a step to the right
direction. However, as Holcomb (1999) comments, in most cases “public means government leaders
(rather than community) and private means business (not the private citizen)” (p. 69). The public and
political character of the place branding endeavour does not allow for such discriminations. For
instance, a common tool for defining the importance of stakeholder groups in general management
is the categorisation of these groups based on two axes: the influence they exert and the interest
they show in the specific project. In this sense, it is thought that project managers prioritize – or even
only engage with - those stakeholders who are both powerful and interested. This is not applicable
within place branding, however, as it leads to elitism, lack of inclusiveness and ultimately to a brand
alien to the place. This argument, of course, does not mean that place branding does not involve
power contestations and conflicts (for a discussion see Bellini et al, 2010). Most of place branding

To cite this article: Kavaratzis, M. (2012). From ‘Necessary Evil’ to Necessity: Stakeholders’ Involvement in Place Branding,
Journal of Place Management and Development, 5 (1), 7-19.
practice actually testifies that these struggles are not only evident as results of power inequalities
and institutional agendas but also, most commonly, solved to the interest of the most powerful
group. While place branding cannot disregard this reality, it is suggested here that if the necessity of
involving stakeholders is recognized and acted upon, then these power struggles themselves become
easier to manage. The participatory approach to place branding adopted here suggests seeing these
struggles as creative tensions that can be utilized to bring forward different perspectives (see also
Healy, 1997), different brand meanings and thus actually bring the place brand closer to the essence
of the place.

Participatory branding

Another reason for arguing in favour of increased stakeholders’ participation in place branding is the
recent turn towards a participatory branding in general (e.g. Ind and Bjerke, 2007; Gregory, 2007;
Hatch and Schultz, 2008). This line of thinking contradicts the more traditional view that marketing is
done by marketers to customers (Ind and Bjerke, 2007, p. 86). The importance of internal audiences
for effective branding (Ind and Bjerke, 2007) is highlighted by the participatory branding turn and the
branding process is discussed as a process of dialogue between stakeholder groups over the meaning
of the brand (Hatch and Schultz, 2008). This is clearly relevant to place branding as indicated above.
The argumentation in favour of participatory branding resonates to a great extent with the turn
towards a ‘service-dominant logic’ of marketing (Vargo and Lush, 2004) and the ways in which this
has been transmitted to branding (e.g. Merz and Vargo, 2009). As noted by Braun et al (2010) there
are two concepts developed within this approach that are particularly relevant to place branding.
First, the co-creation of brands (e.g. Hatch and Schultz, 2010), which stresses the fact that brands are
actually co-created by a multitude of people who encounter and appropriate them (see Kavaratzis
and Hatch, 2012). This implies that inevitably the official brand communication is only one of the
inputs into this process of co-creation and not the main vehicle of brand creation as frequently
thought in practice. Such understanding provides a better explanation of how place brands actually
work and how they affect people. Secondly need for greater involvement of stakeholders in
commercial branding (e.g. Gregory, 2007), which discusses the necessity to allow stakeholders to
freely participate in and contribute to the creation of the brand and, therefore, the need for
empowered stakeholders. Both these notions centre on the fact that in our world, stakeholders both
are given and take control of brand meanings (Hatch and Schultz, 2010). A third relevant concept is
the notion of increased transparency in branding efforts and meanings, as described for instance in
Hatch and Schultz (2009), is relevant for the argument developed in this article as it explains the way
in which internal and external audiences actually share ownership of the co-created brand. The view
of Merz and Vargo (2009) is that brand value is “co-created through network relationships and social
interactions among the ecosystem of all stakeholders”. Both Hatch and Schultz (2008) and Ind and
Bjerke (2007) emphasize the need for managers to engage with stakeholders. As Ind and Bjerke
explain (2007, p. 100),
“the element that separates the participatory approach is the idea of personal and direct
engagement by managers and employees who understand and are able to explore the
framework of the brand”.

The on-line world

The third reason for the increased importance of the involvement of stakeholders in place branding
has to do with the advancement of digital and online technologies. This is a factor that has
dramatically emphasized the significance of stakeholders and has opened new avenues for place
branding. The internet and several so called Web 2.0 applications have particularly influenced place

To cite this article: Kavaratzis, M. (2012). From ‘Necessary Evil’ to Necessity: Stakeholders’ Involvement in Place Branding,
Journal of Place Management and Development, 5 (1), 7-19.
branding and they fully support the argument for the involvement of stakeholders. Florek (2011)
identifies two main directions in online place branding:

a. promotion and communication channels and

b. online communities associated with the place brand and the place.

As Florek (2011: 83) states, “web 2.0 provides services that invite users to engage in direct and
strong participation” and “with the advent of user-generated content, every individual might
potentially influence the way in which [a place] is perceived and evaluated”. User-generated content
is probably the most important change and the one that relates more to the approach to place
brands introduced above.

The main novelty that the e-context has brought and concerns the way in which place
branding is done has to do with communication. The context of communication is radically different
and the array of available communication channels has increased dramatically (Fouts, 2010).
Therefore, the wider setting in which the meaning of place brands is negotiated has changed.
Additionally to the traditional brand-to-consumer communication, the online environment has made
consumer-to-brand communication equally important and, perhaps more importantly, it has made
consumer-to-consumer communication easier providing unprecedented levels of direct engagement
of customers and other stakeholders with one another. Opportunities for participating in the place
brand ‘multilogue’ discussed above are not only more and easier. They are also actively pursued by
consumers who slowly become familiar with such participation and more willing to engage in the
meaning attribution to their place and its brand. These developments have severe implications for
place branding. It has been suggested (Fouts, 2010) that the main changes imposed on branding from
the development of this new electronic communication environment are far reaching and suggest a
fundamental change from one-way messaging to two-way communication. These changes have to do
with an increased emphasis on so-called ‘earned media’ (word of mouth, viral media, free editorials,
independent reviews etc), with changes in media selection (where traditional media like TV have lost
much of their appeal) and changes in the content of the communicated message (that is supposed to
create engagement instead of awareness). To this list could be added a change in the whole purpose
of communication from a need to reach the right people at the right time in order to get some form
of ‘buy-in’ to a need to reach the right people at the right time in order to engage them in amplifying
the communicated message. The online world has emphasized the co-creational process of brands in
general and, at the same time, made participation in this process more freely available and more
desirable.

Conclusions and Implications

This article has attempted to bring together several arguments in favour of the involvement of
stakeholders in place branding and to provide additional arguments. This involvement has been
discussed as a necessity brought about by the very nature of place brands, which are co-created and
co-managed by a multitude of place stakeholders who collectively and individually attribute place
brands with meaning. As Houghton and Stevens (2011) also discuss, there is evidence that the most
effective place branding initiatives are those where a wide range of local players are involved and
energized. On the contrary, “initiatives, which do not engage, and in some cases alienate local
stakeholders, are almost always destined to fail” (Houghton and Stevens, 2011: 46). It is for this
reason that a call is made for a participatory view on place branding. What is really of the essence
here is that the above indicates a change in perceived place brand ownership. As Aitken and Campelo
(2011: 916) also assert, “the co-creation of brand meanings by consumers shifts brand ownership
from the managerial and legalist sphere of intellectual property rights and trademarks to consumers
and brand users”. In other words, the discussion in this article is about stakeholder empowerment. It

To cite this article: Kavaratzis, M. (2012). From ‘Necessary Evil’ to Necessity: Stakeholders’ Involvement in Place Branding,
Journal of Place Management and Development, 5 (1), 7-19.
is actually stakeholders that make decisions on the place brand, attribute meaning to the place
brand, in essence create the brand and, therefore, own the place brand. This has significant
implications for place branding practice, some of which are outlined below, and it opens new
avenues for academic research.

Implications for practice

The conceptualization of place branding that this article embraces and the argument for a stronger
and more direct involvement of stakeholders in the place branding process, re-determines the role of
place authorities and place brand managers within the process. Managers are one of the many
stakeholder groups that participate in place branding and not the ultimate decision makers. They
thus have to re-evaluate their role and sense of authority over the branding process, their influence
on directions and the meaning of the place brand. This will understandably make them feel outside
their ‘comfort zone’ (Ind and Bjerke, 2007). However, this is the only way to use branding as a tool
for place development. Managers should instead see themselves as leaders of the place brand
dialogue. They should act as initiators, facilitators and moderators of the dialogue between the
several stakeholder groups over the meaning of the place brand. This is what is demanded and
expected by future brand leaders. Another implication for practice is that the direction of place
branding investment needs to be re-evaluated. Instead of the current heavy investment on
promotional campaigns and visual identity elements such as colourful logos and catchy slogans, place
branding investment needs to be re-directed towards allowing for stakeholder participation. What is
in essence now investment in promotion should become investment in meaningful, two-way
communication. Methods for such participation, which might actually prove to be more cost-
effective, need to be established by further research as discussed below. A third implication for
practice is that, arguably, more emphasis needs to be placed on the research and analysis part of the
place branding process. Research should be intense, comprehensive and continuous. Analysis should
also be continuous and, perhaps, undertaken by people who understand both the place branding
process and the place that is being branded. These are the tools that help capture what stakeholders
want from their place brand, what they feel and think about their place brand and how they co-
create the brand. Therefore, it is essential to keep the analytical part of the place branding process
actively open at all times; in Hanna and Rowley’s (2011: 464) words: “brand evaluation should be a
continual process [as] it completes the feedback loop that supports the dynamic development and
evolution of the brand over time”. A final implication was discussed above and refers to the need to
re-examine who is given the rights of participating in the place branding process and on what basis
are such rights given. There is a clear need to involve, along with powerful stakeholder groups, those
that have a weaker voice or are hard-to-reach. In essence this article makes a call for an inclusive and
democratic place branding.

Directions for research

A first direction for further research would be the need to examine what consequences the novel
conceptualization of place branding embraced here has on what is currently called brand identity. As
discussed above, place branding practice adopts the view that there needs to be a decision on a
single identity that will be defined, outlined and communicated. This is based on the perceived need
to achieve consistency in place brand communication. The alternative view is that the place brand is
a constant dialogue between stakeholders, in essence rendering the place brand an ever-changing
entity. This is not a question of whether or not an ever-changing entity can be branded. The question
for future research to answer is rather how this can be done; what differences does this imply in
terms of methods and tools? What are the changes that are necessary for place branding to live up

To cite this article: Kavaratzis, M. (2012). From ‘Necessary Evil’ to Necessity: Stakeholders’ Involvement in Place Branding,
Journal of Place Management and Development, 5 (1), 7-19.
to this reality? Another research direction would be to identify and test possible methods of
stakeholder participation. The ones included in the array of collaborative planning methodologies
(see Healey, 1997; Baker et al, 2010) or in corporate branding practices could be tested as to their
effectiveness for place branding. As cultural issues seem highly influential here, there might be scope
for country-specific research on these methods. In essence, all place branding research could become
applied research. An additional benefit of this kind of research (apart from providing place
authorities with a range of tested tools) would be that it would provide consultants with tangible
methodologies to use. This would help consultants become advocates of the participatory approach
to place branding and would allow (some of) them to adopt a more responsible and constructive
practice. A further aspect that academic research could be geared at would be to identify the main
wants of common groups of stakeholders and attempt to integrate them. This is, of course,
something that needs to be done for each place individually as local conditions have a determining
influence. However, academic research would be able to derive general results to serve not as strict
guidelines but as the basis for a better understanding. For instance, what do existing place residents
want and expect from their place brand? What do retailers expect and what do local entrepreneurs?
More importantly, what are the ways in which these differing desires could be brought together to
work in synergy? A more specific issue here, which would also produce immediate results, would be
to identify what these different groups of stakeholders expect from the communication of their place
brand. Such research would provide a short-term re-evaluation of current place branding practice in
the sense that, at least, there would be more knowledge on what kind of promotion is more
desirable.

The above discussion and suggestions are put forward here in the hope that they might steer
new interest in the role of stakeholders within place branding and lead to further discussion. This
discussion might lay the foundations of a novel approach towards place branding theory and
practice. It is the contention of this article that a participatory view of place branding can help the
field become more embedded as a place development practice and steer clear of accusations of
elitism, irrelevance and ineffectiveness.

References
Aitken, R. and Campelo, A. (2011) The Four Rs of Place Branding, Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 27, Nos. 9-10, pp. 913-933.
Anholt, S. (2006) The Anholt-GMI City Brands Index: How the World Sees the World’s Cities. Place
Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 18-31.
Ashworth, G.J. and Kavaratzis, M. (2009) Beyond the Logo: Brand Management for Cities. Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 16, No. 8, pp. 520-531.
Ashworth, G.J. and Kavaratzis, M. (eds) (2010) Towards Effective Place Brand Management: Branding
European Cities and Regions. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
Baker, B. (2007) Destination Branding for Small Cities: The Essentials for Successful Place Branding.
Portland: Creative Leap Books.
Baker, M., Hincks, S. and Sherriff, G. (2010) Getting Involved in Plan Making: Participation and
Stakeholder Involvement in Local and Regional Spatial Strategies in England, Environment and
Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol. 28, pp. 574-594.
Bellini, N., Loffredo, A. and Pasquinelli, C. (2010) Managing Otherness: The political economy of place
images in the case of Tuscany, in Ashworth, G.J. and Kavaratzis, M. (eds) (2010) Towards
Effective Place Brand Management: Branding European Cities and Regions. Cheltenham, UK
and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 89-115.

To cite this article: Kavaratzis, M. (2012). From ‘Necessary Evil’ to Necessity: Stakeholders’ Involvement in Place Branding,
Journal of Place Management and Development, 5 (1), 7-19.
Bennet, R. and Savani, S. (2003) The rebranding of city places: An international comparative
investigation, International Public Management Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 70-87.
Braun, E., Kavaratzis, M. and Zenker, S. (2010) My City - My brand, paper presented at the European
Regional Science Association 2010 conference, 19-23 August 2010, Jonkoping, Sweden
Eurocities (2010) A Shared Vision on City Branding in Europe, Eurocities, Brussels.
Florek, M. (2011) Online City Branding, in Dinnie, K. (ed) City Branding: Theory and Cases,
Basingstoke: Palgrave-McMillan, pp. 82-90.
Fouts, J. (2010) Social Media and Immersive Worlds: Why International Place Branding Doesn‘t Take
Weekends Off, in Go, F. and Govers, R. (eds) International Place Branding Yearbook 2010,
Basingstoke: Palgrave-McMillan, pp. 113 – 120.
Govers R and Go F (2009) Place Branding: Virtual and Physical Identities, Glocal, Imagined and
Experienced, Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Gregory, A. (2007) Involving Stakeholders in Developing Corporate Brands: The Communication
Dimension, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 23 Nos. 1-2, pp. 59-73.
Hankinson, G. (2004) Relational Network Brands: Towards a Conceptual Model of Place Brands,
Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 109-121.
Hankinson, G. (2009) Managing Destination Brands: Establishing a Theoretical Foundation, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 25, Nos. 1-2, pp. 97-115.
Hanna, S. and Rowley, J. (2011) Towards a Strategic Place Brand-Management Model, Journal of
Marketing Management Vol. 27, Nos. 5-6, pp. 458-476.
Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2008) Taking Brand Initiative: How Companies Align strategy, Culture
and Identity through Corporate Branding. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2010) Toward a Theory of Brand Co-creation with Implications for Brand
Governance, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17, No. 8, pp. 590-604.
Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Frameworks in Fragmented Societies, London:
McMillan.
Holcomb, B. (1999), Marketing Cities for Tourism, in Judd, D.R. and Fainstein, S. (eds), The Tourist
City, Yale University Press, New Haven, pp. 54-70.
Houghton, J.P. and Stevens, A. (2011) City Branding and Stakeholder Engagement, in Dinnie, K. (ed)
City Branding: Theory and Cases, Basingstoke: Palgrave-McMillan, pp. 45-53.
Ind, N. and Bjerke, R. (2007) Branding Governance: A Participatory Approach to the Brand Building
Process. London: Wiley and Sons.
Kalandides, A. (2011) The Problem with Spatial Identity: Revisiting the ‘Sense of Place’. Journal of
Place Management and Development, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 28-39.
Kavaratzis, M. (2004) From City Marketing to City Branding: Towards a Theoretical Framework for
Developing City Brands, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 58-73.
Kavaratzis, M. (2009) Cities and their Brands: Lessons from Corporate Branding. Place Branding and
Public Diplomacy, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 26-37.
Kavaratzis, M. and Ashworth, G.J. (2008) Place Marketing: How Did We Get Here and Where Are We
Going?, Journal of Place Management and Development, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 150-165.
Kavaratzis, M. and Hatch, M.J. (2012 – forthcoming), The Dynamics of Place Brands: An identity-
based Approach to Place Branding Theory, Marketing Theory, forthcoming.
Lucarelli, A. and Berg, P.O. (2011) City Branding: A State-of-the-art Review of the Research Domain,
Journal of Place Management and Development, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 9-27.
Mayes, R. (2008) A Place in the Sun: The Politics of Place, Identity and Branding, Place Branding and
Public Diplomacy, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 124-32.
Merrilees, B., Miller, D. and Herington, C. (2009) Antecedents of Residents’ City Brand Attitudes,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 362-367.
Mertz, M. and Vargo, S. (2009) The Evolving Brand Logic: A Service Dominant Perspective, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 328-344.
Moilanen, T. and Rainisto, S.K. (2009) How to Brand Nations, Cities and Destinations: A Planning Book
for Place Branding, Basingstoke: Palgrave-McMillan.

To cite this article: Kavaratzis, M. (2012). From ‘Necessary Evil’ to Necessity: Stakeholders’ Involvement in Place Branding,
Journal of Place Management and Development, 5 (1), 7-19.
 Rainisto, S.K. (2003) Success Factors of Place Marketing: A Study of Place Marketing Practices in
Northern Europe and the United States. PhD thesis, Helsinki University of Technology, Institute
of Strategy and International Business, Helsinki.
Trueman, M. and Cornelius, N. (2006) Hanging Baskets or Basket Cases? Managing the Complexity of
City brands and Regeneration, Working Paper 06/13, Bradford University School of
Management, Bradford.
URBACT (2007), Towards a new listening culture? The involvement of inhabitants in urban
management, Cross-Cutting Thematic Working Group: The role of inhabitants in urban
management, URBACT Report, Brussels.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004) Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Warnaby, G. (2009) Towards a Service-dominant Place Marketing Logic, Marketing Theory, Vol. 9,
No. 4, pp. 403-423.
Warnaby, G. (2011) What about the Place in Place Marketing? Paper presented at the Academy of
Marketing 2011 Conference, 5-7 July, Liverpool, UK.
Zenker, S. and 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, Denmark.

To cite this article: Kavaratzis, M. (2012). From ‘Necessary Evil’ to Necessity: Stakeholders’ Involvement in Place Branding,
Journal of Place Management and Development, 5 (1), 7-19.

View publication stats