Cities xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cities
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Improving place reputation: Do an open place brand process and an identity-

image match pay off?
Erik Brauna,⁎, Jasper Eshuisb, Erik-Hans Klijnc, Sebastian Zenkerd
a
Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Room H16-17, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
b
Department of Public Administration and Sociology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Room T17-36, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
c
Department of Public Administration and Sociology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Room T17-41, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands
d
Department of Marketing, Copenhagen Business School, Room D3.39, Solbjerg Plads 3, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark

1. Introduction
Nowadays, cities are aware of the merits of their brand (Merrilees,
Miller, & Herington, 2012) and thus strive to conceptualize themselves as
brands (Medway & Warnaby, 2008). Indeed, several scholars (e.g., Braun,
2012; Eshuis & Klijn, 2012; Kavaratzis & Hatch, 2013) recognize that place
branding has become ‘business as usual’ for cities in their efforts to enhance
their attractiveness for various target groups like visitors and firms. In
general, place branding aims to increase place brand awareness and im-
prove the place (brand) image (Braun, Eshuis, & Klijn, 2014;
Kavaratzis & Ashworth, 2005; Zenker & Beckmann, 2013). According to
Anholt and Hildreth (2005), a place brand is essentially “nothing more and
nothing less than the good name of something that's on offer to the public”
(p. 164). Hence, place branding is one of the urban policies affecting a
place's reputation.
This article explores how place reputation is affected by two stra-
tegies that are frequently incorporated in a strategic place branding
framework. The first strategy involves stimulating an open discussion
and debate in the process of developing and implementing the place
brand (Aitken & Campelo, 2011; Braun, Kavaratzis, & Zenker, 2013;
Warnaby, 2009). Like other urban policies, place branding involves a
high number of stakeholders with different interests and preferences
regarding the place brand content and process (Braun, 2008;
Eshuis & Klijn, 2012). In fact, the place branding literature has devoted
considerable attention to increasing stakeholder involvement
(Kavaratzis & Kalandides, 2015; Klijn, Eshuis, & Braun, 2012;
Zenker & Erfgen, 2014). The second strategy concerns the match be-
tween the (brand) identity and the communicated image (Braun, 2012;
Florek, Insch, & Gnoth, 2006; Hankinson, 2004; Kavaratzis & Ashworth,
2005; Kavaratzis & Hatch, 2013). The idea – referred to as gap reduc-
tion in the general branding literature (De Chernatony, 1999) – is that a
better match between identity and image makes the place brand more
authentic and genuine. This paper analyzes the effect of these two
strategies on the reputation of a place both directly and when mediated
by place brand adoption and the level of conflicts among stakeholders.
The empirical data come from a survey among professionals and city
officials who are active in place marketing and/or place branding in the
Netherlands and Germany.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Branding the place: a matter of governance
City governments cannot brand places on their own. Firstly, they lack
the resources to do all brand development and communication. Secondly,
the place brand depends not only on governmental actions and commu-
nications, but also and especially on the actions and communication of the
place's many private organizations, societal organizations, residents and
visitors. Therefore, like most urban policies, place branding is a matter of
governance in a network of actors, dependent on stakeholder input to ad-
dress policy problems (Klijn & Koppenjan, 2016). The governance literature
emphasizes that these processes must be managed in order to achieve good
outcomes (Klijn, Steijn, & Edelenbos, 2010; McGuire & Agranoff, 2011),
which makes stakeholder management imperative for place branding
(Klijn & Koppenjan, 2016; McGuire & Agranoff, 2011).
Another main characteristic of governance processes is substantial
complexity. There is often fundamental uncertainty regarding the
nature and magnitude of both the problems involved and their possible
solutions. The literature on place branding highlights substantial com-
plexities both in the place branding governance (Braun, 2012;
Hanna & Rowley, 2011; Klijn et al., 2012) and the place brand content
(Braun, 2012; Kavaratzis & Kalandides, 2015; Zenker,
Braun, & Petersen, 2017; Zenker & Petersen, 2014). The two aforemen-
tioned strategies investigated in this article have to deal with these
complexities of governance and brand content.
2.2. Place reputation: the dependent variable
Reputation reflects people's collective attitude toward something – in
this case, a place. Such a regard allows organizations or places to counteract
competition and offer intuitive, relevant and customized value to target
groups (Abimbola, 2009). In the corporate reputation literature, it is argued

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: braun@ese.eur.nl (E. Braun), eshuis@fsw.eur.nl (J. Eshuis), klijn@fsw.eur.nl (E.-H. Klijn), sze.marktg@cbs.dk (S. Zenker).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.06.010
Received 31 January 2017; Received in revised form 5 June 2017; Accepted 14 June 2017
0264-2751/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Braun, E., Cities (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.06.010
E. Braun et al.
that reputation is a more stable indicator of performance than (brand)
image (De Chernatony, 1999; Fombrun & Van Riel, 1997). In this regard,
image only concerns more recent perceptions, whereas reputation is dis-
tilled from multiple images over time (Fombrun & Van Riel, 1997). In other
words: “reputation requires nurturing through time and image consistency”
(Markwick & Fill, 1997, p. 398). Reputation is crucial, as it is a key driver of
people's attitudes and behaviors toward a particular object (Schultz,
Hatch, & Larsen, 2000). Translating these insights to places, one could
contend that a place's reputation is the composite of its past developments,
investments, actions, achievements and place (brand) images. The reputa-
tion changes over time, but is overall less volatile than place image. Place
reputation can be seen as influential over decisions regarding investment,
residential location, and tourism.
2.3. Stimulating an open place brand process
The first strategy for influencing place reputation is stimulating an
open place brand process, characterized by open discussion and debate
about the development and implementation of the place brand. The
governance literature highlights that stakeholder involvement enhances
discussion and dialogue, resulting in more varied problem definitions
and better solutions (Huxham & Vangen, 2005; Klijn & Koppenjan,
2016). Likewise, the place branding literature suggests that increasing
stakeholder involvement enriches the place brand (Hankinson, 2010;
Kavaratzis & Hatch, 2013; Klijn et al., 2012). Additionally, an open
dialogue about the brand allows stakeholders to influence the brand,
and this added involvement and commitment inclines them to embrace
the final brand image (Eshuis & Klijn, 2012; Zenker & Erfgen, 2014) and
ultimately become brand ambassadors. Consequently, stakeholder in-
volvement will increase word-of-mouth and support for the brand
(Kavaratzis & Hatch, 2013; Warnaby, 2009), thereby enhancing place
reputation. This overlaps with empirical findings from governance re-
search that stakeholder involvement has positive effects on network
performance (Klijn & Edelenbos, 2013). These insights lead to the fol-
lowing hypothesis:
H1. An open place brand process has a direct positive effect on place
reputation.
2.4. Stimulating a better match between brand identity and image
The second strategy for affecting place reputation involves stimu-
lating the match between brand identity and the communicated image.
This communicated image should reflect the place (brand) identity
(Kavaratzis & Ashworth, 2005; Trueman, Klemm, & Giroud, 2004;
Ward, 2000), which resonates with the recurrent theme in the literature
that place brands should be authentic (Aitken & Campelo, 2011;
Hornskov, 2007) or genuine (Braun, 2012). If the communicated image
is not in line with the reality that people encounter in a city, people may
feel betrayed and develop negative associations with the city, thereby
harming the place reputation. A better identity-image match implies
that the place brand is more realistic and believable for both internal
and external audiences, thereby strengthening place reputation. This
leads to the second hypothesis:
H2. An identity-image match has a direct positive effect on place
reputation.
2.5. The first mediating variable: place brand adoption
Brand adoption describes the willingness to ‘join’ and communicate
a brand. The general branding literature describes several terms in this
regard – some researchers and practitioners talk about ‘living the brand’
(Baumgarth, 2010) while others refer to brand orientation
(Gromark & Melin, 2011; Urde, 1999). On the whole, they describe an
internalising process of the brand values and strategy. The general
2
Cities xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
branding literature provides considerable support for the relationship
between brand orientation and companies' performance. However, only
a few studies have focused on why and how organizational members
‘live the brand.’ This process is called brand adoption. Neuvonen
(2016), for instance, outlined that managers' backgrounds influence the
level of brand adoption, but interest and knowledge of the brand are
still needed to increase brand adoption.
The present paper argues that brand adoption is also relevant for
places. Indeed, there is already some preliminary empirical research on
city brand advocacy (i.e., Kemp, Childers, & Williams, 2012;
Sahin & Baloglu, 2014). Kemp et al. (2012), for instance, examined the
antecedents of residents' self-brand connection with the place brand,
which can lead them to becoming place brand advocates. They show
that a favorable, high-quality and unique brand triggers residents to
develop a self-brand connection. It is contended here that developing
such a connection with a place brand is also relevant for most of the
other place stakeholders. Hence, it is hypothesized that place brand
adoption mediates the relationship between the two strategies and
place reputation. Regarding the first strategy, greater involvement in
the brand development process should lead stakeholders to have more
knowledge of and influence over the brand strategy, which should re-
sult in a stronger brand connection and a sense of brand ownership,
thereby increase brand adoption among stakeholders. Thus, stakeholder
involvement can be expected to enhance brand adoption
(Aitken & Campelo, 2011; Braun et al., 2013; Warnaby, 2009), which
spurs more brand advocacy. Regarding the second strategy, a better
identity-image match will result in a more realistic and truthful place
brand (Kavaratzis & Hatch, 2013), which serves to improve stake-
holders' connection with and desire to advocate the brand
(Zenker & Petersen, 2014). Such brand adoption is subsequently ex-
pected to enhance place reputation, as more people will support the
brand strategy and advocate for the brand. Thus, it is hypothesized that:
H3. There is a positive indirect effect of an open place brand process on
place reputation that is mediated by place brand adoption.
H4. There is a positive indirect effect of an identity-image match on
place reputation that is mediated by place brand adoption.
2.6. The second mediating variable: conflicts among stakeholders
Conflict can be defined as “the process which begins when one party
perceives that another has frustrated, or is about to frustrate, some concern
of his” (Thomas, 1976, p. 891). By and large, the governance literature
argues that openness and dialogue help stakeholders to understand both
themselves and others (Baur, Van Elteren, Nierse, & Abma, 2010;
Klijn & Koppenjan, 2016; Lewicki, Gray, & Elliott, 2003), develop common
meaning and consensus (Healey, 1998) and build mutual relationships. The
literature generally posits that dialogue reduces conflicts among stake-
holders, but there are some indications that simply engaging in dialogue can
cause conflicts, especially in cases of latent conflict and when relations
among stakeholders are tense (Abma, 2006; Baur et al., 2010). The ar-
ticulation of differences and confrontation between stakeholders may
deepen disagreement and make conflicts manifest (Abma, 2006). However,
even though some authors have found that debates about a place brand can
turn into a conflict (Stigel & Frimann, 2006), the place branding literature
tends to emphasize the positive effects of stakeholder involvement. There-
fore, this research expects that an open place brand process reduces the
number of conflicts among stakeholders and thereby improving place re-
putation.
It is worth noting that the conflicts between stakeholders in gov-
ernance networks often derive from diverse interpretations of a situa-
tion, the use of different frames, and being unable to arrive at a
common meaning (Abma, 2006; Lewicki et al., 2003). In this sense, a
better match between (brand) identity and the communicated image is
likely to encourage support and consensus among stakeholders
E. Braun et al.
regarding the interpretation and meaning of the brand, thereby redu-
cing potential conflicts among stakeholders. Fewer conflicts may then
positively affect place reputation. This brings about the following hy-
potheses:
H5. There is a positive indirect effect of an open place brand process on
place reputation that is mediated by fewer conflicts among
stakeholders.
H6. There is a positive indirect effect of an identity-image match on
place reputation that is mediated by fewer conflicts among
stakeholders.
2.7. Media attention and budget development: two control variables
This paper also considers other, contributing factors in its analysis.
An important factor, here treated as a control variable, is media attention
– that is, whether media attention is characterized as informative or
sensational. The literature on media attention, agenda formation and
mediatisation (Baumgartner & Jones, 2009; Hjarvard, 2008;
Strömbäck & Esser, 2014), shows that media are not neutral transmit-
ters of information. The mediatisation literature, in particular, stresses
that media need a public (readers, viewers, followers, etc.) to survive
commercially and thus have an interest in dramatizing, reframing and
personalizing the news in order to make it more attractive for their
audience (Bennett, 2009). This characteristic of media attention influ-
ences the reputation of a place and can enhance conflicts between ac-
tors. As media attention increases, media members come seeking
statements from network actors, who proceed to enlarge differences
and conflicts (Korthagen & Klijn, 2014). The last control variable in our
model is budget development. Fig. 1 depicts the full conceptual model,
with the dashed boxes representing the control variables.
3. Empirical analysis of the conceptual model
3.1. Data collection and variables
To conduct its empirical analysis, this paper employed structural
equation modeling (SEM) using data from the 2013 National City
Marketing Monitor in the Netherlands and Germany. A web-based
survey was developed and sent to professionals and city administrators
involved in the marketing and branding of places in both countries.
These places range from smaller municipalities to large cities and re-
gions.
Place brand
adoption
Identity-image
match
Open place
brand process
Conflicts among
stakeholders
Media attention
3
Cities xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
In both countries, the authors have collaborated with professional
organizations to ensure that the respondents were actually involved in
place marketing and branding. In Germany, the partners were two
leading associations, the Bundesvereinigung City-und Stadtmarketing
Deutschland (National Association City Marketing Germany) and
Deutscher Tourismusverband (German Tourism Association). The orga-
nizations announced the survey in their newsletters to their members,
indicating the website where the survey could be found. Additionally,
the authors drew from their personal databases of people involved in
place marketing in Germany. This resulted in a total of 304 re-
spondents. It was not possible to properly calculate the response rate for
the German professionals as respondents were reached via the asso-
ciations' newsletters.
In the Netherlands, the partners were the non-profit associations
Netwerk City Marketing Nederland (Dutch network for place marketing),
VVV Nederland (the Dutch umbrella organization for tourism offices)
and the Vereniging Nederlandse Gemeenten (the official association for all
393 local governments in the Netherlands). These organizations pro-
vided us with the email addresses of potential respondents. These lists
were cross-checked against and supplemented with contacts from the
authors' personal databases of Dutch place marketing professionals.
This resulted in a list of 666 people actively involved in place marketing
in the Netherlands. Of these, 240 respondents (36%) answered at least
part of the survey, and of those, 161 (24%) filled out enough of the
survey to include them in the research.
All respondents who completed only a small part of the survey have
been removed from the dataset. Furthermore, the authors ensured that
the dataset included only one respondent per organization or govern-
ment department. In cases where these were more respondents per
organization or department, one respondent was randomly selected to
be included in the dataset and the others were excluded. In the end, the
dataset for this paper contained 444 respondents: 148 Dutch and 296
German respondents. Of the 444 respondents, 44% were employed by a
municipality, 29% worked for a tourism office, 19% worked for an
independent organization at arm's length (usually a foundation in-
volved in place marketing) and about 8% worked for another organi-
zation. Approximately 90% of the respondents had two or more years of
experience with place marketing.
Table 1 lists the questions that are used to measure the variables in
the conceptual framework; each variable is measured by one question.
Rossiter (2002) contends that a single-item measure suffices as long as
the variable and the item are concrete singular. The survey was tested
with several place marketing professionals to ensure that the questions
were clear, concrete and comprehensible for the targeted respondents.
Fig. 1. The conceptual model.
Budget
development
Place
reputation
E. Braun et al. Cities xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 1
Survey questions, measurement and descriptive statistics.

Questions in the survey Measurement Variable name N Mean SD

The image that we communicate corresponds with the identity of our place 1 = Strongly disagree; Identity-image match 428 7.99 1.71
10 = strongly agree
The process of developing and implementing the place brand was characterized by many 1 = Strongly disagree; Open place brand process 440 6.46 2.04
opportunities for discussion and debate 10 = strongly agree
Place marketing activities for my area have contributed to the adoption of our area brand among 1 = Strongly disagree; Place brand adoption 443 5.54 2.56
stakeholders (brand adoption) 10 = strongly agree
There are many conflicts regarding the content of city marketing among the stakeholders 1 = Strongly disagree; Conflicts among 440 3.99 2.40
10 = strongly agree stakeholders
The reputation of our area has improved in the last 2–3 years 1 = Strongly disagree; Place reputation 443 7.26 1.91
10 = strongly agree
Please indicate your estimation regarding the increase or decrease of the marketing budget in your −10 to + 10 Budget development 438 − 0.30 3.88
area during the last two years. (scaled on a ruler)
The media and press attention (TV, (local) newspapers and social media) for our marketing area in 1 = Sensational; Media attention 431 6.74 2.08
general is characterized as: sensational (1) to informative (10) 10 = Informative

Table 1 shows that each question was answered by a varying
number of respondents, ranging from 428 to 443. Respondents who had
missing values on at least one of the questions used to measure the
variables have been excluded from the research. Thus, the responses of
422 professionals were used in the empirical analysis.
The main correlations between the variables are presented in
Table 2. The correlations between the dependent variable and the five
most important independent variables are all significant. The correla-
tion coefficient between place brand adoption and conflicts among
stakeholders is small and not significant, but this was not a hypothe-
sized relationship in the conceptual model. Budget development is
correlated with place reputation, whereas media attention is not. The
latter is negatively correlated with conflicts among stakeholders.
3.2. Common method bias testing
Because this research relied on respondents' self-reports, there could
be a concern over common method bias via a common rater effect
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). In fairness, the use of
single-item variables produces a lower chance of common method bias
than multi-item variables (Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2007). Nonetheless,
two tests were performed to check for common method bias. As a first
test, a confirmatory factor analysis was carried out by loading all the
variables in the conceptual model upon one latent factor. According to
the fit indices of the confirmatory factor model, this one-factor model
does not fit the data well: χ2 = 66.62, DF = 14, p > χ2 = 0.00,
SRMR = 0.06, RSMEA = 0.09, PCLOSE = 0.00, CFI = 0.73 and
TLI = 0.60 and R2 = 0.66. For the second test, the conceptual model
depicted in Fig. 1 was re-estimated while including an additional
common latent factor that loaded upon all the observed variables (see
Podsakoff et al., 2003). All the fit indices of this model with a common
latent factor were not as good as the fit of the conceptual model pre-
sented in this paper. The TLI was below the threshold of 0.90 and the R2
of the model with the additional latent factor was less than one-fourth
of the conceptual model presented in this paper. Furthermore, the AIC
and BIC of the conceptual model were lower than those of the sec-
ondary model. Hence, including the common latent factor did not
create a better fitting model. Most importantly, all the estimated coef-
ficients and the reported significant levels of the estimate coefficients in
this model with a common latent factor are the same as the model
discussed below without a common latent factor and the variance ex-
plained by the common latent method factor was below 1%, which is
very low compared to percentages typically found in other studies
(Williams, Cote, & Buckley, 1989). Hence, the conceptual model fits the
data best and common method bias does not seem to be a problem.

Table 2
Correlations between variables in the analysis. 3.3. Results and hypotheses testing

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Inspection of the data before the statistical analysis revealed that it
1 Identity-image 1 departs from normality. Therefore, a structural equation model was
match estimated using maximum likelihood with the Satorra-Bentler correc-
N 428 tion (Satorra & Bentler, 1994), thereby producing a Satorra-Bentler-
2 Open place 0.15⁎⁎ 1 scaled χ2. This correction makes standard errors, p-values, confidence
brand process
N 428 440
intervals, and the analysis of direct, indirect and total effects robust
3 Place brand 0.17⁎⁎⁎ 0.28⁎⁎⁎ 1 when dealing with data non-normality. As a comparison point, a
adoption bootstrapping procedure using 5000 samples was used to estimate the
N 428 440 443 standard errors, p-values and confidence intervals for the direct, in-
4 Conflicts − 0.24⁎⁎⁎ 0.16⁎⁎⁎ −0.02 1
direct and total effects (Bollen & Stine, 1990). The latter estimation
among
stakeholders procedure produced the same research findings as the analysis featuring
N 428 440 440 440 the Satorra-Bentler correction. Estimating the model with hetero-
5 Place 0.38⁎⁎⁎ 0.26⁎⁎⁎ 0.29⁎⁎⁎ − 0.21⁎⁎⁎ 1 scedasticity-consistent standard errors (MLR) also produced equivalent
reputation results. As stated before, the model is estimated with data of 422 re-
N 427 439 442 439 443
6 Budget 0.06 0.07 0.10⁎ − 0.08 0.11⁎ 1
spondents that had no missing values on the questions used to measure
development the variables. The conceptual model was also estimated including the
N 423 435 438 435 438 438 respondents with missing values (N = 444) and the results were con-
7 Media attention 0.18⁎⁎⁎ − 0.01 0.00 − 0.18⁎⁎⁎ 0.05 0.07 1 gruous with the results reported below.
N 427 427 430 427 430 425 431
Table 3 reports the standardized coefficients of the SEM-based
⁎
p < 0.05.
conceptual model. The table includes the direct, indirect and total ef-
⁎⁎
p < 0.01. fects of the estimated relationships, as well as the goodness-of-fit in-
⁎⁎⁎
p < 0.001. dices, the latter of which indicate a very good fit between the

4
E. Braun et al. Cities xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 3
Result of testing the conceptual model using structural equation modeling (SEM).

Effects of On Direct Effects (DE) Indirect Effects (IE) Total Effects (TE)

Identity-image match Place reputation 0.29*** 0.06*** 0.35***

Place brand adoption 0.13** 0.13**
Conflicts among stakeholders −0.25*** −0.25**
Open place brand process Place reputation 0.19*** 0.02 0.20***
Place brand adoption 0.25*** 0.25***
Conflicts among stakeholders 0.19*** 0.19***
Place brand adoption Place reputation 0.19*** 0.19***
Conflicts among stakeholders Place reputation −0.16** −0.16**
Media attention Conflicts among stakeholders −0.13* −0.13**
Place reputation −0.04 0.02* −0.02
Budget development Place reputation 0.06 0.06

Goodness of fit indices for the estimated conceptual model with Satorra-Bentler correction applied:

N DF χ2 CFI TLI SRMR RSMEA RSMEA RSMEA PCLOSE R2

lower bound upper bound

422 4 6.06 0.99 0.96 0.02 0.04 0 0.09 0.59 0.31

Notes:* p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01; ***; p ≤ 0.001; Standardized coefficients are reported. Differences between TE and the sum of DE + IE are caused by rounding the numbers at two digits.

conceptual model and the empirical data. Table 3 clearly indicates that
hypothesis H1 is supported by the empirical data: the direct effect of an
open place brand process on place reputation is positive and significant
(0.19***). Besides the direct effect, the reported total effect of an open
place brand process on place reputation is also positive and significant
(0.20***).
In order to test both hypothesis H3 and H5, it is necessary to first
disentangle the reported aggregated indirect effect of an open place
brand process on place reputation (0.02; see Table 3) into its two
components. In other words, there are two mediation paths that to-
gether explain the aggregated indirect effect (see the upper part of
Table 4). In this regard, Table 4 reports a positive and significant path
between an open place brand process and place reputation that is
mediated by place brand adoption (0.05***; path 1 in Table 4), which
confirms the theorized relationship in H3. The ratio between this
mediated effect and the direct effect of brand adoption is 0.26. Re-
garding H5, the analysis uncovers that conflicts do mediate the re-
lationship between an open place brand process and place reputation
(path 2 in Table 4), but the effect is significant and negative
(− 0.03***). Put differently: Stimulating an open place brand process
results in more conflicts among stakeholders, which then yields a ne-
gative effect on place reputation. This implies that H5 has to be re-
jected, as the indirect effect is negative instead of positive. The ratio of
the mediated effect to the direct effect is 0.16. The negative mediated
effect does not outweigh the positive direct effect of an open place
brand on place reputation (see H1). However, the positive indirect ef-
fect of an open place brand process on place reputation mediated by
place brand adoption is countered by the negative indirect effect of an
Table 4
Disentanglement of the indirect effects on place reputation.
Indirect effects
Path 1. Open place brand process - place brand adoption - place
reputation
Path 2. Open place brand process - conflicts among stakeholders -
place reputation
Path 3. Identity-image match - place brand adoption - place
reputation
Path 4. Identity-image match - conflicts among stakeholders - place
reputation
Notes: *p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001; standardized coefficients are reported; the
effects are rounded at two digits.
open place brand process on place reputation mediated by conflicts
among stakeholders.
Hypothesis H2 theorizes a direct positive effect of the identity-
image match on place reputation. Table 3 presents a significant positive
effect (0.29***) and confirms this hypothesis. This significant direct
effect is also relevant for hypothesis H4 and H6, as is the significant
total effect of identity-image match on place reputation (0.35***). The
combined indirect effect (0.06***) can be seen in Table 3. Like with the
previous hypotheses H3 and H5, there are two mediation paths that
collectively comprise the aggregated indirect effect; these two paths are
listed in the lower part of Table 4. It appears that place brand adoption
mediates the relationship between identity-image match and place re-
putation (0.02***; path 3 in Table 4), which supports H4. The effect
size is smaller than it is with an open place brand process (H3), as the
ratio of the mediated effect to the direct effect is approximately 0.07.
Path 4 in Table 4 indicates that conflicts among stakeholders also
mediate the relationship between identity-image match and place re-
putation (0.04***); thus, a better match between place identity and the
communicated image leads to fewer conflicts, which then improves
place reputation (H6). Again, the effect size here is smaller compared to
hypothesis H5, as the ratio between the mediated effect and the direct
effect is close to 0.14. Notwithstanding the smaller effect size, the
finding still implies support for hypothesis H6.
Turning the attention to the control variables, the first one, media
attention, influences the level of conflicts among stakeholders. If the
media reporting is characterized as informative, stakeholders in the
place marketing network experience fewer conflicts (− 0.13**). Media
attention does not affect place reputation directly, nor does the second
control variable, budget development.
As this paper uses a two country sample, the next step is to assess
whether the results are robust for both the group of respondents from
the Netherlands as well as the group of respondents from Germany. In
Effect
other words: does the structural model apply for both the Dutch and
German sample? This implies comparing the estimated model reported
0.05*** in Table 3 with a model where all parameters are allowed to differ
between the two groups of respondents. The χ2 difference test
−0.03***
(Δ χ2 = 4.06; DF = 4) is not significant (p = 0.40). This confirms that
0.02*** the structural model applies for both the Dutch and German sample.
While the structural model is the same for both the Dutch and the
0.04*** German respondents, there could still be differences at the path level.
This involves testing the invariance of parameters across groups. This
test shows that the parameters are the same across the two groups for
all, but two paths. First, the path from open place brand process to

5
E. Braun et al.
conflicts among stakeholders differs between the Dutch and German
respondents (χ2 = 4.49; DF = 1). The Germans see a strong positive
effect of an open place brand process on conflicts among stakeholders
(0.25***) whereas the Dutch respondents do not see a significant effect
(0.00). Second, the path from conflicts among stakeholders to place
reputation is different between the two groups (χ2 = 5.24; DF = 1).
Again the Dutch do not report a significant effect (0.01) whereas the
Germans report a significant negative effect (− 0.22***). Apparently,
the Germans and the Dutch evaluate the role of conflicts among sta-
keholders differently.
4. Discussion and conclusion
Place branding is a demanding governance process involving many
stakeholders and characterized by cognitive complexity, with stake-
holders holding different views of the brand and emphasizing different
aspects of a place. As such, place branding requires strategies that are
appropriate to the governance network setting of place branding. This
article explored the effects of two strategies for coping with the com-
plexity of place branding and enhancing place reputation. The first is a
content strategy, namely, creating a realistic brand with a commu-
nicated image that matches identity. The second strategy is actor-cen-
tered, namely, involving stakeholders through an open place branding
processes. It was hypothesized that these two strategies will positively
affect the place brand reputation, not only directly, but also indirectly
through increased place brand adoption and decreased conflicts among
stakeholders. Two control variables (i.e., budget development and
media attention) that could have an effect on place reputation were
included.
The research results show that both strategies positively affect place
reputation. The direct effect on the place reputation of stimulating
identity-image match is higher than the direct effect of stimulating an
open place brand process. The difference gets even larger when the
total effects – that is the direct plus the indirect effect – of both stra-
tegies are examined. Hence the identity-image match has the strongest
effect on place reputation.
It is also interesting to have a closer look at the mediating variable
place brand adoption in the conceptual model. More specifically, there
is a positive effect of identity-image match, both directly on place re-
putation and indirectly via brand adoption. Interestingly, the effect of
the other independent variable (open place brand process) on place
brand adoption is even stronger. Thus, it seems that brand adoption
(which itself has a positive effect on place reputation) is better served
by involving stakeholders than by communicating an image that fits the
place identity.
Focusing more on the second actor-centered strategy, the analysis
reveals a positive and negative effect of the open place brand process on
place reputation. This strategy has a positive direct effect on place re-
putation and a positive indirect effect through place brand adoption; at
the same time, it has a negative effect through (increased) conflicts
among stakeholders. Moreover, the negative effect through conflicts
almost offsets the positive effect through brand adoption. This negative
effect is a counterintuitive outcome, as the majority of the place
branding literature would argue for a positive effect. According to our
respondents, open dialogue among stakeholders apparently results in
more conflicts. This is possibly caused by the fact that diverse percep-
tions become manifest, which would fit the observation in the literature
that most governance processes feature opposite interests that may be
difficult to reconcile (Klijn & Koppenjan, 2016). The enhanced level of
conflict probably has to be mitigated by additional managerial activ-
ities. This underscores the complexity of governance processes and how
place brand managers must account for many different aspects when
designing place branding strategies. One strategy (enhancing stake-
holder dialogue through open place brand process) has both a negative
and positive effect.
Fortunately, the findings highlight that the two strategies explored
6
Cities xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
in this research can work to reduce each other's weaknesses. An open
place brand process influences place reputation both directly and
through increased place brand adoption, but has negative effects
through conflict between stakeholders. However, the strategy of
matching identity and image can help to reduce conflicts among sta-
keholders. Thus, it seems wise for place brand managers to employ both
strategies at the same time. Thus, governance complexity can be ad-
dressed by using different managerial (brand) strategies simulta-
neously. This finding is consistent with earlier research on management
in governance networks (Akkerman & Torenvlied, 2013; Klijn et al.,
2010).
This study also revealed that the Dutch and the Germans assess the role of
conflicts among stakeholders differently. The Germans report that conflicts
among stakeholders are stimulated by an open place brand process and have
a negative impact on place reputation whereas the Dutch do not see those
effects. While the survey in both countries did not include cultural variables
to clarify these dissimilarities, it is meaningful to contemplate possible ex-
planations. Both countries are characterized by a more consensual political
culture (Hendriks & Toonen, 2000; Schmidt & Buehler, 2007). However,
Germany does differ from the Netherlands in this respect: where in the
Netherlands this consensual culture is accompanied by a strong orientation
on bargaining and dealing with conflicts (see Hendriks & Toonen, 2000;
Skelcher, Klijn, Kübler, Sørensen, & Sullivan, 2011), the German political
culture is more characterized by authority and a more top down way of
policy making (DiGaetano & Strom, 2003; Meyer & Hammerschmid, 2006).
Thus, one could argue that place marketing professionals in the Netherlands
have more tolerance for conflicts and accept conflicts as part of the process. If
this is true, the Dutch hold a different view on the relationship between
conflicts among stakeholders and both an open place brand process and place
reputation than their German counterparts. However, more empirical re-
search is needed to move beyond speculation.
Like any research, this study features limitations. Primarily, it is
based on perceptual data from people involved in place branding;
likewise, the dependent variable (place reputation) is perceptual rather
than established through factual data. Future research might address
this limitation by measuring reputation with an external variable and/
or factual observations. Nevertheless, this study will hopefully aid
practitioners in devising branding strategies and facilitate additional
research into the factors that make such strategies effective.
References
Abimbola, T. (2009). Brand, organisation identity and reputation: Bold approaches to big
challenges. Journal of Brand Management, 16(4), 219–220.
Abma, T. A. (2006). The practice and politics of responsive evaluation. American Journal
of Evaluation, 27(1), 31–43.
Aitken, R., & Campelo, A. (2011). The four Rs of place branding. Journal of Marketing
Management, 27(9/10), 913–933.
Akkerman, A., & Torenvlied, R. (2013). Public management and network specificity:
Effects of colleges' ties with professional organizations on graduate's labor market
success and satisfaction. Public Management Review, 15(4), 522–540.
Anholt, S., & Hildreth, J. (2005). Let freedom and cash registers ring: America as a brand.
Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 1(2), 164–172.
Baumgarth, C. (2010). “Living the brand”: Brand orientation in the business-to-business
sector. European Journal of Marketing, 44(5), 653–671.
Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. (2009). Agendas and instability in American politics (2nd
ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Baur, V. E., Van Elteren, A. H. G., Nierse, C. J., & Abma, T. A. (2010). Dealing with
distrust and power dynamics: Asymmetric relations among stakeholders in re-
sponsive. Evaluation, 16(3), 233–248.
Bennett, W. L. (2009). News: The politics of illusion (8th ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.
Bergkvist, L. I., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus
single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 64(May),
175–184.
Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. (1990). Direct and indirect effects: Classical and bootstrap es-
timates of variability. Sociological Methodology, 20, 115–140.
Braun, E. (2008). City marketing: Towards an integrated approach. ERIM PhD series in
research and management (no. 142). Rotterdam: Erasmus Research Institute of
Management (ERIM).
Braun, E. (2012). Putting city branding into practice. Journal of Brand Management, 19(4),
257–267.
Braun, E., Eshuis, J., & Klijn, E. H. (2014). The effectiveness of place brand commu-
nication. Cities, 41, 64–70.
E. Braun et al.
Braun, E., Kavaratzis, M., & Zenker, S. (2013). My city-my brand: The different roles of
residents in place branding. Journal of Place Management and Development, 6(1),
18–28.
De Chernatony, L. (1999). Brand management through narrowing the gap between brand
identity and brand reputation. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(1–3), 157–179.
DiGaetano, A., & Strom, E. (2003). Comparative urban governance: An integrated ap-
proach. Urban Affairs Review, 38(3), 356–395.
Eshuis, J., & Klijn, E. H. (2012). Branding in governance and public management. London:
Routledge.
Florek, M., Insch, A., & Gnoth, J. (2006). City council websites as a means of place brand
identity communication. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 2(4), 276–296.
Fombrun, S., & Van Riel, C. (1997). The reputational landscape. Corporate Reputation
Review, 1(1 & 2), 5–13.
Gromark, J., & Melin, F. (2011). The underlying dimensions of brand orientation and its
impact on financial performance. Journal of Brand Management, 18(6), 394–410.
Hankinson, G. (2004). Relational network brands: Towards a conceptual model of place
brands. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(2), 109–121.
Hankinson, G. (2010). Place branding research: A cross-disciplinary agenda and the views
of practitioners. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 6(4), 300–315.
Hanna, S., & Rowley, J. (2011). Towards a strategic place brand management model.
Journal of Marketing Management, 27(5–6), 458–476.
Healey, P. (1998). Collaborative planning in a stakeholder society. Town Planning Review,
69(1), 1–21.
Hendriks, F., & Toonen, T. (2000). Polder politics. Cheltenham, UK: Edgar Elgar.
Hjarvard, S. (2008). The mediatization of society: A theory of the media as agents of
social and cultural change. Nordicom Review, 29(2), 105–134.
Hornskov, S. B. (2007). On the management of authenticity: Culture in the place branding
of Øresund. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 3(4), 317–331.
Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate; the theory and practice of col-
laborative advantage. London: Routledge.
Kavaratzis, M., & Ashworth, G. J. (2005). City branding: An effective assertion of identity
or a transitory marketing trick? Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie,
96(5), 506–514.
Kavaratzis, M., & Hatch, M. J. (2013). The dynamics of place brands: An identity-based
approach to place branding theory. Marketing Theory, 13(1), 69–86.
Kavaratzis, M., & Kalandides, A. (2015). Rethinking the place brand: The interactive
formation of place brand and the role of participatory place branding. Environment
and Planning A, 47(6), 1368–1382.
Kemp, E., Childers, C. Y., & Williams, K. H. (2012). Place branding: Creating self-brand
connections and brand advocacy. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 21(7),
508–515.
Klijn, E. H., & Edelenbos, J. (2013). The influence of democratic legitimacy on outcomes
in governance networks. Administration and Society, 45(6), 627–650.
Klijn, E. H., Eshuis, J., & Braun, E. (2012). The influence of stakeholder involvement on
the effectiveness of place branding. Public Management Review, 14(4), 499–519.
Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (2016). Governance networks in the public sector. London:
Routledge.
Klijn, E. H., Steijn, B., & Edelenbos, J. (2010). The impact of network management on
outcomes in governance networks. Public Administration, 88(4), 1063–1082.
Korthagen, I. A., & Klijn, E. H. (2014). The mediatization of network governance: The
impact of commercialized news and mediatized politics on trust and perceived net-
work performance. Public Administration, 92(4), 1054–1074.
Lewicki, R., Gray, B., & Elliott, M. (2003). Making sense of intractable environmental con-
flicts: Concepts and cases. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Markwick, N., & Fill, C. (1997). Towards a framework for managing corporate identity.
European Journal of Marketing, 31(5/6), 396–409.
Cities xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
McGuire, M., & Agranoff, R. (2011). The limitations of public management networks.
Public Administration, 89(2), 265–284.
Medway, D., & Warnaby, G. (2008). Alternative perspectives on marketing and the place
brand. European Journal of Marketing, 42(5/6), 641–653.
Merrilees, B., Miller, D., & Herington, C. (2012). Multiple stakeholders and multiple city
brand meanings. European Journal of Marketing, 46(7), 1032–1047.
Meyer, R. E., & Hammerschmid, G. (2006). Changing institutional logics and executive
identities – A managerial challenge to public administration in Austria. American
Behavioral Scientist, 49(7), 1000–1014.
Neuvonen, H. (2016). Towards a model of brand strategy adoption. Journal of Brand
Management, 23(2), 197–215.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(December), 305–335.
Sahin, S., & Baloglu, S. (2014). City branding: Investigating a brand advocacy model for
distinct segments. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 23(3), 239–265.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to standard errors in covariance structure
analysis. In A. von Eye, & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variable analysis: Applications to
developmental research (pp. 399–419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schmidt, S., & Buehler, R. (2007). The planning process in the US and Germany: A
comparative analysis. International Planning Studies, 12(1), 55–75.
Schultz, M., Hatch, M. J., & Larsen, M. H. (2000). The expressive organisation: Linking
identity, reputation and the corporate brand. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Skelcher, C., Klijn, E. H., Kübler, D., Sørensen, E., & Sullivan, H. (2011). Explaining the
democratic anchorage of governance networks: Evidence from four European coun-
tries. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 33(1), 7–38.
Stigel, J., & Frimann, S. (2006). City branding – All smoke, no fire? Nordicom Review,
27(2), 245–268.
Strömbäck, J., & Esser, F. (2014). Introduction: Making sense of the mediatization of
politics. Journalism Studies, 14(3), 243–255.
Thomas, K. W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 889–935). Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Trueman, M., Klemm, M., & Giroud, A. (2004). Can a city communicate? Bradford as a
corporate brand. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 9(4), 317–330.
Urde, M. (1999). Brand orientation: A mindset for building brands into strategic re-
sources. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(1–3), 117–133.
Ward, K. G. (2000). Front rentiers to rantiers: 'Active entrepreneurs', 'structural spec-
ulators' and the politics of marketing the city. Urban Studies, 37(7), 1093–1107.
Warnaby, G. (2009). Towards a service-dominant place marketing logic. Marketing
Theory, 9(4), 403–423.
Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1989). Lack of method variance in self-
reported affect and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74, 462–468.
Zenker, S., & Beckmann, S. C. (2013). My place is not your place – Different place brand
knowledge by different target groups. Journal of Place Management and Development,
6(1), 6–17.
Zenker, S., Braun, E., & Petersen, S. (2017). Branding the destination versus the place: The
effects of brand complexity and identification for residents and visitors. Tourism
Management, 58, 15–27.
Zenker, S., & Erfgen, C. (2014). Let them do the work: A participatory place branding
approach. Journal of Place Management and Development, 7(3), 225–234.
Zenker, S., & Petersen, S. (2014). An integrative theoretical model for resident–City
identification. Environment and Planning A, 46(3), 715–728.