brand

Cities are branding and rebrandingthemselves in order to improve theirposition as attractive leisure and businesstourism destinations, locations forbusiness and places to study and live.Unlike product and service brands,which are driven by market forces, citybranding and place marketing are drivenby the need to diversify local economiesfaced with industrial decline, attracttourism and inward investment, attract

INTRODUCTIONCity branding is on the increase, but canone use strategic branding modelsdeveloped for goods and services tobrand cities? There is wide agreementthat places can be marketed and brandedlike products (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 2001,2003; Kotler et al., 1993; Matson, 1994).But little empirical research was found tosupport this assertion or to identify howto brand a city successfully.

242 Place Branding Vol. 1, 3, 242–264 � Henry Stewart Publications 1744–070X (2005)

City branding: Can goods andservices branding models be usedto brand cities?Received (in revised form): 1st December, 2004

Brenda Parkersonis an honorary research fellow of Aston University Business School, working in the creative and cultural industries forBirmingham City Council. Her research centres on branding places. She began her career as a classical ballet dancer and,after studying film at Columbia University, moved to Germany where she established herself as a director and producer ofdocumentaries. Her current work involves place branding through cultural programmes and capacity building, businessdevelopment and social inclusion in the creative industries.

John Saundersis Professor of Marketing, Head of Aston Business School, Pro-vice Chancellor of Aston University and Dean of the Senate ofthe Chartered Institute of Marketing. His research centres on strategy and product management and includes branding,marketing communications, market models and business incompetence. He has published over 100 learned papers that haveappeared in the world’s leading journals in marketing and other disciplines. Along with Philip Kotler, Gary Armstrong andVeronica Wong, Professor Saunders writes Europe’s best-selling marketing text, Principles of Marketing: The European Edition,which now appears in ten languages.

Abstract A city’s branding is investigated using generic product and services brandingmodels. Two generic branding models and tourism segmentation models guide aninvestigation into city branding ‘as it should be’ and ‘as it is’ using Birmingham,England as a case study. The unique characteristics of city brands are identified andKeller’s Brand Report Card provides a theoretical framework for building a picture of thebrand-building activity taking place in the city. Four themes emerge and are discussed:1) the impact of a network on brand models developed for organisations; 2)segmentation of brand elements; 3) corporate branding; and 4) the political dimension.A conclusion is that city branding would be more effective if the systems and structuresof generic branding models were adopted.

Keywords: City branding, place branding, Birmingham brand, networks

Brenda Parkerson MBA,ACIMBirmingham City CouncilBMAG,Chamberlain Square,Birmingham B13 3DH, UK.

Tel: �44 0121 464 6166e-mail: [email protected]

Report Card as a theoretical frameworkto establish to what extentbrand-building activity is taking place.Four general categories of issues arediscussed: the network, brand elementsand segmentation, ‘corporate brand’ andthe political dimension.

BRANDING CITIESAre core branding concepts transferableto cities? At their most basic level brandsare understood in terms of theiridentifying functions and potential fordifferentiation. Brand as logo and brandas product are common interpretations.De Chernatony (1992: 3) argues thatbrands are ‘complex identities that existin the minds of consumers’. Referring toMeadows he states that ‘branding is notsomething done to customers, but rathersomething they do things with’ and addsthat consumers’ interpretations of brandsmay not be what the marketer intended.

Drawing on the classical brandingliterature, the benefits of productbranding are summarised as:

— encoding and retrieval cues, heuristiccues for evaluation and choicedecisions (Cohen and Basu, 1987)

— identification functions, added value,credibility guarantee and intangiblevalue (Murphy, 1992)

— trustworthy badge of origin andpromise of performance (Feldwick,1991)

— facilitate the consumer choice processand make it more effective (Doyle,1989).

These benefits are relevant to city brands.City brands such as New York, Paris orRome are clearly identifiable and eachmakes a specific and unique promise thataids the decision-making process. Theimagery conjured up by the meremention of these cities’ names adds

hallmark events and conventions and wineconomic prizes (eg European Capital ofCulture) (Kotler et al., 1993; Matson,1994). In Europe, national and EUdirectives play a key role throughlegislation and funding (Greenbaum andBondonio, 2003). As with product andservice brands the bottom line iseconomic, but the processes involved instrategic branding of cities arecharacterised by complexity andconstrained by the political dimension.

The literature on strategic branding isextensive and backed by empiricalresearch focusing largely on fast-movingconsumer goods. With the growth ofservices marketing, research is movingbeyond the fast-moving consumer goodsmodel (De Chernatony and McDonald,2001; Olins, 2003b). Place branding is arelatively new area of research. Whilenot addressing branding specifically, thereis an abundance of work in the area ofplace and city marketing largely fromthree disciplines: urban development,tourism and marketing management.Works on city and place marketing inthe area of marketing management arefewer and less grounded in empiricalresearch than works in the areas of urbandevelopment and tourism.

This study investigates the relevance ofproduct and services branding models tocities. Two generic branding modelsdeveloped by De Chernatony and Riley(1998) and Laforet and Saunders (1994)and two tourism segmentation modelsdeveloped by Jafari (1982 and 1987,cited in Jafari, 1995) are used todetermine the unique characteristics ofcity brands. Birmingham is examined ina case study looking at sources of brandequity, the desirability of a ‘corporate’ or‘umbrella’ brand in a city context andthe impact of the ‘political dimension’on strategic branding approaches. Citybrand practitioners in Birmingham aresurveyed using Keller’s (2000) Brand

� Henry Stewart Publications 1744–070X (2005) Vol. 1, 3, 242–264 Place Branding 243

City branding

form of extending city brands wascommonplace when America was beingcolonised (eg New England’s Boston,Hull, Plymouth and Worcester).

The Brand Report Cardoperationalises Keller’s understanding ofbrand building. This practical approachhas ten characteristics that companiesmust achieve in order to create andmaintain strong brands (Keller, 2000).

— The brand excels at deliveringbenefits customers truly desire.

— The brand stays relevant.— The pricing strategy is based on

consumers’ perceptions of value.— The brand is properly positioned.— The brand is consistent.— The brand portfolio and hierarchy

make sense.— The brand makes use of and

coordinates a full repertoire ofmarketing activities to build equity.

— Brand managers understand what thebrand means to consumers.

— The brand is given proper supportthat is sustained in the long term.

— Sources of brand equity are monitored.

Keller suggests rating a brand on a scaleof one to ten on these ten characteristicsto gain an understanding of how thebrand is configured and identify areas inwhich it excels or that needimprovement. This approach has beenused to investigate the Birminghambrand.

The double vortex modelDe Chernatony and Riley’s (1998)research on the mental models brandmanagers and brand consultants use tohelp them make sense of the componentsof a brand led to their development ofthe ‘double vortex brand model’. In thismodel the elements of the brand aredivided into rational elements — brand

intangible value to the experience, oftenat a premium price. Evidence of this canbe found in businesses attaching names ofstrong city brands to their products (at nocost) to lend them credibility, status andother positive associations even when theproduct has no real connection with thecity. Examples of this are ‘Chicago Pizza’,the restaurant chain, or ‘Paris’, a smallclothing store in Birmingham.

Keller (2003) identifies the advantagesof strong brands as:

— greater loyalty and less vulnerability tocompetitive actions and crises

— larger margins— greater trade cooperation and support— increased marketing effectiveness— possible licensing opportunities— additional brand extension

opportunities.

Are these concepts transferable tocities? Loyalty to a city may showitself through repeat visits or civicpride. Less vulnerability to competitiveactions may translate into a businessnot relocating when a seemingly betteroption is offered, or an image notbeing damaged despite bad press.Larger margins are related to premiumprices through brand equity and can beseen in higher property prices in citieswith strong reputations. Greater tradecooperation and support may berevealed in local businesses promotingthe city and cooperating with citystrategies. Increased marketingeffectiveness can be achieved throughassociation with a city brand andcapitalised on across city-wide activity.Private sector interest in a city brandcan lead to opportunities for localauthorities to raise revenues throughlicensing their brands. ‘Additional brandextension opportunities’ are moredifficult to apply to city brands. Butwhile perhaps not relevant today, a


Parkerson and Saunders

individuals, businesses, public services,local government and partnerships withvaried and often competing interests.Castells (2000) defines a network as a‘set of organisational nodes’ and arguesthat networks have always had ‘anextraordinary capacity and extraordinaryproblems in becoming forms forimplementing human activity’.Cooperation is identified as a keycharacteristic, with each node beingdependent on the other nodes for thenetwork to function. Networks canorganise resources and activity, and willreorganise themselves rather than clashagainst other structures or organisations.This makes them flexible and adaptable.The problem with networks is that theyhave an inherent difficulty in focusingresources in order to maintain unity andaccomplish their task. Networks are goodat decentralising, but they are not goodat coordinating and centralising the

as it is understood within theorganisation — and irrational elements— brand as it is understood in theconsumer’s mind. This model addressesbrands from both the manager’s and theconsumer’s positions, and makes clear thedifferences in the processes and theinterrelatedness of the activities of bothpositions (Figure 1).

Organisation versus networkIn contrast to brand leading companies,cities do not have a single body orclarity of focus to drive branding. Withno organisational structure to manage themechanisms needed to build brandequity, the double vortex model does notfit city branding. The uniqueness of acity brand lies primarily in its form as anetwork rather than an organisation withclear boundaries and internal structures.A city is an intricate network of


City branding

Figure 1: Double vortex model

Values

Mission

Vision

Corporate cultureHeritage

Naming Functional Service Riskpolicy capacity reducer

Legal Crisp Personality communicator

Time Time/experience

Confidence

Rational: Emotional:Performance Psychosocial

match

Stakeholder value

Brand inside firm Responserelationship

Brand insideconsumer’s mindShorthand device

Consumerperceptions

approaches are likely to encounter similarproblems when applied to networks andcities.

The double vortex model has beenextended to introduce the uniquedynamic of the city as a network (Figure2). The problem of the lack oforganisational boundaries now becomesevident.

The rational elements of a city sitnot just within one firm, but within anetwork of many organisations andindividuals. Each may have its ownunique vision, mission, values, corporateculture, heritage, functional capability,policies, services and personality. Theymay work in partnership with oneanother, they may be competitors orthey may not know the other exists.All will in some way and to varyingdegrees inform consumers about thecity brand and the consumer willperceive this as a whole. This dynamicis mirrored in the response relationshipsbetween consumers and the brand.There is an inherent lack of stability

decision-making process or at allocatingresources to a particular purpose. Further,Castells (2000) argues that beyond acertain complexity it becomes practicallyimpossible to manage all the differentcomponents of a network and to getthem all to work towards a commonpurpose. The larger a network is, themore difficult it is to manage byconventional means (Castells, 2000).

In an analysis of city branding,marketing consultant Berci Florian (2002)retains faith in market-based planning forcities and identifies differentiation as thekey to satisfying increasinglyindividualistic consumer demand. Takingthe opposite stance, architect RemKoolhaas (2001) states that it is futile toplan a city; cities are self-organisingurban life forms that have outstrippedany means of conventional organisationor control. Koolhaas’s (2001) view andCastells’s (2000) concept of the networkundermine market-planning approachesrequiring coordinated effort towards acommon purpose. Strategic branding



Figure 2: Extended double vortex model

ResponserelationshipResponse

relationshipResponse




relationship

Confidence

Rational: Emotional: Psychosocial

Stakeholder value

Time Time/experience

Brand inside thecity

ResponserelationshipResponse


relationshipResponse Brand inside

consumer’s mindShorthand device

Performancematch

Pol

itic

al d

imen

sion

Con

sum

er p

erce

ptio

ns

The important differentiating elementsfor a city are likely to be thesocio-cultural and man-made backgroundtourism elements. Their uniqueness willbe the key in providing sustainablecompetitive advantage over other citiesand in creating brand equity.Jafari segments the ordinary world fromthe non-ordinary world. This can beapplied to city brands needing to delivertwo unique brand promises to twounique categories of audience: the touristand the non-tourist (Jafari, 1987, cited inJafari, 1995).

Corporate branding — The role ofthe organisationAt first glance, city brands resemblecorporate brands and brand consultantsdo refer to city brands as ‘corporatebrands’ (Olins, 2003a). But do theyfunction for a city as a corporate brandfunctions for organisations and theirproducts? The use of the term ‘corporatebrand’ by brand consultants for a citybrand has its roots in graphic design.Balmer has commented that the businessidentity concept is ubiquitous and hasbeen used recklessly in practitioner circlesand to a lesser degree by scholars. Inpractitioner literature, identity might bedefined in terms of the fundamentalattributes of the organisation whileidentity solutions are explained solely interms of graphic design (Balmer, 2001).

A corporate brand acts as a seamlessumbrella that encompasses all thebrands in the portfolio (Keller, 2000).Brand structure refers to how acorporate brand is deployed across aproduct portfolio. It provides amechanism for controlling the level ofassociation a consumer makes betweena product and the corporate image, anddetermines the relationship between thetwo. A content analysis of grocerybrands conducted by Laforet and

and consistency in a city brand. Thequestion is, can the standardmechanisms for managing a product orservice brand (sequential planningstages: vision, mission, values andcorporate culture) work for a citybrand?

Brand elements and segmentationThere is little known about why somecity brands are more successful thanothers. From an urban tourismperspective, research points to a rich andcompelling history and interestingcultural offerings as critical successfactors. Whether a city possesses thesecharacteristics determines its potential forurban leisure tourism. National capitalsalso have an advantage over non-capitals(Lennon and Seaton, 1998).

Segmenting a city’s offering intobrand elements can result in a betterunderstanding of its uniquecharacteristics. City brand elements canbe segmented further into tangibles andintangibles. Jafari’s (1982) tourismsegmentation model, although dated,remains a useful tool for analysing citybrands and determining sources ofbrand equity and competitiveadvantage. Tourism elements aresegmented into products used bytourists and residents plus backgroundtourism elements which can be eithernatural (climate, scenery), socio-cultural(culture, history) or man-made(buildings, shrines, shopping centres).Background tourism elements are notnecessarily confined to the city, but canextend beyond city limits. Withadequate transport infrastructure even acity with few attractions can become adormitory for the surrounding region.Jafari’s model requires extending inorder to reflect the needs of residents,businesses, investors and students (Jafari,1982, cited in Jafari, 1995).


City branding

product but also the people, programmes,systems, values and culture of theorganisation (Aaker, 1996). A city doesnot share these organisational boundariesand the systems, values and culture thatevolve within them. A city brand maybe the responsibility of a particular localgovernment function such as tourism oreconomic development, but it does notfunction within the boundaries of anorganisation in the same way that aproduct or service brand does.Nonetheless, the ‘corporate brand’ willidentify the people, values and culture ofthe city.

Increasingly, companies are realisingthat their staff are the embodiment oftheir brand. Unique corporate culturecan be the source of competitiveadvantage for a corporate brand. There isgrowing interest in orchestrating staff todeliver the brand promise (DeChernatony, 2002). The people of a cityare a unique element of a city brand andin many ways deliver the brand, but can(or should) a population be ‘orchestrated’to deliver the brand promise?

Balmer extends corporate-level brandsbeyond the company definition toinclude groups of companies andcountries, regions and cities and arguesfor a radical reappraisal of the traditionalmarketing framework (Balmer, 2003).

Strategic competence and thepolitical dimensionThere is a fundamental dilemmaunderlying strategic competence in anorganisation ‘between the extent ofchallenge and ambition in goal settingversus the ability to mobilisecommitments for achieving them overthe required time period’ (Murthy, 1987:12). This dilemma is more problematicin a complex city network.

The impact of the political dimensionon strategic competence has been

Saunders (1994) identified sixapproaches.

— Corporate-dominant approach (egKellogg’s corn flakes) was found to berare.

— House-dominant approach (eg Quakeruses corporate brand on cereals butFisher Price on toys) was morecommon.

— Dual brands (Rowntree’s QualityStreet), where two brand names areequally prominent, were mostcommon.

— Endorsed brands (eg ScotchTape/3M), where the brand name isdominant and is endorsed by a lessprominent corporate or house brand,were less popular than dual branding.

— Brand dominant (eg Mars and Procter& Gamble use this approach) arestand-alone brands where the maker isnot in a prominent position.

— Furtive brands do not show themaker at all (eg used by pet foodmakers to disassociate pet food fromhuman food).

These structures can also be found infinancial services, automotive and luxurygoods sectors (Olins, 2003b). Corporate,house or even furtive brands arepositioned firmly within the boundariesof the organisation both strategically andoperationally, and deployment of thecorporate brand is determined by theorganisation (Aaker, 1996; DeChernatony, 2002; Keller, 2003; Laforetand Saunders, 1999). This is not the casewith a city brand. City brands are‘adopted’ by independent organisationsand agencies that choose to be associatedwith the brand. Even across localgovernment it is not a given that thebrand will be adopted.

In Aaker’s definition a corporate brandidentifies the corporation behind theproduct and represents not only the



time, it is recognised that the citycouncil, through its electedrepresentation, legitimises the partnership.Effective city-wide partnerships havestrong political leadership at the mostsenior level, but it is important that thelocal authority does not play the leadrole (Aulakh et al., 2002).

It would seem that throughpartnership working cities try tocompensate for the lack of organisationalboundaries and corporate strategic centre.Partnerships may provide an appropriateframework within which brand strategyand appropriate behaviour can evolve.

The following propositions haveemerged for investigation.

— Proposition 1: Because of thenetwork form it is likely that strategicbrand models developed fororganisations will need adaptation forcities.

— Proposition 2: Deconstructing a cityinto its brand elements is likely toreveal the extent of the complexity ofa city brand and the need forsegmentation to identify sources ofbrand equity and the desires andneeds of the target markets.

— Proposition 3: Deployment of a citycorporate brand is decided byindividual organisations within anetwork rather than by a strategicdecision-making body. This is likelyto impact on the way the corporatebrand is deployed and the frequencyof its deployment.

— Proposition 4: The role of localgovernment and issues that underminestrategic competence may limit theextent to which strategic brandmodels can be implemented.

METHODOLOGYTo determine the relevance of strategicbranding models developed for goods

outlined by Murthy (1987). Strategiccompetence of public sector enterprises islow because:

— the dominance of the political processin the strategic decision-makingprocess seeks ambitious and visiblegoals, but leaves the mobilisation ofcommitments to bureaucraticprocesses

— for most public sector enterprisessurvival is more about personal careersand reputations than organisationalsurvival in the economic sense;conflict between managers,bureaucrats and politicians in theirmethods, motivations andcharacteristics can lead to a lack ofalignment of their interests

— setting goals is done withoutalignment of beliefs and values ofmanagers, bureaucrats and politicians

— lack of leadership among decisionmakers means there is no one toinfuse appropriate values, aligninterests and overcome inherentconflicts between managers,bureaucrats and politicians.

City strategy is primarily formulated bylocal government under regulation ofcentral government in consultation withthe private sector. Partnership workingunderpins many of the key provisionsset out in the Local Government Act2000 (Calpin, 2000). Crucial tosuccessful partnership working iseffective leadership, as it increases thevisibility of the partnership, promotesshared ownership of objectives andpersuades reluctant partners. Withoutleadership to bring about a commonsense of purpose and develop a sharedvision, partnership working is likely tofail (Young, 2000).

In the context of a city-widepartnership, city council dominance isseen to generate distrust. At the same


City branding

officials direct control over services andbudgets.

The traditional form of leadership oflocal government in the UK is a leaderof the council elected annually by themajority party or coalition. Since 1999,UK legislation allows for ‘powerfulUS-style’ elected mayors. Triggered by aresidents’ referendum or a voters’petition, Birmingham residents votedagainst an elected mayor and for aLeader of the Council (BBC, 1999;Parker, 2003).

Birmingham city brand elements

Tangibles

Birmingham is located in the centre ofEngland. The city is known for itsindustrial heritage as manufacturers ofjewellery and guns from the 17th centuryto the 19th century and automobiles inthe 20th century. The city once enjoyed agood reputation (Queen Victoria boughtjewellery made in Birmingham), but froma modern leisure tourism perspective thishistory is perhaps not as appealing as thehistories of Amsterdam, Dublin orLondon, which are among the top tenEuropean destinations. Key success factorsin urban tourism are a rich history andculture (Lennon and Seaton, 1998).Birmingham’s difficulty in competing inthis arena is reflected in low levels ofnon-business overnight and internationalvisitors to the city (MarketingBirmingham, 2003b).

In the 1960s, Birmingham’s city centreunderwent major redevelopment. The‘new Bullring’, the Rotunda and theinner ring road were built. The innerring road was designed to bring cars inand out of the city quickly. It becameknown as the concrete collar. To crossthe road, pedestrians had to use tunnelsthat became targets for criminal activity.The concrete collar isolated areas outside

and services to cities the following havebeen carried out.

— A case study of the Birminghambrand that examines key issuesimpacting on a city brand. The casestudy seeks to build a picture of thebrand-building activity taking placewithin the city and to what extentthat activity is a strategic andcoordinated effort.

— A survey of Birmingham brandpractitioners using the Brand ReportCard (Keller, 2000) as a theoreticalframework.

— Semi-structured interviews withBirmingham local government officialsilluminating the city context andpolitical dimension.

— Secondary data: documentation,perception research, MORI polls(British opinion survey) and statistics.

It is acknowledged that the conclusionsdrawn for the city of Birmingham maynot be relevant for other cities. For abroader set of results, case studies ofmore cities would be useful.

A CASE STUDY:THE BIRMINGHAM BRAND

BackgroundWith a population of approximately 1million, Birmingham is the capital ofthe West Midlands region. Thiscity-region has a population ofapproximately 3 million and is the12th largest in Europe (Interact-Network, 2003). The Birmingham CityCouncil (BCC) employs about 50,000people and is Europe’s largest citycouncil. It has an annual budget ofapproximately e3.5bn (Birmingham CityCouncil, 2003a). The council hasrecently devolved many public servicesto the constituencies, giving elected



runway has recently been approved(Locate in Birmingham, 2003a, 2003b;BBC, 2003).

Birmingham’s central location is a keysource of brand equity, and this issupported by large-scale conventioncentres and hotel infrastructure. Surveysshow a large percentage of domesticbusiness visitors. Key trends in thefinancial and professional services sector(the fastest-growing sectors accountingfor 76 per cent of employment) arefurther sources of brand equity(Marketing Birmingham, 2003a;Birmingham City Council, 2003a).

A fundamental characteristic ofBirmingham is social inequality. This isdue to highly skilled and highly paid jobsbeing held by people living outside thecity and commuting in while largeproportions of Birmingham’s own citizenslive in deprived communities and remainunemployed or on low incomes(Interact-Network, 2003; Aulakh et al.,2002).

Intangible elements

— The ‘non-ordinary’ world of thetourist. Results of a 2003 nationalsurvey of 2,013 UK adults revealedthat Birmingham was not seen as aleading European or ‘must-see’ city.Arts and culture were not perceivedas world class. Birmingham rated highon being a city full of colour andenthusiasm. People who lived or hadlived in the city had more positiveperceptions than those who had not.The positive impact of proximity incity brand perceptions was also foundto be true for the city of Hong Kong(Marketing Birmingham, 2003a;Burson-Marsteller et al., 2001).

— The ‘ordinary world’ of theresident. Residents’ perceptions aresurveyed annually on a wide range ofdimensions. The lowest ratings were

the ring road from the city-centre coreand those areas began to fall into decline.With the urban development of the1960s and the economic recession of the1980s, Birmingham became a badproduct combined with a bad economy(Locate in Birmingham, 2003b). Since1987 new convention and arts centreshave been built, canal areas have beendeveloped and tourism infrastructure hasimproved. Substantial investment hasbeen made in the city’s retail facilitiesand Birmingham has established areputation for business tourism, but thecity still carries the outdated reputationof being a post-war concrete jungle(Marketing Birmingham, 2003a, 2003b;Swingler, 2003).

In 2003 visitor numbers to the city’sattractions reveal that all but two ofthem are down from the previous year.These two are Cadbury World andSarehole Mill (the inspiration of Tolkien)(Marketing Birmingham, 2003b). Thebrand strength of both Cadbury andTolkien (particularly in the light ofrecent film successes) is likely to berelated to their increased visitor numbers.None of the other attractions comeremotely close to enjoying the globalbrand awareness and positive associationsof these two attractions. They are alsounique to the location, unlike thescience museum or the aquarium.Cadbury and Tolkien are global brandsand cultural exports which can attractnational and international visitors.Birmingham does not have many ofthese.

Birmingham’s central location benefitsdomestic business tourism and locating aUK business. It is relatively close toLondon and sits in the centre of the UKnational motorway and rail network.Birmingham International Airport, theUK’s fastest growing airport, however,has limited direct flights to majorinternational destinations. A second


City branding

of priorities of the two worlds in anurban tourism destination. Theintangible elements apply to bothworlds. A tourist may prioritisenightlife over employment, while theresident may prioritise employment. Itbecomes evident that a branddelivering to one of these worldsmight disappoint the other. Thequestion of whether or not a singlebrand image can meet the needs ofboth these worlds must be asked.

The impact of the city council ontangible elementsThe impact of the city council on brandelements is immense; it comes closest tobeing ‘the organisation’ behind the brand.The city council also seems to be in thebest position to manage the brandstrategically. But the power of localauthorities has been systematically reducedby central government over the years.The BCC’s role has shifted from servicedelivery to that of a facilitator of

on safety, cleanliness, greenery andhousing. The highest ratings for 2002were on quality shopping, universitiesand colleges, conferences andeducation. Residents’ greatestconcerns were with cleanliness, youngpeople with nothing to do, crime andspeeding. The polls revealed thattwo-thirds of residents speak highly ofthe city. This is reflective of loyalty,psychological bond and engagement(Birmingham City Council, 2003b).

— Overlapping worlds. The ‘ordinary’world of the resident and‘non-ordinary’ world of the tourist aredialectically opposed. Residents andtourists co-exist in the same place,however, and many tangible elementsserve both these markets. The twoperceptual categories of ‘non-ordinary’and ‘ordinary’ represent twoperspectives and two sets of priorities.In Birmingham, the image campaignfocuses on the ‘non-ordinary’ world.The diagram in Figure 3 has beendevised to illustrate the opposing sets



Figure 3: Priorities in the ordinary/non-ordinary worlds

Tangibles

Intangibles

Image, style,personality

Awareness,recall,recognition

Perceivedquality,consideration

Emotional andself -expressiveelements

Loyalty, bond,engagement

Hotels, airports and trains

Culture, arts, historynightlife, shopping

SafetyCleanliness

Transportation

Education, health,housing, employment,business, infrastructure

Non

-ord

inar

y w

orld

Tour

ist

Low

P

rior

ity

H

igh L

ow P

riority High

Res

iden

tO

rdin

ary

wor

ld

consumers desire and this informationinforms strategy. Brand building requiresthe organisation to maximise thecustomer’s product and serviceexperiences. Maximising the experiencesof a city is not centrally managed.Marketing Birmingham provides tourismservices that maximise the visitor’sexperience of the brand. For the rest ofthe city’s ‘consumers’ there are amultitude of public, private andvoluntary sector organisations that deliverservices. Each has their own strategiesand capabilities for maximising productand service experiences. The BCC hasinfluence and in some cases power oversome aspects of this activity throughfunding initiatives, policy and legislation.This places it in a key position tomaximise people’s experience of the city.The BCC conducts annual opinion pollsto identify residents’ perceptions andlevels of satisfaction on key publicservices, which informs council strategyand policy. Marketing Birminghamcarries out perception research. Progressis measured against objectives (egBirmingham — a world-class city),however, rather than visitors’ desires.Locate in Birmingham gathers relevantinformation on an ad hoc basis about keybusinesses and issues in the city, whichinforms its inward investment andbusiness retention strategy.

The brand stays relevant

Urban regeneration and culturalinitiatives have improved Birminghamand continue to do so. This is informedlargely by market conditions and trendsin urban planning, regeneration anddesign. In the context of the citynetwork, private and public sectororganisations will also contribute on anindividual basis to keeping the city brandrelevant by keeping their own brandsrelevant.

partnerships. Some BCC partnerships areeffective. For example, the city planningdepartment brought intensely competitiveprivate sector developers to the table tobuild jointly a major shoppingdevelopment (Locate in Birmingham,2003b). Less effective is the partnershipwith Marketing Birmingham, as indicatedby the council’s reluctance to adopt thenew brand developed by MarketingBirmingham and Marketing Birmingham’srefusal to cooperate fully with thecouncil’s scrutiny procedures (Dale, 2003).

Building the Birmingham brandThree organisations/departments inBirmingham were identified that engagein marketing and branding the city. Theyare Marketing Birmingham for leisureand business tourism, Locate inBirmingham for inward investment andbusiness retention and the BCC forproduct development, resident servicesand corporate planning. None of theagencies emphasised Birmingham as aplace to study.

Locate in Birmingham is the BCC’sinward investment team, and the BCC isa key stakeholder in and part funder ofMarketing Birmingham. Otherstakeholders include the NEC group(convention centres), hotels andcity-centre retailers. MarketingBirmingham has developed the citycorporate brand and is the brandguardian. Although the threeorganisations are interrelated, their workis fragmented and not integrated througha holistic approach to branding.

Brand activity in Birmingham hasbeen investigated using the Brand ReportCard (Keller, 2000), as outlined below.

The brand excels at delivering thebenefits customers truly desire

The organisation knows/finds out what


City branding

The brand portfolio and hierarchymake sense

A corporate ‘umbrella’ brand is seen asdesirable. One Birmingham respondentwants to see the city branding across awide range of city organisations in boththe public and private sector. But thecorporate brand does not create a‘seamless umbrella’ for the city’ssub-brands. Although the brand designersclaim that the new design can beadapted to anyone’s needs, the optionsfor integrating the corporate brand withthe sub-brand are limited and may beinhibiting its adoption (Casteldine, 2003).

Issues such as a brand’s capacity tohold individual niches or the degree towhich brands overlap are specific toproduct and service brands. Overlappingbrands in a consumer goods context cantranslate into cannibalisation and waste.In a city context, overlapping brandsmay be desirable and indicate a robustcompetitive sector. Intensity ofcompetition among rivals is one of fiveforces that determine the attractiveness ofan industry (Porter, 2001). Intensity ofcompetition also determines theattractiveness of a place in the context ofinternational marketing (Porter, 1990).Here the concept of ‘place as product’comes into conflict with the dynamic of‘place as market’.

The brand makes use of andcoordinates a full repertoire ofmarketing activities to buildbrand equity

Marketing Birmingham and Locate inBirmingham engage in a wide range ofmarketing activity. The Birminghamcorporate brand has been designed togive adopters choices in colour schemesand straplines to suit their needs, but it ismore about achieving adoption by adiverse audience than about maximisingbrand awareness.

The pricing strategy is based onconsumers’ perceptions of value

General perceptions of the price ofBirmingham vary according to visitors’place of origin. In the UKBirmingham is seen to be good valuefor money, while Europeans find itexpensive. For businesses, office space ismore expensive than in Manchester orLiverpool, but decidedly cheaper and ofbetter quality than in London.Birmingham’s higher price is seen aspositive and as reflecting demand. Theconcept of optimising price, cost andquality across the range of a city’sofferings is unrealistic in a complexcity network. This is one element ofthe Brand Report Card that does notapply well to city branding.

The brand is properly positioned

Benchmarking has been carried outthrough MORI polling to establishpoints of parity and points of differencein key city services with other UK cities.In addition, the regional tourist boardcompares Birmingham with other UKand European destinations on measuressuch as hotel profitability and visitornumbers. Locate in Birmingham useseconomic data to determineBirmingham’s position (Locate inBirmingham, 2003a; Birmingham CityCouncil, 2003a).

The brand is consistent

Brand meaning varies across the threeorganisations. For inward investment thenew brand image is perceived asfrivolous and Birmingham’s businesscommunity is unhappy with the focus ontourism (Locate in Birmingham, 2003b).The BCC has rejected the brand imagefor not representing the reality indeprived neighbourhoods (BirminghamCity Council, 2004).



receives substantial additional fundingfrom the European Union. With theenlargement of the EU this funding isexpected to be reduced. Exit strategiesinclude increased private sector supportand central government support.

The political dimension is notperceived as a threat to long-termbrand strategy, although recent enquiryby Tory and Liberal Democratcouncillors into the workings andfinances of Marketing Birminghamwould suggest otherwise (Dale, 2003;Dale, 2004).

The company monitors sources ofbrand equity

The brand guidelines distributed byMarketing Birmingham define themeaning of the brand, but this meaningis not aligned with a wider city agenda(eg business, investment and thecommunity). The BCC, MarketingBirmingham and Locate in Birminghamtrack performance on a regular basis.

Brand equity reports as such are notdone. The BCC’s polling results informpolicy and strategy and are made public.Marketing Birmingham distributes theresults of its research to its partners andthey are made public. Locate inBirmingham publishes and distributeseconomic data to the businesscommunity.

Branding in a city contextIn Birmingham, activity contributing tothe delivery of brand benefits (egpositioning, consistency, coordinatedactivity, understanding brand meaningand monitoring) was found to befragmented. Three organisations areinvolved in these activities for four targetmarkets.

— The BCC — targeting residents.

The brand managers understand whatthe brand means to consumers

Perception research appears inadequateand fragmented. Little evidence wasfound to indicate in-depth knowledgeand understanding of the coreassociations people in any of the targetmarkets make with Birmingham.

MORI polls show that residents havepositive perceptions of the city’s shoppingfacilities, colleges and universities.Perceptions of education, hospitals,attractions and leisure tourism are good,but get worse year on year. The city isnot perceived to be green, safe andclean. (Did this information informMarketing Birmingham’s ‘Green’[Birmingham] billboard portraying thecity as a green haven?)

Marketing Birmingham’s researchshows that national perceptions haveimproved slightly, but that arts andculture are still not perceived as ‘worldclass’ (Marketing Birmingham, 2003a).Locate in Birmingham does not carryout perception research. In its opinion,that is the work of MarketingBirmingham. Given that MarketingBirmingham focuses on tourism, it isunlikely that it will get relevant data forinward investment or business.

The brand is given proper support andthat support is sustained over thelong run

Birmingham has had substantiallong-term support from both the publicand private sectors in the area of urbanregeneration. Levels of support formarketing appear more vulnerable.Core funding for city marketing in theUK tends to come from the localauthority, with additional fundingachieved through the private sector andregional development agencies. This isthe case with Marketing Birmingham.Currently, Marketing Birmingham


City branding

dominance of a city-wide partnership isseen to generate distrust. At the sametime, it is recognised that the BCCthrough its elected representationlegitimises the partnership (Aulakh et al.,2002). Effective city-wide partnershipshave strong political leadership at themost senior level, but it is also importantthat the local authority does not play thelead role (Carley et al., 2000).Dominance by the BCC of the CSPmay render it a vehicle for achievingBCC objectives and distrust underminespartnership working.

The corporate brandIn July 2003, after the city lost its bid tobe European Capital of Culture, thebrand behind the bid was discarded anda new brand was launched. The aim ofthe new corporate brand is to increaseawareness, improve perceptions andachieve adoption by a wide range oforganisations across the city. But thebrand’s design may be inhibiting itsadoption. To encourage adoption it iscrucial to design brands to accommodatea wide range of brand structures andrepresentations of relationships. TheBirmingham brand claims to reflect thediversity of the city throughinterchangeable sets of images, words andcolour schemes. Adhering to the beliefthat multiple identities can be abridgedwithin a single brand, it maintains it canbe anything anyone wants it to be. Thedesign is unable to accommodate thewide range of relationships between thecity and the sub-brands, however, andkey stakeholders do not agree with thebrand’s message. If multiple identitiescannot be abridged and the single brandis used, then segments of the city’sstakeholders may be excluded (MarketingBirmingham, 2003c; Bennett andKoudelova, 2001).

In addition to the six brand structures

— Locate in Birmingham (a departmentwithin the BCC) — targetinginvestment and business.

— Marketing Birmingham — targetingtourism (business and leisure).

The city as a place to study was nottargeted despite a relatively large studentpopulation.

An effective strategic brandingapproach would include activity in allrelevant target markets and requireintegration and facilitation from astrategic centre. For a city, this is astructural problem that could be resolvedby positioning the marketing functionbeneath a strategic function that worksacross the whole range of city sectors.

In the UK, the Local Government Act2000 requires Birmingham to set up alocal strategic partnership. Formed in2001, the City Strategic Partnership(CSP) brings together the city’s maininstitutions and agencies to provide anoverall strategic direction for the city andappears to offer an opportunity for a‘virtual’ corporate strategic centre withinwhich a city-wide branding programmecould reside.

The CSP is responsible for:

— producing the long-term vision forthe area (the community strategy)

— implementing a neighbourhoodrenewal strategy to achieveimprovements in employment, health,housing and environment, educationand crime

— coordinating the work of otherpartnerships

— developing public service agreements.

Compared to other local strategicpartnerships in the UK, the CSP admitsto being ‘late to get off the ground’(City Strategic Partnership, 2003). Largelyfunded by the BCC, the CSP is chairedby the leader of the council. BCC



can compensate for the lack oforganisational boundaries and strategiccentre; this ‘virtual’ organisation facilitatesthe decision-making process andallocation of resources needed to developand deliver holistic brand strategy.

Brand elements and segmentationThe segmentation of the Birminghambrand revealed an expansive and complex‘product’ and portfolio comparable,perhaps, to a global brand such asProcter & Gamble.

Segmentation of city brand elementsby target market assists the identificationof sources of brand equity. Strategicdecision-making bodies should prioritiseaccording to the strength of the element,its potential for adding value, whether ornot it can be improved, how much thatwould cost and how long it would take.Decisions about urban tourism should beinformed by climate, scenery and thepotential cultural and given historicrichness of the location. Tourism ingeneral needs to be considered in termsof a city’s ability to deliver the promiseof the ‘non-ordinary’ world.

The perceptual categories of theordinary and non-ordinary worldssegment the brand elements from theperspective of the place consumer. Thebrand promise for the visitor in the‘non-ordinary’ world is likely to bedialectically opposed to that of theresident in the ‘ordinary’ world. Thisdilemma raises questions about thedesirability of a single corporate identitydeployed across a wide range of citybrand elements (or sub-brands) withpotentially conflicting values and coreassociations.

Birmingham’s strengths lie largely inareas that impact on business tourism,business and inward investment, a centrallocation and proximity to London.Cultural products are in need of

identified by Laforet and Saunders(1994), a further brand structure wasidentified: the NEC’s and Novotel’s useof the brand colours and recognisablegraphic elements without the logo orname. This ‘associative approach’ solves aproblem for adopters of city brands whencorporate-dominant or endorsingstructures are inappropriate and housebrand approaches do not show enoughof a relationship.

The brand must have strongassociations with the colour and designelements for the association to beextended to the sub-brand. Strongproduct brands typically have one or twocolours so as to enable strong associations(eg Coca–Cola, Virgin, Orange, LloydsTSB and MasterCard). In contrast, theBirmingham brand has five colourschemes with 12 colours each to choosefrom, making strong associations betweencolour and brand difficult.

DISCUSSION

The networkThe dynamic of a network appears toimpact on brand programmes on at leasttwo levels:

— on how activity is mobilised withinthe network to develop and deliverbrand strategy and programmes (thisincludes product development, imagebuilding and leveraging brand equity)

— on how the corporate brand can bedeployed across the network andbrand portfolio.

The city as a network poses a uniqueproblem for strategic brand modelsdeveloped for goods and services, in thatnetworks are not good at centralising thedecision-making process or allocatingresources to a particular purpose.Partnership working is a mechanism that


City branding

of brand structures determining therelationship of the brands to the city. Acity’s institutions and organisations oftenadopt a house brand approach withindividual brands showing a looseassociation with the city.Corporate-dominant brand approachestend to be used for services the citydelivers and for city agencies. Endorsedstructures show the city’s support for anevent or organisation.

The way a corporate brand iscombined with a product brand reflectshow the organisation wants therelationship between the product and theorganisation to be perceived. The casestudy of the Birmingham brand revealedthe opposite to be true. Brand guidelinesmay indicate how the brand should andshould not be used, but the city’ssub-brands (institutions and organisations)can choose to adopt or not to adopt thebrand. Corporate branding decisionsmade in the corporate centre for aproduct brand may be made externallyfor a city brand. Unlike product orservice brands, the city has little controlover the deployment of the corporatebrand, leaving city brand practitionerswith the challenge of facilitating adoptionthrough influencing and persuasion.

Marketing Birmingham would like todeploy its brand across the city portfolio(Marketing Birmingham, 2003d), but thisis proving difficult. The ‘adoption’ of thebrand is often little more than use of thelogo as an endorser. To what extent thisincreases awareness or improvesperceptions is questionable. MarketingBirmingham uses the brandingconsistently for effective business andleisure tourism promotion, and the BCCmarketing department uses the brand forits seasonal events campaigns. Theinward investment team find it ‘toofrivolous’, but has managed toincorporate the logo in black and whiteand use the brand language mechanism.

strengthening before the city can beconsidered a leading urban tourismdestination. Cultural exports such asCadbury, Tolkien and Jaguar are potentialprofile raisers and also in need ofstrengthening.

Birmingham has changed the look, feeland functionality of its city centre.Current pressure from local communitieshas led to a shift in priorities (andresources) from the city centre to thesurrounding areas, particularly those thatare home to disadvantaged groups. In thecontext of strategic branding this isproduct improvement (however crass thismay seem). Decisions impacting on theproduct also impact on how the brand isexperienced, processed and understood asa whole in the minds of place consumers.From a holistic branding standpoint,improving deprived neighbourhoodswould seem a favourable move, althoughit is unlikely that improvements are beingmade for this reason.

Some elements of a city cannot bechanged. A city is a product of itsunique history. The town of Dachau willforever be associated with Naziconcentration camps. A city like LasVegas is a product of its short history andsingularity of purpose.

While a city’s iconography has aquality of permanence, a city’s face canbe changed. The originally unpopulardecision to build the Eiffel Towerchanged Paris irrecoverably, and providedit with an easily recognisable symbol.The seed of the Manhattan skyline wasplanted long before the invention of theelevator when three city commissionerscarved Manhattan up into squares tofacilitate the buying and selling ofproperty (Koolhaas, 1994).

Corporate brandA city brand portfolio is much like aportfolio of product brands, with a range



Segal-Horn, 2003). Changing the cultureof a city in order to market it moreeffectively raises ethical questions. At thesame time, improving education, skillsand employment can improve life forresidents, impact on the culture of a cityand so improve the brand.

In the opinion of brand practitioners inBirmingham, the ‘product’ Birmingham isbetter than the perception ofBirmingham. Brand perceptions as theyexist in consumer’s minds are realphenomena that are influenced throughtheir experience and cumulativeknowledge of the brand. Cumulativeimplies the need for a consistent andlong-term approach which may provechallenging in a political context.The failure of the Birmingham brandcampaign behind the bid for EuropeanCapital of Culture has led not only to anew brand, but also to new leadership ofMarketing Birmingham; the city’s leadingbusinesses have been disgruntled byMarketing Birmingham’s focus on tourism(Birmingham Post, 2003), and a localelection has brought a change ingovernment and new city councilleadership. The brand practitionersinterviewed for this research are not ofthe opinion that the political dimension isa threat to the brand programme. Butcircumstances in Birmingham indicate that‘municipal branding’ may well be the‘political minefield’ that one New YorkCity consultant claims it to be (Lefton,2003).

Long-term support of ‘productdevelopment’ has been achieved inBirmingham since 1987. This is thoughtto be due to strong leadership, effectivepartnership working and a long-term plan.Leadership is also critical to the success ofstrategic branding, particularly if the brandprogramme is delivered through apartnership. Strong leadership can mobilisethe brand activity throughout thepartnership towards a common goal.

Other BCC departments, and much ofthe business community, have rejectedthe brand.

Abridging multiple identities is a keyissue for city brands, and theBirmingham ‘corporate’ brand tries toachieve this (Bennett and Koudelova,2001). But in its attempt to be all thingsfor all people, the brand loses sight of itsreal function, which is to maximisebrand awareness. This dilemma, alongwith the ‘ordinary/non-ordinary’dialectic, raises questions about thedesirability and achievability of a single‘corporate’ brand image for a city.

The role of local government(political dimension)The role of local government and publicpolicy in city branding is extensive. Akey driver of product development in aUK city is urban regeneration. A localauthority’s economic development andcity planning functions are central to thedevelopment and sustainability of sourcesof brand equity.

Public policy can also impact on acity’s cultural products, which are avaluable source of brand equity for urbantourism. Local government can play akey role in supporting and nurturing thecultural life of a city. Further, a city’scultural exports can be exploited, andindeed created, through governmentsupport (eg grants for artists and touringprogrammes).

Local government can also play a rolein shaping a city’s ‘corporate’ culture (ifit can be called this). Like servicesbrands, the value delivery systems incities are visible and the consumer takesan active part in them, but unlikeservices, delivery is performed through anetwork of diverse organisations andindividuals rather than an organisation. Asolution for service brands may be foundin corporate culture (De Chernatony and


City branding

argument for adapting the systems andstructures of generic branding models tofit city branding.

The networkBrand models developed for organisationsneed modification to suit a networkbetter if they are to be of use in a citycontext. The double vortex model wasextended to illustrate this (DeChernatony and Riley, 1998). Twomechanisms for creating a ‘virtual’organisation were identified: the electedmayor and the local strategic partnership(LSP). The LSP is the more likelymechanism in the UK because of a lackof tradition with elected mayors. Theproximity of the brand programme to acity-wide strategic decision-making bodycan facilitate a holistic strategic approach.Leadership and partnership managementwere considered crucial to effectivebranding and partnership working.

Implications

A strategic brand programme can befacilitated by the creation of a ‘virtual’organisation led by an elected mayor orLSP to mobilise the activity within a citynetwork towards the common goal of astrategic brand programme. Positioningthe programme close to a centraldecision-making body can help a brandprogramme to work holistically. Strong,effective leadership needs to be in place,and in the case of the LSP the localauthority should not dominate thepartnership.

Elements and segmentationDeconstructing the Birmingham brandinto its tangible and intangible brandelements revealed an expansive andcomplex ‘product’. Segmentation of acity into its brand elements can assist the

Further enquiry made into the impactof conflicting methods and characteristicsof key players in a partnership (egpoliticians, government officers andprivate sector CEOs) has revealed theimportance of partnership management tostrategic competence. Clarity of purposeand clear, balanced rules and methodswere deemed critical to managingpotential conflict. Weak officers and aweak scrutiny function can undermine thesuccess of a partnership (Ormston, 2004).One respondent expressed the need for‘interpreters’ when key players withpotentially diverging motivations (forexample in a partnership with key playersfrom the private and public sectors)interface. This suggests that there is amethod to managing partnerships thatmay be as important as leadership inmobilising the partners to achievecommon goals.

CONCLUSIONSInterest in branding cities is growing, asis the expectation that strong city brandswill increase opportunities for tourismand investment and ‘sell’ cities as greatplaces in which to run businesses, studyand live. In addressing the question ofwhether or not goods and servicesbranding models can be used to brandcities, generic brand models and tourismsegmentation models guided aninvestigation into the Birmingham brand.Four themes (the impact of a networkon brand models developed fororganisations; segmentation of brandelements; corporate branding; and thepolitical dimension) emerged that wereused as a framework for analysing thecity brand. Complexity was common toall four themes. The lack of clearorganisational boundaries and a strategiccentre, and the implementation of brandstrategy through a network were foundto be unique to city brands and an



decide if, when and how they will usethe corporate brand.

The Birmingham brand aims toincrease awareness and improveperceptions. It is intended for thebrand to be adopted by a wide rangeof city organisations. There is a beliefthat a single brand image can abridgemultiple identities. If this is notachieved, and a corporate brandapproach is used, then choices may bemade that exclude segments of a city’sstakeholders.

Implications

Corporate brands need to be designed toaccommodate a wide range of brandstructures to facilitate adoption.Deployment of a corporate brand acrossa network is difficult. The challenge forpractitioners is in influencing andpersuading organisations to adopt thebrand. A single corporate brand must becarefully considered for diverse cities.Representation of diversity must notundermine the key function of corporatebrand design, which is to maximisebrand awareness.

Role of local government(political dimension)The role of local government isextensive in city branding. Urbandevelopment and urban regeneration arekey drivers of ‘product improvement’and keeping a city brand relevant inthe UK. Public policy impacts on awide range of brand elements, fromarts and culture to education to safestreets, all of which are potentialsources of brand equity. Strategic brandprogrammes require support in the longterm. There is potential for the‘political dimension’ to underminelong-term support. Conflicting methodsand characteristics of key players in a

management of resources and activity.Segmentation also aids identification ofsources of brand equity, which in turnshould inform strategic decision-makinggroups.

A city brand can also be segmentedinto perceptual categories of the‘non-ordinary’ world of the tourist andthe ‘ordinary’ world of the resident.Co-existing in a single location andexperiencing many of the same brandelements, these two target markets willbe influenced by opposing sets ofpriorities when making decisions about acity. The brand promise for these twogroups will also be dialectically opposed.

Implications

Decisions about brand elements need toconsider the current strength of theelement, its potential strength andwhether or not improvement isachievable and desirable. If someelements are weak, difficult or impossibleto improve, other elements can bedeveloped to compensate; a weak historyand climate can be compensated for bystrong cultural products to attract urbantourism. Decisions around tourism needto consider the promise of the‘non-ordinary’ world. The ‘ordinary’ and‘non-ordinary’ worlds might not alwaysbe in harmony. Brand programmes needto be balanced and potential conflictmanaged proactively.

Corporate brandThe corporate brand/sub-brandrelationship is different for a city brandthan for a product or service brand.Decisions about the deployment of acorporate brand across a city brandportfolio are not made by the strategicdecision makers or city brandpractitioners. The sub-brands, or ratherthe organisations adopting the brand, will


City branding

School of Public Policy, Birmingham, UK.Balmer, J. (2001) ‘Corporate identity, corporate

branding and corporate marketing — Seeingthrough the fog’, European Journal of Marketing,Vol. 35, Nos 3/4, pp. 248–291.

Balmer, J. (2003) ‘Corporate brands: What are they?What of them?’, European Journal of Marketing,Vol. 37, Nos 7/8, pp, 972–997.

BBC (1999) ‘More elected mayors on the way’,BBC News, 26th November, available from<news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/537686.stm>.

BBC (2003) ‘No challenge to runway plan’, BBCNews, 16th December, available from<news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/3323273.stm>.

Bennett, R. and Koudelova, R. (2001) ‘Imageselection and the marketing of downtown areas inLondon and New York’, International Journal ofPublic Sector Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.205–220.

Birmingham City Council (2003a) ‘Birminghameconomy’, available from<www.birminghameconomy.org.uk>.

Birmingham City Council (2003b) ‘BirminghamResidents’ Views 2002, Research StudyConducted for Birmingham City Council’,MORI, Birmingham, UK.

Birmingham City Council (2004) Personalcommunication, 12th February.

Birmingham Post (2003) ‘Commerce must leadcampaign’, Birmingham Post, 1st August, availablefrom <icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0150business/0200news/ page.cfm?objectid=13242649&method=full&siteid=50002>.

Burson-Marsteller, Landor Associates and WirthlinWorldwide for the Government of Hong Kong(2001) ‘Perceptions of Hong Kong’, Hong KongBrand Management Office, Hong Kong.

Calpin, D. (2000) ‘Community strategies key tofuture of local government’, The Guardian, 8thDecember.

Carley, M., Campbell, M., Kearns, A., Wood, M.and Young, R. (eds) (2000) ‘Regeneration in the21st Century: Policies into Practice: An Overviewof the Joseph Rowntree Foundation AreaRegeneration Programme’, Policy Press andJoseph Rowntree Foundation, Bristol, UK.

Casteldine, P. (2003) ‘Branding Birmingham’,Birmingham Vision, Vol. 1, Summer, pp. 5–7.

Castells, M. (2000) ‘The contours of the networksociety’, Foresight, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 151–157.

City Strategic Partnership (2003) Personalcommunication, 23rd January.

Cohen, J. and Basu, K. (1987) ‘Alternative models ofcategorization: Toward a contingent processingframework’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13,No. 4, March, pp. 455–472.

Dale, P. (2003) ‘Half culture team boycott inquiry’,Birmingham Post, 11th December, available from<icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/ page.cfm?objectid=13713939&method=full&siteid=50002>.

partnership can undermine strategiccompetence.

Implications

Policy makers can support strategicbrand programmes by developingpolicies that underpin the brandprogramme in the long term. Aholistic strategic approach to brandingand positioning the brand programmeclose to the central decision-makingbody will facilitate appropriate policydecisions. Local authorities can facilitatepartnerships and develop leaders fromwithin the community. Partnerships andpotential conflict of key players mustbe managed proactively.

What one needs to knowThere remains much polemic andpromotion, but little evidence on theeffectiveness of city branding. Manyquestions remain unanswered. Is a singlebrand identity for a city desirable orachievable? Are cities too complex? Caninsight into managing multiple identitiesbe found in research on diversity issuesthat global brands face?

There is a need for further researchacross a wide range of cities. Forexample, comparative studies of strongand weak city brands within a nationalcontext need to be carried out beforegeneralisations about city brands can bemade. The subject of strategic citybranding is vast and complex. Inparticular, this research has only skimmedthe surface of the role of localgovernment and the political dimension.

ReferencesAaker, D. (1996) ‘Building Strong Brands’, Free

Press/Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.Aulakh, S., Churchill, S. and Spencer, K. (2002) ‘A

Case-Study Analysis of the Birmingham ‘‘CityPride’’ Partnership’, University of Birmingham



Building, Measuring, and Managing BrandEquity’, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Koolhaas, R. (1994) ‘Delirious New York’,Monticelli Press, New York, UK.

Koolhaas, R. (2001) ‘Projects for Prada’, Part 1,Fondazione Prada, Milan, Italy.

Kotler, P., Haider, D. H. and Rein, I. R. (1993)‘Marketing Places: Attracting Investment, Industryand Tourism to Cities, States and Nations’, FreePress/Macmillan, New York, NY.

Laforet, S. and Saunders, J. (1994) ‘Managing brandportfolios: How the leaders do it’, Journal ofAdvertising Research, Vol. 34, No. 5, pp. 64–75.

Laforet, S. and Saunders, J. (1999) ‘Managing brandportfolios: Why leaders do what they do’, Journalof Advertising Research, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 51–66.

Lefton, T. (2003) ‘Made in New York’, Brandweek,Vol. 44, No. 45, p. 28.

Lennon, J. and Seaton, A. V. (1998) ‘Pathways tosuccess: Contrasting roles in public sector businessdevelopment for the tourism industries — Acomparison of Glasgow and Dublin’, InternationalJournal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 11, Nos2/3, pp. 139–153.

Locate in Birmingham (2003a) ‘Birmingham CityCouncil’, available from<www.locatebirmingham.org.uk>.

Locate in Birmingham (2003b) Personalcommunication, 27th November.

Marketing Birmingham (2003a) ‘BirminghamImage/Perceptions Research’, MarketingBirmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Marketing Birmingham (2003b) ‘Tourism Monitor’,Marketing Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Marketing Birmingham (2003c) ‘Birmingham BrandGuidelines’, Marketing Birmingham, Birmingham,UK.

Marketing Birmingham (2003d) Personalcommunication, 13th August.

Matson, E. W. (1994) ‘Can cities market themselveslike Coke and Pepsi do?’, International Journal ofPublic Sector Management, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.35–41.

Murphy, J. M. (1992) ‘Branding, A Key MarketingTool’, 2nd edn, Macmillan Academic andProfessional, Basingstoke, UK.

Murthy, K. R. S. (1987) ‘Do public enterprises needa corporate strategy?’, Vikalpa, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.12–22.

Olins, W. (2003a) ‘Hull: Pioneering city’, WolffOlins. Case Study, available from<www.wolff-olins.com/files/Hull_0202New815000.pdf>, pp. 1–6.

Olins, W. (2003b) ‘On Brand’, Thames & Hudson,London, UK.

Ormston, A. (2004) Personal communication, 5thFebruary.

Parker, S. (2003) ‘Chains of office’, The Guardian,12th March, available from<society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,,911922,00.html>.

Porter, M. E. (1990) ‘The competitive advantage of

Dale, P. (2004) ‘Marketing group faces financeprobe’, Birmingham Post, 6th January, availablefrom <icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/ page.cfm?objectid=13784895&method=full&siteid=50002>.

De Chernatony, L. (1992) ‘Categorising brands:Evolutionary processes underpinned by two keydimensions’, Working Paper Series, CityUniversity Business School, London, UK.

De Chernatony, L. (2002) ‘Would a brand smell anysweeter by a corporate name?’, CorporateReputation Review, Vol. 5, Nos 2/3, pp. 114–132.

De Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M. (2001)‘Creating Powerful Brands in Consumer, Serviceand Industrial Markets’, Butterworth-Heinemann,Oxford, UK.

De Chernatony, L. and Riley, F. D. (1998) ‘Modelingthe components of the brand’, European Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 32, Nos 11/12, pp. 1074–1090.

De Chernatony, L. and Segal-Horn, S. (2003) ‘Thecriteria for successful services brands’, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 37, Nos 7/8, pp.1095–1118.

Doyle, P. (1989) ‘Building successful brands: Thestrategic options’, Journal of Marketing Management,Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 76–77.

Feldwick, P. (1991) ‘Defining a brand’, in Cowley,D. (ed.) ‘Understanding Brands’, Kogan Page,London, UK, pp. 17–30.

Florian, B. (2002) ‘The city as a brand’, in ‘CityBranding’, NIA Publishers, Rotterdam, TheNetherlands, pp. 20–31.

Greenbaum, R. and Bondonio, D. (2003)‘Comparative evaluation of spacially targetedeconomic revitalization programmes in theEuropean Union and the United States’, WorkingPaper 3, International Centre for EconomicResearch, Torino, Italy.

Interact-Network (2003) ‘City of Birmingham’,available from <www.interact-network.org/cities/download/cityofbir.pdf>.

Jafari, J. (1982) ‘Tourism market basket of goods andservices: Components and nature of tourism’, inSingh, T. V., Kapur, J. and Singh, D. P. (eds)‘Studies in Tourism Wildlife Park Conservation’,Metropolitan Book Company, New Delhi, India,pp. 1–12.

Jafari, J. (1987) ‘Tourism models: The socioculturalaspects’, Tourism Management, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp.151–159.

Jafari, J. (1995) ‘Structure of tourism: Threeintegrated models’, in Witt, F. S. and Moutinho,L. (eds) ‘Tourism Marketing and ManagementHandbook’, Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd,Hemel Hempstead, UK, pp. 5–17.

Keller, K. L. (2000) ‘The Brand Report Card’,Harvard Business Review, January–February, pp.3–10.

Keller, K. L. (2001) ‘Building consumer-based brandequity’, Marketing Management, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp.14–19.

Keller, K. L. (2003) ‘Strategic Brand Management:


City branding

13112614&method=full&siteid=50002>.Young, R. (2000) ‘Partnerships — Realising the

potential’, in Carley, M., Campbell, M., Kearns,A., Wood, M. and Young, R. (eds)‘Regeneration in the 21st Century: Policies intoPractice: An Overview of the Joseph RowntreeFoundation Area Regeneration Programme’,Policy Press, Bristol, UK.

nations’, Harvard Business Review, March–April,pp. 73–93.

Porter, M. E. (2001) ‘Strategy and the internet’,Harvard Business Review, March–April, pp. 1–50.

Swingler, S. (2003) ‘Tourists reject Midland sites’,Evening Mail, 26th June, available from<icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/page.cfm?objectid=



Documents

brand