Building Brand Identity in the Network of Destinations Arja Lemmetyinen

《Building Brand Identity in the Network of Destinations Arja Lemmetyinen》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Building Brand Identity in the Network of Destinations Arja Lemmetyinen（12页珍藏版）》请在装配图网上搜索。

1、Building Brand Identity in the Network of DestinationsArja Lemmetyinen Arja Lemmetyinen, Senior Research Associate, Turku School of Economics, Department of Marketing, e-mail: arja.lemmetyinentse.fiFrank M. Go Frank M. Go, Professor, Rotterdam School of Management, Centre for Tourism Management, e-m

2、ail: FGorsm.nlAbstractPurpose: The purpose of the paper is to examine the process of building the network brand identity in the cruise sector in the Baltic Sea region. The stakeholders of the multicultural case network are involved in developing the network of destinations as a corporate brand. Meth

3、odology and approach: The paper uses a single case study as a methodological approach and qualitative data gathering methods, particularly semi-structured interviews and narratives of the actors in the network; furthermore secondary data from the case networks website and information letters, confer

4、ence workshop information. The interviews were conducted in three phases; in the first phase the use of narrative interviews gives the needed background for the data collection; in the second phase the use of the semi-structured interviews serves to confirm collective understanding of how the brand

5、identity evolved within the network. In the third phase the authors aim to continue with the narrative approach and to gather the multi-author stories of the organizational change process and to adopt the laddering technique. Findings: The research shows the key processes involved in building brand

6、identity, and provides evidence for the need to coordinate activities in the destination network. Moreover, from a supply side -orientation, the study includes input from all network partners to describe the dynamic process of building brand identity. Key words brand, brand identity, destination bra

7、nd, destination network, valueIntroductionThe tourism destination branding is a relatively recent phenomenon compared with research of destination image. As Cai (2002, 720) puts it: “destination image has been extensively studied, yet literature on the branding it is sparse”. Building a destination

8、brand involves giving particularly expressive and affective meaning to an otherwise mere geographic entity (Gnoth, 2002). Page, Forer and Lawton (1999) again, note that within the literature on tourism, supply-side issues still remain a rather neglected research area. In this study the focus is on e

9、xamining the process of building the network brand identity in cruise sector in the Baltic Sea region. The stakeholders of the multicultural case network are involved in developing the destination network as a corporate brand. The complexity of the task, due to the multi-culturalism of the stakehold

10、ers (see Go and Fenema 2003) and the fragmentation of resources dispersed across various destinations in the Baltic region, render strategic planning an obsolete tool. The Cruise Baltic project is dealing with multiple stakeholders (Roper & Davies 2007) involved in developing the network as a corpor

11、ate brand. The philosophy underpinning the corporate level brand allows the principles to apply also to cities, regions and even countries (Gregory 2007 referring to Ind 1997). In this study the analogy of building the corporate brand identity is used in the context of destination network. The liter

12、ature emphasizes the importance of harmony between the different stakeholders of the brand. They should share the same values in order to unify and strengthen the corporate and or destination network brand (Gregory 2007). According to Gummesson (2004) within the network resources are created and are

13、 not given from the start; and the goal is to establish a position in a network and become an accepted member of that network. The resources, the common values and also the membership in the network have to be achieved and developed. Also, as Napoli (2006) points out successful organizations tend to

14、 be more brand-oriented than their less successful counterparts. We open by providing service brand related literature review with particular focus on the supply-side perspective of destination and place brands. We aim to deepen our understanding of, firstly, how the actors of the destination networ

15、k perceive the brand and secondly, what the value added might be of brand building in a coordinated and cooperative fashion. Finally, our aim is to study how the brand identity building process proceeds among the actors of the destination network. Because both in the industrial networks literature a

16、nd in the tourism research literature the concept of corporate brand identity building has achieved sparse or no attention at all. Next, following on from the overview of case study research, both its design and methodology (Yin, 1994) perspectives, we describe and analyze the building of network br

17、and identity in the tourism business context. In addition, we discuss the findings of our study and its research limitations, as well as the implications and options for the future research. Our paper concludes with a reflection of its originality and contribution to the tourism literature. Tourism

18、destination branding as network processIn contrast to more common demand side studies in tourism research (Tufts & Milne 1999), this article emphasizes the supply-side by focusing on the input the network of actors relations in the process of building the destinations brand identity. We justify the

19、application of the former by pointing to the marketing literature, which recognized the need to manage the inter-firm relationships as strategic assets in 1980s (Ulaga & Eggert 2006). To date, tourism research studies (Cai, 2002; Govers & Go, 2003) emphasizes either how perceptions of a destination

20、are formed on the part of tourists, or what projected factors, e.g., photography (Govers & Go, 2003), affect the formation of a destination image. Cai (2002) defines destination branding as selecting a consistent mix of brand elements in order to identify and distinguish a destination through positi

21、ve image building. The findings of the research suggest that cooperative branding (Cai, 2002) results in a consistent attributes-based image across multiple rural communities perceived by tourists, but builds stronger linkages of the image to the brand identity and more favorable affective and attit

22、udes-based associations for a region than for individual communities. Kim and Kim (2004) examined dimensions of brand equity and how they affect firms performance in the hospitality industry, in particular luxury hotels and chain restaurants and found a positive relationship to exist between the com

23、ponents of customer-based brand equity and the firms performance. De Chernatony and Segal-Horn (2001) have postulated a model of services branding. In their study they found that success is more likely when everyone internally believes in the brands values. “Through shared values, there is a greater

24、 likelihood of commitment, internal loyalty, clearer brand understanding, and importantly, consistent brand delivery across all stakeholders” (de Chernatony & Segal-Horn 2001, 1095.) De Chernatony and Segal-Horn define a brand as cluster of functional and emotional values which promise a particular

25、experience. In services branding the corporate or network culture is emphasized because of its effect on the behavior on the stakeholders. De Chernatony (1996) posits that brand management has become more of team-based activity and adopted a more strategic perspective. In the case of a transnational

26、 tourism business network comprised of actors who represent different countries and cultures an important issue is how manage matters so as to shape the coalition members into a team instead of risking the formation of factions. In modeling the service branding de Chernatony and Segal-Horn postulate

27、 that critical factors influence the development of successful service brands. The process originates from the corporate culture, which also defines the core values. According to Harris and de Chernatony (2001) the brand image focuses on consumers perceptions of brand differentiation, while identity

28、 tends to be more concerned with how managers and employees jointly make a particular brand unique. It is typically up to corporate managers to define the brand values and ensure that the employees values and behavior reflect the brand-values (Harris & de Chernatony 2001). Similarly, in a network th

29、e actors have to agree on their common values and ways of action. The latter forms the network culture, which, in turn, drives knowledge and skills behaviors. De Chernatony and Harris (2001) present a brand management model and conceptualize the process which enables the narrowing of the gap between

30、 brand identity and brand reputation. According to the model brand identity consists of six items: vision and culture, which drive a particular brands desired positioning, personality and subsequent relationships reflecting stakeholders self-images. De Chernatony and Harris (2001) propose that a com

31、mon and coherent perception of the brand identity correlates positively with the success of a particular brand. In order to be able to build a coherent brand identity the managers (in the network context, as well) must be able to define those factors that affect the perceptual congruence. And levera

32、ge those internal mechanisms of the corporate or network, such as the similarity of the brand teams members, shared values and communication that can contribute to enhancing the perceptual congruence. Also Balmer and Gray (2003) consider the corporate identity more a stakeholder issue than a consump

33、tion issue. In a resource based view of the corporation the criteria for the resource, e.g. for the corporate brand, are that the resource is strategically valuable, and give the corporate (or for the network) advantage compared with the competitor. The resource has to be rare, durable, in appropria

34、ble, and imperfect imitable and imperfect substitutable. In the focus of the main interest of this article it is important to note that also Balmer and Gray (2001, 975) see that corporate level brands can apply to countries, regions and cities. Balmer (2001) underscores the importance of business id

35、entity studies but at the same time also offers reasons why corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing remain by-and-large unclear concepts. States he (2001, 251): there is a lack of consensus as to the precise meaning of many of the concepts (corporate identity, organizational i

36、dentity, visual identity, corporate brand, corporate communication/total corporate communications, corporate image, corporate personality, and corporate reputation) and the relationships between them. Also, insufficient attention has been given to identities of subsidiaries as well as industrial ide

37、ntities, alliances, and networks. Balmer notes also that there are weaknesses in many of the conceptual models of corporate image/identity/reputation formation. In some of these models the writers confuse corporate identity with corporate image. In so doing they overlook business to business relatio

38、nships, thereby emphasizing matters such as linearity and simplicity as opposed to intricacy and complexity issues. (Balmer 2001.)Blain, Levy and Ritchie (2005, 328338) state that the definition of destination branding should include the concepts of destination image and competitiveness. They define

39、 destination branding as the set of marketing activities that serves to create a destination image, designed to positively influence consumer destination choice (Blain, Levy and Richie, 2005). The latter implies that network actors are continuously engaged in the production of outcomes, which networ

40、k process culminates in a tourism destination brand. Moreover, that the contexts of brand image and brand identity, respectively should be separated as suppliers and buyers typically pursue different goals. The corporate brand, also in a network, will increasingly become ideological. People have a f

41、undamental human need to belong to something they can feel proud of. To build a brand personality, also the network management considerations must steep into most aspects of general management: issues ranging from IT and human resources strategy through to the need for business leadership and networ

42、k vision and values. (Macrae 1999.) When exploiting intangibles, the branding model emphasizes the value through the involvement in relationship of the actors in a destination network. Balmer (2001) defines an organizations identity as a summation of those tangibles and intangible elements that make

43、 any corporate entity distinct. It is multidisciplinary in scope and is a melding of strategy, structure, communication and culture, which raises a challenge: how to project a particular host community (brand) identity in a way that meets the perceived tourist experience (Govers and Go, 2003). The l

44、evel, to which the tourists expectations are met, is what may be referred to as tourist (or customer) satisfaction. Therefore, the crucial task is to both design a shared cultural identity and construct tourist narrative scripts that are rooted in a sense of place and simultaneously translated into

45、compelling e-content to be diffused globally (Go, Lee & Russo, 2003:55). The brand can be seen as a cluster of values, which emanate from different members, entrepreneurs, in the network. In view of the key role the actors play in shaping a brands values, more emphasis needs to be placed in network

46、internal aspects of branding. It is important to appreciate how each member of the brand assesses its positioning. Therefore, the participation and commitment to delivering a coherent set of values of each member have to be enlisted. By auditing the gaps between brand identity and brand reputation,

47、managers can identify strategies to minimize incongruence and develop more powerful brands. (de Chernatony 1999.) Effective leaders know how to connect the goals and actions of each key player in a network for mutual benefit, by understanding and meeting with their needs, by motivating and inspiring

48、 them. (Macrae,1999.) Hall (1999) underscores the significance of the coordination between the actors of a network in order to project a clear, positive tourism brand image. Also Crockett and Wood (1999) argue that an integrative and inclusive approach to destination branding is elementary in ensuri

49、ng the promise of marketing and, in crafting the strong identity for the destination. Williams and Palmer (1999) emphasize the impact of electronic commerce on the development of strong tourism destination brands. It is evident that there is a fundamental need for an overall architecture as foundati

50、on for the development of a sound e-commerce business model (Go, Lee & Russo, 2003:55). Within such framework the role of the coordinator is very important. Within a multi-layered and complex network, the coordinator of the network has to be able to create a responsive network community with its own

51、 identity. A relevant question is whether and to what extent the entrepreneurs have knowledge of relevant information about a site and are involved in sharing it with other entrepreneurs and customers (Lemmetyinen & Go, 2005). The Internet offers a fast highway of knowledge and its diffusion amongst

52、 the nodes of a network. The access to common network data sources, via virtual information desks, would help the individual entrepreneurs to plan and implement their activities in more effective and efficient ways (e.g. reduced transaction costs) and simultaneously support their common network goal

53、s. The narratives of the actors in the Baltic Cruise network mirror the brand of the network. The coordinators have to raise the awareness amongst the stakeholders of the networks overarching vision and enable stakeholders through their actions to move towards the vision. Go, Lee and Russo (2003) in

54、dicate how stories of entrepreneurs can be leveraged to strengthen social capital and brand identity. Cultural identity as an asset for development depends crucially on the establishment of an “ethics of the heritage”. All the actors in the network must be fully aware of the risks of an unbalanced u

55、se of their cultural assets. Knowledge of and pride in their own heritage, as well as the recognition of opportunities that the encounter with guests offer, result from greater awareness. Information is an underlying factor of both education and ethics in developing the identity of a place for visit

56、ors. In the travel and tourism sector the brand is likely to be intangible (and is linked to an intangible product), which further complicates the brand building process requiring patience, commitment and clear vision. (Anholt 1999) Tourism products, in general, are a complex and dynamic amalgam of

57、various components, which adds the extra dimension to any marketing strategy involving the building of a strong, identifiable tourism brand. (Westwood, Morgan, Pritchard and Ineson, 1999.) According to Macrae (1999), the modern brand producers are indebted to the leadership thinking in the service s

58、ector, because it is the people who serve the brands lifestyle. De Chernatony and Riley (1999) argue that branding principles are common between products and services at the conceptual level. Yet, the current inconsistency of services delivery is regarded as a critical challenge for providers, deman

59、ding greater emphasis on the issue of internal marketing, both in practice and in theory. The coordination of service provider performance in tourism networks entails enhancing the value creation process towards a vision and cohesiveness of a network, and building, jointly, the authentic brand ident

60、ity of the network. The latter provides a central viewpoint which is necessary in order to pinpoint the networks strengths and weaknesses, and undertake the actions which are needed to ensure the networks continuity. In order to be able to move towards the vision, to a common identity, it is importa

61、nt to perceive the present stage. By analyzing the gaps between the aspired and the present stage of the brand identity in tourism network, the resources can be steered accordingly. Educational resources, in particular, are important in the building of the identity. Equally, the role of the coordina

62、tion is crucial in steering the resources towards the strategic goals. A corporate brand proposition requires total corporate commitment (Balmer 2001). Also, in tourism business network it is essential that the actors are well aware of the values that the umbrella brand projects onto the marketplace

63、. Also, network actors should have a common idea of the brand identity. Within the present network various national cultures tend to differentiate knowledge; raising the questions: 1. What are the distinct national cultures that are involved in the Baltic network and how are these likely to make ass

64、umptions and define knowledge? 2. How can the network coordinator influence the various national cultures to adopt a set of common brand values and brand identity? 3. How the actors of the network perceive the brand values and how the complexity of the relationships in the network affects the cohere

65、nt perception of the brand identity? Figure 1 illustrates the interaction, conformation, co-creation, contestation on aspects of price, quality and convenience, which takes place between the supply-side perspective and, the demand-side perspective in regard to the production of the outcome, particul

66、arly brand identity. In contrast to the destination image, which following Marchi and Martinelli (2005) we view as an external projection of the destinations identity linked to the demand-side perspective depicted in Figure 1. Figure 1 Destination Brand Identity as both focal point and network outcome