, even in one individual’s mind (also Braun, 2008).

Third,the brand is embodied in various and

diverse actions and objects, some of which will be directlyaimed at the creation of the brand, while
others might aim at other goals but still have a significanteffect on the place’s brand (also Kavaratzis,
2004). Fourth, the significance of the place’smultitude of stakeholders is underlined in Zenker and
Braun’s (2010) definition. Because of thecomplexity of the place as a brand and of several issues not
encountered by common productbranding (such as the lack of control over the branded entity, the
conflicting interests of stake-holder groups, the need for social sensitivity that leads to inability to
follow conventional targetingstrategies), stakeholders are of particular importance for place
branding (also Hanna and Rowley,2011; Houghton and Stevens, 2010). These are all issues that are
discussed in the literature and insome occasions have been dealt with in practice (see e.g. Ashworth
and Kavaratzis, 2010). A grow-ing number of publications have attempted to initiate a theory of
place branding (e.g. Aitken and70 Marketing Theory 13(1) at University of Leicester Library on June
19, 2013mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Campelo, 2011; Anholt, 2007; Ashworth and Kavaratzis, 2010; Baker, 2007; Dinnie, 2010; Goversand
Go, 2009; Hankinson, 2004, 2009; Hanna and Rowley, 2011; Kavaratzis 2004, 2009; Kavar-atzis and
Ashworth, 2005; Lucarelli and Berg, 2011; Moilanen and Rainisto, 2008; Rainisto, 2003;Warnaby,
2009). However, progress is slow and arguably these contributions do not come togetherto
collectively generate a place branding theory but are rather disparate commentaries and perspec-
tives. This might be a sign of health for a young academic discipline and the discussion might leadto
a clearer understanding of the concept but, for the moment, there seems to be a wide
discrepancybetween theory and practice and a dire need for theoretical clarification of the field (also
Hannaand Rowley, 2011).This article attempts to contribute to the theoretical development of place
branding bydiscussing the link between place brands and place identity. It is argued that a better
understandingof identity is a possible way forward for the theory of place branding because the way
in whichplace identity is conceptualised has significant consequences for the way in which branding
isconceptualised and executed. Our main argument is that place identity should be thought of as
acomplex process of identity construction rather than a specific outcome of such a process. It
isshown that place identity is better understood as a process of dialogue between stakeholders
andplace branding should be thought of as a similar process. So this article calls for an identity-
basedview that accounts for the dynamics of place branding. Much of the argumentation stems
fromorganisational identity studies and, particularly, the work of Hatch and Schultz (2002) on
thedynamics of organisational identity. We argue against the dominant communications-based
viewof place branding that attempts to define a single identity in separation from the branding
process(also Mayes, 2008) and in favour of an identity-based view because, as will be shown
below,branding and identity are interwoven.Place branding: overview and link to identityTo start
with, it is necessary to briefly review current place branding theory and practice. Lucarelliand Berg
(2011) have documented an exponential growth of the number of articles dealing withplace
branding in the period 1988–2009. Their research identified 217 journal articles where, whenit
comes to number of studies, ‘journals from the academic disciplines of urban studies,
tourism,geography and marketing dominate’ (Lucarelli and Berg, 2011: 14). The popularity of
placebranding is also illustrated in the development of city brand rankings such as the Anholt-GMI
CityBrands Index (Anholt, 2006) or the Saffron European City Brand Barometer. While it is not
theaim of this article to review the place branding literature in detail, it is necessary to briefly
addresssome significant issues.Lucarelli and Berg (2011) have undertaken a thorough analysis, which
identified three majorperspectives adopted in place branding studies, namely (a) an approach to
branding as production(focusing on the creation of place brands and managing the branding
process), (b) an approach tobranding as appropriation (focusing on how place brands are used and
consumed), and (c) criticalstudies of place branding (examining the effects of place branding). The
significance of placebranding as a tool for development, the specificities of place branding compared
to other forms ofbranding, and the relationship between place marketing and place branding and
several other issueshave been explored elsewhere (see Anholt, 2007; Ashworth, 2006; Ashworth and
Kavaratzis,2010; Braun, 2008; Hankinson, 2004; Kavaratzis, 2008).An issue that has attracted the
particular attention of place branding commentators is theformulation of a framework to
simultaneously describe the components of place branding andKavaratzis and Hatch 71 at University
of Leicester Library on June 19, 2013mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

provide guidelines to practitioners (e.g. Anholt, 2006; Baker, 2007; Govers and Go, 2009; Han-
kinson, 2004; Hanna and Rowley, 2011; Kavaratzis 2004, 2009; Merrilees et al, 2009; Moilanenand
Rainisto, 2008; Rainisto, 2003; Trueman and Cornelius, 2006). Several frameworks developedby
place branding consultants should be added here to demonstrate the significant fragmentation ofthe
field and lack of agreement. There have also been several attempts to formulate a placebranding
process. It is worth noting here that these suggestions are the subject of contestation(Braun, 2008;
Warnaby, 2011), which is rooted in the complexity of places in general (e.g.Ashworth and Voogd,
1990) but also in the fact that while the major steps might be the same, theimplementation of the
process differs from place to place depending on local conditions(Kavaratzis, 2008). Every place is
different and there are no ‘one-size-fits-all’ branding processes.For instance, Moilanen and Rainisto
(2008) suggest a place branding process that consists offive stages: (a) start-up and organization, (b)
research stage, (c) forming brand identity, (d) makingand enforcing the plan, and finally (e)
implementation and follow-up. In a different but not neces-sarily dissimilar mode, Kavaratzis’s
(2009) place branding process (see Figure 1) starts with theformulation of a vision for the place,
which is then open for consultation with the people respon-sible for branding, the local population,
and all potential partners. This leads to relevant actionsthat will concern one or more of functional–
infrastructural projects, landscape interventions, andincentives or opportunities for several
audiences. Finally, these actions should be communicated.Hanna and Rowley (2011) also suggest the
interpretation of their model as a place branding processthat follows from their place branding
components and their interactions.Significant support for place branding application has been found
in the development of cor-porate branding and several commentators have identified the
similarities between these twoforms of branding (e.g. Hankinson, 2007; Skinner, 2008). While these
similarities do not signifythat place branding is a form of corporate branding (Braun, 2008;
Kavaratzis, 2009), not leastbecause it is not clear in what way a place can be considered a
corporation (Ashworth andKavaratzis, 2009), nevertheless corporate branding has paved the way for
more refined under-standings of place branding (Ashworth, 2006; Hankinson, 2010; Skinner, 2008).
A recent trendinitially developed within corporate branding that is of particular interest here is the
concept ofparticipatory marketing and branding (e.g. Hatch and Schultz, 2010; Ind and Bjerke,
2007),which goes against the line of thinking that ‘marketing is what marketers do to customers
whenthey take what the company makes and represent it’ (Ind and Bjerke, 2007: 86). This might
soundlike an old idea, but it is a very common understanding of marketing when it comes to
itsapplication to places (see Kavaratzis, 2008). The participatory branding approach highlights
thesignificance of internal audiences (Ind and Bjerke, 2007) and discusses the branding process as
adialogue between stakeholders (Hatch and Schultz, 2008, 2009). This trend centres on the idea
ofbrand co-creation (e.g. Hatch and Schultz, 2010), which stresses the fact that brands are
notformed through traditional communications but are co-created by a multitude of people
whoencounter and appropriate them. This participatory view of branding and brand co-creation
hasfeatured surprisingly little in place branding studies as yet (for exceptions see Aitken
andCampelo, 2011; Warnaby, 2009).Lucarelli and Berg (2011) identify conceptual confusion evident
in the field and a series ofunanswered questions that relate to the study of place branding. For
Lucarelli and Berg (2011),there is a dire need to reflect on the fundamental questions that pertain to
place branding, and theyhighlight the need to explore ‘how brands and space mutually shape each
other’ (p. 22). In theirreview of the place branding literature, Hanna and Rowley (2011) also
conclude that there is a needto focus research on the several components of the place brand in
order to understand the ‘agents,72 Marketing Theory 13(1) at University of Leicester Library on June
19, 2013mtq.sagepub.comDownloaded from