Original Article

Thinking about place branding: Ethics of concept Received (in revised form): 14th June 2011

Efe Sevin is a doctoral candidate at the School of International Service at American University and is the assistant director of the Center for Research on Collaboratories and Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (COTELCO). He received his undergraduate degree from the Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. He completed his graduate level studies at Emerson College, Boston, and received his MA as a Fulbright scholar. His research interests include strategic communication, computer-mediated communication, non-traditional diplomacy, place branding, multi-method research and research methodologies.

ABSTRACT This article introduces a critical theory-induced approach to the concept of place branding to expose the ethical drawbacks within the field. The author argues that the dominant approaches and definitions of place branding limit the thinking of scholars to market-driven subjects, such as measurement, effectiveness and strategies. It is difficult even to discuss ethical issues at a conceptual level within these approaches. With an attempt to further investigate these widely ignored issues, place branding is redefined through a communicative action framework, and a two-step model of place branding is devised – composed of domestic communicative action (Step 1) and international communicative action (Step 2). Step 1 highlights (i) legitimacy and (ii) inclusion as ethical concerns, whereas Step 2 brings in the question of (iii) consistency between the messages in the domestic and international arena. Critical theory makes it possible to take an analytical look at the mainstream approaches and present ethical issues at the conceptual level. Future studies should aim to integrate this theoretical approach to the practice of place branding.

Place Branding and Public Diplomacy (2011) 7, 155–164. doi:10.1057/pb.2011.15 Keywords:

ethics; relationist; communicative action; critical theory; place branding

INTRODUCTION

Correspondence: Efe Sevin American University School of International Service, 4400 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20016, USA

The recent rise of interest in the concept of place branding presents a unique opportunity for scholars, as well as practitioners, to advance the study and the practice in the field. The latter group is encouraged by market dynamics to implement place branding campaigns in the absence of theoretical guidance. Scholars, on the other hand, undertake complex tasks of explaining the practice and establishing theoretical grounds for

the discipline of place branding. Yet, the study of place branding is profoundly influenced by market-driven issues and studies of measurement and effectiveness. Therefore, several crucial aspects of this social phenomenon, especially those falling outside the aforementioned practical boundaries, remain underdeveloped. This study takes a closer look at such an aspect – the ethics of place branding – and discusses some of the related concerns from a critical and a

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 7, 3, 155–164 www.palgrave-journals.com/pb/

Sevin

theoretical perspective. The author focuses on the ethics of concepts, rather than ethics of practice. In other words, the author argues that the way ‘place brand’ and ‘place branding’ are conceptualized limits the thinking of scholars and practitioners, thus fails to address several ethical issues. In order to better explain the process, a critical theory-induced approach is followed. The branding of a place is always complex, contentious and contested (Olins, 2004). This is largely because of the fact that place branding concentrates on creating a system of brand management focused on the identity of a particular place (Freire, 2005). It is complex because place identities are ‘constructed through historical, political, religious, and cultural discourses; through local knowledge, and influenced by power struggles’ (Govers and Go, 2009, p. 17). Following the critical work of Stuart Hall,1 Robert Govers and Frank Go (2009) describe a place as a discourse that generates meanings, ‘which influences and organizes both the actions of the visitors and the conceptions of local residents themselves’ (Govers and Go, 2009, p. 15). The concept of place branding has ‘increasingly come to be regarded as a place-creating and place-altering practice’ (Syssner, 2010). A place branding campaign is closely related to the image and identity of a given place. These campaigns might eventually change the very nature of the place. Owing to the political nature of the process and the lack of a clear brand ownership understanding (Sevin, 2010a ), stakeholders and their roles are constantly defined and redefined within political power dynamics. Therefore, it is not surprising to witness contentious and contested periods during these branding processes. Critical theory, within this framework, enables the scholar to pose fundamental questions about the assumptions of conventional approaches, and creates knowledge to emancipate our opinions from institutional or environmental forces and strains. Therefore, if one is to ask questions about ethics within this market environment, it is of uttermost importance to take a reflective and emancipatory

156

stance. Such a perspective on the ethics of place branding presents several questions to be answered: Do the elected officials have the authority to manipulate the image of a place or does it belong to the people? Who should have a voice in this process? How is the public sphere defined? Does branding estrange locals from their hometowns? Is there a need for ‘Place Branding Code of Conduct?’ The study will begin by introducing a conceptual discussion within the literature to create an analytical framework. The author redefines place brand and branding through a communicative action framework and proposes a simple two-step model designed to analyze the ethical implications of the practice. The communicative action approach, and ethical guidelines in this study are largely based on the works of Jürgen Habermas and other critical theorists. There are three main reasons for taking such an approach. First, an explanation of place branding phenomenon without an emphasis on the meaning construction processes is inherently incomplete. The application of branding projects includes the construction, communication and management of a place’s image (Kavaratzis, 2004). It is true that communication is not the sole component of branding (Anholt, 2007), yet its importance cannot be ignored within a discussion of meaning (or image in marketing terms) construction. Second, within the conceptualization of place branding provided here, there are several questions raised about morality, norms and facts, as well as their universality (Habermas, 1990, 1998). These questions require a critical theory approach in order to sufficiently deconstruct and reconstruct the processes. Finally, critical theory enables us to take a step back from theoretical and practice-oriented discussions in the field and pose questions about the aforementioned issues – such as legitimacy, inclusion and consistency in place branding. As discussed above, place branding practice and study seem to be focused on creating competitive advantage and providing short-term answers in order to generate economic outcomes.

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 7, 3, 155–164

Thinking about place branding: Ethics of concept

WHAT IS PLACE BRANDING? Any deliberation over the ethical aspects of place branding deserves to be preceded by a thorough definition of place branding. Despite the fact that there is an agreement in the literature about what a place brand is not (Kavaratzis and Ashworth, 2006), there is no consensus on what it is. It is known that place branding suggests something beyond creating logos and slogans. Several different accounts have been presented to explain what is beyond basic visuals and words. During the recent years, some scholars tried to identify the various schools of thought by looking at the historical development of the field and its relations with other disciplines (Olins, 2004). Nadia Kaneva (2011) organizes the existing approaches in the field into three categories: technical-economic, political and cultural. These definitions seem to have three major shortcomings: (i) sole marketing-practical approach (technical-economic), (ii) disregarding the role of audience (technical-economic, political) and (iii) inadequate analytical support (cultural). Therefore, in this section, these three failures will be further explained. Afterwards, the concept will be redefined through a communicative action framework. Simon Anholt, one of the leading figures in the field, seems to present a technical-economic approach in his definitions. The nature of his work is primarily based on his vast amount of experience as a policy advisor/consultant to the governments with the aim of generating measurable results. Therefore, it is not surprising to find echoes of his practical background in his writing. Anholt criticizes the idea of place branding because of its association with ‘superficial marketing tricks’ (Anholt, 2007), yet embraces place brands. Anholt’s distaste towards the term place branding is an objection to relying on marketing communication techniques with the expectation of changing a place’s reputation. Therefore, one can claim that he does not necessarily reject the social phenomenon, but solely finds fault in the way it is being practiced. Anholt uses the term ‘competitive identity’ to describe the phenomenon, which includes

a combination of brand management with trade, investment, tourism and expert promotion (Anholt, 2007). He suggests that in today’s global economy, places should be ready to compete for limited resources such as investors, tourists and consumers (Anholt, 2007). A strong brand image is likely to strengthen one’s competitive position. Refusing simplistic brand images, he argues for the values of richness and complexity in the images of places (Anholt, 2010). In addition, competition for resources is the key idea underlying his definition. Thus, his focus seems to be predominantly on economic and utilitarian outcomes. This focus puts scholars and practitioners, in general, at risk of commodifying social and cultural aspects of identities, image creation and, consequently, place branding ( Jansen, 2008; Kaneva and Popescu, 2011). In addition, the commodification is likely to alienate domestic population and obstruct their participation in communicative processes. However, when it comes to sharing the brand image with the target audience, Anholt claims ‘places must engage with the outside world in a clear, coordinated and communicative way’ (Anholt, 2010, p. 12). Although, Anholt uses the term ‘communicative’, his references and his other works do not suggest that this term was used within a Habermasian framework. In other words, ‘communicative’ is used to refer to engagement through communication. Nevertheless, there is little emphasis on the audience or individual participation in the process. The ‘branding’, in this aspect, takes place among already-established structures, such as governments, businesses and civil society. The political approach defines a brand within the context of international relations. Peter van Ham argued for the existence of ‘brand state’ – ‘comprising the outside world’s ideas about a particular country’ (Van Ham, 2001, p. 2). He argues that it is essential for politicians to learn about brand asset management to do their jobs (Van Ham, 2001). In conjunction with studies of public diplomacy (Szondi, 2008), this approach focuses on foreign relations, and the new international sphere (Hayden, 2011).

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 7, 3, 155–164

157

Sevin

Place branding, in this setting, is an attempt to manipulate the perceptions of target audiences. The audience has a passive role in accepting and interpreting information with the aim of developing perceptions. This role definition undermines the audiences’ importance in communicative action – thus, disregarding their active role in deliberation and meaning making. The recent advancements in information and communication technologies, especially the increasing volume of social media platforms and user-generated content (Web 2.0), developed an interest among several scholars on the role of two-way communication in place branding and public diplomacy attempts. However, this study argues that two-way communication still delineates the role of the audiences to providing feedback. Such a dialog does not necessarily constitute a communicative action process, where interested parties come together to collaboratively create brand images. Besides, as Habermas (2006) argues the decentralized access to unedited information does not contribute to the creation of the public sphere and does not ensure inclusive participation. On the contrary, fragmented platforms of deliberation might be detrimental. Succinctly stated, political approaches tend to either use states and international arena as their level of analysis and ignore the role of audiences in the process or limit their role solely to providing feedback. The last approach discussed in Kaneva’s (2011) work is the cultural approach. However, such studies ‘are not concerned with advancing a theory of nation branding that could inform its applied practice’ (Kaneva, 2011, p. 127). Coming from critical and cultural studies traditions, these scholars articulates several questions regarding national identity, culture and governance (Kaneva, 2011). Therefore, it is possible to argue that this study’s employment of critical theory is similar to the cultural approach. With its specific focus on the meaning making and communicative processes during place branding campaigns, it aims to raise questions about ethics of concept.

158

The working definition for place branding in this study does not contradict any of these approach. On the other hand, the main aim is to make use of these approaches in order to discuss previously ignored issues. The technical-economic approach is used to delineate the boundaries of discussion. Eric Braun and Sebastian Zenker (2010) define place branding as a ‘network of associations in the consumers’ mind based on the visual, verbal, and behavio[u]ral expression of a place, which is embodied through the aims, communication, values, and the general culture of the place’s stakeholders and the overall place design’. In addition to the critical tradition shared with the cultural approach, the power relations understanding of the political approach is used. The communication focus of this paper tends to bring three distinct concepts together: internal conception (place identity), exposed identity (place brand) and audience perception (brand image). (For a discussion on these terms from a technical-economic perspective, the reader might refer to Anholt, 2010; Kavaratzis and Ashworth, 2006.) The analytical framework – communicative action – sharpens the importance of negotiation and deliberation processes in branding. The next section describes the concepts of communication, communicative action and rhetorical commonplaces are defined to describe how expressions of places are created.

Communication, communicative action and rhetorical commonplaces The definition utilized for this study aims to underline the complexity of issues and the variety of stakeholders involved in place branding processes. Expanding on the existing literature, it is possible to introduce what a place brand is not before a proper definition. It is not the financial attractiveness, the messages sent logos or slogans. It is not the claims of governments or messages sent by official bodies. Fundamentally, a place brand is the perception of a place by external

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 7, 3, 155–164

Thinking about place branding: Ethics of concept

and internal audiences, which is based on the projected physical and psychological peculiarities of a place. Earlier mass communication theories argue for one-way communication with the audience. By way of explanation, this means the messages will be sent unidirectionally. For instance, the earlier theories of hypodermic needle theory and the bullet theory assume that people are extremely vulnerable to mass communication and messages through such media are able to alter individual behaviors (Severin and Tankard, 2001). The Cold War era witnessed the scholars in the field leaving this simplistic view. The limited effects model claimed that audience did not necessarily accept all the messages coming from media platforms. Selective exposure theory (Klapper, 1960) argues that individuals preferred exposure to the information that assures their beliefs and presuppositions. Two-step flow theory (Katz and Lazarsfeld, 1955) asserts that information from the media moves or flows in two stages. In the first stage, certain people who are heavy or regular users of the mass media receive the information. Then, these people, called opinion leaders, pass the information along to others, who are less exposed to the media, through informal and interpersonal communication. Succinctly stated, the audience is not conceptualized as passively accepting the messages. The rapid improvement in communication technologies required contemporary literature to reconceptualize communication and defend two-way communication, including listening to the audience in addition to sending messages (Peterson, 2002). However, this method limits the role of the audience in providing feedback. Predominantly hyperboled by the military studies and post-9/11 American public diplomacy needs (Goodall et al, 2008), two-way communication does not sufficiently explain the interactive and collaborative nature of negotiating meaning. This is true within both domestic and international contexts. Place branding should be conceptualized as an action oriented towards reaching an

understanding of a place. The crafting of the brand identity, as well as its transmission, should be analyzed through a communicative action framework. In other words, the ‘truth’ or the meaning of a given brand is constructed through systematic discussions (Habermas, 1984). The main reason for using the word ‘communicative’ instead of communication in this study lies in the interactive nature of the process. Given the fact that an objective agreement is essentially ‘dependent in bringing about an intersubjective relationship between the speaker and at least one hearer capable of adopting a critical position’ (Habermas, 1998, p. 186), place branding is inherently a social/communicative activity, stemming from a disagreement about (if not an argument over) a place’s image. The assumption in this definition is that the need for ‘place branding’ is caused by existence of various perceptions of a given place. If decision-makers, internal/external audiences, all the other stakeholders agree on place brand identity, there is no need for a place branding practice. Communicative action, within this framework, is a cooperative attempt to reach a common understanding through argumentation. The actions of actors ‘are coordinated … through acts of reaching understanding’ (Habermas, 1998, p. 118) and operate through ‘reaching understanding, action coordination, and socialization’ (Habermas, 1998, p. 247, italics in the original). It is true that social interactions are complex and categorizing them is a troublesome task. However, if one fails to interpret beyond the initial definition, there is the risk of failure through inadequate analytical support as discussed above. Habermas uses three main validity claims that are included in strong communicative acts: truth, normative rightness and truthfulness (Habermas, 1984). When an actor is involved in a speech act, in other words is communicating, there can be three different acts: constative, regulative and expressive. In a place branding campaign, the messages include claims to all three types to (i) reflect the external ‘reality’, (ii) construct new norms regarding a place and

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 7, 3, 155–164

159

Sevin

(iii) create a sense of community through expressions. Taking Habermasian concepts out of their own domain is difficult but necessary in order to expand the phenomenon of place branding. A comprehensive look on Habermasian works should not miss his reference to rationality and his contributions to the Enlightenment discussions. However, this study aims to reflect Habermasian ideas to place branding literature, therefore prefers to stay outside the philosophical discussions and rather uses his strong communicative action and acceptability conditions. The arguments supported by this study are based on the assumption that communicative action operates through ‘reaching understanding, action coordination, and socialization’ (Habermas, 1998, p. 247, italics in the original). The socialization aspect can be better explained through a relational approach ( Jackson, 2003) as communicative action depends on the social context (Habermas, 1998). Similarly, relationists prefer to analyze action in terms of social context, rather than individual properties ( Jackson, 2003). A discussion on the ethics of place branding would be a futile without an emphasis on the social structures, contexts and their impacts on the communicative processes. The last concept to be explored in this framework is ‘actors’. The concepts of legitimacy and legitimation are essential when identifying who can engage in communicative action and their powers/roles. Patrick Jackson, in his interpretation of Max Weber’s work, claims, ‘the notion of “legitimacy” is made sociologically relative rather than transcendentally absolute, and is linked firmly to the aggregate patterns of social action in a given context’ ( Jackson, 2006, p. 17). This definition raises two issues. First, it is not possible to designate brand ownership in place branding for all cases as the concept is created by social context. In addition, the limits of actor power also depend on social context. Legitimation, in this sense, is ‘about the production and reproduction of boundaries of action’ ( Jackson, 2006, p. 24, italics in the original). Through legitimation, actors

160

define their roles and the limits of their power. Therefore, legitimacy and legitimation do not constitute normative ethical rules. Rather, they establish an analytical tool to discuss the ethical implications of communicative action in place branding within a given context. In short, place branding is a communicative action process in which legitimate actors engage in speech acts to reach a common understanding of a place. The following section divides the process into two steps – domestic communicative action and international communicative action – to demonstrate ethical issues. This dual understanding is closer to two-level game theory (Putnam, 2009), which explains international relations as an aggregate of simultaneous intra- and inter-governmental negotiations. There is a need for negotiating the meaning of a place with the domestic population, as well as with the foreign audiences.

A TWO-STEP ANALYTICAL MODEL It is possible to create an initial two-step ‘branding’ model. Given the specific focus on the ethics of concept, devising a comprehensive practice-based model is neither necessary nor within the scope of this study. Nevertheless, it is of essential importance to conceptualize these two steps in a manner that will advance the analytical framework. Place branding is creating a recognizable identity and further using this identity to a place’s advantage (Kavaratzis and Ashworth, 2006). Therefore, the first step is to develop an identity. As discussed above, this development phase requires a domestic multi-stakeholder approach (Morgan et al, 2003; Kavaratzis, 2004; Hankinson, 2004a). Subsequently, with the aim of profiting from the place brand, places should engage the foreign audiences communicatively, and start a deliberation process.

Step 1: Social engineering or branding? Creating a brand image The brand image of a place is likely to influence people’s decisions in several activities

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 7, 3, 155–164

Thinking about place branding: Ethics of concept

including but not limited to purchasing, investing, changing residence and traveling (Kotler and Gertner, 2002). A brand image, in its modest way, will enable places to differentiate themselves from others (Kotler and Keller, 2000). Decisively, it is not possible to construct such unique images through physical attributes alone. This is to say, a brand image should have functional and representational claims (Caldwell and Freire, 2004). Indeed, the products, services and the resources of a place should be included to make functional claims. Representational claims, on the other hand, are used to create links between a nation and an individual in terms of self-expression needs (Hankinson, 2004b, 2009). The constructed image claims that (i) the place has the physical and utilitarian characteristic the audience deserves and (ii) the place stands for norms and values that the audience admires. Therefore, the image will include tangible and intangible features. The first ethical dilemma rises when actors decide to make validity claims. Regulative and expressive claims are subjective. They might not necessarily reflect the place’s identity and social context as a whole. Constative claims are expected to communicate external reality (physical attributes). Even though the statement seems to be straightforward, determining which aspect should be reflected is challenging given the fact that constative claims are not always value and judgment free (Marsh, 1995). Which aspects should be included in speech acts and which aspects should be ignored? Qatar, for instance, is likely to accelerate its branding attempts especially after FIFA’s decision to designate the country as the host for 2022 World Cup ( Jahardan, 2010). Does Qatar promote freedom by housing Al Jazeera and supporting free press or deter it through its treatment of homosexuals? The second dilemma is based on legitimacy. Who has the authority to engage in communicative action? It is better to answer this question by stressing both ‘actor type’ and ‘specific actors’. There are four main actors within the domestic political scene: (i) public

sector, (ii) corporations, (iii) civil society and (iv) individuals. Elected officials have the a priori political authority, and appointed officials have the a priori bureaucratic authority. In other words, the public sector appears to have dominance in the action. But as discussed, there is no clear brand ownership in the case of places. These authorities do not necessarily cast other actors out. In addition to the actor type, one should decide which public institution, corporation, civil society organization and individuals should be included in the process. Is place branding an all-inclusive process, or is it the responsibility of one office? Does the Emir of Qatar have the authority to assign branding task forces? The last dilemma is concerned with changing the landscape. As Anholt (2007, 2008, 2010) argues, the reputation or brand of a place is directly related with its actual performance. This argument supports the idea that in order to alter the perception of a place, the place itself is required to change. When the intangible aspects of the brand are included in the equation, it is possible to justify a branding campaign including alteration in the norms and values. Going back to the Qatar example, is it ethical for a branding campaign in Qatar aim to challenge the attitudes towards homosexuals? Qatar is a hypothetical example used in this section with an aim to place the conceptual questions in a practical context. In short, the branding communication takes ‘place through perception and images’ (Kavaratzis, 2004, p. 66), yet branding is not solely about the perception of foreign audiences. It is also a means for ‘reinforcing local identity and identification of the citizens with their [place]’ (Kavaratzis, 2004, p. 70). This is to say, branding projects aim to create a community feeling for the domestic population as well. Therefore, the ethical issues could be summarized as problems related to (i) legitimacy, and (ii) inclusion. Later works of Habermas (Habermas, 2001a) discusses the existence of multiple lifeworlds in one social context. A society is not necessarily uniform and might include sections that have different norms, values and physical peculiarities. In an

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 7, 3, 155–164

161

Sevin

international context, he calls for institutional pluralism and a negotiation among democracies (Habermas, 2001b). He argues that, lacking a common lifeworld, there needs to be a search for a less demanding basis of legitimacy (Habermas, 2001b). Habermas conceptualizes ‘a multiplicity of political-cultural realizations of the “same” system of rights is already sketched from a cosmopolitan point of view’ (McCarthy, 1999, p. 197). One can bluntly claim that a more inclusive branding campaign might overcome both problems of legitimacy and inclusion. However, as norms and definitions for both legitimacy and inclusion are created within a social context, such a claim is difficult to defend.

Step 2: Persuasion or negotiation? Communicating messages Once the identity is crafted, the place2 engages a second round of communicative action with the foreign audiences. Christoph Burmann (2010) draws the attention of scholars and practitioners to user-generated brands, a term derived from grassroots understanding. The place brand is generated by the user’s perceptions and actions. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to grant these audiences access in communicative action. The ethical pitfalls in the second step are closely related to those of ‘propaganda’. Propaganda, a value-neutral term by its definition, is a method of mass persuasion. Yet, especially after World War II, propaganda was associated with manipulation and dishonesty. Its aim was deemed to be deceiving foreign audiences. The famous Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, for instance, banned the distribution of United States Information Agency materials within the United States, as those materials were crafted for foreign consumption. Therefore, the issue is whether there is consistency between the symbols, words, norms and values used in the first step and the second step. Is the place branding campaign a ‘sincere’ deliberation process, or is it a strategic action for manipulating foreign perceptions? Given the possibility that the entire place might be

162

wrong about the reality. It is a known fact that places overestimate their potential (Anholt, 2007, pp. 56–57). Once the questions of legitimacy and inclusion are answered, one has to consider ‘reality’ again in the new social context in order to evaluate its validity claims.

CONCLUSION Anholt claims that ‘[b]randing, like any other tool, is itself ethically neutral: it is the use to which the tool is put that determines whether it complies with such strictures or not’ (Anholt, 2006, p. 2). However, the concept of place branding is ‘walking on thin ice’. The way place branding is defined brings in several ethical concerns because of its political, normative and communicative nature. The arguments in this study clearly demonstrates that existing definitions tend to force scholars and practitioners to disregard ethical issues. Current mainstream approaches do not present substantive theoretical and/or conceptual background to discuss ethical issues. A critical theory approach fundamentally alters the way place branding is conceptualized and practiced. The author has enjoyed the opportunity of working as a branding consultant for Rosarito Beach, Northern Baja, Mexico. The town has experienced drastic drops in tourism and business, mostly because of negative media coverage. The place was deemed to be unsafe for travel. A political or a technical-economic approach might focus on changing the ‘safety’ regulations and precautions within such a case. Yet, a critical theory approach enabled the author and his colleagues to consider branding as a communicative action process where actors came together to create a meaning around the name of the place. Instead of relying solely on regulations, institutions and marketing techniques; grassroots public diplomacy projects were introduced to create new platforms for interaction. Through See for Yourself and Rosarito en Positivo, the local population was invited to contribute to the meaning making processes (Sevin, 2010b ). RediscoveRosarito and Northern Baja Film Festival ensured the participation of targeted audiences

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 7, 3, 155–164

Thinking about place branding: Ethics of concept

to voice their opinions (Payne, 2009; Payne and Georgaki, 2009). In short, ‘stakeholders of Rosarito were involved and [their ideas were] taken into account when developing the various strategies to manage the crisis and restore the image of the city’ (Payne et al, 2011, p. 9). The place branding project focused on creating a community spirit among the locals and establishing communication bridges between the community and target audiences. Branding has a significant communicative aspect. The creation of the brand identity, as well as the process of reaching out to the target audience with the ultimate aim of influencing their attitudes and perceptions is inherently an interactive one. The contemporary audience is no longer willing to passively accept messages. On the contrary, the audience demonstrates an increasing demand for active participation in each and every step of the communication process. Place branding is executed within a political environment, where power and legitimacy are driving forces. With the absence of theoretical frameworks, and concrete guidelines; the actors included in the process are socially determined. There is no universal remedy to deal with legitimacy issues. Besides, even an all-inclusive branding attempt does not necessarily legitimize the process where multiple lifeworlds coexist. Place branding is a social phenomenon. Its practice depends highly on the social context. Yet, the relation between place branding and social context is mutually dependent. Creating a place identity is fundamentally related to producing and reproducing social norms and values. In other words, a successful place branding campaign has the potential to change physical and normative landscape, thus, fundamentally altering the social context. This study does not provide the reader with answers about what is ethical or not in place branding. Rather, it encourages practitioners and scholars to ask more questions about legitimacy, inclusion, truth, morality and responsibility. The dominant definitions – as well as practices – of place branding tend to overlook several components of the concept.

Critical theory, in this sense, enables us to focus on social construction processes. If there is a demand to comprehensively explain this social phenomenon, critical theory must be used to deconstruct and reconstruct the processes. Future research should focus on the ethics of practice within a framework of deliberation, argumentation and social contexts.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to express his gratitude to Dr Craig Hayden of American University, Ms Erica Seng of COTELCO and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and feedback.

NOTES 1 2

For the original work, the reader can refer to Hall (1996). For analytical purposes, the assumption in the second step is that parties have reached a consensus in the former step and are subsequently engaging the target audience as one single actor.

REFERENCES Anholt, S. (2006) Is place branding a capitalist tool? Place Branding 2(1): 1–4. Anholt, S. (2007) Competitive Identity: The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities and Regions. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Anholt, S. (2008) Place branding: Is it marketing, or isn’t it? Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 4(1): 1–6. Anholt, S. (2010) Places: Identity, Image and Reputation. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Braun, E. and Zenker, S. (2010) Towards an integrated approach for place brand management. Paper presented at the 50th European Regional Science Association Congress; 19–23 August, Jönköping, Sweden. Burmann, C. (2010) A call for ‘User-generated branding’. Journal of Brand Management 18(1): 1–4. Caldwell, N. and Freire, J. (2004) The differences between branding a country, a region and a city: Applying the brand box model. Journal of Brand Management 12(1): 50–61. Freire, J. (2005) Geo-branding, are we talking nonsense? A theoretical reflection on brands applied to places. Place Branding 1(4): 347–362. Goodall, B., Trethewey, A. and McDonald, K. (2008) Strategic Ambiguity, Communication, and Public Diplomacy in an Uncertain World: Principles and Practices. Phoenix, AZ: Consortium for Strategic Communication, Arizona State University.

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 7, 3, 155–164

163

Sevin

Govers, R. and Go, F. (2009) Place Branding: Glocal, Virtual and Physical Identities, Constructed, Imagined and Experienced. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Habermas, J. (1990) Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Habermas, J. (1998) On the Pragmatics of Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Habermas, J. (2001a) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Habermas, J. (2001b) The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Habermas, J. (2006) Acceptance speech. Bruno-Kreisky Award Ceremony for the Political Book of 2005; 9 March, Vienna. Hall, S. (1996) Modernity: An Introduction to Modern Societies. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Hankinson, G. (2004a) Relational network brands: Towards a conceptual model of place brands. Journal of Vacation Marketing 10(2): 109–121. Hankinson, G. (2004b) Repertory grid analysis: An application to the measurement of destination images. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 9(2): 145–153. Hankinson, G. (2009) Managing destination brands: Establishing a theoretical foundation. Journal of Marketing Management 25(1): 97–115. Hayden, C. (2011) The lessons of hyphenated diplomacy. PDin Monitor, online journal, http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/index .php/pdin_monitor/article/the_lessons_of_hyphenated_ diplomacy/, accessed 4 June 2011. Jackson, P.T. (2003) Defending the west: Occidentalism and the formation of NATO. Journal of Political Philosophy 11(3): 223–252. Jackson, P.T. (2006) Civilizing the Enemy: German Reconstruction and the Invention of the West. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Jahardan, N. (2010) Niche diplomacy gets Qatar to its goal. Khaleej Times article, 30 December, http://www.khaleejtimes .com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=/data/opinion/2010/ December/opinion_December142.xml§ion=opinion, accessed 4 March 2011. Jansen, S.C. (2008) Designer nations: Neo-liberal nation branding – Brand Estonia. Social Identities 14(1): 121–142. Kaneva, N. (2011) Nation branding: Toward an agenda for critical research. International Journal of Communication, online journal, http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/ view/704, accessed 4 June 2011. Kaneva, N. and Popescu, D. (2011) National identity lite: Nation branding in post-communist Romania and Bulgaria. International Journal of Cultural Studies 14(2): 191–207. Katz, E. and Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1955) Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications. New York: Free Press.

164

Kavaratzis, M. (2004) From city marketing to city branding: Towards a theoretical framework for developing city brands. Place Branding 1(1): 58–73. Kavaratzis, M. and Ashworth, G.J. (2006) City branding: An effective assertion of identity or a transitory marketing trick? Place Branding 2(3): 183–194. Klapper, J.T. (1960) The Effects of Mass Communication. New York: Free Press. Kotler, P. and Gertner, D. (2002) Country as brand, product, and beyond: A place marketing and brand management perspective. Journal of Brand Management 9(4): 249–261. Kotler, P. and Keller, K. (2000) Marketing Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Marsh, J. (1995) Critique, Action, and Liberation. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. McCarthy, T. (1999) On reconciling cosmopolitan unity and national diversity. Public Culture 11(1): 175–208. Morgan, N.J., Pritchard, A. and Piggott, R. (2003) Destination branding and the role of the stakeholders: The case of New Zealand. Journal of Vacation Marketing 9(3): 285–299. Olins, W. (2004) On Brand. London: Thames & Hudson. Payne, G. (2009) Reflections on public diplomacy: Peopleto-people communication. American Behavioral Scientist 53(4): 579–606. Payne, G. and Georgaki, K. (2009) ‘Yes We Can!’ Changing the image and mediated reality: A grassroots campaign: 2008 Rosarito film project. Paper presented at the International Academy of Business Disciplines Conference; 1–4 April, St. Louis, MO. Payne, G., Sevin, E. and Renedo, A. (2011) Role of consultants and locals in place branding: The case of Rediscove Rosarito (Rosarito, Mexico). Paper presented at the 2nd Place Branding Conference; 20–22 January, Bogota, Colombia. Peterson, P.G. (2002) Public diplomacy and the war on terrorism. Foreign Affairs 81(5): 74–94. Putnam, R.D. (2009) Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization 42(03): 427–460. Severin, W. and Tankard, J.W. (2001) Communication Theories: Origins, Methods, and Uses in the Mass Media. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Sevin, E. (2010a) Controlling the Message: A Strategic Approach to Nation Branding. Saarbrucken, Germany: LAP Lambert Academic Pub. Sevin, E. (2010b) See for yourself: Rebranding Northern Baja through public diplomacy. Exchange: The Journal of Public Diplomacy 1(Inaugural Issue): 33–40. Syssner, J. (2010) Place branding from a multi-level perspective. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 6(1): 36–48. Szondi, G. (2008) Public diplomacy and nation branding: Conceptual similarities and differences. Discussion Papers in Diplomacy, http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2008/ 20081022_pap_in_dip_nation_branding.pdf, accessed 4 March 2011. Van Ham, P. (2001) The rise of the brand state. Foreign Affairs 80(5): 2–8.

© 2011 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1751-8040 Place Branding and Public Diplomacy Vol. 7, 3, 155–164