Introduction

Place brands are public brands promoted by many actors that come from public, private and civil society sectors (Ashworth et al, 2015). Of the three, the public sector plays a key role because it often defines when, how and why place branding projects are initiated and the budget to be assigned (Hankinson, 2001).

The literature proposes various models that detail place brand development (e.g. Kavaratzis, 2008 for city brands; Kerr and Johnson, 2005 for small territories; Van den Akker, 2011 for country brands; Baker, 2012 for destination brands; and, Balakrishnan and Kerr, 2013 for place brands). In general, the underlying assumption is that there must be an alignment among the representatives of the various stakeholders. These representatives are persons from any of the sectors that intervene in place branding and are involved in the territorial development. As stakeholders, they should have similar or complementary points of view, attitudes and objectives regarding place brand development.

However, actual practice shows problems with this supposed alignment, possibly due to contradictory objectives, diverse approaches and operations or disagreement over what each influencer hopes the other actors will do. This situation causes tense relations among place brand stakeholders (Warnaby et al, 2015) and so generates problems in place brand development. An aggravating factor is that there is no single model or process to follow. According to Kavaratzis and Hatch (2013), “every place is different and there are no ‘one-size-fits-all’ branding processes” (p. 72). Furthermore, other authors speak of discrepancies between what ‘should be done’ and what ‘is done’ (Hanna and Rowley, 2011; Kavaratzis and Hatch, 2013).

Despite the importance of these problems, no study has been found which shows the degree of alignment among stakeholders (as place brand developers) in relation to their perceptions of what a place brand is and its objectives. Nor has any study been found which analyses whether they perceive a particularly desirable role in place brand development for the public sector (recognised as the main actor in place brand development (e.g. Anholt, 2007). Therefore, this present work explores these two issues in an attempt to further our understanding of the real arena in which place brands are developed. This information can also helpbuild a bridge between the theoretical development of place branding and its practical application by place brand developers, so that different points of view will be considered in order to avoid the common problem of lack of reflection before engaging in place branding actions (De San Eugenio-Vela, 2011).

First, the analysis is considered from the academic perspective regarding the nature and objectives of place brands and the actors involved and their perception of public sector actions. Second, method-related issues are described concerning the selection of participants, system of information collection and the analytical methods. Third, the results are described in order to address the research objectives. Finally, there is a discussion of the findings and future lines of research.

Background

Place brand: definitions and objectives

The literature review shows there is no single definition of place brand but a wide variety of conceptualisations (Balakrishnan and Kerr, 2013). For example, it can be understood as the construction of an internal- and an external-perceived image considering cultural, geographical, political and economic dimensions (e.g. Zenker and Braun, 2010), as a tool to communicate and manage a territorial development (e.g. De San Eugenio-Vela, 2011), as a communicational instrument to bring out a territory and its values (e.g. Hernández-Alonso, 2012), or as a public policy with a strategic approach to the territory development (e.g. Eshuis et al, 2013). Whatever the approach taken, any place brand should develop a coherent image and mobilise actors in a common long-term project, resulting in a collective narrative (Kavaratzis and Hatch, 2013). Thus, place brand encourages the creation of cooperation networks that add value to the territory and allow pro-brand behaviours, which enhance legitimacy and sustainability (Go and Trunfio, 2012). Place brand development can transform the relations among actors in the territory, thus promoting territorial growth (Eshuis et al, 2013). In this sense, place brand could also be conceived as a socially responsible public brand (Kavaratzis, 2012) that can be used to generate a territorial development through networks of relations that take place in it.

But, why are place brands held in high regard? This type of brand can pursue a wide variety of economic, sociocultural and political objectives. The first ones can include issues of territorial competitiveness (e.g. Metaxas, 2010), exemplified by tourism destination development or the creation of investment opportunities, as well as ‘smart growth’ to improve the quality of life of society and to give value to other target audiences (Go and Govers, 2012). Sociocultural objectives can include evoking the territorial collective identity (Moilanen and Rainisto, 2009), lending meaning to a territory and creating the territory’s image (Zenker and Braun, 2010). Political objectives may include, for example, guiding public governance of the territory (Braun, 2008). On the one hand, all these objectives can be summarised as offering value to enable clear positioning compared to other place brands (e.g. Sánchez-Guitián, 2012) and offering promises about a territory’s assets and value (e.g. Kerr and Johnson, 2005). On the other hand, these objectives are not exclusive, and it is possible that a place brand can adopt a multi-objective strategy obtaining synergies from some of them and producing conflicts when prioritising others.

Actors’ roles in place brand development

The public sector is the set of agencies, organisations, levels of public administrations and institutions that generate laws and manage universal and critical services for general interest. It is composed of politicians and public managers. Politicians lead and generate norms and laws, transmit ideas and proposals, choose strategies and define actions. Public managers are technicians that perform administrative tasks, who should monitor the compliance with laws and advice, coordinate and manage their areas of responsibility (Boyne, 2002; Moore, 2005).

The public sector generates public governance which can be understood as a public management mode for territorial development (Eshuis and Klijn, 2012). In place brand arena, this governance is characterised as relational government for creating networks between public administrations (local, regional and/or national) and private and social actors (Pasquinelli, 2012) that allows taking decisions to develop place brands (Go and Trunfio, 2012). Thus, public governance is a preliminary and desirable condition for place brand development oriented towards territorial development (Pasquinelli, 2010; Eshuis and Edwards, 2013).

It is important to differentiate between ‘public governance’ and ‘place brand governance’, because the second is the process of developing a place brand under a stakeholder engagement approach (Go and Govers, 2012). Any place brand needs its own specific governance (Braun, 2008) and requires a participatory process that grants it legitimacy (Braun et al, 2010; Anholt, 2014). For this reason, it is a common practice to create participatory networks (composed of public and private actors) that analyse the problems, resources and possibilities of a territory and canalise the development of the place brand. Thus, since there is specific governance for place brand, it is possible to provide a common territorial identity and promote alignment between the objectives and possible solutions. Although this approach becomes an integral part of public governance of the territory (Eshuis and Edwards, 2008) public and place brand governances are not the same.

Literature shows that the public sector has two basic approaches when developing a place brand. The first one is based on the governmental leadership to define and lead the place brand development in relation to a political project (Hernández-Alonso, 2012). This approach, also known as ‘top-down’, responds to a place branding management style that subordinates the participation of the stakeholders to the vision, mission and planning imposed by the public sector. This approach simplifies and speeds up the decision making process but generates low stakeholder involvement and also jeopardises the long-term sustainability of the place brand (Go and Triunfo, 2012). The second role is the more horizontal or participative ‘bottom-up’ approach, and it considers that any place brand should be generated from a dialogue between the public and the private sectors (Warnaby et al, 2015). This more horizontal approach argues that a place brand should be collectively co-defined and co-created (Kavaratzis and Hatch, 2013). On the one hand, it generates higher stakeholder involvement and place brand sustainability but, on the other hand, could be a source of conflict if it is not properly managed.

The private sector consists of businesses with a profit orientation which play a decisive role in the interconnection between place brand and commercial companies, and can adopt both active and passive roles. From an active stance, private firms can use the umbrella of solid place brands (or the handicap of poorly positioned place brands) to help with the positioning of its brands. From a passive role, place brand can use part of the credibility and reputation of leading private firms and brands in their identity and communicational strategy. Similarly, this second role can help to reduce perceived risk among international consumers of private brands (Metaxas, 2010) - as can be seen, for example, in what is called the ‘country-of-origin effect’, where the set of strengths and weaknesses linked to a territory add or subtract from the value supplied by the commercial brand (Lui, 2012). Thus, reputed commercial brands can be ‘ambassadors’ for a place brand by showing an identifiable link with the territory (Seisdedos and Mateo, 2010). In many cases, firms (especially large corporations) are a strategic asset for a place brand because they act as ‘public diplomats’ due to the strategic intentionality of their institutional and international relations which affect and are affected by the place brand’s image in its place of origin (White, 2012).

Civil society refers to the set of actors in society who are committed to a cause. They may be individual people (e.g. opinion leaders) or collectives (e.g. NGOs) and have formal (e.g. unions) or informal structures (e.g. citizen movements). Civil society can be very heterogeneous (Brandsen et al, 2005) and act voluntarily and/or as a group, but is not necessarily coordinated.

The residents in a territory have a special relationship with the place brand (Braun et al, 2010). They are an integrating element of its ‘territorial identity’ and were initially considered to be passive receivers (Kotler et al, 1999). Recently, however, they have come to be regarded more as active participants and have thus become civil society actors and place brand ambassadors. Furthermore, their active participation legitimises place brand as public brand (Kavaratzis, 2004; Braun et al, 2013) and action by the public sector. Thus, place brand does not only have to be attractive for external audiences (e.g. tourists, businesses) they must also be designed to promote an identity that society in the territory perceives as such (Freire, 2009; Kavaratzis, 2012).

Demanded public sector activities in place branding

In the choice of strategies, the public sector can be said to take a “corporate approach” as well as a more “relational approach”. The corporate approach frames the place brand development in the same way as strategic planning to create private corporate brands (e.g. Kavaratzis, 2009; Moilanen and Rainisto, 2009; Balakrishan and Kerr, 2013). The adoption of this approach, usually vertical, compels one to perform a prior strategic analysis that includes the desired positioning, the place brand configuration or the future relationships with other place brands (brand architecture). In contrast, the relational approach is more about developing or guiding brand creators–managers and brand users (e.g. Bamber et al, 2009) and seeks to create associations and experiences with audiences in a process of co-creation (e.g. Kavaratzis, 2012; Govers, 2012). Thus, place brand is generated by audiences that relate to it in processes of ‘dialogue, debate and contestation’ (Kavaratzis and Hatch, 2013: p. 82). Here, although the public sector might lead the process of place brand development, this leadership is oriented towards the mobilisation of the stakeholders’ commitment and for the development of a policy of informing directed at all stakeholders (whether or not they participate in the creation process) (e.g. Karvelyte and Chiu, 2011; Hanna and Rowley, 2013).

Public diplomacy has strong relational aspects focused on a public communication oriented at creating ties, ‘trust in’ and ‘influences over’ international public opinion (Anholt, 2006; Szondi, 2010). It is, therefore, a tool at the service of international relations or the external policy of the public sector and its external stakeholders (Wang, 2006; De San Eugenio-Vela, 2013). The literature shows all possible variety of views on place brand and public diplomacy: since they are independent concepts (Pasquinelli, 2012) either of the two is an instrument of the other (e.g. Anholt, 2007; De San Eugenio-Vela, 2013).

Research objectives

This study has two objectives (1) to know the degree of alignment among place brand developers in relation to their perceptions on what a place brand is and its objectives, and (2) to recognise if these stakeholders have a shared perception of the role the public sector should play in place brand development.

Method

Place brand developers and study participants

The actors who play an active role in place brand developing can be grouped into clusters using the interest–power matrix to analyse stakeholders (Bryson, 2004). This is a well-established technique from management literature, where the ‘interest’ dimension here has a ‘political’ sense (of involvement or ‘engagement’), whereas the ‘power’ dimension is understood to mean the capacity for influence (Eden and Ackermann, 1998). In the place brand sphere, Gaio et al (2008) have applied this approach.

In view of the above, the study participants were divided beforehand into four groups of stakeholders that participate as brand developers, considering the aforementioned dimensions of interest (high and low) and power (high and low). Table 1 shows the terms and criteria used to differentiate them. Here, public managers are defined according to Feldman and Khademian’s (2007) proposal, and include, for example, destination-country brand managers, senior government officials, territorial development technicians and diplomats. The group of politicians is represented by MPs, mayors, general directors and other elected senior officials with place branding responsibilities. Among specialist technical staff, we distinguish between researchers (in communication, marketing, political science, sociology) and business consultants. This fourth group includes technicians and professionals from multinationals and consultancy firms that apply models and approaches designed by scholars.

Table 1 Differential characteristics of place brand developers considered
Full size table

Survey participants (politicians and public managers) were selected from Latin countries: Argentina, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Mexico, Peru, Portugal, Spain and Venezuela, while business consultants and scholars may have come from these and other countries as long as they have participated in the development of place brands. These countries were selected for two reasons: (1) they show a growing interest in developing place brands (Sanchez-Guitián, 2012) and (2) the questionnaire was administered in Spanish.

Contact system

Contacts were generated personally (in forums and conferences) and through social networks (LinkedIn, Novagob and INAP1). After the evaluation of their curricula, those with research or professional experience in place brand development were chosen. Participants from several disciplines were included because the study and practice of place branding requires approaches from marketing, communication, sociology, political science and law (Hankinson, 2010).

Three waves of invitations were sent out to recruit participants for the study willing to answer an online questionnaire. The field work took place in the first half of 2014 and 260 valid questionnaires were obtained: 30 from specialists who were also politicians, 59 from scholars, 101 from business consultants and 70 from public managers. Although various attempts were made to increase responses from people with high level public profiles, it was not possible to exceed the figure of 30 during the two-month period of the fieldwork.

Variables

Definition of place brand Two questions were raised: (1) “Which of the following definitions do you consider to be closest to your conceptualisation of what a place brand is?”, and (2) “Which one do you consider the farthest from your understanding of place brands?” Four definitions were presented, and participants chose only one for each question:

Def1:

A network of associations based on expressions of the dimensions (physical, political, economic, cultural) of a territory directed at all stakeholders (Zenker and Braun, 2010; Zenker and Petersen, 2010)

Def2:

A public brand composed of tangible and intangible elements to manage and communicate a territory strategically for the purpose of territorial development (De San Eugenio-Vela, 2011)

Def3:

A tool for political and institutional communication to project a coherent and favourable image (Hernandez-Alonso, 2012)

Def4:

A project for territorial governance and a vehicle for providing solutions to the problems in a territory (Eshuis and Edwards, 2008; Eshuis et al, 2013)

The differentiation between closest vs. farthest place brand conceptualisations was surveyed because, in real situations, the decisions taken when place brand is developed depend both on what is preferred and what is refused.

Objectives Seven items considered in the literature were used:

  • Generate meaning for the territory (Govers and Go, 2009).

  • Implement territorial governance through the public sector (Braun, 2008).

  • Create perceived image of the territory (Zenker and Braun, 2010).

  • Create/Generate competitiveness (Metaxas, 2010).

  • Reflect the value of a territory (Peralba-Fortuny, 2006).

  • Make a promise on the territory’s values (Sánchez-Guitián, 2012).

  • Evoke signs of identity (Kavaratzis and Hatch, 2013).

Public Governance The question raised was “Who should lead the place brand?”, with five options ranging from a centralised vision of governance (Hernández-Alonso, 2012) to a more horizontal one (Pasquinelli, 2013; Kavaratzis, 2012). Participants must select only one of the following options:

  • Place brand must be defined by government according to its political project.

  • Place brand must be led by public administrations.

  • Place brand must be the result of the interaction between public administrations with the forces of the territory.

  • Place brand must be co-led by public and private actors in the place.

  • Place brand must be defined by the society in the territory.

Public sector decisions regarding the private sector Six items were considered that reflect the different types of behaviour of private companies in a territory towards place branding processes. They were adopted from Seisdedos and Mateo (2010), Lui (2012) and White (2012). The items were:

  • Promote relations between private companies and place brand.

  • Promote the creation of sector brands

  • Private companies as agents of public diplomacy

  • Not interfere with the interests of commercial brands.

  • Lead the place brand as public brand.

  • Create interdependencies between private brands and place brand to create value

Role of Civil Society The question raised was “Which role must be played by society (residents, NGO, civil and cultural associations, etc.) in place brand developing?” Participants had to select one of the four following options: (1) ‘civil society must only consume the place brand’ (Kotler et al, 1999), (2) ‘must be ambassador’ (Freire, 2009; Kavaratzis, 2004), (3) ‘must actively support the place brand’ (Eshuis and Edwards, 2008) and, (4) ‘must co-create the place brand’ (Kavaratzis, 2012).

Public Diplomacy The question raised was “What is the degree of similarity between place branding and public diplomacy?” Participants had to select one of the four options that show the relationship between place brand and public diplomacy (Szondi, 2008, 2010). They were: (1) ‘null relationship between both concepts’ (Pasquinelli, 2012), (2) ‘Public diplomacy is part of place brand’ (Anholt, 2007), (3) ‘place brand is an instrument for Public Diplomacy’ (De San Eugenio-Vela, 2013) and, (4) ‘both concepts express the same’ (Popescu and Corbos, 2013).

Demanded public sector activities Four items have been designed with a corporate approach and another four with a relational approach. All of them were extracted from different models explaining place brand developing. The items were:

Corporate approach (Karvelyte and Chiu, 2011; Kerr and Johnson, 2005):

  • Analyse place brand strategically.

  • Define place brand identity and desired positioning

  • Consider brand architecture.

  • Define strategic products to be developed.

Relational approach (Gaio, 2010; Hanna and Rowley, 2013):

  • Mobilise stakeholders’ engagement.

  • Inform all place brand developers.

  • Legitimise and promote stakeholders’ intervention (as developers).

  • Head the process of place brand developing.

Items to measure objectives, decisions regarding private sector and demanded public sector activities were measured on a scale ranging from 1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree.

Analytical methods

The developers’ alignment is here understood as the consensus among them, and can be measured as both intragroup and intergroup. Consensus is a measure of the degree of uniformity in perceptions because the higher or lower the consensus, the higher or lower the uniformity and alignment.

  1. (A)

    For intragroup consensus, two techniques are used: (1) the proportions of the most cited modalities in the case of categorical measurements – place brand definitions or role of civil society, and (2) Tasle and Wierman’s (2007) coefficient – for ordinal measures. This coefficient is defined as

    $$C = 1 + \mathop \sum \limits_{i = 1}^{n} p_{i} \log_{2} \left( {1 - \frac{{{\text{abs}}(X_{i} - \mu )}}{\text{range}}} \right)$$

    where, p i is the proportion of each mode log2 base 2 logarithm, abs denotes the absolute value operator, X i is the mode i, μ is the average mode and ‘range’ means the number of modes minus one. This coefficient moves between 0 (absolute lack of consensus) and 1(unanimity of choice) and is normed. Thus, consensus can be compared regardless of the number of modalities for each variable.2

  2. (B)

    For intergroup consensus, two tests are used: (3) Chi-squared for the nominal variables and (4) the Krusal–Walllis H test for the ordinal ones. These two statistical techniques test the hypothesis that the four groups come from the same population. If the null hypothesis is accepted (p ≥ 0.05), there will be no differences in the groups’ opinions and consensus among them may be deduced. If it is rejected (p < 0.05), the groups will not come from the same population because they show different responses.

To analyse the degree of similarity between variables and groups, a multiple correspondence analysis is applied by using SPAD (Système Portable pour l’Analyse des Données) software. It characterises the more discriminant variables by using the most frequent modalities of variables for a group in comparison with the global sample. That is, a modality will be a representative characteristic of a group if it is significantly more frequent in that group than in the total sample (CISIA, 1992). The relations among variables are analysed on these frequencies. A Z-value for normal distribution is generated based on the probability resulting from applying hypergeometric distribution (Benzécri, 1982), where this Z-value or test value (term used in SPAD) has a probability (p value) of the deviation among the percentages for modalities in each group and in the sample being due to chance. Therefore, it enables detection of the most distinctive modalities in each group. Given that the value-test is normed, any results >|±2| is considered significant.

Results

Results for objective 1

Table 2 shows the results for objective 1. It is deduced that all the groups, except the group of scholars, prefer to view place brand as a tool for political and institutional communication to project a coherent and favourable image. Scholars, on the other hand, prefer to focus on the relational perspective, as they understand it more as a network of associations. In contrast, all the groups consider place brand as a project for territorial governance is furthest from their vision, except for politicians who consider it their preferred vision (and, in turn, they reject the relational focus).

Table 2 Intra- and inter-group consensus measurements for objective 1
Full size table

Table 3 shows the results of the characterising analysis. Politicians are differentiated from the other groups in that they show more support for a place brand oriented towards the market and external audiences, using it more as a communication tool for generating competitiveness. They do not view place brand as a network of associations with various dimensions directed at all the stakeholders in the territory. For politicians, place brand is aimed at communicating a single, clear and positive image that serves the territory in order to compete in a globalised world. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the group of ‘public managers’ is the only group that is not characterised by an explicit position, both in how to understand what is a place brand and its objectives. Business consultants defend the idea that it is a promise of value and reject any politically loaded definition or the idea that place brand is a project for territorial governance. In this regard, they emphasise that this brand is a set of values on which to construct a differentiated promise. Unlike business consultants, scholars do not consider place brand to be a territory’s offer of value, nor do they present a clear profile of a desired type of brand architecture.

Table 3 Characterising analysis of place brand developers for Objective 1
Full size table

It is remarkable the diversity of options defended by each group which can respond to the characteristics and objectives of these professionals. Politicians believe that the image is vital, and maintain that generating a positive image is the most remarkable aspect of any place brand. The business–consultants, linked to the private sector, focus the place brand as trademark, where image is important but not vital. In the same logic of the private sector, they do not link place brand with processes of territorial public governance. The scholars, who come from very different disciplines and fields, are reluctant to limit place brand (its nature and objectives) as simple trademark. Especially noteworthy is that public managers do not take a defined position on the place brand as a tool for territorial governance which, interestingly, is closer to their professional occupation.

Results for objective 2

Table 4 shows very balanced (almost indifferent) or moderate consensus rates for the role of the public sector in the governance of both a territory’s identity and the private sector and its brands. The other variables, however, show differences among groups. Thus, although there is a global consensus that place brand is an instrument for public diplomacy (option 3), the levels of intragroup agreement are low. In fact, while politicians and academics tend to show significant disagreement (C G1 = 0.43 and C G2 = 0.37), public managers show a significantly different level of agreement (C G3 = 0.69). The group of politicians mainly chooses to consider the civil society as a support for place brand (Mode = 0.53) whereas the other groups, especially the scholars (Mode = 0.73), choose to consider the sector as co-creators. As for actions the public sector should take, there are two of a strategic nature (‘analyse the place brand strategically’ and ‘define the products to be developed’) and one with a relational focus (‘inform all the stakeholders’). Business consultants show a high degree of agreement, superior to the other groups. In the three cases, the group of scholars shows the least consensus, with a much wider variety of responses.

Table 4 Intra- and inter-group consensus measurements for objective 2
Full size table

Table 5 shows that the politicians tend to agree with the items that express predominantly corporate positions over relational ones. They are very favourable to the idea that the public sector should lead the place brand as though it were a public brand. Two issues, however, are particularly striking: (1) they do not view the place brand as an instrument for them to define in relation to their political project and (2) they defend an interventionist position for the public sector over private commercial brands. Thus, they indicate that the public sector should promote relationships between public and private brands. The politicians see the place brand as public diplomacy oriented to international relations led by the public sector and intended to project a unique positive image with which to compete globally.

Table 5 Characterising analysis of place brand developers for Objective 2
Full size table

Public managers, unlike politicians, state that place brand is an instrument at the service of public diplomacy. They have a mainly relational orientation as they choose items of this nature over corporate items (in terms of acceptable roles for the public sector). They think it is important for the public sector to manage communication between participants during place brand development. However, despite this relational approach, it is striking that there are no clear positions on the roles of the private and civil society sectors in that development. Therefore, and for the two key actors in the public sector (politicians and public managers), the conclusion is that they do not have a common approach to place branding.

The group of scholars considers that place brand and public diplomacy are two distinct realities. It does not view place brand as an instrument of public diplomacy, but instead considers public diplomacy to be at the service of place branding. Their view differs greatly from that of the politicians in that they clearly reject public sector leadership. Nor does the group of public managers accept that place brand governance must be defined for all society in the territory. This group does, however, consider that the role of the civil society must be directed at co-creating the place brand not merely at legitimising and supporting it. Consistent with this position, the group maintains that the public sector must not in any case define the identity and desired positioning of the place brand.

It is striking that for business consultants neither the relationship between public diplomacy and place brand, nor the issues linked to the desired role for the public sector are significant. In fact, they are indifferent towards everything related to the role of the public sector. They do, however, attribute an important role to private firms in the territory, arguing that place brand must be co-led by the public and private sectors, but do not position themselves as horizontally as the scholars (management of the territory by society). In this regard, they do not assign civil society with a co-creator role, but limit it to the role of ‘ambassador’ for the place brand.

Conclusions

This study has focused on knowing if place brand developers are aligned in relation to their perceptions on what is this type of brands and on recognising if they have a shared perception of the role the public sector should play in place brand development. The general conclusion is that the alignment among stakeholder developers is weak, and two different visions can be highlighted. The first one emerges from public sector (politicians and public managers) by attributing a key leading role to the public sector in place brand developing. This viewpoint contrasts with the position of the academy since political leadership has been criticised because it is considered dangerous for long term place brand sustainability (e.g. Hankinson, 2010). The second vision is expressed outside the public sector (business consultants and scholars), and it is more disperse, while business consultants are focused close to corporate strategies and to the conception of place brand as commercial brand, scholars show a wide diversity of perspectives, emphasising positions with a low ‘political–institutional’ profile and distancing themselves from the concept of place brand being led by the public sector.

Two different implications can be set forth. The first one, from a managerial standpoint, refers to the need for institutions and associations that create space for discussion and reflection on how stakeholders should approach the place brand developing. It should not be forgotten that this development is supported with a public budget, and getting a good initial alignment among stakeholders may save money, time and effort. The second implication, from a theoretical viewpoint, is that far from place branding discourse being enriched by a diversity of disciplinary approaches, it seems there is little dialogue between the different academic and practitioner place brand visions. Thus, national institutions (e.g. SEGITTUR in Spain, INPROTUR in Argentina) or international associations (e.g. International Place Branding Association) should be forums where discussions can be held on how to align the stakeholders and develop practical guides encouraging contacts among academia, private and public sectors. It is necessary to highlight Kavaratzis’ (2015) view in order to build bridges among different viewpoints. In the academic arena, the dialogue must surpass the particular vision of each discipline and offer solutions to the actual conceptual dispersion on how to act in place branding projects.

Three limitations can be highlighted. First, there is a lack of reliable instruments for measuring the various concepts introduced in the study. Despite many contributions in the literature, almost all of them take a qualitative approach, and no specific measurement scales have been found. This situation makes measurement difficult and forces an exploratory approach. Second, a small number of responses have been obtained from the group of politicians, who tend not to collaborate with academic research. The third limitation refers to the ‘single party’ vision of the politicians who did participate. It must not be forgotten that their position corresponds to the ideological orientation of the governments in power at the time of the study, and this may have introduced an inescapable bias.

This situation is a challenge for research when there are changes in political orientations in the study countries. Finally, a second challenge is to study the relational behaviour of the public sector towards private actors and volunteers in society for the co-creation of place brand oriented towards territorial development (Anholt, 2014).

Notes

  1. 1

    LinledIn (www.linkedin.com) is a social network of a professional nature that offers information on its members' CVs. Novagob (www.novagob.org) is a platform of professionals linked to the public sector, with an entrepreneurial vocation for the sector and the Spanish-speaking world. INAP (www.inap.es) is the Spanish Institute of Public Administration, attached to the Spanish government. It is the only social ecosystem for public sector knowledge in Spain.

  2. 2

    Following Hein and Kroenke (2015), cutoffs for the C coefficient are C > 0.9 (very strong consensus), 0.8–0.9 (strong consensus), 0.60–0.79 (moderate consensus), 0.40–0.59 (balance), 0.20–0.39 (moderate dissensus), 0.10–0.19 (strong dissensus), and C < 0.10 (very strong dissensus).