مدل برندینگ (نام گذاری تجاری) مقصد : تجزیه و تحلیل تجربی مبتنی بر ذینفعان

The purpose of this study is to develop a destination-branding model based on stakeholders’ interests. It is subsequently applied to a tourist destination, namely Castilla-La Mancha (CLM), thereby creating an index that measures destination branding’s success based on similarities and differences among the different stakeholders. The index, called Success Index of Triple-Diamonds (SITD), provides an empirical evaluation of the destination brand’s degree of success and confirms the existence of differences among stakeholders. The current study offers useful information for developing strategy on the part of Destination Management Organizations (DMOs) and reveals the risks of a traditional strategy focused only on visitors that ignores the objectives of local people and entrepreneurs.

In the current tourist scene, place marketing and the development of destination brands have become strategic tools all over the world due to a growing competition among destinations. The number of destinations adopting the concept of destination-brand-building is larger and larger, being Australia, Brazil, Colombia and Spain some examples of the application of a place branding strategy. Regarding Spain, Joan Miró’s design (a sun, a star and trembling red, yellow and black letters) represents since 1983 the national tourism’s promotional graphic composition. This Country constantly relaunches new promotional campaigns, as ‘Smile! You Are in Spain’, to keep the brand image alive. In 2004, in order to change its image, Colombia carried out the campaign ‘Colombia is passion!’, almost doubling in 2006 the volume of foreign tourism. The destination-brand-building concept has not only been limited to the countries; it has also taken place in the different regions and cities. In 2009, fourteen out of the seventeen regions in Spain had their own destination brand. Moreover, among the cities, the popular ‘I Love NY’, designed by Milton Glaser in 1977, tried to promote tourism. Due to the proliferation of promotional symbols without a defined strategy of place branding and consequently with no brand equity (BE), destination management plays an important role. It has to turn them into tourist brands positioned in a differential way in the tourists’ minds (Peralba, 2007), always considering that local people and entrepreneurs are key features of the core brand. In this respect, solid relationships among stakeholders are essential to place branding’s success, although, their necessities can come into conflict, what has not been sufficiently taken into account (Hankinson, 2004). This author indicates that place branding received considerable attention over the past two decades in both marketing press and academic literature. An indicator of the presence of place marketing and place branding in academic literature is that Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/) has indexed 4530 references related to ‘place marketing’ and 2270 to ‘place branding’ in all subject areas. Since 2004, the academic interest in this field has multiplied, as revealed by the fact that 51.2% (2320 out of 4530) references on place marketing and 73.1% (1660 out of 2270) on place branding are recent (from 2004 to June 2010). The conceptual models and the practical applications of place branding are developing at different speeds so far. A more general theoretical framework approach underpinning place branding is due to researchers such as Kotler and Gertner (2002) and Hankinson, 2004, Hankinson, 2007 and Hankinson, 2009), among others, and to the attempts of establishing relationships between literature on place marketing and branding with classical branding theory and new marketing paradigms (relational and emerging Service Dominant Logic). However, most available empirical studies are exploratory (Freire, 2009, Morgan et al., 2003 and Risitano, 2006) or based on case studies – Pike (2009) identified 33 out of 74 destination-branding publications focused on case studies between 1998 and 2007 – showing a shortage of empirical studies involved with the reality of place branding among different stakeholders. For these reasons, this research is innovative, focussing on the development of a destination-branding model based on stakeholders’ interests, thereby creating an index that measures destination branding’s success concentrating on similarities and differences that exist in the presented brand (PB): brand awareness (BA), brand meaning (BM) and BE among stakeholders. This objective is directly related to the present literary approach that takes the brand’s role into account from a wider point of view, connecting not only the visitors to the destination but also the local people and entrepreneurs. The paper is divided into seven parts. The concepts of destination branding and destination image in academic literature are analyzed in Section 2. The third part deals with the principle of the service-branding model suggested by Berry (2000) and with the comparison of destination brands regarding products and services; a conceptual adaptation of this model to destination branding is also developed. Sections 4, 5 and 6 are focused on the study methods’ description and the empirical analysis for Castilla-La Mancha (CLM), a specific tourist region of Spain. Finally, the last section introduces the conclusions and discussion, as well as the implications for Destination Management Organizations (DMOs).

This article develops a destination-branding model based on three groups of stakeholders and applies it to a region of Spain. Their perceptions and congruence in elaborating an index and a methodology useful for measuring the brand’s success have been taken into account. This study is also useful for the practitioners on destination branding by incorporating the stakeholders’ role, because they have not received enough attention in management (Hankinson, 2004). In addition, the results obtained are consistent with academic literature, since the conclusions of previous studies show the importance of stakeholders in destination brand’s success (Hankinson, 2004, Hankinson, 2007, Hankinson, 2009 and Risitano, 2006). These results from Success Index of Triple-Diamonds (SITD) lead to the conclusion that: (1) the brand analyzed has major gaps, mainly, in entrepreneurs’ and visitors’ perceptions; and (2) the main weak points in the destination-branding strategy are found in local people and visitors, obtaining very low scores in each of their Success Index of One-Diamond (SIOD). Furthermore, local people act as a brake on visitors’ greater success of the brand, since the area for the diamond of visitors is inside the vertices of the local people diamond (PB, BA, BM, and BE). The analysis of these constructs or diamond vertices reveals that the scores of PB, BA, BM and BE for entrepreneurs are significantly higher than the scores for visitors and local people. This fact demonstrates that, in order to achieve the success of the brand CLM Discover & feel, it is necessary to work coordinately on PB, BA, BM and BE with visitors and local people. From a theoretical point of view, this article contributes to current literature, for it suggests that the analysis of destination branding’s success cannot only be based on the visitor’s point of view of the brand value (customer-based BE), but it must be set within a broader conceptual framework that comprises visitors, local people and entrepreneurs (Pike, 2005). In the case of destination brands, a conceptualization of the brand value based on the stakeholders (stakeholders-based BE) is more suitable than the usual configuration based only on the visitor (customer-based BE). There are three reasons that justify this theoretical perspective based on stakeholders. First, entrepreneurs-based BE is a necessary condition for the destination brand’s success among visitors. When the corporative culture values differ from the destination brand’s that DMOs wish to transmit, entrepreneurs will transmit their own during their contact with visitors (Hankinson, 2007). Second, in line with Freire (2009), local people have a double impact (as members of the local society, and as workers within the tourist industry), highlighting the importance of considering resident-based BE. Third, undoubtedly the main aim of any destination-brand strategy must be directed towards the achievement of visitors worth (customer-based BE). From a practical point of view, the implications of this study for DMOs are clear. Traditional strategies of some DMOs focussing their brand management efforts on a fast projection towards visitors, in search of their main goal, could become counterproductive. Visitors’ expectations concerning the destination and the existence of imbalances with the PB, BA, BM, and BE of entrepreneurs and local people can act as elements inhibiting visitors brand value. This study suggests that DMOs must develop a two-stage strategy, focussing firstly on the stakeholders closest to the destination, both from the domain of destination management (entrepreneurs) and of society and employment (local people), and secondly on visitors. Summarizing, brand value’s creation among visitors is actually the final aim, whereas for local people and entrepreneurs it is an intermediate goal and a necessary condition for destination-branding strategy’s success. From the strategy implementation, the key aspects on which DMOs have to work are the involvement and education of local people and the creation of co-branding agreements with entrepreneurs. Therefore, DMOs could know the developed actions’ effectiveness on the destination brands. For this, establishing reference standards would be recommendable and this study specifically suggests three patterns: (1) SITD values of the competing destination brands, which would allow analyzing the success and positioning of the different brands and determine the main strengths and weaknesses of each one; (2) SITD value over time, measured by periodical surveys amongst entrepreneurs, local people and visitors. The aim would be to compare the effects of the different actions carried out on these three groups and, in this manner, analyze if the brand is weaker or stronger, whether re-launching of the brand is necessary and which stakeholders work needs to be done with, etc.; and (3) establishment of a short and long-term objective value, based on the analysis of competing destination-brand scores, of the evolution of the SITD values and the desired impact of advertising or similar. DMOs should establish a reference value for each group so that possible deviations could be analyzed and they should also focus on those groups having the lowest scores (local people and visitors), but bearing in mind the two-stage strategy set forth (first: entrepreneurs and local people, and second: visitors). As mentioned in the second reference value, it would be advisable to analyze the SITD value from time to time because the destination brands become stronger or weaker through time, as it also happens with products or services; if some weaknesses were observed in the SITD analysis, the ideal solution would be to invest in the aspects requiring to strengthen, and to act on the groups giving the lowest value to the destination brand. This alternative would avoid drastic brand changes, thus optimizing advertising efforts to launch a new brand. Specific recommendations for each component and directed to each brand equity group are also to be considered, having them all a clear objective: orienting the DMOs in their brand destination management, bearing in mind their interrelation with the destination image. These actions’ results could be analyzed using the SITD and it would allow the management organizations in analyzing the evolution of the strong and weak points for each component and stakeholder. Concerning PB, it is clear that a destination-brand image requires great advertising efforts and costly public relations campaigns in addition to a graphic design (Anholt, 2008). When the correlations between the National Brand Index and advertising expenses for the years 2005–2007 were analyzed, no relationship between the changes in equity of the national brand and the marketing effort were observed. Thus, DMOs should contemplate a strategy of participation or collaboration with the entrepreneurs and local people, when they launch a destination brand, such as in promotional campaigns or communication about new tourist products. In this way, stakeholders would feel a part of the brand that encompasses its tourist destinations. This collaboration would give way to a link by entrepreneurs and local people with the destination brand, transmitting the attractiveness and interesting characteristics to the visitors. Regarding BA, the recommended actions would be oriented towards recognition of the brand by the three groups: identifying the destination brand with tourist establishments (hotels, rural lodgings, restaurants, museums, theatres, etc.), parking facilities for visitors, train stations, buses, taxis or airports, brochures and tourist maps, recreational areas or cultural and nature routes, would facilitate association of the destination brand to the destination. The collaboration of the entrepreneurs is again required, as well as their companies’ and local people’s that should worry about the destination brand receiving adequate exposure in the places previously defined. Considering that out of the 1500 advertising impacts that a person is exposed to during a day, only 7 are retained, this confirms the need to visualize the destination brand in every place where a visitor may pass during their tourist travels. In third place, BM actions are oriented towards the destination brand’s credibility and personality. DMOs should work together in two aspects: the values that destination brand transmits by means of publicity slogans and the destination’s real image. In the specific case of CLM Discover & feel, the conveyed values are findings, invention and mystery (discover), along with emotion, experience, passion (feel), concepts to be projected by the identified image of the Spanish region. In this way, the SITD analysis over a period of time, would permit confirming if the destination brand and its slogan reflect the reality of the region. It would be advisable to carry out theatrical actions at tourist points to simulate, in a creative manner, the values that identify and define the tourist destination’s personality. Again, collaboration between entrepreneurs and local people is vital for transmitting these values to visitors. DMOs have to work on the three key aspects of BE: loyalty, perceived quality and word-of-mouth. An adequate example of motivating destination loyalty could be lowering the prices of tourist establishments for loyal customers, or carrying out drawings or gift certificates for accommodations, health treatments or free routes. Entrepreneurs’ collaboration (hotels, restaurants, spas, cultural routes, etc) is highly necessary. These agreements would allow promoting different tourist options and, consequently, increasing the amount of money spent at the destination, as well as guaranteeing its loyalty. The actions related to perceived quality should be oriented towards linking the destination brand with a tourism quality seal of guarantee. This strategy could be developed along with brand promotion in the different establishments and tourist places proposed in BA. Entrepreneurs, as managers of tourist companies, and local people, as active workers, would play a key role in the visitors’ perceived quality and they are the main contribution to the destination-brand seal of guarantee. The result of all the above-mentioned actions would affect another key component of BE: word-of-mouth. If the visitor has enjoyed a good experience in a tourist destination, i.e. in each and every of the tourist points identified under the destination brand, he would recommend the visit to friends and family and, therefore, contribute to the destination brand’s creation. When interpreting the results of this study, a number of limitations must be considered. First, it is only focused on a regional destination brand, limitation that can become a future line of research. The application of the methodology in this article applied to several destination brands, in different spheres (countries, regions or cities) and with different destination-branding strategies, would make an invaluable comparative analysis when identifying the best branding practices. Second, this research identifies the necessity of developing education strategies and local people’s implication and creating co-branding agreements, but it does not enable indicating the most suitable ways for the implementation of these strategies. In this sense, it would be interesting to evaluate some initiatives’ efficiency, carried out by DMOs heading co-branding projects through tourist services (wineries, spas, rural B&Bs, etc.) to encourage entrepreneurs’ sense of membership, since they work in a given sector of the economy and instil not only an identity of a common brand but also consistent with the DMOs’ one. Finally, this study presents empirical evidences of the existence of imbalances or conflicts among the different stakeholders in the destination-branding process. This leads to future studies analyzing those cases where the most powerful stakeholders try to impose their interests in the destination-branding process (Marzano & Scott, 2009) to answer two fundamental questions: (1) is it appropriate that the most powerful stakeholders define the strategy on the basis of their own interests to avoid boycott from the destination brand?; and (2) how to overcome the divergences or tensions existing among the DMOs with authority in different public spheres (countries, regions or cities)? These answers are key aspects to keep on advancing in the management of destination brands.