Brand, Identity and Reputation: Exploring, Creating New Realities ...

Brand Perception and Brand Complexity: A Place Branding Perspective
Sebastian Zenker, University of Hamburg, Germany
Suzanne C. Beckmann, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Introduction
Branding often aims at reducing the multitude of consumers‘ image associations, thus trying to communicate simplified
verbal and visual images. For many product brands this strategy works quite well, since consumers most often are
neither willing nor able to remember complex or diverse associations for one product (Keller, 1993). However, since
brand image is per definition a network of associations in the individual persons‘ mind (Keller, 1993), aggregating these
associative networks for segmentation purposes is anything but an easy task. Moreover, this strategy becomes even
more difficult in the case of complex brands aiming at diverse target audiences. Corporate brands, for example, do not
only target consumers, but also other stakeholders such employees. An association like ―cheap‖ could be good for a
customers‘ buying decision of a company‘s product, but scare new employees since it also has a taste of ―low income‖.
The situation becomes even more complex in the case of place branding (Anholt, 2009): the perception of a city (as a
brand) usually differs strongly between the various target groups due to different perspectives and interests of, for
instance, residents and tourists. The different perceptions are a big challenge for place marketers, because many diverse
associations have to be communicated—making it nearly impossible to find a ―one fits all‖ place brand.
Communication that focuses on one external target audience thus can prove quite dangerous for the place marketing
process, since it might lower the identification with the place brand by other target audiences such as internal ones
(Zenker & Petersen, 2010). Yet, place branding is not least strongly dependent on the involvement of its residents
because they are part of the brand and are also ambassadors for the brand (Kavaratzis et al., 2010). Hence, this paper
argues that in complex cases such as place branding the focus should be much more on the brand perceptions of the
different target groups and try to understand how and why these perceptions differ. This paper therefore illustrates with
two empirical studies the important discrepancies between the city brand perceptions in the mental representation of
internal vs. external target groups (study 1) and even between different internal target groups (study 2), using the example
of the city of Hamburg.
Place Branding and Brand Complexity
A place brand is defined as: ―a network of associations in the consumers‘ mind based on the visual, verbal, and
behavioural 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‖ (Zenker & Braun, 2010, p. 3). Essential for this definition is
that a place brand is not the communicated expression or the physical environment, but the perception of those
expressions in the mind of the target group(s). These perceptions lead to branding effects such as identification (Anholt,
2007; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003), or satisfaction (Bruhn & Grund, 2000; Zenker et al., 2009).
From a theoretical point of view, the core target groups in place branding are: (1) visitors; (2) residents and workers;
and (3) business and industry (Kotler et al., 1993). However, the groups actually targeted in recent place marketing
practice are much more specific and complex. Tourists, for example, could be divided into business and leisure time
visitors (Hankinson, 2005). Even more complex is the group of residents: a first distinction is the internal residents and
the external potential new residents. Within these groups specific target audience segments are found such as students
and the so-called creative class (Braun, 2008; Florida, 2004; Zenker, 2009). The distinction between internal and
external target groups is of particularly high importance because of the different knowledge levels of these target
audiences that entail different core associations with a city (Keller, 1993). Based on social identity theory (Hogg, 2003;
Tajfel & Turner, 1979), the out-group (external target audience) should show more common and stereotype associations
with a place, while the in-group (internal target audience) should have a more diverse and heterogeneous brand
perception. Hence: we propose the following hypothesis:
H1: An external target audience has more stereotypical brand associations than an internal target group.
As already mentioned, the various target groups do not only differ in their perceptions of a place but foremost in their
place needs and demands. Students, for example, most certainly search for more night live activities like bars and clubs;
managers, however, are more interested in business infrastructure and probably also high class cultural entertainment. It
is inevitable that there are both conflicts and synergies between the needs and wants of different target groups. But
one‘s location cannot be seen separately from other useful locations–hence the place offering is not a single location but
a package of locations. Consequently, the product for tourists in London, for instance, overlaps to some extent with the
product for the city‘s residents. Similar to a shopping mall–as an illustrative metaphor–a place offers a large assortment
for everybody and each customer fills his or her ―shopping bag‖ individually according to his or her interest. Hence, we
propose the following hypothesis:
H2: Each target group will have brand associations (in comparison to the other groups) that relate to their core
interests.
136