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

Haft and Sord Factors in Place Branding: Between Functionalism and Representationalism
Massimo Giovanardi, ―Carlo Bo‖ University of Urbino, Italy
1. Introduction
There appears to be a general agreement that cities and places can be thought of (and marketed) as if they were brands
among practitioners (Anholt, 2007), marketing scholars (i.e. Hankinson, 2001; Hankinson, 2004; Trueman and
Cornelius, 2006) and partially also within the planning studies (i.e. Kavaratzis & Ashworth, 2005). Even though the
theoretical and methodological issues to be clarified are not few (Vicari Haddock, 2010), the debate on the translation
of this strategic approach from the world of companies into that of places is engaging and can be improved through the
collaboration of scholars coming from different scientific backgrounds.
This conceptual paper contends that the contemporary place branding perspective implies to understand place attraction
(and place brands themselves) in terms of haft and sord factors, by updating the ―old‖ distinction between hard and soft
factors which characterized the traditional discourses of place marketing. Moreover, it seeks to refine the Brand Box
Model (De Chernatony & McWilliam, 1990) as it has been applied to places by Caldwell and Freire (2004), by paying
attention to the distinction between the internal and external orientation of place branding.
The advantages offered by these conceptualizations are explored in respect to some issues within the place brand
literature which still require to be fully understood, like the need to rearticulate the functional/physical and
representational/symbolic dimensions in city branding.
2. Theoretical Backgound
Over the past thirty years cities around the world have invested in strategies of place marketing and branding aimed at
attracting investment, economic activities, skilled workforce, talented creative workers, tourists and at strengthening
local community pride and identity. Within the discourses produced among the academic community and the
practitioners, it is possible to distinguish two views, each of which has at some time dominated the discipline. The first
one is the place marketing discourse, which ruled the field during the Eighties and the Nineties and can be considered
the first step in the effort of translating the application of marketing techniques to the realm of territories (i.e. Kotler,
Rein & Haider, 1993; Kotler, Asplund, Rein & Haider, 1999). Since about the beginning of the new millennium,
however, we have been witnessing the emergence of a different paradigm, that of place branding, which nowadays is
understood as the most correct and effective way for marketing cities, regions and nations (Kavaratzis, 2004; Kavaratzis
& Ashworth, 2005).
The marketing paradigm usually focused on cities and city regions as business locations, addressing private companies
as the main targets of the strategic treatment. This body of literature has already acknowledged that shaping an
appropriate place identity and image is a very important element of a place marketing strategy (Ashworth & Voogd,
1990; Kotler et al. 1993; Hubbard & Hall, 1998; Rainisto, 2003) .
With the shift from ―city marketing‖ to ―city branding‖ (Kavaratzis, 2004), scholars recognised further the pivotal role
played by emotional assets and mental representations in the process of enhancing places‘ distinctivness. Since
―encounters with the city take place through perceptions and images, thus the object of city marketing is not the city
‗itself‘, but its image‖ (Kavaratzis, 2004: 62), and at the same time, ―it is not the city but the image that has to be
planned‖ (Vermuelen, 2002 as cited in Kavaratzis, 2004, p. 63). This conceptualization, furthermore, strongly benefits
from the notion of corporate branding, which is considered an inspiring stimulus in terms of ―useful lessons to be
drawn‖ (Hankinson, 2007) given the evident similarities between the two forms of branding (Kavaratzis, 2009, 2010).
3. Preliminary remarks: hard and soft factors in place marketing
Adopting the formulation proposed by Kotler et al. (1999) within a place marketing perspective, place attraction factors
can be divided into hard factors (i.e. economic stability, communication infrastructure, costs) and soft factors (i.e.
quality of life, culture, knowledge). This distinction is particularly meaningful in respect to the marketing actions
targeting private companies, but it is possible to extend it to cover an ample set of targets and situations. In this view,
which could be valid also for destination management perspective, place attraction is determined by a mixture of hard
and soft factors. ―Hard attraction factors alone like infrastructure will no longer be able to build a unique competition
advantage‖ (Rainisto, 2003, p. 72) and the sophistication of the place package urges place managers to draw on soft
factors to build a favourable image.
It is worth noting that the ―geographical marketing mix‖ such as those described by Ashworth and Voogd (1990) and
Kotler et al. (1999) encompasses a combination of hard and soft elements, which appear to be quite balanced. The
emerging of place branding, however, has brought to completion an imaginative turn which sees in culture and imagery
the key drivers to guide places in the mounting interurban competition, with the hard and functional dimensions
gradually being left out of the main focus of the research agenda. The time has come to reconsider this issue more
carefully.
4. The Framework: Haft and Sord Factors in Place Branding
My framework is based on the assumption that hard factors and soft factors can be seen as corresponding respectively to
the functional and the representational dimensions coexisting in every brand and characterizing, in a similar vein, also
144