Drivers and inhibitors of national stakeholder engagement with place brand identity

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to explore the factors that drive and inhibit national stakeholder organisations’ engagement with an established an umbrella place brand identity (PBI) in the context of country branding, during the PBI implementation stage. Design/methodology/approach This study adopted a case study approach to examine Australia’s current country brand identity initiative: Australia Unlimited, as an example of PBI. Data were collected through in-depth interviews with senior executives (n = 39) representing 30 Australian national organisation stakeholders across a range of sectors (i.e. government agencies, public and private organisations and industry associations). Findings The tension between the PBI and the brand identity of the stakeholders’ own organisation was an emergent finding at the heart of potential disengagement. Moreover, stakeholders’ perception of the leadership of the organisation managing the place brand plays a key role in influencing their engagement with PBI. Research limitations/implications The findings contribute to place marketing theory by identifying drivers and inhibitors of stakeholders’ engagement that originated from the PBI itself (PBI-centred factors) and from the stakeholder organisations (stakeholder-centred factors). Practical implications The findings provide a practical framework for place brand managing organisations to foster stakeholders’ engagement during the implementation stage of a PBI initiative. Originality/value Place branding research to date has focussed primarily on resident stakeholders’ engagement in the development of PBI initiatives. This paper contributes to knowledge by proposing a framework that encompasses the drivers and inhibitors of national stakeholder organisations’ engagement with PBI during its implementation phase.

Communicating the stakeholder engagement process: A cross‐country analysis in the tourism sector

“…During the last decade, several studies into the role of country of origin in CSR dialog have been conducted, focusing on countries' institutional and cultural aspects (Becker‐Olsen, Taylor, Hill, & Yalcinkaya, ; Park & Ghauri, ; Steurer, Martinuzzi, & Margula, ; Kumar, Boesso, Batra, & Yao, ). In fact, with the increasing degree of globalization, companies should adopt country‐specific practices for engaging with stakeholders, as standardized messages represent a negative factor in effective and meaningful communication (Casidy, Helmi, & Bridson, ; Peng, Dashdeleg, & Chih, ). One of the most common methods has been comparing European with non‐European firms, as multiple factors characterize these two clusters (Welford, 2005; Hartman, Rubin, & Dhanda, ; Gill et al, ).…”

Branding of Ternate City

“…Furthermore, it has been realized that the literature discusses more on how stakeholder engagement in city branding (Casidy et al, 2019;Henninger et al, 2016;Hultman et al, 2016). This current study leans more on community engagement because it seemed the community is an informal entity, not governmental groups, and less powerful in the decision-making process.…”

Giving and taking ownership of a destination brand: mechanisms of stakeholder engagement

“…However, some local stakeholders may still feel distant from the brand. They are not convinced because their own business agendas are not aligned to the brand’s, they may lack the time and/or financial resources to engage with place brand activities and/or they do not have the competence (perceived or otherwise) to engage with the brand (Casidy et al , 2019; Insch and Walters, 2018; Nyaupane et al , 2006; Ooi and Pedersen, 2010). Nevertheless, if many locals are convinced, then the brand will have legitimacy and be perceived as authentic.…”