to attract more inward investment,

visitors and jobs countries, regions

and cities began applying to their
product certain marketing techniques
previously developed for consumer
goods. One of the marketing tech-
niques applied is branding, and the aim
of the research reported in this paper is
to examine if there are differences
between branding different types of
tourist destinations: a country, a region
or a city.
Although destination branding is a
new concept, there is a general
agreement among academics and prac-
titioners that places can be branded in
much the same way as consumer goods
INTRODUCTION
Travel and tourism has become a global
industry and is widely considered to be
one of the fastest growing industries in
the world, if not the fastest growing
industry.
1
In terms of employment, travel and
tourism is the largest industry in the
world. In 2000, the sector directly and
indirectly generated 11.7 per cent of
global gross domestic product and
nearly 200 million jobs.
2
Since 1998,
tourism ranks rst among world ex-
port groups, ahead of petroleum,
motor vehicles and electronic equi-
pment.
3
In this highly competitive
environment where the objective is
50 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1479-1803 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 12, NO. 1, 5061 SEPTEMBER 2004
Niall Caldwell
Department of Business and
Service Sector Management,
London Metropolitan University,
277281 Holloway Road,
London N7 8HN, UK
E-mail:
n.caldwell@londonmet.ac.uk
freire@ecoterra.co.uk
The differences between branding
a country, a region and a city:
Applying the Brand Box Model
Received (in revised form): 12th May, 2004
NIALL CALDWELL
teaches at London Metropolitan University. His research interests are in branding cultural organisations.
JOAO R. FREIRE
is currently researching destination branding for his PhD at London Metropolitan University.
Abstract
Branding has become one of the most powerful tools in marketing strategy. There has been a
general agreement among academics and practitioners that places can be branded in the same
way as consumer goods and services. Destination branding is a relatively new concept, however, and
there is a lack of empirical academic research on the topic. This exploratory study uses the de
Chernatony Brand Box Model and applies it to countries, regions and cities. The study was
developed in order to understand and clarify whether the same branding techniques should be
applied to these three different types of places. The results point to differences between countries
when compared with regions and cities. Countries are so functionally diverse they should leverage
the emotive or representational parts of their brand identity, while regions and cities, being smaller
in scale, should leverage their more functional facets. It seems that regions have more in common
with cities from a branding point of view, and this has implications for branding strategies for all
three types of tourist destinations.
and service products. It is used in the
current research to explore the ap-
plication of the brands functional
and representational dimensions to
countries, regions and cities. The
intention is to examine whether there
are differences between how people
evaluate countries and the regions and
cities within the same country. Since
this exploratory study was conducted
both in Portugal and in the UK, it is
hoped that it will provide some insights
into how national and regional destina-
tion brands are perceived in different
countries. The main benet of this
research to practitioners is, however,
the conclusion that because countries
are so functionally diverse, they should
focus on the emotional or repre-
sentational dimensions of their brand.
Regions and cities, however, which are
smaller in scale and more specic in
nature, should focus their brand-
building efforts on the more functional
facets.
BRANDING: FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS
AND REPRESENTATIONAL (OR IMAGE)
ASPECTS
When people buy a product they are
buying a particular bundle of benets
that they perceive as satisfying their
particular needs.
24
Brands must full
self-expression needs; they are not
bought simply to satisfy functional
needs, but also intangible ones. A
brand is more than just the sum of its
component parts; it embodies addi-
tional attributes that are intangible, but
very real.
25
In this sense brands also
provide emotional benets.
26
Branding
essentially can transform the consump-
tion experience.
27
In the context of tourism, the World
Tourism Organization
28
recognised that
and services.
48
A successful brand has
recently been dened as: an identi-
able product, service, person or place,
augmented in such a way that the
buyer or user perceives relevant unique
added values which match their needs
most closely.
9
The importance of
destination branding is made clear by
Morgan and Pritchard:
10
the battle for
customers in the tourism industry will
be fought not over price but over the
hearts and minds in essence,
branding . . . will be the key to
success. Furthermore, Cai
11
argues
that: Marketing agencies at all levels,
thus, have a vested interest in building
strong and positive images for their
destinations. However, the extent to
which image building benets their
targets can be greater if it takes place in
the context of branding.
A range of countries (Greece,
Australia, Malaysia, Spain, Yugoslavia
and Croatia), regions (Wales, Western
Australia, Oregon, Montana and
the Algarve) and cities (Glasgow,
Manchester, London and New York)
have already adopted the destination-
brand-building concept.
1218
Neverthe-
less, branding destinations is a relatively
new development and academic
investigation in the area is just
beginning to emerge.
19
There are not
many in-depth empirical studies that
investigate the reality of branding
destinations.
2022
Hence the research in
this paper is innovative, since it asks
whether there is any difference in
branding distinct types of destinations
what are the differences between
branding a country, a region or a
city?
The method followed applies the
Brand Box Model. This marketing
model was developed by de Cher-
natony and McWilliam
23
for physical
HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1479-1803 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 12, NO. 1, 5061 SEPTEMBER 2004 51
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BRANDING A COUNTRY, A REGION AND A CITY
of the different brands must be com-
pounded of subtle variations in feelings
about them, not necessarily in product
qualities.
34
Furthermore, they argued
that the public image and character of
the brand could be more important for
sales than many technical facts about the
product. Munson and Spivey
35
also
discussed two independent dimensions
of brands. The rst dimension was
characterised as having value expres-
sive aspects whereby the consumer
would consume a brand to display their
own self-concept. The second dimen-
sion, utilitarianism captured the con-
sumers concern for the performance of
the product. Solomon
36
also suggested
that consumption of a certain brand
depended on two dimensions: the func-
tional utility and social meaning.
This general way of thinking about
brands has been continued by de
Chernatony and McWilliam.
37
They
argue that there are two key dimen-
sions that could clarify the strength
of a brand: representationality and
functionality. The rst dimension is
built on the idea that consumers use
brands to help them to express some-
thing about themselves. Brands, which
were predominately representational,
were dened as having a set of
consistent beliefs and meaning held by
their purchasers and users which are
associated with the product or service,
but which exist over and above its
obvious physical functioning. These
feelings are shared by purchasers and
users in the product eld and help
them in choosing the competing
version which is best suited to the
expression of their particular per-
sonalities, roles, set of needs and
emotions in a given situation.
38
The second dimension is based on
the idea that consumers associate
there is a tendency to see tourism
destinations as a fashion accessory, in
the sense that they are a way to dene
peoples identities. The next century
will mark the emergence of tourism
destinations as a fashion accessory. The
choice of holiday destination will help
dene the identity of the traveller and,
in an increasingly homogeneous world,
set him apart from the hordes of other
tourists.
29
It is usual to see consumers
buying merchandise linked to their
trip, and taking pictures and videos
from the place they visited. This
material is often used to show to other
people where they were. Anecdotal
evidence of typical tourist behavior
would suggest that, whatever other
motives exist, tourists are using their
trips as expressive devices to communi-
cate messages about themselves to peers
and observers.
30
It can be concluded that destina-
tions, treated as brands, are satisfy-
ing basic and self-actualisation needs.
People choose to travel to certain
destinations according to their desire
for particular characteristics, such as
climate, scenery, amenities and cultural
attributes.
31
Nevertheless the choice of
a particular destination also depends on
intangible characteristics such as social
satisfaction.
32
Destination brands can be
characterised as having two dimen-
sions: representational (attributes linked
to the individuals self-expression) and
functional (utilitarian aspects of the
destinations sun, reefs, sky, culture,
and so on).
THE BRAND BOX MODEL
Gardner and Levy
33
were the rst to
argue that brands should be divided
into a technical capability and a per-
sonality dimension. The conceptions
52 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1479-1803 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 12, NO. 1, 5061 SEPTEMBER 2004
CALDWELL AND FREIRE
De Chernatony and McWilliam
40
used the symbolic and functional
dimensions to create the Brand Box
Model. De Chernatony,
41
supported
by evidence from other research-
ers, applied the model to products
and services. This model uses two
dimensions representationality and
functionality to create a four-cell
matrix based on consumers perspec-
tives. Interviews were conducted to see
where the different brands are situated
within the four cells of the matrix
(high-low, functional-representational)
(see Figure 1). This model has been
discussed in a product and service
context and, more recently, was applied
to tourism products.
42
The Brand Box
Model helps managers to place their
brands and provides them with a tool
to manage them.
COUNTRY VERSUS REGION
In the literature on destination
marketing, researchers often do not
clearly dene destination. Sometimes
researchers talk about countries, at
other times about cities and regions.
Should they be treated as simi-
lar products? OShaughnessy and
certain attributes with different brands.
The use of the brand name would
satisfy the consumers need to make
a rapid decision about primarily
utilitarian issues (for example, quality,
reliability, speed, taste, and so on). De
Chernatony and McWilliam dened
predominantly functional aspects of
brands as names which marketers have
developed to both distinguish between
competing offerings and facilitate
purchasers and users decision making
through rapid recall of consumer
relevant performance benets. Their
values are less to do with the
purchasers personality and more to
do with the products functional
capabilities and physical attributes.
39
It is important to remember that
brands are not only characterised by
one of these dimensions, but by a
combination of the two. No brand can
be seen as entirely representational;
there will be some dimension of
functional quality inherent in any
product or service that is offered
in the marketplace. Consumers dis-
criminate between competing offers by
the degree of representationality and
functionality expressed by a particular
brand.
HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1479-1803 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 12, NO. 1, 5061 SEPTEMBER 2004 53
Figure 1 De Chernatonys Brand Box Model
High representationality
Low functionality
Low representationality
Low functionality
Low representationality
High functionality
High representationality
High functionality
Representationality
Functionality
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BRANDING A COUNTRY, A REGION AND A CITY
a particular destination country can
differ widely, but views regarding a
region tend to be more stable and are
therefore easier to manage.
STUDY METHODOLOGY
This exploratory study reported in
this paper adapts the Brand Box
Model, developed by de Chernatony
and McWilliam,
47
and applies it to
destinations. The research evaluates
the dimensions representationality
versus functionality of countries,
regions and cities. The goal is to
understand possible differences be-
tween countries and regions and un-
derstand what kind of impact the
nationalities of the respondents have on
both dimensions.
Ten European destinations were
selected, plus the USA and Miami. Six
were countries and six were regions or
cities of the countries. The sub-group
regions and cities could be sub-divided
into two other sub-groups, one
including the regions that were
predominately identied as beach and
sun destinations, the other sub-group
including several historical/cultural
cities. The destinations were chosen in
order to cover as much as possible the
widest range of countries and regions
in Europe (from France to Turkey).
Additionally, the USA was included
in order to understand whether
there would be any difference in
how Europeans perceived European
countries versus a non-European
country. Nevertheless, there was one
restriction when choosing the destina-
tions: the respondents had to have
some previous knowledge about the
destination. The countries chosen
were the following: France, Czech
Republic, USA, Germany, Turkey and
OShaughnessy have recognised that
the image of a nation is so complex
and uid as to deny the clarity implicit
in a term such as brand image.
43
These
two researchers argue that even if a
country has a strong international
presence, current political events may
change different parts of the countrys
overall identity. In this sense, it is
difcult to create a coherent image of
a country because people rearrange the
attributes of a country in response to
uncontrolled political events.
It can be argued that a country will
have more variables involved in its
brand construction than a region of the
same country. Countries have certain
attributes that a region of the same
country does not have. For instance,
normally, for the international news
media, a region of a country does not
have any political agenda or independ-
ent military or economic occurrences.
(Although it is true that a cultural or
sporting event in a region may be
important for the international news
media.) OShaughnessy and OShaugh-
nessy argue that since the main source
of information for most people is the
international news media, one can ex-
pect that the variables involved in the
brand construction of a country and its
regions would be different.
44
Furthermore, Manseld argued if
there exist universal attributes to be
considered at the country level then
the smaller the perceived destination,
the more likely it is that it will be
considered by rather specic, non-
universal characteristics.
45
Could it be
more effective and easier to brand a
city or a region than to brand a
country? Understanding how a na-
tional brand is perceived in different
countries
46
is also important. The way
citizens of different countries perceive
54 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1479-1803 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 12, NO. 1, 5061 SEPTEMBER 2004
CALDWELL AND FREIRE
without putting the ndings at risk.
49
Since de Chernatony developed this
model for product and service brands, it
was necessary to adapt the original
statements to t a destination brand (see
Table 1).
In addition to the six questions in
Table 1, respondents were also asked to
rate the question If I could I would
like to visit [destination] on the ve-
point scale, and were asked whether
they had been to the destination.
The exploratory survey was con-
ducted using a sample of students from
a London university (UK) and from
Universidade do Algarve (Portugal).
The questionnaire collected some in-
formation about the respondent: age,
nationality, sex, time in England (if not
English) and sources of current affairs
news. London Metropolitan University
Spain. The regions and cities chosen
were: French Riviera, Prague, Miami,
Berlin, Istanbul and Ibiza. Initially
Belgium and Antwerp were included
in the study, but after testing the
survey, the researchers concluded that
many people were not familiar with
Antwerp and hence these two
destinations were dropped.
A survey was used in order to rate
how people evaluate each country,
region and city. The survey instrument
used six statements (three representa-
tional and three functional) on a ve-
point agree-disagree scale, which were
repeated for each destination, giving a
battery of 72 statements. Although the
original model used by de Chernatony
and McWilliam had 11 statements per
unit of study, they recognised that the
number of statements could be reduced
HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1479-1803 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 12, NO. 1, 5061 SEPTEMBER 2004 55
Table 1 Adaptation of attitude statements for destination brands
De Chernatony and McWilliam (1990) physical
study attitude statements
48
Adapted attitude statements for destination
brand study
Representationality Representationality
This brand says something about its owner. [Destination] somehow denes the people who travel
there.
Youve got to feel right among your friends owning
this brand.
People feel right amongst their friends because they
can say that they went to [destination].
People would buy this brand because they feel it
associates them with a certain group of people.
People would go to [destination] because they feel it
associates them with a certain group of people.
Functionality Functionality
You buy this brand more for its product
characteristics than for its advertising.
People travel to [destination] not for its publicised
image but more for its actual characteristics.
People buy this product because the company puts
more effort into the product, rather than saying
whod be using it.
People go to [destination] not because the place
emphasises the sort of people who travel there but
because the place puts more effort into creating a
pleasant experience.
This product says more about the products
characteristics than the type of buyer.
When you think about [destination] you think more
about the regions characteristics than the type of
visitor.
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BRANDING A COUNTRY, A REGION AND A CITY
Each dimension (functional and
representational) was measured using
three statements. The respondents were
asked to rate each statement, from
strongly agree to strongly disagree
on a ve-point scale. In order to gain
a clear picture of the results, each
statement was re-coded: the strongly
agree statements got a score of 2,
agree a score of 1, neither agree nor
disagree a score of 0, disagree a score
of 1 and strongly disagree a score of
2. The average scores were obtained
for each country, region and city.
Furthermore, and in order to
facilitate the use of statistical tools, each
individuals battery was aggregated and
the attribute correlation matrices were
calculated and subjected to principal
component analysis. The Kaiser
MeyerOlkin (KMO) Measure of
Sampling Adequacy was satisfactory for
all the destinations (KMO>0.6) and
the Barletts statistic was less than 0.05.
The components extracted were then,
using the varimax procedure, or-
thogonally rotated. From this proce-
dure, the two components extracted
clearly identied the representational
and functional dimension. Each factor
for each country, region and city was
then used to test the hypotheses.
H
1
and H
2
H
1
and H
2
were supported for all the
destinations. Using the ANOVA tech-
nique, and comparing the individuals
scores for each dimension of each des-
tination, it could be concluded that the
respondents scored each variable dif-
ferently (p <0.05). When calculating
the destinations scores in the two
different dimensions it can be seen that
countries scored higher in the func-
tional dimension when compared to
attracts students from all over the world,
which means that the sample included a
wide range of nationalities (31 different
nationalities); 40 per cent of the sample
were Portuguese (76), 23 per cent were
British (43), and 27 per cent (67) were
from the rest of the world.
RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
The research hypotheses are stated ac-
cording to the predictions associated
with the destinations, and not as null
hypotheses.
H
1
: Regions and cities will have higher
scores in the representationality dimen-
sion when compared to countries (the
effect of non-political international ex-
posure and fashion).
H
2
: Countries will score higher in the
functionality dimension when com-
pared with regions and cities (the effect
of political international exposure).
H
3
: The respondents nationality will in-
uence the scores in both dimensions
(the effect of historical images linked to
different countries).
H
4
: The respondents nationality will have
a greater effect on how they score
countries than how they score regions
and cities (the effects of international
exposure and fashion).
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
This section presents the results of the
survey. One hundred and eighty-nine
usable questionnaires were registered.
It is possible that members of the
sample group were more exposed to
other nationalities and that this biased
the results; however, this was a wel-
come bias since it meant that the
respondents were knowledgable about
different countries.
56 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1479-1803 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 12, NO. 1, 5061 SEPTEMBER 2004
CALDWELL AND FREIRE
ing for a country.
50
It is reasonable
to think that international exposure,
through the media, affects perceptions
of countries, regions and cities dif-
ferently. Typically, a country will be
newsworthy if some catastrophe oc-
curs, or if the countrys govern-
ment takes an important political step.
Regions and cities attract media atten-
tion due to cultural and sporting
events.
H
3
and H
4
In order to evaluate the impact of the
respondents nationality, the British
sample was compared with the Por-
tuguese regarding the dimensions of
each destination. An independent t-test
was conducted in order to evaluate
whether there were differences be-
tween nationalities. There were some
destinations for which respondents
nationality did not inuence the scores
Miami, Spain, Prague and Ibiza, in
the representational dimension, had
the same score for both nationalities
(p >0.05). Furthermore, in the func-
tional dimension, the USA was scored
identically by both the British and the
Portuguese (p >0.05). Nevertheless, for
all other destinations, in the two
different dimensions, the nationality of
the respondent inuenced the scores
(p <0.05). The conclusion suggested
by this data is that nationality is a
variable that inuences how a destina-
tion is perceived.
The results show that there are some
destinations that have a common
meaning for the Portuguese and the
British market. Interestingly this com-
mon appeal is mainly in the representa-
tional dimension and towards regions
and cities. Probably these destinations
(Miami, Spain, Prague and Ibiza)
regions and cities. Regions and cities
scored higher in the representational
dimension. This is the key difference
between regions and cities compared
with countries.
These ndings conrm that the fac-
tors affecting regions and cities are
different from those affecting countries.
The representational dimension, for in-
stance, measures how fashionable a des-
tination is. In this sense fashion may
be a strong variable inuencing the
evaluation of a region or city. Cities are
products, which tend to be con-
sumed more erratically than countries;
they depend on specic promotions
and events, and are more dependent
on the trends in the market, whereas
countries have a more stable and en-
during image. Regions and cities full
more self-expression needs when com-
pared to countries.
On the other hand, countries, from
the data gathered, are less affected by
variables linked to the representational
dimension a country is evaluated
with regard to its own particular physi-
cal attributes. It seems, therefore, that
factors linked to the representational
dimension are not so relevant when
evaluating a country. When imagin-
ing a country, people will tend to
visualise its functional characteristics. In
the case of a region or city, however,
people might visualise the representa-
tional aspects, such as the types of
people that visit the region, how they
themselves would be perceived if they
went to that destination, and so on.
The media has an important role in
the construction of a destinations
image. It has been recognised that the
media coverage of events (cultural,
sports, and so on) and the diffusion of
news (normally with some social im-
pact) can create by itself a mean-
HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1479-1803 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 12, NO. 1, 5061 SEPTEMBER 2004 57
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BRANDING A COUNTRY, A REGION AND A CITY
however, there was an opposite effect.
The representational dimension had a
higher difference (except for Miami,
Spain, Prague and Ibiza) when evaluat-
ing a region and a city than when
compared to evaluations of countries.
This means that the Portuguese and the
British tend to disagree more on how
they perceive a region, in the repre-
sentational dimension, when compared
to perceptions of countries. The repre-
sentational dimension measures how
fashionable a place is. In this case,
countries probably are less inuenced
by fashion than regions or cities. These
results are only conrmed for the
destinations that had statistical dif-
ferences, however. Once again, Miami,
Spain, Prague and Ibiza are destinations
that seem to be fashionable in both
the Portuguese and British tourism
markets. Due to this ambiguous result,
H
4
was rejected. It cannot be said that
the respondents nationality will have a
greater effect on how they score
countries than regions and cities.
CONCLUSIONS
The results conrm the useful-
ness of analysing destination brands,
like products or service brands,
in two different dimensions
representationality and functionality.
The rst dimension is characterised
as having value-expressive aspects
whereby people choose to visit a place
to display their own self-concept. The
second dimension, functionality, cap-
tures the consumers concern for the
performance of the place (for example,
weather, beaches, mountains and sky,
museums, shops, and so on).
The study revealed that there are
differences between how people per-
ceive countries, regions and cities. The
are now fashionable among students
in both the Portuguese and British
markets. In the functional dimension
only the USA had the same score in
both markets. This result may suggest
that the image of the USA brand may
have been transmitted and codied in
the same way to the Portuguese and
British markets. The constant presence
of the USA in the international media,
including television series and lms,
may justify this result.
When comparing the British and
Portuguese samples, the functionality
variable had a smaller difference with
respect to regions and cities than
countries. This result means that, in the
functional dimension, the British and
the Portuguese evaluate regions and
cities in a more similar way than they
evaluate countries (except the USA
where no differences were registered).
A possible explanation for these
results is that the functional characteris-
tics and physical attributes of a region
and a city are transmitted to the market
in a more coherent way than those of
countries. The way each individual
perceives a region, in the functional
dimension, is not as inuenced by
stereotypes but more by the knowledge
of its actual characteristics. It is easier to
identify within a region or city its own
dominant characteristics compared to a
country, which will have many dif-
ferent characteristics. A country can
have different physical characteristics
within its borders. For example, Spain
is famous (among the British) for its
sun and beaches in the south. But this
country also has snow in the moun-
tains, and rain and misty weather in the
north-west. The Portuguese have a
different image of Spain, as a country
of snow and skiing.
In the representational dimension,
58 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1479-1803 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 12, NO. 1, 5061 SEPTEMBER 2004
CALDWELL AND FREIRE
tion they are branding and their
marketing objectives. For example, if a
national tourism organisation from a
European country wants to build
its country brand throughout the
European market, it should incorporate
in the message more representational
attributes than functional ones. (Cool
Britannia embodied this approach.)
The use of representational attributes in
the messages will be more successful in
terms of transmitting a coherent and
reliable image in the European market.
The use of the same functional at-
tributes in the same message for all
European audiences may, however, be
contradictory. It is possible that the
brand may enter into conict with the
perceptions of each different European
audience. For example, if Spain is
marketed as a country of beaches and
sunshine, then the Portuguese and the
British will react differently. The Por-
tuguese have plenty of beaches; they
are looking for ski resorts in Spain.
Another important aspect when
branding destinations is to understand
how places come in to and go out of
fashion. How is fashion determined in
the European market? Which factors
contribute to the construction of a
fashionable destination? This research
had the objective of studying the
potential differences between countries
and their regions and cities. It was not
the objective to study the image of
each country, and for that purpose
other tools should be used. The
purpose here was only to understand
possible differences between regions or
cities and countries and the effect of
respondents nationality on the percep-
tion of destinations.
When branding a European region
or city in the European market a
different strategy should be taken.
results point to differences between
countries compared with regions and
cities. Countries are so functionally
diverse they are perceived in terms of
the representational parts of their brand
identity, while regions and cities, being
smaller in scale, are perceived more
from a functional point of view. The
factors that inuence the evaluation of
countries are different from the ones
that inuence the evaluation of regions
and cities. Also it seems that respon-
dents nationality has an inuence on
how they perceive other countries (in
most cases).
The conclusions should be taken
with caution; the sample used in this
research included students from dif-
ferent nationalities. It is possible that
the sample bias (students who are more
exposed to many other nationalities)
may reduce the differences of the
scores. The use of this sample ensured,
however, that the study would incor-
porate two groups from very different
markets. But questions remain: for
example, would different results be
obtained if Portuguese and Spanish
samples were used? What would the
difference be if British and Irish
comprised the sample? It is necessary to
understand how the European market
is divided. Marketing tourism destina-
tions within Europe requires an un-
derstanding of how each nationality
perceives each other.
The factors that inuence the image
of a country are different from the
factors that affect a region and city. In
this sense, the work of branding a
country is different from that of
branding a region or city. National
organisations in Europe in charge of
branding a European country, region or
city should utilise different strategies
depending on which kind of destina-
HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1479-1803 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 12, NO. 1, 5061 SEPTEMBER 2004 59
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BRANDING A COUNTRY, A REGION AND A CITY
marketing and brand management
perspective, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 9, No. 45, pp. 249261.
(7) Anholt, S. (2002) Foreword, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 9, No. 45, pp.
229239.
(8) Cai, L. (2002) Cooperative branding for
rural destinations, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 29, pp. 720742.
(9) De Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M.
(2001) Creating Powerful Brands in
Consumer, Service and Industrial Markets,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK.
(10) Morgan and Pritchard, ref. 4 above.
(11) Cai, ref. 8 above.
(12) Pritchard, A. and Morgan, N. (1998)
Mood Marketing The new
destination branding strategy: A case study
of Wales, the Brand, Journal of Vacation
Marketing, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 215229.
(13) Nickerson, N. and Moisey, R. (1999)
Branding a state from features to
positioning: Making it simple?, Journal of
Vacation Marketing, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.
217226.
(14) Cai, ref. 8 above.
(15) Gilmore, F. (2001) A country Can it be
repositioned? Spain The success story of
country branding, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 9, Nos. 45, pp. 281293.
(16) Hall, D. (2002) Brand development,
tourism and national identity: The
re-imaging of former Yugoslavia, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 9, Nos. 45, pp.
323334.
(17) Martinovic, S. (2002) Branding Hrvatska
A mixed blessing that might succeed: The
advantage of being unrecognisable, Journal
of Brand Management, Vol. 9, Nos. 45, pp.
315322.
(18) Hankison, G. (2001) Location branding: A
study of the branding practices of 12
English cities, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 127142.
(19) Cai, ref. 8 above.
(20) Pritchard and Morgan, ref. 12 above.
(21) Anholt, ref. 7 above.
(22) Cai, ref. 8 above.
(23) De Chernatony, L. and McWilliam, G.
(1990) Appreciating brands as assets
through using a two-dimensional model,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 9, pp.
173188.
(24) De Chernatony and McDonald, ref. 9
above.
(25) Feldwick, P. (1996) Dening a brand, in
Conley, D. (ed.) Understanding Brands,
Kogan Page Limited, Great Britain.
(26) Clark, J. (2000) Tourism brands: An
From this exploratory study it appears
that the British and Portuguese tend to
agree more on how they perceive a
region or a city in the functional
dimension. Consumers from different
nationalities are more alike in their
assessment of functional aspects than
representational ones when the brand is
a region or a city. Therefore when
transmitting messages to the European
market it will be more effective and
coherent if the message incorporates
functional aspects rather than rep-
resentational aspects; however, this
strategy should only be used if the
objective is promoting the brand
throughout the European market. This
strategy assures that the message will
be coherently understood in each
market.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank those who
collected data used in this study, several
anonymous reviewers for critical sug-
gestions and John Coshall for advice on
statistical methods.
References
(1) Travel and Tourism Council (2003)
Corporate social leadership in travel and
tourism, http://www.wttc.org/publications/
pdf/CSLREPORT.pdf, accessed 15th
January, 2003.
(2) Tourism Organization (2001) Special
report, No. 18, www.world-tourism.org/
newsroom/releases/more_releases/December
2001/WTO_TTRC_Summ.pdf, accessed
23rd October, 2002.
(3) Baines, A. (1998) Technology and tourism,
Work Study, Vol. 47, No. 5, pp. 160163.
(4) Morgan, N. and Pritchard, A. (2000)
Advertising in Tourism and Leisure,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK.
(5) Olins, W. (2002) Branding the nation
The historical context, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 9, No. 45, pp. 241248.
(6) Kotler, P. and Gertner, D. (2002) Country
as a brand, product, and beyond: A place
60 HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1479-1803 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 12, NO. 1, 5061 SEPTEMBER 2004
CALDWELL AND FREIRE
Arbor, MI, pp. 8197.
(36) Solomon, M. (1983) The role of products
as social stimuli: A symbolic interactionism
perspective, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 10, pp. 319329.
(37) De Chernatony, L. and McWilliam, G.
(1989) The strategic implications of
clarifying how marketers interpret brands,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 5, No.
2, pp. 153171.
(38) Ibid.
(39) Ibid.
(40) De Chernatony and McWilliam, ref. 23
above.
(41) De Chernatony, L. (1993) Categorising
brands: Evolutionary processes underpinned
by two key dimensions, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 9, pp. 173188.
(42) Feldwick, ref. 25 above.
(43) OShaughnessy, J. and OShaughnessy, N.
(2000) Treating the nation as a brand:
Some neglected issues, Journal of
Macromarketing, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 5664.
(44) Ibid.
(45) Manseld, Y. (1992) From motivation to
actual travel, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 19, pp. 399419.
(46) Anholt, ref. 7 above.
(47) De Chernatony and McWilliam, ref. 23
above.
(48) Ibid.
(49) Ibid.
(50) OShaughnessy and OShaughnessy, ref. 43
above.
exploratory study of the Brand Box Model,
Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 6, No. 4,
pp. 329345.
(27) Feldwick, P. (2002) What is Brand Equity
Anyway?, World Advertising Research
Center, Norwich, UK.
(28) World Tourism Organization (1997)
Tourism 2020 Vision: Executive Summary,
WTO, Madrid, Spain, p. 28.
(29) Luhrman, D. (1998) World tourism crystal
ball gazing, The Journal of the Tourism
Society, Vol. 96, p. 13.
(30) Feldwick, ref. 25 above.
(31) Coshall, J. (2000) Measurement of tourists
images: The repertory grid approach,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 39, August,
pp. 8589.
(32) Meyer, W. (1977) Aktivitat im Urlaub,
in Hartmann, K. D. and Koepler, K. F.
(eds) Fortschritte der Marktpsychologie,
in Van Raaij, W. and Francken, D.
(1984) Vacation decision, activities, and
satisfaction, Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 11, pp. 101112.
(33) Rook, D. W. (ed.) (1999) Brands,
Consumers, Symbols, and Research: Sidney
J. Levy on Marketing, Sage Publications,
USA.
(34) Ibid.
(35) Munson, J. M. and Spivey, W. A. (1981)
Product and brand user stereotypes among
social classes, in Monroe, K. (ed.)
Advances in Consumer Research,
Association for Consumer Research, Ann
HENRY STEWART PUBLICATIONS 1479-1803 BRAND MANAGEMENT VOL. 12, NO. 1, 5061 SEPTEMBER 2004 61
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BRANDING A COUNTRY, A REGION AND A CITY