Defining place reputation

The research suggests that places should follow the lead of corporations and begin to focus on reputation management rather than continuing to pursue branding practices. In addition, it is proposed that a more holistic and long-term initiative

59

should be developed in the form of place reputation that aims to address

weaknesses uncovered in place branding. Using reputational capital, enhancing a place’s reputation involves accumulating trust and increasing communication with several audiences, in different domains and in various sectors to achieve greater investment and recognition. It has become important to embrace these practices following years of economic downturn where levels of confidence in corporations, products and also decision-makers involved in place have diminished. Eisenegger (2009:20) suggests that –

‘This crisis is not only about nose-diving share prices, the collapse of once reputable banks and automobile companies, the bankruptcy of entire national economies or the danger of a global recession. This crisis is much more than that. It is a giant crisis of trust and reputation for the entire economic system’.

Similarly, Kuss (2009:266) argues that ‘the only new development in the light of the economic crisis is the shortage of money available to national states,

institutions, regions and communities’. This illustrates the current state of the economic climate and hints at a lack of faith being shown in organisations,

products and, most likely, stakeholders involved in place. Exacerbating this is the arrival of social media including Twitter which has meant that places are under increased scrutiny and need to manage their reputations continuously. Go and Govers (2011:8) comment that ‘the growth of social media in particular has rendered communities immersive and caused decision-makers to redraw geographical, industrial and ethical boundaries’. They uncover some of the

difficulties involved with social media and emphasise the need for decision-makers to manage their reputations carefully across various platforms.

The research follows claims made in the corporate literature that

organisations are beginning to relinquish marketing practices and are instead focusing on reputation management. Ind and Schultz (2010:1) declare that

‘marketers are increasingly turning away from traditional advertising and focusing on direct communications with customers’. Also, Zarco da Camara (2011:57) considers that ‘marketing-based approaches will continue to be tactically useful but recent research implies that a more strategic and holistic view is necessary to capture the complexities of modern reputation management’. This evidence

60

explains that corporations are beginning to sacrifice branding campaigns in favour of forming and mobilising reputational capital with various audiences. The

research argues that this can be translated to places and recommends that branding practices should be reduced and repositioned as part of the broader notion of place reputation.

One of the fundamental shortcomings of place branding is the lack of a precise definition and the absence of a consensus in the literature on what exactly

constitutes a branding campaign. Working towards creating a definition for place reputation, this reviews attempts already undertaken from the interdisciplinary place branding and corporate literatures to provide some foundations to develop this concept. Anholt (2010b:20) declares that ‘brand is a word that captures the idea of reputation observed, reputation valued and reputation managed; and we live in a world which reputation counts for a great deal’. This research

acknowledges that this viewpoint can add value to the study by proposing that place branding should only be part of the wider notion of place reputation. Also, Go and Govers (2011:xxx) state that ‘the overall brand reputation of a particular territorial actor is a function of its reputation among various stakeholders in specific, multiple categories’. This is an embryonic definition and a rare attempt to apply reputation to geographical entities, however, this can be harnessed to further develop the idea of place reputation. Accordingly, this signifies that a reputation should be developed in a comprehensive manner with various audiences to improve a place’s standing. From these, place reputation can be defined as a broad concept underpinned by trust and greater communication which if demonstrated over time can translate into reputational capital in various domains, with several audiences and in different sectors to improve the standing of a

geographical entity. In addition, place reputation is a more holistic strategy which seeks to overcome the inadequacies uncovered in place branding with a particular focus on being more equipped to deal with the complicated geographical entity.

Place reputation also includes the constituent elements of soft power, place shaping and a repositioned branding element designed to reflect the distinctive characteristics of that place whilst remaining grounded in the local community.

One of place reputation’s key characteristics is that the concept is largely intangible. Consequently, shaping a place’s reputation is not that easy as it is founded on long-term perceptions that are deeply embedded and difficult to

61

overcome. Doorley and Garcia (2006:8) argue that ‘the reason most organisations do not have formal programmes to manage reputation is that they view it as something “soft” – intangible. Yet as nebulous as reputation can seem, it has real, tangible value’. Similarly Anholt (2006:6) emphasises that ‘if a company, product or service acquires a positive, powerful and solid reputation, this becomes an asset of enormous value: probably more valuable, in fact than all of the tangible assets of the organisation itself’. The value of reputation is reiterated and although the concept is, to an extent, elusive, it still needs to be carefully protected by cities and regions to try and improve their standing.

2.6.2 Is place reputation more capable of dealing with the complicated