Simple Brand Data Collection

The variables for brand presence, logo presence, slogan presence, and brand images were acquired through an extensive content analysis completed on Ontario’s 414 single and lower-tier municipalities (acquired from Government of Ontario 2001;

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing 2014). The goal was to determine whether municipalities were communicating some form of local identity through a logo or slogan. Data was collected through a systematic cataloguing of municipal logos and slogans. Municipal websites were used as the starting point for data collection. As the internet is a primary medium for contemporary communication, as it is increasingly becoming the initial point of contact between a municipality and its target audience. A municipality that

57

desires to communicate its brand will therefore display it prominently on its website. As a result, the logos and slogans appearing on municipal websites were considered to be the primary ones used by the municipality. The data collection was limited to main municipal brands only. Subservient brands of municipal departments or economic development corporation (EDC) were not included in the analysis. In instances where no logo or slogans were displayed or no website existed, direct inquiries were made to ensure a complete dataset was developed.

A simple binary (yes/no) system was utilized to record the presence or absence of a place brand, logo, or slogan for the 414 municipalities in Ontario. For the brand image content data, a second binary coding system was developed in which the image categories present within each municipality’s logo or slogan were recorded. In instances where a municipality’s logo contained symbology consistent with multiple brand categories, each were recorded (given a value of 1; the categories that were not were assigned a 0). Due to the binary nature of the coding system, in instances where multiple symbolic elements referenced the same brand category a value of 1 was assigned to the categories identified as present (and again, 0 to the ones that were not). In essence, the analysis of brand images was focused on the presence and not the strength of the elements found within a logo. The resulting dataset produced by the content analysis was categorical in nature, as it was developed from a classification scheme that parsed the set of municipal place brands into discrete categories.

To facilitate the placement of brand images into defined categories, Hanna and Rowley’s (2008) classification scheme was used to guide the semiotic analysis and classify the content of place brands into the following broad categories: culture, industry,

58

agriculture, recreation and recreational tourism, nature and environment-focused tourism and heritage. An immediate distinction was made between the similar concepts of tourism and heritage. Heritage was considered to represent the built environment, particularly references to history and classical architecture, while tourism divided into two categories, the natural environment and recreation. Each of these tourism categories had different messages and imagery associated with it. Industry was considered to be a loose term, referring to any sort of industrial development, urban cityscape, business, or general consideration of economic progress. Additionally, a final category – stylization – was included to capture abstract elements that did not obviously fall into one of the existing brand dimensions. Prior to the analysis, a series of themes, key imagery, and keywords were developed to guide the placement of content into each category. The list of priori guidelines are summarized in Table 3.1.

59

Table 3.1: Guidelines for categorizing visual identity elements Table 3.1a: Guidelines for categorizing logos

Category Associated Images

Culture Gastronomy/Food, Sports, Film, Theatre, Artwork, Literature, Music

Maple Leafs, Beavers, Trillium

Industry Factories, Modern buildings and city-scape, Freight transport (rail

and ship), Tools, Natural Resources

Agriculture Farm land, Farm equipment, Barn yards, Farm animals

Environment Natural environment – wildlife, plants, forest, river, lake; Escape, Nature

Recreation Boating, Adventure, Hiking, Discovery, Exploration

Heritage Historical buildings and city-scape, Colonial military, Tall ships

Table 3.1b: Guidelines for categorizing slogans

Category Associated References

Culture Gastronomy/Food, Sports, the Arts, Creativity/Creative Class, Leisure,

Spirit, Community

Industry Strength, Perseverance, Industry, Business/Business Relocation, the

Future, Modernization, Urban, Natural Resources, Opportunity Agriculture Agriculture, Farm land, Farm equipment, Growth, Cultivation Environment Natural environment – wildlife, plants, forest, river, lake; Escape, Nature,

Recreation Boating, Adventure, Hiking, Discovery, Exploration Heritage History, Past, Heritage, Fatherland/Motherland

Eco (1976) defines semiotic analysis as concerning itself with anything that can be understood as a sign, either comprising or embedded in a text. Signs can take the form

60

of words, images, sounds, gestures, and objects. In the context of this study, the semiotic analysis focused on the logo and slogans that were identified. Contemporary semiotic analysis examines signs through the structure of a larger system, rather than in isolation (Aiello, 2012; de Lencastre and Corte-Real, 2010; Manning, 2010). It concerns itself with the study of how meanings are developed. The analysis ultimately focuses on two

elements: the construction of meaning and its communication. Semiotic analysis provide a way for the simple brands to be examined and classified in way that statistical and spatial analysis can be carried out.

In its most basic form, semiotic analysis aims at examining the social meaning produced by the arrangement of signs within text. In this context, text refers to written and verbal communication, as well as that which information is transferred through visual imagery (Moriarty, 2004). Regardless of the form, the foundation of semiotic analysis was developed by Saussure (1916) and Pierce (1958). Saussure (1916) suggested a dyadic model, where any sign is comprised of two elements: the signifier, which refers to the form that the sign takes; and the signified, or the concept it represents. The sign, therefore, is the resultant interaction between the signifier and the signified. It is the relationship between these two elements that provides the sign with its meaning. Peirce (1958) postulated a triadic model that contained the elements: representament, or the form which the sign takes; the interpretant, the interpretation of the concept the sign communicates; and the object which the sign represents. Similarly to Saussure (1916), the mode of communication is identified, as well as the interpretation. The object is the entity – for instance, a municipality and its economic development aspirations – that the sign represents.

61

Between these two models, it is apparent that a sign must have both a form of communication (signifieror representament) and a concept to be interpreted (signifiedor interpretant). Since this is the relationship that provides meaning, a sign cannot have a completely meaningless signifier or a completely formless signified (Saussure, 1916; Pierce, 1958; de Lencastre and Corte-Real, 2010). A sign is the recognizable combination of form with a particular concept. In the case of place branding, the form becomes the place brand image, while the concept is the identity that the municipality selects to communicate. The meaning from this relationship manifests itself in the sense of place that is developed.

Through examination of the image form and the concept it represents, semiotics help define what signs mean, and how they mean them (de Lencastre and Corte-Real, 2010; Sturrock, 1986). Based on Saussure’s (1916) and Pierce’s (1958) models, Morris (1970) developed a classification to further define semiotic relationships. The elements that comprise this relationship are: semantics, what signs stand for; syntax, the structural relations of signs; and pragmatics, the relation of signs to its audience. Semantics are the meaning or concept behind the sign (signifiedor interpretant), essentially the visual coding of a municipality’s identity. Syntax explains the relationship of all elements in the simple brand. Often, more than one symbol is incorporated into the brand image. The relationships of these symbols, configuration, size, and colour were used to identify which brand dimension was most prominent. Finally, pragmatics explains the

interpretation of the sign by the audience – the image or sense of place that is created (Moriarty, 2004).

62