Collaborative Destination Branding

1
Collaborative Destination Branding

• Ounjoung Park
• Liping A. Cai
• Xinran Y. Lehto

2
Agenda

• Introduction
• Research Objectives
• Collaborative Destination Branding Process
• Collaboration Process
• Integrative Perspective on Destination Branding
• - Double Vortex Model
• - CBBE Model
• Empirical Case
• Conclusion

3
Destination Slogans

• Discover Idaho
• New Jersey and You Perfect Together.
• Maine. The way life should be
• Wisconsin. Youre among friends.
• Ohio The Heart of It All
• Delaware. The first State
• Arizona. The Grand Canyon State
• See Florida coast to coast

4
Introduction

• Destination Brands
• Need from communities (DMAI, 2004).
• Return on Investment (Longwoods International,
  2007).
• Marketing Budget (Longwoods International, 2007).
  
• 
  
• Failures.. Why?
• A gap between the perceived and the projected
  brands
• Biased focus on the interests of critical
  stakeholder groups
• 
  (Bramwell and Herman, 1999 Reed, 1997)
• Loss of unique market position, brand identity,
  and long-term benefit

5
Introduction

• Challenges
• Political pressures in reconcile local and
  regional interests (Kotler et al., 1993).
• Culture crash between the public and private
  (Morgan, 2003).
• Lack of Understanding on tourism
• Unsatisfactory partnership between DMO and
  communities
• Research Question
• How can DMOs establish a brand identity through
  balancing between perceived and projected brands
  and involving support from a diverse array of
  community stakeholders?

6
Research Objectives

• Build a theoretical model of collaboration
  process in destination branding.
• Review collaboration process model
• Review two generic branding models
• ( Double Vortex and CBBE models)
• - Review a case with applying the proposed model

7
Collaborative Destination Branding Process
Outcome
Outcome
Implementation
Performance
Feeling
Imagery
Judgment
Destination
Marketing
Brand
Mix
Equity
Awareness
Resonance
Evaluation
Destination Brand
Outcome
Outcome
Value/Goal/Objectives
Precondition
Stakeholder
Value
Problem
Direction Setting
Setting
8
Collaboration Process
Three-Stage Model
(Gray 1985 1989 McCann 1983)
Application of Three-Stage Model
(Jamal Getz 1995 Araujo Bramwell, 2002)
Extended Six Stage Model
(Selin Charvez, 1995 Wang Fesenmaier, 2007)
9
Double Vortex CBBE Models
CBBE model (Keller, 2003)
Double Vortex (Chernatony Riley, 1997)
10
Empirical Case (Harrison County, IN)
11
Empirical Case (Harrison County, IN)

• Precondition (2002-2003)
• New Increased marketing budget,
  restructuring of CVB, Burgeoning rural tourism
  business, no long-range plan or vision ,
  suspicion on the spending decision criteria
• Problem setting
• - Systematic image studies (2004)
• i) Two focus group interviews with local
  stakeholders
• ii) Visitor image survey (actual
  visitors)
• iii) Phone image survey (potential
  visitors)
• - Found image gap and lacks of flagship
  attraction.

12
Empirical Case (Harrison County, IN)

• Direction setting (2005) Brand development
• The Essential Indiana Experience
• Implementation
• i) Awareness(2005-2006)
• - segmenting products / targeting family
  and 50s age markets.
• ii) Performance Imagery (2006-2007) Applied
  the results of image study
• iii) Feeling judgment (2007-2008)
• iv) Resonance (20082009)

Current Situation
13
Empirical Case (Harrison County, IN)

• Evaluation
• - Image study update in 2009.
• Outcome
• i) Programming results
• ii) Improved relationship with stakeholders
• iii) Capital-oriented (ROI)

14
Conclusion

• Proposed a model of collaborative destination
  branding
• Applied the model to Harrison County Image
  Project was examined to emphasize the dynamic
  nature of collaborating in destination branding.
• To validate the projected model, further
  empirical studies to test the effectiveness of
  the model.