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

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to explore the complexities of engaging with local stakeholders in destination branding. As the main creators and drivers of the destination brand, many brand authorities metaphorically “give ownership” of the brand to local stakeholders, for them to “take ownership” of it. This paper examines the inherent challenges of this process. In the Tasmanian destination branding process presented here, the Tasmanian authorities used best practices to generate a sense of ownership of the destination brand among local tourism businesses. Some players engaged, but many did not. The study shows the necessity to understand the dynamics between giving ownership of the brand and the various local tourism business stakeholders actually taking ownership. Design/methodology/approach This study looks at an Australian destination branding experience, namely, Tasmania’s “Go Behind the Scenery”. Primary data were gathered through 14 in-depth interviews with tourism operators, selected through a purposive sampling approach, based on their various levels of participation in the branding processes. The interviews aimed to understand how they variously engaged with the brand and processes of ownership. Findings This study shows that a relatively open interpretation of the brand can welcome wider engagement and generate a sense of ownership through the local businesses’ own interpretations. But there are also barriers for these stakeholders in developing an even stronger sense of ownership. They need more support in addressing their individual circumstance before the brand can align with their business. Originality/value This paper accentuates an ownership gap, understood as the gap between giving ownership (mechanisms to transfer ownership from brand authorities to stakeholders) and taking ownership (stakeholders assume responsibility for and manifest the brand). In identifying a gap between these two aspects of engagement, this paper initiates a more nuanced discussion on the mechanisms of stakeholder engagement in the branding process.

Brand-driven identity development of places: application, evaluation and improvement suggestions of the BIDP-framework

“…The first phase of the model alone covers crucial aspects such High stakeholder involvement, consideration of place elements and involvement of business partners and of tourists' support. Special care should be observed with residents' involvement tactics (Antonios et al, 2020;Campelo et al, 2014;Colavitti and Usai, 2015;Crotts et al, 2022;Dominguez Garcia et al, 2013;François Lecompte et al, 2017;Gusman and Sandry, 2022;Insch and Walters, 2018;Jain et al, 2022;Komppula, 2014;Pasalar and Hallowell, 2019;Pikkemaat et al, 2018;Ryan et al, 2012;Tøttenborg et al, 2022)…”

“…Within the microcosm, actors can use their local knowledge and social and cultural capital to negotiate influence, but this does not guarantee active participation, as proactive management is needed to balance conflicting interests (Reynolds et al , 2022). There is a difference between “giving ownership” and “taking ownership” of a place brand, and both are needed to achieve authenticity and legitimacy (Tøttenborg et al , 2022). A positive perception of the place and its components (such as experiences, feelings and aspirations) is essential to turn residents into true place ambassadors (Jain et al , 2022).…”