A SENSITIVE AREA IN COMMUNICATION STUDIES: COUNTRY BRAND

Year 2015, , - , 29.01.2015

Tuğçe Boran

https://doi.org/10.17680/akademia.v4i1.5000070195

Cited By: 1

Abstract

The concepts of brand and branding have been an important agenda item of the organizations in recent years. Country brand has also gained importance following the export of commercial products and the increase in the revenue based on tourism. There are ongoing controversies over country brand concept. It has been found that there are a few studies on this issue in Turkish literature. Moreover, as having a political dimension, the topic of country and city brands is wide enough to work on.  Country brands cannot be managed as easily as trademarks, there are many decision- makers, the area which the brand spans and people who are affected by brand management consist of different groups, there are historical prejudices and background and target people are varied.  Thus, ‘country brand’ can be considered as a ‘sensitive’ area. It is substantially aimed at detecting the dimensions which constitute country brand. In this context, this paper is regarded as exploratory research. This paper focuses on explaining the concept of country brand and components of it. After theoretical framework, there will be a research including the attitude of students in Turkey towards brands and what components they take into consideration to accept something is a brand.

A SENSITIVE AREA IN COMMUNICATION STUDIES: COUNTRY BRAND

Abstract

The concepts of brand and branding have been an important agenda item of the organizations in recent years. Country brand has also gained importance following the export of commercial products and the increase in the revenue based on tourism. There are ongoing controversies over country brand concept. It has been found that there are a few studies on this issue in Turkish literature. Moreover, as having a political dimension, the topic of country and city brands is wide enough to work on.  Country brands cannot be managed as easily as trademarks, for there are many decision- makers, the area which the brand spans and people who are affected by brand management consist of different groups, there are historical prejudices and background and target people are varied.  Thus, ‘country brand’ can be considered as a ‘sensitive area’. It is substantially aimed at detecting the dimensions which constitute country brand. In this context, this paper is regarded as exploratory research. This paper focuses on explaining the concept of country brand and dimensions of it. After scanning the literature in question, a research including the opinions of university students in Turkey on country brand will be done.

References

• Anholt, S. (2003). Branding places and Nations, Brands and Branding, London: The Economist, Profile Book, 213-227.
• Anholt, S. (2008 a). Place branding: Is it marketing or isn’t it?, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 4, 1 – 6.
• Anholt, S. (2008 b). Nation Branding’ in Asia, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 4, 265–269.
• Anholt, S. (2010 a). Definitions of place branding –Working towards a resolution, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 6, 1–10.
• Anholt, S. (2010 b). Nation brand as context and reputation, Place Branding, Vol. 1, 3, 224–228.
• Aronczyk, M. (2008). “Living the Brand”: Nationality, Globality and the Identity Strategies of Nation Branding Consultants, International Journal of Communication 2, 41-65.
• Babür Tosun, N.(2010). İletişim Temelli Marka Yönetimi, İstanbul: Beta Yayınları.
• Barysch, K. (2007). What Europeans Think About Turkey and Why”, Centre Of European Reform Essays www.cer.org.uk, erişim tarihi 26.12.2012 (This essay is partly based on the CER seminar on ‘Europe’s public opinion on Turkish EU accession’ in Brussels on June 19th 2007).
• Berkowitz P., Gjermano, G., Gomez, L., Schafer, G. (2007). Brand China: Using the 2008 Olympic Games to enhance China ’ s image,Place Branding and Public Diplomacy,Vol. 3, 2, 164– 178.
• Borça, G. (2002). Bu topraklardan Dünya Markası Çıkar mı ?, İstanbul: Mediacat Yayınları.
• Demir,V. (2012). Kamu Diplomasisi ve Yumuşak Güç, İstanbul :Beta Yayınları.
• Dündar Kurtuluş, S. (2008). Ülkelerin Marka Kişiliği Üzerine Bir Araştırma, Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt:22, 285-300.
• Dünya Gazetesi. Erişim: 3.12.2012, http://www.dunya.com/turkiyenin-guclu-bir-marka-olmasi- icin,-oncelikle-kendine-guvenmesi-ge-111939yy.htm
• Fan, Y. (2006). Branding the nation: What is being branded.?, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 12, No. 1, 5–14.
• Habertürk Gazetesi. Erişim: 3.12.2012, http://ekonomi.haberturk.com/makro-ekonomi/ haber/755937-iste-turkiye-markasinin-degeri
• Kemming, J.D., Sandıkçı, Ö. (2007). Turkey ’ s EU accession as a question of nation brand image, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 3, 1, 31–41.
• Kotler,P., Jatusripitak S., Maesincee ,S.. (2000). Ulusların Pazarlanması (Ulusal Refahı Oluşturmada Stratejik Bir Yaklaşım), (A. Buğdaycı, Çev.), İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
• Milliyet Gazetesi. Erişim: 3.12.2012, http://teknoloji.milliyet.com.tr/dunyanin-en-degerli-500- markasi-aciklandi-/sektorel/haberdetay/19.03.2012/1517320/default.htm
• Papadopoulos, N. (2004). Place branding: Evolution, meaning and implications, Place Branding Vol. 1, 1, 36–49.
• Pritchard, A., Morgan Nigel J. (2000). Privileging The Male Gaze Gendered Tourism Landscapes, Annals Of Tourism Research, Vol:27, No:4, 884-905.
• Pritchard, A., Morgan Nigel J. (2001). Culture, identity and tourism representation: marketing Cymu or Wales, Tourism Management , 22, 167-179.
• Ries, A. & L. (2000). Marka Yaratmanın 22 Kuralı, (A. Özdemir, Çev.),Ankara: Mediacat Kitapları.
• Simonin, B. (2008). Branding and Public Diplomacy: Challenges and Opportunities, HeinOnlinehttp:// heinonline.org, VOL. 32:3 Special Edition, erişim tarihi, 25.12.2012, 19-34.
• Szondi, G. (2007). The role and challenges of country branding in transition countries: The Central and Eastern European experience, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy,Vol. 3, 1, 8–20.
• Anholt, S. (2003). Branding places and Nations, Brands and Branding, London: The Economist, Profile Book, 213-227.
• Anholt, S. (2008 a). Place branding: Is it marketing or isn’t it?, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 4, 1 – 6.
• Anholt, S. (2008 b). Nation Branding’ in Asia, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 4, 265–269.
• Anholt, S. (2010 a). Definitions of place branding –Working towards a resolution, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 6, 1–10.
• Anholt, S. (2010 b). Nation brand as context and reputation, Place Branding, Vol. 1, 3, 224–228.
• Aronczyk, M. (2008). “Living the Brand”: Nationality, Globality and the Identity Strategies of Nation Branding Consultants, International Journal of Communication 2, 41-65.
• Babür Tosun, N.(2010). İletişim Temelli Marka Yönetimi, İstanbul: Beta Yayınları.
• Barysch, K. (2007). What Europeans Think About Turkey and Why”, Centre Of European Reform Essays www.cer.org.uk, erişim tarihi 26.12.2012 (This essay is partly based on the CER seminar on ‘Europe’s public opinion on Turkish EU accession’ in Brussels on June 19th 2007).
• Berkowitz P., Gjermano, G., Gomez, L., Schafer, G. (2007). Brand China: Using the 2008 Olympic Games to enhance China ’ s image,Place Branding and Public Diplomacy,Vol. 3, 2, 164– 178.
• Borça, G. (2002). Bu topraklardan Dünya Markası Çıkar mı ?, İstanbul: Mediacat Yayınları.
• Demir,V. (2012). Kamu Diplomasisi ve Yumuşak Güç, İstanbul :Beta Yayınları.
• Dündar Kurtuluş, S. (2008). Ülkelerin Marka Kişiliği Üzerine Bir Araştırma, Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt:22, 285-300.
• Dünya Gazetesi. Erişim: 3.12.2012, http://www.dunya.com/turkiyenin-guclu-bir-marka-olmasi- icin,-oncelikle-kendine-guvenmesi-ge-111939yy.htm
• Fan, Y. (2006). Branding the nation: What is being branded.?, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 12, No. 1, 5–14.
• Habertürk Gazetesi. Erişim: 3.12.2012, http://ekonomi.haberturk.com/makro-ekonomi/ haber/755937-iste-turkiye-markasinin-degeri
• Kemming, J.D., Sandıkçı, Ö. (2007). Turkey ’ s EU accession as a question of nation brand image, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 3, 1, 31–41.
• Kotler,P., Jatusripitak S., Maesincee ,S.. (2000). Ulusların Pazarlanması (Ulusal Refahı Oluşturmada Stratejik Bir Yaklaşım), (A. Buğdaycı, Çev.), İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
• Milliyet Gazetesi. Erişim: 3.12.2012, http://teknoloji.milliyet.com.tr/dunyanin-en-degerli-500- markasi-aciklandi-/sektorel/haberdetay/19.03.2012/1517320/default.htm
• Papadopoulos, N. (2004). Place branding: Evolution, meaning and implications, Place Branding Vol. 1, 1, 36–49.
• Pritchard, A., Morgan Nigel J. (2000). Privileging The Male Gaze Gendered Tourism Landscapes, Annals Of Tourism Research, Vol:27, No:4, 884-905.
• Pritchard, A., Morgan Nigel J. (2001). Culture, identity and tourism representation: marketing Cymu or Wales, Tourism Management , 22, 167-179.
• Ries, A. & L. (2000). Marka Yaratmanın 22 Kuralı, (A. Özdemir, Çev.),Ankara: Mediacat Kitapları.
• Simonin, B. (2008). Branding and Public Diplomacy: Challenges and Opportunities, HeinOnlinehttp:// heinonline.org, VOL. 32:3 Special Edition, erişim tarihi, 25.12.2012, 19-34.
• Szondi, G. (2007). The role and challenges of country branding in transition countries: The Central and Eastern European experience, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy,Vol. 3, 1, 8–20.