旅游目的地品牌识别——斯洛文尼亚案例外文翻译(可编辑)

1、旅游目的地品牌识别斯洛文尼亚案例外文翻译外文翻译Tourism destination brand identity: The case of SloveniaMaterial Sourece: Journal of Brand Management Author: Maja KonecnikINTRODUCTIONThe research line of tourism destination brands is merely in itsinfancy. Despite earlier scepticism about transferring the brand concept to t

2、he tourism destination context, that concept has definitely attracted the interest of tourism destination researchers and practitioners of late. Although destination branding appears to be one of the newest research areas, the topic has been partly covered under the alternative label of destination

3、image studies, which has been a subject of investigation for more than 30 years. Ritchie and Ritchie, however, stated that the development of a coherent and commonly accepted framework is essential for using branding theory in a tourism destination context.Although a tourism destination can be brand

4、ed, considerable careshould be taken in the transfer of branding principles to a tourism destination context. Because its application without sensitive inclusion and consideration of the significance of public space may result in acommercial orientation, which runs the risk of spoiling the identity

5、characteristics such as social relationships, history and geography and by extension may destroy an area s sense of place. In turn, within aglobal context place identity can contribute importantly, to the creation and sustenance of a distinctive competitive edge. Raising awareness of the historical

6、nature of the concept of culture in relation to the extraordinary , hat tourists are in a search for, is relevant in the processes of identity formation at both global and local levels. Therefore, it is essential that the development of a tourism destination brand should adhere to a coherent theoret

7、ical framework and be jointly supported by its stakeholders.BRAND IDENTITYRecently, much attention has been devoted in the business and managementliterature to the concept of brand identity. Although various authors have been unable to accept a common definition they do share a common opinion, namel

8、y that brand identity development is a theoretical concept best understood from the supply-side perspective. Kapferer p.71 provides a very simple and clear explanation to gain an understanding of brand identity that underscores the significance of the supply-side perspective on the brand concept: be

9、fore knowing how we are perceived, we must know who we are . According to his explanation, the touristdestination, rather than the consumer, should define both its brand and content. A tourist destination is a complex concept, which is based on a myriad of different products, services and experience

10、s; managed by different stake-holders tourism industry sector, public sector, government, destination management organisation, locals with a variety of ownership forms and often without an appropriate hierarchy with a set of rules for stakeholders to adhere to. Within such context, a brand identity

11、can serve as a network picture, which draws, in turn on historical, national and cultural relation-ships to develop a common view, which becomesthe basis for joint action for/or against change. In that sense, the supply-centric perspective of brand identity is significant and, among others, recogniz

12、ed by the International Corporate Identity Group, within the meaning of corporate identity proposed by Ind.The multiple roles of the brand identity concept are reflected in investigations. For example, Kapferer50 introduced a hexagonal model called the brand identity prism. It is based on six centra

13、l components: physique, personality, culture, relationship, reflection or image and self- image. Later, de Chernatony s model adapted Kapferer s brand identity prism. In our opinion, Aaker and Joachimsthaler s brand leadership model is so far the most salient one in the literature for three reasons.

14、 First, the model is systematic. Branding can easily become overwhelming in the multitude of components and theories that play a role in brand identity development. Therefore, there is a need to provideguidelines enabling decision makers to examine issues utilizing a three-phased structure: a pre-an

15、alysis of strategic processes; a tourism destination brand identity system analysis and a post-brand implementation process. Secondly, the model is comprehensive, that is, its brand leadership model underscores the subject in its breadth. The model covers both the strategic and visionary roles of ma

16、nagers rather than limiting the discussion to their tactical and reactive roles. It focuses on the issue of strategic brand control, that is, setting out what a brand should stand for from the perspective of relevant stakeholders, including customers and subsequently, communicating the desired corpo

17、rate identity consistently, efficiently and effectively. Thirdly, the model is pragmatic because it recognizes that decision makers should be involved in both formulating and implementing the business strategy.Both the strategic vision of the decision makers and their corporate culture should have a

18、 significant influence on the destinations brandstrategy. In practical terms, it implies that a destination brand identity strategy should not promise what a destination cannot or will not deliver.TOURISM DESTINATION BRAND IDENTITY FRAMEWORKThis implies that the research that combines the marketing

19、literature focusing mostly on the brand concept with the tourism literature focusing primarily on a destinations image is still in its infancy. The most comprehensive and recent work to date in the literature that clearly high-lights the difference between the image-formation process and branding wa

20、spublished by Cai. This observation is significant because image formation is not synonymous with branding, albeit that the former constitutes the core of the latter. Image building comes one step closer but it lacks a critical link, namely, with brand identity. By underscoring the significance of t

21、he brand identity concept at the destination level, Cais work i dentified the main theoretical weaknesses of destination brand studies driven by a customer-centric perspective.Also, Cai proposed a conceptual model of destination branding that centres on building a destination identity through spread

22、ing activation theory.The latter results from a logic of dynamic link-ages that results fromthe activation of the brand element mix, subsequent image building, brand associations and marketing activities. Another advantage of the model is that it recognises that image, as projected by the destinatio

23、n management organization . Accordingly, it should be possible to assess the gap between the perceived and the projected image. The assessment provides an appropriate input for building the desired image that is consistent with the brand identity andorganizes social, historical,cultural and natural

24、elements into a stream of impressions . WithinCais model of destination branding the marketing functions role isemphasised, while the model does not go into detail on how to build and develop a brand identity for a specific destinationThe tourism destination brand identity system represents the proc

25、ess of developing a destination brand identity, which incorporates relevant local cultural characteristics. As Aaker and Joachimsthaler suggested, a destination brand identity should include 6?12 such dimensions in order to adequately describe the aspirations of a particular brand. At least one of t

26、hese dimensions must differentiate the tourism destination from competing destinations. Although these dimensions can vary from one destination to another, they can be summarised by four brand characteristics to persuade tourists to visit Slovenia instead of other destinations. These are the brand a

27、s a product, the brand as a symbol, the brand as an organization and the brand as a personality. Modern tourists want to experience a sense of place when visiting a destination. Therefore, experiential and symbolic benefits play as important role as functional benefits in a destination brand sidenti

28、ty.CONCLUSIONSIn the literature, the importance of the brand identity concept seems to be commonly accepted as an important perspective on brand investigation. In contrast, the tourism research publications have paid little attention to this topic. This observation presented a motive for the present

29、 paper, which provides theoretical underpinning for the tourism destination brand concept from the owners perspective. Onejustification for the paper is that it complements previousinvestigations that approached tourism destination branding from a perceived image perspective. We underscore in our pa

30、per, the potentialdanger of prescriptions,which result from a single-mindedtourist-centricperspective.The identity-based approach offers acounter perspective to tourist-driven marketing, n thatit affordsinsiders the opportunityessence and within such contextto project their image of Slovenia s译文expe

31、rience identity, that is, to connect in one way or another with the emotional feelings of the host旅游目的地品牌识别 ?斯洛文尼亚案例资料来源 : 品牌管理的杂志 作者: 玛雅 简介与许多以产品品牌为主题的科学贡献不同的是 （很少的服务和企业品牌 ）, 旅游目的地品牌研究路线 ,只是处于起步阶段。尽管早些时候人们对品牌概念转 移到旅游目的地方面表示怀疑 ,可晚些时候这一概念已经肯定了旅游目的地 , 并 吸引研究人员和从业者的兴趣。虽然目的地品牌似乎是最新的研究领域之一 ,但 是该主题已被部分覆盖在

32、关于旅游目的地形象研究的替代标签下 , 这作为调查对 象已超过 30 年。然而, 里奇和里奇认为一个连贯的和普遍被接受的框架用在旅游 目的地方面的品牌理论是至关重要。虽然旅游目的地可以品牌化 ,但是品牌原则转移到旅游目的地应采取相 当谨慎。因为它不敏感的包容性和考虑到公共空间意义的应用程序可能会导致商 业取向 , 它运行的扩展名的破坏 , 如社会关系 ,历史和地理特征的身份风险 , 可能 会破坏一个地区的地方感。反过来 , 在全球范围内进行身份确定可以作出重要贡 献, 是建立和独特的竞争优势的寄托。提高对有关历史自然文化概念的“特殊” 性质的认识 , 帽子游客正在搜索的是关系到身份是在全球和地

33、方各级的过程中形 成的。因此,至关重要的是 ,一个旅游目的地品牌建设应坚持一个连贯的理论框架 和共同的利益相关者的支持。品牌识别最近, 大部分注意力都致力于在商业和管理文学的品牌形象概念。 虽然不 同的作者已经无法去接受一个共同的定义 , 但是他们有一个共同观点 ,即品牌形 象的发展是一个理论上的概念 , 它最好从供应方的角度理解。卡普费雷尔 （第 71 页）提供了非常简单和明确的解释以获得一个品牌的形象, 突出了从品牌概念的供应方角度来看意义的认识 :“在知道我们是如何去感知之前 , 我们必须知道我们 是谁”。据他解释 , 旅游目的地而不是消费者 , 应同时定义其品牌和内容。一个旅 游目的地

34、是一个复杂的概念 ,它是基于不同的产品、 服务和无数的经验为基础的 ; 由不同的利益相关者 （旅游行业部门 ,公共部门 ,政府,目的地管理组织 ,当地人） 管理和所有 , 并常常对利益相关者的规则设置适当的层次来坚持。在这样的背景 下,一个品牌的身份可以当作一个网络图片 ,它吸引历史、民族和文化关系 , 制定 一个共同的看法 ,成为为/ 或反对更改为联合行动的基础。在这个意义上说 , 品牌 标识供应中心的观点是明显的 ,其中包括由国际企业识别集团确认 , 工业企业提 出身份的意义。关于品牌概念的多重角色身份反映在调查。 例如, 卡普费雷尔推出了六角 模型称为棱镜的品牌标识。它是基于中部六部分组

35、成 :体质,个性, 文化, 关系,反 射或形象和自我形象。 后来, 德?谢里那托尼的模式适应卡普费雷尔的品牌识别棱 镜。我们认为 , 阿克尔和乔基姆的品牌领导模式 ,是迄今为止在文学研究方面最突 出的三个原因之一。首先 , 该模型系统。品牌可以很容易地成为绝大多数的组件和理论,在品牌特征的发展铸就中发挥作用。 因此, 有必要使决策者提供指导方针 研究问题时利用一个三阶段的结构 : 一个预分析的战略流程 , 一个旅游目的地的 品牌标识系统的分析和后品牌的实施进程。其次 , 该模型是全面的。也就是说 , 它的品牌领导模式强调在它的广度问题。该模式涵盖了讨论 , 而不是限制他们的 战术, 限制管理者富有远见的战略作用。 它着眼于品牌控制的战略问题 ,即设置了 一个品牌应与利益相关者 , 包括客户和随后传达预想的企业形象一致, 是高效率和有效的观点。 第三,该模型是务实的。因为它承认 ,决策者应该同时意识到制 订和实施经营战略。 无论是决策者还是战略