Branding in Governance and Public Management

Jasper Eshuis, E.H. Klijn

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781136504945
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Public Relations
• Index: Business

Politicians and public managers utilize branding to communicate with the public as well as to position themselves within the ever-present media now so central to political and administrative life. They must further contend with stakeholders holding contradictory opinions about the nature of a problem, the desirable solutions, and the values at stake. Branding is used as a strategy to manage perceptions, motivate stakeholders, communicate clear messages in the media, and position policies and projects. Brands have a unique ability to simplify such messages and motivate different actors to invest their energy in governance processes.

Public administration scholars so far have however paid little attention to branding. This book provides a systematic analysis of branding as phenomenon in governance. It deals with the nature of public branding, its relation to existing theories in public administration, the way branding is used as a managerial strategy in governance processes, and the risks and limitations of branding. Branding in Public Governance and Management highlights the growing importance of public banding as a public management strategy to influence political events, decision-making processes and outcomes in governance processes.

1 The Rise of Branding in Governance Processes

1.1 THE RISE OF BRANDING IN GOVERNANCE PROCESSES

In July 2007 the Dutch minister Ella Vogelaar launches a policy plan on urban renewal called Action Plan Power Communities (VROM 2007). The aim of the policy is to improve the situation in 40 Dutch communities where the quality of the living environment lags behind other Dutch communities due to an accumulation of social and economic problems. With this plan, the minister follows up on the coalition agreement, which used the term “problem communities.” In the policy plan, the ministry explains that the name has been changed from problem communities to “power communities” for two reasons: firstly because the term problem community insufficiently reflects the positive aspects of the communities, and secondly because the people in the communities think that the term problem community does not reflect their perception of the community (VROM 2007). From then on, the ministry’s urban renewal policies acquire a clear name: the power community policy. By introducing the distinguishing term power communities and associating the policies with positivity, power, and belief in the people, the ministry brands its policies on urban communities. By taking into account the perception of the communities, both the policies and the minister are positioned as responsive and empathic. It is noteworthy that the policies are branded not only in terms of their content, but also in terms of the process. The ministry stresses repeatedly that the policy plan is the result of a process in which the minister visited the communities to listen to their ideas.

Notwithstanding all the efforts, the implementation of the policies proves very difficult. A major reason is that the minister has few financial resources. Her resultant dependency on housing associations gradually weakens her position. In addition, the minister’s media performance is widely criticized. She enlists the services of a spin doctor to improve her image, but this does not reduce the criticism. It even turns against her when the spin doctor comments negatively on her in the media (Van Kemenade 2008). When questioned about the spin doctor by a journalist, the minister gives a bad impression by failing to give an answer at all¹ (NRC 2008). Her weak media performance becomes even more problematic when her own political party, the Social Democrats, starts to feel that the minister is weakening the party’s brand. The party finally concludes that the minister has lost her authority (e.g. De Pers 2008). The problems in the governance process combined with her negative media performances eventually lead to the minister’s forced resignation in November 2008 (see e.g. Van Kemenade 2008; Trouw 2008).

The Rise of Governance … and Branding

The example of this Dutch policy on urban renewal illustrates the usage of branding in governance processes. It shows how a policy is branded, among other things by giving it a clear and distinguishable name and associating it with feelings of positivity, empathy, and responsiveness. The name, which is the discursive and most concrete manifestation of the symbolic brand, is important to identify the policy and distinguish it from other policies. The example also indicates that, although branding may effectively influence perceptions about a policy or a politician for a while, it is not a silver bullet that can completely prevent the development of negative perceptions. Finally, the example illustrates how governance processes take place in a mediatized world. Media interventions can enhance dynamics and cause a sudden acceleration of governance processes when the full lights of the media undermine managers’ positions or force them to act. As elaborated further in this book, politicians and managers try to create brands for policy objects, policy processes, and themselves to manage perceptions, activate and bind actors, and maintain their authority in mediatized governance processes.

The worldwide governance landscape in which branding takes place is characterized by governments applying new forms of horizontal governance, such as public–private partnerships (PPPs) (S. P. Osborne 2000; Hodge and Greve 2005), interactive decision making, stakeholder involvement (McLaverty 2002; Edelenbos and Klijn 2006), and other forms of citizen involvement (Lowndes et al. 2001). Many reasons have been offered to explain this phenomenon, the most common one being that the role of governments is changing. Governments in recent years have become more dependent on societal actors to achieve their goals because of the increasing complexity of the challenges they face. Many of these challenges involve conflicting values, and addressing them demands governments that are multifaceted and increasingly horizontal (Kickert et al. 1997; Sørenson and Torfing 2007).

The upsurge of governance means that various actors are included in policymaking and implementation processes. Private actors, social alignments, and citizens each have important resources and the power to obstruct policy interventions, but they also have different perceptions and interests. This is the governance context in which branding has become one of the strategies that politicians and public managers use to manage perceptions, but also to bind actors and to cope with media attention.

Branding as an Empirical Phenomenon

Although branding has not been applied as widely in governance processes as it has been in the private sector, political leaders and public managers do undertake a multitude of attempts to cast new brands in order to influence public opinion and stakeholder perceptions. Brands, being symbolic constructs that add value or meaning to something in order to distinguish it from its competitors, are increasingly used in strategies for managing perceptions in the public sector. Branding has been used to influence public perceptions of persons, places, organizations, projects, and physical objects such as transport infrastructure and buildings (see e.g. Eshuis and Edelenbos 2009; Evans 2003; Pasotti 2010). In particular, political branding and city branding are applied rather widely.

Political branding is applied to political leaders, political parties, policies, and coalitions. American politicians have been using marketing techniques, such as branding, public polling, and costumer segmentation, for almost five decades (Shama 1976). Former U.S. president George W. Bush used branding extensively, as the current president Barack Obama does today, to enhance their popularity, create an image, and evoke emotions with the voters. George W. Bush branded himself as a straightforward man and a strong leader. During his electoral campaign, Barack Obama branded himself as the charismatic leader who would bring change and give new hope to America. Among other brand elements, he used a logo based on the letter “O” that was carefully designed to include the colors blue and red (symbolizing that this election was not about red states versus blue states, but about a single united America). Within the logo there is a soft white glow that suggests sunrise, and symbolizes the dawn of a new day (Wheeler 2009, 254–55).

Figure 1.1 The logo used by Barack Obama during his presidential campaign.

Branding techniques are now common practice among European politicians as well. Some famous proponents include Silvio Berlusconi and Nicholas Sarkozy, as well as Angela Merkel and David Cameron. They have used branding, including brand elements such as slogans, wordmarks, and logos (see Figure 1.2), to construct an identity that is attractive to voters. In Great Britain, political parties extensively brand their parties and leaders (Harris and Lock 2001; Lees-Marshment 2001; Taylor 2007).

Figure 1.2 Brand elements used by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister David Cameron.

Tony Blair’s “New Labour” and associated brand the “Third Way” is an example of branding that refers to both new policy content and a policy style. In terms of content, the Third Way refers to a position between the traditional Labour themes of improving public services and fighting social inequalities, and Thatcher’s Conservative policies of privatization, lower taxes, and labor flexibility. The Third Way brand sets Blair apart from former leaders of both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. In marketing terms, the brand differentiates Blair and his policies from competitors. The policy style stresses being with the people, instead of above the people. The Third Way brand selects certain problems and solutions and sets them out as being important. It argues that the political problem is not a surfeit of government but rather a lack of organization, and that government would function well if it partnered with societal organizations. Years after the Third Way was introduced, it was expanded by adding ideas like “joined-up government” and “partnerships.” Thus, the basic idea of the Third Way was elaborated and new ideas were introduced into the political market by using the original brand. This is an example of how a brand can be leveraged by adding new concepts and ideas to it (brand extension) (Loken et al. 2010). Brand extensions are often used to reach new audiences or revitalize existing brands at a relatively low cost. After all, an existing brand that has already proved its value is being built upon.

Branding has also become common in place branding or city branding. Branding places focuses on geographical locations, such as nations, cities, regions, and communities. Brands communicate selected physical and emotional attributes of a place, thus giving it specific meaning. Place branding is aimed at attracting residents, tourists, or investors. It is not only major cities such as Glasgow (Glasgow: Scotland with style), New York (I love New York), Amsterdam, and Hong Kong (Asia’s world city) that have launched branding campaigns to position themselves in the minds of citizens and tourists, but also smaller cities such as Dundee in Scotland, Nyköping in Sweden, or Randers in Denmark (see Smidt-Jensen 2005), although it has been extremely difficult to empirically establish the extent to which branding has been effective in realizing those aims (see Chapter 7). Even in the case of campaigns that are generally seen as successful, for example the I love New York campaign, the question of effectiveness is hard to answer. Parties involved in the campaign have emphasized that awareness of the city of New York has gone up, and that perceptions about the city have become more positive, since the start of the campaign (Greenberg 2008). They point at correlations between the campaign and changing perceptions. They do acknowledge, though, that a causal relationship between the campaign and improvements in tourism cannot be proved (Greenberg 2008, 214–17).

Until now, the use of brands and branding in governance processes has been most common in the political part of governance processes, and in the governance of cities. But the examples of the Dutch revitalization policy and of the Third Way show that politicians and managers have also started to use brands to brand policies and policy programs in governance processes. In the examples, branding was used both to highlight and distinguish the content of the policy and to communicate favorable aspects of the policy process. And we see more and more governance processes that make use of branding or elements of it to create images of content, processes, or actors in these processes. In many cases, the branding of governance processes is still in its infancy in the sense that the positioning of the governance process relies heavily on text and rational discourse, and less on the (visual) type of symbols and emotions on which private brands are built. Also, the focus is often on sending messages. For example, governance process websites are mostly relatively static and non-interactive compared to many private websites. Although the interactive and citizen-based possibilities of brands are not used to the full, branding definitely has its place in governance processes, as will be seen in the examples provided throughout this book.

Aim of This Book: Explore the Relation between Branding and Governance

Brands have become empirical phenomena in governance, but their application has received relatively little attention in public administration and policy sciences. In this book, we explore the use of brands and branding in governance processes, arguing that brands are used for a reason in such processes. Brands fit the mediatized world in which governance processes increasingly take place. By branding, public managers seek alternative ways to influence people’s ideas about policy content and policy processes, but they also use branding to motivate people and attract them to governance processes. In this first chapter, we explore the relation between governance and branding and set the stage for the rest of the book.

In section 1.2, we start with a short exploration of brands as phenomena: what are they and where do we see them in governance processes? In section 1.3, we discuss the other core concept of this book—governance—and explain how we define governance and where we stand in the governance discussion. Section 1.4 argues why branding has arisen in contemporary governance processes. We argue that this is related to particular characteristics of governance processes such as the need to charm and appeal to actors on whom one depends. We also relate branding to the rise of the media society.

1.2 BRANDS AS MEANINGFUL IMAGES IN GOVERNANCE PROCESSES

One of the interesting things about branding is that it brings new strategies into the field of governance, and new questions that need to be answered as well. Branding differs from the rational and deliberative forms of communication that have dominated governance processes so far, because it is largely based on visual images and communicating emotions. Blair’s brands New Labour and the Third Way appealed to citizens because they felt connected to a new movement that wanted to renew the state and society. It felt like a new and fresh force. New Labour was able to empathize with more than the traditional core voters and reach out emotionally to a wide audience by envisioning a caring, sharing state in which there would also be ample room for private initiatives and empowerment of individuals through communities. New Labour successfully countered emotions of fear that the Labour government would ally too closely with the unions and again cause deep conflicts with employers as Great Britain had experienced under Labour at the end of the 1970s. The example of New Labour and the Third Way illustrate how brands create associations with emotions. In this section, we further explain the working of brands. We explain what brands are and through what characteristics they work in governance processes. Chapter 2 deals in more depth with what brands are.

Brands: What Are They?

A brand is a symbolic construct that consists of a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of these, intended to identify a phenomenon and differentiate it from similar phenomena by adding particular meaning to it. A brand is not the product itself; it is what gives meaning and value to the product and defines its identity (Kapferer 1992). Branding is an approach within marketing that aims at increasing the value to a user of a branded object, such as a place, by giving the object symbolic meaning that is valuable in the psychological and social life of consumers (Arvidsson 2006; Danesi 2006). Someone who buys a BMW car is buying not only a vehicle for transport, but also identity and social status. A brand is thus a sign that evokes the associations through which an object is imbued with cultural meaning (cf. Danesi 2006). For example, the BMW brand evokes such associations as “safety,” “success,” and “high achievement.” These associations make the car valuable to the consumer both psychologically (i.e. it offers safety) and socially (i.e. it offers social status).

A brand suggests a particular experience of a product (Arvidsson 2006). For example, the negative brands that some public organizations have as being bureaucratic influence how their policies are experienced by the public, even before their policies have been implemented. People may associate a public bureaucracy with a lack of action and lack of attention to individuals’ needs. Although research shows that in some countries the image of the public bureaucracies is actually quite good and better than that of politicians (Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau 2000), in many cases the brands of public bureaucracies evoke feelings of powerlessness and neglect. Brands generate associations that facilitate particular socially and psychologically embedded experiences. Another example is the association of change that Barack Obama used in his campaign for the US presidential elections in 2008.

Brands also help to differentiate products from their competitors by coupling specific symbolic or experiential features to a product. In the BMW example, a BMW is not just a car; it is a car for successful people. This allows the company to sell the car for a premium price (De Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley 1998). Actually, this can also be seen clearly with city branding, which is applied to distinguish one city from another by giving it an image and “feel” of its own.

1.3 GOVERNANCE IN NETWORKS

Governance is a central concept in this book, but its meaning is not always clear because unfortunately governance is given many different meanings in the literature. It is important to establish how the term governance and the related term governance networks are used in this book.

What Is Governance?

In his widely cited article, Rhodes (1996) provides six different interpretations of the word governance. His overview of governance covers corporate governance, new public management, good governance as a socio-cybernetic system, governance as a self-organizing network, and othe...