Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp.

247267, 2009
0160-7383/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures
doi:10.1016/j.annals.2009.01.004

POWER IN DESTINATION BRANDING

Giuseppe Marzano
San Francisco Business School, Ecuador
Noel Scott
The University of Queensland, Australia

Abstract: This paper examines those forms of social power in evidence in a destination
branding process. Despite numerous conceptualizations of destination branding as a collab-
orative process, this paper finds that power is exerted in various forms and a destination
branding process can have a positive outcome even if there is a lack of unity and collabora-
tion amongst stakeholders. Furthermore this study provides a detailed inventory of how
stakeholders advanced their interests in a branding process by using power in the forms of
persuasion and authority. The Gold Coast, Australia, destination branding process was
selected as a case study as it provides a context where branding is of singular
importance to stakeholders. Keywords: destination branding, power, collaboration, persua-
sion, authority. 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION
The study of destination brands has focused on their external rele-
vance, or in other words the understanding of how through the desti-
nation brand, destination marketing organizations are able to shape
tourist behavior (Pike 2004) with the objective of generating revenues
for the destination (Morgan, Pritchard and Piggott 2002). A distinctive
feature of the destination brand is its conceptualization as the outcome
of a multi-stakeholder collaborative decision making process (Prideaux
and Cooper 2002). From this perspective branding in tourism does not
adhere to the underlying assumption of traditional product and service
brand management that the whole process of creation and manage-
ment of the brand is controlled by and within an individual organiza-
tion (Low and Fullerton 1994). Furthermore, the collective
phenomenon of destination branding (Hankinson 2004) has been
described as a highly complex and politicized activity (Morgan,
Pritchard and Piggott 2003:286) that involves multiple stakeholders.
Within tourism literature, it is recognized that stakeholders may carry
different interests (Ramrez 2001), define their role in different ways

Giuseppe Marzano is the Dean of the San Francisco Business School in Quito, Ecuador. He
is also Honorary Research Advisor at The University of Queensland, School of Tourism, and
researches in the area of multi-stakeholder decision making processes in tourism with
particular emphasis on image building and destination branding. Noel Scott is a Senior
Research Fellow at The University of Queensland, School of Tourism. (4072, Australia. Email
<noel.scott@uq.edu.au>). He has published extensively on sustainable tourism destination
management.

247
248 G. Marzano, N. Scott / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 247267

within a certain community (von Friedrichs Grangsjo 2001), and that

stakeholders interests cannot be summarily restricted to consider-
ation of a single variable (Sautter and Leisen 1999:316317). How-
ever, tourism literature has a tendency to romanticize stakeholder
interactions which are often merely described in terms of unity and col-
laboration (Hall 2003). Less attention has been devoted to the study of
how, through the use of power, a stakeholder, or a coalition of stake-
holders gain the ability to advance their will or to impose their interest
(West 1994).
Several studies have addressed the issue of power within the context
of tourism. A critical theoretical underpinning for studies of power in
tourism is offered by Foucaults conceptualisation of power (Hollins-
head 1999). The building of the image of a tourism destination can
be understood as a process in which the reality of the world is trans-
formed, through both inclusion and exclusion, into a metaphor suit-
able to provide the best representation and visual cliche (Dann
2002) instrumental in reinforcing the mental associations through
which the destination brand equity is built (Konecnik and Gartner
2007). Foucaults (1980) conceptualization of power is therefore espe-
cially relevant in understanding how the image of a tourism destination
and more specifically, a destination brand, is created.
The destination brand is described a powerful tool with the ability to
create emotional appeal and brand image is considered crucial to the
marketing success of a tourism destination (Leisen 2001).
While Foucaults works have influenced tourism studies, Church and
Coles (2007) observe that they provide limited ability to understand
the locus of power within a multi stakeholder decision making pro-
cess. Moreover, while studies approaching tourism from a Foucauldian
perspective, although sparse (Tribe 2006), tend to explicitly refer to
Foucault as source of the theoretical inspiration, other approaches to
the understanding of power in tourism are so far extremely limited.
As a consequence, Church and Coles observe that a more detailed
treatment of power is vital to a fuller understanding of tourism
(2007:xii).
Hall (1994) and Hall and Jenkins (1995) describe the tourism policy
and planning field as an area of conflict and contrasting interests
amongst stakeholders and examine them from a community decision
making perspective. Critical from this perspective is the contribution
of Lukes to the theory of power. Lukes (1974) contribution to the
understanding of power can be summarised in three dimensions: 1)
power is linked to the ability of controlling the political agenda, 2) con-
flicts, both observable as well as latent, must be included in the study of
power, and 3) the study of power must take into account real as well as
subjective interests. Church and Coles (2007) consider that one exam-
ple of Lukesian power is found in the work of Reed (1997) who chal-
lenges the view of tourism as a pluralistic arena by providing evidence
of how tactics were used in order to exclude, for instance, the Chamber
of Commerce from a tourism planning decision-making process. As
Reed (1997:585) reports The Chamber was further excluded because
despite its membership on the steering committee, it did not receive
 G. Marzano, N. Scott / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 247267 249

minutes or notification of meetings throughout most of the process.

The evidence provided by Reed (1997) of exclusion, production of bias
and manipulation within the planning process, which revealed the way
power unfolded in the tourism context in the Squamish community,
may be explained by referring to Hall (2003:101) who stressed that
those who benefit from tourism development may well be placed in
a preferred position to defend and promote their interests through
the structures and institutions by which communities are managed.
An explicit argument developed around Lukes three-dimensional
view of power is provided by Hall (2003), who uses Lukes view of
power to describe how Monterey, California, developed as a heritage
tourism destination. Demonstrating the usefulness of Lukes radical
view of power to describe the image formation of a tourism destination,
Hall (2003:111) shows how exclusion and overt and covert conflicts
have been reinterpreted and used:
The application of models of community participation in tourism
planning which assume the pluralistic allocation of power within a
community may unwittingly serve to reinforce existing power struc-
tures to the exclusion of oppositional and contrary perspectives.
In the wider literature, power is a problematic and contested concept
(Clegg 1989) and social scientists have struggled over time to make sense
of it. Casey for instance, observes that power [is] a difficult concept to
grasp in all its aspects and levels at the same time (1984:61). Further-
more, Prus (1999:3) considers that few terms in the social sciences have
engendered as much mystique (fascination, curiosity, fear) as power.
Focusing specifically on stakeholder power, Coles and Scherle
(2007:217) observe that rarely [. . .] have there been critical accounts
of the precise tactics used by stakeholders involved in political struggles
over the distributions of capital, resources, information and power.
Within this context, this study contributes to tourism literature by
identifying and providing an inventory of the forms of power that stake-
holders exerted within a destination branding process. As a consequence
this study contributes to a greater and detailed theoretical conceptuali-
zation of what power means in a multi-stakeholder decision making pro-
cess such as destination branding and provides an insight on how
stakeholders make use of their influence to see their own values reflected
in a destination brand. This paper analyzes the interactions amongst
stakeholders involved in (and excluded from) the Gold Coast VeryGC
destination branding process. The Gold Coast (GC) is one of the largest
leisure tourism destinations in Australia, is active in marketing in both
domestic and international markets and therefore provides a context
in which stakeholders use power to achieve their aims.

THE COMPLEXITY OF DESTINATION BRANDING AND THE

ISSUE OF POWER
Prideaux and Cooper (2002) argue that the destination brand is the
tangible and positive outcome of the achievement of unity and
250 G. Marzano, N. Scott / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 247267

collaboration amongst the stakeholders of a tourism destination. The

conceptualization of destination branding as a collaborative process
can be considered as the central theme that characterizes how tourism
literature has described the interrelationships amongst stakeholders in
the process of branding a tourism destination.
Stakeholder collaboration in the creation of the destination brand
has been related to the enhancement of the marketing efforts of a des-
tination (Cai 2002) and, as a consequence, to the creation of positive
destination brand equity (Konecnik and Gartner 2007). Similarly, the
sustainability of the destination brand is related not only to the mes-
sage delivered but also to the degree of shared meaning that is con-
tained in the message delivered through the brand (Foley and Fahy
2004). Accordingly, Foley and Fahy (2004:215) relate the potential suc-
cess of the branding of Ireland to the ability of building amongst stake-
holders an understanding of Brand Irelands core values and living
these out as a personal commitment. However, unity and collabora-
tion amongst stakeholders should not be romanticized (Hall
2003:99). Millar and Aiken (1995:629) observe that
communities are not the embodiment of innocence; on the contrary,
they are complex and self-serving entities, as much driven by griev-
ances, prejudices, inequalities, and struggles for power as they are uni-
ted by kinship, reciprocity, and interdependence. Decision making at
the local level can be extraordinarily vicious, personal, and not always
bound by legal constraints.
Collaboration and power are theoretically interrelated concepts
(Wood and Gray 1991). Empirical studies (Booher and Innes 2002;
Reed 1997) reveal that participants in a collaborative process exert
power in order to advance their particular interests or stake in the out-
come. While power is therefore a central theme in the analysis of multi-
stakeholder decision making processes, the issue of power within a des-
tination branding process can be examined from two different and,
arguably, complementary perspectives. These are the power of the des-
tination brand as an expression of meaning, and the power exerted on
the destination branding process in order to be able to influence the
meanings and ideas reflected by the destination brand. While tourism
literature has mainly focused on how the destination brand has been
analyzed as an expression of a general politics of truth (Foucault
1980:131), less attention has been devoted to the understanding of
how stakeholders exerted power to create those meanings.
The issue of power, exerted not only through the representation of
meanings but also in the process of creating those meanings expressed
by the destination brand, emerges for example from the analysis of
how Devon (UK) developed as a tourism resort (Morgan and Pritchard
1999). One of the critical issues in Devons development as a tourism
resort was the power struggle within the local community about how
Devon should be represented. Morgan et al (2003) observe that the
long-term sustainability of a destination brand is a function of the abil-
ity of the brand to appeal to the target market and to deliver the brand
values efficiently. Furthermore, this ability does not just relate to
 G. Marzano, N. Scott / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 247267 251

meaningful images and appropriate promotional messages, but is also

a function of how a destination brand, such as the 100% Pure New
Zealand brand, is able to encompass the different and contrasting
interests of the stakeholders involved in the branding process (Morgan
et al 2003).
Ryan and Zahra (2004) add to the understanding of the political as-
pect of destination branding by analyzing the role played by the public
sector through local, regional and national tourism organizations in
the marketing of a destination. Ryan and Zahra stress the ability of gov-
ernment to influence the tourism industry through the power to legis-
late and to impose regulations on the industry. However, the same
authors highlight that despite legitimate power and constitutional pre-
rogatives, parochialism and individual personalities did play a signifi-
cant role in the way New Zealands tourism marketing was developed
and are a critical factor for the understanding of the power structure
of a tourism destination.

Forms of Power
While the existence of power within a destination branding process
emerges from the analysis of the literature, scholars have not yet ex-
plained in which forms power is exerted. Sociology provides the the-
oretical underpinnings to take the analysis of power to a greater level
of detail. In fact, access to different resources (Bachrach and Baratz
1962; Dawson 1996; Gaventa 1980) that range from material resources
(such as money and the possession and control of critical infrastruc-
ture) to structural resources (such as a position within an organisa-
tion) to information control and to individual characteristics such
as charisma, expertise and knowledge provide stakeholders with the
ability to exert power. However, the mere availability of resources
does not mean that power will be exerted. Blalock (1989) proposes
that resources are transformed into power only when they are effi-
ciently mobilised. Therefore, when resources are mobilised and trans-
formed into power, it is possible to link sources of power to the forms
in which power is exerted. This is consistent with Etzioni 0 s (1968)
conceptualization of power as a generalized capacity that draws on
an asset base but is not identical with it. Wrong (1979) proposes a
typology that summarizes the four forms in which power can be ex-
erted in a social relationship. The four forms of power identified by
Wrong (1979) based on the previous work of Bachrach and Baratz
(1970) and Lukes (1974), are force, manipulation, persuasion and
authority and are presented in Figure 1.
Force is considered the most effective instrument for seizing power
(Lenski 1966). Force can be defined as:
The creation of physical obstacles restricting the freedom of another,
the infliction of bodily pain or injury including the destruction of life
itself, and the frustration of basic biological needs which must be sat-
isfied if the capacity for voluntary choice and action is to remain
unimpaired (Wrong 1979:24).
252 G. Marzano, N. Scott / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 247267

Influence

Unintended Intended (= Power)

Force Manipulation Persuasion Authority

Physical Psychic

Violent Non-violent Coercive Induced Legitimate Competent Personal

Figure 1. Four Forms of Power (Wrong 1979: 24)

Force as a manifestation of power shall be considered not just in its

actual employment but also as the ability to use it (Bierstedt 1974). The
use of force and violence in particular, destroys any possible communi-
cation among parties because it denies at the root the dialogical nat-
ure of existence (Cotta 1985:66).
The second form of power identified in Wrongs typology is
manipulation. Manipulation refers to acts of negotiation that in-
volve a measure of distortion, deception or exploitation. Manipula-
tion may be wilful or unintentional, and it often goes hand in
hand with acts of persuasion (Few 2002:35). The use of manipula-
tion involves holding back useful information with a devilish cun-
ning and malign purpose (Sager 1994:144). Manipulation, as a
form of power, is effective when B is not aware of As intention
to influence him but A does in fact manage to get B to follow his
wishes (Easton 1958:179). Along these lines, Clegg and Hardy
(1996:678) observe:
We cannot ignore that power can be hidden behind the facade of
trust and the rhetoric of collaboration, and used to promote
vested interest through the manipulation of and capitulation by
weaker partners.
While manipulation implies distorted communication, persuasion,
as another form of power, is similar to manipulation but lacks such
negative characteristics. In fact, persuasion is defined as an argumen-
tation intended to make the respondent adapt to the opinion of the
controller (Sager 1994:72). There is a fine line between considering
persuasion as a managerial tool or as a form of power. However, within
this research, persuasion is considered as a form of power character-
 G. Marzano, N. Scott / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 247267 253

ized in terms of being a purposeful and influential way of communicat-

ing ideas that aims to make people act in a different way than they
would have acted without the influence of persuasion.
Persuasion can be exerted in different forms. Propaganda, advertis-
ing and rhetoric are forms of persuasion and reputation is a persua-
sion resource (Wrong 1979:33). Persuasion is considered to be a
form of power because it represents an instrument by which one sub-
ject aims to achieve an intended effect on somebody elses behavior
(Wrong 1979). Persuasion would not be considered as a form of
power in an ideal situation in which every actor in the system under
analysis had perfect knowledge of the problem domain (Sager
1994). The asymmetry in the distribution and availability of the infor-
mation is therefore a condition for the ability of actor A to use persua-
sion as an intervening variable in the process of decision making of
actor B (Nagel 1975).
Within the conceptualization of persuasion, one actor follows an-
other actors communication because they independently evaluate
and accept the content of the communication. From an opposite per-
spective, authority implies that it is the source of communication and
not the content of it that induces compliance (Wrong 1979). Authority
can therefore be defined in general terms as the institutional code
within which the use of power as medium is organized and legitimized.
Authority stands to power essentially as property, as an institution, does
to money (Parsons 1963:243). It has been observed that anyone who
is regularly obeyed is an authority (Easton 1958:182). Sources of
authority include prestige (Simmel and Wolff 1964) or perceived status
and personal attributes (Wrong 1979), and resources (Lenski 1966).
The definitions of five different sub-types of authority identified in
the literature are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Sub-types of Authority

Form of authority Definition

Coercive authority occurs where, for A to obtain Bs compliance by threatening him

with force, B must be convinced of both As capability and
willingness to use force against him (Casey 1984:67; Wrong
1979:41).
Induced authority characterizes relationships in which one party submits voluntarily
to the employer commands in return for economic rewards well
above sheer subsistence needs (Wrong 1979:45)
Legitimate authority the right to anothers compliance with directives that fall within the
scope of that authority, regardless of the others feelings (Ford
and Johnson 1998:18).
Competent authority authority can be ascribed to knowledge and to branches of
knowledge; a dictionary or a map may be called authoritative; and a
person may be called an authority on something that he knows
about (Watt 1982:45).
Personal authority compounded of intelligence, experience, moral worth, ability to
lead, past services, and so forth (Fayol 1949:21).
254 G. Marzano, N. Scott / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 247267

Study Methods
This paper examines the forms of power evident in destination
branding using a case study approach (Yin 1994). The GC branding
process was selected because this tourism destination is characterized
by powerful stakeholders who use their power to influence decision
making processes (Burchill, 2005). In the case, the decision making
process involves the board and management of the GCT, the organiza-
tion that is responsible for marketing the GC both within Australia and
overseas. It is a regional tourist organization and sits within a hierarchy
of local, regional, state and national tourism organizations that is
found in many western countries. The board membership is composed
of representatives from major regional tourism organizations as well as
from the state tourism office. Thus, the GC, Australia is a context typ-
ical of those in which stakeholders push for their own interests in order
to achieve their own ends. Semi-structured interviews were used to
collect data from the stakeholders (both involved and excluded) in
the branding process. Purposive sampling and snowball sampling were
used in combination to select interviewees who were familiar with the
branding process for participation in the study. Once the informed
respondent was identified, purposive sampling was followed by
snowball sampling. Snowball sampling is described as a procedure
underpinned by concepts borrowed from social network analysis
(Neuman 2006). In particular, the definition of destination branding
as a multi-stakeholder decision making process and the aim of this
study to understand the effect of stakeholder power on the process
of destination branding, justifies the use of a sampling technique based
on the assumption that each of the respondents is not only important
as an individual but also as part of a set of relationships (Galaskiewicz
and Wasserman 1993). Snowball sampling allows the researcher to gen-
erate a set of potential interviewees, drawing on the knowledge and the
experience that each respondent has about the branding process.
Through snowballing, 42 interviewees were identified and 32 individu-
als participated in this study. The interviewees ranged from the CEO of
Tourism Queensland (TQ), to the CEO of GCT to the top managers of
the major hotel and theme parks at the GC. For reasons of privacy, all
names have been changed.
This research was conducted using semi-structured interviews and
adopting an iterative process involving continual reflection on respon-
dents answers, the information gathered from previous interviews
and the literature about power and collaboration that underpins
the study. Informants differed in terms of their characteristics, their
experience and knowledge of the VeryGC destination branding pro-
cess. The interviews were therefore conducted making continual
choices about what to ask and how, and which answers to follow up
and which not to (Kvale 1996). Nonetheless, the need to customise
what to ask to each interviewee was balanced by the use of specific
types of interview questions. Care was also required in dealing with
questions regarding power and this word was replaced by paraphrases
such as the ability of getting things done. As a result, interviewees
 G. Marzano, N. Scott / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 247267 255

did not refuse to answer any questions and the interviews proceeded
smoothly. Interviews took around 30 minutes on average. At the end
of each interview, the researcher went through the interviews notes
and tape recordings in order to have a preliminary understanding
of how to reduce data and what themes were emerging from the
interviews. The data reduction process was then completed after the
interview transcripts were available. Interview data has been used
along with information from secondary sources such as local newspa-
pers and government reports. The display of data in a data grid
(Ayres, Kavanaugh and Knafl 2003) proved to be a useful method
to provide the researcher with the ability of systematically identifying
the themes emerging from the data and understanding the interrela-
tionships amongst them.

About Gold Coast Tourism

GCT is a membership based not-for-profit organization established
in 1975 and governance of GCT (and other RTOs in Queensland) is
through a Board of Directors which includes representatives of the
Gold Coast City Council (GCCC), TQ and elected stakeholders from
the membership base including the manager of the Gold Coast Airport
(GCA). Operational control of GCT is provided by a CEO. Funding is
gained through state and local government authorities plus member-
ships with the majority provided by GCCC and TQ and for which in re-
turn, these organizations are entitled to nominate a Director to the
Board. The GCCC, TQ and some 420 members also provide funds
for cooperative marketing initiatives such as the promotion of the
brand to grow its market share both domestically and internationally.
GCCC for example in 2007 committed USD 8.5 million a year for five
years to GCT to fund the brand.

The VeryGC Brand

The new brand was launched in November 2004 by the GCT. The
aim of this new campaign was to address an increasing sense of dissat-
isfaction amongst stakeholders due to a market which comprised stag-
nant visitor numbers and was suffering a decline in the actual spend
per visitor (Faulkner 2002). The image of the GC, as portrayed by
the previous destination brand, The Coast with the Most, launched
in 2000 and targeting primarily families with school and pre-school
aged children living in Sydney and Melbourne, was considered unable
to help in the rejuvenating process of the destination. The Very GC
brand was created to mark a new, fresh direction for the destination.
The brand targeted higher income tourists including couples and fam-
ilies living in New South Wales and Victoria. The decision making pro-
cess for the development of the VeryGC brand began around 2001 or
2002 with general dissatisfaction with the results of the previous cam-
paign. The development of this new brand became one of the key tasks
256 G. Marzano, N. Scott / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 247267

of the GCT Board and the new CEO of GCT appointed in late 2003.
This case focuses primarily on the period 20032004.

Results
Evidence reveals that power was exerted in the VeryGC destination
branding process in two forms: persuasion and authority. No evidence
of violence emerged from the interview process, although one respon-
dent was aware of an episode of violence in the branding process of an-
other Queensland destination. Also no explicit mention of
manipulation emerged either.
Persuasion emerged as one the forms of power used in the VeryGC
destination branding process. Respondent VGC10, a GCCC councilor,
suggested that the ideas that underpinned the VeryGC destination
branding campaign had to be sold to the GCCC:
The GCT Board was very mindful of funding, and to keep Council on
side, they really needed to sell it to Council, which they did and they
did it well.
Further evidence from the interviews allowed the identification of
the members of the GCT Board of Directors who used persuasion. In
particular, the GCA with Geoffrey Raymond, and Simon Doyle, the
two core players at the beginning of the VeryGC process, used persua-
sion to put forward their interests.
The Managing Director of GCA, Geoffrey Raymond, was elected as
Chairman of the Board of GCT. From that position he was able to
exert power on the branding process. In particular, persuasion
emerged as one of the forms of power used by the GCA to advance
its interests. As Respondent VGC3 observed, the GCA was able to
persuade people in order to gain support for the action the airport
was taking on:
The GCA openly try to convince people that they were an interwoven
part of GCT and that the GCT should be utterly and totally supportive
of every action that was undertaken.
The persuasive strategy undertaken by the GCA in order to support
its marketing strategy was clear also within the same organization. In
fact, as Respondent VGC16 affirmed:
We [GCA], as a fairly large and fairly proactive player in the GC mar-
ket, need to ensure that were getting our priorities out as an
airport.
While persuasion was used by the GCA in a variety of different tour-
ism-related issues together with destination branding, Simon Doyle,
due to his managerial role, used his power to persuade with a different
focus. In fact, the CEO of GCT used persuasion with the aim of selling
the idea of the VeryGC brand to the GC stakeholders. As Respondent
VGC15 observed:
Simon Doyle spoke very convincingly and sounded very good. More-
over he was very big on his presentations and it all looked wonderful.
 G. Marzano, N. Scott / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 247267 257

The ability of Simon Doyle to convince people was also reported by

Respondent VGC14 who remarked on his ability to create empathy and
persuade different people in a variety of styles:
Simon Doyle was a very good speaker. And if there were five stake-
holders in this room, he would speak in five completely different fash-
ions to each stakeholder.
In conclusion, the data have revealed that persuasion was used as a
form of power in the VeryGC destination branding process. Persuasion
emerged in different ways such as GCTs use of arguments to maintain
good relations with the GCCC, the capacity of the GCA to convince the
local community of the benefits of the initiatives they were undertaking
including the VeryGC brand, and the personal talent of Simon Doyle
to use language and rhetoric to persuade people of the appropriate-
ness of his ideas about the VeryGC destination branding process.
The second form of power that emerged from the analysis is author-
ity. Authority is manifested in different sub-types such as competent
authority, legitimate authority, personal authority and induced author-
ity (Table 1). Competent authority is evident in Simon Doyles way of
conducting the destination branding process. Doyle was perceived as
the expert. He arrived at the GC after successfully leading the branding
of another country. Doyle was employed as CEO of GCT because of his
successful track record in managing destination branding processes.
On 19 November 2003, Asia Pulse reported:
The GCT is hoping some New Zealand tourism magic can rub off with
the appointment of Simon Doyle as its new Chief Executive. Mr Doyle
was Tourism New Zealands General Manager for marketing and will
take up his new job in January. He was behind one of the most success-
ful campaigns in world tourismthe 100% Pure New Zealand cam-
paignwhich helped the Kiwis buck the downturn in world travel.
Stakeholders widely acknowledged and recognized Simon Doyles
expertise. Table 2 provides a summary of stakeholders comments on
Simon Doyles competency in destination branding. TQ was also con-
sidered to have competent authority. In fact, Respondent VGC21 con-

Table 2. Competent Authority

Respondent Quote

VGC15 Simon Doyle had the 100% Pure campaign to back him up and
everybody thought he was the marketing guru.
VGC2 Simon Doyle was brought into that role because of his experience.
VGC7 He was quite heavily associated with the 100% Pure New Zealand
campaign, which was very successful and you know, gave us confidence
that we needed this marketing spark.
VGC14 GCT secures Simon Doyle as the CEO. The man who created that, and
hes now in our city and hes gonna change our world. Simon, feeling
bigger than Ben Hur, taller than Tin Man, creates VeryGC, because he
believed that thats right.
258 G. Marzano, N. Scott / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 247267

sidered that TQ was incorporated back into the process after the depar-
ture of Simon Doyle because of the expertise within the organization.
As well as competent authority, TQ emerged as holding legitimate
authority. In fact, under the functions, powers and duties that the Tour-
ism Queensland Act (1979) granted to the organization, TQ is charged
with the promotion and marketing, domestically and internationally,
of tourism and travel (Section 13). The legitimate authority that de-
rived from the Tourism Queensland Act gave TQ the right to sit on the
GCT Board.
Legitimate authority also characterized Simon Doyles role as CEO
and Geoffrey Raymonds role as Chairman of GCT. Geoffrey Raymond
derived his legitimacy from being elected Chairman of the GCT and
Simon Doyle derived his legitimacy from his contract with the GCT.
As reported by the Gold Coast Bulletin on 5 September 2003:
The GCT has elected three new Directors to add to its new Chairman
and Deputy Chairman. GCA Managing Director Geoffrey Raymond
was elected Chairman (Gold Coast Bulletin 2003).
It must be noted that nobody throughout the interview process ques-
tioned the legitimacy of Simon Doyle or any other stakeholder occupy-
ing their positions.
Personal authority is also in evident in the VeryGC branding process.
A group of stakeholders, who different respondents referred to as the
boys club, was considered as authoritative because of the amount of
experience, dedication and passion they had for tourism at the GC.
According to the acting CEO of GCT, Respondent VGC2, the boys
club had:
experience and dedication and passion to not only the GC but also
to tourism. They feel very strongly about it. [. . .] Theyre also pas-
sionate about tourism itself. Theyve all been in the industry ages.
And the experience and the wealth of information theyve got is
unbelievable.
Together with competent, legitimate and personal authority, in-
duced authority is also in evidence in the branding process. For in-
stance, TQ used its ability to finance the branding campaign as a
tool to try to exert power on the process. As Respondent VGC21 stated:
We use the dollar we do have, even though some people may not
think its enough or big. Its actually proven in the past to be pretty
instrumental.
From the same perspective, Respondent VGC10 confirmed that TQ
tried to use money to induce GCT to adopt its view on the branding of
the GC:
Was then TQ able to convince GCT through research or through
offering money? Well, actually offering to withdraw money if it didnt
turn.
The use of induced authority was, however, ineffective. In fact,
Respondent VGC21 observed that once the branding strategy was final-
ized, GCT asked TQ to finance the campaign:
 G. Marzano, N. Scott / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 247267 259

GCT went and launched the brand and then they said that were now
expecting x, y, z dollars from you for this to now go out and be run.
The response of TQ was negative. TQ had not been part of the
beginning of the process and was incorporated into it just after the
VeryGC brand was launched to the market. TQ refused to give cooper-
ative funds in order to put pressure on GCT with the objective of hav-
ing a voice in the branding process. Evidence of the lack of
effectiveness of induced authority is provided by Respondent VGC5,
who pointed out that TQ was not able to exert authority through coop-
erative funding during the initial stage of the branding process:
There was no cooperative funding at the beginning of the VeryGC
branding process. And that was the yardstick . . .that we used to try
and go back to basics and start with a different system. We now have
stakeholder engagement.
Induced authority was also the way both theme parks and five stars
hotel impacted on the process. The theme park companies emerged
as powerful stakeholders because of the size of the budget that they
had both for the development of infrastructure and for marketing pur-
poses. Respondent VGC9 made clear that the theme parks had the
financial resources that allowed them to renovate and to update their
product offer:
I refer to a powerful stakeholder who has an impact on the GC in gen-
eral or the GC industry, that key stakeholder would be someone like
Warner Village Theme Parks for example, who Ive referred to as a
key stakeholder who has impact, they have recently invested $50 mil-
lion in the GC industry through re-development of their product.
The money spent by theme parks in developing infrastructure was
accompanied by substantial marketing budgets that aimed to preserve
and enhance the image and the brand equity of the theme parks. As
Respondent VGC6 recalled:
Theme parks spend millions of dollars portraying their holiday expe-
rience or their attraction on the television screen and in their maga-
zine pages that Mr. and Mrs. Smith will buy and or view during their
average, during their every day.
From the interviews, the picture of a symbiotic relationship between
the GC and the theme parks emerged. Theme park success was de-
scribed as directly related to the success of the GC as a destination
and vice versa. As Respondent VGC19 recalled:
I certainly think that the theme parks and the success of the theme
parks obviously provide a very good barometer for tourism perfor-
mance in the GC, because theyre such a large tourism asset that
what they do is a good barometer for how successful tourism is in
the GC.
Money and, as a consequence, induced authority emerged as the re-
source available to five star hotels. Directly linked with the availability
of financial resources was the ability of five star hotels to market their
product. As Respondent VGC1 stated
260 G. Marzano, N. Scott / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 247267

An organisation like Conrad Jupiters, because with their turnover for

them to contribute a large amount of money out of gaming and
things like that, is not a lot of money, you know. Its peanuts in their
total commercial budget.
The following table provides an overview of the different forms of
power that GC stakeholders exerted within the branding process (see
Table 3).
This study provides evidence that four sub-types of authority were
exerted in the branding process: competent authority, personal
authority, legitimate authority and induced authority. Competent
authority was evident in the wealth of experience and knowledge
about destination branding processes that, for example, both Simon
Doyle and TQ brought, at different stages, into the process. The
stakeholders such as TQ derived their legitimate authority from
the law, and the CEO of GCT derived his legitimate authority from
the fact that he was appointed as CEO of the organization and was
legally carrying out his duties. Personal authority emerged in the
wealth of experience in tourism and the passion for the GC that
was attributed to some of the stakeholders involved in the branding
process. Finally, the use of induced authority was apparent in the
unsuccessful attempt of TQ to use money to prevent the GC
from launching the VeryGC brand as was in evidence at the
beginning.

Table 3. Powerful Stakeholders within the VeryGC Destination Branding Process

Respondent Quote Powerful stakeholders

VGC5 The airport, Warner Bros, Conrad Jupiter.  GCA

 Theme parks
 Five stars hotels
VGC7 The Board and the management of GCT. TQ still has a  RTO (GCT)
very strong voice in it. You know, a lot of the people  STO (TQ)
in TQ have interest in the GC. Plus, the theme parks.  Theme parks
VGC8 All the theme parks obviously; Dream World, Sea  Theme parks
World, Movie World, Wet N Wild, Conrad Casino  Five stars hotels
obviously; all the major five star hotels.
VGC12 GCT, Warner Village Theme Parks, Dream World.  RTO (GCT)
 Theme Parks
VGC22 The council has a big part to play, because of the  GCCC
infrastructure from our point of view. I think the  RTO (GCT)
local tourism body is a big player, because then there  Theme parks
has to be a central voice somewhere on that from their
perspective. The key players in terms of who make up
the majority of experiences down there, and I mean
obviously GC type of society, Dreamworlds, and the
theme parks. Theyre big players down there, plus they
have to be considered a big stakeholder.
 G. Marzano, N. Scott / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 247267 261

CONCLUSION
This study aims to understand which forms of stakeholder power
were in evidence in the Very GC destination branding process. Results
revealed that power has been exerted in the branding process in the
form of persuasion and authority. Even though there is a fine line be-
tween considering persuasion to be a managerial tool or a form of
power, results reveal that persuasion was used as a form of social power
in the process in order to influence stakeholders behavior without
involving them in the creation of a negotiated order around the Very-
GC brand. No clear evidence of devilish cunning and malign pur-
pose emerged from the data, and, as a consequence, this study
cannot claim to have found manipulation amongst the forms of power
used. Authority was the second form of power in evidence in the brand-
ing process. Authority is a summative concept that can be explained in
terms of five different sub-types described in Table 1. The results show
that competent authority, legitimate authority, personal authority and
induced authority were in evidence. While no specific evidence of the
discussion of authority as a form of power emerges in the tourism liter-
ature, results from this study can be linked to collaboration theory.
Campbell et al (1999) consider that authority is needed within a collab-
orative process in order to regulate the relationships amongst stake-
holders and prevent conflicts. However, the evidence from this case
study gives a different perspective on the reasons why authority was
used in the branding process. In fact, Simon Doyle and Geoffrey Ray-
mond used their authority to exclude stakeholders from the process,
generating conflicts and agitation instead of preventing them. That
the use of authority enhanced the ability of both the CEO and the
Chairman of GCT to push their interests forward is consistent with
the argument proposed by Hardy and Phillips (1998). In fact, by using
authority as a form of stakeholder power, both Simon Doyle and Geof-
frey Raymond shape a domain in order to fit their interests.
Furthermore, even though the GC has been previously described as a
tourist destination made up of a significant number of stakeholders
respondents in the VeryGC case were consistent in identifying just a
few of them as powerful. Considering that only six stakeholders ac-
counted for the whole reputation of power at the GC, the results of this
research can be interpreted in light of the debate between the elitist
(Hunter 1953; Mills 1956) and pluralist (Dahl 1961; Polsby 1960) views
of community power. The evidence indicates that tourism stakeholders
on the GC can be compared to a community where only very few hold
power.
The tourism literature has tried to characterise tourism destinations
in terms of diffusion of power, and author such as Jamal and Getz
(1995) and Reed (1997) examined whether a tourism destination is
a community where power is diffused or concentrated. The pluralist
view of the power structure of the tourism destination proposed by
Jamal and Getz (1995) is criticised by Reed (1997), who disagrees
with the idea of a tourism destination where resources and power
are spread throughout the community. In turn, Reed (1997)
262 G. Marzano, N. Scott / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 247267

emphasises that individual tourism operators play a pivotal role in

decision-making processes within the destination. The findings of this
study confirm Reeds (1997) proposition. In fact, out of more than
420 members of GCT, only the six stakeholders were considered pow-
erful (GCCC, GCT (Doyle), TQ (represented by a Director on the
GCT Board), Theme Parks, GCA (Represented by Raymond) and
the Five Star Hotels). In summary, the evidence from the VeryGC
case study allows the description of the GC industry as an elitist com-
munity in which power is in the hands of a rich minority, that, with
the exception of the boys club, is characterized by exerting power
through the availability of financial means, therefore supporting
Reeds (1997) argument. The use of power in its various forms is per-
vasive on the GC during the process.
As a consequence, findings from the case study challenge the idea
that, because of the fragmented nature of the tourism industry charac-
terised by a large number of small players (Shaw and Williams 2004), it
is unlikely that a single organisation would emerge to lead decision
making processes within a tourism destination, and did not support Ja-
mal and Getzs (1995) proposition about the relationships between
large numbers of stakeholders and diffusion of power within a tourism
destination. However, the lack of generalisability from case study re-
search does not allow this research to extend the debate between plu-
ralism and elitism in tourism communities beyond this case study.
Thus, this research has contributed to the literature of tourism, an
inventory of forms of power that other researchers can use as the basis
for a more detailed understanding of the complexity of power within a
multi-stakeholder destination process such as destination branding. It
therefore provides a basis for further examination of these forms of
power in other destinations their impact on different stages of decision
making processes and their relative importance which were beyond the
scope of this research.
While this study relates to tourism, the results of this research would
not be of a complete surprise to colleagues familiar with the literature
of urban planning (Healey 2003). As a result of this study, we would
agree with Church and Coles (2007) and evaluate the study of power
in tourism processes as being at an early stage of development. From
a broader perspective, the lack of use of conceptualization of power
found in other disciplines emphasizes the problems related to the
development of tourism planning where it may be seeking its own iden-
tity (Costa 2001) at the expense of conceptual clarity and greater links
with the broader literature. Thus, while Jafari and Ritchie (1981) con-
sider tourism an applied area of study which depends on and draws
from a wide range of basic disciplines, this paper suggests that the flow
of ideas between areas is not well integrated.
The results of this study may also help inform management of desti-
nations in structuring multi-stakeholder processes. In contrast to the
work of Prideaux and Cooper (2002) who consider that the destination
brand is a tangible and positive outcome of the achievement of unity
and collaboration amongst the stakeholders of a tourism destination,
this paper finds that power in various forms affects the collaborative
 G. Marzano, N. Scott / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 247267 263

process and encourages a positive outcome even though unity is not

achieved. Similarly, while Ritchie (1999) emphasizes only collaboration
in the value-driven process of visioning a national park, the individ-
ual interests embedded in a destination brand encourage the exercise
of power. Thus this research suggest that analyzing multi-stakeholder
decision making processes simply in terms of collaboration does not
fully explain how stakeholders address issues related to a problem do-
main in tourism.
While this study has contributed to theory by breaking down the
concept of power into its forms, it also suffered limitations in the
data collection design. While in fact, a single case study is acceptable
for conducting exploratory research, this research design limited the
ability of the researchers to compare results and to extend the gen-
eralisability of the results to other destinations. Furthermore this
study has identified the forms of stakeholder power on only one des-
tination branding process at the GC. However, the GC had under-
taken several destination branding processes throughout the years.
An historical analysis followed by a longitudinal study could have
provided a better idea of how, why and if forms of stakeholder power
exerted on the destination branding process have changed over
time.
This research has been able to provide destination branding theory
with an initial inventory of the forms of power in evidence in a destina-
tion branding process. Further research might test what has been
proposed in this study. However, before taking the results of this study
to the testing stage, it would be recommended to conduct further
exploratory research in order to better understand whether persuasion
and authority are in evidence in other destination branding processes
and whether manipulation and violence exist as part of those
processes.

REFERENCES
Ayres, L., K. Kavanaugh, and K. Knafl
2003 Within-Case and Across-Case Approaches to Qualitative Data Analysis.
Qualitative Health Research 13:871883.
Bachrach, P., and M. Baratz
1962 Two Faces of Power. The American Political Science Review 56:947952.
1970 Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Blalock, H.
1989 Power and Conflict: Toward a General Theory. Newbury Park: Sage
Publications.
Bierstedt, R.
1974 Power and Progress: Essays on Sociological Theory. New York: McGraw
Hill.
Booher, D., and J. Innes
2002 Network Power in Collaborative Planning. Journal of Planning Education
and Research 21:221236.
Burchill, G.
2005 Passion, Power & Prejudice: A Remarkable Untold Account of a Magic City
in the Making: Gold Coast, Australia. Moorooka: Boolarong Press.
264 G. Marzano, N. Scott / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 247267

Cai, L.
2002 Cooperative Branding for Rural Destinations. Annals of Tourism Research
29:720742.
Campbell, J., J. Dienemann, J. Kub, T. Wurmser, and E. Loy
1999 Collaboration as a Partnership. Violence against Women 5:11401157.
Casey, T.
1984 Power Within and Without the Organization: The Issues in Perspective.
Asian Journal of Public Administration 6:6187.
Church, A., and T. Coles
2007 Tourism, Power and Space. New York: Routledge.
Clegg, S.
1989 Frameworks of Power. London: Sage.
Clegg, S., and C. Hardy
1996 Conclusion: Representations. In Handbook of Organization, Studies, S.
Clegg, C. Hardy and W. R. Nord, eds., pp. 676708. London: Sage.
Coles, T., and N. Scherle
2007 Prosecuting Power: Tourism, Inter-Cultural Communications and the
Tactics of Empowerment. In Tourism, Power and Space, A. Church and T.
Coles, eds., pp. 217246. London: Routledge.
Costa, C.
2001 An Emerging Tourism Planning Paradigm? A Comparative Analysis
between Town and Tourism Planning. International Journal of Tourism
Research 3:425441.
Cotta, S.
1985 Why Violence? A Philosophical Interpretation. Gainesville: University of
Florida Presses.
Dahl, R.
1961 Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Dann, G.
2002 The Tourist as a Metaphor of the Social World. New York: CABI
Publishing.
Dawson, S.
1996 Analysing Organisations. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Easton, D.
1958 The Perception of Authority and Political Change. In Authority, C. J.
Friedrich, ed., pp. 170196. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Etzioni, A.
1968 The Active Society: A Theory of Societal and Political Processes. London:
Collier.
Faulkner, B.
2002 Our Gold Coast: The Preferred Future. Gold Coast: CRC for Sustainable
Tourism Pty Ltd.
Fayol, H.
1949 General and Industrial Management. London: Pitman.
Few, R.
2002 Researching Actor Power: Analyzing Mechanisms of Interaction in
Negotiations over Space. Area 34:2938.
Foley, A., and J. Fahy
2004 Incongruity between Expression and Experience: The Role of Imagery in
Supporting the Positioning of a Tourism Destination Brand. Journal of Brand
Management 11:209217.
Ford, R., and C. Johnson
1998 The Perception of Power: Dependence and Legitimacy in Conflict. Social
Psychology Quarterly 61:1632.
Foucault, M.
1980 Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and other Writings, 19721977.
Brighton: Harvester Press.
Galaskiewicz, J., and S. Wasserman
1993 Social Network Analysis: Concepts, Methodology, and Directions for the
1990s. Sociological Methods and Research 22:322.
 G. Marzano, N. Scott / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 247267 265

Gaventa, J.
1980 Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian
Valley. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hall, C.
1994 Tourism and Politics: Policy, Power and Place. New York: Wiley.
2003 Politics and Place: An Analysis of Power in Tourism Communities. In
Tourism in Destination Communities, S. Singh, D. Timothy and R. Dowling,
eds., pp. 99113. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.
Hall, C., and J. Jenkins
1995 Tourism and Public Policy. London: Routledge.
Hankinson, G.
2004 Relational Network Brands: Towards a Conceptual Model of Place Brands.
Journal of Vacation Marketing 10:109121.
Hardy, C., and N. Phillips
1998 Strategies of Engagement: Lessons from the Critical Examination of
Collaboration and Conflict in an Interorganizational Domain. Organization
Science 9:217230.
Healey, P.
2003 Collaborative Planning in Perspective. Planning Theory 2:101123.
Hollinshead, K.
1999 Surveillance of the Worlds of Tourism: Foucault and the Eye-of-Power.
Tourism Management 20:723.
Hunter, F.
1953 Community Power Structure: A Study of Decision Makers. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press.
Jafari, J., and B. Ritchie
1981 Toward a Framework for Tourism Education: Problems and Prospects.
Annals of Tourism Research 8:1334.
Jamal, T., and D. Getz
1995 Collaboration Theory and Community Tourism Planning. Annals of
Tourism Research 22:186204.
Konecnik, M., and W. Gartner
2007 Customer-Based Brand Equity for a Destination. Annals of Tourism
Research 34:400421.
Kvale, S.
1996 Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thou-
sand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Leisen, B.
2001 Image Segmentation: The Case of a Tourism Destination. The Journal of
Services Marketing 15:4966.
Lenski, G.
1966 Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Low, G., and R. Fullerton
1994 Brands, Brand Management, and the Brand Manager System: A Critical-
Historical Evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research 31:173190.
Lukes, S.
1974 Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.
Millar, C., and D. Aiken
1995 Conflict Resolution in Aquaculture: A Matter of Trust. In Coldwater
Aquaculture in Atlantic Canada, A. Boghen, ed., pp. 617645. Moncton:
Canadian Institute for Research on Regional Development.
Mills, C.
1956 The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.
Morgan, N., and A. Pritchard
1999 Power and Politics at the Seaside: the Development of Devons Resorts in
the Twentieth Century. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.
Morgan, N., A. Pritchard, and R. Piggott
2002 New Zealand, 100% Pure. The Creation of a Powerful Niche Destination
Brand. Journal of Brand Management 9:335354.
266 G. Marzano, N. Scott / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 247267

2003 Destination Branding and the Role of Stakeholders: the Case of New
Zealand. Journal of Vacation Marketing 9:285299.
Nagel, J.
1975 The Descriptive Analysis of Power. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Neuman, W.
2006 Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.
Boston: Pearson Allyn and Bacon.
Parsons, T.
1963 On the Concept of Political Power. Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society 107:232262.
Pike, S.
2004 Destination Marketing Organizations. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Polsby, N.
1960 How to Study Community Power: The Pluralist Alternative. The Journal of
Politics 22:474484.
Prideaux, B., and C. Cooper
2002 Marketing and Destination Growth: A Symbiotic Relationship or Simple
Coincidence? Journal of Vacation Marketing 9:3548.
Prus, R.
1999 Beyond the Power Mystique: Power as Intersubjective Accomplishment.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Ramrez, R.
2001 Understanding the Approaches for Accommodating Multiple Stakehold-
ers Interests. International Journal in Agricultural Resources, Governance
and Ecology 1:264285.
Reed, M.
1997 Power Relations and Community-Based Tourism Planning. Annals of
Tourism Research 24:566591.
Ritchie, B.
1999 Crafting a Value-Driven Vision for a National Tourism Treasure. Tourism
Management 20:273282.
Ryan, C., and A. Zahra
2004 The Political Challenge: The Case of New Zealands Tourism Organiza-
tions. In Destination Branding: Creating the Unique Destination Proposition,
N. Morgan, A. Pritchard and R. Pride, eds., pp. 79110. Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Sager, T.
1994 Communicative Planning Theory. Aldershot: Avebury.
Sautter, E., and B. Leisen
1999 Managing Stakeholders. A Tourism Planning Model. Annals of Tourism
Research 26:312328.
Shaw, G., and A. Williams
2004 Tourism and Tourism Spaces. London: Sage.
Simmel, G., and K. Wolff
1964 The Sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: Free Press.
Tribe, J.
2006 The Truth about Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 33:360381.
von Friedrichs Grangsjo, Y.
2001 Destination Networking: Co-opetition in a Ski ResortNordiska Foretagsek-
onomiska Amneskonferensen. Uppsala.
Watt, E.
1982 Authority. London: Croom Helm.
West, P.
1994 Natural Resources and the Persistence of Rural Poverty in America: A
Weberian Perspective on the Role of Power, Domination, and Natural
Resource Bureaucracy. Society and Natural Resources 7:415427.
Wood, D., and B. Gray
1991 Toward a Comprehensive Theory of Collaboration. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science 27:139162.
 G. Marzano, N. Scott / Annals of Tourism Research 36 (2009) 247267 267

Wrong, D.
1979 Power, its Forms, Bases, and Uses. New York: Harper and Row.
Yin, R.
1994 Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Submitted 27 November 2007. Resubmitted 19 June 2008. Resubmitted 30 November 2008.

Final Version 12 January 2009. Accepted 12 January 2009. Refereed anonymously.
Coordinating Editor: Bill Gartner

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com