Journal of Brand Management (2008) 15, 177–189; doi:10.1057/palgrave.bm.

2550114; published online 10

August 2007

Tourism destination brand identity: The case of Slovenia

Maja Konecnik1 and Frank Go2

Correspondence: Maja Konecnik, Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva ploscad 17, SI-1000
Ljubljana, Slovenia. Tel: +386 1 5892522; Fax: +386 1 5892698; E-mail: maja.konecnik@ef.uni-lj.si

1
is Assistant Professor in the Marketing Department of the Faculty of Economics at the University of Ljubljana
(Slovenia). Her research interest lies in the area of tourism marketing, especially destination branding.

2
is Professor of Tourism at the Erasmus University at Rotterdam (the Netherlands). His research interests include
information and communication technology and tourism, networks, community, globalisation and branding.

Received 24 May 2007; Revised 24 May 2007; Published online 10 August 2007.

Topof page
Abstract

This paper explores the concept of tourism destination brand identity from
the supply-side perspective, in contrast to those studies that have focused
on the demand-driven, tourists' perceived tourism destination brand image.
Both researchers and practitioners have concluded that an analysis of the
branding concept from both the identity and perceived-image perspective is
essential and should be intertwined (connected with each other in many ways),
where appropriate. This study, however, argues that investigations of
tourism destination branding have primarily been conducted from a
perceived-image perspective. Therefore, the dearth (lack) of studies offering
an insight into the supply-side perspective may lead to an unbalanced view,
misunderstandings and oversights concerning the possibilities and
limitations of tourism destination branding. It introduces a theoretical
framework designed to analyse tourism destination identity, particularly for
the case study of Slovenia.

Keywords:

brand identity, brand concept, Slovenia, tourism destination branding, perception

Topof page
INTRODUCTION

Unlike the many scientific contributions covering the theme of product brands (and
rarely service and corporate brands), the research line of tourism destination brands
is merely in its infancy (immaturity) .1, 2 Despite earlier scepticism about transferring
the brand concept to the tourism destination context,3 that concept has definitely
attracted the interest of tourism destination researchers and practitioners of
late.4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 Although destination branding appears to be one of the newest
research areas,9, 10 the topic has been partly covered under the alternative label of
destination image studies,11 which has been a subject of investigation for more than
30 years.12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 Ritchie and Ritchie,18 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 branded, considerable care should be taken in
the transfer of branding principles to a tourism destination context. Because its
application without sensitive inclusion (content) and consideration of the significance
of public space may result in a commercial orientation, which runs the risk of spoiling
the identity characteristics such as social relationships, history and geography and by
extension may destroy an area's sense of place. In turn, within a global context
place identity can contribute importantly, to the creation and sustenance of a
distinctive competitive edge. Raising awareness of the historical nature of the
concept of culture in relation to the ‘extraordinary’,19 that 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 theoretical framework20 and be jointly supported by its
stakeholders.

The vast majority of tourism destination studies to date have addressed and
examined the brand concept primarily from a demand-side perspective. This has
resulted in numerous studies that examine tourism destinations from a consumer-
perceived-image approach.21,22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 For instance, the Anholt Nation Brands
Index is a case in point. It is the first analytical ranking of the world's destination
brands, and purports to represent the sum of people's perception of destinations
across six areas of national competences, including tourism, and represent various
perspectives on destination brand evaluation.27 In contrast, a supply-side,
owner/managerial perspective on tourism destination branding that attracted interest
only some years ago28 is at the core of the present study. Our approach may appear
to be awkward in light of the conclusion of many an investigator, namely that the
branding concept should be analysed from both the demand and supply
perspectives.29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 De Chernatony34 even goes on to say, that modern
brand analysis should treat both the brand identity concept and brand image concept
as intrinsically intertwined.

There are several justifications that render a supply-side research perspective on

destination brand identity relevant. First, from a viewpoint of stakeholders ‘inclusive’
decision making it is becoming increasingly important to consider the potential
effects and reactions to a destination brand identity strategy on leading opinion
makers and, by extension, a host population at large. Secondly, in the era of
globalisation there is a re-newed interest in the theme of identity, not in the least as
an alternative viewpoint to the one-sided, demand-driven perspective on a tourism
destination brand's image. Thirdly, as a consequence of blurring of disciplinary
boundaries, including the social-, cultural-, historical- and natural sciences, there is a
rising demand for theoretical perspectives on the subject of place identity and a
dearth of such knowledge, particularly among in the smaller nations. A case in point
is Slovenia, the context of our study, which joined the European Union (EU) in May
2004. With the expansion of the EU, both the Union and its individual member states
need to define their identity. Slovenia, one of the EU's smallest members, presently
‘struggling’ with the dual challenge of maintaining a sense of place, grounded in
national identity, and the legitimate concerns raised about foreign influences that
may irrevocably erode its cultural heritage is examined in this study. Particularly, the
present study applies a theoretical framework to examine the concept of tourism
destination's identity and to apply the study's findings to respond to the issue how
Slovenia might develop its tourism destination brand identity so as to find a balance
between the forces of continuity and change.

Topof page
BRAND IDENTITY

Recently, much attention has been devoted in the business and management
literature to the concept of brand identity.35, 36, 37 and 38 Although various authors have
been unable to accept a common definition they do share a common opinion, namely
that brand identity development is a theoretical concept best understood
from the supply-side perspective. Kapferer 39 (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: ‘before knowing
how we are perceived, we must know who we are’. According to his
explanation, the tourist destination, 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 experiences; managed by different
stakeholders (tourism industry sector, public sector, government, destination
management organisation, locals) with a variety of ownership forms40 and often
without an appropriate hierarchy with a set of rules for stakeholders to adhere to.
Within such context, a brand identity can serve as a network picture, which
draws, in turn on historical, national and cultural relationships41 to develop
a common view, which becomes the basis for joint action for/or against
change. In that sense, the supply-centric perspective of brand identity is significant
and, among others, recognised by the International Corporate Identity
Group,42 within the meaning of corporate identity proposed by Ind.43

The role of identity as a supply-side concept involving the decision-making powers of

business owners and tourism managers is underpinned by previous
definitions.44, 45 and 46Further, some definitions47 identify the role of identity as having
a dual purpose in analysing brands from the inside on the one hand, and on the
other to subsequently calculate the brand equity that involves the accumulated sum
of the value consumers attach to particular brands, as well as their confidence in and
loyalty to a brand.48

Brand identity clearly specifies what the brand aspires to stand for and has
multiple roles. First, it is a set of associations that the brand strategist seeks to
create and maintain. Secondly, it represents a vision of how a particular brand
should be perceived by its target audience.49 Thirdly, upon its projection the brand
identity should help establish a relationship between a particular brand and its
clientele by generating a value proposition potentially either involving benefits or
providing credibility, which endorses the brand in question.

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 central components: physique, personality, culture, relationship,
reflection or image and self-image. Later, de Chernatony's model51 adapted
Kapferer's brand identity prism. The former conceptualises brand identity in terms of
its vision and culture, which, in turn, drive its desired positioning, personality and
subsequent relationships, all of which are later presented to reflect the stakeholders'
actual and aspirational self-images. In our opinion, Aaker and
Joachimsthaler's52 brand leadership model is so far the most salient (most important)
one in the literature for three reasons. 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 provide guidelines
enabling decision makers to examine issues utilising a three-phased structure: a pre-
analysis 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 managers 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 corporate identity consistently, efficiently and effectively. Thirdly, the model
is pragmatic (practical/realistic) because it recognises 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
significant influence on the destination's brand strategy. In practical terms, it implies
that a destination brand identity strategy should not promise what a
destination cannot or will not deliver.53

Topof page
TOURISM DESTINATION BRAND IDENTITY FRAMEWORK

In contrast to their marketing and management colleagues, a survey of the literature

shows that social scientists who research tourism have somewhat neglected the
concept of brand identity. The latter have placed their focus on investigating the
tourism destination from a perceived-image perspective.54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59 While these
studies have helped by shedding light on our understanding of the tourism
destination from a tourist-centric perspective, they have ‘left us somewhat in the
dark’ with regard to the effects of the supply-side perspective on brand identity
development, and its (indirect) impact particularly in the tourism destination
branding context. The latter is relevant, because the representation of one's culture
is an issue that evokes emotions in many societies and cultures.

This implies that the research that combines the marketing literature (focusing
mostly on the brand concept) with the tourism literature (focusing primarily on a
destination's image) is still in its infancy.60 The most comprehensive and recent work
to date in the literature that clearly highlights the difference between the image-
formation process and branding was published by Cai. This observation is significant
because image formation is not synonymous with branding, albeit (although)
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 the brand identity concept at the destination level, Cai's work
identified the main theoretical weaknesses of destination brand studies
driven by a customer-centric perspective. Also, Cai61 proposed a conceptual
model of destination branding that centres on building a destination identity through
spreading activation theory. The latter results from a logic of dynamic linkages that
results from the 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 formation goes well beyond the tourist-perceived
approach to encompass the destination image, ‘as projected by the destination
management organization’.62 Accordingly, it should be possible to assess the gap
between the perceived and the projected image.63 The assessment provides an
appropriate input for building the desired image that is consistent with the brand
identity and ‘organizes social, historical, cultural and natural elements into a stream
of impressions’.64 Within Cai's model of destination branding the marketing function's
role is emphasised, while the model does not go into detail on how to build and
develop a brand identity for a specific destination.
Therefore, we feel compelled to introduce a framework with roots in the theoretical
representation and interpretation of the brand identity concept, among others
featured in the brand leadership model.65 Its fundamental principles, which have
been, so far, been applied in commodity product or service brand settings, have
been converted somewhat for use in the present investigation. Due to the specific
characteristics of a tourism destination,66, 67 and 68 and categorisation of a destination
brand as a combination of products, services as well as organisations,69 we made a
critical evaluation of the model to understand whether or not the specific brand
identity elements might represent transferable properties and, if so, to what extent.
It should be noted that in the present study context, some elements of the
theoretical tourism destination brand identity framework were extended to suit the
unique nature of Slovenia, particularly its tourism destination characteristics.

The strategic brand analysis framework comprises three main parts: a tourist
analysis, competitor analysis and self-analysis. First, a destination must conduct a
systematic tourist analysis. It should focus on identifying relevant new trends and
developing a thorough understanding of tourists' motivation for travel.70, 71 Besides
providing a general orientation of the world tourist market, this exercise should
involve marketing research, in particular an evaluation of appropriate destination
target markets and target groups. Secondly, a destination should also carry out a
competitor analysis. A destination needs insights into the competitors' advantages
and disadvantages in order to improve its own competitiveness. For example, by
capitalising on perceived niche market opportunities that rival destinations have so
far failed to respond to. Last but not the least, a destination should aim to identify its
true position in the market through the systematic preparation of a critical self-
analysis. Placed within a value chain perspective, this exercise should result in a
brand equity report and also give destination managers appropriate insights in the
interests and wishes of different stakeholders at the destination level72, 73 and the
significance of managing the destination through a cooperative approach as opposed
to a single competition-oriented approach.74

The tourism destination brand identity system represents the process of developing a
destination brand identity, which incorporates relevant local cultural characteristics.
As Aaker and Joachimsthaler75 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 these 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
as a product, the brand as a symbol, the brand as an organisation 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 benefits76 in a destination brand's identity.

In a tourism destination's brand identity development, special consideration should

be given to investigating the specific brand organisation characteristics. In particular,
the ‘insiders’, jointly represent the destination culture77, 78 as distinct from the
outsiders: tourists. Culture is, however, produced by individual residents, especially
small-scale artisans and artists, who offer their crafts for sale to tourists.79 Matching
the scale of these disparate forces—the quest for cultural continuity and the change
introduced by tourism—in a manner that leads to economic prosperity based on a
sustainable growth model represents a formidable challenge. Inherent in such
challenge is the role of strengthening a destination's identity rather than erasing
it.80, 81 This calls for the preservation and presentation of the surviving monuments,
relics and memories and place associations, to maintain ‘places’ of social meaning as
opposed the emergence of the idea of ‘nonplace’ that result when a community
surrenders to being driven solely by commercial interests, a characteristic of super
modernity.82

The system for implementing the tourism destination's brand identity should initially
be oriented to the brand identity's elaboration and position; thereafter to its
marketing strategy. The tracking of the brand-building programme, is the final
implementation step, with a ‘circular’ connection to the first-process phase of
strategic brand analysis, in particular measuring brand equity.83

Although the above-proposed framework for a tourism destination brand identity

building is treated as an analytical tool geared to the intervention needs of private
sector destination managers and marketers, we hasten to emphasise the important
role played by the public sector, within the strategic process. Almost without
exception the ‘arena’ for destination brand identity building is usually driven by
political interests, but at the same time the brand content should satisfy a broad
range of stakeholders. Typically, both public sector and private sector serve as
sources that contribute funding on which the budget for brand building depends.
Therefore, it is essential for purposes of effectiveness that negotiations within a
group should be based on a decision support system making. While not, as of yet,
widely recognised, some destination managers have taken steps towards a similar
destination brand-building approach.84

Topof page
SLOVENIA AS A TOURISM DESTINATION

The Republic of Slovenia was established in 1991 and lies in the heart of Europe,
where the Alps face the Pannonian plains and the Mediterranean meets the
mysterious Karst. Its geographical area in Central Europe encompassing just 20,256 
km2 makes it one of the smallest countries in the world. Although small in surface
area, Slovenia's regions feature a great variety of landscapes, including mountains,
lakes, coast and Karst. Such natural conditions offer ideal opportunities for the
tourism industry, which is regarded as an important and one of the most promising
sectors of the Slovenian economy. In 2003, Slovenia recorded around 1.4 million
international and 0.9 domestic tourists.85

Although Slovenia became an independent country only in 1991, its history and
culture date back many centuries. Throughout its history, Slovenia has nearly always
formed part of larger countries or even great empires. The first Slovenian state,
named Carantania, was formed in the 7th century and several decades later became
part of the Frankish empire. From the 14th century to 1918 all Slovenian regions fell
under the rule of the Habsburgs, later the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. In 1918, the
Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians was established, which lasted till 1945
when the SFR Yugoslavia was established. SFR Yugoslavia was a multinational entity
and Slovenia was only one of its republics with its own culture and language. Finally,
in 1991 Slovenia declared its independence.86

Several researchers87, 88 support the authors' view that Slovenia should apply a
systematic approach to developing its brand identity to enhance the nation's brand
value89 and contribute towards building a modern and strong national economy.
Hitherto no consensus has been reached on what constitutes Slovenia's brand
identity despite considerable interest in the concept of brand development, especially
on the part of the Slovenian Tourist Board. As the concept of brand identity, that is,
its presence or absence, impacts on the marketing performance of the Slovenian
Tourist Board, it should be its priority to define it in a systematic manner.

Topof page
METHODOLOGY

Due to the nature of the research, a case study90 was seen as the most appropriate
methodology. Besides documentation and archival records, interviews represented
the most important information sources. The target group of our interviews was
individuals who have lived through Slovenia's history and at the same time have at
least some knowledge about previous branding strategies of the country Slovenia.
Besides tourism organisations (especially the Slovenian Tourist Board), there are
three other organisations responsible for its marketing in foreign markets.91 Our aim
was to collect the views of leading opinion makers who represent the key marketing
and tourism organisations of Slovenia. A semi-structured individual in-depth
interview92 was conveniently administered via e-mail to seven representatives of
Slovenian organisations during the period from January to March 2003. Four
representatives were responsible for Slovenia's marketing strategies as a tourism
destination, whereas three representatives were responsible for Slovenia's general
and economic marketing function in foreign markets. Although the number of seven
representatives is relatively small, this represents a convenient sample regarding the
criterion chosen for the sample selection.

In terms of content, the in-depth interview schedule consisted of four parts and
followed our theoretical framework. The first three parts incorporated the previously
discussed three-phased structure. In part one, respondents were asked to evaluate
previous strategic analyses of Slovenia. The second part investigated the former
perceptions of Slovenia's identity. Part three posed questions about the respondents'
perspectives on appropriate implementation strategies for brand Slovenia. The last
part of the interview concluded with respondents' sociodemographic details. Some
questions were slightly different for respondents who worked in tourism
organisations comparing to respondents working in nontourism organisations. The
answers of respondents varied from 526 to 1,710 words, while the average length of
responses was about 1,175 words.

Since the theme of destination branding was at the time an unfamiliar one in
Slovenia, and the Slovenian language lacked the appropriate technical brand-related
terms, it was decided that the questionnaire would be developed in English and
subsequently, translated into Slovenian. The translation process took time and ample
care on the part of one of the authors as she had to identify words in the Slovenian
language that were meaningful to respondents and simultaneously reflected the
meaning of relevant brand jargon. Consequently, in certain instances, explanations
had to be added. Although the questionnaire was offered in both language versions,
the respondents opted unanimously to answer in their native language. This is
perhaps not surprisingly, as all of the respondents had the Slovenian nationality.

The content analysis was conducted by the authors who were familiar with the
theoretical background of the investigated concept. The study results were
incorporated in the theoretical tourism destination brand identity framework, as
follows.
Topof page
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Strategic analysis

Competitor analysis

According to the respondents, Slovenia should more systematically investigate its

competitors and, drawing from this comparison, take further strategic actions. Its
biggest competitors are countries including Austria, Croatia, the Czech Republic and
Hungary. Each of these countries offers similar tourism products and attempts to
attract the same target tourist markets. The respondents all agreed that, among
rivals, Austria should be recognised as Slovenia's main competitive tourism
destination. Austria's main strengths are its superior quality level and excellent
destination-marketing capabilities, but higher tourist prices represent the main
weakness. Consequently, Slovenia stressed its value-for-money advantage over
destination Austria in its previous marketing strategies.

Tourist analysis

The respondents evaluated Slovenia's effort better in potential tourist analyses.

They, however, shared the opinion that it had already taken advantage of
information from secondary sources describing tourists' behaviour in Slovenia's
target markets. Germany, Italy, Austria and Croatia are recognised as the main
target markets. In the second place, we also have to target other European countries
(ie Great Britain, France) as well as potential tourists from other continents (the
USA, Japan). The majority of respondents, however, believed that, through proper
marketing strategies, Slovenia would be able to attract more tourists from all target
markets. Only one respondent announced his scepticism about targeting all foreign
markets and expressed it as follows: ‘Does it really make sense that we attempt to
target all foreign markets? Isn't it more reasonable, that we concentrate only on
some foreign markets?’. On the contrary, the respondents thought that Slovenia
should also investigate potential tourists' opinions, motivation and travel behaviour
to understand in depth their perceptions of Slovenia as a tourism destination and not
only their average travel behaviour, which can be collected from secondary tourism
research. The importance of primary tourism research perspective can be
represented by paraphrasing one of the respondents: ‘Yes, I believe that we know
generally, what tourists want, but we have no idea, what they are thinking about us
—Slovenia. And shouldn't we ultimately be primarily interested about how they
perceive us as a tourism destination?’. This perspective suggests, that it would be
worthwhile to gather primary tourism research sources.

Self-analysis

Both types of analyses should be combined and presented through a self-analysis of

Slovenia as a tourism destination. Slovenia as a tourism destination should be
analysed through the eyes of the beholder, that is, potential tourists and in
comparison to competitive destinations. Recent analyses suggest marketing
strategies in Slovenia's foreign markets perform unsatisfactorily.

Tourism destination brand identity system

Hitherto, the development of Slovenia as a tourism destination brand has been
viewed for the most part in graphic design and slogan-led marketing terms as
opposed to an approach that recognises a brand ‘as the summation of the way’
Slovenia operates, behaves and what it aspires to be and do as a tourism destination
and sovereign nation. This logo and slogan-led marketing orientation on a
destination brand can be perfectly explained by paraphrasing yet another
respondent. ‘For me, when I think about the brand Slovenia, I always have in mind
only our logo and its slogan. I can hardly image some other perspectives on
Slovenia's brand. Our people need a logo and slogan to make sense of their national
culture’. In the absence of a brand identity, the study respondents defined Slovenia's
by its convergent boundaries in terms of geography, history and culture.93 Its core
brand identity might be represented by their following interpretation: ‘Slovenia offers
a mixed and safe tourism experience within a small geographical area which is,
however, big enough to allow its people's friendliness and their way of life to be
shared from the sunny Alps to the green Mediterranean’.

The main identity characteristics should be presented as a combination of Slovenia's

attributes, which will be further evaluated from the potential tourist's point of view.
Therefore, a range of Slovenia's attributes should be combined to form Slovenia's
heterogeneous offer (nature, mountains and lakes, beaches, towns and cities, health
resorts, opportunities for recreation activities and adventures) with its ‘active’
component (Slovenians, historical and cultural attractions, nightlife and
entertainment). All respondents, however, stressed the extremely important role of
Slovenian people, who should ‘live the brand’94 and in this way allow tourists not only
to admire Slovenia's natural attractions but also to experience Slovenian local culture
and history. This mixture of Romanic, Germanic and Slavonic cultures should be used
to strengthen the authenticity of entrepreneurial offerings to foreign tourists. More
than half of the representatives (four out of seven) believe that safety should be
featured as an intrinsic quality cue of the Slovenian tourism brand.

Visual symbols

Besides developing Slovenia's tourism destination brand identity, we gathered

representative opinions on whether and to what extent, recent visual symbols of
Slovenia as a tourism destination (logo/symbol, slogan) reflect its identity. With one
exception, the respondents shared the opinion that Slovenia's logo (a bundle of
flowers) reflects the basic characteristics the country seeks to stress. The
respondents, however, believed its recognition could be improved through a more
consistent and systematic usage. In contrast, respondents expressed diverse
opinions about the appropriateness of Slovenia's slogan. Some agreed that
Slovenia's slogan ‘The green piece of Europe’ is appropriate for Slovenia's marketing
in foreign markets and for future use. Yet others thought that the slogan is totally
inappropriate and therefore should be changed. The same group of respondents also
believed that Slovenia's first slogan ‘On the sunny side of the Alps’ better reflected
the country's identity. In 2004, however, upon Slovenia becoming a member country
of the EU a new slogan ‘Invigorates’ was introduced. Perhaps the latter development
adds to the notion, that developing a brand identity for Slovenia is primarily viewed
as a slogan-led marketing exercise.

Implementing the tourism destination's brand identity system

The last part of the qualitative research was oriented to the process of Slovenia's
brand implementation as a combination of the proper marketing tools and strategies
implemented in foreign markets. The respondents stated that all traditionally
recognised promotional tools (advertising, public relations, sales promotion, indirect
marketing) and tourism-specific tools (brochures) have an important role in
Slovenia's marketing strategies in foreign markets. These tools should, due to the
limited marketing budget, be optimally combined and developed with strategic aims
for different foreign markets. Although advertising was recognised as the most
important marketing tool in Slovenia's brand implementation, more than half the
respondents also stressed the importance of public relations and the internet. One
respondent argued matters in this way: ‘Many of our marketers think only about
advertising. Due to the limited marketing budget for promoting Slovenia on foreign
markets, we should optimally combine different marketing tools, especially public
relations, which are because of the characteristics of our brand a perfect tool’.

Contrary to the respondents' opinions, the authors consider the input of local
Slovenian residents a vital course of action. Their participation and assistance of
Slovenian residents is seen as a means to support Slovenia's tourism marketing
campaign. Particularly through the provision of (fine-grained) information and
hospitality, it can serve as an influencing force to raise the awareness and contribute
knowledge of Slovenia that can be applied to the process of destination brand
identity building. In this regard, there are at least two further actions that warrant
attention. First, Slovenians should understand the process of brand building as a
complex process and capability to detect structural coherence in both persons and
objects. Presently, stakeholders typically equate the brand Slovenia with its visual
identity, slogan and logo. Secondly, securing consensus among stakeholders is
essential so as to bring about a systematic approach towards the process of brand-
building implementation. The proposed framework and suggested tourism
destination brand identity for Slovenia can serve as a departure point.

Topof page
CONCLUSIONS

In 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 paper, which provides theoretical
underpinning for the tourism destination brand concept from the owner's
perspective. One justification for the paper is that it complements previous
investigations that approached tourism destination branding from a perceived image
perspective. We underscore in our paper, the potential danger of prescriptions, which
result from a single-minded tourist-centric perspective. The identity-based approach
offers a counter perspective to tourist-driven marketing, in that it affords ‘insiders’
the opportunity to project their image of Slovenia's essence and within such context
experience identity, that is, to connect in one way or another with the emotional
feelings of the host.
Another justification for studying the brand identity concept is that it enabled us to
test Aaker and Joachimsthaler's brand leadership model in a destination context. This
model provided us with a base orientation for investigating the tourism destination
brand—Slovenia.

Although the Slovenian Tourist Board has undertaken many valuable actions in the
last two years aimed at Slovenia's destination brand building, a clearly specified
identity for Slovenia is yet to emerge. Therefore, we regard our study as a potential
contribution towards the systematic and comprehensive brand formulation and—
implementation. Particularly, relevant findings of our brand investigation on Slovenia
as a destination flow from the managerial perspective and, subsequent strategic-
analysis discussion. The latter opened up some possible and important ‘windows’ for
further investigations on Slovenia's brand. The last discussion in the process
concerned the identity development process, oriented to its implementation in
practice.

The study results are subject to several limitations and qualifications. Further
improvements are needed on the theoretical and practical level. First, our proposed
theoretical framework for a tourism destination identity should be further refined and
developed. Secondly, additional investigations are needed in the process of building
and developing Slovenia's identity as a tourism destination. Due to the lack of
information on the investigated topic, we invited Slovenia's representatives
responsible for its marketing function in foreign markets and asked them what
represents the essence of the brand Slovenia. In our research, the selected
representatives represent just one interest group of the tourism destination Slovenia.
Accordingly, the conducted qualitative research should be treated as exploratory.
The next step would be to invite more representatives to express their opinions and
especially to invite representatives from different areas that also constitute the
destination's stakeholders. This is, however, in our opinion a long-term process and
we thereby regard our suggestion as a first step in further investigations of
Slovenia's identity as a tourism destination.

Future research could replicate the study by surveying different interest groups of
the destination Slovenia. Not only the commonly accepted different tourism
destination interest groups (such as inhabitants, tourism industry representatives)
but also other destination groups (such as ethnologists) should be included in the
interview process.95By combining and comparing their responses, we would be able
to collect a comprehensive overview constituting Slovenia's identity as a tourism
destination in relation to other important perspectives on the country brand Slovenia.
It would be challenging to incorporate an even more comprehensive approach to its
development such as ethnography96 or some narrative analyses.97

Topof page
References

1. Cai, L. A. (2002) 'Cooperative branding for rural destination', Annals of

Tourism Research, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 720–742. | Article | ISI |
2. Morgan, N. and Pritchard, A. (2002) 'Contextualizing destination branding', in
Morgan, N., Pritchard, A. and Pride, R. (eds.) 'Destination Branding: Creating
the Unique Destination Proposition', Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 10–
41.
3. O'Shaughnessy, J. and O'Shaughnessy, N. J. (2000) 'Treating the nation as a
brand: Some neglected issues', Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 20, No. 1,
pp. 56–64. | Article |
4. Curtis, J. (2001) 'Branding a state: The evolution of Brand Oregon', Journal of
Vacation Marketing, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 75–81. | Article |
5. Anholt, S. (2002) 'Foreword', Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9, No. 4–5,
pp. 229–239. | Article |
6. Cai, ref. 1 above.
7. Morgan and Pritchard, ref. 2 above.
8. Olins, W. (2002) 'Branding the nation—The historical context', Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 9, No. 4–5, pp. 241–248. | Article |
9. Morgan and Pritchard, ref. 2 above.
10. Cai, ref. 1 above.
11. Ritchie, J. B. R. and Ritchie, R. J. B. (1998) 'The branding of tourism
destination: Past achievements and future trends', in Keller, P. (ed.)
'Destination Marketing—Scope and Limitations', Reports of 48th Congress,
AIEST, St-Gall, pp.89–116.
12. Hunt, J. D. (1975) 'Image as a factor in tourism development', Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 1–7. | Article |
13. Gartner, W. C. (1986) 'Temporal influences on image change', Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 635–644. | Article | ISI |
14. Gartner, W. C. (1993) 'Image formation process', in Uysal, M. and
Fesenmaier, D.R. (eds.) 'Communication and Channel Systems in Tourism
Marketing', The Haworth Press, New York, pp. 191–215.
15. Baloglu, S. and McCleary, K. W. (1999) 'A model of destination image
formation',Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 868–
897. | Article | ISI |
16. Konecnik, M. (2002) 'The image as a possible source of competitive
advantage of the destination—The case of Slovenia', Tourism Review, Vol. 57,
No. 1/2, pp. 6–12.
17. Gallarza, M. G., Gil, S. I. and Calderon, G. H. (2002) 'Destination image:
Towards a conceptual framework', Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29, No.
1, pp. 56–78. | Article | ISI |
18. Ritchie and Ritchie, ref. 11 above.
19. Smith, V. L. (1989) 'Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism',
University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
20. Ritchie and Ritchie, ref. 11 above.
21. Hunt, ref. 12 above.
22. Gartner, ref. 13 above.
23. Gartner, ref. 14 above.
24. Echtner, C. M. and Ritchie, J. R. B. (1993) 'The measurement of destination
image: An empirical assessment', Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 31, No. 4,
pp. 3–13.
25. Baloglu and McCleary, ref. 15 above.
26. Gallarza, Gil and Calderon, ref. 17 above.
27. Anholt, S. (2005) 'Anholt Nation Brands Index: How does the world see
America?'Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 296–
304. | Article | ISI |
28. Cai, ref. 1 above.
29. Aaker, D. A. (1991) 'Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a
Brand Name', The Free Press, New York.
30. Kapferer, J. -N. (1998) 'Strategic Brand Management', Kogan Page, London.
31. de Chernatony, L. (1999) 'Brand management through narrowing the gap
between brand identity and brand reputation', Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 15, No. 1–3, pp. 157–179.
32. de Chernatony, L. (2001) 'From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation',
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
33. de Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M. (2001) 'Creating Powerful Brands in
Consumer, Service and Industrial Markets', Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
34. de Chernatony, ref. 31 above.
35. Ind, N. (1997) 'The Corporate Brand', New York University Press, New York.
36. Kapferer, ref. 30 above.
37. de Chernatony, ref. 31 above.
38. Aaker, D. A. and Joachimsthaler, E. (2000) 'Brand Leadership', The Free
Press, New York.
39. Kapferer, ref. 30 above.
40. Konecnik, M. (2005) 'Customer-Based Brand Equity for Tourism Destination:
Conceptual Model and its Empirical Verification', PhD Thesis, University of
Ljubljana.
41. Olins, ref. 8 above.
42. van Riel, C. B. M. and Balmer, J. M. T. (1997) 'Corporate identity: The
concept, its measurement and management', European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 31, No. 5/6, pp. 340–355. | Article |
43. Ind, ref. 35 above.
44. Kapferer, ref. 30 above.
45. van Riel and Balmer, ref. 42 above.
46. Ind, ref. 34 above.
47. Aaker and Joachimsthaler, ref. 38 above.
48. Arnould, E., Price, L. and Zinkhan, G. (2002) 'Consumers', McGraw Hill/Irwin,
New York.
49. Aaker and Joachimsthaler, ref. 38 above.
50. Kapferer, ref. 30 above.
51. de Chernatony, ref. 31 above.
52. Aaker and Joachimsthaler, ref. 38 above.
53. Aaker and Joachimsthaler, ref. 38 above.
54. Hunt, ref. 12 above.
55. Gartner, W. C. (1989) 'Tourism image: Attribute measurement of state
tourism product using multidimensional scaling techniques', Journal of Travel
Research, Vol.28, No. 2, pp. 16–20. | Article |
56. Gartner, ref. 14 above.
57. Echtner and Ritchie, ref. 24 above.
58. Gallarza, Gil and Calderon, ref. 17 above.
59. Konecnik, ref. 16 above.
60. Cai, ref. 1 above.
61. Cai, ref. 1 above.
62. Govers, R. and Go, F. M. (2004) 'Cultural identities constructed, imagined and
experienced: A 3-gap tourism destination image model', Tourism
Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 165–182.
63. Govers and Go, ref. 62 above.
64. MacCannell, D. (1989) 'The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class',
Schocken Books, New York.
65. Aaker and Joachimsthaler, ref. 38 above.
66. Bieger, T. (2000) 'Management von Destinationen und Tourismus
Organisationen', Oldenbourg, Muenchen.
67. Ritchie, J. R. B. and Crouch, G. I. (2000) 'The competitive destination: A
sustainable perspective', Tourism Management, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 1–
7. | Article | ISI |
68. Buhalis, D. (2000) 'Marketing the competitive destination of the
future', Tourism Management, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 97–116. | Article | ISI |
69. Konecnik, ref. 40 above.
70. Fodness, D. (1994) 'Measuring tourist motivation', Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol.21, No. 3, pp. 555–581. | Article | ISI |
71. Middleton, V. T. C. and Clarke, J. (2001) 'Marketing in Travel and Tourism',
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
72. Bieger, ref. 66 above.
73. Buhalis, ref. 68 above.
74. Buhalis, D. and Cooper, C. (1998) 'Competition or co-operation: The needs of
small and medium sized tourism enterprises at a destination level', in Laws,
E., Faulkner, B. and Moscardo, G. (eds.) 'Embracing and Managing Change in
Tourism', Routledge, London, pp. 324–346.
75. Aaker and Joachimsthaler, ref. 38 above.
76. Keller, K. L. (1993) 'Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-
based brand equity', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57(January), pp. 1–
22. | Article | ISI |
77. Anholt, ref. 5 above.
78. Konecnik, M. (2004) 'Evaluating Slovenia's image as a tourism destination:
Self-analysis process toward building a destination brand', Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 307–316. | Article |
79. Clarke, A. (2003) 'The cultural tourism dynamics', available
atwww.nottingham.ac.uk/ttri/pdf/conference/alan clark.pdf.
80. van Rekom, J. and Go, F. M. (2003) 'Sustaining cultural identities in a
globalizing world', in papers presented at 'Global Frameworks and Local
Realities: Social and Cultural identities in making and consuming tourism'
Conference, University of Brighton, Eastbourne.
81. van Rekom, J. and Go, F. (2006) 'Being discovered: A blessing to local
identities?'Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 767–
784. | Article | ISI |
82. Augé, M. (2000) 'Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of
Supermodernity', Verso, London.
83. Aaker and Joachimsthaler, ref. 38 above.
84. Pride, R. (2002) 'Brand Wales: 'Natural revival'', in Morgan, N., Pritchard, A.
and Pride, R. (eds.) 'Destination Branding: Creating the Unique Destination
Proposition', Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 109–123.
85. Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (SORS). (2004) 'Statistical
Yearbook', Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (SORS), Ljubljana.
86. Konecnik, M. (2006) 'Slovenia: New challenges in enhancing the value of the
Tourism Destination Brand', in Hall, D., Smith, M. and Marciszewska, B. (eds.)
'Tourism in the New Europe: the Challenges and Opportunities of EU
Enlargement', CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp. 81–91.
87. Hall, D. (2002) 'Brand development, tourism and national identity: The re-
imaging of former Yugoslavia', Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9, No. 4/5,
pp. 323–334. | Article |
88. Olins, ref. 8 above.
89. Anholt, S. (2000) 'The nation as brand', Across the Board, Vol. 37, No. 10,
pp. 22–27.
90. Yin, R. K. (1994) 'Case Study Research: Design and Methods', Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks.
91. Serajnik Sraka, N. (1998) 'Kako komunicira drzava z mednarodnimi
javnostmi: Primer Slovenije', Teorija in praksa, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 686–701.
92. Aaker, D. A., Kumar, V. and Day, G. S. (2004) 'Marketing Research', John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
93. Simon, B., Kulla, C. and Zobel, M. (1995) 'On being more than just a part of
the whole: Regional identity and social distinctiveness', European Journal of
Social Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 325–340. | Article | ISI |
94. Konecnik, ref. 78 above.
95. Augé, ref. 82 above.
96. Meethan, K. (2001) 'Tourism in Global Society: Place, Culture, Consumption',
Palgrave, New York.
97. Boje, D. M. (2001) 'Narrative Methods for Organizational & Communication
Research', Sage Publication, London.