Network brand and branding: A co-opetitive approach to local and regional development

Abstract

Place branding debate is mostly based upon the assumption of a territorial competition that motivates a spreading interest for place branding and pushes cities and regions to build distinctive brands in order to position within competitors’ arena. However, this hegemonic assumption partially mirrors local and regional development policies, while increasing attention should be drawn to brand strategies crossing the borders of individual territorial units. This chapter explores network branding, which is defined as that process establishing a reputation, that is, an enduring perception of the network and its territorial partners and turning the network into an organizational identity. It is argued that network branding is based on co-opetitive rationale for economic development; coming from business studies, co-opetition refers to the benefits that organizations may receive from cooperating and competing with other organizations in value chains (including competitors) simultaneously. To what extent may place brand and branding give support to (and mirror) a territorial co-opetitive strategy? To what extent is network branding viable and sustainable in the framework of local and regional development policies? In an attempt to make an overview of key aspects and issues characterizing network branding, the chapter discusses the following points: (a) market-driven motivations according to which territorial competitive ethos drives cities and regions to seek collaboration in order to achieve a critical mass, cost-effectiveness, internationalization, and diversification; (b) political vision playing a role in shaping network brand strategies; network brands may, in fact, embody political ambitions and political discourse on development, as well as power games among the nodes (territorial units) of the network; (c) reputation building understood as image improvement, brand expansion, and rebranding in the space of the network, which adds brand layers to a complex brand architecture; (d) institutionalization of the branded network space into an accepted norm, an almost taken-for-granted entity, following the establishment of a platform for policy learning according to which an organizing and relational capacity is accumulated; and (e) risks and potentialpitfalls of network branding strategies, such as citizens’ sense of irritation for an artificial region; managerial and technical challenges in managing a network brand in turbulent environments characterized by uncertainty and resources scarcity.