Attack Brands, Star Brands And Slipstream Brands: Using A .
Global Review of Research in Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure Management (GRRTHLM)An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2311-3189)2016 Vol: 2 Issue: 1Attack Brands, Star Brands and Slipstream Brands: Using aBrand-Hierarchy Theory Framework for Analysis of DestinationMarketing in EnglandSteve Burns,Tourism, and Events and Food Studies,Faculty of Education, Health and Community,Liverpool John Moores University, UK.E-mail: s.d.burns@ljmu.ac.ukAbstractThe difficulty facing NTOs is that destination marketing at the national level can be far moremultidimensional than the marketing of consumer goods or other services. Additionally, thetask of destination marketing is convened within a political environment, and issues of whodecides the most appropriate brand choice and level of promotion can be a matter of nationalor regional politics. This paper presents a snapshot of the political scenario influencingdestination marketing in England, and summarizes the influence of the Labour government(1997-2010) on national destination marketing. The findings are that tourism marketingdisplayed a brand hierarchical arrangement, and within a brand architecture of destinationbrands saw such designations as attack brands, star brands and slipstream brands evidenced.The paper concludes that such an approach clearly has benefits, but may not represent thetotality of tourism offering across England, and thus may produce ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ inplaces being highlighted to an international audience. The recommendation is that furtherresearch into this area could investigate this phenomenon in more detail.Key Words: National Tourism Organization, destination marketing, brand hierarchy, attackbrands, national politicsJEL Classification: H7, M310, M380403www.globalbizresearch.org
Global Review of Research in Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure Management (GRRTHLM)An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2311-3189)2016 Vol: 2 Issue: 11. IntroductionTourism destinations are considered to be amalgams of tourism products and servicesprovided to tourists from different stakeholders within those places (Buhalis, 2000). One resultof this is that they are characterised by high fragmentation, a factor that can make them difficultto manage (Bregoli, 2013). Nevertheless, in an increasingly competitive marketplace, theability to create higher levels of awareness to potential visitors is critical to successfulmarketing campaigns. This paper considers the area of tourism destination marketing of whichinvolvement may occur both horizontally e.g. between different agencies which might haveresponsibilities for tourism at the same level of governance, and vertically e.g. betweendifferent levels of government (local, regional, national).The paper will particularly focus on the influence of government national policy ondestination marketing using a case study of England. Whilst there has been interest concerningthe relationship between public policy in England in areas such as tourism development regimes(Long, 2000), tourism partnership lifecycles (Caffyn, 2000), political influence in collaborativeregimes (Palmer, 2009), collaborative partnership governance (Thomas and Morpeth, 2009),this paper will explore the influence of central government policy upon destination marketing.The paper discusses the influence of central government policy on the structure of destinationmarketing in England, the analysis being undertaken by employing a brand hierarchy (Pike,2004) theoretical framework.2. Literature Review: Brand Hierarchies and Destination MarketingReflecting the global growth of places wishing to attract more visitors, tourists have anincreasing choice of available places to visit. Therefore, within crowded tourism marketsdifferentiation between tourist places has become increasingly important. As Morgan et al(2002) have argued, the battle for customers in today’s destination marketplace may not alwaysbe fought over price but over customers hearts and minds. What persuades tourists to visit oneplace over another may lie in an emotional connection they feel towards a destination. It iswithin this context that ‘branding’ and ‘positioning’ theory (Pike, 2005; Kotler et al, 2010) havebecome particularly important in the need to distinguish one tourist place from another. A‘brand’ is a feature, name, term, or symbol that may distinguish one seller's product from thoseof others (Kotler et al, 2010). A brand elicits emotions or feelings about a product, therefore astrategy promoting recognisable brands makes sense in wishing to create emotionalassociations with potential visitors to a country or other type of destination. In the tourismcontext, a place name may in effect become a destination’s brand, for example global citiessuch as London, Paris, New York and Rome. Brand associations have also been used to expandplace names for promotional purposes. For example, Taupo and Ruapehu in New Zealand werelabelled Lake Taupo and Mount Ruapehu by local regional tourism organisations to highlight404www.globalbizresearch.org
Global Review of Research in Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure Management (GRRTHLM)An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2311-3189)2016 Vol: 2 Issue: 1their type of natural resources. In other cases, a place’s name has been changed to increase itsappeal to travellers, such as in the case of Elston, which was changed to Surfers Paradise in the1930s (Pike, 2005). In Australia, Queensland’s macro regions have been labelled withdistinctive tourism names such as the Sunshine Coast, Coral Coast and Discovery Coast. InEngland the ‘Lake District’ is a geographical area which has become recognised as a ‘brand’(Visit England, 2010a). Situated in the North West of England the Lake District is a nationalpark and renowned for its forests, mountains and having twelve of the largest lakes in Englandlocated in the area. It is one of the UK’s most popular tourism destinations outside of Londonbecause of its significant appeal to both domestic and international tourists (BDP, 2010).2.1 Brand HierarchiesWhen considering the promotion of countries to overseas visitors, National TourismOrganizations (NTOs) are established to market countries and assist the needs of tourists.Before the growth of mass tourism, such organizations typically had small budgets and scarceresources. Today, with larger movements of people via air travel and greater connectivitythrough the Internet, heightened competition to attract visitors means that more aggressivemarket promotion is required. NTOs can vary considerably in size, structure, and funding, withorganizational arrangements being adapted to national circumstances (Lubbe, 2003).Nevertheless, it is often the case that NTOs require some form of public funds in order besustainable. Whilst they may be required to engage in a number of activities, their mostsignificant challenge is to co-ordinate promotion to overseas markets (Visit Britain, 2015).Therefore NTOs have to evaluate their market position in order to determine how best toleverage their attractions and their brand to secure the highest portion of tourist spend.In the commercial sector, a single company may have many ‘brands’ all operating underone common roof, Kotler et al (2010, p. 243) refer to this as ‘multi-branding’. For example,the drink manufacturer Anheuser-Busch InBev has over 200 brands of beer produced and soldthroughout the world including ‘global’ brands (argued that they are recognised around theworld) such as Budweiser, Corona and Stella Artois, and ‘international’ brands (argued asrecognised within regions or continents) such as Beck's, Hoegaarden and Leffe (AnheuserBusch InBev, 2015). The hotel group AccorHotels operates and franchises 3,700 hotels in 94countries and across 5 continents. The Accor portfolio includes a number of different productbrands aimed at different markets including Sofitel, Pullman, MGallery, Novotel, SuiteNovotel, Mercure, and Ibis (Accorhotels, 2015). This represents the AccorHotels offeringwhich ranges from budget and economy lodgings to more luxurious accommodation.Theory behind ‘umbrella’ branding (Iversen and Hem, 2008) is that it is possible to marketa ‘bundle of products’ using a company’s reputation, where an umbrella brand may serve as aguarantee of consistent quality among the brand partners. Brand architecture refers to thestructure of brands within a larger organizational or other arrangement and how brands are405www.globalbizresearch.org
Global Review of Research in Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure Management (GRRTHLM)An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2311-3189)2016 Vol: 2 Issue: 1related to, and differentiated from, one another. Just as corporate brands may play anoverarching or umbrella role by adding value through association, strong tourism ‘place’ brandscan play an important role within a destination brand architecture system by adding valuethrough their association with less well-known tourism brands (Morgan and Pritchard 2002;Iversen and Hem, 2008).Thus England’s history, the Royal family, William Shakespeare, London, Stonehenge,Buckingham Palace, The Beatles, Harrods, may be brands recognized across the world whichcould be used to entice visitors to England. Pike (2004) argues that in destination marketing,within a brand hierarchy there may exist up to six different levels of entity including countrybrands, state tourism brands, regional/macro regional brands, local community brands,individual tourism business brands. Jordan’s Tourism Strategy (2011-15) identified thedevelopment of a new tourism ‘brand strategy’ around 12 market segments that presented themost significant opportunities to encourage visitors to Jordan (Ministry of Tourism andAntiquities, 2011). The remainder of this paper will present a case study of how England ispromoted to overseas visitors using a destination brand hierarchy as the framework for theanalysis.3. MethodologyThe paper presents a snapshot of the political environment influencing destination marketingin England and was conducted during the period following the end of the Labour government(1997-2010). Therefore the paper summarises the influence of the Labour government onnational destination marketing and not the Conservative/Liberal Democratic government of2010-2015. The paper has been informed by a comprehensive web-based analysis of documentsand reports produced by relevant organisations involved during this period from within thetourism sphere at national, regional and local levels in England.4. The Case Study: Brand Architecture and Tourism Promotion in EnglandThe promotion of Britain to overseas visitors has a long history. Seen as a growth sector,tourism’s appeal is in being able to attract both overseas visitors and provide domestic tourismopportunities for British tourists who are unwilling or unable to travel overseas. This appealwas formalized in 1969 where the Development of Tourism Act made it a statutory function ofgovernment to promote Britain overseas. The British Tourist Authority is the strategic body forpromoting inbound tourism – a non-departmental public body funded by the Department forCulture, Media & Sport. Visit England is England’s national tourist board which, along withthe other National Tourist Organisations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, isresponsible for growing the value of tourism in England (Visit England, 2010a).Placing destination marketing within a brand hierarchy framework, the highest level ofentity is at the ‘country’ level (Pike, 2004). The development of a ‘country’ brand, often called406www.globalbizresearch.org
Global Review of Research in Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure Management (GRRTHLM)An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2311-3189)2016 Vol: 2 Issue: 1‘nation branding’, is to build the reputation of a country. ‘Country branding’ will inevitably seecountries wishing to emphasize their distinctive characteristics. New Zealand has experiencedconsiderable success with its 100% Pure New Zealand brand. In the British context, the CoolBritannia brand was adopted during the early period of the Labour government. Labour feltthat the ‘Cool Britannia’ brand reflected the mood in Britain during the late 1990s and thefashionable London scene, music, and a plethora of new young British artists attractingInternational attention. However, it attracted criticism because it was felt that it was not trulyrepresentative of England as a ‘product’ and was dropped. This is a reminder of the importanceof the acceptance of a country ‘brand’ in the minds of potential tourists, and which is critical todecisions taken to visit overseas countries.Anholt (Cited in VisitBritain, 2009) has argued that Britain needed to adopt a marketingstrategy which he equated to being similar to a box of chocolates. In Anholt’s ‘box ofchocolates’ brand architecture, in the British case the brand on the outside of the box would be‘Britain’. In markets where familiarity with Britain was low then the ‘box’ (Britain) would bemarketed. Where familiarity is higher, the box could be opened and introduce the individualchocolates. The chocolates (brands) would be distinctive, with their own flavours andappearances, but bearing a strong ‘family resemblance’ and a clear connection to each otherand to the brand on the box. A new tourism strategy saw VisitBritain (2009, p.62) arguing thatthe ‘brands’ of ‘Britain, England, London, Scotland and Wales’ would operate within a ‘marketmapping framework’. Here VisitBritain would act as a ‘brand embassy’ representing the fivebrands; ‘Britain, England, London, Scotland and Wales’. It is noticeable that London was seenas having as much ‘brand value’ as the entire countries of England, Scotland and Wales.VisitBritain (2009, p.64) perceived VisitBritain as ‘the guardian of the Britain brand’ and wouldwork with strategic partners to ensure that the Britain brand would complement their destinationbrands. This policy is supported by international research. The Anholt GfK Nations BrandIndex ranks 50 nations each year. Figures released in 2015, saw Britain in 3rd place as a nationbrand, behind the USA and Germany. Clearly, the importance of such is that it can strengthenEngland’s reputation as a tourist destination. Britain Visit Britain (2015b) has argued that‘Britain’ brand has consistently showed strong brand acceptance globally.A significant driving force of the Labour government was devolution and the promotion ofregional governance and empowerment of the English regions. Labour wished to take the‘organs of the state’ out of Westminster and to ‘devolve’ government to the regions. Oneelement of this policy was to see new offices of government being established throughout theUK intended to make government more directly accessible to business at the regional level.Politically, the effect of devolution had been to leave England without a stand-alone nationaltourist board. This saw the role of VisitBritain to promote Britain overseas and developingEngland’s visitor economy. A tourism Review in 2009 recommended the creation of a national407www.globalbizresearch.org
Global Review of Research in Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure Management (GRRTHLM)An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2311-3189)2016 Vol: 2 Issue: 1tourist board for England. VisitEngland was established in an ‘at arm’s length’ relationshipwith VisitBritain in 2009. The devolution of power and resources to regions is a significantshift particularly when those regions have distinct cultural identities that demand the right toself-determination and self-expression. As Anholt (Cited in VisitBritain, 2009) has argued,when dealing with markets for tourism, the question of whether to represent and promote anation as a single entity or as a series of ‘sub-brands’ depends on the audience’s familiaritywith that nation. If, for example, if Britain is being marketed to North America, there is a strongargument for more ‘specialised’ marketing of regions, cities, counties and even towns. TheAmerican market is particularly drawn to historic places such as Chester, York, Oxford,Stonehenge and to British cultural ‘icons’ such as the Royal family, the Beatles, and WilliamShakespeare. If, on the other hand, one is competing for tourists in a market where there islimited knowledge of Britain- such as in Russia, China, India, or Brazil – then the argument for‘branding Britain’ is stronger. If ‘sub-branding’ is likely to appeal to an audience, then it isworth doing but if it is more likely to create confusion then it should be avoided.VisitEngland’s marketing campaigns sought to reinforce the England brand by promotingEngland’s tourism offering, described by Visit England (2010a, p.12) as ‘internationallyrenowned built and natural heritage, to the vibrant contemporary culture of England’s cities;from adventure to indulgence’. Implementation has followed a ‘dual’ path of first trying toattract visitors to Britain (predominately through main transport ‘hubs’ in the major cities andports) and then seeking to get those visitors to explore additional parts of the country duringtheir visit (Visit England, 2010a). Visit England (2010a) has referred to this as an ‘attract anddisperse’ method. This approach signaled a change in tourism marketing emerging in Britain,with a clear focus on destination brands. The NWDA (2002, p.18) commented on such changearguing that ‘A foundation of the new thinking is that tourism development should be thoughtof in terms of brands and the cornerstone of a tourism strategy should be to identify the brandsthat have the greatest potential’. The NWDA argued that methods of connecting with tourismmarkets needed to change and that ‘only themes and brands are capable of connecting withdistant markets and the packagers and carriers who form the channels to such markets’ (p.18).The strategy involved, at the national level, a number of English tourism destinations (orbrands) recognizable to overseas markets being chosen to fulfil the objective of initiallyattracting overseas visitors to England. Visit England (2010a, p.8) have described this approachas selecting ‘England’s most attractive destinations and experiences’. Such places that wereseen as having the most ‘resonance’ with overseas visitors were promoted as ‘attract brands’(Visit England, 2010b). Visit England (2010a, p.3) explained its choice ‘we will use specificAttract Brands to highlight the best of England’s assets within a specific theme. For examplewe might use imagery of the Lake District to promote England’s countryside offering’. This‘brand framework’ (VisitEngland, 2010c) saw VisitEngland select 39 ‘attract brands’ (2010b,408www.globalbizresearch.org
Global Review of Research in Tourism, Hospitality and Leisure Management (GRRTHLM)An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2311-3189)2016 Vol: 2 Issue: 1p.3) including such places as London, Brighton, Liverpool, the Lake District, Bath, Cambridge,Manchester, the Yorkshire Dales, Oxford and the Cotswolds.The second element of the ‘dual path’ of promotion - the ‘disperse’ element of the strategy– focused on trying to entice visitors to explore other parts of England which they may not haveconsidered before. Visit England (2010c, p.4) have referred to these places as ‘hidden gems’arguing that the national marketing strategy would use the ‘attract brands’ to engage consumersand provide a platform for increased awareness of the ‘hidden gems’ within the Englishregions’. The tourism regions are geographical areas that have been designated by governmentor another tourism body as having common characteristics that may attract tourists. Theiruniqueness is that they are more multidimensional than products or other types of services(Pike, 2005). Tourism regions are diverse and have an eclectic range of resources, attractions,activities and amenities. Therefore trying to capture such diversity in promotional acti
Brand-Hierarchy Theory Framework for Analysis of Destination Marketing in England Steve Burns, Tourism, and Events and Food Studies, Faculty of Education, Health and Community, Liverpool John Moores University, UK. E-mail: s.d.burns@ljmu.ac.uk _ Abstract The difficulty facing NTOs is th
Star 1 Star 2 Star 3 Star 4 Star 5 2012-2013 Star 1 Star 2 Star 3 Star 4 Star 5 2014-2015 Star 1 Star 2 Star 3 Star 4 Star 5 2016-2017 Star 1 Star 2 Star 3 Star 4 Star 5 Star Label Up-gradation for Split AC 2018-2019 Star 1 Star 2 Star 3 Star 4 Star 5 Star Level Min EER Max EER Star 1 2.70 2.89 Star 2 2.90 2.99 Star 3 3.10 3.29 Star 4 3.30 3.49 .
1. Suppose star B is twice as far away as star A. A. Star B has 4 times the parallax angle of star A. B. Star B has 2 times the parallax angle of star A. C. Both stars have the same parallax angle. D.Star A has 2 times the parallax angle of star B. E. Star A has 4 times the parallax angle of star B.
BAY STAR 2017 Gas Motor Coaches BAY STAR SPORT 2017 BAY STAR BAY STAR SPORT GAS MOTOR COACHES. LIVE YOUR dream The 2017 Bay Star Sport gives you the freedom to travel in both comfort and style. Featuring . LUXURY CONVENIENCE. 01 EVERY INCH matters The beauty of the 2017 Bay Star Sport lies in its extra attention to detail, beginning
A-Star comparison table A-Star 328PB Micro A-Star 32U4 Micro A-Star 32U4 Mini ULV A-Star 32U4 Mini LV A-Star 32U4 Mini SV A-Star 32U4 Prime LV A-Star 32U4
1. Airport Hotel 3-5 star 2. Beach Hotel 3-5 star 3. Boutique Hotel 4-5 star 4. Business Hotel 1-5 star 5. City Hotel 1-5 star 6. Convention Hotel 1-5 star 7. Family Hotel 3-5 star 8. Resort Hotel 3-5 star 9. Apartment Hotel 1-5 star Designators are awarded after the hotel has met the requirements of the respective designators.
4.2 Star Warriors Star Warriors is a simulation of starfighter combat in the Star Wars universe. Every small starship depicted in the Star Wars movies is included in the game. The game includes a number of different scenarios; they let players dogfight, conduct ground attack and convoy missions, and even attack the Death Star.
Star Wars Roleplaying Game Saga Edition Errata and Official Clarifications Updated - October 2008 Errata p. 38 – Base Attack Bonus Should read, “ Base Attack Bonus: The character's base attack bonus. Apply this bonus to the character's attack rolls.” Base attack bonus
actually functions in a real attack, what level of service you are able to provide while under attack, and how your people and process react to and withstand an attack. In this guide we present three options for simulating a DDoS attack in your own lab: Tier 1 — Simulating a basic attack using open-source software and readily available .
