2. Theoretical and conceptual approach: the opportunity within place
brand and place marketing
Countries, regions and cities are increasing their investment to create or improve their
place images to achieve economic gains through an increase in exports, investment and
tourism (Dinnie, 2022). However, only a few places have managed their place brand
strategically and consistently in the long term (J. Freire, 2021). For example, Portugal
has significantly improved its reputation over the past decade, especially for tourism
purposes (Bloom Consulting, 2011, 2024), despite not having, as its neighbor Spain does,
a clear place brand public policy and a clear value proposition for the “Portugal” nation
brand (Quintela, 2020, 2023).
The “father” of the nation brand, Simon Anholt, who developed the Competitive Identity
concept and its Hexagon (Anholt, 2007), and who created, in 2005, the international
comparison index for country reputation, currently known as Anholt-IPSOS, claims that
countries have multiple components contributing to reputation and that nation branding
does not work by itself nor as a mere result of place branding campaigns. Numerous and
heterogenous factors, such as public policy, governmental decisions or even the actions
of famous public figures and the success of national gastronomy around the world can
impact a country’s reputation (BBC News, 2018).
His work organizes the nation brand into five key factors: the natural beauty of the rural
and urban landscape, the hospitality of the people, the degree of technological
development, the “hard power” (strength of the economy and military power) and, most
importantly, the contribution of the nation for the world (Anholt, 2021). In summary,
“places are judged by what they do, not by what they say about themselves” (Anholt &
Co., 2024). Public diplomacy assumes a special role in this context.
Anholt introduced the public diplomacy concept in 2007, defining it as the set of actions
that political decision-makers develop to captivate public opinion both domestically and
abroad. This differs from conventional diplomacy, which is more oriented towards inter-
nation relationships. Since then, two phenomena have arisen:
1) Sub-topics have been derived from the terminology, including economic
diplomacy, more focused on companies and investors; scientific diplomacy,
focused on research networks and higher education internationalization and
cultural diplomacy which, similarly to large sporting events, materializes large
expo events that stir people’s emotions and contribute to higher empathy among
different cultures, boosting tourism, exports and investment like in Spain after
Seville 1992 Expo or in South Korea after the 1998 Olympic Games in Seoul
(Quintela, 2020).
2) Globalization, allied with the emergence of social and digital media, has
transferred more and more visibility from national political protagonists to regional
and even local decision-makers, and to sector and corporate associations, whose
influence extends beyond territorial borders. This phenomenon has generated a
diffusion of interest and power centers, transforming the public diplomacy arena.
The sector and civil associations, for example, do not suffer from the public image