Search results

The purpose of this research is to investigate how branding theories can be applied to place branding. It aims to examine how internal stakeholders, specifically a city's residents, are fundamental in the brand‐building process.

A conceptual model with a theoretical basis in the branding literature is developed to illuminate the antecedents of self‐brand connection and brand advocacy in the context of city branding. The model is then tested using structural equation analysis on a sample of residents from an American city that has taken a cultural/entertainment approach to its branding efforts.

Findings indicate that brand associations, including attitude toward the branding efforts of the city, perceived quality of the brand and the uniqueness of the brand, are crucial in the branding and positioning efforts of a city to its residents. When strong brand associations exist, residents may develop such a connection to the brand that it becomes reflective of their self‐concepts. When this occurs, a self‐brand connection is formed and residents may become advocates of the brand.

This research has special implications for places and municipalities that are in the process of developing branding strategies for their locales as well as those interested in achieving a competitive advantage with existing brand management systems.

This research provides further insight into the application of branding theory to places and destinations. Implications for developing effective brand management systems that appeal to local residents are enumerated.

Justice rules are standards that serve as criteria for formulating fairness judgments. Though justice rules play a role in the organizational justice literature, they have seldom been the subject of analysis in their own right. To address this limitation, we first consider three meta-theoretical dualities that are highlighted by justice rules – the distinction between justice versus fairness, indirect versus direct measurement, and normative versus descriptive paradigms. Second, we review existing justice rules and organize them into four types of justice: distributive (e.g., equity, equality), procedural (e.g., voice, consistent treatment), interpersonal (e.g., politeness, respectfulness), and informational (e.g., candor, timeliness). We also emphasize emergent rules that have not received sufficient research attention. Third, we consider various computation models purporting to explain how justice rules are assessed and aggregated to form fairness judgments. Fourth and last, we conclude by reviewing research that enriches our understanding of justice rules by showing how they are cognitively processed. We observe that there are a number of influences on fairness judgments, and situations exist in which individuals do not systematically consider justice rules.