COMMUNITY REBRANDING:
A CASE STUDY
A Project
Presented to the
Faculty of
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science
In
Hospitality Management
By
Michelle L. Pecheck
Spring 2015
SIGNATURE PAGE
PROJECT: COMMUNITY REBRANDING: A CASE STUDY
AUTHOR: Michelle L. Pecheck
DATE SUBMITTED: Spring 2015
The Collins College of Hospitality Management
Dr. Ed Merritt ______Project Committee Chair Associate Professor
Dr. Margie Jones ______Associate Professor
Dr. Neha Singh ______Director of Graduate Studies Associate Professor
ii
ABSTRACT
Intro: This case study profiles Claremont, a city of approximately 37,000 residents. Since
its formation in 1887, it has primarily been known as a college town with a history of
citrus production. This case study investigates what components would need to be in
place to rebrand or reposition the city as a unique, healthful destination.
Case: A resident survey, interviews, and focus groups were used to gather qualitative
data about residents’ perceptions of the city’s current brand and potential rebranding.
Management & Outcome: Scope of work for the focus city included data gathering from
residents, and identification of projects, services, and designations to support marketing
of the city as a health/wellness destination.
Discussion: Data from surveys, focus groups, and key informant interviews indicated
that residents were uncertain of the City’s current brand, in general appeared to care
little about the brand, and lacked information about the City’s interest in a possible
future rebranding. Further, City documents revealed a history of departmental
rebrandings that may have obscured the City’s current brand image. Recommendations
for the future include making no change of brand without resident and key stakeholder
buy-in; sponsorship of health-related events versus rebranding; and possible creation of
a staff position such as Public Health Specialist responsible for assessing the health
impacts of City initiatives, resolutions, and policies, and assisting the City’s DMO in marketing healthful aspects of the City.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Signature Page ...... ii
Abstract ...... iii
List of Tables ...... viii
List of Figures ...... ix
Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1
Nature and Purpose of Study ...... 2
Assumptions ...... 3
Problem Statement ...... 3
Scope of Work ...... 4
Research Questions ...... 4
Theory ...... 5
Chapter Summary ...... 5
Chapter 2: Background: City of Claremont ...... 6
City History ...... 6
City At A Glance ...... 7
Census Data ...... 7
Employment ...... 9
Evolution of the Claremont Brand ...... 10
Chapter Summary ...... 15
iv
Chapter 3: Literature Review ...... 16
Conducting A Case Study ...... 16
Ethical Research ...... 17
Qualitative Research Methodology ...... 18
Brand Management ...... 20
Corporate Branding ...... 21
Destination Branding ...... 24
City and Place Branding ...... 26
City and Destination Rebranding ...... 28
Slogans ...... 32
Wellness Tourism ...... 34
Chapter Summary ...... 37
Chapter 4: Methodology ...... 38
Unit of Measure ...... 39
Review and Permissions ...... 39
Study Participants ...... 39
Origination of Initial Survey Questions ...... 40
Pilot Study ...... 40
Windshield Survey ...... 41
v
Questionnaires ...... 42
Focus Groups ...... 44
Focus Group Activities ...... 45
Incentive ...... 45
Key Informant Interviews ...... 46
Chapter Summary ...... 48
Chapter 5: Analysis and Results ...... 49
Preliminary Findings ...... 49
Expected Findings ...... 50
Unexpected Findings ...... 53
Analysis of Residents’ Responses ...... 56
Analysis of City Departmental Data ...... 57
Analysis of Data Relative to Research Questions ...... 59
Chapter Summary ...... 65
Chapter 6: Discussion ...... 66
Focus Group Data ...... 66
Brand Attribute Importance ...... 76
Current Brand Slogan ...... 80
Study Strengths ...... 82
Limitations ...... 83
Future Research ...... 83
vi
Lessons Learned ...... 84
Chapter Summary ...... 85
Chapter 7: Recommendations ...... 86
Chapter Summary ...... 93
Chapter 8: Conclusion ...... 94
References ...... 96
Appendix A: Resident Questionnaire ...... 102
Appendix B: Focus Group Activity Sheet ...... 105
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Existing Hotel Room Inventory (as of Dec. 2014) ...... 49
Table 2 Focus Groups’ Balloon Exercise (Claremont Attributes Represented by Suitcases) ...... 77
Table 3 Focus Group Section 4 Results (Current Brand Slogan) ...... 81
Table 4 Focus Group Section 5 Results (Other Claremont Brand Slogans) ...... 81
Table 5 Focus Group Section 6 Results (Create 3 New Brand Slogans for Claremont ...... 82
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Top eight employers in Claremont ...... 9
Figure 2 Aims of urban rebranding ...... 30
Figure 3 Urban rebranding ...... 31
Figure 4 Chart of activities and places that wellness tourists seek ...... 36
Figure 5 List of key potential stakeholders in wellness tourism ...... 37
Figure 6 Focus group section 1 (brand ambivalence) scale rating frequencies for statement 1 ...... 66
Figure 7 Focus group section 1 (brand ambivalence) scale rating frequencies for statement 2 ...... 67
Figure 8 Focus group section 1 (brand ambivalence) scale rating frequencies for statement 3 ...... 68
Figure 9 Focus group section 1 (brand ambivalence) scale rating frequencies for statement 4 ...... 69
Figure 10 Focus group section 1 (brand ambivalence) scale rating frequencies for statement 5 ...... 70
Figure 11 Focus group section 2 (brand attachment) scale rating frequencies for statement 1 ...... 71
Figure 12 Focus group section 2 (brand attachment) scale rating frequencies for statement 2 ...... 72
Figure 13 Focus group section 2 (brand attachment) scale rating frequencies for statement 3 ...... 73
Figure 14 Focus group section 2 (brand attachment) scale rating frequencies for statement 4 ...... 74
ix Figure 15 Focus group section 2 (brand attachment) scale rating frequencies for statement 5 ...... 75
Figure 16 Focus group section 3 (attitude confidence) scale rating frequencies for question 1 ...... 78
Figure 17 Focus group section 3 (attitude confidence) scale rating frequencies for question 2 ...... 79
Figure 18 Focus group section 3 (attitude confidence) scale rating frequencies for question 3 ...... 80
x CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Managing a city’s brand is an attempt to influence how the city’s brand image is perceived in the minds of current and potential residents, visitors, tourists, and investors. Successful management of the brand is likely to result in consumer perceptions that are most favorable to the city both now and in the future (Ge, 2008).
A city with a strong brand image will possess characteristics or qualities that create a positive perception in a person’s mind. These characteristics must be easily identifiable and distinctive to all who live in or visit the community (Winfield-
Pfefferkorn, 2005). Therefore, a city’s unique qualities, characteristics, and/or amenities must be showcased. The city’s visual appearance often cognitively defines what a specific city represents. City branding helps to convert a city’s visual image into a brand image (Rehan, 2014). When the city’s brand image is congruent with the experiences that people have when visiting or living in that city, it lays the foundation for brand attractiveness and brand loyalty, essential to a city’s continued growth and vitality.
Cooperative efforts between stakeholders and the city’s leadership are one of the key factors in determining a city’s branding potential (Winfield-Pfefferkorn, 2005).
Thus, before undertaking any branding or rebranding effort, city officials must gain the support of residents, for they will be most impacted by the decisions that the city’s leadership team will make when evaluating how best to support the brand.
Competition for residents and visitors has increased substantially among cities and regions. Cities now compete fiercely to differentiate themselves from their
1 neighbors. Thus, cities need to brand themselves as good places to live, where potential residents and visitors can find a wide range of desirable features including but not limited to employment opportunities, retail, culture and history, scenic beauty, a convenient location, and other sought-after amenities. In the end, however, what people prize most highly from a location or place is what they believe offers them the best quality of life (Ge, 2008).
Today’s city planners have a good understanding of their city brand and the need to continually monitor, market and refine that brand. Moreover, officials are discovering that if they cannot or do not define their own city brand, others may define it for them; and that definition may be at odds with the image that city officials desire for residents and visitors to hold in their minds. It is within this context that we examine City of
Claremont (variously referred to in this study as “the City,” “City,” or “Claremont”).
Nature and Purpose of Study
This study is an exploratory case study of the City of Claremont in which qualitative data from residents was collected and utilized in an effort to answer the research questions arising from a predefined scope of work.
The fundamental purpose of this case study is to determine resident awareness of and reaction to past, present, and proposed future branding efforts in Claremont.
Secondary purposes include the gathering of qualitative evidence about residents’ perceptions of the attributes of personal health and healthful cities, and whether
Claremont is perceived to be a healthful city; to gather qualitative evidence provided by
City residents that City leaders may find beneficial in a possible repositioning of
2 Claremont as a health and wellness destination; and to evaluate whether the City has
appropriate resources, existing or to be developed, to support any such repositioning.
Assumptions
This case study includes several assumptions. A qualitative research
methodology requires the researcher to create themes from the collected data (Leedy &
Ormrod, 2010), then attempt to gain meaning from themes or patterns so that the
collected data can be grouped into usable categories from which theories can be created and conclusions drawn. Secondly, it was assumed that there was enough available literature about the variety of topics chosen for the literature review. The third assumption of this study was that the researcher strived to ensure that the data used in this paper were reliable, valid, and free of known bias.
Problem Statement
Former and present Claremont City Council members have implemented a number of policies and projects to promote community health and wellbeing, including annual grants given to several dozen community-based organizations, the development
of The Village (a popular downtown Claremont shopping and dining venue), refusal to
allow drive-through fast-food restaurants in the City, departmental healthy food policies, No Smoking areas, and efforts to preserve and protect its historical structures, wilderness areas, parks, and tree canopy. In spite of these actions to support the image of Claremont as a healthy city and a healthful destination, people still tend to think of
Claremont in terms of a non-health-related slogan that its City fathers did not create.
The City’s brand image may be enhanced by re-focusing its brand in a way that more
3 prominently positions Claremont as a healthful city and eventually, a health and
wellness tourism destination.
Scope of Work
The scope of work for this study had several directions, though all ultimately led
to an evaluation of Claremont as a healthful city: 1) to conduct research, collect data
from residents and available City staff (excluding City Manager, Mayor, and City Council)
to determine what existing qualities, amenities, and/or services were thought by them to make Claremont a healthful municipality; 2) to collect qualitative data from residents in order to analyze their perceptions of the current Claremont brand and possible future efforts to position the City as a health and wellness tourism destination; and 3) to assist
City staff with recommendations for health-related designations, grants, or forms of recognition that the City or Discover Claremont, its destination marketing organization
(DMO), might use to differentiate the branding or marketing of Claremont.
Research Questions
The City-approved scope of work led to the following research questions:
1) What are residents’ perceptions of the City’s present branding?
2) What are residents’ perceptions of the City’s future branding as a healthy city
or a healthful destination?
3) What existing resources can the City use to support the proposed brand?
4) What new resources can City officials and staff develop to support the
proposed brand?
5) How will the proposed brand meet the needs and wants of the community?
4 Theory
Grounded theory was utilized in this study, in that pre-existing theory was not formed at the onset of the case study; thus, theory developed over the course of the study is grounded in the collected data (Yin, 2014). Grounded theory also allows for some evolution in the research questions over the course of the study, depending on the themes identified in the collected data.
Chapter Summary
Chapter 1 provided an introduction and brief overview of the case study, including the nature of the study, scope of work, assumptions, and research questions.
In Chapter 2, readers will be provided with background material about City of
Claremont, including historical information, current employment and census data, and evolution of the Claremont brand.
5 CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND: CITY OF CLAREMONT
City History
Several hundred years ago, the Claremont region was first inhabited by the
Cahuilla Indians. At the beginning of the Spanish period in California (approximately
1771), Mission San Gabriel was founded. The mission’s lands were vast and stretched from the San Bernardino Mountains all the way to San Pedro Bay. Claremont was part of this land parcel, and until the Cahuilla tribe dwindled away in 1883, many of them found work at Mission San Gabriel (www.ci.claremont.ca.us).
Claremont became a recognized community in 1886, when the Santa Fe Railroad
completed the connection of its tracks from Chicago to Los Angeles. One year later, City
the City of Claremont was officially founded, along with Pomona College, the beginning
of the Claremont Colleges. As noted by Claremont Heritage (the City’s historical society),
the Colleges are now a consortium of seven nationally-recognized institutions of higher
education (www.claremontheritage.org). Simultaneous with the establishment of
Pomona College, citrus production was getting underway as a start-up industry in
Pomona Valley. Its rapid growth in Claremont resulted in water cooperatives formed for
irrigating the many thousands of acres of citrus groves. The citrus industry was a staple
of Claremont life until about 1950 (www.ci.claremont.ca.us), when disease struck its
citrus trees and population growth necessitated replacement of almost all of
Claremont’s citrus groves with single-story family homes. Many of these homes are now
6 considered architecturally significant and have been preserved by the efforts of
Claremont Heritage.
City At A Glance
Today, Claremont’s early Spanish, citrus industry, and college influences can still
be found. Small groves of citrus and oak trees remain, the City has over 25,000 mature
trees (Human Services Supervisor, personal communication, March 2015), and many
buildings in the town have physical characteristics reminiscent of Claremont’s Spanish
heritage and college-town influence. Though many of its original homes still exist, they have been joined by townhomes, condominiums, and affordable housing
(www.ci.claremont.ca.us) that cater to “a variety of needs, lifestyles, and incomes.”
The Claremont Colleges continue to exert a strong influence within the
community, as the City’s development has historically been closely associated with the
Colleges. Furthermore, the Colleges present and foster fine arts exhibits within the City,
as well as supporting Claremont’s reputation as “the cultural arts center for the Pomona
Valley.” Locally- and nationally-known galleries, theaters, and artists all proudly call
Claremont their home (www.discoverclaremont.com).
Census Data
City of Claremont’s 2010 census data and 2013 population estimates were
obtained from www.quickfacts.census.gov, a webpage of the U.S. Census Bureau
providing census information by state and county. The Claremont data reveal a
snapshot of a community that is significantly different than the average California town.
Claremont’s population is much more educated than residents of other towns, with
7 55.0% of residents having at least a Bachelor’s degree and 9.0% holding a doctorate.
This compares with the State of California average of 30.7% residents with at least a
Bachelor’s degree and a nationwide average of just over 3.0% holding a doctorate degree. Claremont’s residents are also solidly upper middle class, with a mean income of $87,324 compared to the California average of $61,094. The City’s residents are primarily Caucasian (70.6%) as compared to the California average of 57.6%, they live in a suburban area with 2616.6 residents per square mile, and just 7.2% of Claremont residents fall below the U.S. poverty line, versus the 15.9% of total California residents considered poor. In summary, Claremont’s 11,000 households can fairly be described as primarily white, middle to upper class, highly educated, and relatively affluent.
Over the years, the various City Managers, Mayors, and City Councilmembers have carefully protected Claremont’s small-town feel and the physical attributes that
Discover Claremont variously refers to as “quaint,” “charming,” “well-kept,” and “Cape
Cod-like” (www.discoverclaremont.com). For example, no drive-through restaurants are allowed in Claremont, and visitors will be hard-pressed to find an abundance of convenience stores or liquor stores of the type commonly found in adjoining cities.
Though there are a variety of storefronts and architectural styles, all are harmonious, in good repair, and usually feature window boxes or planters full of flowers or drought- resistant native vegetation.
The political origins of today’s Claremont harken back to the days of town hall meetings where a highly involved, vocal citizenry made their demands known to city leaders and held them personally accountable for decisions. Politicians were also
8 expected by citizens to regularly be seen at community events, quickly responsive to the needs and wants of citizens, and prompt to seek out and incorporate residents’ opinions into the planning of any significant initiative undertaken by the City. This mindset is still very much in evidence today, with one of the newly-elected Mayor’s first acts being a published interview in March 2015 with a reporter from The Claremont Courier in which he reiterated the City Council’s mission as largely being whatever the residents want it to be, and that the Council is there to provide the utmost in customer service to its residents (www.claremontcourier.com).
Employment
Though Claremont is primarily a bedroom community whose residents live in town but work elsewhere, the City does not lack for attractive employment opportunities, as shown in the following figure:
Figure 1. Top eight employers in Claremont. (Source: www.ci.claremont.ca.us).
There are also a variety of clothes boutiques, craft shops, dining establishments, salons and spas, and retail shopping for goods of all kinds in Claremont particularly at The
9 Village, a downtown destination popular with residents and visitors. Though more limited, employment opportunities are still to be found in downtown Claremont and in what key informant (KI) #11 calls “necessity stores” such as local grocery stores.
Evolution of the Claremont Brand
Claremont is located on the easternmost edge of Los Angeles County, about 30 miles from the City of Los Angeles. Since its formation in 1887 and incorporation in
1907, Claremont had primarily been known as a college town with a history of citrus packaging. The town was first known as the “Hub of the Citrus Industry”
(www.claremontheritage.com). As the citrus industry waned, the City became known during the 1940s as “The City of Living and Learning” (City of Claremont Master Plan,
2006) as The Claremont Colleges grew and began attracting hundreds of new students.
In 2007, Money magazine named Claremont as #5 on the list of its “Best 100
Places to Live.” While being lauded for the City’s scenic beauty, job opportunities, convenient location, recreational pursuits, and relative affordability was a source of great pride to City officials and residents, it also caused mixed feelings when Money’s summary title describing the city consisted of one phrase: “[It’s] The City of Trees and
PhDs.” According to key informant (KI) #11 who has lived in the City for 49 years, the exact origin of that phrase is unknown though it was casually in use for some years before the Money article was published. KI #5 stated, “I don’t like slogans and marketing people. I disregard it all.” However, KI #11 conceded that though “we just don’t care much about slogans and labels,” the phrase has become an unofficial slogan or brand describing the City. Though this slogan was not the result of any formal branding effort
10 by City officials, planners, or Discover Claremont (the City’s DMO [destination marketing organization]), “The City of Trees and PhDs” (or the short version “City of Trees”) remains entrenched in the minds of many residents.
Although there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the current brand image of the
city, within the past five to seven years the Mayor and City Council became cognizant
that society appeared to be at the beginning of a shift in attitudes toward a growing
awareness and embrace of lifestyles incorporating a focus on personal health and
wellness. As more residents demanded classes, workshops and services related to
fitness, healthy eating, active living for seniors, and other wellness-related topics, the
City’s staff soon realized that wellness was not a trend but a lifestyle that was here to
stay, at least for the foreseeable future. In an ongoing series of staff reports to the City
Manager, the Director of Human Services described new classes and programs to meet
residents’ demands for health, wellness and fitness-related resources (e.g., A. Turner,
Weekly Report to the City Manager, City of Claremont, 2015 March 19). Previously,
other Mayors and Councilmembers had had the foresight to anticipate the wellness
trend and to establish community health-related resources such as the Seniors Health
Fair & Flu Shot Clinic (established in approximately 1993), the Claremont certified
organic Farmers & Artisans Market (1996), and a variety of ongoing contract classes
designed to promote personal health and fitness at all age levels.
In January 2011, the City Council furthered its health-related policy efforts by
passing a H.E.A.L. (Healthy Eating, Active Living) resolution and joining over a hundred
other California cities who had embraced one or more tenets of the HEAL Cities
11 Campaign. This campaign is an ongoing partnership of the California Center for Public
Health Advocacy and the League of California Cities, and is funded by Kaiser
Permanente. Additional information may be found at the HEAL Cities Campaign homepage, www.healcitiescampaign.org. The purpose of the campaign is to recognize cities that have enacted healthy eating and active living policies in at least one of three areas (land use, healthy food at the retail level, or workplace wellness), and to reward such cities by designating them as HEAL Cities. A designated HEAL City is then able to market itself as such, to display the HEAL campaign symbol on its website, and to apply to the HEAL Cities Campaign for subsequent, higher-ranking designations requiring adoption of additional policies in all three of the focus areas. The City’s HEAL efforts were primarily directed to elements of its land use policies, including Safe Routes to
Schools, Active Transportation Plan (biking, walking), preservation of parks and open space, and its established Farmers & Artisans Market. Little to no attention appeared given at that time to healthy food retail policies or workplace wellness (J. Parker, City
Manager’s Weekly Update, City of Claremont, 2011 January 27).
Claremont also applied to Fair Trade USA in 2012 to have the City declared as
Southern California’s first Certified Fair Trade Town (www.discoverclaremont.com), which was granted by Fair Trade USA in April 2012. A Certified Fair Trade designation indicates Claremont’s support for the philosophies underlying Fair Trade: fair product prices, wages, and safe working conditions for producers; environmentally sustainable products; community development set-asides to support projects such as schools and
12 clinics; no child trafficking or forced labor; and gender equity. Further information may be found at the Fair Trade USA homepage, www.fairtradeusa.org.
Though not all City vendors, restaurants, and boutiques offer Fair Trade products, those that do may now differentiate them by placing a “Fair Trade” seal on the product packaging, informing potential customers that the product meets Fair Trade
USA’s standards. When Claremont received Fair Trade Town designation in 2012, it was one of only 28 towns in the United States to earn that designation
(www.fairtradeusa.org). Consequently, the City was not only able to differentiate some of its products, but to use the Fair Trade Town label as a means to differentiate itself from other Southern California towns.
During the same time span, City staff (e.g., Human Services Department) investigated applying for wellness-focused grants and designations such as “Healthy
City,” a designation of the California Healthy Cities and Communities Network, whose homepage is www.civicpartnerships.org. CHCCN is a group of communities throughout the state pursuing Healthy Cities’ principles of promoting a “positive physical, social and economic environment that supports the well-being of its members.” Participating cities have adopted resolutions or implemented initiatives ranging from free bike helmet giveaways to beautification projects, depending on community needs.
Membership in the network can be obtained for a reasonable fee, allows member cities access to educational programs, technical assistance, grants, a weekly newsletter, and planning and resource guides. Throughout the past decade, other nearby cities such as
Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga, Santa Clarita, Baldwin Park, and Chino, had already joined
13 this network (M. Santoro, Human Services Superintendent, City of Claremont Staff
Presentation, n.d.).
City Council members had previously identified development of a Healthy Cities plan as an action item at their 2010-11 City Council Priority Setting Workshop. However, there appeared to be confusion among staff as to the difference between the Health
Cities and HEAL Campaign designations. The resolution that actually passed in 2011 was for participation in the HEAL Campaign though the staff description of the program appears to have come directly from the Healthy Cities website. A list of active Healthy
Cities through 2013-14 indicates that City of Claremont apparently did not join the
Healthy Cities network, though Claremont Graduate Institute did. CGI students had previously participated in wellness monitoring within the City, such as the Claremont
Senior Program 2007 Client Survey (Senior Program Supervisor, personal communication, January 2015). The technical and educational support that CGI receives from the network acts to strengthen collaborative health, art, and other programs within the City, thus providing the City desirable assistance at no additional cost.
As more and more cities in the region committed to creating and implementing programs to support a “Healthy City” designation (e.g., “Healthy Chino,” “Healthy
Rancho Cucamonga,” “Healthy Montclair”), this perhaps engendered the feeling in
Claremont officials that though they may not have applied for “Healthy City” status, they had been ahead of the curve in implementing many health- and wellness-related resources within the City. Consequently, City staff increasingly began to seek out information about government partnerships with community health coalitions, and to
14 apply for miscellaneous health-related grants and designations. However, they did not have a comprehensive strategy for packaging Claremont’s many disparate health- related services and resources into a cohesive whole that could be used for potentially rebranding the city as a bona fide health and wellness destination. Further, there appeared to be no easily-found answer to the question “What makes Claremont healthy?” (Human Services Supervisor, personal communications, January 22, 27, and
29, 2015).
Chapter Summary
This chapter provided contextual information about City of Claremont as well as its current branding. The following chapter consists of a literature review encompassing the key areas of interest in this case study.
15 CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE REVIEW
Discussion of literature regarding case study conduct and methodology is important in helping the reading audience understand the general framework of a case.
Following an overview of case study conduct, ethical research, and qualitative research methodology, we will turn to the academic and practitioner literature regarding brand management, corporate brands (especially their application to city and destination branding efforts), city branding and re-branding, use of slogans in city branding efforts,
and wellness tourism (the specific subcategory of tourism of interest in this study).
Conducting a Case Study
According to Merriam (2009), conducting case study research is the preferred method for answering “how” or “why” questions, for situations in which the researcher has little to no control over events, and for those circumstances in which the study calls
for an in-depth description of an issue or event. The researcher’s investigation takes
place in a real-world context; just as it is in the real world, there are boundaries and
limitations that affect the case and the researcher. At times, these are not clearly
evident at the outset (Merriam, 2009).
Case study research should not confused with teaching cases (Stake, 1995),
which are primarily utilized to stimulate classroom discussion and debate. Likewise, the
researcher must decide at the beginning whether the case will be used as some type of
official record (i.e., a medical case, case notes for social work, or a case brief for a law
16 practice). Case studies for practice differ from those used for case study research
(Bromley, 1986).
Case management includes conducting the study in a manner that manages the continuous level of effort required to conduct the research with rigor (Merriam, 2009).
The case researcher must also create an organizational method to effectively deal with the large amounts of data that the study may generate, learn to generalize conclusions from the data if that is desired, and utilize the comparative nature of a case study to best advantage (Merriam, 2009). Though according to Merriam (2009), student researchers find this challenge a “hard” one, Yin (2014) states that a well-researched case provides holistic understanding that quantitative research methods cannot provide. These include the “teasing out” of data (Stake, 1995) that may serve to more fully flesh out a reader’s comprehension of the case under study.
Ethical Research
According to Leedy and Ormrod (2010), to conduct responsible and ethical research, a researcher makes key decisions ranging from deciding which people will participate in the study to excluding certain personal data a respondent may have asked to be kept in confidence. Ethical research requires respect for and “minimization of risk to study participants, use of appropriate methodologies and procedures, and data analysis that answers the research question[s]” (Wester, 2011).
Conducting a study in an ethical manner also assumes that efforts will be made to ensure that all choices are ethical (Wester, 2011), the researcher will strive to acknowledge any personal bias, and diligently aim to keep his/her work free from such
17 bias. This case study was conducted to the best of the case investigator’s abilities, according to the foregoing philosophies.
Qualitative Research Methodology
The most common method for obtaining qualitative data for case study research is through interviews (Yin, 2014; Merriam, 2009; Stake, 1995). Conducting effective interviews requires advance thought to be given as to the questions to be asked, the form of the interview, and the type of respondents who may best be able to answer the researcher’s queries (Yin, 2014).
Structured interviews are those in which all interviewees are asked the same questions, all of which may be known in advance, and there is no deviation from the interview script. Unstructured interviews are relatively freeform, the researcher does little to guide the discussion, and each interviewee can express whatever thoughts or opinions he/she deems most important. Such interviews require more effort on the part of the researcher. He/she must pay very close attention to the respondent while simultaneously writing quickly or having some other means of recording answers, as the researcher will likely not be able to predict the sequence or direction of unstructured responses. Finally, semi-structured interviews are a combination of pre-scripted questions that may or may not be asked of all interviewees (Merriam, 2009). Semi- structured interviews allow the researcher to ask standardized questions of all interviewees if desired, while also leaving room for the researcher to use probes (follow- up questions) designed to elicit more information on particular items of interest (Yin,
2014).
18 Observations may also be used by the researcher, whether acting in the role of a relative outsider or as a participant observer. Observations in a qualitative study are intentionally unstructured. The researcher’s focus may shift from one event, comment, or object as other new and potentially significant objects or events arise. This allows for greater flexibility in collecting data since the researcher is able to benefit from unplanned or unexpected data sources as they present themselves (Leedy & Ormrod,
2010; Merriam, 2009).
Finally, a qualitative researcher may use an instrument such as an open-ended survey or questionnaire. Such instruments must be designed to avoid questions that can be answered “yes” or “no” (Merriam, 2009), that may show evidence of “leading” a respondent to provide a certain answer (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010), or that ask for overly personal information that respondents may hesitate to answer honestly.
In qualitative case studies where open-ended surveys are not used, the researcher is the actual instrument for data collection and analysis. Often, the researcher spends a great deal of time in the study setting and is usually in close contact with staff, the public, or other participants at the setting (Merriam, 2009). A benefit of
“researcher as instrument” is that nothing gets between the researcher and the data; little to nothing is lost in translation. Therefore, confusion or misunderstanding of respondents or of the researcher may be minimized since the researcher is available at the time of data collection to answer any respondent questions or concerns.
Stake (1995) is careful to point out that though“[a case] is something we do not sufficiently understand, but want to,” the researcher is not expected to resolve issues
19 that arise in the case, even if respondent viewpoints are contradictory. Each case has its
own problems and relationships; the researcher will observe these, interview people
about them, or review documents to gain greater understanding of them, but will not
solve them. However, the researcher may find that new issues emerge. Case studies are
progressively focused (Stake, 1995) in that circumstances often change as the study
unfolds. Thus, “an adept case investigator must be flexible and tolerate a high level of
ambiguity” (Merriam, 2009).
Brand Management
In today’s business environment, brands are considered as valuable corporate assets that embody corporate image, beliefs, identity, and communications. In order to successfully manage a brand, it must be determined what variables constitute the corporate brand. A corporate brand management system must then be developed
(Balmer & Gray, 2003).
A strong corporate identity is key to creating a valuable brand, in that it enables delivery of consistent image messages to stakeholders. However, Balmer (2002) found that there is at times confusion or ambiguity regarding elements that form corporate identity. Balmer (2002) proposed to lessen or eliminate this ambiguity by creation of a
“corporate identity mix” which included strategy, structure, communication, and culture. Balmer (2002) further cautioned that brand managers must distinguish between the components that comprise a brand identity and the elements needed to manage that identity.
20 Pike (2008) proposes the use of brand management in managing a destination’s
image, identifying the role of business-related stakeholders, and building destination
brand associations. Destination “personality” has also been suggested as a means for
creating destination image. Aaker’s (1997) Brand Personality Scale described brand personality in terms of human personality traits that consumers perceive a brand to possess. Maintenance of a distinctive brand personality is an important part of brand management in that it can create positive associations in consumer memory (Anholt,
2010), enhance brand equity (Pike, 2008), and serve as a basis for differentiation and
increased authenticity when alluding to the brand’s historical roots (Aaker, 2004).
Further, by identifying different destination personalities, DMOs can more easily
discover their competitors and tourist target markets (Murphy, Benckendorff, &
Moscardo, 2009). However, Sicard (2012) cautions that unless brand managers position
a brand in such a way that consumers can attach meaning to it, it will not “speak to” them and thus they will be likely to discard that brand in favor of others with which they feel more of an emotional bond.
Corporate Branding
Corporate product branding has been studied for decades. Since the late 1990s,
branding has been brought from the business arena into the destination context. Kotler
and Gertner (2002) found that corporate-style branding could be successfully used by
countries to differentiate their products (the COO [Country of Origin] effect), which
influenced consumer purchasing decisions in that specific COO-labeled goods produced
by certain countries were perceived by consumers as having higher quality than the
21 same goods produced elsewhere. Anholt (e.g., 2010) has for years applied macro-level corporate branding principles to a more narrowly-focused viewpoint, finding that places and cities benefit from branding as a means of bringing attention to their cultural, physical, social, and other attributes. Place branding and city branding, terms coined by
Anholt (2010), are now widely accepted as strategic approaches to tourist destination promotion. Destination branding is simply a form of place branding, argues Gnoth
(2007); however, Hanna and Rowley (2008) posit that place branding and destination branding are two different approaches, each requiring its own strategy.
Whereas a brand simply represented a value proposition for the consumer to consider, it now symbolizes a company’s values, its corporate promises, and the desired personality that the company wishes to project (Aaker, 2004; Daly & Moloney, 2004;
Aaker, 1997). Corporate branding seeks to create and maintain a positive image in the consumer’s mind, thus building a perception of a favorable reputation for the company represented by a specific brand. According to Aaker (2004), brands help to achieve positive perceptions by acting as “drivers” that maximize the value of the entire brand portfolio, or as “endorsers” that lend credibility to a corporation by assuring consumers that they are dealing with a reputable organization. Definitions of the corporate brand have evolved over the past few decades, with Hankinson and Cowking observing in 1995 that the nature of a brand is not simply its visual image, personality, or added value.
Rather, Hankinson and Cowking (1995) argue that a three-part definition including
“personality, positioning, and targeting” provides a means of uniformly comparing one brand to another.
22 Corporate branding has also been identified as “the visual, verbal, and
behavioral expression of an organization’s unique business model” (Ashworth &
Kavaratzis, 2009). According to Balmer (2001), a corporate brand is a “covenant”
between an organization and its key stakeholders. The vision, culture, and promise of
the corporation become its value proposition, the value proposition is distributed via
multiple communication channels, and it is embodied in the company’s services,
products and employees (Aaker, 2004; Balmer & Gray, 2003).
Branding may be generally summarized as an attempt to manage consumers’
expectations (Ashworth & Kavaratzis, 2009). Brand management creates a positive
brand image in the mind of the customer; brand positioning seeks identification of
target market segments to whom the brand could most successfully be marketed (Hatz
& Schultz, 2001). Brand positioning, and the “4P framework” of product, price,
promotion, and place/distribution (Kotler, Bowen & Makens, 2010), are staples of product brand marketing.
According to Pike (2008), branding, and marketing perspectives towards branding, are mutually beneficial from both supply and demand points of view.
Corporations must consider how to use the brand as a strategic resource, improving the brand’s ability to help differentiate their products and services from others.
According to Aaker (2004), a corporation’s core values are those that will not be compromised and/or they inform how a company will allocate its funds. Typical priorities are quality, innovation, and customer care. A weakness in corporate branding is when core values are communicated poorly, or when a destination tries to emphasize
23 values that it does not presently have. Hildreth (2015) observes that a destination’s
values cannot be reduced to a slogan; to do so amounts to wasted time. Govers (2013)
states that core values must be inherent in a place if they are to have meaning or
significance; otherwise, there is only confusion.
Destination Branding
DMO professionals often fall prey to considering a name, slogan, tagline, or logo as the entirety of a destination’s “brand” (Blain, Levy & Ritchie, 2005). Branding encompasses much more; it seeks to increase destination competitiveness by enhancing a place’s distinctiveness, thus influencing tourists’ travel preferences (Anholt, 2010).
According to Herstein (2011), branding processes for countries, regions, and cities are each part of a cohesive whole that, practically speaking, often cannot be separated.
Hankinson (2007) states that a destination brand is different from a product brand; it has more in common with a corporate brand. Thompson (2013) claims that destination marketing has been “permanently changed” [by social media and informed customers] and that “destinations are harder by far to brand than most corporate entities,” which may explain why many city leaders struggle with branding approaches. Kornberger
(2012) observes that branding decisions are more effective when grounded in research and stakeholder discussions.
Baker (2007) states that a destination is “a place that people will leave their present location in order to visit, shop, invest, or relocate.” Baker (2007) goes on to say that the process of branding should include all activities that help answer the following questions:
24 • what does a destination want to be known for?
• how does it want to “stand out from the crowd”?
• what “thoughts or feelings does the destination want people to have when
they hear its [the destination’s] name”?
This definition considers a destination brand as a means of conveying the psychological
and physical “feeling” of a specific place as compared to its competitors. Ultimately, the
goal is to enhance destination differentiation among similar competitors vying for
consumer preference.
Brands are increasingly being used by destinations; they are viewed as
facilitating the emotional bonding between a customer and the product, i.e., the mix of
tourism services at a destination (Hankinson, 2004). Place brands lend support to the core brand via use of brand relationships that “enhance brand promise and brand experience” (Hankinson, 2004). According to Ge (2008), tourists’ travel experiences must align with the brand promise made by a destination. Ritchie and Ritchie’s (1998) brand characteristics (e.g., “unique,” “memorable,” and “pleasurable”) emphasize key attributes that the brand promise must deliver.
As Anholt (2010) observes, branding should emphasize the positive attributes a destination already has. A city’s cultural and historical roots are an inseparable part of a destination; thus, according to the City Mayors Foundation (an international think tank devoted to urban affairs), they should be a part of any city’s destination branding strategy (www.citymayors.com). Cities that have hosted Olympic Games appear to have
grasped this concept quite well, emphasizing their roots as well as modern amenities.
25 Marketing campaigns undertaken by these cities, notably commencing with Barcelona,
Spain, host of the 1992 Summer Olympic Games, have effectively adapted corporate branding concepts (www.thisbigcity.net).
Corporate branding’s basic function is value creation (Aaker, 2004; Balmer &
Gray, 2003; Knox & Bickerton, 2003). Cooperative relationships between all stakeholders (Hankinson, 2004) maximize that value. Destination stakeholders include
DMOs; they also include but are not limited to business owners, city officials, investors, and residents. DMOs must take care that the brand aligns with values held by the destination’s residents (Braun, 2012), and to include them in branding discussions.
City and Place Branding
Cities that are successfully developing brand images generally do so with the aim of finding, developing, and/or establishing a target market that ultimately will turn into loyal customers (Winfield-Pfefferkorn, 2005). Place branding affects the existing perceptions of a specific locale (Anholt, 2010), and a successful brand of any kind is supported by consistent internal and external messages (Ashworth & Kavaratzis, 2009).
A community’s cultural, social, natural, and economic values are what make it unique; they form the basis for its branding. Community stakeholders, particularly residents, should have significant, ongoing input into branding decisions (Braun, 2012).
A City’s leadership should keep tabs on the response of consumers/residents to their branding activities, the word-of-mouth promotion of a city that its residents provide
(Sahin & Baloglu, 2014), and ought to consider them as co-creators or co-producers of
26 the brand (Aaker, 2004). Hankinson (2004) refers to cooperative stakeholder relationships as key to the success of any branding effort.
City branding must start with a municipality’s most important characteristics or fundamental properties. Anholt (2010) asserts that thriving cities have “the 6 Ps”:
• Prerequisites: sufficient infrastructure and housing; a reasonable cost of living;
good schools; reasonable transportation
• Presence: employment and educational opportunities that contribute to local,
state, and/or national technological, scientific, or other advances
• Place: inherent characteristics or amenities (such as reasonable climate,
attractive scenery, convenient location) that make it desirable to people
• Pulse: urban nightlife, a downtown, or some other entertainment/dining venue
• People: residents who are interesting, relatively friendly, and diverse
• Potential: planned ability to accommodate growth and new opportunities
Though the city branding literature in large part focuses on the positive aspects of city or place branding, there are dissenting viewpoints. According to Smith and
Krannich (1998), as quoted by Dornyei, Csizer, and Nemeth (2006), communities eager to brand themselves as tourist destinations may tend to overestimate the potential benefits of tourism. Similarly, cities that are already popular tourist destinations may eventually come to feel that the benefits are outweighed by the disadvantages. Davis et al. (1998) observe that attitudes of residents within tourist destinations range from
“anti-tourism” to “enthusiastic acceptance” of perceived economic benefits, depending on the residents’ proximity to the city’s major tourist attractions. Thus, care must be
27 taken to solicit residents’ opinions in the development of a brand meant to attract
visitors to a city or place as well as the location of tourist-focused venues.
Kornberger (2012) observes that “place branding is political” in that branding
decisions determine the future direction of a place and thus the attributes to be
showcased, de-emphasized, or eliminated. Therefore, it is not realistic to believe that all
community stakeholders will be happy about a city’s tourism campaigns or branding
efforts. Disagreements among stakeholder groups can delay or even derail branding efforts (Braun, 2012). Additionally, businesses (including DMOs) must be aware of their corporate social responsibility. Today, tourism organizations typically take into account hot-button issues including the state of the local economy and the degree to which residents perceive their city as economically dependent on tourism (Smith & Krannich,
1998), as quoted by Dornyei, Csizer & Nemeth (2006). It is important for all business entities to be “good citizens,” particularly with respect to environmental issues, support of education, and fair treatment of employees (Aaker, 2004).
City and Destination Rebranding
City, small town, and tourism destination rebranding may be thought of as subcategories of the more general subject of urban rebranding. Urban rebranding refers to the repositioning of a place that is undertaken by city leaders, investors, and/or marketers in an effort to positively change in some way, the city’s existing image
(www.citymetric.com). Initially, urban rebranding was a 1980’s strategy designed to
benefit Western cities by targeting residents of Iron Curtain regimes whose freedoms
(including travel to the U.S.) had previously been limited. These residents began seeking
28 out Western cities as their preferred choice for places to live, work, visit, or invest
(www.thisbigcity.net).
Though Western cities in developed countries led the way with their strategies to attract people through urban rebranding efforts, cities in emerging economies are also seeking to enhance their image. These cities (i.e., Sao Paolo) are increasingly being viewed as viable growth opportunities for which more and more investor dollars are being spent on infrastructure and other improvements (www.thisbigcity.net).
U.S. urban cities have increasingly sought to rebrand or reposition themselves after undergoing financial crisis or other negative events, or simply as a means to shift attention from high unemployment rates, graffiti, high crime rates, blight, or other negative attributes (www.citymetric.com). As shown in Figure 2 below, the reasons why cities rebrand will vary depending on the desired goals of each city’s leadership.
Figure 2. Aims of urban rebranding. (Source: www.geofieldwork.com).
29 Urban rebranding is different from reimaging or regeneration of a place, but may include both in its business strategy. Rebranding seeks to redevelop and market a city or destination in order to gain a completely new identity that can then be used to attract new investment, tourists, talent, and residents. Reimaging disassociates a place from negative attributes so that it can then attract dollars and people to the city. Finally, regeneration of a city or destination may be utilized to encourage investment by reversing urban decline or decay. Regeneration is a long-term process most often used to combat long-standing social, economic, or environmental problems. Its goal is to create a sustainable community through redevelopment efforts and a lengthy process of civic involvement by investors, business leaders, and residents
(www.geofieldwork.com).
Figure 3. Urban rebranding. (Source: www.geofieldwork.com).
Daly and Moloney (2004) refer to rebranding as a continuum in which the relative complexity of the desired changes range from minor change(s) to complete change. Minor changes may simply involve a “facelift” to refresh a brand now viewed as dated. Intermediate changes may mean repositioning of the brand to give it a new image or emphasize a different attribute. Often, this may require nothing more than a
30 new marketing strategy and assurance to consumers and/or stakeholders that though
the image has changed, the underlying brand is the same. A complete change of brand
(rebrand) requires constant communication with all stakeholders to inform them what
the new brand stands for. This usually requires a significant and ongoing marketing campaign (Daly & Moloney, 2004).
While some cities have effectively rebranded, the consulting firm k629 (as quoted in www.citymetric.com) states that 86% of all urban rebranding campaigns fail
even after city leaders invest significant dollar amounts into these undertakings.
According to k629, city officials always hope that a rebranding campaign will revitalize
their town, or bring it to the attention of more travelers, investors, or future residents.
However, many rebranding efforts consist of little more than a new logo, tagline, and/or
catchy slogan, which in and of themselves are largely ineffective in successfully doing
the heavy lifting required to rebrand a city (www.citymetric.com). Further, a
repositioning strategy implemented poorly, or one that includes a universally-disliked
logo or slogan, may actually harm the city or destination more than it helps (Fuchs &
Diamantopoulos, 2010).
A key in successful rebranding is to determine what important characteristics or
policies a city already has, and then to organize them around “one big idea” or image
(www.citymetric.com). It is not possible to try to rebrand as a clone of another city that
is thought by city leaders to be desirable or successful. This leads to what Bennett and
Savani (2003) refer to as the “McDonaldization” of cities, in which destinations try to be everything to everyone, become largely indistinguishable from each other, and lose
31 sight of what makes them unique and relatable (Thompson, 2013). Rather than
abandoning or minimizing their legacy attributes, social, cultural, and natural heritage should be emphasized and brought to the attention of visitors (Bennett & Savani, 2003).
The mayors who contribute to www.citymayors.com suggest that successful
cities need strong, resourceful leaders, administrations with sufficient resources, and that the leadership team ought to reflect the community that they serve. A city is greatly influenced by its past, and the contributing mayors also advise beginning from a
position of strength by taking advantage of already-existing historical architecture,
longstanding traditions, and other attributes of legacy (www.citymayors.com), then
using them to reinforce branding or rebranding efforts. Effective rebranding strategy
also calls for all stakeholders to define a common vision, and a plan to achieve it, well
before any attempts are made to create logos and slogans (www.citymetric.com).
Slogans
For many destinations, a slogan is an important part (if not the entirety) of their
brand strategy. Almost every destination uses a slogan. Though some are extremely
successful, i.e., Las Vegas with its slogan of “what happens here, stays here” (Thompson,
2013), a number of practitioners criticize slogans and indicate that their effects are
overrated. For example, Gold & Ward (1994) suggest that slogans achieve only
“ephemeral indifference” and Govers (2013) remarks that few slogans are likely to differentiate destinations over time. Govers (2013) goes on to state that the point of place branding is not logo design and slogan creation, but to make an already- identifiable place something distinctive (emphasis added). Since most places already
32 have identifiers (e.g., names and landmarks), spending a great deal of time and money
on logos and slogans is less effective than city leaders tend to believe (Govers, 2013).
As observed by Ashworth and Kazaratzis (2009), city branding should be “a complete and continuous process interlinked with marketing.” Ashworth and Kazaratzis
(2009) posit that the lack of success of many cities’ branding campaigns is primarily due to city leaders who consider the city branding process as consisting only of creation of logos and slogans for promotional materials, thus limiting its overall effect.
Reaching the minds of travelers who are already overwhelmed with incoming messages from traditional and social media channels requires brief, targeted communications with a focus on one, perhaps two, brand associations. Marketing departments and DMOs attempt to achieve this by developing short slogans that try to describe in seven words or less, a destination’s entire range of natural resources, built attractions, culture, activities, and amenities (Hildreth, 2015). Thus, slogans are developed that try to cover every possible angle yet serve only to muddle a destination’s image in the minds of those who perceive it (Hildreth, 2015; Govers, 2013).
Rarely does a destination have a short, simple, and focused slogan such as “I [heart]
New York” (Aakers, 2004).
Even when a slogan is short and focused, the diversity of stakeholders in a city mean that the slogan may be interpreted in different ways. Thus, city or regional DMOs must target many geographic markets to attract a wide range of the traveler segments that might be interested in what the city has to offer. Yet, according to Govers (2013), it is doubtful that one slogan will be meaningful to all market segments.
33 Wellness Tourism
Global Wellness Tourism (2013) defines wellness tourism as travel that “focuses on maintaining and improving one’s personal health and wellbeing.” More and more consumers are interested in such travel, which in 2012 represented 6% of total tourism trips though the number of such travelers is steadily trending upward (GWI, 2013).
Primarily this is due to increasing numbers of residents and tourists looking for vacation experiences that combine health benefits with recreational activities as a means to reduce stress and feel a sense of greater wellbeing. In contrast, a traditional vacation may actually increase stress due to overindulgence in food and/or drink, lack of exercise, and upset of the regular sleep schedule that one would adhere to while at home (GWI, 2013). Hartwell et al. (2012) refers to such indulgent behavior as a hedonistic approach, in which a tourist’s state of mind focuses predominantly on his/her individual happiness and the belief that wellbeing is achieved by the attainment of pleasure. This stands in contrast to the eudaimonic approach in which self-awareness, meaning, and engagement are the primary goals (Hartwell et al., 2012).
The following figure shows typical activities and services that wellness tourists seek:
34
Figure 4. Chart of activities and places that wellness tourists seek. Depending on the vacation purposes listed in the middle, wellness tourists will engage in different types of activities and therefore visit different locations accordingly. (Source: GWI, 2013).
Wellness Travel Worldwide, an industry group, monitors wellness trends and seeks to help destinations attract more wellness visitors. The organization compiled a list of growing wellness tourism trends for 2014 that indicated wellness travelers
35 increasingly were looking for destinations perceived to improve health, increase
longevity, promote relaxation and rejuvenation, and help people achieve a more
balanced lifestyle (WTW, 2013). However, this is only possible if all key wellness tourism
stakeholders in a city work together to communicate consistent messages to consumers
(GWI, 2013) as indicated in Figure 5 below:
Figure 5. List of key potential stakeholders in wellness tourism. (Source: GWI, 2013).
According to GWI (2013), there are two main types of wellness travelers: those
who choose to visit a city or destination specifically for wellness purposes, and those
who travel for other reasons but seek to include health or wellness activity into their
vacation time. Regardless, both categories of travelers may visit the same or similar
places, though their underlying travel motivations may be different when planning their
destination choice.
Hartwell et al. (2012) further discusses wellness tourism in terms of a destination
promoting a sense of wellbeing for residents and tourists. A city’s leadership team can
consider wellbeing objectively (as a tourism destination) or subjectively (focusing on
36 individual health and personal goals). In either case, local governments can form
alliances between public health agencies and tourism promoters to create synergy between the two disciplines (Ritchie & Crouch, 2003).
Chapter Summary
Chapter 3 reviewed the literature relating to the topics of interest in this case
study. These topics included planning and organization of a case study, brand
management, corporate branding, destination branding, place and city branding, city
rebranding, slogans, and wellness tourism. In Chapter 4, case methodology will be
discussed in detail. Information will be provided as to the study participants, origination
of the resident survey questions, pilot study, focus group questions and activities, and
key informant interviews, all of which were used to collect data for this study.
37 CHAPTER 4
METHODOLOGY
This exploratory case study employed qualitative methods to analyze residents’ perceptions of Claremont as a healthful city. Residents were also asked open-ended questions about their definition of health, healthy and unhealthy cities, their understanding of the Claremont brand, awareness of and access to City planning documents, and their use of Claremont resources and services. They also supplied brief demographic data consisting of year of birth and their occupation. Data from individual residents, focus groups of residents, personal interviews of key informants, and historical documents was used to determine residents’ perceptions of the City’s existing brand image as well as the potential branding being contemplated.
A qualitative study is especially appropriate in understanding “how” and “why” questions with open-ended answers based on the cognition, affect, intentions, and perceptions of the participants (Maxwell, 2005). They explore how participants make sense of events and how these affect their behavior. In addition, a characteristic of the
qualitative method is that it has an openness and flexibility that allows the researcher to
modify the design and focus as the research progresses (Maxwell, 2005). This study
aimed to draw on qualitative data to: 1) explore the cognitions and perceptions of
residents, and formulate a list of factors that influence their perceptions of the
Claremont brand; and 2) provide City officials with qualitative evidence of residents’
reactions to a proposed rebranding of the City as both a healthful city and a potential
health and wellness destination.
38 Unit of Measure
In all resident questionnaires, focus groups, and interviews, the unit of analysis was the City as a whole.
Review and Permissions
Prior to circulating questionnaires or holding focus groups, the City’s Human
Services Supervisor requested a review of all materials to be distributed to the public by this researcher. She requested additional language to be added to Question #4, which asked respondents if they read City planning documents, and to identify which ones they had read. Such wording left the focus of the question in some doubt, as the original intention was to ask respondents what method or process they used to learn about the status of planning efforts made by City leaders. Question #4 was revised, and the questionnaire submitted to the pilot study participants. Question #5 was also revised for purposes of greater clarity. Permission was then given for distribution of the questionnaires to individual residents. Locations, times, and dates for the focus groups were subsequently arranged with the appropriate City staff.
Study Participants
Perez & Treadwell (2009) note that ethical research requires respect for and minimization of risk to the study participants, as well as use of appropriate procedures and methodologies. Thus, potential respondents in this study were told that participation was entirely voluntary, participants could refuse to answer questions, and focus group members could elect not to participate in any individual or group activity that they so chose. Moreover, all prospective participants were informed that their
39 identities would be kept confidential and that they would be identified only by a
number or general descriptor such as “male resident, age 46, who has lived in
Claremont for 20 years.” City staff was identified only by job title; however, names of
upper management members were revealed when identifying their staff reports and
occasionally, other City documents. Finally, all participants were assured that any
personal telephone or email address they had provided would not be given to third
parties, with the possible exception of City staff who might assist with any issue or
concern brought to light in the resident questionnaire.
Origination of Initial Survey Questions
The initial queries were based on the original research questions and were designed to provide data that would assist in answering those specific questions. As the completed questionnaires were reviewed and data was collected and organized, the survey questions slightly evolved based on the data and preliminary conclusions that could be drawn from it. The evolution of the data, and the theories ultimately based upon it, are discussed further in Chapter 5, Analysis and Results.
Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted in which the first set of open-ended questions was
examined by ten Claremont residents to determine if they found any of the questions
unclear, confusing, or irrelevant. A secondary aim was to discover if the residents felt
any pertinent or helpful questions had been left off of the questionnaire and should be
added before the questionnaire went into wider circulation.
40 As a result of the pilot study responses, Question #4 was revised using fewer words and simpler language. All other questions were found acceptable by the pilot study participants.
Several respondents requested that an additional question be added to the residents’ survey. PS Respondent #8 asked that human-powered locomotion be included in the questionnaire, PS Respondent #9 thought there should be a question about specific services for home-bound residents, and PS Respondent #10 wanted residents to be asked about the ease of getting to know people if a new resident has no children. However, these questions exceeded the scope of work of this study and therefore were not pursued by the case researcher. The questions were referred to City staff in appropriate functional areas, with a request to follow up with these three residents as each had provided contact information. Results were then communicated to the Human Services Supervisor. The focus group questionnaire was found by the
Human Services and Senior Program Supervisors to be acceptable without changes.
Windshield Survey
A windshield survey (e.g., www.ctb.ku.edu) was conducted by the researcher prior to dissemination of questionnaires. Windshield survey, a public health assessment methodology, requires a researcher to drive through a city looking for obvious indicators of health problems or contributors to unhealthy conditions, and ensures that the researcher has some idea of the physical conditions existing within the city at the time a study is conducted.
41 Questionnaires
The first questionnaire was distributed to random citizens who self-identified as meeting these basic screening criteria: they were Claremont residents, had lived in the
City at least five years, and had time to complete the survey then and there (i.e., there would be no taking the questionnaire home with them or returning it at a future time).
Questionnaires were distributed on multiple occasions at popular locations within the
City. The first questionnaires were distributed on several Tuesdays and Thursdays at the
Joslyn Senior Center and other Tuesdays and Thursdays at the Alexander Hughes
Community Center.
Each questionnaire contained seven open-ended questions. The purpose of the initial questionnaire was to gather qualitative data from residents that would allow a conceptual framework to be developed for City health and branding data. A review of
City documents revealed that these topics had not previously been researched in any great detail by City staff. Data from the first set of questionnaires was analyzed on an ongoing basis to attempt to identify common themes or patterns, to allow grouping of the rapidly-growing collection of data into general categories that corresponded to the research questions, and to aid in data organization and recall of pertinent facts.
These organizational efforts eventually resulted in the realization that questionnaire circulation could continue for months, and still there would be a good probability that people who knew quite a bit about the history of the City and any potential evolution of its branding, would be excluded from the respondent pool. This insight resulted in the formation of a second questionnaire with two additional
42 questions designed to help uncover the identities of key informants (Merriam, 2009)
who would be among those most knowledgeable about Claremont. This data afforded
some excellent referrals for personal interviews that occurred later in the data
collection process.
A third and final set of questionnaires was circulated on two Saturdays at
Memorial Park, a public park immediately adjacent to Claremont Heritage, the City’s
historical society. The need for a third version of the questionnaire became evident
when the case investigator determined that age would be an important demographic
that might have a bearing on the submitted responses. Therefore, attempts were made
to contact every respondent of the first two questionnaires who had not provided their
age. Fortunately, these were few and the information was collected fairly easily.
Residents rarely hesitated before providing any requested information, were easily approachable, interested in the study, and typically only declined to participate if they did not have time to answer the study questions. Questionnaire distribution was halted after 44 completed surveys were collected, as it was found that on a number of
questions, residents were essentially reporting the same information expressed in
slightly different terms. Thus, further collection efforts were considered to be of limited
value in yielding significant new information and would merely be examples of quantity
versus quality of responses. The finalized questionnaire used in this study is attached
hereto as Appendix A.
Before entirely discontinuing questionnaire circulation, the questions were re-
examined to ensure they were asking for specific, discrete, but entirely open-ended
43 responses that neutrally asked the various respondents the desired questions. Since the questions had been reviewed in a pilot study, and because three of the random respondents were university professors with research experience and PhDs, it was felt that any questions that tended to produce uniformity of answers would have been called to the researcher’s attention by at least one of the university professors as their feedback had been requested. Since no objections were raised, the investigator felt comfortable about ceasing further data collection by way of resident questionnaires.
Upon review of all the finalized questionnaires, the case investigator found that the respondents ranged in age from 20-91 years of age. Slightly more than half of the total respondents were female, the vast majority were either currently employed or retired (a few were unemployed, or full-time students), and the length of Claremont residency of the participants ranged from five to fifty-four (54) years.
Focus Groups
Simultaneous with the circulation of the second set of questionnaires, a series of four focus groups was conducted. Each focus group averaged six participants and efforts were made to group the participants by general age. Approximately half of the respondents were age 55 or older; the other half consisted of residents with an approximate age range of 25-54 years of age. Some small variability in age ranges occurred, as participants occasionally brought friends who were younger or older than the main body of attendees and thus fell outside the prescribed range. Attending a focus group comprised primarily of residents of a similar age range appeared to encourage participants to unselfconsciously contribute their opinions, though no
44 participant exhibited any nervousness or undue anxiety about volunteering their
thoughts and opinions even in front of residents whom they did not personally know.
Focus Group Activities
The focus group activity sheet (attached hereto as Appendix B) included word
associations (Chandler, 2002), semi-structured discussions, a mixed whole-
group/subgroup/individual activity relating to brand attributes (Bruner, 2012), and
individual questionnaires asking validated questions from the Marketing Scales
Handbook, Vol. 7 about brand ambivalence, brand attachment, and attitude confidence
(Bruner, 2012). The focus groups concluded with freewheeling whole-group discussions
of current slogans and possible new slogans for City of Claremont. The case researcher
was kept extremely busy making introductions, explaining the activities, answering
questions, moderating and at times refereeing each small sub-group, and serving
refreshments while also hastening to document the spontaneous comments of the
participants while they were still fresh in her mind.
Incentive
All focus group participants were given a $5 gift card for purchases at an
international chain of coffee and beverage shops. These were purchased by the case
researcher as an incentive for residents to attend the focus groups, as recruitment of
the younger-aged group proved somewhat difficult if no inducement was offered.
Though recruitment of the 55 and older group was not difficult, it would have been awkward to provide incentives to some participants and not others. This was
45 particularly true in the case of several older participants who arranged transportation
through Claremont’s Dial-A-Ride or other services in order to attend the focus group.
Key Informant Interviews
In addition to focus group data and the answers collected from the open-ended questionnaires, interviews of eleven (11) key informants were conducted. Most key informants were interviewed at a time of their choosing, though some agreed to speak to the investigator in passing or at a City event such as the Human Services Open House.
Key informants consisted of Claremont residents whose names had been provided to the case researcher by other residents and/or City staff; they were widely considered as
“the experts about Claremont” by those who had referred them. The key informants currently or formerly held at least one commission or committee position (and often, positions on multiple committees) and/or otherwise represented a wide cross-section of
Claremont organizations or entities including:
• Police Commission
• Transportation Commission
• Committee on Aging
• Chamber of Commerce
• The Village Development Committee (for development of downtown
Claremont)
• Relative of a now-deceased Claremont Historian
• Claremont Heritage
• Human Services Dept. management team at two locations
46 • Youth Sports Committee
• Water Bond Committee
• Hillside Development Committee
An interview guide was developed, with questions covering the following aspects of Claremont:
• Personal history (i.e., how long the interviewee has lived in the City)
• Perceived city prestige
• Healthful/harmful aspects of physical environment
• Social environment
• Health of population and people
• Prevailing tourism conditions
• City facilities and amenities
• Evolution of the Claremont brand including any known slogans and
branding, and opinion about contemplated direction of future branding.
This interview guide was used somewhat flexibly during the interviews, as key informants contacted by telephone were willing to discuss all of the pre-scripted items but often segued to deeply-felt topics only tangentially related to this study. Thus, the
15-20 minutes allotted to each telephone interview was entirely too brief; most interviews ran 50-60 minutes and a few would have continued for even longer had the case investigator not politely brought the interview to a close.
The purpose of conducting interviews among groups of key informants for interviews, residents for questionnaires, and historical documents to support the
47 collective data, is to achieve triangulation in data collection (Yin, 2014; Merriam, 2009;
Stake, 1995). Triangulation increases the probability that individual statements are “the
truth” and that multiple similar perceptions of any single event or circumstance ultimately result in increased internal validity of the case study (Stake, 1995).
A total of ten (10) Claremont residents participated in the pilot study, eleven (11)
semi-structured key informant interviews were conducted, forty-four (44)
questionnaires were filled out and returned, and the focus groups yielded twenty-two
(22) respondents, for a total of eighty-seven (87) individual responses. No interviews or
focus groups were tape-recorded, as the case researcher did not have the resources to
do so or the time to transcribe all the sessions. Data was analyzed on an ongoing basis
to identify ‘like’ content and frequency of responses. This enabled grouping of similar
responses under content umbrellas that could be used to help flesh out any common
conceptual themes of the case study while providing a rich set of qualitative data to aid
in understanding of resident perceptions relating to the study’s research questions.
Chapter Summary
Chapter 4 reviewed the methodology used in this case study, including the
survey and focus group instruments, a description of the number and characteristics of
the study participants, and rationale for determining when to cease data collection. In
Chapter 5, in-depth analyses and results (findings) of this study will be introduced.
48 CHAPTER 5
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Preliminary Findings
Prior to designing questionnaires or contacting residents, the case researcher conducted a windshield survey and extensive Internet research about the City since she had never been there and knew little to nothing about Claremont. Two concerns immediately came to mind:
1. If the City desires to attract more tourists, where are they going to stay?
Where would they want to stay? Existing hotel room inventory (483 total
rooms, five hotels) appears inadequate to house any major influx of visitors.
Further, of the five hotels within City boundaries, two are hotels and three
are motor hotels (motels). The motels were rated on TripAdvisor as “1 star”
or “1.5 stars” out of a total of five stars, and all three had received mostly
poor ratings from previous visitors.
Table 1
Existing Hotel Room Inventory (as of Dec. 2014)
Hotel Name No. of Rooms TripAdvisor Avg. Occupancy Rating (if available) DoubleTree 190 3 stars 79.7% (2013)* Casa 425 28 4 stars 73.0% (2012)* Motel 6 (former Hotel Claremont) 121 1-1.5 stars N/A Claremont Lodge 56 1-1.5 stars N/A Knights Inn (former Howard Johnson 58 1 star N/A Express)
49 * Source: www.claremont-courier.com (2015, Feb. 12)
2. Where are visitors going to park? Parking in heavily-used locations (i.e., The
Village, or on side streets near City Hall or Indian Hill Blvd.) filled quickly;
moreover, most parking spaces were for one- to two-hour time periods. A
parking structure located in The Village did help alleviate the worst of the
overflow, but at prime times (nights and weekends) street parking was
almost nonexistent and in the parking structure, drivers were observed
repeatedly circling several levels of the structure before finding a parking
spot.
Expected Findings
High degree of resident satisfaction. The case researcher expected to find the majority of residents to be happy about living in Claremont, though she was interested in finding out the attributes they found most pleasing. Definitions are: R = filled out a resident questionnaire; KI = key informant; FG = focus group member. Following are some of the resident responses:
• We moved here to be part of CUSD [Claremont Unified School
District] and to be part of a community. People are very happy
living where they are, unless something happens in their
neighborhood that they don’t like. People accept a lot unless it’s
really egregious. (KI #11, a married female in her 70s with high
civic involvement, has lived in Claremont for 49 years.)
50 • Claremont is an oasis amongst a concrete jungle. (KI #5, a
married male whose family has been politically active for decades
in Claremont.)
• What’s not to like? Look at what we already have. There’s
Claremont Club, healthy food, The Loop [hiking/walking trail], and
lots of activities. And of course, all the trees. The only thing I wish
there was more of, is lighted fields for the kids to play on. (KI #10,
married male in his early 50s, has lived in Claremont for 15 years.)
Appreciation of trees/natural environment. The case investigator expected to find that residents would mention trees and open, green spaces as attributes they felt contributed highly to quality of life in Claremont. Following are some resident responses:
• Trees and healthy air. (R #2, male in his 30s, has lived in Claremont at
least five years.)
• A wonderful American town!! Clear air, beautiful trees. (R #9, male in his
30s, has lived in Claremont at least five years.)
• Lots of joggers and tree huggers. (R #12, male in his 50s, has lived in
Claremont for ‘many years’.)
• Quiet. Clean. Green. (R #14, male in his 20s, has lived in Claremont at
least five years.)
• Wonderful. Everything about it is wonderful. (R #15, married female, 83
years old, has lived in Claremont ‘not too long’ but at least five years.)
51 • Beautiful/pretty/charming. Clean and green. (multiple respondents)
• [We’re] eco-conscious. (R #39, female in her 30s, has lived in Claremont
at least five years.)
• Verdant. (R #16, female in her 40s, has lived in Claremont at least five
years.)
Love of, or appreciation for, education. The researcher expected to find residents who appreciated the value of education or positively mentioned The
Claremont Colleges. Following are some resident responses:
• It’s the trees and PhDs. (multiple respondents)
• [We’re the] mini-Ivy League and education-oriented. (R #27, male college
student, has lived in Claremont at least five years.)
• Listed “Education” or “Educational” as one of the first three words they
thought of when describing Claremont. (multiple respondents)
• Intelligent city. (KI #6, married female in her early 30s, has lived in
Claremont at least five years.)
• The City of Colleges. R #44, married male in his 50s with high civic
involvement, has lived in Claremont for ‘many years’.)
Preference for small-town living. The investigator expected to find that residents cited a dislike of living in a large city and/or a deliberate choice to live in Claremont, a town with a relatively small population where it is more likely that people know their neighbors and other residents. Following are some of the resident responses:
52 • Peaceful, community-based, quiet. (R #3, female in her 30s, has lived in
Claremont for over five years.)
• Friendly, quiet. (multiple respondents)
• East Coast-like town (R #8, civically-involved female who has lived in
Claremont at least five years.)
• A lot of caring people. (R #11, married female in her 80s, has lived in
Claremont for a ‘long, long time.’)
• Quaint/charming/pretty. (multiple respondents)
• I think Claremont is perfection. It is populated by a lot of people who
care a lot about all aspects of life. (R #16, female in her 40s, has lived in
Claremont at least five years.)
• I came here from another country. I love the friendly people here. We
are hungry for it [friendliness]. (FG #18, married female, 82 years old, has
lived in Claremont ‘about a decade’.)
• Family-friendly. (multiple respondents)
Unexpected Findings
Uniformity of residents’ opinions. Residents overwhelmingly appear to enjoy living in Claremont. Out of 88 individual responses, just three had anything negative to say about the City:
• The Village is too San Marino-ish, too tony, too expensive, too chichi.
(FG #17, retired university professor, Claremont resident for over five
years.)
53 • I don’t think we’re overly friendly, there’s no convenient stores in town,
and The Village is no good for ‘regular’ people. Too many boutiques.
What I wouldn’t give for a pharmacy and a good hardware store!
(FG #15, male approximately in his 60s, educator, Claremont resident for
over five years.)
• It’s the Stepford community of the millennium. (Friend of focus group
member, female in her 40s, Claremont resident for over five years.)
Strength of residents’ opinions. When choosing among rankings based on a scale
from 1-11, a significant number of residents chose 1s and 11s (a 1 indicated “The strongest possible No; or Never” and an 11 meant “The strongest possible Yes; or
Always”). Another significant segment of residents chose 2s and 10s, which are only slightly less strong.
Confusion among residents about how to define a healthy city. A number of residents gave responses to the effect that only people are healthy, not cities. However, residents had no trouble in describing or naming unhealthy cities, which they
characterized as follows:
• Filthy, noisy, congested. High unemployment and poor health services.
(FG #14, male Human Resources administrator).
• Smog, trash, and it smells [describing Beijing]. (R #2, male in his 30s).
• Polluted, noisy, people not helping each other. (R #3, female in her 30s.)
• Fast-food drive-thrus. (R #5, female in her 40s).
54 • Pollution. Too many cars for small space. Lots of noise contributes to
stress. Not enough fresh air to breathe. Not enough trees or parks.
(R #10, female in her 30s).
• Smog, drugs, trash. (R #11, male in his 50s).
• Gangs, bad air quality [describing Chicago]. (R #15, female, age 83).
• Dirty, lots of homeless, drug use, crime. (R #16, female in her 40s).
• People litter, they don’t care. You see full trash bags with flies on them.
Nobody cleans that city. It’s a dirty city; even the buses are dirty
[describing Pomona]. (R #19, female in her 60s, has lived in Claremont for
35 years.)
• Too much fast food, and you can’t walk anywhere. (R #23, female in her
20s).
• Cities near the Bakken Shale and gas/oil fields (North Dakota, Montana).
Environmental devastation (fracking chemicals, flaring burns). Traffic
increase (pollution). Crime increase (human trafficking, drug-related
crime). (R #25, female in her early 30s).
• Graffiti, dirt, unclean. Lack of care, lack of pride of ownership, lack of
initiative. Not enough people who care. (R #28, male, 81 years old, has
lived in Claremont since 1961).
• Driving culture, smoggy air, overweight population. (R #43, female in her
30s).
• No unique identity. Suburban sprawl. (R #36, male, 34 years old).
55 • Dirty. Polluted. Sponsors immoral or unhealthy events or activities (a la
Las Vegas). (R #31, female in her 30s).
Low number of residents who thought of Claremont as a healthy city. Just
seven respondents out of eighty-seven (8% of total respondents) used the words
“health” or “healthy” when describing Claremont. This may be due to the residents’
widely-held belief that only people, not cities, can be considered as healthy.
Residents who are proud of resources and amenities, but appear to take them for granted. A fair number of respondents expressed off-the-cuff comments along the lines of “If we really want something, we go to the [City] Council meeting, or call City
Hall, and we eventually get what we want.” Some residents also seemed to feel there was nothing unusual in having big-city amenities such as a roller rink, equestrian ring, nearby Metro station, skate park, botanical garden, and proposed band shell. When it was suggested that residents must feel fortunate to have these resources, several residents expressed pride in the City, making comments such as, “Well, that’s because we’re Claremont” / “That’s just how we do things in Claremont.”
Analysis of Residents’ Responses
Residents’ responses generally indicate a well-educated group of participants who value education, have a good grasp of current issues (i.e., fracking), display at least a moderate amount of passion or support for environmental issues and preservation of parks, trees, and open spaces, and have deliberately chosen to live in a small town.
These residents feel that quality of life in Claremont is excellent, the town is well maintained, the people are friendly, and there are a variety of interesting things to see
56 and do. Though residents have difficulty in describing Claremont as a healthy city, they did describe many services, resources, or activities where improved health could be a by-product (i.e., walking, biking, hiking, and easy availability of healthy food).
Many people also described a sense that residents here look out for each other, which even extends to people they do not know. Residents also felt that Claremont was a place where people could participate in local governance issues, voice their opinions, and feel like City leaders will listen to them.
Finally, the residents feel that Claremont is a unique place. There is an appreciation for the City’s history, cultural background, and heritage elements such as
Claremont’s architecturally-significant older homes and its trees, particularly the very old specimens. This is a city where residents come to live and seemingly do not leave unless a change in circumstances compels them to do so.
Analysis of City Departmental Data
Here, too, several findings were surprising. Results are listed below:
History of mini rebrandings. City document review, plus discussions with staff, revealed that certain City departments had a history of reorganizations and rebranding, including new taglines and logos. For example, the Human Services Department had reorganized approximately six times over the course of about sixteen years (Human
Services Supervisor, personal communication, April 2015), and it was undergoing its latest reorganization at the inception of this study. Moreover, the departmental tagline and logo were changed from “Parks Make Life Better” to “Creating Community: People -
Parks - Programs.” The reasons for the change were unclear.
57 Coincidentally, during the Human Services rebranding, two Claremont motor
hotels were also rebranding. The former Howard Johnson Express rebranded to the
Knights Inn, while the former Hotel Claremont rebranded to Motel 6. City documents
revealed that the rebranding was part of an overall repositioning of the motels for the
purpose of reducing litter, nuisance complaints, and crime (primarily drug-related
complaints) occurring on motel property. The motel owners will be given permission for
additional hotel/motel development if they are successful in cleaning up their existing
properties (T. Ramos, City Manager, City of Claremont, City Council 2015 Priority
Workshop agenda report, February 7, 2015).
Lack of awareness of DMO campaigns. Claremont’s DMO, Discover Claremont, was created at the time the Chamber of Commerce was authorized by the City to administer the Claremont Tourism Business Improvement District in 2010. The DMO is funded by a 2% transient occupancy tax on each rented room sold at Claremont hotels.
This 2% TOT is on top of an existing 10% tax (www.claremont-courier.com).
Though Discover Claremont’s purpose is to promote the City as a tourism
destination, and its work is being funded with City dollars, hardly any City staff are
aware of the organization. If they do know about Discover Claremont, they cannot name
any of its marketing campaigns. Furthermore, the DMO is not linked to the City’s new
website, it has a very weak presence on YouTube (less than 100 views of each of the five
posted videos), and no one interviewed for this study knew anything about its Instagram
presence or the currently-running “100 Reasons in 100 Days” campaign touting 100
reasons to visit Claremont.
58 Analysis of Data Relative to Research Questions
To review, the research questions in this study are as follows:
1. What are residents’ perceptions of the City’s present branding?
2. What are residents’ perceptions of the City’s future branding as a healthy city
or a healthful destination?
3. What existing resources can the City use to support the proposed brand?
4. What new resources can City officials and staff develop to support the
proposed brand?
5. How will the proposed brand meet the needs and wants of the community?
Resident questionnaires, focus group activity sheets, and key informant
interview guides were primarily designed to gather data that would help to definitively
answer Research Questions #1, #2, and #5. They also served as additional data to supplement the research the investigator had already commenced via the Internet, City document review, and by speaking to a variety of City staff, to help formulate answers for Questions #3 and #4. Answers to the research questions were gleaned from data,
City documents, and staff interviews, and are presented below.
Q1: Residents’ perceptions of the City’s present branding. At the outset of this case study, participants appeared to have little knowledge of city branding in general, and of the City’s past or present branding efforts. A majority of the respondents felt that city branding was unimportant and they had given little thought to it prior to participating in this study. A number of residents had heard the City’s unofficial slogan
(City of Trees and PhDs) or its shorter version (City of Trees), yet they attached little
59 value or personal meaning to it. Further, as shown in Section 5 (Table 2), 80% of the focus group participants stated the slogan “did not excite” them and 62% stated it “did not appeal” to them. Interestingly, 67% of those same focus group members found the slogan “catchy.” Follow-up questions revealed that all twenty-two of the focus group members found the slogan catchy only because “it rhymes.”
Residents also asked many questions along the lines of, “How can a city have a brand?”, “Why would Claremont need that?”, and the case researcher received a number of comments such as:
• Oh, who cares about that stuff anyway! It’s just Marketing people trying
to manipulate [you]. (FG #17, retired university professor).
• I doubt anybody here [in Claremont] pays much attention to that. We
don’t define ourselves with labels. (KI #5, married male, member of civic-
minded family involved ‘for decades’ in Claremont politics).
• I only care what I think of a city, not what marketers want me to think.
(FG #21, married female age 30, healthcare professional).
Summary. Residents’ perceptions of the City’s current branding are decidedly mixed. The vast majority of respondents do not give much thought to the topic; when they do, it is often derided as unsuccessful attempts by marketers to sway opinions.
According to Govers & Go (2009), such perceptions are accurate in that people are influenced most by their own experiences and they are least receptive to marketing messages with commercial intent. Thus, it appears the City’s deliberate branding efforts, if any, have not been very effective in generating positive responses among residents.
60 However, it should be noted that if this study’s respondents are in any way a representative sample of the entire City population, in general they perceive themselves to be highly resistant to any City marketing or branding initiatives. Further, if they do recall anything related to Claremont’s branding, it is usually the slogan that did not originate with City leaders or staff.
Q2: Residents’ perceptions of the City’s contemplated future branding as a healthy city and health/wellness destination. Here again, residents were skeptical about city branding. Most of them had difficulty in thinking of cities as healthy, insisting that only people (not cities) are healthy/unhealthy, yet none of the respondents had any trouble explaining how they perceived an unhealthy city. No respondents said
Claremont was an unhealthy city; however, just seven out of eighty-seven (87) participants associated Claremont with the words “health” or “healthy.” Moreover, though residents almost unanimously enjoy living in Claremont, hardly any of them consider it as a vacation destination except perhaps for a day trip. When asked to explain these results, residents responded as follows:
• I just didn’t think of it/It didn’t occur to me. (multiple responses)
• It’s just a given/It [health] is just part of daily life. (multiple responses)
• I think of a healthy city not as a place to visit, but in terms of what would
make Claremont kids more healthy. I want to see them running around
in parks and playing sports. (KI #9, male in his 50s, long-time
involvement in Claremont committee work).
61 • Yes, there are a lot of healthy options here if you choose them. Healthy
is just sort of who we are. I mean, we’ve always been innovators who
are health- and ecologically-minded. We recycled before it was
mandatory, we conserved water before it was mandatory… But I just
don’t think a health and wellness direction will achieve much more than
what we’re already doing. Realistically, we’ll never be a vacation spot,
but we are definitely a shopping destination. (KI #11, married female,
heavy civic involvement, has lived in Claremont for 45 years).
Summary. In general, respondents do not perceive Claremont as a health and wellness destination. It may be more accurate to say that they do not perceive it as any kind of destination, unless it is for very short trips of a day or two. When asked what health-related activities they thought people would select if visiting the City for one or two days, most respondents said visitors might go to a day spa and get pampered, get a massage, eat healthy food, go walking or hiking, or engage in spiritual renewal through meditation or something similar.
A few respondents said their personal expectations from any health and wellness destination (including Claremont) would be relatively low; their travel motivations would simply be to “just go someplace where I can relax” and be away from “the stress of regular life.” Therefore, it appears that any contemplated branding as a healthy city or a health/wellness destination may be difficult to market to residents. They would then be unlikely to engage in word of mouth advertising to help communicate that brand image to friends and relatives. Thus, without buy-in from resident stakeholders, it
62 is likely that such a branding effort will fail. Respondents do not perceive any added value to living in a place that touts its healthful amenities. Though they take pride in the
City and its resources, it appears that a number of respondents feel that communicating this additional message to potential visitors, on top of what they [visitors] may already hear about the City, might be overkill.
Q3: Existing resources the City can use to support the proposed brand. A health and wellness brand must be supported by resources that encompass all elements of wellness (www.nationalwellness.org): emotional, spiritual, physical, social, occupational, intellectual, and environmental. The City does have a number of resources to support the proposed brand. Following is a small sample:
• Emotional: Community Centers where people can connect; crisis hotlines
where people can get emotional support.
• Spiritual: Churches of all denominations; opportunities for meditation
and reflection in City parks and in classes.
• Physical: Biking, walking, and hiking trails; parks; workout facilities.
• Social: Planned neighborhoods (Claremont Master Plan, 2006) that make
it easier for people to connect with each other; social/entertainment
venues.
• Occupational: Jobs that allow for work/life balance.
• Intellectual: Library; art exhibits; classes.
• Environmental: Parks, trails, No Smoking areas, mature trees, overall
cleanliness, scenic views.
63 Summary: The City does have resources to support the proposed brand.
However, without support of resident stakeholders, these resources will not be effective on their own in communicating a cohesive health and wellness message to visitors.
Q4: New resources that City leaders can develop to support the new brand.
There are many resources that City leaders can pursue in order to support a health and wellness brand. Following are a few of the most feasible possibilities:
• Offer additional health- and fitness-related classes
• Encourage health/wellness businesses to lease space in The Village or
other City locations
• Prominently display a wellness branding message on the City’s website
• Promote the new brand in the City’s quarterly newsletter mailed to all
residents
• Sponsor or promote health-related events
• Pass a resolution or proclamation declaring a Day of Health, and then
publicize it through all City communication channels
• Apply for Healthy City recognition
• Apply for other grants and designations, as desired
• Collaborate with business owners (i.e., hotel owners); offer incentives for
construction of hotels with wellness features such as spa, meditation
garden, reflecting pool
• Challenge a nearby city to compete with Claremont to reach a health goal
(i.e., total-community weight loss)
64 Summary: The City has many choices that could work well to support a
health/wellness brand. The key will be to select those that present no or low barriers to
entry for residents, so that they may support the new initiatives and ultimately, an
update to the City’s brand.
Q5: How proposed brand will meet the needs and wants of the community. The
answer to this research question is unknown; only a tentative hypothesis can be
formulated based on the data collected thus far. The residents are not aware of any
contemplated rebranding effort as it has not progressed much beyond a what-if
scenario at present; thus, it is difficult to quantify whether it will meet their needs and
wants.
Summary: Based on data collected from the respondents in this study, the
researcher’s hypothesis is that brand repositioning may be attempting to meet needs or wants that have not been expressed by the community and may not be congruent with
what residents desire. The most definitive way to determine this may be for City staff to
review its DMO’s data about perceptions of Claremont from residents of neighboring communities, and to conduct more resident surveys to determine if the data show that
the needs and wants of the Claremont community will be met by the proposed brand.
Chapter Summary
Chapter 5 provided the case researcher’s analysis and results, a recap of the
research questions, and answers to the research questions based on the collected data.,
further discussion of the case findings, including frequency charts, will be presented as
well as study strengths, limitations, and future areas of research.
65 CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION
In Chapter 5 (Analysis and Results), portions of resident questionnaires and key informant interviews were listed, as well as a brief description of each participant who had given a particular response. We now turn to the focus group data, which may help to provide a deeper understanding of Claremont residents’ perceptions and will serve to answer specific research questions. Plot-point frequency charts showing individual responses to each of the questions on the focus group activity sheet are listed below.
Focus Group Data
In response to Section 1 (Brand Ambivalence), respondents answered as follows for Statement #1 (“I have strong mixed emotions both for and against Claremont.”)
12
10
8
6
4 Q1 2
0 0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 6. Focus group section 1 (brand ambivalence) scale rating frequencies for statement 1.
66 The rating scale for all Section 1 statements is 1-11, with 1 representing “not at all true” and 11 representing “completely true.” Responses were consistently frequent for 1 or
“not at all true.” There is one respondent (FG #17) who answered “completely true,” which appears related to his earlier, negative comments about The Village.
In response to Section 1 (Brand Ambivalence), respondents answered as follows for Statement #2 (“I find myself torn between the positive and negative sides of
Claremont.”). Again, we see consistency of the majority of responses indicating “not at all true” and there is one group member (FG #2) who indicates that the statement is at least somewhat true. Interestingly, FG #2 is the focus group member who has lived in
Claremont the least amount of time of all focus group participants, which may account in whole or in part for her perceptions of feeling torn about Claremont.
9
8
7
6
5
4
3 Q2
2
1
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Figure 7. Focus group section 1 (brand ambivalence) scale rating frequencies for statement 2.
67 In response to Section 1 (Brand Ambivalence), respondents answered as follows
for Statement #3 (“I feel conflict when thinking about Claremont.”). The strength of member responses is even more consistent, and uniformly stronger, than in responses to the previous statements. Again, one group member (FG #2) has answered affirmatively, above the median line (Rating 6), indicating a perception that for her, the
statement is at least somewhat true.
9
8
7
6
5
4
3 Q3 2
1
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Figure 8. Focus group section 1 (brand ambivalence) scale rating frequencies for statement 3.
68 In response to Section 1 (Brand Ambivalence), respondents answered as follows for Statement #4 (“I feel indecisive about Claremont.”). Significant uniformity of responses is seen, with one member (FG #2) perceiving a high level of indecisiveness about Claremont, as represented by her response of 10 on an 11-point scale.
12
10
8
6
4 Q4
2
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Figure 9. Focus group section 1 (brand ambivalence) scale rating frequencies for statement 4.
69 In response to Section 1 (Brand Ambivalence), respondents answered as follows to Statement #5 (“I feel ambivalent toward Claremont.”). We see very little ambivalence among focus group members toward Claremont, with the exception of FG #2 who displays an ambivalence rating of 11, the highest ranking on the scale. As previously stated, FG #2 is the focus group member who has lived in Claremont the least amount of time as compared to the other focus group participants which suggests a possible relationship between shorter length of residency and increased feelings of ambivalence.
12
10
8
6
4 Q5
2
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Figure 10. Focus group section 1 (brand ambivalence) scale rating frequencies for statement 5.
70 Continuing on to Section 2 (Brand Attachment), respondents answered as follows to Question #1 (“To what extent is Claremont part of you and who you are?”).
The scale rating ranges from 1, which represents “0%” or “not at all,” and 11, representing “100%” or “entirely.” Focus group members showed variety in perceptions to this question, though the majority indicated a higher ranking on the scale, thus indicating they feel Claremont is a significant part of them and who they are.
12
10
8
6
4 Q1
2
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Figure 11. Focus group section 2 (brand attachment) scale rating frequencies for question 1.
71 In Section 2 (Brand Attachment), respondents answered as follows for Question
#2 (“To what extent do you feel personally connected to Claremont?”). The majority of focus group members feel a high level of personal connection to the City; six rated their connection as 11, the highest ranking on the scale. Three respondents rated their connection as 1, the lowest possible rating, but did not explain their reasons for doing so.
12
10
8
6
4 Q2
2
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Figure 12. Focus group section 2 (brand attachment) scale rating frequencies for question 2.
72 In response to Section 2 (Brand Attachment), respondents answered as follows
to Question #3 (“To what extent is Claremont part of you?”). Focus group members had
varying perceptions of how much Claremont is a part of them, with three members
(FG #6, FG #11, and FG #19) selecting the highest ranking and two members (FG #13 and
FG #15) selecting the lowest ranking and thus perceiving that Claremont is not at all a part of them. These two respondents also answered the preceding question (Question
2, brand attachment) with the lowest possible ranking, indicating they feel no personal connection to Claremont.
12
10
8
6
4
Q3 2
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Figure 13. Focus group section 2 (brand attachment) scale rating frequencies for question 3.
73 In response to Section 2 (Brand Attachment), respondents answered as follows
to Question 4 (“To what extent do you feel emotionally bonded to Claremont?”). Most
focus group members exhibited a strong emotional bond to Claremont, with four
members selecting the highest ranking. However, six respondents felt little to no attachment or bond to Claremont as evidenced by four answers of 2 and two answers of
1 (the lowest ranking). One of the same two members as in Question 2 and 3 also selected the lowest ranking for Question 4, thus perceiving he had no emotional bond to
Claremont.
12
10
8
6
4
Q4 2
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Figure 14. Focus group section 2 (brand attachment) scale rating frequencies for question 4.
74 In response to Section 2 (Brand Attachment), respondents answered as follows for Question #5 (“To what extent does being a “Claremontian” say something to other people about who you are?”). The majority of focus group members perceived that being a Claremont resident does say something about them. Five members selected the highest possible ranking for their response, while four members ranked it the lowest, indicating that being a Claremontian says nothing to other people about who those four respondents are.
12
10
8
6
4 Q5
2
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Figure 15. Focus group section 2 (brand attachment) scale rating frequencies for question 5.
75 Brand Attribute Importance
When the focus group members had selected their responses to Sections 1 and
2, the group then participated in a hypothetical balloon exercise adapted from the handbook Developing Brands with Qualitative Market Research (Chandler, 2002). The exercise called for respondents to pretend they were in a hot air balloon that was rapidly plummeting to Earth. The balloon was loaded with nine suitcases, each representing a Claremont attribute mentioned on multiple resident questionnaires.
Members were then told that they had to start throwing suitcases overboard, starting first with the least important suitcase, so that they could avoid a crash landing and almost certain death. The exercise was designed to reveal which attributes were most important to each member (i.e., the suitcases they would hold onto until the end) and which were the least important (the suitcases first to be thrown overboard). The nine attributes were: education, The Village, friendly people, trees, clean, nice city, history/culture, shopping, and quaint. Each person ranked their suitcases from 1-9, then shared their opinions with the group.
The exercise stimulated a great deal of good-natured group discussion as members took turns explaining which suitcases they threw overboard and which they would hang onto even if it meant (in the words of FG #17) that “I’m going down with the ship.” Group results (all participants) are as shown:
76 Table 2
Focus Groups’ Balloon Exercise (Claremont Attributes Represented by Suitcases)
Least Important Suitcases Suitcases of Medium Most Important Suitcases Importance Shopping Clean Education
Nice city Quaint Trees
The Village History Friendly people
Continuing on to Section 3 (Attitude Confidence), respondents answered as follows to Question #1 (“How strongly do you hold the opinions about Claremont that you reported earlier?”). Results shown on the following figure indicate that members hold their opinions very strongly, with eight members selecting 11, the highest ranking on the scale, and five members selecting 10.
77 12
10
8
6
4 Q1 2
0 0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 16. Focus group section 3 (attitude confidence) scale rating frequencies for question 1.
One member (FG #6) perceived a total lack of strength in his opinions. This is believed to be respondent error (i.e., writing “1” instead of “11”) because this respondent was very confident in all verbal opinions he had expressed. The principal investigator attempted to contact FG #6 to discuss his answers, but was unsuccessful.
Thus, the frequency chart was generated based on what each member had actually written versus what they likely would have written.
78 In Section 3 (Attitude Confidence), respondents answered as follows for
Question #2 (“How confident are you in your opinions about Claremont?”). Results indicate that virtually all members were quite confident about their opinions of the City.
Two members felt less confident than the median score; one member’s response fell right on the median, thus indicating a noncommittal or neutral answer.
12
10
8
6
4 Q2 2
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Figure 17. Focus group section 3 (attitude confidence) scale rating frequencies for question 2.
79 In response to Section 3 (Attitude Confidence), respondents answered as follows to Question #3 (“How certain are you in your opinions of Claremont?”). Results indicate that the majority of members were quite certain in their opinions, though two members were less certain than the median score. One member’s certainty was perceived by him as a neutral answer.
12
10
8
6
4 Q3
2
0 0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 18. Focus group section 3 (attitude confidence) scale rating frequencies for question 3.
Current Brand Slogan
In Section 4 of the Focus Group activity sheet, members were asked to circle their responses to Claremont’s current brand slogan, “The City of Trees and PhDs.”
Results are shown below, in Table 3:
80 Table 3
Focus Group Section 4 Results (Current Brand Slogan)
The current brand slogan: Is Catchy 67% Is Not Catchy 33% Appeals to Me 38% Doesn’t Appeal to 62% Me Excites Me 20% Doesn’t Excite Me 80%
Though two-thirds of respondents found the current slogan to be catchy, every one of them stated it was catchy only because “it rhymed.” Otherwise, as shown in
Table 3, most participants found the slogan unappealing and not exciting.
Focus group members were then asked about any other Claremont slogans they had heard. Results are shown below, in Table 4:
Table 4
Focus Group Section 5 Results (Other Claremont Brand Slogans)
Have you heard of any other Claremont slogans? R1 “I’m a Claremont wanna be” R22 “Clean & Green”, “Trees & Allergies”, “The Friendly Community”
Lastly, the focus group members were asked to create three new brand slogans for Claremont. They were free to do this individually, to consult with their neighbor(s), or to brainstorm out loud with the whole group. Most members chose a combination of all three options. Results are shown below, in Table 5:
81 Table 5
Focus Group Section 6 Results (Create 3 New Brand Slogans for Claremont)
Create 3 new brand slogans for Claremont R3 1. The home of the green 2. City of unity 3. Humanity first R12 1. Plant your seed in Claremont! 2. Go green or go home! 3. If you’ve got the green, come to Claremont R13 1. Spread your seed at Claremont 2. When a tree falls in the forest, Claremont hears it 3. Claremont--grow your family tree R14 1. City of colleges 2. Everlasting city 3. City of trees R15 1. I don’t think you need one
R16 1. Safe, friendly place to live 2. Community committed to servicing citizens 3. Great community to raise and educate children R17 1. City of walkers 2. Mountain city 3. City of flowers R18 1. Friendly city
R19 1. I [heart] Claremont 2. City that cares 3. The future of America R20 1. Clean & green 2. On the way to Baldy 3. Lowest crime rate in California R21 1. Home of green trees 2. Green & pristine 3. City of education and health
Study Strengths
Strengths include the interdisciplinary nature of the study, as it brings together elements of public health, public administration, and tourism. Another strength is that
82 the researcher is the study instrument for data collection. Therefore, nothing is lost in translation and misunderstandings or confusion of respondents can be cleared up immediately. Another strength is that multiple methods of data collection are used in this study, which results in a clearer picture of the City and its residents.
Limitations
A major limitation of this study is that the case investigator was instructed not to contact the City Manager or City Council members for information regarding the research questions. Thus, information was gleaned only from secondary sources
(documents and other people) rather than directly from officials. This made gathering data regarding their vision for the City, upcoming plans, issues and challenges, and notable achievements, far more time consuming and difficult. Second, the principal investigator was unable to pursue additional research questions that exceed the pre- approved scope of work. Therefore, fruitful lines of investigation had to be abandoned until such time as the scope of work may be increased to include such inquiries. Third, this study only included interviews of residents and City staff. A more complete picture of the City would have emerged had time constraints and the scope of work not prevented the interviewing of local business owners and residents of adjoining communities.
Future Research
Future research could include a multi-case comparison of Claremont with one or more Inland Empire cities of similar size with a health focus, such as City of Loma Linda.
Other possible research endeavors include the undertaking of a quantitative survey of
83 Southern California residents to determine what factors might make them want to visit
Claremont. This could be combined with the qualitative data in this case study (or a new
study) to create a mixed-method study of benefit to the City as well as travel
practitioners.
Last, an apparent gap in the literature exists in that an exit strategy for case
researchers could not be found. The development and execution of such a strategy may
increase the host site’s perception of the researcher’s overall reputation and increase
perception of service quality provided during the study.
Lessons Learned
Case studies benefit from a research team. It is difficult for one researcher to design study instruments, arrange for permissions, reserve rooms and locations, hold focus groups, distribute questionnaires, and constantly analyze data, all at the same time. This investigator’s efforts would have been greatly enhanced by having a research assistant (or two) to help locate documents, record spontaneous focus group comments, conduct key informant interviews, and help organize the large array of City documents and other data that accumulated during the course of this study.
Interesting documents are not always relevant. A case researcher may spend hours wading through any number of documents, only to realize that the documents and old photographs were interesting but had no relevance to the case or the research questions.
Change is a constant. When working with a City, a researcher should be flexible and understand that City priorities will change, personnel will change, even entire
84 Councils might change. There is also the possibility that one’s work on a particular case study may not move toward implementation if the City Manager, Mayor, City Council members, or affected departmental director(s) lose interest.
Chapter Summary
Chapter 6 presented additional discussion about the case study findings, as well as data tables and frequency charts. Study strengths, limitations, possible areas for future research, and lessons learned were also provided.
The following chapter will present the case researcher’s recommendations for the City to increase its perception as a healthful city, regardless of whether or not City officials choose to undertake a repositioning of the Claremont brand.
85 CHAPTER 7
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following 14 rank-ordered recommendations and comments pair with and amplify the research questions:
Major theme: Increase Understanding of Direction
• Consider refining City leadership’s definition of health. Give more thought
to how City officials define health and wellness, and ensure that it is
congruent with how residents define it, before new services/resources are
offered.
• Consider a Business License Department audit. A Business License
Department audit would assist in determining whether the City’s current
product/service mix supports a health message.
• Consider surveying more residents. A follow-up survey of a much larger
number of residents (of neighboring communities and of Claremont) may be
beneficial in helping City leaders and staff determine whether locals actually
want Claremont to be reimagined as a health/wellness destination or
whether they prefer the status quo. An educational piece preceding or
attached to the survey may be helpful in increasing residents’ understanding
of why repositioning of the City’s brand is felt to be necessary, and what the
City’s leadership team perceives as possible benefits, opportunities, and
disadvantages of repositioning.
86
Major Theme: Amplify Health-Focused Message (Residents and Visitors)
• Consider sponsoring, hosting, or co-hosting a collaborative health event. To
enhance its image as a healthful city without going to the extent of
rebranding or repositioning, the City could engage in or sponsor health-
related events such as a 5K run, a weekend “Health Hack” in collaboration
with the Claremont Colleges, or some other regularly-scheduled health-
centered activity or event.
• Ensure that actions are congruent with branding message. City leaders and
staff must communicate that the City’s healthy-food policies apply to all City
facilities. At present, there is a lack of congruence between the City’s health
message and foods sold at City venues, particularly those specific to the two
youth centers.
• Consider significantly refining the DMO’s message and distribution
channels. At present, there appears to be an inability to persuasively
describe amenities or attractions that would compel visitors to come to
Claremont vs. going somewhere else. In other words, there is no apparent
value proposition except being located adjacent to other cities whose
residents already come to Claremont to use services, particularly senior
services, that their own cities do not have. Further, if the City’s newly-
designed website does not provide a link to Discover Claremont, an
opportunity is lost to drive online traffic to the DMO.
87 • Consider hiring a Wellness Director or Public Health Specialist. Before
proceeding with any contemplated repositioning as a healthy city or health
and wellness destination, consider adding a Wellness Director / Public Health
Specialist to bridge the gap where the City has consistently failed to advance
its healthy-city vision due to lack of specialized knowledge. This person could
be a consultant or an employee, depending on the City Council’s preference
and budget.
• Consider multi-disciplinary collaborations with the City’s DMO and other
agencies. If a Wellness Director is hired, that person could be tasked with
collaborating with and supporting the efforts of Discover Claremont (DMO),
Claremont Heritage, and Sustainable Claremont to ensure that all work
together to communicate a united message of Claremont as a healthful place
attractive to visitors. At present, each organization has its own marketing
focus and staff; and there does not appear to be a cohesive effort to organize
all of these messages around one main theme or idea. Such organization is
key to focusing attention on the positive health qualities and characteristics a
city already has (www.citymetric.com).
Major Theme: Plan for Direct/Indirect Effects on Brand, of City Expenditures
• Consider providing incentives for specialized wellness facilities. When and if
hotel development continues, consider soliciting construction of a wellness
hotel or a hotel with full spa services. Alternatively, several of the
DoubleTree Hotel’s existing rooms and/or suites could be converted by the
88 owner into wellness suites for which guests may be charged a premium,
returning additional revenue to the owner and increased TOT monies to the
City.
• If not already underway, consider planning now for potential impact of
pending litigation on new development. Additional housing developments
may have to be tabled until the status of the water utility lawsuit Claremont
v. Golden State Water Company is more fully known. Since the lawsuit was
only filed by City of Claremont on Dec. 9, 2014, it is difficult to evaluate its
future effects or costs. Residents approved the passage of Measure W, a
$135 million bond measure, in November 2014 for the purposes of
purchasing the water utility from Golden State Water Company if agreement
could be reached, and financing start-up litigation costs if it could not.
However, Golden State rejected the City’s offer and the legal case is still
pending.
Uncertainty about water rates may also impact new hotel development in
the City. Hotels are significant water users, and the current water system
may not be able to support additional room inventory without considerable
investment. Such costs would likely be passed on to City residents and
business owners in the form of even higher rates. Also, Claremont may not
be an attractive place for hotel developers if water rates continue to be
unpredictable but are constantly rising. This may prove cost prohibitive over
the long run.
89 Major Theme: Streamline, and Improve Cohesiveness of, Communications
• Consider shorter messages communicated more frequently. A
secondary finding of this study is that many of the respondents wanted
to know what was contained in City planning documents but did not read
them because they were “way too long,” “I couldn’t find them on the
website,” or “I just don’t have time.” A monthly e-blast to residents or
some other cost-effective approach could communicate more frequent
but shorter messages in easy-to-understand chunks.
• Consider the creation of a “Claremont Covenant” or other official
document that sums up, in short communications, the City’s vision for
specific items that City leaders want to prioritize in the coming year.
Naming the document “The Claremont Covenant” makes reference to the
City’s town-hall beginnings and the practice of early Claremont leaders
creating a covenant or promise between themselves and the community
to help ensure transparency and accountability in planning. Periodic one-
page “covenants” could be published, each covering a particular topic of
interest (i.e., sustainability, clean City, neighborhood preservation, tree
preservation), or other items deemed important to City leaders as well as
residents. Alternatively, City leaders could ensure that staff prepares and
posts on the City’s website an Executive Summary or other brief
description summarizing each of the City’s major documents such as the
Wilderness Area Plan, Master Plan, Youth and Families Plan, and so on. It
90 is highly doubtful that residents are going to read the entire 617-page
Master Plan, but they would likely benefit from a summary of its key
points.
• Consider communication of an “official” rebranding or repositioning of
the City as a health and wellness destination, in order to start a dialog
or educational efforts with residents. At present, the contemplated
rebrand message is not understood or supported by residents and is not
congruent with the current marketing efforts of the City’s DMO or
Chamber of Commerce, which include the recent release of a Claremont
tourism video unrelated to any health message. As reported in The
Claremont Courier newspaper (February 5, 2015), the City’s leadership
team approved creation of a promotional video aimed to increase tourist
visits to the City. The video project, helmed by a Claremont Chamber of
Commerce member with production expertise, commenced last summer,
attempted to focus on the “uniqueness” of Claremont, and was released
in February 2015 to mixed reviews. While City residents praised the
production quality of the video, its content and voiceovers were
uniformly perceived as “odd,” “creepy,” “awful,” “not the Claremont I
know,” and a host of other negative comments. The video has been
pulled from all distribution channels and at present, is undergoing
modification before being re-released.
91 • Consider costs of changing logo and/or tagline. As the City already
appears to have a penchant for periodically changing its departmental
logos and taglines, it seems reasonable to assume that a rebranding or
repositioning effort would likely include changing the City’s logo and
slogan. As the logo of a branched tree is already ubiquitous throughout
the City, appearing on everything from City letterhead to outdoor refuse
containers, the cost of changing the logo could be significant.
Overall, whether due to the negative responses engendered by the promotional video, or their own dislike for the perceived manipulations of marketers (as revealed in this study’s resident surveys), resident support of any rebrand message appears weak at best. Moreover, the vast majority of this study’s respondents feel that repositioning
Claremont as a healthful city will add no value to the community, as health is already an integral part of Claremont life. Residents are happy with the way things are, and there appears to be no real word of mouth support for a rebrand message. Therefore, it likely will not be successful in achieving the City’s aims unless significant community education efforts are first undertaken by the City’s leadership team and staff. Such efforts may not prove necessary if Claremont’s leaders and DMO simply improve their packaging and marketing of all the healthful amenities that this City has to offer.
Further, by consistently sponsoring or hosting health-related events or activities, the
City will eventually, without the effort and expense of a formal repositioning or rebranding, become more strongly associated in people’s minds with a perception of
Claremont as a healthful place.
92
Chapter Summary
Chapter 7 provided a set of prioritized recommendations for the City to consider before proceeding with repositioning or rebranding efforts. Chapter 8 brings the case study to a close by presenting the case investigator’s conclusions, followed by a list of references and two appendices which provide a copy of the resident questionnaire
(Appendix A) and the focus group activity sheet (Appendix B) used in this case study.
93 CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSION
Many industry professionals feel that the future of place marketing will be a battle of brands; and destinations are some of the travel industry’s biggest brands.
Anholt (2015), on his homepage www.simonanholtcom, states that today’s travelers
have their choice of an almost unlimited array of destinations, and within crowded
tourism markets, locations are becoming increasingly interchangeable and more difficult
to differentiate. Moreover, Anholt posits on his webpage that “the only remaining
superpower is public opinion” (2015), implying that ultimate control over the success of
particular cities or destinations is dependent in large part on the reputation ascribed to
them by locals, visitors, and/or tourists. Thus, cities like Claremont that do not yet have
resident support for a change in branding message should consider carefully whether
rebranding efforts will achieve the management team’s desired goals. City leaders must
remain cognizant of the need to keep residents happy by retaining the small-town feel
of Claremont while welcoming planned, sustainable growth to help ensure continued
vibrancy of the City.
Respondent data collected in this case study indicate that residents perceive
Claremont not as a place to visit, but as a place to live. The City’s Master Plan (2006)
supports this belief, indicating that Claremont was originally planned for a population of
50,000 people vs. the approximately 37,00 residents that it currently has. Thus, an
increased populace has already been planned for and resources are in place to support
94 such growth. Therefore, the efforts of City leaders may be more effectively spent in promoting the City as a destination for life, instead of for a day trip.
95 REFERENCES
Aaker, D. (2004). Leveraging the corporate brand. California Management
Review, 46(3), Spring 2004.
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing
Research, 34(3), 347–356.
Anholt, S. (2010). Definitions of place branding – working toward a resolution.
Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 6(2010), 1–10. doi:10.1057/pb.2010.3
--- (2010). Places: Identity, image and reputation. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
--- (2005). Anholt Nation Brands Index: How does the world see America? Journal of Advertising Research, 45(2005), 296-304. doi:10.1017/S0021849905050336
Ashworth, G., & Kavaratzis, M. (2009). Beyond the logo: Brand management for cities. Journal of Brand Management, (16)2009, 520-531.
Baker, B. (2007). Destination branding for small cities: The essentials for place branding. Portland, OR: Creative Leap Books.
Balmer, J. (2002). Of identities lost and found. International Studies of
Management and Organization, (32)3, 10-27.
Balmer, J., & Gray, E. (2003). Corporate brands: What are they? What of them?
European Journal of Marketing, 37(7-8), 972-997.
Bennett, R., & Savani, S. (2003). The rebranding of city places: An international comparative investigation. International Public Management Review, (4)2, 70-88.
96 Blain, C., Levy, S., & Ritchie, J.R. (2005). Destination branding: Insights and
practices from destination management organizations. Journal of Travel Research, 43
(May 2005), 328-338. doi:10.1177/0047287505274646
Braun, E. (2012). Putting city branding into practice. Journal of Brand
Management, 19, 257-267. doi:10.1057/bm.2011.55
Bromley, D. (1986). The case-study method in psychology and related disciplines.
Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons.
Bruner, G. (2013). Marketing Scales Handbook, Volume 7: Multi-item Measures
for Consumer Insight Research. Fort Worth, Texas: GCBII Productions.
Chandler, J. (2002). Developing brands with qualitative market research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Daly, A., & Moloney, D. (2004). Managing corporate rebranding. Irish Marketing
Review, (17)1-2, 30-42.
Dornyei, Z., Csizer, K., & Nemeth, N. (2006). Motivation, Language Acquisition,
and Globalisation: A Hungarian Perspective. Tonawanda, NY: UTP.
Ekinci, Y., & Hosany, S. (2006). Destination personality: An application of brand
personality to tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 45(2), 127–139.
Fuchs, C., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness of brand- positioning strategies from a consumer perspective. European Journal of Marketing,
44(11-12), 1763-1786.
Ge, Q. (2008). City branding: A case study of Beijing (Master’s thesis). University
of Hong Kong. Retrieved from UHK Scholars Hub, http://hub.hku.hk/bib/B41548450.
97 Gnoth, J. (2007). The structure of destination brands: Leveraging values. Tourism
Analysis, 12(5/6), 345-358.
Gold, J., & Ward, S. (1994). Place Promotion. Chichester, UK: John Wiley &
Sons Ltd.
Govers, R. (2013). Why place branding is not about logos and slogans. Journal of
Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 9(2013), 71-75.
Govers, R., & Go, F. (2009) Place Branding: Glocal, Virtual and Physical, Identities
Constructed, Imagined and Experienced. Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Hankinson, G. (2007). The management of destination brands: Five guiding
principles based on recent developments in corporate branding theory. Journal of Brand
Management, 14, 240-254. doi:10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550065
--- (2004). Relational network brands: Towards a conceptual model of place
brands. Journal of Vacation Marketing, (10)2, 109-121.
Hankinson, G., & Cowking, P. (1995). What do you really mean by a brand?
Journal of Brand Management, 3(1 Aug 1995), 43–50. doi:10.1057/bm.1995.29
Hanna, S., & Rowley, J. (2008). An analysis of terminology used in place
branding. Place Branding & Public Diplomacy, 4(1), 61-75.
Hartwell, H., Hemingway, A., Fyall, A., Filimonau, V., & Wall, S. (2012). Tourism
engaging with the public health agenda: Can we promote ‘Wellville’ as a destination of
choice? Journal of Public Health, 126(12), 1072-1074.
98 Hatz, M., & Schultz, M. (2001). Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate
brand? Harvard Business Review, 79(2), 128-134.
Herstein, R. (2011). Thin line between country, city, and region branding. Journal
of Vacation Marketing, 18(2), 147-155. Doi: 10.1177/1356766711435976
Hildreth, J. (2015, February 11). Why place branding is (still) not about logos and
slogans. The Place Brand Observer. Retrieved from www.placebrandobserver.com.
Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y. & Uysal, M. (2007). Destination image and destination
personality. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 1(1),
62-81.
Kornberger, M. (2012). Governing the city: From planning to urban strategy.
Theory, Culture & Society, 29(2), 1-23.
Kotler, P., Bowen, J., & Makens, J. (2010). Marketing for Hospitality and Tourism.
(5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P., and Gertner, D. (2002). Country as brand, product and beyond: A place
marketing and brand management perspective. Journal of Brand Management, 9(4-5),
249-261.
Knox, S., & Bickerton, D. (2003). The six conventions of corporate branding.
European Journal of Marketing, 37(7-8), 998-1016.
Leedy, P., & Ormrod, J. (2010). Practical research: Planning and design. (8th ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
99 Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (Rev. ed). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Morgan, N. J., Pritchard, A., & Piggott, R. (2003). Destination branding and the role of the stakeholders: The case of New Zealand. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(3),
285–299.
Murphy, L., Benckendorff, P., & Moscardo, G. (2009). Linking travel motivation, tourist self-image and destination brand personality. Journal of Travel and Tourism
Marketing, 22(2), 45–59.
Perez, L., & Treadwell, H. (2009). Determining what we stand for will guide what we do: community priorities, ethical research paradigms, and research with vulnerable populations. American Journal of Public Health, 99(2), 201–204. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.125617
Pike, S. (2008). Destination brand positions of a competitive set of near-home destinations. Journal of Tourism Management, 30(2009), 857-866.
Rehan, R. (2014). Urban branding as an effective sustainability tool in urban
development. HBRC [Housing and Building Research Center] Journal, 10(2), 222-230.
Ritchie, J., & Crouch, G. (2003). The competitive destination: A sustainable tourism perspective. Cambridge, MA: CABI Publications.
Ritchie, J.R., & Ritchie, R. (1998). The branding of tourism destinations ~ past achievements & future challenges ~: A Basic Report Prepared for Presentation to the
1998 Annual Congress of the International Association of Scientific Experts in Tourism.
Marrakech, Morocco, September 1998.
100 Sahin, S. & Baloglu, S. (2014). City branding: Investigating a brand advocacy model for distinct segments. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 23(3),
239-265.
Sicard, M. (2012). Brand revolution: Rethinking brand identity. France: Palgrave
Macmillan. Retrieved from www.elibrary.com.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thompson, R. (2013). Disruption: Destination marketing in the post-advertising
age. Denver, CO: Outskirts Press.
Wester, K. (2011). Publishing ethical research: A step-by-step overview. Journal
of Counseling and Development, 89(3), 301-307. DOI: 10.1002/j.1556-
6678.2011.tb00093.x
Winfield-Pfefferkorn, J. (2005). The branding of cities: Exploring city branding
and the importance of a brand image (Master’s Thesis). Syracuse University, Syracuse,
NY.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. (5th ed.) Los Angeles,
CA: Sage.
101
Appendix A
Research Study
102
RESEARCH STUDY
You are invited to be part of a study examining perceptions of Claremont as a healthful city. There are 8 questions on the back of this page. They usually take 5-8 minutes to answer. You do not have to participate; if you do, your responses and contact information will be kept confidential.
The purpose of this study is to find out how Claremont residents define a “healthy city” and to help guide the City in offering programs, services and facilities that Claremont residents consider “healthful”. It may also help the City market Claremont as a place that people who are interested in health and wellness may want to visit.
Your first name & initial of last name ______(example: Michelle P. )
How may I contact you?
Email: ______
Phone: ______
~ Thank you for your help! ~
103
Your answers to these questions will help me better understand Claremont and its residents. Thank you!
1. Name three words or phrases that you would use to describe City of Claremont. List the first three that come into your mind.
2. In answering Question #1, did you choose the word “healthy” to describe Claremont? If yes, why? If no, why not?
3. What is your definition of a “healthy” city?
4. Think about a city that you consider “unhealthy”. What specific factors make you think of it that way?
5. Question #3 asked you to define a healthy city. What is your definition of “health” when applied to people?
6. A variety of City planning documents help City leaders in creating a healthier Claremont. What methods would you use to learn about these plans?
7. Which of the plans in Question #6 have you read? If you have not read any of them, what has prevented you from doing so?
8. In the last 12 months, have you or your family used any of the following Claremont services? (please circle the ones you have used) - Classes - Programs for adults - Parks/trails - Programs for children - Community-wide events (Concerts in the Park, holiday events, etc.)
The year you were born: ______
Your occupation: ______
104
Appendix B
Focus Group Activity Sheet
105
FOCUS GROUP
ACTIVITY SHEET
Brand Ambivalence
Please rate on a scale from 1 – 11, with 1 representing “Never” or “Not at all true” and 11 representing “Always” or “Completely true”
1. I have strong mixed emotions both for and against Claremont.
2. I find myself feeling torn between the positive and negative sides of Claremont.
3. I feel conflict when thinking about Claremont.
4. I feel indecisive about Claremont.
5. I feel ambivalent toward Claremont.
Brand Attachment
Please rate on a scale from 1 – 11, with 1 representing “0%” or “Not at all” and 11 representing “100%” or “Entirely”
1. To what extent is Claremont part of you and who you are?
2. To what extent do you feel personally connected to Claremont?
3. To what extent is Claremont part of you?
4. To what extent do you feel emotionally bonded to Claremont?
5. To what extent does being a “Claremontian” say something to other people about who you are?
Strength of Attachment to Brand Attributes (Hot-Air Balloon Activity)
106 Attitude Confidence
Please rate from 1 – 11, with 1 representing “Not at all” and 11 representing “In the strongest possible way”
1. How strongly do you hold the opinions about Claremont that you reported earlier?
2. How confident are you in your opinions of Claremont?
3. How certain are you in your opinions of Claremont?
Current Brand Slogan
Claremont’s unofficial slogan “THE CITY OF TREES AND PhDs”:
is catchy / not catchy
appeals to me / doesn’t appeal to me
excites me / doesn’t excite me
Have you heard of any other Claremont slogans? (if so, please list)
______
GROUP: Using 7 words or less, create 3 brand slogans for Claremont.
1
2
3
~ Thank you for helping me learn more about your perceptions of Claremont ~
107