Branding with Social Media in the competitive world: A case study of city branding practices in Copenhagen Yin Ching So (Angela) Supervisor: Sven Ross Examiner: Alexa Robertson Department of Journalism, Media and Communication (JMK) Master Thesis in Media and Communications Studies 30 ECTS Spring Term 2015 1 Abstract Nowadays, nation states put much more focus on boosting their soft power, culture and ideologies, in order to strengthen and enhance national reputation and fame. Place branding strategies therefore become a necessity. Meanwhile the emergence of social media has brought changes to our lives in many aspects; it is by no means just a platform but very multi-functional and this research is especially interested in its role in place branding. Instead of discussing power struggle behind place branding, this research chooses a different route: to compare place branding practices between official and non-official branding organizations in Copenhagen on Facebook on one hand and Facebook fans’ consumption and perception in relation to the concept of participatory culture on the other. This is a case study comprising both quantitative (content analysis and survey) and qualitative (online ethnography) research methods. The findings imply that the interactive and connective features of Facebook make it easier to achieve different branding goals. Two branding organizations share both similarities and differences in terms of the choice content, narratives and motives behind branding practices. This study suggests that the notion of place branding should be taken in a more open-minded way in view of the fact that there are many place branding sites, which do not act on behalf of the state but their values. Standard views of place branding sites tend to be political-neutral and friendly to neighbors might not always apply. In terms of audiences’ participation, Facebook could be in favor of the existence of participatory culture yet such degree of freedom relies on administrative decisions and Facebook itself. Fans loyalty and usage also differ between these two fan communities. Fan engagement is by all means an important part of the branding process, especially on social media channel. The research finally stresses the importance of studying place branding with different angles and perspective so as to explore the undiscovered sides of this notion. Keywords: place branding, social media, audience research, participatory culture, case study 2 Table of Contents 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 5 1.2 Aim and research questions ................................................................................................................... 6 2. Theoretical background ...................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Branding ................................................................................................................................................ 7 2.1.1 Traditional branding ...................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.2 Branding with social media ........................................................................................................................ 9 2.1.3 Place branding ............................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.4 Place branding research’s angle .............................................................................................................. 12 2.2 Soft power and branding .................................................................................................................. 13 2.3 Participatory culture ......................................................................................................................... 14 2.3.1 Online fandom ............................................................................................................................................... 15 3 Case study background ...................................................................................................... 17 3.1 Copenhagen ......................................................................................................................................... 17 3.2 VisitCopenhagen ................................................................................................................................. 18 3.3 2GOCopenhagen ................................................................................................................................. 19 4 Methodology and materials ................................................................................................ 20 4.1 Content Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 21 4.1.1 The coding scheme ...................................................................................................................................... 22 4.2 Netnography ....................................................................................................................................... 22 4.2.1 Field observations ........................................................................................................................................ 24 4.3 Survey ................................................................................................................................................... 25 4.3.1 Design and distribution .............................................................................................................................. 25 4.3.2 Difficulty and other discoveries .............................................................................................................. 26 4.4 Validity, reliability and generalizability ....................................................................................... 27 5. Results ................................................................................................................................. 29 5.1 Content Analysis: what is presented? ........................................................................................... 29 5.1.1 Facts .................................................................................................................................................................. 29 5.1.2 Issue and subject ........................................................................................................................................... 30 5.1.3 The way of speaking ................................................................................................................................... 31 5.1.4 Connection building .................................................................................................................................... 32 5.1.5 The Copenhagen shooting ......................................................................................................................... 33 5.2 Netnography: fans’ engagement and interaction ........................................................................ 35 3 5.2.1 Barrier to expression and engagement .................................................................................................. 35 5.2.2 Support and appreciation from others ................................................................................................... 37 5.2.3 Existence of mentorship ............................................................................................................................. 37 5.2.4 Self-awareness .............................................................................................................................................. 38 5.2.5 Notes about fans authenticity and engagement .................................................................................. 39 5.3 Survey: fans’ motives and brand evaluation ............................................................................... 40 5.3.1 VisitCopenhagen .......................................................................................................................................... 40 5.3.2 2GOCopenhagen .......................................................................................................................................... 42 5.3.3 Inhabitants vs non-inhabitants ................................................................................................................. 44 6. Further discussion .............................................................................................................. 50 6.1 How is Copenhagen presented and branded? ............................................................................. 50 6.1.1 Similarity: Copenhagen is lovely ............................................................................................................ 50 6.1.2 Difference: branding .................................................................................................................... 51 6.1.3 Limitation: responsibility as information provider ........................................................................... 53 6.1.4 Positive brand association ......................................................................................................................... 54 6.1.5