# Les dispositifs de marketing territorial comme vecteur de participation : une approche arnsteinienne d'une marque de territoire

Cédrine Zumbo-Lebrument

► To cite this version:

Cédrine Zumbo-Lebrument. Les dispositifs de marketing territorial comme vecteur de participation : une approche arnsteinienne d'une marque de territoire. Gestion et management public [2012-..], 2017, 6/1 (3), pp.9. 10.3917/gmp.061.0009. hal-02188778

HAL Id: hal-02188778

https://uca.hal.science/hal-02188778

Submitted on 10 Oct 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Place marketing devices as a vector of participation: an Arnsteinian approach to a territory brand<fnref n="1" />

*Les dispositifs de marketing territorial comme vecteur de participation: une approche arnsteinienne d'une marque de territoire*

**Cédrine ZUMBO-LEBRUMENT**

Research professor

Groupe ESC Clermont, boulevard Trudaine 63000 Clermont-Ferrand

CEROS (Paris Nanterre) et COMSOS (Université Clermont Auvergne)

cedrine.zumbo-lebrument@esc-clermont.fr

## ABSTRACT

Citizen involvement in a territory brand project is based on the ability to implement a place marketing approach structured around participatory devices. Based on the scale of participation proposed by Arnstein (1969), this article aims to investigate and appreciate the different devices deployed by the project to develop the brand of a territory.

## Key-words

Marketing territorial, participation, marque de territoire, projet, citoyen

## RÉSUMÉ

L'adhésion pérenne de citoyens au projet de marque d'un territoire repose sur la capacité à mettre en œuvre une démarche de marketing territorial structurée autour de dispositifs participatifs. En s'appuyant sur l'échelle de la participation (Arnstein, 1969), cet article vise à étudier et d'apprécier les dispositifs déployés par la marque de territoire Auvergne Nouveau Monde.

## Mots-clés

Marketing territorial, participation, marque de territoire, projet, citoyen

<footnote n="1">¹ The article is translated by Kevin Metz, professor at Groupe ESC Clermont.</footnote>
# INTRODUCTION

In France, since 1982, through three acts of territorial decentralization associated with the shift from a logic of resources to that of results (Mazouz, 2008; Marty, 2011), public managers working in regional authorities noticed a real change in the meaning of their role and tasks. Indeed, although the New Public Management (NPM) has led to a progressive spread of management practices from the corporate to the public sphere (Kapferer, 2011; Houllier-Guibert, 2012; Rochette, 2012), this diffusion has led to a questioning and modification of the competences expected of public managers which then translates into the coexistence of administrative and managerial points of view. In addition to the coexistence of these two points of view, there has been increased involvement and participation of citizens in public actions and decisions in recent years. In this context, regions have over the past few years established brands that have aimed at establishing and increasing the attractiveness of their territory (Chanut and Rochette, 2012), initiating a certain form of proximity (Le Bart and Lefebvre, 2005; Houllier-Guibert, 2009), and developing a sense of belonging for the citizens, who are more commonly labeled brand ambassadors.

Faced with a political will to integrate citizens into participatory rather than simply consultative devices, the manager of a territorial brand must thus associate three points of view: administrative, managerial and participative. This last approach is not entirely new for the public manager in its strictly internal application to a public organization (Mahé de Boislandelle and Bories-Azeau, 2009). It comes from an innovative point of view when it is a question of constructing or implementing with citizens an approach or practices that serve the general interest and the common good. This context questions the involvement of citizens in a territorial marketing approach: what are the characteristics and forms of participatory projects of the territorial marketing practices of a territorial brand? Moreover, what are the issues that are revealed through the actions of co-construction of territorial marketing practices associating public managers and citizen-residents?

Based on the study of the territorial marketing approach implemented within the framework of the

brand Auvergne Nouveau Monde<fnref n="2" /> (ANM), the objective of this communication is to answer these questions. The first section deals with the issues and the different methods of participation which are analyzed in order to understand their implications for territorial marketing. In the second section, the methodological approach of the in-depth study of the case is based on the reflexive and empirical elements in intervention-research. Finally, the territorial marketing practices of the brand ANM that is based on participation are analyzed with the objective of identifying the level of citizen participation and then outlining its specificities.

## 1. THEORETICAL ANALYSIS:
Political crisis, participatory approaches and territorial marketing

### 1.1. Challenges and limits of participatory democracy

Participatory projects must be reassessed in light of the crisis in politics, which is mainly translated by a crisis of representation that is materialized by a distrust and disaffection with regard to systems of representativity (Talpin, 2008) associated with a loss of legitimacy of public action (Blondiaux, 2008). As a remedy for the erosion of the link between citizens and representativity, the notion of participatory democracy is not recent because participation has always been associated with democracy. Nevertheless, the expression coined by Kaufman (1960), “participatory democracy” in the context of the experimentation of participatory approaches in American neighborhoods is an extension of Alinsky’s (1971) experiments on “neighborhood government” and “Community organizing” (Brager and Specht, 1973). These participatory approaches are part of the will of certain social groups to be full stakeholders in a representative and political system, which is seen as contemptuous and distant from the reality of the social needs of certain categories of citizens. From this point of view, the participatory approaches initiated by certain social movements signal the demand for greater involvement in the life of the city, i.e., a real place and role of the citizen in deliberations and political decisions. A theoretical movement of participatory

<footnote n="2">² Translation: Auvergne New World.</footnote>
democracy, explicitly related to Rousseau (1762), Tocqueville (1835), is structured (Arnstein, 1969; Pateman, 1970; Macpherson, 1973; Barber, 1984) in two complementary axes:

- on the one hand, by criticizing the theoretical approaches to democracy that do not take account of the factual inequality of rights between citizens – thus echoing the Marxist critique of the separation of human rights and the rights of citizens (Marx, 1844) - inducing unequal real political freedom, that is, differences between the participation of citizens in political life (MacPherson, 1985);

- on the other hand, by expressing the fact that the development of participatory democracy should be supported by the possibility given to the citizen to take part in debates and political decisions, because this would be beneficial to citizens (Pateman, 1970), since it carries a political education that would ultimately benefit society as a whole.

The aim of participatory democracy is similar to that of deliberative democracy (Blondiaux and Sintomer, 2002), advocated by Habermas (1997, 1999), based on the fact that they both aim at providing the public space with the conditions permitting the involvement of the greatest number of people in deliberative processes. However, Habermas (1997, 1999), in a society he considers to be diverse through its expectations and interests, questions and criticizes the assumption that civil groups and communities engaged in participatory projects would constitute homogeneous groups as regards ethical and moral values. A contrario, Habermas's reasoning leads to the idea that these groups and communities are not necessarily based on a principle of unambiguous ethical and moral principles. This then leads us to question the moral and ethical principles underlying the fact that participatory democracy makes it possible to increase the responsibility of citizens in the construction of public space.

In France, in the 1970s, participation was mainly set within the framework of the implementation by the public authorities of local participatory devices considered as vectors of collective actions based on

a determined willingness for citizen mobilization (Blondiaux and Sintomer, 2002; Bresson, 2014). Concretely, these participatory devices had three distinct objectives, but correlated by their effects (Bacqué *et al.*, 2005):

- modernize and make public management more effective by associating citizens' skills with public policies;

- strengthen and transform social ties between citizens by ensuring that actors contribute to shaping their local environment;

- to develop the «school of democracy» by changing, through the integration in participative processes, the perception of public spirit among citizens.

However, the participatory devices have given rise to many criticisms (Donzelot and Epstein, 2006; Talpin, 2006; Sintomer and De Maillard, 2007; Pinson, 2009; Stuart and Insch, 2015) emphasizing in particular the inauthentic delegation and citizen participation in public action. An original deviance of participation is emphasized, which would be an instrument of communication serving the specific purposes of certain political actors. According to this reasoning, some of its devices participated either in «propaganda» which «is a form of manipulation», or in «political marketing» understood as «a rationalizing methodology that implements persuasive communication techniques» (Dacheux, 1999)<fnref n="3" />. This leads Jouve (2007) to note the existence of a discrepancy between the participatory ideal and the «hard daily reality». More specifically, concerning urban development policy, where the expertise of participatory procedures of elected officials, the co-optation and exploitation of local associations in these procedures, and the vague objectives for participation are identified.

<footnote n="3">³ Dacheux (1999), p.3.</footnote>
## 1.2. Building a territory brand image with citizens: aims and forms for territorial marketing

Territorial marketing can be defined according to Chamard and al. (2013) as “an approach which aims to develop, on the basis of knowledge of the environment (geographical, demographical, cultural, economic, social and political), the territorial offer”, within which the main objective for a territory brand for the regional authority is to engage in a strategic action leading to the definition of a positioning for their territory in order to develop their brand value” (ibid.)<fnref n="4" />.

If, in practice, the interest in territorial marketing for stakeholders is not recent (Kotler and al., 1993; Hankinson, 2004), the theoretical interest in understanding the links between territorial marketing practices and stakeholders participating in these practices is recent (Lucarelli and Berg, 2011; Kavaratzis, 2012; Klijn, 2012; Eshuis and Edwards, 2013). This research highlights the inauthentic or inadequate integration of citizens in these practices (Bennett, Savani, 2003; Greenberg, 200; Kavaratzis, 2008; Braun and al., 2013). Territorial marketing practices would therefore be part of a top-down brand strategy in which, despite the existence of so-called “participatory” devices, citizens have little power over decisions and actions affecting the territory brand image for which they are mobilized. (Eshuis and al., 2014). Paradoxically, there is a great deal of research underlining the need for a territory brand image project to define a governance that makes a point to integrate citizens into participatory devices that lead them to co-construct the territory brand image: citizens should be solicited as consumers of a territory, but also as actors of the brand project because of their knowledge of the territory. However, research on the role played by citizens in the construction of a territory brand image remains, on the one hand, mainly based on quantitative studies and, on the other hand, does not attempt to assess the degree of power transferred to citizens through participatory devices.

The implementation of a territory brand image may appear, through the associated marketing practices that it supposes, as a singular illustration of the ideal type - in the Weberian meaning of the term – peculiar

to this participative point of view that the public manager who manages it must incorporate. Indeed, the notoriety and attachment to a territory brand image cannot be achieved without the citizens adhering to the values it embodies. The identity of the territory brand image must make it possible to match the values of the territory as citizens imagine them so that the collective imagination can adhere to it. In the absence of the latter, the brand will at best be the subject of an institutional communication uncorrelated with authentic territorial roots, destined to be inefficient. What Eshuis and al. (2014) rightly emphasize: “*If territorial marketing is to go beyond advertising through slogans and other logos and also incorporate policy development and spatial planning, then territorial marketing will have to address the values and the contradictory preferences of citizens. Forms of democratic deliberation are required to do this, which rely on active citizenship and democratic participation, rather than on the consumption of public services (...). Political dialogue between local government and residents is essential in this regard, and this dialogue cannot be replaced by territorial marketing whose citizens constitute the only targeted group*” (ibid.)<fnref n="5" />.

In this sense, a territory brand image cannot be reduced to the implementation of a communication plan, but rather requires a real territory project embodying a dynamic of continuous construction ensuring the appropriation of the past, present, and future values and expectations of the residents. This continuous work on the concordance of values and expectations requires incorporating the residents into the brand project. Aiming to make citizens actors throughout the project, this citizen participation broach issues that can be analyzed on two levels. The first level is that of the sphere of public space which originates in an approach incorporating the citizens in the process of constructing actions and political decisions: through this participatory approach, the citizen assumes a part of the political responsibility in the creation of the public space. At the level of public management, citizen participation is part of public innovation given that full integration of residents into marketing practices leads to innovative projects that were not initially foreseen by the brand bearers or by the citizens: this contingency inherent to the projects is the guarantee of genuine participation.

<footnote n="4">⁴ Chamard and al. (2013), pp.28-30.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Eshuis J. and al. (2014), p.170.</footnote>
<table><thead><tr><th>Arnstein (1969)</th><th>Wiedemann and Femers (1993)</th><th>Dorcey et al. (1994)</th><th>Conner (1988)</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><ul><li>Degrees of Citizen Power</li><li>Citizen control</li><li>Delegated power</li><li>Partnership</li></ul><ul><li>Degrees of Tokenism</li><li>Placation</li><li>Consultation</li><li>Informing</li></ul><ul><li>Nonparticipation</li><li>Therapy</li><li>Manipulation</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Public participation in final decision</li><li>Public participation in assessing risks and recommending solutions</li><li>Public participation in defining interests and actors and determining agenda</li><li>Public right to object</li><li>Informing the public</li><li>Public right to know</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Ongoing involvement</li><li>Seek consensus</li><li>Task ideas, seek advice</li><li>Consult on reactions</li><li>Define issues</li><li>Gather information, perspectives</li><li>Educate</li><li>Inform</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Leaders</li><li>Resolution/ prevention</li><li>Litigation</li><li>Mediation</li><li>Joint planning</li><li>General Public</li><li>Consultation</li><li>Information feedback</li><li>Education</li></ul></td><td>Increasing Public Involvement or Citizen Control</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 1 – Scales of citizen participation</caption><thead><tr><th>Author</th><th>Orientation</th><th>Spectrum</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Arnstein</td><td>Power Orientation</td><td>Manipulation → Citizen control</td></tr><tr><td>Wiedemann and Femer</td><td>Administrative Orientation</td><td>Education → Joint decision making</td></tr><tr><td>Conner</td><td>Conflict Resolution</td><td>Education → Prevention</td></tr><tr><td>Dorcey et al.</td><td>Planning Process</td><td>Inform → Ongoing involvement</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Schlossberg and Shuford (2005)

It is unplanned and underscores a real power of decision and action given to citizens.

Two elements common to these two levels of analysis can be identified: the power given to the citizen-resident through participatory approaches and the capacity of the public manager to manage public innovation emerging from citizen participation. There is a lack of research on the managerial forms and methods on which is based the relationship between the public manager and the citizens, thereby providing few elements to get a clear idea of the specificities they cover (Mazeaud and Talpin, 2010).

Nevertheless, are criticisms about participation not likely to resurface concerning devices introduced in the context of a territory brand image project? How can we then objectively assess the degree of citizen participation in this type of approach? To this end, the various intentions and objectives underlying participatory projects are categorized in order to assess the nature and degree of citizen participation in these same projects.

### 1.3. Participatory approaches: plurality of levels of commitment and responsibility

Blondiaux analyzes the polysemy intrinsic to the notion of participation by the popularity of the notion of “participatory democracy”, which is based on a “semantic plasticity” (2008a, p.25) that would make it a sort of “conceptual conglomerate” (2008b, p.38). This fluctuating polysemy can only be overcome by means of a measuring instrument that evaluates the types of participation. It is from this observation that Donzelot and Epstein come to recall the existence of such an instrument: “the scale elaborated by Sherry Arnstein in 1969” (2006, p.6).

From the literature, it should be noted that if other scales of evaluation of participation were designed following that of Arnstein (Rowe and Frewer, 2000, 2004, 2005; Schlossberg and Shuford, 2005; Fung 2006; Beuret 2011; Viel and al. 2012; Amelot, 2013), Arnstein’s is the only one to appreciate the power
transferred to citizens by public actors through participatory approaches<fnref n="6" />.

The Arnstein scale proposes a hierarchy of three levels of participation practices articulated in eight possible degrees of delegation of power.

The first two degrees of the scale, “Manipulation” and “Therapy” constitute the level of “Non-participation.” They proceed from the will of the public actors, through planned devices, to educate and cure participating citizens⁷ because they would be at the origin of problems in a given territory. The objective is then to influence the citizens in the direction of the predetermined interests of the public authorities; not aiming at real citizen participation, this first level is propaganda and political marketing through devices that do not delegate any power to citizens.

The second level is articulated in three degrees. First of all, it is a question of registering citizens in devices that allow them to be informed, but without the possibility of being able to provide feedback on the information disseminated: if this degree is necessary to initiate a participatory approach, it is in no way sufficient to speak genuinely about participation. The second degree is consultation, a participative mode that allows one to be heard in addition to being informed. However, there is no guarantee that the expectations and proposals put forward will be taken into account by the public authorities<fnref n="8" />. Finally, the third degree corresponds to what Arnstein calls “placation”, an improved consultation process where, if citizens deliberately have the opportunity to express suggestions and give their opinions, only those who have the power can judge the validity and legitimacy of the proposals. These three degrees constitute “Symbolic Cooperation (Tokenism).” If participation is limited to these three degrees, “there is no follow-through, no “muscle”, hence no assurance of changing the status quo.” (Arnstein, 1969, p.217).

Finally, the last level, structured in three degrees, constitutes the level where participation genuinely begins. The first stage, “Partnership”, is a level of participation where citizens can negotiate and dialogue with the various actors holding power in the context of participatory projects or committees: «At this rung of the ladder, power is in fact

redistributed through negotiation between citizens and the powerholders. They agree to share planning and decision-making responsibilities through such structures as joint policy boards, planning committees and devices for resolving impasses” (Arnstein, 1969, p.221). The second degree consists in the “delegated power” which is based on greater authority by the citizens over decisions because of their majority position in the concerned devices, associated or not with veto power which is conferred upon them.

The third and last degree, “citizen control,” constitutes the highest degree of participation to the extent that citizens have full power over the design, implementation, and management of the devices and participatory programs, including direct access to the sources of financing of the latter. However, Arnstein relativizes the existence of total citizen control: «Though no one in the nation has absolute control, it is very important that the rhetoric not be confused with intent. People are simply demanding that degree of power (or control) which guarantees that participants or residents can govern a program or an institution, be in full charge of policy and managerial aspects, and be able to negotiate the conditions under which “outsiders” may change them” (Arnstein, 1969, p.223).

This third level is the “Effective Citizen Power” where each of the three degrees corresponds to a growing share of the citizen’s decision-making power in participatory devices.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1 – Scale of citizen participation of Arnstein (1969)</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="6">6 Arnstein’s scale of citizen participation was used, in a simplified manner, by the OECD in its report “Citizens as Partners” published in 2002.
7 “Their real objective is not to enable people to participate in planning or conducting programs, but to enable powerholders to “educate” or “cure” the participants » (Arnstein, 1969, p.217).</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8 “But under these conditions they lack the power to insure that their views will be heeded by the powerful” (ibid.).</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2 – Chronology of the steps for the ANM approach</figcaption></figure>

Source: Author

Arnstein's citizen participation scale constitutes the analytical framework used during the study of the participative devices integrated in the territorial marketing approach in order to understand the citizens' degree of power within different participatory devices.

## 2. THE PARTICIPATIVE APPROACH
of the ANM association examined using Arnstein's scale of citizen participation

### 2.1. The Auvergne Nouveau Monde brand case study: context and research methodology

The Auvergne region is one of those poorly-known French territories that retain an archaic, aging image and convey many preconceptions. This image problem is fairly widely shared by the French public, as shown by an IPSOS survey in 2012⁹. As a result, Auvergne seeks to increase its attractiveness by improving its

visibility across national borders by means of a regional brand. With this objective in mind, the “Auvergne Nouveau Monde” brand was created in April 2011 at the initiative of the Auvergne Regional Council and its four territorial development agencies. Joined by large regional companies, SMEs, festivals, cultural venues, associations, universities, etc., the association had in 2014 about 700 members of the association responsible for developing the brand. Scope in associative form, this brand is based on a political will to establish a collaborative approach - between residents, communities, institutions, companies, and universities - (Rainisto, 2003; Kau, 2006). The brand followed a heterogeneous and discontinuous construction process (Chanut and Rochette, 2012), but the main steps were clearly identified (impulse, diagnosis, positioning, targeting) (fig.2).

The ANM association is made up of a deputy director in charge of development and two project managers working on the development and implementation of the brand's actions once they have been defined by the association's office and validated by the board of directors.

<footnote n="9">⁹ The IPSOS study was carried out by the association Auvergne Nouveau Monde on a sample of 1500 people living in France outside of Auvergne and highlighted a gap between the image that non-Auvergne residents have of Auvergne and reality.</footnote>
This case study is part of research initiated through a CIFRE<fnref n="10" /> that responds to a need for the design and implementation of marketing tools. The researcher is in a position of research-intervention that does not only involve a transformative objective, which is simply action-oriented, but also a willingness to question the analytical reference framework of the actors involved in the practices in order to transform them (Hatchuel, 1994; Merini and Ponté, 2008). The nature of this research, as a process of accumulating knowledge, is exploratory because, according to Charreire and Durieux, exploration is “the process by which the researcher aims to propose innovative theoretical results” (2003, p.57). More precisely, this research originates from a hybrid exploratory approach (Weingart, 1997, p.218). Through an iterative confrontation between the literature review and the empirical data from the field, its aim is to enrich and deepen the understanding of the participative approaches associated with the territorial marketing practices of the ANM brand. In addition, in order to try to neutralize as much as possible the subjective biases resulting from research-intervention, observations were formalized in a notebook combined with the minutes of meetings and organized events.

## 2.2. Analysis of participative devices implemented by ANM

The analysis of each of the participative devices is carried out by specifying the context, objective, and role in the territorial marketing approach, along with the working methods, in order to ultimately explain and justify the citizens' degree of power in comparison to the different degrees of Arnstein's scale of participation (1969).

### 2.2.1. The role of the residents in the governance of the association ANM

Striving to understand the participatory value of a territory brand and the devices that support it cannot do without an analysis of the organization that fosters this brand, in this case the association Auvergne Nouveau Monde (ANM). Born from an initiative of the Auvergne Regional Council, the ANM association has

been chaired since 2011 by a business leader, who is also president of a cluster. Its governance is based on three entities inherent to all associative structures: a board of directors, a committee and an annual general meeting. The board of directors is structured according to four colleges: companies, associations, communities and other institutions (universities, expansion committees...) and one regrouping the ex officio members (Regional Council, regional development agencies: Tourism, Reception of new populations, Economic attractiveness, Culture).

The board of directors, elected for a three-year term, meets quarterly to validate the brand's major orientations, while the committee, made up of representatives from each category of stakeholders of the board of directors, meets every month to validate the operational points.

At the annual general meeting, all the members meet to vote on the status and financial reports of the association and to attend the presentation of the action plan for the coming year. More precisely, the different decisions and actions taken are presented to all governance stakeholders as well as the citizens participating in the “Pionniers” (Citizen-ambassadors) Committee (see below).

Whether it is the board of directors or even the committee, the citizens do not belong to the various colleges of the association, which are made up only of regional institutional actors, except for the annual general meetings at which the citizens are informed in order to, in the words of Arnstein, “allow the have-nots to hear and to have a voice”, that is to say, to have access to information concerning the decisions of the brand and to give their opinion on the decisions without the assurance that their opinions are taken into account. The power granted to citizens through the governance of the brand is, according to Arnstein, a symbolic cooperation of consultation.

<footnote n="10">10 Convention Industrielle de Formation par la Recherche (Industrial Convention of Training through Research)</footnote>
### 2.2.2. Digital social networks developed by ambassadors

Given the limited human and financial resources of the association and the growing proportion of users of digital social networks (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.), the use of these as part of the brand's communication strategy has become a necessity. Institutional pages on Facebook and Twitter were created in 2011 and 2013. The digital strategy<fnref n="11" /> targets social networking sites as content distributors but also as vectors for the development of the community of brand ambassadors that is the community citizen-ambassadors<fnref n="12" />.

Therefore, this strategy clearly aims to inform community members about the actions and events organized by and around the brand, as well as to create a participatory proximity based on conversational interaction made possible through the animation of the various official pages on the social networking sites.

An interpretation of the device of the citizen-ambassador community on the social networking sites according to the Arnstein scale of participation would lead to the idea that this participative approach is part of the level of symbolic cooperation, precisely to a degree of “consultation,” if all members of the Pioneer community are informed - which is the “Information” degree on the Arnstein scale. But the community can also express its opinion in the form of comments to information disseminated by the association on the official web pages - without any guarantee that these comments can necessarily be taken into account by the ANM association.

Starting in March 2015, the animation of the brand on the DSN was entrusted to various members of the Pioneer community who were chosen for their mastery of digital tools and their investment in the brand. This decision did not change the level of citizen participation from the level of symbolic cooperation to the level of effective citizen power. Indeed, even if the integration of Auvergne citizens indicates a form of delegation of power, the fact remains that these people are only part of an editorial strategy of the ANM brand on which they ultimately have very little discretionary power. Nevertheless, this leads to a change in the degree of participation that may be «placation»: “It is at this level that citizens begin to have some degree of influence though tokenism is still apparent” (Arnstein, 1969, p.220).

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="11">11 ANM's digital strategy focused on Pioneers (brand ambassadors) is based on an omni-channel deployment including the animation of social networking sites dedicated to the brand, the management of a Web TV platform, the coordination of direct marketing actions (e-mailing), and press and public relations, in addition to the organization of events (conferences, evening events *Les pépites du Nouveau Monde...*).</footnote>

<footnote n="12">12 People who are members of ANM's official Facebook and Twitter pages are the brand ambassador community. These pioneers live in Auvergne, in other French regions, or are expatriates. They like their territory and are ready to participate in its promotion. Called by the brand “digital criers,” they relay the messages and the values of the territory.</footnote>
### 2.2.3. Crowdfunding device

In order to highlight the innovative character of the Auvergne territory, various creative and original projects submitted online were the basis of a competition. Internet users were able to vote over a four-month period. Fifteen projects were selected on the basis of 10,000 votes to participate in the crowdfunding call. At the end of this vote, each project was able to mobilize its network, mainly through social-digital networks to raise funds for three months.

This device gives real effective power to citizens who had to choose the projects autonomously and independently. It granted a "partnership" power as they were stakeholders in the project appraisal decision, but they are neither the source of the operating procedures of the project election process, nor of the choice the funding platform and its operation, which does not qualify this participatory approach as «delegated power». This device can be evaluated as participating in a symbolic cooperation. Citizens select projects and participate in the collection of financial resources. In

a second stage, by asking the citizens to participate in the selected projects, the device cannot be appreciated as being a simple exercise of formal referendum-type democracy - what the beginning of the implementation period of the crowdfunding project might suggest.

### 2.2.4. Citizen involvement in the creation of communication tools for the territory brand image

The community of citizen-ambassadors brings together, on a voluntary basis, people living in or native to Auvergne, and whose common trait is to want to contribute to the promotion of the territory. Members receive and exchange information about the ANM brand through the various institutional pages on the social networking sites, as well as through a dedicated online space. A committee was set up with the expressed purpose of co-constructing the marketing and communication tools of the ANM brand with the

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
citizen-ambassadors from Auvergne. This approach is organized around monthly meetings in order to decide which marketing and communication tools and actions to implement. The committee takes the form of monthly workshops based on a group limited to about thirty people who have a collaborative digital tool.

This device can be considered as an illustration of the “Delegated power” degree of participation as Arnstein defines it: «At the topmost rungs, *Delegated Power* and *Citizen Control*, have-not citizens obtain the majority of decision-making seats, or full managerial power” (1969, p.217). Indeed, the Pioneer Committee participates in a level of effective power that was transferred to citizens who then decide on the tools to be put in place without their creativity being contained by any principle of authority. In doing so, citizens are involved in the territorial marketing process. According to the typology of the degrees of citizen participation, this device cannot be appreciated as proceeding simply from a “Partnership” degree because the decision-making power given to the residents goes beyond bargaining with the people in charge of the brand. In the same way, it cannot be appreciated as proceeding from the “Citizen Control” degree, given that neither the running of the workshops nor the control of the financial and technical resources are the responsibility of the citizens, but clearly with the ANM association.

### 2.2.5. International promotion of the territory by citizens

A competition for young people aged 18 to 25 called “Open Auvergne” was set up in 2014 with a round-the-world trip as its prize. The competition focused on a important theme for the ANM brand: presenting an idea to promote Auvergne during five evenings abroad. Through a pre-selection phase with a vote open to the general public on the internet, this competition allowed 38,000 people to choose the most original and pertinent ideas. The winning team of five Auvergne students was chosen by a jury pre-selected by the association.

Then, for six months, a steering committee made up of students and ANM project managers met weekly to put together this world tour. The choice of cities was made according to different criteria: presence of people from Auvergne, economic links, tourist links, willingness to strengthen partnerships<fnref n="13" />. In each city, the prize-winners organized an evening promoting the territory. To this end, preliminary work with Auvergne partners was carried out to constitute the promotional tools to be used during the evenings: photos of Auvergne taken by a group of photographers; gifts offered by partners such as Michelin, the universities of Auvergne, Limagrain; a selection of films from the International Short Film Festival to be screened, current music from Auvergne; typical products of local gastronomy such as cheeses, lentils, AOC wines, quality label meats.

This device transfers to students a high level of decision-making power, since no person working within the association accompanies nor controls their actions during the world tour. In the same way, if events were planned, the forms of implementation were left to the discretion of the students thus underlining the delegated power. The power of the students is not at a degree of “citizen control” because the students were not at the origin of the device, they do not manage the financial costs or the whole organization, they do not have any power over the design, implementation, and control of the device, nor a direct access to its sources of funding. In the same way, the students do not have a simple power of the “partnership” degree, because they have more sway negotiating the decisions and the actions of the project insofar as they have all authority on the actual operations implemented in the field. Consequently, the power transferred by the association to the students involved in this device is similar to a delegation of power. Two of the students continued their involvement by becoming active pioneers in the monthly meetings.

<footnote n="13">13 Brussels (Cooperation with the Auvergne Region);</footnote>

<footnote>* Tokyo: Limagrain and Michelin companies are located there;</footnote>

<footnote>* Shenyang: Michelin has its largest factory there and Clermont-Ferrand is a partner of Shenyang;</footnote>

<footnote>* Shenyang: Michelin has its largest factory there and Clermont-Ferrand is a partner of Shenyang;</footnote>

<footnote>* Montreal: presence of a large community of people from Auvergne and growing presence of the company Almérys whose headquarters is in Clermont-Ferrand.</footnote>
# DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

By conducting an evaluation of the practices of a territory brand image based on Arnstein's (1969) citizen participation scale, the aim was to identify the various forms of power entrusted to citizens. Given the state of the research (Andersson, 2014; Acharya and Rahman, 2016; Oguztimur and Akturan, 2016), the contribution of this article is to offer an understanding of the participative forms of citizens within territorial marketing devices at a regional level. The participatory devices deployed demonstrate a willingness to implement a territorial project requiring the involvement of citizens by taking them into account through a plurality of modes of participation ranging from consultation to delegation of power. Nevertheless, the non-integration of citizens into the governing bodies of the ANM association suggests that there is a lever for optimization and development by involving citizens more in the deliberations concerning the strategic orientations of the brand.

The main limits of this research lie essentially in the use of a scale of participation which, even Arnstein admits, makes sense only through the double simplification of

the reality that it conveys. Indeed, a first simplification can be identified by the division into the eight levels that constitute the scale. This division assimilates types of power referring to disparate realities into homogeneous categories. In the same way, Arnstein's scale is based on a simplifying dichotomy between two social categories – decision-makers with power and citizens without power – which Shelly Arnstein acknowledges by justifying this simplifying abstraction: “The justification for using such simplistic abstractions is that in most cases the have-nots really do perceive the powerful as a monolithic «system,» and powerholders actually do view the have-nots as a sea of «those people,» with little comprehension of the class and caste differences among them” (1969, p.217). In addition, while this scale can be a useful diagnostic tool for managing a project enabling the assessment of citizen participation in territorial marketing devices put in place, the fact remains that it does not offer the possibility of identifying the obstacles to participatory approaches nor the means to overcome them by correcting them. Therefore, this scale must be considered for what it is: a tool for identifying and determining forms of participation, but in no way a tool to remedy the obstacles or dysfunctions in participatory approaches.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3 – Positioning of participatory devices connected to the ANM brand according to Arnstein's citizen participation scale (1969)</figcaption></figure>

Source: Author
However, in the current context of declining operat-
ing grants for regional authority, the case of the ANM
brand, through the variety of participative forms and
the different levels of power delegated to citizens, illus-
trates, on the one hand, the creativity in terms of public
innovation that territory brand image promotors can
and must demonstrate, and, on the other hand, the nec-
essary integration of citizens in a territory brand image
approach whose perimeter is not a city, but a region.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

ACHARYA, A.; RAHMAN, Z. (2016). "Place branding research: a thematic review and future research agenda", *International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing*, 13, 3, p.289-317.

ANDERSSON, I. (2014). "Placing place branding: an analysis of an emerging research field in human geography", *Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography*, 114, 2, p.143-155.

ALINSKY, S. (1971). *Rules for radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals*, Random House.

AMELOT, X. (2013). "Cartographie participative pour le développement local et la gestion de l'environnement à Madagascar: empowerment, impérialisme numérique ou illusion participative?", *L'Information géographique*, 77, 4, p.47-67.

ARNSTEIN, S. R. (1969). "A Ladder of Citizen Participation", *Journal of the American Institute of Planners*, 35, 4, p.216-224.

BARBER, B. (1984). *Strong Democracy: participatory politics for a new age*, University of California Press, Berkeley.

BACQUE, M.-H.; REY, H.; SINTOMER, Y. (2005). "La démocratie participative, un nouveau paradigme de l'action publique?". In BACQUE M.-H.; REY, H.; SINTOMER, Y. (dir.), *Gestion de proximité et démocratie participative*, La Découverte, Paris, p.25-32.

BENNETT, R.; SAVANI, S. (2003). "The Rebranding of City Places: an International Comparative Investigation", *International Public Management Review*, 4, 2, p.70-87.

BEURET, J. E. (2011). "Quelles voies pour la participation du public à la conservation de la nature? Le cas des réserves de biosphère", *Développement Durable et Territoires*, 2, 3.

BLONDIAUX, L. (2002). "Démocratie locale: repenser les objectifs politiques avant de définir des modalités", *Cahiers du DSU*, 35, p.42-43.

BLONDIAUX, L.; SINTOMER, Y. (2002). "L'impératif délibératif", *Politix*, 15, 57, p.17-35.

BLONDIAUX, L. (2008a). *Le nouvel esprit de la démocratie : Actualité de la démocratie participative*, Seuil, Paris.

BLONDIAUX, L. (2008b). "Introduction générale – Le profane comme concept et comme fiction politique. Du vocalaire des sciences sociales aux dispositifs participatifs contemporains: les avatars d'une notion". In FROMENTIN, T.; WOJCIK S. (dir.), *Le profane en politique. Compétences et engagements du citoyen*, L'Harmattan, Paris, p.37-51.

BORIES-AZEAU, I.; BOISLANDELLE, H. M. D. (2009). *Les nouveaux défis du manager public : Conduire le changement, maîtriser la gestion, dynamiser le territoire*, L'Harmattan, Paris, p.387.

BRAGER, G.; SPECHT, H. (1973). *Community Organizing*, Columbia University Press, New York.

BRAUN, E.; KAVARATZIS, M.; ZENKER, S. (2013). "My city – my brand: the different roles of residents in place branding", *Journal of Place Management and Development*, 6, 1, p.18-28.

BRESSON, M. (2014). "La participation : un concept contamment réinventé", *Socio-logos. Revue de l'Association Française de Sociologie*, 9.

CHAMARD, C.; LIQUET, J.-C.; MENGUI, M. (2013). "L'image de marque de marque des régions françaises : évaluation du "capital territoire" pour le grand public", *Revue Française du Marketing*, 244/245, p.27.

CHANUT, V.; ROCHETTE, C. (2012). "La fabrique d'une marque Région: le cas de la marque 'Auvergne Nouveau Monde'", *Politique et Management Public*, 29, 3, p.493-517.

CHARREIRE, S.; DURIEUX, F. (2003). "Explorer et tester : deux voies pour la recherche". In THIETART, R. A. (dir.), *Méthodes de recherche en management*, Dunod, Paris.

DACHEUX, E. (1999). "Action et communication politique: une distinction impossible?", *Communication et Organisation*, 15.

DONZELOT, J.; EPSTEIN, R. (2006). "Démocratie et participation: l'exemple de la rénovation urbaine", *Esprit*, 326, p.5-34.

DONZELOT, J. (dir.) (2012). *À quoi sert la rénovation urbaine?*, PUF, Paris.

ESHUIS, J.; EDWARDS, A. (2013). "Branding the City: The Democratic Legitimacy of a New Mode of Governance", *Urban Studies*, 50, 5, p.1066-1082.

ESHUIS, J.; KLIJN, E.-H.; BRAUN, E. (2014). "Marketing territorial et participation citoyenne: le branding, un moyen de faire face à la dimension émotionnelle de l'élaboration des politiques?", *Revue Internationale des Sciences Administratives*, 80, 1, p.153-174.

FUNG, A. (2006). "Varieties of participation in complex governance", *Public Administration Review*, 66, 1, p.66-75.

GREENBERG, M. (2008). *Branding New York: How a City in Crisis was Sold to the World*, Routledge, New York.

HABERMAS, J. (1999). *Écrits politiques: culture, droit, histoire*, Flammarion, coll. "Champs", Paris.

HABERMAS, J. (1997). *Droit et démocratie. Entre faits et normes*, Gallimard, NRF Essais, Paris.

HANKINSON, G. (2004). "Relational network brands: Towards a conceptual model of place brands", *Journal of Vacation Marketing*, 10, 2, p.109-121.

HATCHUEL, A. (1994). "Les savoirs de l'intervention en
entreprise", *Entreprise et Histoire*, 7, p.59-75.

HOULLIER-GUIBERT, C.-E. (2009). "Évolution de la communication territoriale : les limites de l'idéologie de la proximité", *Les Enjeux de l'information et de la communication*, 1, p.45-61.

HOULLIER-GUIBERT, C.-E. (2012). "De la communication publique vers le marketing des territoires: approche microsociologique de la fabrication de l'image de marque", *Gestion et Management Public*, 1, 2, p.35-49.

JOUVE, B. (2007). "L'empowerment : à quelles conditions ? Pour quels objectifs ?", École nationale des travaux publics de l'État, CNRS, Note de travail.

KAPFERER, J.-N. (2011). "France: Pourquoi penser marque ?", *Revue Française de Gestion*, 37, 218-219, p.13-23.

KAU, E. (2006). "Regional Branding: A Relationship of Public and Private Sectors", *UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research*, 9, p.1-6.

KAUFMAN, A.S. (1960). "Human Nature and Participatory Democracy", in FRIEDRICH C. J. (ed.), *Responsibility: NOMOS III*, NY: The Liberal Arts Press, p.266-289.

KAVARATZIS, M. (2008). *From City Marketing to City Branding: An interdisciplinary analysis with reference to Amsterdam, Budapest and Athens*, PhD Thesis, Groningen University: Netherlands.

KAVARATZIS, M. (2012). "From "necessary evil" to necessity: stakeholders' involvement in place branding", *Journal of Place Management and Development*, 5, 1, p.7-19.

KOTLER, P.; HAIDER, D. H.; REIN, I. (1993). *Marketing Places: Attracting Investments, Industries, and Tourism to Cities, States, and Nations*, The Free Press, New York.

LE BART, C.; LEFEBVRE, R. (2005). "Une nouvelle grande politique ?" *In* LE BART, C.; LEFEBVRE, R. (dir.), *La proximité en politique, usages, rhétoriques, pratiques*, PUR, p.11-30.

LUCARELLI, A.; BERG, P. O. (2011). "City branding: a state-of-the-art review of the research domain", *Journal of Place Management and Development*, 4, 1, p.9-27.

MACPHERSON, C. B. (1973). *Democratic Theory*, Clarendon Press Oxford.

MACPHERSON, C. B. (1985). *Principes et limites de la démocratie libérale*, La Découverte, Paris.

MAHE DE BOISLANDELLE, H.; BORIES-AZEAU, I. (2009). *Les nouveaux défis du manager public. Conduire le changement, maîtriser la gestion, dynamiser le territoire*, L'Harmattan, Paris.

MARTY, F. (2011). "Le nouveau management public et la transformation des compétences dans la sphère publique". *In* SOLIS-POTVIN L. (Éd.), *Vers un modèle européen de*

fonction publique ?, Actes des neuvièmes journées d'études du Pôle européen Jean Monnet, Bruylant, Bruxelles, p.193-222.

MARX, K. (2006). *Sur la question juive*, La Fabrique, Paris. [Édition originale 1844].

MAZEAUD, A; TALPIN, J. (2010). "Participer pour quoi faire ? Esquisse d'une sociologie de l'engagement dans les budgets participatifs", *Sociologie*, 1, 3, p.357-374.

MAZOUZ, B. (2008). *Le métier de gestionnaire public à l'aube de la gestion par résultats - Nouveaux rôles - Nouvelles fonctions - Nouveaux profils*, PUQ, Québec.

MERINI, C.; PONTE, P. (2008). "La recherche-intervention comme mode d'interrogation des pratiques", *Savoirs*, 16, p.77-95.

OGUZTIMUR, S.; AKTURAN, U. (2016). "Synthesis of City Branding Literature (1988-2014) as a Research Domain: Synthesis of City Branding Literature", *International Journal of Tourism Research*, 18, 4, p.357-372.

PATEMAN, C. (1970). *Participation and democratic theory*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

PINSON, G. (2009). *Gouverner la ville par projet. Urbanisme et gouvernance des villes européennes*, Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, Paris.

RAINISTO, S. K. (2003). *Success factors of place marketing: A study of place marketing practices in Northern Europe and the United States*, Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Science in Technology, Helsinki University of Technology.

ROCHETTE, C., (2012). "L'approche ressources et compétences comme clé de lecture du processus d'élaboration d'une ressource originale : la marque territoire", *Gestion et Management Public*, 1, 1, p.4-20.

ROUSSEAU, J.-J. (1762). *Du contrat social ou principes du droit politique*, Marc Michel Rey Édition, Amsterdam.

ROWE, G.; FREWER, L. J. (2000). "Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation", *Science, Technology & Human Values*, 25, 1, p.3-29.

ROWE, G.; FREWER, L. J. (2004). "Evaluating Public Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda", *Science, Technology & Human Values*, 29, 4, p.512-556.

ROWE, G.; FREWER, L. J. (2005). "A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms", *Science, Technology & Human Values*, 30, 2, p.251-290.

SCHLOSSBERG, M. A.; SHUFORD, E. (2005). "Delineating "Public" and "Participation" in PPGIS", *URISA Journal*, 16, 2, p.15-26.

SINTOMER, Y.; DE MAILLARD, J. (2007). "The limits of local participation and deliberation in the French 'Politique de la ville'", *European Journal of Political Research*, 2007,
vol. 46, n°4, p.503-529.

STUART, M.; INSCH, A. (2015). "Understanding resident city brand disengagement", *Journal of Place Management and Development*, 8, 3, p.172-186.

TALPIN, J. (2006). "Jouer les bons citoyens. Les effets contrastés de l'engagement au sein de dispositifs participatifs", *Politix*, 75, p.13-31.

TALPIN, J. (2008). "Pour une approche processuelle de l'engagement participatif : Les mécanismes de construction de la compétence civique au sein d'institutions de démocratie participative", *Politique et Sociétés*, 27, 3, p.133-164.

De TOCQUEVILLE, A. (1981). *De la Démocratie en Amérique*, Flammarion. [Édition originale 1835].

VIEL, L.; LIZARRALDE, G.; MAHERZI, F. A.; THOMAS-MARET, I. (2012). "L'influence des parties prenantes dans les grands projets urbains", *Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography*, document 604.

WEINGART, L. (1997). "How did they do that? The ways and means of studying group process", *Research in Organizational Behaviour*, 19, p.189-239.

.