【正文】 了品牌概念。與此相反 ， 旅游目的地品牌 引起了人們興趣 ， 一些年前 ， 供方 、 業(yè)主 /管理 視角是 本研究的核 2 心 。首先 ， 從一個利益相關(guān)者包容性的角度決策 來說 ， 考慮潛在影響和 向 輿論引導(dǎo)者反應(yīng)目的地品牌標(biāo)識戰(zhàn)略 和增加 東道國人口 ， 顯得越來越重要 。隨著歐盟的擴(kuò)大 ， 雙方的聯(lián)盟和其個別成員國需要定義自己的 標(biāo)識 。雖然各個作者已不能接受一個共同的定義 ， 他們有一個共同的看法 ， 即從供方角度品牌 標(biāo)識 的發(fā)展是一個理論概念最好的理解。在這樣的背景下 ， 品牌標(biāo)識可以作為一個網(wǎng)絡(luò)圖繪 ， 依次演示 歷史 、 民族和文化的關(guān)系 來 開發(fā)一個共同的看法 ， 這成為 共同行動 /或 反對 改變 的 基礎(chǔ)。例如 ， 科普菲爾例如 ， 科普菲 爾介紹的稱為品牌標(biāo)識棱鏡的六邊形模型。在我們看來 ， 艾克和約阿希姆斯塔勒的品牌領(lǐng)導(dǎo)模式文獻(xiàn)中的三個理由是到目前為止最突出的一個。其次 ， 該模型是綜合 ， 即 ， 其品牌領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力模型突出的主題在其廣度。既有戰(zhàn)略眼光的決策者和他們的企業(yè)文化對目的地的品牌戰(zhàn)略應(yīng)該有重大影響。尤其是 ， 缺乏對檢驗品牌定位在何種 程度上提高了品牌標(biāo)識價值的研究。這個結(jié)果證明在競爭市場中目的地地位變化只會在一個很長的時間里慢慢變化。短休息 。（派克 ， 2021年）例如 ， 約 70%的國際旅游者僅僅訪問 10個國家 ， 使剩余的國家旅游辦事處（ NTOS）爭奪 30%的國際游客總數(shù)。迄今為止最全面的定義是由布萊恩等人提出。品牌話因此被認(rèn)為可以為供求雙方同時帶來好處。 大多數(shù)研究報告的重點與目的地品牌特征和應(yīng)用相關(guān)見例如 ， （ [克羅克特和伍德 ，1999]， [豪爾 ， 1999] ， [2021 年 05 月 ]和 [摩根等 ， 2021]）。一般情況下 ， 一些研究人員在世界各地都指出 ， 目的地營銷目標(biāo)缺乏市場調(diào)研監(jiān)測效力 ， 如在澳大利亞（見 [卡森等人 ， 2021]和 [普羅塞爾等 ，2021]） ， 北美洲（ [馬斯博格 ， 1999年 ]和 [希恩和里奇 ， 1997]）和歐洲（多尼卡＆斯賽瑟 ，2021年）。以目 的地市場營銷的概念 ， CBBE 是值得考慮的目的地管理組織。 第一篇真正關(guān)注旅游目的地品牌化的學(xué)術(shù)文章是 1998年多森（ Dosen）、 弗蘭賽維克（ Vransevic）和普雷貝扎克（ Prebezac）對克羅地亞品牌的 適度性 分析。concept 。 perception Abstract： This paper explores the concept of tourism destination brand identity from the supplyside perspective， in contrast to those studies that have focused on the demanddriven， tourists ?perceived tourism destination brand image. Both researchers and practitioners have concluded that an analysis of the branding concept from both the identity and perceivedimage perspective is essential and should be intertwined， where appropriate. This study， however， argues that investigations of tourism destination branding have primarily been conducted from a perceivedimage ， the dearth of studies offering an insight into the supplyside perspective may lead to an unbalanced view， misunderstandings and oversights concerning the possibilities and limitations of tourism destination introduces a theoretical framework designed to analyse tourism destination identity， particularly for the case study of Slovenia. Introduction Unlike the many scientific contributions covering the theme of product brands (and rarely service and corporate brands)， the research line of tourism destination brands is merely in its infancy Despite earlier scepticism about transferring the brand concept to the tourism destination context， that concept has definitely attracted the interest of tourism destination researchers and practitioners of late. Although destination branding appears to be one of the newest research areas， the topic has been partly covered under the alternative label of destination image studies， which has been a subject of investigation for more than 30 years. Ritchie and Ritchie， however， 7 stated that the development of a coherent and monly accepted framework is essential for using branding theory in a tourism destination context. Although a tourism destination can be branded， considerable care should be taken in the transfer of branding principles to a tourism destination context. Because its application without sensitive inclusion and consideration of the significance of public space may result in a mercial orientation， which runs the risk of spoiling the identity characteristics such as social relationships， history and geography and by extension may destroy an area ?s sense of place. In turn， within a global context place identity can contribute importantly， to the creation and sustenance of a distinctive petitive edge. Raising awareness of the historical nature of the concept of culture in relation to the ?extraordinary ?， that tourists are in a search for， is relevant in the processes of identity formation at both global and local levels. Therefore， it is essential that the development of a tourism destination brand should adhere to a coherent theoretical framework and be jointly supported by its stakeholders. The vast majority of tourism destination studies to date have addressed and examined the brand concept primarily from a demandside perspective. This has resulted in numerous studies that examine tourism destinations from a consumerperceivedimage approach. For instance， the Anholt Nation Brands Index is a case in point. It is the first analytical ranking of the world ?s destination brands， and purports to represent the sum of people ?s perception of destinations across six areas of national petences， including tourism， and represent various perspectives on destination brand evaluation. In contrast， a supplyside， owner / managerial perspective on tourism destination branding that attracted interest only some years ago is at the core of the present study. Our approach may appear to be awkward in light of the conclusion of many an investigator， namely that the branding concept should be analysed from both the demand and supply perspectives. De Chernatony even goes on to