【正文】 很明顯， 很多更多的研究是為了要到達(dá)一個(gè)全面的城市品牌框架。如果總留戀和習(xí)慣于歷史的風(fēng)光與傳承，滿(mǎn)足于縱向比較下的發(fā)展與進(jìn)步，就不會(huì)給城市帶來(lái)跨越式發(fā)展。城市品牌塑造主體包括政府、盈利性組織、非贏利性組織、市民個(gè)體等多種形式 , 每個(gè)主體由于各自利益的不同，很有可能出現(xiàn)個(gè)體利益與城市品牌核心價(jià)值的沖突 , 損害或者模糊城市的品牌。 正如管理學(xué)大師彼德目前已經(jīng)有城市將本文探討的目的而進(jìn)行的嘗試。采用城市品牌管理理念并使用工具和原則特別是企業(yè)品牌進(jìn)行城市管理當(dāng)然是可能的。不難看出 , 提升城市形象 ， 打造城市品牌 , 必須有一大批知名企業(yè)品牌支撐才能成功。 事實(shí)上，企業(yè)品牌營(yíng)銷(xiāo)與城市品牌營(yíng)銷(xiāo)之間有許多相似之處，可以看到，如果做一個(gè)比較，企業(yè)品牌的特點(diǎn)可以總結(jié)為灰色巴爾梅爾文學(xué)與城市營(yíng)銷(xiāo)。在當(dāng)代市場(chǎng)營(yíng)銷(xiāo)，品牌推廣是重點(diǎn)，因?yàn)樗闪怂谐晒Φ拿卦E的戰(zhàn)略要素 [6]。一種關(guān)于這種關(guān)系營(yíng)銷(xiāo)的建議的關(guān)鍵因素是考慮增加客戶(hù)忠誠(chéng)度 [5]。 也許對(duì)比以往的實(shí)踐，這些方法比較新穎，也許還擔(dān)心，即使采取品牌經(jīng)營(yíng)策略 ，他們也會(huì)在競(jìng)爭(zhēng)中落后。 擴(kuò)展這個(gè)假設(shè)，最好的試圖影響人們的觀念和對(duì)城市形象的認(rèn)識(shí)的方式必須是類(lèi)似的方式，商業(yè)企業(yè)已經(jīng)用相同的方式成功地嘗試推銷(xiāo)他們的產(chǎn)品，即品牌。作者的理論價(jià)值和實(shí)際執(zhí)行的地方品牌的評(píng)論在文獻(xiàn)中一直遵循不同的路線，顯然是特別評(píng)論員的背景和研究興趣而定。雖然在外界樹(shù)立起了醒目的城市形象，為城市提高了外部競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的能力，但內(nèi)部的公眾感受往往會(huì)和城市品牌定位產(chǎn)生出入，造成城市品牌傳播的尷尬 [2]。 品牌作為品牌概念的一個(gè)重要分支，日益成為全球范圍內(nèi)備受關(guān)注的無(wú)形資產(chǎn)和地區(qū)象征。為此，兩個(gè)相關(guān)文獻(xiàn)須放一起，即關(guān)于穩(wěn)步增長(zhǎng)的地區(qū)品牌和大量的企業(yè)品牌的文獻(xiàn)。世界各國(guó)的城市用多種渠道向例如投資者、游客、居民等目標(biāo)受眾盡最大的努力推銷(xiāo)自己，包括用 引人注目的標(biāo)志和迷人的口號(hào)，在熱門(mén)網(wǎng)站、國(guó)家和國(guó)際媒體進(jìn)行廣告活動(dòng)。 然而在實(shí)踐中，在廣泛的品牌戰(zhàn)略發(fā)展中，例如在品牌標(biāo)志或口號(hào)設(shè)計(jì)上、宣傳活動(dòng)上表現(xiàn)出明顯的混亂。 London has bee ‘ Totally London ’ and will also host the Olympic Games of 2020, expecting the same results. The examples of cities attempting to brand themselves could fill many pages. A major stream of publications has dealt with the issue of destination branding: treating places as brands for their benefits to tourism development. This field has probably been the more developed in terms of suggesting concrete and practical measures for managing destinations as brands. Arguably a large part of the theoretical development in this field es from Hankinson. [1]Starting from his belief that ‘ as yet no general theoretical framework exists to underpin the development of place brands apart from classical, productbased branding theory ’ , he provides a refined framework for understanding cities as brands, focusing on cities as tourism destinations. Another emerging view is the attempt to examine the possible adaptation of the concept of corporate branding and specific method ologies developed in this field in place branding. [2] This raises questions about what actually is being done in practice and whether it is possible to apply strategies developed for mercial products to places or whether a new type of branding is required. Branding is only one of many possible instruments for managing and developing places and its effectiveness needs, therefore, to be evaluated in that context. Although ‘ … the practice of place branding has far outpaced the extent to which it has been written about in the public realm ’ , recently there has been a considerable increase in publications that raise and attempt to answer these and other similar questions. The mentary on the theoretical value and practical implementation of place branding has followed distinct routes in the literature, apparently depending on the background and research interests of particular mentators. Apart from those contributions that attempt to deal with the subject as a whole, a major trend, especially among marketing academics and consultants has been the discussion on national branding, usually in connection to the use of the country of origin in product branding. [3] A second trend, mostly outside the marketing discipline, has been the discussion on the effects that the evident popularity and widespread use of cultural and entertainment branding have on cities and their physical and social character. [4] This pro