people and partnerships: marketing urban retailing

People and partnerships:marketing urbanretailing

Gary Warnaby

David Bennison

Barry J. Davies and

Howard Hughes

The authors

Gary Warnaby is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing at the School ofManagement, University of Salford, Manchester, UK.David Bennison is the Research Coordinator for RetailManagement and Howard Hughes is Professor in the Faculty ofFood, Clothing & Hospitality Management, both at theManchester Metropolitan University Business School,Manchester, UK.Barry J. Davies is Professor and Assistant Dean responsible forResearch at the University of Gloucestershire Business School,Cheltenham, UK.

Keywords

Marketing, Urban areas, Retailing, Partnership, Governance,

United Kingdom

Abstract

This article investigates the interaction between urban placemarketing actors with specific reference to marketing urban areasas shopping destinations – town centre managers, shoppingcentre managers, local authority economic development managersand marketing managers and tourism promotion managers. Itreports the results of a survey of these actors in the top 173 urbanshopping destinations in the UK. It identifies those actors withprime responsibility for marketing urban retail provision (i.e. towncentre managers and shopping centre managers), the nature oftheir collaboration (via formal, informal, and initiative-specificinteraction), and the factors impelling interaction (i.e. recognitionof the linkages between the activities of different organisations,ensuring wider representation of organisational interests and thefinancial imperative). With the recent publication of Draft PPS6 andits increased focus on the strategic development of smaller centres,the implications for the marketing/promotion of such centres areaddressed in detail.

Electronic access

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is

available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is

available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-0552.htm

Introduction

Despite the growing importance of urban place

marketing activity over that last 30 years (see

Kotler et al., 1999; Millington et al., 1997; Ward,

1998; Ward and Gold, 1994), it has been argued

that the explicit marketing and promotion of the

urban retail provision has been unduly neglected.

Urban stakeholders with traditional responsibility

for place marketing, such as local authority

economic development departments (Burgess,

1982), have tended to focus on the attraction of

inward investment and tourism revenues

(Williams, 1992, 1996), viewing consumer

services, including retailing, as being of secondary

importance. In contrast, various authors (e.g.

Page, 1995; Shaw and Williams, 1992) have

argued that retail provision is a prime attraction to

urban places for many. Applied research studies

(e.g. Association of Town Centre Management,

1994; English Historic Towns Forum, 1992) have

attested to the importance of retailing to the urban

economy.

Indeed, the importance of retailing to urban

economies, and their regeneration, should not be

underestimated (Building Design Partnership,

2002; Hutton, 2002; Jones et al., 2003). Recent

research (Warnaby et al., 2002) has identified a

variety of urban actors with potential responsibility

for marketing the retail provision of towns and

cities. For some of these actors – urban

regeneration agencies, local authority marketing

and economic development departments, and

local tourism promotion agencies – the promotion

of retailing was, at best, only a secondary part of

their remit.

Prime responsibility for marketing the urban

retail provision lay with town centre management

schemes and managed shopping centres located in

the traditional urban core. Given this diversity of

actors, Warnaby et al. (2002) emphasise the

importance of interaction and collaboration

between them in order to optimise the planning

and implementation of retail-oriented urban place

marketing activities.

This paper considers in more detail the nature

of the partnerships existing between these various

urban stakeholders. It argues that these

interactions between place marketing actors at the

wider town/city level can provide a context for

strategies for retailing at the local,

“neighbourhood” level – a factor that is assuming

greater prominence given the recent publication of

the consultation draft of Planning Policy

Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres (Office of

the Deputy Prime Minister, 2003).

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management

Volume 32 · Number 11 · 2004 · pp. 545-556

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited · ISSN 0959-0552

DOI 10.1108/09590550410564773

545

The principle of partnership

The need for towns and cities to be more

competitive by embracing a more entrepreneurial

ethos (see Hall and Hubbard, 1996, for a review)

has impacted on the structure of urban political

institutions. This is manifested in terms of a shift

towards the concept of governance as opposed to

government, and characterised by an increased

emphasis on partnership between the public sector

and various private sector actors (incorporating a

range of non-elected organisations of the state and

individual actors from outside the formal political

arena, such as voluntary organisations, private

businesses, the mass media, and supra-national

institutions). Their interactions increasingly affect

the character and fortunes of local areas, as the

various interests and agendas represented through

this constellation of different actors are hopefully

reconciled via the development of strategies for

individual urban places. However, because of the

diversity of interests and perspectives the scope for

conflict is, of course, ever present (see Boyle, 1997;

Peck, 1995; Sadler, 1993).

In recent years there has been substantial

growth in the number of partnership agencies –

Peck and Tickell (1994, p. 252) describe the

partnership model as “fast becoming dominant

across a whole range of policy spheres”. McQuaid

(2002, p. 10) states that, “[t]he term ‘partnership’

covers greatly differing concepts and practices and

is used to describe a wide variety of types of

relationship in a myriad of circumstances and

locations”. Despite this diversity, there are a

number of underlying assumptions. The first is the

potential for some form of synergy between the

various actors. Second, partnership involves both

development and delivery of a strategy or a set of

projects or operations (achieved via cooperation

between the actors, although individual actors may

not be equally involved in all stages). Finally, in

partnerships between public and private sector

actors, there is an element of “social partnership”

(thereby excluding purely commercial

transactions) (McQuaid, 2002).

The benefits that can accrue from a partnership

approach include the ability to apply a greater level

of resources to policy areas, increased effectiveness

and efficiency (arising from the synergy arising

from improved coordination between and within

actors), and possibly greater legitimacy for

initiatives and actions (McQuaid, 2002). Indeed,

while the principles behind the development of

partnership cannot be criticised – as Peck and

Tickell state, “partnership, like apple pie, is

undeniably a good thing” (Peck and Tickell, 1994,

p. 251, original emphasis) – there have been a

number of critical assessments (e.g. Bassett, 1993;

Hubbard and Hall, 1998; Peck, 1995; Peck and

Tickell, 1994; Parkinson, 1996; Sadler, 1993;

Wilkinson, 1992).

In the specific context of the marketing of towns

and cities, partnerships between public and private

sector actors are a key planning and

implementation mechanism. While there are

inevitable differences between public and private

sector traditions and perspectives, Ashworth and

Voogd (1990a) argue that these differences do not

constitute a clear dichotomy because of the

prevalence of partnership working. More

important, according to van den Berg and Braun

(1999, p. 995), is “organising capacity”, which,

they argue, enables an urban place, “adequately,

and at the proper spatial-economic scale, to

anticipate, respond to and cope with changing

intra- and inter-metropolitan urban relations due

to crucial internal and external processes of

change”.

They go on to define “organising capacity” as:

. . .the ability to enlist all actors involved and, withtheir help, to generate new ideas and to developand implement a policy designed to respond tofundamental developments and create conditionsfor sustainable development (van den Berg andBraun, 1999, p. 995).

van den Berg and Braun (1999) identify a number

of factors that contribute to organising capacity.

An effective formal institutional framework of the

urban administrative structure is regarded as a

necessary precondition for any successful urban

strategy, particularly in terms of facilitating a co-

operative environment, and appropriate

managerial infrastructure. However, an effective

local government alone is not enough, and they

state that “strategic networks” involving both

public and private sector actors acting in

partnership, are equally important in developing

“organising capacity”, particularly in determining

a shared vision and objectives among urban

stakeholders. Indeed, van den Berg and Braun

(1999, p. 996) emphasise that interdependency of

the various actors forms “the backbone of the

network”.

This paper investigates the concept of the

“strategic network” in the specific context of

marketing urban places as shopping destinations.

It reports the results of a survey of key place

marketing actors with potential responsibility for

marketing urban retail provision in the top 173

urban shopping destinations in the UK. The

survey investigated those actors perceived as

having prime responsibility for marketing retailing,

the extent of the interaction between them, the

nature of this interaction and the factors impelling

interaction. The paper concludes with a discussion

of the implications of the findings for

neighbourhood retailing.

People and partnerships: marketing urban retailing

Gary Warnaby, David Bennison, Barry J. Davies and Howard Hughes


Volume 32 · Number 11 · 2004 · 545-556

546

Research design

The research reported in this paper builds on

initial qualitative research that is reported in more

detail in Warnaby et al. (2002). This qualitative

research in four urban places sought to ascertain:. the key actors in the process of marketing the

urban places as shopping destinations;. the processes by which strategies for the

marketing of the retail provision was

developed; and. the factors influencing the process of strategy

development.

This research identified key themes for more

general investigation in towns and cities across the

UK.

The research design for this study comprised a

postal questionnaire administered to respondent

types identified in the qualitative stage as having

potential responsibility for the marketing of the

urban retail provision (i.e. town centre managers,

shopping centre managers, local authority

economic development managers and marketing

managers and tourism promotion managers) in

urban shopping destinations classified as sub-

regional and above in the Management Horizons

Europe UK Shopping Index (MHI) 1998-1999[1]

(MHE, 1998). In total, 173 appropriate shopping

destinations were identified[2]. In all, 910 possible

respondents were identified, to whom the

questionnaire was administered, after it had been

piloted with a small sample of the different

respondent types. In the light of feedback from the

pilot survey various elements of the questionnaire

were modified to avoid ambiguity and increase

relevance.

The questionnaire focused on a range of issues

relating to the marketing of towns and cities as

shopping destinations. These included:

respondents’ perceptions of the importance of

retailing in wider urban place marketing activities;

the process by which marketing/promotional

activities were planned; the nature of the

marketing activities undertaken; and the extent

and nature of interaction between the various place

marketing actors. This paper explicitly focuses on

issues relating to interaction (full details of all

results are given in Warnaby (2003)). Of the

questionnaires, 274 were returned, constituting an

overall 30 per cent response rate, a figure that

Saunders et al. (2000) consider to be a

“reasonable” response rate for a postal survey.

Table I provides further details of the sample size

and response rates for the different respondent

types.

The data were analysed using SPSS (Statistical

Package for the Social Sciences) software, which

allowed for descriptive statistics, cross-tabulations

and chi square analysis to be carried out. The

results (relating to actor interaction) are reported

below. For the majority of questions in the

questionnaire, however, there were no significant

differences between the different types of public

sector respondents (where there were differences

these could be explained by the differences in the

remits of the different departments/agencies

concerned). Consequently, for analysis and to

facilitate comparison with shopping centre

managers, the responses from the different types of

public sector respondents were aggregated.

Results

Motives for interaction

The nature and extent of the interaction between

the various actors will obviously be a function of

the strength of their motivations for working in a

partnership modus operandi. The earlier qualitative

research (Warnaby et al., 2002) showed a strong

commitment to interaction among actors in this

specific context and identified a number of motives

for interaction, which were investigated more

generally here.

A total of 84 per cent of public sector

respondents and 83 per cent of shopping centre

managers agreed/strongly agreed with the

statement “Marketing activities of different

organisations in the town/city are inter-linked and

need to be co-ordinated to get better results”.

However, two competing dynamics exist: the need

for co-ordination, and the need for individual

agencies to pursue their own remits by serving

their target audiences in what they perceive to be

the most effective way. Only 7 per cent of public

sector respondents and 13 per cent of shopping

centre managers agreed/strongly agreed with the

statement “Collaboration with other organisations

means that we lose focus on satisfying our target

audiences”. Recognition that too much centralised

co-ordination would stifle individual agencies and

would probably result in unfocused and generic

place marketing initiatives led to the belief that

more informal or “loose” co-ordination was an

appropriate course of action. This was evidenced

Table I Sample sizes and response rates

Respondent type

Sample

size

Number of

respondents

Response

rate

(%)

Economic development manager 173 41 24

Tourism promotion manager 132 31 24

Local authority marketing manager 168 31 18

Town centre manager 155 53 34

Shopping centre manager 282 118 42




Volume 32 · Number 11 · 2004 · 545-556

547

by the widespread use of informal networks

and a pragmatic approach to individual agencies

leading on some initiatives and following on

others.

The desire to ensure that particular views were

expressed and considered in decision-making

processes was a motivation identified by Medway

et al. (2000), with specific reference to retailers’

involvement in town centre management schemes.

This motive also applied to all actors in this

research – 86 per cent of public sector respondents

and 87 per cent of shopping centre managers

agreed/strongly agreed with the statement

“Interaction with other organisations ensures that

our organisational interests are more widely

represented in the town/city”.

The prime motivation for interaction (at least

from the public sector perspective) was the

financial imperative. Indeed, there was a

significant difference between public sector

respondents and SCMs regarding the statement

“Collaboration with others is essential in

leveraging funding” (Pearson chi-square 27.734

DF 3 Sig. 0.000). Here, 89 per cent of public

sector respondents agreed/strongly agreed, as

compared to 73 per cent of shopping centre

managers. It appears, therefore, that the financial

imperative impelling interaction is more acute for

public sector respondents who rely on funding

regimes that require evidence of collaboration,

especially with the private sector, as a precondition

of obtaining resource to enable marketing

initiatives. Tables II and III provide further detail

on motives for interaction for public sector

respondents and SCMs respectively.

Extent of interaction

Actor interaction was identified as an essential

dimension of marketing activity. Thus, 98 per cent

of public sector respondents and 90 per cent of

shopping centre managers (SCMs) surveyed

indicated that they interacted with other agencies/

organisations to plan and implement marketing/

promotional activities. There was a significant

difference between public sector respondents and

SCMs with regard to this (Pearson chi-square

5.044 DF 1 Sig. 0.025), emphasising the

overriding importance of interaction to public

sector respondents (although interaction is still

very important to SCMs). The frequency of

interaction with other urban stakeholders by

public sector respondents in general and SCMs is

given in Table IV.

There were significant differences between

SCMs and aggregate public sector respondents

with regard to the level of interaction with all actor

types. Unsurprisingly, the most frequent

interactions for SCMs were with TCM schemes

and retailers. Despite the diversity of public sector

respondents, interaction with retail-oriented

stakeholders was important, with interaction with

retailers being the most frequent, and interaction

with managed shopping centres being the third

most frequent interaction.

Public sector actors appear to interact with

others more frequently to plan and implement

marketing activity (although the interaction

between the various types of public sector

respondent is likely to vary). Table V gives the

frequency of interaction of public sector

respondent types. From this, the primary and

secondary interactions for each of the different

respondent types (including shopping centre

managers) can be identified, as shown in Table VI.

For different public sector respondent types,

there are significant differences with regard to the

level of interaction with the various urban

stakeholders (see Table VII).

There are no significant differences by

respondent type with regard to interaction with

local authority marketing managers, economic

development departments, tourism promotion

agencies and local urban regeneration agencies.

One possible reason for this is the fact that all these

Table II Public sector respondents” perceptions relating to motives for interaction

Percentage of respondents

Statement

Strongly

agree/agree

Neither agree

nor disagree

Disagree/strongly

disagree

Marketing activities of different organisations in

the town/city are interlinked and need

to be co-ordinated to get better

results (n 5 154) 84 10 6

Interaction with other organisations ensures that


represented in the town/city (n 5 154) 86 10 4

Collaboration with others is essential in

leveraging funding (n 5 153) 89 9 3

Note: No significant difference by different type of respondent




Volume 32 · Number 11 · 2004 · 545-556

548

respondent types are linked through the local

authority structure, thus facilitating interaction.

Moreover, the wider regeneration remit of many

urban regeneration agencies by its very nature has

the potential to span several urban place product

elements, thereby impelling interaction.

However, there are differences in interaction,

and some indications as to the extent of this can be

Table III Shopping centre managers’ perceptions relating to motives for interaction


Statement

Strongly

agree/agree

Neither agree

nor disagree

Disagree/strongly

disagree

Marketing activities of different organisations in

the town/city are interlinked and need

to be co-ordinated to get better

results (n 5 107) 83 13 4

Interaction with other organisations ensures that


represented in the town/city (n 5 106) 87 11 2

Collaboration with others is essential in

leveraging funding (n 5 106) 73 19 8

Table IV Frequency of interaction between respondent types (number of respondents claiming to interact very often/often)

Public sector

respondents

Shopping centre

managers

Urban stakeholders with whom interaction occurs

Number of

respondents/rank

Number of

respondents/rank

Retailers 107 1 96 2

Local tourism attractions 103 2 43 6

Managed shopping centres 102 3 N/A N/A

Providers of entertainment facilities 97 4 52 3

Local authority marketing department 71 5 52 3

Economic development department 71 5 35 7

Town centre management scheme 68 7 99 1

Local tourism promotion agency 64 8 44 5

Local urban regneration agency 51 9 16 8

Other stakeholders 40 10 25 9

Notes: 14 public sector respondents identified “other” organisations with which they interact to plan and develop marketing/promotional activities as follows: Accommodation providers (11 respondents); Regeneration partners (7 respondents); Chamber ofCommerce (5 respondents); Local businesses (5 respondents); Education institutions (4 respondents); Transport providers (3respondents); Local media (2 respondents); 14 shopping centre managers identified “other” organisations with which they interact toplan and develop marketing/promotional activities as follows: Chamber of Commerce/Trade (5 respondents); Other shopping centres/property owners (2 respondents); Transport providers (2 respondents), Local charities (2 respondents); Local education providers (2respondents)

Table V Frequency of interaction of public sector respondent types (percentage of public sector respondent types indicating interactingvery often with listed urban stakeholders)

Economic

development

respondents

(%)

Local authority

marketing

respondents

(%)

Tourism

promotion

respondents

(%)

Town centre

management

respondents

(%)

Economic development department – 61 39 44

Local authority marketing department 48 – 56 38

Local tourism promotion agency 46 60 – 42

Town centre management respondents 33 74 42 –

Local urban regeneration agency 41 43 26 22

Retailers 21 48 20 75

Managed shopping centres 35 50 29 79

Local tourism attractions 40 64 84 38

Providers of entertainment facilities 28 52 70 35




Volume 32 · Number 11 · 2004 · 545-556

549

ascertained. Those urban stakeholders whose

prime remit is retailing (TCM schemes, managed

shopping centres and the retailers themselves)

form an obvious group of frequent interactors.

Unsurprisingly, the primary interactions for

tourism promotion agencies are with local tourism

attractions and providers of entertainment

facilities. The primary interactions with economic

development departments (who in general appear

to interact less than other respondent types) seem

to be local authority oriented. The interaction

between economic development departments and

local tourism attractions can be explained by the

fact that many urban areas are not overtly tourism

oriented, the responsibility for tourism promotion

lies with economic development departments[3].

The primary interaction for local authority

marketing departments was with the TCM

scheme, perhaps because of the need for these

stakeholders to work together in developing

marketing/promotional activities because of

budgetary constraints and possible synergies in

developing such activities as events and festivals in

town and city centres. However, marketing

departments were only secondary interactors for

TCM schemes, whose prime orientation was to

specific retail-related stakeholders.

Indeed, the centrality of town centre managers

in the promotion of the town/city as a shopping

destination identified in earlier research (Warnaby

et al., 2002) is corroborated here. The close

interaction between TCMs and retailers and

managed shopping centres is demonstrated by

their primary interaction, and the fact that

interaction with both retailers and managed

shopping centres is only a secondary or tertiary

interaction for other public sector respondent

types.

Nature of interaction

Previous exploratory, qualitative research in this

area (Warnaby et al., 2002) identified three types of

interaction between urban place marketing actors:

(1) Formal (or structural) interaction, which

could occur at various spatial levels through

membership of partnership agencies and

steering groups etc.

(2) Informal interaction, through participation in

local networks and through information

sharing with other agencies.

(3) Initiative-specific interaction, where agencies

came together to develop and implement a

particular place marketing initiative and then

disbanded.

This research investigated the extent and perceived

relative importance of each type of interaction

through the use of Likert-type scales to ascertain

the extent of agreement or disagreement with

various statements relating to interaction.

The importance of formal interaction is

evidenced by the fact that 77 per cent of public

sector respondents and 79 per cent of shopping

centre managers agreed/strongly agreed with the

statement “We interact more formally with other

organisations through membership of steering

groups/town centre forums etc.”. Public sector

respondents were much more likely to agree/

strongly agree with the statement “Representatives

Table VI Primary and secondary interactions of different respondent types

Interactions Respondent types

Town centre management respondentsPrimary interactions Managed shopping centres

Retailers

Secondary interactions Economic development departments

Tourism promotion agencies

Local authority marketing departments

Local tourism attractions

Providers of entertainment facilities

Tertiary interactions Local urban regeneration agencies

Tourism promotion respondentsPrimary interactions Local tourism attractions


Secondary interactions Local authority marketing departments

Town centre management schemes

Economic development departments

Tertiary interactions Managed shopping centres

Retailers

Local urban regeneration agencies

Local authority marketing respondentsPrimary interactions Town centre management schemes

Secondary interactions Local tourism attractions



Tertiary interactions Providers of entertainment facilities

Managed shopping centres

Retailers


Economic development respondentsPrimary interactions Local authority marketing department



Local tourism attractions

Secondary interactions Managed shopping centres

Town centre management schemes

Tertiary interactions Providers of entertainment facilities

Retailers

Shopping centre managersPrimary interactions Town centre management schemes

Retailers

Secondary interactions Local authority marketing departments



Tertiary interactions Local tourism attractions






Volume 32 · Number 11 · 2004 · 545-556

550

from other organisations have an important input

into our marketing planning process” (Pearson

chi-square 40.552 DF 3 Sig. 0.000) than were

shopping centre managers. This reflects the more

inclusive nature of marketing/promotional

planning processes among public sector

respondents, where, for example, steering groups

providing strategic direction to public sector and

quasi-public sector stakeholders will have private

sector representation, but this level of involvement

does not appear to be reciprocated.

A common trend was for cross-membership of

steering groups by key individuals within a

particular urban place. The importance of such

individuals is evidenced by the fact that 72 per cent

of public sector respondents and 74 per cent of

shopping centre managers agreed or strongly

agreed with the statement that there existed

“a few ‘movers and shakers’ who facilitate the

co-ordination of the activities of different

organisations”. In the specific retail context,

shopping centre managers were perceived to be

among the “movers and shakers” (Warnaby et al.,

2002).

As important as the formal interaction was the

informal interaction between actors. Indeed, 83

per cent of public sector respondents and 89 per

cent of shopping centre managers agreed/strongly

agreed with that statement that “Informal

interaction between organisations is as important

as formal interaction in achieving our objectives”.

This was regarded as an effective way of ensuring

there was no duplication in activities and also,

crucially, that information was shared.

Much urban place marketing activity is

initiative-specific in the sense that an initiative is

planned and implemented as a discrete activity,

with one particular agency taking the lead in

planning and implementing the activity, but with

support from other agencies in a partnershipmodus

operandi. Funding for marketing activities is

frequently initiative-specific in the sense that

funding contributions are “ring-fenced” for that

particular activity. Indeed, the importance of this

initiative-specific approach is shown by the fact

that 92 per cent of public sector respondents and

94 per cent of shopping centre managers agreed/

strongly agreed with the statement “My

organisation will lead on some initiatives and

support another organisation on other initiatives”.

In the context of the promotion of the retail

provision, seasonal festivals and events were a

common element in the marketing mix, and these

were normally organised through smaller working

parties etc.

Given the extent to which all these types of

interaction occurred between respondents, the

need for some measure of coordination is crucial.

However, in the majority of locations surveyed it

would appear that the mechanisms for

coordination are informal. The fact that 66 per

cent of public sector respondents and 64 per cent

of shopping centre managers disagreed/strongly

disagreed with the statement “In my town/city

there is one organisation whose remit is to oversee

and co-ordinate the marketing activity of all the

others”, suggests that more formalised

mechanisms for co-ordination do not exist. More

informal co-ordination in the form of a negotiated

arrangement between agencies relating to who will

lead specific marketing initiatives appears much

more prevalent. Table VIII and Table IX

respectively provide further detail of responses of

public sector respondents and shopping centre

managers relating to their perceptions of the

nature of interaction.

Discussion

Retail-related interaction: hierarchical

considerations?

One of the key themes in the place marketing

literature is the complex nature of the urban place

product (Ashworth, 1993; Ashworth and Voogd,

1990a, 1990b, 1994; Paddison, 1993; van den

Berg et al., 1990; van den Berg and Braun, 1999;

Ward and Gold, 1994); van den Berg and Braun

Table VII Differences in frequency of interaction with various urban stakeholders by different public sector respondent types

Organisation with whom interaction occurs Pearson chi-square Degrees of freedom Significance

Retailers 37.012 6 0.000

Managed shopping centres 27.171 6 0.000

Providers of entertainment facilities 20.287 6 0.002

Local tourism attractions 20.134 6 0.003

Town centre management scheme 10.197 2 0.006

Economic development departmenta 7.222 4 0.124

Urban regeneration agencya 3.686 3 0.297

Tourism promotion agencya 4.308 4 0.366

Local authority marketing departmenta 2.855 4 0.582

Note: a No significant difference by respondent type




Volume 32 · Number 11 · 2004 · 545-556

551

(1999) identify three levels of urban place

marketing, relating to the nature of the urban place

product, as follows:

(1) The individual urban goods and services,

where marketing is concerned with the

marketing of one location, service,

attraction etc.(which can be retail-related,

such as an individual shop or managed

shopping centre).

(2) The clusters of related services, such as urban

tourism or port facilities (or, indeed, the

overall retail provision).

(3) The urban agglomeration as a whole, which

(unlike the previous categories) is in itself not

Table VIII Public sector respondents’ perceptions regarding the nature of the interaction between stakeholders


Statement

Strongly

agree/agree

Neither agree

nor disagree

Disagree/strongly

disagree

Representatives from other organisations have an important input

into our marketing planning process (n 5 153) 78 11 12

In my town/city there is one organisation whose remit is to

oversee and co-ordinate the marketing activities of all the others

(n 5 153) 15 19 66

Collaboration with other organisations means that we lose focus

on satisfying our target audiences (n 5 153) 7 25 68

My organisation will lead on some initiatives and support another

organisation on other initiatives (n 5 153) 92 3 5

There is a well-established informal network of members of

marketing organisations in the town/city (n 5 153) 59 18 23

There are a few “movers and shakers” who facilitate the

co-ordination of activities of different organizations (n 5 153) 72 14 14

We interact more formally with other organisations through

membership of steering groups/town centre forums etc. (n 5 152) 77 13 10

Informal interaction between organisations is as important as

formal interaction in achieving our objectives (n 5 153) 83 11 7

We only collaborate with other organisations to plan and

implement specific initiatives on an irregular basis (n 5 152) 19 17 64

Note: There was no significant difference between public sector respondent types

Table IX Shopping centre managers’ perceptions regarding the nature of the interaction between stakeholders


Statement

Strongly

agree/agree

Neither agree

nor disagree

Disagree/strongly

disagree

Representatives from other organisations have an important input

into our marketing planning process (n 5 108) 46 30 24

In my town/city there is one organisation whose remit is to

oversee and co-ordinate the marketing activities of all the others

(n 5 108) 25 11 64

Collaboration with other organisations means that we lose focus

on satisfying our target audiences (n 5 108) 13 25 62

My centre will lead on some initiatives and support another

organisation on other initiatives (n 5 108) 94 4 3

There is a well-established informal network of members of

marketing organisations in the town/city (n 5 108) 57 19 23

There are a few “movers and shakers” who facilitate the

co-ordination of activities of different organizations (n 5 108) 74 14 12

We interact more formally with other organisations through

membership of steering groups/town centre forums etc. (n 5 108) 79 15 6

Informal interaction between organisations is as important as

formal interaction in achieving our objectives (n 5 108) 89 9 2

We only collaborate with other organisations to plan and

implement specific initiatives on an irregular basis (n 5 106) 20 23 58




Volume 32 · Number 11 · 2004 · 545-556

552

a well-defined product and is, as a

consequence, open to various interpretations.

This third level is mainly concerned with

identity and image building.

The interrelationships within and between these

different levels of the place product can facilitate

the development of a more “holistic” urban place

product (which is made up of various contributory

elements and clusters of elements). This will impel

interaction – formal, informal or initiative-specific

– between all the various urban place marketing

actors in order to develop effective marketing and

promotional activities. However, as has been

shown, not all actors will collaborate all the time

and there are inevitably clusters of stakeholders

(perhaps closely related to clusters of individual

place product elements) who will interact more

frequently. Thus, the research reported here has

identified a group of retail-related urban

stakeholders who will work closely together to

develop retail-related marketing/promotional

activities. These retail related actors will also

interact (albeit less frequently and perhaps more

loosely) with other urban stakeholders (such as

economic development departments and tourism

promotion agencies) for whom retailing is only a

secondary element of their marketing remit. Table

VI provided an indication of the primary and

secondary interactions of the various actors, and

this is represented pictorially in Figure 1.

The research reported here has focused on the

interaction of urban stakeholders to implement

retail-related marketing/promotional activities at

the aggregate town/city scale for urban shopping

destinations ranked as “sub-regional” and above in

the Management Horizons Europe UK Shopping

Index MHE, 1998. Of course, there are many

more destinations that are classified as “district” or

“local” – 902 such destinations are classified by

MHE (1998). Moreover, there may also be

neighbourhoods not so classified that may have

their own unique identities as ethnic or youth-

oriented retail “quarters” of the kind described by

Brown (1991) in his non-hierarchical classification

of retail locations.

Such “district” and “local” destinations, and

quarters, could be regarded as “clusters” within an

holistic retail provision for the urban place as a

whole (following van den Berg and Braun, 1999),

which falls under the aegis of the public sector

local authority actors who have been surveyed in

this research. Indeed, the onus is being

increasingly placed on local authorities to

incorporate the strategic development of such

centres in local level plans. The recent consultation

on Draft Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 6

emphasises this issue:

Local planning authorities should adopt a positiveand proactive approach to planning for the futureof centres within their areas, whether planning forgrowth, consolidation or decline. Drawing on boththe regional spatial strategy and their communitystrategies, local planning authorities should set outa vision and strategy for the pattern and hierarchyof centres, including local centres, within theirarea, setting out how the role of different centreswill contribute to the overall vision for their area(ODPM, 2003, p. 11).

Indeed, Draft PPS6 highlights the importance of

local centres:

Larger centres have in the past been the focus fordevelopment and investment, but local planningauthorities should ensure that a more balancednetwork of centres develops within their area. Inparticular, they should strengthen local centres byensuring that there is a range of facilities in localcentres, consistent with the scale and function ofthe centre, to meet people’s day-to-day needs andto promote social inclusion (ODPM, 2003, p. 16).

The importance placed on the issue of district and

local centres is reinforced by the proposed

publication of accompanying guidance to the Draft

PPS 6 on “Strategies for Smaller Centres”.

There are potentially significant implications for

the promotion of such neighbourhood retailing by

stakeholders at the local level. District and local

centres (as well as retail “quarters”) fall within the

explicit remit of many of the local authority

stakeholders described above. Consequently, they

will be a contributory element of the retail

provision that is being marketed at a more

aggregated, “holistic” level. Indeed, specific retail

“quarters” having their own distinct and unique

identity may be the subject of particular focus by

these urban place marketing actors seeking to

differentiate the overall retail provision for a town

or city. The identification of such distinct quarters

(especially within the context of the evening

economy) is explicitly mentioned in Draft PPS6, as

is the development of choice and diversity in the

retail provision (for example, via street and covered

markets). As a result, actors in these quarters may

find leveraging resources for marketing and other

improvement initiatives focusing on these aspects

of the retail provision easier than they might have

expected.

Among public sector actors, prime

responsibility for the promotion of the retail

provision generally lies with the town centre

manager. For many town centre managers

(especially those employed by, or working under

the aegis of, the local authority), the promotion of

district and neighbourhood centres is already an

explicit part of their remit in order to detract

(possibly politically motivated) criticism that such

outlying retail areas are being ignored. Thus, the

types of interaction described above at an




Volume 32 · Number 11 · 2004 · 545-556

553

aggregate town/city level may provide the context

for possible initiatives at a neighbourhood level.

Consequently, local level stakeholders seeking to

implement marketing/promotional activities may

find that they are pushing at an open door when

trying to attract commitment from urban

stakeholders (especially those from the public

sector) who are operating at this wider spatial

scale.

Governance considerations?

This research may also provide some guidance in

terms of partnership formation and modus operandi

at the neighbourhood level in this retail context.

The importance of co-ordination between, and

consensus among, urban stakeholders has been

emphasised. This co-ordination can be achieved

formally, via representation on various steering

and working groups within the urban place. At an

aggregate town/city level this formal interaction is

encouraged through the establishment of an

appropriate infrastructure at an early stage in

partnership development. Indeed, actors at the

neighbourhood level seeking to interact with these

place marketing actors with a wider spatial remit

will most likely have to become part of these formal

groups if their interests are to be effectively

represented in these wider fora. Indeed Draft

PPS6 explicitly emphasises the need for “involving

the local community and retailers in drawing up

local strategies to ensure that planned new facilities

will genuinely meet local needs” (ODPM, 203,

p. 16).

However, the potential problems of the

partnership modus operandi are various, as

discussed above. Informal interaction can

ameliorate these problems. The building of

informal networks can be as effective as more

formal interaction in ensuring that coordination

does occur. Given the gaps between meetings of

wider steering groups, informal interaction is very

important for the day-to-day management of the

Figure 1 Actor interaction for urban place product elements with particular reference to retailing




Volume 32 · Number 11 · 2004 · 545-556

554

marketing/promotional activities of urban places.

This is especially so considering the need for

flexibility and opportunism identified in this

context (Warnaby et al., 2002). Indeed, at the

neighbourhood level such informal interaction

may be even more important as the scale of

operations is narrower and the various actors

concerned may meet and interact much more

frequently because of their proximity to one

another. Moreover, the presentation of a “united

front” (via previous informal interaction and

conflict resolution) by representatives at the local

level may be more effective in achieving results

and/or resource in more formal partnership fora at

the wider spatial scales.

Given the importance of initiative-specific

interaction to develop marketing activities in this

context, the process of developing an interaction

infrastructure (if it does not exist, or is ineffective)

may begin with periodic ad hoc interaction aimed

at achieving more limited promotional initiatives.

Success in this could then lead to the development

of ongoing interaction mechanisms to develop

more extensive and effective, more strategically-

oriented marketing initiatives over time in an

incremental way. A more inclusive approach is,

therefore, gradually adopted. A key element in this

will be the development of what can be called

“internal” marketing to those individuals, agencies

and organisations from both public and private

sectors within the urban place who are potential

funders and supporters. The focus of this activity

will be to keep these stakeholders informed of

activities and successes in order to ensure

continuing and increased participation. Again,

proximity of individual actors at the

neighbourhood level may facilitate this process and

allow for a more informal approach than would

otherwise be the case.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the potential benefits of partnership

– increased resources, increased effectiveness and

efficiency, and greater legitimacy (McQuaid,

2002) – can all be equally applicable at the

neighbourhood level. Many of the results of this

research into interaction to promote retail

provision at the aggregate town/city level are of

equal relevance for neighbourhoods. Indeed,

following the publication of the Draft PPS6, wider

town/city oriented marketing/promotional

initiatives will in the future increasingly provide a

context within which the promotion of retailing for

specific neighbourhoods may be nested. At the

neighbourhood level all the different types of

interaction – formal, informal and initiative-

specific – are relevant. However, given the

proximity of actors at this level, there may be

greater scope for a more overtly informal approach

which may serve to overcome some of the

problems of the partnership modus operandi that

exist at wider spatial scales.

Notes

1 The Management Horizons Europe Shopping Index ratestowns and major shopping centres using a weightedscoring system which takes into account each location’sprovision of non-food multiple retailers and anchor storestrength.

2 The MHE Shopping Index lists 192 destinations withinthese four categories. However, various destinations wereexcluded for the purposes of this study: some destinationswere either specific streets/districts in London (e.g. OxfordStreet, Kings Road, Covent Garden etc.) or were regionalshopping centres.

3 For 25 of the 173 destinations in the research, the sameperson was listed as being responsible for both economicdevelopment and tourism promotion in the sample framesused from the Municipal Directory. The same factoremerged to a lesser extent in relation to local authoritymarketing departments, where in four destinations thesame person was listed in the Municipal Directory ashaving responsibility for both promotion of the area fortourism and marketing for the local authority. None ofthese four destinations was particularly tourism-oriented.

References

Ashworth, G. (1993), “Marketing of places: what are wedoing?”, in Ave, G. and Corsico, F. (Eds), Urban Marketingin Europe, Torino Incontra, Turin, pp. 643-9.

Ashworth, G. and Voogd, H. (1990a), Selling the City, Belhaven,London.

Ashworth, G.J. and Voogd, H. (1990b), “Can places be sold fortourism?”, in Ashworth, G. and Goodall, B. (Eds),Marketing Tourism Places, Routledge, London, pp. 1-16.

Ashworth, G.J. and Voogd, H. (1994), “Marketing and placepromotion”, in Gold, J.R. and Ward, S.V. (Eds), PlacePromotion: The Use of Publicity and Marketing to SellTowns and Regions, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester,pp. 39-52.

Association of Town Centre Management (1994), TheEffectiveness of Town Centre Management, Association ofTown Centre Management, London.

Bassett, K. (1993), “Urban cultural strategies and urbanregeneration: a case study and critique”, Environment andPlanning A, Vol. 25, pp. 1775-88.

Boyle, M. (1997), “Civic boosterism and the politics of localeconomic development – ‘institutional positions’ and‘strategic orientations’ in the consumption of hallmarkevents”, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 29,pp. 1975-97.

Brown, S. (1991), “Retail location: the post-hierarchicalchallenge”, International Review of Retail, Distributionand Consumer Research, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 267-81.




Volume 32 · Number 11 · 2004 · 545-556

555

Building Design Partnership (2002), Building Design PartnershipUrban Design for Retail Environments, British Council ofShopping Centres, London.

Burgess, J. (1982), “Selling places: environmental images for theexecutive”, Regional Studies, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1-17.

English Historic Towns Forum (1992), Retailing in Historic Towns– Research Study 1992, English Historic Towns Forum,Canterbury.

Hall, T. and Hubbard, P. (1996), “The entrepreneurial city: newurban politics, new urban geographies?”, Progress inHuman Geography, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 153-74.

Hubbard, P. and Hall, T. (1998), “The entrepreneurial city and the‘new urban politics’”, in Hall, T. and Hubbard, P. (Eds), TheEntrepreneurial City: Geographies of Politics, Regimes andRepresentations, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 1-23.

Hutton, W. (2002), “Put the cities in charge”, The Observer, 7July, Special feature on Urban Regeneration, p. 1.

Jones, P., Hillier, D. and Comfort, D. (2003), “The heart of thematter”, Town and Country Planning, Vol. 72 No. 1,pp. 20-2.

Kotler, P., Asplund, C., Rein, I. and Haider, D. (1999), MarketingPlaces Europe: Attracting Investments, Industries, andVisitors to European Cities, Communities, Regions andNations, Financial Times/Prentice Hall, Harlow.

McQuaid, R.W. (2002), “The theory of partnership. Why havepartnerships?”, in Osborne, S.P. (Ed.), Public-PrivatePartnerships: Theory and Practice in InternationalPerspective, Routledge, London, pp. 9-35.

Management Horizons Europe (1998), Management HorizonsEurope UK Shopping Index 1998-1999, ManagementHorizons Europe, Woodford Green.

Medway, D., Warnaby, G., Bennison, D. and Alexander, A. (2000),“Reasons for retailers’ involvement in town centremanagement”, International Journal of Retail &Distribution Management, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 368-78.

Millington, S., Young, C. and Lever, J. (1997), “A bibliography ofcity marketing”, The Journal of Regional and Local Studies,Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 16-42.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2003), Consultation onDraft Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for TownCentres, available at: http://odpm.gov.uk/stellnet/groups/odpm_planning/documents/page/odpm_plan026232.hcsp.

Paddison, R. (1993), “City marketing, image reconstruction andurban regeneration”, Urban Studies, Vol. 30 No. 2,pp. 339-50.

Page, S. (1995), Urban Tourism, Routledge, London.Parkinson, M. (1996), “Twenty-five years of urban policy in

Britain – partnership, entrepreneurialism orcompetition?”, Public Money & Management,July-September, pp. 7-14.

Peck, J. (1995), “Moving and shaking: business elites, statelocalism and urban privatism”, Progress in HumanGeography, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 16-46.

Peck, J. and Tickell, A. (1994), “Too many partners . . . the futurefor regeneration partnerships”, Local Economy, Vol. 9,pp. 251-65.

Sadler, D. (1993), “Place marketing, competitive places and theconstruction of hegemony in Britain in the 1980s”, inKearns, G. and Philo, C. (Eds), Selling Places: The City asCultural Capital Past and Present, Pergamon Press, Oxford,pp. 175-92.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2000), ResearchMethods for Business Students, 2nd ed., Financial Times/Prentice Hall, Harlow.

Shaw, G. and Williams, A. (1992), “Tourism, development andthe environment: the eternal triangle”, in Cooper, C.P. andLockwood, A. (Eds), Progress in Tourism, Recreation andHospitality Management, Vol. 4, Belhaven, London,pp. 47-59.

van den Berg, L. and Braun, E. (1999), “Urban competitiveness,marketing and the need for organising capacity”, UrbanStudies, Vol. 36 No. 5-6, pp. 987-99.

van den Berg, L., Klaassen, L.H. and van der Meer, J. (1990),Marketing Metropolitan Regions, European Institute forComparative Urban Research, Rotterdam.

Ward, S.V. (1998), Selling Places: The Marketing and Promotionof Towns and Cities 1850-2000, E. & F.N. Spon, London.

Ward, S.V. and Gold, J.R. (1994), “Introduction”, in Gold, J.R. andWard, S.V. (Eds), Place Promotion: The Use of Publicity andMarketing to Sell Towns and Regions, John Wiley & Sons,Chichester, pp. 1-17.

Warnaby, G. (2003), “The marketing of urban places withspecific reference to retailing”, unpublished PhD thesis,Retail Management, Subject Group, The ManchesterMetropolitan University, Manchester.

Warnaby, G., Bennison, D., Davies, B.J. and Hughes, H. (2002),“Marketing UK towns and cities as shoppingdestinations”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 18No. 9-10, pp. 877-904.

Wilkinson, S. (1992), “Towards a new city? A case study ofimage-improvement initiatives in Newcastle Upon Tyne”,in Healey, P., Davoudi, S., O’Toole, M., Tavsangolu, S. andUsher, D. (Eds), Rebuilding the City: Property-Led UrbanRegeneration, E. & F.N. Spon, London, pp. 174-211.

Williams, C.C. (1992), “The contribution of regional shoppingcentres to local economic development: threat oropportunity?”, Area, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 289-94.

Williams, C.C. (1996), “Rethinking the role of retailing andconsumer services in local economic development: aBritish perspective”, Journal of Retailing and ConsumerServices, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 53-7.




Volume 32 · Number 11 · 2004 · 545-556

556

people and partnerships: marketing urban retailing

Documents