Introduction

Place branding is not well entrenched in the global South, and so its theorisation and practice are arbitrary compared to global North settings (Papadopoulos and Hamzaoui-Essoussi 2015). This has often led to confusing and incoherent place brands. One notable example is Johannesburg, which has adopted a series of place brands over time—ranging from “Gateway to Southern Africa” (1993–1995), “Golden Heartbeat of Africa” (1997–2000), “A world-class African city” (2001–present) and others in between—yet continues to make forays in an arena in which preeminent cities have made significant headway (Rogerson 2002).

The academic exploration of Johannesburg’s place brand approaches steadily risen over time (Mbinza 2023). The likes of Bremner (2000), Rogerson (2002), Lipietz (2008), Sihlongonyane (2015) and Scholvin (2023) have explored Johannesburg’s place branding, touching upon elements such as its inception, its relationship with tourism and its methodology. In contrast, in the global North, the academic focus of place branding typically concentrates on measuring the efficacy of place branding (Florek et al. 2019), describing and defining what it is (Anholt 2008), examining its linkages to public participation (Kavaratzis 2012) and employing it as a tool for strategic spatial planning (Oliveira 2015).

However, there is scant research on how place branding intersects with broader societal phenomena such as culture, democracy, urban governance and public diplomacy. This knowledge gap is surprising given the widespread scholarship of place branding in the global North, but it is expected in the global South because of the discipline’s infancy there. Thus, this exploratory paper aims to familiarise the reader with the implicit pervasiveness of place branding that otherwise remains understudied in Johannesburg. This exploration contributes to bridging knowledge gaps and increases thematic focus in place branding in the global South.

Research on how place branding in cities like Johannesburg intersects with broader societal issues sparse. This exploratory paper illuminates the far-reaching implications of place branding in a global South context, which has received little academic inquiry. The paper draws from insights from theories of place branding, politics, public diplomacy and urban governance. The merits of selecting a multidisciplinary review of literature are emphasised by Vuignier (2017) and Kumar and Panda (2019). The following section proposes the theoretical lenses upon which Johannesburg’s place brand is predicated. Following this introduction, the paper presents the theoretical framework used to analyse Johannesburg’s place branding and explores its connections to broader societal constructs. The period under analysis is from 1994 to the present. The paper contributes moderately to the scholarship of place branding, at least from the vantage point of the global South.

Afropolitanism as a point of reference

Due to colonialism, most global South cities exhibit dual existences, manifesting in their socialisation and urban morphologies (Santos 2016). On the one hand, they are remnants of ideas of modernity superimposed by colonial masters, the development blueprint (Goldsmith 2014). On the other hand, they are the realities of survival manifested through the presence of “informal” economies and settlements, blighting normative understandings of development and planning (Lindell 2019).

Consequently, a vast body of scholarship focusses on contextualising and resolving the ills of global South urbanisation within contemporary understandings of development (Devlin 2018). A significant offshoot of this scholarship revolves around dealing with migration from settings of the global South to the global North (Klaus and Panchocka 2019). This strand of scholarship problematises global South-to-North migration on arguments of limited resources and increased friction between resident and migrant societies (Oelgemoller 2017). Surprisingly, these arguments are mute when considering colonialism and its subsequent plundering of human resources and capital in the global South (Hickel et al. 2021).

Johannesburg competes with other preeminent cities worldwide (Rogerson and Rogerson 2015). In so doing, and through its place brand/s, it continually jostles for position. This jostling posits Johannesburg, establishing and exuding an image simultaneously conversing with global discourses and local realities (Mbinza 2023). This is undoubtedly innovative but a massive undertaking because it relies on aspiring to greater heights while facing formidable challenges in essential service delivery.

Johannesburg’s place brands speak to being of the world and Africa (Sihlongonyane 2016; Mbinza 2023). They are best encapsulated in what is termed Afropolitanism. Coined by Selasi (2005) and expanded upon by Mbembe (2007), Afropolitanism is a “description of a new phenomenology of Africanness—a way of being African in the world” (Gikandi 2011, p. 9). Balakrishnan (2018) sees Afropolitanism as neither Pan-Africanism nor Negritude, but rather a way of reconceiving African identity. Therefore, Afropolitanism represents transience and mobility resulting from creative political ideologies (Selasi 2020). Indeed, Gnoth (1999) points out that place brands need continual evolution because value propositions in cultural, social and economic terms are in constant flux.

It would be amiss of the author to suggest that the type of flows typified by Afropolitanism are unique to Africa. They are broad and worldwide. The recent European migrant crisis exemplifies how people in the global South seek to improve their prospects (De Genova 2020). Apart from stable democracies and economies found in Europe, attracting people from the global South is a function, at least in part, of place branding (Zenker and Jacobsen 2015; Belabas et al. 2020).

Johannesburg took a leaf from the mainstream, primarily global North forms of place branding (Didier et al. 2013). Wippel (2023) suggests that globalisation, neoliberalisation and postmodernisation are the primary drivers of place branding processes. The interplay between these drivers and consequent effects on societal phenomena is understudied in Johannesburg. For example, little is known about how Johannesburg’s place brand shapes its residents’ culture, reinforces ideas of democracy and fosters public diplomacy.

The subjectivity of culture

Johannesburg owes its cultural heritage to the myriad residents that have called it home since its founding in 1886 (Dennie 2009; Mears 2011). Established as a mining town, Johannesburg quickly became a city heavily dependent on migrant labour (Vidal 2010). This trend has recently remained the same as Johannesburg has become an economic powerhouse in South Africa and the African continent (Callaghan and Venter 2011). The mixing of different people from many backgrounds and the presence of multinational corporations makes Johannesburg a buzzing, multi-cultural metropolis (Harrison and Zack 2012).

Westjohn et al. (2012) argue that cultural diversity plays a massive role in forming societal identity. However, post-apartheid Johannesburg still displays huge fissures in its cultural formation (Wilson 2020). One sees the outskirts of the city dotted with poor Black townships, a degraded inner city and lavish White suburbs in the north (Beall et al. 2014). Townships have received some attention in the current democratic dispensation with the injection of infrastructure projects and the development of the township economy, but their outlook remains dismal (Manyaka-Boshielo 2017). The inner city remains a site of constant regeneration with mixed degrees of success (Thwala 2009; Hoogendoorn and Gregory 2016). Notably, most white suburbs have maintained their gleen owing to their significant levels of prosperity; thus, the imbalances between these places have not equalised significantly and meaningfully since the dawn of democracy (James and Lever 2001).

Despite these stark differences, Johannesburg coined the slogan “a world-class African city” under the mayoralty of Amos Masondo (2000–2011) (Rogerson 2004). This was meant to rally residents of all races and classes behind the city’s efforts in reinventing its economy following the decline it endured towards the mid-nineties because of the “white flight” from the city centre to the affluent northern suburbs (Lanegran 2000). In this way, the branding of Johannesburg became a centrepiece in its efforts to create a positive image for the city, which in turn was used to foster a united sense of identity amongst placeholders. In this paper, placeholders are used to collectively refer to residents, businesses, civil society organisations and other stakeholders with a vested interest in a place. Lindstedt (2011) avers that people have a psychological need to forge bonds with their immediate environment. Thus, creating a link between a place brand and its placeholders cannot be underestimated (Kavaratzis 2017). Saleem and Byrd (2021) note how place dependence and bondage, both subsets of place culture, form place identity at a local level. This interplay enhances residents’ sense of security and helps create self-esteem (Browning 2016). Place branding plays a significant role in reinforcing these feelings. A stable and consistent place brand, which placeholders have had a hand in creating, engenders support and ambassadorship (Govers 2011).

However, Mayes (2008) argues that a place brand does not necessarily reflect a place’s culture and identity. Place branding is generative because it creates aspirational narratives that placeholders can embrace (Burdick 2016). This is not surprising as places are sites of experience, and these vary from person to person (Swanson 2015). Seen in its many nicknames such as “eGoli, place of gold”, “Gauteng Mabonge, City of Lights” and “Jozi”, Johannesburg has different meanings and associations for people (Nombembe 2010). Therefore, place brand authorities endeavour to develop place brands that collate different experiences into one universal narrative (Campelo 2017). For this reason, the co-production of place brands is essential instead of a unilateral, top-down endeavour directed by place brand authorities.

For Riza et al. (2012), products (including places) and their meaning(s) are contextual. A lack of understanding of the place brand and its meaning can result in “collateral damage” (Zavattaro 2013, p. 511). Briefly, collateral damage refers to the blurring of the history of a place, which, in turn, has the possibility of alienating its placeholders. This creates points of discord wherein placeholders do not necessarily subscribe to and support a brand message, as it does not reflect their lived experiences.

In defence of their place brand messages needing to be more conversant with the lived experiences of local people, place brand authorities have used the argument of rewriting the stories of places through the superimposition of ideas exported from elsewhere to attain world city statuses. Nogué and de San-Eugenio-Vela (2018) refer to this practice as socio-spatial mediation. This concept speaks to the undeniable interaction between placeholders and places. The conjuring of this interaction is paramount in constructing coherent place brand messages as it draws emotions and familiarity amongst placeholders.

Baxter et al. (2013) note how cities typically have multiple identities. The multiplicity of identities within place branding processes necessitates a representational formation of these to the extent that they reflect placeholders’ lived experiences and aspirations (Larsen 2018). In the same breath, however, this multiplicity means that not all parts of a brand message reflect every placeholder, and this ensures that the scope to contest it (the place brand) exists (Ripoll Gonzalez and Gale 2020). In the case of Johannesburg, it is unfathomable that the city had such settlements as Alexandra and Diepsloot when coining the “a world-class African city” place brand. This is because this place brand paints a picture of modernity and prosperity. However, these settlements have vast levels of indigence, and this is not the image that Johannesburg attempted to project to potential investors. Instead, the aspirational dimension of “a world-class African city” is deployed when Johannesburg deals with its affluent places.

Place branding and mentrification

Place branding antagonises different placeholders by either making it easier to subscribe to its narrative or erasing those who find it challenging to be part of the message. In either case, the ease or difficulty with which specific placeholders become part of the narrative is rooted in their economic muscle. Thus, some degree of gentrification may occur because of place branding processes. However, place brands work on the management of perceptions. Hence, the gentrification referred to herein does not necessarily relate to people leaving a particular part of the city physically but psychologically. In this paper, this process is termed “mentrification”.

The term mentrification draws upon the concepts of “mental” and “gentrification”, embodying a novel understanding of psychological displacement within the context of place branding. Mentrification delineates a form of disassociation in which placeholders, while remaining physically present within a locale, undergo a disengagement or emotional estrangement from the place's evolving narrative and identity as shaped by branding endeavours.

Mentrification is distinct from the tangible dislocations connoted by gentrification, it manifests as an internalised process wherein the subjective sense of place and belonging is progressively eroded or rescripted in alignment—or, more pointedly, misalignment—with the strategic branding of a place. This internal displacement is articulated through several behaviours including a deliberate non-endorsement or resistance to the place brand, confrontational stances against the place brand's assertions and an intentional demystification of the disparities between aspirational brand ideals and the placeholders’ everyday lived experiences.

By positing mentrification as relative to, but not synonymous with, physical gentrification, this paper expands the analytical lens applied to the sociopsychological impacts of place branding. It probes into the less visible but equally profound repercussions of branding initiatives, where placeholders can feel symbolically alienated from their own communities, despite their continued residence within them. The formulation of mentrification seeks to highlight these intangible yet significant shifts in individual and collective place-related psyche, engendered by neoliberally driven branding activities that prioritise the management of perceptions, at the expense of preexisting dire social and cultural fabrics.

Within place branding, little scholarship exists in framing a process or phenomenon depicting behaviours that emerge when placeholders do not subscribe to the messages or claims of place brands. In place branding scholarship, proponents suggest increased levels of participation to coproduce place brands to increase support and buy-in (Golestaneh et al. 2022). However, these efforts do not move sufficiently to provide a term describing absolute indifference to and contempt of place brands.

Places within which a significant level of contempt for a place brand exist can be termed mentrified spaces while the process of reaching such a stance is referred to as mentrification. Therefore, mentrication is a noun and mentrify (mentrified in past tense) is a verb. Thus, to mentrify is to psychologically remove placeholders from a place through place branding endeavours owing to their contempt for or indifference to a place brand. The term “mentrification” expands the lexicon in place branding to encompass descriptions of the unintended effects of place branding. Indeed, in their paper “Challenging assumptions about residents’ engagement with place branding”, Insch and Walters (2018) touch the surface of coining a term closely related to mentrification but fall short by reverting to such terms as “disengaged residence” and “place attachment”. Mentrification encompasses these ideas comprehensively.

Lindstedt’s counter to mentrification

For successful place brands to exist, mentrification needs to be minimised. This paper argues that place brand authorities need to work more closely with placeholders in place brand creation. To this point, Lindstedt proposes a relationship dependent on (i) manageability, (ii) continuity, (iii) goal support and (iv) distinctiveness (Lindstedt 2011). Manageability refers to creating and developing a place brand narrative with accompanying logos, mantras and slogans. This dimension is easy to achieve for well-established places with strong heritages and exposure (Lysgård 2016). Continuity refers to superimposing the place brand to as many places within a territory as possible and broadcasting the brand message to the international community. This includes awareness campaigns and mass and social media drives. Goal support inculcates the brand message to illuminate the bigger picture to the audience (residents, investors, tourists and other placeholders). In this dimension, the senders dangle a different carrot stick for each placeholder to foster affiliation with the place brand message and attachment to the place.

Not all carrot sticks are the same and, in some instances, do not exist. Distinctiveness is offered as the decisive factor as placeholders are assured of their unique, privileged position, which other places cannot offer, a process of “signification and representation” (Kavaratzis and Ashworth 2006, p. 184). Apart from fostering loyalty amongst placeholders, place brand messages necessitate their defence. As White and Kolesnicov (2015, p. 324) put it, “a positive place identity is an antecedent of a positive place image”. Distinctiveness promotes intrinsic features within a place, such as iconic buildings and grand architecture (Riza et al. 2012). Goal support and distinctiveness are the primary tools for garnering support for a place brand. Their execution is not linear nor procedural but is interchangeable and iterative depending on the day’s circumstances.

Viewed in this way, distinctiveness is a precursor for inter-place competition. As van Ham (2008) and Pike (2011) note, competition motivates place branding. In turn, competition relies heavily on differentiation (Allen 2007). Barnes et al. (2014) argue that in differentiating themselves, places have superimposed ideas from elsewhere that do not necessarily resonate with a place brand. This has been observed in cities that have attempted or even been granted the hosting rights to mega-sport events. For instance, Klauser (2012) notes how the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) insisted on the implantation of “fan zones” during the EURO 2008 in Austria and Switzerland, which compromised legal issues about urban public spaces. When South Africa hosted the FIFA World Cup™ in 2010, host cities were forced to sanitise their streets by removing street vendors to give a semblance of cleanliness (Kolamo and Vuolteenaho 2013).

Politicians legitimise the bidding for and hosting sports mega-events for their potential economic benefits (Klauser 2012). As a result, rather than only encompassing traditional managerial roles, city governments have increasingly adopted entrepreneurial roles (Pasquinelli 2010). However, Klauser (2012) points out that as cities bid for these events, one critical and divisive issue emerges—the different interests of the parties involved. Whereas the motivation for organising associations such as FIFA is global capitalism, city governments are motivated by optimising place-related business on behalf of their local constituents. To remedy this, Pasquinelli (2010) suggests that geographical locations with strong political and financial backing drive and manage branding initiatives.

This is obviously an oversimplification of the state of play. The allure of increasing the competitive edge of a particular place transcends its political and financial backing, especially in the global South, owing to its low economic base (Saygin 2023). Here, bidding for and hosting sports mega-events serves two fundamental functions. Firstly, it highlights the ability of a place to “play” amongst the most prominent players on the world stage (Ooi 2008). Secondly, it increases that place’s financial and economic density and independence (Cleave and Arku 2015).

Turok (2009) offers three points of consideration when cities pursue offering their distinct propositions to the rest of the world. The first is the realisation of the social, environmental and political impacts of rapid urbanisation. In attracting more people through place branding campaigns, cities must contend with the increasing numbers coming into their jurisdictions because of their impacts on infrastructure. For example, the population of Johannesburg was estimated at a staggering 4,250,000 in 2019, but the city still needed to implement significant infrastructure development projects to deal with the growing population (Todes et al. 2018). Secondly, while cities use place branding to attract more people and businesses, there is an overemphasis on what countries do. This overemphasis on countries blurs and undermines the brand messages of cities. Lastly, global capital has little incentive to equalise the spatial disparities in globalising cities. The gap between the poor and wealthy areas within cities continues to grow because place brand messages focus on already well-served parts of the city. This realisation necessitates city governments to be nimbler in applying place branding and changing their operational models.

Place branding and emergent forms of urban governance

For Hodgkinson et al. (2017), city governments have seen a paradigm shift wherein a hyper-privatisation of agencies within the city overtook the service-dominant logic. In 2001, Johannesburg ratified its protracted process of forming its municipal-owned entities (MOEs) (Iroanya and Njingolo 2017). Fourteen MOEs were created to increase service delivery efficiency (Mkoka 2011). Apart from privatising some of their offerings, city governments have begun to outsource their service delivery projects and other offerings to capture profits. In many instances, the outsourcing and privatisation of certain services have improved the revenue stream of cities because these agencies and utilities operate under neoliberal machinery (Whitfield 2010).

According to Harris (2019), globalisation fuels the increasing neoliberal stance taken by city governments. As global markets open, cities and governments alike are forced to compete regionally and globally. In this way, the organisational identities of city governments have changed to be much more entrepreneurial. Anteby and Molnar (2012, p. 530) note that creating a city’s brand identity is “continual”. For Chia and Holt (2009), the ever-changing brand identity of a city is a response by an entity to satisfy its needs to compete in both local and international economic landscapes. This continual evolution of the brand identity of a city links to any biotic system that responds to the demands placed on it by evolutionary development processes. Like a society’s culture, a city’s brand identity is seldom static but needs to be dynamic. The dynamism of a city’s brand identity and, by extension, its culture is necessary, as change is unpredictable and inevitable (Aragon 2012).

Like other cities in the world, Johannesburg faced the same challenge recently. The city found itself navigating numerous development landmines that needed immediate attention while also having to stake a claim in world economics through its aspirational place brand (Rogerson 2004). These included, for instance, a deteriorating inner city image, crime and grime and infrastructure development backlogs (Bremner 2000). Despite these challenges, it is still necessary for a city to express and restate its brand identity (old or new) to external placeholders (Anteby and Molnar 2012). By doing this, a city’s brand identity can thrive and endure.

However, this exercise has its challenges. Changing and staying the same is paradoxical (Anteby and Molnar 2012). On the one hand, continually re-articulating a city’s brand identity can alienate long-standing placeholders. On the other hand, there is every opportunity to attract new ones. This forges a space within which the negotiation, manipulation or, at times, coercion of identity can be incorporated and accepted by a broader audience (Aragon 2012).

Safeguarding a city’s brand identity is paramount to its operations because it is a strategic resource and an element to exert a competitive advantage (Amujo and Laninhun 2013). Therefore, a city’s brand identity relates directly to its performance (Dinnie 2018). van Tonder and Lessing (2003) note how those cities with distinctive brand identities consistently exert their influence regionally and globally. Consider cities such as New York, Paris, London and Tokyo. Despite their geographical location, influence other cities enormously through their well-established brand identities (Tokatli 2011). Cities elsewhere in the world continually emulate the efforts of the cities mentioned above in one way or another also to become visible and claim a foothold in the world economy.

Having relevance is critical for cities because their economic prospects are embedded within their local sphere of influence and dependent on what they do to garner international attention (Boulouta and Pitelis 2014). Chia and Holt (2009) contend that placeholders are pervasively reliant on the performance of their cities and thus cede large degrees of autonomy to city governments for cities to optimise the use of resources for their socio-economic benefit. The magnitude and implications of the ceding of autonomy by society to city governments are not to be underestimated. In this context, cities strive to continually find ways to create spaces for interaction, re-orienting their services and empowering their placeholders (Åkesson and Skålén 2011). This re-orientation is messy and requires cities to unlearn old ways and embrace new ways of management.

As mentioned, Johannesburg unbundled its services by establishing Municipal-Owned Entities (MOEs) in 2001 (Iroanya and Njingolo 2017). This process led to decentralising service delivery to entities with their principals and workforces (Mkoka 2011). Whereas placeholders previously dealt with the city regarding service delivery issues, they now had to interact directly with the entity from which they required assistance (Herbert and Murray 2015). Indeed, Chia and Holt (2009) argue that the re-articulation of the mandate of a city government results in the alteration of dynamics and relations between society and the city. While these new relations are necessary, they need proper management. This is particularly important to managing society’s expectations against what city governments can deliver.

Beyond the tension of expectation and delivery is collective memory (Anteby and Molnar 2012). How the brand identity of a city is cascaded is a critical consideration. While most brand identity-setting strategies are initiated at the top management level, middle managers and low-level employees must understand the city’s evolving brand identity (Hanna and Rowley 2008). For this to occur, Bastedo et al. (2014) argue that charismatic leadership is necessary to entrench and generate excitement about the city’s identity. Besides being charismatic, leaders must be creative (Vessey et al. 2014). As Powell (2007) notes, city governments must rely on creative employees to enhance the work and the city’s mandate. Improved work and delivery improve the city’s brand identity, reputation and stature. With the above considered, one of the significant tasks for leaders in city governments is to prevent an uncoordinated, unilateral and separated workforce from occurring (silos).

According to Cilliers and Greyvenstein (2012), silos tend to split a workforce into different factions, which become disruptive to the processes and aims of the city. This is significantly more so when considering solidarity behind a place brand message. Split-offs convey different brand identities and agendas to external placeholders. A uniform brand identity and coherent brand place narrative are more desirable than a fractured one.

Place branding and democracy

Place branding requires orientating and sensitising placeholders about the constructs of its messaging (Therkelsen and Halkier 2008). These include where cities see themselves in the future and the niche they want to dominate. There are several ways in which place brand authorities may undertake this, including employing advertising/marketing companies or doing it themselves. The latter strategy holds possibilities of authentic placeholder participation (Eshuis et al. 2014). In 2003, Johannesburg enlisted the services of Interbrand Sampson, an advertising agency based in the city, to create the corporate brand identity for the city (CoJ council minutes, 18 September 2003). This process did not involve any form of public participation (Moloi, personal communication, 17 June 2017). According to Eshuis and Edwards (2013), exclusive place branding exercises between a city and advertisers/marketers reduce participation opportunities while alienating placeholders. A place brand constructed under these auspices usually faces considerable contestation and can prove costly (Baxter et al. 2013).

Creating, developing and protecting a place brand presumes an inside-out, non-bureaucratic governance outlook, which hears and considers the voices of as many placeholders as possible. The above is ideal and simplistic. However, if not properly structured and maintained, this engagement is subject to abuse, as the city can be made to contend with irrational demands and requests. If appropriately structured, however, the engagement can be meaningful, creating a place brand rooted in the lived experiences of different placeholders. Indeed, Pizzichini et al. (2020) see extracting local stories to place brand messages as useful in bolstering its support.

Metaxas (2010) avers that creating a place brand is concerned with promoting the economic development of a place. In this light, place branding is a strategic endeavour that leverages the sum of offerings of a place rather than myopically concentrating on promoting a single commercial product or service within it. Thus, place branding elevates the competitive identity of a territory. Territorial competitive identity comprises territorial identity, image and reputation (Pasquinelli 2013). Territorial identity is internal, the self-reflection of how a place perceives itself. Territorial image is external and represents the view of the outside world about a place. The combination of territorial identity and image equates territorial reputation (Camagni 2017). It is essential to note that these relationships are fluid and subject to the continuous exchange between a city, its placeholders and the world.

In other words, maintaining a territorial competitive identity is a function of public diplomacy and urban governance (Peel and Lloyd 2015). A place brand is aimed at endearing its residents to the city but simultaneously looking to attract external placeholders such as tourists and businesses. For instance, through the “world-class African city” mantra, the city of Johannesburg aimed at (a) reminding its residents of their rootedness to the African continent (Seedat and Gotz 2006) and (b) telling the world that it was open for business (Rogerson 2014).

The mantra was coined in the face of hyper-globalisation, wherein the city of Johannesburg wanted to augment a positive territorial competitive identity (Rocchi and Gabbai 2013). The combination of increased globalisation, modern society’s high mobility and the diminishing significance of physical geography have heightened the frequency of place branding worldwide (Millington et al. 2021). While place branding under these conditions assisted places to obtain anchorage in the world economy, there has also been an unintended effect wherein the strife of minority groups or the marginalised has been exacerbated because of the push for economic and spatial development through place branding (Todes and Turok 2018). In Johannesburg, residents of informal settlements would be hard-pressed to say that they live in a world-class city as they suffer the consequences of a failing local government sector (Beall et al. 2000).

Braun et al. (2014) argue that place branding exercises become superficial without the meaningful participation of the local populace. Including all placeholders in place branding exercises can increase the legitimacy of its messages (Harte 2020). Inevitably, the heavy reliance of place branding on illuminating favourable place images has erased the city’s less desirable pockets. The marginalisation of such places effectively leaves them out of the place brand narrative. Thus, it can be argued that adding place branding to urban planning tools has increased forms of urban exclusion (Castilhos 2019). Place branding processes can propel certain enclaves within a city to “superstar” status and strip those less desirable of their dignity. For example, in their analysis of Brisbane’s “New World City” place brand, Greenop and Darchen (2016, p. 1) criticise that process for not being “resident-centred”. They argue that the resultant place brand needed to be more authentic and reflective of the whole reality of the city of Brisbane. However, the regenerative relationship between place branding and place identity means that the exclusion of specific placeholders in broader place brand narratives is inevitable. Being generative, there is a subtle suggestion that this relationship is based on transactional processes wherein place brand authorities create narratives that placeholders are which placeholders are encouraged to buy into and protect.

Place branding and public diplomacy

Varga (2013) sees place branding as being an integral part of legitimatising policy articulations as it is transformative and an agenda-framing vehicle. The transformative dimension of place branding stems from its ability to tie a place’s historical significance while simultaneously creating a vision for its future by latching on to unexplored opportunities or attributes (Peel and Lloyd 2015). Thus, place branding can be thought of as an arena within which the display of symbols and social order(s) of a city is possible (Mueller and Schade 2012). The outward display of symbols and, more pointedly, social orders is deeply rooted in the traditions of consumerism, which dominate the global North, where there is a strong gravitation towards the presentation of the individual as capital, resource and brand (Sturken 2007). In these contexts, people have begun to embrace ideas of brand personalities wherein they see themselves as the brand, primarily enabled by social media (Marwick 2010).

However, this shift is in its infancy in the global South (Moon et al. 2016). Compared to their global North counterparts, global South nations lag economically, so their focus tends to be on survival issues (Bernardez 2009). For this reason, occupations such as place branding are not necessarily essential or urgent in these contexts. However, many cities in the global North have come to appreciate the importance of projecting positive images through place branding. For example, the city-state of Singapore has been churning out place brands since the 1960s and 1970s (Chang 1997). Beginning with “Instant Asia”, Singapore sought to highlight its economy and positioned itself as a gateway to Asia (Ooi 2008). This place brand had a strong outlook for attracting foreign direct investment. In the 1980s, Singapore used “Surprising Asia” to project images of modernity while promoting its culture (Chang and Yeoh 1999). This demonstrates that place branding in the global South has been underway but understudied.

In any context, global South or North, the transfer and transformative dimensions of place branding are challengeable. In the global North, sophisticated ideals such as inclusion challenge the authenticity and credibility of place branding. Exploring Johannesburg’s aspirational tagline, “a world-class African city”, Lipietz (2008) questions the obsession of cities for wanting to be part of the league of global and world cities. She asks for other ways upcoming cities could employ place branding to achieve the same or an alternate recognition pattern. Up until 2016, Johannesburg used this mantra as a positioning mechanism in the global political economy.

Thus, as it stands, place branding posits tools for international relations, or more accurately, public diplomacy (Ginesta and de San Eugenio 2021). These relations are pertinent to nations that transact and extend more broadly to encompass others because a breach in these interactions results in nations losing favour amongst peer nations, global North or South peer nations. The relationship strain significantly impacts a nation’s global image and economy and, by extension, its regions and cities (Szondi 2010). In 2008, South Africa saw a flaring-up of xenophobic attacks (Beetar 2019). These attacks also occurred in Johannesburg, particularly in the inner city and surrounding townships (Hlatshwayo 2011). Chiumbu and Moyo (2018) argue that this was not xenophobia but instead what they term Afriphobia, as these attacks were levelled only against Black African immigrants. South Africa’s image took a significant knock in the world but was more nuanced in Africa (Matsinhe 2011).

Owing to the powerful connotations linked to image and standing, Govers (2011) argues that place branding is an investment in meaning. This means a territory takes measures to construct a story for its place and then continuously intervenes to manage its support. Eshuis and Edwards (2013) agree with Hayden and Sevin (2012) that place branding is the management of perceptions. Therefore, the management of perceptions suggests that a place brand message is dynamic.

Instead, it changes to reflect contemporary societal issues and aspirations. Place branding projects a nation’s popular symbols and uses them as leverage in place brand narratives (Newburry and Song 2018). The projection of popular, appropriate symbols subverts those that are taboo and, in so doing, removes certain people from these narratives. Therefore, while place branding fulfils the public diplomacy agenda of a nation, it can simultaneously be a silencing mechanism at a local level (Mercer and Mayfield 2015). For example, Kaneva’s (2017) investigation reveals this duality in the South African place brand. Specifically, Brand South Africa was created “to help create a positive and compelling brand image for South Africa, and its main objective is the marketing of South Africa” (Kaneva 2017, p. 120).

On the one hand, South Africa has worked tirelessly to endear itself to its international audience since its unshackling from apartheid. On the other hand, this push for international endorsement has made relations with the rest of the African continent tumultuous. In part, this is due to the perceived intolerance that South Africans (primarily Black) have towards (Black) African immigrants, but welcoming stance of migrants from other countries outside of Africa and increased interference in the political issues in other countries on the continent (Steenkamp 2009).

Despite this, van Ham (2008) opines that any great place brand relies on performance and respect. Performance speaks to the durability and reflexivity of a place brand. Respect refers to the degree to which a place brand endorses the sentiments of other nations. This concept speaks to how a place brand exudes tolerance and acceptance of lofty ideals such as democracy and tolerance. In this way, place branding possesses two undertones. Firstly, place branding radiates narratives about a place based on its internal dynamics, i.e. place brands are typically symbolic or representative of the needs of a place. Secondly, it must be absorptive to external stimuli and market signals, i.e., place brands show assimilation and espousal of global political economics. In both cases, place brand message senders, particularly city governments, enjoy colossal influence.

Owing to a lack of resources or endowments, local governments often occupy influential roles in place branding processes (Luo et al. 2013). There is usually a top-down structure related to the pursuance of place branding processes in these circumstances. Local government’s occupation of a leading role drives the need for city governments and similar institutions to become ever more entrepreneurial and competitive (Metaxas 2010). Often pursued under the guise of global or creative cities (Ooi 2008; Zenker 2009), city governments worldwide are increasingly entering previously uncharted domains that move beyond the mere management of urban development. As mentioned earlier, city governments have begun to embrace market dynamics. They are increasingly playing an active role in creating and shaping the marketplaces within which their cities operate. In this way, the role of city governments has also undergone a metamorphosis. It means long-standing relationships and dynamics between city governments and placeholders have become even more complex (Jackson and Inbakaran 2006).

This complexity gives credence to the question, “What is the new role of placeholders in city governance against the backdrop of place branding?” With specific reference to place branding, several scholars (Go and Trunfio 2012) have bemoaned the leading position that city governments have come to occupy in driving these processes. For Luo et al. (2013), two problems emerge when local governments dominate place branding.

Firstly, he argues that because city governments commodify assets and spaces within the city, the place brand is often one-sided. Although the above is not always the case, it is, however, the norm in many instances. Apart from examples provided by Rantisi and Leslie (2006) and Blichfeldt and Halkier (2014), wherein there were competitions to activate citizens to participate in creating and shaping a place brand, most campaigns are driven by a city government and are usually aided by expert consultants (Lau and Leung 2005).

Secondly, he argues that place branding processes are usually initiated in the context of attracting or attempting to infuse external funding. In this way, place branding campaigns are often narrow and not linked to long-term planning. The myopic nature of such campaigns incurs repetitions and wastage. Ultimately, the one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness of most place branding campaigns open avenues for the place branding process to be the purview of an elite group of individuals (officials in city governments and consultants) (Grodach 2013). These sorts of campaigns leave little room for voices from below to be heard; thus, the marginalised groups are left behind in the narrative of the place brand (Eder and Öz 2015).

Place branding as propaganda

Whichever way place branding is looked at, Vanolo (2017) sees the rise of the process as an attempt by other countries and even cities to subscribe to American ideologies and value systems. In what has been termed public diplomacy, America has subdued other world nations. Be it in warfare (North Korea), terrorism (Al Queda), trade (China) and the presence of America in the world is undeniable. In this vein, other countries (mainly in the West) have attempted to craft their place brands in line with values and ideologies that are conversant with those of America.

It can be argued that America has mastered the use of propaganda. Propaganda refers to the extension of soft power across a large scale, often beyond the borders of a country (Fullerton et al. 2008; Muratovski 2012). For van Ham (2008), however, soft power transcends the traditional characteristics of influence and persuasion. Likewise, place branding transcends the mere selling of a place to a broader audience. Place branding is about creating and re/configuring a place in the minds of placeholders. In this way, and by extension, place branding has become part of a long-standing history wherein spatial agglomerations such as countries and cities spin their histories and futures in the minds of placeholders and international audiences (Kotler et al. 2004). Put differently and crudely, place branding is a form of manipulation. Strong gatekeepers with different agendas (Grodach 2017) construct place brand narratives, a phenomenon Willett (2016) terms the politics of narratives. Behind these politics lies the notion that ideas shape places.

In South Africa, the idea exists that Johannesburg is a city of unlimited opportunities, and thus, people from other towns and provinces migrate there (Dinat and Peberdy 2007). Even people from other African countries tend to migrate to Johannesburg for economic opportunities (Landau 2007). However, the seeming availability of opportunities in the city has led to a contested city between locals, immigrants, informal traders, the city government and by-law-enforcement agencies (Bénit-Gbaffou 2018). However, this chasm between hope and reality is unavoidable. On the one hand, the place branding campaigns of Johannesburg cannot underplay the significant economic position that the city holds in South Africa and the African continent. On the other hand, the city cannot ignore the disgruntled voices of placeholders who question how these campaigns accurately reflect their material conditions.

Furthermore, Medway and Warnaby (2014) argue that such place branding processes, like those in Johannesburg, rapidly change the landscape for contestation and claims to places. Johansson and Cornebise (2010) note how new enclaves of unknown societies in foreign territories have increased worldwide. For example, places such as Hillbrow, Berea and Yeoville in Johannesburg are now synonymous with a large population of African immigrants (Moyo 2014). Brahinsky et al. (2014, p. 1135) note, “…racial constructs develop through spatial practices and intersect with ideas of nature and belonging”. This idea encompasses how people are categorised phenotypically, i.e., people associate more readily with others who look and sound like them.

However, it is not argued in this paper that place branding is directly and exclusively responsible for people immigrating to other places. Many reasons make people emigrate to other places, including seeking political asylum and escaping civil wars. However, in the case of economic opportunities, place branding is instrumental in attracting foreign nationals (Vallaster et al. 2018). Increased immigration raises tensions between resident societies and those coming in (Dodson and Oelofse 2000).

The intermingling of locals and incoming populations is usually tumultuous at the beginning because resident societies seek to protect their claim to a particular place. The dilution of tensions occurs by promoting ideas such as diversity and cosmopolitanism. As time proceeds, however, there is a measured level of acceptance and, in some instances, indifference to the impending succession of claim to a place (Landau and Freemantle 2010).

Considering the above, place branding plays a significant role in tying history and the future together. A place brand that must contend with the old and new must be sufficiently complex to appeal to the resident society and the incoming one(s). Such a place brand narrates a history that the old placeholders can hold on to while encapsulating a narrative that appeals to the hopes and dreams of new ones. Effectively, such a place brand is simultaneously fearful and fantastical. It allows for reminiscing but is simultaneously cognisant of changing times and the need to open to different futures.

The histories of places mean little to people if they have not been actively engaged in their production. Pierce and Martin (2015) point out Lefebvre’s argument that “social space is a social product” is essential. The production of places is the function of social interactions and the purview of a few elite technocrats, including urban planners, architects, engineers, etc. Men tend to dominate these professions (Hopkins and Gorman-Murray 2014), which makes places favourable to male bodies and alien to females and other orientations. Thus, Frohlick and Johnston (2011) argue that place branding is heteronormative and masculine in its articulation. According to Masuda and Bookman (2018), place brands usually have two discerning attributes, and these are (i) a historical underpinning and (ii) an aspirational, future-looking underpinning.

Place branding and gender

Considering the historical aspects of a place brand, it is significant to note that the male perspective dominates the telling of the history of places (Sanchez de Madariaga and Neuman 2016). Conversely, place brands are fashioned along these parameters, and by so doing, they maintain the patriarchal nature of cities. This mutes expressions from women and those who do not ascribe to traditional binary configuration of male and female, including those who identify as non-binary, genderqueer or may refrain from using gender as a basis for their self-identification (Gee and Jackson 2012). Historically, establishing and developing places (towns and cities) has been arbitrarily the purview of the heterosexual male (Simonton 2017). This follows the tradition of viewing men as conquerors and taming the unknown. Hopkins and Gorman-Murray (2014) argue that place branding has followed this tradition in projecting places as sites of (re)discovering the essence of towns and cities, with discovery not usually associated with women and those who do not ascribe to traditional binary configuration of male and female, including those who identify as non-binary, genderqueer or may refrain from using gender as a basis for their self-identification. Thus, place brands are considered adventurous and open to new unexplored opportunities when considered in their aspirational, future-looking attributes.

This view is synonymous with an explorer mentality that defined the colonisation of most territories outside mainland Europe by such men as Columbus (the Americas) and Jan van Riebeeck (Cape Town). Accordingly, through place branding, women and those who do not ascribe to traditional binary configuration of male and female, including those who identify as non-binary, genderqueer or may refrain from using gender as a basis for their self-identification are merely tolerated and not necessarily constructive or constituent of a place brand (Gee and Jackson 2013).

The patriarchal nature of place branding, as has until recently been practised, undermines the gender equalisation enterprise as espoused by many of the world’s democratic and progressive nations (Cassinger 2019). In addition, the colonial connotation of the second attribute reinforces the challenges that women and those who do not ascribe to traditional binary configuration of male and female, including those who identify as non-binary, genderqueer or may refrain from using gender as a basis for their self-identification women and other individuals who choose not to identify as males or those that do not use gender to self-identity have struggled with as far as the right to the city movement is concerned (Spruce 2020).

The following sections present discussion points emanating from the preceding analysis, delving into the intricate interconnectedness of place branding to broader societal constructs. These segments aim to locate the pervasiveness of place branding and highlight its nuances when considered against oft-neglected everyday phenomena. The discussion points are critical for contextualising place branding especially amongst those who do not necessarily engage with it, academically or in practice.

Johannesburg, then and now

Johannesburg made it its mission to be part of the league of global cities. In this endeavour, place branding has played a critical part. While the city employed place branding as its go-to strategy to cement a foothold in the global economy, it used it to remind itself and its placeholders of its rootedness in Africa. Put differently, Johannesburg made its culture to be of the world and be local at the same time. All city operations endeavoured to make Johannesburg a leader in development terms, and this is done under the umbrella of branding the city.

At the same time, Johannesburg’s branding efforts coincided with the re-articulation of the institutional architecture of the city. Not satisfied with dealing with urban governance issues like service delivery only, Johannesburg took on a more entrepreneurial stance in the early 2000s. This move emphasised the city’s desire to be “world-class” in its operations and offerings. However, this added a layer of complexity to how the city dealt with local placeholders. Striving for an image of modernity and progress, Johannesburg did not purposefully engage with its local placeholders in formulating its place brand. Instead, it relied solely on the expertise offered by its preferred bidder. The unilateral decision to undertake place branding within the city under the auspices of experts no doubt complicated relations between the city and local placeholders.

The city exercised extreme power by not including local placeholders in the process. The political expedience with which the city was branding was a sign of how desperate Johannesburg was to become a global city. While this makes sense internationally in the sense that Johannesburg not only used its place brand for potential investment, it also extended it to double up as a tool for public diplomacy. Thus, there needs to be more consideration in the city’s effort to balance the reality and aspirations of Johannesburg with the international dimension slightly ahead of the local. The local and international discursive nature of place brands necessitates the shift to more nuanced spaces of analysis. Place brands are globalisation-enabling mechanisms. However, current studies pay little attention to how globalisation effectively pits place brands as sites of struggle for their emancipation from the grips of arbitrary, localised urban governance systems.

Place branding in flux

Increasingly, place brands show increased independence from physical geography, i.e., they do not rely on highlighting the endowments found in a place (Govers and Go 2016). Instead, place brand narratives continually shift to bring updated versions of their places. These versions fit the mould of cities in motion, in touch with global political-economic trends. In the main, these target highly mobile and talented demographics. Place brands effectively create pseudo-identities through this and their underplaying of their geographies. In turn, unintended, erased and marginalised spaces not conversant with place brand narratives emerge.

The omission of such spaces in place branding processes deepens the chasm between the wealthy and the impoverished. Ironically, as supposedly liberating, place brands increase the hegemony of place brand message senders, especially city governments, in what can be termed captured brandscapes. Briefly, captured brandscapes speak to the interplay between the heightened positionality of senders of brand place messages versus the lowly positions held by other placeholders, especially residents. In this interplay, place branding opens avenues for the subversion of many voices (mentrification).

The expectation of embracing many voices in place brand messages is overly ambitious. Place branding can never achieve this. However, erasing marginalised spaces in place brand messages is ultimately its downfall. Pseudo-identities are pleasing at a distance from the perspective of tourist attraction and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) but problematic as far as offering an authentic taste and feel of a place. Branding places under the current pretexts reinforces the unequal treatment of spaces, much like contemporary planning tools. In development terms, place branding maintains the distance between good and bad spaces.

From an external perspective, the erasure of bad spaces in cities presents the removal of shocks to tourists and international companies. Not that this matters much to these individuals because, through their cash injections, there is an encouragement to maintain the lay of the land as is. This is not to say that these placeholders are ignorant or oblivious to the strife of hidden places; they hope their investment will filter through to the bottom and uplift these spaces. However, this hardly ever manifests, so hidden spaces remain the bane in the canvas of city branding processes.

Minimising mentrification in place branding endeavours

Many place branding campaigns employ local people as ambassadors. Unfortunately, this happens as an afterthought and not from the onset. There is a little co-creation of the place brand. These campaigns paint locals as willing participants who are happy and supportive of the place brand. From a people perspective, many place brands appropriate cultures that local people are unfamiliar with and thus alienate them. The appropriation and application of foreign cultures in place branding effectively opens avenues for resident societies to accept incoming populations more easily. The levels of acceptability of other people by resident societies can be used as a measure of support for a place brand that promotes cosmopolitanism (Georgiou 2013).

However, in the case where such campaigns fail to engender feelings of acceptance of incoming populations of people, place branding can negatively be thought of as an agenda and hegemony-setting apparatus. In this respect, such a place branding campaign can face boycotts or rejection. Unlike the boycotting of urban development phenomena such as gentrification and displacement, place branding opposition is more intellectual and subtle (mentrification). Locals can sabotage place brands through word of mouth when tourists are discouraged from supporting a city’s efforts, as well as when they target international businesses negatively.

Treating placeholders, especially residents, as passive brand elements is counterintuitive in every respect. Any place’s energy is derived from the multitude of people within its spaces. Selectively presenting a particular demographic in a brand narrative is equally problematic as treating marginalised spaces. A brand narrative thinly laden with a mosaic of voices is a propagandist soliloquy. As a process for capturing the minds of many placeholders, place branding presents questions on moral and ethical grounds. Activating a place brand to attract investment cannot be the only basis for it to persist. Throughout the world, businesses have begun to embrace their corporate social responsibilities. While these outreaches have flaws, these programmes are rapidly evolving companies to be drivers of local economies.

Similarly, the institutional architecture of city governments is in desperate need of reconfiguration, especially in the global South. Elsewhere, this reconfiguration is underway as cities have recently moved from being agents of exclusively delivering services to becoming more entrepreneurial. However, this evolution has only gone so far, and its impacts are still being measured. Thus, making revenue is still the most significant occupation that cities have.

Place brand narratives present cities as sites of unlimited innovation and opportunity during huge spatial and economic disparities. The elites assume premium sites, as highlighted by place branding processes, and the urban poor located in grey spaces do not benefit from trickle-down effects. These processes are slow if they reach the people at the bottom at all. A refocus on place branding is a shift from leveraging geographical spaces to places made by people. Place branding is but a part of an arsenal of place-making apparatuses. Within place-making processes, people matter the most. A transition from a revenue-making tool, the emancipatory prowess of place branding is necessary to complete its evolution from marketing and destination branding to making places through persuasive, collaborative and liberalising processes.

Conclusion

As Clegg and Kornberger (in Go and Govers 2010) point out, the management of cities has become less bureaucratic to encompass the ethos of entrepreneurialism. Consequently, city governments continue to pull vast amounts of power that have a bearing on the livelihoods and prospects of residents. In addition, globalisation, neoliberalism, individualism and increased information flows through social media necessitate more collaboration between city governments and placeholders.

The fluidity and spontaneity of modern communication platforms (social media) require city governments to be nimble in addressing pressing issues. These relate to essential service delivery and how cities present their images to international communities. This requires a re-orientation from thinking about the local and the global, the rural and the urban as distinct considerations. Instead, it calls for their appreciation as equal considerations having conditioning effects on each other. One cannot exist without the other.

As a contribution, this paper departed from exploring place branding from the perspective of measuring efficacy, methodology and process. Instead, it makes linkages between place branding and everyday societal phenomena. In this light, the paper expands the scope of place branding scholarship in the global South, primarily focussing on employing place branding to attract tourists and foreign direct investment. Furthermore, it argued that urbanisation processes in the global South are not alien but different from those understood in the global North. More significantly, the paper advanced a new phenomenon (mentrification) to illuminate the effects of unilateral place branding processes.