BY HELEN J. CATALBAS
THESE are seasons for brandings. Actually, everyday can be a branding day depending on what trade, occupation or business we are in. Some brandings stay in our mind because we concocted them ourselves and keep them private, the others we share with company, relatives and friends especially when we are the ones branding people, places and events. Many times whether we realize it or not, brandings are contained in gossips by some people who enjoy this enterprise with twists and turns to boot. Mainstream and social media also do a lot of brandings in their commentaries.
Let’s talk about tourism brandings this time. For common reference, we refer to destination branding as tourism branding.
Some tourism brandings are good, others are very good while a few are too good to be true. Some tourism destinations have branding, others do not have. Some of those that have may give us a good laugh and yet others have been successful in making themselves laughing stocks. Through it all, reality or lack of it bites.
At times we doubt the competence of those who order the formulation of a tourism brand or the competence of those who formulated the brand per instruction or both. In more cases, money changes hands, with one end losing while the other gaining. And of course, commissions are mostly in money form, too.
The finished product then speaks for itself. At times, tourism destinations live up to their branding, otherwise, they run counter to their brands Still others are simply flat statements that are neither here nor there you wonder if the authors really know their jobs at all.
Brandings are realities about tourism destinations that authorities want to communicate to their intended audience, the tourist. We think good brandings should first and foremost be addressed to the destinations’ resident population before they are targeted toward the trajectory of the tourist population. This makes brandings inclusive from their conception stage.
Speaking of inclusivity of brandings, we mean participation of the resident population in decision-making on how their country or locality be known and positioned in the mind of the tourist. If the destinations have artists, both digital and traditional, and creative thinkers, these special groups of people should be asked for whatever take they have on the matter of branding. How they see things in their country or locality may not be the same way we see the same thing, the same subject matter.
What we mean is consultation, consultation, and more consultations should be employed as a technic in destination branding. The tourists, especially those who have been to the destinations, should also be consulted on the mental picture they have when they think about the destinations viz-a-viz real tourism products during and after their visits. Would-be tourists should also be consulted. Tourism authorities should know how consultations like these should be made.
Pleasant realities in the destination communicated as promises of a memorable experience for both hosts and tourists should be the basis for destination branding. It should not be an exaggeration of what is there and a promise of what is not there in a desperate attempt to attract tourists. More importantly, tourism products should be available to locals and tourists alike regularly and not a now-you-see-them, now-you-don’t basis. Other tourist products in the destination should be available and fully developed so as not to frustrate visitors and make them feel they are taken for a ride only for the money.
The gap between promises as portrayed in brandings should be narrowed by the actual experiences by tourists during and after their visit in the destinations. The more satisfying the experience, the narrower the gap between the promise and the reality./PN
