城市形象与公共关系外文翻译资料

 2022-07-07 15:37:57

City image and public relations

With the rise of fierce competition among cities, branding has become an important strategy for city development. Cities are widely viewed as products, that is, they can be marketed and promoted to certain targeted groups (Braun, 2008; Kotler, Apslund, Rein, amp; Heider, 1999; Rainisto, 2003; Ward, 1998). Meanwhile, image is understood as the bridge connecting consumers and the brand (De Chernatony, 1993). Kotler, Haider, and Rein (1993) give the classic definition of city image; it, is “the sum of beliefs, ideas, and impressions that people have” of a city. City image is the foundation of city branding, and it is also the external presentation of the brand. Good city image is an intangible asset and an inherent brand competitive advantage of a city.

Cities are increasingly using public relations and marketing techniques to build image while attracting the attention of target audiences, including residents, visitors, and investors; these techniques make cities widely known and loved (Hospers, 2009). Grunig and Hunt (1984) regard public relations as “the management of communication between the organization and its public.” To be specific, it is the planning, execution and evaluation of the overall communication behaviors between an organization and both its internal and external public—the groups that affect the organization#39;s capability to achieve its goals. Public relations increase the exposure of an organization to target audiences through topics of public interest and news items endorsed by third parties (Seitel, 2007). Public relations are equally appealing to cities. City managers believe that public relations can create many opportunities for the international public to communicate, understand and eventually approach cities. Therefore, cities not only plan various events (like tourism festivals) on their own, but also embrace huge events of international significance.

A growing number of cities are realizing that hosting significant global events such as the Olympics and the World Expo, might raise city reputation and deepen or improve the international public#39;s impression of cities (Dayan amp; Katz, 1992; Giffani amp; Rivenburgh, 2000). As a result, the bids for hosting huge events also become part of the competition among cities. For instance, six cities, including Shanghai (China), Yeoso (South Korea), Mosco (Russia), Queretaro (Mexico), Wroclaw (Poland), and Buenos Aires (Argentina), made bids for the World Expo 2010 with great effort.

City administrators are always confident about the benefits that huge projects and events can bring, but the practice has been questioned by some scholars. Anholt (2008) asserts that for marketing a city, “actions speak louder than words. It is not enough for a place to say it#39;s remarkable—it has to BE remarkable.”

In this paper, we also explore whether big events like the World Expo can improve the image of host cities.

Dimensions of city image

It is not easy to depict a city#39;s image precisely. City image is complex in essence: it is built upon the core and crucial factors of human–city relations (Gray amp; Smeltzer, 1985). In addition, people#39;s perception of a city is a dynamic process. Currently, the division and measurement of the dimensions of city image have attracted the attention of many scholars (Anholt, 2006; Laaksonen, Laaksonen, amp; Halkoaho, 2006; Stachow amp; Hart, 2010). Anholt#39;s city brand hexagon (2006) suggests that cities and nations are different. Generalizations of national image are more difficult because nations have wider geographical spans and higher complexities. Cities, in contrast, are smaller and more specific, and are more easily recognized as single entities. When people think of cities, they can very easily relate to details and practical issues such as climate, pollution, transportation, cost of living, and cultural life. According to Anholt (2006), there are six dimensions of city image as follows.

The presence: a city#39;s international status and standing. This includes the fame and reputation of a city, and also whether it has made an important contribution to the world in culture, science, or way of governance during the past three decades.

The place: a city#39;s physical aspects (geography and environment). This includes how pleasant it is to conduct outdoor activities or to tour around the city, how beautiful it is, and what the climate is like.

The potential: a city

全文共24168字，剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

城市形象与公共关系

随着城市间激烈竞争的加剧，品牌已成为城市发展的重要战略。城市被广泛认为是产品，也就是说，它们可以被营销和推广到特定的目标群体(Braun, 2008; Kotler, Apslund, Rein, amp; Heider, 1999; Rainisto, 2003; Ward, 1998)。同时，形象被理解为连接消费者和品牌的桥梁 (De Chernatony, 1993)。Kotler, Haider, and Rein (1993) 给出了城市形象的经典定义：它是“人们对城市的信仰、思想和印象的总和”。城市形象是城市品牌塑造的基础，也是品牌的外在表现。良好的城市形象是城市的无形资产和固有的品牌竞争优势。

城市越来越多地利用公共关系和营销手段来树立形象，同时吸引目标受众的注意，包括居民、游客和投资者；这些技术使城市被广泛的了解和喜爱(Hospers, 2009)。 Grunig and Hunt (1984)认为公共关系是“组织与公众之间的沟通管理”。具体来说，它是一个组织和内部和外部公共组织之间的整体沟通行为的计划、执行和评估，这些组织影响组织实现其目标的能力。公共关系增加了一个组织的曝光率，通过公共利益和第三方支持的新闻项目来吸引受众(Seitel, 2007)。公共关系对城市同样具有吸引力。城市管理者认为，公共关系可以为国际社会创造许多机会，让他们交流、了解并最终接近城市。因此，城市不仅可以自己策划各种活动(比如旅游节庆)，而且还能迎接重大的国际事件。

越来越多的城市意识到举办奥运会和世博会等重大全球性事件，可能会提高城市声誉，加深或改善国际公众对城市的印象 (Dayan amp; Katz, 1992; Giffani amp; Rivenburgh, 2000)。因此，举办大型活动的竞标也成为城市间竞争的一部分。例如，包括上海(中国)、约索(韩国)、莫斯科(俄罗斯)、克雷塔罗(墨西哥)、弗罗茨瓦夫(波兰)和布宜诺斯艾利斯(阿根廷)在内的6个城市为2010年世博会做出了巨大的努力。

城市管理者总是对大型项目和活动带来的好处有信心，但这种做法受到了一些学者的质疑。Anholt (2008)断言，对一个城市的营销来说，“行动胜于语言”。这是不够的，一个地方说它是非凡的——它必须是非凡的。

在本文中，我们还探讨了世博会等大型活动能否改善主办城市的形象。

城市形象的维度

准确描绘一个城市的形象是不容易的。城市形象本质上是复杂的:它是建立在人与城市关系的核心和关键因素的基础上的(Gray amp; Smeltzer, 1985)。此外，人们对城市的感知是一个动态过程。目前，城市形象维度的划分与度量已经引起了许多学者的关注(Anholt, 2006; Laaksonen, Laaksonen, amp; Halkoaho, 2006; Stachow amp; Hart, 2010)。Anholt#39;s city brand hexagon (2006)的城市品牌六角形理论(2006)认为城市和国家是不同的。国家形象的概括更加困难，因为国家的地理跨度更大，复杂性也更高。相比之下，城市更小、更具体，更容易被视为单个实体。当人们想到城市时，他们很容易联想到细节和实际问题，如气候、污染、交通、生活成本和文化生活。根据Anholt (2006)，城市形象有以下六个维度。

存在：一个城市的国际地位和地位。这包括一个城市的名声和声誉，以及它是否在过去三十年中对世界的文化、科学或治理方式做出了重要贡献。

地点：城市的物理方面(地理和环境)。这包括进行户外活动或游览这座城市，它有多美丽，以及气候是怎样的。

潜力：为游客、企业和移民提供一个城市的经济和教育机会。这包括就业、商业投资和教育环境。

脉搏：一个城市的活力与活力。这包括城市多么令人兴奋，以及为游客和当地居民寻找娱乐是多么容易。

人民：一个城市的居民。这包括人们对外界的热情还是冷漠，他们的社区是否能容忍不同的语言和文化，以及这个城市是否让人们感到安全。

先决条件：城市的基本素质(基础设施)。这包括住在那里的感觉，找到令人满意和负担得起的住宿是多么容易，公共设施的一般标准——学校、医院、公共交通和体育设施等等。

通过大众传媒对城市形象的设定和构建。

根据Lynch(1960)的说法，城市形象是“观察者与环境之间双向过程的结果”。环境暗示了区别和关系，观察者选择、组织和赋予了他所看到的意义。其基本假设是，作为“环境建设者”，大众媒体在对城市形象的认知中扮演着重要的角色。,观众)。事实上，除了少数能直接看到和感受到城市的人之外，大多数国际公众都必须通过大众媒体来想象这个城市。因此，媒体的叙事在议程设定和公众对城市形象的认知上扮演着重要的角色。

议程设置理论,由麦克库姆和肖(1972)首次提出和测试,大众媒体可以通过选择重建的社会环境,优先,展示新闻报道创造某种气氛公众,从而间接地影响人们的认知和外部世界的概念。媒体改变了个人的议程，在一定程度上引导了观众对重要问题的看法。经过几十年的发展，议程设置理论已经从公共话题的媒体显著性扩大到其他类型的话题，如选举候选人、国际关系和组织(Kiousis amp; McCombs, 2004; McCombs amp; Reynolds, 2002)。关于议程建设的研究表明，公关活动对于塑造和改变媒体的议程是很重要的(Berger, 2001; Curtin, 1999; Turk, 1986)。新闻发布会、新闻发布、媒体谈话等典型活动，也会影响受众对特定议程重要性的认知，塑造媒体的内容。

框架也被称为二级议程设置(McCombs, Shaw, amp; Weaver, 1997)。Goffman (1974)将框架定义为一种“解释图式”，允许人们“定位、感知、识别和标记”事件和信息。Entman (1993)提供了一个更具体的定义,认为框架是“选择一个感知现实的某些方面,并使他们更突出的文字交流,以这样一种方式,促进一个特定问题的定义,因果解释,道德评价,项目描述和治疗建议。“框架”是记者们常用的一种编码、解释和检索信息的技术(Pan amp; Kosicki, 1993)。它使他们能够快速、常规地处理大量信息，并将信息传递给观众(Gitlin, 1980)。与议程设置理论相比较，框架理论进一步表明，新闻报道不仅影响人们对事件或事件重要性的认识，而且很大程度上影响公众对其的看法和态度(Cappella amp; Jamieson, 1996; Entman, 1993; Pan amp; Kosicki, 1993)。

Semetko和Valkenburg(2000)定义了政治新闻中常用的五个框架:冲突框架、经济后果框架、人类利益框架、道德框架和责任框架。这些框架也可以应用于其他领域(An amp; Gower, 2009; Zaharopoulos, 2007)。冲突框架最常用((Neuman, Just, amp; Crigler, 1992)；它强调个人、团体或组织之间的冲突，从而吸引观众的注意力。经济后果框架就其对个人、团体或组织的物质利益或成本产生了问题。人类的利益框架，也被称为人的影响框架，给事件、问题或问题的呈现带来了人或情感的角度，例如在危机报告中关注受害者。道德框架将事件、问题或问题置于宗教信条或道德标准的语境中。记者通常通过推断或引用他人的话来暗示对事件或个人的道德判断。责任框架将责任归咎于事件和问题的发生或解决，从而影响到观众对事件的原因和责任归属的判断(

原文和译文剩余内容已隐藏，您需要先支付 30元 才能查看原文和译文全部内容！立即支付

以上是毕业论文外文翻译，课题毕业论文、任务书、文献综述、开题报告、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。

您可能感兴趣的文章