Abstract

Through a case study it has been examined how the concept of collaborative

consumption can be applied to urban event development. This was done through

a comprehensive approach, examining a three-hinge perspective; counting the

actual event, its integrated stakeholders and the city at large.

The research found that, applying the concept of collaborative consumption to an

urban event offers the opportunity to foster collaborative lifestyles amongst

stakeholders and guests of that particular event. Sharing is a basic value, and this

value fosters a community feeling. In this sense, the concept can assist with a

mindset, stressing the importance and benefits of sharing less tangible assets,

such as time, space and skills in connection to a particular event.

The benefits for the event itself can vary, but the concept offers the opportunity

to provide the event with secondary attributes; events within the event.

Alongside the added value for the event, by getting these secondary attributes, it

also provides better guest experiences.

The benefits for the involved stakeholders are added value, new stakeholder

relationships and collaboration, and through these, new channels for

communications with potentially new segments. In general, it offers the

stakeholders an array of ways to increase business.

The benefits for the city at large are the opportunity to attract more visitors and

events, foster urban development and external branding. From a city

perspective, the mindset of collaborative consumption can foster increased

sharing of resources and skills, and a more collaborative-oriented community.

1

Table of Contents

Setting the stage................................................................................................................. 4A comprehensive approach for urban event development....................................................6

Methodology....................................................................................................................... 9The research design...............................................................................................................................10

Philosophy of science – ontology, epistemology and methodology.........................10Methods for empirical data collection and analysis.....................................................14

The case study..........................................................................................................................................15Participant observations.....................................................................................................................16Interviews..................................................................................................................................................18

The bigger picture – presenting the case and its context..................................20European Capital of Culture...............................................................................................................21Who is on board?....................................................................................................................................23An illustrated overview of the participating organizations in the test-project...........23

Theory................................................................................................................................ 25Collaborative Consumption - ‘What’s mine is yours’....................................................26

The concept and its theoretical meaning.....................................................................................27Linking collaborative consumption and events........................................................................30

Event Management................................................................................................................... 31Rural vs. urban – similarities and differences............................................................................33

Stakeholder Theory................................................................................................................. 35Stakeholder analysis.............................................................................................................................37Festival Stakeholders............................................................................................................................38Connecting event management to city branding......................................................................40

City branding.............................................................................................................................. 41Corporate branding for places..........................................................................................................42Urban planning – selling to external markeds...........................................................................44Collaboration efforts in branding....................................................................................................45Event as destination branding..........................................................................................................46

Analysis.............................................................................................................................. 47The Project.................................................................................................................................. 48

The Involvement.....................................................................................................................................48The process............................................................................................................................................... 53The Outcome.............................................................................................................................................58Evaluation..................................................................................................................................................64Sub-conclusion.........................................................................................................................................72

Event Management................................................................................................................... 74Sub-conclusion.........................................................................................................................................83

The Stakeholders...................................................................................................................... 84Sub-conclusion.........................................................................................................................................93

City Branding..............................................................................................................................94Sub-conclusion......................................................................................................................................102

2

Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 104

Appendix guide............................................................................................................. 107

Bibliography.................................................................................................................. 108

3

Setting the stage

New digital tendencies are changing the way we communicate, and collaborative

consumption patterns are changing how we consume. These new trends are

disrupting the regular tourism industry by offering alternative ways to tailor

tourism products through new marketplaces.

A new consumer trend of sharing is gaining ground under the concept of

collaborative consumption. According to Botsman and Rogers (2010) it occurs

when:

“… people participate in organized sharing, bartering, trading, renting, swapping,

and collectives to get the same pleasures of ownership with reduced personal cost

and burden, and lower environmental impact”(Botsman & Rogers, 2010).

The concept covers a variety of different things and services, which are available

through numerous social network sites (SNS), offering each of their share and

focus within the collaborative economy; from tools and toys to car rides and

accommodation (Caulfield, 2010). The strength of SNS is, that they offer its

members the opportunity to engage in bigger (often global) communities, by

connecting individuals who share common interests and ideals. One specific

important factor driving this boom is the increased use of the Internet on

smartphones, tablets and other mobile devices. The portability of these devices

offers more flexible opportunities to communicate and interact online, while

being on the go (Walker, 2012).

These new markets and SNS offer a range of new opportunities; not just for

people in general, but also for managers and suppliers, presupposed they can

adjust to this contemporary mindset and strategically connect the values of the

concept to their own business. How this might be done is the fundamental

interest of this thesis, and it will be examined by looking at the event industry. It

is a notion that events tend to create physical communities around a certain

theme, and in this sense the similarity to online communities, constituted by

collaborative consumption, is striking. This is one of the reasons to believe, that

4

there will be similarities, thus offering opportunities for practical utilization and

benefits when applying the concept to events.

Research Question

Based on the specific case of NorthSide Festival:

How can collaborative consumption be incorporated in the planning of an event in order to offer a contemporary approach to urban event development, for the benefit of event, stakeholders and the city at large?

Instead of simply taking a theoretical approach towards the topic of the study, a

collaboration agreement has been established with NorthSide, in order to be able

to follow a complementary, practical case. The festival is doing a test-project up

to this year’s festival, and the aim is to create a framework for event- and

experience development, which has social travel and collaborative consumption

as defining features. The test-project aims at providing insight in the effects of

digital platforms of collaborative consumption, as a complementary tool to the

festival, thus adding value for the NS-guests by strengthening the authenticity of

the experiences through integrating the entire value chain of the festival.

The concept of collaborative consumption has gained severe public attention and

utilization worldwide, which calls for further research. Scholarly focus has

mainly been on the demand side, for instance examining costumers’ motivational

factors for engaging in these communities (Guttentag, 2014), but an examination

of the potential benefits of the concept, from a supplier perspective, needs to be

acknowledged. Especially now, since the boosting trend of sharing really has

started to affect the tourism industry. Research has indicated that the tourists

using Airbnb1 is spending more money and staying at a given destination for a

longer period of time (Airbnb, 2010). With this in mind, it makes sense to try and

integrate the concept of collaborative consumption in strategic initiatives from a

destination perspective. It is assumable that if event developers manage to

connect the values of collaborative consumption to an event, particularly the

community-feeling, this will not only benefit the event and its guests, but also

1Airbnb is a peer-to-peer platform for short-term-rental service, and one of the many new businesses constituted by collaborative consumption.

5

involved stakeholders and the city at large; thus, simultaneously offering a

comprehensive place marketing strategy.

By offering a contemporary approach to urban event development this thesis covers

a gap in the existing literature. So far, theoretical emphasis in connection to event

management has primarily been focusing on event development in rural areas;

especially in connection to stakeholder approaches. Thus, there is a need for further

examination of related approaches in an urban context.

A comprehensive approach for urban event development

Thus, the aim of this thesis is to examine how the concept of collaborative

consumption can be applied to urban event development. This will be examined

through a comprehensive approach and the outcome of developing an event that

meet contemporary needs, are conclusively estimated through a three-hinge

perspective; counting the actual event, its integrated stakeholders and the city at

large. This perspective is fostered through a cohesive incorporation of the

surrounding practices connected to event development, illustrated by the

following model:

The model showcases the concept of collaborative consumption being applied to an urban event and its surroundings.

(Self-made Fig.)

6

The Host CityCollaborative consumptionUrban Event

In order to reach a comprehensive understanding of what constitutes contemporary

urban event development, it is essential to integrate surrounding practices of an

urban event. That is why the comprehensive approach has been chosen, examining

four vital and interrelated aspects of developing contemporary urban events.

Collaborative consumption is the overarching theme, making up the frame of the

approach. The main idea behind collaborative consumption is the sharing of

resources. This means that everyone can contribute with his or her available

resources to a community, within a given context or under a certain theme - at

Airbnb it is accommodation, at GoMore it is a ride, etc. For an event it is what makes

sense in that particular context, under the particular theme of that event.

In connection to the above model and the comprehensive approach:

A selected event makes up the theme, which the comprehensive approach has to

be applied to, but the frame is constituted by the concept of collaborative

consumption. Since the main idea is the development of events, the practice of

event management is unavoidable, as a tool to control the different processes

taking place around the event. Additionally, some kind of management is needed

in order to ‘control’ the communities that evolve from the concept of

collaborative consumption. In connection to an event, this happens through

event management, which is why this theoretical element is required. One of

the management tasks will be to attract relevant stakeholders to the particular

event taking place. Connecting the right stakeholders fosters value chain

development, and is a way to initiate or expand collaboration across a city, which

is why stakeholder theory also is integrated as theoretical aspect in the

comprehensive approach. Additionally, in order to gain the comprehensive view,

it is necessary to look at the applied concept from a bigger perspective. Cities

increasingly perceive branding as a powerful tool that helps to grow tourism and

trade, attract investment and strengthen their cultural and political presence

(Seisdedos, 2006).Lately, the strategic potential in hosting events has

increasingly been acknowledges, especially as a means to city branding. So, in

order to meet the three-hinged perspective of the approach, the theoretical

7

aspect of city branding is vital. Additionally, the NS-project is an effort in

connection to ‘Aarhus - European Cultural Capital 2017’; also another evident

reason to look at city branding, because of the obvious international showcase

and marketing potential in this event.

In total, these four theoretical contributions provide a comprehensive

framework for contemporary urban event development.

What is innovative about this study, in connection to the field of event

development, is the fact that it takes the contemporary tendency of collaborative

consumption into consideration, simultaneously as it offers a comprehensive

approach with a three-hinged perspective. The public attention and ongoing

utilization of the concept indicates the attractiveness of the phenomenon for the

broader parts of society. This cannot be ignored, which is why it provides the

fundamental groundwork of this thesis. The concept of collaborative

consumption and current, digital tendencies are fundamental elements, in order

to obtain the intended contemporary approach, since they represent general

contemporary tendencies in society. Therefore, their potential need to be

considered and tested as a means into bigger effort and strategies. This

consideration is now initiated, in this thesis, in connection to event development.

8

Methodology

The aim of this section is to give an account for the methodological

considerations done in this thesis. The methodological considerations and

choices are based on the objectives of the research, grounded in our problem

delimitation, and guided by the research question:

How can collaborative consumption be incorporated in the planning of an event in order to offer a contemporary approach to urban event development, for the benefit of event, stakeholders and the city at large?

As stressed, this will be examined through the case study of NorthSide’s test-

project, causing an explorative and qualitative research approach. This section

provides the necessary clarification of the philosophical, scientific, and practical

aspects of our methodological choices.

The research design

9

Philosophy of science – ontology, epistemology and methodology

A paradigm is a set of basic values, which has an impact on how reality is

perceived and how scientific research is carried out (Guba, 1990). Paradigms can

be characterized by the way their proponents answer to these 3 basic questions

(Guba, 1990, p. 18):

(1) What is the nature of ‘reality’? (Ontology)

(2) What is the nature of the relationship between the knower (researcher) and

the known (the research)? (Epistemology)

(3) How should the researcher go about finding out knowledge? (Methodology)

These questions are the starting points that determine what inquiry is, and how

it is practiced. Reality can be understood in different ways depending on the

person who experiences it (Guba, 1990), thus it is essential that researchers

know under which paradigm they operate, and stresses this explicitly in the

research in order to ensure that readers are aware of the researcher’s position.

This thesis is founded under the paradigm of constructivism, as we, as

researchers, agree on the fundamental beliefs within this paradigm:

“… the basis for discovering ‘how things really are’ and ‘really work’ is lost. ‘Reality’

exist only in the context of a mental framework (construct) for thinking about it”.

(Guba, 1990, p. 25)

According to Bryman (2001), this position implies that social phenomena are not

only produced through social interaction, but they are in a constant state of

revision (cited in Grix, 2002).

In order to reach the objectives of any given study, in this particular case the

development of a contemporary approach to urban event development, choices

need to be made. Even though some approaches are more appropriate than

others for carrying out a certain research, depending on the specific study, there

will in most cases be different suitable approaches to choose between. The

chosen methods will always depend on the topic of the project as well as upon

10

the researcher individual paradigm (Silverman, 2001). The detected problem in

this study is guided by the research question, which is explorative and

qualitative, which obviously affects the study approach.

Ontology is the starting point of all research, after which one’s epistemological

and methodological positions logically follow (Grix, 2002). As we agree to the

basic beliefs under the paradigm of constructivism, we take a subjective position,

which according to Guba (1990) can be characterized as a relativistic ontological

stance ( (Guba, 1990, p. 27). The topic of this thesis is to a large extent focusing

on the blooming social phenomenon of collaborative consumption, which makes

the subjective dimension striking. The topic requires a need for acknowledging

that social actors continually influence social phenomena and meaning of these,

which makes the observable reality subjective and socially constructed.

Epistemology is concerned upon gaining knowledge, and the process that leads

to this (Grix, 2002). As emphasized by Guba (1990), this comes to surface in the

relationship between the knower (researcher) and the knowable. Hence, the

subjective position we take is the epistemological stance of interpretivism; a

position grounded upon the view of a required strategy that acknowledges the

differences between people and the objects of the natural sciences, and therefore

requires the social scientist to grasp the subjective meaning of social action

(Bryman, 2001). The stance fosters the perspective that a given research is the

creation of the inquirers and its respondents, due to the human interaction that

is taking place (Guba, 1990; Grix, 2002). This means that subjects influence the

nature of social reality, and we, as researchers, also play an active role in this

thesis. This means that in order to examine ‘reality’ we must base our research

upon the subjects, who construct this reality. As researchers we make different

choices, for instance by selecting theories and collecting certain empirical data

made up by selected respondents. Even though we give reasons for our different

choices, they will inevitably impact the outcome of the study, for instance

through aspects such as our own background, past experiences and pre-

understanding about the topic being studied. In connection to this, we emphasize

11

that our contribution is an attempt to get closer to the truth; not the ultimate

truth, but the truth in a constructed context made up by these choices.

Presumptions are for instance of significant importance for the outcome, and

partly also the process of the study. Hence, it is necessary to make our

assumptions explicit to others, in order for them to take these into consideration

when reading the thesis. These presumptions were made explicit in the

introduction, but can be compressed to the following:

If event developers manage to connect the values of collaborative consumption

to an event, particularly the community-feeling, this will not only benefit the

event and its guests, but also involved stakeholders and the city at large; thus,

simultaneously offering a comprehensive place marketing strategy.

Thus, we examine the cultural and social phenomenon of collaborative

consumption as a potential strategic add-on to urban event development.

However, our approach to this phenomenon, through the case study of

NorthSide, means that we get a longitudinal study, leaving time for reflection,

and continuously new understandings and

interpretations. Thus, we continuously create

new understandings, as we continuously

revise interpretations during different stages

of examining the case; not at least because of

the practical experience this case provides us.

This also means that our research question is

repeatedly reconsidered during the study, in

order to ensure that the aim of the thesis is

always in focus. This interrelationship can be

understood as the interpretive nature of

hermeneutic endeavors, which is illustrated

in the spiral to the right:

12

The hermeneutical approach advocates that individual constructions are elicited

and refined hermeneutically and compared and contrasted dialectically (Guba,

1990, p. 27).The explorative study is followed by an interpretive approach

towards the topic being studied. We initiated this research with a pre-

understanding of the concept of collaborative consumption; what it was, how it

worked and with the impression that the concept could be a valuable future

asset in event development. This knowledge was then challenged by reading into

the concept of collaborative consumption in order to understand the function

and values making up this trend. New interpretations were created on the basis

of this, causing the need to revise understandings en route. New interpretations

have continuously caused new understandings throughout the case study, due to

the practical examination of the utilization of the concept; all the time guided by

the research question.

Methods for empirical data collection and analysis

According to Bryman (2012), methods are not neutral tools, but linked to the

ways in which social scientists see the connection between different viewpoints

about the nature of social reality and how this reality should be

examined(Bryman, 2012, s. 19). This means that the philosophical stances just

presented is a measure of the methods that can be used. Since we approve a

relativistic and constructed reality, it is necessary to choose methods that

nurture the subjective and socially constructed reality that is under examination.

Thus, we need to gain insight in the subjective minds and views of relevant

people for the test-project, to be able to generate sufficient knowledge about

their views on the case. In order to do so the empirical foundation of this thesis is

constituted by a combination of the qualitative methods of participatory

observations and semi-structured interviews. These methods will be supported by

data from different documents about the test-project and a test-concept, which is

going to be launched by the time of this year’s festival.

13

The approach to use just a single source of evidence is not recommended for

conducting case studies, and one of the strengths of case study data collection is

actually the opportunity to use several different sources of evidence (Yin, s. 97).

The use of multiple sources of evidence allows the researcher to address a

broader range of issues, and view a certain aspect from various perspectives,

thus increasing the validity of the conclusion. By integrating different methods in

this thesis, the concept of triangulation is taken into account. It is a technique

that facilitates validation of data through cross-verification by more than two

sources (Yin, 2003). The combination of both participant observations and

interviews with different stakeholders contribute with a twofold perspective.

This is useful in different ways, but especially since our observations provide a

noteworthy insight in the development and progress of the case study, which

will be supported by the interviews. Additionally, statistic data, papers and the

developed test-project will support these two methods. Hence, it is considered

that these methods in connection provide a sufficient and valid empirical

foundation for this thesis.

The case study

According to Yin (2003), case studies are the preferred strategy when how or

why questions are being asked and when focus is on a contemporary

phenomenon within a real-life context(Yin, 2003, s. 1). Additionally, Yin (2003)

emphasizes, that the method is especially suitable, when the boundaries between

a phenomenon and its context are not clearly evident(Yin, 2003, s. 13), and the

contextual conditions are highly pertinent for covering the phenomenon of the

study. On the contrary, other methods intentionally try and divide the

phenomenon from its context; experiments for instance. However, in connection

to the current topic of the study, the fusion of phenomenon and context is

important, thus making the case study of NS’s test-project compatible for

answering the research question of this thesis.

14

The case study as a research strategy comprises an all-encompassing method

that covers the logic of design, techniques for data collection, and specific

approaches to data analysis. Thus, it is neither a collection tactic or simply a

design feature alone, but rather a comprehensive research strategy (Yin, 2003, s.

14). This means, that when choosing the case study as research approach, a

comprehensive ‘guide’ is chosen, thus making certain methods expected.

According to Yin (2003), one should always aim at making multiple-case studies

(Yin, 2003), but the single-case study is highly justifiable under certain

conditions; for instance if we are dealing with a rare or unique circumstance, or

if the case is representative (Yin, 2003 s. 45). The NorthSide-project meets these

criteria, as the case study is one of the first of its kind, dealing with the blooming

concept of collaborative consumption. It has a prevailing public status at the

moment, making the contextual dimension important. Furthermore, since the

topic is rather new and unexamined, there is limited existing research and data

available, and the researchers did not succeed in finding equivalent inquiry,

while doing the literature review for this study.

However, according to Yin (2003), most researchers will want to compare their

findings with previous research. However, in order to do so, each case study and

unit of analysis should either be similar to those previously studied by others or

should innovate in clear, operationally defined ways (Yin, s. 26). Since no

practical examination of the strategic use of collaborative consumption yet has

been done from a supplier perspective, comparison is neither an option nor an

aim. On the contrary, the concrete testing of the potential within the concept of

collaborative consumption is a significant opportunity, in connection to an event

like NorthSide, which makes the test-project a relevant and evident case study. It

provides us with the opportunity of evaluating a unique and novel practical test

of the concept in use. This makes the current study a single-case study, as a

multi-case study is simply not possible. However, even if multiple cases would be

examined, it would not change the issue of generalizability (Yin, 2003).

Additionally, just because a certain example cannot be formally generalized, does

not mean that it cannot enter the knowledge accumulation within a specific field;

15

a purely descriptive phenomenological case study, that does not try to

generalize, can certainly be of great value and lead to scientific innovation

(Flyvbjerg , 2001, s. 76).

This is the intention with this study. Even though we conclusively come up with

some guidelines and ideas for applying the concept of collaborative consumption

to urban events, we do not try to generalize at a big scale. However, since the

thesis examines a brand new field – the feasibility of integrating the public, social

trend of collaborative consumption strategically in the development of an urban

event – the thesis will hopefully be a valuable future asset for event developers.

Participant observations

Participant observations are an integrated aspect of doing case studies, and often

the only option for following and being part of the process of a certain project

(Yin, 2003). However, there are a number of different ways to address these

observations, and a number of different approaches towards participation and

the role undertaken. According to Kristiansen & Krogstrup (1999), the more

structured a guide (observation or interview), and the less open the researcher is

to gain insight in elements outside of this guide, the narrower a perspective.

Equivalent, the more unstructured and explorative an approach, the broader

becomes the generated knowledge (Kristiansen & Krogstrup, 1999, s. 48). In

order not to miss out on relevant, but undetected elements in this current case

study, an unstructured and explorative approach was chosen with limited

prearranged foci. This opens up for the possibility of observing and detecting

more than originally expected. However, at the same time there is a risk that the

observations might end up being too unstructured, thus providing too wide a

perspective.

Our participatory observations launched at the 21th of April at a kick-off meeting,

and additionally counted two workshops; the first at the 29th of April and the

second at the 15th of May. The first of these workshops intended to focus on a

16

clarification of the concept for the project, whereas the aim of the second was to

for operators/stakeholders to develop concrete products within the frame of the

concept. A conceptual framework is to be developed on the basis of these

workshops, and this document function as a form of conclusion of the entire

project. Unfortunately, this document is not ready in time for integration as

empirical evidence in this project. However, as a preliminary concept (a

Pinterest map2) was tested during the festival in the middle of June this is

integrated instead. Yet, it is important to mention, that it is not the final concept

of the test-project, since this is still under development, meaning that it most

certainly will be different when revised later in the process. But since this

conflicts with the thesis deadline, the preliminary concept is an acceptable

alternative, as it functions as a form of preliminary conclusion to the workshops.

Our undertaken role as participants is equal to what Gold (1958) characterized

as the participant as observer (in Kristiansen & Krogstrup, 1999). The role

implies, that the researcher participates in the given activities simultaneously as

doing observations, which is often done by attaching oneself to certain people

within the field (key informants), in order to create invaluable connections

(Kristiansen & Krogstrup, 1999, s. 106). In the specific case, these key informants

have been Sofia (NS) and Ulla (ReThink), as they made the collaboration

possible, hence the field accessible. The chosen approach means that there is a

risk of becoming too interconnected to the case by being so closely connected to

the field, thus loosing a part of the scientific distance towards the topic being

studied (Yin, 2003). However, we are aware of this, and have tried to eliminate

this aspect.

Interviews

The research interview is based on daily life, and is constructed as a professional

conversation; it is an inter-view, where knowledge is constructed in the inter-

action between interviewer and interviewee (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009, s. 2). 2http://www.pinterest.com/NorthSidedk/experience-2014-oplev-aarhus-med-NorthSide/

17

The aim of the interviews in this research is to gain an insight in the different

perspectives about the project by the subjective integration of views from

stakeholders, partners and managers of the test-project. However, the influx of

stakeholders and operators during the project dictated a screening of the

potential interviewees, based on their role within the project, hence their

interpreted relevance as empirical sources. There were a lot of one-time-

attendants, and this made the selection a bit problematic, while some of these

one-time-attendants were perceived as being more relevant than others for our

specific approach. The final selection is mainly based on their perceived

intention of contributing with a product for the concept, or the ‘central’ role they

played in the project. Aarhus University was for instance not integrated, as they

mainly focused on carrying out some research activities. In total, NorthSide,

ReThink Kulturturisme, Seismonaut, Airbnb and Aarhus Municipality (the brand

board) were interviewed due to their organizational relevance for the project,

together with the following 4 operators; Den Gamle By, ARoS, Radisson and

SNAK. These will be elaborated further in a later section.

10 interviews were conducted in total - 8 interviews were done face-to-face and

2 via Skype due to logistic challenges. It is difficult to determine the exact

percentage of this, because of the outlined influx, but it must be characterized as

a representative extract, since only AU and food suppliers were left out of our

examination. Hence the explorative character of the research, the interviews

were semi-structured and open-ended since this endorses dynamic and

conversational interviews, open to new and unidentified topics and perspectives

(Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). A number of topics and questions were made

beforehand in order to ensure that the different topics of interest were all

covered, but still leaving space for flexibility. The perspective was similar for the

different operators, whereas the other interviews had similarities, but focusing

on the interviewees’ main competence, based on their role within the test-

project. The interview guide was based on the themes of the theoretical

framework for the research. Since all the interviewees were Danish, all

interviews were conducted in Danish, and all of them recorded. The interviews

18

provided more than 6 hours of raw data, which were processed into executive

summaries, and then organized individually by using color-coding (Bryman,

2012), then compiled and analyzed. The color-coding was guided by the four

main concepts of the theoretical framework - collaborative consumption, event

management, stakeholder theory and city branding.

The empirical data is presented simultaneously as analyzing it, since this is more

reader-friendly, as it lets us present the case in a narrative way. This means that

the first part of the analysis presents and processes the case study, the practical

test of integrating collaborative consumption to NS, and the additional parts of

the analysis dive into the three additionally selected theoretical aspects,

interrelated with collaborative consumption in an event context; event

management, stakeholder theory and city branding.

In connection this provides a holistic view of the case and the different aspects of

event development, thus providing the intended insight of a comprehensive

approach to contemporary urban event development. The raw data, color-coding

schemes, interview questions and the interview recordings can be found on the

attached CD-ROM.

19

The bigger picture – presenting the case and its context

In order to understand the context of the current case study it is necessary to

reveal the bigger picture of this effort. The NorthSide-project is a result of one of

many initiatives in connection to the preparation of Aarhus2017, since Aarhus

has been announced as European Capital of Culture (ECOC) in 2017. This

nomination has demanded a structural and practical plan in order to prepare the

city and its operators for all the different aspects that naturally follows with such

a nomination. Therefore, the ECOC-initiative is briefly presented below, and

gradually narrowed down to the NorthSide case study.

European Capital of Culture

The initiative of nominating cities as European Capitals of Culture was developed

in 1985 (EU, 2010). It is designed to highlight the richness and diversity of

cultures within Europe and celebrate the cultural features that Europeans share.

Furthermore, it fosters the contribution of culture to the development of cities

(EU, 2010). Experience has shown that the event is an excellent opportunity for

regenerating cities, raising the international profile, breathing new life into a

city’s culture and boosting tourism. At the same time it seems to enhance the

image of cities for its own inhabitants (EU, 2010).

In May 2013 Aarhus was officially announced to be one of two cities as European

Cultural Capital in 2017. The nomination always takes place 4 years in advance

in order for the host city to plan and prepare for such a complex event. This

nomination was among other aspects based on the final bid, a publication of 128

pages striving the potential within Aarhus from a cultural perspective (Aarhus

ECOC, 2012).

The theme for Aarhus2017 is ‘ReThink’, which has been chosen on basis of input

from more than eight thousand citizens. There lies a great international potential

in such a nomination, which has previously been exemplified by Copenhagen in

20

1997, but additionally by a number of other cities within the EU. However, the

nomination also offers a significant organizational challenge, which has been

attempted managed by the establishment of an Aarhus2017-organization, which

is working on creating and expanding networks in order to exploit the potential

of the city (Aarhus2017, 2013). The road towards the actual event in 2017 is an

ongoing process and several initiatives are already in the running in order to

prepare Aarhus for this upcoming ‘event’. Most of the activities in connection to

Aarhus2017 are planned and executed in close cooperation with local and

regional institutions, and the effort is publicly funded. The Danish Government

recently revealed that 145 million Danish kroners was funded to the project.

The Regional Tourism Department for Central Jutland, Midtjysk Turisme (MT),

has also invested resources in Aarhus2017, since the clear tourism potential in

the initiative. The sub-division ‘ReThink Kulturturisme’ has been created in

order to facilitate initiatives that foster collaboration between cultural

institutions and operators and the tourism industry. Especially in order to secure

that the tourism potential is exploited. One line of this effort is the establishment

of 10 test-projects, which practically test collaboration between these industries.

The criteria3 for being embedded in the test-projects are:

Være et samarbejde med deltagere fra både kultur- og turismesektoren

Have de strategiske intentioner4 i projekt RETHINK Kulturturisme for øje

Skal kunne testes på den korte tid, der er til rådighed.

Projektstart er januar 2014 og erfaringer/resultater fremlægges i oktober

Have et internationalt fokus - vi ønsker at tiltrække udenlandske kulturturister

Være i tråd med værdikædetankegang - det vil sige, at man indtænker partnere og

aspekter, der kan være med til at løfte gæstens samlede rejseoplevelse og opfattelse af

kvalitet i alle led - fra transport og infrastruktur, til modtagelse, produkter og services

samt salg og markedsføring.

Skal rumme overførbar læring. Det vil sige, at de erfaringer, samarbejdsmodeller eller

resultater, projekterne skaber, skal kunne overføres til andre aktører og projekter frem

mod 2017 og videre.

Være levedygtig i samme eller videreudviklet form, også efter projekt RETHINK

3http://www.kulturturisme.dk/testprojekter.aspx4http://www.kulturturisme.dk/om-projekt-ReThink-kulturturisme.aspx

21

Kulturturismes udløb i december 2014.

Skal have et perspektiv, der sigter på at skabe forøget forretning i forbindelse med 2017.

These 8 criteria have guided the selection of the 10 test projects, including the

NorthSide-project, since this is one of these test-projects. This means that a

certain context surrounds the project, which logically affects its process and the

outcome, since it pervades the general attitude towards the project – from the

perspectives of both NorthSide and ReThink.

Who is on board?

In order to understand who has been involved in the test-project, and

interviewed for this research, an overview of the stakeholders will be presented,

since this will help to understand their mutual relationship, at what time in the

process they have been involved, and the hierarchy within the test-project.

Below is a list of the involved stakeholders, in order to clarify their individual

role:

Ulla Hjorth Andersen, Consultant, ReThink

Sofia Rasmussen, Project manager, NorthSide (NS)

Lisa Ingemann Hansen, Senior consultant, Seismonaut

Peter Gran Boesen, Senior consultant, Seismonaut

Gejst/Studio, Communication agency, Responsible for communication plan

Anne-Sofie Kirkegaard, Communication responsible, AirBnB

Kitt Boding_jensen, Project Manager “Aarhus Rocks”, Den Gamle By (DGB)

Frederik Svinth, Caospilot, SNAK

Bettina Bach Nielsen, Head of marketing and club responsible, ARoS

Casper Bock, Director of sales, Radisson

Line Gerstrand Knive, Consultant, Brand Board, Aarhus Municipality (BB)

An illustrated overview of the participating organizations in the test-project

22

This organizational chart shows the hierarchical relation of the involved

stakeholders:

ReThink (MT) has provided the funding; hence they are listed at the top. NS has

been given the funding, which gives them a central role, managing the whole

process. Seismonaut and Gejst/Studio have been brought along as consultants,

based on procurements, which places them ’outside’ the hierarchy, just like

ReThink, since they have specific tasks to carry out. AU and Airbnb were

presented as partners from the beginning, whereas the rest of the stakeholders

have joined during the process, thus the division of these. This provides a brief

overview of the stakeholders and their roles, which should explain the

organization of the test-project.

The following timeline illustrates at what phase the involved stakeholders have

been integrated in the process, counting the timeframe from application up until

the last workshop:

23

- NorthSide - Den Gamle By - Seismonaut - Radisson

- ReThink - SNAK - ARoS

- Airbnb - Gejst/Studio

- AU

Theory

24

This section presents the theoretical framework for the thesis. Four theoretical

aspects of urban event development constitute the framework, thus in

connection providing the wanted comprehensive approach. The four theoretical

aspects are arranged and presented like it was explained in the introduction,

which creates a natural flow between the interrelated aspects, consequently

providing the 3-hinge perspective that is intended:

The model showcases the concept of collaborative consumption being applied to an urban event and its surroundings.

(Self-made Fig.)

The four theoretical aspects are presented and discussed in order to sharpen the

frame of the comprehensive approach, but also in order to acknowledge the

existing diversity in interpretations and approaches, towards these theoretical

fields, amongst researchers. Several of the integrated aspects are extensive fields

of research, which calls for clarification of their key concepts. The theoretical

contributions overlap, yet again indicating the interrelation between the chosen

theoretical aspects.

Collaborative Consumption - ‘What’s mine is yours’

25

The Host CityCollaborative consumptionUrban Event

Botsman & Rogers (2010) have written the book ‘What’s mine is yours’, about

the expanding consumer tendency of collaborative consumption; exemplified

through a combination of a broad range of both established and rising

businesses, all made up by business models operating within the concept of

collaborative consumption. The book provides a detailed contribution of this

rising new field, in order to outline the concept and assist in understanding these

new consumption patterns.

There has been an increased awareness of the negative societal and personal

consequences of overconsumption of material goods, especially in connection to

the recent global financial downturn. The increase in collaborative consumption

is in contrast to especially North American and Western European consumer

culture, indicating that consumer preferences are transforming; consumer

groups are starting to resist hyper-consumption practices, adopt anti-

consumption practices, and explore different options for downshifting their

lifestyles (Albinson & Perera, 2012).

This public awareness has fostered a renewed belief in the importance of

community, pressing environmental concerns and cost consciousness, moving

consumers away from top-heavy, centralized and controlled forms of

consumerism, towards one of sharing, aggregation, openness and cooperation (p.

20). Consumers no longer want the goods, but rather the needs and experiences

it fulfills, making access preferred over ownership (p. 97). This fundamental shift

in consumer motivations also bring along positive side effects of ‘greener’

lifestyle and environmental friendliness, which are common in regards to most

collaborative consumption markets (p. 98).

Botsman & Rogers believe, that consumers will once look back and recognize

that collaborative consumption started online, by posting comments and sharing

files, codes, photos, videos and knowledge (Intro - p. XX). However, this is the

view on current collaborative consumption, since sharing and redistribution

systems are arguably a trend, which dates back earlier than the digital age.

26

In relation to this thesis, the relevance of collaborative consumption lies in the

theoretical aspects of the concept, which is why these are now presented.

The concept and its theoretical meaning

Botsman & Rogers (2010) categorize collaborative consumption into three

different systems, reinventing not just what we consume, but how we consume

(Intro, p. 26). The first category includes product service systems (PSS) where

consumers pay a fee for sharing a given resource. The main idea is, that you pay

for the benefit of a product without owning it. This maximizes its utility, which

simultaneously have clear environmental advantages. The second category

includes redistribution markets, which encourages reusing, and reselling old

items rather than throwing these away. The third category is collaborative

lifestyles, where consumers with similar interests team up, in order to share

and exchange less tangible assets such as time, space, skills and money. In this

thesis, it is the assumption that it is the last category that can be of value in

connection to urban event development.

Even though the concept is used equally in all of the systems, there is an array of

different examples of the utilization of collaborative consumption. However, the

systems are in some way similar, since they all share four critical underlying

principals: critical mass, idling capacity, belief in the commons and trust

between strangers.

The first principle, critical mass, is a sociological term used to describe the

existence of enough momentum in a system to make it become self-sustaining (p.

75). Critical mass is vital to collaborative consumption in order for it to compete

with conventional markets – if a clothing swap for instance is being visited by

just a couple of people, then their different sizes and tastes will most likely result

in dissatisfied visitors. As the number of people, and the items they bring

increases the likelihood of people to walk away dissatisfied decreases (p. 77).

There is no universal formula to determine the right point of critical mass for

27

different types of collaborative consumption markets; it depends on the context,

the needs being met, and user expectations (p. 79). Yet, the main principle is the

same; the system will be successful if users are satisfied by the choice and the

convenience that is available for them. Another reason why critical mass is vital

to collaborative consumption is, that a core group of loyal and frequent users will

be attracted, providing ‘social proof’ that others should try the same (p. 81).

Often most forms of collaborative consumption simply require people to do

something a little different and change old habits – to convince people to do so,

they often need to see others experiences in order to make the necessary switch

(p. 82).

The second principle, idling capacity, refers to the unused potential of items and

goods, when they are not in use. Ownership of goods you just use for a couple of

minutes makes no rational sense. In both the United Kingdom and America 80

percent of the items people own are used less than once a month (p. 83). The

main focus of collaborative consumption is to take this idling capacity and

distribute it elsewhere. The peer-to-peer renting makes it possible for

individuals to take this capacity and make money on items that previously just

sat idle (p. 106). Supposedly, in an event context, there are a number of

operators across a city, that have some kind of idling capacity, they preferably

can use in connection to this event – but more importantly at events in general.

The third principle, belief in the commons, is a term applied to resources that

belong to all of us. Some of the work done by Nobel Price Winner Elinor Ostrom

indicates that people can self-organize to take care of resources they care about

(p. 90). This notion explains the strong community feeling the collaborative

consumption markets bring along –virtual or physical communities. People

recognize that by providing value to a community, one enables one’s own social

value to expand in return. People need to ‘give to get’ within these communities.

The more users who participate in communities like Airbnb, bike sharing or

other communities, the better the system works for everyone – creating the

‘network effect’ (p.91).

28

The fourth and final principle is trust between strangers. This is fundamental

to peer-to-peer platforms in order to make the systems work. Trust is vital in

order to enable transparent communities to form and expand. In collaborative

consumption middlemen are eliminated; forcing people to trust each other and

behave in ordinance with the rules of that particular market, since doubt and

skepticism destroy the market. Free riders and abusers are easily weeded out in

these communities, just as openness, trust and reciprocity are encouraged and

awarded (p. 93). This aspect is also in line with the main idea of these systems to

be self-sustainable.

There are clear indications that as people try out collaborative consumption, get

familiar with it and make it a habit of everyday-life other behaviors gradually

start to change too (p. 75). This once again proves the power of the concept and

explains why the concept and its utilization have expanded the way it has.

However, even though the concept seems applicable, it might be a bit more

complex. The case study will prove to what extent the concept can be applied to

the event industry.

Linking collaborative consumption and events

From the tourism industry’s perspective, events are highly valued as attractions,

catalysts, animators, place marketers and image-makers (Getz D. , 2008). The

fact that the concept of event tourism is becoming increasingly more familiar in

scholars, as well as practice, proves that the field is a strong strategic resource in

connection to current and future tourism development. Events connect people,

and a temporary community is established when an event takes place, by

gathering people who share values or similar interest; this by creating a short-

term connection between a number of people, while the event is running.

Perhaps longer if the event, or the event-brand, has the strength to maintain

their guests for an extended period of time, even after the actual execution of the

event. In that way events can be linked to collaborative consumption, since new

29

communities emerge while an event takes place.

Examples show that collaborative consumption is the primary reason for so-

called sharing events; a form of flea market, but with free stuff. Albinsson &

Perera (2012) found a consumer-driven desire to enact social change, while

fostering personal and community wellbeing through participation in alternative

marketplaces, through such sharing events. The value has thus expanded to

include not just the goods and services, but also the interactions between

individuals, who participate in the giving and receiving within this context.

Simultaneously, organizers and participants are making a significant effort in

order to create the community feeling, by reaching out to new participants, in

order to foster a welcoming atmosphere, educate on the norms of the context

and raising consumer awareness of contemporary issues (Albinson & Perera,

2012).

The current status of collaborative consumption, the added value and the

community feeling that lies within this concept, has the potential of benefitting

events. If event managers can tap into the values of the concept, and in some way

adapt these to their event, it is assumable that benefits lie within the concept.

Event Management

30

Since the urban event is the center of our comprehensive approach, the

management of such an event is a necessary aspect, thus now presented.

Event management is the applied field of study and area of professional practice

devoted to the design, production and management of planned events (Getz D. ,

2008). In order to understand this practice, it is necessary to determine, what

constitutes a planned event. Getz (2007) defines an event as:

“An occurrence at a given place; a special set of circumstances; a noteworthy

occurrence” (Getz D. , 2007, s. 17).

An event is determined by a certain place and a certain time, but the definition

embraces a wide range of opportunities for perception. However, a common

feature is the fact that they can only happen once. Planned events are spatial–

temporal phenomenon, and each is unique because of interactions among the

setting, people, and management systems, including design elements and a

unique program (Getz D. , 2008).

Events are a broad term and these days anevent has become a buzzword,

basically referring to everything that happens or take place; also occurrences

with minimal organizational demand. Thus, it is blurry what the term exactly

entails. Donald Getz (2008) is one of the researchers, who has dedicated most of

his work examining this particular field. He has developed a typology of planned

events on the basis of the purpose of the event, which shows the diversity of the

term:

Cultural celebrations – festivals, carnivals, religious events

Political and State – summits, royal occasions, political events, VIP-visits

Arts and Entertainment – concerts, award ceremonies

Business and Trade– meetings, conventions, consumer and trade shows, fairs

Educational and Scientific – conferences, seminars, clinics

Sport Competition– amateur/professional, spectator/participant

Recreational – sport or games for fun

Private Events – weddings, parties, socials

Besides the multiple types of events, they also vary in size; the terminology

31

counts mega, special, social, major, hallmark, community events etc. (Bowdin,

2006). An event is often composed of several different, but yet related functions.

From tourism perspective, an event is of short duration and has an extraordinary

impact on the host area in terms of; tourism volume, visitor expenditures and

publicity, that may lead to heightened awareness and a more positive image of

the city (Getz D. , 2007). Whether a region will gain economically from an event

depends largely on whether local producers are able to meet the extra demand

that is directly and indirectly generated by the event (Brännäs & Nordström,

2002).

The uniqueness is a basic characteristic of events and it is necessary to

participate in the event in order to achieve the full experience. The event might

be continual, assuming for instance it is an annual happening, but it will never be

exactly similar; if you miss the opportunity to participate, it is forever lost. Thus

events are transient and fleeting in character. This also means, that in order to

fully understand how things happen at a given event, it is necessary to engage in

the planning and execution of that particular event (Damm, 2011). However, in

connection to our case study, focus is on the surrounding practices of NS in the

test-project, which is why the concrete execution of the festival will not be part

of our observations. The concept of the festival is already well established,

meaning that the main opportunity for development does not lie in the actual

execution of the event.

Earlier, events were often run by individuals and community volunteers, but are

now a realm for professionals and entrepreneurs (Getz, 2008). This needs to be

understood from the premise that events are now too important to be left in the

hands of unprofessional, as an event is satisfying numerous strategic goals. It is

simply too big a risk to count on coincident to satisfy these strategic goals. Thus,

events are a vehicle for bringing together a range of stakeholders, such as

performers, visitors, inhabitants, volunteers, entrepreneurs and the public sector

(Johansson & Kociatkiewicz , 2011). Six major stakeholders are commonly

identified in connection to event planning: owners, employees, suppliers, the

community, customers, and the public sector (Mossberg & Getz, 2006). It is

32

essential to clarify the stakeholders of any event; this in order to properly

manage the event processes connected to these various stakeholders.

Rural vs. urban – similarities and differences

However, this shift in direction of professionalism needs to be viewed in

connection to bigger events. The majority of existing literature within the field of

event management is done on the basis of rural areas, where events counts as

catalysts for rural development, in particular social and recreational

opportunities for residents (Reid, 2011). This is one of the drawbacks of the

literature – proving the novel status of this field of research. However, there are

similar elements in the literature, which can be drawn upon. Another

noteworthy aspect of this field is the fact that event management is not well

defined in connection to achieving a comprehensive operational guide. The

literature highlights a range of differing opinions and the absence of agreed

definition, since the majority of research has focused on the description of

specific events and explaining observations done at that particular place (Damm,

2011, s. 2). This places demands in connection to a determination of the

similarities and differences between rural/urban event management.

In a research about event stakeholder management in rural Australia, Reid

(2011) emphasized the vitality in identifying the impacted or affected

stakeholders of an events success in order to provide a tool for managers to

assess stakeholders’ needs and wants. Managerially, identifying stakeholders

who are impacted or can affect an events success will enable organizers to

monitor these relationships. Reid concluded the vitality of rural event managers

to be:

“… aware and monitor relationships to ensure stakeholder satisfaction with the organization. Rural

event organizations are constrained by community size and availability of individuals wanting to

engage in community activities. A decrease in stakeholder participation within rural areas affects

the sustainability of such events, further limiting social and recreational opportunities in these

communities.”(Reid, 2011, s. 33).

33

Maintaining existing stakeholder satisfaction is integral to sustainable event

organization practice in rural areas, which is different from urban events. This

once again places importance on handling the various stakeholders in order to

secure satisfaction. Even though commercial events might not be in need of local

resources in the same way, in order for the survival of the event, local

satisfaction and community pride is still desirable and unavoidable.

Stakeholder Theory

In this section stakeholder theory is presented, since stakeholders are important

to consider in connection to developing a sustainable and successful event.This

34

theoretical aspect will assess in gaining a deeper understanding of this

heterogeneous ‘segment’, and provide knowledge about, whom stakeholders are,

why they are especially valuable for events, and approaches to identify and

nurture these.

The tourism sector is one of the most important revenue generating sectors,

since it as an important job generator and a catalyst for development in general.

However, the tourism sector it highly fragmented and diverse in its structure,

which requires coordinated actions in order to create successful initiatives and

efforts (Yilmaz, 2009). This strikes the need for collaborative initiatives, which

stakeholder approaches can provide. Classically, a stakeholder is defined as:

“Any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the

organization’s objectives.” (Freeman, 1984)

Thus, stakeholder approaches are concerned about groups and individuals who

can effect an organization, as well as managerial behavior taken, as a response to

these (Freeman, 1984).Frooman (1999) distinguishes between three streams of

strategic stakeholder theory:

1. A stream devoted to identifying stakeholder attributes (Who are they?)

2. A stream focused on stakeholder ends (What do they want?)

3. A stream directed towards stakeholder influence strategies (How do they

try to get it?) (Frooman, 1999).

The stakeholder group of any organization represents a wide and diverse range

of interests, given that each stakeholder has its own unique set of expectations,

needs, and values. Freeman’s definition is considered as being one of the

broadest in the literature, because anyone can virtually be characterized as

stakeholder (Mitchell, 1997). In contrast, Clarkson (1994) offers one of the

narrower definitions of stakeholders; as voluntary and involuntary risk-bearers:

“Voluntary stakeholders bear some form of risk as a result of having invested some

form of capital, human or financial, something of value, in a firm. Involuntary

stakeholders are placed at risk as a result of a firm’s activities. But without the

35

element of risk there is no stake.” (in Mitchell, 1997)

Mitchell et al. (1997) identify power, legitimacy, and urgency as the three key

stakeholder attributes. The salience of a particular stakeholder to an

organization’s management, dependent on how many of these three attributes

are present (Mitchell, 1997). There are multiple other definitions of the concept,

but the integrated definitions capture the essence of the term.

What characterizes the narrower views on stakeholders are the practical reality

of limited resources; limited time and attention, and limited patience of

managers, for dealing with external constraints. In general, narrow views of

stakeholders attempt to define relevant groups in terms of their direct relevance

to core economic interests (Mitchell, 1997). In contrast, broader views are based

on the empirical reality that companies can both be affected, and affect, almost

anyone. In general, broad views on stakeholders attempt to define relevant

groups of stakeholders as contractors or participants in exchange relationships

(Mitchell, 1997).

Stakeholder analysis

Stakeholder analysis is a means of identifying aspects of organizational decision-

making by recognizing, classifying, and managing different stakeholder interests

(Yilmaz, 2009). Although it is often difficult and time-consuming to involve a

range of stakeholders in the planning process, this involvement may have

significant benefits in regards to sustainability (Yilmaz, 2009). Thus, it should

always be an objective to involve a range of stakeholders, but in reality this is a

little more complex.

According to Timothy (1998), the participation of many stakeholders can

increase efficiency, equity and harmony (in Warner, 1997). Thus, a broad

stakeholder involvement has the potential to create a greater degree of harmony

amongst the involved stakeholders and create shared ownership. This, once

36

again, stresses the benefits of spending resources on nurturing stakeholder

relations. Furthermore, in an event context, this can be very beneficial from a city

perspective, since a higher degree of harmony across the city, might have the

effect of fostering ongoing collaboration, maybe even through new initiatives and

events. Stakeholders are vital for an organization, but so is the process of

identifying the right ones, in order to ensure that goals, values and

responsibilities are understood and synced (Goodpaster, 1993). There is a need

to acknowledge, that the relative power of an actor in a network depends on the

degree of authority and how much resources the actor possesses; this is for

instance money, time, know-how, contacts, reputation, and trust (Hellgren &

Stjernberg, 1995).

Festival Stakeholders

In order to make stakeholder theory more concrete in connection to the case

study and to be able to analyze the structure and relationship between the

involved stakeholders in the test-project, this last part of the sections moves into

the specific context of events.

As festivals mature, they begin to behave more and more like institutions, which

might often lead to becoming a permanent, legitimate, and valued part of society

(Suchman, 1995). According to Suchman (1995), institutional status should

ensure sustained support and resources, which might also be expressed in terms

of branding, since the organization will possess a highly visible, positive brand,

which reflects confidence. In order to try and become institutional, the event

organization must be great at developing a supportive network and managing its

many stakeholder relationships. This can be achieved by using different

strategies to gain, maintain, and repair the legitimacy of the festival from a

multiple-stakeholder perspective (Suchman, 1995).

An institutionalized festival is a festival that is taken for granted - maybe even

highly connected to a city or town. However, a downside is that

37

institutionalization might lead to stagnation, since it seems harder to innovate

and renew in institutionalized settings (Lundin, 1998). However, this is an issue

that needs to be taken into account – in the specific case of NS, the continuous

interaction with their target group through social media, is a way to avoid this.

Successful festival management does not only serve the interests of the

organizers themselves, but all actors involved in the festival, since it creates

added value for the business sector in the city and the festival visitors

(Andersson & Getz, 2008). The organization of festivals is often executed by a

coalition of stakeholders, involving public, private, and voluntary organizations.

The experiences of the festival visitors are without a doubt what make a festival

a success, and it gives a potential for long-term survival (Andersson & Getz,

2008). Therefore, skillful festival management is valuable for many stakeholders.

But it is also vital that stakeholders that invest in the festival view the festival

positively.

According to Gummesson (1996), interaction between actors is characterized by

both competition and collaboration (Gummesson, 1996). However, actors

complement each other, and by collaborating they can link complementary

products and services to add further commercial value; they constitute a value-

adding net (Cunningham & Culligan, 1990). If a festival can manage to offer a

broad supply of activities and opportunities, it is expected to attract more

visitors, and visitors from additional segments. The interaction with other actors

means, that expectations and interests may change or be redefined as

collaboration proceeds (Wood & Gray, 1991). However, some actors may operate

independently, thus executing their ideas co-existing with other actors, rather

than collaborating and interacting with them (Wood & Gray, 1991). Yet, a

collaborative effort will undoubtedly provide a more professional and better

outcome at the end. Furthermore, by collaborating it is possible to create ideas

and reflect together, which is central in connection to events, since innovative

initiatives might emerge.

Larson (2002) identifies specific festival stakeholders, and determine that

38

identity building is a strategy used by festival organizations, when selecting

partners and managing relationships (Larson, 2002). According to him, several

stakeholder management strategies are suitable for use in connection to

festivals, such as: internalizing powerful regulators, for instance by getting local

authority councilors onto the board of directors, getting suppliers to become

sponsors, thereby making them partners, developing longer-term sponsorships

and closely working with independent organizations, who become co-producers.

(Andersson & Getz, 2008)

Connecting event management to city branding

Getz (2007) suggests that an event’s brand equity encompasses both goodwill

and tangible returns, with the likeliness of becoming a tradition or achieving

institutional status in the community (Getz, Andersson, & Larson, 2007). In

general, the purpose of creating a brand identity is to make the target group

associate the brand with something that is attractive and relevant for them.

In connection to this private and public partnerships are considered to be a new

source of finance in connection to events. According to Pugh and Wood (2004)

there has been a change in the private sector’s position, moving from event

provider to event facilitator. Organizers have to interact with local businesses

and the general public in order to plan the event - a process that raises

awareness of community resources and deficiencies. This produces social links

between previously unrelated groups and individuals, which identifies

possibilities for the development of the community’s resources, thus also

encouraging a stronger interaction between existing community organizations

(Pugh & Wood, 2004).

New networks may boost diversification of existing weak ties with people who

are not yet involved and they may simultaneously generate novel connections,

which can create innovative festival programs (McCarthy et al., 2007). There is

also the potential of these new developed social networks to be maintained after

39

the actual event, thus encouraging long-term business and collaboration

opportunities.

The need to stimulate inward investment and consumption in an increasingly

symbolic global economy means that city image enhancement is usually one of

the key objectives of event strategies (Smith, 2005). This is not the case in

connection to NorthSide, since it is a commercial event. However, even though it

might not be a key objective, surely it is a secondary objective. Both in order to

engage the community, but at the same time in order to gain as much

economically outcome as possible; not just for NorthSide, but the community in

Aarhus in general.

City branding

Nowadays, tourists can choose to go wherever they want, making each country,

region and city a potential travel destination. All places are competitors in the

hunt for tourists, and even destinations within the same nation are competing

40

(Seisdedos, 2006). This means that something extraordinary has to be done in

order to attract people to an exact destination. Therefore, city marketing and city

brands are an important feature, hence on the agendas of most city councils.

At the simplest level, city branding is an effort to communicate more effectively

in a large and crowded market about the city’s key attributes and the offers it

provides. The goal is to make a city’s potential, and advantages as a destination,

well known and easily recognized (Clark, 2011). At a deeper level, city branding

is also a creative activity, designed not just to provide information to market a

place, but also as a means to seduce and persuade through differentiation and

distinctiveness (Clark, 2011).

Historically, little research has been conducted on place branding, but lately

there has been an increased amount of interest in the topic. However, a common

perception is that building and sustaining a place brand, is in many ways

demanding, and significantly different from controlling a traditional brand.

According to Morgan et al. (2002):

“Places are too complex to include in branding discussions since they have too

many stakeholders and too little management control; they have undeveloped

identities and are not perceived as brands by the general public.” (in Moilanen &

Rainisto, 2009)

According to Therkelsen and Halkier (2011), it is useful to combine a corporate

branding process with a public policy approach inspired by institutionalism and

network theory. This will contribute to identifying and understanding interest,

influences and different degrees of ownership towards the brand (Therkelsen &

Halkier, 2011). However, the focus in this section will mainly be on branding

processes, since institutionalism and network theory were briefly integrated in

the stakeholder theory. The different parts will be connected in the analysis.

However, stakeholder perspectives are to some extent also included in this

section in order to understand the possible tension between branding the city

internally; to its inhabitants, business communities and institutions, versus

41

externally; to foreign investors, employees and tourists (Therkelsen, Halkier, &

Jensen, 2010).

Corporate branding for places

Marketing has been applied to cities since at least the nineteenth century, but

expansive marketing methods and tools have started to appear in city marketing

over the last two decades (Seisdedos, 2006). This growingcompetition has

produced a market of cities, meaning that cities are now to a great extent

considered in the same way as a business organization (Seisdedos, 2006). Cities

increasingly perceive branding as a powerful tool that helps to increase tourism

and trade, attract investment and strengthen the cultural and political presence

(Seisdedos, 2006). However, city marketing is rather a process than a product,

and therefore, it can be difficult to apply branding models and traditional

branding procedures, since these do not really apply to complex, multi-

dimensional entities such as countries and cities (Moilanen and Rainisto, 2009).

However, places have to be able to develop self-promotion in order to

differentiate itself from its competitors, and if a brand is strategically

implemented, it can become the most central competitive factor. According to

Moilanen and Rainisto (2009), a place can be branded when the right tool, the

identity, has been chosen (Moilanen & Rainisto, 2009).

Often, the 'product' of cities does not differ very greatly, and city marketing

strategy has to close the gap between sameness and difference. According to

Pereira et al., (2012), a strong destination brand can have a positive differential

marketing effect, and moreover, a destination brand can assist visitors in

consolidating and reinforcing their perceptions of the destination after a visit.

(Pereira, Correia, & Schutz, 2012).

A means of attracting external markets, is identifying what a place consists of.

According to Kotler (1994), this can be done with a place audit, a systematic

examination of a place's economy, design, physical assets, quality of life, and

42

people (Kotler, 1994). This analysis enables a place to be more realistic about its

prospects in terms of what the “buyers” are seeking, and thereby places must

identify which “products” they have to offer. These can include multiple different

things, but a place's most important product, is its citizens (Kotler, 1994). Places

ultimately thrive or diminish on the basis of what they do to create skilled,

motivated, and satisfied citizens. According to Kotler (1994), places that do

nothing else but nurture an educated and trained labor force generally have far

greater competitive advantages than places that neglect its citizens (Kotler,

1994).

Urban planning – selling to external markeds

Since the mid-1990s, the attraction of capital, investments and tourists has been

on the agenda, mostly as an issue of enhancing urban competitiveness in the

context of globalization (Therkelsen, Halkier, & Jensen, 2010). According to

Bradley and Hall (2006):

"Urban promotion involves the selling of a location not only for businesses but also

as a place to live ... these images of lifestyle tend to be predominantly anchored

around two things, culture and environment"(Bradley, 2006).

However, place branding literature is to a high degree characterized by a

business approach that focuses on selling the place to external markets rather

than building a community among internal stakeholders (Therkelsen, Halkier, &

Jensen, 2010). Therefore, a limitation of place branding is focusing on local

residents, established companies and organizations, and thereby it becomes

difficult to (re)building a sense of belonging among existing place consumers and

contributors (Therkelsen, Halkier, & Jensen, 2010). The basic principle of

corporate place branding approach is that external and internal audiences are

mutually supporting target groups in that place branding initiatives. This can

potentially provide locals with a sense of pride and belonging, which can be

strengthened further, when there is an external demand for one´s place

43

(Therkelsen, Halkier, & Jensen, 2010). However, if local citizens are being an

integral part of the place product, they will most likely be satisfied and function

as ambassadors to external target groups and thereby contribute to a

differentiated profile (Therkelsen, Halkier, & Jensen, 2010).

Collaboration efforts in branding

City brands should function like any other brands: communicate to stakeholders

in ways that form value, build affiliation and establish loyalty. An effective city

brand should both attract new investors and retain investment during

downturns (Clark, 2011). City brands should reflect the personality, reputation,

and identity of the city, as well as the city’s management style and approach to

long-term relationship building (Clark, 2011).

The process of branding can be seen as a collective effort involving different

stakeholders. In order to achieve a positive outcome of destination branding,

unity, collaboration and synergetic interaction among stakeholders is essential

(Pereira, Correia, & Schutz, 2012).

As seen in stakeholder theory, a broad inclusion of stakeholders is the ideal

process. It is complex, difficult and time consuming, but it seems to ensure a

broad foundation of the place brand in the long run. However, according to

Therkelsen and Halkier (2011), in contrary, it is more likely that deviations will

occur, such as limited involvement of local stakeholders. However, they also

state that if internal stakeholders are included as stakeholder, there is a

possibility that they may not represent the same preferences as the external

target group (Therkelsen & Halkier, 2011).

As mentioned, the creation of an effective city brand is a complex process and

simply developing a brand does not necessarily guarantee success. According to

Clark (2011), even the strongest brands can fail with poor management, but

when nurtured correctly, brands can and should evolve over time (Clark, 2011).

44

Therefore, the initiator also plays an important role in branding initiatives as in

stakeholder theory. However, these are often public organization, which

formulates a need for a branding strategy with the challenges of the place in

mind. (Therkelsen & Halkier, 2011). Diekmann & Cloquet (2012) state, that city

branding organizations very often have small budgets at their disposal, have

limited staff and exert little control over their organizational partners and the

complete marketing mix (Diekmann & Cloquet, 2012). Additionally, several

factors can make city branding a complicated task, such as overlapping

administrative competences, political agendas or a high number of stakeholders

(Diekmann & Cloquet, 2012).Pereira et al. (2012) suggests, there is a need of

close collaboration between stakeholders, as it can be considered very important

(Pereira, Correia, & Schutz, 2012).

According to Therkelsen and Halkier (2008), comprehensive umbrella place

branding is meant to cover the interests of a place across a wide range of

stakeholders and social activities. However, the branding initiator will frame the

branding initiative in a particular context. In this process public and private

actors may pursue their own interests, rather than the “public good” of a

common brand (Therkelsen & Halkier, 2008).

Event as destination branding

To use events strategically, when building a brand, is a relatively new strategy

among destinations (Getz D. , Event Management and Event Tourism, 2005).

Events are part of a destination and should as such be included in the

destination’s marketing campaign and a destination’s branding strategy (Jago,

Chalip, Brown, Mules & Ali, 2003 in Trošt, 2012). The advantages of an event is

that it possibly can provide a city international publicity and can thereby help

creating increased awareness, enhance and/or change the image of the

destination (Roche, 1993). Events with well-established brands can furthermore

be used to enhance the brand identity of the destination. This may be referred to

45

as co-branding, which Chalip & Costa (2005) describe as the practice of pairing

the event’s brand with the brand of the destination (Trošt, 2012). Thus, the

desire is that characteristics of the event’s brand will compliment the

destination’s brand, and vice i (Xing & Chalip, 2006 in Trošt, 2012). However,

since the tourism destination is marketed under one brand while being

constituted by a set of multifaceted experiences and attractions, it can be a

challenge for events planners and managers to consistently modify and adjust in

accordance with each other (Marzano & Scott , 2006 in Trošt, 2012). It is

important to note that brands are no longer built by communications, but rather

by the actual services and expectations that city brands provide (Clark, 2011).In

order to achieve successful city branding, an honest product, which is accepted

and shared by people, has to be developed through integration of all relevant

stakeholders (Schwedler).

The return of investment in a brand may be difficult to measure, as it is gradual

over time and dispersed throughout a market. Furthermore, such an investment

has a very high initial cost. However, the cost of ineffective or no branding may

create higher costs in the long run if cities, districts or projects do not invest and

thereby become unknown (Clark, 2011).

Analysis

Four sections construct the analysis, each focusing on one of the four aspects

making up the framework of this thesis. The first part, ‘The Project’, is intended

to present the entire test-project in a chronological manner, through the

following division: ‘The Involvement’, ‘The Process’, ‘The Outcome’ and

‘Evaluation’.Dividing the section into these phases means that the reader is

46

guided through the test-project in a chronological manner, providing a natural

insight in the project. Hence, a narrative presentation and processing of the test-

project is provided in the light of applying the concept of collaborative

consumption to the specific urban event, NorthSide.

The two following sections, ’The Management’ and ’The Stakeholders’, present

each of their specific theoretical aspect within event development; respectively,

event management and stakeholder theory. The construction of these two

sections is not done by time, through phases, but rather through thematic within

the particular theoretical aspect. However, they still include elements from all

the different phases of the process of the test-project.

The last section, ‘The City’, focuses on the theoretical aspect of city branding,

which is also processed through thematic. This section raises the perspective and

views at the test-project in the light of Aarhus2017. Thus, not following the

process of the project, but rather the potential of ongoing initiatives up to 2017.

These sections will in connection provide the intended 3-hinge perspective of

applying the concept of collaborative consumption to urban event development.

The Project

The test-project is guided by the concept of collaborative consumption, which is

the reason why this particular section kicks off the analysis. The section provides

the big picture, since it unfolds all the different aspects of the project. The

concept of collaborative consumption has constituted the test-project, thus it

needs to be viewed in this light. The narrative insight in the project, and the

processing of this, will provide the practical proof of applying the concept to an

urban event.

The Involvement

47

This phase presents the start-up of the project, from applying to become test-

project, to its kick-off and the initiation of getting operators involved in the

project.

NS’s application to become test-project presents the original plan for the project:

(Screen-print of the original application from NS)

The project description indicates in short, what NS would like to achieve with the

test-project. NS states great intentions, but at the same time there are no

promises for concrete results or a specific outcome, except of the ambition of

creating a framework. This is a rather broad and unspecified objective, making

the potential success of the project reachable. At the same time, NS mentions a

list of contemporary trends, which by nature makes the project relevantly up-to-

date. Furthermore, using the word explore (udforsker) in the headline, indicates

an explorative approach towards the project. This approach has been evident

throughout the process of the project, since the status as test-project creates a

certain atmosphere, which surrounds the project. This has created an innovative

and experimental attitude, which has also been a required criterion (ReThink). A

testing attitude comes to surface through interviewees, proving that the

experimental discourse has been passed on to the ones involved in the project.

According to Sofia (NS), NorthSide’s motive for applying to become test-project

was due to the lack of collaboration between operators in Aarhus. One of the

aims of the project is to create more visibility about what cooperation can bring,

and the benefits of stakeholders working together:

”Vi kunne godt tænke os, at man gjorde meget mere. I stedet for at se hinanden som konkurrenter,

så se hinanden som nogen der kan bidrage med noget merværdi til hinandens produkter.

Ligegyldigt hvad det egentligt er, man laver.” (Sofia, NS)

48

According to Cunningham & Culligan (1990), actors can complement each other,

and by collaborating they can link complementary products and services to add

further commercial value. With this in mind, it can be assumed that most

operators want to involve themselves in such a project, since it has the potential

of adding value to their own business, thus also positively influencing their

guests’ experiences.

According to Peter (Seismonaut), collaborative consumption possesses a mindset

and a certain way of thinking. In the test-project it is present as an underlying

theme, but there has been no demand for the stakeholders to develop products

that meet the pure form of collaborative consumption in its conceptual meaning:

“For mig er overskriften rigtig fed, for det er noget, man kan referere til. Det er et mindset - en måde

at tænke på. Man kan dele sine ressourcer og skabe en stemning eller atmosfære ved at gøre dette”.

(Peter, Seismonaut)

The atmosphere that Peter refers to is the community feeling that the sharing of

resources creates (Botsman & Rogers, 2010), which is one of the reasons why the

concept of collaborative consumption, and its many different markets, has

become so popular. However, during the workshops, an indication of a lack of

understanding about the exact meaning of the concept, as well as the specific aim

of the project, was observed (Observations, ws2). Seismonaut presented the

concept of collaborative consumption through different examples, in order to

make the concept more tangible. In this sense, Seismonaut was making a

significant effort to create the community feeling in the test-project, around the

concept of collaborate consumption, by reaching out to new participants, in order

to foster a welcoming atmosphere, educate stakeholders on the values within the

concept (Albinson & Perera, 2012). However, even though it was stated that the

mindset and values within the concept - sharing resources and creating

community feeling (Botsman & Rogers, 2010) - was of great importance, and a

means for strategic use, some still stated uncertainty towards the practical

linkage between the presented examples and their specific business. This

indicates, a potential challenge about the concept. Even though there are a lot of

different examples to find inspiration in, where the utilization of the concept

49

seems simple, it is harder to incorporate in reality.

The aim of the test-project was to try and initiate this community-feeling amongst

operators and actors in Aarhus in order to offer a greater collective effort

providing better experiences for guest and tourist in the city - Belief in the

commons, by providing value to a community, one enables one’s own social value

to expand in return (Botsman & Rogers, 2010). In order to initiate collaboration

among stakeholders in the city, NS invited different operators into the project.

Some of these were integrated from the beginning, whereas others joined in later

in the process (Timeline).

Airbnb is listed as partner in the application, but have turned out to be a so-

called ‘unofficial partner’:

”Når man får penge gennem EU-fonde er der enormt meget papir arbejde, og det gav ikke så meget

mening for os at være en del af det. Men vi ville jo stadig gerne lave noget med NS, da vi godt kan

lide NS, så det var den løsning som passede bedst.” (Anne-Sofie, Airbnb)

They cooperated with NS last year and this was a great commercial success. The

focus of last year’s cooperation was to recruit more Airbnb-hosts. According to

Anne-Sofie (Airbnb) events are a good catalyst for this, since they create a sense

of urgency. Their motivation to participate this year is partly due to their

common ground with NS, and partly because of the visions of the project. This

common ground counts a green profile, similar segment and common awareness

towards contemporary trends, such as for instance collaborative consumption.

ARoS was not surprised that to be invited, as they are used to cooperate with

organizations around the city. However, according to Bettina (ARoS), it is the

first time they cooperate with a festival, and they were surprised to see that they

share interest group with NS, in connection to their youth club, ‘ARoS27’. This

was one of the reasons for ARoS to join the project, since this specific segment is

rather difficult to approach. Furthermore, NS’s guests requested the cooperation.

DGB joined the project because of their current exhibition ”Aarhus rocks”, as Kitt

(DGB) believes this exhibition could be of interest for the specific segment of NS.

She views the cooperation as a marketing opportunity, so their motivation for

50

joining the project is basically to attract a new audience and market that DGB has

more to offer than the obvious.

According to Casper (Radisson), Radisson is primarily concerned with

supporting new initiatives and innovative cooperation across Aarhus. The

cooperation with NS goes back prior the festival, where Radisson was business

partner with Scandinavian Booking, which is responsible for booking music. The

engagement for participating lies in their current position as being responsible

for housing musicians and bands during the festival. However, Casper (Radisson)

mentions a general interest in engaging and being visible, when new initiatives

are created in the city.

SNAK is the only minor stakeholder that has been integrated in this case study.

They have been the only ones proactive in order get in contact and to cooperate

with NS. According to Frederik (SNAK), this is based on the size of the

organization. SNAK initiated the contact in the late fall of 2013 in order to get

permission to get a stand at the festival. SNAK was given a stand in order to give

NS a more in-depth social dimension, and because of this, they were also invited

to the workshops.

Wrapping up

In order to meet the intention of creating a collaborative test-project, the

integration of stakeholders is unavoidable, in order to try and initiate

collaboration amongst operators and actors in Aarhus. Reaching out to new

participants, in order to foster a welcoming atmosphere, educate stakeholders

and create community feeling, does this (Botsman & Rogers, 2010). The motives

and intentions within the test-project are rather broad and foster a learning

approach through innovative ideas and experience. This needs to be stated to the

different stakeholders as well in order to ensure that the outcome matches the

intentions. The mindset change is needed to create the wanted collaboration and

cooperation between stakeholders across Aarhus, which the concept requires.

51

This foster the idea of sharing and that stakeholders across Aarhus, have go give

to the community, in order to get something in return (Botsman & Rogers, 2010).

The stakeholders have joined in for different reasons and in different ways. Most

were invited, but one has been pro-active in initiating contact. Some were

previous partners, whereas others were new. This indicates a mixed approach

towards stakeholder involvement, but this is elaborated in the section, ‘The

Stakeholders’.

The process

In this phase the process of the project is the main focus. The process counts the

timespan running from kick-off meeting, through workshops and up until the

launching of the preliminary concept in the week up to the festival. Therefore,

focus is on the facilitation of these workshops and the stakeholders’ views own

involvement and how this process has been handled:

EU funds the test-project, and the way the funding is structured in this project

means that there is no money for management and branding, but the funding

needs to be used to buy solutions. This is for instance done through the hiring of

consultants to guide the process of the project. This is the reason why

Seismonaut facilitated the workshops and is responsible for developing the

concept, just as Gejst/Studio is responsible for communicating the outcome.

Thus, what the test-projects need to bring in order to get the funding is their own

time and energy.

In the NS-project time is limited. This provides limitations in connection to

planning, development, meetings and execution of the test-project, due to the

deadline of the festival, already in the middle of June. This has compressed the

process of the test-project, which has required a determined use of resources

from all the involved parties:

”Det komprimerede forløb har trukket på alle vores ressourcer. Dem som har haft tid, er blevet

inddraget i arbejdet. Men for mig er den korte proces også en drivkraft – 2 mdr. intensivt frem for et

52

år, hvor der arbejdes on/off. Men det ændrer ikke ved, at skulle det være optimalt, så burde der være

et års tid, hvis den digitale platform skal udvikles mm.”

(Peter, Seismonaut)

In the test-project, it has not been a demand to create a strictly conceptual

product within collaborative consumption. The status as test-project makes it

possible to examine, test and try out things, and it creates a circumstance where

there is room for risks that logically are left out of ordinary projects. Lisa

(Seismonaut) emphasizes the project as an experiment, meaning that things do

not have to be a hundred percent consistent. This attitude towards the test-

project shapes the frame around the facilitation, and forms its process, which also

affects the outcome. In order to determine the effect of these circumstances,

stakeholders’ views on this operational process is needed.

Bettina (ARoS) appreciates the know-how that was given about NS and the

networking that took place at the workshop, and she has been in contact with

some of the participants afterwards. She liked the workshop in its basic form, but

instead of brainstorming individually, the workshop could preferably have

focused more on presentations and networking:

”… jeg er personligt ikke god til at blive faciliteret. Jeg er ikke sikker på, om de kan gøre det

anderledes, men jeg ville egentlig lige så gerne have haft, at workshoppen var gået med information

og netværk. Så kunne vi gå hjem og arbejde videre med vores produkter og tænke det ned i detaljen.

Det var fedt at sidde ved bordene, og have en dialog omkring ideerne - det er der ideer skabes.”

(Bettina, ARoS)

This was also noticed during our observations, as the number of actors to

develop a product was limited, compared to the actual number of attendants

(Observations, ws2). The request for individual brainstorming was not an

adequate method, in order to make full use the available resources at the

workshop. Many attendees just sad idle, while the product brainstorming was

done individually.

53

Casper (Radisson) always finds it pleasant to meet colleagues from around the

city and thinks it is nice to try and collect the forces. He is interested in what is

being done other places in connection to contemporary trends. Casper

(Radisson) states that he did not get anything out of the workshop directly, but

stresses the importance of gathering people, and he will gladly participate

another time.

As mentioned, Airbnb is an unofficial partner and has been corresponding with

Sofia (NS) since last years’ cooperation. In this test-project, Airbnb has been

involved from the beginning, yet only present at the last workshop. The contact

person from Airbnb listed on the application is different from the one attending

the workshop, also different from the interviewee; meaning that three different

employees have been involved in the test-project. When asked, Christina

(Airbnb-employee attending ws2) was pretty unfamiliar with the exact role of

Airbnb in this test-project, and she explained, she had just recently been

connected to the project (Observations, ws2). Based on her presentation at the

second workshop, it became evident that there was no plan yet for Airbnb’s

contribution to the test-project, and Christina simply came with a suggestion

about what could be done. There had been a plan for cooperation at the time of

applying. Yet, Sofia (NS) admits, that the original idea slid a bit. The original

intention was to focus on collaborative consumption and social travel in direct

extension with NS’s value of sustainability. However, due to limited resources in

the connection to AirbnB, since both organizations are very busy, the plan

changed:

”Det vi ville have lavet med dem var meget omfattende, kan jeg godt se nu og det er

tidskrævende.” (Sofia, NS)

Even though Airbnb was listed as primary partner in the test-project, no firm

agreement was made, since it was not carried out in its original form. According

to Wood & Gray (1991) expectations and interests may change or be redefined as

collaboration proceeds. This seems to be the case in the cooperation between

Airbnb and NS. Nevertheless, Sofia (NS) still believes that the outcome fits the

original intention, since the preliminary concept also strengthens the guest’s

54

experience; the outcome was simply just more traditional than she had hoped

for.

Frederik (SNAK) was only present at the last workshop. However, their

organization was represented at both workshops by one of his project managers.

He was proud to be invited and found the workshop beneficial:

“Bare de par timer jeg var dernede har givet meget godt afkast. Jeg har mødtes med Bettina (ARoS)

og vi kører nu. De har nogle medlemsskaber, hvor du må tage en ven med. Jeg har fået 30

årsmedlemskaber til ARoS vi kan bruge. Så der er allerede etableret netværk!”

(Frederik, SNAK)

Collaboration makes it possible to create ideas and reflect together, and through

this, innovative initiatives might emerge (Wood & Gray, 1991). ARoS and SNAK

met at the workshop, and created a new initiative through common interests in a

shared youth segment. This is an example of collaborative lifestyles, where

consumers with similar interests team up, in order to share and exchange less

tangible assets such as time, space, skills and money (Botsman & Rogers, 2010).

Thus, the test-project created a platform for cooperation, which might not have

happened elsewhere.

DGB (Kitt) was the only operator present at all meetings. This means that Kitt is

the most competent to comment and reflect upon the entire process.

“Første workshop gav rigtig meget og Seismonaut kørte det fint med idegenereringen for at udvikle

konceptet. Jeg synes, at der kom rigtig mange ideer ud af den første workshop. Den var vigtig for at

få lavet en ramme og et grundlag! Anden workshop var dog lidt ligegyldig. Det var mange

gentagelser fra første workshop for at få alle aktører med - og så var der ingen aktører vi kunne gå i

samarbejde med. Det var tæt på spild af tid.”

(Kitt, DGB)

This quotation indicates the existence of a potential problem in this stakeholder

approach, as the exclusion of stakeholders in the early stages of a process, might

lead to the risk that the ‘process’ has to start all over again (Finn, 1996). In this

case the late inclusion of many of the stakeholders resulted in loops of repetition

throughout the workshops (Observations, ws1 + ws2). However, besides a

55

couple of identical questions, and confusion about the exact aim of the project,

there were no particular strong issues in connection to this. But it is evident,

since the majority of operators at the second workshop were new; as the number

of stakeholders integrated late in the process was strong, this was necessary.

However, it becomes a noteworthy issue, when one of the few ‘old’ stakeholders

(DGB) calls the second workshop almost waste of time.

Kitt (DGB) states, that she had considered bringing colleagues to the second

workshop:

“Jeg var glad for at jeg ikke tog kollegaer med, for det ville de ikke have fået noget ud af. Men de ville

heller ikke deltage, når der ikke var en dagsorden, hvilken først blev sendt om morgenen. Og det kan

godt ske, at de (NS) er pressede, men vi skal ikke have en dagsorden samme morgen.”

(Kitt, DGB)

However, if Kitt (DGB) had brought along her colleagues, as she considered, they

would probably not have noticed the loop, but since Kitt (DGB) already

possessed most of this knowledge, it would have been a waste of internal

resources. One might argue that the lack of agendas at the first and second

workshop is owed to the time pressure, but in our opinion that is just owed to

sloppiness.

Kitt’s statements illustrate an important notion in regards to this type of

management approach. There are clear advantages in integrating stakeholders

throughout the process, but it also has the risk of negatively affecting the early

stakeholders, and their commitment and enthusiasm towards the project (Finn,

1996). In the test-project this was only stressed by Kitt (DGB), making the issue

less evident, but in other projects where the majority of stakeholders are

integrated from the beginning, this approach is not compatible.

Wrapping up

The funding provided the test-project with professional solutions to carry out

the process. One line of this was the facilitation of the two workshops, which

56

Seismonaut handled. The compressed timespan of the project was reflected in

the way these workshops were arranged and carried out. A few stakeholders

mention trifles in connection to the form of the workshops and the process of the

project, but the majority emphasizes that it was interesting workshops,

providing usable knowledge and great opportunities for networking. Some

stakeholders have already established the basis for future cooperation.

In the test-project, the integration of stakeholders at different stages in the

process was necessary in order to meet the timespan. However, at the same time

it indicates a potential risk in event development in general.

The Outcome

In this phase the outcome of the process is in focus, meaning that the preliminary

concept and its products is presented and analyzed. Furthermore, the execution

plan for marketing both concept and products is the communication plan

developed by Gejst/Studio, hence this is also presented and discussed. Since the

preliminary concept functions as a preliminary conclusion to the project, this

wraps up our examination of the process.

As presented in the previous section, it was the main idea for stakeholders to

develop a product within the concept. This provided the stakeholders with the

opportunity to collaborate, share resources and develop products, adding value

to the festival and its guests.

ARoS’s product is a ‘2for1 entrance deal’ in all of June for people wearing a NS

bracelet, and in the weekend of the festival, it is possible to buy a picnic-bag to

reduced price. According to Bettina (ARoS), their product is not very innovative

and has not called for large protractions, since it is something they do already.

She is not expecting many NS- guests at ARoS during the festival weekend, which

is their reason for extending the period by creating repercussions after the

festival, where the festival bracelet still provides the NS-guest with benefits.

Furthermore, Bettina (ARoS) reveals that there are plans for further cooperation

57

with NS and SNAK in the upcoming fall, where she would like to develop an after-

NS-lounge, exclusively for NS guests. Here music from the festival will be played,

and the NS-guests will be asked to help ARoS connect the music with art in order

to recreate the NS-atmosphere. New developed social networks have the

potential to be maintained after the actual event, thus encouraging long-term

business (McCarthy, 2007).

Bettina would like to go deeper into the cooperation, as she finds it beneficial for

all parties (SNAK, ARoS, NS). According to Wood & Gray (1991) a collaborative

effort will undoubtedly provide a more professional and better outcome at the

end.

DGB’s product is free entrance for NS-guests during the festival weekend.

Furthermore, they offer a lunch-bag with homegrown and homemade food from

DGB, but with a twist, since they believe this will be of interest for the NS-

segment due to their ecological attitude and green profile. Additionally, DGB

hasbeen given a stand at ‘Caminoen’5, where they will display elements from

their exhibition ‘Aarhus Rocks’.

Neither Radisson nor SNAK have developed specific products for the concept.

According to Frederik (SNAK), he does not feel obliged to deliver a conceptual

product, since SNAK has developed a lot of different initiatives to display at their

stand at NS.

AirBnB has experience with developing host-recommended city maps at some

destinations, which were briefly presented by Christina (Airbnb) at the second

workshop (Observations, ws2). According to Anne-Sofie (Airbnb), there was still

a lack of clarity about Airbnb’s exact product by the time of interviewing.

However, she believed they would create a digital map presenting local tips,

which would be selected in association with their local Airbnb-hosts in Aarhus.

Furthermore, because of NS’s huge network Anne-Sofie (Airbnb) emphasized the

5 Caminoen is a path, which is passed on the way to the festival. Each year it gets decorated and exhibited with different cultural features.

58

great potential in creating a joint map. This idea ended up becoming the

preliminary concept.

The concept is a Pinterest6-map highlighting locations and experiences in

Aarhus. Pinterest is a social media platform giving users the opportunity to pin

out own recommendations and suggestions from friends and other users. The

concept is called ‘Experience 2014’7 with the reference #exNS14.

(Screen-print of the front page of ‘Experience 2014’ on www.pinterest.com)

The map gathers and presents the products of the stakeholders, but additionally

also the recommendations from both Airbnb-hosts and NS-guests. These

recommendations were conducted like Anne-Sofie (Airbnb) suggested, as NS

asked their guests for suggestions through social media platforms:

(Screen-print of NS-post from Facebook)

This Pinterest-map pins out 60 locations/experiences, which are a mix of

recommendations by Airbnb-hosts or NS-guests, and the

6 www.pinterest.com7 http://www.pinterest.com/NorthSidedk/experience-2014-oplev-aarhus-med-NorthSide/

59

stakeholder products. Some of the stakeholders have also been recommended,

meaning that that particular operator is pinned twice. All 60 suggestions have

been given the following sticker, indicating that they belong to the concept

‘Experience 2014’:

(Sticker from the communication manuals by Gejst/Studio)

However, whether 60 locations/experiences is

adequate, is hard to determine, since the right point

of reaching critical mass depends on the context, the

needs being met, and user expectations (Botsman &

Rogers, 2010).

Furthermore, what differentiates the stakeholders’

pins from the rest is an extra sticker indicating the

developed product they offer in connection with the

festival: (Screen-print of sticker from pin at pinterest.com)

However, all 60 suggestions have been juxtaposed, meaning that the

stakeholders have not been highlighted from the rest of the pins. Therefore,

besides of this additional sticker, it is not immediately visible to spot the

difference between stakeholders and those, who has simply been recommended.

The fairness in this can be questioned, since the stakeholders have spent both

time and resources on participating in the process, without getting more space

assigned. This notion is emphasized by Casper (Radisson):

”Aarhus er en sværere størrelse end andre byer, og mange kan sætte sig tilbage og skumme fløden –

det kan butikkerne også. Mange nyder godt af NorthSide uden at være en del af fællesskabet.”

(Casper, Radisson)

This is a general notion, as it will never be possible to integrate everybody in a

development process. A broad inclusion of stakeholders is complex, difficult and

time consuming, but it seems to ensure a broad foundation of the place brand in

the long run (Therkelsen & Halkier, 2011). Additionally, the approach of inviting

relevant operators and expanding stakeholders across the city strengthen the

60

general unity. In the test-project the limited time has limited the broader

inclusion, since the involvement has been more coincidental. Though, mixing up

stakeholders from different branches and businesses is a great way to foster a

collaborative business atmosphere in the city. Stakeholders need to keep in mind

that collaboration is established and new partnerships are created, which most

likely will turn out to be beneficial later on. Therefore, the time and resources

spent is still a great investment, even though the Pinterest-map might be

perceived as somewhat disappointing in regards to their developed products

from an immediate point of view.

The self-sustainability in collaborative communities ensures that free riders, ‘the

ones who skim the cream’, are easily weeded out in these communities (Botsman

& Rogers, 2010). However, from a city perspective, it is to a large extent possible

to be a free rider, since tourists and guest unarguably will generate income for

the majority. However, free riders will loose the opportunity to engage in the

digital platforms constituting the virtual communities, if these are carried out.

The Pinterest-map was just ready a couple of days before the actual festival. In

order to spread the word about the concept, communication manuals were

developed by Gejst/Studio for both NS and its stakeholders. According to

Gejst/Studio, NS would use their communication channels to promote the

hashtag #exNS14 before, during and after the festival and they encourage the

stakeholders to do the same. Since surveys made by NS have shown that their

guests primarily use the festival’s social media and digital channels to get

information, this is the reason why it is necessary to distribute the concept and

its products through NS’s channels.

The manuals are guidelines, providing both graphics and very straightforward

ideas for postings on social media channels, making the communication easy

applicable and coherent amongst stakeholders:

Torsdag d. 12/6: Opret post på egen Facebook-side og evt. website.Teksten gør opmærksom på, at I bidrager med produkter til Experience, og posteringen kunne lyde:

“I forbindelse med NorthSide tilbyder vi X. Læs mere om vores tilbud her eller gå på opdagelse i endnu flere NS-oplevelser i Aarhus på NorthSide.dk/experience. Her kan du også se, hvordan du kan

61

vinde billet til NorthSide 2015! #EXNS14”

Husk at inkludere link til beskrivelsen af dit tilbud i din statusopdatering.

Eksempler på brug af grafik til denne post:

(Example from Gejst/Studio’s communication manual for stakeholders)

Even though the manuals were easy applicable, the fact that they were not ready

until just before the festival, was a challenge, according to Lisa (Seismonaut),

especially for the stakeholders, as it provided limited possibilities for carrying

out the intended plan. The practical performance of these manuals is discussed

under ‘Evaluation’.

According to Sofia (NS), the Pinterest-map was chosen as preliminary concept

because it is easy to share, and the digitalized version is in coherence with NS’s

sustainability vision. The map can continuously be used as a guide to some of the

cool places in Aarhus, and it is also possible to develop further. Sofia (NS)

believes this is an exciting use of media, but stresses that the management of the

platform is a bit complicated, which beneficially could be structured more.

Lisa (Seismonaut) elaborates the thoughts behind the concept and the

development of the Pinterest-map:

”Vi lavede Pinterest-kortet for at få mere tyngde og volumen, og for at have et konkret produkt til

festivalen. Airbnb sendte en mail ud til deres værter for at få anbefalinger, og det samme gjorde NS

over deres sociale medier. Dermed fik vi skræddersyet en cityguide af målgruppen selv.”

(Lisa, Seismonaut)

The concept was a result of the low-hanging fruits due to the limited timespan.

However, the time was also a factor in connection to the execution of this

concept, especially communicating this message.

62

Wrapping Up

The preliminary concept turned out to be a Pinterest-map highlighting products

of the stakeholders of the project, but simultaneously also places and

experiences in Aarhus recommended by Airbnb-hosts and NS-guests. This was

done in order to create a concrete product for the festival, thus adding value to

the festival and its guests.

The actual development of this map has been done in less than a month. Despite

this, the strategy surrounding the test-project seems thoroughly prepared, as it

has been the plan from the beginning to develop a communication manual as

well as a digital identity. However, the elements constituting these strategic

features were not ready for incorporation before late in the process.

Evaluation

In this phase, test-project, process and outcome is evaluated and analyzed. Since

no formal evaluation has been done yet, a digital measurement of the effect of

the concept and an examination of the communication of the outcome that has

been done on stakeholders’ social media platforms will be conducted, in order to

wrap up the whole project. However, since Radisson has contributed with no

product, they will not be part of the evaluation.

Since Sofia (NS) has not evaluated with the stakeholders after the festival, there

is no follow-up on the products and how these were used by the NS-guests

during the weekend of the festival. However, the stakeholders were asked to

comment on being a part of the project, which in connection to an examination of

statistics and communication will provide a comprehensive evaluation.

According to Bettina (ARoS) the specific cooperation with NS opens doors to new

channels in order to reach the NS-target group, which matches one of their own,

63

‘ARoS27’. An examination of their communication channels shows that two posts

have been made about their product for the test-project:

(Screen-print from ARoS’s Facebook-page) (Screen-print from ARoS’s webpage)

The post on Facebook meets the inspirational before-post from Gejst/Studio

from the communication manual for stakeholders. Additionally, ARoS has added

a somewhat similar post on their website. However, these are the only two posts,

64

which ARoS has made. This is not in accordance with the suggested manual of

communication.

When looking into DGB’s communication channels, the only post about the

project was through the Facebook-page ‘Aarhus-rockens historie’, which is a

subpage focusing on their current exhibition ‘Aarhus Rocks’. The post links to

DGB’s blog on their website.

(Screen-print, ‘Aarhus-rockens historie’ on Facebook)

(Screen-print from DGB’s website)

This was posted the day before the communication manual was released.

Therefore, it logically does not follow the guidelines within the manual, and

neither makes use of the suggested stickers making up the graphical identity of

the project. However, this does not eliminate the opportunity for them to follow

the inspirational during- and after-posts from the manual, but this has not been

done. The fact that DGB is proactive in their communication indicates

involvement and enthusiasm towards communicating the message about their

product and the collaboration with NS. But the late release of the manual

disturbs the idea about making a coherent effort in regards to communication

and graphical identity. This is a shame, since resources has been spent on this

effort.

65

Airbnb played a big part in connection to the Pinterest-map, due to prior

experience and their hosts’ recommendations. They have posted the following on

their Facebook-page:

(Screen-prints from Airbnb’s Facebook-page)

Besides linking to the Pinterest-map at the

10th and 11th of June Airbnb is not following

the communication manual. In this sense it is

similar to the case of DGB, since awareness of

the project was created prior to the release of

this manual, therefore not in coherence with

the guidelines within the manual.

Since SNAK has a slightly different role than

the other stakeholders, due to their stand at

the festival, they are not directly included in

the communication manual. However, at

SNAK’s Facebook-page they have posted the

following after the festival:

(Print-screen from SNAK’s Facebook-page)

The post stresses the publicity that SNAK was

given based on the involvement and presence at NS14, which is accompanied

with pictures showing the atmosphere at their stand. The publicity that SNAK

received indicates the effect of physical presence.

66

Gejst/Studio developed an individual communication manual for NS, which to a

large extent was similar to the communication manual for the stakeholders, thus

providing inspirational suggestions for posts, before, during and after the

festival. The suggested before-post for NS was as followed:

Før festivalen

Torsdag d. 12/6: Opret et indlæg på Facebook og NorthSide.dk.Teksten på indlægget gør opmærksom på undersiden NorthSide.dk/experience, og posteringen kunne lyde:

“Vind billetter til NorthSide 2015! NorthSide har under navnet Experience og hashtagget #EXNS14 oprettet en platform, hvor vi har samlet en masse spændende steder og oplevelser i Aarhus. Du finder specielle brugeranbefalede oplevelser, samt oplevelser der bliver endnu bedre, hvis du er NorthSide gæst. Find oversigten og gå på opdagelse på NorthSide.dk/experience.”

Eksempler på brug af grafik til denne post:

(Screen-print from NS’s communication manual by Gejst/Studio)

NS’s online team was responsible for carrying out this communication. An

examination of NS’s Facebook-page shows that the particular plan for the before-

post has been implemented in accordance with the advised time of posting and

content. However, NS has chosen to attach a link to an event within the concept

‘Experience’ (#exNS14), instead of the suggested photo from the manual. The

graphical identity is though still present through the ‘Experience’-sticker:

67

(Screen-print from NS’s Facebook-page)

Furthermore, NS has also implemented an after-post, which is in coherence with

the suggested content. However, the communication manual had suggested that

this was posted during the festival:

(Screen-print from Facebook, NS-page)

68

However, NS had technical challenges during the festival, as payment terminals

were down at the first day of the festival.

This demanded crisis communication, which took place on social media, since

this is the primary channel for NS-guests to receive information. This was

logically prioritized, which disturbed the suggested communication plan.

However, NS has no excuse for not following the manual the days up to the event.

But in order to be prepared for the festival the whole organization probably had

to be integrated in the preparation at the festival site. Additionally, NS is aware

of their guests preferred communication flow and they do not like to get

spammed with posts (Observations, ws1), which is another reason why NS has

chosen to postpone some communication until after the festival. Yet, the

following is comments from NS-guests from the previous presented post:

(Screen-print from Facebook, NS-page)

This shows that lacking information is perceived just as bad as an overload of

information. Though, Sofia (NS) emphasizes that some of the products have been

more suitable communicating than others:

“Det har været svært med dem som kun har eksisteret under festivalen, for de drukner i vores

kommunikationsflow. Det er svært at give det opmærksomheden, når folk ikke er i det mode. De

synes, der er andre ting som er mere spændende, og til festivalen vil de understøttes i den oplevelse,

de har der. Vi har mere forsøgt at formidle konceptet fremfor de enkelte aktører. Vi har formidlet

69

Pinterest-kortet og hele experience-konceptet, sådan at folk selv kan gå på opdagelse i det.”

(Sofia, NS)

Conclusively, our examination of the stakeholders’ and NS’s communication

before, during, and after the festival shows a very limited use of the manuals

developed by Gejst/Studio, proving that the intended plan has not been carried

out in practice. This naturally questions how well the message of the concept has

been communicated in general. But just as important, the lacking utilization of

these communication manuals questions Gejst/Studio’s relevance for the project;

the relevance of the money spent on this specific effort.

Statistics show, that the generated hashtag (#exNS14) was only used 24 times on

Instagram and 18 times on Twitter8 (Evaluation, Gejst/Studio). Sadly, it was not

possible to extract the exact number of its use on Facebook, but it is estimated to

be around 10 times. Gejst/Studio has a likely explanation to the low numbers:

“Tallene må siges, at være lavere end ventet. Dette skyldes formentligt, at indholdet er forsvundet i

den store strøm af updates lige op til festivalen, og at en eksekvering som denne på så sent et

tidspunkt nok er for uoverskuelig for brugerne. At ‘undervise’ brugerne i endnu et hashtag ser ud til

at være mere omfattende, end man kunne forvente.” (Morten, Gejst/Studio)

However, this evaluation only focuses on the hashtag (#exNS14), thus not

providing sufficient insight in the number of people familiar with the concept,

and the number of people that have visited the Pinterest-map. Yet, the fact that

just 107 people have chosen to follow the ‘Experience’ Pinterest-map supports

the general picture that the concept has been given low odds (‘Experience’,

Pinterest).

Once again, it stresses the issues of presenting a concept that late in the process.

Additionally, this was also emphasized by interviewees when the concept was

tested at international level during the festival, as Seismonaut held a focus group

with 7 Norwegians. They visited some of the suggested locations from the

Pinterest-map, and Lisa (Seismonaut) presents their judgments:

8By the 25th of June

70

”De var meget positive omkring Pinterest-kortet og aktiviteterne. De savnede dog at have kendskab

til kortet tidligere, da det er noget der skal planlægges efter, så man kan komme før eller blive

længere. De planlægger ca. 2-3 måneder forud for sådan en festival.”

(Lisa, Seismonaut)

Therefore, it is a must to communicate about the events taking place in proper

time, giving guests the opportunity to plan in advance. However, as previously

pointed out, the strict timeframe for this test-project has provided challenges,

making it impossible to meet this need.

Sub-conclusion

All the aspects of the test-project, including involvement, process and outcome,

need to be held up against the limited timeframe, which has affected the entire

project. In order to reach a measurable outcome and a concrete product it was

necessary to pick the low-hanging fruits. Even though, this still demanded more

resources from all parties, than originally expected, in order to be ready for

launch at time of the festival.

The testing and experimenting atmosphere surrounding the test-project, has

affected both the process and outcome, since this discourse provided

possibilities for alternative products. Additionally, the fact that the project slid

away from its original course, which though happened before our involvement,

can be ascribed to Airbnb’s changed role. The main purpose of the project was

simply to provide a learning outcome with possibilities for later knowledge

sharing, so the changed course did not really matter.

NS presented the concept of the test-project at their Facebook-page, by

highlighting the Pinterest-map through a link. At Pinterest the stakeholders are

not given additional attention than the operators and locations recommended by

Airbnb-hosts and NS-guests, except from an additional sticker, which provides

very limited extra attention. One of the main motivations for stakeholders to

participate in the test-project was the possibility to reach a new target group

71

within the NS-guests, which would be reachable through the communication

channels of NS. These communication channels are vital for the stakeholders in

order to reach beyond their own current scope, thereby getting in touch with

new or extended target groups. This means that the stakeholders have to rely on

NS to mention them in their communication, in order to reach the NS-guests.

Gejst/Studio also outlined this in the communication manual, but since these

were poorly fulfilled, the actual publicity that stakeholders were given through

the NS-channels was limited. This might lead to dissatisfaction among

stakeholders, since they have spent resources on the effort and developing

products for the concept. The fairness in this can be questioned, since operators

in Aarhus, who have not participated, are to a large extent giving the same

publicity, threated on equal grounds as the involved stakeholders. However,

even though the actual publicity stakeholders were given, was somewhat

disappointing, the effort of participating can still be beneficial, due to future

cooperation etc.

The mindset of collaboration across the city amongst businesses is still not

widespread, even though the acknowledgement of the importance of one’s value

chain is gaining ground. However, the current test-project indicates willingness

and interest in participating in bigger initiatives that try to foster unity and

collaboration. However, stakeholders need to be aware that they cannot expect

an immediate profit, but it is a long-term investment, which they will benefit

from at some point. In extension to this, stakeholders need to understand their

own role and responsibility in connection to the community. More collaboration

across the city will strengthen the community feeling and provide unity, thus

creating a more competitive advantage as an international destination.

72

Event Management

Sofia (NS) is project manager, and in order to determine how her role has shaped

and affected the process of the project, an analysis of her management is

necessary. However, an analysis of the entire management of the test-project is

in focus, due to some of the stakeholders’ temporary management tasks. Thus,

this section examines the event management and its impact on the outcome.

According to Sofia (NS), NS had for some time deliberated to try out this project.

However, NS did not have sufficient resources themselves to perform a task like

this. Since the project idea was suitable in connection to Aarhus2017, especially

in ‘ReThink’ auspices fostering the linkage between the culture and tourism

industries, the test project was an evident opportunity for both NS and ReThink.

She believes the idea emerged in cooperation with Seismonaut:

“… Vi synes det kunne være fedt, det her med at gøre oplevelsen endnu bedre ved at få helheden

omkring festivalen med. Tage festivalgæsten i hånden før, under og efter. Det er også meget den

måde vi arbejder på, på de sociale medier, og vi kan se at det er sådan festivalgæsten agerer. Vi kan

se nordmændene allerede kommer om torsdagen og bliver til om mandagen, så der er tidsrum, hvor

man kan fange dem - og det skal man være dygtig til.” (Sofia, NS)

According to Suchman (1995), when being an institutionalized event, one is a

permanent, legitimate and valued part of society. Furthermore, institutional

status should ensure sustained support and resources, which also can be seen

through highly visible and positive brands. These elements indicate that NS has

reached the status, as being an institutionalized event, since its development has

only been increasing since the festival was initiated. However, Lundin (1998)

suggest, a downside is that institutionalization might lead to stagnation, since it

seems harder to innovate and renew in institutionalized settings. In the case of

NS, this stagnation has not yet occurred. The fact that they initiate efforts like the

test-project indicates that they are aware of continuously being innovative and

developing the festival. This also happens by interacting with their guests

through social media. Additionally, their strong brand has been the main

motivation for participating in the project.

73

If a festival can manage to offer a broad supply of activities and opportunities, it

is expected to attract more visitors, even from additional segments (Wood &

Gray, 1991). NS continuously proves that the festival is more than just music.

They are concerned about their guest, yet again stressing their innovative

attitude making the risk that they stagnate unlikely.

As part of the test-project, procurements were posted. One of these

procurements was concerned with developing the concept and facilitating the

workshops (Seismonaut), whereas the other was concerned about

communicating the outcome of the test-project (Gejst/Studio). Based on the fact

that Sofia (NS) has unveiled talking to Seismonaut about the project prior to

applying, might presumably indicate that some degree of lobbyism has been in

play. Worth a notion, there was only one other applicant than Seismonaut for

this procurement. There are through no clear evidence of lobbyism, but since

Seismonaut has been part of the original idea beforehand, they of course would

like to be a part of the execution of this test-project, and NS has probably also

preferred to have them on board. Stakeholders are vital for an organization, but

so is the process of identifying the right ones, in order to ensure that goals,

values and responsibilities are understood and synced (Goodpaster, 1993). The

fact that the cooperation between Seismonaut and NS dates back, and they have

ongoing contact, indicates that they are each other’s right stakeholders, and that

they enjoy working together.

Sofia (NS) has been very satisfied with Seismonaut, and this is reciprocated by

Peter (Seismonaut), who also believes Sofia has been vital for the project:

“Vigtigt at det er NorthSide. Vi er blevet mødt af dem, i øjenhøjde. Det kunne sikkert også være sket

ved et andet event, men lige præcis med Sofia har vi mødt én, som forstod hvad vi ville, og hun havde

de samme tanker. Vi kunne også have arbejdet med en event som endnu ikke var der, eller mere

traditionelt – men det var vigtigt, at det var hende.” (Peter, Seismonaut)

However, despite from the obvious advantages of collaborating with familiar

partners, it can also have the disadvantage of loosing some of the sparkle and

dynamic that lies within a new cooperation, where partners bring different and

maybe unexpected ideas and inputs to the table. Yet, Sofia (NS) acknowledges

74

the existence of both good and bad experience from the test-project. She is aware

that the different choices and the process, as it turned out, have affected the

outcome. But she stresses that the external help from Seismonaut has been of

crucial value:

“Vi mister undergrunden og de lidt skæve steder i Aarhus på den måde, idet disse synes, at det lyder

rigtig kedeligt med workshops. Det er ikke noget for dem, og på den måde er det svært for os at

favne dem. Det er vigtigt for vores målgruppe at få dem med, for det synes de er sjovt. Vi tager det

op i evalueringen med Seismonaut, men de har også brugt langt flere timer, for at få det til at lykkes

på så kort tid. Uden dem til at guide mig, var det gået helt galt.”

(Sofia, NS)

Both of their statements show a mutual admiration, and Peter (Seismonaut) calls

their way of working very alike. This has arguably been of great value for the

compressed process of the test-project. Hence, the mutual admiration is possibly

not just based on the cooperation in this test-project, but rather a general notion

based on matching expectations due to previous cooperation and knowledge

about each other. Yet, the test-approach of the project, and the attitude of

welcoming experimentation, provided a broad and intangible objective, and in

this context; a well-known, mutual acknowledged stakeholder is probably a

valuable asset, in order to ensure the best possible outcome, with a limited

timeframe.

Worth a notion, maybe a smaller and less traditional consulting agency would

have been better suited for carrying out the original idea about initiating more

unaccustomed collaborations, as traditional workshops in general repel some. In

the test-project, only unaccustomed stakeholder was SNAK, who themselves

initiated the contact. More of these types of stakeholders would maybe have

joined it the facilitation had been different.

Sofia (NS) has been a coordinator rather than a manager. A project whose

success criteria simply is to generate a learning outcome - good or bad - that can

be shared with others, does not necessarily call for much management. However,

it has also been a demanding task to delegate to others, while keeping track, and

to get stakeholders to join the test-project. The possibility of getting external

75

support has been valuable since it relieves management pressure, and leaves

time to focus on keeping all the elements of the project together. Events are now

a realm for professionals and entrepreneurs, since events are too important to be

left in the hands of unprofessional, as an event is satisfying numerous strategic

goals (Getz, 2008). With this in mind, it makes sense to integrate external help to

ensure that people who are competent carry out particular tasks. However, this

is a privilege due to the provided funding, and in many cases event organizers

will not have the resources to outsource these tasks. Therefore, additional time

and effort needs to taken into account, in order to carry out these tasks oneself in

self-financed projects.

Like in the case with Seismonaut, cooperation between NS and Airbnb also dates

back. Anne-Sofie (Airbnb) states, that last year’s success certainly was a driver

for cooperation again this year. However, no firm agreement was made in

advantage, as discussed earlier. Kitt (DGB) believes that NS has based their

selection of stakeholders on the ones they could easily and quickly get to join the

project:

“Jeg tror, de har kigget ud i landskabet til dem de allerede havde en kontakt til - hvem ville være

hurtige at få med på det her projekt? For som NorthSide også selv siger, så er vi ikke dem, som NS-

målgruppen almindeligvis går hen til. Og så synes vi jo alligevel, at vi er det nu, hvor vi har

udstillingen.” (Kitt, DGB)

Our examination of the process revealed that this to some extent has been the

approach carried out by NS. They have played safer than they could have, but yet

again, this might be ascribed to the limited timeframe of the test-project, which

has called for easy applicable solutions. In this particular context the chosen

approach makes sense. Events are a vehicle for bringing together a range of

stakeholders (Johansson & Kociatkiewicz , 2011), and the organization of

festivals is often executed by a coalition of stakeholders, involving public,

private, and voluntary organizations (Andersson & Getz, 2008). All of these three

stakeholder groups are present in the test-project, thus striking the potential in

events for a broad range of different stakeholders.

76

The time pressure has affected not only the management, but also the structure

of the test-project, and for most of the participants the time pressure has been a

challenge, but Peter (Seismonaut) underlines some of the advantages in this from

his point of view:

“Det er en fed måde at arbejde på, det er et fedt drive. Men det er også rart, fordi det er også en god

undskyldning! … Det er en kamp mod tiden. Der er kun de inputs, som folk byder ind med! Vi har

ikke prøvet det før, så vi bygger det undervejs. De siger noget, og vi ændrer undervejs. Det kræver

lidt, men der er også noget fedt i det. Det kan vi dog kun gøre én gang, men det er jo et tegn på, at vi

laver noget nyt.” (Peter, Seismonaut)

However, besides the advantages stated by Peter, the limited timeframe has also

demanded additional effort from all the involved parties. Even though NS had

more employees attending the workshops, Sofia (NS) was the only one spending

weekly working hours on the project. According to her, she has spent way too

much time on the project:

”Når jeg har haft travlt, så har jeg arbejdet med det 18 timer om ugen. Det kan ikke forsvares, og

slet ikke op til festivalen. Det er alt for ressourcetungt for et event at sidde med selv, hvis der ikke er

en forretningsmodel og en struktur. Og vi har skulle opfinde det hele sammen med Seismonaut og

Gejst/Studio.” (Sofia, NS)

Thus, NS seems to have spent more resources than expected, even though the

external support that was provided. Apparently, the fact that the test-project has

demanded a more time-consuming effort seems to be the general scenario for

most of the implied stakeholders. Kitt (DGB) emphasizes, that if NS had

demanded more than they did, DGB would not have participated, as resources

required for participating need to live up to the resources that can be spend.

Thus, if greater efforts were required, a longer project process would be needed.

Otherwise, it would not have been possible to get that many stakeholders to join

the project.

Besides from Seismonaut and Gejst/Studio, a process consultant was also

connected to the test-project, as part of the external support-package. However,

the process consultant assigned to the NS-project was only present at the kick-off

meeting (Observations, Kick-off). Peter (Seismonaut) stresses that the process

77

consultant did not really posses a role in the project. According to him, this

indicates that the project has been rather self-running, and the presence of an

external consultant was dispensable.

Additionally, due to the funding provided by ReThink, Ulla (ReThink) was

present during the process in order to make sure the project ran, as it should.

She emphasizes her own role in the project and compares this to the other test-

projects. According to her, Sofia (NS) is the only manager of the test-projects,

who possess the qualities and competencies to run a project like this. Because of

this, Ulla’s role has been limited in the project. She has though been involved in

the writing of the procurements for the project and followed up on Seismonaut,

in order to ensure they fulfilled their task, and she has provided competent

feedback etc. Furthermore, she has helped selecting relevant stakeholders in

order to make the necessary connection between tourism and culture. This

shows that Sofia has been trusted with more responsibility than managers from

the other test-projects.

Peter (Seismonaut) is very contented with the contact to Sofia (NS) during the

project. In regards to the ongoing communication with NS, the stakeholders in

general seem satisfied.Kitt (DGB) has been e-mailing with Sofia when necessary,

and in these cases she has responded quickly and efficiently. Furthermore, Kitt

emphasizes that she was given competent feedback in regards to their product

through a discussion with Anne (NS) and another NS-employee at the second

workshop. Bettina (ARoS) has also been in contact with Sofia, while developing

the product. However, since their product is rather simple (bring a friend who

gets free entrance, if you show a NS-bracelet) the contact has mainly been

concerned about a greater idea, which might take place in the fall. This idea

focuses on bringing SNAK and NS into play in order to recreate the NS-

atmosphere.

Frederik (SNAK) emphasizes that he has not been in contact with Sofia (NS)

during the project, besides when attending the workshops. His contact has been

another NS-employee, who is responsible for the stands at the festival. Yet, he

78

explains, that Sofia (NS) has been pretty fond of the SNAK-campaign, which have

resulted in great integration in NS’s communication. In regards to the

stand,Frederik (SNAK) had to figure out what to do, what message to send etc.

and then write a document about the idea and its practical plan. As long as the

NS-criteria and values about sustainability were met, he was pretty much given

free rein, as it was up to them to figure out how to do things and manage the

stand.

A notion within the concept of collaborative consumption is general trust in each

other, and to behave in ordinance with the rules of a certain context (Botsman &

Rogers, 2010). This relates to the above notion about being given free rein, as

long as ‘playing by the rules’. This seems to be a general attitude at NS, and has

been noticed through different aspects during the test-project; stakeholders’

product development, guidelines for communication and the process in general.

There seems to be a general innovative attitude and test-culture at NS, indicating

that the test-approach of the current project has not been unaccustomed for

them. This can probably partly be ascribed to the fact that the festival is still at an

early age of its existence, thereby still developing its ground, even though they

have succeeded in developing a strong and appreciated brand:

“Hun (Sofia) har forstået, at festivalen ikke er en statisk størrelse, men hele tiden skal udvikles, og

der skal interageres med sit publikum, især fordi det er den kulturbegivenhed det er. Det kræver

brandet.” (Peter, Seismonaut)

This implies that the frame constituting the festival is right and performs in

accordance with the wanted segment. However, as stated by Peter (Seismonaut),

some of the content in this frame constantly needs to be reevaluated and

redeveloped. The NS-brand simply requires this, since it has been the approach

from the beginning to include innovative and experimenting efforts, thus now an

expectation amongst the NS-guests. It demands ongoing dynamics and

interaction with the target group in order to meet this expectation.

Most of the stakeholders in the project stress the fact that their products took

form during the workshops. Kitt (DGB) emphasizes that the workshops initiated

79

the idea generation, in the end also DGB’s product, which in her opinion must be

ascribed to the facilitation by Seismonaut. According to Casper (Radisson), a

project like this is a golden opportunity to connect people and try to create new

products. However, in regards to Radisson’s role, the challenge is that their

capacity is already exhausted due to the NS’s musicians and bands filling the

hotel, leaving few options for pleasing the actual NS-guests. This was also the

reason why they did not develop a product for the concept. Nevertheless,

Radisson was still interested in participating on equal ground as the rest of the

stakeholders, thus also being given partnership status.

Frederik (SNAK) believed his original role was to be consultant in the test-

project, but he turned out as partner instead, just like the others. It was never the

intention for his effort to be voluntary, but that was how it evolved. Frederik

(SNAK) stresses that his current SNAK-campaign (#venskaber) has gotten more

concrete during the project, which has given him a bigger role in connection to

the festival. Additionally, this turned out to be beneficial for his own sake,

especially due to new collaboration with a big player like ARoS. He agrees that it

fits better to be partner when dwelling upon how the project turned out.

A festival stakeholder approach is to get suppliers to become sponsor, thus

making them partners (Larson, 2002). All the relevant stakeholders were made

partners in the test-project. This approach can be discussed, but in this test-

project it has only been beneficial, since a partnership feeling has existed widely

among all the stakeholders, despite joining in at different stages. The outcome of

the approach is a higher degree of involvement and motivation, creating equality

among stakeholders, thus also higher levels of responsibility.

In connection to Midtjysk Turisme’s (ReThink) role in the test-project, Peter

(Seismonaut) stresses the vitality of good and extensive communication, due to

the many operators, who are embedded:

”Kommunikationen er det svære, for der er så mange detaljer i det her – der er mange

misforståelser. NorthSide føler egentligt, at de har gjort rigeligt, og det bliver lidt en tjeneste de gør

for Midtjysk Turisme på et tidspunkt. Og det er det sgu ikke, det er lige så meget for NorthSides egen

skyld. Det gælder også de andre aktører.” (Peter, Seismonaut)

80

The stakeholder group of any organization represents a wide and diverse range

of interests (Freeman, 1984), so in order to dismiss any types of

misunderstandings, it is necessary to have clear definitions of roles, expectations

and use of resources. The roles that were given due to the procurements have

been clear, and so have the expectations to the outcome of these roles. However,

the general intangibleness of the project has made clear communication difficult,

because the overall goal has been pretty unclear, due to the broad success

criteria. This issue has been present in the test-project, as uncertainty was

observed (Observations, ws2) towards the exact objective of the project and

expectations:

“Hvad er det helt præcis I vil – hvad er det, I skal have hjælp til?”

(Karen, participant, ws2)

Furthermore, both DGB and SNAK have also stressed uncertainty about their

roles at some point during the process. However, they turned out satisfied, but it

proves some of the misunderstanding that might come to surface in a project of

this size, which extensive communication and defined objectives can avoid.

Both Sofia (NS) and Peter (Seismonaut) stress that the task of managing such a

project in the future should be done by a bigger organization, for instance a DMO

like VisitAarhus. They believe this is a better option, since they have more

resources, and the objectives of a DMO is to develop a destination’s position of

strength, which more collaboration is a means of. However, by passing on the

torch to for instance VisitAarhus, NS is submitting power and influence on future

processes and outcomes. NS is not selfish in this sense, as they would like to see

this done from a city perspective. However, this might be obvious, since they do

not possess the resources themselves to carry out a similar project again.

Events are highly valued as attractions, catalysts, animators, place marketers and

image-makers (Getz, 2008), and from this perspective it becomes a destination

strategy instead, hence not only concerned about the NS-festival, but rather

events in general. If the test-project proves to be a success, it will be easier to

implement the concept in the future, which will be beneficial for stakeholders

81

across the city. This will foster more collaboration, and can possibly be done at

several events in Aarhus. Then the true potential in the concept of collaborative

consumption is in play.

Sub-conclusion

The involved stakeholders in the project seem to have been inspired during the

process, both by the chosen procedures, but also by the management in general.

This indicates trust towards NS, not at least because of the quality of the NS-

brand. However, it also needs to acknowledge the management that has taken

place during the test-project. The management must be characterized as

effective, since stakeholder involvement has been effective and there has been a

concrete outcome through the development of products, despite the limited

timeframe. However, what Sofia has actually been managing can be questioned a

bit, based on the loose approach of the test-project.

A broad stakeholder approach was taken, in order to welcome collaboration with

basically everyone. The approach of limited management impact fosters the idea

of a collaborative consumption system to be self-sustainable. In this sense, the

management role can be characterized as being equivalent to the values of the

concept, thus presumably fostering the development of the concept in

connection to the festivals.

The context of the test-project provided space for experimentation, but at the

same time it made the wanted outcome rather intangible. This though created a

minimal level of concern in order to be able to develop a successful outcome,

since the criteria simply was to gain knowledge and acquire experience to share.

In this sense the intangibleness of the project makes it difficult to evaluate the

management, because of the unclear overall goal, and the unlikelihood of failure.

82

The Stakeholders

A crucial aspect of the test-project has been the involvement of stakeholders.

These have been introduced in ‘The Project’, and also to a certain extent in ‘The

Management’, since the theoretical aspects are interrelated. However, in order to

determine the value and potential of such, from an event development

perspective, an analysis of stakeholder involvement in the test-project is done.

Additionally, the stakeholders’ attitude towards collaboration in general is

included.

Sofia (NS) comments on how NS got stakeholders to engage in the test-project:

”Vi inviterede mange, men det var ikke alle der kunne komme, og det har også noget at gøre med at

vi har været sindssygt pressede på tiden i det her projekt. Det er nok en af de største ting der taler

imod det.” (Sofia, NS)

Once again the limited timeframe has affected the project. However, NS did

succeed in attaining stakeholders to participate, and according to Sofia (NS)

these stakeholders have been predominantly positive about the test-project, and

it is her belief that stakeholders would like to do more of this. There are clear

indications that as people try out collaborative consumption, get familiar with it

and make it a habit, other behaviors gradually start to change too (Botsman &

Rogers, 2010). Arguably, this means that if stakeholders gain a good experience

with collaboration, they will probably continue to do so.

It is possible that the stakeholders NS did not convince to participate in the

project were preoccupied, but it is also possible that they simply did not

understand the message and potential of the project. Sofia (NS) furthermore

stresses that it has been difficult to embrace all the stakeholders, and some of the

e-mail correspondences have been long, in order to convince people to

participate:

”Det her er et meget sympatisk projekt på den måde at det bare er fordi vi gerne vil hjælpe hinanden

og gøre det bedre for gæsten.” (Sofia, NS)

83

A broad view defines relevant groups of stakeholders as co participants in

exchange relationships (Mitchell, 1997). In this sense, Sofia, has reached out to

different stakeholders and branches, through a broad approach, in order to

ensure that cooperation is beneficial for them as well.

The criteria of being test-project required integration of stakeholders across the

city, not at least in order to make the connection between culture and tourism.

Because of this, it is possible that Sofia (NS) has been more tolerant and patient

than she perhaps normally would have been, spending more time trying to

embrace the different stakeholders.

Even though Sofia (NS) stresses challenges in the recruitment of stakeholders, it

is reasonable to think that NS’s brand has made it easier for her, than it would

have been for others. Therefore, it is presumably harder for smaller or newly

established events to recruit stakeholders. The reason for this, might be that

many stakeholders want to see a clear advantage for themselves the sooner the

better, preferably by affecting their bottom line positively. The return of

investment in a brand may be difficult to measure, but if the investment is not

done, it might become unknown (Clark, 2011). In most cases, this will not

happen right away, which is why they need to be aware that collaboration is a

long-term investment.

Peter (Seismonaut) has experience with innovative cooperation and projects

from a city perspective. In the test-project, Seismonaut has tried to get the

stakeholders to understand the value of cooperating with NS, and show them

that it can be beneficial for both parties to cooperate and to use each other’s

resources, a broad stakeholder involvement has the potential to create a greater

degree of harmony amongst the involved stakeholders and create shared

ownership (Timothy, 1998).

According to Peter, the main challenge is to initiate a general change of people’s

mindset, by getting stakeholders to understand the benefit of being part of a

value chain. In time, he believes that operators will become better at

acknowledging the potential of cooperation and initiate this proactively.

84

In the current test-project a prolonged timeframe would have provided

opportunities for more support and deeper understanding of the potential

within the concept, thus also the possibility of integrating even more

stakeholders.

Ulla (ReThink) states that there has been a high degree of professionalism in the

test-project. In her opinion, it has been interesting to see how Aarhus and its

stakeholders have been active in the process, and moved into the right direction.

Furthermore, Ulla (ReThink) acknowledges the fact that Radisson would like to

participate in a project where Airbnb is partner, even though they are direct

competitors. She thinks it is great, when collaboration goes beyond competitive

boundaries. Interaction between actors is characterized by both competition and

collaboration (Gummesson, 1996). And by collaborating they can link

complementary products and services to add further commercial value

(Cunningham & Culligan, 1990). This does not make Radissson and Airbnb

competitors, but rather companies that can benefit from each other.

All the above notions indicate that Seismonaut and NS have to some extent

already succeeded in initiating the mentioned mindset change amongst the

involved stakeholder of the test-project.

Bettina (ARoS) does not acknowledge the competitiveness in Aarhus, as she

believes there is room for everyone:

“Vi er nødt til at kommunikere igennem andres kanaler. Vi er ikke hinandens konkurrenter, for vi

deler ikke en hyldeplads på samme måde som i supermarkedet. Det her er et overvejelsesprodukt, og

man har plads til mere på én weekend som turist og man kan nå at se flere ting. Vi udelukker derfor

ikke hinanden, så vi kan lige så godt samarbejde. Så det har der været rigtig rigtig meget af, og det

foregår hele tiden.” (Bettina, ARoS)

This shows that Bettina (ARoS) has understood the idea about collaboration, by

stressing benefits like broader communicational reach and utilization of the

tourist potential from a city perspective. The relative power of an actor in a

network depends on the degree of authority and how much resources the actor

possesses; money, time, know-how, contacts, reputation, and trust (Hellgren &

85

Stjernberg, 1995). Therefore, it needs to be viewed in the light that ARoS is one

of the main attractions in Aarhus, logically one of the first in line in attracting

(most) tourists.

Airbnb also sees the potential in cooperation and does this through

sponsorships, cooperating with different events and institutions, and through

their stakeholders at local initiatives. According to Anne-Sofie (Airbnb), it makes

sense for them to cooperate as it roots Airbnb more locally:

“Vi har en community manager som f.eks. laver diverse arrangementer for vores værter, for at sørge

for at de har det godt og også oplever noget sjovt rundt omkring i byen, som de så kan give videre til

de gæster der kommer. Det er sådan et økosystem - det hele kører rundt og giver mening for alle

parter.” (Anne-Sofie, Airbnb)

A notion in regards to this statement is the fact that Airbnb is a relatively new

organization and constituted by the concept of collaborative consumption

(Botsman & Rogers, 2010).

SNAK is very investigative in order to obtain cooperation, as it also is a relatively

new business, which tries to build a brand for itself. Frederik (SNAK) hopes that

cooperation will become easier next year, and that other businesses will start to

reach out for cooperation. Because SNAK is a new business, managed by young

people, they are aware of the contemporary tendencies. SNAK has to tap into the

idling capacity of others and use their resources strategically (Botsman & Rogers,

2010), in order to expand the public knowledge about their business, especially

in the current status of being a non-profit organization.

According to Kitt (DGB), DGB usually initiates cooperation, when it originates

from own projects within the park. However, in the current case, it was NS who

initiated the cooperation with DGB, which therefore was uncommon for them.

This indicates that they normally cooperate for their own good. Though they

have the objective to reach a new target group within the NS-guests, in

coherence with the intended target group for their current exhibition ‘Aarhus

Rocks’, DGB is also doing this for their own good. Yet, that DGB has been along

from the start (Kick-off meeting) proves that they have understood the potential

86

of the festival, and the fact that they agreed to be part of the test-project

indicates openness and willingness to be part of bigger initiatives across the city

(Yilmaz, 2009).

For ARoS it is not uncommon to cooperate with other stakeholders in Aarhus,

among others; Train, the Theater, the Symphony Orchestra, and the Opera. They

have started to use the city when arranging events, for instance in connection to

lounge nights for its youth club (ARoS27):

”Tidligere var vi meget her når vi afholdte fester, men vi er i højere grad begyndt at bruge byen. På

den måde kobler vi nogle ting sammen som ikke var set for et par år siden. Vi tager nogen med et

sted hen, hvor de ellers aldrig ville være kommet. Igen for at skabe mere skæve sammenhænge, for

byen er jo stor på en eller anden måde.” (Bettina, ARoS)

Bettina (ARoS) emphasizes that they have had great success with this approach.

People enjoy it, and ARoS easily get them to participate in their events. She

states, this was not seen a couple of years ago, making this type of collaboration

innovative, and a contemporary approach that proves to be efficient.

”Hver gang er det fedt, for igen er vi tilbage ved kommunikationskanalerne: vi møder nogen i nogle

rum, hvor de får en aha-oplevelse og dem de får det hos får en added value.” (Bettina, ARoS)

This approach is a way to gain, maintain, and repair the legitimacy from a

multiple-stakeholder perspective (Suchman, 1995). Since ARoS is familiar with

collaboration, they deliberately think about expanding the value chain, and come

up with new initiatives and ideas for alternative collaborations. These initiates

indicate that they possess a more collaborative mindset, making them

collectively oriented rather than just individually, yet under the notion that this

still benefits their own guests. Successful management does not only serve the

interests of the organizers themselves, but all actors involved (Andersson & Getz,

2008). Thereby, ARoS’s initiatives do not just benefit themselves, but adds value

to the locations/operators, who ARoS integrates in this approach, thus providing

better experiences for all the involved parties.

Sofia (NS) elaborates on some of the reasons why she thinks stakeholders want

to cooperate with NS:

87

”Jeg tror at folk synes, det er et fedt brand at associere sig med. Vores oplevelse er også, at mange

siger, at det er et stærkt brand og en meget stærk og attraktiv målgruppe at være i kontakt med.

Den er dog normalt svær at få i tale, men hvis man har den igennem vores platform, så ved man at

de er der, og det er en måde at fange dem på.” (Sofia, NS)

This has earlier proved to be the case, since the main motivation for most of the

stakeholders to participate in the test-project, has been the opportunity to get in

contact with the NS-guests. However, Sofia (NS) states that NS is very selective

and critical about how the brand is used, and who is using it. According to her, NS

has considered making it open-source, but since NS wants to protect and control

the brand, in order to maintain its attractiveness and strength, the stakeholders

in the test-project are not allowed to use the NS-logo in their marketing. Yet, the

fact that they cooperate offers the opportunity to get connected to the NS-brand,

which unarguably is of great value. Even though the stakeholders’ participation

is mainly done for their own personal gain, it still strengthens the NS-guests’

experience as a side effect.

The brand position of NS has been an important factor in regards to stakeholder

involvement in the test-project. Therefore, it is questionable how the

involvement and process would have been, if the test-project had focused on a

newly established festival or an event with an unfamiliar brand.

In the entire project there has not been differentiated between stakeholders,

since the majority of these were made partners (Larson, 2002), which in Ulla’s

(ReThink) opinion, is one of the cool things about the test-project.

The approach of turning stakeholders into partners has according to Kitt (DGB)

made DGB more dedicated, and her superior supported her in going all the way.

According to her, all the work they do in this project is for the sake of the

collaborative potential.

SNAK is one of the more unaccustomed stakeholders, which have chosen to

cooperate. Frederik (SNAK) prefers to get rid of all the formalities, as he believes

it restrains and ruins cooperation that is about to get started. According to him,

people tend to lose their motivation in processes slowed down by bureaucracy

88

issues. He prefers when there is more room to develop spontaneous cooperation,

as it creates more vibrant outcomes. According to him, this is the new kind of

networking, but he knows this takes time to establish. The notion about

bureaucracy issues slowing down processes and ruining creativity is

undoubtedly curbing stakeholders’ motivations in prolonged projects. However,

in a project like this, paperwork is unavoidable due to the setting of the project.

ARoS is used to cooperate and is also part of a communication project in

connection to Aarhus2017. According to Bettina, (ARoS) this is another good

example indicating that businesses in Aarhus already cooperate well:

”Vi er en gruppe som kommer til en større gruppe, og sammen bliver vi en enhed som skal

kommunikere et budskab ud. Vi sætter os ned om bordet og laver et samarbejde, og det har vi gjort

rigtig mange gange i byen. Sådan har det været længe.” (Bettina, ARoS)

ARoS is part of such groups, probably due the their size and position in Aarhus.

This indicates that a certain tradition is present in Aarhus amongst operators,

through such groupings and clusters. But according to DGB, they have only

limited experience in working with collaboration across the city. DGB’s absence

in such groupings and clusters seems striking, since they also are a major

attraction in Aarhus. However, they fight against the image of being nothing but

old houses, an image they are making effort to change; yet, another motivation

for DGB to participate in a project, like the current.

For Airbnb, a main purpose for joining the test-project is to create brand

awareness:

”Det skal ikke være en hemmelighed at vi er en forretning, så vi har vurderet på om det kan betale

sig. Vores håb er også at opnå coolness og nå ud til andre mennesker som nødvendigvis ikke kender

til AirBnB, og at man får en god oplevelse sammen med os og at vi dermed bliver en del af den

fortælling.” (Anne-Sofie, Airbnb)

Anne-Sofie is striking the fact that Airbnb is a business, thus demanding profit.

The approach of connecting one’s own brand to an acknowledged brand, opens

up for new sources of business; capturing a new segment by branding through

new channels. Once again, NS’s communication channels are rated high.

89

The NS-segment is new and different from DGB’s traditional segment, and a clear

goal in their involvement is to get people to see DGB from a new perspective. Kitt

(DGB) believes, they benefit a lot when cooperating:

”Vi får sparring og får andre til at se på det vi laver. Derved bliver vi bedre og lærer noget.”

(Kitt, DGB)

If they manage to do so, it will open doors to new kinds of exhibitions in the

future, which simultaneously provide them with new branding opportunities.

Ulla (ReThink) has been contended to see the practical proof of a functioning

value chain. However, she was surprised about the limited understanding about

a well-functioning value chain, but emphasizes that the project has been great, in

regards to knowledge sharing between stakeholders.

There has been a change in the private sector’s position, moving from event

provider to event facilitator (Pugh & Wood 2004). According to Peter

(Seismonaut), it is important to facilitate a process, where multiple stakeholders

from different backgrounds are put together, in order to create a common

platform to ensure that the project moves in the right direction.

Besides facilitation, Peter (Seismonaut) stresses the importance of money, when

working in cooperation across creative and traditional business and also across

private and public sectors. It also demands active participation, and requires that

stakeholders set time aside for meetings, since it is here exiting things evolve.

SNAK has a challenge as they have no money or sponsors, which gives

limitations. However, according to Frederik (SNAK) the money situation can in

some ways also be liberating, since it offers opportunities for engaging in

spontaneous and immediately interesting consolidations. The future cooperation

with ARoS is an example of this, since it is driven by inclination and the

development of an impulsive idea, putting economical considerations aside.

According to Kitt (DGB), it is valuable to see the possibilities in initiatives like the

test-project, as cooperation among stakeholders in Aarhus creates new offers

increasing value for both guests and institutions. She believes this is the way to

90

go; connecting oneself to stakeholders whose expertise is different than one’s

own. Bettina (ARoS) also emphasizes its potential for Aarhus:

”Jeg synes det er meget fedt, hvis deres mål er at byde byen op til dans. Så vi skaber noget

sammenspil og viser en total-version, hvor NS er katalysatoren for at sprede nogle ringe i vandet. At

de gør det for deres gæsters skyld er helt okay.” (Bettina, ARoS)

The approach of using an event, in this case NS, as the driver for creating

interaction and collaboration across Aarhus, was stated in the NS-application for

becoming test-project. It is the aim to develop a framework that can make the

experience from the test-project applicable to other events. In this sense, it

becomes possible to integrate the whole city around the execution of ‘any’ event.

If this works, it will be useful asset in connection to Aarhus2017, where more

than 500 events are intended to take place.

According to Ulla, the potential in Aarhus2017 is huge. Whether a region will

gain economically from an event depends largely on whether local producers are

able to meet the extra demand that is directly and indirectly generated by the

event (Brännäs & Nordström, 2002). Ulla (ReThink) believes Aarhus has a lot to

offer and to a large extent products are sufficient. Yet, there is this Jutlandic

modesty about what there is the offer, which operators need to get past.

Furthermore, she states that if Aarhus is able to activate the value chains, by

connecting culture and tourism through the business community and the

cultural industry, it can create ramification throughout the region. All ten test-

projects have contributed to this, by giving more publicity to Aarhus2017,

making it more visible and widespread across the region.

“Hvis der kommer opbakning fra folk, så kan vi virkelig tjene noget på det. Hvis man får det grebet

an rigtigt, så kommer der også vækst efterfølgende. Sådan så der ikke kun sker en masse omkring

2017, og så falder det hele til jorden bagefter.” (Ulla, ReThink)

The number of involved stakeholders in the test-project has proved that there is

support. This brings hope for the future mindset change, fostering collaboration

and unity in Aarhus. The fact that they have several years to prepare the city,

offers the possibility to learn and develop up until 2017. Aarhus2017 is similar to

91

the test-project, requiring the existence of stakeholders, value chains and

collaboration, but at a much larger scale, in order to perform as a professional

unit by 2017. The process towards Aarhus2017 makes it possible for everyone to

understand and experience the value of collaborating, thus fostering a

sustainable effort. So if Aarhus manages to sow the seeds up until 2017, Aarhus

will harvest not only in 2017 but also in the years to come.

Sub-conclusion

Once again, the limited timeframe has played a role, this time in accordance to

the recruitment of stakeholders to the test-project, since the limited timeframe

has excluded some. In some cases, the task of convincing operators to participate

has been too time-consuming. However, the involved stakeholders show a

general open- and willingness to be part of initiatives across the city.

In the test-project, the stakeholders have been active and moved into the right

direction, which indicates that they have understood the value of collaboration.

There is need for a general mindset change amongst stakeholders, when working

within a collaborative approach, in order to become aware of the value of

cooperation. Stakeholders cannot expect to generate immediate profit, but have

to acknowledge that collaboration is a long-term investment.

There are though a number of benefits when collaborating, and in the test-

project some of these benefits have been the involved stakeholders’ main

motivation for cooperating. These stakeholders have been connected to an

acknowledged brand, with the opportunity to reach an attractive and wanted

target group through new communication channels, which have improved the

stakeholders’ communicational reach.

There is already cooperation going on in Aarhus, according to some

stakeholders. Some of these prove that collaboration can be beneficial for a

business, its guests, and the cooperating partner - thus adding value for all the

involved parties.

92

City Branding

The previous sections have provided insight about the value of the concept of

collaborative consumption for both NS and its stakeholders. Yet, in order to meet

the 3-hinged perspective of this study, it is also necessary to look at city branding

in order to examine the value for the city at large. A collaborative approach is

required in order to create the needed unity to seize the potential of

Aarhus2017, which to a great extent lies in the international attention of this

event. This can for instance be done through a collective city branding effort.

According to Line (BB), city branding is necessary in order to create a common

narrative about a city that is acknowledged by and rooted in all elements of the

city. However, alimitation of place branding is focusing on local residents,

established companies and organizations, and thereby making it difficult to build

a sense of belonging (Therkelsen, Halkier, & Jensen, 2010). However, if local

citizens are being an integral part of the place product, they will most likely be

satisfied and function as ambassadors (Therkelsen, Halkier, & Jensen, 2010).

This makes city branding an important investment, but its efficiency is difficult to

measure (Clark, 2011).

According to Sofia (NS), NS has from its beginning tried to anchor itself as a

genuine Aarhus-event. The basic principle of corporate place branding is that

external and internal audiences are mutually supporting target groups in that

place branding initiatives. This can potentially provide locals with a sense of

pride and belonging (Therkelsen, Halkier, & Jensen, 2010)In order to embed the

festival and its brand across Aarhus, they are aware of creating local cooperation,

which for instance is done by using local food suppliers at the festival:

”… selvom vi er blevet en national begivenhed, og vi også er blevet en international begivenhed, så

er vi stadigvæk en Aarhus-festival. Vi vil give følelsen af, at det er noget, man kan være stolt af som

aarhusianer, og dermed få resten af byen til at arbejde sammen. Aarhus har alle de her fede ting, og

viser vi det endnu mere, så er det federe for alle.” (Sofia, NS)

93

This use of local supplies seems of big importance to NS, even now when the

festival has become an international event. The fact that they stick to this

approach shows that they are not compromising their vales, since Aarhus is

deeply rooted in NS, and vice versa. Stakeholders unarguably acknowledge this,

which helps to root the brand throughout the entire value chain, thus creating a

general pride towards the event. The test-project carries on the effort of

embedding the festival locally.

Peter (Seismonaut) emphasizes the value chain surrounding NS:

”Der er en troværdighed omkring festivalen, så derfor skal de hele tiden forsøge at arbejde med

brandet. Det her kan være med til at forankre brandet ude ved aktørerne, så det er et fælles

ansvar. Effekten på byen af, at der er en festival er ikke ligegyldigt – det kan ses og mærkes. Det

er hele byens ansvar at festivalen bliver i byen, ellers forsvinder der både gæster og turister.”

(Peter, Seismonaut)

The test-project has been a catalyst for convincing stakeholders in Aarhus that it

is a common responsibility when bigger events take place in the city, because of

the reach of for instance NS (Getz, 2008). Events attract a lot of visitors, who will

benefit operators across Aarhus; also the ones not immediately associated with a

particular event. Once again, this stresses the importance of achieving the

mindset change amongst stakeholders, since this will not only benefit the

involved stakeholders and the particular event, but additionally also the city at

large.

Airbnb has is clearly witnessing the effects of the festival, especially measured by

the numbers of Airbnb-rentals in Aarhus during the NS-weekend. Anne-Sofie

(Airbnb) stresses that their brand fits with NS’s, both in regards to a similar

target group and company values:

“Det var et match made in heaven. Så derfor startede det egentlig, og så har de fået den her

bevilling til 2017, så nu er vi ved at finde ud af, hvad vi kan gøre i år. Men også hvad kan vi gøre nu,

som vi vil være i stand til at gøre på en større skala næste år og frem mod 2017.”

(Anne-Sofie, Airbnb)

Their cooperation was initiated due to matching profiles, and the need for

additional accommodation during the festival. The cooperation turned out to be

94

a success, which is one of the reasons for continuing the partnership. In order to

do so, Airbnb joined the test-project this year, not at least due to the potential of

Aarhus2017. An effective city brand should both attract new investors and retain

investment (Clark, 2011).The effort of Aarhus2017, intends not just to generate

publicity and awareness towards Aarhus, but furthermore to attract new

investments. The fact that there is a process up until 2017, resulting in a grand

finale with a number of events that year, provides a huge listing potential for

Airbnb, which makes the collaboration very beneficial for them.

The potential benefits of the test-project, as a means to brand Aarhus, are

acknowledged by several of the involved stakeholders. The majority agrees that

there is a huge potential in Aarhus, and the collaboration that has been fostered

in this project, is a step in the right direction.

In Aarhus branding from a city perspective is done by VisitAarhus, in connection

to attracting tourists. Bettina (ARoS) stresses that they pay regular dues to

VisitAarhus in order to get international publicity:

”VisitAarhus kan noget vi ikke kan. De har kontakten til udenlandske marked og har professionelle

indgangsvinkler til presse, kommunikation og dækning på især Norge, Sverige og England, og det

ville vi aldrig kunne gøre selv. VisitAarhus gør det som by…” (Bettina, ARoS)

Hence, Bettina (ARoS) acknowledges their own limitations, and the need for

involving oneself in bigger initiatives, and the importance of making a collective

effort as a destination. ARoS has the money to pay such dues, but smaller

operators might not. With this in mind, it is a reasonable strategy to join

initiatives and projects in order to increase own communicational reach, which

the stakeholders seem to be aware of. Especially by connecting oneself to some

of the efforts up to Aarhus2017, where the potential of international promotion

is striking. The advantages of an event are that it possibly can provide a city

international publicity and can thereby increase awareness (Roche, 1993).

Thereby, being connected to efforts in connection to Aarhus2017, which without

doubt, will achieve severe international publicity, it will reflect upon the whole

city and its stakeholders.

95

The event of Aarhus2017 has the potential to satisfy numerous strategic goals

(Getz, 2008). However, the test-project showed that the actual publicity

stakeholders were given, was very limited. This is an important notion, since it

actually indicates limited influence on the publicity outcome of joining efforts

like the test-project. Yet, an important notion to the findings of the test-project is

the limited timeframe and the fact that it was a test project. This means that

Aarhus and its operators will become better at utilization continuously up to

Aarhus2017. Additionally, the findings are based on a preliminary concept, thus

also not entirely adequate.

”Den fede oplevelse promoverer ikke alene NorthSide, men samtidig Aarhus. Arbejdes der strategisk

med dette, kan man brande en hel region ved brugen af events. NorthSide er en tematik som samler

samarbejdspartnere og gæster, som ellers ikke ville komme, men pga. NorthSide så kommer de. Så

skal både by og region også vises frem, på den måde er der mulighed for, at de vil komme igen. Deri

ligger det store potentiale – events som overordnet destinations-branding.”

(Peter, Seismonaut)

According to Peter, NS has certain strength due to its values and brand, whereas

other events have different strengths and other potential target groups. The

principals for carrying out the efforts are similar for small and big events. This

makes the concept applicable, and it does not necessarily have to cost or demand

more, for other events to apply these principles. However, even though the

concept might be applicable, it still has to be connected to that particular event,

which demands an effort.

Casper (Radisson) stresses the fact that NS is an international event. According

to him, Radisson would not have the same interest, if NS simply was a local

event. He is certain that if Aarhus succeeds to ‘løfte overlæggeren endnu længere

op’, then international guests would like to return to the city another time. The

importance of a great guest experience will affect the whole city. Furthermore,

Casper (Radisson) thinks it is fantastic to see, that such initiatives are fostered in

Aarhus, since there has been increased focus on Horsens and Herning recently:

”Kan vi se, at noget kan sætte Aarhus på landkortet, som bidrager med øget aktivitet for os, så vil vi

altid gå ind i det.” (Casper, Radissson)

96

A strong destination brand can have a positive differential marketing effect, and

moreover, a destination brand can assist visitors in consolidating and reinforcing

their perceptions of the destination after a visit (Pereira et al., 2012).New

initiatives can strengthen Aarhus’s position by increasing its competitiveness,

which will attract more tourists to the city, thus be profitable for stakeholders

and businesses across Aarhus.

Back in 2011, Aarhus launched a new city branding strategy; ‘Aarhus, Danish for

progress’. This brand was developed in collaboration with the business

community, since it was their request to create a more international-oriented

city brand for Aarhus:

(Screen-print, www.citybrandaarhus.dk)

In connection to this city brand, a logo generator was created, providing people

with the opportunity to make ‘With us’-statements that fit their individual idea

about Aarhus:

(Screen-print, www.citybrandaarhus.dk)

This effort shows that an approach was chosen, which provided opportunities

for an easy spreadable message through a graphical identity that is very

recognizable. The opportunity to produce individual statements as a brand

97

approach is in coherence with the fact that Aarhus is the youngest city in

Denmark in terms of population.

However, when local citizens are integrated into a place product, they will most

likely be satisfied (Therkelsen, Halkier, & Jensen, 2010), and cities with satisfied

citizens have a greater competitive advantage than those who neglect its citizens

(Kotler, 1994).The city brand has been developed on the basis of 41 focus groups

with a mix of citizens, students and business people, who in collaboration have

tried to uncover Aarhus’s identity. Later, fifteen hundred citizens were also

included in the process. In the end, the final brand was approved by Aarhus

Marketing Alliance, which is made up by people from the business community

(Line, BB).Thus, the approach chosen provides a realistic picture of Aarhus,

based on internal perspecives of whatAarhus has to offer. This clarifies the

identity, and the ‘products’, which make the city’s brand competitive and

genuine.

The city brand might be a bit alienating for the general citizens of Aarhus, but

according to Line (BB), the new brand is not a replacement for ‘Smilets By’, but

rather an international effort that characterizes and differentiates Aarhus at the

global market. She emphasizes, that the brand is used by some businesses, but no

campaign has been developed in order to get people to embrace the brand:

”Den interne spredning af brandet har ikke fundet sted, da det internationale har været prioriteret.

Vi har ikke nok erfaring med city-branding i et system hvor der ikke er penge. Men vi har nået den

erkendelse, at det er super vigtigt at have identiteten i byen og forstå brandet.”

(Line, BB)

External and internal audiences are mutually supportive in place branding

initiatives(Therkelsen, Halkier, & Jensen, 2010). Line stresses, that there has

primarily been external inititatives in order to spread the brand. However, since

the internal resources were brought along when trying to identify the brand

identity of Aarhus, this audience’s perspective is taking into account. Yet, since

the focus was primarily on attracting international workforce, students and

tourists, the brand might be alienizing for the general citizen.

98

Line (BB) believes, the best way to root and spread the brand is by making

citizens ambassadors, since the majority is proud of Aarhus, and they can help to

create a positive image of the city. Which as earlier mentioned, is supported by

(Therkelsen, Halkier, & Jensen, 2010). However, she stresses that there has only

been small efforts in order to get people to utilize the city brand, for instance

through small workshops where the brand board has been teaching actors how

to use the brand. Hence, the city brand has not been forced upon people; they

must themselves feel the value of using it. This approach has had limited effect.

”Vi har haft ressourcer, men det kræver bare mere. 2-3 deltidsmedarbejdere på indsatsen er ikke

nok til at få skabt nok kritisk masse. Indsatsen hos os er ikke blevet skærpet på grund af titlen som

kulturby, for det har jo fået sin egen organisering. Det er pt. intet samarbejde, men jeg tror der

bliver noget længere henne – der er eksempelvis nogle konkrete events, hvor vi gerne vil være

synlige.” (Line, BB)

Even the strongest brands can fail with poor management (Clark, 2011). Public

organization often mangage these tasks(Therkelsen & Halkier, 2011), but they

very often have small budgets at their disposal or have limited staff (Diekmann &

Cloquet 2012). This reality is stresses by Line (BB), who emphasizes that very

limited resources have been allocated for the purpose of implementing this city

brand. Additionally, the effort of Aarhus2017 has created an organization

carrying out its own brand, which includesa logo anda related strategy:

(Screen-print, www.ReThink2017.eu)

Line (BB) emphasizes that they were working with the application to become

cultural capital, while developing the city brand, ‘Aarhus, Danish for progress’.

Though, it was not part of the branding strategy to become cultural capital, but

this has become a positive bonus.

99

Since an individual ReThink-logo has been created, it is reasonable to think that

the different operators and actors across the region, who are part of the different

initiatives preparing the city for the event of Aarhus2017, will adapt this logo.

This must at least be the intention by developing a brand identity of its own, in

order to spread the word about the event of being European capital of culture.

Ulla (ReThink) questions the effect of the city brand ’Aarhus, Danish for

progress’, as people in general, in her opinion, have neither understood nor

embraced it.

” Jeg synes, det er fjollet at køre med noget konkurrerende. Det hedder jo ReThink, nu står der jo

ReThink overalt, og alle kan bruge det. Så jeg tror bare at deres brand dør ud. Vi må også gå ud fra,

at kommunen har taget 2017 til sig. Vil man noget stort, og vil man noget sammen, så brug dét.”

(Ulla, ReThink)

The desire is that characteristics of the event’s brand will compliment the

destination’s brand, and vice (Xing & Chalip, 2006), especially in cases where

events with well-established brands can enhance the brand identity of the

destination.

According to Line (BB), the intention is not for the two brands to be competitors,

but rather to complement each other. It is the target to reach progress, which the

ReThink-approach can be the means for. Thus, the event of being capital of

culture can be the means for achieving the ambitions of progress, which can be

done by ReThinkingelements up to 2017.With this in mind, a relevant question is

why the two brands are not complementing each other, or connecting efforts.

”ReThink har en fortælling, som de rejser med. Den er nærmest identisk med vores city brand, så vi

arbejder med at koordinere disse – Hvordan gør vi? Hvornår bruger vi hvilket brand? Så vi ser

egentlig hinanden som to ting, der kan hjælpe hinanden på vej.” (Line, BB)

Since the idea is that the brands are complementary, and a means to a common

goal, it can be discussed why the two brand-organizations have not coordinated

this already. As things are now, the two brands are to some extent competing

about being acknowledged and embedded both across the city and in people’s

minds. They might be perceived as competitors, making them two rather weak

100

brands instead of one joint, strong city brand. The fact that two ‘big’ brands have

been introduced within a short period of time is probably confusing people.

101

(Screen-print, www.citybrandaarhus.dk)

A strategic coordination plan of the two brands might come, as stressed by Line

(BB), but since the initiating phases of both of the effort dates back, this could

preferably have been done already. It takes time to embed brands, which though

should be calculated. Even though 2017 might seem far away at the moment, it is

suddenly here. This again strikes the challenge of implementing these across

Aarhus, and in reality it is only reasonable to believe than only one of the brands

will succeed. However, the creation of an organizing organ, Aarhus2017, might

have slowed things down, and the fact that there is so many elements in this,

makes the bureaucratic procedures noticeable.

Sub-conclusion

In connection to the concept of collaborative consumption, the test-projects was

one specific initiative in order to preparing stakeholders across Aarhus for the

event of Aarhus2017. This event is an opportunity to carry out a collective effort

as a destination, preparing Aarhus for progress, which is their city branding

strategy’s main term.However, there is another available brand, ReThink, which

has been developed specifically in connection to the event of Aarhus2017.The

intention of the two brands is, that they complement each other. That ReThink is

a way to foster progress. However, these two brands might be conflicting with

each other a bit, since they have been launched within a short period of time

after each other.

The potential in Aarhus2017 is huge, but in order to use this potential, it

demands that resources are spent in order to exploit it. The fact that 145 mio.

has been funded to the project makes it realistic to utilize some of this potential,

if money is spent right. An abvious way to do so, is through branding initiatives,

which will affect the entire value chain of Aarhus.

102

Conclusion

This section conclusively wraps up the study of this thesis. First, the learning-

outcome of the NorthSide case study is estimated, thus contributing with the

practical proof of applying the concept of collaborative consumption to

NorthSide Festival 2014. Then the findings of the case study are extracted, in

order to answer the research question, which will provide general guidelines in

order to apply the concept of collaborative consumption to urban events in the

future.

What was learned from the test-project?

103

The limited timeframe of the test-project proved to have significant influence on

the outcome of the project, partly due to the intangible criteria of the test-

project, and partly due to the need for a product at the time of the festival. The

Pinterest-map was created as an outcome of the process. This map was the

virtual community making up the calloborative consumption market in

connection to NorthSide. The evaluation of this map indicated, that it did not

work as intended. The communication manuals developed by Gejst/Studio,

which should have promoted the map, were not followedand thereby not carried

out, neither was the utilization of the hashtag of the effort. However, it is

necessary to mention that statistics were limited, but still guiding.

Thus, in general the lacking promotion and communication of the test-project do

not provide sufficient knowledge about the actual execution of the application of

the concept to an urban event. However, what the test-project did prove was a

general interest amongst stakeholders towards the concept of collaborative

consumption, and willingness to participate in such efforts. However, since it

was a test-project, the prospective ‘failure’ was not an option, and there is

arguably valuable know-how about many aspects of the test-project(s). This

means that Aarhus, in an ongoing process towards 2017, continuously can

improve both collaboration and practical efforts in order to be ready for the big

international event by 2017.

How can collaborative consumption be incorporated in the planning of an event in

order to offer a contemporary approach to urban event development, for the

benefit of event, stakeholders and the city at large?

Applying the concept of collaborative consumption to an urban event offers the

opportunity to foster collaborative lifestyles amongst stakeholders and guests of

that particular event. Sharing is a basic value, and this value fosters a community

feeling. In this sense, the concept can assist with a mindset, stressing the

104

importance and benefits of sharing less tangible assets, such as time, space and

skills in connection to a particular event.

An event with a well-established brand can probably easier nurture the

relationship of stakeholders, whereas new events or less known brands

beneficially can take on rural approaches, in order to spread word about itself.

A broad stakeholders approach should be taken, in order to meet the values

within the concept – however an assessment is needed in regards to

stakeholders, in order to ensure that stakeholders with similar interest team up;

stakeholders who are of relevance for that particular urban event. When relevant

stakeholders have been involved, a clarification of expectations is needed, in

order to ensure common agreement of the collaboration objective.

The concept might seem easy applicable, just as the many virtual communities,

constituted by the concept. However, in practice it is more complex. The

challenges of applying the concept to a business context, to some extent modify

the concept, since there is an underlying notion of profit. Additionally, the

concept requires the following processes:

People need to be taught the mindset that constitutes the concept of

collaborative consumption.

A digital platform needs to be developed in order to present the collaborative

market. If this line of a collaborative effort is not carried out, the processes and

products are just a type of value chain development. In time – ifcritical mass is

reached - the system will become self-sustainable, and it is when this happens, if

it happens, that it can really become a valuable tool for both marketing and

revenue. However, in order for this to happen, sufficient communication and

branding is needed.

When the virtual collaborative market is developed, it requires management to

keep the community running. Not much, but it requires management. Thus, this

aspect needs to be taken into account. In this perspective, it makes sense to talk

about facilitation from a bigger organizational level, since it requires some kind

105

of funding to foster collaborative event projects, since events neither have the

resources nor time to develop such on their own. A bigger organization has more

channels and contacts, which can offer a more comprehensive effort.

The benefits for the event itself can vary, but the concept offers the opportunity

to provide the event with secondary attributes; events within the event.

Alongside the added value for the event, by getting these secondary attributes, it

also provides better guest experiences.

The benefits for the involved stakeholders are added value, new stakeholder

relationships and collaboration, and through these, new channels for

communications with potentially new segments. In general, it offers the

stakeholders an array of ways to increase business.

The benefits for the city at large are the opportunity to attract more visitors and

events, foster urban development and external branding. From a city

perspective, the mindset of collaborative consumption can foster increased

sharing of resources and skills, and a more collaborative-oriented community.

Appendix guideThe files are collected on the attached CD-ROM:

- Interview guides

- Observations

Kick-off meeting (Kick-off)

1. Workshop (ws1)

2.. Workshop (ws2)

- Interview summaries

106

- Color-coding schemes

- Mail regarding use of hashtag

- Audio file

- Communication manual

Stakeholder

NorthSide

BibliographyAirbnb. (2010). www.airbnb.dk. Retrieved 4 25, 2014, from www.airbnb.dk.

Albinson, P. A., & Perera, B. Y. (2012). Journal of Consumer Behaviour (11), pp. 303-315.

Andersson, T., & Getz, D. (2008). Stakeholder management strategies of festivals. Journal of Convention and Event Tourism, 9 (3), 199-220.

Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). Collins, London.

Bowdin, G. A. (2006). Event Management. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Bradley, A. a. (2006). The festival phenomenon: Festivals and events and the promotion of small urban areas. In D. a. Bell, Small Cities: Urban Experiences Beyond the Metropolis. London: Routledge.

Brännäs, K., & Nordström, J. (2002). Emeå Economic Studies , 580.

107

Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods (Vol. 4). Oxford.

Caulfield, B. (2010, 11 18). Forbes. Retrieved 3 24, 2014, from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/1206/technology-airbnb-sequoia-capital-ebay-startup-next-door.html

Clark, G. E. (2011, July). City Branding and Urban Investment. Retrieved June 2014, from http://europe.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/ULI-Documents/City-Branding-InfoBurst.pdf: www.europe.uli.org/report/city-branding-and-urban-investment/

Cunningham, M. T., & Culligan, K. (1990). Competitiveness Through Networks of Relationships in Information Technology Product Markets. In D. Ford, Understanding Business Markets: Interaction, Relationships and Networks. London: Academic Press.

Damm, S. (2011). Event Management - how to apply best practices to small-scales event . Hamburg: Diplomica Verlag.

Diekmann, A., & Cloquet, I. (2012). “How ‘capital’ are capital cities on the Internet? Current Issues in Tourism, 15 (1-2), 19-33.

Flyvbjerg , B. (2001). Making Social Science Matter - Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. (S. Sampson, Trans.) Cambridge University Press.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. . Boston: Pitman Publishing.

Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review , 24 (2), 191-205.

Getz, D. (2005). Event Management and Event Tourism. New York: Cognizant.

Getz, D. (2007). Event Studies. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd.

Getz, D. (2008). Event tourism: Definition, evolution, and research. Tourism Management, 29, 403-428.

Getz, D., Andersson, T., & Larson, M. (2007). Festival stakeholder roles: concepts and case studies. Event Management,, 10 (2).

Goodpaster, K. (1993). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. In E. a. Winkler, Aplied Ethics. Blackwell: Oxford.

Grix, J. (2002). Introducing Students to the Generic Terminology of Social Research . Politics, 22 (3), 175-186.

Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. London: Sage publication.

Gummesson, E. (1996). Relationship Marketing and Imaginary Organisations: A Synthesis. European Journal of Marketing, 30 (2), 31-44.

Guttentag, D. (2014). Current Issues in Tourism , 17 (3), pp. 1-28.

108

Hellgren, B., & Stjernberg, T. (1995). Design and implementation in major investments – a project network approach. Scandinavian Journal of Management , 11 (4), 377-394.

Johansson, M., & Kociatkiewicz , J. (2011). European Urban and Regional Studies, 18 (4), pp. 392–405 .

Kotler, P. H. (1994). There's No Place Like Our Place! Public Management , 76 (2).

Kristiansen, S., & Krogstrup, H. K. (1999). Deltagende observation - intoduktion til en samfundsvidenskabelig metode (Vol. 1). Hans Reitzels Forlag.

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews - Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing (Vol. 2). SAGE Publications.

Larson, M. (2002). A Political Approach to Relationship Marketing: Case Study of the Storsjöyran Festival. International Journal of Tourism Research, 4 (2), 119-143.

Lundin, R. A. (1998). Temporära organisationer – några perspektivbyten. In B. Czarniawska, Organisationsteori på svenska. (pp. 194-214). Malmø.

Mitchell, R. K. (1997). Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. Academy of Management Review, 22 (4), 853-886.

Moilanen, T., & Rainisto, S. (2009). How to Brand Nations, Cities and Destinations. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mossberg, L., & Getz, D. (2006). Stakeholder Influences on the Ownership and Management of Festival Brands. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism , 6 (4), 308-326.

Pereira, R. L., Correia, A. L., & Schutz, R. L. (2012). Destination Branding: A Critical Overview. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 13 (2), 81-102.

Pugh, C., & Wood, E. (2004). The strategic use of events within local government; a study of London Borough Councils. Event Management, 9 (1/2), 61-71.

Reid, S. (2011). Event stakeholder management: developing sustainable rural event practices. International Journal of Event and festival Management , 20-36.

Roche, M. (1993). Mega-events and Urban Policy. Annals of Tourism research, 21, 1-19.

Schwedler, H. (n.d.). Governance and new narratives - city image, branding and marketing. Retrieved March 10, 2014, from www.urbact.eu: http://urbact.eu/fileadmin/Projects/OP_ACT/outputs_media/WP1_RESULTS_BRANDING.pdf

Seisdedos, G. (2006). State of the Art of City Marketing in European Cities. Retrieved April 1, 2014, from www.isocarp.net: www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/858.pdf

109

Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and Interaction. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research , Chapter 1.

Smith, A. (2005). Reimaging the city: the value of sport initiatives. Annals of Tourism Research, 32 (1), 229–248.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. . Academy of Management Review, 20 (3), 571-610.

Therkelsen, A., & Halkier, H. (2011). Branding provincial cities: The politics of inclusion, strategy and commitment. In A. Pike, Brands and Branding Geographies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Therkelsen, A., & Halkier, H. (2008). Contemplating place branding umbrellas: The case of coordinated national tourism and business promotion in Denmark. Scandinavian Journal of Tourism and Hospitality, 8 (2), 159-175.

Therkelsen, A., Halkier, H., & Jensen, O. B. (2010). Branding Aalborg. Building Community or Selling Place? In G. Ashworth, & M. Kavaratsis, Branding Places (pp. s 136-155). Edward Elgar.

Trošt, K. K. (2012, January). Events as a Framework for Tourist Destination Branding – Case Studies of Two Cultural Events in Croatia . Retrieved June 2014, from http://www.dgt.uns.ac.rs: http://www.dgt.uns.ac.rs/turizam/arhiva/vol_1602_3.pdf

Walker, L. (2012). About.com. Retrieved from About.com: http://personalweb.about.com/od/socialmediause/a/Social-Media-News-2012.htm

Wood, D. J., & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a Comprehensive Theory of Collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27 (2), 139-162.

Yilmaz, B. a. (2009). THE IMPORTANCE OF STRATEGIC STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT IN TOURISM SECTOR: RESEARCH ON PROBABLE APPLICATIONS. TOURISMOS: AN INTERNATIONAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF TOURISM, 4 (1), 97-108.

Yin, K. R. (2003). Case Study Research - Design and Methods (Vol. 3). SAGE Publications.

110