I just could not leave the topic of reputation that I talked about in my last post. I was left wondering the difference between image (imago) and reputation (maine). They seem to be somehow connected and yet have different features. They are also used as synonyms in cities’ marketing strategies as well as the everyday discussions.
Topi Antti Äikäs (2004, 29) defines the difference like this:
Image is an instrument, not the result. The result of
a successful image-building is reputation.
This sentence describes, in my view, quite well what has gone wrong with city marketing. Image has become number one and treated as the result. (In defense of cities and their PR efforts, the difference between the two is now starting to be understood at least in bigger cities.) The city’s PR and communication strategy is of course in focal point here – it has to be built to support themes that have content. In order to do this, it is essential that PR and communication is not an isolated sector in the city management but an integral part of daily life.
The dilemma between image and reputation also applies to other organizations than municipalities. As (future) PR professionals, are we the builders of image or reputation?
Source: Äikäs, Topi Antti (2004) Imagoa etsimässä. Kaupunki- ja aluemarkkinonnin haasteista mielikuvien mahdollisuuksiin. Acta nro 168. Oulu.
