城市品牌形象與品牌個性之研究－以臺北市為例

Brand Image and Brand Personality of City: A Case Study of Taipei

方佩欣(Pei-Hsin Fang)；鄧宏如(Horng-Ju Deng)；張少熙(Shao-Shi Chang)

城市行銷 ； 品牌形象 ； 品牌個性 ； city marketing ； brand image ； brand personality

休憩管理研究

1卷1期（2014 / 04 / 01）

63 - 74

繁體中文

城市行銷與品牌建立是觀光及休閒領域的重要研究議題。城市建立品牌的好處在於，能使人們將城市與特殊的形象相互連結（Kelley, 2003）。品牌個性將品牌與人格特質結合（Aaker, 1997），建立品牌個性與品牌形象有助於城市與競爭者有所區別。本研究旨在了解臺北市居民對於臺北市城市品牌形象與品牌個性之認知，並了解兩者間的相關情形。以分層便利取樣針對現居於臺北市之18歲以上民眾發放問卷，並以描述性統計、獨立樣本t檢定、單因子變異數分析及典型相關分析所得資料。主要研究結果為：一、臺北市居民認為臺北市屬於刺激型個性，展現出流行、具創造力的風格；二、不同教育程度、戶籍地、居住時間在城市形象達顯著差異；三、不同年齡、職業別、戶籍地、居住時間在城市品牌個性上具有顯著差異；四、城市品牌形象透過兩組典型因素影響品牌個性。城市品牌形象會形塑出不同的品牌個性，臺北市能藉由加強城市觀光景點與活動的吸引力、居民的友善程度及文化的包容性等形象，以突顯自身品牌個性。

In recent years, city marketing and city branding have become important issues in the field of tourism and leisure studies. With the benefit of city branding, so that people could associate a city with its specific image (Kelley, 2003). Brand personality explains the relevance of characteristics and brands (Aaker, 1997). Shaping the brand personality helps to distinguish the differences among competitors. The main purpose of this study is to understand residents' cognition of the brand personality in Taipei City. The data was collected by questionnaires through Stratified and Convenience Sampling targeting Taipei city residents who above 18 years old. Descriptive statistics, t-test, one-way ANOVA and canonical correlation were utilized to analyze valid data. The main results were as follows: 1) ＂Excitement＂ had the highest score within the brand personality of Taipei City. It showed that the style of fashion and creativity. 2).＂Education＂, ＂Place of birth＂ and ＂Time of residence＂ had significant difference in city brand image. 3).＂Age＂, ＂Occupation＂, ＂Place of birth＂ and ＂Time of residence＂ had significant difference in city brand personality. 4) City brand image could explain brand personality through two significant canonical correlations. City brand image could make different brand personality. It is helpful to show personality of Taipei city by intensifying attraction of spots and activities, friendship of people, and cultural inclusiveness.

1. 馬群傑,汪明生,陳建寧(2006)。兩岸加入WTO後之高雄地方發展策略：地區行銷與互動管理之實證分析。公共行政學報，18，85-124。
   連結：
2. Aaker, J. L.(1997).Dimensions of brand personality.Journal of Marketing Research,34,347-356.
3. Anholt City Brands Index(2006).How to world views its cities.
4. Batra, R.,Lehmann, D. R.,Singh, D.(1993).Brand Equity and Advertising.Hillsdale. NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Hosany, S.,Ekinci, Y.,Uysal, M.(2006).Destination image and destination personality: An application of branding theories to tourism places.Journal of Business Research,59,638-642.
6. Kavaratzis, M.,Ashworth, G. J.(2005).City branding: An effective assertion of identity or a transitory marketing trick.Tijdschrift voor Economische en sociale geografie,96(5),506-514.
7. Keller, K. L.(1993).Conceptializing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity.Journal of Marketing,57,1-22.
8. Navickas, V.,Malakauskauskaite, A.(2009).The possibilities for the identification and evaluation of tourism sector competitiveness factors.Engineering Economics,61(1),37-44.
9. Plummer, J. T.(1985).How personality makes a difference.Journal of Advertising Research,24(6),27-31.
10. Stren, E.,Krakover, S.(1993).The formation of a composite urban image.Geographical Analysis,25,130-146.
11. Wann, D. L.(1996).Seasonal changes in spectators' identification and involvement with Evaluations of College Basketball and Football Teams.The Psychological Record,46(1),201-215.
12. 張庭庭(2009)。臺北市政府研究發展考核委員會委託報告臺北市政府研究發展考核委員會委託報告,臺北市政府研究發展考核委員會。
13. 郭沛琳(2010)。臺北市，世新大學。
14. 鄭博文,邱鴻遠(2006)。高雄市城市品牌形象研究初探─民眾與政府間認知差異。公共事務評論，7(1)，1-33。
15. 羅漢 （譯）(2002).科特勒深探大亞洲：人潮、金潮與地方再造.臺北市:商智文化.

1. 蔡青琉,蔡孟娟,黃絹涵,莊基仁(2023)。好形象解鎖高業績？從品牌個性談購買意願。管理實務與理論研究，17(3)，39-55。