#5 WHAT IS A DESTINATION BRAND?

Finding a real definition of the destination brand is not easy. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in charge of tourism, the notion of a national tourism brand can be summed up as “Quality Tourism”, “Destination for all” or “Tourism and disability”. Which, despite the interest that sovereign structures may have in these “labels”, do not have any specific interests in the marketing sense of the term in the eyes of consumers.

Another notion is cited, that of destination contracts. A project which saw the light of day following the tourism conference so that the territories could have the support of the state and Atout France to develop.

Destination contracts bring together all tourism stakeholders around the same territorial brand in order to create a better structured and more visible offer on an international level.

Twenty destination contracts were selected by two calls for projects organized by the General Directorate of Enterprises between July 2014 and January 2015.

They are co-signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Development, the Secretary of State in charge of foreign trade, the promotion of tourism and French people abroad, and the Secretary of State in charge of the social and solidarity economy.

The 20 destination contracts signed in 2014 and 2015 are grouped into five themes.

1. The heritage offer

Mont Saint-Michel and its Bay

The Loire Valley

Normandy Paris Ile-de-France – Impressionism Destination

Around the Louvre Lens

Paris, the augmented city

2. Ecotourism, living well and discovering natural and heritage sites

Brittany

Arts of living in Provence

Corsica

Dordogne Valley

Guyana

3. Wine tourism and gastronomy

Champagne

Burgundy

Bordeaux

Lyon City of Gastronomy

4. The mountain and rejuvenation

Jura Mountains

Vosges massif

Travel to the Alps

Auvergne

Pyrenees

5. Sport and relaxation

Biarritz destination Golf

These contracts complement the four destination contracts which were signed by the Minister of Tourism, Ms. Pinel between July 2013 and February 2014, on the theme of roaming, business and memory tourism:

The “Tarn et Garonne” destination contract aims to develop itinerant tourism, through the structuring of a range of tourist routes with a European dimension, the establishment of a network of quality, welcoming and supportive sites and services, and the organization of reception and information around innovative digital products. 07/20/2013

The “Alsace” destination contract aims to develop business tourism, by promoting the hosting of congresses, conventions, seminars and corporate events, national and international, in order to strengthen the visibility of the destination, particularly internationally. 07/22/2013

The “Centenary of the Great War” destination contract brings together the State, ten communities and partner associations, as well as fourteen companies, actors from the French part of the western front line, in order to create an excellent tourist offer with international visibility, based on the discovery of the memory of the First World War. 14/11/2013

The “Memory Tourism in Normandy” destination contract, initiated by the State with around twenty public and private partners, aims to create an innovative and adapted tourism offer around this theme, to develop attendance at the sites and to make Normandy a region that carries the values of peace, reconciliation and freedom. 02/20/2014

It simply surprises me in this list not to find the Côte d'Azur, a true historic French destination which is the image of summer tourism with international influence.

 "Even if administrative borders change, tourist destinations persist. Lorraine offers many assets with well-known and recognized names, whether geographical or linked to tourist facilities. Federated around Lorraine Tourisme, tourist stakeholders are invited to demonstrate their desire to build together an attractive image of a resolutely tourist territory, in the same way as other destinations located in the East of France, such as Alsace, Champagne, the Vosges Massif or Built around determined values, La Lorraine wishes to attract a renewed national and international clientele, and increase the economic benefits for the benefit of tourism professionals. Through a destination brand approach, La Lorraine is equipped with a platform of images, values and messages. This brand guide makes it possible to bring it to life, through the employees and partners of Lorraine Tourisme who are its first ambassadors. Lorraine through a destination brand logic and catalyze all the energies linked to the tourism development and the attractiveness of this vast unique territory: this is the strategic challenge for Lorraine tourism. Indeed, we are best placed to carry our identity, promote our assets or explain our strategy.

Introduction to the Lorraine Tourisme brand guide

We can then make a link between Territory and Identity but also between Destination and Image.

Let us then move on to the definition of protected territorial brand.

“There is no definition to date of what a “protected territorial brand” is: it has no regulatory character and does not use any existing classification or labeling. Filing with the INPI was mentioned. The INPI being a trademark registration body, not deliberating on the interest and justification of such a trademark for the territory, it does not answer the question of the tourist character of the territory.

Clarification was requested from the government in this regard, to date still unspecified. In 2018, only a few stations used this principle of protected territorial branding. Most of the territories which advocated for this addition have apparently found their benefit in the possibility left by the mountain law to maintain a fully municipal tourist office.» says Charlotte Emery of MONA

On June 13, 2018, the deputy for Gard, Philippe Berta, tabled a bill aimed at clarifying the concept of territorial brand a little. Below is his proposal text:

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

CONSTITUTION OF OCTOBER 4, 1958

FIFTEENTH LEGISLATURE

Registered at the Presidency of the National Assembly on June 13, 2018.

PROPOSED LAW relating to territorial brands,

(Referred to the Committee on Cultural Affairs and Education, in the absence of constitution

of a special commission within the time limits provided for in Articles 30 and 31 of the Regulations.)

presented by

Mr. Philippe BERTA,MP.

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Promotion and attractiveness policies are major issues for local authorities. To carry them out successfully, the process of creating and promoting a brand, like corporate strategies, develops in the public sphere. The territorial brand, in fact, makes it possible to convey a recognizable identity that carries meaning and values.

If article 68 of law no. 2015-991 of August 7, 2015 on the new territorial organization of the Republic (NOTRe law) established the notion of “protected territorial brand” (1), it did not however give a definition. Therefore, this notion must be interpreted with regard to the general framework of trademark law defined by the intellectual property code ( 2). The protected territorial trademark must be filed by local authorities with the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI), which will verify its validity and register it. It gives its holder ten-year protection, renewable indefinitely.

Through this, communities work to create an image that makes their territories attractive to different audiences, residents, investors or tourists. This affirmation of the identity of the territory responds both to external objectives, such as the development of tourism or the establishment of businesses, and to internal objectives such as social cohesion, membership in a local project or even the development of territorial dynamics.

The choice of a name, or a slogan, is the central element in the creation of this territorial brand. In order to allow communities to adapt their terminology to their target, from local communication to international influence, they should be offered the freedom to choose the most suitable linguistic option.

However, pursuant to Article 14 of Law No. 94-665 of August 4, 1994 relating to the use of the French language, "the use of a trademark, trade or service mark, consisting of a foreign expression or term is prohibited to legal entities under public law as long as there exists a French expression or term of the same meaning approved under the conditions provided for by the regulatory provisions relating to the enrichment of the French language.»

Pursuant to Article L. 711-3 of the Intellectual Property Code, which prohibits the registration as trademarks of signs whose use is legally prohibited, the registration of a trademark in a foreign language by the persons concerned is therefore prohibited.

In addition, and regardless of the owner of the brand (private or public person), Article 2 of Law No. 94-665 of August 4, 1994 provides that the use of the French language is mandatory for “mentions and messages registered with the brand”.

Numerous legal disputes, on the basis of the two articles of the law of August 4, 1994 mentioned above, have, in recent years, put local authorities in difficulty in their policy of promoting the territory through the creation of a brand.

This proposed law therefore aims to allow the territorial brands of public law legal entities to benefit from a derogatory status allowing them to adapt their terminology to the targeted public, through the use of a foreign or regional language.

PROPOSED LAW

Article 1

Article 2 of Law No. 94-665 of August 4, 1994 relating to the use of the French language is supplemented by the sentence:

“However, the use of the French language is not obligatory in mentions and messages registered with a protected territorial brand.»

Article 2

II of Article 14 of Law No. 94-665 of August 4, 1994 relating to the use of the French language is supplemented by the words: “nor to protected territorial brands.»

1 () This article provides that “when several protected territorial brands coexist in the territory of the same municipality or the same public establishment of intermunicipal cooperation with their own taxation system, distinct by their location, their name or their mode of management, the municipality is authorized to create a tourist office for each of the sites having a protected territorial brand” (art. L. 133-1 of the tourism code).

2 () Aldo Sevino, The “protected territorial brand” at the heart of the local tourism strategy, Legal Week Administrations and Local Authorities No. 2, January 18, 2016.

To date, this proposal has been referred to the Committee on Cultural Affairs and Education of the National Assembly and remains unanswered.

The legislation therefore leaves us wanting more with this part of the NOTRe law n°2015-991 of August 7, 2015 which evokes the notion of territorial brand, which will have challenged a good number of tourist territories, but without providing a real definition.

In this law two exemptions exist, the first allows tourist offices to exist in the territory of municipalities with a protected territorial brand. Indeed, when several protected territorial brands coexist on the territory of an EPCI with its own tax system, distinct by their location, their name or their method of management, the municipality is authorized to create a tourist office for each of the sites having a protected territorial brand (article L. 133-1 of the tourism code). No text has yet defined the notion of “protected territorial brand”, however, it is very likely that it refers to that of a protected brand in intellectual property law (article 712-1 of the intellectual property code). These territorial brands must be protected by registering the brand with the INPI and must be clearly distinct in terms of their location, their name or their method of management.

A parliamentary question was asked to clarify this notion on September 17, 2015, without any real response to date. We can cite for example the case of an EPCI bringing together several ski resorts on its territory. The choice belongs to the municipality which is authorized to create a tourist office for each of the sites with a protected territorial brand. The municipal council must then take a decision if it wishes to create an intercommunal tourist office on the territory of its municipality. The government has specified that it is appropriate to remain in the spirit of the NOTRe law which increasingly organizes compulsory transfers of skills from municipalities to EPCIs.

A second exemption allows a tourist office to exist on the territory of classified tourist resort municipalities, defined in article L. 133-13 of the tourism code. Indeed, on the occasion of the transfer of tourism competence, the deliberative body of the EPCI with its own taxation may decide, at the latest three months before the entry into force of the transfer of competence, to maintain separate tourist offices for classified tourist resorts, by defining the terms of pooling the means and resources of the intermunicipal tourist offices existing on its territory (article L. 134-2 of the tourism code). The EPCI may therefore decide to maintain separate tourist offices for its classified resort(s).

The debate has continued since the implementation of this law since in August 2018, the deputy for Allier Jean Paul Dufrègne questioned the Minister of Territorial Cohesion on a point of the NOTRe law which strongly impacts classified tourism resorts. Here is his intervention:

Mr. Jean-Paul Dufrègne questions the Minister of Territorial Cohesion on what the Government intends to do regarding the obligation to have a category 1 tourist office to qualify for classification as a classified tourist resort. Law No. 2006-437 of April 14, 2006 simplified the legal regime for classified tourism resorts by substituting the 6 possible classification categories into a single category, the classified tourism station, accessible only to municipalities having obtained the designation of tourist municipality. One of the criteria for this classification requires the municipality to have a tourist office (municipal or intermunicipal) classified in category 1. This sole criterion for the tourist office, which is very demanding, does not take into account the size of the municipality or the territory. Thus, for example, in the first district of Allier, the municipality of Bourbon l'Archambault lost its classification as a classified tourist resort in 2014 because it did not have a category 1 tourist office. Municipalities of this size do not in fact have the means to obtain this classification, which seriously penalizes them. He therefore requests it so that this criterion can be adapted to the territory. He therefore wishes to know what the Government intends to do in this sense, in particular by modifying the conditions of application of the provisions of article R. 133-37 of the tourism code contained in article 3 of title II of the decree of September 2, 2008 relating to tourist municipalities and classified tourist resorts in order to remove the obligation for municipalities of less than 10,000 inhabitants (and intermunicipalities of less than 30,000 inhabitants), by example, to have a category 1 tourist office to obtain classification as a classified tourist resort.

The minister then replied:

Before Law No. 2006-437 of April 14, 2006 simplifying the legal regime for classified tourism resorts, 537 municipalities were classified among the 6 existing categories. Since the law came into force on March 3, 2009, 346 municipalities have been classified according to the new text. Among them, 277 are formerly classified municipalities which have renewed their classification. One of the mandatory criteria to obtain classification as a tourist resort is to have a tourist office classified in category 1, competent in the territory of the municipality requesting classification. This criterion is indeed demanding but reflects the desire to establish the territory of the classified tourism resort as a place of tourist excellence, reception and services for the tourist population who frequent the territory. Thus the 346 classified tourism resorts all meet a set of identical criteria. Furthermore, the law of April 14, 2006 provided for transition periods so that former classified municipalities could have their classification renewed. Three times, the legislator pushed back the expiry dates to stop the end of the old classifications on January 1, 2018. An amendment to the finance law for 2018 allowed municipalities whose classification was in progress or those whose tourist office was in the process of being classified in category 1, following the decentralization laws of 2015 and 2016, to maintain the advantages acquired until the decision to classify or reject the classification request. The commune of Bourbon-l'Archambault thus definitively lost its former classification on January 1, 2018. This commune in Allier had 2,556 inhabitants in the 2015 INSEE census. Among the 346 stations classified as of October 1, 2018, 181 municipalities (52.3%) have fewer than 5,000 inhabitants and 116 (33.5%) are municipalities with fewer than 3,000 inhabitants, the demographic stratum in which Bourbon-l'Archambault is located. Law 2015-991 of August 7, 2015, known as the NOTRe law, transferred the responsibility for “promoting tourism including the creation of tourist offices” from the municipalities to the attached Public Establishments for Intercommunal Cooperation (EPCI). The strengthening of intercommunity, through the pooling of resources, has enabled the creation of intermunicipal tourist offices classified in category 1 and opened the possibility of classification as tourist resorts to municipalities which could no longer achieve this objective alone. The commune of Bourbon - l'Archambault which is the seat of the community of communes of the Bourbonnais bocage will have to unite around its thermal and heritage tourist assets in order to obtain from the EPCI, the decision to create an intercommunal office classified in category 1. Finally, of the 346 municipalities classified as of October 1, 2018, 70% have fewer than 10,000 inhabitants. Removing the classification of category 1 tourist offices for these municipalities would amount to calling into question the very essence of the classification as a tourist resort which aims for the excellence and attractiveness of these territories. The interministerial tourism committees of January 19, 2018 and July 19, 2018 approved the principle of simplifying the criteria linked to the classification of tourist offices and classified resorts. Less numerous and more operational, these criteria remain no less demanding with regard to the quality and reception of tourists, but the abolition of the category 1 tourist office to access the status of classified tourist resort is not envisaged by the Government.

Since the Mountain II law, an exception has been made for ski resorts and has complicated the understanding of the territorial brand status on a legislative level. We will not be any further ahead in this area…

RETURN TO MORE ENGLISH SEMANTICS TO FIND ANSWERS

If in French we only have the word "brand" to describe a name, symbol, sign or design used to identify the goods or services of a seller or group of sellers to differentiate it from its competitors, it is different in English. “Trademark” and “Brand” do not have the same meaning and their definitions will guide us more precisely in our research.

Renaud Vuignier, doctoral student at IDHEAP, University of Lausanne, will describe the term “trademark” in reference to the brand from a legal point of view and knows clear legal definitions in specific legal regimes which give exclusive exploitation rights over a name, a slogan or a logo for example. As such, “a brand is a sign allowing the products or services of a company to be distinguished from those of other companies. Brands are protected intellectual property rights”[1] We speak for example of trademark (™) or registered trademark (®). This conception consists of the defensive function of the brand which seeks, by authenticating the provenance[2], to protect against theft, copying, or even counterfeiting.

As for the term “brand”, Paul Manning of the University of Toronto will designate it as the brand in a broader and polysemous way, as a marketing concept[3]. It has a nominal or symbolic identity which carries a promise embodied in products and services[4] adds Jean Noel Kapferer. This is the offensive function which aims to make a difference.

[1] OMPI (2015). http://www.wipo.int/trademarks/fr/

[2] Kapferer, J.-N. (2012) France : Pourquoi penser marque ?

[3] Manning Paul (2010) The semiotic of brand – Annual Review of anthropology

[4] Kapferer, J.-N. (2012) France : Pourquoi penser marque ?