In my recent posts, I’ve been exploring how residents interpret destination branding, looking at the gap between simple visibility and genuine participation, as well as the multiple layers through which authenticity is evaluated. Today, I want to share a fascinating paradox that emerged from my research on the “Join Me in Jamaica” campaign.

Conventionally in tourism literature, it is assumed that residents who have a strong emotional bond to their country make the most natural brand ambassadors, with the expectation that high "place attachment" automatically translates into supportive word-of-mouth and brand loyalty. However, my research revealed a much more complex dynamic: strong attachment to a place did not produce automatic support for the campaign, but actually intensified residents' scrutiny of it.

Because participants felt personally and emotionally invested in how Jamaican identity was being represented to the world, they evaluated the branding from the position of protectors or "custodians of cultural identity". When representations felt misaligned with their complex lived reality, such as through perceived inauthentic accents or oversimplified stereotypes, their deep connection to the island amplified their critique. In short, rather than softening their evaluation, their love for their home strengthened it.

This has profound implications for how Destination Marketing Organisations (DMOs) engage with local communities. Attachment drives scrutiny, not blind support. It reminds us that if a destination brand projects simplified or commodified images that conflict with lived identities, the very people who love the destination the most will be the first to reject the brand's legitimacy.

I will be diving deeper into these findings and sharing my complete framework for how residents negotiate this brand legitimacy in my upcoming presentation. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on how these dynamics play out in other destinations.

Why loving a destination doesn't guarantee brand loyalty