Anholt ^[1] argues that the terminology used for place branding is controversial and could lead to inadequacies in its application. In the scientific literature, the concepts of territorial branding and place branding are referred to as synonyms. However, they have different meanings depending on the geographical location where they are used ^[2]. Place branding in Brazil translates as strategic place management, according to Keller and Machado ^[3], who believe branding refers to product brand management. In addition, place marketing, which is the administration of the places as companies ^[4], and place branding, which focuses on the image and reputation of the place ^[1], are also different disciplines. Therefore, management and brand do not share the same position, for they are also different from each other. According to Almeida ^[2], place branding is a management process, and territorial brand is the product of this management. This approach falls within the view held by Anholt ^[1], who states that studies on place branding are often incorrectly aligned with the definition of brand found in Marketing literature. However, the concept of place branding, currently consolidated, cannot be regarded solely as a brand, sign, or symbol since it also concerns managing the reputation and image of a place ^[1], contexts in which a brand is also inserted. As an example, in Portugal, place branding does not have a literal translation as it does in Brazil, being considered as both management and brand. A reader who is specialized in brands is likely to be confused by this situation because of the distinctions between the terms: brand and logo, product and merchandise, and product and management ^[2].

2. Place Branding and Territorial Brand

Place branding is linked to economic development, which includes tourism as a product. The territorial brand also has these two approaches, a mercantilist perspective and one linked with tourism. However, the brand of a product and the brand of a territory have differences in the way they are created, communicated, and managed. This approach was the basis of Almeida’s ^[2] study, more specifically, the power relations embedded in the territorial brand in the context of regional development. These are power relations that involve social actors in the use and appropriation of the territory produced by a collective group. Moreover, urban development targets the city, and regional development addresses the potentialities of regions, considering their differences and socio-spatial realities. This scenario reveals that both the place branding process and the territorial brand are involved in the urban and regional contexts in different situations. One of the origins of the process of place branding is its application and use as a business ^[1][5]. This initial use linked place branding to a capitalistic logic. However, place branding has expanded over time, becoming an interdisciplinary area ^[1][2][6]. Taking this approach is paramount as place branding includes other dimensions: politics ^[7][8], public diplomacy ^[1][6][9], and culture ^[2]. Territorial branding refers to the reinvention of places through the branding process ^[10] by using the framework of the universe of brands but in the territorial context ^[2]. In both cases, the territory’s identities are considered to promote the planned places both as a brand and as a product. In addition, in the Scopus and Web of Science databases, between 1926 and 2021, there are 600 entries for the terms place branding (581), territorial brand (10), territorial branding (5), marca territoriale (4), in contrast to regional development (22,178 entries). Therefore, the term regional development is standardized in the literature. While the other terms refer to the same object, they have different nomenclatures. Two scenarios are presented here: one, in which there is no standardization of terms in the specialized literature, and another, in which the differences between terms are specific, and there can be no standardization. There is evidence that these terms originated in different moments, differing from each other (regional development, in 1926; place branding, in 2001; territorial brand, in 2012; territorial brand in regional development, in 2018).

3. Territorial Brand in the Regional Development Context

The territorial brand in the context of regional development is a “[…] set of symbols, cultures, and identities transformed into distinctive signs (brands), visual, verbal, discursive or mixed (visual-discursive), in a planned or organic way, favoring the elaboration of strategies that generate power relations on, in and beyond the territory” ^[2] (p. 244). The territory is a space connected and planned by multiple signs (visual, verbal, discursive, and mixed). These signs can be of the territorial brand that, in Almeida’s (2018) argument, includes territorial assets (social capital, cultural capital, natural and productive capital, and institutional capital). The concept of territory is shared with the brand when using a web of power relations, which are both agreed and conflicting. However, due to the absence of territorial brand in a broader context in the interdisciplinary literature on typology, such as those concerning regional development, doubts and misunderstandings arise about its types, categories, and classifications. Territorial brand, in Almeida’s ^[2] perspective, considers the strategies of social actors in the production and use of the territory from four main elements: brand, territory, territorialities (social actors and brand), and strategic connections. For Aaker ^[5], a brand is an identifier of distinction between products. According to Raffestin ^[11], territories are determined by the power relations between social actors. In Almeida’s ^[2] concept framework, the territorial brand has dual territoriality. On the one hand, the territoriality of the social actors, and on the other hand, the territoriality of the brand ^[2]. These two elements together create strategic connections ^[12], bringing other uses and appropriations to the territory ^[10] and giving new meanings to the lived space ^[13].

4. CoPlocar Tipologias de Marcas e Marcasace Brand and Territoriais na Literatura Científicl Brand Typologies in the Scientific Literature

The place brand topic is a concept worked out by several authors ^{[1][6][14][15]} and can easily be found in the scientific literature of branding and marketing scientific journals. However, there are many studies that establish different classifications, such as superior place branding and inferior place branding ^[16], place brand identity ^[17], and place physics, place practices, and place personality ^[18]. Almeida ^[2] studies place branding and territorial brand separately. Regarding territorial brand, although defended by Almeida ^[2], it is not used directly but rather encapsulated in the scientific literature in discussions on place branding in different areas: urban-regional development, communication, tourism, marketing, branding, international relations, public diplomacy, public administration, geography, urban management, and related areas. In fact, the nomenclatures used for a territorial brand are varied: place brand, city brand, territory brand, nation brand, country brand, regional brand, city branding, city marketing, tourism brand, city promotional brand, and others ^{[1][6][14][15][19][20][21][22]}. This diversity of denominations is justified by the spatial scales that serve as parameters for these nomenclatures (country, nation, state, region, island, port, territory, square, and street).