1Branding Post-conflict Destinations: Recreating Montenegro after the Disintegration of
Yugoslavia  
 
Andriela Vitic, Ph.D. 
Faculty of Tourism & Hotel Management, Kotor
University of Montenegro
Greg Ringer, Ph.D.
International Studies Program
University of Oregon, USA
Resource Recreation & Tourism Program
University of Northern British Columbia, Canada
Abstract
This paper examines the challenges and opportunities of promoting Montenegro as a
destination for sustainable tourism in the post-civil war era of the former Yugoslavia, given the
country’s unique status as the world’s only self-proclaimed “ecological state.”  There is no
denying the recent history of ethnic violence and turmoil that divided the Balkans in the 1990s. 
Consequently, the incremental return of foreign and domestic visitors to Montenegro, as well as
Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, represents a significant return
to stability almost ten years after the fighting stopped.  And the particular interest of many
tourists in the biology and cultural geography of the region makes clear the potential usefulness
of “green” branding for Montenegro to distinguish itself from its competitors in the
Mediterranean, and to resurrect the country’s political image and visitor appeal through targeted
environmental practices and promotions.
The ability to embellish its “eco” credentials and image through complementary partnerships
and policies that sustain both tourism and the nation’s economy would allow Montenegro to
strategically and successfully position itself in the Adriatic travel market over the long term. 
Collaborative management and branding of World Heritage sites and transboundary parks for
sustainable tourism will also enable Montenegro, and its former allies and foes, to restore the
social and biological integrity and connectivity of a shared landscape severely degraded by a
decade of war.  In this manner, tourism can be a critical catalyst in overcoming the negative
imagery and distrust which still impedes the Balkan’s ability to achieve greater political
integration and prosperity in an increasingly unified Europe.
Introduction 
Among the many roles that tourism plays, perhaps the most important are the opportunity for
visitors to experience significant change in their beliefs as a result of direct interaction with
people from other places and cultures, and the ability to effectuate meaningful societal change,
by de-constructing social stereotypes that often mislead residents and visitors.  Whether these
2transitions occur – and the extent to which they are meaningful for participants – depends on a
number of factors applied by tourists when selecting a destination, including the range of
available entertainment and leisure activities; the comfort and quality of existing
accommodations and transportation; the adequacy of the visual scenery and the authenticity of
local cultural practices and history; the level of personal risk from disease or threats of terrorism;
and the accuracy of information provided visitors beforehand. 
In spite of the probable challenges, or perhaps because of them, tourism has reputedly become
one of the world’s largest – and perhaps the most significant – industries in the post-World War
II period, in terms of total employment, land use, and socioeconomic spending.  Spurred by
increases in personal income levels, more flexible working hours and greater leisure time, along
with greater access to affordable transportation and information technology options (such as
budget airlines, multi-country train passes, and the Internet), more people now travel both
domestically and internationally.  Credited by its proponents with poverty alleviation and long-
term job creation, an ever-growing list of countries and communities now market themselves
worldwide as tourist destinations in hopes of sharing in the profits of global travel, while offering
a growing  array of options for the travel consumer in activities and facilities (Louillet, 2005).
To help the visitor choose from among the many recreational choices, destination branding has
become a strategic marketing component with considerable importance in promoting the
(re)discovery of tourism destinations severely impacted by global crises, including war,
genocide, ethnic and political conflict, disease, poverty, and international terrorism in the post-
9/11 world.  In these communities, it is a critical tool in resurrecting international travel to
countries who seek social security and economic recovery through tourism, and must rely upon
a uniquely identifiable brand attraction and targeted visitor niche in the initial stages of market
development and recovery.
The importance of this marketing tool is especially apparent to the former republics of the Soviet
Union and those of Yugoslavia (Figure 1).   While significant challenges admittedly confront the
foreign traveler in any newly independent state, perhaps the most pervasive – and disruptive to
tourism’s revival in the Balkan states –  are the dated, and often inaccurate, misperceptions and
images of the civil wars and ethnic barriers that prevailed throughout the 1980's and early
1990's, yet still define the region for many international visitors and tour operators (Prentice,
2003). 
Positive brand images have helped several economies boost their exports and attract
investments, businesses, factories, visitors, residents and talented people.  On the other
hand, an uncountable number of places are unfamiliar to consumers or suffer image
problems that impair their ability to compete in the marketplace.  In some cases, these
images are based on inaccurate information or widespread stereotypes recurrently
reinforced by the media and the entertainment industry.  In other instances, these
images are founded on past episodes of political unrest, natural disasters, violence, and
economic downturns.  Place images may be clouded by these occurrences much longer
than it would take to overcome or correct the problems.  Brand management seems to
be particularly challenging for emerging, newly industrialized, and transitional nations,
including those that have shifted from socialist to free market economic systems. 
Unfortunately, these experiences are pervasive and afflict myriad places spanning the
various regions of the world, such as Latin America, Eastern Europe, Africa, and Asia. 
3While a few places have succeeded in overcoming their image problems and enhancing
the equity of their brand names, others still struggle to do so (Gertner, n.d.: 1).
 
Whether the newly independent countries of the Balkans will effectively move beyond their
histories of violence and succeed in establishing successful, sustainable tourism industries,
depends greatly on the degree to which all participants are fully and collaboratively engaged in
the branding process – an option that remains problematic for economies and political systems
still in transition from socialism and the terrorism of war to tourism.  Nonetheless, the Republic
of Montenegro has made tourism its priority for social and economic recovery in the post-confict
period, and a strong destination brand is critical if Montenegro is to successfully reposition itself
in the world travel market (Ringer, 2004). 
Destination Branding: Theory and Practice in the Balkans
Simply defined, a brand is “a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or combination of them
intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate
them from those of the competition” (Kotler and Gertner, 2002: 4-5).  When applied to a
geographic place, a destination brand may therefore comprise a specific recreational image
intended to influence visitor perceptions, and an identity that arguably reflects the prevailing
views and values of local users and inhabitants.  Whatever its individual features, a destination
brand is considered one of the most important tools in international travel when differentiating
locally available tourism products and services – and a process increasingly complicated by
globalization and the Internet (Graburn, 1995; Anholt, 2006). 
The proliferation and intensity of these promotional efforts at the local and national levels, as
well as the dissimilar results witnessed by competing attractions in visitor totals and investments
in the necessary infrastructure and training, reflect the influential role that destination branding
can play in differentiating – and profiting – select emergent tourism venues.  No longer only an
option for local businesses to consider as they search for a global market and recognizable
identity, it is now a fundamental requirement for countries who seek to move beyond the
conflicts of previous decades through improved communication, trade, and the promotion of
international travel.  
The creation of a national icon is particularly useful in reinforcing legitimate social practices in
the state, and in fostering support for targeted investment policies, such as the establishment of
appropriate markets, partners, services, and standards for tourism.  In this context, a destination
brand is intended to generate greater visitation in terms of numbers or specific visitor segments
by highlighting proximate leisure activities through descriptive themes and identities.  By so
doing, adjacent tourist locations are distinguished through social construction and recognition of
each place, its people, and its associated attractions.
The development of themed (or branded) environments . . . generally goes beyond [the]
de-differentiation of spaces, functions, styles and symbolisms and the deliberate blurring
of the real with the artificial and the imaginary.  It rests on the effectiveness of the idea of
‘invented’ landscapes and places and aims at creating contemporary wonderlands of
selective nostalgia and pseudo-idealistic visionary (Terkenli, 2006: 11).     
4Thus, the U.S. state of Hawai’i aggressively promotes itself as a tropical “paradise” for Pacific
tourists willing to incur the additional expense to fly to the islands, while Ireland emphasizes its
reputation as a “country of honest people” for visitors concerned about crime and terror threats
elsewhere in Europe.  Even Bosnia-Herzegovina promotes the sale of souvenirs from the
Yugoslavian civil war to capitalize on its own history of ethnic conflict (Kotler & Armstrong,
2001). Through similar brand identities, destinations worldwide seek to reassure consumers that
they will experience the promised quality, value, and security, should they select the preferred
facility or location.  
The equity of this brand – blending a country’s traditions, history, and physiography – is perhaps
best determined, however, by the extent to which travelers are cognizant of the trademark and
share a sense of loyalty, and a willingness to financially support their preferred attractions
through travel.  This degree of motivation depends, in part, on access to specific recreational
resources.  But perhaps more critical for newly (re)developing destinations, these personal
choices are deeply affected by the recommendations and preferences of family and friends, and
by social perceptions and stereotypes that may be more “dispositional rather than situational”
(Renwick and Renwick, 1991: 167).  When the images and advice are erroneous or simplistic,
they form the basis of inappropriate visitor behavior and attitudes, and remain overly difficult to
correct.
Once an image or stereotype of a culture, country, foreign nationals, or their products
have been developed, these beliefs will partially determine an individual’s affective
orientation and may be the main determinant of intended and subsequent behaviors
(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975, cited in Renwick and Renwick, 1991: 168). 
The successful resurrection of Montenegro’s tourism industry, whose government proclaimed it
the nation’s highest priority in late 2005, therefore depends largely on its ability to reshape the
beliefs of international visitors (especially North American), who have yet to clearly distinguish
the Balkan’s history of conflict from the serenity of Montenegro.  The former Yugoslavia was a
popular destination for visitors from Europe and the U.S. prior to its dissolution in 1991, when
Montenegro was promoted as a cheap destination for mass tourism and Hollywood film stars
who flocked to the privacy and privileges of resorts, such as Sveti Stefan (once an island
village).  Others traveled to the Balkans for therapeutic medical treatments and physical
exercise at facilities specializing in health, wellness, and medical tourism, such as the renown
Igalo spa in Montenegro. Yet, foreign visitors and their economic contributions declined
dramatically during the civil war, when much of Yugoslavia’s recreational landscape and
infrastructure were decimated, and tourists avoided the area (Figure 2). 
The ethnic cleansing and social disruption that ensued also left the new countries, upon
independence, with few national traditions or symbols to reunite their remaining populations. 
Nevertheless, Yugoslavians everywhere expressed a strong desire to disconnect from the post-
socialistic images that had defined their communal behavior and beliefs since the end of World
War II.  As a result, after a decade of armed conflict and geopolitical isolation, the former
republics of Yugoslavia now find themselves competing with each other for their place in the
global tourism market, not with guns and militias, but with newly created brands that recall the
pre-war attractions and ambiance, as well as the wider range of educational and volunteer
opportunities available for today’s independent, eco-oriented traveler (Antunac, Mihoviloviæ, and
Navratil, 1979; Jordan, 2000; Hall, 2002; Martinoviæ, 2002).  
5“Wild Beauty” – Visit Crna Gora
A creative and effective marketing campaign requires an intimate knowledge of the destination,
the highly personalized linkages and personal interactions that delineate it social landscape,
and the product attributes as perceived by its potential users (including quality, availability, and
affordability).  This is particularly true in the Balkans, where a decade of civil war in Croatia and
Bosnia-Herzegovina, the bombing of Serbia by the United Nations, and the ongoing strife in
Kosovo continue to dominate visitors’ opinions, and make the task of re-imaging and rebranding
Montenegro as an “ecologically sustainable destination” especially challenging for national
tourism authorities.  Although more Europeans, particularly from Ireland and the United
Kingdom, are attracted by Montenegro’s ease of entry, affordable services, historic heritage,
and proximity to the Adriatic coast, many tourists still choose competing destinations in nearby
Croatia and Slovenia, which they erroneously perceive to be more secure from ethnic conflict
than their neighbor (Morgan, Pritchard and Pride, 2003; Floyd and Pennington-Gray, 2004).
Efforts to rebuild Montenegro’s international appeal have long been impeded by its political
association with Serbia (which were finally dissolved with the union’s breakup and Montenegro’s
independence in May 2006), and the country’s lack of arable land or extractive natural
resources.  Nevertheless, Montenegro does possess considerable advantages for a resumption
and expansion of tourism activities that respond to the growing worldwide demand for outdoor
recreation and nature activities, visits to historic ruins and religious sites, and marine
exploration.  
The growing discontent with high costs and summer crowds in nearby Dubrovnik, and the
proliferation of low-cost European and U.S. airline routes in the Mediterranean, further support
Montenegro’s efforts to position itself as a model destination for marine and mountain tourism in
the Mediterranean.  To succeed, however, the country must rely on the capacity of travel
providers and operators to entice, and satisfactorily cater to, visitors drawn in spite of the
challenges by the limited crowds and low travel costs which presently exist, and the richness of
Montenegro’s religious history and physical landscapes. 
Already, political and community leaders in Montenegro are reaching out to all affected
stakeholders, including private and non-governmental agencies, learning institutions, and social
organizations, to develop a consensus on the preferred direction and discourse of tourism
development in the country.  With the input provided from this participatory process, authorities
plan to designate core themes or “eco-brands” that best highlight the diverse nature, culture,
history, and industry available in Montenegro.  They also hope to identify specific market
segments for each set of attractions, and to dramatize these niches for specific audiences, with
specialized itineraries and promotional events constructed around cultural performances,
accommodations, transportation networks, and entertainment and leisure alternatives (Ritchie &
Crouch, 2000).
As part of the process, the Montenegro Ministry of Tourism recently released its updated
destination brand, “Wild Beauty” (Figure 3).  Part of a newly developed marketing and
management strategy to replace its previous logo, “Enjoy Difference” (which lacked specificity),
the new brand includes an identifying logo, official website (www.visit-montenegro.com), and
participating venues for potential visitors and investors.  Each unit of the brand is designed to
reflect and reinforce for viewers Montenegro’s:
61. geographic location in the Mediterranean region and the physiographic diversity
it offers tourists, from rugged mountains and canyons in the interior to the sandy
beaches and headlands of the coast;
2. relative safety and low level of personal risk for tourists from crime, terrorism, or
disease; and the
3. education, skills, and professional capabilities of Montenegro’s tourism industry
for greater numbers of visitors.   
In thematically embracing Montenegro’s natural scenery and rugged environment, the brand
makes three implicit promises to visitors.  First, it offers a sense of discovery, in a manner that is
simultaneously wild, romantic, and personally challenging, yet simple.  Second is the
experience of entering a country slowly reopening to outside visitors, where residents still
outnumber foreign tourists.  The third assures each participant of the personal enrichment and
learning environment that only travel provides.  Though admittedly vague, these symbolic
promises help define visitor expectations and beliefs about Montenegro as a safe and attractive
alternative to other locations in the eastern Mediterranean (Graburn, 1995).
Montenegro’s local tour operators were initially reluctant to join in the branding process, widely
believing until recently that the country’s natural geography and human history were too
complex to define through slogans or icons, a challenge compounded by the number of involved
stakeholders and sites, and the lack of agreement in interpreting and promoting the country’s
diverse attractions to foreign visitors.  However, growing numbers of government officials and
providers now acknowledge that distinctive brands can be a strategic management and
marketing tool to successfully promote Montenegro’s attractions and visitor services.
To assist the national government in inventorying and marketing its visitor attractions, the
Investment and Development Company (DEG), a German company specializing in long-term
project and corporate financing, prepared a master tourism plan in collaboration with MOT.  The
Tourism Master Plan for Montenegro outlines specific steps to be undertaken in support of the
priority role assigned nature-based tourism in the country by the government through the year
2020.
As part of the assessment, a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats),
was prepared, which identified a number of advantages for Montenegro in pursuing visitors who
were environmentally and culturally aware.  Among the more significant strengths named were
the country’s biological diversity (despite it’s relatively small size), the moderate climate, and the
physical terrain, stretching from sandy beaches along the Adriatic to Skadar Lake in central
Montenegro (an internationally protected, migratory bird stopover), and the mountains and deep
ravines of the north.  Indeed, these physiographic features inspired the “Wild Beauty” brand. 
Also ranked as “visitor worthy” was the cultural heritage evident in the numerous castles,
military forts, and Orthodox monasteries dating to the Roman Empire, and found throughout
Montenegro.  
Equally positive in Montenegro’s desire to gain more visitors were the country’s experience with
international tourists prior to the 1991 civil war, its proximity and direct flights to the main
European travel markets, the adoption of the Euro as the national currency, the availability and
ease of obtaining no-cost tourist visas upon arrival, and the diverse outdoor recreation options
available for ecotourists and “extreme” adventure travelers, such as SCUBA diving, snow skiing,
7mountain climbing, and whitewater rafting.  At the same time, visitors to Montenegro are
plagued by antiquated transport systems and inadequate accommodations, the absence of low-
cost airlines at the country’s two international airports, Podgorica and Tivat (as well as the lack
of critical communications and radar facilities at Tivat), and a sense that other destinations in
the former Yugoslavia offer better “value for the money.”  
Other perceived negatives include the perceptions of political instability and ethnic conflict in the
region, the absence of interpretative material in languages other than Montenegrin, and the
inferior quality of Montenegro’s tourist accommodations and infrastructure, after years of
isolation and economic sanctions imposed for its alliance with Serbia.  These problems were
particularly acute along the coast, where water shortages in Kotor are a recurring issue in local
hotels each summer during the height of the tourism season, due to aging pipes, growing
populations, and little money for routine maintenance.  
The country is further weakened by an exodus of university graduates in search of professional
employment elsewhere, and rising competition from Croatia and Slovenia for European, Asian,
and American visitors.  Successful and sustainable tourism growth for Montenegro will,
therefore, require the country to concentrate on a few key factors, or indicators, that are
achievable.  It will also entail the formation of key branding processes that help establish the
desired quality and perceived value, and reassure potential customers that their experience will
be satisfactory (Henley Centre, 1998; Roberts and Hall, 2001; MacNulty, 2002; Crouch, 2006;
d’Hauteserre, 2006). 
Conclusion
There is certainly greater emphasis in Montenegro today on promoting brands that highlight the
multiple attractions which exist for leisure tourists and ecotourists, who view Montenegro as an
undervisited or relatively undeveloped, yet highly complex and unique destination on the
Mediterranean coast.  Recent market analyses suggest that the ideal visitor is interested in
summer bathing, and most likely from either Serbia, the Ukraine, Hungary, Ireland, Germany, or
the United Kingdom.  Health-oriented tourists and spa visitors are also considered a potentially
lucrative market, given the therapeutic role that sanitariums and allegoric treatments have long
played in eastern Europe, Russia, and the Balkans.  And there is considerable potential for
adventure and nature-based ecotourism (especially birdwatching), religious-themed tours, and
heritage travel, given the heightened awareness exhibited by residents in the former
Yugoslavian, post-communist countries of their evolving national identity (Figure 4).
The public-private sector processes and partnerships already underway in Montenegro will
certainly play an important role in Montenegro’s branding efforts, as they facilitate the gathering
of critical data and viewpoints from every important stakeholder and thus, encourage broader
acceptance and use of the national brand by the different users.  Co-branding with Croatia and
the other former Yugoslavian countries is also considered critical for the country’s success.  
When properly coordinated, this marketing approach would allow the member states to
articulate their common history and physiography to a broader audience, while simultaneously
expounding upon their distinctive identities and abilities.  For rural residents, co-branding may
also prove beneficial in drawing attention to potential new attractions in the Balkan hinterlands,
along with the tourism enterprises historically concentrated along the coast (Tomic, 2006). 
8Whether implemented alone or in partnership with its Balkan neighbors, these brands should
build upon the legislature’s proclamation of Montenegro as an ecological state.  With more than
40% of all international visitors now self-labeled as ecotourists, it is apparent that more tourists
worldwide now seek attractions that are environmentally sensitive and supportive of indigenous
communities.  Though their numbers may not yet constitute a majority of all travelers, their
disproportionate impact is perhaps best illustrated in surveys undertaken by the World Wildlife
Fund (2005).  This data notes that tourists, for whom nature or culture are the primary
motivators of their trip, spend approximately US$ 143 per day on location, in contrast to the US$
117 in daily spending by tourists unconcerned with either.
As a result, an eco-destination may earn an equivalent income by focusing on the
environmental quality of the visitor experience, rather than the quantity of visitors alone. 
Consequently, there is considerable potential for Montenegro to capture a larger share of this
market and the related earnings, by constructing “green” facilities and implementing “eco-
friendly” practices that reduce environmental degradation, pollution, and waste.  In this manner,
Montenegro can reinforce its legislated mantle as an environmental leader in the
Mediterranean, and thereby further distinguish the country from similar destinations in the
remainder of the Balkans (Weber and Teliman-Kosuta, 1991; Popesku and Maric, 2005; U.S.
Agency for International Development, 2005; Stoddard, 2006).
Greater participation by tourism stakeholders in Montenegro is also needed in developing a
core message that simultaneously satisfies the four dimensions of state branding (public
diplomacy, tourism, export promotion, and FDI, or foreign development investments), and
emphasizes anew the peace and tolerance that prevail in Montenegro, as well as its strategic
location in the Mediterranean.  In this sense, “Wild Beauty” may indeed aptly describe the
diversity of attractions that currently await the visitor to Crna Gora (“Black Mountain” in
Montenegrin).  But the brand should not further construe as “wild,” a country that has already
experienced too much conflict amidst such beauty.  To do so would only perpetuate the lack of
appreciation expressed by many tourists for Montenegro’s attractions and history, in a world
that appears increasingly determined to benefit from travel to destinations for enjoyment and
recreation, as well as conservation and education (Allcock and Counihan, 1989; Renwick and
Renwick, 1991; Graburn, 1995; Terkenli, 2006).
Should these recommendations enable potential visitors to become better educated about the
country’s status, then tourism will have socially and economically profited both Montenegro and
the Balkans, by affording greater access to investments in transboundary attractions, and in
raising the perceived quality of the available tourism product through shared experiences and
more meaningful social linkages between contiguous countries.  Only in such a manner will
visitors discover the Balkans in a manner that benefits both them personally and the region as
well, as it recovers from the war.  Though the long-term success of Montenegro’s efforts to
rebrand itself as a destination for conservation, rather than conflict, will ultimately be determined
by regulatory practices and sustained levels of public awareness and acceptance, the authors
hope that the analysis presented in this paper will stimulate additional efforts to reconnect the
former Yugoslavia through travel attractions and brands that fully acknowledge their shared
ecology, history, and politics.   
9References
Ahmed, Akbar and Cris Shore (eds)(1995) The Future of Anthropology: Its Relevance to the
Contemporary World, London & Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Athlone. 
Allcock, John and Joan Counihan (1989) The Studies in the History of Tourism in Yugoslavia,
Bradford Studies on Yugoslavia, No. 14, Bradford, U.K.: Research Unit in Yugoslav Studies,
University of Bradford.
Anholt, Simon (2006) “Nation branding: Introduction,” Journal of Brand Management March: 1.
Antunac, I.; M.A. Mihoviloviæ; and J. Navratil (1979) Economic and Social Problems of Tourism
in Europe, Yugoslavia: Desk Research, Studies and Reports, Zagreb, Croatia: Center for Social
Research, University of Zagreb.
Commission of the European Communities, D.G. XXIII-Tourism Unit (1993) Tourism Customers
in Central and Eastern Europe: Perspectives of Development, Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities and I.P.K.-Institut für Planungskybernetik,
Marktforschung, Marketinplanung und Erfolgskontrolle im Tourismus..
Crouch, David (2006) “Embodiment and performance in the making of contemporary cultural
economies,” in Landscapes of a New Cultural Economy of Space, Landscape Series,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Spring, pp. 19-40.
d’Hauteserre, Marie (2006) “Landscapes of the Tropics: tourism and the new cultural economy
in the third world,” in Landscapes of a New Cultural Economy of Space, Landscape Series,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Spring, pp. 149-170.
DEG Investment & Development Company (2001) Master Plan: Strategy of Tourism
Development Till 2020, Podgorica: Montenegro Ministry of Tourism.
Floyd, Myron F. and Lori Pennington-Gray (2004) “Profiling risk perceptions of tourists,” Annals
of Tourism Research 31(4): 1051-1054.
Freire, Joao R. (2005) “‘Other tourists’: a critical factor for a geo-brand-building process,” Place
Branding 2(1): 68-83.
Gertner, David (ed.)(in progress) “The challenge of place branding in emerging, transitional,
negatively viewed and newly industrialized nations,” Place Branding. 
Graburn, Nelson H.H. (1995) “Tourism, modernity and nostalgia,” in The Future of
Anthropology: Its Relevance to the Contemporary World, (eds) Akbar S. Ahmed & Cris N.
Shore, London & Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Athlone, pp. 158-178.
Hall, D. (2002) “Brand development, tourism and national identity: The re-imaging of former
Yugoslavia,” The Journal of Brand Management 9(4-5): 323-334.
Henley Centre (1998) Planning for Consumer Change: Issues, London: Henley Centre for
10
Forecasting.
Jordan, Peter (2000) “Restructuring Croatia’s coastal resorts: Change, sustainable development
and the incorporation of rural hinterlands,” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8(6): 525-539.
Kaynak, Erdener (ed.)(1991) Sociopolitical Aspects of International Marketing, London: The
Haworth Press, Inc.
Kotler, P. and G. Armstrong (2001) Principles of Marketing, 9  ed., New York: Prentice Hall.th
Kotler, P. and D. Gertner (2002) “Country as a brand, product and beyond: A place marketing
and brand management perspective,” Journal of Brand Management  April (9): 4-5.
Locum Destination Review (2000) Analysis: Benchmarking Attractions, 1: 53-55.
Louillet, Marie Claire (2005) Proposal for a success model for destination management
systems. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Faculty of Business Administration, Sherbrooke
University, Canada.
MacNulty, Peter (2002) Conclusions. Paper presented to the World Tourism Organization’s
Rural Tourism in Europe: Experiences and Perspectives Seminar, 24-25 June, Belgrade, Serbia
and Montenegro, pp. 1-10.
Martinoviæ, Stijepo (2002) “Branding Hrvatska – A mixed blessing that might succeed: the
advantage of being unrecognizable,” Journal of Brand Management April (9): 4-5.
Milosavljeviæ, Gordana (1988) Tourism for Health Purposes: The Resources of Yugoslavia,
Belgrade, Serbia: Joint EFTA-Yugoslavia Committee, European Free Trade Association.
Morgan, N.; A. Pritchard; and R. Pride (2003) Destination Branding: Creating the Unique
Destination Proposition, Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Popesku, Jovan and Rajko Maric (2005) Ecotourism development as a tool for repositioning of
Serbia as a tourism destination, paper presented to the Institute for Economic Sciences,
Belgrade, Serbia.
Prentice, Eve-Ann (2003) “Why I love battered Belgrade,” The (London) Observer, 10 August,
pp. 4-5.
Renwick, Frank and Rebecca M. Renwick (1991) “Country of origin stereotyping: The social
linkage effect upon foreign product attributes,” in Sociopolitical Aspects of International
Marketing, (ed.) Erdener Kaynak, New York & London: The Haworth Press, pp. 165-185.
Ringer, Greg (ed.)(1998) Destinations: Cultural Landscapes of Tourism, London & New York:
Routledge.
Ringer, Greg (2004) “Montenegro sustainable tourism assessment,” in Household Survey
Report #10, (ed.) P. Ivanovic, Podgorica: Institute for Strategic Studies and Prognoses and the
11
Center for Entrepreneurship & Economic Development, pp. 23-30.
Ritchie, B.J.R. and Crouch G.I. (2000) “The competitive destination: a sustainable perspective,”
Tourism Management 21(1): 1-7.
Roberts, Lesley and Derek Hall (eds)(2001) Rural Tourism and Recreation: Principles to
Practice, London: CABI Publishing.
Stoddard, Ed (2006) “African countries brand themselves with eco-labels,” Reuters, 12 June,
pp. 1-4.
Terkenli, Theano S. (2006) “Landscapes of a new cultural economy of space: an introduction,”
in Landscapes of a New Cultural Economy of Space, Landscape Series, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer Publishers, pp. 1-18.
Terkenli, Theano S. and Anne-Marie d’Hauteserre (eds)(2006) Landscapes of a New Cultural
Economy of Space, Landscape Series, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Publishers.
Tomic, Borka (2006 ) Rebranding Serbia: A Hobby Shortly to Become a Full-time Job?!
Brussels: Invest-in-Serbia and the Institute for Serbia and Montenegro.
U.S. Agency for International Development (2005) Supporting tourism entrepreneurship along
Serbia’s Corridor X – One of Serbia’s 10 ‘Perfect Places’,” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office. 
Weber, Sandra and Neda Telišman-Košuta (1991) “The possibilities of foreign tourism market
segmentation and the evaluation of the tourism supply of SR Croatia (Yugoslavia),” in
Sociopolitical Aspects of International Marketing, (ed.) Erdener Kaynak, New York & London:
The Haworth Press, pp. 347-365.
World Wildlife Fund (2005) World Ecotourism Survey. Geneva, Switzerland: The World Wide
Fund for Nature.
12
Figures
1. Map of Montenegro and the Balkans (Source: Greg Ringer).
2. Civil war and Yugoslavia: foreign visitors, 1990-1991 (Source: Montenegro
Ministry of Tourism, 2006).
3. Current logo and slogan of Montenegro: “Wild Beauty” (Source: Montenegro
Ministry of Tourism, 2006).
4. Primary Montenegro attractions for European visitors (Source: Greg Ringer and
the Montenegro Ministry of Tourism, 2006).
13
Figure 1.  Montenegro and the Balkans (Source: Greg Ringer, 2006). 
14
Figure 2.  Civil war and Yugoslavia tourism, 1990 -1991 (Source: Montenegro
Ministry of Tourism, 2006).
15
Figure 3.  Current Montenegro tourism brand (Source: Montenegro Ministry of Tourism,
2006).
16
Figure 4.  Primary Montenegro attractions for European visitors (Source: Greg
Ringer and the Montenegro Ministry of Tourism, 2006).