Promotion of Science Locations towards Science and Research-based Industry. The Case of Luxembourg

Table of Contents

1) Introduction
1.1) Relevance and Objectives
1.2) Research question and delimitation of the topic
1.3) Structure of the present work

2) Basics: From Marketing to Science Location Selection
2.1) From marketing to location marketing
2.2) Specifics of science locations
2.3) Science location marketing

3) Current state of research: Location selection
3.1) Introduction to location selection
3.2) Location theory and location factors
3.3) Information behavior of potential location buyers
3.4) Location decisions
3.5) Locations selection by science
3.6) Locations selection by research-based industry

4) The object of investigation: The science location Luxembourg
4.1) Science Location Luxembourg - Product
4.1.1) Luxembourg and its image
4.1.2) Science location Luxembourg
4.1.3) Goals of the science location development
4.2) Science Location Luxembourg - Promotion
4.2.1) Goals of promotion
4.2.2) The branding
4.2.3) The communication of the individual research institutions

5) Methodology
5.1) Empiricism: Location factors
5.1.1) Literature analysis
5.1.2) Survey
5.1.2.1) Selection of sample
5.1.2.2) Questionnaires
5.1.2.3) Response rate
5.1.2.4) Evaluation
5.1.3) Triangulation
5.2) Content analysis: Promotion
5.2.1) Selection of communication measures
5.2.2) Measurement / evaluation scales
5.2.3) Visualization

6) Results
6.1) Location factors
6.1.1) Ranking of location factors: Literature analysis
6.1.1.1) Location factors of science
6.1.1.2) Location factors of the research-based industry
6.1.2) Ranking of location factors: Survey
6.1.2.1) Location factors of science
6.1.2.2) Location factors of the research-based industry
6.1.3) Method triangulation
6.1.3.1) Location factors of science
6.1.3.2) Location factors of the research-based industry
6.2) Promotion
6.2.1) Homepages
6.2.1.1) Target group: Science
6.2.1.2) Target group: Research-based industry
6.2.1.3) Explanation of results: Homepages
6.2.2.) Editorials
6.2.2.1) Target group: Science
6.2.2.2) Target group: Research-based industry
6.2.2.3) Explanation of results: Editorials
6.2.3) Image videos
6.2.3.1) Target group: Science
6.2.3.2) Target group: Research-based industry
6.2.3.3) Explanation of results: Image videos
6.2.4) Functionality of the communication formats
6.2.4.1) Explanation of results: Functionality of the communication formats

7) Discussion
7.1) Discussion of results: Location factors
7.2) Discussion of results: Promotion
7.3) Transferability, criticism and research perspectives

8) Recommendations: Optimized promotion of science locations

9) Reference list

10) Appendices
10.1) Questionnaires
10.2) Examples of analyzed communication formats
10.3) Calculation of measurements and graphics in MS Excel

Abstract:

Science is the fastest growing subsystem of society, with more than 2 trillion Euros spent worldwide every year for the generation of knowledge. Large public budgets are being invested in government initiatives to build strong research and innovation hubs. Universities and research centers are intended not only to attract the world's "brightest minds," but also to promote the establishment of research-based industries and attract venture capital. The overriding goal is a sustainably prosperous national economy, and marketing is a powerful tool in this context. From a location marketing perspective, it is of utmost importance to know the location factors that make the decision for or against a location among the targeted stakeholders. In addition, it is the goal of every science location to optimize its own promotion towards potential location buyers. This publication therefore focuses on both aspects: relevant location factors and location promotion. For the first time, the location factors specific to the context of science location marketing are empirically determined for two of the most significant target groups, the scientists themselves and research-based industry, and validated through method triangulation. In addition, key communication formats are tested for their functionality in generating an image that enhances the attractiveness of science locations. This examination is carried out exemplarily for the science location Luxembourg. The critical evaluation of promotion allows the derivation of various recommendations. The term of science location marketing is introduced into the scientific discourse for the first time with this work.

Index of figures

FIGURE 1 Soft and hard location factors

FIGURE 2 Location search paths according to Scherer

FIGURE 3 Factors influencing emigration for postdocs, employment or academic job

FIGURE 4 Government spending on science, research and development in Luxembourg

FIGURE 5 Campus Belval, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxemburg

FIGURE 6 Luxembourg nation branding logo and claim

FIGURE 7 Google image search: "Luxembourg + Let's make it happen," January 30, 2021

FIGURE 8 Logo "Research Luxembourg"

FIGURE 9 Logos of the most important science brands in Luxembourg

FIGURE 10 Flowchart of the methodological approach

FIGURE 11 Measurement: Image video, Luxembourg Institute of Health, 2021

FIGURE 12 Measurement: editorial, University of Luxembourg, 2017

FIGURE 13 Functionality of the homepage, University of Luxembourg, February 08, 2021, target group science

FIGURE 14 Ranking of given location factors by science (n=20)

FIGURE 15 Ranking of freely selectable location factors by science (n=20)

FIGURE 16 Ranking of predefined location factors by the research-based industry (n=7)

FIGURE 17 Ranking of freely selectable location factors by the research-based industry (n=7)

FIGURE 18 Functionality of the homepages: Science

FIGURE 19 Functionality of the homepages: Research-based Industry

FIGURE 20 Functionality of the editorials: Science

FIGURE 21 Functionality of the editorials: Research-based Industry

FIGURE 22 Functionality of the image videos: Science

FIGURE 23 Functionality of the image videos: Research-based Industry

FIGURE 24 Functionality of the communication formats 103 For legal reasons some figures have been deleted. (Anm. d. Red.)

Index of tables

TABLE 1 Business location theories according to Scherer

TABLE 2 Cross-industry relevance of location factors according to Salmen ...

TABLE 3 Rankings of the most important location factors in selected empirical studies since 1945

TABLE 4 The 10 most frequently cited location selection factors of the industrial companies surveyed

TABLE 5 Location decisions as a function of the technology standard of the products

TABLE 6 Ranking of the importance of individual location factors for NTU start-ups

TABLE 7 Method triangulation: location factors "Science"

TABLE 8 Method triangulation: Location factors "research-based industry

Index of abbreviations

illustration not visible in this excerpt

1) Introduction

1.1) Relevance and objective

Science is the fastest growing subsystem of society, as noted by Weingart and Schulz (2014). Globally, more than 2 trillion euros are invested in research each year, including investments by enterprises (see Auer, 2020). "More and more knowledge is being produced worldwide. This knowledge gives rise to more knowledge assets in the form of patents, trademarks and utility models, with which money is earned" (Rollwagen et al., 2012: 1; translation by the author). While only 43 countries received payments for licenses in 1990, 143 countries did so in 2007. "To say that economic growth in the modern era has been grounded on the exploitation of scientific knowledge is to express a truism" (Dasgupta et al., 1994: 487). Research and development are on a par with major sectors of the economy. Due to the high level of innovation offered by science in the fields of medicine, material sciences, and computer science alone, a thriving scientific landscape is the strategic goal of many states and societies (see Balderjahn, 2014). Public research institutions and universities are becoming integral parts of the international "knowledge revolution" (see Rollwagen et al., 2012) and the "knowledge economy", making them more important to their respective locations, nation-states, regions, and cities as an economic factor in addition to their cultural and societal contributions. Competition has long taken full hold of science, given its enormous importance. "Today the world is one market. ...every country, every city, and every region must compete with every other" (Anholt, 2007: 1). Increasing mobility of people and companies (see Kotler et al., 1994: 375) and a growing importance of digital technologies as well as globalized trade are the hallmarks of the "global village" (see Marshall McLuhan, 1962). Competition permeating all geographic levels has become hyper-competitive in many areas, including science and research (see D'Aveni, 1995). "All locations are in trouble today or will be soon" Kotler et al. (1994) already predicted in the mid-nineties. "Today, all cities and regions are competing for companies, for capital, for qualified workers, or even for public infrastructure facilities such as transport links or research institutions" (Derungs, 2008: 3; translation by the author). Science is entirely involved in the unleashed global competition. "Some regions will benefit faster and more from the knowledge economy due to their better starting position or smart approach," Rollwagen et al. (2012: 19; translation by the author) conclude on behalf of Deutsche Bank. The choice of location forms a "fundamental business decision" for science as well as for research-based industry (Pongratz & Vogelgesang, 2016: 26) and is therefore of great importance. Which factors are relevant for science and industry when choosing a location and how they concretely influence the decision-making processes taking place has hardly been analyzed in research so far, underlines Derungs (2008). He states that we know too little about the "interplay of economic-rational and non-economic-emotional factors in the location choices of companies as well as the drivers and constraints in the decision-making process" (Derungs, 2008: 7; translation by the author). There is also a need for more in-depth research regarding location decisions within the scientific community. "Scientists are a highly mobile group," Franzoni et al. (2012) declare, referring to the seminal work of Auriol (2010), Hunter et al. (2009), Levin & Stephan (1999), and Zucker (2006). "Yet, we know surprisingly little about what drives scientists to move in the first place" Azoulay et al. (2017: 573) also note. Cuntz (2016: 384) highlights the complexity of location decisions by pointing out that "Motivations and location choices of academics seem to be driven by a variety of push and pull factors at different levels and their interaction." Outstanding scientists, as drivers of knowledge and innovation, are highly sought after. It is therefore the declared goal of almost all science locations to attract the "brightest minds" to their own location.

"Key information" is very important for the assessment of sites (Balderjahn, 2014: 128). There is a high demand for "signal instruments", as Steinrücken et al. (2005: 380) state. The image of a location makes a decisive contribution to its success and is therefore a key element in location marketing. As a complex construct, the image of a location is generated and supported to a great extent by communication measures. This also applies in the specific context of science location marketing. Against the background of information gathering and location evaluation by potential, relevant location buyers, such as scientists or the research-based industry, research into the effectiveness of location promotion is of central importance. Using the example of Luxembourg as an emerging science location, this paper analyzes and evaluates communicative measures that promote successful positioning towards these particularly relevant stakeholders. Luxembourg's goal is to present itself as an attractive location for science and research­based industry in order to be chosen even more frequently as a science and R&D location in the future. Growth and social prosperity are the overriding goals here.

Due to the small size of the Grand Duchy, the Luxembourgian research landscape may be considered a science cluster, and is perfectly suited as an object of study. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the current communication measures of Luxembourg as a science location with regard to the goal of image building that promotes the location, and to formulate recommendations for more effective communication. In addition to the direct reference to the science location Luxembourg, generally applicable principles are identified and implications for more targeted communication are derived. The topic of science location marketing and the focus of the established research field "location marketing" on research locations is almost unaddressed in the literature, despite its proven relevance in 2021. The term "Wissenschaftsstandortmarketing" ("science location marketing") has only 13 documents on Google on January 19, 2021, and is not established in any way, which is surprising given the relevance of the activities, actors, and associated budgets. This work thus offers the scientific exploration of a new, highly relevant field of marketing that will certainly gain in importance over the coming years: science location marketing.

1.2) Research question and delimitation of the topic

The central research question of this thesis is:

Which location factors are of primary importance in the science location selection of potential location buyers, like science and research-based industry, and how can measures from the field of location promotion be optimized so that science locations are perceived more attractive?

The example of Luxembourg is used to analyze and evaluate how targeted the presentation of the science location functions for the acquisition of outstanding scientists and industrial settlements. In other words, the question is: How effective is Luxembourg, as a science location, in establishing a useful image to attract science and research-based industry?

This work does not provide a systematic evaluation of Luxembourg as a science location. Even if certain evaluations, for example by the World Economic Forum or by the present survey results are partially reflected, this work does not offer a qualitative classification of the science location Luxembourg in the international field of competitors. The present work illuminates a limited section of the communicative activities of the relevant players in Luxembourg. Various formats of communication measures, in particular the important direct personal communication, cannot be analyzed in detail within the scope of this work.

In addition to ranking the most relevant criteria for science location selection by science and the research-based industry, this study focuses in particular on well-founded indications of optimization potential for more efficient communication in order to establish a positive and effective image in relevant sub-publics.

1.3) Structure of this thesis

In order to provide a well-founded treatment of the topic and to answer the research questions, chapters 2 and 3 begin by placing the research question in the context of the current scientific discourse. Terms such as marketing, location marketing and science location marketing are first defined and contextualized. The exemplary object of investigation, the science location Luxembourg, is described in chapter 4. The empiricism of this thesis, i.e., the systematic collection of data and the triangulation method used, is first explained in the method section of the thesis, in chapter 5. Exploratory interviews with selected scientists, science managers, and representatives of research-based industry are used to create a suitable evaluation matrix for analyzing the communication measures, in addition to a comprehensive literary analysis. On this basis, catalogs of criteria are drawn up for the target-group-specific evaluation of science locations. These catalogs of criteria, each representing the six most significant target group-specific location factors, are translated into evaluation matrices, the application of which allow an evaluation of various communication formats (see method section in chapter 5.2) of the most relevant science institutions in Luxembourg. On the basis of the location factor rankings and the evaluation of the communication measures, the results of which are summarized in chapter 6, this thesis discusses the results in chapter 7 and concludes in chapter 8 by offering recommendations for more effective communication at science locations.

2) Basics: From marketing to science location selection

2.1) From marketing to location marketing

The basic idea of marketing - the consistent orientation of the entire company or enterprise to the needs of the market (see Bruhn, 2012) - has been observed in market activity for many centuries (see Meffert et al., 2012). The principles of the market, competition, and customer relationship can be assumed to have existed since the beginning of trade. The term "marketing" in the sense of market-oriented management first appeared in the field of consumer goods management at the turn of the last century in an article by Samuel Sparling (1906). In the following decades, marketing developed into an independent discipline within economics and continuously gained in importance. Sparling defined marketing in 1906 as follows, representing an understanding of marketing that is instrumentally abbreviated from today's perspective. According to Sparling, marketing is:

...those commercial processes which are concerned with the distribution of raw materials of production and the finished output of the factory. ... Their function is to give additional value to these commodities through exchange.

In the early 1970s, the broadening of the concept of marketing to areas outside the consumer goods industry was intensively discussed and also implemented in the context of the broadening and deepening discussion (Kotler & Levy, 1969; Bruhn, 2012). The increasing development of global markets and global competition, the growing international exchange of goods and services, and the increasing international migration of labor all led to the concept of "global marketing" in the 1980s (Meffert, 1980; Meffert et al., 2012: 9). Since then, the concept of marketing has rampantly expanded to non-commercial organizations and the marketing of services. In addition to internal, social, educational, and scientific marketing, there are now many other specializations. Essential aspects of the modern view of marketing consist of understanding marketing as an entrepreneurial mindset that is oriented toward customer benefits and the needs of stakeholders. One can speak of a comprehensive guiding concept of management and even of a corporate philosophy (Bruhn, 2012: 14).

A pointed and still valid definition of modern marketing was presented by the American Marketing Association in 2004 (see Meffert et al., 2012: 13): According to this, marketing is:

...an organizational function and a set of processes for creating, communicating and delivering value to customers and for managing customer relationships in a way that benefits the organization and its stakeholders.

Along with all the differentiations within marketing, the specialized field of location marketing is also developing, in which the location is understood as a "geographically defined performance potential" (Balderjahn, 2014: 11; translation by the author) and a performance capability. Looking far back, the first closed location theory by Johann Heinrich von Thünen from 1826 must not go unmentioned when taking a closer look at locations. This refers to agricultural production (see Pongratz & Vogelgesang, 2016: 25). Then as now, in a globalized world economy, competition takes place not only between companies, but also between locations, regions, and states. Porter's theory of national competitive advantage (Porter, 1993; Balderjahn, 2014: 14) also aims to identify location-specific performance potential. The term location marketing also appears in the monographic literature in the 1990s and was coined by Philip Kotler, who, together with Donald Haider and Irving Rein, published the standard work Marketing Places (The Free Press, New York) in 1994. In this, the authors state, "Sites are indeed products whose identity and values must be built and marketed," (Kotler et al., 1994: 24; translation by the author). In addition, they note, "The challenge for location providers is to better understand the needs, perceptions, preferences, and resources of target audiences before developing strategic plans" (Kotler et al., 1994: 67; translation by the author). Accordingly, the principles of marketing are readily transferable to the "product" location. Location marketing has since become a recognized facet of marketing. Ingo Balderjahn describes and defines location marketing in his textbook "Standortmarketing" (2014: 10; translation by the author) as follows:

Location marketing has the task of establishing professional local management and control structures in the context of a supporting organization which are suitable for aligning all functions, activities, and processes associated with the marketing of local services, both with the expectations and demands of the demanders (customer orientation) and with the conditions of location competition (competition orientation).

"Location", as a product, must be actively developed if it is to survive in competition. Kotler et al. (1994: 17) appositely note, "Whatever the economic conditions for a location, it is inevitable that these conditions will change." The current investments of many cities, regions, and states in research infrastructure demonstrate that these insights have prevailed. A site and its stakeholders can often be viewed as a virtual enterprise. At its core is a cooperative approach by the relevant authorities and institutions to establish a positive image. The term "location" remains largely open and little defined. How large or small a location can be, seems to be freely conceivable, as evidenced by the derived terms of city and regional marketing or nation branding. The principles of location marketing seem fundamentally applicable from office space to continent. Calls to choose a location such as "Rent this office" or "Move to Europe" are similar in essence, despite the extremely divergent magnitudes of the locations. The location is defined as a "product" to be demanded. Pergelova and Ruiz (2011: 2) emphasize that there are two main scopes in location marketing when they note that "the concept of place marketing ... can be referred to as defining an area (a city) as a place product and subsequently developing and promoting it to meet the needs of the targeted customers." In addition to the characteristics of the product, which can be further developed in a suitable manner, "promotion", to use the marketing jargon (see McCarthy 1960; Meffert & Bruhn, 2012: 240), also plays a significant role in location marketing. Kotler et al. (1994: 391; translation by the author) note: Being a high-quality and attractive location is one thing; communicating this special quality is another. Locations must position themselves skillfully and address their target groups individually. They must adapt their messages to highly differentiated groups of buyers and yet at the same time develop an image that embodies and unites their special features.

With this comment, the authors hit the research core of the present work. At the same time, Kotler et al. (1994: 131; translation by the author) relativize the possibilities of promotion by stating that promotion "is not alone able to help a sick location." A good product is thus once again the essential basis for successful marketing. Nevertheless, some scholars rate the importance of communication quite highly. Scherer (2013: 6; translation by the author), for example, emphasizes, "In this competition, it is no longer enough to ‘merely' shine with optimal location factors. In the future, only those locations that succeed in appealing not only to the head but also to the heart will be able to win in this competition. Comprehensive ‘marketing of places' is thus becoming a key prerequisite." Steinrücken et al. (2005: 379; translation by the author) emphasize not only the importance of communication, but also the wide range of options for communication policy in the context of location marketing: "Just as companies have a whole bouquet of ways to signal to demanders that they sell only high-quality goods, so too can sites and communities take a wide variety of approaches to sending quality signals." Once more, the customers, with their needs, are also at the center of location marketing. Only exact knowledge of these needs allows purposeful development of the location as well as purposeful and effective promotion in the context of location marketing. This paper therefore addresses precisely this issue and identifies the most significant location factors for two of the most relevant stakeholder groups in the context of science location marketing.

2.2) Specifics of science locations

The term "science location" is not clearly defined in the literature. In most cases, the term is used when an institution that conducts science resides at a given location and thus establishes it as a science location. Very often, universities, universities of applied sciences, or non-university research centers are found at science locations. Another term used is "science cluster", which refers to a settlement of several science institutions and research facilities as well as technology-focused industry in a geographically coherent area. Science locations are distinct from other types of locations, such as manufacturing locations.

The Volkswagen Group (VW) would have different reasons for building a company in the city of Urumqi in the Xinjiang region of China than the IT company Apple would for adhering to its Palo Alto location in Silicon Valley. The dramatic differences in wage levels seem decidedly relevant to VW, while Apple is willing to pay top salaries in Silicon Valley. That the U.S. company Moderna - which developed an mRNA-based vaccine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus in 2020 - is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, also has specific reasons. Moderna is a spinoff of Harvard University and requires experts, most of whom can be found there. If "knowledge" and "innovation" are the driving forces of a company, science locations seem to be the right choice. These locations obviously offer significant advantages for companies in the "knowledge economy" (see Rollwagen et al., 2012), i.e. companies in research-based industry. Science systems in countries such as the U.S., Germany, Japan, or Luxembourg have annual budgets in the billions of euros and award thousands of doctorates to young scientists every year. The battle for funding and the "brightest minds" is intense. The trend toward an increasingly knowledge-driven economy and society is unabated. "The new quality within the structural change is that more knowledge values are being created from the knowledge created: The number and importance of codified knowledge and intellectual property rights is growing," Rollwagen et al. (2012: 6; translation by the author) explain in their review commissioned by Deutsche Bank. Scherer and Schnell (2008: 3) cite a publication by Richard Florida (1995), who announced the "new age of global, knowledge-intensive capitalism in which regions play a major role in creating knowledge." "In the New Economy, knowledge, rather than natural resources, is the raw material of business," explain Salvesen and Renski (2003: V). The knowledge economy is becoming a common term within economics. The reaction of policy-makers to this development is described by Cuntz (2016: 384), who states, "it has become a science policy priority in many countries to invest much of the limited public resources dedicated to R&D in excellent scientists, research groups, or research institutions: More than half of all OECD Member States have launched REIs (Research Excellence Initiatives; note by the author) since the turn of the century." Such investments in research infrastructure are highly relevant for science locations. Even if the importance of the location is occasionally questioned in a globalized and digitalized world, especially in the environment of knowledge production, Mahroum (2000: 514) quotes NJ. Thrift (1998) with the words: "Space is no longer seen as local or global." In contrast, Verginer and Riccaboni (2021: 9) state, "Despite declarations that distance is irrelevant in a globalized world, geography is very much alive."

With regard to science, which is internationally networked and has become more location-independent in some areas as a natural result of developments in digitization and the associated possibilities for location-independent interaction, the location and its selection continue to play a prominent role for research linked to infrastructure, for example. Seidel's (2016: 111) observation speaks for the importance of locations and science clusters: "It is interesting to observe that the swarming behavior of new­economy firms runs counter to the location policy of the classic old economy. There, the maxim was to locate as far away from the competition as possible so as not to compete with each other." Today, science and research industry seem to value the proximity of shared locations. "Global cities boast higher rates of innovation as measured through patent and scientific production. However, the source of the location advantage of innovation hubs is still debated in the literature, with arguments ranging from localized knowledge spillovers to network effects," state Verginer & Riccaboni (2021: 1). In his papers, Richard Florida coins the term "learning region" (Florida, 1995). Rollwagen et al. (2012: 16) use the term "Avantgarde-Regionen", while in the English-speaking world the term "innovation hubs" is omnipresent. As Seidel (2016: 110, translation by the author) explains, "The focus on innovation leads to the latest category of regional agglomerations: innovation hubs. In such a location, a particularly productive cooperation between science, education, and business occurs. At the same time, such areas have outstanding soft location factors. Silicon Valley is regarded worldwide as a prime example of regionally concentrated innovation." Seidel adds in his writing that the following four elements characterize the ecosystem of an innovation hub: 1) critical mass, 2) image, 3) venture capital, and 4) spill-over effects (see Seidel 2016: 111). The availability of top professionals and of specialized service providers completes the wish list of potential location buyers of science locations.

The specifics of science locations thus include the scientists, the human capital, themselves. Indeed, this factor is arguably the most significant location factor of all. "Science is increasingly a collaborative "team sport"," explain Wuchty et al. (2007), describing a key aspect of the working environment of scientists. The fact that the world of science - which seems to be so economically significant - is not always correspondingly attractive in every place is proven by many studies. "With an average annual income of €40,000, researchers in Europe draw a salary that is not competitive internationally. ... With an average of €53,358, salaries in Germany do not come close to those paid in the international top group," Kempen states in ifo Schnelldienst (2008; translation by the author). Moreover, there is often a dramatic wage gap between academia and the research-based industry. Kidd and Green (2004: 233) describe the typically prevailing contractual relationships, using the example of British biomedical researchers: "Within the university and charity/research council sectors, the vast majority of UK-based biomedical researchers in early careers are employed on fixed- term contracts, typically of three years' duration or less, although open-ended contracts tend to be the norm in the pharmaceutical sector." The authors thus point to further unattractive general conditions and the sometimes "precarious" employment conditions with which scientists are now confronted over large parts of their careers. The example from biomedicine can be applied without restriction to almost all areas of academia. Janger & Nowotny (2016: 1681) speak of a "social security issue" and Auriol (2010: 3) describes the science system as one "where employment conditions have become less attractive." Nevertheless, various studies, such as the one by Kidd and Green (2004: 245), show that there are no performance differences, especially among young scientists, regardless of the contract conditions. Many studies confirm a particularly high intrinsic motivation among scientists. Kanter (1989) provides another specific example with regard to the scientific enterprise, stating: "Professionals are often more committed to their professional community than to their employer" (as cited in Kidd & Green, 2004: 230). Thus, from the scientists' perspective, an additional "location" independent of geography, a hidden network, is added to the physical science location. Mahroum (2000: 515) describes this feature as follows, "I am describing a phenomenon which I call global cultural spaces ... or Crane refers to as 'invisible colleges'. To a large extent, these spaces also resemble what some geographers have called 'phantom states' or 'underground empires'." It is therefore not surprising that scientists are one of the most mobile groups of all. Especially at a young age, for example during the doctoral period, this willingness for international mobility and the associated creation of "invisible colleges" is strong (see also Auriol, 2007; Auriol, 2010; Franzoni et al., 2012; Hunter et al., 2009; Zucker, 2006). Scientists thus create a career-enhancing network and subsequently often operate across institutions, in international collaborations. "Figures from the OECD/UNESCO/Eurostat study on the careers of doctorate holders reveal that, in 2009, an average of 14% of national citizens with a doctorate degree had been internationally mobile in the previous 10 years (Auriol et al., 2013), confirming earlier findings reported in Auriol (2010)," Appelt et al. (2015: 4) declare. Although the data situation is detailed and the number of publications on the mobility of scientists is extensive, Verginer and Riccaboni (2020: 11) come to the following assessment: "The mobility of scientists and its impact on scientific production are still poorly understood."

What are well understood and documented, however, and what ultimately lead to more mobility within many groups of employees, are "permanently decreasing information and migration costs for the owners of mobile factors," as Seiler and Dallmann (2007: 1; translation by the author) state. Changing location is becoming increasingly easy. A stay abroad for research purposes has long been part of everyday life in the scientific community. Many researchers live and work permanently outside their country of birth. The natural consequence of this mobility and the fact that science is a "team sport" is the agglomeration of scientists at particularly attractive locations. The result is the formation of science clusters, the importance of which is reflected by various authors. "Notably, approximately 50% of all ERC grants to principal investigators were concentrated in no more than 50 institutions in Europe. Elite scientists choose to go where the best facilities are," notes Cuntz (2016: 384). "Entrepreneurship finds the necessary breeding ground in clusters" (Schiele, 2003: 34; translation by the author). Part of the essence of a cluster is "the exchange of knowledge that takes place as a result of employees moving from one company to another, and thus know-how migrating between those two companies" (Schiele, 2003: 30; translation by the author). According to Kopper and Jäger (2016: 120; translation by the author), the results show a strong attracting power of agglomerated centers: "Start-ups spawn mainly in Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, and Cologne. Moreover, 40% of the start-ups observed are found within a 50­km radius of their alma mater." This attachment to a location is also exemplified by academic founders in the Internet industry, a surprisingly high proportion of whom remain in the university region despite their very mobile basic requirements (see Kopper & Jäger, 2016: 121). Many successful clusters resemble a club: membership is limited, for example to a region or nation. Within the "club", an open exchange takes place, in which outside companies do not participate in depth. "Through mutual support, the members of the cluster continuously improve - and leave the isolated companies behind" (Schiele, 2003: 31; translation by the author). "The term ‘local buzz', common nowadays, refers to a special cluster milieu that enables the circulation of diverse information and inspiration for local actors," note Bathelt and Glückler (2012: 270; translation by the author).

"This ecosystem for information and communication, which can only be found in the cluster, favors innovative capacity. ... Trust becomes a kind of ‘basic attitude' of the closely connected actors in this milieu," explains Seidel (2016: 109; translation by the author). This particular milieu is highlighted by numerous experts.

However, in addition to all the evidence for the effectiveness and superiority of these site-specific agglomerations, skepticism can also be found in the scientific literature. For example, Faggian and McCann (2006) identify multiple contradictions to commonly accepted notions of how science clusters work. The authors state, for example, that "there is little evidence in favor of direct spillovers between university research and regional innovation. Rather the primary role of the university system appears to be as a conduit for bringing potential high quality undergraduate human capital into a region" (Faggian & McCann, 2006: 475). Furthermore, in their paper published three years later, the authors state, "We find little or no support for the argument that the presence of local universities or small firms promotes regional innovation ... any such effect appears to be restricted to high technology sectors only" (Faggian & McCann, 2009: 329). With this statement, the authors qualify their provocative theses by conceding a restriction with regard to the "high technology sector", which is of course the main focus of science clusters. Kopper and Jäger also contribute with their work to the critical reflection of the "cluster hype": "Using regression, it was shown that a university that is successful in acquiring third-party funding and has an affinity for start-ups does not automatically help the surrounding region to benefit more from its spin-offs" (Kopper & Jäger, 2016: 120; translation by the author). Moreover, the authors point out that the retention rate for firms and researchers is not significantly higher in clusters, which contradicts most comparable work on this topic (see Rollwagen et al, 2012; Seidel, 2016; Verginer & Riccaboni, 2021).

Despite little scientific controversies, the majority of experts and decision-makers assume that science clusters work. It is therefore the goal of political governance to further expand cooperation between research directions and collaborations with research-based industry in order to enjoy positive synergies. The active shaping of science locations has been increasingly pushed since the 1990s. "The State, for its part, influences innovation by setting priorities in research policy or by equipping universities," explains Seidel (2016: 109; translation by the author). Cuntz (2016: 385) notes that "REI investments ... lead to greater national specialization in specific research fields and even greater mobility on a global level." "Political actors can create stable legal foundations for the various actors to engage in independent knowledge-oriented and entrepreneurial activities - including in the knowledge economy," Rollwagen et al.

(2012: 12; translation by the author) declare. Politicians are sometimes very active in ensuring this, and the example of Luxembourg as a science location, which is highlighted in this paper, is an impressive example. The fact that there are definitely good opportunities for smaller states and locations in the battle of the clusters is proven by some studies. "An analysis of the development of regions with more than one hundred patent applications shows that more 'small knowledge strongholds' are emerging," Rollwagen et al. (2012: 17) state. This trend is followed not only by the initiatives at the science location Luxembourg.

2.3) Science location marketing

The term "science location marketing" has not yet been established. Google found only 13 documents under the German-language term "Wissenschaftsstandortmarketing" on January 19, 2021, in which the term is used with slight variations (e.g. with hyphen). Location marketing has been an established area of marketing for decades (see chapter 2.1) . The term science location is no less established, yielding many millions of hits in a Google search. However, the conceptual and written fusion of the two terms has almost never been accomplished. Use of the neologism "Wissenschaftsstandortmarketing" is currently limited authoritatively to three locations, namely Dresden, Styria, and Tyrol. These three locations use the term "Wissenschaftsstandortmarketing" in individual documents and by no means systematically. In the standard literature on location marketing, there are no dedicated chapters on this specific form of location marketing. Even in the comprehensive and recently published Handbuch Wissenschaftsmarketing (Merten & Knoll, 2019), there is no chapter on this relevant research and management area. Nor has the author found an alternative term of the same meaning. However, the use of the term "Wissenschaftsstandortmarketing" seems reasonable and appropriate, despite the term not yet being scientifically established. In view of the increased importance of science and the knowledge economy, it would appear worthwhile to address the topic of science location marketing and to make greater use of this term. Accordingly, this paper makes unrestricted use of the English version of that term. A Google query for the word combination "Standortmarketing + Wissenschaftsstandort" already yields 5,820 hits (January 19, 2021) and substantiates the content-related relationship of these two topics. As explained in chapter 2.2, location marketing at a science location includes many specifics. The goals of science location marketing are diverse, but they essentially coincide with the goals of general location marketing. Science locations compete and aim to thrive by acquiring human and financial capital and generating growth. Trends in investment in knowledge suggest that more states, companies, regions, and cities seem to be recognizing the need to foster knowledge and innovation, including through a well-funded research landscape, in order to stay ahead of global competition. "Investment in R&D by many states and companies is increasing (in some cases) sharply," note Rollwagen et al. (2012: 4; translation by the author). Mahroum (1998: 24) speaks of investment in universities, research centers, and research infrastructure as "prerequisite" for success. Cuntz (2016: 388) explains, "Domestic allocation of funds may not only generate positive externalities via higher reputation and global visibility of the system abroad. Additional migration also can improve the overall 'fertility' of national systems to deliver ERC proposals and win additional ERC/EU-level funding." Science location marketing seems to have arrived in the scientific discourse thematically, if not by name. The mobility and flexibility of science researched by Auriol (2010) seems to be of particular importance in terms of the expected "returns on investment", and the prospect of growth through relocation of personnel feeds the process of science location marketing. Miguelez and Moreno (2013: 55) also focus on human capital and state that "with the advent of the knowledge-based economy, identifying territorial features that favor or hinder the attraction of talent is of utmost importance." Rollwagen et al. (2012: 20; translation by the author) also emphasize the particular importance of the people who act: "To survive in the knowledge economy, you need first and foremost bright minds, i.e. personalities and pioneers."

Cuntz (2016) confirms the effectiveness of excellence initiatives, as are implemented in many countries, by postulating that the resulting increase in reputation at the respective locations is able to attract top national and international researchers. As early as 1998, Mahroum asserted that "policy-makers within the European Union must focus attention on the issues of: mobility programs; immigration policies; career opportunities; and scientific excellence" (1998: 23).

Many science locations have been engaged in excellent science location marketing for many years, some even for centuries. Old university cities such as Oxford, Vienna, Heidelberg, or Cologne, which were founded between the 12th and 14th centuries, have long been able to attract the international intelligentsia and to gather them in one place. Today, the list of attractive science locations has become far less clear, but "over the years, certain sites accumulate magnetic power which gives them an advantage over others in attracting top talent and hosting top research," explains Mahroum (2000: 518). Prominent brands in science and research, such as Harvard, MIT, CERN, and NASA, are attractive, promising quality and prestige. The global science enterprise is in direct competition, albeit often far behind, with these institutions and their locations. Companies such as Huawei, Tesla, and Google spearhead the research industry. These technology companies are extremely sought after. Every day, they are obliged to turn down hundreds of applicants and turn down many attractive offers for branch locations. Their potential to advance careers and enrich locations with knowledge and financial power is justifiably highly valued. The first goal of any science location is therefore to get at least on the "long list" of top scientists and top companies who are thinking of moving to a new location in the future. The mechanisms involved in this are reported in detail in chapter 3. The organization and operational implementation of location strategies represents a major challenge in the process of science location marketing. The managing institutions are responsible for this (see Balderjahn, 2014: 135). Balderjahn does not define the important term "managing institution" satisfactorily with regard to the specifics of science location marketing, where Balderjahn's use of the term only includes state or municipal offices, companies, staff units, and chambers. Science functions differently, however, and has the necessary self-confidence to become a "manager" itself, independent of any predefinition. Competence-wrangling and uncoordinated actionism are a part of everyday life in science location marketing, especially within clusters with multiple ambitious players. The ideal conception, on the other hand, calls for a coordinated and collaborative approach, such as that which the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft (2020), dedicated to applied research, calls for in its concept for sustainable location development under the title "From science clusters to performance centers." The goal is a new quality of integrated location concepts, characterized by an intertwining of academic research and industrial research to form an innovation system.

Science and research occupy a special position not only within the economy, but also more generally within society. Science, more than any other discipline, is perceived by the population as trustworthy (see Wissenschaftsbarometer by Wissenschaft im Dialog). Science is therefore also a cultural asset of a location. Many people prefer to live in a location with a certain science culture and infrastructure. "More and more philanthropists and foundations are getting involved in funding knowledge production," Rollwagen et al. (2021: 21; translation by the author) mention. The current situation of the Corona pandemic also proves the importance of science for society (vaccine development within one year!). Mahroum (2000: 518) states that "maintaining the trust of the public is crucial for the survival of universities and other research organizations." Therefore, in addition to economic objectives, science location marketing must always include integrating overall social aspects that make the value of science visible, promote acceptance and trust, and thus strengthen the support for science locations in society. The elegance of science location marketing is largely derived from the nature of the product at its core: science. Hardly any other area to be dealt with from a marketing point of view offers a comparable value of product.

3) Current state of research: Location selection

3.1) Introduction to location selection

Location selection is often a lengthy process, which is occurring much more frequently in the digitized, technologized world than ever before. General mobility costs have fallen worldwide. As a result, the world and its protagonists are moving more and more. Site selection is followed by relocation, a clearly defined event in time. In contrast to this, one is obliged to evaluate one's current location in a continuous, unrelenting process. Locations are in strong competition and often differ considerably. Pyongyang or Amsterdam, Dubai or Toronto, Neukölln or Charlottenburg, ground floor or top floor - as citizens, employees, scientists and corporations, we have to evaluate, select, and decide. This process is highly complex and has been much researched in many different scientific disciplines. Economists, sociologists, psychologists, geographers, and politicians in their role as state leaders have always shown great interest in the underlying processes and the resulting effects. The fundamental question of location theory is: Why are economic units unequally distributed in space? Pongratz and Vogelgesang (2016) mention that Alfred Weber introduced the important term "agglomeration" in his pioneering paper published in 1909 entitled "On the location of industries." "Regional science and economic geography have been concerned with the location choice behavior of firms and its decision determinants for a good hundred years," Derungs (2008: 34; translation by the author) notes. Thus, the scientific study of location issues has a long history. The following chapter (3.2) explains location theories in more detail. The notion of the "ideal location" drives individuals, organizations, and companies to initiate the processes of location search and selection. At its core, this is about finding a location that has the most favorable profile relative to other locations that come into question. "If we assume that there really is 'the ideal location', then it would be the ideal location 'for the moment'," Pongratz and Vogelgesang (2016: 25; translation by the author) aptly note. Given the great importance of location decisions, they are often not reflected upon, organized, or processed to the depth that might be expected (see Hübner et al., 2017: 160). "Surprisingly, when it comes to site selection, even large international corporations make decisions on the basis of relatively rough guidelines and little formalized assessments of the alternatives," observes Salmen (2001: 52; translation by the author). It is therefore more than appropriate to take a closer look at the main principles of location selection.

3.2) Location theory and location factors

Location theory studies the location behavior of actors; in particular which factors are relevant for the choice of a location. Location theory is usually classified under spatial economic theory within economic geography. Location theory has a long history. Its early development is associated with authors such as Weber, Hoover, Lösch and others (see Salvesen & Renski, 2003: 5). A distinction can be made between Neoclassical, behaviorist, and institutionalist location theories.

While the neoclassical approach is strongly oriented towards microeconomic models with (implicit) utility maximization, the behaviorist approach assumes a limited ability in information processing and thus limited rationality in location choice. The institutional approach, on the other hand, interprets the choice of location as an outcome of interaction and negotiation between the company and its environment,

Derungs (2008: 7; translation by the author) explains. What the classical location theories have in common is that they adopt a relatively static perspective, since they are largely limited to the cost side. In the approach of neoclassical location theories, the basic mechanism is to minimize costs or maximize profits of the firm. In this context, neoclassical location theory extends the traditional models of microeconomics by the factor "space". "Alone the concept of 'spatial margins to profitability' points to the possibility that firms will choose suboptimal locations," Derungs (2008: 39; translation by the author) elaborates. Empirical studies in the 1960s revealed that personal considerations of the entrepreneur also often play an important role in the company's choice of location. Against this background, behaviorist location theory was developed. The optimization behavior of companies is replaced by the pursuit of need satisfaction, the so-called 'satisficer behavior' (see Simon, 1957). The neoclassical and behaviorist approaches are united by their common view of the firm as an active decision actor in a static environment. The decision-maker selects a location from a multitude of possible locations, takes economic and non-economic factors into account, and behaves either as homo oeconomicus or homo satificens. The environment is thereby considered "as an exogenous factor" (Pellenbarg et al., 2002). Since the 1980s, this gross simplification
has repeatedly led to critical developments, which are sometimes summed under the term "institutional approaches". The following table gives an overview of the main concepts.

TABLE 1 Business location theories according to Scherer, 2013

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Every location has a variety of specific positive and negative characteristics. These are referred to as location factors. "Location factors are those economic variables that influence and determine the choice of location," states Eckey (2008: 15). They are the "variable location-specific conditions, forces, influences, etc., that have a positive or negative impact on the investment and development of a business," add Pongratz and Vogelgesang (2016: 33; translation by the author). There are hard and soft location factors. Henke (2004) defines hard location factors as quantifiable structural data about a place and its surroundings. Examples are the transport infrastructure, socio­demographic characteristics, political-administrative advantages and disadvantages, or relations of the location to other places. Hard location factors have a strong influence on entrepreneurial activity.

Soft location factors are difficult to measure. Their importance is essentially determined by subjective assessments; however they can be of great significance ina company's decision to locate to a given place. The following figure from Grabow (1995) provides a good overview of key location factors.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

The criteria of the Global Competitiveness Index for measuring location quality, which is published regularly by the World Economic Forum, give a good idea of the wealth of factors that are relevant in location competition. The list of factors evaluated extends in small print, in tabular form, over three DIN A4 pages.

Salmen (2001) also provides a tabular, albeit far less complex, overview and at the same time a ranking of cross-industry location factors in his publication "Standortwahl der Unternehmen".

TABLE 2 Cross-industry relevance of location factors according to Salmen

illustration not visible in this excerpt

"In order to develop regions in a targeted manner, knowledge of these factors is

indispensable," notes Seidel (2016: 87; translation by the author). The dispute about the significance of the individual location factors and the informative value of a ranking, as published by Salmen, has been raging for decades and continues to this day. The scientific community holds divergent positions on this issue. Pongratz and Vogelgesang (2016: 24; translation by the author) also point out a change in the significance of individual location factors, which they attribute to the increasingly rapid spread of information and communication technologies. The authors write, "Location factors such as knowledge and capital are currently exhibiting a leveling trend." The environment, and thus the entire location construct, is indisputably subject to constant processes of change. In general, they describe a shift towards an increasing importance of soft location factors. Bathelt (1992: 211; translation by the author) made a statement to this effect already three decades ago: "It seems, however, that a general shift from a quantitative, cost-oriented perspective to a qualitative, specialization-oriented evaluation of location factors has taken place." Pongratz and Vogelgesang (2016: 24; translation by the author) also explain, "The decreasing importance of these [hard] location factors goes hand in hand with a relative rise of the so-called soft location factors." Müller et al. (2014: 35; translation by the author) note, "Contrary to the widespread opinion that companies exclusively refer to rational considerations when looking for a location, soft factors have quite a high significance." It must be noted here that consideration of soft location factors by no means presupposes an irrational approach. "All these reasons (emotional factors) can be just as decisive as the location factors evaluated according to the best business aspects," writes Derungs (2008: 4; translation by the author), thus also suggesting that the integration of emotional/soft factors defies a strictly business evaluation.

The extent to which the importance of soft factors has truly increased, or whether the focus of research has merely shifted, is discussed in the literature. Meester (2000: 23) concluded more than two decades ago "that still little attention has been paid to imagery and subjective factors in locational decision-making," which supports the theory of a focus shift. At almost the same time, Salmen (2001: 57; translation by the author) cites plausible reasons for an actual reassessment of soft location factors, writing, "The main reasons for the increasing importance of soft location factors in entrepreneurial location choices can be cited as increasing tertiarization, rising skill levels of employees, new technologies and manufacturing techniques, and a changing relationship between working time and leisure time." The discourse in academia about the importance of hard and soft location factors, and their significance for different sectors of the economy, is still ongoing and can never come to a halt due to continually changing environmental conditions, technologies, and societal value systems. To illustrate the discourse further, it is worth taking even more scientific literature into account. Müller et al. (2014: 33; translation by the author) comment on the importance of clearly quantifiable, hard location factors by postulating: "First and foremost are measurable criteria, such as the tax base generated, the number of settled companies and jobs, or the number of residents who have moved to the area." Numerous sources agree with this position in principle, with the caveat that the hard location factors are of course paramount, especially in many areas of manufacturing, but that the importance of soft location factors has increased. Salmen (2001: 65; translation by the author) seems to support this view by stating, somewhat ambiguously, that "hard location factors are most important, but soft location qualities are also relatively important."

Authors who deal more specifically with the target groups of science and the research industry conclude, as captioned in the words of Salvesen and Renski (2003: V), that: "Today ... quality of life for employees is becoming an important factor as well, particularly for knowledge-based industries." Brown and Scott (2012: 8) declare, "There is less evidence that a stronger presence of cultural industries is associated with location choice, except among degree-holders aged 30 or older." Furthermore, they state, "Higher incomes increase the relative importance of amenities", as also mentioned by Salvesen and Renski (2003: V), who state that "areas offering cultural and recreational amenities could have a competitive advantage over places that do not." According to intuition, soft location factors seem to be of increasing importance, especially among employees with a higher level of education and income. However, the current discourse does not seem to have uttered its last words about this assertion either. Miguelez and Moreno (2013: 36) summarize the state of knowledge for 2013 as follows:

In sum we learn, first and foremost, that the main debate focuses on the influence of economic and job opportunities versus amenities in attracting talent, though no consensus has been reached so far. Second, the literature has also stressed the strong influence of unobservable linkages to the origin region, like family, friends, or colleagues. ... However, little is known about what influences the location choices of highly qualified knowledge workers from a relational perspective, since the impact of more meaningful linkages across locations, such as cross-regional professional networks, has not been addressed.

In view of the ongoing debate, further research into the relevant location factors, especially in the context of science locations, appears to be a matter of urgency.

3.3) Information behavior of potential location buyers

Companies are in a constant search process for the best possible location. Companies, as much as individuals who are looking for a new location, need location-specific information. In view of a steadily growing range of possible locations due to globalization trends and increasingly complex demands on the services offered by locations, provision of information is becoming increasingly important in the location selection process. Contrary to its importance, the informative starting position is often desolate, as Anholt (2007: 1) comments: "We all navigate through the complexity of the modern world armed with a few simple clichés." Companies willing to settle into a location "often have insufficient knowledge about the qualities (service bundles) offered by those locations," Steinrücken et al. (2005: 380) note, adding that companies willing to settle into a location are often actively "searching for signals" (2005: 379) from the location providers. "Often, the search begins by studying publications on site assessments," explain Kotler et al, (1994: 72). Digitization and the increased volume of Internet-based information have brought about significant change in this regard over the past three decades. Through modern means of communication and information, companies and private individuals, alike, are now able to obtain information that once required immense effort. The Internet has been described as an "information gateway" (Müller et al., 2014: 63). However, there are also a variety of ways to accumulate information beyond the Internet. As an attempt at systematization, Kotler et al. (1994: 72) name four categories of information sources: 1) Personal sources: family, friends, neighbors, acquaintances; 2) Commercial sources: advertising agencies, vendors, travel organizations; 3) Public sources: media, companies evaluating sites, professionals; and 4) Experimental sources: site visits. Ingenhoff also aims at systematization and states in the context of nation branding, "People gain knowledge about a country in many ways, including directly, based on their own experiences (e.g., through exhibitions, fairs, travel, literature, and schoolbooks), through peer group reporting, and indirectly via news media" (Ingenhoff et al., 2020: 94). Therefore, in addition to perhaps the most significant source of information today, the Internet, other essential sources of information are emerging, such as first-hand information from trusted individuals who have location-specific information. Companies are using their personal contacts to obtain trusted information about specific locations (see Ellis, 2000; Adler & Kwon, 2002). In contrast, the value of information from government economic developers is controversial. Decker & Crompton (1993: 88) and Russ (1991), for example, ascribe it low importance. Rankings are yet another source of location information. "However, rankings should be used more as a basic orientation and less as a final decision-making aid, as their statements can hardly be based on the very specific location needs of companies," Pongratz and Vogelgesang (2016: 30) point out. On the one hand, rankings are important because they reach many potential location buyers; yet, the quality often varies considerably and some rankings are undisputedly flawed, where "parameters are selected arbitrarily" (Müller et al., 2014: 44; translation by the author). There are, however, serious and very carefully compiled rankings, such as the "European Innovation Scoreboard" published by the European Commission or the "Global Competitiveness Report" of the World Economic Forum.

Not to be neglected is the goal of many location marketers to provide location-specific information to individuals and companies who are yet to be encouraged to seek a location. To this end, many locations try to draw attention to themselves with push initiatives such as advertising campaigns. It is not uncommon for this to run into large budgets. Steinrücken et al. (2005: 380; translation by the author) explain, "Municipal image campaigns have the character of a public good. The competitive position of all municipal companies is improved by the image gain from location advertising." This line of argument legitimizes the high financial outlay. However, in addition to advertising campaigns - which are frowned upon especially in the scientific environment because they are financed by public funds and are deemed "not very smart" - increasingly complex, integrated communication strategies are coming into play. The "magic word", as Müller et al. (2014: 109) describe it, is "inbound marketing", and presupposes a change in information behavior among recipients who actively seek out the desired information primarily in electronic media. Basically, sources that are perceived by the recipient as trustworthy and desirable can be assigned to inbound marketing. For successful transmission of the desired information, the people searching "would only need to be provided with cleverly linked content such as images, stories, video clips, and further information (see also: content marketing) ... without the municipality having to invest an additional amount of money in push marketing measures" Müller et al. (2014: 110; translation by the author) state. Increasingly, it is such communication strategies that are preferred by sites and especially by science locations.

Yet, no matter how the information is communicated, the next, immediately subsequent key aspect in the process of site selection is to process the information. This is corroborated by Scharrer (2000: 123), who states that, in addition to acquisition, the "processing of information is also an important part of the decision-making process." Derungs (2008: 41; translation by the author) speaks of a "limited ability to use this information." In this framework, the perception and processing of information are the main variables influencing the actual choice of location.

Companies generally differ in terms of their abilities for rational analysis and planning. Accordingly, it is not only the availability of "key information" that is important, but also its processing potential. If location promotion is to function optimally, not only knowledge of the selection-deciding location factors becomes relevant, but also knowledge of how potential location buyers process information. Therefore, it is not only important what I communicate, but also how I communicate it.

3.4) Location decisions

Since the decision upon a location usually means a long-term spatial commitment, the identification, evaluation, and weighting of the relevant location factors is of great importance. Location decisions are complex processes that include rational and emotional aspects. Modern location theories include hard and soft location factors (see chapter 3.2). According to Derungs (2008: 59), "the behavior of decision-makers in the location selection process has been studied under four aspects: (1) Search behavior for suitable location alternatives, (2) Information, (3) Evaluation, and (4) Decision behavior." The location decision process has been the subject of empirical research since the 1970s. "However, empirical literature on the location decision process itself is sparse," writes Derungs (2008: 55), who extensively studied corporate location choice as part of his dissertation at the University of St. Gallen in 2008. Decision-making processes have changed as information and mobility costs have fallen dramatically. As
a result, it is now much easier to find a large number of suitable locations than was ever the case in the past. If regions differ only insignificantly in terms of their economic conditions, companies can produce profitably at several locations. "In this case, company-specific and non-economic factors can explain a location decision more accurately," Derungs (2008: 40; translation by the author) writes and underlines the importance of soft factors discussed above in chapter 3.2. Despite facilitated information acquisition (chapter 3.3), the number of locations considered by industrial companies shows that about one third of relocators do not consider any alternative locations, describes Salmen (2001: 52). Also, with an investigation into the location choice of 205 enterprises, Scherer (2013) supports the observation that most enterprises only consider few options even from the beginning of the decision process. This occurs regardless of whether the location is a country, region, or real estate. The following figure visualizes Scherer's research findings.

FIGURE 2

Location search paths according to Scherer, 2013

illustration not visible in this excerpt

The observed early commitment to a few sites suggests two things: 1) The information process is largely completed before the decision process is initiated; 2) The decision­makers evaluate the information analysis at a very early stage as so successful that a more open process, with a longlist, is not deemed necessary. In addition, it may be deduced that the increased importance of Internet research, for quick and inexpensive information gathering, acts as a driver for the early restriction to a few locations in the decision-making process. "Companies should approach site selection as systematically as possible," advise Pongratz and Vogelgesang (2016: 23; translation by the author). Numerous tools such as checklists and site finders are available for this purpose. That large companies tend to carry out structured decision-making processes is already noted by Grabow et al. (1995: 139). Small companies rely more on their ‘intuition'. "In order to increase transparency and certainty in decision-making, a company-specific evaluation model based on a utility value analysis is a good idea, which, with the help of criteria that can be described as objectively as possible, enables a realistic analysis and evaluation when choosing a location," write Hübner et al. (2017: 161; translation by the author). However, the authors immediately add that often, in addition to the explicit, spatial decision criteria, the implicit, unformulated expectations can also be so complex that it is impossible to identify and measure all factors. In addition to target criteria, minimum requirements must also be established in the form of exclusion criteria. According to Hübner et al. (2017: 162; translation by the author), the frequently cited criticism of subjectivity can be countered "by involving several experts ... in the criteria selection, weighting, and evaluation." Thus, the scientific community would advise a systematic approach in any case. A portfolio of established methods is available. Nevertheless, this offer is often ignored in everyday life. "Undoubtedly, in practice, location decisions are also made against the results of mathematical procedures," explains Salmen (2001: 52). Individuals and companies not infrequently incorporate workable "shortcuts" into their own research and analysis in the decision-making process. Firms imitate the location choices of firms that are similar to them (see DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). This imitative behavior is particularly promising in highly uncertain situations when, at the same time, the location-seeking firm has no previous business experience in a particular location (see Greve, 2000; Delios & Henisz, 2001). Moreover, managers often evaluate the presence of firms with similar backgrounds as an indication of a location with market potential (see Baum et al., 2000). As already mentioned, within the knowledge economy, there are additional positive aspects of clustering that support "imitation" as a promising strategy. According to Scherer, various effects can be described in the formation of preferences in location selection, these being the "familiarity effect, image effect, centrality effect, network effect, herd effect, and imitation effect" (Scherer, 2013: 34).

Preguntas frecuentes

What is the main topic of this document?

This document focuses on science location marketing, relevant location factors for science and research-based industries, and optimizing promotion strategies to attract these stakeholders. It uses Luxembourg as a case study.

What is science location marketing?

Science location marketing is the application of marketing principles to promote a geographic area as an attractive place for scientific research, development, and related industries. It involves understanding the needs of scientists and research-based companies and communicating the location's advantages to them.

What are location factors?

Location factors are the characteristics of a place that influence its attractiveness to businesses and individuals. They can be categorized as hard factors (e.g., infrastructure, cost of living) and soft factors (e.g., quality of life, cultural amenities).

What is method triangulation in this context?

Method triangulation is the use of multiple research methods (e.g., literature analysis, surveys) to validate findings and gain a more comprehensive understanding of location factors and promotional effectiveness.

What are hard and soft location factors?

Hard location factors are quantifiable structural data about a place, such as transport infrastructure and demographic characteristics. Soft location factors are more subjective and difficult to measure, such as quality of life and cultural amenities.

What is the significance of location selection?

Location selection is vital for science and research-based industries, forming a foundational business decision. Understanding relevant factors and optimizing promotion efforts is crucial.

Why is Luxembourg used as a case study?

Luxembourg is used as an example of an emerging science location. Its relatively small size allows for a focused analysis of its science cluster and communication measures.

What are the primary objectives of science location marketing?

The primary objectives are attracting scientists and research-based industries, securing financial capital, and fostering growth in the location. Successful marketing enhances the area's reputation and ability to compete globally.

What are some information sources that companies can use?

Potential sources of information that the buyers utilize are divided into the following categories:

• Personal Sources Family, friends, neighbors, acquaintances
• Commercial Sources Advertising agencies, vendors, travel organizations
• Public Sources Media, companies evaluating sites, professionals
• Experimental Sources Site visits