Small City Branding Around the World

The Mayor Doesn’t Own Your City’s Brand!

Last week I was reminded of the fragility of place brands and how they need to foster deep community roots from the start of their brand planning process. The marketing manager of a small destination marketing organization (DMO) told me that his city had completed a brand strategy during the past two years which had been well received. But with the election of a new mayor, they had abandoned the strategy. Fortunately, this was not one of our clients.

This discussion brought home to me that from time to time people who are essential to the vitality of a destination brand move on. The result can be that their replacement wants to “do things their way”. It goes without saying that community-based brands have to be built following a highly consultative and transparent process - along with broad buy-in and a shared sense of ownership.

The brand does not belong to any one person or organization. And a new mayor should not be empowered to arbitrarily reject a strategy that community members and key stakeholders contributed considerable blood, sweat and tears in defining. The marketing manager told me that there is now deep cynicism and aversion among stakeholders and staff toward starting a new brand planning process just two years after the last effort.  

The mayor doesn't realize that a place brand is more than the logo he didn't like and it belongs to everyone in the community to a greater or lesser extent. It should never be established in such a way that it is reliant on one individual – even if they are Mayor.

Sponsored by: Book:  Destination Branding for Small Cities

The Logo Bureaucrats Run Amok in NSW.

Place and destination branding is tricky at the best of times. Among the ever-present challenge is managing the possible influence of politics and the whim of politicians and bureaucrats.

The Sydney Herald reports that the tourism industry, and especially the attractions owned by the Government of New South Wales (NSW) Australia, were blindsided last month by an announcement from the State's Premier (equivalent to Governor) that the state’s government-owned attractions must all ditch their individual logos and replace them with the State Government logo which is the State flower, the Waratah.

These include the world famous Sydney Opera House, Taronga Park, Sydney Olympic Park, the Art Gallery of NSW, the Australian Museum and many more. Each of these enterprises is competing in highly competitive markets i.e. they must have a very strong customer focus.

While logos aren’t brands, they do play a valuable role as identifiers to distinguish entities and provide the foundation for their distinctive visual identity or look. A point of concern in the NSW directive was that the government logo was needed to "ensure consistency across public sector communications and improve the recognition of NSW government projects".

Who do they think is their customer?

Was there any consumer research conducted to test this idea?

What about other elements of their visual identity?

The greatest ‘head-scratcher’ was the statement by the spokesperson that the cost of the exercise would be "minimal" because the ‘Waratah’ was an existing logo and it could do so as part of routine communications updates. Seriously? What about wayfinding systems, websites, brochures, uniforms and vehicles that still have plenty of use? That means there will be multiple designs in use at the same time.

A logo should act as a cue for thoughts and feelings that people hold about the entity. In this case, someone should tell the NSW Premier that NOBODY is traveling to experience NSW government departments and that all of these entities do not share the same brand essence as government departments.

Fortunately, logos are only one part of any marketing toolkit. But this is a very worrying example of bureaucratic interference in the serious business of destination marketing.

Avoid a Place Branding Headache: Don’t Hire a Painter if You Need an Architect

I used to think that positioning was the trickiest part of place and destination branding. However, I now believe that getting the RFP or Expression of Interest, scope of work and agency selection processes right in the first place are probably the most problematic and can most easily send a place branding project off the rails from the start.

Many communities do not fully understand the nuances of place branding and are somewhat tentative and imprecise in how they ask for the services required to undertake the process. Or they have been misled into thinking that all they need is a new logo, tagline or advertising campaign theme. This view has been verified in recent months as we notice a steady flow of poor outcomes for communities. They announce weak or bland positioning and cheerleading taglines that are only designed to make locals feel warm and fuzzy, but are doomed to fail with external audiences.

We have seen situations where advertising, web design and communications agencies have successfully pitched for the development of place branding strategies. Unfortunately, few of these agencies have any tourism, placemaking, community development or city brand planning credentials, but that didn’t stop them from being appointed to their first jobs in the field. Branding is strategic!

Yes, creativity and designs are important. But more important is establishing a strategic guidance toolkit to inform your operations, communications and experience delivery. We have even seen cases where cities have simultaneously issued RFPs for web design and brand planning. Of course, they then merged their requirements and selected what they considered to be the best agency to tackle the combined assignments. That’s right. The painter will design the house as well as paint it!

Here is an article in our Library, (Don’t Hire a Painter if You Need an Architect) provides good advice, which, along with the blog by Derrick Daye of the Blake Project provides some valuable considerations for communities about to start their brand planning.

Produced by: Total Destination Marketing

Best Selling Book: Destination Branding for Small Cities

Is Color Too Often an After-Thought in Destination Branding?

On two occasions I was recently reminded of the often overlooked power that color can have in destination branding. My friend, Todd Mayfield at Axia, reminded me that when we look at logos, websites, advertising, and other marketing materials the first things that catch our eyes are the colors. He added, “Whether we realize it or not, it happens in a millisecond. Within that millisecond, color is followed by shape and then the content of images. When developing their brand identity, many cities and destinations don’t approach color from the scientific perspective that it deserves.”

Colors have a pivotal role in branding because our brains, and behaviour, are hard-wired to them. They have the power to change our moods and even our brain chemistry. They can instantly trigger myriad thoughts, memories and associations for people, places and events. Colors can cause us to reject products and experiences before we even know what’s on offer. On the other hand, a carefully crafted color pallet can draw us in and create a mood conducive to new messages – and buying.

Supporting this view, Thomson Dawson at Brand Strategy Insider wrote a terrific piece on the importance of color in branding. He wrote, “Effective and comprehensive brand strategy must consider the critical importance of color. It is far more than a simple aesthetic consideration in the tool kit of components that make up brand identity and experience. Color is the very first perception customers will have with your brand, and along with perception comes a whole host of emotional associations.”

He went on to add, “The color of your brand is an essential character in your brand’s story. When choosing a color to represent your brand, you must think far beyond your own personal, subjective preferences.”

My view is that destinations usually don’t take the selection of colors to represent them seriously enough. Too often the personal preferences, whims and dislikes of committee members and executives come into play, rather than what will best define the brand’s personality, emotional benefits, support the positioning, and contribute to increased awareness and customer recall. The importance of selecting the right color pallet should never be underestimated. And it shouldn’t be changed with the publication of each new brochure and website. Nor should it be changed shade by shade by a designer after the initial color pallet has been created and approved. However, it may need to be tweaked over time to keep it fresh.

One city that got its distinctive color pallet right is San Antonio TX. I love the richness of the colors used by the city in support of its “Deep in the Heart” brand. It fits on a strategic level, is distinctive and really connects emotionally.

 Produced by: Total Destination Marketing

Best Selling Book: Destination Branding for Small Cities

Destination Branding is Difficult and Calls for a Different Approach (Part Two)

This is the second part of the blog I posted Monday. When discussing the differences in branding places and consumer products with friends in advertising agencies, they frequently maintain that there is no difference between the two. To some extent they are correct. However there are differences that have a profound influence on the process. These relate to the complexities of ownership, consultation, decision-making, and product development.

A city has many faces and identities. For instance, it may be known as a destination for medical services, culture, education or shopping as well as being home for residents, each with different levels of political, financial and community support.

While a corporate brand may need approval by a marketing team or Board, a city or downtown brand usually requires endorsement by several public organizations in which the players may never see completely eye-to-eye. Another problem for many city brands is that important leaders frequently do not have strong marketing or branding credentials, nor do they have a customer-focused perspective. Yet they can exert considerable influence over the process and end result. A place brand must overcome enmity and rise above politics. Support from political leaders is vital and their understanding must be nurtured because they may not readily recognize the direct relationship between decisions they make on a daily basis and the reputation and attractiveness of the city.

These community-based brands must withstand a level of public debate that consumer brands rarely endure. A city brand must stand the test of time, public debate, political scrutiny, media
questions, and the analysis of marketing partners and residents. The best way to insulate the brand from this scrutiny is to generate buy-in and involvement through an open consultative process.

Place branding usually requires an approach that is more conciliatory and inclusive than that found with most consumer products. For instance, being very specific with the positioning may unintentionally alienate some locals and cause controversy. Conversely, diluting the brand to the point where it pleases everyone results in losing its strongest competitive edge and ends up being seen as weak and irrelevant.

Additionally, unlike a consumer product such as a soft drink, cities are not discrete or independent entities. A city is much more complex and cannot be reformulated or terminated if it is not popular or is under-performing. Even the prospect of changing the name of the city can prove difficult.

Project leaders who are aware of the differences between the branding of places and consumer goods are in a much better position to adapt to these challenges when they become evident. Their
presence should not represent a barrier, but a need for further fine-tuning – and a lot of patience!

This is an extract from Destination Branding for Small Cities – Second Edition.