The city as a brand. (3/6)

A series of six articles.

It must be the dream of every ambitious brand maker: to turn a city into a strong city brand. It is certainly a highly fascinating task. But is it realistic that cities can be turned into brands? Going even further: is it desirable for cities to be turned into brands?

These questions are addressed in six articles that are published on an ongoing basis in the business of brand management. The articles are each excerpts from Häusler and Häusler: How cities become brands. Developing city brands purposefully and thoughtfully, Springer 2024 https://link.sprin­ger.com/book/­10.1007/978-3-658-43776-3 (German version, Springer Gabler 2023 https://link.sprin­ger.com/book/­10.1007/978-3-658-41456-6). The articles have been slightly shortened and edited.

The city brand as an imperative.

It is frequently argued that cities must ‘market’ themselves in order to survive (more successfully) in the (regional, national and international) competition: “the place promotion has become integral to the process of urbanisation in the late twentieth century” (Hall, T.: Introduction, p. 28. In T. Hall & P. Hubbard (Hrsg.), The entrepreneurial city. Geographies of politics, regime and representation. Wiley 1998). From a brand perspective, this means: Successful cities must develop into a city brand. It can be shown that (individual) cities have indeed repeatedly developed into successful city brands throughout history—historically also in the sense of avant la lettre. Currently, it can be noted that urban elites and responsible city politicians are (increasingly) acknowledging the compulsion to market cities. As part of a contemporary urban policy, the desire is often expressed to market the respective city as a brand more effectively.

From these declarations of intent, it cannot directly be concluded that cities across the country and around the globe are actually making the necessary and purposeful efforts to develop their respective city into a brand. Numerous declarations of intent remain at the level of pure rhetorical marketing. And just as often, the implementation steps taken are rather attributable to obvious symbolic politics. Successful attempts at targeted development of a city brand are rare upon critical analysis. Missed attempts and failed attempts are certainly more numerous.

Photo: Wolfgang Fach

This sober assessment of the prospects of brand development is not limited to the case of ‘city brand’. But, at least to the naked eye, the discrepancy between ‘wanting’ (to become a brand) and ‘being able’ (to actually develop a brand) is particularly pronounced in cities. This is not least due to the difficulties of brand development in the context of cities:

• Cities prove to be particularly stubborn objects when it comes to developing them into brands. This is due to their diverse and variable internal structures and relationship patterns, as well as their complex historical development paths (which can be characterized by rigid path dependencies as well as unpredictable external shocks).

• Even in the case of success—when a city has become a brand—the history of its creation usually remains uncertain and convincing explanations are lacking. In any case, a large number of brand creators are always involved—not least from outside the city community. And not all actors actually pursued the goal of making a city a brand. This clear intention is even rather rare to find.

• This raises a fundamental question: To what extent are there identifiable actors who are causally responsible for the brand-building process when it comes to city branding?

The usually encountered—and mostly unquestioned—formulation that ‘the city’ is to be considered the brand creator does not sufficiently answer the question. This idea raises serious follow-up questions that revolve around two interdependent problem complexes. From an external perspective, the question is about the power of cities in relation to the effects of globalization. And from an internal perspective, the collective ability of cities to act within the political constellations in cities is up for discussion. Three problem areas emerge:

Who would be, firstly, the brand creator: ‘the city’? The city government? This is the (mostly implicit and unreflected) widespread assumption.But there are certainly very different con stellations in which governing takes place in an urban context. The respective political conditions in which an attempt is made to develop a city brand cannot be assumed to be universally applicable (model-like). They must first be empirically captured (in everyday political life on site).

Even under the assumption that a central (government) agency could be identified that works on the city brand—and could nominally appear as the brand owner and brand creator: How could it, secondly, succeed in the always diverse and conflict-ridden city society to unite the different interests and opposing counterforces behind a brand idea?

And if it is finally hoped that ideally the internal coordination will succeed sufficiently and ‘the city’ could act in the sense of ”collective action“: how strong is, thirdly, the influence of this actor on the external perception, how significant are its efforts for the representation of the city as a brand to the outside?