Comments

• 

  Alan 'Brand' Williamson July 28, 2010 at 12:08am

  Hello Fellow-Tripatinos. Daphne and Manolis, thanks for joining in.
  
  Here's my take on Cool Britannia - a great brand concept which played on the phrase: Rule Britannia but didn't get long-term traction because it was in truth London-centric and not really applicable to most of rural and small town/village Britain. Like most global cities, London isn't Britain, it just happens to be located there. Neither is New York a reflection of the rest of the USA or Paris/France or Sydney/Australia. On the world map these world-class cities might be positioned within their respective countries but in the important mind-map there are located in very different places.
  
  The second point about 'Cool', is that as soon as you attach the word 'Cool' to anything, it immediately becomes 'Uncool'.
  
  This now leads to a new discussion point: Should world-class cities re-brand themselves using the independent city-state model of Singapore and develop a single-focus global strategy? So New York brands itself as the 'World's Capital' (it helps when the UN is based there) delegating its sub-brands such as Manhattan, Broadway, Central Park etc to focus on their respective single big brand ideas. While London brands itself as the 'World's Creative Capital' and delegates its sub-brands such as Mayfair, Bond St, Buckingham Palace, East End etc to focus on their big brand ideas. Same goes for Paris, Sydney etc. So the 'Battle of the City-State Brands' takes on a new dimension going forwards into the future.
  
  Now my take on the world's most valuable country brand: USA, arguably one of the few country brands that follows a single-focus strategy: Home of the American Dream which transcends right down the hierarchy of sub-brands such as New York, Las Vegas, Disneyland etc all conceived and built on the 'American Dream' big brand idea. It is this idea which has sustained Brand USA during one of its darkest periods which the current Chief Brand Architect - Obama - is trying to re-kindle Hope for the future.
  
  Finally on Brand France, the world's leading tourism destination, and specifically one of its regions: Champagne - which has a single-minded future focus on a single product category - sparkling wine - which drives all three economic elements: tourism, inward investment and exports. The Champagne region is the gold standard in single-focus regional branding.
  
  Over to you Tripatinos...
• 

  Daphné Kakaiya July 27, 2010 at 5:56pm

  Hello everyone. A very good debate indeed.
  
  As a resident of France I have seen the multi-focus strategy work for and against this country's many destinations. France is a diverse country because each region has its own subculture. When traveling from Paris to Marseille you'll see that each region has its own culinary specialty, wine, cheese, slang, and patois, and not to mention a general pride for their region (that can be contagious!). Therefore, a multi-focus strategy is advantageous for national and international destination marketing.
  
  However, as I was working on a project to promote a particular area in the Paris Region where a single-focus strategy was best, I saw that the different regions were hesitant to collaborate. So, most of the effort that was put in was to eliminate a sense of rivalry and competition. In this case, the key to the single-focus strategy was to create a collaborative image, but the internal and political challenges make the project implementation very slow.
  
  Britain also has many facets that can appeal to different audiences. I think a single- or multi-focus strategy should be implemented on a case by case basis. I think Warwickshire's decision to use "Shakespeare County" is a great one. Shakespeare is known and loved all around the world, and not only does it reflect its literary roots, but it also evokes notions of history and romance which appeals to a larger public. It may not be on the same level of Cool Britannia, but I think it's effective in assimilating the place in potential visitors' minds.
  
  Monique - I am interested in hearing about your Discover Paris! project. Please let me know if you would like to collaborate!
• 

  Manolis Psarros July 27, 2010 at 4:34pm

  Hello Fellow Tripatinos - I was intrigued by your comments on Paul's multi-focus brand strategy approach with an eye on sustainability and Alan's single-focused strategy approach based on each destination's unique socio-cultural elements. However, I am not really sure why a destination should choose to follow one of these approaches and not both of these depending on the case and the exact period of time the campaign is taking place.
  
  In our days, a destination's brand is much more fragile than it used to be in the past allowing periodic events to distract travelers' attention, alter their perception about the place and eventually change their desire to visit it (eg. Greece = Cradle of Western Civilization or a Country on Economic Crisis with Riots taking place almost every day / Thailand = a tropical paradise or a country with social unrest and militia on the streets). Having this in mind, single-focus marketing campaigns should take place to make sure that the destination brand remains attractive.
  
  Moreover I feel that comparing nation (and global cities with population, size, GDP & promotional budgets equal to small countries) with regional or local branding strategies does not always make sense, since nations (and global cities) traditionally invest more on multi-focus branding approaches (aiming to reflect their efforts for building a balanced economy and at the same time to recycle their visitors' flow into many different types of destinations/districts) while local destinations should be able to compete both internationally & domestically by investing in those very unique elements that differentiate them from the others (eg. Shakespeare/Robin Hood).
  
  Finally, the major objective of every branding strategy should be to reflect the reality of each destination's local population into its marketing. To my perspective, the Cool Britannia campaign has rather been inspired from the Brits' need to move on at that time than inspiring them to do so.
• 

  Paul Barnett July 27, 2010 at 12:21pm

  I think that England, Scotland, Ireland and to a lesser extent Wales, already benefit from strong associations in the minds of most of the world's population, and certainly those that can afford to travel. The issue really is, are those associations ones that we need to evolve, to make them more future focused. I would suggest that they do need to be evolved, given that many still think London is regularly still smothered in smog, for example. Cool Britannia was an excellent campaign for this reason. It played to heritage and made it modern. It instilled pride and turned the eccentric English into something interesting. More importantly it actually reached out to people before they travelled, by British fashion and design going on tour in the USA for example. The slogan was fresh and exciting enough to grab headlines the world over, but broad enough to mean different things to different constituents of travelers. I would argue that the legacy of that campaign lives on, but needs now to be built on. I would also suggest that the Cool Britannia campaign was as much a message for Brits as it was for tourists, and inspired a whole generation fashion and product designers. It gave them something to live up to. As one big idea it was great, perhaps less successful was the diffusion of the idea to the regions, definitely room for improvement there.
  
  As for “Britain, the Innovation Isle”, “England, Home of the World's Language” etc, I am sorry but they just don't really come close to the appeal of "Cool Britannia". Probably, like Cool Britannia the right solution will appear by chance and be latched onto. As I understand it the slogan came from a statement made by an American Journalist in an article for a Magazine, and was then adopted by the media more generally, and policy makers jumped on the bandwagon.
  
  So, my question would be, "Can we come up with something better than Cool Britannia?"
• 

  Alan 'Brand' Williamson July 27, 2010 at 9:31am

  Hello Fellow Tripatinos
  
  Thank you for your interesting and valuable comments.
  
  Let's now try and move the discussion a notch up the destination hierarchy to country brand level using Brand Britain as our example. Politically-speaking, however, Britain isn't a single country but a union (United Kingdom) of several countries comprising England, Scotland & Wales. The fourth union member, Northern Ireland, for marketing purposes, co-brands with the Republic of Ireland (Eire) as the 'Island of Ireland'.
  
  Q: Should Brand Britain continue with its current multi-focus strategy as developed by VisitBritain - the tourism agency - or should it consider an alternative single-focus strategy?
  
  Currently Brand Britain uses a 3-pronged focus: Dynamic - Timeless - Genuine. Its marketing strategy in the form of global campaigns centre around 5 core themes: dynamic, classic, luxury, generation Y and gay & lesbian.
  
  The Big Q remains: Will the targetted markets in say a year's time describe Brand Britain as Dynamic, Timeless and Genuine? Or will some of those attributes be associated with its competitors such Brand USA, France or Italy to name just three country brands?
  
  Here's an alternative single-focus strategy for Brand Britain:
  
  Welcome to New Britain: The Innovation Isle supported by three of its single-focused sub-brands: England: Home of the World's Language, The United Clandom of Scotland, and Wales: Powered by Greenergy, not forgetting its major regions, counties, cities, resorts and visitor attractions, each focused on their own unique big brand idea.
  
  Multi-Focus or Single-Focus? Only time will tell.
  
  Meanwhile, Tripatinos, let's have your comments please
• 

  Paul Barnett July 26, 2010 at 11:17pm

  It sounds as though we are all on more or less the same wavelength here, given Alan’s elaborated explanation that Warwickshire County is not just pushing one idea. And, I would agree that it is the past, present and future that matter form the point of view of the place, although perhaps not from the point of view of the tourist, who may have more narrowly defined interests.
  
  I do think that a place needs to look at what it has to offer in terms of social, historical, natural, cultural and other aspects of heritage, including the living heritage as manifest in its cultural events and traditions etc. The key then, in terms of marketing is to identify the best target markets for these products. For each product they are unlikely to be the same audience. A decision needs to be made on the value of each so that priorities can be identified in relation to budgets – what’s going to generate the best returns on investment.
  
  The strategic decisions should also take account of the quality of the tourist not just the financial value. Will they respect, protect and perhaps enhance the value of tourisms impact over the long-term. A short terms view focused only on income generation can have serious impacts on the environment and lasting social consequences as we have seen in many parts of the world. I think another consideration should be how to make sure that the benefits of tourism are shared.
• 

  Alan 'Brand' Williamson July 26, 2010 at 10:13pm

  Paul, Monique, Northeast News, Jose
  
  Thanks for your continued interest in what is one of the most important tourism branding issues - Should a destination have a single-focus strategy or a multiple-focus strategy?
  
  Let's use England's Warwickshire County as an example to develop the debate.
  
  Warwickshire decided to use a strategy with a focus on a single big brand idea: Shakespeare Country while co-branding with one of its signature town destinations: Stratford-upon-Avon: Shakespeare's Birthplace.
  
  However, to deal with its other non-Shakespeare assets, it 'delegated' that job to its other towns, villages and visitor attractions such as Rugby, Leamington Spa, Nuneaton, Warwick, Warwick Castle, Warwick University, Kenilworth, Kenilworth Castle, Coleshill, Shipston-on-Stour, Henley-in-Arden and so on. Each of these destinations would focus on their own primary big brand idea.
  
  So although each destination within the hierarchy of destinations are narrowly-focused on a single big brand idea, collectively as a portfolio of destination brands they reach a wider audience. Each brand should be clear as to what their primary big brand idea is.
  
  Destination branding isn't just about the past and the present, it's also about creating a future. Warwickshire, by having a single focus, it would develop a future as to how Shakespeare's works and sonnets could play a part in contemporary society - from business to social to cultural issues of modern day living - around the world.
  
  Also with regard to the Shakespearean competition that's developing around the world eg. in Stratford, Canada, England's Warwickshire can be perceived not only as the authentic brand but also as the brand that's leading the Shakespearean industry to a new and exciting future. You can't do all this - with limited resources - without a single-minded future-focus.
  
  'Brand Bard' the Marketect says:
  "First you attract with a proposition;
  Single, branded, unique and saleable.
  Then you distract through fine experience;
  Many products varied and buyable."
  
  Now compare and contrast Warwickshire's single-focus strategy with the multiple-focus strategy of its Middle England neighbour: Nottinghamshire County who sadly, decided not to focus on its iconic legend Robin Hood. You can read more here.
  
  So, Tripatinos, let's keep this important discussion going please.I very much look forward to your comments.
• 

  Paul Barnett July 26, 2010 at 6:15pm

  Answering the point made by Northeast News, I am not sure a case by case basis makes much sense, except where a place has only one thing to sell, which I think is a rare exception. Monique’s concern about budget is real, but I think vast amounts of cash have been, and continue to be, wasted on large scale campaigns that are mass media directed. I am also sure that the same money already being spent on mass media campaigns would have far better direct, and long-term, impacts and results.
  
  Once thing interesting about the diversity of media channels today is the demand they create for good news stories. Creative campaigns based on great stories, that are put out by a good PR agency would, I feel sure, produce far better results. Destinations have stories wrapped up in their history, heritage, people, businesses etc and are continuously producing new stories. They need to be uncovered, captured or created, then communicated. I believe that most difficult part in the whole process is not budgets, it’s changing the mindset and getting up to speed with new ways of communicating.
• 

  Northeast News July 26, 2010 at 4:02pm

  Paul and Alan, you each state your point of view in such a convincing and well-spoken fashion that both seem right. Is it possible that the way to brand a particular destination (narrowly or broadly) must be decided on case-by-case basis?
• 

  Paul Barnett July 26, 2010 at 11:51am

  I think there are a number of problematic issues in focusing on one big idea for each place. Although it may be good from a marketing perspective, thought I have my doubts, it does not help promote the richness and diversity of a place, which give other reasons to visit. Focusing on one aspect, with interest to one audience, looses the potential to attract visitors that may be interested in other aspects of a place. If I am not interested in Shakespeare, why would I visit Shakespeare Country? In addition to loosing potential interest is the issue of sustainability. Putting so much emphasis on particular features, e.g. the Lake District, threatens the sustainability of these places if the marketing works, and concentrates. The policy also concentrates the economic benefits of tourism narrowly.
  
  Between the extremes of a focus on one big idea and trying to be everything to everyone at the other, there is probably the right solution.
  
  Personally I believe that several stories can create appeal to several tourist segments and the smart approach is targeting the right stories to the right people using the right channels of communication. With the range of low cost communication channels we now have getting the message out to targeted audiences has never been easier, but it does require some good strategic thinking. One big idea may have been right, or at least the only real option, in the age of mass media. I don't think it is the right option today.