Jonathan Dodd: Residents biggest critics when revitalising their small town

Recent news that the Southland town of Mataura (pop 1700) is planning on a brand-led overhaul should have been a concern for the consultant charged with leading the town's revitalisation.

Far from providing free advertising, the fact that the plans made TV3's 6pm news bulletin demonstrated only too well the uphill battle David Wilson faces - as the coverage predictably centred on the town's near invisibility and locals' bemused scepticism.

The town may have been the birthplace of Justin Marshall and racehorse Cardigan Bay, but Marshall is no Meads, and Cardigan Bay hardly known to anyone under 50.

These Mataura products hardly convey a sense that the town is a "must do" on any Southland trip.

It's easy to criticise, but the ease with which place-branding can be criticised highlights how difficult it can be to get right. Certainly it's now commonly accepted that a business' brand comprises all its staff, and that all customer interactions with a brand influence their perception of it.

Marketers and market researchers like to talk about brand personalities, but more so than any other branded service or product, the thing that place brands represent really is a "living, breathing entity".

This is because physical places involve all the senses and influence every aspect of their residents' lives. Selecting where to live (especially if planning on child-rearing) is one of the most important and involving decisions many people will make.

People often identify with their hometown or country more than any other collective entity to which they belong. As such, any marketing or branding commentator seeking to prove the adage that a brand is much more than a logo need only point to place-brands to prove the point.

What this also means is that it's near impossible to successfully brand a place as something that it patently is not. Residents will be the first to criticise an unsuitable brand, quickly undermining any chance of success, and businesses will be reticent to endorse something they believe to be of questionable authenticity.

Perhaps the most renowned example of problematic place-branding is Hamilton. Over the years Hamilton has been the contradictory "Where it's Happening" and the damned-with-faint-praise "It's more than you expect". This proves just how difficult it is to sell something as being what it patently is not, and how such marketing sleight-of-hand is seldom going to be successful when the residents are the first to question untenable claims.

The relative success of the latest Hamilton branding, which simply emphasises the 'On' in Hamilton, proves that success can come from how you say something, not what you say. Use some great imagery, highlight the affirmative word that is 'On', and the place at least has a positive-sounding brand that is just vague enough to escape ridicule.

Hamiltonians have taken the campaign to heart, affectionately calling their city "the tron", which demonstrates a healthy tongue-in-cheek acceptance. In contrast, NZ Tourism's "100 per cent Pure New Zealand" and the "Absolutely Positively Wellington" campaigns are renowned for their instant success and longevity. These brands represent all that is good in place-branding - a highly flexible proposition that lends itself well to many formats and applications, and an inherent truthfulness that visitors and residents alike do embrace.

These few examples clearly illustrate how easy it is for place-branding to be wildly successful or a ridiculed failure. Although marketers are the first to admit they are often selling image over substance, and that perceptions of a product or service can be significantly influenced by its branding, such marketing-led successes are considerably harder to achieve when promoting a place.

So when it comes to one of New Zealand's most recent new place-brands, the plagiarised "Big Little City" promotion for Auckland still has the jury in discussion. A perusal of the chatter occurring around the brand in online discussions shows it warrants a "B minus" in that it is generally tidy and inoffensive but also regarded as a shade unrealistic, pretentious, and of little interest to non-Aucklanders who frankly don't care about big brands or spotting B-list celebs.

What strikes this researcher is the lack of emotion behind the debates - if brand of any place fails to raise the emotions, therein lies a problem in itself. As to the need to market a place to its own residents, that's just sad - Aucklanders should be the city's strongest and most passionate advocates, not an audience to be sold their own neighbourhood to.

* Jonathan Dodd is a research director at market research company Synovate. www.synovate.com