When policy direction of the province is considered, the desired and actual identities of Ontario (see Balmer and Soenen, 1999) do not align with the communicated identity. Over the past two decades, the province has been emphasizing knowledge-based
92
industries as a strategic sector in its economic development efforts (Gertler et al, 2002; Lucas et al, 2009; Florida, 2012). Additionally, quality of life is becoming increasingly important in local policies (Rantisi and Leslie, 2006; Insch and Florek, 2008).
Interestingly, none of these elements are articulated in the simple brands of Ontario’s municipalities and communities. A similar issue of poor communication occurs in the use of stylized logos as a method of communicating an identity. While it does project a modern feel, it does not explicitly communicate any true information about the goals of the municipality employing it. This creates a gap between the communicated and the actual identities. It is possible that these dimensions of economic development
demonstrate a boundary of usefulness, as it is difficult to portray creativity or knowledge economy in a logo.
Policy issues extend beyond the place branding elements to the more general consideration of place branding usage. There are some classes of municipality that are not projecting a brand through a logo or slogan as frequently as others. In general, smaller municipalities – mainly townships and villages – that have weak integration into the urban core are lagging behind the rest of the province. This may be due to a lack of financial resources or people within the municipalities to develop and maintain its brand. Additionally, Bergqvist (2009) notes, distance challenged regions, in this case
municipalities on the geographical and economic periphery of the province need to develop logistical and infrastructure capabilities in order to support existing business and to attract new business. The development of logistics capabilities, however, is not
sufficient, and place marketing is becoming an essential tool for attracting new business. If these small townships fall too far behind the rest of the province, they risk economic
93
stagnation. A role of the provincial government moving forward, therefore, could be to incentivize these municipalities into adopting branding and promotional strategies. An additional strategy could be to initiate formalized cooperation between municipalities. This is already occurring in some sectors of economic development (see Arku, 2014), and provides an avenue to help reduce the costs associated with branding. By developing municipal partnerships, an economy of scale is developed, and financial burden on each individual jurisdiction is reduced.
It is, therefore, vital that politicians and practitioners within municipalities understand their brand, how it is communicated, and how they are viewed by potential visitors, investors, customers, and future citizens around the world. Municipalities that are not adequately promoting themselves face the problem of losing relevance in the global marketplace. This is particularly important in the internet era, where municipal information is regularly accessible through a few keystrokes. As such, it is incumbent on municipal leaders and practitioners to have a well-developed point of initial contact through a visual identity that successfully communicates the virtues of the locale. As previously noted, the RED Program provides opportunity for funding as these
municipalities continue to develop.
It should be understood, however, that the development of logos and slogans on their own do not constitute a brand for municipalities (Kavaratzis, 2009). These are meant to be distillations of the values, goals, and realities of each municipality (Khirfan and Momani, 2013), and therefore simply developing a logo or slogan for the sake of doing so can be a frivolous expense of resources in a time of tightening budgets. It is necessary that the municipalities that wish to undertake the development and communication of a
94
brand understand that it has to be representative of the current economic, social, and political climates; and that visual tools to promote the brand need to reflect this local identity. The development of a brand requires the expense of public funds, taken from the taxpayer, and therefore care needs to be taken to ensure that the branding and it
communication ensures responsible public spending. This is particularly true in Ontario where there is a movement towards public-private partnership for economic development. Eshuis and Edwards (2012) and Klijn et al (2012) argue that the process of branding a municipality must be a democratic one, and that public participation is important to developing and articulating an accurate local identity that can effectively draw attention to the municipality. Indeed, a lack of public backing can undermine any positive
messages being communicated. It is important, therefore, that local governments balance the issue of private sector participation in economic development to ensure that the strongest brand is developed and promoted.
3.7 Conclusion
This first, quantitative phase of the study has demonstrated that place branding is a policy tool for local economic development that is being used in some form by a majority of the municipalities in Ontario. From these results, it appears that the main focus of place branding has been to attract tourists, despite that sector’s relatively low contribution to the overall economy of the province. It also appears that there are some municipalities, generally smaller and on the economic and social periphery that use place branding less often than their contemporaries. From these results, the concern has been raised as to whether the current place branding strategy observed within the province is a
95
prudent one. Place branding is heavily funded from public sources, which can prove to be problematic as municipalities face greater pressures to provide services to their residents on limited budgets. With potential financial stresses, it stands to reason that other
potential avenues for promotion need to be considered that more efficiently utilized local resources. The next phase of the research draws from emerging economic development theory and practice to consider whether there is potential for municipal collaborations within the province. The next chapter outlines and reports on spatial analysis of the distribution of place brands in Ontario’s municipalities, and identifies potential areas where cooperation and collaborations could occur.
96
CHAPTER FOUR
CONTEXTUALIZING PLACE BRANDING WITHIN THE REALM OF COOPERATION AND COMPETITION: A SPATIAL ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction
The results of the first phase of the research (Chapter 3) indicate that place branding is occurring in the majority of Ontario’s municipalities and communities. The widespread adoption was, in part, attributed to globalization and its accompanying force. Within this context, place branding allows a municipality to position itself strongly by communicating its unique advantages, with the goal of making it an attractive location for investments, tourists, and talents. Globalization and the unrestrained flow of investment have made a place’s ability to attract attention crucial to economic development
(Lebedenko, 2004; Pasquinelli, 2013), making place branding essential for regions that desire to remain economically relevant (Blakely and Green Leigh, 2013; Gertner and Kotler 2004).
In other areas of economic development, this unbridled competition has been criticized as inefficient and creating inequality; particularly amongst municipalities that may not have the resources or institutional capacities to compete against global
challengers. As such, scholars and policy evaluators have strongly urged local development practitioners to engage in cooperative efforts (Arku, 2014; Arku and Oosterbaan, 2014; Blakely and Green Leigh, 2013; Gordon, 2007, 2009). This call has been extended into the domain of place branding, as it has been argued that municipalities can utilise cooperation to enhance their competitiveness (Bellini,2007; Cai, 2002;
97
positive effects, as there can be an amalgamation of functional assets, increasing attractiveness to potential investors. These include: a larger population; a more diverse economy (e.g. workforce, and businesses); and a greater selection of recreational activities. Additionally, the collaboration of multiple municipalities enhances decision- making ability, ensures economies of scale, improves market strength of network members, and reduces the financial burden placed on each participant, as resources can be pooled.
While collaborative place branding efforts are rare in Ontario, there has been movement in the domain of economic development to promote co-operation between municipalities. Existing research has been characterized by the identification of existing regional collaborations, rather than the identification of new potential partnerships (see Allmendinger and Haughton, 2009; Kunzmann, 2004; Lemmetyinen and Go, 2010; Simon et al, 2010; Smith, 2008). This phase of research, therefore, considers the special case of the Province of Ontario to empirically determine whether potential for inter- jurisdictional or regional collaborations exists and suggest policy direction for future development.
Specifically, Chapter 4 seeks to: contextualize place branding within the economic development issues of cooperation and competition, and to consider the
potential for inter-regional place branding opportunities within the province. To achieve
this, the spatial distribution of place brands amongst the province’s municipalities to identify both global and local patterns of place branding, and to identify clusters of neighbouring place brands that could be prime candidates for collaboration.
98