Place Branding: Why Most Cities Get It Wrong

Place branding is the strategic process of defining and communicating a distinctive identity for a city, region, or country, with the goal of attracting investment, talent, tourism, or residents. Done well, it functions like any strong brand: it creates a clear, credible, and differentiated position in the minds of the people you are trying to reach. Done poorly, it produces a logo nobody uses, a tagline nobody believes, and a brochure that collects dust in a tourism office.

Most place branding sits in the second category. Not because the people working on it are incompetent, but because the conditions that produce good place branding are rarely in place when the project starts.

What Is Place Branding, and Why Does It Matter Commercially?

Place branding sits at the intersection of economic development, tourism strategy, and public communications. It is the attempt to apply brand strategy thinking to a geography, whether that is a city trying to attract foreign direct investment, a region repositioning after industrial decline, or a country trying to shift its international perception.

The commercial stakes are real. A city with a strong, credible identity attracts more talent, commands higher property values, draws more conference and events business, and gives local businesses a platform to trade on internationally. A country with a trusted brand reputation finds it easier to export, attract inbound tourism, and negotiate at a diplomatic level. These are not soft outcomes. They are measurable economic effects.

I spent years working with clients across more than 30 industries, and the pattern I saw repeatedly was that geography matters to brand perception far more than most marketers admit. A fintech company headquartered in London carries different associations than one headquartered in a second-tier city, even if the product is identical. A wine from a well-known region commands a premium over a wine from an unknown one, regardless of what is in the bottle. Place shapes perception, whether you manage it or not.

If you want a broader frame for where place branding sits within brand strategy thinking, the Brand Positioning and Archetypes hub covers the strategic foundations that apply across product, service, and place brands alike.

Why Do Most Place Branding Projects Fail?

The failure modes in place branding are remarkably consistent. I have seen versions of the same mistakes made by city councils, national tourism boards, and regional development agencies. They tend to cluster around four problems.

The brief is about communications, not strategy. Most place branding projects start with a request for a new visual identity and a campaign. The assumption is that the positioning already exists, or that it will emerge from the creative process. It rarely does. What you get instead is a logo that represents a compromise between competing stakeholders, a tagline that is broad enough to offend nobody and inspire nobody, and a colour palette chosen by committee. The creative output is a symptom of the strategic vacuum underneath it.

The audience is undefined. A place has multiple audiences with genuinely different needs. Investors want stability, infrastructure, talent availability, and regulatory clarity. Tourists want experience, accessibility, and something worth the trip. Residents want services, community, and quality of life. Talent wants opportunity, culture, and cost of living. These are not the same audience, and they do not respond to the same message. When a place brand tries to speak to all of them simultaneously, it tends to say nothing useful to any of them. The instinct to be inclusive becomes a strategic liability.

The brand is aspirational rather than credible. There is a version of place branding that is essentially wishful thinking. The city wants to be seen as innovative, so the brand says it is innovative. The region wants to attract tech investment, so the brand positions itself as a tech hub. The problem is that audiences are not passive recipients of brand claims. They test those claims against their own experience, against what they have heard from others, and against what the evidence suggests. A brand built on an aspiration the place has not yet earned will be dismissed or, worse, will generate cynicism that makes the real strengths harder to communicate. Existing brand building strategies often fail precisely because they prioritise the desired perception over the actual one.

Political consensus kills distinctiveness. This is the most structural problem in place branding, and the hardest to solve. A strong brand position requires choices. It requires saying clearly what you are and, by implication, what you are not. In a commercial brand, the CEO can make that call. In a place brand, the decision-making process involves elected officials, tourism boards, business improvement districts, cultural institutions, and community groups, all of whom have a legitimate stake and a different view of what the place should stand for. The result of genuine consensus is almost always a position that is too broad to be useful.

What Does Good Place Branding Actually Look Like?

The place brands that work tend to share a few characteristics that are worth examining carefully, because they run counter to how most place branding projects are structured.

They are built on something true. The strongest place brands are not invented. They are discovered and articulated. New York does not need to claim energy and ambition. It already has them, and has had them for long enough that the claim is self-evidently credible. Copenhagen does not need to argue for its design credentials. The evidence is everywhere. The strategic work in these cases is not fabrication but selection: identifying which of the place’s genuine attributes are most distinctive, most defensible, and most relevant to the target audience. That is a harder and more honest process than writing an aspirational positioning statement, but it produces something that holds up.

They make a choice about audience priority. The best place brands I have seen are willing to say, at least internally, that one audience matters more than the others right now. A post-industrial city trying to attract tech investment should build its brand around that audience first, even if it also has tourism assets. The tourism messaging can exist, but it should not dilute the primary positioning. This requires a level of strategic discipline that is genuinely difficult in a political environment, but without it, the brand tries to be everything and becomes nothing.

They invest in the substance, not just the story. One of the most commercially grounded observations I can make about place branding is that the brand is downstream of the reality. If you want to brand a city as a centre for creative industries, you need the infrastructure, the talent pipeline, the affordable workspace, and the cultural institutions to back it up. The brand accelerates awareness and shapes perception, but it cannot substitute for the underlying offer. When I was growing an agency from 20 people to nearly 100, the reputation we built was a direct function of the work we delivered. The brand followed the performance, not the other way around. The same principle applies to places.

They define success before they start. Most place branding projects have no clear measurement framework. They produce a brand, launch it, and then measure things like campaign reach or press coverage, which tells you almost nothing about whether the brand is working commercially. A well-structured place branding project defines upfront what success looks like: inbound investment enquiries, talent attraction metrics, tourism spend, business formation rates, or perception shift among a defined audience measured before and after. Without that, you are running a communications project with no accountability, and you will not know whether it worked until long after the budget has been spent. Brand awareness alone is not a commercial outcome, and treating it as one is a mistake that place branding projects make as often as product brands do.

The Stakeholder Problem: How to Manage It Without Losing the Strategy

I want to spend some time on the stakeholder problem because it is where most place branding projects actually break down, and the standard advice to “align stakeholders early” does not get close to describing how difficult this is in practice.

When you are working on a commercial brand, the client is in the end one organisation with a hierarchy that can resolve disagreements. In place branding, you are working with a coalition of organisations that have different mandates, different constituencies, and different views of what the place is and should be. The tourism board wants to emphasise heritage and landscape. The economic development agency wants to lead with innovation and infrastructure. The cultural sector wants recognition of the arts. The business community wants to talk about commercial opportunity. All of these are legitimate. None of them is wrong. But you cannot build a coherent brand position by averaging them.

The approach that works, in my experience, is to separate the brand architecture question from the campaign question. At the brand architecture level, you need a single, clear primary positioning that defines what the place stands for at its most essential. This is the hard conversation, and it requires someone with genuine authority to make the final call. Below that, you can have audience-specific messaging that speaks to investors, tourists, and residents in different ways, drawing on different aspects of the place’s identity without contradicting the core position. The mistake is trying to resolve the architecture question by committee and ending up with a primary positioning that is so broad it functions as a campaign theme rather than a strategic anchor.

I judged the Effie Awards for several years, and one of the things that became clear from reviewing effective marketing work was that the campaigns that drove real outcomes had a single-minded strategic idea at their centre. Not a list of attributes. Not a mission statement. One clear thing that the brand stood for, executed consistently across every touchpoint. Place branding is harder to discipline than commercial branding, but the principle is the same.

Place Branding vs. Destination Marketing: A Distinction Worth Making

These two terms are often used interchangeably, and they should not be. Destination marketing is a subset of place branding, focused specifically on driving tourism. It is campaign-led, relatively short-term, and measured primarily by visitor numbers and tourism spend. Place branding is the broader, longer-term strategic work of defining what a place stands for across all of its audiences and economic functions.

The confusion between them causes real problems. Tourism boards often end up leading place branding projects because they have the budget and the mandate, but their frame of reference is destination marketing. The result is a place brand that is optimised for tourist appeal and underserves the investment attraction and talent recruitment objectives that are often more commercially significant for the place’s long-term economic health.

A city that is genuinely serious about place branding needs to think about how its identity is perceived by a CFO evaluating a European headquarters location, by a software engineer weighing up three job offers, and by a conference organiser choosing between three shortlisted cities. These are not the same as the considerations of a leisure tourist, and a brand built primarily around tourism appeal will not serve them well. What shapes the customer experience is different across each of these audiences, and the brand needs to account for that.

The Role of Residents in Place Branding

One of the most underexplored dimensions of place branding is the internal one. Residents are not just a secondary audience. They are the brand’s most credible ambassadors and its most damaging critics. A place brand that residents do not recognise, believe in, or feel ownership of will be undermined at every point of contact, because the people who actually live there will tell a different story to every investor, tourist, and potential new resident they meet.

This is not a soft, community engagement point. It is a hard commercial one. Word of mouth and personal recommendation carry more weight in place perception than any advertising campaign. Brand loyalty is built on genuine experience, not on brand claims, and that is as true for places as it is for products. If the residents of a city do not believe the brand story, the brand story will not hold.

The practical implication is that resident engagement should not be an afterthought in place branding. It should be part of the discovery process, informing what the brand stands for, and part of the activation process, giving residents the language and the platforms to tell the story themselves. This is not about asking residents to become unpaid brand ambassadors. It is about building a brand position that is close enough to lived experience that residents will naturally reinforce it in their own conversations.

Measuring Place Brand Effectiveness

Measurement is where place branding most consistently falls short, and the gap between what gets measured and what actually matters is wider here than in almost any other area of brand strategy.

The metrics that tend to get reported are the easy ones: campaign impressions, press coverage volume, social media reach, website visits. These are activity metrics, not outcome metrics. They tell you whether people saw the brand, not whether the brand changed their behaviour or their perception. Focusing on brand awareness as the primary metric misses the point. Awareness is a precondition for brand effectiveness, not evidence of it.

Effective place brand measurement requires tracking outcomes that are actually connected to the strategic objectives. If the objective is investment attraction, you measure inbound enquiries, site visits by location scouts, and in the end investment decisions. If the objective is talent attraction, you measure application volumes from target geographies, talent survey data, and graduate retention rates. If the objective is perception shift, you run structured perception surveys with defined audience segments before the brand launches and at regular intervals after. None of this is easy or cheap, but without it, you are spending significant public money on a brand with no accountability framework.

I have seen this problem play out repeatedly in agency life. A client commissions a major brand project, the agency delivers creative work that wins awards, and two years later nobody can tell you whether the business moved. The award-winning work looked great. The question nobody asked was whether it worked. Place branding has the same problem at scale, with public money instead of a marketing budget, and a much longer feedback loop. The strongest national brands are built on consistent, long-term investment in substance and communication, not on campaign cycles. The measurement framework needs to match that timescale.

Place branding is one of the more complex applications of brand strategy, but the underlying logic is the same as any other positioning work. If you want to go deeper on the strategic foundations, the Brand Positioning and Archetypes hub covers the full range of brand strategy thinking, from positioning statements to brand architecture to competitive differentiation.

About the Author

Keith Lacy is a marketing strategist and former agency CEO with 20+ years of experience across agency leadership, performance marketing, and commercial strategy. He writes The Marketing Juice to cut through the noise and share what works.

Frequently Asked Questions