I guess that my view on place branding is still the same, but what I completely underestimated is that everybody – since we are all consumers – seems to think to know what branding is about, even though it is largely misunderstood, particularly among policy makers, whom, if I summarise, equate brand to ‘logo’. This limited view might not be dramatic for the effectiveness of commercial branding, but it is fatal for place branding, as I’ve tried to explain in this editorial for the quarterly journal of Place Branding and Public Diplomacy.

People just don’t think about other places very much and perceptions, which are largely based on clichés and stereotypes, don’t change very much over time. So to think that weak instruments, such as logos and advertising campaigns, can influence reputation is a mistake.

"It is high time we change the dominant narrative of competition and presence to one of collaboration and esteem (from jockeying for positions to respected reputation)."

Its complexity and that it can certainly contribute to the quality and imagination of policy making to incorporate the international dimension and take account of reputational effects.

It is the only journal that specializes in this field and I was honored to be asked by Simon Anholt, founding emeritus editor, and Nick Cull, co-editor, to join the team.

The journal is not in the Social Citation Index and not on any of the lists that universities and quality assessment agencies use to calculate their magic numbers to assess research impact, so we are equally challenged to claim our niche and establish this domain as the researchers themselves are, but we have to do it, because we believe there is a future in it.

We hope the community feels the same and continues to submit good quality papers so that we can gradually build recognition. The number and quality of the submission has indeed increased over the last few years, so the journal is doing well, celebrating 10 years of existence.

Simon Anholt is the founding father of this discipline and even though there are nuances in the way we interpret what it means to look at places as brands and how reputations can be managed, I have tremendous respect for his pioneering work and ideas. We have loosely collaborated since 2010 and when he came up with the Good Country concept and mentioned it to me, I soon realized its potential and timeliness.

The first edition of the Good Country Index, as we’ve launched it in July 2014, was obviously a first stab at trying to measure the concept. It is far from perfect, but we’re working hard on finding the funding and structure to build this into a serious global initiative. So far it’s all been voluntary work.

We’ve been saying for many years that for places to be admired, they have to be admirable, which means that only real policy changes and initiatives that make contributions to humanity will improve reputation. The Good Country project provides measurability and creative support for this idea.

In my conceptual understanding of place branding, it is about responsible governance, by definition. Not just because admiration by foreign publics can only be the result of governing bodies taking responsibility for humanity and the planet besides their own electorate and territory, but also because place branding reduces competition. If places are able to build reputations based on unique local identities and achievements, their positioning should allow them to break away from competition.

Strong city brands like Paris, London, Sydney, New York, Rome, Amsterdam or Barcelona, have such a unique positioning that they don’t actually compete. They are on everybody’s wish list and hence created a captive market. This means that all that they need to do is to create reasons for tourists to visit now or investors to invest now, which is the realm of ‘product marketing’. The latter illustrates that in my book, marketing and branding are two different things.

The unique positioning of these strong city brands actually provides them with room to manoeuvre and hence allows them to collaborate more closely in city networks, facilitating even more effective and efficient responsible governance.

Unfortunately, often the practice of place branding is irresponsible in as far as it wastes tax payers money on ineffective me-too advertising campaigns, which in fact increase competition as opposed to reducing it.

Pay for it! I.e. they should refrain from advertising. Paying someone to tell the world how wonderful you are only offends people. One can advertise to sell a product to a target market, but that is marketing and not place branding (again, please refer to my editorial here).

The fact that place branding is not the same as commercial branding, while, in fact, many commercial branding agencies have jumped on the bandwagon saying the opposite, i.e. that place branding is nothing more than the application of commercial branding principles to places, which is, of course, in their own interest. In that sense, I completely understand Simon Anholt’s frustration with claims that he was the one who invented the term.

Needless to say, as this website shows, there are certainly practitioners out there that have a more informed view and that have dedicated their careers specifically to place branding. Unfortunately, they are a minority, but we’re all united in the struggle to compete with the many (often small and local) agencies that sell simple logos and slogans, while discrediting the discipline as governments find out that this doesn’t work.

Hopefully, in future, these governments will start looking for more intelligible solutions as opposed to writing it off.

Thank you, Robert.