Innovation is often cited as a pillar of place branding. Far less often is it examined from inside the institutions where it is produced. Viriya Taecharungroj brings that vantage point with unusual clarity.
An academic by training and a practitioner by circumstance, Viriya operates at the intersection of place branding, technology transfer and innovation policy. Based in Thailand and holding senior roles at Mahidol University and national innovation bodies, his work moves beyond perception towards systems, data and economic outcomes. In this conversation, part of our ongoing series with changemakers in place branding, he reflects on innovation as a magnet for talent, a driver of reputation and a defining competitive asset for cities and regions.
Viriya, can you tell us about the moment you first became interested in the idea that places can be drivers of innovation? What drew you to this topic?
I think the interest really materialised when I was appointed Director of the Institute for Technology and Innovation Management (INT) at Mahidol University at the beginning of 2025, and then shortly after that, as the inaugural chair of the Association of Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer Professionals (AITP). This all happened not long after I organised IPBA 2024 in Bangkok, which, looking back, was quite a turning point for me.
On paper, these roles might seem quite far removed from my academic background in place branding and place analytics. Suddenly, I was very involved in science, technology, and innovation—much more at the leadership level. But because I come from a business school, innovation itself was never unfamiliar. What really struck me at that point was how clearly innovation systems and places are intertwined.
Your work sits at the intersection of place branding, innovation and economic development. How do these fields come together in your research?
My work has always been about the role of technology in place branding, especially through place analytics. But over time, I became more interested in a bigger question: what does place branding actually do in economic terms?
That shift is reflected in my more recent work. In a scoping review published in the Journal of Place Management and Development, co-authored with Ake “Jake” Pattaratanakun, we looked at the economic outcomes of place branding and, more importantly, the mechanisms through which branding influences economic performance. In another paper, published in Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, we used machine-learning methods to examine whether soft power and nation brands can help predict national economic performance.
Once you start focusing on economic performance, innovation naturally moves to the centre of the conversation. That became even more obvious after I took on roles related to technology transfer and innovation management. In response, I wrote a conceptual paper on branding innovation ecosystems, which brings together place branding, other branding approahces, and innovation ecosystems—particularly through the lens of university technology transfer offices.
At the same time, I’m working on two ongoing projects: one looking at the cultural drivers of national innovation capacity, and another exploring how countries can position themselves through technology and innovation using large-scale patent and publication data.
Why do you see innovation as such a powerful competitive asset for cities and regions, compared to more traditional place branding approaches?
I think the short answer is that innovation attracts people—and talented people are ultimately what make places competitive.
If you look at what’s happening globally, we’re seeing the rise of innovation districts, smart cities, and innovation-driven nations. There are many emerging themes in place branding, of course, but innovation and technology consistently sit at the forefront because they pull in talent. And attracting talent has always been one of the core purposes of place branding in the first place.
We often talk about places as somewhere to live, work, and play, but behind that is a very deliberate question: who do we want to attract? For a long time, cities and regions have targeted the creative class—and innovation is one of the strongest magnets for them. Innovation makes a place better economically, culturally, and even perceptually, in terms of reputation.
Talented people are drawn to places where interesting things are happening—where new technologies are being developed, tested, and scaled. Once they arrive, they generate more innovation, stronger economic activity, and a better global image. That virtuous cycle is what makes innovation such a powerful competitive asset.
What roles do different stakeholders, such as residents, businesses, universities and public institutions etc., play in building and sustaining innovation-led place brand strategies?
In place branding, one word you hear all the time these days is co-creation. It came up in almost every presentation at last year’s IPBA conference in Manchester. And I do think co-creation is central to building robust place brands—although we still need to be clearer about what it really means and how it works in practice.
If you look at innovation ecosystems, the language is a bit different, but the idea is very similar. We often talk about the Triple Helix model, which brings together universities, industry, and the public sector. Some scholars go further and talk about a Quadruple Helix, where local communities and citizens are explicitly included. I see these helix models as very concrete forms of place brand co-creation.
What’s interesting to me is that there’s a lot both sides can learn from each other. Innovation scholars can look more closely at how co-creation contributes to place identity and reputation, while place branding scholars can draw from these well-established models in innovation studies to make co-creation less abstract and more operational. In the Triple Helix model, for example, the roles are quite clear: universities provide knowledge and talent, businesses bring resources, demand, and execution, and public institutions provide legitimacy, support, and the broader context in which innovation happens.
But co-creation goes beyond just pooling resources. The real question is how these actors interact in ways that produce meaning and identity for a place. A good example from my own work is technology transfer. Tech transfer is inherently a co-creation process—it involves researchers, scientists, IP and technology transfer professionals, government funders, and business actors working together to turn knowledge into real-world applications. The outcomes of these processes—startups, technologies, solutions—gradually become the identity of how a place is known.
What’s interesting is that people in place branding don’t always recognise these processes as co-creation, because they sit in what might seem like distant, technical fields. But if we look closely, they are exactly the kinds of collaborative processes that build innovation-led place identities.
Are there any cities or regions that you think have successfully linked innovation, place branding and economic development? What makes them stand out?
A good example from Asia is Shenzhen.
About twenty years ago, many people associated Shenzhen with copycat manufacturing and fake products—not exactly a flattering image for a city. Today, even The Place Brand Observer refers to Shenzhen as the Silicon Valley of China, and many would argue it’s one of the most technologically advanced cities in the world.
What really changed was innovation. Shenzhen managed to transform its manufacturing base into a high-tech ecosystem, and that fundamentally reshaped how the city is perceived and how it performs economically.
Another example is Guangzhou. I’ve just come back from visiting some of the frontier biotech and medtech organisations there, particularly in areas like xenotransplantation and cell therapy. Historically, Guangzhou has always been known as a trading and merchant hub, and that role hasn’t disappeared. But what’s different now is the strong innovation layer that has been added on top.
That innovation dimension makes the city more attractive—it pulls in top talent, serious investment, and business visitors, myself included.
From your experience, how can academics and practitioners better collaborate to ensure that research on innovation and place branding yields real-world impact?
That’s a really good question—and one I think about a lot. In place branding, we often say that the field is very interdisciplinary. We have scholars and practitioners coming from all walks of life: business, international relations and diplomacy, communications, public administration, geography, architecture, sociology, and many other areas.
But there’s one group that hasn’t really walked into place branding in any serious way—and that’s people from science and technology. We don’t see many scientists or technologists actively engaging with place branding, even though, from my current experience, science, technology, and innovation are absolutely central to how places compete today—whether we’re talking about districts, cities, or entire nations.
So the question is: what’s holding them back? I think part of it is that science can be very deep and very specialised, and that makes it hard for people outside those fields to fully understand what’s going on. But with a bit of patience—and genuine effort on both sides—that understanding can go a long way.
What key trends will shape future research at the intersection of place branding, innovation and economic development?
Everyone is talking about AI, right? And yes, AI is clearly important. But in place branding, the real challenge is not just following the trend—it’s being distinctive. Innovation is already a given when it comes to driving economic development and place reputation. The more interesting question now is which innovations actually matter for specific places.
Going forward, I think research will move beyond simply saying that innovation is good, and instead focus on prioritisation and management. What kinds of technologies should cities or regions invest in? How should those innovations be managed, coordinated, and developed so they genuinely strengthen a place brand, rather than just creating hype?
What advice would you give to early-career professionals interested in studying innovation in relation to place branding and development?
I’d say this is actually a very exciting time to enter the nexus of place branding and innovations. As I mentioned earlier, specialised science and deep tech are still not very familiar territory in place branding—and that creates a huge research gap.
Today, it is becoming increasingly difficult to make a strong theoretical contribution by focusing only on culture or resident and visitor perceptions. As important as these areas are, they are already well developed, with many excellent scholars working in them. Innovation and technology, by contrast, remain relatively underexplored in place branding research.
If you’re willing to spend time really understanding how innovation systems and technologies work—even at a basic level—you’ll find a lot of unexplored questions. There’s real potential to study how innovation can make places more attractive to talent, strengthen reputation, and support economic growth.
Innovations are great for consumers. They are incredibly powerful for places too.
Thank you, Viriya.
Enjoyed our interview with Viriya Taecharungroj on innovation-led place branding? Spread the word! Connect with Viriya on LinkedIn.
Curious to hear more expert views? Browse our interviews with leading place brand academics.
