Insert [city brand]

What do you mean?  

“I Seoul U,” Seoul’s current slogan, was picked from 18,000 crowdsourced entries in 2015 to replace the previous one, “Hi! Seoul.” While the process was participatory, from the onset there were many criticisms and much confusion around what the phrase actually stands for, to the extent that the official brand overview webpage acknowledges that not everyone was satisfied.

I Seoul U sign at the Han River waterfront [1]

From a branding and grammatical perspective, the slogan does not make very much sense. It’s supposed to mean your Seoul and my Seoul, a city we can co-exist in. Once you hear the explanation you might think “Ok, I guess I could see that.” But even so, “Seoul” is not a verb and “U” should be spelled “You” (even if they were going for Millennial-speak, if it’s an official city brand it should spell out the word). Most importantly, the phrase does not communicate what the city represents. My interpretation of the said definition is that Seoul is a city for all. That’s not necessarily a bad thing if the overall brand strategy is something like, “a city of diverse cultures” or “a tolerant city” like I Amsterdam. (This is confusing in its own regards because the slogan portrays individuality while the brand is supposed to be about collectivism.) To me, “I Seoul U” is a placeholder, accepting others’ interpretation of the city rather than projecting an image of how it wants to be perceived. This might be because Seoul is going through an identity crisis or is struggling to go beyond K-pop celebrities posing in front of tourist spots and the overuse of Gangnam Style. (Although, leveraging BTS’ clout is smart and this video starts to be more experimental.)

Who cares about city slogans?

I admit, you can’t possibly capture a city’s essence in one slogan, nor can you make everyone happy. As mentioned in my previous post, a city’s brand (or sense of place in other words) is constructed through time and collective memory. It’s also subject to personal experiences. But city brands and slogans, administered by the municipality are designed to achieve a certain marketing goal. In this regard, city branding is a selected, driven version of the place’s image. It’s a selected representation rather than an organic one generated by personal ties with a place. So, it’s natural that these slogans do not resonate with certain audiences--it’s not meant for them. 

Then for whom is city branding for?

Tourists

The most famous example of a city-wide branding campaign that boosted tourism and successfully turned a deteriorating city around is Milton Glaser’s “I ❤︎ NY” logo. The branding was commissioned in 1977 by the New York Department of Commerce in hopes to rebrand a crime-ridden, financially-troubled city and appeal to tourists. The new brand was to communicate that New York is for everyone and everyone loves New York.

In terms of a branding strategy, I think it captured an aspirational sentiment of love for the city, a sentiment that continues to this day. NYC is a desirable destination and for those who live there, a place you’ll never leave. The rebrand also timed nicely with New York City’s transition from an industrial and manufacturing city to a cultural one.

Businesses 

Gone are the times when mills and factories were simultaneously the economic activity and brand of cities. Places today have to actively market themselves as attractive ground for lucrative businesses and jobs. You see neighborhoods dubbing themselves as the “Silicon Valley” of [city] to signal they are the technology hub of the area, and places creating identities that emphasize innovation, collaboration, and the future. (Kendall Square in Cambridge and the Research Triangle Park in Raleigh-Durham area are other examples of such marketing strategies). These places are choosing an image of the city’s future to portray in their brand in order to meet the city’s goals.

Business Improvement Districts (BID) and local businesses on a smaller scale also brand themselves to attract foot traffic to their areas. “Keep Austin Weird” was an effort among local businesses to encourage people to buy locally instead of at chain stores. In this case the brand really stuck with the entire city and beyond. The BID for the Meatpacking District in NYC markets themselves as the “quintessential 24 hour neighborhood” to promote their stores, events, and public realm.

We should all, in a way, care about city branding

Even if city brands are not directed to your average resident or even some tourists, these brands inevitably affect the built environment. Tourism marketing can change how people experience the city as attention is directed towards specific monuments and destinations. A victim of their own success, Amsterdam is rethinking policies to mitigate the effects tourism (a result of their I Amsterdam campaign) has had on its residents. The city has had to remove the famous “I Amsterdam” sign from the Rijksmuseum Plaza because too many selfie-takers were crowding the space. A more positive effect of branding is that it can favorably influence people’s interactions with a city. In a recent conversation with a DUSP alumna who worked on the Go Little Tokyo campaign in Los Angeles, it was mentioned that the design elements of the brand in Little Tokyo were shaping a more pedestrian-friendly environments through cohesive signage, branded sidewalks, etc. This type of wayfinding execution of brand strategy creates and offers a more curated experience of a place. And I imagine branding also helps the people who live or work there to become more tied to the place and perhaps leveraging the branding to promote themselves.

In one way or another, we are all affected by city branding. So, we should all care about it even if it is just to question the meaning. And for planners and urban designers especially, the impact of city branding should be an important consideration throughout the design process rather than an afterthought.

[1] https://www.pinterest.co.kr/pin/113927065558033888/