Many, many thanks to Ken Simons for eight years of leadership. Ken's tenure with HOTEDD has seen the organization grow from a few people and some paper (bylaws, articles of incorporation) into an entity with significant assets, cash flow, program of work, and staff support - and plans for even bigger things yet to come. Much of this growth was accomplished as the result of Ken's financial savvy, strong relationships, and a deal he put together with, as they say, No Money Down!
Thank you, Ken, for your years of service. You will be missed.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Regional Branding: Advice from Ed Burghard
Yesterday we quoted Ed Burghard, of The Burghard Group, regarding the difference between marketing and branding.
Here is an additional piece: his advice to communities. The following is quoted from his site, with the link to the full article below.
When you are asked to brand (or re-brand) your location, take the time to clarify what the real expectation is. Often, the community leadership is simply asking for either a new advertising campaign or a marketing plan. Get aligned on what is really required and what resources are available.
When talking with an Advertising Agency who is promising to create a new brand for your location, clarify what they will actually deliver. Typically it will not be a strategic plan that includes guidance on your community’s core promise and recommendations on asset creation, infrastructure investment and public policy reform. If it turns out the Agency is simply promising a new logo and tagline, walk away. It is a signal that they know very little about branding and you are about to waste your money.
Another challenge that seems to come up in discussions I have with economic development professionals is that no amount of branding will make your location more competitive for capital investment if it lacks required assets.
The fundamental wording of the challenge is convoluted.
No amount of advertising will make a bad product (or location) good. That is absolutely correct. As one community leader once said to me “You can’t put lipstick on a pig and hope to win a beauty contest”. And, he was absolutely right.
If your location is inherently non-competitive, job #1 is to invest in getting it competitive. My advice would be to not invest in advertising or marketing until you have a plausible chance for success.
I would argue this is when branding is mandatory. You need a blueprint on how to make your location competitive. You need alignment on what the core differentiating promise is and the identity you want to create. Then you need to make informed choices on creating the right assets, investing in the right infrastructure and enacting the right public policy reforms to make your location promise authentic.
The problem most locations have is that branding takes time, money and emotional commitment. Branding is about building prosperity that will stand the test of time. Branding requires genuine statesmanship and stewardship. Both of which are often in short supply.
http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=689787856&gid=137517&type=member&item=65335799&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Fstrengtheningbrandamerica%2Ecom%2Fblog%2F%3Fp%3D968&urlhash=Djj3&goback=%2Egde_137517_member_65335799
Here is an additional piece: his advice to communities. The following is quoted from his site, with the link to the full article below.
When you are asked to brand (or re-brand) your location, take the time to clarify what the real expectation is. Often, the community leadership is simply asking for either a new advertising campaign or a marketing plan. Get aligned on what is really required and what resources are available.
When talking with an Advertising Agency who is promising to create a new brand for your location, clarify what they will actually deliver. Typically it will not be a strategic plan that includes guidance on your community’s core promise and recommendations on asset creation, infrastructure investment and public policy reform. If it turns out the Agency is simply promising a new logo and tagline, walk away. It is a signal that they know very little about branding and you are about to waste your money.
Another challenge that seems to come up in discussions I have with economic development professionals is that no amount of branding will make your location more competitive for capital investment if it lacks required assets.
The fundamental wording of the challenge is convoluted.
No amount of advertising will make a bad product (or location) good. That is absolutely correct. As one community leader once said to me “You can’t put lipstick on a pig and hope to win a beauty contest”. And, he was absolutely right.
If your location is inherently non-competitive, job #1 is to invest in getting it competitive. My advice would be to not invest in advertising or marketing until you have a plausible chance for success.
I would argue this is when branding is mandatory. You need a blueprint on how to make your location competitive. You need alignment on what the core differentiating promise is and the identity you want to create. Then you need to make informed choices on creating the right assets, investing in the right infrastructure and enacting the right public policy reforms to make your location promise authentic.
The problem most locations have is that branding takes time, money and emotional commitment. Branding is about building prosperity that will stand the test of time. Branding requires genuine statesmanship and stewardship. Both of which are often in short supply.
http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=689787856&gid=137517&type=member&item=65335799&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Fstrengtheningbrandamerica%2Ecom%2Fblog%2F%3Fp%3D968&urlhash=Djj3&goback=%2Egde_137517_member_65335799
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Regional Branding: Resource for Ideas on Place Branding
Ed Burghard, of The Burghard Group, recently asked for comments from economic development professionals regarding the difference between marketing and branding.
Here are Ed's definitions, followed by a link to his site.
Marketing
According to the American Marketing Association, “Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large.” (Approved October 2007)
Marketing focuses primarily on communicating (or correcting) and ensuring consistent delivery of your product or service image. The emphasis is on making certain the promise you make is understood and authentic. That promise must be relevant and competitive in order to be compelling.
Advertising is one tool used in marketing. So are social media and promotional efforts to support capital investment lead management. Any interaction or communication about your location can be considered part of the marketing mix and will benefit from being in alignment with the core promise.
Branding
My working definition for branding is the proactive management of your product or service identity.
The single biggest differences between branding and marketing are –
1.Marketing focuses on communicating or correcting the product or service image (present) while branding focuses on creating the identity (future).
2.Because it is identity focused, branding includes a strong emphasis on strategic product development.
A way to think about it is branding ensures your core promise remains relevant, competitive and authentic year after year. Good branding plans will have a 5 – 10 year planning horizon and a process for ensuring the plans are responsive to changes in the competitive environment.
In economic development, branding guides choices on asset creation, infrastructure investment and public policy reform.
http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=689787856&gid=137517&type=member&item=65335799&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Fstrengtheningbrandamerica%2Ecom%2Fblog%2F%3Fp%3D968&urlhash=Djj3&goback=%2Egde_137517_member_65335799
Here are Ed's definitions, followed by a link to his site.
Marketing
According to the American Marketing Association, “Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large.” (Approved October 2007)
Marketing focuses primarily on communicating (or correcting) and ensuring consistent delivery of your product or service image. The emphasis is on making certain the promise you make is understood and authentic. That promise must be relevant and competitive in order to be compelling.
Advertising is one tool used in marketing. So are social media and promotional efforts to support capital investment lead management. Any interaction or communication about your location can be considered part of the marketing mix and will benefit from being in alignment with the core promise.
Branding
My working definition for branding is the proactive management of your product or service identity.
The single biggest differences between branding and marketing are –
1.Marketing focuses on communicating or correcting the product or service image (present) while branding focuses on creating the identity (future).
2.Because it is identity focused, branding includes a strong emphasis on strategic product development.
A way to think about it is branding ensures your core promise remains relevant, competitive and authentic year after year. Good branding plans will have a 5 – 10 year planning horizon and a process for ensuring the plans are responsive to changes in the competitive environment.
In economic development, branding guides choices on asset creation, infrastructure investment and public policy reform.
http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=689787856&gid=137517&type=member&item=65335799&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Fstrengtheningbrandamerica%2Ecom%2Fblog%2F%3Fp%3D968&urlhash=Djj3&goback=%2Egde_137517_member_65335799
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Regional Brand for the Heart of Texas
Who are we?
Sounds like a silly question - navel-gazing, perhaps, and not much to do with the nuts and bolts of delivering economic development. It matters, though, because the six counties that make up the Heart of Texas don't have much that binds them together beyond the fact that someone at a desk somewhere arbitrarily put them together when the state was carving out regions for Councils of Governments.
In economic development, we know that we're selling communities. Lots of our work is done for us already in selling communities - for better or for worse - because each community already has a brand. Whether you're a member of that community, or the other town they play in football, or someone who just drives through, you have an idea of what that community is.
With our six-county region, there is not the same sense of identity. That's good in some ways - it means we have a relatively clean slate. We don't have to battle existing notions that may be different than we'd like. But selling a clean slate won't work in economic development, any more than it would work in a grocery store. Would you buy a box with no label, no ingredients?
Right now, the EDD is working on regional branding, as a first step to marketing the region. We're gathering information on the communities, what people think and feel about this area, and what images and taglines are out there. We're reviewing best practices from around the state and around the nation, to get a sense of what excellence looks like. The results of this work will be presented to the Marketing Committee on Thursday, and then the group will move forward toward development of images and language to communicate the brand to the world.
We'd love your input - and we'll keep you posted on what we discover!
Sounds like a silly question - navel-gazing, perhaps, and not much to do with the nuts and bolts of delivering economic development. It matters, though, because the six counties that make up the Heart of Texas don't have much that binds them together beyond the fact that someone at a desk somewhere arbitrarily put them together when the state was carving out regions for Councils of Governments.
In economic development, we know that we're selling communities. Lots of our work is done for us already in selling communities - for better or for worse - because each community already has a brand. Whether you're a member of that community, or the other town they play in football, or someone who just drives through, you have an idea of what that community is.
With our six-county region, there is not the same sense of identity. That's good in some ways - it means we have a relatively clean slate. We don't have to battle existing notions that may be different than we'd like. But selling a clean slate won't work in economic development, any more than it would work in a grocery store. Would you buy a box with no label, no ingredients?
Right now, the EDD is working on regional branding, as a first step to marketing the region. We're gathering information on the communities, what people think and feel about this area, and what images and taglines are out there. We're reviewing best practices from around the state and around the nation, to get a sense of what excellence looks like. The results of this work will be presented to the Marketing Committee on Thursday, and then the group will move forward toward development of images and language to communicate the brand to the world.
We'd love your input - and we'll keep you posted on what we discover!
Monday, June 13, 2011
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Update
HOTEDD will complete and submit the annual update to our Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy within the next few weeks. Once this is completed, it is likely that the EDD Board will look ahead to constructing a new five-year CEDS document.
While the current CEDS has been in effect for only three of the allowable five years, the currency of Census data, the availability of a new web-based platform, and the unrolling of new guidance from EDA through NADO all mean there is a wealth of good information for producing a new CEDS. Why wait?
While the current CEDS has been in effect for only three of the allowable five years, the currency of Census data, the availability of a new web-based platform, and the unrolling of new guidance from EDA through NADO all mean there is a wealth of good information for producing a new CEDS. Why wait?
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Census Counts and the Heart of Texas Region
Much of what the 2010 Census will tell us about the Heart of Texas is still unknown to us, as socioeconomic and other data has not yet been released. The population figures, however, are available – and they mostly tell us what we’ve been able to observe ourselves: namely, that the parts that are growing, keep growing, and the parts that aren’t growing, keep not growing.
The region’s population grew from 321,536 in 2000 to 349,273 in 2010 – a rate of growth of approximately .83% per year. The moderate growth contributes to economic vitality without placing excessive demands on existing infrastructure. (High population growth can lead to traffic congestion and stress water/wastewater capacity, among other issues.) A gentle rate of growth means the region can accommodate the new folks, and build its infrastructure to match, comfortably over time. At the same time, a slightly higher rate than this would still fall in the “comfortable” range – so we should continue to focus on attracting businesses and families to even the fastest-growing parts of the region.
Bosque County, which grew by 5.86%, has a 2010 population density of 18.41.
Falls County, which declined by 3.82%, has a 2010 population density of 23.23.
Freestone County, which grew by 10.91%, has a 2010 population density of 22.58.
Hill County, which grew by 8.56%, has a 2010 population density of 36.46.
Limestone County, which grew by 6.05%, has a 2010 population density of 25.73.
McLennan County, which grew by 10.02%, has a 2010 population density of 225.46.
The region as a whole grew by 8.63%, and has a population density of 62.95.
Let’s discuss the differing growth rates. For the most part, Heart of Texas counties with higher population densities had higher rates of population growth, and counties with lower population densities had lower rates of growth. Simply put, people like to go to where people already are – and where there are plenty of the amenities that come with those existing population densities. This pattern is consistent with statewide trends, so it’s not likely to change any time soon. This poses a challenge for sparsely-populated counties working to maintain quality of life.
McLennan County is growing at the highest rate; Limestone and Hill Counties have some slow growth; Bosque County has very little growth; and Freestone County is growing faster – and Falls County slower – than their densities would suggest. Hill and, to a lesser extent, Limestone Counties are working to achieve “escape velocity” – to achieve a density of people and amenities that will make those counties draws in themselves. They’re assisted in this by the expansion of development from the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex and the increased economic activity in McLennan County. Bosque County, on the other hand, is working to maintain enough growth and activity to continue its high quality of life.
Looking at the outliers, Freestone County has the second-lowest population density, but it enjoyed he highest rate of population growth in the region from 2000 to 2010 – 11%. Falls County’s population density falls in the middle at around 22 people per square mile, but its population declined by 3%. It may be no coincidence that these outliers also differ from the rest of the region economically: Freestone with higher economic values, and Falls County with lower ones.
While much is riding on Census numbers in terms of outside resources, the greatest impact on the Heart of Texas communities will come from what their growth rates mean in terms of local effects. Outside the City of Waco, Heart of Texas communities must compete for Federal block grant funds – so their populations may change the amount of matching funds they are required to contribute to projects if they’re funded, but they won’t affect their ordinary revenues much. On the other hand, for communities struggling to maintain population and attract and retain businesses, a modest amount of growth is essential to maintain the current standard of living.
The region’s population grew from 321,536 in 2000 to 349,273 in 2010 – a rate of growth of approximately .83% per year. The moderate growth contributes to economic vitality without placing excessive demands on existing infrastructure. (High population growth can lead to traffic congestion and stress water/wastewater capacity, among other issues.) A gentle rate of growth means the region can accommodate the new folks, and build its infrastructure to match, comfortably over time. At the same time, a slightly higher rate than this would still fall in the “comfortable” range – so we should continue to focus on attracting businesses and families to even the fastest-growing parts of the region.
Bosque County, which grew by 5.86%, has a 2010 population density of 18.41.
Falls County, which declined by 3.82%, has a 2010 population density of 23.23.
Freestone County, which grew by 10.91%, has a 2010 population density of 22.58.
Hill County, which grew by 8.56%, has a 2010 population density of 36.46.
Limestone County, which grew by 6.05%, has a 2010 population density of 25.73.
McLennan County, which grew by 10.02%, has a 2010 population density of 225.46.
The region as a whole grew by 8.63%, and has a population density of 62.95.
Let’s discuss the differing growth rates. For the most part, Heart of Texas counties with higher population densities had higher rates of population growth, and counties with lower population densities had lower rates of growth. Simply put, people like to go to where people already are – and where there are plenty of the amenities that come with those existing population densities. This pattern is consistent with statewide trends, so it’s not likely to change any time soon. This poses a challenge for sparsely-populated counties working to maintain quality of life.
McLennan County is growing at the highest rate; Limestone and Hill Counties have some slow growth; Bosque County has very little growth; and Freestone County is growing faster – and Falls County slower – than their densities would suggest. Hill and, to a lesser extent, Limestone Counties are working to achieve “escape velocity” – to achieve a density of people and amenities that will make those counties draws in themselves. They’re assisted in this by the expansion of development from the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex and the increased economic activity in McLennan County. Bosque County, on the other hand, is working to maintain enough growth and activity to continue its high quality of life.
Looking at the outliers, Freestone County has the second-lowest population density, but it enjoyed he highest rate of population growth in the region from 2000 to 2010 – 11%. Falls County’s population density falls in the middle at around 22 people per square mile, but its population declined by 3%. It may be no coincidence that these outliers also differ from the rest of the region economically: Freestone with higher economic values, and Falls County with lower ones.
While much is riding on Census numbers in terms of outside resources, the greatest impact on the Heart of Texas communities will come from what their growth rates mean in terms of local effects. Outside the City of Waco, Heart of Texas communities must compete for Federal block grant funds – so their populations may change the amount of matching funds they are required to contribute to projects if they’re funded, but they won’t affect their ordinary revenues much. On the other hand, for communities struggling to maintain population and attract and retain businesses, a modest amount of growth is essential to maintain the current standard of living.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
What's a Triple Bottom Line?
In Economic Development, we understand the bottom line. It's a matter of pride that we consider a project all the way through to the end, to evaluate whether over time the reward will outweigh the risk. Of course, there's some risk involved - we're making guesses about the future, however well-informed - but we can at least rest assured we've done our due diligence.
We may need to think again. Even when we are sure our project is going to mean bottom-line profits, that bottom line may not cover everything we need it to.
Just yesterday I put together some information about economic development programs and had some "negative" examples - projects that didn't make money - that were also transformative projects in their communities. On the other hand, we've all seen projects that made money on paper, but resulted in overdevelopment, played out early and left an empty big box, or had other unintended consequences. The bottom line is an important measure, but it doesn't measure everything.
It's this fact that has inspired many - including, now, the Economic Development Administration - to expand their thinking about what constitutes "profit." Enter the "Triple Bottom Line" - a way of looking at a project that asks about not only its financial net profit, but also at its social and environmental consequences as well. It's a fancy new term, but it captures things we intuitively grasp in the Heart of Texas - we understand our communities need lots of things, not just money. So it may not be a new concept at heart, but the Triple Bottom Line does give us a new tool: a way of measuring, comparing, and evaluating projects looking at all three of those areas.
Watch this space for more information as it becomes available: EDA is currently vetting a Triple Bottom Line evaluation tool that all our communities will soon be able to use.
We may need to think again. Even when we are sure our project is going to mean bottom-line profits, that bottom line may not cover everything we need it to.
Just yesterday I put together some information about economic development programs and had some "negative" examples - projects that didn't make money - that were also transformative projects in their communities. On the other hand, we've all seen projects that made money on paper, but resulted in overdevelopment, played out early and left an empty big box, or had other unintended consequences. The bottom line is an important measure, but it doesn't measure everything.
It's this fact that has inspired many - including, now, the Economic Development Administration - to expand their thinking about what constitutes "profit." Enter the "Triple Bottom Line" - a way of looking at a project that asks about not only its financial net profit, but also at its social and environmental consequences as well. It's a fancy new term, but it captures things we intuitively grasp in the Heart of Texas - we understand our communities need lots of things, not just money. So it may not be a new concept at heart, but the Triple Bottom Line does give us a new tool: a way of measuring, comparing, and evaluating projects looking at all three of those areas.
Watch this space for more information as it becomes available: EDA is currently vetting a Triple Bottom Line evaluation tool that all our communities will soon be able to use.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)