From Regional Branding to Regional Reputation

01. Branding: the managed projection of identity.

Place branding emerged from the application of corporate branding concepts to geographical locations. It involves the development of a strategic identity, visual language, narrative and communication programme designed to differentiate a place, attract target audiences and support economic, social and cultural objectives.

Academic literature defines place branding as the practice of applying brand strategy and marketing techniques to the development of cities, regions and countries. It encompasses the creation of symbols, images and associations that represent the distinctive characteristics of a place and shape how it is perceived by external audiences.

A place brand is not the physical territory itself. It is a network of associations in the minds of audiences, based on visual, verbal and behavioural expressions of the place. These associations may relate to economic performance, cultural heritage, governance quality, lifestyle, innovation capacity, environmental quality or other dimensions.

Branding serves several legitimate functions in territorial strategy: differentiation, helping a territory stand out in a crowded international environment; clarity, articulating what the territory offers and to whom; coordination, aligning communication across multiple institutions and stakeholders; mobilization, creating a shared narrative that residents, businesses and institutions can support; and attraction, supporting investment promotion, tourism, talent recruitment and other objectives.

However, branding has significant limitations when treated as the primary instrument of territorial influence.

First, places are more complex than products. A corporate brand can be tightly controlled through product design, customer experience and communication. A territory cannot be similarly controlled. Its reality is shaped by multiple actors, historical trajectories, political dynamics and external forces beyond the control of any single institution.

Second, place brands have often proved homogenous and indistinctive. Many territories adopt similar language around innovation, sustainability, quality of life and connectivity. Without genuine differentiation, branding becomes generic and forgettable.

Third, the outcomes of place branding are difficult to measure. It is easier to count campaign outputs than to assess whether the territory’s standing has genuinely improved among relevant audiences.

Fourth, and most importantly, branding cannot compensate for weak performance. A well-designed brand may attract initial attention, but reputation is ultimately determined by what the territory delivers.

Academic research has therefore suggested that place branding should be repositioned as part of a more comprehensive notion of place reputation. While branding and reputation are interrelated, reputation is a broader, more relational concept that depends on accumulated experience, evidence and judgement over time.

02. Territorial diplomacy: the external action of sub-national actors.

If branding is about managed projection, territorial diplomacy is about structured engagement.

Territorial diplomacy refers to the external actions of sub-national actors — regions, cities, provinces, local authorities — who thereby become genuine actors in international relations. It is sometimes described as para-diplomacy, sub-state diplomacy, regional diplomacy or decentralized diplomacy.

This form of diplomacy has emerged as a response to several trends: globalization and interdependence, since regions and cities are directly affected by international dynamics in trade, investment, migration, climate, security and technology; decentralization and devolution, as many countries have granted sub-national authorities greater competences, including in international affairs; European integration, with EU regions participating in cross-border cooperation, transnational networks and European policy processes; and networked governance, as international influence increasingly flows through multi-level networks rather than exclusively through central states.

Territorial diplomacy is not about replacing national foreign policy. It is about complementing it through activities that reflect regional priorities, capabilities and relationships.

Typical instruments include: representation (regional offices abroad, participation in international networks, delegations to foreign partners); cooperation (cross-border projects, interregional partnerships, city-to-city agreements); promotion (investment attraction, tourism promotion, cultural exchange, educational partnerships); advocacy (influencing European or international policy, participating in multilateral forums); and knowledge exchange (benchmarking, learning visits, joint research, policy transfer).

Academic analysis distinguishes three waves in the development of sub-state diplomacy. The first wave, from the 1980s, involved regions attracting foreign direct investment and using culture and identity to place themselves on the international map. The second wave, in the 1990s, saw the creation of legal instruments for parallel and complementary diplomatic activities. The third wave is characterized by strategic reorientation, vertical integration of external affairs functions and attempts to integrate external instruments into a coherent whole.

Territorial diplomacy matters for reputation because it creates sustained relationships. Unlike promotional campaigns, which are episodic, diplomatic engagement is continuous. It builds trust, demonstrates competence and creates channels for influence.

A region that maintains active relationships with partners in other countries, participates meaningfully in international networks and contributes to shared objectives accumulates relational capital. This capital becomes part of its reputation.

03. Soft power: attraction as a source of influence.

Soft power is the ability to influence others through attraction and persuasion rather than coercion or payment. It was originally developed as a concept for understanding national influence in international relations, but it is increasingly relevant to regions and cities.

Joseph Nye, who coined the term, identifies three primary sources of soft power: culture (when it is attractive to others), values (when they are seen as legitimate and appealing) and policies (when they are perceived as inclusive and effective).

For territories, soft power operates through several channels: cultural assets (heritage, arts, creative industries, language, gastronomy, festivals); educational assets (universities, research institutions, student mobility, academic collaboration); policy assets (governance quality, sustainability initiatives, social innovation, digital transformation); relational assets (networks, partnerships, alumni communities, diaspora engagement); and narrative assets (stories, symbols, media representation, international recognition).

A recent comparative analysis of soft power across 25 jurisdictions identifies three interconnected dimensions: assets, infrastructure and outcomes. Assets are the domestic capabilities that provide the foundation for influence. Infrastructure is the institutional machinery that deploys those assets internationally. Outcomes are the measurable results in terms of perception, engagement and cooperation.

The analysis reveals that strategic coherence matters more than resource scale. Countries achieving superior outcomes demonstrate stronger alignment between strategic objectives, resource allocation and operational activities. Germany’s integrated approach, for example, generates substantial impact from institutional specialization and clear mandates.

For regions, the lesson is similar. Soft power is not simply a function of having attractive assets. It depends on how those assets are organized, deployed and connected to international audiences. A region with strong universities but weak international engagement may achieve less influence than a smaller region with more focused strategy. A territory with rich cultural heritage but limited infrastructure for cultural exchange may fail to convert that heritage into soft power.

Soft power also has a defensive dimension. Reputational security — the capacity to withstand international crises, policy setbacks or domestic challenges without catastrophic damage to national standing — is increasingly recognized as a fundamental soft power outcome. For territories, this means that reputation is not only about accumulating positive perceptions. It is also about building resilience. A territory with strong relationships, credible institutions and a track record of reliability is better positioned to navigate difficulties without losing influence.

04. International reputation: the accumulated judgement of audiences.

Reputation is the most strategic of the four concepts.

While branding is managed, diplomacy is structured and soft power is attractive, reputation is judged. It is the collective assessment that audiences form about a territory based on accumulated evidence, experience and narrative.

Academic research distinguishes reputation from brand by emphasizing that reputation is about attaining legitimacy among a wide range of stakeholders, whereas brand is about relevance and differentiation among potential competitors.

Reputation has several distinctive characteristics. It is relational: reputations exist in relation to particular audiences — investors, residents, tourists, students, partners, media — and may vary across domains such as economy, culture, governance or environment. It is cumulative: reputation is built over time through repeated interactions, consistent performance and sustained engagement, and cannot be created quickly through a single campaign. It is evidence-based: reputation depends on what a territory does, not only on what it says. It is partially uncontrollable: territories cannot fully control their reputation because it is held by external audiences and shaped by media, word-of-mouth, third-party assessments and unexpected events. And it is strategic: reputation influences investment decisions, talent mobility, partnership opportunities, policy influence and crisis resilience.

Research on place reputation proposes that places can improve their standing by constructing and accumulating reputational capital with various audiences. This concept transfers the idea of reputational capital from corporate contexts to geographical entities.

Reputational capital is an asset that can be drawn upon in times of opportunity or difficulty. A territory with strong reputational capital may find it easier to attract investment during competitive processes, to recruit talent in tight labour markets, to secure partnerships in complex negotiations or to maintain credibility during crises.

The relationship between branding and reputation is complementary but asymmetric. Branding can contribute to reputation by creating clarity, consistency and visibility. But reputation ultimately depends on performance, institutions and relationships. A strong brand with weak substance may produce short-term visibility but long-term disappointment. A weaker brand with strong substance may take longer to gain recognition but can build more durable influence.

Academic analysis suggests that place reputation and place branding are interrelated, but place reputation is a broader concept that requires understanding audiences, sectors and domains. Leadership effectiveness in a city or region can be fundamental to the quality of its reputation.

05. Why the distinction matters for regional leaders.

The distinction between branding, territorial diplomacy, soft power and reputation is not merely academic. It has practical implications for how regional leaders should allocate resources, design strategies and measure success.

Branding should serve reputation, not replace it. Many territories invest disproportionately in branding relative to their investment in performance, institutions and relationships. They commission new logos while neglecting service quality. They launch campaigns while failing to improve the investor experience. Branding is legitimate when it clarifies and communicates genuine strengths. It becomes problematic when it is used to compensate for weaknesses or to create an image disconnected from reality. Regional leaders should ask: does our branding reflect what we actually offer? Does it align with our institutions’ capacity to deliver?

Territorial diplomacy builds relational capital. Investment promotion, tourism marketing and cultural events are important, but they are not sufficient. Territories also need structured, sustained engagement with international partners — regional offices or representation where it matters, active participation in relevant networks, long-term partnerships with other regions and cities, and engagement with European and international policy processes. It is about being present when opportunities arise and being known as a reliable partner.

Soft power requires strategic coherence. Soft power is not a collection of unrelated cultural and educational activities. It is a strategic approach to international influence that connects assets, infrastructure and outcomes. Regional leaders should map their soft power assets and ask how these assets are deployed internationally and what outcomes they produce. Cultural exchange should support economic partnerships; educational collaboration should feed into talent strategies; policy innovation should be shared through international networks.

Reputation is built through performance and consistency. Reputation cannot be manufactured through communication alone. It is built through what a territory does, how it behaves and how it treats its stakeholders — investing in institutional quality, service delivery, policy effectiveness and stakeholder engagement, and being reliable in partnerships and transparent in communication. Reputation also requires consistency over time; frequent changes in strategy, leadership or priorities can undermine credibility.

Measurement should focus on outcomes, not outputs. Many territories measure success in terms of branding outputs: number of campaigns, media mentions, social-media followers, event attendance. These are easy to count but do not necessarily indicate improved reputation. Outcome measures are more challenging but more meaningful: investor perceptions, talent attraction, partnership quality, policy influence, crisis resilience, international rankings, stakeholder trust.

A framework for moving from branding to reputation.

Territories seeking to move from branding to reputation can use the following framework.

Step 1: Diagnose current reputation. Before investing in new branding or communication, understand how the territory is currently perceived. Conduct research with target audiences: investors, residents, businesses, students, partners, media. Identify strengths, weaknesses, misconceptions and opportunities. Map the territory’s reputational capital: where is it strong, where is it weak, where is it unknown? Which audiences matter most? Which domains are most relevant to strategic objectives?

Step 2: Align identity, image and performance. Place branding research emphasizes the importance of alignment between identity (what the territory is), image (how it is perceived) and performance (what it delivers). If identity and image are misaligned, communication may be ineffective. If performance does not support the desired image, reputation will suffer. Regional leaders should ensure that branding reflects genuine strengths, that communication is consistent with institutional capacity and that performance is continuously improved to support reputation.

Step 3: Build institutional infrastructure. Reputation depends on institutions: investment agencies, universities, cultural organizations, diplomatic offices, networks, partnerships. These institutions provide the infrastructure through which reputation is built and maintained. Invest in professional, well-resourced institutions capable of sustained engagement. Ensure coordination across institutions to avoid fragmentation. Develop clear mandates, accountability and performance measures.

Step 4: Engage stakeholders in reputation-building. Reputation is not created by a single institution. It is shaped by multiple stakeholders: residents, businesses, universities, cultural organizations, civil society, media. Involve stakeholders in defining the territory’s identity, communicating its strengths and delivering on commitments. Encourage residents and businesses to act as ambassadors. Support cultural and educational institutions in their international activities.

Step 5: Monitor, learn and adapt. Reputation is dynamic. It changes in response to performance, events, communication and external dynamics. Establish mechanisms for monitoring reputation over time. Track perceptions, media coverage, stakeholder feedback and outcomes. Use this information to adapt strategy, improve performance and address emerging issues.

The strategic payoff.

Territories that move from branding to reputation gain several strategic advantages.

Greater credibility: reputation based on performance and consistency is more credible than image based on promotion alone. Durable influence: reputational capital accumulates over time and can be drawn upon in opportunities and crises. Better alignment: reputation requires alignment between identity, image and performance, which strengthens overall strategy. Stronger relationships: territorial diplomacy and stakeholder engagement build relational capital that supports long-term influence. Improved resilience: territories with strong reputation are better positioned to navigate difficulties without losing influence. More efficient investment: resources are allocated to activities that genuinely improve reputation rather than to superficial visibility.

Conclusion: reputation as strategic infrastructure.

The journey from regional branding to regional reputation is not a rejection of branding. It is a recognition that branding is one instrument within a broader strategic architecture.

Branding clarifies and communicates. Territorial diplomacy engages and connects. Soft power attracts and influences. Reputation legitimizes and sustains.

Territories that understand this architecture are better positioned to compete for investment, talent, partnerships and influence in an increasingly crowded international environment.

They invest not only in visibility but in substance. Not only in campaigns but in institutions. Not only in promotion but in performance. Not only in image but in trust.

This is the difference between marketing a place and building a reputation.

And in the long run, reputation is the more valuable asset. Because when the campaign ends, the logo ages and the slogan fades, what remains is what the territory has become in the minds of those who matter.

That is reputation. And that is the foundation of durable territorial influence.