Title: Challenges of Branding the Baltic Sea Region

Course: BSRM3200 Introduction to the Baltic Sea Region

Name: Sofiia Bogdanova

Student number: 511346

November 2014

2

Introduction

Nowadays all the territories are forced to compete with each other in order to attract more tourists,

foreign investments or simply make themselves more visible on a global scale. In other words, today

countries, regions and even cities have to advertise themselves extensively so that they would be able

to stand out. In their promotion efforts many territories use tools which originally come from

marketing. One of these tools is place branding which is firmly rooted in such key marketing

communication concept as branding or brand management. Applied to places, this concept suggests

that countries, regions and cities can be branded just like products or services (Rainisto 2003, 3). The

difference is that while successful product branding usually means bigger sales, successful place

branding activities allow territories to attract more people, money or resources.

Although place branding is not entirely new, one can argue that exactly today this concept is more

important than it has ever been before. This is especially relevant to European countries, as according

to Kotler:

All European communities cannot prosper in the next millennium. There will be

winners and losers. Some places may prosper through luck, accident, or initially strong

endowments without applying strategic market planning principles. But market forces

keep changing and don’t forgive the complacent. We believe that the places that

seriously apply the principles of strategic market planning will build a better future for

their citizens and local businesses than those places that leave their future to chance

or inertia (Kotler et al 1999, x).

Thus, developing an effective place branding strategy becomes a main challenge for local authorities.

Indeed, some places have been more successful in their branding efforts, while some others – less.

The Baltic Sea Region today is more likely be sited among the latter as according to Andersson and

Brask (2012), the region remains indistinct, being unknown and lacking a clear brand image. Their

conclusion is not groundless being backed up by several independent studies. Thus, in 2003 the Baltic

Development Forum together with the Observer conducted a research on media perception of the

Baltic Sea Region. The main purpose of the research was to understand how the region was portrayed

in the media as according to Ellemann-Jensen, the Honorary Chairman of the Baltic Development

Forum, it was exactly the media which had “a crucial role to play in drawing the attention of the

public, the business community - and the world - to the Baltic Sea Region” (Baltic Development

3

Forum, 2003). Baring in mind the fact that the study was led in the Baltic Sea Region countries the

outcomes of it were quite astonishing. It was revealed that the media within the region showed little

interest in the Baltic Sea Region as an entity. Perhaps a more surprising finding of the study was that

even the term “the Baltic Sea Region” itself was used rather obscure, as in many cases it was difficult

to understand if the media was addressing the Baltic Sea Region countries or the Baltic countries

(Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia) alone (Baltic Development Forum, 2003). Later in 2006 a study by

the BalticStudyNet, a network aimed to promote research in and on the Baltic Sea Region, concluded

that the Baltic Sea Region "appeared to be a white spot on the global map" ( Schymik 2007, 18).

Despite all the promoting efforts, the region did not become a visible entity neither in politics nor as

a market place (ibid). Next, in 2012 a Policy Action Plan for the Marketing of the Baltic Sea Region

prepared by the Baltic Development Forum showed that the Baltic Sea Region has not been successful

in developing a coherent brand image (Policy Action Plan 2012, 5). The same report, however, stated

that there was no lack of branding initiative or activities in the region, underlining that many networks

and organizations work to brand and market the Baltic Sea Region (ibid). The objective of this essay,

thus, is to examine branding efforts undertaken to increase the visibility of the Baltic Sea Region as

an entity on the global scale. To do so the author will first introduce the concept of place branding.

Secondly, the complex nature of place branding and the difficulties it creates for promoting a territory

will be discussed more detailed. The author will then devote some time to talk about macro-regional

nature of the Baltic Sea Region to show how unique this territory is for place branding. Finally, the

challenges of branding the Baltic Sea Region that largely come from the fact that the Baltic Sea

Region is not a homogeneous territory but a macro-region encompassing several different countries

will be addressed.

Place Branding: theoretical foundations

Place branding as a practice can be traced back throughout history. Simon Anholt, who has largely

contributed to the theory of place branding and is often consider one of its founding fathers, points

out at Alexander the Great who “understood that places depend on their image for everything they

do, and that a deliberate policy of managing that image pays dividends” (Anholt cited in Simms,

2008). Similarly, Ashworth and Voogd (1994, 39) argue that “since Leif Ericson sought new settlers

in the 8th century for his newly discovered "green" land, the idea of deliberate projection of favorable

place images to customers, investors, or residents has been actively pursued”. When it comes to

development of place branding as a theoretical concept there is less unanimity among scholars on its

origin. Van Ham (2008 – 132), for example, links place branding to a long tradition of reputation

4

management, spin-doctoring, and propaganda. Yet, the most common approach is to look at place

branding through a prism of marketing as in today’s reality the country's image is deliberately formed

through advertising, promotion and other marketing instruments (Chernyshov 2012). In the opinion

of Kotler (2002, 32) applying marketing strategies to a territory helps to create a strong territory brand

and provide the territory with stable development. Perhaps, the best explanation of why territories are

nowadays being branded in the same way products are was given by Anholt. According to him

globalization led to “the rapid transformation of the world from a global battleground to a global

marketplace”, making the countries compete on the basis of their “cultural, environmental,

imaginative and human qualities rather than raw power” (Anholt 2010, 37). As this competition is

heating up, having a low visibility or a weak brand becomes “a serious handicap” (Andersson 2010,

10).

Thus, it was exactly the context of increasing territorial competition that created a need for place

branding as a way to improve the image of the territory for different types of audiences. If in the past

the main assets of a place included its geographical location, natural resources, or products produced

within its territory, nowadays the main asset of a city, region, or a country is its brand. The reason for

this shift is that today many places offer nearly the same advantages – territory, developed

infrastructure, skilled workforce, and even similar political systems. So, those advantages become of

less importance when it comes to choosing a place for holidays or an investment destination bringing

a more comprehensive picture of the place – its brand – to a foreground. A good illustration for this

statement can be the case of Nigeria. The country is currently the biggest economy in Africa, it is rich

in resources, it has the biggest population and favorable geographical location (The Economist, 2014).

Yet those physical advantages are overshadowed by Nigeria's image of a highly corrupted country,

making it a no go investment destination for many companies.

However, place branding should be understood larger than just advertising a certain territory. While

increasing the place’s attractiveness on a global scale can be considered an external function, place

branding does serve internal goals as well. First of all, place branding always markets the outstanding

qualities of the place be it nature, cultural heritage, regional food, or traditional products.

Emphasizing any of these promotes a sense of territorial belonging among the local population and

builds up the pride of being a member of a certain territory. While this has little to do with external

marketing of the place as such, it is crucial for communal development. Next, successful place

branding requires a lot of internal self-reflection simply because before starting to work on a branding

strategy one has to be sure there is an understanding of what is actually being branded. In this sense,

5

place branding can be a very beneficial process for newly established countries or those undergone

serious changes. For instance, Wally Olins, the British branding guru, points out that some nations in

central and eastern Europe as well as former Soviet countries have either never existed before or did

so in an entirely different form. Those countries are using place branding “to try to find out who the

hell they are, as much for themselves as for anybody else, and to establish themselves in a world

where they feel profoundly threatened” (Olins cited in Simms 2008).

Thus, place branding should be viewed as a complex activity which has both external as well as

internal implications. This complex nature is at the same time something what makes place branding

inherently challenging. Perhaps, the biggest challenge of place branding that also differs it from

product branding is that a place brand cannot be constructed artificially but it has to relay on reality.

To put it simply, the desired brand must be credible in reflecting the place’s substance. For instance,

if a territory wants to create a brand around its cultural heritage it has to have one and it has to invest

in museums, opera houses and other cultural attractions. Place branding which is trying to sell

something what the place is not in reality is nothing than a propaganda. Another challenge is that

many places intentionally or not already have a certain brand or perception which is sometimes hard

to change. It was back in 1983 when the U.S. President Ronald Reagan spoke of the Soviet Union as

an evil empire but it is nowadays Russia which is still struggling with this image. For some scholars

this challenge is even a reason enough to believe that branding cannot be applied to places as while a

product can be re-branded a territory cannot (Olins 2004, 18). Finally, another factor that seriously

challenges place promotion is that place brands, especially regional brands, will co-exist with other

brands. Thus, a city brand will most probably co-exist with the country brand and those two brands

need to be in line with each other. For example, if a country promotes itself as a guardian of traditional

family values and a city within this country tries to create a city brand of a popular gay destination,

those efforts would unlikely be successful as both brand strategies are mutually exclusive.

Branding a macro-region: challenges of branding the BSR

The Baltic Sea Region is a quite unique territorial entity not just in terms of place branding. The

region is often outlined as an area of cooperation “where new ideas and approaches can be tested and

developed over the time as best practice examples” (Joenniemi 2009, 4). Perhaps, the main reason

why the region is often seen as a model and experimental area is the fact that in 2009 it became the

EU’s first macro-region followed later by the Danube Region, the Adriatic and Ionian Region, and

6

the Alpine Region. The common view is that the practices which will work for the Baltic Sea Region

might be as well successfully applied to the other macro-regions.

Generally a macro-region is understood as an entity that “encompasses communities and regions from

different countries, which have common or complimentary assets, are facing common challenges and

have common objectives” (Blaise and Liepa 2011, 4). The Baltic Sea Region as a macro-region is

very complex as it encompasses five post-Soviet countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and

Russia), five Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), and Germany.

Consisting of so many stakeholders the region is heterogeneous in many aspects, including history,

language, and religion. This makes some experts even question whether something encompassing so

many countries can be branded as one united entity. Erki Peegel, who was leading the Brand Estonia

project, remains skeptical about the prospect of branding the Baltic Sea Region: “Personally I can't

foresee that in the next five years there will be BSR cooperation in branding including Russia and

Germany in the brand” (cited in Collier 2008). However, not everyone in the Baltic Sea Region shares

the view of Peegel. The former Latvian ambassador to the U.S. Ojars Kalnins sees the Baltic Sea

Region promotion as an ongoing process “maintained by a group of enthusiasts — individuals in each

country who believe in the idea and want it to go further” (ibid). Andersson (2010, 61) too agrees that

there is “a very large number of activities, networks and organizations working to brand and market

the Baltic Sea Region”.

Indeed, for the last fifteen years there have been many branding activities around the Baltic Sea

Region as an entity as well as in individual Baltic Sea Region countries. It is commonly agreed, that

one of the first times when the idea of branding the Baltic Sea Region was officially discussed was

in 2000 at the Baltic Development Forum. Back then the need to actively promote the region in order

to attract more investors was the key idea of the summit in Malmö. Since then discussions on branding

the Baltic Sea Region have been led at almost every summit of the Baltic Development Forum

(Andersson and Brask 2012). A year later at the Baltic Development Forum summit in St. Petersburg

one whole plenary session was dedicated to the issue of branding the Baltic Sea Region with the

experts and policy makers discussing how applying of place branding could improve the image of the

region (ibid). The new impetus to discuss the issue was given by the EU enlargement in 2004 when

three Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania as well as Poland joined the Union. After that

the topic of branding the Baltic Sea Region was also discussed on an EU level. In 2005 the Baltic

Strategy Working Group of the Baltic Europe Intergroup of the European Parliament presented

Europe's Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, a report which had a whole chapter dedicated to the

7

image and identity of the Baltic Sea Region. In this report it was stated that “marketing the Region as

a whole does not only raise the political profile of the Region, it also opens up considerable mutual

economic benefit” (Europe's Strategy 2005). The next milestone in developing the Baltic Sea Region

brand was the BaltMet Promo Project launched in 2007 and finished in 2011. The BaltMet Promo

was the first joint marketing effort of the Baltic Sea Region. The rationale behind the project was “to

join forces in promoting the Baltic Sea Region on a global scale” (Baltic Development Forum, 2003).

The outcome of the BaltMet Promo Project was a Policy Action Plan for the Marketing of the Baltic

Sea Region addressed to policy makers in the Baltic Sea Region. Among concrete suggestions on

how to create good conditions for marketing the region globally was the creation of a common basic

brand and communication platform which would make it easier to co-ordinate activities and convey

coherent messages (Policy Action Plan, 2012). Such collaborative platform was created in 2012 with

the launch of ONE BSR project. The project aims to market the whole region and its different parts

by developing joint promotional services and test them in practice (ONE BSR Newsletter, 2014).

One can reasonably argue that the ONE BSR project is a continuation of the BaltMet Promo Project.

Yet, the difference is that the BaltMet Promo was exploring the foundations of place branding in

general as well as the condition under which it could be applied in the Baltic Sea Region. The ONE

BSR project has a more specific aim – to identify key elements for the image and identity building of

the region (ONE BSR Newsletter, 2014).

However, despite all the high-level interest in joint promotion, the marketing and branding of the

region has not yet developed neither does the Baltic Sea region exist as a region with a recognized

image (Action plan for the Baltic Sea Region, 2013). As it was already mentioned above the reason

for that should be traced in the macro-regional nature of the Baltic Sea Region. Basically, anyone

working on branding the Baltic Sea Region would face all the inherent challenges of place branding

with the only difference that in the macro-region those challenges would be brought on a macro-level.

Perhaps the biggest problem is, while being a pioneer in many other things, the Baltic Sea Region is

also a pioneer when it comes to branding a place larger than a country. A very simple internet search

on branding a macro-region necessarily links it to the Baltic Sea Region. There is no other example

on macro-region branding than branding the Baltic Sea Region yet. Literature on branding the other

macro-regions is only developing, and it is all still based on the existing materials on the Baltic Sea

Region. Even though Simon Anholt does mention regional branding, he always refers to a region

within one country. Branding a macro-region is clearly an insufficiently explored niche in place

branding. Thus, any activities undertaken to brand a macro-region, be it the Baltic Sea Region or any

other region, would be furthermost tested by trial and error method rather than any existing theory.

8

Another challenge of branding the Baltic Sea Region is the question of what exactly should be

branded. As it was already mentioned above an artificially created brand would only work in product

branding. Acting the same way in place branding would mean sliding down to a mere propaganda.

Thus, branding the Baltic Sea Region has to be based on something really existing, something relevant

to all members of the region. And here comes the problem of a macro-regional nature – how do you

find something what would be relevant and what would be common for so many different countries.

They have different historical and cultural background. There is no religious unanimity: some practice

Lutheranism, some are Protestants, some are Orthodox, while the majority of population in Estonia

is even non-religious. The countries of the Region don’t have a single language community, which

for example could be used as a solid pillar to brand one country. Even the name “Baltic Sea” is not

commonly used across the region. The name “Baltic Sea” is only used in Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish,

and Russian. Other languages - Danish, German, Icelandic, Norwegian and Swedish – use the name

“East Sea” instead. In Estonia the sea is located in the West of the country and, thus, holds the title

“West Sea”. A more interesting story is with Finland, where the Sea is also in the West of the country,

but still carries the name “East Sea”.

In fact, in the very beginning the Baltic identity of those countries was seen as a possible common

brand. The logic was quite simple: while all these countries are included in the Baltic Sea Region

they must have something what makes them Baltic. The “Balticness” as a possible image to brand

the Baltic Sea Region was offered by Latvia as it claimed that the Baltic Sea Region “possesses an

environment of common values and objectives” (Andersson and Brask 2012). However, a 2008 study

by Pilecka conducted together with the Office of the Committee for European Integration showed

that there is no clear public perception of what countries can be included under the “Balticness”

umbrella. For example, only 47% considered Lithuania as part of the Region, whereas Norway was

seen as a Baltic Sea Region country by 53%, some 12% of the respondents even included the United

Kingdom in the Baltic Sea Region (Pilecka cited in Andersson 2009). A more recent report Attitudes

and Prejudices between the Baltic Sea and the Mediterranean Regions by Kehys – the Finnish NGDO

Platform to the EU – undertaken among the Mediterranean countries and the countries of the Baltic

Sea Region, suggested the lack of common identity among the Baltic Sea Region countries.

According to the survey, 62% of respondents answered that they do not at all consider themselves to

be Baltic, revealing that there is not much of a we-feeling among the Region (Larsson 2010, 8).

Moreover, the survey also revealed that the national identity is predominant in the Baltic Sea Region,

as 71% of the respondents identify themselves with only or mostly their own nationality rather than

9

with the regional identity (ibid, 10). Simon Anholt gave another reason why emphasizing the

“Balticness” is rather a minus for branding the Region: “The word Baltic is strongly negative as far

as general public is concerned. It is associated not with fast-growing economies and IT but with a

vague image of a miserable, gray, post-Soviet wasteland, probably contaminated, with no culture, no

self-respect, and nothing of any interest to anybody” (Anholt cited in Collier 2008). While this

statement is a bit too strong, it is nevertheless hard to disagree that branding the Baltic Sea Region

should be formed around some different theme or topic which would make sense for the whole Region

as well as each single country within this Region.

Conclusions

While it is yet hard to speak of a Baltic Sea Region brand as an existing phenomenon, this essay has

clearly showed that the reason for that should not be linked to the lack of promotion activities. On the

contrary, the fact that so many stakeholders, organizations and individuals are captivated by the idea

of branding the Baltic Sea Region as one entity is a clear indicator that branding the Region will not

disappear from the agenda.

From what has been discussed in this paper, few recommendations can be made for branding the

Region. First of all, it is absolutely necessary that all the parties involved accept that the Baltic Sea

Region is a pioneer in terms of branding a place larger than one country. Thus, as mentioned before,

it is impossible to determine in advance if a certain branding initiative would work or not. Any

promotion activity within the region can only be tested on practice and not in theory. Hence, any

negative experience should not lead to a conclusion that branding the Baltic Sea Region is impossible,

but rather it should be a sign that another approach is needed. Secondly, the macro-regional nature of

the Baltic Sea Region should be taken into account. Any branding strategy developed for the Region

should be based on the fact that the Baltic Sea Region is a macro-region and, thus, all the challenges

it implicitly inherits would impact any branding efforts. Finally, there should be a clear understanding

of what is being branded. Despite all the activities in the direction of searching a common image or

brand it has not been developed yet. But a lot of experience and research is accumulated both by

organizations and individual countries. Perhaps a revision of this experience as well as a deeper

immersion into macro-regional nature of the Baltic Sea Region would help to develop some new

ideas. Perhaps another research on how the region is perceived by the population within it would

reveal similarities which could be used to create a common brand. In any case, branding the Baltic

10

Sea Region is a long-term process and the more challenging it seems now, the more rewarding it will

be at the end.

Bibliography

Action Plan for the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, 2013, http://www.cbss.org/wp-

content/uploads/2012/12/Action-Plan-2013.pdf, first accessed 14.11.2014

Andersson, M. (2009) Building a visible and attractive region: identity, image, branding and transnational cooperation

in the Baltic Sea Region, http://www.nationbranding.de/site_english/downloads/Building%20a%20region-

identity,%20image,%20brand%20and%20transnational%20cooperation%20in%20the%20BSR-

Marcus%20Andersson.pdf, first accessed 17.11.2014

Andersson, M. (2010) Place Branding and Place Promotion Efforts in the Baltic Sea Region,

http://onebsr.eu/baltmetpromo/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Branding_report_BDF_Final.pdf, first accessed 12.11.2014

Andersson M., Brask H. (2012) Branding the Baltic Sea Region – In between Global and European Trends,

http://www.bdforum.org/branding-bsr-trends/, first accessed 10.10.2014

Anholt, S. (2010) Places: Identity, Image and Reputation, New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Ashworth, G., Voogd, H. (1994) Marketing and Place Promotion in J.R. Gold & S.V. Ward, Place Promotion: The Use

of Publicity and Marketing to Sell Towns and Regions, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

BaltMet Promo, Baltic Development Forum, http://www.bdforum.org/activities/branding/baltmet-promo/, first accessed

13.11.2014

Blaise, E., Liepa, B. (2011) What are macro-regions all about?, Interact, Winter 2011/2012.

Chernyshov, Y. (2012) The image of Russia and problems of integration on the post-soviet space, RAPN,

http://www.rapn.ru/in.php?part=in&gr=72&d=137&n=35&p=0&to, first accessed 13.10.2014.

Collier, M. (2008) The Challenge of Branding the Baltics, http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-07-15/the-

challenge-of-branding-the-balticsbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice, first accessed

15.10.2014

Europe's Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, 2005,

https://polskawue.gov.pl/files/polska_w_ue/Polska_a_polityki_UE/Strategia_Morza_Baltyckiego/PE.pdf, first accessed

14.11.2014

Joenniemi, P. (2009) The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region: A Catalyst for What?, http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-

Library/Publications/Detail/?ots591=0c54e3b3-1e9c-be1e-2c24-a6a8c7060233&lng=en&id=105107, first accessed

16.10.2014

Kotler, P., Asplund, C., Rein, I., Haider, D. (1999): Marketing Places Europe: How to Attract Investments, Industries,

Residents and Visitors to Cities, Communities, Regions and Nations in Europe, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Kotler, P., Haider, D., Rein, I. (2002) Marketing Places, New York: Free Press.

Larsson, J. (2010) Attitudes and Prejudices between the Baltic Sea and the Mediterranean Regions,

http://www.kehys.fi/alf/programme-material/programme-material/files/study-on-the-attitudes-and-prejudices-between-

the-baltic-sea-and-the-mediterranean-regions.pdf/attachment_download/attachedFile, first accessed 16.11.2014

11

Olins, W. (2004) On Brand, London: Thames & Hudson.

ONE BSR Newsletter, 2/2014, http://onebsr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Newsletter-2-2014.pdf, first accessed

13.11.2014

Policy Action Plan for the Marketing of the Baltic Sea Region (2012) http://www.onebsr.eu/baltmetpromo/wp-

content/uploads/2012/01/Policy-Action-Plan-for-the-Marketing-of-the-BSR.pdf, first accessed 10.10.2014

Rainisto, S. (2003) Success Factors of Place Branding: A Study of Place Marketing Practices,

http://www.sci.fi/~rainisto/SuccessFactorsModel.pdf, first accessed 12.10.2014

Schymik, C. (2007) BalticStudyNet – promoting Baltic Sea region higher education worldwide, Baltic Rim Economies,

#1, 2007, http://www.utu.fi/fi/yksikot/tse/yksikot/PEI/BRE/Documents/BRE_1_2007.pdf, first accessed 09.10.201

Simms, J. (2008) Lands of hype and glory, http://www.director.co.uk/magazine/2008/4%20April/marketing_61_9.html,

first accessed 13.10.2014

The Baltic Sea Region as an Economic Entity? - The Media's Perception of the Region (2003)

http://www.bdforum.org/cmsystem/wp-

content/uploads/files/thematic_reports_media_the_bsr_economic_entity_2003.pdf, first accessed 10.10.2014

The Economist (2014): Africa’s new Number One, http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21600685-nigerias-

suddenly-supersized-economy-indeed-wonder-so-are-its-still-huge, first accessed 12.10.2014

Van Ham, P. (2008) Place Branding: The State of the Art, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and

Social Science, 2008, Vol. 616: 126-149.