Branding Focus is Too Narrow

By Wolfgang Wittenburg
Published: May 6, 2014

 

A lot of energy has been expended on criticizing the District for its re-branding initiative. Many dislike the hiring of yet another consultant, but they should at a minimum take comfort in the fact that, unlike with the millions spent on the Ocean Front Lands, here we know at least where the money went. 

Where I see the real problem with the re-branding direction is in its narrow focus, which is entirely on tourism.

Others feel strongly that we already have a brand, and thus the whole process to be a pointless, wasteful exercise. I beg to differ! To judge by the articles, comments and columns, both in this newspaper and the ‘Squamish Chief’, combined with the eleven hundred-plus questionnaires submitted to the Branding Committee, this issue appears to be  important  not just to council and the volunteers helping to move this along, but many other Squamishers as well.

If this initiative generated so much community introspection about who we think we are, what we represent and what we aim to be, then we already got value for money, and the Mayor should be pleased that his appeal on the District website for community involvement in branding,  ‘to have your say into the story we share with the world’, has been heard.

 Are we there yet? Nobody would be bold enough to say so, but buzzwords such as ‘epic’ and ‘adventure’ have been circled with the intent of proposing them, together with the old  ‘capital’, as the fulcrum around which to build the brand. There is no need to add to the negative commentary they have received  so far other than to ask whether anything that is recognized prima facie as a ‘capital’ really needs to advertise itself as such.

‘Capital’ in this case falls into the same category of ‘wannabe’ claim or slogan as ‘world class’ and ‘epic’, no matter how much Jim Harvey may disagree on the former and Roger Brooks on the latter two.

Where I see the real problem with the re-branding direction is in its narrow focus, which is entirely on tourism. We are short changing ourselves here, because it fails to address any other economic segments we may wish to attract. The idea, that Squamish should recast itself as a tourist destination is not new, as witnessed by the description we already claim for ourselves.

Despite a lot of effort and our showcasing during the 2010 Olympics, the facts on the ground and the prospects for making  this a viable economic base for the District’s future speak a different language. The Sea to Sky Gondola is a bold new addition to our tourist infrastructure and to be welcomed, but  make no mistake, its facilities and the views  can easily be sampled in day-trips from either Whistler or Vancouver, like so many other of our natural attractions. 

For tourism to be more than just a nice sideline, Squamish would require massive investments in tourist infrastructure, the sort we associate with our neighbours, where people stay for extended periods of time and spend a lot of  money in doing so.  Let’s just for a moment take a glimpse at what level of costs we may have to contemplate for making Squamish into the ‘Resort District Municipality of Squamish’:

Local developer and former banker Doug Day, well versed with large scale projects and their financing throughout BC, has recently commented publicly that it would take around a hundred million dollars  to defray the cost of infrastructure alone just for our Ocean Front Lands. According to media reports, GAS – Garibaldi at Squamish, would weigh in at  between three to five billion dollars in total capital expenditures. And that is only for two large projects we know about, think of what others and what else would be required. That makes the tens of millions spent by the developers on the Sea to Sky Gondola look modest in comparison. 

To be sure, such expenditures would be made by the private sector and over significant time periods. Nevertheless,  they should provide a framework within which to measure related District expenditures and potential contingent liabilities, if Squamish were really serious to embark on transforming itself into a true tourist destination, especially one, which  Mr. Brooks proposes, that should be ‘second to none’.

 At this point it is wise to remember  that the Resort Municipality of Whistler went nearly bankrupt during the severe recession of the early eighties, because its appetite and optimism  for tourism expansion exceeded by far its financial capabilities. It had to be bailed out by the Province, and not surprisingly, the Province had a lot to say in its future development.

The Province is not likely to jeopardize one of its big revenue generators by promoting, let alone possibly by supporting another resort nearby. To make matters worse, we have already experienced how fiercely Whistler defends its turf during the recent  GAS environmental review. Squamish trying to go it alone? Not impossible, but requiring a lot more commitment by the public and appetite for risk taking  than just rhetoric and, slogans.

 The focus of branding should be towards the promotion of Squamish as a great town to live in and raise a family, because of the  life style it offers and its plentiful and exciting after work and weekend recreational opportunities literally in front of one’s door,  its closeness to either Whistler or Vancouver, but without having their unaffordable home prices or the daily commuter gridlock faced by those accessing  the big city from the Fraser Valley.

And adding to our assets are Quest University, the vibrant art scene,  an engaged citizenry , volunteerism galore and much more. Rather than focussing on the narrow bandwidth of tourism, our brand should broaden its appeal.

We know the perils of having been a ‘one industry’ town, why do we want to put all our eggs into one basket again with tourism and, if Whistler is any guide, at a far less favourable distribution of revenues thus generated  among the work force as a whole?

There is a natural tendency in all promotion to seek the catchy  ‘buzzword’  that sums it up and says it all, but to those who aim too high,  remember a quote from  Napoleon after his epic career had ended as a prisoner on St. Helena:  “From the sublime to the ridiculous is just a small step”.  Why not avoid the meaningless hyperbole, whether it be the generic  ‘epic’, ‘capital’ or ‘adventure’ and instead make  an unassailable statement about our location in the Sea to Sky Corridor, the fact that we are literally  in the heart of ‘Sea to Sky Country’? Do you know that the Squamish Chamber of Commerce  owns the term ‘Sea to Sky Country’? Its predecessor, the ‘Squamish & Howe Sound District Chamber of Commerce’  had  advertised  the term ‘Sea to Sky Country’, complete with a logo, as a trade mark in 1985 though the Canadian Intellectual Property Office in Ottawa. 

Since  ‘Sea to Sky’ is widely used, why not capitalize on that? It is full of possibilities, not the least by creating an association with our two tourist juggernauts to the north and south and profiting from that vicinity. Let’s turn this into our advantage:  To encourage more  tourist visitations from there to be sure, but even more so to attract businesses, especially  of the rec-tech sort, wanting to set up shop among the outdoorsy ruggedness that makes Squamish, but also be close to a major metropolitan area, and last but not least -, to attract new residents with their energy and skills to eventually generate the critical mass for business growth and well paying jobs here to make commuting elsewhere an option rather than a necessity.

Mr Brooks is right when he says that our location and  the diversity of our surroundings are unique. Realtors would shout ‘Location! Location! Location! – We should brand and advertise Squamish accordingly.