Let's not dismiss Image Gap study

04-27-2003

Two weeks ago, when the Image Gap Committee revealed results of its yearlong effort to define and quantify those elusive qualities that make the 13-county region of southwestern Pennsylvania "someplace special," the reviews were not good, to say the least.

"Brand Balderdash," read the headline in a PG editorial last Sunday. My colleague Brian O'Neill scoffed at the report's themes and marketing points in his column under the headline "The city that almost never squeaks." Similar sentiments were expressed in a collection of readers' letters published on Tuesday. "A monumental waste," began one. "None of what makes Pittsburgh unique," read another.

Although I'm not dismissing these opinions, since I took part peripherally in the Image Gap Committee's efforts, I respectfully submit that in their rush to judgment these folks failed to consider the bigger picture.

This project grew out of a widely shared observation that significant disparities exist between the prevailing perceptions people elsewhere have of this area (smoky steel city and industrial rust belt) and its current realities.

People who live here may realize that the area has changed dramatically in recent decades and has many positive attributes, but many outsiders don't. These disparities in perception hamper efforts to attract new residents, employers and tourists. Thus, there's an image gap.

The committee's original idea was to try to figure out what these misperceptions actually are, to understand what sorts of civic amenities and attributes new residents, employers and tourists typically consider desirable, and then to find some way to address the disparities proactively.

That may sound simple, but the execution proved both difficult and complicated, especially with limited financial resources here and the range of opinions out there.

Early on, the decision was made that the only way the process could work was to make it broadly inclusive rather than narrowly exclusive.

The traditional information-gathering tools of market research, such as surveys and focus groups, could be of use, but the available funding precluded gathering samples from numbers significantly large to be statistically valid.

And even if that data could be gathered, there was no money to develop or carry out a multifocused, broad-based marketing campaign.

But what if many of the myriad regional organizations already conducting outreach efforts to their particular audiences could agree to work in some coordinated way to deliver consistent, substantiated messages that would complement each other? Can you say synergy?

So the strategy became to get as many interested participants as possible across the region to be invested in the effort and to work cooperatively toward common objectives. The idea was to develop a set of objective marketing assumptions, approaches and elements that could be mixed and matched, adapted as necessary to the specific needs of the various entities. The goal was to get them working together, if not all on the same page, then at least out of the same play book.

A secondary aim was to spur public awareness and comment about the Image Gap issue along with the need to address it.

Marketing professionals were hired to do much of the work, with the input and direction of an expanding committee of communications people from a range of organizations with an interest in improving the image of the 13-county area.

After dozens of internal meetings and community outreach efforts, the committee presented what it labeled the region's five "brand strengths." They are: world-class urban setting --small town feel; a genuine opportunity to make an impact; heritage and current home of innovation and transformations; pride in working, making and creating; and rivers, mountains and outdoor adventures surrounding unique urban beauty.

These are not the pithy, catchy advertising slogans many people have been clamoring for. But then, that was never an objective of the Image Gap Committee, for the simple reason that no single set of words could either capture the region's essence or satisfy the disparate needs of the various entities.

The above-mentioned criticisms of the results generally focused on the lack of uniqueness in the recommendations and dearth of "poetry" in the words. No one is arguing about the aptness of the regional strengths, only that they are statements that many areas could make.

Fair enough. But no other area actually has made these statements. The process that produced and substantiated these brand strengths is unique, as far as we have been able to ascertain, as has been the attempt to get such a wide range of organizations involved.

Also unique is the development of the online "tool kit," www.brandpittsburghregion.info, to enable these different organizations to share these common ideas, elements and images to develop marketing campaigns both to serve their own needs and present a well-grounded, coordinated commonality. Check it out for yourself.

This is only the beginning of what must be a long-term effort, but I think it's an important beginning, one that can be built upon, augmented and adapted over coming years.

Dismissing the inclusivity of the process or the results it produced out of hand is a mistake, one that will only make it more difficult in the future to garner the resources or generate the energy necessary to shrink a very real Image Gap. Instead of dithering and quibbling, let's explore the next steps.

[Back to Articles Main]