Comments on: Selling Lithuania smartly http://www.jeremyhildreth.com/2009/03/selling-lithuania-smartly/#utm_source=feed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=feed The world's most curious man contemplates writing, branding and travelling with an insane degree of nuance. Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:47:20 +0000 hourly 1 By: Oliver Loode http://www.jeremyhildreth.com/2009/03/selling-lithuania-smartly/comment-page-1/#comment-125 Oliver Loode Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:27:04 +0000 http://www.jeremyhildreth.com/?p=85#comment-125 The nice thing about this report is that it actually says something. This is no small achievement in the cliche-laden world of place/destination branding where trying to please all stakeholders is often viewed as more important than saying something unique, fresh and truly inspiring. And saying it in a language which positively reinforces the underlying ideas. Jeremy’s report on branding Lithuania rises above the fray for these reasons and more. Firstly, the underlying twin themes of positioning Lithuania as ‘lively and romantic’ and ‘thoughtful and reliable’ have both the necessary strategic focus (ie, providing direction) and level of abstraction which makes them usable in variety of situations. Importantly, the themes are supported by substance - whether it be Lithuania’s glorious past, bohemian cafes in Old Town of Vilnius or the good quality of Lithuania’s road infrastructure. Secondly, the report makes a rather bold suggestion that Lithuania should position itself less as a Baltic country. Instead, an interesting notion of ‘Northeastern Europe’ is offered - with Lithuania as its logical economic and cultural center of gravity. Thirdly, the report is an enjoyable read for a Saturday late morning, both thanks to the eloquent and inspirational language as well as the supporting visuals. If I were Lithuanian, I would feel better about my country after reading the report. I would also have a much better idea of how to talk about it abroad, whether to potential investors, tourists or simply to the millions of people out there who have no idea where Lithuania is and what it is about. Which is why it might be a good idea for Lithuanian Development Agency to distribute the report to as broad group of public officials as possible as a sort of branding armour to be used in a coordinated, cohesive way while talking about and promoting Lithuania abroad. But as an Estonian, of course I will not make such a suggestion - as my country might not be able to keep up with the better-equipped Lithuania this way :). Last but not least, the report is right to state that Lithuania is a ‘real’ country – with a history, society and identity supporting it (p.82). But it is absolutely not true – or helpful – to say that Lithuania is the only ‘real’ country in the Baltics. My belief is that one doesn’t brand one country at the expense of another, including by saying that one country is more ‘real’ than those of its neighbours. We are all real people living in very real and beautifully diverse countries. Which for Lithuania the report managed to get across really well. Good work! The nice thing about this report is that it actually says something. This is no small achievement in the cliche-laden world of place/destination branding where trying to please all stakeholders is often viewed as more important than saying something unique, fresh and truly inspiring. And saying it in a language which positively reinforces the underlying ideas.

Jeremy’s report on branding Lithuania rises above the fray for these reasons and more. Firstly, the underlying twin themes of positioning Lithuania as ‘lively and romantic’ and ‘thoughtful and reliable’ have both the necessary strategic focus (ie, providing direction) and level of abstraction which makes them usable in variety of situations. Importantly, the themes are supported by substance – whether it be Lithuania’s glorious past, bohemian cafes in Old Town of Vilnius or the good quality of Lithuania’s road infrastructure. Secondly, the report makes a rather bold suggestion that Lithuania should position itself less as a Baltic country. Instead, an interesting notion of ‘Northeastern Europe’ is offered – with Lithuania as its logical economic and cultural center of gravity. Thirdly, the report is an enjoyable read for a Saturday late morning, both thanks to the eloquent and inspirational language as well as the supporting visuals.

If I were Lithuanian, I would feel better about my country after reading the report. I would also have a much better idea of how to talk about it abroad, whether to potential investors, tourists or simply to the millions of people out there who have no idea where Lithuania is and what it is about. Which is why it might be a good idea for Lithuanian Development Agency to distribute the report to as broad group of public officials as possible as a sort of branding armour to be used in a coordinated, cohesive way while talking about and promoting Lithuania abroad. But as an Estonian, of course I will not make such a suggestion – as my country might not be able to keep up with the better-equipped Lithuania this way :) .

Last but not least, the report is right to state that Lithuania is a ‘real’ country – with a history, society and identity supporting it (p.82). But it is absolutely not true – or helpful – to say that Lithuania is the only ‘real’ country in the Baltics. My belief is that one doesn’t brand one country at the expense of another, including by saying that one country is more ‘real’ than those of its neighbours. We are all real people living in very real and beautifully diverse countries. Which for Lithuania the report managed to get across really well. Good work!

]]>