Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
TERRITORIAL MARKETING STRATEGY FOR
LATVIAN MUNICIPALITIES
The case of Mārupe municipality
December 17th, 2013
2
Contents
1. The case of Mārupe municipality ................................................................................................. 3
1.1. Key facts and the character of Mārupe ........................................................................................... 4
2. Analytical process ....................................................................................................................... 5
2.1. Mārupe municipality’s territorial values ......................................................................................... 5
2.2. The target markets .......................................................................................................................... 7
2.3. Mārupe municipality’s strategic aims and objectives ..................................................................... 8
2.4. Audit of the existing communication channels ............................................................................. 10
2.4.1. Municipality’s website (www.marupe.lv) ................................................................................. 10
2.4.2. Social networks ......................................................................................................................... 10
2.4.3. Wikipedia................................................................................................................................... 11
2.4.4. Local newspaper (‘Mārupes Vēstis’) ......................................................................................... 12
2.4.5. Municipality’s border signs ....................................................................................................... 12
2.5. Suggested new communication channels ..................................................................................... 13
2.5.1. Cooperation with related agencies and parties ........................................................................ 13
2.5.2. Representation in business trips, conferences, and exhibitions ............................................... 13
2.5.3. Cultural and business events .................................................................................................... 14
2.5.4. Letters / correspondence / e-mail design ................................................................................. 14
2.6. Result measurement and assessment ........................................................................................... 15
3.1. Mārupe municipality marketing strategy, 2014 – 2018 ................................................................ 16
3.2. Mārupe municipality’s marketing strategy implementation plan................................................. 17
4. Recommendations for the use of the territorial marketing system, related risks and threats ...... 22
Appendix 2. Agenda of the focus group on 26 November 2013............................................................. 25
Appendix 3. Inputs (problematic questions) proposed by Civitta Latvia for the focus group meeting .. 26
3
1. The case of Mārupe municipality
In the following sections, the proposed territorial marketing strategy structure is applied to the particular case of Mārupe municipality1. This document is intended for the use of the broad category of people interested in raising the municipality’s well-being – the municipality’s policy planners and individuals or teams directly responsible for development.
This project was developed in close cooperation with the working group composed of representatives of the client, State Regional Development Agency (Ģirts Pūle and Ronalds Štrauhs), Mārupe municipal council (Līga Kadiģe, Ilze Krēmere and Normunds Čiževskis), as well as Civitta Group consultants (Dmitrijs Ļaško, Emīls Rode and Dmitrij Sosunov). Civitta consultants would like to express their gratitude for the valuable guidance and inputs received from other working group members.
The insights on Mārupe are based on the municipality’s strategic development plans (spanning the periods from 2012 to 2019, and from 2012 to 2026), the analysis of the existing communication channels, as well as interviews conducted with the municipality’s planners and business people, three governmental agencies (State Regional Development Agency, Riga Planning Region and Latvian Investment and Development Agency) and the authors’ expertise. A lot of insights were gained from the international experience of the Civitta Group, especially that in Lithuania, and in particular with the assistance of an expert in territorial marketing, Dmitrij Sosunov.
In addition to that, many insights were generated at a focus group meeting organised with representatives of various related stakeholders. The meeting was held on November 26, 2013, at Mārupe municipality Council, and involved 18 participants, among them 14 representatives of the Mārupe municipality - including employees of the Council and business people, as well as representatives of the State Regional Development Agency (VRAA) and Civitta Latvia. The list of participants and the focus group agenda can be found in Appendices 3 and 4, respectively.
Based on the collected and analysed information, the proposed territorial marketing plan for Mārupe, presented in the following parts of this document, was developed.
1 Although ‘Mārupe’ is one of the municipality’s five constituent villages, in this document the names ‘Mārupe’ and
‘Mārupe municipality’ are used interchangeably, unless specified otherwise.
4
1.1. Key facts and the character of Mārupe
The Mārupe municipality is located in the central part of Latvia, immediately to the south-west of Riga, and, in addition to Riga, it borders Babīte and Olaine municipalities. It has been a territorial unit since 1 July 2009, as a result of the administrative territorial reform of Latvia. Before that, it was part of the larger Riga District. Today, the municipality is composed of five villages – Mārupe, Jaunmārupe, Tīraine, Skulte, and Vētras.
The municipality spans the area of 10,391 ha (103.91 km2), and is one of Latvia’s smallest municipalities in terms of area. Nevertheless, thanks to its close location to the capital city, and a high number of private houses, the municipality’s population has been growing rapidly, and reached 16,599 people on 01 January 2013 (Source: Administration of Citizenship and Migration Affairs / Pilsonības un migrācijas lietu pārvalde). The unemployment rate (as of 31 October 2013) is 3.1%, which is significantly below the national average of 7% (Source: Central Statistics Bureau of Latvia).
These facts combined make the Mārupe municipality one of the youngest, most employed and highest-income communities in Latvia. It is also among leaders in terms of tax income per capita, population growth and investment attraction.
The region is a convenient transportation hub. As the home of the Riga International Airport, the leading airport in the Baltic States, the municipality hosts a number of companies related to air transportation, such as the Latvian national airline airBaltic and national postal service Latvijas Pasts. Mārupe hosts the headquarters of many well-known Latvian companies (such as the logistics and transport company Kreiss), which take advantage of the convenient location.
Furthermore, among many Mārupe is home of the Draugiem Group, one of the largest Latvian IT groups and the developer of the popular social network draugiem.lv, and the ALSO Actebis Group, one of the leading European software distribution companies. The same goes for JZ Microphones, the Latvian company that produces the high-end professional microphones, and the Alfor Group, the leading gambling business group in Latvia. Another well-known, but quite different, Mārupe company is ‘Sabiedrība Mārupe’, an agricultural producer, whose vegetables can be found in supermarkets throughout Latvia and beyond. The fact that Mārupe is the location of important Latvian companies’ headquarters is of itself one of the strongest arguments in favour of choosing Mārupe municipality as a business location.
The Mārupe
municipality
Riga
5
2. Analytical process
2.1. Mārupe municipality’s territorial values
The following table summarizes the SWOT analysis for Mārupe municipality, based on the municipality’s strategic plans, focus group results, and the authors’ own judgement. It presents a number of strengths and weaknesses the municipality has now, and a number opportunities and threats it might face in the near future. This analysis should be considered a starting point of the process of determining the municipality’s territorial values and developing a territorial marketing strategy.
Strengths
Location close to the city of Riga.
Location close to the Riga International Airport (RIX).
Advantageous demographic profile: economically active population and low unemployment rate.
Stable population growth, which implies an increasing tax base.
Location of corporate HQs of many major Latvian companies.
Mārupe has a safe environment for living.
The municipality has a good relationship with the local business people’s society (‘Mārupes uzņēmēji’).
Good contact with LIAA.
Mārupe’s reputation as tomato & cucumber capital of Latvia, which promotes the municipality’s name and ensures recognition.
Weaknesses
The municipality owns little land and therefore can offer little to developers.
The capacity of schools and kindergartens is insufficient (municipality is planning investment in additional facilities).
Lack of shared public space and distinct landmarks makes Mārupe ‘invisible’.
Riga is a much stronger territorial brand, and Mārupe’s brand is in its “shadow”.
Mārupe is considered “a bedroom of Riga”, and therefore lacks a genuine community, which may cause residents to leave.
Presence of companies that pollute the environment and damage the road.
Lack of tourist attractions and infrastructure, which results in low added value from tourism.
Shortage of electrical capacity (currently in the process of being expanded).
Opportunities
Collaborate in territorial marketing with the private sector.
Extracting the benefit from neighbouring Riga: positioning Mārupe as the Riga Airport Business District.
Use the good contact with LIAA to attract foreign investors.
To use the recent news of electrical capacity increase in Mārupe to attract real estate developers and investors.
Leverage Mārupe’s reputation in tomatoes and cucumbers: re-interpret it in a communication campaign, in combination with other strengths.
Threats
Residents could be relocating to Riga or other nearby communities with similar conditions.
Potentially - teenagers who have nothing to do in free time, leading to risk of delinquency.
6
The next step is summarizing the results of the SWOT analysis and dividing them into related categories – namely, the values that could be of interest to the existing and potential residents, businesses, and tourists.
The table below summarizes the identified strengths in relation to the needs of the three key target groups: Residents, Businesses and Tourists. It is also informed by interviews with stakeholders, focus group discussion, and authors’ analysis of Mārupe’s strategic documents.
Target market Needs Rating
Residents
Place for living ★★★★☆
Place for work ★★★☆☆
Place to raise and educate kids ★★★★☆
Businesses
Advantageous location ★★★★★
Business environment ★★★☆☆
Educated & competent workforce ★★★★☆
Tourists
Sightseeing objects ☆☆☆☆☆
Unique products & services ☆☆☆☆☆
Events ★☆☆☆☆ Key: ☆☆☆☆☆ – least relevant, ★★★★★ – most relevant.
Source: Civitta analysis
As can be seen from the summary table, current Mārupe offering is most relevant to Residents and Businesses, but not at all to Tourists. The individual values contributing to the identified factors are examined in further detail below.
There are several territorial values that give Mārupe advantage over competing locations, and that should be instrumental in promoting the municipality in the eyes of these potential target markets. For existing and potential residents, these values would be:
A place to live: the municipality presents to residents a clean and prestigious environment that has the feeling of safety, nature, and peacefulness and can serve as a quiet corner for evenings with family. Moreover, it is close to the busy capital – Riga, with all of its entertainment and recreational opportunities.
A place to work: Mārupe already presents a number of potential employers to work for; if these are not enough, Riga and its vast employment opportunities are close by.
A place to raise and educate kids: first of all, the municipality has kindergartens and one of the best schools offerings in the region; the same goes for extracurricular activities, in particular Mārupe Music and Art school; finally, depending on needs and wants, there is a Youth Council, BMX track, and various sports teams.
Therefore, the municipality has a competitive advantage of being a good place for residents, and all of the values mentioned above could be used in satisfying and attracting this target group.
7
The other key group that would need to be satisfied and attracted to the municipality is investors and businesses. Mārupe’s territorial values relevant for this group would be:
Location: proximity to the Riga International Airport and Riga, which facilitate convenient logistics and transportation.
Business environment: on-going work to improve the available infrastructure, willingness of the municipality’s authorities to co-operate with the existing and potential enterprises; also, a cluster of enterprises already successfully operating in the area.
People: highly competent and educated workforce, with a potential of further improvement.
Speaking of tourists, it was concluded that Mārupe is not a natural tourism destination, as people rather choose Riga or Jūrmala with their rich and varied offering. There is a lack of tourist infrastructure (objects of interest, accommodation, catering) in Mārupe, and, in this case, tourism would have a low added value. Therefore, no special emphasis is put on Mārupe as tourist destination.
The above analysis of territorial values leads us to formulate the key territorial value of the Mārupe municipality: Mārupe is a place where high-quality business co-exists in harmony with a safe environment for living.
2.2. The target markets
It has been previously determined that Mārupe municipality would be of interest to two groups – current and new residents, and existing and new businesses.
We propose to focus the municipality’s marketing efforts on attracting new investors and businesses to Mārupe. The fact that many major businesses already are located in Mārupe indicates that they are reasonably satisfied with its territorial values. However, some of the businesses currently located in Mārupe are not compatible with its territorial values which are important for residents: namely, those are the businesses that are using Mārupe’s main road for cargo transportation. From interviews and the focus group discussion, we have concluded that there is a need to alter the existing mix of businesses in Mārupe by attracting ‘clean’, high value-added businesses.
While we do emphasise the attraction of new investors and businesses, it does not diminish the need to satisfy the existing ones. Many activities aimed at attracting new businesses also serve to confirm to the businesses already operating in Mārupe that they have made a good choice to locate here, and that the municipality is actively working to further improve its business environment.
Given the current situation that the number of residents is increasing without any marketing effort, the primary target market for Mārupe municipality should be new investors and businesses, which would contribute to further developing the business infrastructure and offer new working places. Special emphasis is to be put on companies in high value-added sectors, such as IT.
Also, the territory should be actively promoted to real estate developers as a good place for building new office space. When offices are built, they would serve as a readily available space for companies to move to. Since these are external reference groups, special attention should be paid to the communication channels used.
8
As a secondary target group, we propose to focus marketing efforts on the economically active segment of the existing Mārupe population, an internal reference group. In our opinion, this group most benefits from Mārupe’s identified territorial values. It also has influence on the primary target group – business and investors, in that it constitutes part of the ‘Educated and competent workforce’ that businesses are looking for. (The other part of the workforce is made up of employees commuting to Mārupe from other municipalities).
More effort should be paid to retaining the existing residents rather than attracting new residents. First, this is because new residents are moving to Mārupe anyway. Second, the existing infrastructure is barely keeping pace with the current population growth; therefore, actively encouraging relocations to Mārupe could be precarious.
We therefore propose to focus on two target groups:
Primary target group Secondary target group
Potential investors: Existing companies in high-value added sectors, particularly IT. Current economically active Mārupe residents.
Real estate developers.
2.3. Mārupe municipality’s strategic aims and objectives
Mārupe municipality’s Development Programme for the years 2013 – 2019 gives a long-term vision of Mārupe as an “excellent starting position for a favourable flight” 2. This implies both a good location for starting as a young family, as well a good business location for an innovative company. As the municipality’s mission is to serve all its constituents, it has a number of objectives for several groups of residents and for businesses.
We believe that a municipality’s marketing objectives should be more narrowly focused than its overall objectives. This thinking is based on the simple fact that marketing is about selling; therefore marketing resources should be focused on those markets where the expected ‘profits’ are the highest.
In the authors’ opinion, based on the municipality’s strategic planning documents and discussions with its planners and stakeholders, Mārupe’s strategic objective should be to find and maintain the harmony between being a good living environment and a location of choice for business. Mārupe’s situation is unique among Latvia’s municipalities of similar size in that it can actually strive to be both: an attractive place of residence and a location for business.
According to the municipal authorities, Mārupe, on the one hand, aims to be seen as a ‘green thinking’ and ‘healthy’ municipality that is a desired living place for young families with kids. It wants to be seen as Latvia’s ‘most healthy municipality’ that promotes active lifestyle. In order to facilitate this, its development plans include improving the existing street infrastructure, developing recreational places, and building bicycle trails.
Once again, we must note that as Mārupe municipality is located close to Riga, it is difficult for its brand to compete with the undoubtedly stronger brand of the national capital. Moreover, it is currently the case that most people who live in Mārupe work in Riga, making the former essentially a so-called
2 Mārupes novada Attīstības programma 2013. – 2019. gadam, p. 130
9
‘bedroom community’. (At the same time, a major part of people working in Mārupe are commuting in from other municipalities.) However, rather than being a threat, this could turn out to be an advantage of Mārupe if positioned correctly.
In the authors’ opinion, Mārupe municipality together with its residents can develop a sense of community based on the values of safe and peaceful living in a green environment close to Riga, but in a separate and different municipality. Even though the reality of being a ‘bedroom’ may not change quickly, the municipality could and should encourage neighbours to develop bonds with each other and together create the story of Mārupe.
Mārupe wants to attract investments in the business sector and strives to become a hub for high value-added, non-polluting enterprises, such as IT. One of its primary objectives is to develop the business environment and support entrepreneurship. Mārupe employs a specially designated person, an entrepreneurship development consultant, who works on maintaining the communication between the municipal authority and enterprises. There is also ongoing work to eliminate problems such as shortage of electricity capacity and infrastructure difficulties.
However, to make Mārupe attractive for investors, it does not suffice to solve technical problems. As Mārupe is a young and dynamic municipality, it should look to create new territorial values. In our opinion, these can be developed by making Mārupe a place for contemporary architecture, design, and art. Already there are several buildings in Mārupe which are recognised for good architecture (e.g. the office building Baltais Vējš, which received Latvian national prize in architecture in 2005).
While these new values make the municipality noteworthy in the eyes of investors, and serve to attract more quality investment, they also contribute to strengthening a ‘sense of place’ for the residents. Developing such new territorial values will require that Mārupe municipality collaborate closely with architecture, design and art professionals in organising municipal procurements and competitions, as well as promoting private initiatives in these fields.
To sum up, Mārupe’s strategic marketing aims are:
For businesses, investors, and real estate developers (primary target group)
For local residents (secondary target group)
Attracting high value-added companies to be based in the Mārupe municipality; Maintaining and increasing loyalty of the current
economically active residents, to ensure that they stay in Mārupe municipality. Attracting real estate developers to build offices,
industrial and warehouse spaces for the target business sectors.
In the end, these aims come together to result in resident well-being, safety, and a sustainable environment, where one could not only live, but also work and lead an active and healthy lifestyle.
10
2.4. Audit of the existing communication channels
Municipality must use multiple channels to communicate its value to existing and potential customers. It is the case for Mārupe municipality, and as has been proposed previously, we start with an audit and assessment of the existing communication channels to check their quality and whether they communicate the message they are intended to.
2.4.1. Municipality’s website (www.marupe.lv)
The official website, available only in Latvian, provides general information about the municipality, provided services, education, culture, sports, projects, and daily updates on news. There is also an event calendar, which informs users about the upcoming cultural and sports events and exhibitions, and a platform for communication with the municipality’s authorities.
The website also divides the presented information into separate streams for residents, businesses, non-governmental organisations, seniors, the youth, and tourists, and gives links to the municipality’s social network channels at draugiem.lv and Twitter.
Overall, compared with other municipalities’ websites, Mārupe’s appears to be of good quality – properly designed and developed – and providing information relevant to its users. Among the drawbacks is a lack of content in languages other than Latvian, which significantly decreases the opportunities for foreign language speakers to get acquainted with the presented information. Also, it would be useful to have an interactive map for potential investors, listing all the available land plots and information on infrastructure.
Our suggestions would include developing a municipal webpage in English, intended to provide relevant information to other than Latvian-speaking auditoria (only the most important information would be published there), as well as an interactive map of Mārupe municipality – showing the municipality’s resources, land plots, and available infrastructure for greenfield or brownfield projects.
2.4.2. Social networks
Mārupe municipality is officially present on draugiem.lv but missing out on Facebook, although it could be used as another cheap and effective communication channel. What is present there now is just a mere mentioning that such a place exists and that is it.
Speaking of Twitter, Mārupe municipality is one of the 46 (out of the total 110) Latvian municipalities that use Twitter as a communication channel and a way to inform users about current happenings. This
11
number should not come as a surprise since Twitter becomes an increasingly popular channel in communicating with territories’ reference groups.
Full comparative statistics on Twitter usage by Latvian municipalities are shown in Appendix 1 at the end of this paper, while the main findings are provided below:
Mārupe municipality is below the nation average in terms of the ratio of Twitter followers to municipality’s population (4.69% against 5.49% for the general sample, and against 15.90% for the top five municipalities).
There arguably exists a correlation between the number of tweets (which might relate to how long the Twitter channel has been in use) and the number of followers. For Mārupe municipality, the ratio of the number of tweets to the number of followers is equal to 1.42, below the national average of 1.65, and 3.43 for the top five municipalities.
Mārupe municipality is comparatively less active in following other users (following to follower ratio of 0.13 against 0.43 national average and 1.31 for the top five municipalities), which might have an effect on the channel’s follower number.
Our suggestion would be to consider the opportunity of creating and managing the municipality’s Facebook page – which should not appear to be anything drastically different from the draugiem.lv account, but would act as an additional communication channel bringing Mārupe’s name to the world. Also, we would consider creating a municipal ‘business’ Twitter account which would communicate the municipality’s news and events to a business audience.
2.4.3. Wikipedia
Wikipedia is an important communication channel, which is often the first web-resource that individuals use when trying to obtain the information they are interested in. This is especially the case when this information is not available in languages other than Latvian. Nevertheless, for some reason Wikipedia is commonly underrated as a communication channel, not considered as part of a marketing strategy, and therefore lacks information and images that could be of interest to potential customers.
Conducting the audit of communication channels for Mārupe municipality, Wikipedia articles related to the municipality and the village of Mārupe (which is the municipality’s administrative centre) were checked.
Mārupe municipality: in total, the article is available in 11 different languages. At the first look, all of the articles are inadequate in length, differ in their content, and do not seem to be part of an intended effort of providing interesting and relevant information. Articles in Latvian, English, and Russian (languages covering the potential local and foreign visitor segment) were checked in more detail, and are found to provide only short information on the geography and history of the municipality. Statistical data provided is outdated and refers to the year 2010, although statistical data for the year 2013 is officially available from the latest census.
Mārupe: the article is available in four different languages. As is the case with the Mārupe municipality, all of them are short and under-informative; statistical data are outdated.
Our suggestion is to make a directed effort towards improving the quantity and the quality of information about Mārupe municipality on Wikipedia, since it could prove to be a virtually free yet
12
effective information source on its history, interesting places, events, people, etc. The way it could be done ranges from designating a responsible employee at the municipal council to organizing a writing competition in Mārupe’s schools.
2.4.4. Local newspaper (‘Mārupes Vēstis’)
‘Mārupes Vēstis’ is the municipality’s free newspaper, first issued on 15 July 1997. Since 1999, there are 7,000 printed copies issued at least once a month. It informs residents about the authorities’ decisions, newly enforced laws, publicizes the most important news, as well as writes stories about local events and people. The newspaper is freely available in .pdf format, with individual articles also published on the municipality’s website.
From the outside, it looks that the newspaper provides news and information relevant to the residents. The municipality has conducted resident surveys to better understand their opinion on the contents of the newspaper.
Our suggestion would be to keep up with the good work and to continue regular resident surveys in order to see that the presented information is demanded and of interest to the readers.
2.4.5. Municipality’s border signs
Today, there are only the standard white (for the municipality’s constituent villages) and blue (for Mārupe municipality itself) road signs that inform drivers, cyclists or passengers that they have crossed the municipality’s border.
We clearly live in the world where every intended and/or unintended mentioning of a place matters. This is why installing an artistic, noticeable border sign could work well in promoting the image of the municipality. There would be additional publicity generated even while developing the sign and it will make the municipality stand out as a separate and unique territorial unit for a long time to come.
Our suggestion is that Mārupe municipality should invest in creating a distinctive and high-quality border sign, in order to mark its territory for both current residents and businesses, and potential investors. (Even more creative options of marking Mārupe territory come to mind, such as using Mārupe’s water tower – which is already a visible landmark – to display some sort of Mārupe sign.)
13
2.5. Suggested new communication channels
2.5.1. Cooperation with related agencies and parties
The Investment and Development Agency of Latvia (LIAA) co-operates with municipalities when it receives an investment offer from interested foreign investors. Then LIAA, searching for an available location for a project, sends out the description of the required territory/infrastructure to multiple municipalities, who in turn should reply if they have an available land plot or infrastructure. LIAA also works with municipalities when it organizes potential investor visits to municipalities.
Therefore, it is crucial to actively cooperate with the agency in order to maximize investment attraction to the municipality. This requires having perfect knowledge of what the municipality wants and what it can offer, completing the forms provided by LIAA with relevant information, and ensuring timely responses to the agency’s offers. Furthermore, together with LIAA, it is also possible to develop a booklet for investors, proving information about the municipality’s advantages, workforce, operating enterprises and available business locations – as was recently done in case of Liepāja.
Our suggestion would be to keep a pro-active role in communicating and cooperating with LIAA. This is a natural role for the municipality and one that is already performing well.
Another suggestion would be cooperating with real estate brokers, since one of the priority target groups are real estate developers, who would build office spaces for the target business sectors. Since the target group of businesses Mārupe would try to attract are high value-added businesses in sectors such as IT, the focus should be on developing office spaces of high and medium standard (A and B class). Related to this, the development of industrial and service facilities, and warehouses for high value-added industries should be encouraged as well.
It has been proposed during focus group discussion that there should be created an email mailing list of target real estate brokers, who should be informed regularly of real estate development opportunities in Mārupe. However, as most of the land in Mārupe is owned privately rather than by the municipality, this is an activity that would be best performed by private sector players themselves. The municipality, however, could take a coordinating role in this activity.
2.5.2. Representation in business trips, conferences, and exhibitions
In order to increase the Mārupe’s recognition and competitiveness within and outside Latvia, it would be advisable to take part in various relevant business trips, conferences, and exhibitions. The relevance of these events will be defined by their planned themes and target audiences, measured against the necessary investment on the municipality’s part.
The benefits of taking part in such representative events are in building business contacts and distributing information that could be of interest to potential investors.
When the events in question take part outside Latvia, it is advisable for Mārupe to cooperate with other municipalities in developing e.g. common exhibition stands. When participating in events within Latvia, when the costs are lower, the benefits of collaborating with other municipalities should be considered against the need to compete with them for the attention of the same target audiences.
A small but crucial element of taking part in representative events is having a business presentation, as well as brochures, business gifts, business cards, etc., all conforming to the municipality’s brand standard.
14
Our suggestion would be, at minimum, to create Mārupe municipality’s business presentation – something to be shown to business visitors, at exhibitions, during incoming or outgoing delegation visits, and in other business contexts; it can also be made available at the municipality’s webpage.
2.5.3. Cultural and business events
An already existing event of this kind is an annual event organized by the local business community, “Mārupes uzņēmēji”, where the municipality’s business people get to know each other, and get prizes for achievements in business and social activities.
Such events are important not only for business people to develop business contacts, but also for the local community to meet their neighbours and to understand better the character of Mārupe. Even smaller and lower-profile events can contribute to increasing resident knowledge of and loyalty to the municipality: e.g. common bicycle rides, walks, or concerts.
Our suggestion is to further organize and participate in various business networking events – since in order to engage with the audience of investors and developers, the municipality should develop a network of contacts in target sectors, which is done by taking part in various business events, seminars and conferences.
At the same time, the municipality should not neglect local-scale events targeted at the existing Mārupe residents, which serve to strengthen a sense of community. The municipality should support all events which reinforce its image as a safe and family-friendly place of residence – which includes active lifestyle opportunities.
2.5.4. Letters / correspondence / e-mail design
There should a unified, recognisable design used in the municipality’s letters, correspondence, and e-mails, highlighting a high level of professionalism and organization, and improving the visibility of Mārupe’s brand.
We believe it should be based on the existing Mārupe municipality coat of arms. Although there are various examples in Latvia of municipalities developing additional ‘tourism logos’ or even redesigning their symbols completely, in case of Mārupe municipality we do not foresee any added benefit against the expected costs.
Our suggestion is to develop a unified style of the Mārupe Council to be used in official letters and e-mails, based on the existing Mārupe municipality coat of arms.
15
2.6. Result measurement and assessment
Certain quantitative objectives were proposed before, namely those of attracting new businesses and real estate developers (making them the primary target market). Likewise, it was highlighted that it is important to target local residents (making them the secondary target market). Based on these strategic aims and objectives, the following results measurements are proposed:
For businesses, investors, and real estate developers (primary target group)
For local residents (secondary target group)
The number of companies that have relocated to the Mārupe municipality: at minimum 50, creating 1,000 jobs. Increasing levels of resident satisfaction in regular
resident surveys. New office space built: at least 25,000 square meters.
Speaking of the time period, five years should be a good checkpoint for achieving the proposed goals. Furthermore, it corresponds to the broader territorial development plan and therefore can be efficiently integrated into it.
Also, as has been noted previously, it is equally important to assess the used communication channels’ efficiency and ensure they are used at an optimal level. In this particular case, this can be ensured by conducting a regular audit of the existing and newly proposed communication channels, similar to the one done in the previous section, in order to see if they correspond to the previously defined strategic aims and objectives.
Moreover, it is of crucial importance to make a timely step-by-step evaluation of all of the previously made suggestions in order to check their efficiency and recognize the need for adjustment if necessary. This evaluation should follow the structure that was previously proposed in the general guidelines and therefore analyse both the Inputs (the activity that is being done) and Outputs (the impact of the activity).
Therefore, the questions regarding inputs should be:
Was the activity implemented within the deadline and the planned budget?
Was it done to the expected quality standards?
Was it done in line with the best practice?
As of outputs, the analysis should generally ask:
Did the proposed measure help reach the target audience?
Has the target audience responded (measured as the increased amount of investment, number of residents)?
Speaking of these, more detail on the additionally proposed result measurement and assessment steps is provided in the following sections.
16
3.1. Mārupe municipality marketing strategy, 2014 – 2018
The following table summarizes all the information presented previously, according to the five steps of the proposed territorial marketing strategy structure.
Step Description
1 Territory’s values Mārupe is a place where high-quality business co-exists in harmony with a safe environment for living.
2 Target markets Primary 1. Potential investors: existing
companies in high-value added sectors, particularly IT;
2. Real estate developers.
Secondary: 1. Current economically active
Mārupe residents
3 Strategic aims and objectives
1. Relocating companies in high value-added sectors to Mārupe municipality;
2. Attracting real estate developers to build office spaces for high value-added sectors
1. Maintaining and increasing the loyalty of current economically active residents to Mārupe municipality, to ensure that they stay in Mārupe municipality
4 Communication channels
Existing: 1. Municipal website, section ‘For
businessmen’ 2. Active communication and
cooperation with LIAA Additional: 1. Municipal webpage in English 2. Mārupe municipality’s business
presentation 3. Mārupe municipality’s
interactive map 4. Direct email to real estate
brokers promoting Mārupe municipality
5. Participating in business networking events
6. Municipal ‘business’ Twitter account
Existing: 1. Municipal website 2. Municipal newspaper 3. Municipal Twitter account Additional: 1. Municipal Facebook page
Additional (for both target groups): 1. Municipal Wikipedia page in Latvian and English 2. Border sign(s) for Mārupe municipality
17
5 Results measurement and assessment
1. Number of new high value-added companies that have relocated to Mārupe: min. 50, with min. 1,000 jobs;
2. New office space built: min. 25,000 square meters.
1. Resident surveys show increasing levels of resident satisfaction.
3.2. Mārupe municipality’s marketing strategy implementation plan
The following is a preliminary list of proposed activities that would help Mārupe municipality to meet its strategic aims and objectives in territorial marketing. It also tries to name the people responsible for implementing each activity, although it is clear that that the task of designating particular persons to each of these should be the work of the chairman of the council, taking into account the specifics of the available resources and human capital, as well as the degree of agreement with the necessity of the proposed activities.
The same goes for coming up with a budget for each of the activities, and this is the reason why that parameter is not included. While all of the activities are listed in the priority order, according to how well they serve the highlighted strategic objectives, a separate budgeting should be done for each one in order to assess the related costs and benefits. Only then it will also become possible to set project deadlines.
The new activities included in this list should be implemented within maximum 15 months since start of the Activity 1. The results of activities should be measured immediately after their implementation, leading to the necessary adjustments in these and/or related activities.
The 15 months’ mark since start of the Activity 1 should be the first checkpoint for measuring the ‘Inputs’ of all activities. Then for period of another 12 to 15 months the relevant activities should be maintained on a day-to-day basis.
The 30 months’ (2 ½ years) mark should be the second checkpoint for measuring the ‘Outputs’ of all activities. As the mid-point of the 5-year strategy, this would also be a good time to reassess the marketing strategy itself in light of the goals achieved or not achieved, and make necessary adjustments to the strategy.
If at this point the goals have already been achieved, it is time to reset the goals. If the strategy is found to be missing the stated goals by far, it is time to formulate a new strategy.
Activities Responsible person
Measurable results
Potential risks and obstacles
Implementation timeframe
1 Municipal council agrees and approves the marketing strategy as one of Mārupe municipality’s planning documents
Chairman of the municipal council
Strategy approved
Lack of agreement among council members. Inability to focus on one priority leading to the strategy being too vague. Lack of funding for any or all activities.
1 – 3 months
2 Develop an English version of municipal
Public relations specialist, Business
Procurement specification
Inability to procure best
9 – 12 months since
18
website development specialist, outsourced service provider
formulated. Procurement made. English version of the website created and launched. Number of views / search hits.
expertise for the job from outsourced service provider for the lowest price. Lack of expertise to formulate the procurement specification.
completion of Activity 1
3 Develop Mārupe municipality’s business presentation
Public relations specialist, Business development specialist, Mārupe business community (Mārupes uzņēmēji), outsourced service provider
Procurement specification formulated. Procurement made. Presentation created. Number of presentations made and online views. Comments received from target audiences.
Lack of expertise to produce the presentation to high standard. Inability to procure best expertise for the job from outsourced service provider for the lowest price. Lack of expertise to formulate the procurement specification.
1 – 3 months since completion of Activity 1
4 Develop an interactive map of Mārupe municipality
Development specialist, outsourced service provider
Procurement specification formulated. Procurement made. Map developed and launched. Responses from target audiences.
Inability to procure best expertise for the job from outsourced service provider for the lowest price. Lack of expertise to formulate the procurement specification.
9 – 12 months since completion of Activity 1
5 Commission border sign(s) for Mārupe municipality
Public relations specialist, Business development specialist, outsourced service provider
Number of citizens involved in brainstorming and decision making. Procurement specification formulated. Procurement made. Border sign designed and built.
Inability to procure best expertise for the job from outsourced service provider for the lowest price. Lack of expertise to formulate the procurement specification. Lack of interest and
6 – 12 months since completion of Activity 1
19
Responses from residents and visitors. Publicity generated.
involvement from local residents and businesses.
6 Municipal Facebook page
Public relations specialist
Facebook page created and launched. Number of friends or ‘likes’.
Lack of expertise to produce the page to high standard.
1 – 3 months since completion of Activity 1
7 Municipal Wikipedia page
Public relations specialist
Wikipedia page created and launched. Number of views.
Lack of expertise to produce the page to high standard (especially the English version).
1 – 3 months since completion of Activity 1
8 Direct email to real estate brokers promoting Mārupe municipality
Business development specialist
Email created. Mailing list compiled. Number of emails sent. Number of responses from email recipients. Number of resulting business contacts.
Lack of cooperation of private real estate owners. Lack of internal agreement among them. Lack of agreement between municipality and real estate owners.
1 – 2 months since completion of Activity 3
9 Letter / e-mail design Public relations specialist
Letter and e-mail design developed and used.
Lack of expertise to produce the design to high standard.
1 – 2 months since completion of Activity 1
10 Participating in business networking events
Business development specialist
Number of events attended. Number and quality of business contacts generated. Number of follow-up visits at the municipality.
Lack of expertise to identify relevant business events.
0 – 1 months since completion of Activity 3
11 Municipal ‘business’ Twitter account
Business development
Twitter account
Lack of expertise to manage the
0 – 1 months since
20
specialist created. Regular tweets. Number of followers.
account to high standard.
completion of Activity 1
12 Municipal website, section ‘For businessmen’
Public relations specialist, Business development specialist
Website regularly updated with news and events. Number of view / search hits. Responses and comments from target audiences.
Lack of updates. Lack of interesting or relevant content. Loss of viewers.
ongoing
13 Active communication and cooperation with LIAA
Business development specialist
Number of calls, emails and meetings. Number of investors visiting the municipality. Number of resulting business deals.
Lack of interest from LIAA. Lack of contacts. Lack of interested investors. Lack of resulting business deals.
ongoing
14 Municipal website Public relations specialist
Website regularly updated with news and events. Number of view / search hits. Responses and comments from target audiences.
Loss of interest from visitors. Lack of views / search hits.
ongoing
15 Municipal newspaper Public relations specialist
Newspaper regularly published. Number of readers. Feedback from readers.
Loss of interest from readers, resulting in wasted efforts and funds.
ongoing
16 Municipal Twitter Public relations Regular Lack of interesting ongoing
21
account specialist tweets. Number of followers.
content of tweets. Loss of followers.
22
4. Recommendations for the use of the territorial marketing system,
related risks and threats
This section is intended as a short summary to everything presented previously in this document.
This document’s purpose is trying out the proposed territorial marketing strategy structure in practice. Starting with an analysis of Mārupe municipality’s territorial values, it ended up with developing a territorial marketing strategy aimed at capitalizing on these values through the attraction of new investors and businesses, and real estate developers.
For the strategy to work, first of all it needs to have the approval and acceptance of the municipal council. We therefore recommend that our proposal is discussed, debated and amended as seen necessary by the municipality. The proposed analytical steps should guide this process. Only when it is clear to everyone what is to be done and why, should the strategy be approved and implementation started.
It is important to understand that there should be absolutely perfect alignment between the municipality’s strategic aims and objectives, the intended message to the outer world and the involved target markets - and what is actually communicated. It is the municipality’s responsibility to regularly check that its communication channels reach the potential customers, and that the message is received as intended.
While at the end Mārupe municipality is given a number of recommendations that could help it reach its strategic aims and objectives, they are yet to be implemented. This presents several risks, starting from the risk that the proposed measures are never implemented, or that they are, but prove to be less effective than hoped. The best way to deal with this is careful planning the implementation process and not trying to implement everything at once. It is not preferable but mandatory to put priorities and implement changes step-by-step, in order to see which of them work in the particular case and whether any alternatives should be considered to reach the same objective.
Therefore, it is essential to involve as many internal stakeholders as possible to make the territorial marketing strategy come from the very heart of the municipality.
23
Municipality
Population (as of 1/1/2013) Tweets Following Followers
Following / followers
Followers / population Tweets / followers
Ādažu municipality 10,263 23 108 95 1.14 0.93% 0.24
Aizkraukles municipality 9,505 2,334 188 482 0.39 5.07% 4.84
Alsungas municipality 1,602 162 38 154 0.25 9.61% 1.05
Alūksnes municipality 18,501 2,496 555 1058 0.52 5.72% 2.36
Amatas municipality 6,246 832 261 499 0.52 7.99% 1.67
Auces municipality 8,197 437 243 290 0.84 3.54% 1.51
Baldones municipality 5,701 135 49 245 0.20 4.30% 0.55
Balvu municipality 14,972 1,392 - 562 - 3.75% 2.48
Beverīnas municipality 3,516 149 - 117 - 3.33% 1.27
Burtnieku municipality 8,215 589 153 715 0.21 8.70% 0.82
Cēsu municipality 19,155 2,566 207 1596 0.13 8.33% 1.61
Cesvaines municipality 3,033 142 153 359 0.43 11.84% 0.40
Engures municipality 7,870 432 36 311 0.12 3.95% 1.39
Ērgļu municipality 3,399 139 183 306 0.60 9.00% 0.45
Gulbenes municipality 24,311 101 45 265 0.17 1.09% 0.38
Jaunpils municipality 2,698 355 238 575 0.41 21.31% 0.62
Kārsavas municipality 6,630 836 203 306 0.66 4.62% 2.73
Ķeguma municipality 6,171 - 6 20 0.30 0.32% -
Ķekavas municipality 22,412 277 690 472 1.46 2.11% 0.59
Kocēnu municipality 6,820 1,520 262 554 0.47 8.12% 2.74
Kuldīgas municipality 26,530 1,510 259 1217 0.21 4.59% 1.24
Limbažu municipality 18,895 832 10 523 0.02 2.77% 1.59
Lubānas municipality 2,765 69 1 53 0.02 1.92% 1.30
Madonas municipality 26,953 877 37 786 0.05 2.92% 1.12
Mārupes municipality 16,599 1,105 100 778 0.13 4.69% 1.42
Appendix 1. Latvian municipality Twitter usage analysis (as of 3/12/2013)
24
Mazsalacas municipality 3,762 147 363 322 1.13 8.56% 0.46
Mērsraga municipality 1,782 113 121 284 0.43 15.94% 0.40
Naukšēnu municipality 2,158 494 140 351 0.40 16.27% 1.41
Olaines municipality 20,496 - 12 8 1.50 0.04% -
Preiļu municipality 11,239 615 7 211 0.03 1.88% 2.91
Priekuļu municipality 9,057 844 90 420 0.21 4.64% 2.01
Rēzeknes municipality 30,901 534 113 344 0.33 1.11% 1.55
Ropažu municipality 7,142 2,722 632 736 0.86 10.31% 3.70
Rugāju municipality 2,589 326 225 222 1.01 8.57% 1.47
Rundāles municipality 4,157 56 20 39 0.51 0.94% 1.44
Salaspils municipality 23,352 194 43 239 0.18 1.02% 0.81
Saldus municipality 27,772 94 62 407 0.15 1.47% 0.23
Siguldas municipality 18,178 5,197 408 2572 0.16 14.15% 2.02
Skrundas municipality 5,782 969 171 331 0.52 5.72% 2.93
Smiltenes municipality 13,917 878 144 618 0.23 4.44% 1.42
Stopiņu municipality 10,372 650 74 363 0.20 3.50% 1.79
Talsu municipality 33,397 1,579 227 1240 0.18 3.71% 1.27
Vecpiebalgas municipality 4,547 7 5 58 0.09 1.28% 0.12
Ventspils municipality 13,171 300 204 153 1.33 1.16% 1.96
Viesītes municipality 4,375 472 179 216 0.83 4.94% 2.19
Viļānu municipality 6,807 229 15 171 0.09 2.51% 1.34
Sample average 11,650 776.7 158.3 470.5 0.43 5.49% 1.65
TOP-5 average 29,111 3,063.0 529.6 1,537 1.31 15.90% 3.43
25
Appendix 2. Agenda of the focus group on 26 November 2013
The focus group took place on Wednesday, 26 November 2013, from 15.00 till 17.00, at the Mārupe Council.
1. Participants get acquainted with territorial marketing concepts and structure: Territory’s values > Target markets > Strategic aims and objectives > Communication channels > Result measurement and assessment
15 min
2. Participants express opinion about Mārupe’s territorial values: each participant – 1 minute
15 min
3. Participants express opinion about the Mārupe municipality’s target markets: each participant – 1 minute
15 min
4. Participants express opinion about Mārupe‘s strategic aims and objectives: each participant – 1 minute
15 min
5. Participants express opinion about the use of available communication channels: each participant – 1 minute
15 min
6. Participants get divided into two workshop groups 15 min
7. Brainstorming: The two workshop groups each develop a possible Mārupe’s brand and its communication
30 min
8. Each group present to the other one its ideas and results (2 x 5 minutes) 10 min
9. Summary and conclusions 5 min
26
Appendix 3. Inputs (problematic questions) proposed by Civitta Latvia for the focus
group meeting
There are several controversies that the authors have identified regarding Mārupe’s situation:
1) The municipality itself owns very little land in Mārupe – most of it is private. What are the limits of the municipality’s role in promoting and supporting private real estate developers?
2) Population growth is desirable, yet the capacity of schools, kindergartens, and extracurricular activities currently is nearly reached. This might present a threat: too many teenagers with too much time on their hands. How to make sure this problem is solved?
3) It is difficult for Mārupe’s brand to compete with that of Riga, which undoubtedly is much larger and stronger. It is especially the case in the context of the Riga International Airport. Is it possible and desirable to position Mārupe as the ‘Riga Airport Business District’?
4) Even if Mārupe is considered to be a ‘bedroom’ of Riga, maybe it is not such a bad thing. Perhaps there is no need to try to build a community artificially?
5) It is the case that not all investors and businesses are equally desirable. Logistics companies are actually seen as damaging Mārupe’s main road; therefore, the priority is given to attracting ‘less polluting’ industries, such as IT.
6) The real ‘client’ for investment attraction may be not investors themselves but the Investment and Development Agency of Latvia (LIAA). This would involve maintaining good contacts and convincing LIAA that Mārupe is a trustworthy partner to bring investors to.
7) Speaking of tourism, Mārupe currently is not a natural tourism destination. Perhaps the way forward would be to build a bicycle path primarily with the residents in mind, and let whoever wants to use it come. It is also the case that the municipality cannot hope to extract much added value from tourism: most probably, it is limited to a lunch at a café or shopping in a local grocery store, as other tourism offerings (hotels, spas) are missing from Mārupe.
8) Mārupe is already the headquarter location for of a number of major Latvian corporations; however, it is (possibly) best known as Latvia’s tomato and cucumber capital. Could Mārupe’s brand be built by creatively playing with the tomato theme (e.g., growing tomatoes indoors in Mārupe’s office buildings)? There is logic behind it – all things about food are hot topic right now, especially if locally grown. Should we give up on what is already there or re-interpret it instead?
