I’ve never been to Australia, so take everything I’m about to say in this post for what it’s worth. I also don’t know much about Sydney and Melbourne, other than the fact that I’ve studied the latter’s laneways and the tremendous impact they’ve had on revitalizing the CBD.
However, recently I’ve had a few close friends visit these cities for the first time and, since then, I have started noticing a trend. All of them come back and tell me the same thing, that they prefer Melbourne to Sydney. They say: “Yeah, Sydney is nice and beautiful and all, but it’s not all that exciting. Melbourne feels way more dynamic. Oh, and have you seen their laneways? You would love them.” That’s what they tell me.
So that’s what I have in my head when I read that Melbourne is now the fastest growing city in Australia; that it’s one of the most liveable cities in the world; and that by as early as 2031 it could take Sydney’s place as the biggest city in the country. Below is a chart from The Australian. If you can’t see it, click here.
#Melbourne could be bigger than #Sydney as early as 2031. What pulls population towards Melbourne? Cheaper housing!? https://t.co/rUg9rlXMP1 pic.twitter.com/iDFeJ737SB
— Simon Kuestenmacher (@simongerman600) May 26, 2017
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Some argue that this is happening because housing is cheaper in Melbourne (median dwelling price of ~$700,000 versus ~$1 million). And some argue it’s because the jobs are there and the city has become a cultural and sporting destination. Whatever the case may be, net migration is estimated to be somewhere around 100,000 people per year.
My own view – and I’ve made this argument before on the blog – is that we shouldn’t underestimate the importance of cool shit when it comes to cities. People vote with their feet more than ever today. And for a growing segment of the population, cities are a consumer good.
Indeed, in 2001, Edward Glaeser, Jed Kolko, and Albert Saiz penned a research paper called the Consumer city, where they argued precisely that. The premise was that historically we have tended to think of cities as being centers of production, but we should also be thinking about them as places of consumption.
Here’s an excerpt:
“But we believe that too little attention has been paid to the role of cities as centers of consumption. In the next century, as human beings continue to get richer, quality of life will become increasingly critical in determining the attractiveness of particular areas. After all, choosing a pleasant place to live is among the most natural ways to spend one’s money.”
This is why those coffee shops and cool laneways matter. Some cities have unfair natural advantages. Los Angeles has weather. Vancouver has mountains. Montreal has poutine. But for the rest of us, the amenities typically form part of the built environment. They are a product of our choices.
I don’t always agree with economist Edward Glaeser, but I really enjoyed the talk that he gave at the Vancouver Urban Forum back in 2012 (at least part 2 of it). I came across it on Twitter today and, since it only has about 300 views, I figured that some of you also haven’t seen it.
The argument he makes is that knowledge and education are the bedrock of cities. And since we continue to cluster in cities, despite all of our technological advances, knowledge is clearly more important than space. One of the ways he defines cities is by their lack of space and the closeness of the people.
Of course, this isn’t anything new. If you’ve read his book Triumph of the City, you’ve heard all of this before. But that didn’t stop me from enjoying his talk. It’s a great overview of declining transportation costs, locational advantages, agglomeration economies, the importance of urban density, the impact of small and large firms in a city, and so on.
I also really liked this idea that knowledge is worth more than space. So if you have 20 minutes and you want to get geared up about cities, have a watch.
Click here if you can’t see the video below.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg7aITkTNe8?rel=0&w=560&h=315]
Those of you who know me or are regular readers of this blog, will know that I’m an avid social media user.
My favorites – judging by battery consumption on my phone – are Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat (donnelly_b). I think it’s incredible what these platforms are doing to branding, marketing, personal connectivity, city building, and the list goes on.
To that end, the March issue of Harvard Business Review has an interesting article by Douglas Holt called, Branding in the Age of Social Media. Whether you’re running a company, a city, or a real estate development project, I think you’ll find the information relevant.
The article starts by describing a shift, brought about by social, whereby big brands are now struggling to capture the attention of consumers. Instead, consumers are listening to individuals and more grassroots movements.
“Or consider Red Bull, the most lauded branded-content success story. It has become a new-media hub producing extreme – and alternative – sports content. While Red Bull spends much of its $2 billion annual marketing budget on branded content, its YouTube channel (rank #184, 4.9 million subscribers) is lapped by dozens of crowdculture start-ups with production budgets under $100,000. Indeed, Dude Perfect (#81, 8 million subscribers), the brainchild of five college jocks from Texas who make videos of trick shots and goofy improvised athletic feats, does far better.”
So what should brands be doing? Holt argues that they need to tap into these developing subcultures and emergent ideologies:
“These three brands broke through in social media because they used cultural branding—a strategy that works differently from the conventional branded-content model. Each engaged a cultural discourse about gender and sexuality in wide circulation in social media—a crowdculture—which espoused a distinctive ideology. Each acted as a proselytizer, promoting this ideology to a mass audience. Such opportunities come into view only if we use the prism of cultural branding—doing research to identify ideologies that are relevant to the category and gaining traction in crowdcultures. Companies that rely on traditional segmentation models and trend reports will always have trouble identifying those opportunities.”
For me, this ties into one of my favorite lines from Simon Sinek: “People don’t buy what you do, they buy why you do it.” And now, thanks to social, it has become a lot easier to figure out what people and communities care about. It has become easier to figure out your why.
Do you see this as being relevant to your work? I am certainly thinking about it in the context of mine.
I’ve never been to Australia, so take everything I’m about to say in this post for what it’s worth. I also don’t know much about Sydney and Melbourne, other than the fact that I’ve studied the latter’s laneways and the tremendous impact they’ve had on revitalizing the CBD.
However, recently I’ve had a few close friends visit these cities for the first time and, since then, I have started noticing a trend. All of them come back and tell me the same thing, that they prefer Melbourne to Sydney. They say: “Yeah, Sydney is nice and beautiful and all, but it’s not all that exciting. Melbourne feels way more dynamic. Oh, and have you seen their laneways? You would love them.” That’s what they tell me.
So that’s what I have in my head when I read that Melbourne is now the fastest growing city in Australia; that it’s one of the most liveable cities in the world; and that by as early as 2031 it could take Sydney’s place as the biggest city in the country. Below is a chart from The Australian. If you can’t see it, click here.
#Melbourne could be bigger than #Sydney as early as 2031. What pulls population towards Melbourne? Cheaper housing!? https://t.co/rUg9rlXMP1 pic.twitter.com/iDFeJ737SB
— Simon Kuestenmacher (@simongerman600) May 26, 2017
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Some argue that this is happening because housing is cheaper in Melbourne (median dwelling price of ~$700,000 versus ~$1 million). And some argue it’s because the jobs are there and the city has become a cultural and sporting destination. Whatever the case may be, net migration is estimated to be somewhere around 100,000 people per year.
My own view – and I’ve made this argument before on the blog – is that we shouldn’t underestimate the importance of cool shit when it comes to cities. People vote with their feet more than ever today. And for a growing segment of the population, cities are a consumer good.
Indeed, in 2001, Edward Glaeser, Jed Kolko, and Albert Saiz penned a research paper called the Consumer city, where they argued precisely that. The premise was that historically we have tended to think of cities as being centers of production, but we should also be thinking about them as places of consumption.
Here’s an excerpt:
“But we believe that too little attention has been paid to the role of cities as centers of consumption. In the next century, as human beings continue to get richer, quality of life will become increasingly critical in determining the attractiveness of particular areas. After all, choosing a pleasant place to live is among the most natural ways to spend one’s money.”
This is why those coffee shops and cool laneways matter. Some cities have unfair natural advantages. Los Angeles has weather. Vancouver has mountains. Montreal has poutine. But for the rest of us, the amenities typically form part of the built environment. They are a product of our choices.
I don’t always agree with economist Edward Glaeser, but I really enjoyed the talk that he gave at the Vancouver Urban Forum back in 2012 (at least part 2 of it). I came across it on Twitter today and, since it only has about 300 views, I figured that some of you also haven’t seen it.
The argument he makes is that knowledge and education are the bedrock of cities. And since we continue to cluster in cities, despite all of our technological advances, knowledge is clearly more important than space. One of the ways he defines cities is by their lack of space and the closeness of the people.
Of course, this isn’t anything new. If you’ve read his book Triumph of the City, you’ve heard all of this before. But that didn’t stop me from enjoying his talk. It’s a great overview of declining transportation costs, locational advantages, agglomeration economies, the importance of urban density, the impact of small and large firms in a city, and so on.
I also really liked this idea that knowledge is worth more than space. So if you have 20 minutes and you want to get geared up about cities, have a watch.
Click here if you can’t see the video below.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg7aITkTNe8?rel=0&w=560&h=315]
Those of you who know me or are regular readers of this blog, will know that I’m an avid social media user.
My favorites – judging by battery consumption on my phone – are Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat (donnelly_b). I think it’s incredible what these platforms are doing to branding, marketing, personal connectivity, city building, and the list goes on.
To that end, the March issue of Harvard Business Review has an interesting article by Douglas Holt called, Branding in the Age of Social Media. Whether you’re running a company, a city, or a real estate development project, I think you’ll find the information relevant.
The article starts by describing a shift, brought about by social, whereby big brands are now struggling to capture the attention of consumers. Instead, consumers are listening to individuals and more grassroots movements.
“Or consider Red Bull, the most lauded branded-content success story. It has become a new-media hub producing extreme – and alternative – sports content. While Red Bull spends much of its $2 billion annual marketing budget on branded content, its YouTube channel (rank #184, 4.9 million subscribers) is lapped by dozens of crowdculture start-ups with production budgets under $100,000. Indeed, Dude Perfect (#81, 8 million subscribers), the brainchild of five college jocks from Texas who make videos of trick shots and goofy improvised athletic feats, does far better.”
So what should brands be doing? Holt argues that they need to tap into these developing subcultures and emergent ideologies:
“These three brands broke through in social media because they used cultural branding—a strategy that works differently from the conventional branded-content model. Each engaged a cultural discourse about gender and sexuality in wide circulation in social media—a crowdculture—which espoused a distinctive ideology. Each acted as a proselytizer, promoting this ideology to a mass audience. Such opportunities come into view only if we use the prism of cultural branding—doing research to identify ideologies that are relevant to the category and gaining traction in crowdcultures. Companies that rely on traditional segmentation models and trend reports will always have trouble identifying those opportunities.”
For me, this ties into one of my favorite lines from Simon Sinek: “People don’t buy what you do, they buy why you do it.” And now, thanks to social, it has become a lot easier to figure out what people and communities care about. It has become easier to figure out your why.
Do you see this as being relevant to your work? I am certainly thinking about it in the context of mine.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog