“” earthspeak ww w. s im o na n h o lt.c om

“” earthspeak
1. Latvia’s Challenge
There is no doubt that Latvia faces a huge reputational challenge today. A modestly enhanced and better-managed version of its current image might generate some additional visits and foreign investment, but it won’t help
Latvia to achieve anything like ‘brand parity’ with its European neighbours to the West and South within the next couple of generations. This parity is what
Latvia must aspire to.
The great democracies of ‘old’ Europe have been building their rich and positive reputations for centuries, while Latvia – as far as the West is concerned – simply didn’t exist until a few years ago. There’s a lot of catching up to be done.
There is a parallel here with the world of commercial brands. Most of the world’s most powerful brands have earned their reputations through decades of successful relationships with consumers; yet there are plenty of entirely new brands that achieve similar or even greater profile in a matter of years.
It’s worth looking at the behaviour of these upstart megabrands – the
Microsofts, the Amazons, the Nikes and the Googles – and see how they have managed to achieve so much profile in so little time.
It’s certainly not because they advertise so much. As I have often said, a megabrand is one that finds itself, by accident or by design, in the path of major social change. Of course, the product itself has to be world-class, but the rest is timing and positioning. When the world discovered fitness, Nike was there as the ultimate fitness brand; when the world discovered personal computing, Microsoft was the biggest name; when the world discovered the internet, Google was there to help them find their way, and Amazon was there to help them shop.
Latvia needs to achieve something equally spectacular if it is to catch up with
Old Europe, sustainably and for the long term. The purpose of the CI strategy is to ensure that Latvia has what people want and need at the moment when people discover what it is they want and need. We must anticipate where major social change is going to take place, and make sure that Latvia is correctly positioned in the path of that change. It goes without saying that the
‘product’ itself must also be able to deliver on that promise; but the strategy should clearly tell us which parts of the product to focus on.
As I noted in my report following Conversazione II, Latvia’s current lack of respect stems principally from the following:
1.
Anonymity: it is a country which people have heard of (probably as a result of independence and EU accession), but about which they appear to know virtually nothing.
2.
Perception of zero heritage/culture: last place in the NBI.
3.
Perception of zero technology.
4.
Perception of zero natural assets/tourism attraction.
In other words, “people I don’t want to know living in a country I don’t want to visit making things I don’t want to buy.” With such a comprehensively poor ww w. s im o na n h o lt.c om

“” earthspeak image, it might seem difficult to know where to start, and which areas to target first.
In fact, the picture is a relatively clear one, and any initiative designed to build a more positive image for Latvia must simply go back to basics. What are the two or three qualities which, above all, are associated in the public mind with any progressive, successful, admirable country in the modern world?
Analysis of those countries with the most powerful and positive reputations, and in particular of those countries which Latvia might sensibly decide to emulate, suggests that the most important image components to try and shift are:
1.
Culture – because this is a proxy for an ‘advanced’ civilisation, with self-respect and learning, and it represents the people and their values to the world.
2.
Technology – because this is a proxy for an advanced economy and an intelligent, well-educated and creative population, fully engaged in the global marketplace for ideas, talent and commerce.
3.
Tourism – because this gets people visiting, brands the land, builds warmth into the brand and creates many advocates – but only if the
4.
product lives up to expectations.
Ecology – because this is a proxy for a responsible, modern player in world affairs, beyond the primitive stage of selfish wealth creation or warmongering.
5.
Internationalism – because successful, modern countries are thoroughly engaged in global society and the community of nations.
6.
Quality – because everything such countries make and do is done and made to world-class standards.
Some would argue that it’s always best to start with the ‘low-hanging fruit’, the path of least resistance. Since the least bad of Latvia’s scores in the NBI are those relating to its domestic and international governance, this is an area where some ‘quick wins’ might indeed be possible: there is some preparedness on the part of the audience (at least in and around Europe) to believe that Latvia has capability and integrity in this area, and therefore has
‘permission to brand’.
Certainly, the governance component of any nation’s image is fundamental to its overall credibility and there is no question that Latvia should work hard on preserving and enhancing Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga’s legacy of international statesmanship, engagement, credibility, integrity and competence. An enhanced public diplomacy function within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs could and should play an important role in assisting this process.
However, whilst it is possible that Latvia’s better governance scores do reflect the increased prominence which Vīķe-Freiberga gave to Latvia in world affairs, a comparative analysis of Latvia’s NBI governance scores alongside those of
Estonia and other ex-Soviet states suggests that much if not most of this
‘spike’ is the standard reputational bonus which EU members – and especially those from the Soviet Bloc – almost automatically acquire upon accession. ww w. s im o na n h o lt.c om

“” earthspeak
It would therefore, in my estimation, be a mistake to assume that good governance represents a unique, easily ownable point of differentiation or fast track strategy for Latvia’s enhanced global credibility. Latvia’s reputation for competent and moral domestic and international governance will prove as necessary to strive for, and as difficult to earn, as for any other country; it is almost certainly not a ‘silver bullet’ that can turn around Latvia’s reputation in the short or medium term. High-profile, internationally respected heads of state and government will, however, always play a key role in the process: it is no accident that most of the countries with exceptionally good governance scores in the NBI are associated with charismatic and visible leaders such as
Mandela, Blair, Thatcher, Clinton, Koizumi, Chávez and Lula da Silva.
The role of branded exports with explicit country of origin is also worth examining, as these can frequently act as highly effective ‘ambassadors’ for a country, and are especially useful in the case of countries with strongly negative political and/or social reputations because they tend to be seen by consumers as politically and (relatively) culturally neutral. Some world-class consumer brands produced in Latvia (and openly branded with that country of origin) would be most welcome, and should be vigorously sustained and championed by government and business, but it is unlikely they would succeed in reversing the negative view of the country as a whole unless there were literally hundreds of them over a very long period (as was the case with
Japan’s or Germany’s post-WWII export strategy). In the shorter term, the most likely consumer response – at least beyond Latvia’s immediate neighbourhood – would be that they were anomalous to the country. (A separate case must be made for export markets in Russia and other ex-Soviet states, where Latvia’s country of origin effect is still strong, and generally positive).
It is my view that our best chance of enhancing Latvia’s international standing in the short to medium term is through a massive and sustained investment – of funding, innovation, creativity, energy, talent, political will and good marketing – into the key areas of culture (a term which embraces elite and popular arts, education and sport), technology (encompassing academia and business, with a particular emphasis on the environment) and tourism (which should cover both leisure and business visits). In developing and promoting these three strands, we should never miss an opportunity to stress the
international dimension and quality of Latvia’s activities in these areas.
There are also specific reputational gains to be made through boosting
Latvia’s reputation for design, which I will discuss in the last section of this report.
There is little that is original or inherently differentiating about such a strategy: it simply represents the basic game of chess that Latvia needs to play against its negative image, pitting the ‘white pieces’ of culture, technology and tourism against the ‘black pieces’ of lack of respect, lack of modernity and lack of warmth and understanding.
Of course, Competitive Identity isn’t a game of chess but a battle for the hearts and minds of millions of people against ignorance, prejudice and indifference, so the approach needs to be more than strategically correct: it ww w. s im o na n h o lt.c om

“” earthspeak also needs to be compelling. This is where the question of identity comes in.
In order to ensure that Latvia’s approach to this challenge is believable, consistent and effective, it must accurately reflect some fundamental truths about the Latvians themselves: it’s only when you know who you are that you can work out where you want to go, and how you are going to get there.
Simply wanting to be more highly regarded is not sufficient – a country needs to have a clear idea of what it is uniquely able to offer in the community of nations, and this must be firmly based on its true identity. ww w. s im o na n h o lt.c om

“” earthspeak
2. What are we going to brand?
The Competitive Identity strategy for Latvia is based on the notion that attempting to brand Latvia is exactly the wrong thing to do.
In my discussions with the members of the different conversazione groups, as well as with other Latvians and commentators on Latvia, it has become clear to me that there is relatively little desire on the part of many Latvians to
‘brand’ their own country, in the commonly accepted sense of making it more famous and prominent on the world stage. They certainly perceive the need and feel the ambition to become a more prosperous and successful country, to ‘count’ in international affairs and to be better known and better respected in the global community: but this is all in conflict with a desire to keep the
land for themselves.
And it isn’t so hard to understand: under oppressive regimes, the longing for the simple blessings of nature, for the peace and freedom to enjoy the motherland, becomes profoundly ingrained in the national psyche: and
Latvians simply haven’t had very long to enjoy this state after centuries of longing for it. Perhaps they aren’t quite ready to share their land with strangers again.
This paradoxical desire to be respected, understood and left alone is not unique to Latvia – I have encountered similar ambiguities in other small, less industrialised countries in the early stages of integration into the ‘community of nations’: Bhutan, Slovenia and the Faroe Islands are three examples which spring to mind. On the face of it, such an attitude appears problematic: how can one promote without engagement, or indeed make money out of something one has no intention of selling?
Looked at another way, however, this protective feeling about the homeland could be seen as rather a good thing:
1.
Because most of Latvia’s land area was never going to be easy to
‘brand’ anyway: neither the climate nor the countryside make it a natural tourist destination, and the lack of infrastructure means that, beyond the immediate Rīga area, Latvia is not highly attractive for many kinds of foreign direct investment.
2.
Because rural Latvia is one of the less industrialised environments in
3.
Europe, there are strong ecological arguments for keeping it pristine.
Because of the complex identity issues surrounding Latvia and the
Latvians, any successful externalisation of the national identity is bound to create tensions between ethnic groups. In order to brand, you have to be sure of who you are, and Latvia regularly stumbles at this first hurdle.
4.
Because, as the Nation Brands Index research indicates, current international perceptions of Latvia are profoundly negative. The gap between current reality and current perceptions – let alone the gap between the country’s desired future reality and current perceptions – is so great that it is hard to imagine how this could be substantially altered except in the very long term. ww w. s im o na n h o lt.c om

“” earthspeak
5.
Because, in the end, Latvians will always appreciate Latvia more than anyone else. As I will argue later on, they also derive an emotional and spiritual benefit from their own land which may be fundamental to their ability to engage and prosper in the global arena, and which thus far outweighs the dubious potential benefits of attempting to “sell” this land to outsiders who have no such connection with it and ultimately may never want to “buy”.
For all these reasons, I conclude that Latvia simply isn’t ‘ready to brand’, and that any attempts to accelerate an improvement in the country’s international reputation would soon encounter the triple barrier of unresolved identity, consumer resistance and poor product performance. In other words, even if we could find enough common purpose within the Latvian population, business and political elite to settle on a truthful, credible, powerful and single-minded strategy, and even if we could use such a strategy to persuade foreigners to “give Latvia a try”, the chances are they would be disappointed with the reality, and this would set back any natural improvements in the country’s reputation by many years.
Branding Rīga, on the other hand, is a very good idea. Cities, as a general principle, are easier to ‘brand’ than countries, for the following reasons:
1.
They are smaller and simpler than countries, making it more of a realistic task to build a single story about them.
2.
They are separated in the public mind from much of the political, social and historical baggage which can make countries more complex and
3.
less appealing.
They are easier to promote as destinations, matching the business and leisure travel patterns of modern consumers better than countries do.
4.
They are generally wealthier than rural areas, providing more focused
5.
economic activity which can be geared to generating an improved image.
They usually have more to offer the foreign visitor / investor / consumer / spectator than rural areas, which are often limited to tourism. Cities can pack commercial, financial, political, cultural, historical and educational offerings into a very condensed package and are thus a far more efficient use of resources for generating foreign revenues.
6.
They are often more visitor-friendly than rural areas, culturally and
7.
linguistically.
Their administrative structures, as well as the existing connections and partnerships between the public and private sectors, are often more flexible and responsive than those at national level.
8.
City administrations are often culturally more similar to commercial organisations than national governments are, and so are more at home with questions of reputation management, coherent behaviour, visionary strategy and effective self-promotion.
Rīga, in particular, has several advantages over Latvia: ww w. s im o na n h o lt.c om

“” earthspeak
1.
It appears to have a much better brand than Latvia, and it is infinitely easier to promote a weakly positive image than a strongly negative one 1 .
2.
It is, by historical and economic right, a place of international consequence.
3.
‘Branding’ Rīga is an eminently achievable mid-term goal.
4.
It has a stronger visual identity than the rest of Latvia: wildflower meadows, birch and evergreen forests and sandy beaches under grey skies could be almost anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere, but Rīga
– once people are familiar with it – can only be Rīga. In other words, it looks like itself, which is a truly valuable asset in place branding.
5.
As the capital city, it is more internationally-minded than the rest of
Latvia. This dilutes – and thus minimises – the ethnic divisions within
Latvian society, and also makes Rīga a natural candidate for positioning as a vibrant, cosmopolitan hub, internationalism being a key component of Latvia’s future competitive identity.
6.
As a prominent city, it is naturally and correctly perceived as being more modern than the rest of the country. Modernity is another of the
7.
aspects of Latvia’s identity which most need to be improved.
Rīga is an important port on the Baltic Sea, facing Scandinavia. Latvia is a country that borders Russia, Belarus, Estonia and Lithuania.
8.
Rīga, easily the region’s major metropolis, provides Latvia with an unchallenged supremacy in its immediate neighbourhood. As the NBI shows, Latvia is consistently positioned beneath Estonia, but it is inconceivable that anybody would position Rīga beneath Tallinn or
Vilnius – both cities which, I guess, are virtually unknown outside the region.
One should play to one’s strengths, and Latvia’s great public strength is unquestionably Rīga. The correct balance, therefore, is to preserve Latvia and promote Rīga.
This strategy is analogous to a conventional product marketing strategy, flagship marketing, which holds that a complex and ill-defined corporation is easiest to promote via its leading product, with which it ultimately becomes synonymous. In Competitive Identity, this approach could be seen as the deliberate cultivation of what I have sometimes called the ‘Prague syndrome’
(where a positive image of the capital city is so successfully projected that it eclipses the image of the nation). The brand called ‘Prague’ is far more valuable than the brand called ‘Czech Republic’, and it is no accident that the ex-Soviet nations usually find it easier to re-introduce themselves to the global marketplace via their top cities: the capitals whose built heritage survived the Soviet era have found this to be their most marketable ‘product’, and city tourism to be the best and quickest way for them to establish a positive image in Europe and beyond. The images and reputations of the countries themselves, whose national identities and ‘nation-brands’ were
1 This factor might extend to the names themselves. This needs further research, but my guess is that to many people beyond Latvia’s immediate neighbourhood, the word
‘Latvia’ suggests an almost comical level of negative exoticism, whereas the word
‘Rīga’ has intrinsic dignity and stature. ‘Latvia’ is associated with the Soviet Union;
‘Rīga’ is associated with the Hanseatic League. ww w. s im o na n h o lt.c om

“” earthspeak deliberately deleted by the Soviet regime, will take many more years to rebuild, notwithstanding EU membership and growing prosperity.
Conventional wisdom sees the growing popularity of Prague and the apparently stalled image of the Czech Republic as problematic, an obstruction to economic trickle-down from capital to countryside. But this, surely, is nothing more than a challenge for economic management; a hinterland without an image is only a problem if the country’s economic strategy depends on promoting tourism or foreign direct investment throughout the countryside. If, on the other hand, Rīga were to be perceived as the tourist, cultural, political, commercial and investment ‘port’ of Latvia, a ‘free trade zone’ which drives the national economy through effective and efficient redistribution policies, allowing the primary consideration for the rest of the country to be environmental protection, then ‘Prague Syndrome’ starts to look like a highly desirable state of affairs.
Clearly, one wouldn’t wish to push this too far, and whilst a situation where rural Latvia is overrun with tourists and foreign-owned factories is as unlikely as it is undesirable, one equally wouldn’t aspire towards a complete separation between the identities of Rīga and Latvia, or complete anonymity for Latvia. If rural Latvia were to find a market as a low-volume, niche, ecotourism destination, that would be no bad thing at all, even though I see it as principally a resource for Latvians. As the image of the Baltics (or, indeed, the Baltic
Sea Region) naturally improves over the years, as it seems likely to do, it will serve Latvia well to be known as the country of which Rīga is the capital, just as it will serve Rīga well to be known as the capital of Latvia. It is also conceivable that the city’s reputation is ultimately limited by a very negative national image behind it, and it would be a shame if none of the gloss of Rīga could rub off onto
Latvia’s secondary cities or its other tourist destinations.
Rīga as the “Fifth Nordic Capital”
However, the real reason why I feel that a
“Rīga-plus-Latvia” strategy makes more sense than a “Rīga-not-Latvia” strategy is because rural Latvia plays such an important role in the self-image and even the psyche of the Latvians. It is a fundamental part of their identity and therefore part of the meaning of Rīga. As I will describe later, there is a lot of mileage in positioning Latvia as the ‘park behind the mansion’ of Rīga, the natural energy source which Rīga plugs into, the gentle counterpart or backdrop for the busier, man-made vibrancy of Rīga, and the proof both of
Rīga’s green credentials and its connectedness to the things that really matter in the modern world.
And there is nothing irreversible in this approach. In 20 years’ time, if the strategy has proved so successful that Rīga is at saturation point and the ww w. s im o na n h o lt.c om

“” earthspeak world demanding more from Latvia, the logical next step would be to pursue a city-region approach, and spread the process to Jūrmala and other attractions within Rīga’s cordon sanitaire, or even to think about building a second-city brand in Daugavpils. ww w. s im o na n h o lt.c om

“” earthspeak
3. A Competitive Identity for Rīga
The most effective and efficient way for Latvia to achieve the enhanced international reputation I described in the first section of this paper is by seizing every opportunity to make its capital – and by extension itself - look, and be, as natural a part of the wider Scandinavian region as possible.
Attempting to position Latvia within the Baltics or even the Baltic Sea Region won’t be sufficient to turn around the country’s strongly negative identity: the
Baltics is a purely self-referential concept (i.e. it will only be associated with the three Baltic States for the foreseeable future), and thus adds no equity to
Latvia’s brand. But positioning Latvia within Scandinavia is quite another matter.
In part, Latvia can achieve this by doing more of what it is already doing: partnering constantly with its Nordic neighbours so that it is constantly ‘seen in their company’; it needs to create as many ties as possible with the region, join the same affiliations, facilitate trade and cultural and political relations with them, harmonise with them in every possible way. In addition, Latvia must pursue reforms, investments, innovations and policies that are as
Scandinavian as possible in style, content, values and feel – indeed, the
‘Scandi-ness’ of such behaviours must become a compelling argument in its own right for choosing them.
The aim must be to position Rīga as a ‘newly discovered city’ within the region, rather as Germany rediscovered Dresden after 1990. Obviously scrupulous and enthusiastic EU and NATO membership is an excellent card for
Latvia to play, but the more specifically Scandinavian Rīga’s behaviour is, as opposed to generically European, the faster the city’s and the country’s image will improve and solidify.
The point can be easily made by listing a few examples of attributes which, if emphasised, will make Rīga and the entire country appear quite effortlessly and naturally part of Northern Europe in general and the Scandinavian region in particular, and some which will make it appear less so:
The Hanseatic heritage: YES. •
• Successful trading nation for centuries: YES.
• Flowers and meadows and the million folksongs: YES.
• New technology, new education, new culture: YES.
• Inadequate welfare state: NO.
• Intolerance of minorities: NO.
• Questionable transparency: NO.
• The NATO skills for which Latvia is praised – mine clearance etc: YES.
• Education, education, education: YES.
• Entrepreneurship: YES.
• Cool design: YES.
• Acres of pine and birch and miles of clean beaches: YES.
• Stable governance: YES.
• Smoked salmon: YES.
• Concern about international poverty: YES.
• Responsible, active NATO member: YES. ww w. s im o na n h o lt.c om

“” earthspeak
• Responsible and active EU member: YES.
• Responsible, active CBSS chair: YES.
• Unequal wealth distribution: NO.
• Opera, theatre, library, big culture: YES.
• Banking: YES.
• Concern for environment at home and abroad: YES.
• Homophobia: NO.
• Respect for historic buildings and customs: YES.
• Innovation: YES.
• Sauna: YES.
Product excellence (designer furniture, etc): YES. •
• Beautiful modern wooden buildings: YES.
• Soviet past and suffering/trauma: NO.
• Poor knowledge of English: NO.
• Strong links with Scandinavia: YES.
• Corruption: NO.
• Free speech: YES.
• Lack of consumer choice, consumer power: NO.
• Decaying or unmodernised infrastructure: NO.
Of course, a strategy is just a document unless it can leverage existing currents of social or cultural power. There are two main reasons why I am hopeful that this is a direction in which Rīga can easily and profitably travel: firstly, the desire of a new generation of Latvians to escape the past and be more internationally engaged (a trend which is reflected in the recent LI research).
And secondly, the ultimate justification for the strategy is simply that it’s true:
Latvia really is, and has been in the past, firmly located in this particular region of Northern Europe. As successful recent initiatives in Rīga like the
Bergs Hotel show, when Latvia gets really good, it starts to look and feel quite naturally Scandinavian. This is not, in other words, something I have invented: it is something I have observed while studying Latvia and heard while listening to Latvians.
One way of expressing this new positioning is Rīga – New North Star.
The concept of Rīga as a new star in the North is based on an association of
Rīga with Rigel, the brightest star in the constellation of Orion (interestingly,
Rigel’s position at the lower right-hand corner of Orion is the same as the position of Rīga in the ‘constellation’ of the five Nordic capitals), and the sixth brightest star in the Northern sky. Rigel was traditionally known as the
“Marine Star”, and according to astrologers, splendour and honours fell to the lot of those who were born under it. Associated with fame, wealth, and originality, Rigel is said to give a strong and dignified nature, self-confidence, inconstancy, arrogance, violence, impiety, and prosperity in trade and particularly in voyages or abroad, but also danger of treachery and poison.
Quite a stimulating, and dare I say it, appropriate mix for Rīga.
As the map on p.7 shows, the appearance of Rīga in the northern firmament creates a new and strikingly symmetrical constellation, and a wealth of ww w. s im o na n h o lt.c om

“” earthspeak promotional opportunities for tourism, foreign investment, cultural relations and public diplomacy. ww w. s im o na n h o lt.c om

“” earthspeak
3. Identity Strategy for Latvia
The rest of Latvia, as I explained earlier, needs an identity strategy in order to place itself clearly vis-à-vis Rīga, to make sense of its relationship with Rīga and with the Latvians, and to position itself correctly for any ‘light’ promotion or branding efforts – such as the ecotourism opportunity I mentioned earlier – which may be deemed useful or necessary in the future.
The identity strategy for Latvia is based on the idea that it provides natural energy for the Latvian people and for Rīga. This idyllic and largely unspoilt countryside, so different from the expectations and perceptions of outsiders, holds certain qualities which are of immense value in our modern age.
It seems to me that there are three closely connected currents in modern thinking, all of which are already leading to fundamental and large-scale changes in business, politics, society and morality, and which might have been designed with Latvia in mind. I will call these three currents “the longing for slow”, “rejecting the synthetic” and “Gross National Happiness”.
The appeal of slow food is straightforward: it’s a timely and perfectly expressed encapsulation of the Western world’s disenchantment with the long period of increasingly fast values, symbolised by fast food, through which we have lived since the fifties. Market capitalism, especially the American kind, and the threat that it poses to the cultural traditions and living patterns of previous ages, the rise of technology, increased wealth and rapid economic growth, were all just about due for a forceful backlash when slow food came along with a very accessible and very appetising alternative.
So influential has the movement become, even the word ‘slow’ has now acquired a special new sense: instead of meaning something rather negative, as it had done pretty much since the Industrial Revolution, it now means something rather positive, contemporary, fashionable, even daring and revolutionary in some contexts. Of course, the appeal of slow has been picked up in countless other areas of everyday life: from the popular media urging us to relax, chill out and slow down, to the popularisation of concepts like
“downshifting”, “quality time”, corporate retreats, and even a recent revival of interest in the monastic life.
Latvia, because of its peculiar combination of geography, climate, history, people and culture, is perceived by default as having a slower pace of life; so it is also the logical place to find an answer to that cry of “stop the world, I want to get off”. It is also very smart to take the stick with which people beat you and use it for your own advancement.
As one of the wildest, emptiest and arguably slowest parts of Europe, rural
Latvia surely has a natural right to carry the flag of slowness: this is the place where people can, at last, find the time to be themselves and find themselves; if the disease of modern life is motion sickness, then Latvia has the remedy.
“We’re still in touch with the things that matter” could be the basic proposition of Latvia to anyone feeling the effects of stress, rampant consumerism, ww w. s im o na n h o lt.c om

“” earthspeak superficiality, greed and speed. All good place brands must stem from a cultural truth of the place and its people, and it seems to me that the
‘Buddhists of Northern Europe’ is an appropriate and entirely believable role for the people of Latvia. These are a people, after all, for whom the constant dialogue with nature has always had more resonance than the imposed and imported values of Christianity. Like the Buddhist, the Latvian view of the world is minute, detailed, animist, pantheistic: one common strand throughout Latvian literature and poetry is the habit of focusing in on the tiniest details of life, and often natural life, in a way which has more in common with the Zen painters or Haiku writers than with the ambitious canvases of the European Romantics. Where the European perspective is often telescopic, the Latvian mind is microscopic.
By this we certainly don’t mean that Latvians lack vision or ambition, and Rīga is living proof that there is abundant energy and capacity to succeed. But unlike many modern Europeans, they still remember how to think, how to plan, how to live at a pace which enables them to remain in touch with themselves, with nature, with the truth of things. It is above all their almost mystical connection with the green lands outside Rīga that enable them to keep their poise, their balance in everything they do, everywhere they go.
The slow food phenomenon is one clear example of a more general tendency in rich countries during recent decades to reject what is perceived as the insincerity, immorality or artificiality of much that was heralded as progress during the second half of the 20 th century. The rejection of the synthetic is the opposite point on the chart from the seventies, which is now seen as the nadir of fake: it’s the search for the genuine, the admiration of integrity and naturalness.
Today, the three clearest symptoms of our rejection of the synthetic are probably the mainstreaming of tolerance, sexual and racial equality and social inclusion; the demand by shareholders for ethical corporate governance and corporate social responsibility, and the mainstreaming of ecological and sustainable behaviour.
It is impossible to point to a single catalyst for the rise in importance of tolerance, equality and inclusion, since many groups and individuals have been fighting for these for so long, and the changes have been very slow in coming; but the branding effect can be found in new phrases like ‘social inclusion’, ‘equal opportunities’, and so son. It is my belief that Latvia cannot obtain public permission to compete in this general area unless and until it makes visible and positive progress in the inclusion and tolerance stakes.
The catalyst for corporate and political morality was the rash of corporate scandals epitomised by Enron, Worldcom and Tyco, and revelations of unfair labour practices in the third world perpetrated by Western corporations; it was branded around new phrases like ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’, ‘antiglobalisation’, ‘No Logo’ and ‘Fair Trade’. Again, I would claim that Latvia cannot progress in image terms unless it can prove its credentials in transparency and morality, both political and commercial. ww w. s im o na n h o lt.c om

“” earthspeak
The catalyst for sustainability was the certainty of man-made climate change and visible changes in the weather; the branding centred around new language like ‘climate change’, ‘greenhouse gas’, ‘global warming’,
‘alternative energy’ and the new wider concepts of ‘sustainability’ and ‘climate security’. Once again, Latvia needs to prove competence and commitment to environmental sustainability in order to achieve credibility and respect in
Europe and beyond.
These three currents of morality and integrity have become so much part of the mainstream of public consciousness, they are now almost indispensable for new consumer products, services and corporate communications in rich countries. Today, no corporate website or annual report is complete without its statement of environmental and ethical practice, equal opportunities, social inclusion, and every corporation and government department has its public affairs department busily pumping out ‘greenwash’ (another piece of recent branding) or busily sponsoring ‘soft’ activities like art exhibitions or charitable foundations. This doesn’t necessarily mean the actions are sincere, but the important thing is that they are recognised as important.
And of course ecology is now the centrepiece of international affairs, and sound ecological credentials are a minimum requirement for any politician or political party. One after another, consumer surveys confirm that these issues of personal health, spiritual health, societal health and the health of the planet are fully reflected in the values and concerns of the general populations of rich countries, and increasingly in developing countries as well.
For Latvia, sustainability is truly the “nature of the place”. This is one of the last wild places in a rather densely inhabited continent, and much of Latvia has an almost startling appearance of ‘virgin territory’ when first seen by the outsider. It is hard not to think of ecology when visiting such a place.
I think Latvia finds itself today in the path of major social change because these are the tendencies that are going mainstream all around the world, and they are tendencies which Latvia could ultimately reflect. It is critical for
Latvia not to get left behind, especially since it is ultimately well qualified to lead: everyone, but everyone, is running that way. Latvia needs to be there when they arrive.
The environment, in particular, is significant for Latvia right now, even if on the other issues it is a long way behind the curve: Latvia represents the fact that ecology is a central, not marginal theme, for the simple reason that there is so much more nature that’s worth saving here.
If Slow Food is an idea which is starting to approach maturity, Gross National
Happiness is one which is still in its infancy, but rapidly gaining in influence.
Put simply, GNH is the attempt to create an alternative measure of progress to economic growth or GDP, one based on the level of happiness in a society, instead of treating economic wealth as an end in itself.
The concept of GNH was created by HM Jigme Singhe Wangchuk, the King of
Bhutan, who questioned the application of standard ‘economic development’ onto his country, on the grounds that his people might be economically poor, ww w. s im o na n h o lt.c om

“” earthspeak but they had a great deal more to lose than their poverty by joining the capitalist system: their spirituality, their freedom from consumerism and greed, their unspoilt natural environment, and their happiness. His aim is to find a basis on which such a country can engage with the global market system, but on its own terms, and not at the expense of its cultural, spiritual, environmental and human wealth.
This was clearly an idea whose moment has come. There are now a number of major international surveys attempting to measure the happiness of populations (when an idea is considered worth measuring and researching, this is usually a sign that it has become common currency); and commentaries on the subject have started to make regular appearances in the speeches of politicians around the world and in the mainstream media, as the following excerpt from an editorial in the Financial Times shows:
Politicians “…mistakenly believe that economic growth makes a nation happier ... because they were taught to do so. But today there is much statistical and laboratory evidence in favour of a heresy: once a country has filled its larders there is no point in that nation becoming richer. The hippies, the Greens, the road protesters, the downshifters, the slow-food movement – all are having their quiet revenge.
Routinely derided, the ideas of these down-to-earth philosophers are being confirmed by new statistical work by psychologists and economists. … Happiness, not economic growth, ought to be the next and more sensible target for the next and more sensible generation.”
(Andrew Oswald in the Financial Times, January 18 th 2006).
It’s worth mentioning that the concept of ‘happiness’ in the GNH model is regularly misinterpreted by the Western media. The Buddhist concept of happiness is something quite different from the one we are familiar with in
Western Europe and North America: in Bhutan, it’s something more serious, less selfish, more severe and certainly more communitarian than in the West, and is more strongly associated with societal rather than personal happiness, balance, man’s connection with nature and with society, and so forth.
I don’t think it’s at all far-fetched to picture Latvia as the first exemplar (or even practitioner) of GNH outside Bhutan: the ideology, although still evolving, seems very appropriate for the issues currently facing Latvia, and perhaps especially so because it is relatively new to capitalism. One of the central tenets of GNH, the Buddhist idea that material wealth pursued to the exclusion of spiritual, environmental and societal health can lead to a damaging separation from nature, is particularly relevant to Latvia today.
It is not too far-fetched to imagine a parallel to so-called ‘technology leap’
(where least developed nations ‘leap’ from zero technology to advanced technology without passing through a long interim phase of basic technology
– as, for example, telephony in several African nations has gone from no telephones at all to widespread cellphone penetration without any experience of fixed-line telephony in between); in the case of Latvia, it would be nice
(although perhaps not very realistic) to envisage a kind of ‘values leap’, where the country passes rapidly from Communism to post-Capitalist wisdom, without the usual trough of bleak and selfish consumerism in between. ww w. s im o na n h o lt.c om

“” earthspeak
My own interpretation of the issue is that human beings have four natural appetites, all of which need to be satisfied if they are to be whole and lastingly happy, and together make a healthy and happy community. These are: o a cultural appetite (for art and heritage and social meaning); o an intellectual appetite (for using and exercising the mind); o a spiritual appetite (for using and exercising the soul and seeking deeper meaning in life and death); o an animal appetite (for food, drink, sex, and possessions).
During the last fifty years or so, the tendency in rich countries has been for most of our efforts to be increasingly centred around satisfying the animal appetite, while the others go largely unsatisfied.
The currents of thought I have outlined in this section are all examples of a general reaction against this imbalance in our lives: they are the result of certain fundamental human appetites being neglected for too long, and now clamouring for attention. Our bellies may be full, but our souls won’t stop rumbling.
If Latvia can position itself as a means to satisfy more of these longings, it will be plugging into something tremendously potent, as well as making sense of its own existence for a very long time to come.
Latvians are powered by an ‘inner landscape’ of nature that sustains hope, sense of beauty, calm, sense of self, whatever they do and wherever they go in the world. This ‘green centre’ is, indeed, how Latvia survives and prospers within a globalised, chaotic, democratic world.
I don’t like slogans because I don’t believe that communications campaigns are capable of changing the images of countries, but for internal purposes, the shorthand for this identity concept could be referred to with the line
“Plugged in to nature”. ww w. s im o na n h o lt.c om

“” earthspeak
6. Implementation
Most of the basic principles of effective Competitive Identity are the same, whether we are talking about Latvia, Rīga, or a combination of the two.
Among the most pressing of these is the need to design a mechanism that will continue to drive forward the Competitive Identity agenda after the end of this strategy process, and for many years into the future. Consistency, as ever, is the key, and unless the city/country/region can find ways of pursuing the same strategy for at least a decade, there is little chance it will achieve its goals.
An essential aspect of this mechanism is the need to place it outside the ordinary ambit of national politics; a Competitive Identity strategy which fails to outlast the government in power or rise above the level of domestic politics is one which is condemned to failure. To some degree, the necessary institutionalisation of the strategy is already assured through its ownership by the Latvian Institute, but I suggest that a few structural modifications are necessary in order to “re-fit” the LI from more-or-less conventional national cultural institute to a long-term host, owner and driver of a national
Competitive Identity programme.
The exact nature of this re-fit must, of course, be informed by a more detailed knowledge of the LI’s past and present roles, responsibilities and powers than
I possess, but I am nonetheless convinced that the critical task of leading, managing and maintaining the Competitive Identity programme for Rīga and
Latvia, over the long term, is a natural task for the Latvian Institute.
Within the existing structure of the LI, I would propose the following basic scenarios for further discussion:
National Marketing Agency
This body should be created as a new sub-division of the LI; clearly substantial additional funding and staffing will be necessary in order to achieve this aim, but the existence of a such a body will place Latvia firmly at the cutting edge of how countries manage their identities in the modern world. The NMA would implement Latvia’s Competitive Identity strategy in the following ways:
 Talent Scout
Since the basic principle of Competitive Identity is earning a stronger
reputation, the first task of the NMA is to identify the best exemplars that illustrate and prove that Rīga/Latvia deserves the reputation it aspires to, and to ensure that these initiatives are successful, sustained, and properly showcased to important domestic and international audiences.
In order to do this, the NMA must constantly monitor Rīga/Latvia’s business, political, societal, cultural, academic and industrial landscape for existing and emerging talent. This talent could be in the form of individuals or groups, and can be formal or informal, commercial or ww w. s im o na n h o lt.c om

“” earthspeak otherwise; the main criterion for interest is that the initiative in some way proves or reinforces the basic drive towards a more Scandinavian way of being.
Over time, the NMA’s reputation should enable it to evolve from Talent
Scout to Talent Magnet, attracting the best ideas and people in all fields, purely on the strength of its proven ability to help them succeed. Ultimately, it should become known throughout the country – indeed, one could argue, throughout the region – as the port of first call for anyone with a great idea who wants to get started.
 Talent Builder
In addition to finding the existing and emerging talent, the NMA is responsible for ensuring that the supply of talent and good ideas is constantly renewed in all sectors, and that promising ideas have the best possible chance of achieving sustained success. It does this in the following ways: o Cross-fertilization. As a regular activity, the NMA should bring together the best and brightest talent from the public and private sectors and civil society, and encourage them to exchange ideas. Many successful new ideas are not in fact new, but have simply been transplanted from one sector or industry to another, where they have prospered in an unexpected way. o Innovation Culture Building. Latvia will only achieve a sustainable Competitive Identity if it can create a society where innovation is prized and cherished. This must be done through promoting the idea and the practice of innovation through its academic links, through events, competitions, through the media and in many other ways. Most importantly, the habit and respect for innovation and creativity must be enshrined in the educational system at primary level, so the resources, credibility and permission for the NMA to lobby hard in educational policy are fundamental. o Funding. The ideal scenario for the NMA is that it is able to back promising ideas from its own development fund, or at least to offer seed funding to help the best ideas get started. If neither of these are possible in the early stages, excellent relationships with national and international funding bodies and venture capitalists are essential, and the NMA should strive to build a solid reputation for backing winners as quickly as possible so that its trust and credibility with external funders is high. It may be that the relationships which the LI has started to build with corporate partners in the conversazioni process could provide the foundation for this strand of activity. o Expertise. The NMA should be in a position to offer high-quality professional advice at subsidised or no cost to promising ww w. s im o na n h o lt.c om

“” earthspeak initiatives, including IP protection and other forms of legal advice, marketing, accountancy, export, HR, and so forth.
Connections with overseas importers and agents, as well as all the usual services of export promotion agencies and chambers of commerce are equally important. In addition to formal professional advice, every opportunity should be created to encourage networking between emerging and mature entrepreneurs in every field, including mentoring from past
‘alumni’ of the NMA, twinning and ‘adoption’ of new firms with larger ones, and so forth.
 Project Creator
I recommend that the NMA should also be equipped to develop its own ideas, through a permanent or virtual in-house creative team. This team would be in some ways like the creative department of an advertising or design agency, and in some ways like a think-tank: staffed by creative professionals from the communications, film, art, media or policy world, its task would simply be to generate a large number of new ideas that would exemplify the spirit of Rīga, and make that new star shine.
These might occasionally be purely promotional ideas, requiring funding by government or private sector, but more frequently would be economically feasible commercial, social, cultural, industrial, academic or policy projects. The NMA should host regular ‘Idea Dumps’ where the best of these ideas are offered to entrepreneurs, established firms, venture capitalists, university or college faculties or anyone else interested in carrying them out – with the usual support of the NMA, of course.
Occasionally, the NMA might decide to ‘own’ and implement some of these ideas itself, if they are considered sufficiently important.
 Communications Hub
The NMA should act as a coordinating body between the communications functions of all companies, bodies and individuals that regularly communicate with overseas audiences. These would include the marketing departments of the Tourist Board (at both national and city level), the Investment Promotion Agency, the MFA’s Public
Diplomacy and media relations departments, exporting corporations, airlines, key tourism operators and businesses, international players in sport, culture and academia, and so forth.
Its key functions are to ensure that there is as much basic alignment as possible between the marketing strategies and messages of these bodies and the national strategy, and to ensure that all international communications from Latvia are of consistently high quality.
It may also be a good idea for the NMA to create a central function in order to assist these bodies in designing and producing their marketing ww w. s im o na n h o lt.c om

“” earthspeak collateral (database marketing, websites, brochures, etc) as well as support for CRM, centralised media buying (where clustered buying and planning could create sufficient economies of scale to fund the entire function), and perhaps a centralised national image bank.
Designing, building and maintaining a national web portal – and especially e-commerce sites for smaller producers of Latvian goods and services – could also be among the functions carried out by this part of the NMA.
Finally, although direct national promotion is seldom recommended, this part of the NMA could be responsible for devising and running PR or even advertising campaigns should these prove appropriate at any point.
Clearly, the Latvian Institute is already configured in a way which is highly compatible with this model; the important point to test is whether it ultimately has the authority to ‘kill’ communications projects from partner organisations which are not of the required standard or which directly obstruct the national CI Strategy. It must also have the proven ability to judge its own and its partners’ communications against the highest international standards. Any organisation which holds this mandate without such authority will quickly default to the untenable position of providing unwanted opinions.
 Evaluation and research
The NMA should be responsible for creating and maintaining the research function of national and city image management. Its functions would include designing and commissioning research projects in partnership with academia; benchmarking and tracking Latvia’s and
Rīga’s image; monitoring and evaluating performance.
Just as Rīga is the talent hub for Latvia, so the Latvian Institute and its NMA must become the talent hub within Rīga. It is where all Latvia’s best and brightest talent plugs in to success and to the world; it is Latvia’s
‘globalisation port’.
Competitive Identity Thinktank
This body could be conceived in parallel with the National Marketing Agency, as its precursor, or possibly as one of its components. My preference is to see it as a separate body which provides stimulus to the NMA at the level of policy and theory, while retaining the ability and the power to lobby government and industry, and carry out a general national programme of agenda-setting, in a more independent spirit and perhaps a more authoritative level than could be the case than the NMA.
If every successful programme of Competitive Identity depends on a renaissance taking place within the country or the city, a broad awakening of ambition and vision in society, business and public administration, then the primary role of the CI Thinktank would be to envision and drive this ww w. s im o na n h o lt.c om

“” earthspeak renaissance. This is best achieved by a small number of highly influential players in politics, business, media and civil society who work together through their various roles to ‘nurture the flame’ of internationalism, quality, transparency and Nordic values and aspirations. It is likely several of the members of this group have attended one or more of the conversazioni, and have thus already contributed substantially towards the creation of the underlying strategy.
Whether we are talking about the Thinktank or the National Marketing
Agency, there are four basic qualities which I always see as the essential motivations for the people who lead the CI process. These qualities all sound rather simple and rather old-fashioned: they are wisdom, influence, patience, imagination and care. I mention them here because it’s important to have some fixed criteria to help determine the membership of this critical team.
Wisdom is essential because it’s often very hard to make the right choices between short-term promotion and long-term brand building, especially when there is immediate economic pain.
Influence is critical because having great ideas and the right vision is pointless unless there is also the ability to drive it through into policy, investment and social change. There is undoubtedly room within the Thinktank for some individuals who are there purely because of their knowledge, understanding or inventiveness, but unless they are connected to a real caucus of influence, the
Thinktank becomes a talking shop and nothing more.
Patience is necessary because the reputations of places move very slowly. The images of Rīga and Latvia that we are inheriting today are the cumulative effect of centuries of events, most of which have been outside the control of the Latvian people. It will certainly take years if not decades to change them.
Imagination is important because only innovation and creativity can create real progress, change people’s views about Rīga and Latvia and keep those perceptions fresh, positive and up to date. ‘Management’ is a dull word indeed for what places really need, but there must always be a proper balance between the creative spark and the steady hand on the tiller. This balance must be reflected in the makeup of both bodies.
Care is important because only people who have the best interests of the place at heart can be trusted always to do the right thing for its ecology, economy and community. One can put those three words in any order, but in reality all three of them have exactly equal priority, and the key to managing the identity of Rīga and Latvia is to create a structure which is able and willing to hold these three in perfect equilibrium.
The implementation of Rīga’s Competitive Identity strategy should be based around investing in and significantly enhancing four of the areas of activity which I outlined at the beginning of this report. Each of these strands of activity is designed to communicate a particular aspect of Latvia’s stature which is currently weak or absent from international public opinion – and which are also, not coincidentally, emblematic of Rīga’s most Scandinavian qualities: ww w. s im o na n h o lt.c om

“” earthspeak
1.
Culture (= Rīga is a class act)
2.
Design (= Rīga has style)
3.
Technology (= Rīga is modern)
4.
Environment (= Rīga cares)
5.
Tourism (= come and see for yourself)
And, as I mentioned, the two critical components - Internationalism and
Quality – should be implicit in everything Rīga does in each of these strands of activity.
It might be a good idea to appoint what it has become fashionable in the
United States to call a ‘tsar’ for each of these strands, to ensure that they are constantly and energetically developed.
The business visitor component of Rīga tourism is worth singling out for particular emphasis. As leisure and even cultural tourism are unavoidably seasonal in nature, and as the attractions of Rīga do not enable it to compete at a truly global level, it is essential that the business side of the city – conventions, conferences, trade shows and meetings – is developed to the highest possible standard. Business visitors, as is well known, tend to bring many more ‘knock-on benefits’ than leisure visitors: not only do they spend more money than tourists on subsistence and accommodation and transport, but they also bring influence and connections, which can lead directly or indirectly to academic, financial, commercial, sporting, cultural and political investment for the city. Happily, Rīga will soon have several important new convention facilities and will indeed have something to boast about in this sector.
However, the meetings industry is quite different in nature to leisure tourism, and Rīga should not make the mistake of conflating the two: apart from anything else, the fact that one involves consumer marketing while the other is strictly B2B means that they should be handled in quite different ways, by different people, and with separate budgets.
A design renaissance in Rīga would work wonders for its international reputation, and thought needs to be given to how this could be made to happen, whether it is a state-funded warehouse where smaller practitioners could build a design collective, or the creation of a new international design competition (difficult to find anything original to do here, but by no means impossible), or some innovative policy-making, such as offering tax incentives for designers, rather as the Irish government had the inspired idea of waiving income tax for artists and writers. A flourishing design sector, be it in graphic design or product design, architecture, design technology, typography, corporate identity or any other branch of the field, often has a benign influence on the look, feel and mood of cities – it makes them look cool and modern and self-confident, which is exactly what Rīga needs.
I would suggest that there are about seventeen things that Rīga needs to concentrate on in order to become a world-class European capital, and these could form the basis of a working plan to build Rīga into the New Star of the
North: ww w. s im o na n h o lt.c om

“” earthspeak
1.
Credible financial centre
2.
Ecology profile
3.
Vibrant creative industries
4.
Culture – modern and high
5.
Cosmopolitan, international
6.
World class hotels, bars, clubs and restaurants
7.
World class shopping
8.
Infrastructure, transport, communications
9.
Law and order; safety; decency
10.
Transparency, low corruption
11.
Street furniture: details, interpretation
12.
Engagement with other cities at mayor level
13.
A global brand or two
14.
15.
World-class convention centre(s) and associated reputation
International institutions and MNCs headquartered in Rīga
16.
World-class international secondary education, business school etc
17.
International sporting specialisation and hosting
Putting the detail into such a plan could be among the first projects of the CI
Thinktank, and bringing together all of the stakeholders to make it happen could be one of the first initiatives of the National Marketing Agency. ww w. s im o na n h o lt.c om

“” earthspeak
Summary
For the time being, this is the basic structure that I would recommend for enhancing Latvia’s Competitive Identity:
 A drive to promote Rīga as the New North Star, based on major new investments and policy incentives in o Culture o Design o Technology o Environment o Leisure and Business Tourism.
 All initiatives under this programme should be characterised by

internationalism and quality.
The underlying policy guide to this strategy is to develop Rīga as a
new Scandinavian city.
 The rest of Latvia should not be heavily promoted, but seen as the green ‘power supply’ which keeps Rīga and the Latvians plugged into

nature for their spiritual health, sanity and energy.
The combination of a Rīga as the New North Star, set amidst a Latvia plugged into nature, produces a New Scandinavian country – an
unmistakably Latvian Scandinavia.
The basic policy and structural mechanisms for delivering this strategic framework over the short and medium term remain to be established and refined, and the detail provided for each strand of activity. However, mechanisms such as a National Marketing Agency created withint the
Latvian Institute, and an independent Competitive Identity Thinktank are proposed as discussion points for further work in this area. ww w. s im o na n h o lt.c om