The Recorder has an editorial on marketing the city (here). Let me make a few comments in this saga of marketing:

This is one of several reasons we feel strongly that elected officials should have secondary roles in economic development if they have any involvement at all.

Basing a city’s economic development on positions or departments that can drastically change from administration to administration doesn’t provide the measure of consistency necessary to stay competitive with other municipalities.

I’m struggling with this reasoning as departments and policies fundamentally get shifted administration to administration. Just look at federal level Cabinet positions such as Commerce Director or OMB director or numerous committee chairmanships that impact global competitiveness. Why does that work with a global economy but somehow cannot be made to work on a local level?

I think the distinction is that locally, much like the back-and-forth on marketing versus no-marketing, the policy positions of the parties in charge use this issue as a wedge issue so if one party establishes a department distinct from the political pressures argued by the editorial such as the CED, the council then defunds it to pursue the non-marketing policy.  Hence which branch of government is left to pursue policy goals — the executive. And why should we discourage the mayor as the elected executive of the city from promoting the city? Funny how no one tells Mayor Stratton or Jennings that they just need to move on and not worry about promoting their cities.

I also struggle a bit that we view the other agencies cited by the Recorder for economic development to somehow not be subject to political forces. That makes me chuckle like most people who know something of the political landscape here.

Let’s now look at this section:

Realistically, does anyone think Amsterdam can compete with other cities if its marketing efforts are in the hands of a part-time confidential aide and a mayor whose priorities are managing the city’s numerous departments?

If Thane is a marketing genius, she’s in the wrong job. Beyond that, what happens when at some point she’s not in office and the next mayor has no interest or ability to carry on such a crucial role in economic development?

I see a bit of a paradox here where there appears to be some recognition  of Amsterdam to compete with other municipalities via marketing. On the question of marketing genius, I think that misses the question completely. The key question here is why do we as a community advocate against promoting our own city and indeed, believe as a guiding principle that there should be no ownership or accountability for our own city’s marketing efforts. With that as a backdrop, you cannot then frame the issue as one of marketing prowess with an un-marketing climate and with an effort that has close to zero funding. Let’s recall that even creating and launching a Web site was deemed negatively because it may show some nice images of the city. We are nowhere near marketing as we do not have marketing as a core principle in our strategy. In light of that resistance,  marketing has proceeded forward in spite of that resistance.

Let’s move to here:

Thane could meet with Rose on a regular basis to see what marketing and economic development activities his department is working on relating to the city. Another option is to create a volunteer economic development committee that could be a branch of the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce. Perhaps an agency could be set up similar to the Metroplex model that has worked so well for Schenectady.

What the editors advocate here is a process with no accountability, no oversight and hence no chance for succeeding. I’m all for volunteer efforts but you do not place core strategy and core tactics in volunteer’s hands if you want to succeed. Let’s be candid: how much sway do volunteer committees and groups have in shaping policy against the entrenched political forces here? Somewhere quite near zero.

Let me end on an up note and that is the Metroplex model cited by the Recorder. I could see some common ground here to explore such an entity. But before we kid ourselves that that will solve our problems, we need to then accept that we, actually and indeedily doodily , need to pursue marketing. A MetroPlex will not succeed if we cannot convince ourselves of that as the very fundamental step in the process.

Let me end with a thought on this debate for a bit of perspective. The CED was created in the Duchessi administration so it’s been something like 10 years since we decided that we needed to market and promote the city via the CED. I’m not sure how long ago it was defunded but in looking at today, do we feel we are better off and materially in better position by defunding it? Since that time, have we fixed all the problems that needed to be fixed before we can market?

It is an ongoing sage and while we dither and seek to win in this perennial battle of attrition on marketing versus un-marketing, our competitors will move on and ahead.

As always.

I’ll publish these most days as a way to highlight stories of interest:

–Coverage of Mayor’s State of the City (here)

–Text of Mayor Thane’s State of the City 2010 (here)