Waterloo area has no brand issues — but no real name either

By Martin DeGroot

Does this region really have a “branding” problem?

Some people think so, most notably of late the proponents of the amalgamation of Waterloo and Kitchener.

I’m not so sure. Other than the big metropolitan centres, various provincial capitals and maybe some resort areas, the Waterloo-area “brand” is arguably the most recognizable, authentic and positive in all of Canada.

There may be some challenges related to the way the area is perceived, as indicated by that snooty reference to Waterloo as a “cultural wasteland” in a metropolitan daily a few years back, or stories about doctors not wanting to come to what they think of as a predominantly rural community.

Such challenges, however, have nothing to do with our peculiar municipal structure. And they certainly won’t be solved by an amalgamation of two of the region’s three cities. On the contrary, a bilateral deal to unite Kitchener and Waterloo (which strikes me as more a separatist movement than a move toward an integrated municipal order) would only add to the confusion.

Paris, France, has to be one of the most successful urban “brands” in all the world. The fact that the “City of Light” is made of more than 1,300 separate municipalities doesn’t diminish it in any way. It is a reputation that has been earned through achievement, especially cultural achievement, over many centuries.

Here, too, we have branding assets rooted in achievement: learning, enterprise, a distinct heritage, deep-rooted cultural patterns, and the beginning — but only the beginning — of what can be considered exceptional artistic achievement.

There is no branding problem as such. What we do have, though, is a naming problem.

First, there’s the triple-W confusion: It’s the Waterloo name that carries the most weight, but there’s Waterloo the city, Waterloo the university, and Waterloo County/Region.

The arrogant North Waterloo habit of equating “K-W” with the whole muddles things even more. Kitchener and Cambridge are now almost as contiguous as K and W have long been. And the four townships are as significant to the character and reputation of this region as the cities are.

The K-W designation sounds increasingly parochial and anachronistic as time goes on. The unfortunate association with worn-out brands like K-Mart and the K-Car makes it even more unappealing.

My views on these matters have been shaped by the fact that for almost 10 years now I’ve been employed by the Waterloo Regional Arts Council, and therefore obliged to think in broad regional terms. But what started as a duty became a habit and eventually, a conviction: I’m for the county (or region), the whole county, and maybe more.

But I don’t know what to call it.

“K-W and Cambridge” is awkward. “Tri-city” or “CKW” ignores the townships. “Kitchener and surrounding area” or the “Kitchener CMA” is too K-centric.

The founders of the arts council and the management of this newspaper chose “Waterloo Region.” But Waterloo Region is not a place; it’s an administrative unit. A “region,” with or without a capital “R”, is a portion of something larger, not a distinct entity in and of itself, as a town, city or county can be.

The amalgamated K-W and Freeport hospitals and the Philharmonic family of choirs chose “Grand,” which certainly has merit.

So does “Waterloo-Wellington” in certain contexts, or “the heart of the 519.”

But none are ideal for Waterloo Region and its constituent elements.

Surely someone, here in what has been formally recognized as one of the smartest communities in the whole wide world, should be able to come up with something better.

Martin DeGroot is executive director of the Waterloo Regional Arts Council. He comments on arts and culture Saturdays in The Record. You can reach him by email at mdg@golden.net.