The research company Anholt-GMI has just released its "City Brands Index", a ranking of 30 cities based on six "P's" - Presence, Place, Potential, Pulse, People and Prerequisites. The ranking was derived by surveying 17,502 people in 18 countries and is below. Obviously this is not necessarily a "where I'd like to live" or even a travel destination wish list - it's a brand power/reputation rating. I wasn't interested enough to lay out US$95 to buy the full report.
1. London
2. Paris
3. Sydney
4. Rome
5. Barcelona
6. Amsterdam
7. New York
8. Los Angeles
9. Madrid
10. Berlin
11. San Francisco
12. Toronto
13. Geneva
14. Washington
15. Brussels
16. Milan
17. Stockholm
18. Ediburgh
19. Tokyo
20. Prague
21. Hong Kong
22. Singapore
23. Rio de Janeiro
24. Beijing
25. Mexico City
26. Moscow
27. Johannesburg
28. Cairo
29. Mumbai
30. Lagos

Neil:

Any survey that ranks Jo'burg and Lagos as anything other than the world's major to be avoided at all costs destinations - is clearly not using "nice place for a two day minibreak" as its key criterion.

Since the phrase "six Ps" is old fashioned marketing gobbldegook warmed up, would you mind giving us all (in English or Oz as you prefer) a simple explanation of what these people thought they were saying?

And do enjoy your Xmas pud. I've added a nice recipe to the figgy pudding thread for Aussies who don't find the traditional way of eating it quite stodgy enough.

<< ...derived by surveying 17,502 people in 18 countries... >>

I have to wonder... from what continents, and ditributed how? Surely not a proportionate sampling, based on populations in the 18 most populous countries (or if that's true, I don't see how it could be meaningful to the readership of this forum)

Just in case yoiu're wondering, they are:

1. China - 1,306,313,812
2. India - 1,080,264,388
3. United States - 295,734,134
4. Indonesia - 241,973,879
5. Brazil - 186,112,794
6. Pakistan - 162,419,946
7. Bangladesh - 144,319,628
8. Russia - 143,420,309
9. Nigeria - 128,765,768
10. Japan - 127,417,244
11. Mexico - 106,202,903
12. Philippines - 87,857,473
13. Vietnam - 83,535,576
14. Germany - 82,431,390
15. Egypt - 77,505,756
16. Ethiopia - 73,053,286
17. Turkey - 69,660,559
18. Iran - 68,017,860

(source: http://geography.about.com/cs/worldp...stpopulous.htm in case you were wondering)

And just out of curiosity, I converted this to percentages...

1. 29%
2. 24%
3. 7%
4. 5%
5. 4%
6. 4%
7. 3%
8. 3%
9. 3%
10. 3%
11. 2%
12. 2%
13. 2%
14. 2%
15. 2%
16. 2%
17. 2%
18. 2%

So, if the survey population is 74% Asians, 13% North and South Americans, 7% Europeans and 6% Africans... then I don't know how to relate it to anything in my everyday experience.

And if the survey population was distributed in some disproprtionate way, then I submit that they got answers specific to a particular marketing objective (not saying any less legitimate - - perhaps they based their survey audience on world "buying power", not population numbers).

I think that if you asked Americans only, you would get a much more US-skewed top ten (add Boston, Chicago and probably at least two others... Miami, New Orleans [pre-2005, or post-2010] - - listing these four choices alphabetically)... and remove Sydney, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Madrid, Berlin. Possibly add one of these four (again alphabetically): Beijing, Moscow, Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo.

It's all in who you ask.

(Oy... I need to figure out if I can get back to bed!)

Best wishes,

Rex

Brilliant !!

Well done Rex I'm proud of you..lol




Muck

well I don't care who they asked, as London came TOP! YAY!

Kate
London
Capital of the Universe
They did a survey, it must be true.

Kate, lol.

There must have been a lot of Torontonians voting to get that city up to 12th spot. Those of us born in Montreal know better.

Anselm

Rex, that was fascinating. Really.

I should have added that no endorsement of survey methodology on my part was expressed or implied (I can do lawyer talk when I have to). Maybe I just like lists.

Rex, excellent points there, for which I'd like to provide an answer, but not at a cost of US$95. Let's assume the national samples were in proprtion to population. Australia (pop. 20,490,437 or 1/65 of China's) was one of the 18 countries surveyed. As Australian political pollsters regard 2,000 respondents as being the minimum needed to achieve a margin for error of +/- 2%, I conclude that 130,000 Chinese were interviewed.

flanneruk, I too found the inclusion of Jo'burg and Lagos surreal (and for Mucky, the exclusion of Cardiff was equally puzzling).

Thank you for your kind thoughts, but I grew up on my traditionalist mum's puddings, which had a specific gravity about that of a cannon ball and were eaten on Christmas days when the mercury could hit 35C. We sprats only ate them to collect the threepences, three of which would get you into a Saturday matinee if memory serves. These days our coins are either too large or potentially poisonous, so even that incentive has evaporated. I was so traumatised by the experience that to this day I feel queasy just thinking about them, and I'm sorry, but I couldn't bring myself to read the figgy pudding thread at all. I hate fruit cake too. So you'll pardon me if I pass on the pud - I have a lemon gelato planned for Sunday (forecast maximum in Canberra a pretty bearable 26).

Whatever the weather and the menu, I wish all Fodorites a very happy Christmas/Hanukkah/whatever and an adventurous 2006.

Rather off the point - - and no doubt I could look this up myself - - but does anyone know (roughly) what were the populations of "West" and "East" Germany (FRG and DDR) when they were re-unified? (I'm amazed that I have no idea what form of constitutional? legislative? action was at the foundation of this re-unification).

I ask because in a converesation over coffee last week, I threw out the rather radical proposal to some colleagues - - to address the US-Mexico "immigration problem": why not just merge the two countries? It would be a jolt to economic systems across the continent, and across the world - - but wasn't FRG/DDR fairly similar - - about 3 to 1? And hasn't it been a win-win overall? in less than 20 years?

I realize that there are some substantial NON-parallels: it's not a RE-uinification... and a large fraction of citizens in both countries only speak one language (snd different languages, they are, of course) - - but I bet you, that in two generations, bilingualism can and would work just as well in a new "United States of North America" as it does in Canada. After all, a lot of Canadians speak only one language also. Eh?

Conceivably, it would simply move the "border control" issue further south, into Central America (I am too lazy to look up and see what countries border Mexico) - - but at least it's narrower there!

Not germane to anything in the post... but seeing the population in Mexico (it's larger than I expected - - but still not such a huge fraction of the US population) caused me to recall the conversation I had last week.

How many residents in the US (legal or illegal) have basic 6th grade reading literacy in both Spanish and English, do you suppose? 20 million? 40? 60? How many in Mexico?

Do you? (I think I do - - but not as good in writing, speaking or listening comprehension, if I were tested... I'm pretty sure).

Well, Neil, certainly nobody asked ME!

Surprisingly Los Angeles won over San Francisco??

and Moscow made the free listing??

Who said Montreal is better then Toronto? Prejudice It's San Francisco which is better

Absolutely Neil, I am still reeling from our non inclusion, especially this being the centenary of Cardiff becoming a city and 50yrs being the Capital City of Wales.

;-)

Muck

Rex, from memory, I think the figures were approximately 60 million in West Germany to around 17 million in East Germany (and the constitutional mechanism was that the first and last democratically elected East German parliament approved an ENORMOUS treaty laying down the legal adaptations required in great levels of detail, much as the new member states of the EU do, albeit over a longer time scale). There was - and is - some bitterness in the East at how much it was an absorption into West Germany and a takeover which made many familiar products and habits (and jobs, and experience) obsolete overnight; plus there was an inbuilt inequality in rates of pay and social benefits; plus there were people who knew how to get ahead in both systems and people who lost out under both. There is still higher unemployment in the East and a feeling that they are discriminated against. On the other hand, East Germany had clearly been shown by its people to be a failed state; the people of both states had never accepted the idea that they were different peoples culturally and both clearly voted for union.

If you were to add an already volatile ethnic and cultural distinction to that (in the North American context).... well, good luck is all I can say.

Hi Rex,

Rather than a union of the US with Mexico (think Yugoslavia), I think both countries would gain greater benefit from well-crafted trade agreements.

Okay, well, whatever. I think someone once said...

"Imagine there were no countries...

...it's easy if you try...

you may say I'm a dreamer...

...but I'm not the only one."

Rex:

The single, HUGE, difference between Germany and North America is that virtually every German, on both sides, wanted unification. There was great debate about the mechanics, costs, timing and balance between Ost and West. But virtually none about the principle.

But is there a shred of evidence Mexicans want to be USAnians? True, many want to work in the US. But that's a very different thing from wanting to abolish Mexico.

If illegal immigration is such a problem, why not simply allow unlimited access to any of your neighbours who want to come and work. Works perfectly well here.

And you might try turning NAFTA into less of a pale imitation of a free trade area while you're at it.

<< But that's a very different thing from wanting to abolish Mexico. >>

When the thirteen separate states decided to form one nation, it didn't result in abolishing any of them.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not crusading for this. But I think I might be in favor of it.

But Rex, the thirteen states thought they already had a high degree of common identity - and even then it took several years before they created a recognisable nation state, and that didn't last forever. There came a time where some of them resented the rest trying (as they saw it) to interfere with something that gave the minority a group interest and identity of its own; and they let that group interest outweigh everything else, with painful results all round.

When you start from distinct national, cultural and ethnic identities, there's even more potential for trouble. Which is why the EU is never likely to get much, if at all, closer to a 'United States of Europe' - and that's AFTER having had our civil wars...

There could well be advantages for Mexico in being absorbed by the USA, a country with over four times its per-capita GDP and less than a third of its infant mortality rate, although I would think the advantages for the US, and especially for its budget outlays, would be more problematic. 40% of Mexicans, after all, are below the poverty line, compared with 12% of Americans.

Many Americans hold the endearing belief that the US is an undisputed model for the rest of the world, which would like nothing better than to become American. Well, all countries have their comforting myths, and this is one of them. While we may (sometimes grudgingly) admire some aspects of American society, there are others that we have no wish to emulate. As wrongheaded as this sounds we don't like the idea of being swamped by another culture (any more than we already are, that is), we don't want to emigrate, and we like our independence (such as it is). I'm open to correction, but I'd be surprised if the mass of Mexicans felt any differently.