The Melbourne we choose

At the City of Melbourne's recent M2050 Summit, I was struck by how fluidly the conversation about our city’s future shifted between “Melbourne” as a central city, a municipality, a metropolitan region, and even as shorthand for the state of Victoria.

Each lens reflects real layers of geography and governance that matter to us locally. But for people interstate and overseas, that nuance quickly dissipates.

Despite the shifting terms, there seemed to be an unspoken consensus: we were mostly talking about Greater Melbourne—the urban region that radiates out from the Hoddle Grid. This is the Melbourne of our collective imagination, and it was to this version that we ascribed our values, ideas, and hopes for 2050.

Against the unspoken backdrop of our post-Covid era, Melbourne’s Lord Mayor Nick Reece summed up the moment well:

“Melbourne is a city that does a comeback better than anywhere else.”

It’s a compelling insight and an inspiring call to action.

But who will lead this comeback? And what strategic choices must we make to create a winning comeback?

A strategic opportunity

As strategist and top management thinker Roger Martin defines it, strategy is “a set of interrelated and powerful choices that positions the organisation to win.”

The same principle applies when the “organisation” is a city.

Yet it’s hard to make strategic choices about how we grow, attract ideas, and compete globally when our identity lacks clarity. Are we thinking of and presenting ourselves as a city, a state, or something else?

We have a strategic opportunity to bring clarity now—both to how we see ourselves as Melburnians and to how we tell our story to the world. And to build a strategy around that narrative. One that doesn’t just help us make a comeback, but drives a comeback to a better city than ever.

Melbourne is already a strong brand

Our city consistently ranks at the top of global liveability indices and is a familiar reference point for people around the world. A quick scan of social media shows that #Melbourne is used tens of millions of times more than #Victoria.

“Melbourne” has global resonance. “Victoria” competes with Canada’s Victoria and lacks the same international cut-through.

This isn’t to say “Victoria” doesn’t have its place; it’s a meaningful brand within Australia. But we should acknowledge that “Melbourne” is already our most globally recognisable brand asset and nurture it as such.

What story are we telling?

Right now, Visit Victoria presents a Melbourne and Victoria that is quirky, and full of personality and diverse experiences. Invest Victoria tells a different, but equally true, story: future-focused, innovative and globally competitive. Both narratives have merit. But each shifts between “Melbourne” and “Victoria” in ways that, while understandable, blur the distinction.

With the recent shift from Plan Melbourne to Plan for Victoria, the name “Melbourne” has also disappeared from a key piece of state policy. This change may reflect a desire to lead with both identities, but it seems more likely an inadvertent outcome of a government understandably focused on serving the whole state.

At the same time, the City of Melbourne brings its own brand presence. It is one that anchors the civic, cultural and historical heart of the city, and speaks to our knowledge economy, innovation and global connection. But its footprint, confined to the central municipality, means it can’t carry the full weight of Melbourne’s broader identity on its own.

The result is a brand landscape that lacks cohesion and doesn’t amplify our strongest identity. At a time when we need to compete globally, we risk diluting the our brand with the most cut-through.

Other places have made clear choices

Cities and regions around the world have faced similar questions and made strategic choices:

• New York, London, Paris and Dubai lead with their city brand.

• Bordeaux, California, Tasmania and Bali lead with their regional, state or island identity, often with strong internal coherence between city and regional sub-brands.

• Silicon Valley isn’t a city at all—it’s a constructed identity anchored in a powerful idea.

In many cases, the chosen identity is naturally clear or intuitive. Bordeaux, for example, refers to both a city and its surrounding world-famous wine region, which makes the brand choice effortless. California, meanwhile, is home to globally recognised cities and regions that together reinforce a distinct and iconic Californian identity.

Melbourne is complex. It spans 31 local governments and anchors a state with 10 regional cities. Yet we intuitively understand what “Melbourne” means and we can choose to frame that identity with clarity and purpose.

Identity as a strategic asset

Tasmania’s experience is instructive. Brand Tasmania, Australia’s first statutory place-branding authority, made a clear choice to lead with “Tasmania” rather than “Hobart.” Under the leadership of then-CEO Todd Babiak and guided by Ministerial expectations to strengthen the brand through “collaboration across government, brand leaders, the private sector and our community,” the team undertook two years of deep listening—with new Tasmanians to those with over 60,000 years of connection.

What emerged was a unifying cultural narrative: “the quiet pursuit of the extraordinary,” shaped by shared experiences of isolation, devastation, determination, and a desire to excel in the face of derision. As someone who grew up on the island, I can say this narrative rings true.

Because that story resonated internally, it became powerful externally.

Brand Tasmania’s alignment now extends across tourism, local business, and investment attraction—all supported by a protected brand mark.

Another standout example is London & Partners, London's official promotional agency. What sets them apart isn’t just their focus, but their structure. Owned by a coalition including the Mayor of London, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the Society of London Theatre, London & Partners brings together government and industry to promote the city in a unified way.

Their work spans high-growth sectors, small business support, major event attraction, and global investment. So far, they’ve helped add over £3.4 billion to London’s economy while reinforcing a consistent identity: London as a leading global city for business, culture and innovation.

Both Tasmania and London show what’s possible when a place treats identity as a shared strategic asset and aligns institutions, industry and community around it.

Making choices for our future

Victoria is projected to grow to over 10 million people by mid-century, with around 80% of us continuing to live in Melbourne.

While our policies acknowledge and welcome this growth, we lack a coherent shared metropolitan narrative to navigate the choices it brings.

That makes it even more important to clarify Melbourne’s identity—not just for branding, but for investment, planning, policymaking and global positioning.

These are some foundational questions we must address:

• Is “Melbourne” our global brand—and does the identity of our city matter?

• If so, who should steward it? A local, state, or hybrid government–industry–community effort?

• How do we ensure our story is globally resonant and locally true?

• What governance models could align tourism, investment, planning, industry and community more effectively?

Clarifying Melbourne’s identity won’t be solved in a workshop or branding exercise. It will take leadership, deep listening, and a willingness to prioritise coherence over control.

But if we can unite around an insightful narrative—one that embraces our diversity, reflects our collective values and experiences, and shares that story with the world—we’ll have a touchstone for the next conversations that matter: hopeful, strategic, and focused on shaping the future city we all deserve.