Consultants present mid‑project brand strategy for Moab; board asked for more input
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Consultants from Camp 4 reviewed research and early brand territories for Moab on Dec. 9, reporting roughly 95 interviews and several proposed positioning choices — from 'transformative challenge' to 'awe as stewardship' — and said a recommended strategy will be delivered Jan. 13. Board members asked for additional one‑on‑one outreach before final recommendations.
Consultants from Camp 4 told the Grand County Tourism Advisory Board on Dec. 9 that their brand‑strategy project for Moab is moving from listening to synthesis and that they expect to bring a recommended direction to the board on Jan. 13.
Camp 4’s presenter said the team has completed roughly 95 interviews (about two‑thirds residents, one‑third visitors), logged about 120 hours in the field and recorded more than 500 minutes of interviews. The team used those inputs, plus a market and creative audit, to identify a set of “emerging territories” for Moab’s brand.
“We’re starting to see patterns, tensions and opportunities emerge,” the presenter said, describing three competitive approaches observed in peer destinations: targeted, high‑yield growth; behavior‑focused visitor management; and destination management that visibly reinvests tourism revenue into trails and infrastructure.
Camp 4 proposed emotional territories the team described as options for how Moab might frame itself: “transformative challenge,” “awe as stewardship,” “sanctuary for outsiders,” “relational intimacy,” and a framing the consultant called “contradiction energy,” which leans into Moab’s wild‑yet‑welcoming duality. The presenter also outlined practical levers — elevating guides and outfitters as enablers of richer experiences, lifting up non‑iconic attractions to disperse crowds, introducing ‘frictionless etiquette’ at the trip‑planning stage, and telling a stronger year‑round story.
Board members welcomed the depth of fieldwork but raised concerns that some advisory members were not interviewed one‑on‑one. One member said the oversight “was probably a miscommunication on our end”; another asked that the consulting team arrange follow‑up conversations where possible before the January meeting. Camp 4 agreed to accommodate additional input where feasible and said January would be the session for deep discussion and alignment.
Next step: Camp 4 will sharpen visitor archetypes, deliver a brand truth framework and map opportunity tradeoffs for the board’s review on Jan. 13.