Attention Can Be Bought. Brands Must Be Built. Cultural Value Must Be Cultivated Over Time.

The recent controversy surrounding the Chinese variety show Keep Running (奔跑吧) has sparked widespread debate after reports emerged that the programme had charged significant production fees to multiple local cultural and tourism authorities. Some questioned whether investments ranging from several million yuan to nearly RMB 20 million were justified, while others argued that such arrangements represented normal commercial cooperation in a market economy.

However, if the discussion focuses only on whether a television programme is “worth the price”, we may overlook a more fundamental question:

Why are so many cities willing to spend substantial resources to purchase attention?

This reflects a growing phenomenon of attention anxiety among cities. In the attention economy, competition between destinations has become increasingly intense. In the past, cities attracted visitors through their natural resources, geographic advantages, and economic opportunities. Later, they competed through city branding and image-building. Today, many are increasingly dependent on their ability to capture public attention.

A trending topic, a viral video, or a popular television programme can suddenly place a city in the spotlight, making attention itself a highly sought-after resource for local cultural and tourism authorities.

Yet attention is ultimately a means, not an end.

The more important question is whether cities that invest heavily in short-term attention are also building long-term cultural assets.

In recent years, many Chinese cities have embraced television productions, variety shows, and influencer marketing as strategies for cultural tourism promotion. These approaches can generate immediate visibility and provide measurable results through data such as views, searches, and visitor numbers.

However, attention and influence are not the same thing.

A city that captures public attention today may not remain memorable tomorrow. A successful television programme may create a temporary increase in visitors, but it does not necessarily create lasting cultural appeal.

From the perspective of cultural governance, the real challenge is not simply attracting attention to a place, but creating a place that continues to deserve attention.

The distinction is fundamental. The former is about communication; the latter is about value creation.

As a resource-limited city-state, Singapore has long faced intense international competition. Yet it is notable that Singapore has rarely relied on a single television programme, celebrity endorsement, or viral moment to define its identity.

From the Singapore Arts Festival and Singapore Biennale to decades of investment in heritage conservation, public art, and cultural infrastructure, the underlying strategy has remained consistent: not chasing temporary attention, but steadily building a distinctive cultural brand.

Even Singapore’s internationally recognised identity as a “Garden City” was not created through a single campaign. It was shaped through decades of sustained investment and policy commitment.

Today, when people around the world think of Singapore, they associate it with cleanliness, safety, multiculturalism, and a harmonious relationship between urban development and nature. They do not associate it with one particular successful marketing event.

This demonstrates an important principle:

A successful city brand is built through long-term cultural investment, not short-term attention campaigns.

The British Experience: Why Content Matters More Than Attention

Beyond Singapore, the United Kingdom offers another valuable example.

Over the years, I have visited various cultural institutions across Britain. What impressed me most were not large-scale attractions designed around mass appeal, but places that appeared to have little interest in chasing attention.

The Black Country Living Museum, located in England’s West Midlands region, is, on the surface, a local industrial heritage museum. It does not rely on celebrity appearances, influencer installations, or aggressive advertising campaigns. Yet it has become one of Britain’s most successful industrial heritage museums, attracting visitors and school groups from across the country.

Its success comes from something more fundamental: content.

The museum does not attempt to imitate London, nor does it follow every cultural trend. Instead, it focuses on the unique industrial history of the Black Country region and transforms that history into an immersive experience through relocated historic buildings, reconstructed environments, and live interpretation.

Visitors do not come simply because the museum is famous. They come because it offers something authentic and irreplaceable.

Interestingly, after the popular television drama Peaky Blinders filmed scenes there, the museum gained further public recognition.

But the order of events is crucial:

The television series did not create the museum’s value. The museum already possessed meaningful cultural content; the programme simply expanded its reach.

Content creates attention. Attention does not create content.

This is where many cultural tourism projects risk misunderstanding the relationship between visibility and value.

When more and more cities compete for the same sources of attention — celebrities, television programmes, and short-form videos — city identities can gradually become increasingly similar.

Audiences remember the programme rather than the place. Visitors remember the celebrity rather than the local culture.

The result is a paradox:

Everyone is competing for attention, yet fewer places are truly distinctive.

At the same time, cities are forced to spend increasingly more resources competing for limited public attention. If this model continues, destinations may become trapped in a cycle of:

buying attention → losing attention → buying more attention.

From Purchasing Attention to Building Public Value

In recent years, international cultural policy discussions have increasingly focused on the concept of public value.

Cultural investment should not be measured only by immediate economic returns. It should also be evaluated through its long-term contribution to social identity, community participation, education, and cultural sustainability.

If a city has a substantial budget, spending it on a single television programme may generate temporary attention. However, investing the same resources into cultural institutions, heritage revitalisation, public cultural spaces, or local creative ecosystems can create value that lasts for decades.

The former creates exposure.

The latter creates assets.

Attention disappears quickly. Cultural assets continue to grow.

The controversy surrounding Keep Running is therefore not fundamentally about whether programme fees are reasonable. The deeper question it reveals is:

When cities become increasingly accustomed to purchasing attention, do they still have the patience to build cultural value of their own?

Because ultimately, what determines whether a city will be remembered by the world is not how much attention it can buy, but how many stories it possesses that cannot be copied.

Attention can be bought. Brands must be built. Cultural value must be cultivated over time.

For cities seeking sustainable development, this may be a far more important challenge than achieving any single moment of public attention.

China does not lack cities capable of appearing on television programmes. What it needs are more places like the Black Country Living Museum — places that remain worth visiting even without a television show, a celebrity endorsement, or a viral campaign.

*Originally published in Chinese by Lianhe Zaobao (Singapore) on 28 July 2026.*

——————