Mid-sized city economic development director

Groundbreak Industrial opportunity intelligence for America's working cities Groundbreak exists to close the intelligence gap that costs tier-3 American cities manufacturing deals they are structurally positioned to win. The reshoring wave is delivering hundreds of thousands of industrial jobs back to domestic soil, but the analysis helping cities compete for that investment has been written for tier-1 metros, site selection consultants, and corporate real estate teams. Groundbreak is built for the practitioners at the other end: economic development directors in mid-sized cities who have the land, the workforce, and the infrastructure, but not the market intelligence to know which industries are looking for exactly what they have. The publication is a subscription intelligence product. Success is not measured one reader at a time — it is measured in aggregate deal flow: a national readership of ED teams, each using the publication to build a sharper sector target list, collectively closing a disproportionate share of the manufacturing deals that tier-3 markets can win. The mechanism is broadcast-precision self-sorting. Each analysis describes a specific industrial opportunity — market dynamics, capital flows, growth timing — and the precise city attributes required to compete for it. Power capacity thresholds, site acreage minimums, rail adjacency requirements, workforce certification pipelines. That specificity is what makes the publication work at scale: cities that qualify recognize themselves and act; cities that don't stop chasing dead ends. The publication is the matching layer between industrial demand and city supply, and precision in the attribute description is the core editorial discipline that makes that matching reliable. What Groundbreak gives that nothing else does is a translation layer between sector trends and city-level action. Site Selection Magazine and Business Facilities write for corporate decision-makers. IEDC covers the breadth of economic development practice. The Reshoring Initiative publishes data, not editorial. No existing publication synthesizes manufacturing sector intelligence through the specific lens of tier-3 city opportunity and practitioner action. Readers can count on Groundbreak to deliver sector-specific market dynamics with specific infrastructure requirements, proven deal structures, and competitive positioning intelligence — filtered and framed for the director who needs to know what this means for a 75,000-person city with available industrial land and a community college ready to launch a CNC machining certificate if given a reason to. Groundbreak functions as a pre-pitch strategy tool for economic development teams in tier-3 American cities competing for manufacturing investment. It translates national-level industrial sector intelligence into city-level action: which opportunities are moving, what attributes those opportunities require, and how comparable cities have won or positioned for similar deals. The publication shapes annual sector target lists — helping directors decide which 1–2 opportunities are worth pursuing and which to stop chasing — and produces analysis credible enough to be forwarded to a developer, a city council member, or a state agency contact as third-party validation of a strategic direction. U.S. manufacturing and industrial sector dynamics analyzed specifically for tier-3 city opportunity — markets of roughly 50,000 to 200,000 people. Core sectors include advanced manufacturing and precision components, AgTech and bio-manufacturing, clean tech circular economy and recycling, and grid infrastructure manufacturing, with expansion into adjacent sectors as editorial depth matures. Coverage spans market dynamics driving expansion, supply-chain tiers where small cities compete, site and infrastructure requirements, workforce profiles, deal structures and incentive architectures, peer city competitive positioning, and the infrastructure readiness practices that make a city pitchable before an RFP arrives. The lens is always the same: what does this mean for a tier-3 city's ability to compete for and close a specific category of industrial deal? - Macro reshoring narrative without city-level translation — "reshoring is accelerating" is known; restating it wastes the reader's time and invites unfavorable comparison to the Reshoring Initiative and trade press - Tier-1 and tier-2 metro market analysis — every word spent on markets this audience cannot compete with is a word wasted; large-metro deals appear only when they illuminate supply-chain clustering opportunities for smaller markets - Named company prospecting or active deal pipeline tracking — the highest-value proprietary intelligence (which companies are in active site selection) lives behind consulting relationships and private databases, not the public web; promising this and underdelivering would destroy credibility - Generic economic development practice guidance — IEDC owns the breadth-of-practice education space; Groundbreak does not compete on workforce development methodology, downtown revitalization, housing policy, or other non-industrial ED topics unless directly connected to a manufacturing deal attribute - Per-city customized recommendations — the publication describes opportunities precisely enough that cities self-sort; it does not provide advisory services to individual markets - International manufacturing or reshoring trends outside the U.S. market context Mid-sized city economic development director Runs a team of 3–8 in a city of 50,000–200,000 people. Knows every major local employer by name, can walk the available industrial inventory from memory, and has a direct line to the mayor's office. The core job is deal origination and deal close: identifying target industries, building the pitch, navigating incentive structures, and converting site selector interest into groundbreakings. Builds sector target lists from instinct, last-cycle data, and whatever consultants bring — not from current market intelligence. Reads on a laptop between calls and needs something concrete enough to cite in a pitch deck by Wednesday. The starting conditions vary — legacy industrial cities pivoting from a former manufacturing base, agricultural corridor cities with underleveraged land, growing cities without a defined industrial identity, and cities that have landed one anchor deal and need to build a cluster around it. All are in scope. The legacy industrial pivot is the sharpest case: sitting on old facilities, aging workforce, some brownfield land, credibility with blue-collar employers, but hasn't landed a new-economy deal in years. This reader is the hub, not the end user. What they find credible enough to share shapes what the publication must be. The secondary audience is everyone the director forwards it to: the local developer who needs to know which sectors want the flex space he can build, the city manager who needs to understand why the council should approve a substation upgrade before a single RFP exists, the state contact who allocates site readiness grants across competing communities. Content must work at both levels — analytically rigorous for the director, readable and quotable for the upstream recipient who won't wade through methodology. Behavioral constraints that shape editorial decisions: these teams operate in competitive silence and will not publicly share strategic intelligence, so organic distribution is structurally capped. They read to prepare for a specific event — a site selector meeting, a council vote, a pitch deck revision — and content that doesn't connect to an action within days is forgotten. Small teams have no one assigned to trend-tracking; length tolerance is low but information density tolerance is high. They already receive IEDC, Site Selection, and Business Facilities content — if Groundbreak reads like a less authoritative version of what they already get, there is no second read. As a subscription product, the publication must earn credibility through specificity and provable sourcing; one wrong company name or stale data point and it gets mentally reclassified as unreliable. The director builds a qualified annual sector target list grounded in current market intelligence instead of instinct — knowing which 1–2 industrial opportunities their city's specific asset profile positions them to win, and which to stop chasing. They walk into the next site selector conversation with sector-literate, attribute-specific positioning that a generic pitch cannot match. The underlying stakes: tier-3 cities that consistently land advanced manufacturing investment build wage floors that change the economic trajectory of their communities; cities that miss the current reshoring window spend the next decade competing for lower-margin opportunities. Direct, declarative, compressed. Write for someone who has 12 minutes between calls and needs to extract a usable insight. Lead with the conclusion or the actionable finding, then support it. No throat-clearing, no scene-setting paragraphs. Every sentence must pass the test: does this change what the reader does next Monday? Attribute descriptions — power thresholds, acreage requirements, workforce pipelines, permitting timelines — must be numerically specific wherever data supports it. "Heavy power requirements" fails; "three-phase power above 2MW with redundant feed" works. Address the reader as a peer practitioner, never as a student. Assume they know what a TIF district is, what Phase I environmental means, and how site selector relationships work. Authoritative and practitioner-grade — the register of a well-briefed colleague who has done the research you didn't have time to do. Confident but not promotional. Present analysis as grounded judgment, not certainty. The publication must feel like intelligence, not marketing — no boosterism about reshoring, no cheerleading for tier-3 cities, no hype about any sector. State what the data shows, name the constraints, and let the reader decide whether their city qualifies. Groundbreak holds one structural conviction: tier-3 American cities are systematically underestimated in the competition for manufacturing investment, and the intelligence gap — not the asset gap — is the primary reason they lose deals they could win. This conviction drives editorial selection (what to cover) but must not distort analysis (what the data says). Never advocate for a specific city, a specific incentive policy, or a specific deal outcome. When covering federal policy, tariffs, or regulatory shifts, present the practitioner implications without partisan framing. Use economic development and site selection terminology without explanation: EDO, RFP, TIF, PILOT, Phase I/II environmental, shovel-ready, spec building, brownfield, three-phase power, OEM, tier-2/tier-3 supplier. These are the reader's working vocabulary. Define sector-specific technical terms that cross into the reader's domain from outside it — e.g., explain what a bioreactor requires on first reference, but never explain what a site selector does. Every factual claim about market size, growth rates, company announcements, deal terms, or policy specifics must be attributable to a named, verifiable source. The credibility threshold is high because the reader stakes professional credibility on what they cite from this publication. When data conflicts across sources, name the conflict rather than silently choosing one figure. When drawing inferences about why a city won a deal or what attributes matter most, clearly distinguish observable fact (the city had rail access and pre-permitted sites) from editorial analysis (this was likely the deciding factor). Never present inference as established fact. Sector dynamics, deal announcements, policy shifts, and competitive city moves are time-sensitive. Content must reflect the most current publicly available data. When referencing company expansion announcements, include the announcement date. When citing market projections, name the projection year and source vintage. Reshoring and industrial policy are moving fast — particularly tariff policy, IRA/IIJA implementation, and grid infrastructure mandates — and stale data actively damages the publication's credibility with this audience. Primary-grade sources for this domain: Reshoring Initiative annual reports and case databases; Site Selectors Guild surveys and state-of-industry reports; company press releases for expansion announcements and facility specifications; governor's office and state EDA press releases for deal terms and incentive disclosures; GASB Statement 77 tax abatement disclosures for incentive structures; U.S. DOE, NERC, and Wood Mackenzie for grid and energy infrastructure data; EPA brownfield program documentation; DOL registered apprenticeship data; federal legislation text (IRA, IIJA) for policy-driven market dynamics. Secondary sources: Site Selection Magazine, Business Facilities, and sector-specific trade press (IndustryWeek, Manufacturing Dive, POWER Magazine, AgFunder) for market context and trend validation. Municipal sources: city council minutes, capital improvement plans, bond issuances, and utility commission filings for peer city competitive intelligence and infrastructure investment tracking. - Market projection reports from research aggregators (e.g., Precedence Research, Grand View Research) frequently overstate TAM figures and should be corroborated against primary industry data before citing - State and city economic development marketing materials present assets in the most favorable light possible; treat these as claims to be verified, not facts to be cited - Reshoring job announcements count announced jobs, not realized jobs — significant gaps exist between announcement and actual employment; note this distinction when it matters - Trade press covering specific sectors (AgTech, battery recycling, grid infrastructure) writes for industry operators and investors, not for economic development practitioners — sector dynamics must be translated through the tier-3 city lens rather than restated in industry-native framing - Company expansion press releases often omit site selection criteria and decision factors; when reconstructing deal logic, clearly flag what is observable versus inferred

Stay updated.