In this analysis, we aim to isolate the direct and indirect effects of the perceptions of the domestic investor of a province’s attractiveness (i.e. the Domestic Investment Place Brand, “DIPB”), to the actual level of domestic investment a province receives. This paper makes four contributions toward existing literature: the introduction of a conceptual framework for place brand, the extension of place branding literature towards a more specified domestic domain, the investigation of place brands at the provincial level, and the utilization of an economic regression model to test for empirical results. We first develop a qualitative conceptual framework for city branding determinants, stakeholders, and outcomes. Then, we use an OLS regression to test for the effect of DIPB on our dependent variable. The DIPB variable is a numerical score taken from surveys of domestic investor’s perceptions (i.e. the provinces’ domestic investment place brand equities). The dependent variable is the value of Direct Domestic Investment (“DDI”) in 2016, a two-year lag from the reference year of our independent variables (2014). We build step-wise regression models starting from 1) a basic regression model to determine contributing independent factors towards DDI. To test for direct effects, we introduce 2) an isolated regression model with the introduction of DIPB, and to test for both direct and indirect effects 3) a full regression model with the interactions of DIPB and contributing variables. Our isolated model shows that DIPB had a non-significant effect on DDI, but that level of education had a significant positive, total effect ( with p-value: 0.025). In the full model, the coefficient for level of education was negative and statistically significant ( =-1.676 < 0 with a p-value: 0.029), but its interaction term with DIPB were positive and statistically significant ( =2.585 > 0 with p-value: 0.011). This demonstrates that a high level of education only has a positive effect to DDI received only when it is combined with a good place brand. We interpret the finding that the DIPB interaction term with Energy Penetration was negative and statistically significant in the full model with caution given the nature of the 2016 investment context whereby public spending on energy infrastructure was increased intentionally.