When nations are brands, war is bad PR
Dec. 3rd, 2007 11:31 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
imomus
Flying to Venice a couple of weeks ago I was leafing through Inflight -- Easyjet's imaginatively-named in-flight magazine -- when I came to an article about the joys of Warsaw. "Make a pact to discover Warsaw," ran the intro, punning daringly on the name of the military alliance between iron curtain states. The article itself began just as brazenly: "Have you ever wondered why David Bowie has called one of his tracks from the LOW album Warszawa? Why Joy Division used to call themselves "Warsaw" back in the late 70s?" Um, let me guess? Because they wanted to conjure a "low" mood of urban desolation and sadness? Because they wanted to evoke chilly memories of ghetto massacres and concentration camps? It's a wonder the third rhetorical question wasn't "Haven't you ever wondered why Ian Curtis committed suicide?" Welcome to the thin ice, topsy-turvy world of national rebranding.[Error: unknown template video]
When I got to Venice I was confronted with something similar, but at least this time actually intended to be satire: Finnish artist Adel Abidin's "Abidin Travels" was a room in the Nordic pavilion turned into a travel agency advertising tourist trips to Baghdad. It was tragedy raised to the level of farce. But it was also an exercise in branding. One doomed to failure, certainly, but -- as the Warsaw article shows -- not quite as far from the realm of plausibility as we might think.
An art history grad student recently wrote asking my thoughts on a symposium paper she was planning on the idea that national identity in art is obsolete. I replied that I didn't think national identity was obsolete at all. Events like the World Cup, the Olympic Games, Miss World and the Venice Biennale all show how strong nation is as an organising principle. Various studies have shown that it's getting harder, not easier, to cross national boundaries, thanks to what I've called "the paranoid security state". Statehood for Palestine is a big subject in the art world just now, showing that nationalism isn't just a 19th century ideal. The current -- and extraordinary -- collapse of Belgium isn't because nation as a concept is dead, but because Belgium contains two nations which hardly talk to each other at all. Arguments against the nation tend to sound very 90s-retro now.
But what I think has changed is that nation functions rather differently than it used to. It functions now as brand. This isn't a particularly shocking insight -- it's built into the assumptions behind the Inflight magazine and the Baghdad Travel Agency. But it gets interesting when we extend it beyond tourism and culture, and start positing the idea that a nation's -- or a city's -- fortunes ride on its perceived image. How reliable is it, how exciting, how attractive do we think its exports are? How close to its actual performance is its perceived performance? What could be done to close that gap?
It's this work -- the quantification and visualisation of subjective perceptions of nations and cities -- that has become the life's work of branding consultant Simon Anholt. After years of market research with Proctor and Gamble, Anholt set up his own agency and produced the Anholt-GMI Nation Brands Index and the Anholt-GMI City Brands Index. Sure, this is just another marketing consultant carving himself a career. But I find the data these people present -- and the way they present it -- rather fascinating. Ronald Inglehart (of Inglehart Values Map fame) was just this guy who worked for IBM and handed out questionnaires to their staff all over the world. But he took the data and built up an incredible system for profiling cultures -- something that appeals to me because I travel so much, and experience these cultural shifts subjectively. It's great to see them charted (and visualized) in a slightly more objective way.
Anholt polls people all over the world about their perceptions of particular nations then plots his findings in hexagons. You quickly learn to read the shapes as multi-dimensional "empathy blobs", showing whether a particular nation is highly rated as an exporter, for tourism, government, for its people, its investment opportunities, its culture and heritage. It isn't so much that these are the nation's real strengths and weaknesses, more that this is how people perceive them. So, for instance, Anholt -- presenting himself as "one of the world’s leading specialists in creating brand strategies for countries, cities and regions" -- can tell South Korea that the nation really needs some serious PR work to get its image better in line with its performance. And he can tell Israel that its public image ranks worst of all the nations surveyed in the 2006 poll because of its war on Lebanon, and that "to succeed in permanently changing the country's image, the country has to be prepared to change its behavior... a reputation cannot be constructed: it has to be earned".
Some other findings that interested me: in the first Anholt ranking (2005), Sweden was the world's overall most positively-rated national brand (and here Anholt's image rating correlates, interestingly, with Richard Florida's rating of Sweden as the world's most creative country -- and perhaps also Bin Laden's quip that if he'd hated freedom he would have attacked Sweden). Last year's index found that the EU as a collective brand "has become the most significant super-region in the eyes of the global consumer, when compared with the United States (10th place) or China (20th place) which are typically featured as strong economic brands". Someone tell the Euro-sceptic British!
British mistrust of Europe might be Freud's "narcissism of minor differences" at work, but it's probably more to do with memories of war. For similar reasons, perhaps, Anholt also finds that most Asian countries hate Japan. Chinese and Koreans are the only people to actively avoid buying Japanese goods, for instance. While the Japanese think that visiting China for tourism would be "exciting", "fascinating" and "risky", the Chinese think that visiting Japan for a holiday would be "depressing", "predictable" and "unpleasant". Everyone thinks Japan has great culture -- except the Chinese and Koreans, who think Japan "lacks culture".
Overall, America's brand image has been disastrously tarnished, and Anholt makes no bones about the reason: war. "The deep unpopularity of US foreign policy... is dragging down what are still pretty positive results in the areas of trade, exports, investment and popular culture. Many (including myself) have predicted that if the poor image of US policy persists, it may begin to have an effect on people’s acceptance of US products." The US government is perceived by pretty much everyone except the Japanese as "unpredictable", "sinister" and "dangerous". This, thinks Anholt, has an impact on people's acceptance of US products, and therefore on the entire US economy. The Neocons, in short, have ruined everything.
Despite its participation in the recent American wars, Britain comes out of the Anholt surveys pretty well. "The British people are ranked higher than any other nationality, and score exceptionally well on qualities such as “educated”,“polite”,“honest”,“trustworthy” and “intelligent”... although they are also described as “boring” more often than any other country".
That should be my cue -- as a British person myself -- to stop this lecture before I bore the pants off you, but I can't resist adding something about cities. Anholt's first city ranking had Berlin at 10 (and London at number one). His second saw Sydney knock London off the top spot, and Berlin fall to 17. Interesting to compare the Anholt city image list with Monocle magazine's Most Liveable Cities list, which this year "polled" this ranking (mostly by asking Tyler Brule and his assistant Fiona what they liked):
1. Munich
2. Copenhagen
3. Zurich
4. Tokyo
5. Vienna
6. Helsinki
7. Sydney 8. Stockholm
9. Honolulu
10. Madrid
11. Melbourne
12. Montreal
13. Barcelona
14. Kyoto
15. Vancouver
16. Auckland
17. Singapore
18. Hamburg
19. Paris
20. Geneva
My list of course has Tokyo on top and Berlin at number two, and the only PR I have to do is getting Hisae to agree.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 11:02 am (UTC)Not exactly the image he tries so hard to project is it?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 11:06 am (UTC)1. My guess is that people have a good impression of the EU largely because they think it's impotent. Negative perceptions of China seem to have grown with the perception that it's a rising power. If the EU starts flexing its muscles, people will stop liking it so much.
2. The Anholt survey suggests people think the entire UK population are like Stephen Fry.
3. The "narcissism of minor differences" comment reminds me of when I was in Barcelona with a friend, and a Catalan separatist demonstration went past. I asked him what it was about. He explained that the separatists hate the fact that foreigners associate them with beautiful things like Flamenco. The demo was to say "all that Spanish stuff has nothing to do with us - it's not our culture"...
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 11:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 11:11 am (UTC)How lovely is Munich, though? I'm desperate to go back there. I think it might be edging out Berlin in the Official Sounding Name McGazz German City Niceness Statistical Index Metric. Baden Baden is in 3rd.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 11:29 am (UTC)But Taiwan and Hong Kong are nice.
Tokyo isn't any fun, at all. It's just loud and crowded. I much prefer Nara or Kyoto.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 11:36 am (UTC)What would be numbers three and four?
One major development over the past 20 years is that practically all of the big international cities have become too difficult to live comfortably in, unless you're earning a fortune. Such is the case, in my experience at least, with New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, and even Sydney. Berlin is different for obvious reasons. Brussels also scores well on liveability-on-a-reasonable-budget. I'm just wondering what this means to the bohemian ethic in general. Because the fact is that these big international cities remain the most important commercial and administrative hubs, and I think something is lost when the commercial and bohemian worlds are no longer existing side-by-side. As capital globalises, are we ironically seeing the ghettoisation of bohemia, with all the ultimate atrophy that this implies?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 11:43 am (UTC)"The political aspects of the country’s image appear to be contaminating perceptions of other areas of national interest which, in theory, should be entirely unrelated. However much one might disapprove of the policies of a country’s government or even of successive governments, this shouldn’t really have any impact on one’s views of its natural landscape or its past cultural achievements. Yet the case of Israel shows that there is no absolutely impenetrable barrier between the world’s perceptions of national politics and its perceptions of national culture, society, economics, history or even geography, and if the politics create sufficient disapproval, no area of national interest is safe from contamination. America should take note."
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 11:52 am (UTC)Cities to live in? After Tokyo and Berlin? Perhaps I'd put Paris. Barcelona. Kyoto. Osaka. Never been to Prague, so I can't talk about the real Bohemia! Australia seems to be catching up quickly in some of the rankings, but I doubt I could live there. No. Rather Hong Kong, Singapore, Shanghai, Kuala Lumpur, Beijing... Then there are romantic dreams of Samarkand, Kathmandu, Thimphu, Saigon. And there's always my hometown of Edinburgh, which isn't a bad place at all. In fact it's rather lush.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 12:01 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 12:02 pm (UTC)"After much tyre-kicking, data-sifting and deliberation [ie Tyler met some cute guys there and Fiona likes the shopping], Munich emerged as [ie we decided to make it] Monocle's most liveable city in the world. A winning combination of investment in infrastructure, high-quality housing, low crime, liberal politics, strong media and general feeling of Gemütlichkeit make it a city that should inspire others."
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 12:05 pm (UTC)Oh, I can imagine you in amidst the café society of Melbourne. Besides, they've just voted in a new government, whose very first act was to ratify the Kyoto treaty - with withdrawal of Australian troops from Iraq to follow shortly.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 12:05 pm (UTC)Given all that (and those are perceptions I share), I think it's probably the case that Tel Aviv would be, at the very least, a pleasant surprise. It couldn't possibly live down to its bad PR, anyway.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 12:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 12:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 02:44 pm (UTC)That's a bit of a chicken and egg thing to say isn't it?
From a brief skim through, the whole thing seems to be so simplified as to be almost useless. To treat the aura surrounding a country as a brand rather implies that, like a brand, it can be changed with a little marketing. This might work for a small tourist destination, but for a whole country like China or America?
It doesn't matter if everyone hates China, thinks it's dirty, backward, oppressive etc (China is a dirty, polluted, shite-smelling country filled with people who are all trying to outcompete each other for the relative handful of prosperous jobs. I don't see how that makes it a nice place to visit...). They will buy the products it produces, because they buy products. And China's products get all over the world, because they 're the cheapest.
China's products and manufacturing are the cheapest because China exploits polluting sweatshop style labour and the people are competitive. These don't do anything positive for the 'brand', but they do give the country money. The money will be/is being used to modernize the culture, which will then, as a side effect, change the brand.
I don't think normal consumers really think much about where a product comes from these days when they spend. It's a case of 'I like this Samsung phone because the screen is swish and glossy, therefore I will buy it', not 'ah yes, the South Korean brand speaks to me, they're strong on export, I'll get the phone'. They won't know that it came from Korea, or that parts were made in China and that the oil used in the plastic shell came from Iran.
For tourism a country needs many brands. Japan needs to attract older visitors with its temples and younger people with its gothic lolita. What a consumer with no interest in either of these thinks about the country is irrelevant, because they'll never visit.
Will Sweden's high ranking brand really get it places? I can't think of many who would pick it as a holiday destination, and you buy from IKEA because their products are cheap and look sort of modern.
So, to sum up, I'm angry and rambling.
now that SUP is buying LiveJournal
Date: 2007-12-03 03:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 03:18 pm (UTC)I think nation-as=brand is more important for some products than others. It's important that a BMW is German, for instance, and that Germans are thought to be efficient, reliable, rich and somewhat mean. So you can drive that car confident that it's soldily-built and somewhat mean (both frugal and macho). This is a product in harmony with perceptions of its manufacturer's national brand.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 03:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 04:13 pm (UTC)Of course as you consume these cultures thanks to their brands, you destroy them, and you help destroy the people who live there by pushing the top even higher, since what makes up the daily existence for people, becomes a consumer experience for you (hand of market, etc.). But that's becoming the new generation gap - between the voracious, insatiable older generation consuming any experience in their path(and their awful, awful children genetically or philosophically) and the young struggling to have some basic existence while slaving away for these people.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 04:35 pm (UTC)Re: now that SUP is buying LiveJournal
Date: 2007-12-03 04:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 05:52 pm (UTC)Back in the 1940s there was a windrush of immigration from the Commonwealth countries to Britain, namely the Carribean and India.
Ive seen and read many interviews with the 1940's immigrants and they all seemed to have the perception that Britain was paved with gold; A powerful, wealthy country where people were highly educated.
...then they got here and realised Britain has its fair share of working class shitholes full of uneducated ignorant plebs, and that enviroment was the only type in which those immigrants could afford to live. What a surprise, Britian is just like everywhere else in the world!
The idea of "national brand" can indeed be relevant, as demonstrated above, however, its ignorant to fail to see the diversity and complexities within each nation; its not something you can sum up with averages. Only the naive take national brands seriously.
As someone's already stated, the idea of making value judgements based on national brands is all very baby-boomers. I think today's younger generation are growing up with a vastly better understanding of the world thanks to technology such as the internet. It's enabling not just access to more information about the world but actual access to people worldwide. It's broadening perceptions and making national brands less and less relevant.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 05:55 pm (UTC)But Taiwan and Hong Kong are nice."
Capitalism.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 06:28 pm (UTC)(Disclaimer: I'm from Melbourne.)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 06:45 pm (UTC)But really, even here, I think the country brand is very very secondary to the company's own brand. You buy a BMW because it's a BMW. I don't think a German luxury car start up would stand a better chance than a Japanese luxury car start up. People wouldn't trust either because they're new and unproven. They might trust both more than, say, a new Bulgarian manufacturer, but that's thanks to the work of Japanese and German automobile industries in the past. Producing good cars would be the only way for Bulgaria to change its reputation.
If anything, in the car industry, the country's brand has most effect inside that country. People in America are likely to buy an American car because they are American. Someone in England might weigh up a Ford or a Fiat. And which country owns which brand anyway when it comes to cars?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 07:11 pm (UTC)You can read a german version of my conclusion chapter in the next link:
http://dissertationceballos.blogspot.com/2007/12/nation-und-publikum-in-der-spanischen.html
It might interest you. Thank you so much for the last postings, they were inspiring.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 07:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 09:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 09:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 11:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-04 12:40 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-04 02:35 am (UTC)About 3 years ago there was a series of exhibitions and installations in Madrid's casa encendida centre on the subject of tourism and its role in branding of countries.
one I recall vividly called 'arqueología del turismo', which dealt with the problems of the 'global city' - basically how cultures and cities are transformed in line with the dictates and the demands of what is basically fantasy or fiction; many travellers seem increasingly less able or willing to handle social realities and seek a kind of fantasy urban destination with none of the conflict and tension one gets in a real urban hub. it's like a disneyland construction phenomenon, where social change has no place as it doesn't fit with the brand. the losers are as always the working class inhabitants of such areas. The installation had real used aircraft seats, 'inflight videos' and a lot about the spanish resorts and the widespread destruction of the communities involved.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-04 06:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-04 06:24 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-04 07:27 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-04 08:44 am (UTC)good on labour , as incredible as the fall of the berlin wall at the time
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-04 02:00 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-04 02:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-04 04:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-06 04:11 am (UTC)i want to read more about national identity since the advent of middle class tourism....
PR for countries
Date: 2007-12-13 11:00 pm (UTC)i liked their techniques -- like planting op-ed pieces in the papers, setting up meetings and trips to the country with news coverage. and the fact it cost about 600k to 1mil a year was interesting, 'cause how much is this kind of PR worth?