can Nation branding boost the opportunities for under-represented countries?
Countries with a positive reputation find that everything is easier on the world stage for their citizens, while countries with a poor (or no) reputation find that everything is harder for their people. Unfair and outdated stereotypes hold places and people back. Because their countries are under-represented, citizens have fewer chances getting work abroad, to get good trade and business deals, and to attract investment. A growing number of governments are turning to nation branding to solve it, and brand professionals are hot on their heels to promote this as a service. Before we jump in with our branding toolkit in hand, we have to be aware that we’re entering a different arena: that of international diplomacy. We have to educate ourselves about this thing called Nation Branding. Luckily, there is a world-class expert in this field, Simon Anholt, to lead the way.
Anholt is a policy advisor who has worked with prime ministers and government leaders of over 53 countries. His book, ‘Places: identity, image and reputation’ is an evergreen bible on the topic. Anholt is a voice of reason in a crowd of nation branding peddlers. He offers arguments and roadmaps based on thorough, independent study and decades of experience.
Simon Anholt has a storied career working with the presidents and prime ministers of 54 countries. If he ever started a country, he says in his TED speaker list of resources, Bob Marley’s “stir it up” would be its national anthem.
In his book and talks, Anholt unpacks the sobering fact that nation branding cannot be achieved with logos and slogans. He also makes clear that we need to make a distinction between nation branding and tourism or investment campaigns. Nation branding is a combination of policy and communications. Governments can begin to influence reputation for the good of their citizens, but they cannot control the narrative.
We dove into Simon Anholt’s work to understand:
How did nation branding become a thing?
Does nation branding work?
Why is nation branding so hard?
How can countries build a stronger brand?
What does a good nation branding strategy look like?
Should a place brand be based on a simple positioning?
How do you make sure a nation branding strategy is implemented properly?
Find a list of our favorite Simon Anholt’s books and talks at the end of this post.
How did nation branding (or place branding) become a thing?
Today, Anholt argues, the world is one market. The advance of globalization means that every country, city, and region must compete with one another for its share of the world’s political, social, and cultural transactions.
The effect is plain to see. Some places with privilege get more advantages, and places without privilege struggle.
In such an environment, brand becomes a crucial factor.
It's no wonder then that “Place branding” as a practice has been growing steadily since the mid-2000s. Governments at national and local levels use it to try and bring in more tourism and investment, but increasingly also innovative startups and expert talent.
Does place branding work?
Anholt makes it clear that it would make life easier if places could be branded, but the reality is more complex: national images are not created through communications and cannot be altered by communications.
All the signals people get (or don’t get) of a place form an understanding and reputation in the mind of its audience. A country cannot control the events that people and media report on - luckily - that would make them dictatorships. While a brand manager is slaving away at the desired national image, a catastrophic event or a slew of social media posts will undermine that image.
’Branding’ makes people think of an easy, superficial trick; a quick fix - and in the shape of logos and slogans on posters. Nations have brands in the way they have reputations, but to think that it is possible to ‘do’ branding to their products is foolish.
Rwanda sponsored the football club Arsenal for four years starting in 2018 to grow its tourism sector. Tourism campaigns is proven to be possibly effective in driving visitors, but research has shown that it does not alter the perception of a country as a whole (Note: this campaign was not covered in Anholt’s book, which was published in 2010)
A clear distinction between tourism and investment promotion on one side, and nation branding on the other, needs to be made.
In 15+ years, Anholt has not seen any evidence that logos and slogans or posters have ever succeeded in directly altering international perception of places. There is no relation between national image and branding campaigns.
Tourism campaigns are the one exception: a certain product (holiday destination) is marketed to a certain audience (travelers, tourist, sun-lovers, culture lovers).
Some nation-branding campaigns are affective in so far that they succeed in creating awareness and even recall amongst certain target audiences: if you repeat a slogan frequently enough, people will end up recognizing it. Whether it actually convinces is another question.
Why is nation branding so hard?
Anhholt argues convincingly, it is public opinion that brands countries: or in other words, reduces them to simple (and in some cases, simplistic, outdated or unfair) stereotypes.
Brand management in the commercial sphere only works because the company that owns the brand has a high control over the product itself and over its channels of communication. And so, they can directly influence both the customers experience and the way it is presented in the media.
Places are very different.
No single body exercises so much control over the national ‘product’ or the way it communicates to the outside world. That's a good thing. Even dictatorships today have little chance of controlling ALL communication.
Another reason why national or regional images are hard to change is because the ideas are robust. Therefore, he argues, national reputation cannot be constructed: it must be earned.
To Africans and many in the social impact and innovation space, Nairobi is known as the City of Cheetah’s - filled with fast moving startups and brimming with micro-entrepreneurs. Outside of these circles, the world has yet to catch up. Decades of under-representation and mis-representation in the media are hard to correct. Photo by Amani Nation on Unsplash
Low-income countries have it harder than high income countries. On the global stage, there are fewer stories about them, and they are more likely to be negative.
A terrorist attack in Paris is ofset by millions of other news and preconceived notions of Paris as a place. It’s reputation as a tourist destination will be damaged only briefly and short term, whereas a place that does not have a strong reputation to combat a negative event, like Tunisia, will recover much slower from a damaged reputation.
How can countries build a stronger brand?
Anholt believes there are three important things countries can do for their national reputation:
First they can understand and monitor their international image
Second, if they collaborate imaginatively, governments can agree on a national strategy and narrative (which honestly reflects the skills of the people).
Third, governments can ensure that their country maintains a steady flow of innovative and eye-catching ‘products’.
This will require a group of people on board with a skillset that combines public diplomacy (foreign affairs and diplomacy) and nation branding (a marketing, branding, communication background).
This ensures that all communications are grounded in actions. After all, actions speak louder than words (the US State Department calls this ‘the diplomacy of deeds’).
What does a nation branding or place branding strategy look like?
In his book Places, Anholt gives a clear formula for a brand strategy for a nation brand or place brand.
First, it’s about knowing who a nation is, where it stands today, knowing where it wants to go to, and knowing how it's going to get there.
That’s no small feat of leadership and vision.
To get there, Anholt explains that the two major challenges are:
1) to reconcile the needs of different national actors into a more or less single direction, and
2) finding a strategic goal that is both inspiring and feasible.
You will have to line up multiple actions, they need to have substance, and they should continue over several years.
Should a place brand be based on one simple positioning?
Do places benefit from clear, simple image or is it preferable to have a rich, complex and contradictory image?
Commercial brands work by creating one clear image for themselves. Places are different. Anholt poses that complexity is valuable for any country. He believes the image must be able to embrace the wide variety of industrial, cultural and political activity.
It would be hard for any single positioning for a country to span all its activities without being generic or bland. And that single positioning would probably not work for all audiences: like tourists, or knowledge workers.
A more complex national image can also help protect against some negative events or experiences of some aspect of the country, like a terrorist attack, a government policy, or (in)famous inhabitants.
However, the rich image has a downside. Someone has to want to learn about a place in order to get a better more nuanced understanding of it.
Anholt advises that a more simple image could lead the way into a complex image.
How do you make sure a place branding strategy is implemented properly?
Once you have the strategy, you need to implement it - and again Anholt offers a reality check: “You can’t implement that strategy by telling about it, any more than a comedian can make people laugh by telling them how funny he is.”
This is not exactly how governments operate.
Anholt advises countries to work with its people - to tell a story of where we are going. He thinks this can be especially helpful for developing countries by focusing on their position in the world, and to define the countries goals not in terms of an alien economic model but according to the values and beliefs of the population itself.
He arguest that governments should not ask ‘what can we do to make our country famous ’but what can we do to make our country relevant?’
Cultural relevance offers the audience something that pays itself back: this is why we matter.
For those who are at the steering wheel of place branding efforts, make sure it is fair and true, and work from the desire to be understood properly, rather than remaining forever the outdated cliché.
“Branding, at its best, is a technique for achieving integrity, and harvesting the reputational benefits of integrity.”
More resources on nation branding
Places: identity, image and reputation by Simon Anholt (2010)
Brand new Justice by Simon Anholt (2004)
TED talk: Which country does the most good for the world? by Simon Anholt (2014)
TED talk: Who would the rest of the world vote for in your countries election? By Simon Anholt (2016)
Nairobi, City of Cheetahs by Anne Miltenburg