Since the advance of globalisation, national image and reputation have become ever more critical assets in the modern world. Attempts to enhance these assets are sometimes pursued by governments under the name of ‘nation branding’ – all too often a naive, ineffectual and wasteful application of commercial marketing techniques – and sometimes in a narrow and primitive form of public diplomacy. However, new forms of public diplomacy and a more sophisticated approach to nation branding or competitive identity can work together to help create prosperity, improve international relations and ultimately address some of the ‘grand challenges’ of our age.

When I started writing about an idea I called ‘nation brand’ more than twelve years ago, my observation was a simple one: that the reputations of countries are analogous to the brand images of companies and products, and are equally critical to the progress and prosperity of those countries because of their influence on the opinions and behaviours of each country’s ‘target audiences’: foreign investors, tourists, consumers, students, entrepreneurs, trading partners, the media, other governments, donors, multilateral agencies, and so on.

The need for understanding in this area is critical. Today, the world is one market; the advance of globalisation means that every country, city and region must compete with every other for its share of the world’s commercial, political, social and cultural transactions. In such an environment, as in any busy marketplace, brand image becomes a critical factor, providing a vital short cut to an informed buying decision.

Countries, cities and regions that are lucky or virtuous enough to have acquired a positive reputation find that everything they or their citizens wish to do on the global stage is easier: their brand goes before them like a calling card that opens doors, creates trust and respect, and raises the expectation of quality, competence and integrity.

Places with a reputation – no matter how ill-deserved – for being poor, uncultured, backward, dangerous or corrupt will find that everything they or their citizens try to achieve outside their own neighbourhood is harder, and the onus is always on them to prove that they don’t conform to the national stereotype. Compare the experiences of a Swedish and an Iranian manager on the international job market, or the struggles of an exporter from Bangladesh with one from Canada. Compare the ease with which a mediocre tourist resort in a highly regarded country can gain glowing media coverage and celebrity endorsement with the difficulties experienced by an unspoiled and unique destination in a country with a weak reputation. Compare the way consumers in Europe or America will willingly pay more for an unknown ‘Japanese’ product than for an identical ‘Korean’ product that was probably made in the same Chinese factory. Compare how the international media will report positively on an ordinary piece of policy from the government of a country reputed to be fair, rich and stable, with the silence or sharp criticism that greets a wise, brave and innovative policy from a country saddled with a negative image.

by Simon Anholt, Author, Researcher and Independent Member of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office Public Diplomacy Board

Read full article