We are living in a global world. Globalization is the vehicle that has transported the US-originated credit crisis to the rest of the world and concurrently allows me to buy shoes in Paris from London.
In this time of borderless societies, countries find themselves competing for everything: business, events, investment capital, David Beckham, tourists and the list goes on.
According to Simon Anholt, author of Competitive Identity: The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities and Regions (2007), ‘all responsible governments, on behalf of their people, their institutions and their companies, need to discover what the world’s perception of their country is, and develop a strategy for managing it.’ (p. 2)
So can you really brand a country? Treat it like a pair sneakers, a box of cereal or a laptop? It is possible as many countries and cities have successfully done so. In the process of branding it is important to consider several vital components:
- What is the destination’s current reputation?
- What kind of image does the destination want to portray?
- What important components should the logo incorporate?
- What are some the key messages?
- Who is the target audience?
As with any other branding, national tourist organizations must be careful to ensure that a cohesive ‘identity’ is being tailored and delivered to the media and potential visitors.
Next post: reputations of countries across the globe: good, bad and ugly!
Reference
Anholt, S., (2007). Competitive Identity: The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities and Regions. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Interesting blog Joni.I would say though that if the branding of a country is done by the government itself,is'nt there a tendency to only talk about the good sides to the world?as the better potrayed a country is,the more likely it will attract investors etc.
ReplyDeleteWell, yes you're absolutely right. All brands do that though, talk about the good and defend against negative press. The branding of a country is usually undertaken by the gov. itself or outsourced to an agency or independent consultant. In any event, the government is has a final say on what messages and images are being sent out.
ReplyDeletei take your point but the reality is that the government can only wish they had the final say on what messages and images are sent out of a given country.
ReplyDeleteThere is the fact that entertainers, athletes and notable names are ambassadors of their own countries, whether positive or negative and their actions play a large role in how their country is perceived by the outside world. With that said, there is little the gov. can do to control the image portrayed to or messages received by international investors.
Mass media has made information so readily available to the world that it is unrealistic for any governing body to think they can control how their country is perceived.
The fortunate and sometimes unfortunate truth is that the worldwide perception of a country rests heavily on these "ambassadors"............but hey, thats just my opinion.
Time to clarify, as I realize I was a bit unclear in my last comment. As you have rightfully pointed out Nikolaus, what is sent out, message and image wise, can either be controlled or as you have illustrated 'uncontrollable'.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to controlled messaging, as is the case with destination PR and Marketing campaigns, the government, whether or not they chose to outsource the role, are ultimately responsible for approving and determining what gets sent out and ensuring that it is a cohesive message.
Uncontrollable messaging, as you have pointed out with ambassadors, is not an area that the government can wield any real power. It doesn’t stop there either, as countries are also judged according to the products they produce, their citizens in general, not just high profile figures, stereotypes, and their laws and policies.
Jamaica, for example, is viewed as a homophobic nation, not only because of the lyrics of artists such as Beenie Man and Buju Banton, but also because of our sodomy laws and highly publicized media stories covering regular Jamaican citizens attacking members of the gay community.
I agree with Yvonne, very interesting blog Joni. I think in theory the government is supposed to or should have the final say in the portrayal of ones country but the reality is quite the opposite. As Nikolaus stated, it's extremely difficult, impossible perhaps, to control the access to information.
ReplyDeleteAnd despite the improvement of the security situation and the government's emphasis of the decrease in crime, I don't think I'll be planning a trip to Colombia any time soon.
Oh just seeing your other blog Joni. I guess there is really so much that the government can do.
ReplyDelete