Why all the fuss about nation branding?
Wherever you turn (in Denmark, anyway), someone is talking about branding Denmark. Recently, there was even a whole conference about it.
I was particularly interested to hear what the nation branding expert Simon Anholt had to say. We’re on a quest to find out how Danish companies can base their communications on being Danish. Simon Anholt seemed like the perfect person to provide answers to our questions. But instead of hearing great insights and wisdom into how countries can build and improve their brands, he said that nation branding was quite useless. And that you can’t really shift perception anyway - without some sort of revolutionary change.
A slap in the face to all marketers?
Then he asked the audience why Danes aren’t satisfied at their current ranking of no. 14 in his most recent nation brand index. Isn’t that good enough? He teased the Danes for wanting to move into the top 10, because Denmark is doing terribly well in the big scheme of things. I think it’s since slipped to no. 15 – but it’s still well ahead of a lot of other powerful countries.
Well, I think it’s great Denmark is so ambitious. What better way to break free from the grip that “Jantelov” has over the country? Anholt has a point, however, when he says it’s no use for countries to try to change perception simply by advertising or with a clever tagline (that no-one will really believe).
I wonder, too, if the efforts of nation branding are misguided. Surely, it’s mainly down to the actions of individuals and groups who happen to represent the country. Their achievements and results reflect on the country – and boost its brand.
For example, have you heard of the “All Blacks”? Probably. Know what sport they play? Maybe. Where they come from? Probably not (unless you’re from the UK, Australia or South Africa).
The All Blacks are a strong, memorable brand, which is built on consistently high performance and unrivalled success in the sport of rugby. Since they have a close association with the country of New Zealand, they boost the brand of New Zealand. But New Zealand does not boost the All Blacks’ brand. The brand is not any stronger simply because it comes from New Zealand.
I believe that a country’s brand is made by the individual performance of companies, teams, artists, musicians, writers, politicians, journalists, and the like. And of course people who just travel and interact with others around the world. So instead of Denmark putting so much effort into branding the nation, when even Simon Anholt says it’s not going to have much effect, isn’t it best to invest in the individual efforts of its champions?
November 24th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Just to highlight the strength of the All Blacks’ brand, here’s a story from the rugby world.
When the Lions (a rugby team made up of players from Britain and Ireland) were touring New Zealand in 2005, the Lions hired a sports psychologist to help them prepare. One of his ideas was to destroy the All Blacks ‘myth’ and so he banned the Lions touring part from using the term All Blacks. Instead they were only allowed to refer to the opposition as New Zealand.
However, the balls used for the three test matches had All Blacks written all over them in big letters - so everytime a Lions’ player got hold of the ball, he was reminded that a queue of All Blacks was waiting to wrestle the ball from him. The All Blacks won the text series 3-0.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Hey Dan. Great typo in the last line. You really do try to bring writing into everything you do!