Nation branding is a field of theory and practice which aims to measure, build and manage the reputation of countries (closely related to place branding). Some approaches applied, such as an increasing importance on the symbolic value of products, have led countries to emphasise their distinctive characteristics. The branding and image of a nation-state "and the successful transference of this image to its exports - is just as important as what they actually produce and sell."[1]
Contents |
Simon Anholt is credited as a practitioner pioneer in the field.[2]
Nation branding is still trying to come up with one unified theoretical framework. Many theories have been proposed and are being used. Anholt’s Nation Brand Hexagon is one of the most prominent. It consists of a country managing and coordinating the nations brand through the six communication channels:
Nation branding appears to be practised by many states, including Canada, the United States, France, United Kingdom (where it is officially referred to as public diplomacy), Japan, China, South Korea, Singapore, South Africa, New Zealand, and most Western European countries. An early example of this was the Cool Britannia approach of the early days of the New Labour government (following the Britain (TM) pamphlet by Demos's Mark Leonard), though this has since been replaced by a more credible Public Diplomacy Board. Over a fifteen year period popularity in the practise has grown dramatically: over 40 governments have worked with Anholt to increase their engagement with other countries. There is increasing interest in the concept from poorer states on the grounds that an enhanced image might create more favorable conditions for foreign direct investment, tourism, trade and even political relations with other states. Developing nations such as Tanzania and Colombia are creating smaller nation branding programs aimed at increased overall image and with the case of Colombia, changing international perception. Programs led by Richard H. Griffiths have been used in Tanzania, Colombia, Guatemala and the US Department of State.
Nation Branding can be approached in academics as a field in social sciences, political sciences, humanities, communication, marketing and international relations. Scholars such as Evan H. Potter at the University of Ottawa have conceptualized nation brands as a form of national soft power. All efforts by government (at any level) to support the nation brand - either directly or indirectly - becomes public diplomacy.
Anti-globalisation proponents often claim that globalisation diminishes and threatens local diversity, but there is evidence that in order to compete against the backdrop of global cultural homogeneity, nations strive to accentuate and promote the distinctiveness of local characteristics and competitive advantages.[3]
Rank | Country NBI 2011[4] | Rank NBI 2010[5] |
---|---|---|
1 | United States | |
2 | Germany | |
3 | United Kingdom | |
4 | France | |
5 | Japan | |
6 | Canada | |
7 | Italy | |
8 | Australia | |
9 | Switzerland | |
10 | Sweden |
The concept of measuring global perceptions of countries across several dimensions (culture, governance, people, exports, tourism, investment and immigration) was developed by Simon Anholt. His original survey, the Anholt Nation Brands Index, was launched in 2005 and fielded four times a year. Now known as the Anholt-GfK Roper Nation Brands Index™ (NBI), it is published annually and evaluates international public perceptions of 50 countries. It is used primarily for the benefit of the 20-30 national governments to monitor and track their international standing.[6][7] Up to six additional countries can be added to each wave of the survey fielded based on the specific requests and interests of NBI subscribers or as world events dictate. [8]
Rank | Cult./her. Brand 2008 | Score |
---|---|---|
1 | France | 71.4 |
2 | Italy | 70.9 |
3 | United Kingdom | 69.0 |
4 | Germany | |
5 | United States | |
6 | Spain | |
7 | Russia | |
8 | Japan | |
9 | PR China | |
10 | Brazil | |
11 | Australia | |
12 | Canada | |
13 | Sweden | |
14 | Netherlands | |
15 | Austria | |
Rank | People Brand 2008 | Score |
1 | Canada | 70.1 |
2 | Australia | 68.9 |
3 | Italy | 67.7 |
4 | Sweden | |
5 | Switzerland | |
6 | United Kingdom | |
7 | Germany | |
8 | Japan | |
9 | Spain | |
10 | New Zealand | |
11 | France | |
12 | Netherlands | |
13 | United States | |
14 | Norway | |
- | Scotland |
Rank | Export Brand 2008 | Score |
---|---|---|
1 | Japan | 77.0 |
2 | United States | 74.8 |
3 | Germany | 72.7 |
4 | United Kingdom | |
5 | France | |
6 | Canada | |
7 | Switzerland | |
8 | Sweden | |
9 | Italy | |
10 | Australia | |
11 | Netherlands | |
12 | Spain | |
13 | Norway | |
14 | Denmark | |
15 | Finland | |
Rank | Tourism Brand 2008 | Score |
1 | Italy | 77.2 |
2 | France | 75.9 |
3 | Spain | 73.3 |
4 | United Kingdom | |
5 | Australia | |
6 | United States | |
7 | Canada | |
8 | Japan | |
8 | Switzerland | |
10 | Germany | |
10 | Egypt | |
- | Scotland | |
13 | Brazil | |
14 | Sweden | |
15 | Austria |
Rank | Governance Brand 2008 | Score |
---|---|---|
1 | Switzerland | 67.3 |
2 | Canada | 67.2 |
3 | Sweden | 66.5 |
4 | Germany | |
5 | Australia | |
6 | Norway | |
7 | Netherlands | |
7 | Denmark | |
9 | United Kingdom | |
10 | France | |
11 | Finland | |
12 | New Zealand | |
13 | Austria | |
14 | Chile | |
15 | Belgium | |
Rank | Immi./ Inv. Brand 2008 | Score |
1 | Canada | 62.3 |
2 | United Kingdom | 62.1 |
2 | United States | 62.1 |
4 | Switzerland | |
5 | Germany | |
6 | France | |
7 | Australia | |
8 | Sweden | |
9 | Italy | |
10 | Japan | |
11 | Netherlands | |
12 | Spain | |
13 | Denmark | |
14 | Norway | |
15 | New Zealand |
|