LITERATURE REVIEW - IMAGE CONSTRUCTION
3.1 Studies on National Image
3.1.3 Nation Brand and Nation Branding
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
3.1.3 Nation Brand and Nation Branding
The concept of nation branding (or nation brand) has been explored and defined in numerous ways in the last ten years, since the phrase ‘nation brand’ was created by Simon Anholt in the article Nation-Brands of the Twenty-First Century in 1998 (Stock, 2009; Fan, 2010). This dynamic interest has created a difficult field of research, which lacks of consensus regarding to the conceptual implications of the subject. Definitions are not only different in some aspects, but they are often contradictory as well. According to Stock (2009), the individual approaches of authors show that the meaning of the concept is still unclear.
There is even confusion regarding to the related terms: “The word ‘country’ is replaced with
‘nation’ (Kleppe et al., 2002), ‘reputation’ is replaced with ‘image’ (Saunders, 2008),
‘branding with ‘marketing’ (Papadopoulos, 2004), ‘brand’ with ‘identity’ (Olins, 2002),
‘identity’ with ‘image’ (Anholt, 2007) and ‘image’ with ‘stereotypes’ (O’Shaughnessy and Jackson, 2000)” (Stock, 2009: 119). In addition, disputes over the actual possibility of treating a nation as a brand also embrace the topic.
Those who have supportive attitude, base their views on distinct claims and approaches: Olins (2002) focused on the historical evidences of nation branding and equated the word ‘brand’ with ‘national identity’ and ‘national image’. The author stated that nations change due to historical events, which continuously rebrand them. This has been an accepted fact among scholars, but what raises concerns is the word ‘brand’, instead of using ‘national identity’ or ‘national image’. Gilmore (2001) similarly claimed the importance of historical events, using the example of Spain as a success story of country branding. The scholar stated that some nations are similar to large multinationals since they have smaller populations, are at an early stage of development and have citizens who feel a greater loyalty. These features make them easier to manage, compared to big powers (Gilmore, 2001: 282-283).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
The pure idea of nation branding emphasizes that countries are products, which need to be promoted to be ‘sold’ on the market, just as with the case of products of companies.
Many scholars (Wang, 2008; Kleppe et al, 2002; Papadopoulos and Heslop, 2002; Kotler and Gertner, 2002; Olins, 2002; van Ham, 2001) highlighted the existence of a competition among countries as an effect of globalization, which requires nations to demonstrate their sources of competitive advantage. Kotler and Gertner (2002: 253) suggested that countries need to attract tourists, factories, companies and talented people and to find markets for their export, for which they need to adopt marketing management programs. A good branding strategy can enhance the country’s international position and lead to further national benefits.
Controversially, Fan (2010: 101) argued that a nation can have advantages only over a specific industry and it is not applicable to the whole nation. Therefore, nation branding cannot create a sustainable competitiveness for a nation. However, the main point here is to bring to light that specific industry and achieve competitive advantage in that specific area.
A great deal of research addressed the differences between country and company branding. In Van Ham’s conceptualization, ‘brand’ is the customers’ idea about a product and ‘brand state’ is the outside world’s idea about a particular country (van Ham, 2001: 2).
Passow et al. (2005: 312) highlighted the following similarities between companies and countries: both operate in a competitive set, are dependent on resources and supportive behavior, follow a financial logic, appeal to an audience, have similar raison d'être and superior management, have vision and strategic concept, and think of social responsibility as significant. However, the authors also referred to some differences: unlike a company, a country is not generally free to choose its internal audience; its identity can hardly be modified in a top-down approach; in a democracy, voters or parliament elect the government;
the government is held accountable to its electorate and the country is bind by its constitution.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Nevertheless, based on the similarities, the authors concluded that the same tools can be used to measure country ‘reputation’ and company ‘reputation’.
Wang (2008, 12-13) set out the following premises of branding in the commercial sector: competitive market, product identity (utilitarian and social value of the product) and public communication. The author found all these practices to be applicable to national image management. First, there is a competitive market in the form of a competitive arena of international relations. Second, nations are political and cultural entities with a constructed identity. Third, communication with the international audience is essential to national image management. However, the scholar also notes three remarkable differences (Wang, 2008: 16-18): First, the image of a product is not inherent in it, but consumers eventually associate it with its image. The nation’s image, in turn, is rooted in its cultural, historical and political heritage. Second, national image is influenced by cognitive, emotional and normative components. Lastly, the competing interests of multiple parties make nation branding a more complex process than that of corporate branding. Therefore, Wang (2008: 19) suggested the following steps: “designing a country identity system to help express and communicate national image positioning and effectively connect with global audiences…, [moreover]
nation-states should go beyond the mass media and consider a wide array of communication options to share information and meaning with overseas publics.”
O’Shaughnessy and Jackson (2000), however, saw the differences between nation and corporation branding as a much more problematic issue. In their understanding, a nation cannot be a product since its image strongly connected to its social aspects, namely to its people and its culture (O’Shaughnessy and Jackson, 2000: 56-57). In addition, nations have a fragmented set of images, such as folk images, historic images, images created by media history or by contemporary media; moreover, images exist at different cultural and intellectual levels and depend on the perceptions of the target audience according to nationality, but also
‧
display a coherent image or a unity for the whole nation (O’Shaughnessy and Jackson, 2000:58-59). This requires the promotion of a dominant image of countries, which focuses on specific product categories and it is strong enough to crowd out all other associations.
O’Shaughnessy and Jackson can only accept the concept of national image when it relates to specific product categories associated with the nation (2000: 60).
As a different approach, Fan (2006: 12, 2010: 98) suggested that countries are all brands by their nature (called: ‘nation brand’), meaning that they all display a particular image toward the international audience, with or without any conscious effort of branding. It is “the total sum of all perceptions of a nation in the minds of international stakeholders, which may contain some of the following elements: people, place, culture/language, history, food, fashion, famous faces (celebrities), global brands and so on” (Fan, 2010: 98). This means that branding is actually image management, emphasizing all the attractive characteristics of a nation, that is to say exploiting all its soft power resources. Nations which do not engage in branding, risk their international positioning by their competitors and thus, endanger their economic and political stability (Gilmore, 2001: 283; van Ham, 2001: 2-3).
Fan (2010) recognized six levels concerning the interpretation of ‘nation brand’ and
‘nation branding’:
‘Nation brand’: ‘Nation branding’:
Level A
Visual symbol, slogan or strapline Level B Ingredient brand, Co-brand or umbrella
brand (sectors: tourism, export, etc.) Level C Country image, country reputation,
country positioning
Level D Competitive advantage,
competitive identity Level E
Soft power
Level F National identity
Difficulty of Branding
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
The table shows significant differences in the focus, purpose or outcome of branding a nation. Some studies treat nation brands as symbols, others concentrate on their ability to boost tourism (e.g., Kotler and Gertner, 2002), investments (e.g., Papadopoulos and Heslop, 2002) or exports (e.g., Kleppe et al., 2002) and some see them as the indicators of country image/reputation, putting them on a similar level with corporate branding (e.g., Gilmore, 2002). Many scholars emphasize the necessity of nation branding due to the competitive nature of international relations’ (e.g., p. 50), others see them as a tools to develop soft power resources (e.g., Nye, 2004) and finally, some research links nation branding to national identity (e.g., Olins, 2002). As we are going down from level A toward level F, nation branding gets increasingly complicated.
Fan (2010) refuses the idea that nation branding is about rebuilding national identity, since it refers to an interior image and nation branding is about the image that outside people hold about the nation. The author also rejects to give importance to the role of nation branding in the creation of a nation’s competitiveness. As a final point, Fan (2010: 101) suggests the following definition of nation branding:
“Nation branding is a process by which a nation’s images can be created or altered, monitored, evaluated and proactively managed in order to enhance the country’s reputation among a target international audience.”
Based on this definition, the author proposes the usage of ‘national image management’ instead of ‘nation branding’. Fan (2010) sees it as the way of escaping from all the public cynicism concerning the word ‘branding’. The author claims that even the critics of ‘nation branding’ accept the existence of ‘nation brand’, therefore the argument is about the ways how a nation can be branded. Using the term ‘national image management’ can simplify this question. Fan (2010: 102) concludes that “the way for a nation to gain a better
‧
practice is called nation branding.”This study will follow the above definition by Fan (2010) and exchange the concept of
‘nation branding’ with ‘national image management’. However, it will also take into account the different forms of ‘national image management’, such as (1) commercial techniques to promote the sales of products and services (‘destination branding’ by Anholt, 2008: 265), which is further divided into two subcategories: First (1A), nation branding is a clear indication of COO on a product to promote sales and exports. The next (1B) form addresses the attraction of tourism and inward investment (Fan, 2006: 3). Second (2), the focus will be on the overall reputation of a nation, which intends to make people see the country in a different light (‘nation branding’ by Anholt, 2008: 265). Here six dimensions will be taken into account: people, exports, governance, tourism, culture & heritage, and lastly, immigration
& investment (Anholt Nation Brands Index).
Figure 4: Indicators of National Image Management
National Image
Tourism Governance Culture &
Heritage
‧
國立 政 治 大 學