SIMON ANHOLT: “ARMENIA HAS TO DO SOMETHING FOR HUMANITY”
February 3, 2015 09:43
EXCLUSIVE
Mediamax’s interview with Simon Anholt, the founder of the Good
Country Index and Anholt-GfK Roper Nation Brands Index
Simon Anholt is the world’s leading expert on nation brand –
a term he coined in 1998. During the last 12 years, Simon Anholt
has advised the governments of more than 40 countries – from the
Netherlands to Botswana, from Jamaica to Malaysia – on questions of
national identity and reputation, public diplomacy, trade, tourism,
cultural and educational relations, export and foreign investment
promotion. He collaborates frequently with multilateral institutions
including the United Nations, NATO, the World Bank and the European
Union. As a researcher, Simon Anholt created three major international
surveys in 2005, the Anholt Nation Brands Index, City Brands Index
and State Brands Index. His latest project, The Good Country Index,
is the first to measure exactly how much each country contributes to
the planet and to humanity.
– “Nations may have brands… but the idea that it is possible to
brand a country (a city or a region) in the same way as companies
brand their products is both vain and foolish”. This is the quote from
one of your publications. First of all, let’s distinguish the terms
“nation brand”, which you coined in 1998, and “nation branding”. What
is the difference between them? Many consider that “branding” is a
process through which we could create a “nation brand”.
– When I coined the term “nation brand” in 1998, I was simply making
an observation: that countries have images or reputations, and those
images are critical to their progress in a globalised world. I was
using the term “brand” in the sense of “brand image”.
But as people spoke about the idea, the term soon turned from “nation
brand” into “nation branding”. I’m still not sure what “branding”
is supposed to mean, because so many people use it to mean so many
different things. And this creates a good deal of confusion amongst
governments, a confusion from which many marketing communications
agencies have profited over the last twenty years.
Sometimes, “branding” means designing logos; sometimes it’s almost
synonymous with advertising or marketing; and sometimes, most
misleadingly, it is often used to describe a process by which the image
or reputation of a company, a product, or even a city or country can
be artificially enhanced: “branding is about building your brand”.
In practice, this process usually turns out to be some combination
of the three basic commercial communications practices: advertising,
public relations and design. The underlying principle is that the
country has a weak or negative reputation because the rest of the
world is ignorant of its qualities, so in order to improve or enhance
that reputation, those qualities simply need to be communicated. In
other words, if people don’t know how great your country is, you need
to tell them.
This underlying principle is, in most cases, fatally flawed. Countries
usually have weak reputations because their existence is irrelevant to
people in other countries; and they usually have negative reputations
because they are known to do harm. If a country buys space in the
international media in order to brag about its qualities – qualities
which are usually of no relevance to people in other countries, and
offer them no benefits – this will neither serve to make an irrelevant
country relevant, nor to persuade people that a country they despise
is suddenly worthy of their respect. It’s obvious that the message
is government propaganda and thus carries no credibility; and even
if it appears to come from a trustworthy source, it’s unlikely to
change the beliefs of a lifetime.
– You are known to reject approaches based on advertising or PR,
slogans or logos. Is your vision of building a nation brand close to
public diplomacy, which works government-to-people (G2P)?
– Not really. Public diplomacy is a theory rather than a technique:
it simply observes (quite correctly) that foreign publics are as
important a target for diplomacy today as are foreign diplomats, but
on the whole it doesn’t provide any new tools for carrying out this
exercise. In consequence, it’s simply another reason for governments
to waste taxpayers’ money on futile public relations exercises. Some
of the tools associated with public diplomacy (cultural relations,
for example) are quite effective, but since their effect requires
enormous skill, time and patience, they are very seldom used well
enough or long enough to make a real difference.
In the end, public diplomacy or nation “branding” fall into the
same error: that of treating all foreigners as if they are either
potential consumers (to whom you must try to sell something) or
potential enemies (whom you must try to neutralise through persuasion
instead of violence). The possibility that foreigners might actually be
“on the same side as us” is, alas, usually overlooked.
– Many states try to brand or rebrand themselves. Wally Olins
mentioned Spain as a successful example of national branding program,
one country, which “transformed itself from an isolated, autarkic
authoritarian anachronism into a modern, well-off, European democracy”
and Joan Miro “immensely powerful sun symbol was an identifier for a
massive promotional program that was closely linked to national change
and modernization”. There are many other country branding examples
(New Zealand, Poland, Scotland) deemed as successful. Do all those
examples comply with your vision?
– This idea that a visual symbol somehow has the power to change the
image of a nation is a primitive superstition, like believing you
can make it rain by dancing. In fact if it wasn’t also such an easy
way to make money out of gullible governments, the existence of the
idea would be completely inexplicable.
It’s certainly true that Spain changed itself, and it’s certainly
true that this change had an impact on the way people in other
countries perceived Spain afterwards, but the Miro sun symbol is
only associated with this in an entirely incidental way: the image of
the country changed because the reality of the country changed. If I
wrote a book claiming that the United States had become the richest
and most powerful nation in history because the Stars and Stripes
was the most attractive flag any nation had ever designed, would I
be taken seriously, do you think? Or that Communism ultimately failed
because the hammer and sickle was the wrong logo?
Whenever people speak of successful examples of “nation branding”,
I always ask for proof (which, considering that these governments
are spending taxpayers’ money on the process, doesn’t seem an
unreasonable request). But it always turns out that the image of the
country hasn’t been measured, either before or after the ‘campaign’,
so it’s impossible to know whether the image of the country has really
improved at all, let alone to identify the causes of this improvement.
All of this ‘nation branding’ activity is simply taken on trust: most
countries do it because most countries do it, not because any country
has ever produced any real evidence that it has worked in the past.
My study, the Anholt-GfK Roper Nation Brands Index, which annually
polls a sample representing nearly 70% of the world’s population,
shows that the images of New Zealand and Scotland have remained
more or less completely unchanged since I started running the survey
in 2005, so whatever those two countries have been doing to “brand”
their nation has had absolutely no effect on its image (their sectoral
promotion activities, of course, may well have produced an increase
in tourism, foreign investment, exports and so forth, but that’s a
different matter entirely).
Poland’s image has very slightly improved since 2005, but its GDP
increased by an average of more than 7% per year during the same
period, so if I had to hypothesize a relationship between these
factors, I would be more inclined to believe that the country’s image
improved as a result of its rising economic importance than because
it briefly flirted with several colorful new ways of writing the word
‘Poland’.
As I said before, if designing logos and all the associated mumbo-jumbo
wasn’t such an easy way of making money from impatient, naïve or even
dishonest governments, then the whole idea would be simply absurd. But
because it’s a big business, it’s not comic: it’s scandalous.
If countries could truly brand themselves with logos, corporate design,
slogans and communications campaigns, I and my compatriots would be
living in the Third Reich today, not the European Union: after all,
nobody understood branding better than Hitler and Goebbels.
– In general, how should a country deal with its national reputation?
– I certainly think every country should be aware of its reputation,
measure it, understand its strengths and weaknesses, because this is
an essential part of understanding the country’s role in the world,
its influence, its credibility and consequently its ability to achieve
its aims.
As for changing that reputation, this can only happen if the country
is prepared to play a new role in the community of nations. If it
wants a better reputation, it has to do something for people in other
countries. Recent analysis of more than 200 billion data points
collected by the Anholt-GfK Roper Nation Brands Index since 2005
strongly suggests that the quickest and surest route to an improved
national image is through contributing regularly and noticeably
to humanity and the planet: doing things that give people in other
countries good reasons to feel glad that you exist.
This is why I created the Good Country Index: I wanted some measurement
of reality alongside the measurement of perceptions provided by the
Nation Brands Index, to see which countries actually contribute most
to the global commons.
– Let’s talk about Armenia. In your “Good Country Index” it ranks 72nd
among 125 countries. What does your research reveal about the image
of Armenia and overall, how does the Western world perceive Armenia?
– Unfortunately I’ve never included Armenia in the Anholt-GfK Roper
Nation Brands Index so I have no information about Armenia’s image,
and I wouldn’t like to guess what people think about it: these are
things that need to be properly researched. However, the country’s
performance in the Good Country Index clearly shows that, relative
to the size of its economy, Armenia contributed relatively little to
the international community in 2010 (the year when most of the data
was collected). If Armenia has a weak or negative profile, this fact
may have something to do with it.
DOSSIER Dossier The Good Country Index tries to measure how much
each country on earth contributes to the planet and to the human
race. Using a wide range of data from the U.N. and other international
organisations, it has given each country a balance-sheet to show at a
glance whether it’s a net creditor to mankind, a burden on the planet,
or something in between.more
– Everything primarily hinges on education in the XXI century. Despite
a number of domestic and foreign challenges, in recent years Armenia
has developed good examples of educational projects such as TUMO
center, Ayb school and UWC Dilijan College. Another idea promoted by
the government is the development of IT sector, where we have recorded
some progress as well. Do you think education and IT could be the
sectors in perspective to accentuate in the long-term in order to
create/brand the Armenian image? If yes, how much time does it require?
– A country’s educational system is, by definition, only of interest
to the population of that country, since they are the only people who
will benefit from it. It is therefore a mistake to imagine that such
a purely domestic issue could have any major impact on the country’s
international reputation: how much does the average Armenian know
about the school system in Paraguay, or Iceland, or Mozambique? Why
should it expect others to know more about its own educational system
than it knows about others?
If Armenia were an innovative pioneer in education to the extent
that its influence in this field were genuinely global – if it
contributed regularly and prominently to educational progress and
standards in other countries, then this might add something to the
country’s reputation. But the basic principle is a simple one: if
you want people to admire you, it’s not enough to be successful,
you have to do something for them.
So the question to ask is not “which sectors can we excel in and
therefore use to boost the country’s image?” The correct question is
“What could be Armenia’s gift to the world?”
– When asked to give advice on what a state should do to improve its
image, does your answer depend on the specifics and peculiarities
of the concrete or are there are any universal formulas applicable
to every nation? Lastly, as a continuation – besides, education,
what should Armenia do to improve its image?
– Luckily, there are many universal formulas, or else my books on
this topic would be nothing more than endless case studies!
If Armenia wants to improve its image, it has to do something for
humanity – do it well, do it prominently, do it imaginatively,
courageously and consistently for a very long time. It’s a simple
as that.
Aram Araratyan talked to Simon Anholt
– See more at: