Even though there are many proponents of nation branding , there are also those that are in opposition of this growing trend. Even Simon Anholt, who coined the phrase “nation branding” does not like the impact of the term. Anholt states is his newest book, Places: Identity, Image and Reputation, “there is no such thing as ‘nation branding.’”[1] He does not like how branding has been used to make people think of superficial marketing tips. Even though he notes that places continually compete with each other in the global market place and that nations do have brands, just like they have reputations, Anholt states, “those reputations are every bit as important to their progress and prosperity in the modern world as brand images are to corporations and their products.”[2]
In Public Diplomacy: Place Branding Week, Anholt also notes how hard it can be to not conform to the national stereotype(32). Simon Anholt asserts that there is evidence to suggest that “there is no detectable correlation between changes in national image and expenditure on ‘national branding campaigns.”[3] Nation branding campaigns are also effective in creating awareness to a target audience; yet the power to alter another’s opinion and their behavior about a country is very different.[4] All around the world marketing campaigns are sold to governments or leading bodies of countries, cities, regions, and other destinations, and according to Anholt, “billions of dollars of public money are spent producing them and placing them in the media, where they disappear without a trace.” [5] Anholt concludes that he believes that nation branding is the problem, not the solution.
Just like Efe Sevin noted in our Class, I find Anholt confusing and contradicting. He seems to be afraid to make specific claims and state specific definitions, and instead keeps everything very broad. Sevin notes how Anholt believes that place branding only works through the changing of the actual nation structure and that in his eyes, the nations brand is what would be remembered if, say, it dissolved. I’m still pondering that opinion and at this point don’t know whether I agree or disagree. What do you all think?
[1] Simon Anholt. Places: Identity, Image and Reputation. New York: Pelgrave Macmillan, 2010. 1
[2] Simon Anholt. Places: Identity, Image and Reputation. 2
[3] Simon Anholt. Places: Identity, Image and Reputation. 2
[4] Simon Anholt. Places: Identity, Image and Reputation. 3
[5] Simon Anholt. Places: Identity, Image and Reputation. 3
No comments:
Post a Comment