Can a Stained Reputation be Dry-Cleaned?

Simon Anholt makes a distinction between having a brand, what I would call reputation, and the ability to be branded. He is skeptical of nation-branding tactics in particular, because he does not equate countries to the kind of consumer products that benefit from marketing style branding campaigns. On this, he says politicians are misguided in thinking that branding a country can have the same effect as when "companies manage to shape public discourse, manipulate their own images at will, and inspire unwavering respect, loyalty, even love for their brands."

So, to the question of whether a country's stained reputation could be "dry-cleaned," that is washed away clean again by PR tactics, Anholt would say no. He sees a country's reputation as fixed; something that cannot be constructed and can only be earned. He even quotes Socrates to make the point that brand and image are no more than a reflection of reality:

"The way to achieve a better reputation is to endeavour to be what you desire to appear"

While I agree that a positive image is often the result of a person or country's positive attributes speaking for themselves, I am less skeptical of nation-branding than Anholt, and do think there is a place for it in shaping public perception. No, a reputation cannot be constructed or fabricated, the qualities to be touted must actually exist. However, countries, like people, are subject to misperception, misinterpretation, and obscurity. This is where I think nation-branding fits in. Assuming brand is reputation, then I see nation-branding as the attempt to redefine the brand, according to those qualities and accomplishments for which the country wants to be known. In a case of semantics, Anholt makes the same point, but prefers describe it as managing "competitive identity." In this framework, public diplomacy then would be the act of accelerating global awareness of the nation-brand through communications.