The Financial Times reports on the European Union’s attempts to rebrand. There is a perceived need to improve the EU’s image following last year’s rejection of the EU Constitution by France and the Netherlands. The branding gurus haven’t been kind. Simon Anholt has compared the EU to al-Qaeda, arguing that the Member States are seen as ‘separate cells inspiring each other but no overall control’. Echoing the theme, Rolf Annerberg, chief of staff to Margot Wallström, the EU’s communications commissioner claimed:
‘The EU has a brand but it is competing with 25 national brands…It is very seldom you use them as a unit. The Ryder Cup golf that plays against the US is about the only case’.
Likewise, John Wyles, of consultants G-Plus Europe, said:
‘You cannot reach the citizen from Brussels. You are dependent on national politicians’.
The IPKat reckons that the way to improve the EU’s ‘brand image’ is for the EU to deliver results. Merpel notes that the problem that seems to be being identified is that the Member States have their own identities. The surefire way to dispense with this problem is to dispense with the Member States’ sovereignty, but she suspects that this won’t do much to improve the EU’s reputation.

STOP PRESS: The EU has denied that there is any official mandate for branding consultants to consider the issue of rebranding the EU - read more here.
EWho? EWho? Reviewed by Unknown on Tuesday, May 02, 2006 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.