SHOULD NATIONS BE BRANDED? [posted by Ilanah and Jeremy]

Writing in Design Week (10 July 2003) Wolff Olins director John Williamson argues that countries should develop their own national brand identities. Only by “branding” can a country project its own national flavour and personality. If this isn’t done, countries are perceived by their leading international brands. Examples of brands which appear to personify their countries of origin are not hard to find: McDONALDS and NIKE may be said to epitomise the US, MERCEDES and BMW summarise Germany, CHAMPAGNE and DIOR will do for France while ARMANI and GUCCI typify Italy. Williamson urges countries to devote at least 1% of their annual gross domestic product on national branding programmes. Simon Anholt (Place Branding Institute director) disagrees: brands are about simplicity, while countries are complex and contradictory.

However, Anholt’s theory may be a little difficult to put into practice. In a sense most countries already do have a “brand” in the national stereotypes that abound (none of which need to be repeated here!) It is doubtful whether any amount of directed branding would be able to surplant these national stereotypes and so any country following Anholt’s advice would be wasting money that would be better spent elsewhere.

For more on place branding, look here
Alternatively, why not go the whole hog and let branding permeate every aspect of national life, however distasteful? see for example the debate surrounding the branding of the recent Iraq war here and here

SHOULD NATIONS BE BRANDED? [posted by Ilanah and Jeremy] <strong>SHOULD NATIONS BE BRANDED?</strong> [posted by Ilanah and Jeremy] Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, July 18, 2003 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:

Powered by Blogger.