Nation Branding versus Nation Brand: Anholt and Brand Sweden

These days it’s all about ‘nation branding’, right? Wrong. Although Simon Anholt is credited with the invention of the term ‘nation branding’, he insists the term he actually coined was ‘nation brand’. That is, a nation as a brand. This may be a small distinction to make, but for Anholt it is an important one. In a globalised world, countries depend on reputation as much as companies do. It is their most important asset.

One example of this can be seen in Sweden. Sweden has a powerful, positive reputation. If you’re selling a product that says ‘made in Sweden’ people are automatically willing to pay 20% more for it! As well as this, Sweden benefits from large numbers of tourists yet it is not typically a tourist destination. These may be flippant examples, but they emphasise the main problem of the idea of ‘nation branding’, which is that the term seems to incorporate a promise; the promise that if you do not like your country’s image then you can fix it. Clearly, this is not always the case. (Nation Branding, 2010a)

For example, developing countries spend obscene amounts of money annually on nation branding, yet it fails to change the image of the nation abroad. People usually believe a particular way about a state for two reasons: Firstly, because it is usually true, and secondly, because they have believed that way all of their lives. After looking at the Nations Brand Index it becomes apparent that people do not change their minds about other countries unless they are forced to. Why? Because a) they don’t care, and b) why should they? (Nation Branding, 2010b)

Although there are a number of clichés regarding nation brands; England is posh, Italy is romantic, America is a bully, and so on, these clichés help us to navigate in an increasingly complex and interconnected world. With this in mind, the City Brands Index (Anholt, 2009) turns up some interesting results. Stockholm and Amsterdam are universally regarded as two of the safest cities in the world, even though shortly before the survey took place a murder had been committed in broad daylight in both of those cities. Both the Dutch and the Swedish criticised the survey for being inaccurate, yet when Anholt re-interviewed the participants and prompted them about the murders in these cities, people still did not change their mind and instead merely commented that they were surprised such incidents had happened in such safe cities!

Moreover, the index also found that most people only spend their time thinking about three main countries: Their own country, America, and a third who happens to be in the media most at that point. There are 205 countries in the world, so effectively what this means is that most people forget around 203 of the countries and just think about two nations plus their own. If this is indeed the case, how is ‘nation branding’ ever supposed to succeed?

The problem here is that the search for a good profile has become nonsensical. The Danes were offended because they came 15th in the Nation Brands Index – but does it really matter? In the case of Sweden, they have one of the most positive images on the planet, and are universally admired for being stable, good, prosperous and helpful. This is because all countries have the reputation they deserve. If a country has a rubbish image, perhaps it’s because it’s a rubbish country? In that instance, all the advertising and branding campaigns in the world could not change that image. Communications clearly will not do the job, and so if a country really wants a better image they need to think about their product. Even the idea of talking people into believing a different image is unrealistic. In order to change the reputation, a nation has to change the causes and stimuli that give rise to that reputation (Nation Branding, 2010a).

With regards to Sweden, as well as their positive image Sweden is one of only very few states that have a balanced image on the Nation Brands Index (2010b). Usually, nations will fall into one of two categories: Decorative or Useful. Nations such as Germany are perceived as being useful, whereas nations like Jamaica or Italy are perceived as being decorative. Sweden is perceived as both, as is the UK, and this gives these states an enormous amount of power to achieve things.

Human nature dictates that if someone professes to having a good reputation, even if they were lying in the first place, eventually they will start to relish the reputation and will start to behave in such a way as to ensure that reputation stays. Transferring this to an international level, nations that profess to having a good image will act accordingly in order to keep that image. A good image means you have influence, and so instead of obsessing over it Anholt suggests that those nations use their influence to help other nations. The only real reason one country would think fondly of another is if that country had done something to help them.

Everybody appreciates that Sweden is a great country, but they do not necessarily know what it is for? Should all nations not be asking themselves what they are for instead of what they look like? If you give yourself a point of relevance you give your nation a more important image. You give yourself a brand.

For more information on this matter please watch the video 'Simon Anholt on brand Sweden' available here: http://nation-branding.info/2010/12/25/simon-anholt-on-brand-sweden/

Anholt, S. (2009) The Anholt-GfK Roper City Brands Index 2009. Available at: http://www.simonanholt.com/Research/research-city-brand-index.aspx [Accessed on: 23rd March 2011]

Nation Branding (2010a) Simon Anholt on Brand Sweden. Available at: http://nation-branding.info/2010/12/25/simon-anholt-on-brand-sweden/ [Accessed on: 20th March 2011]

Nation Branding (2010b) Nation Branding Index 2010 released. Available at: http://nation-branding.info/2010/10/13/nation-brands-index-2010/ [Accessed on: 21st March 2011]