One flag, one nation. Branding a nation.
The concept of nation branding is still under a lot of scrutiny and many authors continue to disagree with a definitive conception of nation branding. Even, Simon Anholt, “the father of nation branding has reconceptualised it several times, which partly explains why nation branding is being used in a plethora of contexts” (Szondi, 2010, p. 334).
The flag of a nation is in my view, one of the biggest recognisable symbols of a nation, though buildings, monuments and business companies, can also be as strong as the nation’s flag, and even personalities can play an important role too. The Christ the redeemer, the Big Ben, the Red Square, the Statue of Liberty and the Eiffel tower, are some example of well recognised symbols that help to identify a specific country. On the other hand, Nelson Mandela reminds us South Africa and Reggae calls for Jamaica. So, “branding is more than just a name it is a complex bundle of images, meanings, association and experiences in the minds of people” (Fan 2010, p 98). It also means that a nation may have many different brands or one brand (flag) representing many other brands within the nation.
The way nations deal with this branding is up to each nation’s particularities and interests. The importance of a good nation image in a globalised world can make all the difference on attracting tourists, businesses, treaties, FDI, loans, international credibility, respect, etc. “According to nation branders, globalisation is reinforcing national boundaries rather than dissolving them. The globalised world is described as a marketplace in which nations are competing with each other, and branding is promoted as a strategy to do it successfully” (Widler 2007, p.146). However, authors such Simon Anholt says that nation branding is a long term process which require among others, long term stability and investments.
But, the biggest issues may lay on the difficulties of a nation to control the quality and the credibility of its brand. A nation brand can be influenced by many aspects for many different people and it might be affected by uncontrollable factors such as terrorism and conflicts. For instance, the drugs war in Mexico has a huge impact on the nation’s image though the drugs war is actually occurring only in the north of the country and in specific places. On the other hand, England might be seen as an arrogant country in Europe and friendly in the US. Therefore, history, natural beauty, security, education, weather, economy, politics, corruption, sports, culture, language, society, businesses, among others, can influence the quality of a nation’s branding. On the other hand, “some quite progressive countries don’t get nearly as much attention, visitors, business or investment as they need because their reputation is weak or negative, while others are still trading in a good image that they acquired decades or even centuries ago, and today do relatively little to deserve” (Anholt 2007, p. 2).
In conclusion, nation branding is an important feature for any country to succeed in the international arena, and globalisation plays an important role in widening this issue by transforming the world in a single market where countries are increasingly competing with each other. On the same time, a nation’s brand can be influenced positively or negatively by many factors including public opinion and stability, which makes it difficult for countries to control its image. Moreover, the nation branding is a long term process which requires long term commitment by governments and institutions.
References
Anholt, S. (2007) Competitive Identity: The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities and Regions, Palgrave Macmillan, NY
Fan, Y. (2010) Branding the Nation: Towards a better understanding, journal of foreign affairs, vol. 6 Issue 2
Szondi, G. (2007) from image Management to Relationship Building: A public relations approach to nation branding, journal of foreign affairs, vol. 6 Issue 4
Widler, J. (2007) Nation Branding: With pride against prejudice, journal of foreign affairs, Vol. 3 Issue 2
Public and Cultural Diplomacy 2 
Thank you for this clear and coherent discussion of nation branding and its significance today. You do a very good job of setting out the key themes.
However, I feel that you might have gone into these issues in a little more depth. For example, do you agree with Anholt that nations cannot be branded but that they have something like brands in terms of the images people around the world already hold of them? As he puts it, branding is the problem, not the solution. You seem to come close to this line in a number of places. However, elsewhere you seem to suggest that a nation can rebrand itself over the long run (and admittedly, it isn’t entirely clear how Anholt’s proposal for competitive identity management is different from nation branding in the last analysis – has he simply switched terminology?).
Perhaps you could clarify your – and maybe Anholt’s – position when you come to revise this entry for inclusion in your seminar log. It would also be good if you could insert some relevant illustrations or photographs in this and subsequent postings to make the most of the medium.