Interview with FutureBrand on the 2009 Country Brand Index, Asia Pacific Chief Growth Officer, Tim Riches

country-brand-index-2009China Traveller

November 2009

 

 

 

Q: Background on the Country Brand Index?

A: This is the fifth consecutive year of the Country Brand Index study. The methodology is based on a three tier approach relying on 1) research involving approximately 3,000 international business and leisure travellers from nine different countries; 2) an expert panel of 47 persons and; 3) analysis of third party data such as World Economic Forum papers etc.

 

In addition to measuring 29 specific associations or attributes of countries, we also assess whether those associations in fact lead to preference for that country using our Hierarchical Decision Model, which tracks overall awareness through associations, preference and ultimately advocacy. This is what separates the FutureBrand Country Brand Index from other research studies. Other indexes measure brand image only, while we track the effectiveness of the brand in creating preference and advocacy, as such ours measures actual brand strength. Traditionally countries have been promoted for the purpose of attracting tourism, investment and trade in a series of communications programs, and therefore conducted by governments as stand alone marketing investments but now a days country brands should generate more comprehensive and integrated stories of what they have to offer. Numerous governments are furthermore grasping between the differences of marketing, branding and sales. It is clear that marketing creates positive conditions for sales to occur, but branding creates the overall framework for marketing to play its role within. For example, in the 2009 Country Brand Index Australia fell from 1st (2008 Top Country Branding Ranking) to 3rd. If one looks closer at the data it is clear that a key drop was recorded in the ‘Friendliness of Locals’ attribute, from 5th in 2008 to 14th in 2009. During that period there were negative reports of Asian students being harmed as well as international refugee issues which raised eyebrows internationally. As such the drop from 1st to 3rd is not surprising.

 

Most governments are not structured and strategically equipped for pulling their various departments together, with each of their various departments working in isolation of one another. The instinctive competition for limited resources ensures that little cooperation is in place, and this is the significant country brand challenge – how to structure the brand management of the country. 

 

Q: Despite the successful hosting of the 2008 Beijing Olympics China does not feature prominently?

A: The 2008 Country Brand Index data was collected just prior to the Olympics while the 2009 CBI data was collected post Olympics, so we do get a good picture of the impact. Major events such as the hosting of an Olympic Games have a two-fold impact of 1) drawing many visitors to that country and; 2) attracting a large TV audience, and as such China had high visibility. This visibility is much more powerful than traditional advertising campaigns based around 30 second commercials and paid media. What captures people’s imagination is what the country is really like, the culture, the authenticity, what the normal people are really like etc., these attributes are conveyed very powerfully through major events. A further example is what is expected for South Africa in hosting the 2010 FIFA World Cup, a big jump in brand power from 2008 to 2009. In the overall ranking South Africa jumped from 59th to 37th in 2009 while the ‘Desire to Visit’ attribute recorded a jump of 33rd place to 18th position for 2009 over 2008.

 

China for its part jumped from 56th position to 48th for the overall branding ranking in 2009. China’s overall image association is currently deeper, richer and more authentic due to its received exposure. The conjured up images of Beijing a mere four years ago included the Forbidden City, Temple of Heaven and Tiananmen Square (with possible negative connotations) whilst now it is viewed as a city of incredible skyscrapers and amazing sports complexes (Birds Nest & Water Cube) to the point that Beijing is now viewed as a mixture of modern and traditional. The attributes of ‘Friendliness of Locals’ increased from 68th to 54th while ‘Outdoor Activities & Sports’ also improved from 71st to 63rd, ‘Shopping’ increased (22nd to 2009’s 16th) and ‘Ease to do Business’ catapulted from 54th to 31st. As you can see from this data China is a classic case of improving weaknesses as opposed to increasing brand strengths.

 

China has thus made great strides but it is vital for them to maintain the momentum. China is a powerful country with a non-powerful brand meaning that people recognise the importance of China, but they don’t particularly like it. This is textbook perception problem at play here, for example, in terms of ‘Environmentalism’ China slipped further from 77th to 82nd position as China persistently conjures up negative environmental perceptions but this can be turned around quite quickly. China is now the world’s number one producer of eco-technology, something that President Hu Jintao himself is starting to focus on in his international addresses, and they are already starting to improve perceptions. China just needs to keep the momentum going to ensure that perceptions of the country continue to align more closely with the reality on the ground. A final comparison is Indonesia where the reality is that real progress in being made in the country in terms of the economy, education, justice etc., but it is still perceived poorly as a weak and inherently corrupt country.

 

Q: Was Obama’s election wholly responsible for America’s number one ranking?

A: America is always a strong brand but the Obama factor was critical. There are a wide variety of measurements however but there does seem to have been a feeling of relief that the Bush era was over. Furthermore, the election of President Obama signalled that America has ‘returned’ to its traditional progressive values that may be an effect that outlasts Obama’s influence as an individual. 

 

Q: The 2009 Top Country Brand Rankings include mostly traditional Western countries?

A: The reality of country situations on the ground are not necessarily inline with the brand strengths they maintain. The importance of the country brand’s are in how they are able to capture the audience’s imagination and as such the traditional Western countries have very powerful brands. Our research is based on a good cross section of respondents so it is clear that the more Western brands have captured the imaginations of those respondents residing in the East. Japan (overall no. 7) is an exception but its renowned distinctive culture, history and prowess in technology and business for decades has resulted in its strong brand. 

 

Q: This year Country Brand Index has included a regional ranking?

A: The regional rankings are a composite ranking which are becoming increasingly essential in the world’s geopolitical-economic shakeup. The Asia Pacific region (ranked 2nd after Western Europe) deserves special attention in that they account for seven of the Top 10 brands ranked for ‘Authenticity’, six out of the Top 10 in ‘Value for Money’ and five of the Top 10 in ‘Desire to Visit/Visit Again, Ideal for Business and Extended Business Trip’. This is a great combination basis from which to develop further.

 

Tim is the main Asia Pacific presenter of FutureBrand’s global Country Brand Index study.

November 27th, 2009 | Michael Jones | Tags: , , , , , , , , | No Comments »

Why country branding is no longer a luxury

putin1China Traveller

November 2009

 

When I was still at university the buzz at the time was all focused on Samuel P. Huntington’s controversial book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order which created a bit of a stir as few could have anticipated the 911 attacks and the United State’s (supported by Britain) excessive response to not only invade Afghanistan but Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as well, creating the impression that the Christians were on a crusade against the Muslims again, with inevitable hatred generating consequences. Another emerging theory at the time, although less exciting, was that future conflicts would be caused by natural resources, and in particular, water shortages resulting in bad science fiction type movie ‘water wars’.

 

Little did we know as students at the time that in the not so distant future we would personally witness the emergence of a combination of cut throat competition for natural resources and growing nationalist assertiveness with the potential to result in open conflict. Diminishing natural resources around the globe coupled with the economic skyrocketing of the world’s most populous nations (China and India) with an insatiable appetite for the finite supply of resources has already resulted in levels of economic warfare. Renewable resources are the talk of the day but with Eastern and Western nations alike staking their claim in South America and Africa’s resource reserves they are clearly doing more than hedging their bets. The battle lines for other resources have also been drawn including access to finance and a return to human trading, the poaching of the best and the brightest minds to supplement aging societies. Competition for limited resources of all types has dramatically increased over the past two decades creating the perception of a ‘winner takes all’ eventual outcome. Is your country brand perceived to be a winner?

 

Countries today face far stiffer competition when it comes to economic activities such as trade, investment, tourism and recruitment. But although they remain strictly economic prerogatives they are nevertheless unduly influenced by politics, by the nation’s people, a reality that is only expected to strengthen with increased nationalism triggered in turn by the cycle of increased economic competition. Political leaders, and even business leaders to a large degree, seldom take purely economic fundamentals into consideration, we are after all social orientated humans and not efficiency optimizing robots, and as such country branding, the perception of one’s sovereign state, has never been more crucial for survival or success.

 

The recent emergence of sovereign wealth funds (SWF’s) is evidence of the escalation of economic warfare between sovereign nations. While SWF’s are state-owned investment funds normally established by governments with budgetary surpluses, and composed of financial assets with the objective of maximizing long-term return, they have raised national security concerns. Some fear that SWF’s can be utilized to secure strategically important industries for political rather than financial gain resulting in legislation in some countries already requiring prior government approval for significant foreign acquisitions in strategically important companies.

 

Despite China’s progress in the overall rankings of the recently released Country Brand Index, it is clear that the country brand of China is not a particularly trusted one. This has serious implications for its outward economic objectives as seen when the US previously blocked China’s CNOOC from acquiring Unocal. China’s SWF, China Investment Corporation (CIC) has allocated approximately US$66 billion of its total US$200 billion fund for foreign acquisitions while it’s China – Africa Development Fund, with a gradual budget of US$5 billion, will focus mainly on Africa’s natural resources. The non-adherence to local regulations resulting in dangerous and improper working conditions have already resulted in numerous outbreaks of protest by African workers at Chinese managed operations in Africa. It is thus entirely possible for an African government, or its workers, to resist or outright reject Chinese business initiatives based on protest reports emanating from a perception of irregular economic management. Sticking to this example, China would be well advised to clear the ground for their Africa investments through proactive public relations that target the people, as lucrative government to government relations only account for one aspect, governments do after all, change. The same is valid for China’s image in other regions. This is not to say that Africa would necessarily welcome other ‘Africa resources rush’ countries such as America, Britain, France, India and Russia with open arms. Often to the contrary, the West’s historical role in the colonization of Africa and suspicion of renewed paternalist attitudes disguised as human rights has encouraged many an African government to welcome China’s ‘no strings attached’ trade and development.   

 

It has been claimed from different sources that if the entire world’s population consumed as much as America citizens we would require anything from three to four and a half world’s of resources. The per capita GDP rise in previously underdeveloped regions such as South America, Africa and Asia has resulted in an accompanying rise in consumption that environmentalists believe to be unsustainable. Until the world’s leaders and people come to their senses the ability to secure these dwindling resources, facilitated by increased globalisation, will largely depend on the country’s ability to project the perception of being a trusted, valued, even privileged partner.

 

Russia is a textbook example of a brand basket case country that is in dire need of a branding make-over. From its ill considered KGB era speeches that fail to frighten its intended audience, to the corporate raiding in the TNK-BP affair and neo-Nazi attacks on Africans and Asians coupled with police harassment/corruption targeting tourists in Moscow, the country has little going for its brand. And what a pity considering its inability to retain the excellent individuals it produces who excel on the international stage in a country of such vast and untapped nature that could, with a little effort, become one of the world’s top tourist destinations. But while Russia is struggling to survive the global sigh of relief to see George W. Bush vacate the White House accompanied by Obama’s welcomed election to the position of President and, more importantly, Commander-in-Chief, saw the United States successfully claim the first position in 2009’s Country Brand Index, up from 3rd place in 2008. As the world’s largest economy with a history of enshrined property protection, few would doubt America’s trade and investment structure, but it will take more confidence building measures to convince potential travelers that they are welcome in the US again after the multitudes of horror stories emanating from their short sighted airport customs & immigration officials conducting security theatre.

 

Holistic country branding for developing countries will be especially vital to their success as sovereign states as, unlike their brand strong counterparts in North America and Western Europe, who on closer/personal inspection might turn out to be disappointingly inefficient, narrow minded and downright boring, they continue to suffer from negative perceptions and stereotypes as old as the hills. Not every country can excel at every possible economic activity and the onus lies on (especially developing countries) government’s to identify their true niche economic areas of expertise and convey those messages in a sophisticated and sustainable manner to the outside world. The 2009 Country Brand Index has highlighted the yearning for authentic tourist destinations amongst potential travelers as a future trend so countries without competitive modern industries but who are nevertheless endowed with natural beauty and an authentic culture should be at the forefront of branding their tourist offerings.

 

Country branding sub-categories such as trade & investment, tourism and recruitment cannot act in isolation any longer however and must be stringed together under an umbrella country branding strategy. No matter how sensational a beach might appear, or no matter how enticing a business deal might seem, individuals are not going to be triggered into action if they perceive a country to be inhumane, dishonest, dangerous or any one of numerous negative attributes. Many years later the jury is still out on Samuel P. Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations‘ theory, but the verdict is in on countries that are persistently perceived in a light inferior to the reality, their country brand custodians should take note.

 

November 27th, 2009 | Michael Jones | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | No Comments »