Principles of Nation Branding


Here are my eight key principles for a strategic Nation branding initiative.

Having said that, I also believe these principles should be applied to government ministries, departments, agencies and the private sector as well. What do you think?

1) Research and data are fundamental: Qualitative and quantitative research is essential to data-driven branding (see below) and data-driven branding is essential to building a brand in the customer economy of today and the demand economy of tomorrow. Without research and data, branding decisions are no more than guesswork and the nation brand strategy is too important to base strategic decisions (or, any decisions) on guesswork.

Research is vital for uncovering perceptions, attitudes and requirements for emotional, experiential and economic value, the three key elements of a successful brand. Research also provides benchmarks for measurement and accountability.

Qualitative research gives you valuable data on the requirements of target segments in the future. It allows you to tailor communications to resonate with target segments and also identifies key influencers, thereby saving valuable funds that are wasted on a mass market, one-size-fits-all approach.

2) It is impossible to build a brand on creativity alone. Too much is at stake – both in terms of a country’s brand and resources invested – to depend on a creative-driven branding campaign (and that’s all it is because it is impossible to sustain) to form the foundations of a nation brand. Let’s face it, if you sit back and think for five minutes, how many country related advertising campaigns can you remember? More relevant, how many made you act?

Furthermore, a creative campaign is best suited for mass markets and mass media whereas data-driven branding enables segmentation and targeting of communications that ensures content resonates with target markets. For instance, divers don’t think, “Let’s go to Malaysia and see if we can dive.” They think, “Let’s go diving.” And then determine the destination.

Likewise, are potential investors going to be impressed by white sandy beaches or communications that resonate with them because they offer specific value?

Other benefits of data-driven creative driven branding include a focus on acquisition and relationships that ensure ongoing business, while creative driven branding focuses primarily on acquisition. Crucially, a data-driven approach to branding places strategy in the hands of executive management whereas a creative driven approach puts the strategy in the hands of an advertising agency.

3) Segmentation enables differentiation: “One-size-fits-all” branding doesn’t work. Despite the power and sweep of globalization, which has Malaysians wearing the same fashions as Italians and Aston Martins in hot demand from Brazil to China, each country has its own requirements and world-views.

Once research has revealed the differing characteristics of various audiences, branding must be devoted to tailoring messages, media, channels and activities to the specific values and requirements of target markets. Such segmentation not only ensures more receptive targets but also easily ensures differentiation from competitive countries trying to be all things to all people.

4) No buy-in, no success: Nation branding is difficult, requiring planning, support and coordination from a wide array of public and private entities. But even the best plan in the world will not succeed without buy-in from brand stakeholders. The most important step to ensuring buy-in is involvement in the research and planning process. As much as possible, brand stakeholders that are involved in implementation must have the opportunity to add their input to the plan.

Such buy-in has two advantages. First, it allows valuable perspectives and experiences to be incorporated into the plan, making the plan stronger and more effective. Next, it facilitates better execution. If all the parties involved have a complete understanding of the entire plan and their role in it and what its success means to them, then redundant efforts can be avoided and resources maximized.

5) A brand blueprint must be developed: A strong, visible Nation brand must have a blueprint based on the research findings to enhance the country’s reputation and image while enhancing economic, education and social growth and increasing its ‘share of voice’ in the world community. Specifically, the Nation Brand Blueprint must communicate a positive and dynamic personality with economic, experiential and emotional values that reflect target audience requirements.

The blueprint must be holistic and comprehensive to enhance export promotion, economic development, tourism, foreign direct investment and other key national initiatives. It must also communicate the intended message to the target constituents and stakeholders in multiple countries and at the same time, it must lay guidelines to strengthen the strategic, communications and visual impact of the Nation Brand.

The blueprint must also systemically connect the Nation Brand to the country’s core industries, corporate brands and Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) sector brands. This must be established via a systematic, holistic process that accommodates the requirements of both national and international stakeholders. This process must not only be effective to optimize the Nation Brand, but also maximize limited national resources.

6) Nation branding is a marathon, not a sprint: There are no silver bullets or quick fixes in any branding and this applies especially to Nation branding. Even in these technology driven times, establishing a Nation brand may take as long as a generation to develop. For example, the current view of Japan as a nation famed for its precision and electronics is not based on its efforts during the past decade. Rather, the seeds of Japan’s current nation brand were planted more than thirty years ago, when it began exporting transistor radios and two-stroke engines overseas. Just as Malaysia launched its Vision 2020 program in 1991 to become a developed nation by 2020, the country must adopt a similar long-term view for Nation branding. Malaysia and other countries must look at establishing a Nation brand not for us – but for our children.

7) Private sector must carry its weight: As an example, with responsible policies, funding and resource allocation, the Government of Malaysia can and has tried to do a lot for the Nation brand – but it cannot do it alone. Private-sector involvement and initiative are crucial. Private sector initiatives can range from promoting country of origin on foods and industrial goods, as Australia has done, to helping to fund trade missions to even good business ethics. The bulk of activities outlined in the Nation Brand Blueprint must be carried out by private and non-profit organizations

8) Measurement and evaluation: Why should money or resources ever be spent without knowing the return? Wherever possible, perceptions, activities and processes must be measured, ideally with quantitative benchmarks. Such measurement and evaluation must be used to establish accountability and to ensure continuous improvement.

These key priniciples form the foundations of any nation branding initiative but there are other equally important elements.

One example of these other elements is a crisis plan which should be incorporated into the brand blueprint.

Recent events in Malaysia and Angola show little signs of a planned response with either silence or multiple and often conflicting responses coming from various sources and little or no reactions to debates on social media.

This failure to engage consumers, citizens and potential investors will undo much of the good work carried out to date.

Is it time to put positioning to bed?


40 years ago this year, Jack Trout published his first article on positioning. But the term didn’t really become advertising jargon until his articles entitled “The Positioning Era”, were published in Advertising Age in the early 1970’s.

There are numerous definitions of what positioning is today but to ensure we’re all on the same page, I propose this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positioning_%28marketing%29

But in today’s marketplace, positioning has multiple problems:

1) Positioning is immeasurable: You can’t say “our positioning has improved our sales by 5 % or as a result of our positioning strategy, our brand is 12% better than competitions. Furthermore, it is impossible to measure the ROI or benchmark positioning.

2) Positioning is only suitable for mass markets. Yet branding today is about segmentation and communicating and engaging with those segments via relevant channels and with messages that resonate specifically with those segments or niche markets. Does this mean that a company should develop different positioning for different niches?

3) Positioning is suitable for mass markets with limited competition and limited consumer access to media and information. Today, consumers can get any information they want on anything from anywhere.

4) The wikipedia definition is a top-down, company knows best, hierarchical marketing approach. Yet we live in a C2C environment in which consumers define brands.

5) Positioning is one-way. The company knows best and you must listen to us. We tell you how our products are positioned. But today, if you are not entering into 2 way conversations with consumers you are about to join the brand graveyard.

6) Positioning was developed for the US mass market of the 1970’s. But we’re in a globalized world now, with much more competition and more knowledgeable consumers.

7) Positioning is competition, not customer driven. The basic premise of positioning is that you want to be number 1 or number 2 in a category in a prospect’s mind. If you can’t be number 1 or number 2 in an existing category because of competition, you make your own category. In today’s congested marketplace, the investments required to develop a new category are enormous. Furthermore, besides the difficulty and expense of creating your own category, you are also letting your marketing be driven by the competition rather than consumer demands for value.

8) Positioning is dated. With limited competition (by today’s standards) in most categories, positioning was a compelling theory. The problem is that the world has changed a little since 1969. Yet agencies continue to recommend positioning as the foundation for any brand strategy.

9) Positioning uses mass market channels such as TV and billboards to reach as many consumers as possible using repetition to create interest. Yet ask yourself, what do you do when the commercials come on? Surf? Put the kettle on? Go to the bathroom? Text a friend? Surf the web? Basically, do anything but watch the commercial. Same with billboards. How many billboards can you remember from your morning commute?

10) Positioning requires massive, and I mean massive budgets that few companies have. If you do have a massive budget and you do execute your campaign across multiple channels for say six months, what happens if it doesn’t work?

So my question is, what are agencies doing recommending a theory that was developed before the PC was invented? I welcome your comments.

Is this the dumbest question ever asked by a marketing publication?


Media Magazine is asking this question:

“Should clients be spending more on tracking effectiveness?” “This year effectiveness is at the top of the agenda. But are clients investing the money they need to to track the performance of campaigns properly?”

I had to read it twice to make sure I understood the question. My initial response is that effectiveness should be at the top of the agenda this year, last year, next year and every other year! If it isn’t, what is? And where is effectiveness on the agenda? Is it on the agenda? It certainly is in FusionBrand discussions. In fact, if it isn’t at the top of the agenda, we tear up the agenda and put it at the top of the new agenda. And we believe every other agency or consultant should do the same. If they don’t, you need to find a new agency.

In fact, we go as far as to say that if it can’t be tracked and measured, there has to be a very good reason why it is being recommended. If the justification is flawed, it doesn’t fly.