| Taking issue with Simon Anholt’s view on Brand South Africa |
 |
 |
 |
|
Simon Anholt and I agree on many issues and vehemently disagree on a few others. It is a healthy relationship where debate, discussion and mutual respect always move us forward. On the basic principles of building a nation’s brand, we don’t disagree. Yes, policy is fundamental, yes, you can't rely on a “crap advertisement” to showcase your country, yes, it is what you do that really makes a difference, not what you say and yes, some countries do waste a massive amount of tax payers money on marketing projects. But, at least in my time as the CEO of Brand South Africa, we didn’t have crap advertisements – we had beautiful pieces of communication that conveyed the essence of what makes South Africa different. We conveyed to the world why their perceptions of us, may not be quite up to date or correct. I do not think that there is no point in making fundamental changes to your country’s policies (as per his Korean example) and then not telling anyone about it. There is no point in not alerting your potential tourists and investors to the new opportunities that abound. There is no point in not showcasing your successes. There is no point in not trying to create common cause amongst your citizenry. Indeed, it is the country’s responsibility to change the narrative about the country – I say the same about Africa – it is up to us Africans to change the narrative on Africa. The external media aren’t going to do it of their own accord. It is up to us to market our successes. It is up to us to position our innovations. If we don’t do it, who the hell is going to? So, that is where I fundamentally differ with Simon. Advertising, expensive though it is, is just one of the channels that the IMC (International Marketing Council, responsible for Brand South Africa) used to position South Africa.  South Africa Also Used...We also used…Investment missions inbound and out-bound, the internet, email, booklets of facts about South Africa, direct interfaces with thousands of people, highly targeted newspaper profiles and a consistent PR campaign. We wrote key messaging for Government and Ambassadors, we lobbied and influenced speeches, we supported events that would inspire patriotism and a sense of ownership and belonging, we created special moments in which the soul of South Africa came alive and showed our best face to the world. We also inspired and motivated South Africans to become a part of the marketing machinery – after all, what is the point of talking the country down? – all one does is put off potential investors and visitors. We need these people – they will create jobs and help alleviate poverty – the principle aim of our Government. The recent Football Fridays campaign conceived by Brand South Africa for the World Cup was a huge success – just look at the atmosphere and unity that it inspired. Who would have missed out on that? The IMC reports into the Presidency, and yes, it should influence policy – if the organisation that has synthesized the nation brand, has defined the essence as “Alive With Possibility” is not reflected back into the way the Leadership governs, then the disconnect will surely destroy the brand. (Sadly I do not think that positioning was exploited during the World Cup – but that is another article altogether.) To build a brand, there has to be long term consistency of message, a coherency between what is said and what is done and clear leadership with vision. Effectiveness Needs to be Measured Another point on which I completely agree with Simon is that effectiveness needs to be measured, and Brand South Africa did put measures in place. A benchmarking study was done in 2003 with Professor Roger Sinclair. He measured the Brand Equity at R379,5 billion. Three years later, the figure had risen to R516 billion. “Place of origin effect” in 2003 was measured at 16%. Three years later at 21%. That was the measurable effect of Brand South Africa’s marketing efforts. Simon dismisses Brand South Africa’s desire to see the after effects of the World Cup being measured on his nation branding index…and why should we not? – he demonstrated to us that after the last World Cup Germany’s rankings moved from position 7 in the world to position 2. That was a direct result of the changing perceptions created by the German event. So yes, we must inspire the world to take note of us by creating reasons for them to do so – democratic elections, demonstration of our Constitution in action, demonstrations that we are dealing with our negative issues, events that make the world sit up and take notice. Yes, our policies must be modern, relevant and consistent, but we must also inspire our citizens to take responsibility for what is said about our country and our continent and we must trumpet our good news for the world to see. A nation branding campaign has many elements that must all work in a synergistic way to work slowly towards ultimate success. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Yvonne Johnston has consulted to several countries on the subject of Branding their Nations: Chile, Kenya, Tanzania, Botswana, Nigeria, Ghana, Egypt. She has spoken at Harvard on changing the perceptions of Africa, and is passionately committed to marketing and positioning her country. |