Substance over spin - Sri Lanka should start thinking of real improvements rather than marketing...
Sri Lanka should start thinking of real improvements rather than marketing magic, says Simon Anholt
Q: Thank you for making time to discuss ‘Brand Sri Lanka’. In your view, on the principles of nation branding, what are the key issues that Sri Lanka must address?
A: First of all, I have to stress that ‘nation branding’ is a term I dislike, because it seems to contain a promise that any country can change its image using marketing messages. There is absolutely no evidence that this is possible; no country has ever succeeded in doing it and I have never advocated it. The phrase I coined way back in 1998 was ‘nation brand,’ which is simply an observation about the importance of national image in the modern world.
If a country doesn’t like its image – and most countries don’t – then the only way to change, update, enhance or otherwise influence that image is through the things the country does, not by the things it says. Influencing a country’s reputation is primarily a matter of policy, strategy, innovation and investment over a very long period – it has nothing to do with logos, slogans, advertising or PR campaigns. So the term ‘branding’ is highly misleading and I prefer to avoid it.
Yet, reputation is critically important. Countries with a powerful and positive image can export more products, more culture, more people and more services and attract more tourists, more investors, more immigrants and the attention and respect of other governments. Countries with weak or damaged images find it much harder and more expensive to achieve all of these goals.
So Sri Lanka needs to start thinking about substance rather than spin, about real improvements rather than marketing magic. A reputation cannot be constructed; it can only be earned. The question should never be ‘what can we say to make Sri Lanka famous?’ but ‘what can we do to make Sri Lanka relevant?’ Relevance is the only issue that matters: Sri Lanka simply isn’t an important place for most people in most other countries, and until that point of relevance can be established, all of these worries and fantasies about national reputation or ‘brand’ are utterly pointless.
Q: There are two schools of thought. Should Sri Lanka use a nation branding route or should we embark on a category branding strategy like Ceylon Tea, tourism, ethically manufactured apparel, etc.?
A: These approaches are absolutely compatible and both are essential. Sri Lanka, just like any other country, needs to promote its tourism, foreign investment opportunities, exports and culture to other countries. It also needs to think about its overall international standing and to do whatever is necessary and possible to enhance it. However, these are entirely different activities, and need entirely different approaches: marketing communications can be highly effective when you’re selling a product (such as holidays or exported products and services) and virtually useless if you are trying to change the country’s image.
Q: Any comments on the current imagery of Ceylon Tea, ethically manufactured apparel or tourism products – from your exposure?
A: I’m constantly impressed by the quality of promotions coming out of the higher end of the tourism sector – upmarket resorts like Tea Trails are doing world-class work. But Sri Lanka is unlikely to make its mark on the world using branded exports or tourism alone: what is needed is a harmonised approach which unites exports, foreign and domestic policy, cultural relations, people, the Diaspora, public and traditional diplomacy, trade, academia, sport and all the other many ways in which countries engage with each other.
Q: From your experience, what are the three things that Sri Lanka can do on the principle of nation branding starting now/immediately?
A: First, to create a broad coalition of Government, business and civil society and establish a grand strategy for the country: Where is Sri Lanka going? What is its role in the community of nations? What is Sri Lanka for?
Second, to take a good, critical look at all the ways in which the country engages with the international community, whether it’s in trade, foreign policy, the Diaspora, cultural or diplomatic relations; and to evaluate the quality and fitness for purpose of all the systems, structures, strategies and bodies the country has for carrying out these engagements: Are they truly appropriate for the age of globalised communications and global markets? Could they be streamlined, updated, reinvented, enhanced, better harmonised?
Third, Sri Lanka needs to start making itself useful. My research shows that countries are admired more than anything else if they are perceived to contribute meaningfully to the issues that everyone, everywhere is concerned about: climate change, pandemics, terrorism, economic turmoil, species loss, human trafficking, human rights and so on. If you want people to value your country, you have to make yourself valuable.
Q: Can you share some experiences from other countries on why you believe the three aspects mentioned are key to increasing the value of brand Sri Lanka?
A: This basic approach is the one I have recommended to the 53 governments I have advised over the last 16 years and in many cases, where they have been successful in planning and following through on their initiatives, there has been a measurable increase in their international profile.
Q: What are the limitations of nation branding as a strategy for a country as against the imagery unfolding naturally? Are there real life examples to justify this route?
A: If a country is growing rapidly in importance and its international engagements are rapidly multiplying, then its profile will tend to increase and improve ‘naturally’ – this is certainly the case with Brazil, India and China, since their rise is impossible to ignore. However, for countries like Sri Lanka that are not major geopolitical players, this tends to take place over decades and generations, and in many cases will not happen at all. Success is no guarantee of reputation: Countries are not admired purely for being prosperous, well-run and attractive – they also need to provide people around the world with some good reasons to feel glad they exist.
People only have space in their minds to think about two or three countries, and smaller countries like Sri Lanka are very likely to remain all but ignored except in their own immediate neighbourhood unless they learn how to use the advantages that globalisation has thrown up. Sri Lanka is a very special country – a country I’ve been lucky enough to visit on a number of occasions, and I am proud to count several Sri Lankans amongst my closest friends, so I know well how urgently it needs, and how richly it deserves, a better international standing. I’m certain it can achieve this.
Q: How can nation branding be operationalised in an economy where there is a coalition Government at play like Sri Lanka?
A: Coalition governments are certainly no obstacle to carrying out a project of this sort, as long as there is a shared political will to lay the foundations for a better national standing in the future.
Q: Do you think that Sri Lanka’s brand value is more than the estimated 23 billion dollars as stated in the nation brand value document of Brand Finance?
A: Since the Brand Finance approach was jointly developed with me using data from my survey, the Anholt-GfK Roper Nation Brands IndexSM, it would be surprising if I doubted the accuracy of their figures!
Q: Nation branding is more a process than an activity. What are the key phases in this process based on your experience and how does the cost work for a professional like you to work on?
A: In most of the countries I have advised, the strategy development process takes between six months and a year, and the new systems, structures and strategies are ready to come into operation soon after that.
Cost is an aspect of this topic which is frequently misunderstood: the communications agencies would like governments to believe that ‘nation branding’ is very easy and very expensive: you only have to hire the right agency, but the amount of media you need to buy in order to ‘get your message across’ costs tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.
The reality is almost exactly the opposite: It doesn’t need to cost a lot of money at all – one really enlightened act of cultural relations or public diplomacy can cost nothing, yet have far more effect than any amount of advertising or marketing – but it is extremely difficult: it requires sustained political will, imagination, courage, and continuous hands-on involvement at the highest levels of government, industry and society. And it needs to be sustained for decades and generations, not just for a few months, which is why my work always involves ways of building these habits of good international engagement into the very fabric of government, business and society.
Q: Is there anything in particular that we are currently doing with or without our knowledge that is hurting brand Sri Lanka?
A: That’s not a question I feel able to answer without knowing Sri Lanka’s situation in much more depth. These are exactly the kinds of questions which one would need to analyse objectively and scientifically during the first part of any serious project of this sort.
Q: What has been your experience of working in nation branding campaigns of countries post-war/conflicts?
A: First of all, I’m proud to say that I’ve never done a ‘campaign’ in my life! Most of my work with governments is advisory work on their systems, structures and plans – I have never recommended any kind of campaign, except in the context of tourism or export promotion.
Several of the countries where I have worked have been in conflict, or have recently emerged from conflict of one kind or another. These are often determining moments in the life of a nation – good times for a change of direction and a change of heart, and good times also for the world to be prepared to change its mind about that country.
