‘Living the Brand’: Nation branding influences on national collective self-esteem and state power.

Author: Eyrin Kyriakidi

SRC Editor: Deniz Oğuzhan
This article is part of the “Topics on Political Theory” series by the Political Theory Research Committee of IAPSS.

Introduction

In 1996, marketing expert Simon Anholt created the concept of nation branding. Countries, just like products, can be marketed, and branded, to become more likable and appealing to consumers. According to Anholt, all countries already have a brand, since all countries are associated with certain events, stereotypes, and characteristics by external audiences (Hakala et. al, 2013).

Most of the literature suggests that nation branding is crafted for external audiences and targets only the “other,” as the goal is for the country to increase its influence and financial gains (Gilboa, 2008). Although that is admittedly true, this study positions itself with the part of the corpus which suggests that nation branding has an internalised aspect. In other words, the target audience is not solely the “other” but “us”, too. Ståhlberg and Bolin (2016) have researched the internal implications of nation branding by using as an example an article titled “Ukraine: Choosing a face” in the May 2013 issue of the English-language Ukrainian newspaper “Kyiv Weekly”. In the article, the author expressed two major setbacks regarding the formation of a broadly accepted identity in Ukraine: one was about the deficit of a collective sense of belonging among the country’s population, and another was about the collective need of the nation to have its distinct cultural identity acknowledged by the rest of the world^[1]. In the same vein, Barr (2012), Browning (2015), and Varga (2013), among others, studied the internalised aspect of nation branding in China, Finland, Estonia, and Germany. All three researchers reached the same conclusion: that nation branding does indeed have an internal aspect that is used for nation-building, raising national self-esteem, and maintaining societal bonds.

Nation branding and self-perception.

A country’s national brand is indissolubly attached to the people’s national identity, therefore, attempts to alter the established brand, improve it, and reap the desired outcomes must be well-coordinated and well-executed. However, more often than not, there are differences in how a nation identifies and how it wishes to be viewed. “Self-perception”, as it is called by Fan (2008, p. 5), is built upon how a nation understands it is perceived by others, as well as how it understands the “other(s)”. The ones responsible for the implementation of the branding strategy need to make sure that what is being branded is as close to the nation’s identity as possible, as the brand needs to reflect the “true identity” of the people (Govers & Go, 2009, as quoted in Knott, Fyall, & Jones, 2015, p. 4). What constitutes the “true identity” is debatable: For Billig (1995), the creation and consolidation of national identity are achieved through socialization via banal situations, yet, for Miño and Austin (2022), identity is contingent on how people understand and interpret their culture and history. Nonetheless, in either case, national identity as the “finished product”, the “product” that the people have come to recognize as being “true” about themselves, is vital to society and the state (Fukuyama, 2018). Therefore, as the nation is called to “live the brand”, the branding process stops being an exclusively external affair (Aronczyk, 2008): it starts involving the citizens themselves in an attempt to consolidate the brand. Giannopoulos et al.(2011) conducted a series of interviews with people working in the tourism industry in Greece, one of whom stated that “We sell something more than accommodation, we sell part of a whole destination … Branding our country is our affair” (p. 6).

Nation branding and the ontological security of the nation

Consequently, for a national brand to be successful and have the required support, the process must be carefully thought through. Fan (2008), continuing the study by  Brown et al. (2006) on the central viewpoints of an organisation regarding national image, concludes that six key elements need to be considered: how a nation understands itself, the world around it, how the nation thinks it is understood, how it is understood, how the nation promotes itself so far and finally, how it wishes to be seen. This study would like to propose a complementary question: why does it matter to a nation how it is viewed by others?

According to Browning (2015), a significant concern of every single nation is its ontological security, which is vital to its existence. Ontological security, the security of being, is closely linked to a country’s and a nation’s self-esteem. For countries to survive, there needs to be a continual and congruous self-narrative that guarantees both positive self-esteem to the people, but also a favourable image to foreign partners and audiences. This narrative, then, needs to be confirmed by external audiences, with the need for recognition and confirmation being a common theme among nations (Fukuyama, 2018). Self-esteem lies in one’s own identity, and studies have shown that an individual’s identity is closely linked to the collective national and social identity (Brookes, 1999; Brewer, Graf, & Willnat, 2003; Müller, 2013). Social self-esteem, the collective self-esteem of the society, needs to be reflected in the opinion that others have of the nation (Rubin & Hewstone, 1998). Similarly, the orchestrated opinion that others have of the country that is, the brand of the country, needs to have the support of the citizens. Therefore, it needs to be rooted in the national identity and reflect social self-esteem and pride (Yousaf & Li, 2015; Norbani, Nguyen, Yahya, Melewar, & Chen, 2016; Du, Chen, Chi, & King, 2019).

Lindemann (2010, as quoted in Browning, 2015), supports that one’s identity must be acknowledged and endorsed; otherwise, self-esteem and self-image might be jeopardized. Ringmar (2002, as quoted in Browning, 2015) argues that if peers do not acknowledge the favourable way one sees oneself or their group, one will struggle for affirmation or “take non-recognition to heart” (p. 199). Therefore, branding efforts can be steered both toward the nation that needs to have its identity validated and toward external audiences (Browning, 2015). Both Lindemann and Ringmar acknowledge that if the group’s identity is not recognised, not only is the group’s symbolic existence at risk, but non-recognition can lead to the group either trying harder to obtain the “other’s” approval or experiencing an identity crisis. To the question “why does it matter to a nation how it is viewed by others?”, the answer is that it matters because when a nation is not seen the way it wishes to or the way it tries to be seen, there are significant threats to the nation’s symbolic existence and confidence in itself and its actions. Complementary to this view, Hopkins and Blackwood (2011) state that “non-recognition can entail people feeling positioned or constrained to act in ways that compromise their self-definition” (p. 217). The concept of non-recognition is a key theme in Lebow (2008), who explains that both self-esteem and respect are earned by performing well in areas that are deemed important by the “other”, in agreement with Greenfeld (1992) who has already established a connection between national identity and the quest of a nation for legitimacy and dignity. Greenfeld’s research paves the way for further analysis: recognition is linked to power, and more specifically, as the literature suggests, soft power (Xiufang & Naren, 2009; Barr, 2012; Browning & Ferraz de Oliveira, 2017). In Nye’s words: “Soft power is the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion” (Nye, 2004, p. 256). A strong, positive brand enables the state to benefit from the nation’s positive image and increase its peripheral or even global influence, leading to the general augmented trustworthiness of the state and providing the latter with the ability to play a bigger global role (van Ham, 2008; Lee, 2010).

Conclusion

Recognition serves a dual purpose: to strengthen the national collective self-esteem and to amplify the soft power of the state. Through recognition of the nation’s brand, the state receives power, and through power comes recognition not only for the state but also for the nation. Moreover, as power boosts national collective self-esteem, the cycle of interdependence between the nation and state is unavoidable. From the very conception of the branding strategy to the results of the campaign, the state, represented by the government taking care of the branding strategy, and the nation, the people, must work together to achieve the desired outcomes, whether consciously or subconsciously. However, despite its potential, nation branding has become yet another consulting practice, with the participating agencies often failing to grasp the essence of the nation, leading to ephemeral and often unsuccessful, albeit expensive branding campaigns (van Ham, 2008; Kaneva, 2011; Kaneva & Popescu, 2014). Under those circumstances and with such high stakes, it is recommended that all consciously involved actors, as well as potentially influential players, come together to forge strong, long-term campaigns with lasting outcomes.

Note
An earlier version of this study was presented at the Political Theory & Asia and Oceania Student Research Committees’ Joint Lecture Series on November 26, 2021.

Bibliography

Aronczyk, M. (2008). “Living the Brand”: Nationality, Globality and the Identity Strategies of Nation Branding Consultants. International Journal of Communication, 2, 41–65.

Barr, M. (2012). Nation branding as nation-building: China’s image campaign. East Asia, 29(1), 81–94. doi:10.1007/s12140-011-9159-7.

Billig, M. (1995). Banal Nationalism. SAGE Publications Ltd.

Brewer, P. R., Joseph G, and Willnat, L. (2003). Priming or framing: Media influence on attitudes toward foreign countries. The International Communication Gazette, 65(6), 493–508. doi:10.1177/0016549203065006005.

Brookes, R. (1999). Newspapers and national identity: the BSE/CJD crisis and the British press. Media, Culture & Society, 21(2), 247–263.

Brown, T. J., Dacin, P. A., Pratt, M. G., and Whetten, D. A. (2006). Identity, intended image, construed image, and reputation: an interdisciplinary framework and suggested terminology, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 99–106.

Browning, C. S. (2015). Nation branding, national self-esteem, and the constitution of subjectivity in late modernity. Foreign Policy Analysis, 11(2), 195–214. doi:10.1111/fpa.12028.

Browning, C. S., and Ferraz de Oliveira, A. (2017). Introduction: Nation branding and competitive identity in world politics. Geopolitics,22(3), 481–501. doi:10.1080/14650045.2017.1329725.

Miño, P., and Austin, L. (2022). A cocreational approach to nation branding: The case of Chile. Public Relations Inquiry, 11(2), 293–313. doi:10.1177/2046147X221081179.

Norbani, C.-H., Nguyen, B., Yahya, W. K., Melewar, T. C. and Chen, Y. P. (2016). Country branding emerging from citizens’ emotions and the perceptions of competitive advantage: The case of Malaysia. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 22(1), 13–28. doi:10.1177/1356766715586454.

Du, H., Chen, A., Chi, P., and King, R. B. (2019). Person-culture fit boosts national pride: A cross-cultural study among 78 societies. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 108–117.

Fan, Y. (2008). Key perspective in nation image: A Conceptual Framework for Nation Branding. 1–13. doi:10.1.1.549.4375.

Fukuyama, F. (2018). Why national identity matters. Journal of Democracy, 29(4), 5–15. doi:10.1353/jod.2018.0058.

Giannopoulos, A. A., Piha, L. P, and Avlonitis, G. J. (2011). “Desti-nation branding”: What for? From the notions of tourism and nation branding to an integrated framework. Berlin. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215471537_Desti-Nation_Branding_what_for_From_the_notions_of_tourism_and_nation_branding_to_an_integrated_framework.

Gilboa, E. (2008). Searching for a theory of public diplomacy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 55–77. doi:10.1177/0002716207312142.

Greenfeld, L. (1992). Nationalism: Five roads to modernity. Harvard University Press.

Hakala, U., Lemmetyinen, A., and Kantola, S.‐P. (2013). Country image as a nation-branding tool. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 31(5), 538–556. doi:10.1108/MIP-04-2013-0060.

Hopkins, N., and Blackwood, L. (2011). Everyday citizenship: Identity and recognition. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 21(3), 215–227. doi:10.1002/casp.1088.

Kaneva, N. (2011). Nation branding: Toward an agenda for critical research. International Journal of Communication, 5, 117–141.

Kaneva, N., and Popescu, D. (2014). “We are Romanian, not Roma”: Nation branding and postsocialist discourses of alterity. Communication, Culture & Critique, 7, 506–523. doi:10.1111/cccr.12064.

Knott, B., Fyall, A., and Jones, I. (2015). The nation branding opportunities provided by a sport mega-event: South Africa and the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(1), 46–56. doi:10.1016/j.jdmm.2014.09.001.

Lebow, R. N. (2008). Identity and international relations. International Relations, 22(4), 473–492. doi:10.1177/0047117808097312.

Lee, D.-H. (2010). Nation branding Korea. SERI Quarterly, 105, 103–109.

Müller, P. (2013). National identity building through patterns of an international third-person perception in news coverage. The International Communication Gazette, 75(8), 732–749. doi: 10.1177/1748048513482546.

Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power and American foreign policy. Political Science Quarterly, 119(2), 255–270. doi:10.2307/20202345.

Rubin, M., and Hewstone M. (1998). Social identity theory’s self-esteem hypothesis: A review and some suggestions for clarification. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(1), 40–62.

Ståhlberg, P., and Göran B. (2016). Having a soul or choosing a face? Nation branding, identity and cosmopolitan imagination. Social Identities, 22(3), 279–290. doi:10.1080/13504630.2015.1128812.

van Ham, P. (2008). “Place branding: The state of the art.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 1–24. doi:10.1177/0002716207312274.

Varga, S. (2013). The politics of nation branding: Collective identity and public sphere in the neoliberal State. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 39(8), 825–845. doi:10.1177/0191453713494969.

Xiufang, L., and Naren, C. (2009). Reframing national image: A methodological framework. Conflict and Communication,8(2), 1–11. Yousaf, S, and Li, H. (2015). Social identity, collective self-esteem and country reputation: the case of Pakistan. Journal of Product & Brand Management,24(4), 399–411. doi:10.1108/JPBM-04-2014-0548.

---

^[1] The referenced article proceeds the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, events that affected how the uniqueness of the Ukrainian culture is perceived abroad.