This Year's Anholt City Brands Index

This year's City Brands Index has just been published, and there are some pretty interesting results in it.

Sydney comes top: the world's most admired city, with a 'near-perfect' brand image. To download the General Report, pleast visit my website where you can download a pdf of the report from the link on the front page.

Coming soon: some exciting new developments on the City Brands Index and Nation Brands Index.

Monopoly and Patriotism

A friend in Latvia has alerted me to the Monopoly World Edition website, where you can vote for the cities that will be featured in the new, 'global', edition of the game. Apparently Riga - which I mentioned in an earlier post as one of my favourite European cities - has risen from 46th to 9th position since a newspaper article mentioned the contest. Naturally, thousands of the good citizens of Riga got voting, and succeeded in pushing their city up the rankings.

I say 'naturally', because almost nothing is more natural - or more powerful - than people's love of their own city, region or country.

A similar phenomenon was observed last year when the Swiss film-maker and adventurer Bernard Weber had the brilliant idea of creating a ranking for the New Seven Wonders of the World. This event resulted in over one hundred million votes being cast around the world, as ordinary people voted frantically to get "their" national landmark recognised as one of the new seven wonders.

It's striking because such events are somewhat unfamiliar. But if you think about it, equally dramatic displays of widespread and energetic patriotism are regularly triggered for every football World Cup, every Olympic Games, and to a lesser extent for contests such as 'Miss World' and the Eurovision Song Contest. Whenever people have an opportunity to boost the profile of their home town or home country, they do it, and in huge numbers.

Clearly, powerful forces are being unleashed here, and in a way it's reassuring to find that in our age of globalisation such a simple and elemental instinct as patriotism is alive and well - and especially encouraging that it usually manages to find its outlet in harmless fun.

Such contests are undoubtedly 'good branding' for the places that do well in them: in one way or another, they will help to raise the profile of the place, increase tourism numbers, encourage other kinds of commercial interest such as foreign investment and trade, and boost the number of people who decide to study, work and relocate there.

But all those millions of ordinary citizens certainly aren't voting for their home town because the tourist board has asked them to - most people are blissfully unaware that their city or country even has a tourist authority, and many even complain about the number of foreign visitors cluttering up their streets - or even because they necessarily see a direct connection between their vote and their future prosperity. It appears to be something purely instinctive, an almost automatic outpouring of group pride, and the expression of our own identity through the place that made us.

As I reported in the 3rd Quarter Report of the 2005 Nation Brands Index, the way in which people rank the 'brand images' of their own countries follows a fascinating pattern. Every country in the overall Top 10 of the NBI ranks itself first, while every country in the bottom 30 rates one or more other countries higher than itself - with the exception of two of the fastest-growing economies in the world, India and Ireland. It's impossible to say whether this is cause or effect: do people rate their own country highly because they know how admired and admirable it is, or does the fact they they rate it so highly help it to become admired and admirable?

The reality is that it's probably both at the same time. Ask 100 Chief Executives the secret of their company's strong brand, and half of them will probably tell you that it's the belief of their own staff in that brand and its values. Loyalty builds success, and success builds loyalty, and no place on earth - city, town, country, village or region - can hope to make others respect and admire it unless it first respects and admires itself.

But of course there's a catch. As with anything else that involves getting large numbers of people to make the effort to do something they don't normally do - even if it's only a matter of visiting a website and clicking on a button - there is a limit to how many times this force can be successfully unleashed. Yes, people undoubtedly do feel a strong pride in their own country or city, but their energy to express it is, like anything else, limited. You can't keep stoking the fire of patriotism forever: unless provided with new fuel, it will eventually die down and burn out.

Governments should reflect on this. Poking the embers of a population's love of their country will, nine times out of ten, produce a blaze, and this is a trick that any child can perform. But keeping the fire going for generations is a steeper challenge altogether.

Switzerland and the Language of Sport

In Zurich last week, speaking at an event organised by Swiss Top Sport, which focused on the use of sporting events to raise the profile of Swiss towns and cities, and consequently of Switzerland itself.

It's odd, for a country that hosts so many important international sporting events and sporting bodies, that Switzerland's weakest area (in terms of its national image) should be sport.

Switzerland has come top of the list for governance ever since I started running the Nation Brands Index: if the world had to pick one government to rule the planet, Switzerland is the nearly unanimous choice. It also scores very high for tourism, products, technology, ecology, and a host of other attributes, but comes in at 22nd place for sporting prowess.

Of course you could argue that it hardly matters: for a country with such a positive image, how serious can it really be that people don't think of the Swiss as top-rank sportsmen and women?

The problem is that sport isn't the only part of the culture dimension on the Nation Brand Hexagon where Switzerland scores poorly: there is a perception that the country has very little culture, either traditional or contemporary. And this is undoubtedly linked to the fact that Swiss people are admired and respected more than they are loved: like the Germans and the British, they appear to be the sort of people you'd willingly hire, but don't especially covet as friends. People want to be friends with the Italians, the Brazilians, the Canadians and especially the Australians, but not the Swiss. Perhaps it's that reputation for discretion and humourlessness, or perhaps it's simply that there is no convenient cliché to hand about what Swiss people are like, and so they remain largely anonymous in the world's imagination.

In other words, Switzerland is a tremendously powerful country brand, but a rather weak nation brand.

Given what I've said in the past about how nations - such as Italy and the United States - can "go out of fashion" as public opinion and general moral views and values evolve around them, this fact might put Switzerland and its enviably pristine image at risk. In fact, a quick look at Switzerland's NBI scores shows that it is declining almost as fast as Italy and the USA: nearly 2% during the last two and a half years. That may not sound much, but given that most country images are more like a fixed asset than a liquid currency, any steady decline, no matter how shallow, is a matter for concern.

Five or ten years ago, the qualities which many people seemed to admire in other countries were simple things like prosperity, modernity, attractive landscapes, economic growth, cool products. Today, what makes a positive 'nation brand' has become more nuanced, and questions of integrity, generosity, environmental friendliness, transparency and democracy come into the equation more and more strongly.

In the absence of any clear idea of what the Swiss people have to offer in terms of their values, their personality or their philosophy of life, it is easy to see how the old clichés of cuckoo-clock Switzerland could turn against Switzerland's image. That famous Swiss-banker integrity and secrecy could start to look like corruption; that famous wealth could look like selfishness; that famous precision could look like smugness; that famous competence could look like arrogance; that famous taste for producing and consuming the best of everything could look like smugness and élitism.

Faced with the huge challenge of introducing the Swiss to the world, sport is a singularly appropriate, powerful and eloquent "language". As Germany discovered when it hosted the football World Cup last year, the way a country hosts big sporting events and competes in them can be a highly effective way of communicating warmth and depth of national character; and the Sydney Olympics were no less important in helping to create the strong affection which people around the world feel for the Australians today.

If Switzerland learns to speak sport alongside its other "languages" of culture, tourism, politics, foreign aid and exported products and services, it could do far more than merely fend off the danger of losing relevance in the coming decades.

Consider that if Switzerland's NBI ranking for culture were in the top 5 along with its other scores, Switzerland would now be challenging the UK and Germany for 'most admired nation' status.

Which Presidential Candidate is better for "Brand America"?

First, my apologies to all regular readers for the shamefully long gap since my last posting. My only excuse is constant travel, and that I've been very busy organising some important new developments for my three surveys, the Nation Brands Index, City Brands Index and State Brands Index - more news on this front during the next few weeks.

In the meantime, a lot of my correspondence has been around the gripping US primaries, and the question of which candidates are likely to have the greatest impact on America's currently somewhat depressed international image.

So which candidate will be better for ‘Brand America’?

Nothing very scientific here, I'm afraid: but in my opinion it's Brand Barack, without a doubt. This this has relatively little to do with whether he and Senator Clinton are black or white, male or female, little to do with their politics, and quite a bit to do with how masculine or feminine each is. Barack Obama has – I hope he will excuse me saying so – some interestingly feminine qualities (he gives the impression of being caring, culturally sensitive, gentle and considerate), while Senator Clinton displays some strikingly masculine personality traits (despite the odd tear, she appears driven, forceful, aggressive). Since the woes of ‘Brand America’ are associated with an excess of political testosterone, you could well argue that what it needs more than anything else right now is a good dose of estrogen.

Challengers need masculine traits in order to succeed and to appeal; those in positions of great power will be better loved if they display a more feminine side, and as I argued in my book Brand America, most of the difficulties currently faced by the United States in terms of its international reputation can be ascribed to the fact that it has achieved so many of its goals, and has moved from challenger to dominator.

The lack of a global democracy is never plainer than when the U.S. presidential elections come around: the man or woman who gets the job has more influence over people's lives in other countries than many a local leader, and yet the rest of the world can only sit and hope, and trust to the American electorate - whose tastes, ambitions, politics, concerns and interests are usually somewhat different from those of overseas populations - to make the right choice on their behalf.

If ever there was a need for effective public diplomacy, it would be a huge, collaborative effort on the part of certain European, Asian and African governments to attempt to influence the voting behaviour of American citizens.

Dream on, as they say in America!

America's Public Diplomacy and Our Planet

The news emerges this week that James K. Glassman has been nominated by President George W. Bush to replace Karen Hughes as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, and already the knives are out. This job isn't so much a poisoned chalice as a loaded revolver pointed at the gunman's own head, and the man must have nerves of steel to take it on.

I find this perennial fixation in US foreign policy circles that one individual can somehow be responsible for 'fixing America's image' profoundly demoralising. Pundits have spent the last week raking over Glassman's past in order to see whether they can start sneering straight away, or wait until he does something awful, or at least until he fails to do something amazing: but the truth is it simply doesn't matter who he is or what he's done. No one man or woman can possibly take on the task of fixing America's image because it's not America's image that needs fixing: it's America.

And yet if America really did want to do what it takes to regain some moral authority and respect, even liking, around the world, the opportunities present themselves on an almost weekly basis. It's not rocket science. Last week's dismally predictable performance from the US "negotiating team" at the Bali climate talks was one of the better opportunities that 'Brand America' has burned during the last several years.

The failure to exercise some badly-needed public diplomacy in Bali probably isn't terminal for the USA, a country which still retains enough political and economic power to get its way without being liked or admired very much. But each missed opportunity to do something useful for the planet, sadly, may prove to be rather more final.

Denmark's Good Name

Just back from Billund and the annual conference of the Invest in Denmark agency, where the discussions were about Denmark's image in the world, its profile in developing countries, the links between public diplomacy and investment promotion, and the importance of the 2009 UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen.

Denmark is a good example of a country which might easily fall into the trap of thinking that its national image is virtually as good as it can be, and there's little point in worrying about it. But of course this would be a mistake, for two main reasons:

1. Denmark is well known and highly reputed in its immediate neighbourhood, and for several centuries its good name has made commercial, cultural, social and political relations easy and pleasant within that neighbourhood. But suddenly, along comes globalisation, and Denmark finds that it's no longer competing and trading with its neighbours, but with countries on the other side of the world, where its history and identity are virtually unknown. Of course, Denmark has the 'Scandinavian premium' (because Scandinavia is a powerful international "brand"), but in the countries where many of Denmark's future trading partners, tourists, consumers and strategic partners will come from - notably China, India, Brazil and Russia - the country itself is relatively unknown. Used to being well-known and respected, this is a difficult concept for Denmark to adjust to: but adjust it must.

2. Denmark's image in the global popular imagination is, like the images of most countries, rooted in its past. Its story is one of an overwhelmingly white, prosperous, Protestant population carrying on in that effective, egalitarian, social-democratic way that it has for centuries. But of course the story is no longer true, and excludes an ever larger part of the population. This way trouble lies: nobody likes living in a country which still presents itself to the world - and is regarded by the world - as the kind of country where people like them couldn't possibly live.

Denmark's image took a battering last year as a result of the cartoons crisis, a subject I have written about elsewhere. The Nation Brands Index suggests that most of the fallout from this sorry episode is now over, and in most countries Denmark's ranking is as high, or indeed higher, than it was before the cartoons were published. But Denmark learned an important lesson from the cartoons: in today's world, countries are no longer considered as loose collections of different groups - the government, the media, businesses, ordinary people, famous people - but as single players on a global stage. If one component offends, the whole national entity is likely to be implicated. It's not fair, it's not clever and it's not logical, but it's the way public opinion works.

And this tendency of globalisation to reduce the complexity and diversity of countries to simple, one-dimensional 'brands', creates enormous problems for democratic governance. It is unthinkable for a liberal, secular, democratic state in the modern world to attempt to control the actions and communications of all its stakeholders; and yet the consequences of the actions and communications of a single stakeholder, public or private, are apt to have a profound impact on the shared reputation of all.

That reputation, as Denmark discovered to its cost, is the most precious asset of a country in the age of globalisation. As Iago says in Shakespeare's Othello,

Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.

(Othello, Act 3, scene 3, 155–161)

Shakespeare speaks of personal reputation within society, but the point is no less true of national reputation within what some people hopefully call the 'community of nations'.

Under the tyranny of international public opinion, what is diverse becomes homogeneous and what is complex becomes simple. In order to live at peace with others and tolerate or even enjoy their differences, it is essential to particularise, but the fatal tendency of humanity is always to generalise.

Is Italy going out of fashion?

Some further thoughts on Italy, following a series of very interesting discussion groups with various academics, politicians, journalists and business people in Milan last week.


It seems pretty clear to me that Italy's brand is not actually declining in absolute terms: the reason why Italy's scores are falling faster than almost any other country's in the Nation Brands Index is because the world is changing its mind on a number of issues, and Italy is being very gradually 'squeezed out' of the new scenario. As I've often said, country images really don't change very much; it is somewhat easier to spoil a country's image than improve it, but even that is pretty hard work. People seem to need these easy, comforting stereotypes that enable them to put countries in convenient pigeon-holes, and only abandon them if they really have no other choice.

People's views of global issues, on the other hand, can and do change much more rapidly. And this is quite natural: the main reason why national images move so slowly is because most people spend so little time thinking about other countries. If a person in Canada or South Africa or India spends six seconds per year thinking about Italy, it's not surprising if their perception of Italy remains largely unchanged for years on end.

On the other hand, people in Canada and South Africa and India may spend several minutes - even hours - every day thinking about big issues like climate change, poverty, war and diseases, religion, the cost of living, oil prices and whatever else the media is full of at any given moment. In consequence, their views on such subjects are being constantly updated, or at least refreshed with new information.

What Italy seems to be facing is not a loss of attraction in its image, but a decline in the relevance of that image for many people.

In other words, Italy could be going out of fashion.

Judging by the profiles of countries that people admire more as time passes, there are at least three areas of reputation which seem to have become critical in recent years:

1. A country's perceived environmental credentials. This is rapidly becoming a 'hygiene factor' for a country's basic acceptance into the community of nations.
2. A country's perceived competence and productivity in technology, which seems to be the standard proxy for modernity: and people, on the whole, admire modern countries.
3. A country's attractiveness as a place of learning and economic and cultural self-improvement: in other words, a destination for personal advancement.

Italy scores poorly in all three of these areas:

1. Worse than being just another country that isn't perceived to be doing very much in the area of environmentalism, it is perceived as a country with a hugely important natural and cultural heritage that isn't doing very much to look after it.
2. Italy, like Germany, is perceived as a country with mechanical rather than technological excellence: Ferraris and Fiats are great engineering products, but people are slow to accept Italy as a source of high technology (witness the difficulties faced by Olivetti when it tried to market its personal computers internationally).
3. And although Italy is a country most people would love to live in, they really only think of it as an extended holiday destination. When it comes to answering the critical question "what's in it for me?", Italy is not perceived to offer much.

Part of the problem is the view that Italy is not to any great degree an English-speaking nation, so the prospects for internationally useful educational or work experience or qualifications are very limited. The way to fix this, I firmly believe, has less to do with the standard of English-language teaching in Italian schools (which is admittedly poor) and more to do with the fact that English-language television is routinely dubbed into Italian rather than subtitled. Children don't spend many hours learning English at school and usually don't pay close attention: but they do spend hours a day watching television, and watching it quite closely. If a proportion of the programmes and movies they watch have English dialogue and Italian subtitles, they will learn English almost without realising it. Certainly, most of the countries where foreign television is subtitled have higher standards of general competence in English than the countries where it's dubbed into the local language.

And a word to the cultural protectionists who would 'protect' their populations against the rising tide of Anglo-American popular culture: competence in English has no real political or cultural significance any more. English is not the language of Britain or America or Australia or anywhere else: it's the operating system of the modern world, more like Windows than Word, and if you can't use it then you can't easily participate in the international community. Places that resist the rise of English on the grounds that it brands them as pro-American or pro-British are missing the point: it makes them globally competitive and doesn't brand them as anything in particular, except possibly as competent and modern. Oh, and there's plenty of good quality film and television programming made in the English language (and not all of it in Britain and America either) which will neither warp the morals of young people or destroy their native culture. A smaller proportion of higher quality English-language television broadcast in the original language will do far more good than the current high proportion of poor quality programming dubbed into Italian.

In the end, this final question about whether people would like to move to a country to study, live and work, is a good measure for the overall attractiveness of the place. Whatever people might think about a country's products, policies or culture, if they believe that they can improve their personal prospects by moving there, it means that they ultimately approve of the place (the United States, despite all the negative views surrounding its foreign policy and cultural and economic hegemony and the brouhaha about its failed public diplomacy, is still by a long way most people's preferred destination for education and professional development, and this is one of the main reasons why I don't believe that the country's current unpopularity is in any sense terminal).

It goes without saying that Italy's weakness in these three areas is neither absolutely deserved nor absolutely undeserved. There are plenty of great places in Italy for foreigners to study for internationally respected and relevant qualifications (Bocconi University in Milan, to name but one); some of Europe's most committed environmentalists are based in Italy; and some of Europe's most innovative, successful and highly reputed technology firms are Italian. The problem is that these facts are not feeding into the popular 'story' of Italy: they are known only by limited groups of people with specialist knowledge, and can do very little to shift the vast weight of Italy's traditional international image - the country of la dolce vita.

Italy's problem is that it is considered by the vast majority of people as a place that is decorative but not useful. The Italy that the world wants is full of attractive, soft, lifestyle values - it's a place where, at least in their minds, they can retreat from the troubles of the modern world - and people simply don't want that attractive myth, that imaginary refuge, 'contaminated' by the things that the rest of the world worries about. Italy wants, and needs, to work: but the world wants it to stay on holiday.

Not much you can do to fix that, at least not without wide-scale, long-term political and social reform, a prospect which with every change of government seems less and less likely.