Category Archives: Nation Branding

Online Reputation Management for Governments: in the national interest or out of the dictator’s playbook?

According to media commentary, the flourishing business of online reputation management (ORM) straddles an ethical divide between protecting against falsifications and perpetrating them.  Its techniques inhabit several ethical shades of gray, from reputation monitoring, defamation clean-up and positive content promotion to SEO manipulation, negative review removal and astroturfing practices.  But if ORM poses ethical concerns in relation to its use by private businesses and individuals, how then should its use by governments be regarded?

Thor Halvorssen, president of the New York-based Human Rights Foundation, argues that ‘reputation management’ can be a euphemism of the worst sort.  “In many cases across Africa, it often means whitewashing the human rights violations of despotic regimes with fluff journalism and, just as easily, serving as personal PR agents for rulers and their corrupt family members”.  It can also work to drown out criticism, branding dissidents and critics as criminals, terrorists or extremists… Read more at DiploFoundation


[Propaganda poster in Beijing reinforcing the CCP’s official ‘harmonious society’ narrative. From the Line 21 Project collection]


The Fiji Airways Re-launch & the Decline of Region Branding

Fiji Airways

The success of Air Pacific’s relaunch as Fiji Airways speaks loudly to the declining use of the Pacific as a brand.

In 1971, Fiji Airways made the strategic decision to forsake the Fiji brand and rebrand as Air Pacific. In 2012, after over four decades of operation as Air Pacific, the airline reversed history, boldly effecting a total rebrand and returning to its former name. A year on and the Fiji Airways redux is proving an overwhelming success, but rebrands never come cheap nor without overwhelming risk. So, what led the airline to forsake its 40 year-old regional brand in favor of a new national identity?

At over five and a half thousand miles from either Los Angeles or Beijing, Fiji is separated from almost everywhere by the massive expanse of the Pacific Ocean and its sparse confetti of micro-states. Peripherality and economies of scale have been limiting factors in the development of the Pacific’s islands. Although the region’s major industry is tourism, for example, international air traffic tends to fly over rather than to it. In geographic terms it is a super-region, yet in human terms it is a minnow, often expressed as an after-thought (‘Asia-Pacific’) or as a marker to its more ‘important’ littoral neighbors (‘Pacific Rim’). Not surprisingly, place branding discourse on the region tends to be limited to obscure references in development assistance, ethnographic and environmental reportage.

Even under the best of circumstances, the challenges facing the formation of a region brand are immense. Marcus Andersen (2009), in his study of region branding in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR), identifies two major challenges: diversity “in terms of the multiple national identities and many potential stakeholders”, and the absence of a central decision-making authority. The BSR, he observes, lacks many of the prerequisites for building a brand, such as a political structure, common culture, common history, and linguistic affinity. The Pacific is no exception, yet in its case the challenges are amplified by the incoherence the region derives from the asymmetry of its geographic and human footprints. – Read on at The Public Diplomat

China and Nation Branding: The Diplomat

The latest piece by Nicholas Dynon in The Diplomat

In a speech to members of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee last week, Chinese president Xi Jinping called for renewed efforts to promote China’s cultural soft power. “The stories of China should be well told, voices of China well spread, and characteristics of China well explained,” Xi said.

Various commentators have long slammed China’s state-led efforts to strengthen the country’s soft power. Joseph Nye, to whom the soft power concept is credited, has commented that the Chinese government just doesn’t get soft power. Nye quotes Pang Zhongying of Renmin University as describing Beijing’s focus on promoting ancient cultural icons in terms of a “poverty of thought” among Chinese leaders.

Culture has emerged as the cornerstone of Beijing’s policies to develop soft power, yet the efficacy of this “all culture, no politics” approach has been widely criticized. Nation branding approaches also suggest that Beijing’s culture plugging is, at the very least, a monumental waste of effort. Read more

Beijing bird nest stadium


[Beijing’s national stadium, which hosted the 2008 Olympics opening ceremony – a stunning cultural extravaganza completely devoid of politics]

Bottling the Negativity: Fiji Water Brands Fiji

English: Logo of Fiji Water, a bottled water c...

Logo of Fiji Water (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In this post, Line 21 Project’s Nicholas Dynon takes a detour to tropical Fiji and asks what’s with all the negativity over the islands’ famous bottled water brand.

There is a widely acknowledged reciprocity in branding between product and place of origin. It’s called mutual image transference. In the case of New Zealand, the ‘100% pure’ brand both benefits—and benefits from—the reputation of key kiwi exports like infant milk formula. It’s a similar story in Fiji. A 2012 NZ Aid report, for instance, states that Fiji Water has done much to promote the brand of ‘Fiji’ globally, even if many of its consumers don’t even know where Fiji is.

Read more at The Public Diplomat…

History and culture not enough to drive China’s soft power efforts

This opinion piece by Nicholas Dynon appears in the latest edition of the People’s Daily published Global Times.

In this piece, Dynon argues that the cultural approach informing Beijing’s projection of soft power may be missing the mark. The science of nation branding, he writes, suggests that global audiences already have a high regard for China’s culture and that maybe they are more than ready to hear something new about the China story… read more

National flags flying high above Shanghai's famous Bund.

National flags flying high above Shanghai’s famous Bund – an iconic image of Brand China.

China’s Reputational Deficit

“A lonely flower appreciating itself” (gu fang zi shang 孤芳自赏)

Most Chinese ignore how others perceive them. The typical Chinese person does not know, understand or care how the rest of the world thinks of China. And this is one of the fundamental issues that make China’s globalization costly, and it has even lead to misunderstandings on China’s diplomacy.[1]

National flags flying high above Shanghai's famous Bund.

National flags flying high above Shanghai’s famous Bund.

An emergent China is perceived far more positively by its own population relative to how it is perceived by publics in the rest of the world. According to a number of major indexes, the difference between positive domestic perceptions of the Chinese state relative to international perceptions of it are greater than for any other country. In short, the Chinese state enjoys a far more positive reputation at home than it does abroad. While it might be true of many countries that their own populations self-reflect more positively than others perceive them, the fact is that nowhere else is the difference between positive domestic perception and negative external perception so great as in China.

The Reputation Institute’s CountryRep 2009 Report, “measures the overall respect, trust, esteem, admiration and good feelings that the public in the G8 countries (US, Japan, UK, Russia, France, Germany, Canada, and Italy) hold toward 34 countries outside of their home country and how 33 of those countries rate their own nations”.[2] CountryRep measures perceptions of countries based on key performance indicators designed to assess the relative appeal of the country to respondents in relation to attributes that fall into three categories: “effective government”, “advanced economy” and “appealing environment”. In this report, China rated number one in relation to the degree to which a country’s public over-rates itself in comparison to external perception.[3] In relation to the question “Which countries like themselves the most?” China managed rating of 78.96, yet in relation to “Which are the best reputed countries?” China managed only 38.12. Accordingly, in terms of the degree to which a country’s public over-rates itself, China and Russia ranked scored significantly higher in first and second place, with Japan interestingly scoring negatively due to its public underrating itself relative to how it was rated by other publics.

This brief analysis utilizes various nation-branding approaches to explore this contradiction in China’s national image, with specific reference to perceptions of China among populations in the developed West. On the one hand, a self-confident and ascendant China will be reflected in data that portrays a national population that rates China and its influence in the world highly. On the other hand, a wary and untrusting developed world will be reflected in data that portrays international populations that view China and its influence negatively.

Measuring the Reputational Divide

According to a 2009 poll by researchers at the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and Globescan for the BBC World Service, 92% of Chinese surveyed were of the opinion that China has a mainly positive influence on the world, whereas only 39% of people surveyed in 20 other major countries agreed.[4]

Negative views of China were highest amongst European and North American countries, where they had a generally unfavorable view of China, while an even larger majority (80%) disapproved of China’s expanding military strength. Several European countries also cast a worried eye on the Middle Kingdom with majorities in Italy (61%), the Czech Republic (58%), Germany (54%), France (51%) as well as Turkey saying they held an unfavorable view of China.[5] The BBC World Service Poll found that while views of China were predominantly positive in 2008, they had become substantially less so by 2009. On average, in 2008, 45% of respondents had a positive view while 33% had a negative view, but by 2009 positive views had slipped six points to 39%, while negative views had risen to 40%. According to GlobeScan Chairman Doug Miller, the poll suggests that China “has much to learn about winning hearts and minds in the world. It seems that a successful Olympic games has not been enough to offset other concerns that people have”.[6]

Propaganda image of construction worker at the Shanghai 2010 World Expo site - a great triumph for domestic audiences, but internationally unremarkable.

Propaganda image of construction worker at the Shanghai 2010 World Expo site – a great triumph for domestic audiences, but internationally unremarkable.

Similar results were reflected in the Pew Global Attitudes Project’s Spring 2007 Survey. [7] In answer to the question “Please tell me if you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable opinion of China?”, 93% of Chinese respondents had a “very favorable” or “somewhat favorable” opinion of China, while 42% of US respondents felt the same way about China, 52% of South Korean, 49% of British, 47% of French, 39% of Spanish, 34% of German, 29% of Japanese and 27% of Italian respondents.

According to both the 2009 BBC World Service Poll and the Pew Global Attitudes Project’s Spring 2007 Survey, perceptions of China were generally more positive among the populations of developing countries than among the populations of developed countries. Negative perceptions of China were more prevalent among the developed nations of Europe, East Asia and North America, and less prevalent in developing Africa and Central and South America. Among respondent Western European, North American and Northeast Asian populations (including G8 populations), the Pew survey indicated far more positive opinions in relation to the US compared to those held in relation to China and Russia.

Perhaps a more nuanced differentiation of Chinese versus international perceptions of China is charted by Y&R’s BrandAsset Valuator (BAV) study, which measures the performance of the China brand across several international markets. International respondents were least impressed with China in relation to the attributes of “dependable”, “original” and “on the move”. Interestingly, these were also the attributes Chinese respondents were least impressed with, yet to a far lesser extent. According to Joshua Cooper Ramo, the author of a paper for which the BAV data was collated, “China’s problem is more complex than whether or not its national image is “good” or “bad”, but hinges on a more difficult puzzle: China’s image of herself and other nations’ views of her are out of alignment”. [8]

The Implications of Reputational Deficit

Ramo contends that “China’s greatest strategic threat today is its national image (国家形象 guojia xingxiang)”.[9] The threat, argues Ramo, comes in the form of the externalities faced as a result of poor image: quality of foreign investment and technology transfers, increased commodity costs due to uncertainty, and inability to exploit trade and investment opportunities due to regulatory and lobbyist barriers, lack of stakeholder confidence and misunderstanding. These externalities are increasingly well documented. In Australia, for example, a 2011 Lowy Institute poll indicated that 57% of respondents thought that the government was allowing too much Chinese investment (only 3% thought there was not enough). John Larum writes “Chinese investors and officials frequently see the Australian media playing a negative role in reporting on Chinese FDI into Australia”.[10] This is seen to result in a more negative government approach towards Chinese investment as reflected in perceptions of discriminatory regulatory practices. The collapse of the Chinalco – Rio Tinto deal in 2008 and the rejection on national security grounds of China Minmetals Non-ferrous Metals’ takeover of OZ Minerals in 2009 are seen as examples of such discrimination.

Could China’s powerful future be compromised by poor image? Public surveys unequivocally support the assertion that the Chinese nation overrates itself relative to how it is rated by publics in OECD countries. This suggests that either these publics are relatively critical of China or that the Chinese are not self-critical enough, or a combination of these. Interestingly, it further suggests that while the Chinese state’s soft power is internationally weak, its ‘internal’ soft power has remained a surprisingly effective influencing force. As China ascends towards superpower status, domestic self-confidence will continue to increase while foreign unease will likely grow.  Greater power will mean greater image problems for an already problematic nation brand. The potential implications of this for China are profound.

[1] Zhang Lijuan, “Furthering cooperation needs better perceptions”,, 21 May 2011. accessed 25 May 2011.

[2] CountryRep 2009, Reputation Institute, 2009. p.12.

[3] ibid. p.15.

[4] China’s Far Too Rosy Self Image,, accessed March 2010.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Doug Miller, quoted in Views of China and Russia Decline in Global Poll, BBC World Service, 06 February 2009. p.2.

[7] Pew Global Attitudes Project: Spring 2007 Survey – Survey of 47 Publics, 2007.

[8] Referenced in Joshua Cooper Ramo, BRAND CHINA (淡色中国), London, The Foreign Policy Centre, February 2007. p.12. accessed 15 September 2010.

[9] Joshua Cooper Ramo, op cit. p.12.

[10] John Larum, Chinese Perspectives on Investing in Australia, Lowy Institute for International Policy, June 2011. p.16.