Critics of this nascent industry argue that countries cannot be marketed like Coke. But advocates say the concept has always existed, albeit in various forms.

By Tan Hui Yee

IF YOU had to choose between hiring a Swede or a Nigerian of equal calibre, whom would you pick? If you had to decide between buying an electric fan made in Japan and an identical one from Vietnam, which would get your vote?

The answers come intuitively to most because some nations have better reputations than others. Until recently, such reputations were acquired through decades of investment in education, industry and diplomacy – or the lack of it.

These days, more countries are trying to jumpstart the process by hiring consultants or creating national councils to think up strategies that present their best face to the world.

Singapore, widely known to be safe, clean and efficient, joined the club recently with a new nation branding strategy led by the inter-ministry National Marketing Action Committee (NMAC) to shake off perceptions of it as a staid, if not sterile, city.

The new formula? A country that is ‘nurturing’, ‘transforming’, actively ‘collaborating’, and known for its ‘daring to dream’.

The Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (Mica) explains: ‘They reflect how we as Singaporeans are driven to explore, and how we nurture the spirit that challenges us to stimulate and embrace change; change that opens up bold new arenas for collaboration and transformation, inspiring us to dream and conquer new frontiers.’

These attributes will not replace Singapore’s ‘core’ reputation as a safe and efficient country, says Ms Carol Tan, the director of Mica’s Resilience and Marketing Division that is driving this effort.

‘The core will always be at the heart of what we do. It is not about an old person trying to dress young, but it’s about how you remain relevant in an ever-changing world.’

The tiny Republic is revamping its image to stand out from the crowd as its competitors level up in the bruising race for global investment, talent and recognition. It is banking on the new brand to do the job.

As part of this effort, stock images, fact sheets, videos, a corporate-style brand guidebook and a new national marketing portal have been made available to help civil servants spread the new Singapore brand message.

Also, Singapore’s companies and citizens will be coaxed to ‘live the brand’ and sing the same tune. Mica plans to work with local businesses and marketing and communications professionals in the private sector and has commissioned vignettes and stories to ‘introduce’ Singapore in the media ‘to increase awareness and positive perceptions of Singapore’.

The new Singapore brand will be an ‘umbrella’ brand that will inform, rather than replace, communications efforts by different government agencies like the Singapore Tourism Board.

The Government is also adamant that the nation branding effort not go the way of previous attempts to get Singaporeans to bear more children, speak Mandarin, or smile – often reduced to a tagline splashed across a billboard, a public bus or a TV advertisement.

Brand Singapore will not have a logo or tagline. Ms Tan says: ‘We can try and nudge people along, but it cannot be just a campaign like Smile For Singapore any more. I think we are beyond that and we recognise it.’

***

Really necessary?

THE question remains whether Singapore needs a new brand.

To Mica, it is a no-brainer because not many people know Singapore has ‘transformed’ itself over the years.

‘The perception of what Singapore has to offer does not match the reality. We are in a brand lag situation,’ it says.

Perceptions of a country are often driven by media coverage that grips the world’s imagination, notes Singapore-based American branding consultant Shauna Li Roolvink.

She runs BrandHub, which has worked with The Arts House, security company Certis Cisco and Marina Bay Sands integrated resort.

In Singapore’s case, she says the headline-hogging caning of American teen vandal Michael Fay in 1994 and the chewing gum ban in 1992 have continued to hobble Singapore with the ‘clean, green and authoritarian’ tag 18 years on.

Concerned over this, Mica, working with the inter-ministry NMAC, started the national branding effort in earnest about four years ago, when it hired global branding firm FutureBrand.

It was reported in 2006 to have a budget of up to $3 million. The firm culled opinions from discussions with 700 Singaporeans and foreigners in 2007 on their views of Singapore to come up with the new brand attributes.

Despite this attempt at consultation, it has not stopped people like Mr Joseph Baladi, the Australian chief executive of six-year-old Singapore-based branding consultancy BrandAsian, from feeling sceptical.

‘Where is the kitchen sink?’ asked the author of upcoming book, The Brutal Truth About Asian Branding, when first told about the four new Singapore brand attributes.

Mr Baladi, who spoke out against what he perceived to be a needless exercise in the initial stage of the branding effort in 2007, says Singaporeans collectively own the country’s brand. And they should have a say in how it turns out. Every socio-economic group should be regularly consulted, he says.

‘I would reserve judgment until I knew how many people consulted were ‘ordinary’ Singaporean citizens,’ he says.

The brand values should also be grounded more in reality than myth.

Singapore Management University sociologist Chung Wai Keung thinks the new Singapore brand is hard to back up. ‘Daring to dream is definitely not what the education system in Singapore teaches the students here,’ he says.

If the branding effort is not matched by any other related programmes, ‘it is almost like putting the cart before the horse’, he adds.

A straw poll found ordinary Singaporeans with mixed views about how representative each of the four attributes were.

Housewife Faridah Eunos, 42, for example, agrees Singapore is a ‘transforming’ nation but almost snorts in response to the idea that it is ‘collaborating’. ‘Sure or not?’ she exclaims, wondering how Singaporeans’ anger over the influx of foreign labour reflects this aspect.

But Mica begs to differ. It says: ‘The brand idea was very well-liked.

‘It was considered to be credible for Singapore, as well as differentiating from its competition, relevant to its audiences yet with sufficient momentum to sustain growth over medium-long term future.’

***

Aspirational value?

INDEED, experts say brand values need not be ‘all there’ in order to sell.

FutureBrand’s former acting director of strategy Joanna Stringer, who is now the managing director of the Red Thread Group consultancy, notes that brand attributes are always a mixture of the credible and the aspirational.

She feels the more important question is whether a country can eventually deliver on what it promises in its brand, which Singapore is well placed to do.

‘With a government to be as effective and functional as it is in Singapore, you probably have a degree more confidence, as a brand consultant, getting behind attributes that are slightly more aspirational than if you were in a less organised state.’

Brands can also serve as signposts about the future direction that a country hopes to take.

The new Singapore brand broadcasts Singapore’s eagerness to attract ‘change agents’, says Mr Addison James, the chief executive of branding firm LloydNorthover Yeang.

The firm counts among its clients the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports.

He says: ‘The whole region is in a state of transformation, and that necessitates change. If Singapore wants to be in the heart of that, it needs change agents.

”Transforming’ and ‘daring to dream’ – those values will resonate with the type of person that wants to go somewhere where they can make a change.’

But selling to foreigners is one thing. Getting buy-in from Singaporeans may be tougher.

Ms Stringer, who conducted the FutureBrand research from which the Singapore brand was derived, observes: ‘Unfortunately, we do have quite a cynical local population in Singapore.’

Add to that a certain disjoint between Singapore’s safe and secure image with the vibrant bar-top dancing, street-racing picture it is now attempting to portray. Mr James thinks it is difficult to meld the two as ‘safe and secure’ and ‘vibrant and creative’ are ‘diametrically opposed’ terms. He likens it to Volvo cars – known for its safe cars – trying to be ‘sexy’.

‘It’s very difficult to layer sexy cars over safe cars. Keep in mind those two things don’t exist. It’s like a wife and a mistress.’

What hardens the views of some critics to the new Singapore brand is how prescriptive the brand messaging guide gets. The breezily laid-out ‘The Spirit Of Singapore’ book suggests in precise terms how words and pictures should be used in marketing Singapore.

Words like ‘convert’ and ‘authorise’ are frowned on as ‘off-brand’ as they sound too ‘forced’. Instead, ‘adapt’ and ‘empower’ are suggested as substitutes respectively. The phrase ‘rules and regulations’, meanwhile, is ‘too structured’, ‘guidelines’ is suggested as the ‘on-brand’ alternative.

The lexicon guide riles Britain-based policy adviser Simon Anholt, who coined the term ‘nation branding’ in 1996 and produces a yearly nation brands index together with United States-based consultancy GfK Roper Public Affairs & Corporate Communications.

When contacted by The Straits Times, he says: ‘Some of the language in the ‘guidebook’ would sound more at home in the Soviet Union or North Korea than in a modern democracy. Either something is a rule, or it’s a guideline.

‘A guideline is a helpful suggestion and can be ignored without consequences. A rule must be obeyed or punishment will follow.

‘So which is it? If it’s a rule, calling it a guideline is deliberately deceitful, and I would urge people to be extremely vigilant about this systematised state propaganda masquerading as trendy modern marketing.’

Many other branding and marketing professionals, however, shrug it off as just part and parcel of the branding process.

Large corporations, they say, are known to have even more detailed brand messaging guides.

As Mr James points out: ‘Any brand needs to be harmonised, and to do that, everyone needs to sing off the same page. You have to have more prescription than maybe is comfortable, because people will always break it as you go along.’

***

Serious business

PRESCRIPTIVE or not, nation branding is no piddling business, with many countries in on the act.

It has become a multi-million-dollar industry, with at least three yearly indices that track how different countries fare against one another.

First, there is the yearly Anholt-GfK Roper Nation Brands Index, which measures perceptions of 50 countries with respect to exports, tourism, governance, investment and immigration, culture and its people. It placed Singapore 24th last year, behind the US and European countries like France and Germany, as well as China and Japan.

Then, the Country Brand Index by FutureBrand and public relations firm Weber Shandwick assesses 102 countries on aspects like authenticity, standard of living and environmental protection. Singapore climbed from 24th place to 13th spot last year, pipping Greece, Bermuda and Finland.

Finally, the East-West Global Index 200 by US-based nation branding firm East West Communications ranks 200 countries and territories according to how they are described in major media around the world. Singapore took top spot in its overall index last year.

While the Singapore Government is known to keep a close watch on global rankings, the concept of nation branding remains controversial. Critics of this nascent industry argue that countries cannot be marketed like Coke.

But advocates say the concept has always existed, albeit in various forms. Take, for example, the millions of dollars that Germany, France and Britain spend yearly in funding their language and cultural institutes overseas, which in turn generates goodwill for the countries.

Industry professionals see nation brands as the ‘halo’ over every product, person or policy that comes out of the country. Assistant Professor Augustine Pang from Nanyang Technological University, who specialises in public relations, says: ‘It’s your calling card. When people think about Singapore, what do they think about?’

A good country brand opens doors, smooths relations, and makes it easier for a government or its people or companies to operate outside of its borders. This, say the experts, is crucial for an export-oriented country like Singapore.

Conversely, citizens of countries with poor reputations will find themselves ill-judged beyond their borders: They may find it harder to get jobs, or are eyed suspiciously by Customs officials from other countries.

Beyond that, there are also tangible benefits to nation branding. According to Mr Anholt, products from countries with powerful images sell at a premium on the global market. Just think of how products from Germany are always perceived to be well-engineered.

What comes next

MOVING ahead, the question then may not be whether nation branding is needed, but how it should be conducted. Nation branding professionals say what governments actually do, instead of what they say, is key to a successful branding effort.

The Washington-based president of East West Communications, Mr Thomas Cromwell, for example, says nation branding involves just as much policy commitment as it does proactive public relations. Global citizens will not see Singapore as a vibrant place if its government does not take concrete steps to introduce more buzz, he says.

Mr Anholt takes it further, and argues that nation branding ‘campaigns’ have no effect on people’s perceptions, apart from making countries seem ‘ridiculous and undignified’.

He says: ‘You change your mind about countries because the country changes. South Africa’s image changed when apartheid ended. Ireland’s image changed when it turned around its economy. Iceland’s image changed when its economy collapsed. Japan and Germany’s images changed after World War II because they became peaceful producers of desirable products.’

In his view, ‘nation branding’ should mean ‘understanding and measuring the causes and consequences of a country’s international reputation, and working hard across every sector of public and private society to earn a better one’.

He poses these questions by way of direction: ‘What is Singapore for? What are its purpose and contribution to the world?’

The answers to these questions, he says, should then shape Singapore’s national brand, and guide the nation as it achieves those goals within government, business, and civil society sector.

In that context, nation branding would then be a ‘necessary and an important component of good governance in the 21st century’, says Mr Anholt.

Certainly, the consultants who helped produce the new Singapore brand hope the national branding drive will move in that direction.

Ms Stringer says: ‘Let’s think about how we make these attributes real. We want these words to impact chief executive officers, decision makers and policy makers.

‘We want to have people say, ‘How can we be more transforming? How can we be more nurturing? How can we be more collaborative?’ That’s what we want.’