It is often asked if people are brands and whether or not they should register themselves or their names as trademarks to be protected against ethical abuse or appropriation by others for commercial and other benefits that might lead to loss by the rightful owner. The same question can be asked of other things, including countries. Are they brands and, should they be treated as such? If yes, what would that mean, practically? Do perceptions about countries matter and is a country brand reputation important? If yes, why would this be the case? 

The answers to these questions are not straight forward; they form combinations of yes and no, but perhaps mostly yes. Yes, features in all situations where brands compete against other brands for any form of attention and benefit. In truth, all people compete against others for jobs, business, project opportunities, etc. But they all sit on a pyramid-like hierarchy that is crowded at the bottom and less crowded as one moves to higher levels of the pyramid. The higher any brand rises on this pyramid the more exposed it becomes and the stiffer the competition against others also becomes. By extension, the need for reputation awareness also rises when brands seek to differentiate themselves or their offerings from those of others. 

Countries are also brands that sit on a pyramid of their own, clustered into developed countries; developing countries; low/mid/high-income countries; the West; the East; Asia; Eurasia; Australasia; Africa; Sub-Saharan Africa; the Maghreb, the Pacific; the South; the Caribbean/ West Indies, etc. Country brand competition typically begins within clusters and extends outside of them. They can be regional, continental or global. And hierarchies can be regional or global in composition; they can also be on the basis of specific offerings, for example, specific natural resources, business tourism, eco-tourism, technology, business centres. 

Developing countries compete with others in this cluster for Foreign Direct Investments (FDI), multilateral-funded projects that bring scare skills and earn foreign exchange, (business) tourism, the attraction of fee-paying foreign students, the possibility of being considered as regional bases for multinational corporations and organisations, as this also brings foreign exchange earnings and other prestigious benefits.

Developed countries compete against others for regional and global influence through economic, military, technological savoir-faire, or any of the other things mentioned above; (business) tourism, involvement in prestigious regional and global projects, the drive to attract the best of the best in immigrants with scarce skills, wealthy investor-immigrants, and global corporations. 

Significance of country branding and reputation           

Any brand that appreciates the competitive environments in which it exists and operates has to take reputation seriously and actively invest in It. It must have ongoing measures to enhance its reputation and to adequately protect it from conduct that might push it onto the defensive backfoot and embarrassment; the last place any reputation conscious brand should find itself in. Perceptions about country brands – positive or negative – are essentially shaped by political and economic policies, programmatic innovation, the calibre and conduct of the people who get elected to lead them, the experiences of tourists, business people, investors, foreign students, immigrants, and others who get to visit the said countries and how such people share their experiences with friends, loved ones or other associates through social media and other communication platforms.

Bad experiences can lead to other people giving a wide berth to the country concerned; preferring to visit, do business with, or invest in friendlier countries, and leading to the first country suffering economic hardships that, if not well-managed, might lead to damaged national harmony and social unrest. The ripple effects of a country brand badly managed can indeed be far-reaching and hard to reverse if allowed to persist for too long.  The state of South Africa following almost a decade-long state capture economy will serve as an interesting for country reputation scholars and other observers in the years to come.  

In the same way that corporate brands should aim to spend the bulk of their resources delivering on shareholder value, instead of defending themselves in the media, the courts, the CCMA, or the courts of public opinion, country brands must also be mindful of the reputational ramifications of economic and political policies they embrace as, depending on their nature and on how they’re perceived by others, they might either close doors to opportunities for the country concerned, or generate goodwill that might lead to growth in investor confidence, (business) tourism, and other benefits. 

In addition, the same way that corporate culture can enable or render difficult a corporate brand to attract and retain the best skills, a country’s cultural and religious practices can also have the same effects. Countries that impose undue restrictions on people’s fundamental freedoms of expression, association, etc. on the basis of cultural and religious practices, are often the least successful economically, as professionals and investors who prefer and lead more secular lifestyles might avoid them.  

Developing countries want to attract FDI, leisure and business tourism; and they want to be considered as regional head-quarters for global corporations and multilateral organisations such as the UN, WWF, Red-Cross International, Médecins-Sans-Frontiers and others that will bring needed professional skills and huge foreign exchange earnings. They cannot achieve or realise any of these benefits without generating adequate levels of international goodwill. 

Because they’re brands and that no brand grows successfully and viably in an organic way, without a well-thought out plan that is executed and monitored by professionals, countries need four important brand ingredients in order to compete favourably against others. 

The first of these is a Vision. This defines where the country plans to go and find itself in 10, 20, 30 years or more. Its leaders must buy into such a vision and put in place short-term, medium-term, and long-term plans that will guide its core investments and strategic direction. The second is a set of values that underpin conduct and against which all behavior will be judged. The third is credible, ethical leadership that has maturity, vision, balance, emotional intelligence, integrity, empathy, and other qualities that will help them inspire others to work towards agreed shared goals for the benefit of the entire country and nation, not just a portion of it. 

The fourth ingredient is a 360° view of the country brand. This means that leaders are at all times aware that the country brand they lead does not exist on and for its own, in a vacuum. Apart from constant monitoring of the evolving domestic environment in order to inform policy decisions, they must also never forget that their country is part of a community of nations and will, from time to time, sign bilateral and multilateral treaties whose spirit it must live by.  While companies must be good corporate citizens; countries must be good global citizens and play their part in protecting the fundamental rights of all species, human, faunal, floral, and micro-biological, for the benefit of the environment and all mankind.

Well-led country brands with a clear vision and set of values enshrined in their Constitution and protected by robust laws and independent institutions of democracy tend to be more politically stable and economically successful, as they’re easily relied upon by their citizens at home and in the diaspora, as well as by others around the world.

South Africa can be such a country. DM

Sithembile Ntombela is the General Manager: Marketing at Brand South Africa; the official marketing agency of South Africa with a mandate to build the country’s brand reputation and to improve its global competitiveness