This is the essence of branding, and Country Branding is not an exemption. Every single country is what she communicates.

The input you receive from a place makes you have an opinion about it. Your opinion about it is the result of the impact the messages launched by that place made in you.

I am passionate about communication and I am also passionate about enthusiasm. The difference between communicating and communicating with enthusiasm is infection. To infect people with your message is the essence of communication.

This seems too simple, but I could give dozens of examples of prestigious Communication Plans, actions, advices and gurus that have a total lack of it. They even do not know how to soak their messages with enthusiasm.

“What I do best is share my enthusiasm” – Bill Gates

I have just read this just after going through an interview he gave to a Spanish newspaper, before meeting president Rajoy.

What he says in that interview is really interesting, as he transmits what he wanted to: There are specific problems and there are specific solutions. Let´s act in the right place.

Gates talks about very specific situations, naming them. He even points at what countries are doing wrong: “There are places in more need than others that are receiving aid. Peru is not the place to help.” Although I read that a few hours ago, the newspaper has immediately changed this title. It was not politically correct, specially on a Spanish newspaper.

He meant Peru is a medium income country. He meant there are many other countries with much lower incomes and no possibilities. The message Mr Gates has launched here has made many people be aware of the real situation. He talks about what he touched. And he wants global, national policies on International Cooperation to redirect humanitarian and medical aid to the place the real problem is.

I was infected by his message. Was it enthusiastic? Not in the sense we are used to understand it. But it was, as he put on it all his conviction, knowledge and strong willing to transmit. It reached me.

This visit of Mr Gates to Madrid has also made me think about US brand. Is it a part of it or is it -as I received it- a part of a particular campaign to make people aware of a real humanitarian problem? I received it apart from any national branding campaign. And, moreover, following every day Barack Obama´s tweets, just focused on the presidential campaign and its funding.

There was a clear milestone for Barcelona to make its self-confidence grow and to launch itself to the world: the 1992 Olympics. Though they were a national project and effort, Barcelona knew how to capitalize them and take the lead of the Spanish city brands. They did it brilliantly.

And, since then, Madrid has not found the way to emulate that brightness abroad. No doubt Sports -and particularly Olympics- have such a branding power it can shadow many other plans.

There a few, very few places in the world at the cultural and historic level of Madrid. Few that can say they have an even similar sense of openness to anyone, that offer such a way to enjoy people and life. This means a lot.

To my understanding, Madrid has tried to emerge as an admired brand with a lack of creativeness and a dangerous and risky sense of urgency. Maybe the key lays in the sense of community and more-than-a-city conviction Barcelona has versus this short-term plans Madrid usually think of. Even those plans thought for long-term always come full of urgency.

Maybe Barcelona found by chance its way to brand. 1992 Olympics were planned to vertebrate the country, immerse in its way to economic growth. Olympics, Seville Universal Expo, the High Speed train… A part of a global plan that Barcelona understood perfectly and turned into the starting point of a global branding strategy.

Maybe Madrid is too immerse in the world of huge consultancies, big thinkers, and -as I pointed- lack of common sense and creativeness.

Personally, I have never believed in those pseudo-branding campaigns that ended in a slogan and a logo, launched in expensive events that had hundred of reasons to adore the budget invested and to have the firm conviction it would work.

Work? I have always wondered what was really to achieve with those campaigns. I have no doubt those expensive campaigns, touristic and little more, led nowhere. And facts have shown me I was suspecting right.

Local governors have a peculiar sense of power when it comes to this kind of things. They should see what is branding about before buying a several hundred thousand “project” to launch their city internationally.

I am very worried about the lack of creativeness and innovation we see everywhere. The easy is to dazzle a local governor telling about big slogans and fantastic logos. Let´s forget the standardized things, the texts that “match any plan”, the (in 3 words) copy-and-paste projects that just change the name of the city.

To me, those things have never been branding projects. Branding is about a very different challenge: it is about thinking every single place is a singular one, as their people are, about surfing into creativeness -which requires real effort-, innovation and commitment.

For less developed countries and emerging nations, sports are a direct way to many destinies. Sports educate, bring together, set a solid community base through very special values, teach about effort, commitment, group and determination.

Today, I finally found a couple of hours to enjoy Invictus, a film by Clint Eastwood based on John Grisham´s book The human factor. A true story, part of the history of a country.

I really enjoyed watching the film, not about its face, but about its concept. Invictus goes beyond a story of conciliation between whites and blacks in South Africa. Through a too simple structure and presentation, Invictus shows us how Mandela saw in rugby the way to  end up with the historic Blacks vs Whites of his country.

I missed a deepest consideration of Mandela´s personality and strategic sense. Yes, he is a perfect strategist. He analyzed what rugby meant in that society and decided to turn it into the key tool to brand South Africa internally and launch a new image to the Public Opinion.

I felt the film had a wide lack of crucial issues. The human factor book took us first through the tough years Mandela suffered struggling as a lawyer against apartheid´s rules and those he spent in jail.

If better structured and shown, Invictus could be a basic manual of Place Branding through Sports. It tried to and, in fact, it was launched few months before de Football World Championship that was to be held in South Africa. But one could say the echo it provoked was far from the original target.

Sports and Entertainment (cinema) as key players for a country branding plan.

Olympic Movement keeps on moving from side to side. An Olympic site is elected after strong internal disputes that do not arise to the general public.

When I began my research on Place Branding, I soon realized it was a matter of the Anglo-Saxon world. I admire their way of approaching communications, their ability to create such practical disciplines to manage the world. But I am convinced they do it their way, and that means they do not mind the rest or, simply, they do not understand that another world is possible.

Place Branding concepts, country branding indexes, best cities rankings, they are all made in English. The more I go through one of these rankings, the less I feel they reflect reality.

It can be a personal perception, but I am sure it is not. I have researched a lot on this and found too many unfortunate conceptions of what Latin world is. Being Latin world Latin America and Spain.

I have to recognize we Latins have a very short knowledge of what Anglo-Saxon world means. It is a matter of understanding that another way of thinking and acting shares the planet with us. Both cultures are too self-feeding.

Well, we´d better talk about British plus American plus northern Europe worlds, all together. But, to the issue we are in, I have to remark the role of British and Americans.

Latins have not developed their own Place Branding criteria and techniques, relying on British gurus the task of shaping their global identity. Why admitting they are on the right path? I doubt an Anglo-Saxon company can carry out a consistent and coherent Branding Plan for a Latin nation. And I have put myself on the shoes of Mexicans, Chileans, Peruvians, Dominicans or Colombians. I firmly believe both cultures are so different to each other they do not even understand what is the other really about.

Let´s think of Latin American people voting for the best countries in the world to live in. Would they choose New Zealand? And let´s think of English speaking world selecting the city with the best cultural and social life. Would they even think of Madrid?

World places rankings are rather difficult to make. We should take the perfect mixture of nationalities to build the right ones. It sounds a strong task, and even each question to ask should have rather different meanings: Which country would you choose to work in? Which to enjoy? Which to live in? Obviously, the quality of life concept of a British differs a lot from the one of a Mexican. The thing is concepts are not the same.

The reputation or brand of a country is one of her most valuable assets, and so it is for every single city, person, organization or sports club. We are what we communicate. What do we want to be?

Place Branding is a new discipline many countries and cities are now listening to. There are many circumstances that have created the need of an own brand for countries, cities and places whose identity problems are pushing down their development. They have a lack of identity outwards or, even, a bad reputation that is a huge difficulty for their economic grow.

Branding with language, impact caused by a particular speech can drill really deep, last a short time, a medium period or, even, become an icon of the branding history of a country.

“Ich bin ein Berliner”, shouted JFK´s speech in Berlin. And it soon became a visual and sound symbol of an era.

The audience he targeted -International Public Opinion- was quite different from the one Obama was aiming at when delivering his memorable speech in Chicago right after his victory.

Speeches are very significant actors for Country Branding. I will add in this blog´s archive the best speeches I have ever heard or read. All of them have a very special meaning, regarding the moment in which they were delivered. And all of those selected and posted here have an exquisite language management: that´s the secret of their impact and success.

Mapa

Although recent changes aimed to build a stronger European Union, it is difficult to say they achieved it. It is not just the economic puzzle they are in, but the absolute lack of identity, strong and competitive identity, the EU has.

Instead of a solid leadership that shows himself as the head of a real politic, social and economic power, instead -also- of a solid foreign affairs head leading missions everywhere, we´ve got one Merkel, one Sarkozy, one Berlusconi… too many faces for just one body. And all of them different to one another and communicating in so different ways.

The first thing to understand when branding a place and communicate a strong identity is that words and actions must be perfectly aligned.

Public Diplomacy begins with you, by Sherry Mueller, president of the nonprofit National Council for International Visitors. From the Christian Science Monitor. 

“President-elect Obama’s intent to help “reboot” America‘s image in the world is most welcome But as the US retools its efforts to reach out beyond governments to foreign audiences, not all is what it seems.

In recent years, there has been an avalanche of academic studies, government reports, and think tank analyses that offer various “fixes” for US public diplomacy. In November, it made the Government Accountability Office‘s list of 13 urgent issues. Despite unprecedented attention, however, myths prevail:

Myth 1: The main goal of US public diplomacy is to improve America’s image in the world. That, and countering anti-Americanism are certainly part of it. But the overarching goal is to build a web of human relationships that provides a context for traditional diplomacy – and outcomes commensurate with long-term US interests.

Myth 2: Everyone needs to get on the same page. A communications strategy is important. But reciprocity is at the heart of truly successful public diplomacy. We must listen as much as we transmit messages. A brass plaque reading “Telling America’s Story” adorned the building housing the US Information Agency until its oft-lamented demise in 1999. Perhaps it should have read, “Telling America’s Story Is Done Best by Good Listeners.”

Myth 3: Public diplomacy is the government’s job. Undeniably, there are appropriate and indispensable roles for government. But unless we accept the fact that each American has a role to play in putting Uncle Sam’s best foot forward, we underutilize our best resource. As “The Ugly American” (a provocative and instructive novel published 50 years ago) put it, “Average Americans, in their natural state … are the best ambassadors a country can have.”

We must do more to encourage individuals to embrace their roles as citizen diplomats, to accept their part in helping to shape foreign relations “one handshake at a time.”

A film on the life of Elvis Presley showed him in his Army uniform, having just arrived in Germany, saying, “What we do here will reflect on America and our way of life.” Clearly, Elvis grasped the concept that every American who interacts with foreigners – whether a business executive, nonprofit leader, tourist, student, athlete, or rock star – has an obligation to consider how his actions reflect on our country.

Public diplomacy architects need to recognize the credibility private-sector partners bring to diplomacy efforts such as the State Department‘s International Visitor Leadership Program. Members of the National Council for International Visitors plan the professional appointments, cultural activities, and home visits for distinguished leaders chosen by US embassies to participate in short-term programs. These members of parliament, journalists, and others influencing decisions that affect US interests learn the most about who we are and what we value from their experiences in cities around the country.

Myth 4: The audiences we reach out to are exclusively overseas. The Institute of International Education reported that during the 2007-08 academic year there were 624,000 international students enrolled in colleges and universities throughout the US, and an additional 106,000 international scholars here. Moorhead Kennedy, one of the American diplomats held hostage in Iran in 1979-80, wrote a book titled “The Ayatollah in the Cathedral” in which he made an observation that is still true:

“We have in the foreign student community in this country something that could be a terrible time bomb or a tremendous source of international understanding – both in what they come to know about us and in what American students learn from them. We are training a generation of leaders, and it is terribly important that our foreign students form a part of the community of the universities where they are studying, for their sake, but even more for our own.”

We have to increase active dialogue with foreign nationals in our own country.

Myth 5: US public diplomacy is “broken.” In fact, many programs are extremely successful – but woefully underfunded. While public diplomacy depends on active engagement by citizens, not just government agencies, it is a necessary government expenditure. By increasing funding for these programs and supporting the public-private partnerships that have engaged so many Americans as volunteer citizen diplomats, we will reap tremendous benefits for generations to come.”

Now, the Project, directed by our CEO, Marta Vallejo Arenaz, is in its first stage of implementation, in the way to put Angola in the world.

www.grantaconsulting.com