“What’s a brand? A singular idea or concept that you own inside the mind of the prospect. It’s as simple and difficult as that.”

Purists may argue with this definition, crafted by Al and Laura Ries in ‘The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding”, but I think it nails it.

The origin of branding is surprisingly straightforward. A design seared into livestock to differentiate them from other herds. A clear mark, denoting ownership, indelibly burned into hides, dating back to ancient Egypt.

Multiple incarnations and adaptations later, branding is a multi-billion dollar global business. And it’s evolved from the elementary Heraldic marks used in the European Middle Ages, and the watermarks and hallmarks employed by merchant’s guilds. It’s now ubiquitous – an all-pervading and all-persuading professional discipline.

Branding is often confused with visual identity, and, more specifically, with logos. ‘I like your brand’ can be shorthand for ‘I like your logo or wordmark’ or (more broadly) ‘your colour palette, typeface, and advertising style’. To oversimplify branding like this is folly.

To characterise the difference between a brand and a logo: a logo is akin to a person’s face, whilst their brand is their whole body and personality. It’s relatively easy to brand fast moving consumer goods (FMCGs) for example. When you hear ‘Coca-Cola’ you immediately and simultaneously imagine the taste, the drinking occasion, and all of the visual properties, notably the distinctive red colour and wavy script. Job done. But branding more complex products introduces a layer of difficulty, and branding services is arguably harder still.

Corporations have significant control over their products and services. Coca-Cola has a formula, so it tastes the same, looks the same, and is packaged, presented and promoted in a consistent manner. There is no radical disjuncture between the brand promise and the brand experience. Not so with nation branding.

How is a government or consultancy meant to brand a place, with so many moving parts, so many constituent elements, so many diverse and (often) contradictory facets? And how can one identify, orchestrate and communicate all of the brand elements to tell a compelling, cohesive and persuasive story that moves hearts and minds? Let’s start at the beginning.

Whilst Simon Anholt lays claim to coining the term ‘nation branding in 1996’ (which he has since evolved into ‘competitive identity’) the practice has been going on for much longer. The late Wally Olins pointed out that “national image, national identity…and…national reputation” are all old concepts, used in an attempt to secure trade, tourism and inward investment (as well as a sense of national cohesion and pride). Olins notes that we know very little about most countries, and the sparse information we have about them can often lead to misunderstanding, and incorrect perceptions. We view nations through the prism of their history, their tourism, or through media reports of war, strife, corruption or natural disaster. If FMCGs are easy to brand, the uncontrollable complexity of nations makes them the most difficult challenge.

Any effort to authentically brand a nation, region or city must begin with truthful core elements. What is this place good at? Why do people like it? Does it have a backstory that can be leveraged? How is it differentiated from others? An in-depth, multi-dimensional and objective analysis can produce a rich stock of storytelling opportunities – and if this work is bought into at every level in society, it can be shaped into a brand with the power to transform national fortunes. Brands move hearts and minds, and they determine financial decisions.

There are two primary obstacles to laying the foundation of the branding process: an unwillingness to collaborate on mass scale, and an unwillingness for stakeholders to compromise. With collaboration and compromise, huge strides can be made.

Anholt writes that the six facets of competitive identity are tourism, culture, people, investment, policy and brands. This ‘hexagon’ is a useful model for a process which can enable a place to break free of its historical shackles, misperceptions, and stereotypes – and represent itself afresh on the global stage. The process of nation branding is time consuming. It cannot be entered into rashly, and it must be undertaken by people who are passionate about the place. In our experience, the most productive partnerships happen when indigenous experts work in concert with external consultants. This combination enables objectivity to be married with deep insight: a winning partnership.

Curzon PR employs a process to take brands from desire to reality. It begins with auditing and identifying potential sources of competitive advantage, and leads through to a communications strategy, building a narrative, resulting in repositioning. It’s amongst the most exciting work that we do. Any project that touches consumers, entrepreneurs, investors, students, tourists and every other stakeholder is by necessity an enormous logistical challenge. But its return on investment is disproportionate and far outlasts the lifetime of each project. If you can brand a nation, you can change its destiny. And changing destinies is meaningful work, resulting in both fiscal and societal impact.

Curzon PR is a London-based PR firm working with clients globally. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our Business Development Team [email protected]