By: Phil Mead

Phil Mead — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:49:42 +0000

If a country is poor, it is not necessarily “hopeless, unable, and disgraced”. These kinds of value-laden pejorative labels are of no help at all. Poor countries can be dignified, proud and potentially ‘able’ if enabled by an inflow of know-how and expertise, as well as inward investment to get basic education, infrastructure, transport networks and communication systems in place on which to build a productive economy. I’d hazard a guess that most of the ‘poor’ countries couldn’t give a fig for their brand image if “aid” meets the basic survival needs of an indigent population. The irony is that an impoverished country benefits from branding – with the aid of branded celebrities such as Geldof, Bono, and co – in attracting the world’s attention and eking out charitable donations. It might not be the long-term solution, but the money raised keeps people alive. But here’s the rub: ‘aid’ needs to be accompanied by ‘trade’ and investment, the latter being a combination of knowledge-transfer and capital, responsibly allocated. It gets back to that wise proverb about ‘give a man a fish and feed him for a day but give him a rod (or boat, or whatever tools help) and you feed him for a lifetime.’ Botswana is actually, in relative terms, a soft example of what can be accomplished with an African sovereign state in ‘branding’ terms. It has a population of under 2 million citizens, as compared with, let’s say, Ethopia’s 80 million. Of course Anholt is right in saying that “the marketing of places… is important to attract investment.” But if there is nothing to market, it needs to be created, and that’s the responsibility not just of ‘poor’ nation itself but developed and emerging markets which can provide the wherewithal to help get the nation started. Branding comes much, much, later.

Comments on: Botswana wants a new nation brand

By: Phil Mead