By The Brand Guy
I recently sat on a panel discussion on the national brand. Hats off to MTC for introducing the topic.
My initial pitch was going to be that an agency was needed to act in a consulting and advisory capacity, however it turns out that there is already an unannounced taskforce operating in the Office of the President.
I got a preparatory list of possible questions, one of which gave me pause for some deeper thought. “Is there is a difference between the narrative told to market the country and the realities experienced by Namibians?”
The current popular model is Anholt-GfK Roper (Nations Brand Index). It covers six facets: exports, governance, culture and heritage, tourism, immigration and investment and people. The latter deals with perceptions of friendliness, hospitality and openness to incomers.
What you will immediately notice is that the facets are externally directed. In the case of Namibia, the tourism brand is taken as a given. The main preoccupation appears to be foreign direct investment (FDI).
My question to myself was what is the experience of tourism and FDI by Namibians, who should be the beneficiaries of a national brand?
I realise that tourism is a major distributor of jobs, however a look at local restaurants shows that it is not a great distributor of income. My observation is that the salaries tend to be low and tipping is negligible. The example I gave was tourists tipping with loose silver change. That translates to a couple of dollars for four or five servers assisting a table of ten to twenty guests.
FDI is more troubling. The investment will potentially need national capital support and the initial estimate of jobs will decline as technical efficiency grows. The royalties earned by Namibia will likely be needed to recapitalize the source of initial support or be used to fund infrastructure needed for either the project in question or other projects. The translation into direct jobs and income will be tenuous.
Taken in totality, there may be an impact on national pride, but the functional aspect of the brand and its direct benefit to Namibians will be limited.
Contrast this to standard commercial brand practice. Theoretically the brand should have an external component, however the brand should also have an internal component, the ability to look after the people who deliver it.
If not for the ability to deliver prosperity, the national brand is non-functional and can contribute to dissatisfaction. South Africa’s brand presentation showed this with depictions of the xenophobic attacks and looting of foreign stores. The likely upshot of that is declines in tourism and FDI indexes.
Anholt-Roper is clearly not enough to develop a sound national brand. Without a strong internal brand, one that opens the way for sustainable jobs, incomes and wellbeing for the citizens of the country, the externally projected national identity will be weak.
As it stands now, Namibia’s identity is inextricably linked to a massive degree of economic inequality.
What this implies is that the Anholt-Roper index must be mirrored by existing indexes of socio-economic wellbeing and the policy mechanisms that underpin the quality of those indexes.
This expands the scope and responsibility of a national branding agency. On the other hand, many of the policy mechanisms to address the inequality are already in place but scattered and uncoordinated. The remit of the notional agency needs to be that of a cheerleader and coordinator of effective local economic development.
If not, the externally projected national brand is effectively a low-value luxury.
*Pierre Mare has contributed to development of several of Namibia’s most successful brands. He believes that analytic management techniques beat unreasoned inspiration any day. Reach him at contact@pressoffice7.com if you need thought-leadership, strategy and support.
