The social system is comprised of the multi-faceted internal aspects of nation branding that relate (directly or otherwise) to the general population. As such is the conceptual umbrella term for any of these social concerns. References to the need for nation branding to be of common good (Anholt, 2003a), representative of what the country stands for (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2002), accounting for cultural idiosyncrasies (Simonin, 2008) and rooted in fundamental truths about the nation (Gilmore, 2002) as well as: the impact of external perceptions on the collective identity, the correlation between the brand values and nation’s personality and, the requirement for the steering committee to be representative and accountable; belong to the social system of the nation brand because they relate to the populous and exist in the public space.
When dealing with the social system of nation branding, unlike the technical system, the social system has been overlooked by the majority of authors. Some (Lodge, 2002; Gilmore, 2002; Domeisen, 2003; Olins, 2003; Anholt, 2004a, 2007a; Carmichael, 2008) do implicitly refer to components of the social system by dealing in elements associated with basing the brand in substance, truth, the nation’s identity and involving the general population in the nation-branding strategy- although these matters tend to receive little more than a cursory mention. For instance, its is agreed that the brand image and positioning of the brand must be at least relatable to the general population for two important reasons. Firstly, since brands are increasingly becoming viewed as a badge or a promise, there is a requirement for the brand to be based in truth in order for it to be of substance and realistic. As Gilmore (2002, p.284) deduces, “if the image that is chosen for a country fails to represent the people, then how can they believe it themselves? How can it then be believed elsewhere?” Secondly, the fact that nation branding strategies tend to be spearheaded by governments or, those in positions of authority means that its development and subsequent implementation must been seen to be transparent and accountable to democratic values rather than imposing (Jansen 2008). Thus, an essential element of any nation brand should be that it is not
purely economically or market driven and instead, is seeking to achieve economic advantage and common good. As Anholt (2007, p. 51), argues: “governments should never do things purely for brand-related reasons; no action should ever be dedicated to image management or change alone. Every initiative and action should first and foremost be done for a real purpose in the real world, or else it runs the risk of being insincere, ineffectual, and perceived as propaganda (not to mention a use of taxpayer’s money that is often extremely hard to justify).” In which case, whilst the body of work does insinuate that the nation brand should take into account the impact and role of the general population in the brand either in terms of support for it or, in the way that the perceptions of the country could be effected because of its development.
A number of papers (Pike 2005; Carmichael 2008) also refer to the necessity of gaining support for the nation branding strategy by getting the populace behind it and making them live the brand (Gilmore 2002). However, frameworks, models, procedures or even suggestions indicating how this can be achieved are sparse. For instance, Anholt (2005c, p.300) writes that, “the general population…need to subscribe to, and enact the country’s visions of what it is, what it stands for, and where it’s going.” Additionally, Avraham (2004, p.476) believes that, “letting residents participate [in the rebranding] is most important.” Kotler and Gertner (2002, p.254), that “the process must involve government, citizens and businesses, all with a shared vision.” And, Kerr (2006, p.281) that “the brand should be a summation of the location’s infrastructure, people, industries and quality of life.” However, at no stage do any of the authors or the literature in general, tell us exactly how can go about ensuring the ‘message is right’, involving the citizens, or holistically managing these internal aspects of nation rebranding. Furthermore, according to Aronczyk (2008) and Jansen (2008) this is paying only “lip service” (Aronczyk, 2008, p. 55) to these social elements in order to “validate their craft” thus, such inferences are “merely hyperbolic rhetoric” (Jansen, 2008, p.132).
In this respect, the subject is clearly comprised of two strands: a technical strand where the primary focus is the technocratic tools described in the prior pages and, a pro-social strand where, the focus is the lack of consideration for the ethical and social issues in both the technical strand and nation branding in general.
Aronczyk (2008) and Jansen (2008) are two authors whose work deals with matters relating to the social system of nation branding, as opposed to its technical equivalent. While both authors provide a general conceptual analysis of the subject, both pieces are critiques of the subject. Their major criticisms are summarised in Table 2.4.
Criticism Critique
Anti-Democratic Nation branding is profoundly anti-democratic and represents the departure from the classic understanding of public trust and democracy by contributing to the erosion of civic
engagement, privatisation of public space, resources, culture, knowledge, language and nature, and foreign policy, by transferring decision making in the area of culture from the public to corporate sphere.
Neo-liberal It facilitates the neoliberal blurring of public and private interests because it is largely based in political motives. Its agendas are distorted and un-transparent which means that while the brand itself is hyper-visible, the decision-making and multiple agendas incorporated throughout the processes are neither credible nor visible.
Misuse of National Identity It commits public funding to the reinterpretation of national identity in marketing terms by selecting, simplifying and deploying only those aspects of national identity that are seen as marketable. By mutating national identity into a marketing asset and domestic propaganda tool, the brand creates an illusion of participation in exclusive communities, lifestyles, and experiences that marginalise or alienate others
Ideological Control The nation brand is a mechanism for ideological control as it promotes only the aspects of national identity that are seen as attractive and marketable.
Fragmentation of Society Nation is split into winners and losers: those who conform to the national identity chosen by the branding consultants those who do not. In this respect, nation branding is considered as a means for psycho-sociological re-engineering.
Table 2.4 Critiques of Nation Branding Adapted from Aronczyk (2008) and Jansen (2008)
In considering such criticisms, there is an identifiable correlation between issues such as the anti- democratic and politicisation of the decision making process and the exploitation of national identity with the social system. This suggests that although there is a deficiency of work concentrating specifically on the social system, direct and implicit references to its elements provide evidence for
its existence. Thus, not only does it become apparent that the social system exists, but that applying the interrelated sociotechnical approach, especially the encouragement, identification, integration and collaboration of various actors, will assist in combating criticisms of the field, such as those outlined above.