Comments

• 

  Rafa Luque February 27, 2010 at 12:21pm

  Alan,
  Thank you for taking the time for your explanation about cultural codes. This remind me the Lewis Model for Cultural Types: cultural traits are so deeply embedded that resist the homogenization predicted by others. The challenge, then, is to find a common place for different cultures.
  
  Barry,
  Sorry, those are not my words... They come from an excerpt from Anholt's book, "Places".
  
  Paul,
  No slogans can be an option for global marketing.
• 

  Alan 'Brand' Williamson February 27, 2010 at 9:25am

  Branding in the Street
  
  Carnaby St 1960-2010: London street brand achieves longevity with a single future-focus in a fiercely-competitive category.
  
  OK Tipatinos, over to you to post your favourite fashion street brands - all around the world...

  

  Carnaby St 1960-2010: 50th Anniversary of London's Street Fashion Brand

  Carnaby St 1960-2010: London street brand achieves longevity in a highly competitive marketplace through a single future-focus.
• 

  Paul Barnett February 26, 2010 at 12:47am

  I am surprised that nobody responded yet to the idea of "no slogans". Is that pushing things too far?
• 

  José Balido February 23, 2010 at 4:44pm

  The preferred term is "Tripatinos." :-)
• 

  Paul Barnett February 23, 2010 at 3:53pm

  Korea´s slogan just makes me cringe, as do most of these slogans, As for "It´s Better in the Bahamas" and "What Happens Here Stays Here", perhaps I am not the target audience they are designed to appeal to, but they certainly do not appeal. The Bahamas does, but the slogans actually put me off, rather than attract me. Perhaps no slogan is the best option - I see it´s the option many countries are going for. Then the focus can be on what matters.
• 

  Alan 'Brand' Williamson February 23, 2010 at 9:15am

  Korea Sparkling
  Yet another country brand wanting to join ADjectiveLand: Home of 7 BlandTrashtic Country Slogans.
  
  What do you think Tripatinians? Should Korea be allowed full membership?
• 

  Barry J Parrish February 23, 2010 at 1:56am

  Re: Rafa's comments that branding doesn't work for countries or cities: Try Jamaica, It's Better in the Bahamas, What Happens Here Stays Here and lots more.
• 

  Paul Barnett February 22, 2010 at 3:44pm

  Alan, thanks for the info about cultural source codes. Interesting as a concept, but suggests that changing impressions is that much harder, and the task of branding places that much harder too.
  
  I personally believe that the source of the messages also greatly influences what we are prepared to believe. So ad capmaign messages are far less lively to be taken notice of than the comments of someone we know and trust, especially if they have first hand experience.
  
  I think the "noise" means we do more and more filtering, conciously and unconsiously. But, that which we take notice of and are interested in, I think we are actually getting into much more deeply. I think it is for this reasson that cultural tourism is growing so fast, and holidays with a focus are also growing - adventure, extreme sport, gastronomy etc. The problem / opportunity is that people often want a mix of these things within one holiday. They want real, authentic, deep experiences in whatever areas they are interested in, rather than superficial exposure too them.
  
  There is some evidence of this if you look to the growth sectors in tourism, although my rationale is more based on heresay and intuition than research.
• 

  Alan 'Brand' Williamson February 21, 2010 at 11:03am

  Rafa
  
  Your Q: Why do we need to focus on the 7-8 years band to extract proper triggers for the cultural codes of our behaviour patterns?
  
  My A: Many cultural anthropologists and regression analysts believe that most of us imprint the meanings of things most central to our lives by the age of seven - the period of our lives when we're most impressionable. The age band may vary between 7-9 depending on the culture - Anglo-Saxon, Gallic, Hispanic, African, Asian etc.
  
  Most people are exposed to only one culture by the age of seven - although this is changing due to globalisation. Few young Americans are exposed to Japanese culture and few young Japanese are exposed to Hispanic culture. This is why people from different cultures have such different reactions to the same things.
  
  Every word, every action and every symbol has a CODE - the so-called cultural source codes - and their foundation is laid - in our sub-conscious mind - when we're 7-8 years olds. To unlock these codes using Focus Groups usually results is falty output because people cannot tell you - using their conscious minds - why they do or not do things, because their past and future behaviours are mostly goverend by their sub-conscious minds.
  
  Could these codes be influenced and changed as we go through life? Yes, but not frequently and usually it takes a major event - such as 9/11 - to have a major impact.
  
  Rafa, this is a subject I'm very interested in, particularly in cultural clashes, collisions and contradictions, both within a nation and between nations, because buried deep in the murky waters of cultural conflicts lies usually the source of big brand ideas with a future-focus.
  
  Please take a few moments to view Channel Islands: Capital of Cultural Collisions.
  
  Rafa, let's hope we can keep this conversation going. Thanks.
• 

  Paul Barnett February 19, 2010 at 3:56pm

  Alan / Rafa,
  I think I tend to agree with Arnholt when he says, "People believe what they believe about countries because they’ve believed it all their lives and they’re not going to change their minds because a twenty-second ad on CNN tells them to", although I think he lessens the strength of his arguments by putting forward his opinions in such a strong, and often over stated way. I do think people´s opinions can evolve, but not quickly and not the result of a single message. More likely, the result of multiple messages, via multiple mediums, I think. And, some with more impact than others, for sure. The direct experience f someone we know will impact us more, even if it contradicts our existing perceptions, whereas a commercial will be seen as propaganda only.
  I think the discipline of branding, and of developing and implementing a brand strategy, are where branding brings benefit in developing a nation brand, rather than in the communication and promotion. As I see it the job of government should be to form policies and guidelines that create some synergy between diverse stakeholders so that the strength of the country as a whole is increased, and certainly not weakened by conflicting messages and policies. As for any direct role in marketing and communications I feel that the Government´s role should be limited to influencing rather than implementing campaigns. The problem is governments never do the job well, and have limited resources to do it. By trying to they allow the private sector and other stakeholders to see marketing as the Government´s job, but their job is governing not marketing isn´t it? If you look at government run public information campaigns targeted at their own citizens, their effectiveness is usually very patchy in terms of results. Are they really going to be the best option for marketing a country?
  Of course, many marketing and advertising agencies will be reluctant to accept these arguments, it´s the big campaigns that earn them the big bucks, not the consulting fees. And the campaign work is also a lot more glamorous too. But this will all end, when governments wake up and understand that the value of the discipline of branding is in helping them to develop strategies and policies, then implemented by others not themselves. Who are the others that would then implement strategies? I think perhaps the various agencies such as DMO´s for tourism, or trade and investment promotion agencies in other areas. But they first need to be strengthened and restructured to really reflect and represent. They also need to be properly financially structured and staffed by experts. These agencies exist, but they are just not effective as there is rarely a clear policy driving each of them individually, and even less often, all of them collectively. To have the means to inspire all stakeholders to buy into a strategy they will first need credibility. They should also have a limited role in terms of marketing and communicating externally, and should focus on communicating the message to stakeholders who are empowered, by clear, credible and practical guidelines, to take actions that are on-brand.
  On Alan´s specific point about USA I would love to see the grand plan that saw the regions created as sub-brands of the one big idea, The American Dream. But, I really think that there was not a plan for this was there?
  I like the concept of cultural source codes and agree that focus groups have severe limitations! On these points we have a meeting-of-minds.