The determinants and measurement of a country brand: the country brand strength index

Transcription

1 Rollns College Rollns Scholarshp Onlne Faculty Publcatons 2010 The determnants and measurement of a country brand: the country brand strength ndex Marc Fetschern Rollns College, mfetschern@rollns.edu Follow ths and addtonal works at: Part of the Marketng Commons Publshed In Marc Fetschern, (2010) "The determnants and measurement of a country brand: the country brand strength ndex", Internatonal Marketng Revew, Vol. 27 Iss: 4, pp Ths Artcle s brought to you for free and open access by Rollns Scholarshp Onlne. It has been accepted for ncluson n Faculty Publcatons by an authorzed admnstrator of Rollns Scholarshp Onlne. For more nformaton, please contact rwalton@rollns.edu.

2 The Determnants and Measurement of a Country Brand: The Country Brand Strength Index Abstract Purpose: A strong country brand can stmulate exports, attract toursm, nvestments, and mmgraton. The purpose of ths paper s to construct and present a country brand strength ndex (CBSI) whch assesses the strength of a country brand based on objectve secondary data. Desgn/methodology/approach: By applyng a company-based brand equty approach, we present a standardzed country brand strength ndex. Fndngs: Our results show that the countres wth the strongest country brand are smaller, developed countres n Europe. Our proposed ndex leads to results smlar to the wdely used Anholt GfK Roper Naton Brand Index (NBI), whch measures perceptons of a country brand based on subjectve survey data. Countres that are perceved postvely (based on the NBI) have a stronger country brand (CBSI) and countres perceved negatvely (based on NBI) have a weak country brand (CBSI). The two ndexes are hghly and sgnfcantly correlated, ndcatng they measure the same phenomena, although they use dfferent approaches, methodologes and data, suggestng that the ndexes are complementary and nter-dependent. Practcal Implcatons: To stay compettve n the global economy, countres need to understand how to assess ther country brand n order to manage t. Wth the proposed ndex, a country can dentfy ts poston compared to others. Ths can assst publc and prvate organzatons to develop a more powerful country brand strategy. Orgnalty/value: The proposed ndex s orgnal n operatonalzng the strength of a country brand based on objectve secondary data. The proposed ndex represents an alternatve measurement to exstng subjectve survey-based measurement ndexes. Keywords: Country Brand, Naton Brandng, Country Image Paper type: Research Paper.

3 1. Emergence of Country Brandng In an ncreasngly complex and tghtly-lnked world, not only companes but also countres are engaged n competton at every level. As Anhholt (2002, p. 234) states, globalzaton s turnng the world nto a ggantc supermarket where countres compete to stmulate exports, attract toursm, foregn drect nvestments and mmgraton. Governments are turnng to brandng technques to dfferentate ther country on the global stage n order to establsh a compettve edge over rval countres n the belef that a strong country brand can contrbute to the country s sustanable development (Jaffe and Nebenzahl, 2001; Kleppe and Mossberg, 2006). It may also restore flawed nternatonal credblty, ncrease nternatonal poltcal nfluence, and stmulate stronger nternatonal partnershps (Yan, 2008). As many countres have ganed awareness of the mportance of ther country brand, they have adopted country brandng projects. A few have even enacted laws to promote ther brand and establshed specal organzatons charged wth coordnatng prvate-publc partnershps. Swtzerland, for example, establshed the Presence Swtzerland organzaton n order to coordnate and establsh prortes among dfferent enttes such as Pro Helveta, Locaton Swtzerland, OSEC Busness Networks, and Swss Toursm.. Dnne (2008) has stated that country brandng s an exctng and complex but controversal phenomenon; t s exctng because there s currently lttle theory but a sgnfcant amount of real world actvty. It s complex because t encompasses multple levels, dmensons and dscplnes beyond conventonal brandng. And, as a hghly poltczed actvty that generates conflctng vewponts and opnons, t can be controversal. A country brand can also be nfluenced n the short or long term by major events. Chna s country brand, for example, was deeply affected by the 1989 Tannanmen Square event, the SARS epdemc n 2003, the 2008 earthquake and, later that year, the Olympc Games and then the mlk scandal. Some studes (for example, Papadopoulos and Heslop, 2002) have nvestgated the nfluence of major events on the country mage. The small number of longtudnal studes suggest that country mage may shft slowly over tme, even n the absence of major events (Darlng and Kraft, 1996; Anholt, 2007). The majorty of those studes, however, conclude that major events can help to speed up or hnder the process of country mage change (Papadopoulos and Heslop, 2002).

4 Naton or country brandng (as they are used nterchangeably n the lterature) emerged from the marketng lterature. There are four man marketng felds whch relate to and underpn country brandng: country of orgn (Roth and Romeo, 1992; Parameswaran and Psharod, 1992; Shmp et al., 1993; Nebenzahl and Jaffe, 1996), destnaton brandng (Prtchard and Morgan, 1998; Hanknson, 2007), country mage or country-product mage (Parameswaran and Yaprak, 1987; Martn and Eroglu, 1993; Agarwal and Skr 1996; Kleppe et al., 2002; Brown et al., 2006) and country dentty (Kellor et al. 1996; Kellor and Hult, 1999; Anholt, 2007). However, over the years t became evdent that country brandng s much broader than marketng and brandng and nvolves other dscplnes such as nternatonal relatons and publc dplomacy (Anholt, 2007). In that respect, country brand research s stll n ts nfancy and only n the last decade has an ncreasng number of academcs (Kotler, et al., 1993; Kotler and Gertner, 2002; Caldwell and Frere, 2004; Fan, 2006; Aronczyk, 2008) and practtoners (Anhholt, 1998) focused on ths research. Kotler et al. (1993; 1997) were among the frst to dscuss country brandng. Despte an ncreasng number of artcles dedcated to the topc, there s stll no common defnton of country brand. Fan (2006, p. 8) makes an early attempt at defnng t as a country s whole mage, coverng poltcal, economc, hstorcal and cultural dmensons. The concept s at the natonal level, multdmensonal and context dependent. Dnne (2008, p 15) defnes country brand as the unque, mult-dmensonal blend of elements that provde the naton wth culturally grounded dfferentaton and relevance for all of ts target audences. Aronczyk (2008, p. 42) states that a country brand should attract the rght knds of nvestment, toursm, trade, and talent. Kotler et al. (1993) as well as Rawson (2007) argue that governments should create, promote, protect, and supervse a country s brand. We offer the followng defnton: A country brand belongs to the publc doman; t s complex and ncludes multple levels, components and dscplnes. It entals the collectve nvolvement of the many stakeholders t must appeal to. It concerns a country s whole mage, coverng poltcal, economc, socal, envronmental, hstorcal, and cultural aspects. The man objectves of country brandng are to stmulate exports, attract toursm, nvestments and mmgraton, and create postve nternatonal perceptons and atttudes.

5 Our lterature revew reveals that, to the best of our knowledge, there s no objectve measure that assesses the strength of a country brand. Such a measure would greatly help countres to assess ther compettve postons. Ths paper contrbutes to the country brandng lterature by developng and presentng a standardzed nstrument for measurng the strength of a country brand. Snce the measurement nstrument yelds standardzed results, t can be used to compare countres wth one another. The proposed country brand strength ndex (CBSI) helps to advance country brand research snce t s the frst ndex of ts knd that provdes objectve measurement rather than survey perceptons. It provdes organzatons and governments wth a tool to measure the strengths of a country brand, dentfy any weaknesses and then revse the country brand strategy. Ths s especally mportant because countres, lke companes, need to buld, manage and protect ther brand. 2. Measurng a Country Brand The two most hgh profle exstng measures whch assess a country brand both come from prvate sources rather than the academc lterature: the Country Brand Index from FutureBrand consultancy and the Anholt GfK Roper Naton Brand Index (NBI). Although these ndexes are useful and wdely used for many country brandng projects worldwde, they are lmted by ther use of propretary methodologes n terms of specfc questons asked as well as aggregaton and statstcal method used. Moreover, they are based on subjectve percepton survey data. We propose an alternatve measurement based on objectve secondary data to assess the strength of a country brand. The constructon of our ndex s nspred by prevous studes (Shmp et al., 1993; Anholt, 1998; Cho and Shu, 2006) and specfcally the theoretcal consderatons descrbed n the followng secton. Because country brandng s unusually complex, we do not clam that our ndex accounts for all dmensons of country brandng. However, t s a startng pont and an alternatve measurement wth a transparent approach and methodology based on objectve secondary data. Our proposed ndex s desgned to be manageable and straghtforward yet stll yeld meanngful results Developng a Country Brand Strength Index Adoptng methods from corporate brandng, there are two ways to measure a country brand: the consumer-based brand equty approach and the company-based brand

6 equty approach (Atlgan et al., 2005). The consumer-based brand equty approach emphaszes the meanng of the brand and the value that consumers place on t. Atlgan et al. (2005) contend that a brand s value s determned by consumers. There are varous ways to value brand equty. Consumer-based brand equty models generally study how a brand s perceved by consumers by collectng prmary survey data. Ths approach has been dscussed extensvely n the marketng lterature (Zeugner-Roth et al., 2008) as a bottom-up approach n assessng brand value. The two country brand ndexes mentoned above use ths approach. Proponents of the company-based brand equty approach, often referred to n the lterature as the fnancal approach (Km et al., 2003), defne brand equty as the total value of a brand as a separable asset (Atlgan et al., 2005). The lterature offers varous methods to measure brand equty, although lttle agreement exsts on ther relatve strengths and weaknesses (Smon and Sullvan, 1993). The company-based brand equty approach s a top-down approach of measurement usng nformaton on the total performance of a company. The same approach can be appled to a country s brand by estmatng how well the country performs n terms of exports (Kotler and Gertner, 2002), attractng toursm (Caldwell and Frere, 2004; Hall, 2002; Morgan et al., 2002), and attractng foregn drect nvestments (Wee et al., 1993; Papadopoulos and Heslop, 2002; Szond, 2008) as well as mmgraton. For those reasons we use the company-based brand equty approach usng secondary data Exportng Just as companes offer dstnct products and servces to nternatonal markets, so do countres. They may be known for exportng partcular products and servces (Papadopoulos and Heslop, 2002; Kleppe et al., 2002; Pharr, 2005). In some nstances companes from a specfc country promote a product usng the country of orgn as an asset. Swss watches, Scotch whsky, Columban coffee and Russan vodka are all examples where companes use the country s name n promotng the product. Export promoton organzatons recognze that ther country s reputaton consttutes a potental asset to be managed carefully (Kotler and Gertner, 2002). We therefore argue that a hgh level of exports ndcates a strong country brand.

7 2.3. Toursm Toursm has become a global ndustry and s wdely consdered to be one of the fastest growng and most mportant ndustres n the world. In 2000, the sector drectly and ndrectly generated 11.7 percent of global gross domestc product and employed nearly 200 mllon people. Toursm benefts greatly from a strong country brand (Caldwell and Frere, 2004). For nstance, New Zealand has successfully branded tself as 100% Pure, featurng the dversty of the country as an attractve tourst destnaton (Morgan et al., 2002). We argue that a hgh level of toursm arrvals ndcates a strong country brand Foregn Drect Investments The global nvestment pool s fnte, especally n the current recessonary envronment, and competton for nvestment funds s ferce. A growng number of countres have undertaken aggressve and proactve programs to attract foregn nvestors (Papadopoulos and Heslop, 2002). It s not surprsng that brandng a place as a choce destnaton for nvestments has emerged as a key strategy (Szond, 2008). France s Invest n France Agency (IFA), a government organzaton responsble for promotng nternatonal nvestment and helpng foregn nvestors succeed n France (Favre, 2008), s one example. We argue that a hgh level of nward FDI s an ndcaton of a strong country brand Immgraton Wth free movement of human talent, t s vtal today that a country s able to retan the loyalty of ts ctzens and n fact attract more human talent to ts shores (Glmore, 2002, p. 290). The war for talent s a global competton for lmted human resources and sklled labor (Mchaels et al., 2001). The objectve s to attract foregn students to the country s nsttutes of hgher educaton as well as to attract sklled workers. In that respect, another ndcator of a strong country brand s the mmgraton t attracts from other countres. We therefore argue that a hgh level of mmgraton s an ndcator of a strong country brand Government Envronment The boundares of a country ndcate the jursdcton of natonal governments (Hanknson, 2007). Hence, the government s role should be to create, promote,

8 protect, and supervse a country brand (Rawson, 2007). Anholt (2007) emphaszes that governments are at the centre of country brandng. For example, changes n a country s poltcal leadershp can affect the country brand just as a new CEO can affect a corporate brand. We therefore argue that a postve government envronment supports not only exports and attracts toursm, nvestments and mmgraton but also enables the development of an overall postve and strong country brand. We argue that the more exports (E), toursm (T), foregn drect nvestment (F), and mmgraton (M) a country has, along wth a postve government envronment (G), the stronger the country brand. Therefore, we use these ndcators as proxes for assessng the strengths of a country brand. Assumng we have n countres, the total exports of a country to all other countres j where j = 1 n, can be expressed as n E e j. The same apples for attractng toursm, where the total tourst arrvals n j1 country from all other countres j where j = 1 n, can be expressed as n T t j. j1 The same s true for attractng foregn drect nvestment n F f j j1 as well as n attractng mmgraton M m j. If we assume n the model that the government s j1 nherent to the country and not a functon of blateral relatons, t can be expressed wth the parameter G. Then we can formulate the followng smplfed equaton for our country brand strength ndex for country. CBSI f E T F M G (1) To operatonalze the country brand strength ndex (CBSI), we need two modfcatons. Frst, to calculate, nterpret and compare the values n a meanngful way, we need relatve values to compare countres. Ths s the case for exports, toursm, foregn drect nvestment and mmgraton, where we have decded to dvde each value by the populaton to get a relatve value per capta. For the government envronment, we rely on the Government Envronment Index (GEI) provded by L and Fler (2007) whch does not need any further modfcaton as t s an ndex

9 already. The GEI s a mult-dmensonal construct that ncludes exercse of poltcal rghts, rule of law, publc trust, free flow of nformaton, and level of corrupton. If we take x, whch s the parameter for the populaton, we get x for the populaton of country, we can wrte the followng equaton: CBS I E T F M G E T F M G x x x x (2) x x x x For the second modfcaton, snce the values are stll n dfferent formats (.e. dollar amount, people), we need to standardze the values wth a mean of zero and a standard devaton of one. By calculatng that and addng the fve values, we construct the CBSI. To compute the CBSI for a country, all fve varables must have nonmssng values. We do not use mputaton to fll n the mssng values. We thus derve the followng: CBSI n E 1 x E T n n n n E E T T F F M M G G x x x 1 x T x x x 1 ( n 1) ( n 1) ( n 1) ( n 1) ( n 1) (3) For smplcty and llustratve purposes, each of the fve performance ndcators can be expressed as c k where k = We then derve the followng generc smplfed equaton: k1 1 F x F x x c ( n 1) x 5 ck c k CBS I (4) n c k k 2 1 M x M x x x G G 1 2 Composte ndexes aggregate sets of varables to condense large amounts of nformaton n a meanngful way. Aggregaton s always a potental area of methodologcal controversy n the feld of composte ndex constructon. Varous aggregaton (e.g., addtve, multplcatve) and weghtng (e.g., equal, regresson) methods exst and the choce of an approprate method depends on the purpose of the composte ndcator as well as the nature of the subject beng measured. Makng an approprate choce about the components of composte ndexes and ther weghts s an

10 mportant part of the aggregaton process. To start, we have chosen an addtve rather than a multplcatve approach snce any negatve or zero value mght bas the results. We have also gven each component the same weght n the ndex snce we are the frst to develop such a standardzed ndex to measure the strength of a country brand. It makes sense to begn wth a smplfed verson of the model that can be further refned n the future. 3. Analyss and Results The analyss s based on secondary country level data from varous sources, as shown n Table 1, where we nclude a short descrpton of the data and the source of data for each parameter used n ths study: ******************** Take n Table 1 ******************** Based on the approach descrbed above, we calculated the CBSI for 31 countres, presented n Table 2. A hgh CBSI score ndcates a strong country brand whle a low CBSI score ndcates a weak country brand. In our sample, Ireland has the hghest score (.e., the strongest country brand) and Chna has the lowest score (the weakest country brand). ******************** Take n Table 2 ******************** In our sample, the US ranks No. 15, whch may be surprsng, but studes by Rawson (2007) and other researchers also ndcated a largely negatve percepton of the US among those surveyed. The Anholt (2003) study ranked the US No. 10 and the Pew Global Atttudes Project (2006) showed a steady declne n the mage of the US. Ths s consstent wth our results, although the change of admnstraton followng the electon of Barack Obama as Presdent appears to have mproved external perceptons of the Unted States Comparatve Analyss wth the Anholt GfK Roper NBI

11 One of the most sophstcated and frequently-used country brand ndexes, as noted earler, s the Anholt GfK Roper Naton Brands Index (NBI), publshed annually based on over 20,000 onlne ntervews n 20 countres. The ndex shows how countres are perceved along sx dmensons: exports, toursm, nvestment, mmgraton, governance, culture and hertage, and people. For each dmenson, varous questons on a 7-pont Lkert scale are used. The 2009 NBI provdes results for 50 countres. We compared our results from the newly developed CBSI, based on objectve secondary data, wth the NBI, based on subjectve prmary data. Table 3 compares the CBSI and NBI ndexes along varous dmensons: ******************** Take n Table 3 ******************** There are a few key dfferences between the two ndexes. Frst, the NBI uses a customer-based brand equty approach by surveyng people and askng about ther perceptons of a country. Our ndex s based on objectve secondary data and measures what s happenng (actualty). Hence there may be a percepton-actualty gap. Second, the NBI surveys a lmted number of countres (20 out of a total of 195 possble countres) and a lmted type of respondent (only people over 18 wth Internet access). In comparson, our ndex takes nto account data from all countres and people from those countres, ncludng total tourst arrvals. For example, Ukrane was mssng n 2007 from the NBI even though t ranked No. 8 (23.1 mllon) n nternatonal tourst arrvals (UNWTO, 2008). However, we should note that our proposed CBSI measures the strengths of a country brand as a whole whereas the NBI provdes valuable nformaton about the recprocal country percepton between countres, whch s lackng from the CBSI. For example, how s France perceved by Brtan or Germany? Therefore, each ndex has ts strengths and weaknesses and any country brandng study should take nto account both ndexes to get a better pcture of the stuaton n terms of external percepton (NBI) and nternal performance (CBSI). Further, both ndexes are not only complementary but nter-dependent. Fgure 1 below llustrates how the NBI and CBSI each assess the country brand. We gve the mean values for each ndex on the horzontal and vertcal axes as well as the

12 lnear regresson lne and the 99 percent confdence nterval. The NBI measures the percepton of a country brand, whch can be postve or negatve, whle the CBSI measures the strengths of a country brand, whch can be strong or weak. ******************** Take n Fgure 1 ******************** Fgure 1 shows that most countres, f perceved postvely, also have a strong country brand. Those perceved negatvely have a weak country brand. Outlers accordng to our fgure nclude Japan, Italy, Brazl, Chna, Russa and Egypt (group 1) as well as Ireland, Austra, Belgum, Netherlands and Swtzerland (group 2). For the frst group, the NBI > CBSI, whch suggests that the strength of the country brand does not fully mrror the postve percepton people have of those countres. For the second group, CBSI > NBI, suggestng that the country s not perceved as postvely but has a strong country brand. Usng the results for these two outler groups should be the startng pont to dg deeper nto what other factors could contrbute to a better measurement of country brand, and especally reasons for the exstence of the gap between perceptons and actualty. Moreover, snce there s no causal relatonshp between the two ndexes, we were nterested n calculatng the correlaton between them to assess whether they yeld smlar results. We found a Pearson correlaton coeffcent of sgnfcant at the 0.01 level. Ths result suggests that the two ndexes measure the same phenomena, to a degree, whereas the dfference or gap mght have two sources. It may be due to dfferent approaches, methodologes (e.g., components ndex vs. measurement scale for survey) or data, or t mght be due to a real gap between what people perceve about a country and how the country performs. The actual splt between the two sources for ths gap s unknown and beyond the scope of ths paper. Further research s needed to better understand that dfference Dscusson The CBSI and NBI ndexes use dfferent approaches, methodologes and data to look at the same phenomena. The NBI measures the percepton of people about a country whle the newly developed CBSI measures how the country performs. Each has ts strengths and weaknesses and one should probably consder both ndexes for accurate nsght nto a country's brand. Combnng both ndexes mght help countres assess

13 ther country brand, how people perceve t and how well t performs n terms of exports, toursm, nvestment and mmgraton. A combned ndex mght help dentfy any percepton-actualty gap. Countres could then attempt to strengthen the country brand by takng approprate actons. In any case, calculatng even a combned ndex s not suffcent. A country s effort to buld and manage ts brand s framed by the behavor of ts domestc stakeholders and factors such as trade promoton, ndustry assocatons and natonal polces as well as the behavor of ndgenous stakeholders when dealng wth the outsde world. If a country wants to modfy ts country brand, t must change what t does and what t makes, and how t performs. For example, before artculatng a desred brand, a country frst needs to make sure that t s poltcally stable, respects human rghts, and does not engage n volent nternal and external conflcts. As Anholt (1998) states, there s no magc shortcut usng marketng or advertsng, logos or slogans, although country slogans are an mportant vehcle for the development of country brand equty (Supphellen and Nygaardsvk, 2002). But no advertsng or publc relatons campagn wll make an unsafe product safer or a polluted place un-polluted. Exportng unsafe products or nvtng toursts to a polluted envronment wll lead consumers and vstors to dsparage and crtcze the country and ultmately worsen ts country brand (Kotler and Gertner, 2002). Moreover, there are certan factors a country cannot control, such as how the meda depcts a country s mage (Kotler and Gertner, 2002). Creatng and communcatng a sngle mage and message to dfferent stakeholders or target audences (Glmore, 2002) s a dffcult undertakng. Although some aspects of a country can appeal to dverse stakeholders, others appeal only to specfc audences and need to be chosen carefully. An mage that appeals n one culture or n one stuaton may not have the same effect n another culture or stuaton (Fan, 2006). 4. Concluson A strong country brand help to ncrease exports, attract toursm, nvestment and mmgraton. Country brandng has become an essental part of a country s sustanable development. However, t s complex and ncludes multple levels, components and dscplnes and entals the collectve nvolvement of dfferent stakeholders. Ths paper presents a standardzed nstrument for measurng the strengths of a country brand. Our research has both theoretcal and practcal mplcatons. From a theoretcal

14 pont of vew, the proposed composte ndex yelds standardzed results to measure the strengths of the country brand and enables us to compare t wth other country brands. Hence, ths paper provdes an mportant contrbuton to the exstng country brandng lterature. It s the frst of ts knd to construct an objectve composte ndex measurng the strengths of a country brand. However, the proposed ndex should be consdered a startng pont for a more complete and complex measurements. Other factors need to be ncluded and the aggregaton method used needs further evaluaton n order to make sure that all factors are properly consdered. From a practcal vewpont, countres can use ths ndex as a performance reference pont to see where they stands and changes are requred to mprove the current poston. By usng ths ndex, publc and prvate organzatons can formulate a more powerful country brand strategy. But mprovng the country brand may requre fundamental changes n the poltcal, economc, legal and socal systems. Communcatng the country brand s a major undertakng. Publc and prvate organzatons as well as natonal polcy-makers need to become aware of the power of brandng to help acheve natonal goals. They need to understand how to buld, manage and protect a country brand as well as how to coordnate country brandng efforts. By comparng both ndexes we were able to assess ther smlartes and dfferences. Our results show that, n most cases, f countres are perceved postvely by the NBI, they also have a strong country brand as measured by the CBSI. Those perceved negatvely have a weak country brand. Fnally, countres must realze that analyzng and studyng ways to enhance ther country brand s no longer a matter of choce. Ether a country s proactve and takes some acton to control ts country brand or t rsks allowng the brand to be nfluenced and controlled by publc opnon and lack of nformaton. As wth all research, ths study has some lmtatons. Frst, due to data lmtatons and comparatve analyss, our analyss only ncludes 31 countres. Second, for mmgraton we do not dfferentate between sklled and unsklled workers. Thrd, we used per capta measurements whch mght favor small countres and further studes mght use other data. Fourth, we aggregated the ndex by addng the dfferent parameters equally, but other aggregaton and weghtng methods could be used. Ffth, snce we used data from only one year, further research should examne data for multple years n order to conduct longtudnal studes. Such studes would ndcate

15 the drectonalty between the dependent and ndependent varables and the sustanablty of country brandng. Sxth, other objectve data could be ntegrated n the model, such as a measurement for landmarks, hertage, landscape and envronment, hstory or cultural aspects. Further studes should also dfferentate between large and small countres, or cty-natons and sland-natons. Researchers could also examne the effects of globalzaton on country brand strengths; publc dplomacy and sustanable envronments and ther mportance to country brandng; the mportance of major sports events and natural catastrophes on country brand; and the relatonshp and mportance of celebrtes or country brand ambassadors to the country brand. Future research should also explore the effect of culture and cultural dstance on the country brand and the legtmacy of country or naton brand management.

16 References Agarwal, S. and Skr, S. (1996), Country mage: consumer evaluaton of product category extenson, Internatonal Marketng Revew, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp Anholt, S. (1998), Naton-brands of the twenty-frst century, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 5 No. 6, pp Anholt, S. (2002), Naton Brandng: A contnung theme, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp Anholt, S. (2003), Brand New Justce. The Upsde of Global Brandng, London: Butterworth-Henemann. Anholt, S. (2007), Compettve Identty: The New Brand Management for Natons, Ctes and Regons, Palgrave Macmllan, Basngstoke, UK. Aronczyk, M. (2008), Lvng the Brand : Natonalty, Globalty and the Identty Strateges of Naton Brandng Consultants, Internatonal Journal of Communcaton, Vol. 2, pp Atlgan, E., Aksoy, S. and Aknc, S. (2005), Determnants of the brand equty: A verfcaton approach n the beverage ndustry n Turkey, Marketng Intellgence & Plannng, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp Brown, T. J., Dacn, P. A., Pratt, M. G. and Whetten, D. A. (2006), Identty, ntended mage, construed mage, and reputaton: an nterdscplnary framework and suggested termnology, Journal of the Academy of Marketng Scence, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp Caldwell, D. and Frere, J. (2004), The dfferences between brandng a country, a regon and a cty: Applyng the Brand Box Model, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp Cho, D-S. and Suh, Y-G. (2006), Measurng the Natonal Image: The Case of South Korea, n Kahle L. and Km C-H., (Eds.), Creatng Images and the Psychology of Marketng Communcaton, Lawrence Erlbaum Assocates, pp Darlng, J. and Kraft, F. (1996), Changes n Fnnsh Consumer Atttudes Towards the Products and Assocated Marketng Practces of Varous Selected Countres, 1975 to 1995, Fnnsh Journal of Busness Economcs, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp Dnne, K. (2008), Naton Brandng Concepts, Issues, Practce, Butterworth Henemann, Oxford, Unted Kngdom.

17 Fan, Y. (2006), Naton brandng: what s beng branded?, Journal of Vacaton Marketng, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp Favre, P. (2008), Future horzons for naton brandng: Country Case Insght France, n Dnne, K., (Ed.), Naton Brandng: Concepts, Issues, Practce, Butterworth Henemann Dutton, pp Glmore, F. (2002), A country can t be repostoned? Span the success story of country brandng, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 4/5, pp Hall, D. (2002), Brand development, toursm and natonal dentty: The re-magng of former Yugoslava, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 4/5, pp Hanknson, G. (2007), The management of destnaton brands: fve gudng prncples based on recent developments n corporate brandng theory, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp Jaffe, E. and Nebenzahl, D. (2001),Natonal Image and Compettve Advantage: The Theory and Practce of Country-Of-Orgn Effect, Copenhagen Busness School Press, Copenhagen. Kellor, B. D., Hult, G. T. M., Erffmeyer, R. C. and Babakus, E. (1996), NATID: The Development and Applcaton of a Natonal Identty Measure for Use n Internatonal Marketng, Journal of Internatonal Marketng, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp Kellor, B. and Hult, T. (1999), A fve country study of natonal dentty: Implcatons for nternatonal marketng research and practce, Internatonal Marketng Revew, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp Km, H. B., Km, W. G. and An J. A. (2003), The effect of consumer-based brand equty on frms fnancal performance, Journal of Consumer Marketng, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp Kleppe, I. A., Iversen, N. M. and Stensaker, I. G. (2002), Country mages n marketng strateges: Conceptual ssues and an emprcal Asan llustraton, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp Kleppe, I. and Mossberg, L. (2006), Company versus country brandng : "Same, same but dfferent", n Asche, F. (Ed.), Prmary Industres Facng Global Markets: The Supply Chans and Markets for Norwegan Food and Forest Products, Copenhagen Busness School Press, pp

18 Kotler P. and Gertner D. (2002), Country as brand, product, and beyond: A place marketng and brand management perspectve, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 4/5, pp Kotler, P., Hader, D.H. and Ren, I. (1993), Marketng Places: Attractng Investment, Industry, and Toursm to Ctes, States, and Natons, The Free Press, New York, NY. Kotler, P., Jatusrptak, S. and Maesncee, S. (1997), The Marketng of Natons: A Strategc Approach to Buldng Natonal Wealth, The Free Press, New York, NY. L, S. and Fler, L. (2007), The Effects of the Governance Envronment on the Choce of Investment Mode and the Strategc Implcatons, Journal of World Busness, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp Martn, I.M. and Eroglu, S. (1993), Measurng a Mult-Dmensonal Construct: Country Image, Journal of Busness Research, Vol. 28, pp Mchaels, E., Handfeld-Jones, H. and Axelrod, B. (2001), The War for Talent, Harvard Busness Press, Boston, MA. Morgan, N., Prtchard, A. and Pggott, R. (2002), New Zealand, 100% Pure. The creaton of a powerful nche destnaton brand, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 4/5, pp Nebenzahl, I.D. and Jaffe, E.D. (1996), Measurng the jont effect of brand and country mage n consumer evaluaton of global products, Internatonal Marketng Revew, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L.A. (2002), Country equty and country brandng: problems and prospects, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 4/5, pp Parameswaran, R. and Yaprak, A. (1987), A Cross-Natonal Comparson of Consumer Research Measures, Journal of Internatonal Busness Studes, Vol. 18 (Sprng), pp Parameswaran, R. and Psharod, R.M. (1992), Confrmatory factor analyss of a country-of-orgn scale: ntal results, Advances n Consumer Research, Vol. 19, pp Prtchard, A. and Morgan, N. (1998), Mood Marketng - The new destnaton brandng strategy: A case study of Wales, the Brand, Journal of Vacaton Marketng, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp

19 Pharr, J.M. (2005), Syntheszng country-of-orgn research from the last decade: s the concept stll salent n an era of global brands?, Journal of Marketng Theory and Practce, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp Pew Global Atttudes Project (2006), Amerca's Image Slps, But Alles Share U.S. Concerns Over Iran, Hamas, avalable at: [Date accessed: ] Rawson, G. (2007), Perceptons of the Unted States of Amerca: explorng the poltcal brand of a naton, Place Brandng and Publc Dplomacy, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp Roth, M.S. and Romeo, J.B. (1992), Matchng product category and country mage perceptons: a framework for managng country-of-orgn effects, Journal of Internatonal Busness Studes, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp Shmp, T.A., Saeed, S. and Madden, T.J. (1993), Countres and ther products: A cogntve structure perspectve, Journal of the Academy of Marketng Scence, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp Smon, C. and Sullvan, M. (1993), The measurement and determnants of brand equty: A fnancal approach, Marketng Scence, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp Supphellen, M. and Nygaardsvk, I. (2002), Testng country brand slogans: Conceptual development and emprcal llustraton of a smple normatve model, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 4/5, pp Szond, G. (2008), Pragmatc challenges to the naton-brandng concept: Country promoton and mage management The Case of Hungary, n Dnne, K., (Ed.), Naton Brandng: Concepts, Issues, Practce, Butterworth Henemann Dutton, pp UNWTO (2008), UNWTO World Toursm Barometer, Commtted to Toursm, Travel and the Mllennum Development Goals, World Toursm Organzaton, Vol. 6 No. 2, avalable at: _en.pdf [Date accessed: ]. Yan, J. (2008), Ethcal mperatves n naton brandng: Smaller natons enter the global dalogue through naton brandng, n Dnne, K., (Ed.), Naton Brandng: Concepts, Issues, Practce, Butterworth Henemann Dutton, pp

20 Wee, C.H., Lm, D. and Tan, G. (1993), The Image of Countres as Locatons for Investment, n N. Papadopoulos and L. Heslop (Eds.), Product-Country Images: Impact and Role n Internatonal Marketng, Busness Press, New York, NY, pp Zeugner-Roth, K., Damantopoulos, A. and Montesnos, A. (2008), Home Country Image, Country Brand Equty and Consumers Product Preferences: An Emprcal Study, Management Internatonal Revew, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp

21 Table 1: Data Overvew Data Descrpton Source Export (E) Export value, mllon, USD, 2007 World Bank Toursm (T) Inbound toursm, mllon people, 2007 Unted Naton World Toursm Organzaton (UNWTO) FDI (F) FDI flow, mllon, USD, 2007 UNCTAD (FDI Stats) Immgraton (M) Number of mmgrants, 2005 [1] Unted Natons Report on World Populaton Polces 2005 Governance (G) Index n functon of exercse of poltcal rghts, rule of law, publc trust, free flow of nformaton, and level of corrupton. L and Fler (2007) [2] [1] More recent avalable data for all countres studes not avalable [2] They calculate the GEI for 44 countres

22 Table 2: Calculated Country Brand Strength Index Rank Country CBSI Rank Country CBSI 1 Ireland Czech Rep Swtzerland Tawan Austra Japan Netherlands Poland Belgum South Korea Canada South Afrca Sweden Mexco Norway Argentna Denmark Russa UK Inda France Turkey Australa Brazl Span Indonesa Germany Egypt Unted States Chna Italy CBSI = Country Brand Strength Index

23 Export Toursm Foregn Drect Investment Immgraton Governance Envronment Table 3: Summary Comparson between CBSI and NBI CBSI Actual export values n USD for a country Actual tourst arrvals n mllons for a country Actual nward FDI flow n USD for a country Actual mgraton flow nto a country Governance Envronment Index (GEI). Exercse of poltcal rghts, rule of law, publc trust, free flow of nformaton, and level of corrupton NBI* Publc's mage of products and servces from a country Captures the level of nterest n vstng a country Captures the level of nterest n nvestng n a country Determnes the power to attract people to lve, work or study n a country Measures publc opnon regardng the level of natonal government competency and farness and commtment to global democracy, justce and the envronment and elmnaton of poverty Data Source All countres Approxmately 20,000 adults ages 18 and up are ntervewed onlne n 20 core panel countres * The NBI also uses two addtonal dmensons, culture and hertage as well as people.

24 Fgure 1: NBI and CBSI