Can NATO “Re-brand”? What do you think? | Global Dashboard - Blog covering International affairs and global risks

Can NATO “Re-brand”? What do you think? Daniel Korski

March 13, 2009 | More on Conflict and security, Cooperation and coherence | 4 comments

During the Cold War, when Western and Warsaw Pact tanks were facing each other, the idea of a “selling” NATO’s role to allied publics would have been ludicrous because everyone knew why it was important. Now, in the run-up to the Alliance’s 60th anniversary, NATO has realised how important it is to communicate its role and worth to publics in European and North America.

But doing so at a time when the only kind of security ordinary people think about is their job security is a real challenge. As my colleague Nick Witney has said: “Defense is no longer a business of manning the ramparts or preparing to resist invasion. It has to be about an attempt to project stability. It is a hard doctrine to get people to believe in.”

To help NATO communicate better, it has hired an executive from Coca-Cola to manage the way the alliance is seen around the world and launched a an internet-based service called NATO TV as well as a Media Operations Centre (called the “MOC”) with the sole task of improving communications about NATO’s Afghan mission.

Next week, I will attend an internal NATO meeting to discuss ways to overcome NATO’s communications challenges. And this is where you come in. I’d like to solicit the help of you, the rarified group of people who make up the Global Dashboard readership.

For I’d like to tell the assembled defence communicators what security-tracking, information-seeking, well-informed people like yourselves think are the biggest communications challenges for NATO — and perhaps how to overcome these.

So here are a couple of questions I’d love to get your in-put on, which I will duly pass on at the NATO meeting.

What are NATO’s greatest challenges now and over the next five years?
What are the most serious threats to your country’s national security and what role do you think NATO should play in addressing this?
What aspect of NATO’s communications do you think works well?
What do you think of NATO TV? How can it be improved?
If you were in charge of NATO communications, what would you do?

I look forward to hearing what you think.

4 comments »

Guy on March 13th, 2009 at 4:32 pm:

1. [A]Post-Cold War what is NATO’s role/mission: Internal security, Anti-Russian conventional deterrent, Nuke umbrella, Interventionist COIN Gendarmerie? [B]How far does membership go (a) in recruiting nations in Eastern Europe for NATO and (b) when members don’t pull their weight, either in combat, in terms of GDP spent on security and in terms or training for modern threats? [C]How can NATO unify its force structure to make itself useable rather than the current disjointed ‘penny-packet’ approach?

2. Threats are (a) internal dissent -Islamists, Terrorists, Large scale Criminal Gangs, Economic Dissidents- (b) States of Terror (a la Philip Bobbits ‘Terror and Consent’), particularly those with or aiming for WMD and those engaged in mass human rights abuses and (c) humanitarian disasters (man made or natural).

3. NATO what? Unless you are seeking information there is little to no contact. The only contact usually comes through MSM and are either descriptive (‘NATO forces in Afghanistan…’) or critical (‘…problems within NATO over member-states ROE…’). As an information seeker I thought the release of Dutch Apache helicopter footage showing that they were targeting Taliban after accusations an Apache had killed civilians was brilliant. Further use of open-source media platforms like this are great. The Flickr page is also very useful though not as extensive as it should be. However in both cases though I found these via specialised sites. Advertising in free dailies or getting a PR company to push the story of these launches into the wire services would be useful. Also and this is key: release combat footage, as much as possible. The internet is full of forum warriors and the ‘coolness’ of combat clips ensures their speedy travel around the internet. This is not a job that should be left to soldiers uploading home made videos (though those should be welcome too). Aim the videos at specific groups: ‘How we Help’(Humanitarian and Ethical stuff for the morally conflicted, pull those heart-strings), ‘Combat’ (war porn for the teenage boys), ‘Addressing Human Rights’(for the naysayers), ‘What YOUR Nation Does’ (for the nationalists), ‘Weekly Roundup’ (general TV-esque news report for those seeking information, fronted and presented by civilians and with none of those ‘Mom’s Apple Pie’ 1950′s America people the Pentagon uses).

4. Why use a separate page and media player? Use YouTube. Also the media player on NATO TV keeps giving me grief. Why not just use available software on a site which people already visit. There is no point building a separate site either unless you’re going to advertise it. I’d never heard of it before today.

5. Already mentioned many of my points above but to paraphrase. (a) Use YouTube and Flickr and use them a lot. No specialised websites that nobody visits. (b) Focus on specific audiences(Professionals? Joe Bloggs on the street? Families of NATO folks? NATO’s enemies?), make it professional and civilian-fronted. Have focus. (c) advertise in media of the lowest common denominator, get in the Wire services and get in papers like The Sun and The Daily Mail (and equivalents among NATO countries). Pop the adverts in the TV listings (Just above war films: ‘See REAL war at youtube.com/NATO etc.’ (d) War porn sells.
Daniel Korski on March 13th, 2009 at 6:28 pm:

Hi A and Guy,

These are great. I hope others will add their thoughts too.

Daniel
anonim on March 13th, 2009 at 8:43 pm:

1.What are NATO’s greatest challenges now and over the next five years?
A: Now is Afganistan, next: strategic level- instability during ec crises, operational- hybrid operations
2.What are the most serious threats to your country’s national security and what role do you think NATO should play in addressing this?
A: Non-military, energy security, societal transborder risks
3.What aspect of NATO’s communications do you think works well?
A: Enlargement and partnerships
4. What do you think of NATO TV? How can it be improved?
A: Dont know
5.If you were in charge of NATO communications, what would you do?
A: Better balance between external and internal communications, transatlantic focus.
CB3 on March 18th, 2009 at 10:19 pm:

Briefly, concentrating on the communication questions only:
3. i. MOC – gone from zero to a capable machine in very short space of time. ii. Stratcomms making a breakthrough as a concept within NATO.
4. NATO TV – A breakthrough for NATO – Competent and straightforward construction and navigation, but very staid – more creativity and flair required.
5. Battle for the internal ‘hearts and minds’.

For a more comprehensive response, please see recent blog post “Selling NATO” on the CB3Blog at http://cb3blog.wordpress.com/

4 comments »

About Global Dashboard

Follow us

Authors