Reading List- I'm Not One Of Those 'Love Thy Neighbor' Christians
- How To Tell Your VoteBuilders From Your MyBOs, Your Catalists From Your VANs - Marc Ambinder
- Tories demand inquiry into taxpayers' money going to 'corrupt' countries - Telegraph
- Google Flu Trends | How does this work?
- Change.gov
- Don Vandergriff - America's Defense Meltdown: Pentagon Reform for the New President and Congress
- A politics of crisis: low-energy cosmopolitanism | open Democracy News Analysis
- Financial Meltdown Worsens Food Crisis
- INTERNATIONAL CLEARING UNION. (Hansard, 18 May 1943)
- Boyd Conference 2008 - Applying Boyd to the Pressing Problems of our Time
Will Britain learn from China?
August 20, 2008 | Daniel Korski | More on Asia, Public diplomacy, UK politics |
With the Beijing Olympics about to be declared a success, attention will turn to London. One question is on everyone’s minds: can London 2012 match the power and fanfare of the Chinese Games?
But there is another lesson to take home from Beijing: how to sell your country abroad. Even before the Opening Ceremony, the world had been exposed to China for years. Eighteen months ago, the impressive Terracotta Warriors stormed London. Then came Kung Fun Panda, the Hollywood story of a bungling panda who aspires to be a martial arts warrior. China’s National Ballet performed “Swan Lake” at the Royal Opera House whilst 2004 was “Chinese Culture Year” in France.
Numerous TV commercials are using Chinese-looking script or placing mascots – like Kellogg’s Tony the Tiger - on a Tibetan mountains. Newspapers are filled with reports from Chinese villages whilst books on the Middle Kingdom are ensconced on the best-seller lists.
This is exactly what the Chinese government hoped for. The Beijing Olympics has been about sport, to be sure. But they were always going to be about more than just that. For the Communist Party, the 29th Olympiad was seen as China’s “coming out party”, an event to mark the country’s acceptance and recognition from a sometimes hostile family of nations.
Since their modern re-launch in 1859, the Olympics have been one of the best ways to show-case a country; the Greeks demolished half-a-century of stereotyping when they pulled off the Athens Games.
For Britain, the 2012 London Olympics can play a similar role. The event will be the single greatest opportunity to re-brand Britain since 1997 and following the image-destroying partnership between Tony Blair and George Bush. Until the Queen dies, no other event is likely to make people around the world focus on Britain.
In the book The Man Who Saved Britain Simon Winder argued that James Bond upheld the British ego while a once-great power was trying to come to terms with its diminished post-World War II role. The Games will offer a rare chance to do the same; to re-launch Britain’s image in the world. Forget the “cool Britannia” of the Blair era; what may be needed may is less naff but equally modern and positive.
But the Games offer an opportunity not only to promote Britain’s culture and values, but also to attract tourists, students and investors; and to promote British exports.
The country is heading towards a recession. Consumers are battered by declining purchasing power, plummeting house prices and falling credit availability. The only way out will be to increase British exports, much as in the 1990s. Whilst the volume of British exports will be determined by economic fundamentals – a weak pound and low interest rates – there is scope for government action.
Sadly, for all that potential benefit rather than seizing the opportunity, the 2012 preparations have been off to an uninspiring start. Google the words “London Olympics” and after three official URLs comes the heading “Olympic chiefs under fire for puerile logo”. Debate has mostly been about how much money the Games will cost.
In the Foreign Office, the enormous task of gearing Britain’s diplomatic network to promote the country, its exports and its values is set to fall to a middle-ranking official.
Last year, UK Trade & Investment – the government’s export-promotion arm – seemed thrilled, according to its own board minutes, that Lord Coe, “agreed that he will devote some time to UKTI activities and has provided a quote in support of UKTI’s Olympic objectives.” Splendid - but his lordship’s involvement hardly substitutes for Ministerial leadership.
If a cross-governmental plan to use the Olympics to promote Britain does indeed exist, I would be curious to know if it includes sending the Elgin Marbles around the world? Will it call for more money to British films? Will Simon Cowell be drafted in to host a “The World’s Got Talent” show, with a finale in London’s Dome? Does the plan include initiatives to collaborate with Rockstar, the makers of Grand Theft Auto, the world’s best-selling video game?
As a new collection of articles - in part written by Alex and David and edited by up-and-coming Foreign Office minister Jim Murphy - argues, this is exactly the way Britain will need to think if it wants to promote itself. The lack of plans, senior staff attention, and ministerial leadership, however, does no bode well.
It is time for the government to take a leaf out of the Murphy playbook and launch a three-year campaign to promote Britain. The benefits are many and for the whole of Britain - as the Chinese have shown.
I have to say I shudder at the idea of the Foreign Office turning its attention to “the enormous task of gearing Britain’s diplomatic network to promote the country, its exports and its values.”
Some reasons (in no particularly logical order):
1. There’s little evidence that sporting events have a long-term impact on a country’s brand. Nation branding is not my area, but I believe the evidence suggests a brief uplift is followed by a return to previous levels.
2. Neither is there, I believe, much evidence to show a significant impact on trade - though tourism may be an exception (Even here it can make sense to try and make sure people actually come the country in the Olympic summer - fear of crowding and higher prices will drive many away).
3. Governments aren’t very good at branding small things. They certainly have little to boast of in many doomed efforts to rebrand their countries.
4. Most importantly of all, we have much more important issues for our diplomats to focus on - security and climate change to name two. These are clearly government’s business, but are currently done badly.
5. Relatedly, a focus on branding (and in the US’s case, a puppyish need to be loved) drives us towards narrow self interest, rather than to focusing on shared platforms and joint responses to the risks characteristic of an interdependent world. Do we need another reason to shout at Johnny Foreigner about how great we are?
6. And I suspect the Olympics promotes itself. The UK will spend 9bn or so in providing a month-long sporting party for the rest of world. A certain amount of gratitude will, I think, naturally follow.
David,
If you shudder I shake my head - at the thought of the Foreign Office dealing, as you write, with “security”. David Milliband is in Tblisi today, two weeks after David Cameron and the FCO - much like over the Lebanon crisis in 2006 - clearly failed to anticipate the crisis or provide the necessary advice once it broke out.
Secondly, I’m concerned with the idea that the FCO should somehow deal only with high-faluting things like “security and climate change”. Unless the FCO deals with things that matters to people - especially jobs, tourism and investment - then support for the diplomatic corps will fall further.
But, as you say, the FCO should only focus on things that give a return on investment. You contend that trying use the Olympics to brand Britain will not work. Like you, I’m no expert on this issue, but think nations can achieve a lasting legacy and build on their brand using the Olympics and sports more generally.
Barcelona did it. Ten years after the 1992 Barcelona Olympic Games, 40,000 people gathered in Montjuic stadium to celebrate the anniversary. Why? Because before the Olympics Spain was thought of as a European backwater; today it’s seen as a hip, high-design playground. Most Spaniards believe the Games played a key role in this.
You concede that tourism is the exception to the financial benefits from hosting the Games, but it’s worth showing just how big an exception it may be. In Lillehammer, host of the 1994 Winter Olympics, saw tourism soar 43 percent in the four years preceding the Games. Calgary saw a similar boost. Between 1972 and 1985, the annual growth rate of international visitors to Calgary held steady at about 0.25 percent. In the three years leading up to the 1988 Winter Olympics, tourism jumped to 8 percent, then to 12 percent during 1988. The city then held on to an increase of 3.25 percent annual growth for the next five years.
True – the Calgary Olympics lost money, but that simply goes to undermine your final point that the Olympics promote themselves. They don’t and need to be managed well to succeed both as a branding exercise and financially.
Then there are the more subtle effects. What about South Africa’s Springboks – did they not underscore the country’s successful transition? Nelson Mandela thought so. I can think of many other times when sports made a difference - as in the case of the ping-pong diplomacy between China and the USA in 1971, which changed the perception (or brand) of both countries. But I digress.
In quick succession let me deal with your points 3 and 5.
You go on to say governments aren’t good at branding small things – but by what definition does the world’s largest, most expensive, most televised event become small?
You then assume that nation-branding somehow needs to be jingoistic or based on exclusive values. But while you wait for World Government, I will work with what we have – the nation-state – without assuming that the promotion of British values necessarily undercuts everyone else’s values or prevents us from working together.
Where I do think we can agree is the view that countries can no longer simply promote themselves – as the failure of the Australian tourism campaign shows. Today, I suspect they have to work on broader issues. The “Make Poverty History Campaign” was the most naïve and bound-to-fail initiative ever invented - but it did wonders for Britain’s image. Tony Blair understood that and I’m surprised that Gordon Brown has not fronted a similarly-styled “Save the Planet” campaign on climate change. I think the Olympics can be used in such a campaign for the benefit of Britain and more broadly. That’s all.
When I first saw the topic and the first sentence, ‘wow’, I have to say, I am so proud to be a Chinese. Yes, of course Beijing is presenting a big party to unit the world and show our ability to organize such a big event. But I think there still remain some work to be completed. Will the traffic keep good after the Olympics? Will the environment be greener after the Olympics? Will our nation’s people be more confident and civilized after the Olympics? These questions will make us think.
Britain is a great country. London is a historic city as well as Beijing. How to deal with the old and exsiting problems and build a new system would be a great challenge. Beijing has a lot of experience in these aspects so that these two countries can cooperate. As a matter of fact we did so well, but we have to keep doing that no matter whether or not we hold the Olympics.
Besides, another challenge I think to Britain is how to be more open. This is very important in 2010s. In the past, western people and media always say that China should be open but now, China is standing in front of the world. How will Britain act in 2012? To accept more cultures and countries like Chinaand find out our same points on many topics could be a good solution and a key to London 2012.