Book Review: Anholt, Simon (2010) Places. Identity, Images and Reputation. Palgrave Macmillan, 162 Pages.

[Ares Kalandides]

“Let me be clear: There is no such thing as ‘nation branding’” is the point of departure in Simon Anholt’s latest book about nation branding: Places.Identity, Images and Reputation. This is much more than just a catchy opening line: Anholt has been developing this apparently paradoxical idea for a while and this book is a step further in the same direction. For those familiar with Anholt’s former work, this book will not come as a surprise. Rather, it contains his usual blend of theoretical approaches, practical examples and policy recommendations. We should keep in mind that this is not a book written for academics – thus it does not bother much with sound conceptualizations – but is an excellent manual by a leading consultant in the field. Most of the concepts developed in its 10 essays and 162 pages are already present in the introduction which perfectly sums up some the author’s previous work. The book is full of interesting ideas and recommendations and I will look closely at some of them:

As in his previous book (Competitive identity; The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities and Regions) Anholt suggests that the term place brand is an excellent metaphor for a place’s reputation, yet that place branding is more than problematic, since it always carries connotations of “superficial marketing tricks”. Though branding and marketing techniques may be totally useful when selling a product or a service (that is why tourism campaigns may indeed be effective) “countries and cities aren’t for sale”. According to Anholt there are several reasons for this: a) there is no single body that exercises as much control in a place as in a corporation, b) even the smallest village is more complex than a large corporation and c) places have no single, unifying purpose, since social contract is mainly about rights and not duties. This is why we should “abandon the notion that ‘place branding’ […] is some form of marketing discipline” but rather “it is nothing less than a new approach to statecraft, to economic development and international relations”. In this sense, “propaganda is not so much evil as impossible”.

I find Anholt’s scepticism towards the way place branding is understood and practiced very convincing, as it reflects much of my own work on the subject. Yet, I have one main objection that may have serious implications: it is in the conceptualization of place. Without going into too much detail about the understanding of place (together with space a central notion in geography) I would like to focus on two subjects: the fact that place is used in an almost anthropomorphic sense and – linked to this – the fact that place politics are only seen as a practical difficulty in branding places, instead of as the substance places are made from. Both of the above obviously needs explanation.

When the author says that “places must engage with the outside world in a clear, coordinated and communicative way” (p. 12), who exactly does he mean? He explains it as a coalition of government, business and civil society or even as new structures created for this one purpose. Yet this is by no means the place. Places are complex relations of material structures, institutions, practices, relations, mental representations and a lot more; they are the intersections of trajectories and open-end processes. All of the above also points at conflicts and coalitions among social groups or among individuals. If there is a social contract that keeps societies together, there is also the constant negotiation of power. Leaving power out of the equation deprives place of one of its basic constitutive elements. Power relations are interwoven into place with the same persistence as the materiality that constitutes it. Thus a place does not have a voice: governments do, institutions do and certain social groups may have one, too. This has one more serious implication: it makes it very hard to define the “common good” which is supposed to be the outcome of good place branding (or successful competitive identity to use Anholt’s useful terminology). It makes us think not only about what is successful place branding, but also about who profits from it. This is not to say that nobody does or even that not a broad range of people (and groups) can, but it is important to abandon the anthropomorphism of place and think of it in terms of people.

Consistent with these thoughts, though from a slightly different angle, is the fourth chapter of the book, titled “Should Places Have Simple Images”. As in much of his previous work Anholt insists that places not only can’t, but actually shouldn’t be reduced to simplistic images and also that “richness and complexity are valuable image attributes for any country, city or region”. Only tactically and temporarily, in order to help the initial penetration of “consumer’s consciousness”, can a reductive “signpost brand” be used. And further down the same essay: “What if brand management were ultimately all about developing clear policies that clearly resonate with one’s fundamental values and beliefs?” and “it’s a sign that the government desires the country and its policies to be driven by its true identity”. Obviously, conflicting (not just diverging) images, interests, values, beliefs and identities do not enter this syllogism. Though society is of course about consensus, it is also about antagonism. Once again anthropomorphism of place leads the author to dubious conclusions: “Who you are determines how you behave; how you behave determines how you are perceived”. Can this be transposed from the individual to the place so easily?

A large part of the book is policy recommendations based on the author’s personal consulting work and show a deep understanding of his trade. It is an interesting mix between a DIY tool-kit and why-I-still-need-a-consultant
manual. In spite of the conceptual weaknesses of the book and of a lot of practical difficulties mentioned by the author, Anholt sustains (and I believe rightly so) that that there are several things governments can do if they want to improve the place’s competitive identity:

First of all governments need to understand and monitor the country’s international image. Examples of country profiles and rankings can be found in chapters 5 (Sketches of National Image and Identity) and 8 (‘Brand Europe’ – Where Next?) based on methodological instruments developed by the author and his consulting business. Secondly, governments should collaborate with business and civil society to agree on a national strategy and narrative. Chapter 10 (The Media and National Image) is an extensive analysis of what the role a national Media Centre could be in monitoring and influencing that common story. And thirdly, governments should encourage “innovation and eye-catching products, services, policies and initiatives” in order to catch the world’s attention and admiration.

Not only city and country officials, but also academics will find Simon Anholt’s collection of essays very useful in getting closer to an understanding of what place branding is about (and what it’s not). In my opinion the main weakness of the book lies in its total ignorance of politics, mirrored in conclusions such as this: “There seems little doubt that if the world’s government placed even half the value that most wise corporations have learned to place on their good names, the world would be a safer and quieter place than it is today.” Yet, this is an intelligent, informed and highly pleasurable book that asks more questions that it can answer – and the latter is a totally appealing feature.