Content area
Full Text
INTRODUCTION
Nation branding has become one of the most popular catchphrases of the last decade, bringing together scholars and practitioners not only from marketing, but also from a growing number of other fields. International relations, diplomacy, political science, international communication, human geography and cultural studies have been quickly absorbing the principles of (nation) branding, which have brought some new and fresh insights into these disciplines. Nation branding, on the other hand, has remained relatively isolated and reluctant to embrace other fields' contributions, which could further advance its theoretical foundations. One of the fields is public relations (PR), which remains underrepresented and often misunderstood in the academic, as well as popular literature on branding in general and place branding in particular. Place branding scholars and practitioners have so far ignored the theoretical and conceptual developments of PR, the central concept of which is relationship building and engagement with stakeholders. The aim of this article is to explore PR's contribution to nation branding, which could offer an alternative conceptualisation. First, various definitions and conceptualisations are examined in order to unearth the basic premises, as well as the challenges of nation branding. On the basis of the core paradigm of PR, relationship building and management is then proposed as an alternative framework for nation branding.
DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTUALISATIONS OF NATION BRANDING
Despite its widespread usage and popularity, only a few authors have attempted to clearly define nation branding. The lack of a coherent and widely recognised definition coupled with various conceptualisations have opened the field to a wide range of interpretations and resulted in the misunderstanding that often surrounds nation branding. Simon Anholt, the 'father' of nation branding, has reconceptualised it several times, which partly explains why nation branding is being used in a plethora of contexts. Not only branding and marketing practitioners, but politicians, civil servants, journalists and scholars can attach meanings to 'nation branding', which best suit their interests or the actual situation. The same holds true for the growing number of critical studies on nation branding (for example, Aronczyk, 2008; Jansen, 2008; Kaneva, forthcoming), in which scholars are scrutinising and deconstructing nation branding in order to raise the alarm about its propagandistic and ideologically charged nature. The misunderstanding and confusion is only further increased...