America’s Brand
The marketing services company I ran for more than 30 years occasionally partnered with ad agencies whose clients needed the specialized form of demand generation we delivered. It was for that reason that I found myself in the lobby of Ogilvy and Mather in New York City one afternoon, waiting to go into a meeting. I read an interesting quote from David Ogilvy, perhaps the most recognizable name in the history of advertising, in a huge font, beautifully framed on a towering wall which read, “In the end, we all serve our clients, or, more accurately, their brands.”
Branding means endowing products and services with a meaning that drives attention and appeal in consumers’ minds. Though this “meaning” normally applies to the stuff of interest to retail or B2B buyers, it certainly pertains to other entities as well.
What about countries? What’s France’s brand, for instance? Hmmm, perhaps high-end experiences for those who appreciate top-tier food, art, architecture, wine, philosophic conversations and other intellectual pursuits in an egaliltarian setting with lots of joie de vivre, and perhaps a perceptible bit of pomposity on top?
Here something you’ll enjoy on Canada’s brand.
What about the U.S.? When I was growing up, it was a blend of military might, opportunity, truth and justice. Obviously, times change…..
Craig,
I’m afraid like most “Brands, the “image” of a country is often a illusion (or Delusion)! Reality is always a considerable disappointment.
I’m not sure the era of America standing for truth and justice every existed ever existed, although America was always the land of opportunity.
Possibly the only nation that really lives up to its “image” is Switzerland.
Craig,
Here’s an off topic comment I just thought I’d offer as an insight into the futility of the case brought by Exxon by the acting NY Attorney-General.
Yesterday I found an old 1988 Exxon Prospectus, annual report to shareholders and SEC filling.
Of particular interest was the inclusion of the following statement by Exxon’s directors under the heading, ” RISK FACTORS. Climate change and greenhouse gas restrictions:”
“Due to concern over the risks of climate change, a number of countries have adopted, or are considering the adoption of, regulatory frameworks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
These include adoption of cap and trade regimes, carbon taxes, restrictive permitting, increased efficiency standards, and incentives or mandates for renewable energy. These requirements could make our products more expensive, lengthen project implementation times, and reduce demand for hydrocarbons, as well as shift hydrocarbon demand toward relatively lower-carbon sources such as natural gas. Current and pending greenhouse gas regulations or policies may also increase our compliance costs, such as for monitoring or sequestering emissions”.
So far as I can tell, this statement or similar variations have been a part of both Exxon’s and Mobile’s public documents for at the best part of 5 decades ! (or at least since 1976).
Exxon is big, in fact the largest non-government owned company in the energy industry, but still only produces about 3% of the world’s oil and about 2% of the world’s energy.
After reading this disclaimer by Exxon, it’s difficult to see how any investor could be disadvantaged.(The State of NY must prove actual loss and deception).
Just thought I’d share,….