OBSERVARE

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL15, N.º 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier – Place Branding and Public Diplomacy

Special edition on Ibero-American States

February 2025

INTRODUCTION

SIMON ANHOLT

simon@simonanholt.com

Founding Editor Emeritus of the journal Place Branding and Public Diplomacy and honorary

Professor of Political Science at the University of East Anglia. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3382-

6605.

How to cite this introduction

Anholt, Simon (2025). Introduction: Does image matter?. Janus.net, e-journal of international

relations. VOL 15 N.º 2, TD2 – Temathic Dossier – “Place Branding and Public Diplomacy”. February

2025, pp. 13-16. https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.DT0125.1.

DOES IMAGE MATTERS?

SIMON ANHOLT

A question which is all too seldom posed by researchers in the fields of soft power, public

diplomacy and nation “branding” is the most basic one of all: why do we study, measure

or even discuss the images of countries? Does it really matter what people think about

any country? Is worrying about such things simply vanity?

This is an important question to ask. Even though governments have been attempting to

influence the images of their countries for decades if not centuries, it’s still worth

remembering why perceptions are such a critical factor in trade and international

relations: these may be “soft” factors but their consequences are decidedly hard.

When I first coined the term “nation brand” back in the 1990s, some of the politicians I

worked with admitted to me that worrying about their country’s image felt somehow

shallow, a distraction from the more serious task of dealing with reality. Logically, this

didn’t make much sense then and doesn’t make sense now. Perception and reality are

two sides of the same coin and can’t be separated: what people believe about other

countries and their populations and governments is what determines their behaviour

towards them, whether or not those beliefs correspond to reality.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL 15 N.º 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Place Branding and Public Diplomacy

Special edition on Ibero-American States

February 2025, pp. 13-16

Introduction: Does image matters?

Simon Anholt

This anxiety about the superficiality of image has become less common with newer

generations of politicians, however: the ones who have grown up, one might say, in “the

age of the brand”. Up until the late 1990s, Western politicians were typically lawyers or

historians by training, whereas today their previous job experience is just as likely to be

journalism or public relations.

So it’s no surprise that these days I often find myself dealing with the opposite problem:

a growing number of leaders who seem obsessed with perception and image, and simply

won’t pay enough attention to the underlying realities. Many seem to believe—or perhaps

want to believe—that branding and communications offer a magical short cut to a better

image, and that if you can somehow persuade the world that your country is successful,

harmonious, stable and attractive, then it somehow becomes all of these things.

In part, this may be a natural consequence of the way domestic politics works. Most

national elections today are mere popularity contests, and the more money candidates

spend on promoting their images, the more likely they are to win: so it should come as

no surprise if they perceive “nation branding” as nothing more than the international

edition of the same game.

Many politicians buy into the story told by the marketing industry, that thanks to the

potency of modern communications and digital media, “re-branding” a nation or city is

expensive but quick and easy: a new logo, a new slogan, an ambitious advertising or

public relations campaign, and the problem is solved.

In fact, the opposite is true. Changing the way people perceive a city or nation is

incredibly difficult and takes a very long time, but needn’t cost very much at all, since it

has almost nothing to do with what a country says and everything to do with what it

does. Some of the most impactful policies cost little or nothing to execute but can

influence public opinion in profound and lasting ways.

I began measuring the images of countries in 2005, when I launched a study now known

as the Anholt Nation Brands Index (NBI). Each year for the last 20 years, the NBI has

polled a sample representing 72% of the world’s population and 83% of its economy on

its perceptions of other countries. The NBI has accumulated nearly a billion data points

and since its launch it has found absolutely no correlation between a country’s image and

the money or effort its government spends on “nation-branding”, strategic

communications, public diplomacy or any other form of national self-promotion.

By far the strongest influence over country image is what I call the “mood of humanity”:

the spontaneous oscillation of global sentiment towards almost all countries from year to

year. Sometimes the trend is negative, sometimes positive; sometimes these movements

appear to correlate with global events such as wars or the pandemic; but the vast

majority of country images always rise and fall together in cohort. The images of

individual countries only ever deviate significantly from the rest when they misbehave in

a particularly egregious way that is widely perceived to threaten or harm the international

community or the planet. I have never seen any country’s image improve statistically

significantly faster than the international cohort, except over the longer term (>5 years).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL 15 N.º 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Place Branding and Public Diplomacy

Special edition on Ibero-American States

February 2025, pp. 13-16

Introduction: Does image matters?

Simon Anholt

In conclusion, national image certainly does matter, but it does not appear to be subject

to direct influence through marketing or messaging. Clearly, a good “brand” can’t be

bought: it can only be earned.

It’s important, however, not to conflate nation “branding” (the attempt to influence

international perceptions of a country) with sector-specific promotion (the marketing of

trade, tourism, foreign investment, major events or other products and services of the

nation). The conflation of sector-specific promotion and overall national image

management is a perennial source of confusion in the field, and is responsible for vast

sums of public money being wasted around the world each year.

Despite the general tendency for modern politics to focus on perceptions at the expense

of policy, there is another countercurrent that challenges the whole construct of national

image: the unstoppable rise of a populist-nationalist style of politics which fosters and

legitimises the claims of a certain type of leader that it simply doesn’t matter what

foreigners think.

Today’s crowd-pleasing politicians even exaggerate the antipathy or ignorance of

outsiders in an effort to stimulate unity at home. Indeed, the feeling that the world is

prejudiced against their nation can very effectively drive populations towards a wounded,

belligerent, and ultimately paranoid nationalism. This perfectly suits the agenda of

leaders with authoritarian ambitions, as it increases the population’s feeling of

dependence on their aggressively xenophobic style of governance. North Korea is by no

means the only country that deliberately conducts this kind of “nation de-branding” for

domestic purposes.

Partisan politics are a potent force, but the simple economic reality is that public opinion

abroad matters as much as public opinion at home. The Anholt Nation Brands Index

shows a correlation of more than 80% between the strength of a country’s image and its

trade, investment and tourism revenues. Put simply, the more people like, trust and

admire your country, the more money your country will make. Countries simply cannot

afford to be indifferent to the way they are perceived beyond their own borders, because

in our age of advanced globalisation, almost everyone on the planet is a potential

customer, migrant, investor, tourist or influencer.

Not surprisingly, the handful of states that deliberately opt for isolationism have fragile

economies and are frequently unable to provide for their populations. Ironically, they

also become proportionately more dependent on being positively perceived by a very

limited number of like-minded countries.

Aside from the economic consequences of a positive national image, this is inescapably

also a moral issue. Just as it is the duty of leaders to take the perceptions of their voters

and taxpayers seriously, so it is their responsibility to future generations to consider how

their country relates to and engages with the citizens of other states.

After all, we may not all live within the same national borders but we do live on the same

planet, and the actions of all countries ultimately have an impact on the citizens of all

nations. We modern humans and the leaders we choose (or don’t choose) may be

obsessed with borders, but climate change, conflict, migration, pandemics, natural

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL 15 N.º 2, TD2

Thematic Dossier - Place Branding and Public Diplomacy

Special edition on Ibero-American States

February 2025, pp. 13-16

Introduction: Does image matters?

Simon Anholt

habitat loss, insect-borne diseases, water shortages, drought, floods and organised crime

don’t know that borders exist.

For entire societies as for individuals, knowing and caring about what others think is the

prerequisite of responsible behaviour. I wish I had used different language to say it, but

I still stand by what I first said in 1998: governments today must learn to be brand

managers as well as policymakers.