Wednesday, March 20, 2002

Brand USA "When the White House decided it was time to address the rising tides of anti-Americanism around the world . . . Charlotte Beers' assignment was . . . to perform an overhaul of the U.S. image abroad . . . to work her magic on the greatest branding challenge of all: to sell the United States and its war on terrorism to an increasingly hostile world." "Beers views the United States' tattered international image as little more than a communications problem. . . . the problem is: America's marketing of itself has been too effective. . . . [the world] expect[s] the U.S. to live up to its promises. . . . If they are angry, as millions clearly are, it's because they have seen those promises betrayed by U.S. policy. . . . they point to U.S. unilateralism in the face of international laws, widening wealth disparities, crackdowns on immigrants and human rights violations . . . The anger comes not only from the facts of each case but also from a clear perception of false advertising. . . . America's problem is not with its brand-- which could scarcely be stronger--but with its product." "Successful branding . . . 'requires a carefully crafted message delivered with consistency and discipline.' . . . the values Beers is charged with selling are democracy and diversity, values that are profoundly incompatible with this 'consistency and discipline.' . . . At its core, branding is about rigorously controlled one-way messages, sent out in their glossiest form, then hermetically sealed off from those who would turn that corporate monologue into a social dialogue." " . . . America's image problem, he complained that people don't have a single clear idea about what the country stands for, but rather have dozens if not hundreds of ideas . . . much of the anger directed at the U.S. stems from a belief . . . that the U.S. already demands far too much "consistency and discipline" from other nations; that . . . it is deeply intolerant of deviations from the economic model known as the 'the Washington Consensus.' . . . the U.S.'s critics generally feel that the world is already far too influenced by America's brand of governance . . . Unlike strong brands, which are predictable and disciplined, democracy is messy and fractious, if not outright rebellious." "Its strongest 'brand attribute' . . . is its embrace of diversity, a value Beers is now, ironically, attempting to stamp with cookie-cutter uniformity around the world. The task is not only futile but dangerous: brand consistency and true human diversity are antithetical-- one seeks sameness, the other celebrates difference; one fears all unscripted messages, the other embraces debate and dissent. . . . Because as President Bush rightly points out, diversity and debate are the lifeblood of liberty. And they are enemies of branding." ... [more] 4:53:08 PM  Google It!  comment  []

A fresh start [International Aid Conference]  . . . the real challenge is to make foreign aid more effective "n the past few days, Europe and America have been falling over themselves in the scramble for the title of most generous aid-giver."  ... [more] 10:56:58 AM  Google It!  comment  []

West Shifts Aid Away From Corrupt Governments "After decades of propping up despots and watching corrupt officials pocket billions of aid dollars, Western nations now insist they will only help poor countries if they look after their own people. The strategy of focusing anti-poverty spending on countries run by clean governments is a central theme at this week's U.N. aid summit in Mexico, attended by President Bush and around 50 other heads of state. It aims to reward good governments with more development money while showing corrupt or incompetent leaders they will only get assistance if they clean up their act." "Since the Cold War ended, many governments, U.N. agencies and lending institutions have spent more of their aid money in countries where they are confident it will not be stolen and will be directed at health and education programs. But now they are taking the policy one step further -- telling other countries they will get even less money unless they root out corruption, make democratic reforms, encourage private business and focus on providing basic health and education services for the poor." "Senior aid officials say the challenge lies in working out what to do with those countries where the government has no interest in carrying out reforms or others, like Somalia and Angola, where civil wars have torn society to shreds. Aid experts say donor nations will still respond to famine or help after natural disasters but will hold back on bigger development projects unless the government is on the list of 'performers'." "'I am concerned that if the United States acts unilaterally, we may return to the Cold War activity of giving aid to our geopolitical allies' . . . "  ... [more] 10:15:38 AM  Google It!  comment  []