What Should Koreas Slogan Be?

The article is the first in a series of articles foreign experts suggest to the Korean
government on the occasion of the first anniversary of the Lee Myung-bak
administration which falls on Feb. 25.

By Michael Breen

The formation this year of the Presidential Council on National Branding, headed by

Michael Breen

a prominent academic, Euh Yoon-dae, credited with raising the profile of Korea University, has unleashed a wave of popular sloganeering.

I asked around my office for some ideas and got Kool Korea, Cool Corea, Korea: Heart of Asia, Korea: Where the Kimchi is Always Spicy, Korea: Not for the Faint-Hearted, Korea: The Phoenix Nation, and Korea: Spice of Life before the exercise degenerated into joke-slogans.

For most, the main point of national branding is seen as choosing a slogan, and, as I've suggested, we can all give it a shot. Seoul City, after all, picked its Hi Seoul! slogan from 7,000 entries by citizens in an online competition in 2002 shortly after then- mayor Lee Myung-bak had been elected.

There are several ways to come up a slogan. One is to identify a core perception about the city or the country. Thus, Dynamic Korea and Beautiful Gyeongju. Another is to identify an aspiration, what you would want the place to be. Hence, Gyeonggi-Do: Global Inspiration.

Another way is something that rhymes or seems to fit, like Cool Britannia, Malaysia: Truly Asia and Seoul: Soul of Asia. Or, if you get stuck, you can always copy someone else, like Dynamic Busan or "I Love (enter city name here)," "(enter city name here): Hub of Asia."

But if the council does it this way, it will find its ideas being roundly criticized for the above methods of selection are inherently superficial.

Core Challenge

The real job of national branding is not to pick a slogan but to "position" Korea in a way that is in keeping with the strategic direction of the country. If there is going to be a slogan, and there's an argument to not have one, the final choice should capture the essence of that strategy or somehow further it.

The development of a convincing strategy is the council's core challenge. The council itself is not being tasked with setting Korea's future path. Rather, it must catch where Korea is going in terms of long-term government plans, and develop a strategy to strengthen the country's identify in that direction.

As it sets about this task, it should avoid the nationalism trap. To the foreigners who the branding effort is intended to target, Korean branding to date seems to be over-earnest, lacking in humor and self-awareness, and wrapped up in concerns about looking good that they have lost sight of what Korea really is.

Also to be avoided is the bureaucratic tendency to produce action plans that masquerade as strategies. A list of 50 tactics looks more impressive than a strategy document, but without strategic purpose, tactics are meaningless.

For example, think of 10 things to improve tourism. You could: launch a program promoting Korean food, help restaurants with English menus, train guides in royal palaces, conduct kimchi-making lessons, promote mountain-biking courses, invite Club Med to open a facility, identify tourism zones, expand the visa waiver program, increase the overseas tourism budget, change the "Korea, Sparkling" slogan.

It took me as long to think of those ideas as it did to type them, with a couple of pauses. They actually don't sound too stupid. But once you start asking the purpose for each tactic, you can see the holes in the thinking.

Why promote mountain-biking? Er, it seems like a good idea? But when you are using taxpayer money, you need to be more rigorous in defending decisions. The idea to promote mountain-biking only makes sense if part of the tourism strategy is to promote Korea to individual adventure tourists. If the strategy is to boost Chinese and Japanese tourism because that's where the future lies, mountain biking is probably not going to figure.

Of course, bureaucrats are smarter than me and they know this already. The problem, however, in the Korean bureaucracy, is that strategies are treated like tactics.

Someone has to work over the weekend to bang them out and then they are given to a senior official, who may not have a strong grasp of the contents, to articulate. The effect is that there is weak understanding of and commitment to strategies and a general feeling that they are more form over substance. If you've ever read the explanation for a slogan and a logo, for example, you get the feeling that the logo came first and the strategic explanation second.

The solution is for the strategy to be talked about, argued and debated, to the point that the officials involved really understand and own the final product. That would only work in an organization where discourse is valued more than ranking.

National Strategy

So what is Korea's national strategy? Where is the country going? Whether it's set out in a 20-year national plan or not, Korea is headed in a direction that requires it to be more competitive, creative, free, international, and inclusive and awash in the color green. For future administrations, being "business-friendly" will have to mean being less intrusive and more market-friendly. Much of the future business will have to be high-end and research-based, and with tourism and leisure and finance playing increasingly significant roles.

The next step for the national branding people is to figure what perceptions are out there. What do Koreans and non-Koreans think of Korea and do these perceptions pose any hindrance for the direction the country wants to go in? For example, 40 years ago, Korea was seen as a backward, corrupt and authoritarian country. Each five-year plan struggled against negative perception and arguably a branding effort to demonstrate commitment to development would have improved things.

On the basis of this research, the planners need to develop a strategy to "position" Korea in international perception in a way that fits the country's aspirations.

It is only then that planners should ask themselves whether slogans and logos are going to help or be a waste of time. This analysis should be done very critically. Slogan making is rather like advertising in that the creative people doing it talk it up so much and come up with such award-winning ideas that you can easily forget to ask yourself whether it will in fact be of any use.

There is no doubt that some brands work well. One of the best-known examples in the corporate world is the rental car company Avis. For years, it struggled to keep up with its stronger competitor, Hertz. Then, it decided to turn its No. 2 position into a strength and it developed the brand, and the attitude to back it up, of "We Try Harder."

I've no idea whether "I Love New York" did anything to boost tourism and change perceptions about the city. But what is clear is that slogans whose meaning is unclear or misses the mark just get ignored.

If it chooses to go ahead, the council needs to test the effectiveness of candidate slogans and logos with various audiences.

Then, once it is launched, the use of the brand needs to be monitored by a government agency to make sure that it is used by all in a consistent manner. This is important because there are many examples of place name brands that are weak because not all government agencies of the country in question support their use.

mike.breen@insightcomms.com

Suggestions
The real job of national branding is not to pick a slogan but to "position" Korea in a way that is in keeping with the strategic direction of the country. If there is going to be a slogan, and there's an argument to not have one, the final choice should capture the essence of that strategy or somehow further it.

Avoid Nationalism Trap: To the foreigners who the branding effort is intended to target, Korean branding to date seems to be over-earnest, lacking in humor and self-awareness, and wrapped up in concerns about looking good that they have lost sight of what Korea really is.

Bureaucratic Tendency: Also to be avoided is the bureaucratic tendency to produce action plans that masquerade as strategies. A list of 50 tactics looks more impressive than a strategy document, but without strategic purpose, tactics are meaningless.

Coordinated Promotion: The use of the brand needs to be monitored by a government agency to make sure that it is used by all in a consistent manner. This is important because there are many examples of place name brands that are weak because not all government agencies of the country in question support their use.

Strategy: The Korean planners need to develop a strategy to "position" Korea in international perception in a way that fits the country's aspirations.

Who is Michael Breen?
Michael Breen is a public relations consultant and author. He has worked in Korea for 25 years. A former correspondent for The Washington Times and The Guardian newspapers, he was the president of the Seoul Foreign Correspondents Club for three years. Since entering public relations in 1999, he has been engaged in a number of large projects in Korea, including the World Cup in 2002, and promotional programs for Seoul City, Incheon International Airport and the Korea Exchange, as well as for numerous multinationals. He is currently the chairman of Insight Communications, a public relations firm. He is the author of The Koreans (1999) and Kim Jong-il: North Korea's Dear Leader (2004). He was made an honorary citizen of Seoul in 2001. He has a regular Friday column in the Korea Times and periodically writes for other publications.