Korea branders' problems
By Andrew Salmon
You’d think they could get the date right. In October, a Korean ad appeared on a billboard in New York’s Times Square. Its copy suggested that Japan should make a “heartfelt” apology to the “comfort women.” Its graphic showed then-West German Chancellor Willi Brandt kneeling before the monument to the Warsaw Ghetto.
I don’t have an issue with the general idea. I agree that a high-profile Japanese individual (the emperor?) should benchmark Brandt and take a knee before Koreans. This should be done not because Japanese have refused to apologize to Korea for past atrocities ― they have, on multiple occasions ― but because such a high-profile gesture could not be ignored by Korean nationalists and could not be undone by Japanese nationalists.
My problem with the ad is simpler. Brandt’s famous “Warsaw Genuflection” was not, as the ad’s opening line states, “in 1971.” It took place on Dec. 7, 1970.
“Ah!” you cry. “But it's only a date! That’s an easy mistake to make!”
Perhaps. But it shows a lack of understanding ― some might say a lack of respect ― for overseas events. It also demonstrates ― in copy that is less than 50 words long ― a lack of professionalism.
These faults are reflected in previous efforts by the same advertisers. The ad was not run by the Korean government; it was funded by a local singer and a local professor. Their previous ads, in U.S. media spaces, have featured: poor English language copy; unprofessional design; messages that are irrelevant to their target audience; and (by the same token) an un-focused media-buying strategy.
Given the enormous amounts these two are spending on U.S. media space, why they don’t they hire professionals to produce their content? Seoul is hardly lacking global ad agency offices.
But still: These gentlemen are individuals and are free to spend their money how they wish. They do not represent Korea officially. Nor do they spend taxpayers’ money.
The wider problem is that government branding efforts are often equally unprofessional.
Take the first major attempt to brand Seoul in English a decade ago. The campaign was based around the slogan, “Hi Seoul.” As a brand line, it fails miserably. It compresses no data about the city. It does not leverage emotion or convey a rational message. It does not have the merit of being funky. Unsurprisingly, it was not birthed by a professional process.
Such a process would have researched existing perceptions about Seoul among a range of key and non-key stakeholders internationally; analyzed the city’s current strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats; strategized its future directions and aspirations; drawn up preliminary slogans and designs; sought feedback about the latter among key stakeholders; finalized the slogan and its design; then disseminated it via a 360-degree marketing campaign, using paid advertising, viral messaging and public relations, with a media buying strategy targeting tourism promotion, investment promotion and export promotion.
This is professional destination marketing. It requires thought from high-level leadership. It demands planning. It costs money. And if you are a non-native speaker of English and lack overseas market insight, it requires foreign input.
None of the above was done. Instead, a public contest was held via the Internet and the slogan chosen arbitrarily. The process encompassed neither research nor strategy. And although the campaign was an international one, foreign input was almost an afterthought.
But that was then. Ten years later, you’d think that City Hall might have got a bit more sophisticated, right?
Wrong. I was recently emailed by city representatives. They appear to be soliciting another slogan using what looks like the exact same process used in 2002.
Still, there is good news: The branders are becoming irrelevant.
“Brand” is generally defined as the perception stakeholders hold, or the feeling they have, about something: a product, service, company or (as in Korea’s case) a destination. “Branding” generally defines attempts by marketers to guide this perception in a positive direction.
Various metrics indicate that South Korea’s brand value is soaring. For this, we don’t have to thank self-appointed national advertisers or government bureaucrats; the private sector is doing the job very nicely.
Thank you taekwondo for adding some Korean spice to the Olympics. Thank you Samsung for becoming the biggest electronics products manufacturer on Earth. Thank you Hyundai Motors for breaking through the low-end trap and selling ever-better cars. Thank you L.A. entrepreneurs for inventing Korea’s first real fusion snack, the galbi taco. Thank you makgeolli brewers for infecting Japan with the bug for Korea’s traditional rice ale. Thank you K-popsters for enthusing the youth of Asia. Thank you K-soapsters for putting a pretty face on the nation. Thank you Shin Kyung-sook for your moving novel. Thank you Kim Ki-duk for your savage epic.
And thank you Psy. You have not only performed the world’s favorite song, you have become the most famous living Korean ― knocking Kim Jong-un off that pedestal.
If South Korea’s current momentum on the economic and cultural fronts continues, national branding efforts may become redundant.
Andrew Salmon is a Seoul-based reporter and author. Reach him at andrewcsalmon@yahoo.co.uk.