How to Promote South Korea’s National Image

How to Promote South Korea’s National Image

Yeji Park

What the term “brand” means is exclusive; it includes products, services, and experiences that create familiarity and favorability among its audience groups. Not only business firm, but nations also, pay attention in maintaining its brand, since national brand plays important role in persuading foreigners to invest, visit, emigrate, work, study, consume, or become interested in that country. South Korea is no exception; it spends hundred millions of budget every year to cultivate and improve its brand image. Is it, then, successful?

"In the world popularity contest, South Korea feels a little like the ugly duckling that wants everyone to know it's really a swan." This is what John M. Glionna, journalist of Los Angeles Times, claimed about South Korea’s national brand.

South Korea is world’s 8^th largest exporter; 3^rd largest trader with China and Japan; 7^th with US and 8^th with the EU; 5^th largest automobile manufacturer; largest shipbuilding and electronic manufacturer. However, the FutureBrand Country Brand Index (CBI) says, among 113 countries investigated, South Korea’s brand image ranks 42. Among 20 countries in APAC (Asia-Pacific-Africa Collections), South Korea ranks 8^th, falling behind Maldives and Thailand, which economic status is much lower than South Korea. In short, South Korea’s brand is being underestimated than what it deserves.

Brand marketing experts point out the attempts of South Korea to establish brand image as the cause of underestimation. They say that brand image should not be built by the nation, but grasped by the consumers. What South Korea government has been doing until now is deciding and implementing an image of nation to foreigners, regardless of how they think about that image. To illustrate, one of the most recent phrases South Korea used in brand marketing is “Korea, Sparkling”. The intention was to emphasize Korea as a tourist attraction, but people did not grasp it; they were confused about the subject of “sparkling”—whether people are sparkling, sights are sparkling, etc.—and thus, could not relate the phrase easily with South Korea.

Hong Kong, on the other hand, succeeded in making people feel familiar between the city and the brand image. The nation motto of Hong Kong is “Asia’s World City”. Hong Kong is situated at China, thus Buddhism temples, Chinese medicine clinics, and other eastern cultures are affluent. Nevertheless, its past years under the reign of United Kingdom let the street closely lined with bars, Hollywood movies, or McDonalds. Likewise, Hong Kong is the interception point where different cultures cross over; the brand “World City”, thus, was very natural. People could easily understand and empathize with the brand, since it was not something artificial or forced.

From two contrasting cases of South Korea and Hong Kong, it is inferable that no matter how fancy phrase South Korea government invents of, it is no use unless people can easily grasp natural relationship between the nation and the phrase. The principal agent choosing brand image of South Korea, therefore, should be foreigners, not South Korea government.

However, letting foreigners to choose one image between all miscellaneous images South Korea reminds of, would be extremely complicated. What South Korea government needs to do is to facilitate the foreigners’ decision by simplifying the choices. South Korea government should choose few representations of the nation, and publicize these ideas to foreigners as “candidates” of South Korea brand. The candidates should be selected through consideration; whether it can represent South Korea is important, but whether it can get along with foreigners’ taste is also important.

What it means to “satisfy foreigners’ taste” is illustrated in the following episode. Professor Seo Kyoung-Duk, a well-known communicator promoting Korean cultures, is famous for putting advertisements about South Korea on mass media such as New York Times. Once, he decided to publicize Korean cuisine; knowing that introducing every Korean cuisine will only make foreigners be confused, Professor Seo chose just one dish, bibimbop. Bibimbop, one of the most traditional Korean foods, represent the image of South Korea well, but this was not the only reason Professor Seo chose it. Two characteristics of bibimbop matched well with the global trend—“take-out” and “well-being”—thus attract people. Consumers only need to buy take-out version of bibimbop (one container-packed, which inside all cooked ingredients are put), shake the container, and eat the well-being food full of vitamin and minerals. South Korea government should do what Professor Seo had done; it should choose and promote only few elements, which can be both representative and attractive. Thereby, the range of examples foreigners can choose as South Korea’s brand will be narrowed. Such process will allow foreigners to easily choose appropriate brand image.

There is no question about hardship of building national brand image; it sometimes takes centuries to establish a consistent image of the country. South Korea has struggled for more than thirty years to build national brand image. Its attempts, however, has not been successful until now; this is because South Korea constructed an artificial image and tried to implement it in everyone’s mind by force. It is important to let foreigners choose the most approachable and familiar image of South Korea by themselves. What South Korea needs to do in this process is just to introduce few candidates, so to save complication and confusion foreigners would feel without them.

Simon Anholt, policy advisor on issues regarding brand images to national government, claimed that “Korea’s image is improving, because Korea is improving. … It’s getting richer and more confident.” Foreigners are continually paying attention to improving Korea. On this golden opportunity, let us provide some examples for Korea’s image, and let people choose. South Korea’s brand value will, then, increase day by day; and who knows? Maybe South Korea will be rank one in the FutureBrand CBI survey someday.

Bibliography

Salmon, Andrew. A magic 'brand' eludes South Korea. New York Times. 29.11.2004. Web 07.03.2012

Williamson, Lucy. Selling South Korea: No 'sparkling' brand image. BBC News Magazine 31.01.2012. Web 07.03.2012

Glionna, John M. How about, ‘South Korea: Way better than you think it is’? Los Angeles Times. 03.05.2009. Web 07.03.2012

Smith, Patrick, Christopher Nurko, Tom Adams, and et al. 2011-2012 Country Brand Index. FutureBrand, 2011

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Writer's Comments

I have always been interested in brand marketing, not only in business field but also in national perspective. Recently reading an article from BBC News Magazine, Selling South Korea: No ‘sparkling’ brand image, I wrote 1000 words essay discussing South Korea’s past attempts to establish brand image, its efficacy, and suggestion for improvement. It was a great experience writing this essay, to search for articles and reports on the field I’m deeply fascinated in. J