Entry details

Younghusband
Author

Younghusband

Date

August 13th, 2005

Tags

Comments

14 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Re-branding the UN

With all this talk about branding, marketing and linguistics I thought it would be interesting to post an article by Prophet, one of the foremost branding agencies in the world: The United Nations In Crisis: Negative Perceptions Call for Savvy Marketing to Rebuild Its Brand .

The article talks about how the UN is at a low point in public confidence, and needs to focus on a clear, simple message instead of a vague “Swiss Army Knife” approach that is too lofty and hurts credibility.

A recent poll conducted by the Public Opinion Foundation found the general perception of the UN is of an organization “incapable of effectively resolving international affairs.”Â? One third of respondents believe its influence has declined over the last five years and some think the organization has “outlived its usefulness,”Â? saying it doesn’t work according to “modern realities.”Â? Current perceptions of the UN seem to stray further away from “doing good”Â? and closer to outdated, bureaucratic, and ineffective.

Comparing the UN to other organizations like the EU, NATO and BP, the authors suggest that the UN should position its brand in an understated yet optimistic manner. In otherwords, idealism is fine as long as it is balance with a realistic view of the tasks at hand. That is what branding is all about, being real with yourself and your customers.

Obviously a brand makeover won’t fix the UN by itself, the authors admit this, but if you delve into the field of brand management you will realize just how transforming it can be for an organization to have a distinct self-awareness of brand identity, and how that can drive change.

Comments to this entry

Kenneth
August 13, 2005
7:58 pm
Why not simply abolish the UN? Robert D. Kaplan has written on the problems of even the theoretical aspect of international law: he spoke of a "common demoninator so low as to be meaningless" in reference to excessive reliance on the UN, and hence the whole plethora of nations, to deal with every major issue. He also went on to point out that alliance networks among nations are generally the best for fixing things. Besides, it's not as though the UN wields any real power anyway: it's fear, not international law, that prevents nations from slitting each others' throats. I say screw 'em.
IJ
August 13, 2005
9:04 pm
To prevent international conflict is one of the responsibilities of the United Nations. It'll be interesting to see how, adding to the Kyoto and Asia-Pacific initiatives, the UN prevents resource wars between nations.

Some serious attempts to broadcast the coming energy crisis include: big oil companies have taken out advertising space in newspapers to warn of the problem, the US Department of Energy have commissioned a "report":http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/The_Hirsch_Report_Proj_Cens.pdf, and an "Oil Depletion Protocol":http://www.museletter.com/archive/160.html has been published.

"Efforts will be needed to create alternative sources of energy, to reduce demand for oil through heightened energy efficiency, and to redesign entire systems (including cities) to operate with less petroleum. . . The Protocol will require a system for monitoring production, exports, and imports - which cannot be hidden to a large degree in any case. Enforcement will require the establishment of a Secretariat [UN?] for adjudication of disputes and claims, and a system of economic penalties to be negotiated by the agreeing nations."
Younghusband
August 13, 2005
9:05 pm
I don't think that Kenneth's is a realistic option, however desirable, at least for the next few years. "The Economist":http://economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=4254632 notes Condaleeza Rice and Nicholas Burns, one of Ms Rice's under-secretaries, supportive statements for the UN and commitments to UN reform. American support will breathe life into the massive institution. Rather than outright abolishment, I don't think we'll see this argument disappear until the UN is satisfactorily reformed, or something else eclipses it.

One step towards reform, I contend as the Prophet article above suggests, is a re-branding that will help all my homies at the UN *keep it real*.
Kenneth
August 13, 2005
9:49 pm
_"Efforts will be needed to create alternative sources of energy, to reduce demand for oil through heightened energy efficiency, and to redesign entire systems (including cities) to operate with less petroleum. . . The Protocol will require a system for monitoring production, exports, and imports "“ which cannot be hidden to a large degree in any case. Enforcement will require the establishment of a Secretariat [UN?] for adjudication of disputes and claims, and a system of economic penalties to be negotiated by the agreeing nations."Â?_

"Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way."Â?- Henry David Thoreau
Eddie
August 14, 2005
12:46 am
The UN will continue to be an outright failure until the Security Council system is abolished. Considering the conflicts that have erupted over the past few years, only a few would have escaped China or Russia's veto. Certainly forceful action to halt the genocide in Darfur, the nuclear crisis in North Korea and Iran or the crimes of Zimbabwe's oppressive leadership would be impossible at the UNSC with China vetoing everything.

This is not an anti-China statement, but just a reflection of the reality of what China's interests are.

None of the reforms (save one that would authorize action with the approval of a majority of nations on the UNSC, regardless of a veto) will have any long-term effect on the health or viability of the organization, with this current state of affairs.

No branding, no reaffirming, no manner of US support... the UN is and will continue to be much closer to worthless than useful as long as this veto system continues.
maskull
August 14, 2005
1:30 am
Branding, marketing, linguistics ... sometimes these can be negatives. Selling the UN? Blue-helmeted rape squads & UNESCO greeting cards?

The UN should keep a low profile at times like this. Make that all the time.

How many times must you hear "I feel your pain" or another designed sell-phrase before you vomit?
Jeff Medcalf
August 14, 2005
4:07 am
I hate marketing departments, and the academic weenies that they spawn, turning out theory after theory about which of an identical set of moodily lit tubes of toothpaste is best. It's pretty much the bane of my existence when my clients are technology providers (service or product).

Here's the thing: Coca-Cola, Kleenex, TiVo, Google and so forth did not set out to create "a brand" that would become the generic name for all products similar to theirs, or became a common verb. Instead, they created excellent products, which were so far beyond the competition that people just used their product or company name as the sine qua non of what that class of product should be - Coke is the Platonic ideal of a soda, Kleenex the Platonic ideal of a facial tissue.

When you intentionally try to do this, you get "Verizon" or "Accenture", and it's a bunch of crap. Changing something's name, or setting it up in the first place in a certain way, is not the way to make a product successful. The way to make a product successful is to make a good product. The UN's problem is not its name, but its image. That image comes from its culture, not its name, and cannot be fixed by advertising. And what are they going to advertise? "15% fewer child rapes than last year's UN?" "Still the only organization who wants to be world dictator?"

Branding is not the problem here.
Younghusband
August 14, 2005
4:23 am
Jeff, you obviously have a very skewed view of what branding is, and what it's purpose is. Take a look at the Prophet website to learn more, they have a number of good introductory articles and can point you toward some good books.

Maskull, the article was saying exactly what you are: the UN should keep its head down and stop with the lofty self-imagery. In other words, they must decided on exatly what they can do (provide aid etc) and what they can't (provide security) and dump what they can't do. A company promising all kinds of stuff its product can't do is a) not branded well at all, b) will not be able to develop any product confidence, and c) will fail. The UN is failing. They need to turn around their whole internal culture to succeed. Branding is just another, unifying, path to reform.
IJ
August 14, 2005
9:47 am
It is being suggested that we can only prevent the global chaos of oil running out if the United Nations rebrands itself. Cosmetics before effectiveness? Such are the political realities.

On the other hand, "The Business":http://www.thebusinessonline.com/Stories.aspx?StoryID=42C15C56-DB03-40E7-A7ED-DFCA6DEB2696&SectionID=F3B76EF0-7991-4389-B72E-D07EB5AA1CEE and "The Sunday Herald":http://www.sundayherald.com/51252 (see the mention of Kaplan) report today how the market is reacting.
maskull
August 14, 2005
8:58 pm
Abolishing the UN has been around since it was first suggested by the John Birch Society. Not happening anytime soon.

John Bolton's nomination by President Bush is a step in the right direction. Economic and political empowerment by the West for the UN's jack-booted goon squads should not be a given.

Rather than changing market stategy, the UN should copy The Gates Foundation's techniques for effective re-distribution networks. In the Slate article Curzon linked to in "Fishing Rods not Fish" ...

http://www.cominganarchy.com/2005/07/01/fishing-rods-not-fish/

http://slate.com/id/2121685/

... therein is this significant quote: "At the moment, the most promising model appears not to be government-to-government grant-making, but a new style of targeted, goal-driven, private philanthropy. To take the most significant example, the Gates Foundation has spent more than $4 billion, with tremendously encouraging results, to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other infectious diseases, primarily in Africa. It ruthlessly scrutinizes and evaluates its own programs in a way governments seldom do, with the aim of directing additional money where it has the best chance of success."

Let's focus on that last line - note that Slate, a liberal rag, offers no details - "It ruthlessly scrutinizes and evaluates its own programs in a way governments seldom do." Slate could have said that governments cannot do. Or will not do. There are many ugly underlying truths here. Slate will offer no help here.

Let me point out that the Gates foundation is only given passing credit, buried deep, in the article titled: "The War on African Poverty: Tony Blair's LBJ problem". Slate's take: "Instead of abolishing poverty, Johnson ended up undermining liberalism."

Curzon's description of Slate's article adds key differences: " ... a beautiful comparison to America's own ... 1964 ... War on Poverty ... The billions of dollars that flowed into that commitment accomplished much, but ultimately empowered bureaucracy, encouraged widespread skepticism about government's ability to help the poor, and marked the begining of the end for Big Government in America ... " Slate sez LBJ undermined Liberalism. Curzon sez Johnson's New Deal programs ushered in the end of Big Government (Reaganism?) ... Major difference. It'd be nice if Curzon was right, have to wait and see.


UN solutions. Can't just throw the rascals out. But the West holds the purse strings and can help best by withholding its support. No reason to abolish the UN. Just shift funds over to other regional and international groups that are operated by responsible adults. The UN would change overnight. Carrot - no carrot.

As for Prophet.com - and Rachel Simmons' and Lisa Marchese's suggestion that the UN "needs to become a savvy marketer and cultivate a brand that is powerful and worthy of international and individual support ... "

"Developing a well-positioned brand ... the right balance between realistic qualities ... that credibly represent the organization ... and aspirational qualities ... require the UN to play to its strength - its record of alleviating suffering throughout the world ...one-third of the world's food aid ... $30 billion to developing ... brand positioning that would create and connect to the UN perceptions of effectiveness, efficiency, and competence."

"The UN could learn from the way NATO and the European Union (EU) have become relevant brands in managing European security."

"In central Europe, the NATO logo has become a symbol of respectability and security - the ultimate mark of "Westerness."

"The EU has built an entirely different image ... prosperity and self-confidence ... sophistication and affluence."

This all brings to mind Daniel J. Boorstin's 1962 opus: "The Image : A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America" ... or even Marshall McLuhan. Suffice it to say the UN's problems far exceed image re-building. How many hundreds of millions of dollars are budgeted annually already for UN PR? And to what point?

That NATO has successfully branded itself with Westerness, respectability and security ... probably infuriates the UN as well as most of its member states. Contrary to their interests.

Now - prosperity - which Prophet.org claims branding has now associated with EU's flag ... would be an admirable image for the UN. God knows there's plenty of prosperity at all those UN embassies. The finest caviar and 4 oz. Martinis. Even the UN troops - those peace keeping forces - are doubtless seen as prosperous by the starving hordes they encounter. But the idea of a UN spreading prosperity, sharing prosperity ... no way. Not this century.
Younghusband
August 14, 2005
11:12 pm
Great comments Maskull. Mine below:

_Rather than changing market stategy, the UN should copy The Gates Foundation's techniques_

Isn't that "changing market strategy"? And I agree with you that this may be a better model.

_Suffice it to say the UN's problems far exceed image re-building._

And the Prophet article mentions this in the last paragraph.

_How many hundreds of millions of dollars are budgeted annually already for UN PR? And to what point?_

The article criticises the UN's PR team as not being down-to-earth enough.

I think we are all thinking the same thing, but looking at it from different distances. Branding isn't the be all and end all, and it isn't just about image or names, it is about _trust_. And the way to build trust is to keep your promises, which is something that the UN cannot do. Let me illustrate a simple example of branding, step by step:

1) find out what the general public, as well as your employees think of the organization = "brand image"
2) figure out what you _want_ them to think of you, = "brand identity"
3) make sure your message to the public is different from others in your market = "brand positioning"
4) devise a plan to close the gap between the brand image and the brand identity = "brand strategy"
5) restructure internal business culture around the brand strategy and the ultimate promise you have towards your clients/employees = "branding"

To have an effective brand you must:

a) make sure your brand promise is _attainable_
b) be able to _deliver_ on your promise _consistently_ (ie, have a good product, service or otherwise)
c) make sure everyone in your org is behind the brand message (this has to do with consistency)

By winning the trust of your customers and engendering brand loyalty, you will have a safety net in case you ever _do_ screw up and don't deliver on your promise, you may be forgiven by your customers. Just don't screw up too often, or you will be dropped for some alternative. Also, to attain the level of cohesion you need from your employees, organization-wide reform is necessary to make sure everyone is on the same page (Kofi are you reading this?).

How do we know the efficacy of these techniques? Jeff says that Coca-Cola, Kleenex, TiVo, Google developed organically, without concious branding. I would say look at the size of their marketing departments. These are very effective brands (except TiVo, which is still specialized knowledge) that got an extra push because they were newcomers to their respective markets, and took advantage of that fact to gain large marketshare and dominate the "ideal" of a product. Louis Vitton, BMW and Apple all have a small marketshare but are very successful due to their effective branding. They didn't rely on commoditizing their product (ie. build their brand position based on lower prices. WalMart, I am looking at you!) and yet are extremely successful. This is the power of branding.

In respects to the UN, a good branding team would ask them what they can _realistically_ do, that no one else can, and then reform their organization around this principle. Saying you can do everything is a surefire way to failure. Re-branding the UN is a way to develop a strategy of reform and survival, like any company who has been in the red for a while (eg. Nissan, Apple).
Eddie
August 15, 2005
12:32 am
So what, if anything, does the UN do well?
IJ
August 15, 2005
3:26 pm
In whose image should the UN be rebranded?

The image in George Kennan's "paper":http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/archives/000567.html in 1948 perhaps:

"Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction."
Grendel
August 16, 2005
10:24 am
Why not simply abolish the UN?

Realist approach, thus extremely limited and completely unrealistic. The UN currently represents the best thing there is next to anarchy in international relations. An institution to deal with problems which are not solely on the national, but the international level is obviously needed, since even phenomenons like terrorism who used to be "internal" problems are now percieved and counteracted on the international level.

The UN will continue to be an outright failure until the Security Council system is abolished.

The UNSC is not as much a problem as the veto power is. The need for "leading nations" is clearly there, but as you write yourself, if individual powers can block the whole system, it can't work. The UN doesn't have power over its members, it can only act through its members. Another problem is, that many people see the UN as worthless since it can't do anything and seems to create more disturbance than alleviating them - truth is, the UN works hard to solve lots of problems (take a look at their website and read what's going on), but as long as member nations choose not to support the UN, financially, human ressources etc. the UN itself can't act. If you want to direct your criticism and anger to the right address, there are plenty of member nations who repeatedly slow down or block progress. Be it PKO/PMO, ODA, reform of the UNSC etc. etc.

So what, if anything, does the UN do well?

Enough, but the focus in on its problems, most of the news is usually about the failures, success is much faster forgotten or not even mentioned since everything's peachy and the media tends to report rather catastrophes than give screen time for pacified regions. Take PKO in Nambia, El Salvador, Kashmir, Cyprus and Mozambique and compare it to failures like Rwanda or Kosovo. See the difference? Everybody remembers the last two examples, but the former ... well. Does UNICEF ring a bell? The WHO played a big role in the containment of SARS, I could give you other examples, but I hope I made my point clear. You couldn't even make simple international calls if there wasn't an international telecommunications agency. Calls for abolishment of such international structures reveal ignorance about purpose, use and effect. There are certainly structural issues that have to be dealt with, but its the member nations job to support this developement.

I agree with YH that the UN should change its P.R. strategy as the current one is not successful. It's one of the smaller problems the UN is troubled with, though.

I highly recommend to read "Issues for the United Nations in the Twenty-first Century" by Hisako Shimura and "Challanges for the United Nations: A Japanese View" by Yukio Takasu. (Japan Review of International Affairs)