[Cross-posted] I had a very productive time in Christchurch, especially at The Future of Fashion II conference organized by Fashion Industry New Zealand (FINZ). It was also wonderful to connect to the folks at CPIT there.
One question that arose after my presentation (which can be found in written form on this site) was that of the New Zealand national image. One attendee felt that marketing using the clean, green idea and the All Blacks was ‘last century’, and I happened to agree with her. (Go back about a decade or so and you’ll find a few pieces by yours truly along similar lines.)
If branding is about differentiation, then what is so different about clean and green when Israel, Sweden, Canada and Ireland use similar ideas in their nation branding? When it comes to ‘100% Pure’, the campaign used for destination marketing in New Zealand, how truly representative is it of our country when we spend relatively little, as a percentage of GDP, on the environment?
Isn’t New Zealand actually about innovation, independence and isolation (in the best sense)?
When we go abroad, we seem to enjoy showing how different we are, the innovative ideas that we have as a nation, the sheer courage we have in trying new things—I gave the example of the first America’s Cup that New Zealand competed in—and how, on the opposite side of the world to the rich nations, we are great lateral thinkers. We are already doing this, so there’s little need for an internal marketing campaign. We just need to push this message out globally, and benefit those Kiwi innovators doing great things around the world.
Right or wrong? Your feedback is welcome, as I believe we can define our nation more smartly than we currently do. We can also make that brand more representative of all New Zealanders, going beyond primary products and sport.
You may also like
