Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been described as many things – cool certainly is not one of them. In a visit last year to Chichen Itza, Mexico, he looked out of place next to Prime Minister Fox and President Bush. His stereotypically Canadian outfit was the butt of a month’s worth of jokes after the Mexican photo op.
So it came as little surprise to many Canadians last week when Prime Minister Harper – in line with his questionable fashion sense - decided that a wolverine (a smelly scavenger, related to the skunk, often described as rabid) would be the absolute best representation of the Canadian brand.
While reading the Economist article about Harper’s branding assignment, I was at first surprised by the notion of branding a country. But I realized that with an incredible reliance on international trade, it would be silly for Canada not to brand itself. After all, a branded product commands a price premium over generic products, and creates loyalty in trade. We rely so heavily on trade with the United States that it makes sense that we take the necessary steps towards locking our largest trade partner into a relationship with us. Communicating our branded identity is one such important step.
While it is important that a brand be believed throughout an entire organization, for Canada’s purposes this is impossible. We pride ourselves on our multiculturalism and bilingualism, and so it seems impossible to capture in a brand the country’s meaning and mission. We would discover through the ZMET that Canada means vastly different things for different Canadians, but I think that a brand can capture this incredible diversity. Canada’s most differentiating factors is its mission to maintain unique cultures within its borders is, and I think its citizens will agree on that.
Thus, Canada’s brand mantra should be “Unified Cultural Diversity”. I can’t think of an animal that represents that. Certainly not a wolverine. The beaver, our industrious but (as Prime Minister Harper argues) too shy, is too one dimensional as well. The “moose with sunglasses” suggested by the Economist in 2003 – representing capitalism, democracy and cool – is the best idea so far, but still fails to capture the country’s diversity. Perhaps the absence of an animal brand representation is the way to go. The fact that Canada has no national animal image would represent the country’s embracing of multiple images.
So it came as little surprise to many Canadians last week when Prime Minister Harper – in line with his questionable fashion sense - decided that a wolverine (a smelly scavenger, related to the skunk, often described as rabid) would be the absolute best representation of the Canadian brand.
While reading the Economist article about Harper’s branding assignment, I was at first surprised by the notion of branding a country. But I realized that with an incredible reliance on international trade, it would be silly for Canada not to brand itself. After all, a branded product commands a price premium over generic products, and creates loyalty in trade. We rely so heavily on trade with the United States that it makes sense that we take the necessary steps towards locking our largest trade partner into a relationship with us. Communicating our branded identity is one such important step.
While it is important that a brand be believed throughout an entire organization, for Canada’s purposes this is impossible. We pride ourselves on our multiculturalism and bilingualism, and so it seems impossible to capture in a brand the country’s meaning and mission. We would discover through the ZMET that Canada means vastly different things for different Canadians, but I think that a brand can capture this incredible diversity. Canada’s most differentiating factors is its mission to maintain unique cultures within its borders is, and I think its citizens will agree on that.
Thus, Canada’s brand mantra should be “Unified Cultural Diversity”. I can’t think of an animal that represents that. Certainly not a wolverine. The beaver, our industrious but (as Prime Minister Harper argues) too shy, is too one dimensional as well. The “moose with sunglasses” suggested by the Economist in 2003 – representing capitalism, democracy and cool – is the best idea so far, but still fails to capture the country’s diversity. Perhaps the absence of an animal brand representation is the way to go. The fact that Canada has no national animal image would represent the country’s embracing of multiple images.
No comments:
Post a Comment