By Yun Kyung Kim, Kyungsun Lee, and Roger Rolando Reyes
| KERI | Korea Economic Research Institute |
| KF | Korea Foundation |
| KOTRA | Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency |
| MAS | Masculinity versus Femininity (formerly) |
| MAS | Motivation towards Achievement and Success |
| NBI | Anholt Ipsos Nation Brands IndexSM |
| PCNB | Presidential Council on Nation Branding |
| PDI | Power Distance Index |
| SNS | Social Networking Sites |
| USIA | U.S. Information Agency |
Abstract
In this paper, we will discuss nation branding in South Korea and the United States in the 21st century using a comparative approach. This paper aims to introduce an intercultural framework to the study of nation branding and the results of current trends of the bilateral alliance. Our research will include, and not be limited to, newspaper articles, government official documents, and relevant cases. The scope of this paper will encompass developments in nation branding since the inception of the concept in the 1990s. This paper aims to illustrate different styles of nation branding and how intercultural relations theories can explain their inception, modality, and development. The paper will also analyze and suggest ways of nation branding goes. As a result, we were able to deduce that the importance of nation branding is on the rise, and governments worldwide—not only South Korea and the United States—have recognized the necessity to augment their budgets to meet this growing demand, signaling that state engagement impacts global perception.
Introduction
Nation branding is a metaphor for how effectively countries compete for favorable perception. However, the principles of commercial branding apply differently to nation branding, spanning areas such as exports, governance, tourism, investment and immigration, culture and heritage, or people.[i] Nation branding stands as a crucial concept in public diplomacy, with countries increasingly recognizing its significance and expanding both their budgets and strategies to reach a global audience.[ii] It is a concept that incorporates marketing, public relations, and elements of intercultural relations and international communication. For example, using Juergen Kleiner’s “Inertia of Diplomacy” to discuss nation branding, we can already see elements of the Six Dialectics of Intercultural Communication, including the difference-similarities dialectic observing mainly between the United States and Korea: “…images of countries “once created remain stable.”[iii] People tend to select information that is in agreement with the image they already have. Thus, prejudices may live on for decades.”[iv] Kleiner draws from Michael Kunczik’s Images of Nations and International Public Relations, which focuses on state behavior and how it affects international relations. In an intercultural relations context, the way that states engage can influence the perceptions and interactions between different societies. Thus, in evaluating nation branding through an intercultural relations framework, we aim to apply interpretive and critical paradigms to a largely functionalist approach.
The countries that we have chosen to study and compare for this paper are Korea[v] and the United States. We have chosen these two countries considering the researchers’ backgrounds as American and South Korean. It is highly anticipated that this selection will enable us to closely observe and compare the perspectives and methodologies of these countries concerning nation branding. In analyzing these two countries, we aim to reflect on how nation branding has affected international perceptions of South Korea and the United States in the international environment. During this paper, we will compare their nation branding strategies using interpretive and critical paradigms; and conclude with inferences regarding our research and how our framework provides complementarity to current instruments of nation branding measurement. Ultimately, our use of an intercultural communication framework is to provide relevant recommendations for either American or South Korean nation branding strategies based on the research in this paper therein.
Nation branding as a concept originated in the United Kingdom in the final decade of the 20th century. A vestige of Thatcherism, nation branding incorporates marketing and public relations in managing the country’s image for the international environment. Simon Anholt, a British policy analyst, is accredited as the foremost authority on the concept when he “began to speak of the benefits that might accrue to a nation if its government understood the parallels between that nation’s image and the reputation of a corporation.”[vi]
From an intercultural communication perspective, the concept of nation branding is easiest to comprehend through a functionalist paradigm which operates under the assumption that culture is quantifiable and measurable. The functionalist paradigm often uses quantitative research from an outsider’s perspective with foundations in social psychology. This paradigm still dominates academia in understanding culture and communication research and presumes the stability of culture over time. By integrating Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions, a methodology derived from surveys that adopt an external viewpoint, we can embrace the measurability of using an etic perspective, assume culture is measurable, and presuppose the predictability of human behaviors. We augment our research by first assessing similar paradigms. To integrate emic perspectives, we leverage our comprehension of South Korea from an American author’s standpoint and the United States from the perspective of Korean authors. Consequently, we can explore how nation branding by these countries is influenced by diverse sources on the global stage, including history, cultural context, and mentality, which we will incorporate into our research paper.
We will also utilize Judith N. Martin and Thomas K. Nakayama’s Six Dialectics of Intercultural Communication, focusing on the privilege-disadvantage and history(past)-present(future) dialectics, as presented in “Intercultural Communication and Dialectics Revisited.” This allows us to use a critical paradigm and view culture as the site of struggle where various communication meanings are contested within social hierarchies, making change and conflict important. Political, social, and historical situations, as well as power relations, receive emphasis. This fulfills our goal of incorporating a more inclusive and nuanced approach to the study of nation branding in South Korea and the United States.[vii]
Figure 1: The Cultural Dimensions for South Korea and the United States
Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions
We begin by using a functionalist paradigm to augment our understanding of the NBI by applying Geert Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions to compare Korea and the United States. Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory is a framework for cross-cultural psychology, which shows the effects of a society’s culture on the values of its members, and how these values relate to behavior, using a structure derived from factor analysis.[viii] Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions underline that culture is the “collective mental programming of the human mind distinguishing one group of people from another.” These dimensions are derived from data collected through extensive surveys conducted by Hofstede and his research team. The scores for each cultural dimension are generated based on responses to specific questions in these surveys, which are designed to assess cultural values and attitudes in different societies.
Based on this framework: while the United States and Korea exhibit stark differences across most indices, they share similar ranges in terms of the Power Distance Index (PDI) and Motivation towards Achievement and Success (MAS), which was previously the Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS)[ix] Index. This suggests that both countries acknowledge hierarchical societal structures and aspire for greater success on the global stage.
According to the graph, notably, Korea scores one hundred for long-term orientation. This implies that Koreans recognize the necessity of long-term commitment to attain specific goals, such as elevating the national brand—a strength of Korea concerning long-term objectives. Conversely, the United States scores significantly higher in individualism, with a score of sixty compared to Korea’s eighteen. This suggests that Americans prioritize societal values, such as independence and informality. This cultural aspect of Americans could be perceived as a weakness in American nation branding strategies, as success is perceived more as a personal rather than a societal imperative.
Judith N. Martin and Thomas K. Nakayama’s Six Dialectics of Intercultural Communication
We can first utilize the dialectics of history/past-present/future dialectic to observe the background of nation branding strategies in both countries through a critical paradigm.[x] This dialectic emphasizes the awareness of contemporary forces and historic forces. For instance, reflecting on the historical context of nation branding, the United States emerged as a global leader post-World War II, enjoying widespread recognition without an immediate need for proactive branding efforts. The nation was largely acknowledged as a friendly global leader until the devastating impact of the 9/11 terror attacks challenged its status, compelling a rebranding initiative to reclaim its powerful global position.[xi]
Conversely, Korea had compelling reasons to invest significant effort in nation branding. Its history is marred by episodes of external influence from China, Russia, Japan, and the United States, the legacy of Japanese colonialism. As the result, the trauma of the Korean War led to the restructuring of South Korea’s national image. Reshaping its political and economic infrastructure, Korea gradually progressed from being the world’s poorest country in 1953 to a developed economy showcased as host of the 1988 Seoul Summer Olympics.[xii] Seeking to assert its security and influence on the global stage, Korea successfully recovered from its turbulent past and moved forward as a prominent global player. To summarize, the degree of nation branding that the United States and Korea have needed to do was shaped by their different histories on the world stage, and the historic events involving the two countries (such as 9/11 to the United States) required those nations to revisit their brands.
The second dialectic that we use—the privilege-disadvantage dialectic—offers another lens through which we can examine the efforts made by both countries.[xiii] According to this dialectic, individuals may be simultaneously privileged and disadvantaged depending on the context. The United States began its nation branding with a distinct advantage: the country’s global position and power were widely recognized and established since the end of World War II. In contrast, Korea faced a significant disadvantage at the outset of its nation branding endeavors. It had the challenge of reintroducing itself to the global public, explaining its location relative to its neighbors, and establishing its own identity apart from the war-torn image of the past. Paradoxically, this disadvantage offered Korea greater potential for brand growth. While the United States had to rebuild its image after setbacks, Korea had the opportunity to evolve and grow its brand from a starting point that was relatively less established.
Historical Background of Nation Branding Strategies in the U.S. and Korea.
According to the beliefs of John A. Quelch and Katherine E. Jocz in their article, “Can Brand Obama Rescue Brand America?,” as cited in Ilan Manor’s and Elad Segev’s “America’s Self: How the U.S. Portrays Itself on its Social Media Accounts,” the United States enjoyed a favorable international opinion toward them from nations and citizens worldwide due to its victories in the military, moral, and economic arenas, stemming from the Cold War.[xiv] Notably, concepts like democracy, freedom, prosperity, and human rights were synonymous with the United States, alleviating the need for extensive nation branding efforts in the past. The moment when American national brand image shifted arrived with the response to the tragic 9/11 terrorist attacks, drastically reshaping the ‘America’ brand. The attack and subsequent U.S. response marked a turning point in global perception. The ensuing war on terror and military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan cast the United States in a light that was seen as arrogant, imperialistic, and a threat to global peace, harming the previously concrete objective of the U.S. as a global hegemon as well as the protector of world peace.[xv]
This shift led to diminished credibility and favorability toward the United States, escalating anti-American sentiments, particularly in Muslim countries. These sentiments significantly influenced U.S. foreign policies and leadership, albeit ensuring the safety of its citizens.[xvi] With the negative image of the United States tied to former President George W. Bush (2001-2009), the subsequent rise of President Obama (2009-2017) was seen as reparative for the national image of the country. During this period, attention once again turned to regaining the country’s powerful global status, and the United States successfully ranked first place on the NBI from 2009 to 2016 (except for 2014, when it was second to Germany).[xvii]
However, a problem the United States had to mitigate was the lack of a specific entity dedicated to nation branding—and public diplomacy as a whole—since the abolishment of the U.S. Information Agency (USIA) in 1999. Hence, efforts were made to leverage technical tools such as social networking services (SNS), like Twitter and Facebook, managed by the U.S. Department of State.[xviii] The objective was to restore America’s global status and reputation while mending relationships with Muslim nations in the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia and the efforts are still undergoing.
Nevertheless, the nation branding strategies faced setbacks once again during the inauguration of former President Trump (2017-2021), who primarily focused on the ‘Make America Great Again’ movement. Yet, Trump did contribute to reshaping the image of the United States as an international peacekeeper through attempts at dialogue with North Korea. Although after the Hanoi summit where he failed to strengthen the ties with North Korea, the relationship with North Korea has not been recovered as much as desired then, ultimately, the goal of the United States in nation branding is to maintain its position as the most powerful nation economically and a moral leader globally, seeking to sustain its hegemonic status.[xix] Despite concerted efforts, in the 2022 NBI, the United States was ranked eighth out of sixty nations, a continual decline in global perception since 2016, when it was last ranked first.[xx]
Compared to the United States, Korea surprisingly has a rich history of nation branding which evolved in tandem and later became its version of public diplomacy, in response to changes in global politics. After the signing of the armistice that ended the Korean War (1950-1953), South Korea mainly focused on reconstruction and rehabilitation, aiming to gain international recognition and aid for its recovery efforts. Furthermore, in the 1960s and 1970s, Korea went through rapid economic growth and industrialization as one of the Four Asian Tigers[xxi], while the government began to more actively engage in soft power to improve its global image. These efforts led to increased foreign investment and South Korea’s rapid economic growth was designated the “Miracle on the Han River.”[xxii] In the 1980s and 1990s, when Korea democratized and modernized, it also sought to improve its image as a modern nation with a burgeoning democracy. Public diplomacy efforts at this time expanded to include cultural exchange, educational programs, and active participation in international affairs, not excluding showcasing its economic progress within such a short time. Cultural diplomacy and nation branding strategies, however, only kicked in during the 2000s. The entertainment industry gained global popularity around this time leading the first Hallyu[xxiii] of South Korean cultural content ranging from K-pop, dramas, and cinema became influential, significantly enhancing the country’s soft power and public diplomacy efforts.[xxiv]
Although Korea’s global role has greatly increased, as mentioned above, it has yet to secure international status that aligns with its global interests. Based on the press release from the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Korea in 2008, the ministry observed that the value of the Korean nation brand at that time was relatively low compared to its capacity. Despite consistent and active efforts, Korea ranked thirty-third in the NBI of 2008 out of fifty countries.[xxv] Moreover, according to a survey from the Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency (KOTRA) in 2009, Korean products were underestimated by 67% compared to identical American products in every quality, as seen in Table 1 below during the same period Korea achieved massive success through its soft power.[xxvi]
| Year | Korea | United States | Ger. | Japan | China |
| 2007 | 66.45 | 100.00 | 99.87 | 94.62 | 47.51 |
| 2006 | 67.29 | 100.00 | 104.31 | 100.07 | 47.91 |
Moreover, according to the Korea Economic Research Institute (KERI), Korean national brands were evaluated at one-twenty-sixth of the value of American brands and one-sixth of Japanese ones, although the gross domestic product discrepancies are less: one-fifteenth of that of the United States and one-fifth of Japan’s as seen in Table 2 during that same period, which alludes to the reality that the country’s rise in popularity did little for its exports.[xxvii]
| Korea | United States | Japan | |
| GDP (in billions) | 8,880 | 131,329 | 43,641 |
| National Brand Value (in billions) | 5,043 | 130,095 | 32,259 |
Responding to this matter, former President Lee Myung-bak (2008-2013) emphasized the importance of nation branding, stating, “If we wish to be an advanced nation, we must improve our reputation in a groundbreaking manner.”[xxviii] Following the speech, the Korean government launched the “Presidential Council on Nation Branding” under the direct control of the president in 2009 to upgrade Korea’s relatively undervalued national image and improve its management through government-led initiatives.
The committee had three key functions: (1) perform core functions related to the nation branding of Korea, (2) support the efficient execution of nation branding policies and projects, and (3) enhance and strengthen civil cooperation and citizen participation. The budget for the first year was 8 billion won (6.17 million dollars). The council also aimed to carry out its strategic branding campaigns, such as “Dynamic Korea”,[xxix] an effort to present Korea as a vibrant, modern, and technologically advanced nation, focusing on its accomplishments in both technology and innovation.
Even though the Presidential Council on Nation Branding (PCNB) played a pivotal role as the controlling authority managing Korea’s international image, it ceased operations in 2013 when Park Geun-hye (2013-2017), the first female president of the country, was elected. The PCNB’s limited legal status as a screening committee lacked actual authority, being heavily reliant on the Lee administration. Following the discontinuation of the PCNB, some critical scholars suggested that nation branding should be overseen by an administrative entity with legal authority and responsibility, such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.[xxx]
Nevertheless, the Korean government intensified efforts to promote its national brand through other means, emphasizing not just economic and technological advancements but also cultural and lifestyle aspects. This shift heralded the advent of public diplomacy as Korea’s new nation branding strategy, becoming a key pillar governing the country’s diplomatic relations alongside state and economic diplomacy. Recognizing the significance of the PCNB after it ceased operations, the Korean government committed itself to maintaining public diplomacy funds and strengthening relations between ministerial sectors. This dedication culminated in the establishment of the Public Diplomacy Act in August 2017. We can suggest that Korea’s efforts succeeded in elevating its rank on the NBI, shifting its nation branding strategy more toward public diplomacy work. According to the NBI 2022, Korea ranked 23rd out of 60 nations, which is ten spots higher than in 2008 but still lower than its all-time high ranking of 17th place in 2012.
Practical Application of NBI: Case Studies from the United States and Korea.
Of the six dimensions measured in the NBI—exports, governance, culture and heritage, people, tourism, investment, and immigration—we have chosen two variables to assess in-depth using a critical paradigm: governance, and culture and heritage.
Governance. Governance is an essential element in nation branding. The direction, momentum, and consistency of national policies, in addition to national competitiveness and influence, are critical elements in measuring nation branding, which contribute to the overall image of a nation in the long term. In the case of the United States, America’s Founding Fathers believed that representative politics was republicanism, not a pure democracy. In the United States, a contemporary American-style democracy is established by combining a representative system and pluralism. This system is guided by the Electoral College and laws that are formulated by representatives elected by the populace per the U.S. Constitution. Historically, during World War II, the United States played a historical role as both an industrial support and a military reinforcement. Throughout the Cold War, it actively promoted democracy, positioning itself as a defender of democratic ideals within the international community. Notably, in the ideological rivalry with the Soviet Union, the United States vigorously advocated for the values of democracy and the free world, becoming the prominent representative of the liberal democratic camp.This role is further established in illustrative cases in the study of international affairs, including American involvement in the Arab Spring in 2010 in terms of promoting democracy for the political reform in the Arab World, as an element within an overall U.S. strategy of countering terrorism.[xxxi] Thus, over time, the United States has actively intervened and engaged in supporting democratic movements.
In all these instances, the image of democracy is idealized and reinforced. However, when managing American cultural assets and public diplomacy efforts, the United States underperforms. Due to the institutional characteristics of the federal government, systemic divisions over the management of natural, cultural, and intangible heritage disallow singular agency control and regulation. Therefore, the U.S. Department of State, the Smithsonian Institute, the National Park Service, and other agencies have the task of managing the United States’ tangible cultural identity.
This lack of centrality is in stark contrast to South Korea, where the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, and the Cultural Heritage Administration play a leading role in the dissemination of Korean culture writ large while local governments implement policies for the management, promotion, and use of historical relics. These organizations are also involved in the operation and budget of the Korea Foundation (KF) which contributes to nation branding-related policies, the Korean Cultural Center, and diplomatic missions abroad, which are also actively involved in national image branding. Clear organizational structures and goal-oriented institutions are vital for effectively allocating resources and aligning policies, ensuring a clear and focused policy strategy.
Moreover, while the history of Korean democracy is short compared to the United States, the V-Dem and Freedom House indices, which are democracy evaluators, show the figures of Korean democracy on par with those of Western European countries and the United States.[xxxii] As evidenced in a New York Times article titled “South Korea Removes President Park Geun-hye”, Korean democracy is responsive to the people’s will even outside of its elective structure. Moreover, removed without violence, Park’s exit was expedited by the legislature and judiciary—institutions that have been historically weaker than the presidency. These organizations were crucial to the outcome, serving as “a sign of how far South Korea’s young democracy has evolved” and has reached, in the words of Kang Won-taek, a political scientist at Seoul National University, “a new milestone in the strengthening and institutionalizing of democracy in South Korea.”[xxxiii]
In terms of American culture and heritage, the “American Dream” is part of a premise reflective of the American idealized conception of a democratic and equal society and expanded to the global belief that anyone can live well if they work hard in the United States. Millions of immigrants have moved to the United States to achieve the “American Dream,” granting the U.S. the title of the “country of immigrants.” Moreover, global media initiatives that moved from Great Britain to the United States after World War II accelerated this phenomenon. Hollywood’s dominance of the movie industry worldwide built the country’s current foundation for the modern movie industry, and pop stars of the modern era gained global popularity, signaling the growth of a U.S.-centered music industry. This cultural dominance has brought many social and political advantages to the United States. America’s deep-rooted reverence for democracy is also reflected in the powerful influence of global media, particularly evident in impact of Hollywood movies. From classic films like Rocky (1976) and Forrest Gump (1994) to newer films like Iron Man (2008) and American Sniper (2014), Hollywood has consistently produced American-centric hero films, which have become a part of global culture.
Unlike the U.S., South Korea amplified its presence in a step-by-step process. The United States is the fourth largest country in the world by land size, yields enormous military power, has abundant resources, and boasts the third largest population after China and India. Compared to the United States, South Korea’s start was minute by comparison. However, from being the poorest country in the world after the end of the Korean War in 1953 to the omnipresence of the K-culture, Korea’s slow strides ultimately led to success.[xxxiv] As stated by Hong Seok-kyung, a professor of media information at Seoul National University, Korean culture is enjoyed worldwide because of its “universality.”[xxxv]
Drawing from its historical precedence, Korean media productions contain images that both developing and developed countries can relate to. Korean media often includes narratives of stagnation and development, as well as a history that includes the dichotomy of imperialism after Japan annexed the Korean Peninsula and post-imperialism after independence and modernization. Thematically, wealth and poverty as national narrative may also explain the unprecedented success of the movie Parasite (2019), which deals with the different socioeconomic realities of two families in modern Korea, and the TV series Squid Game (2021), which demonstrates the harrowing lengths that people are willing to go for financial survival in the 2020s.
Additionally, it is worth noting that while South Korea’s rapid growth in the subsequent decades saw the creation of a burgeoning middle class and a strong export-oriented economy, various extant social problems were exacerbated, including an economic divide that still affects contemporary Korean society as the result of being the only country in the world to have transitioned from extreme poverty to affluence in one generation. Therefore, the mediatic production of Korean social realities as binaries, such as the gap between the rich and the poor, liberalism versus conservatism, fluctuating population trends, rising contra-culture in contrast to traditional values, and cultural hegemony, which are present in other countries enabled the marketing of Korea’s dichotomous history and modernity as a consumer good.[xxxvi]
Analysis Through an Intercultural Framework.
In this paper, we looked at Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions, interpreted American and Korean nation branding strategies using two of the Six Dialectics of Intercultural Communication, and examined two categories of the Nation Branding Index (NBI) and their respective exemplary characteristics. Our analysis suggests that Korea’s emphasis on its less individualistic aspects and prioritization of national interest over individual interests have successfully cultivated a sense of ‘community’ and fostered an environment conducive to growth. This approach has significantly influenced Korea’s nation branding strategies, resulting in heightened interest, achievements, and celebrity.
On the other hand, the United States continues to rely on its past ‘Golden Era’ when it held a privileged position in nation branding. However, as the global landscape evolves, this reliance on past success arguably hampers the United States in formulating an effective nation branding strategy. As policy direction and national strategy evolve, public diplomacy serves as a valuable supplement, capable of both showcasing and mirroring the nation’s evolving perspectives.
Considering the evolving external factors and their intricate outcomes, an interpretive perspective of the history/past-present/future dialectic sheds light on the revised nation branding strategies of the United States. Thus, upon comparing the attitudes of both countries in establishing nation branding strategies, we contemplate that the privilege-disadvantage dialectic can be applied vice-versa. Initially, the United States did not necessarily need to aggressively pursue its nation branding strategies due to its privilege as a hegemony. In contrast, Korea had to build from the ground up. Presently, though, both countries find themselves in markedly different positions from their initial starting points. This highlights the necessity for the United States to invest considerable efforts in formulating a distinct strategy to sustain and further its progress in nation branding.
Conclusion
The importance of nation branding is on the rise, and governments worldwide have recognized this necessity. By augmenting their budgets to meet this growing demand, countries signal that state engagement impacts global perception. While the United States, as the most powerful country globally, historically did not need to invest as much in nation branding as South Korea, the landscape is changing. As evidenced in our research, policies should promote increased cultural understanding and engagement to contribute to a positive image of the country and avoid policies or positions that may create a negative image.
In conducting a deeper exploration of nation branding in the United States and South Korea, we compared the backgrounds and objectives of each country by first supplementing our research with the standardized results of Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions. Our research was further enhanced by the analyses of two of the Six Dialectics of Intercultural Communication—the history/past-present/future and the privilege-disadvantage dialectics—to contrast nation branding strategies. Lastly, we critically compared two dimensions of NBI—Culture and Heritage, and Governance—as the central motif of our investigation.
Using an intercultural communication framework to provide suitable recommendations for advancing nation branding strategies, we ultimately determined that there are valuable lessons that the United States can glean from South Korea’s experience, particularly in standardizing its public institutions to better manage its cultural assets. Ongoing international conflicts, such as China’s repeated skirmishes in the South China Sea, the Russo-Ukraine war, North Korea’s missile threats, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, underscore the need for heightened attention and efforts in branding national images, especially for the United States, which is involved in all these clashes. Predicated on the dominance of the United States and the influence of American culture and global media, it is crucial to deliberate on the most effective nation branding strategy that remains uniquely “American.”
Another consideration is the changing population dynamics. Most developed countries, including the United States and South Korea, are grappling with significant population declines and influxes of immigrants. For example, predictions indicate the United States will become a majority-minority society by the 2040s.[xxxvii] This rapid change in the population and religion could bring a lot of confusion. Given religious and ethical differences, the national media environment of individual countries will need to consider its newer viewers and their preferences, which may be based on religious or ethnic differences. This may result in large cultural shifts in the media environment, affecting nation branding for both countries.
Thus, in the future, we predict that nation branding, as a long-term strategy requiring planning and progression, will also necessitate multicultural and multiethnic perspectives while remaining politically neutral. When consensus within an administration becomes integral to national policy objectives, partisan limitations to the seamless execution of the entire project can be either reduced or eliminated altogether. Nation branding, as a tool of public diplomacy, requires clarity of message and trust in the brand to provide a competitive edge. Because our study only delves in part at paradigmatic approaches to two countries, it would be interesting to study nation branding further as a tool for crisis management, as a means of cross-cultural collaboration, or as a basis for greater diversity, equity, and inclusion for all the countries.
[i] Anholt, Simon. 2007. Competitive Identity: The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities and Regions. Houndsmills, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan, 23
[ii] Volčić, Zala, and Mark Andrejevic. 2011. “Nation Branding in the Era of Commercial Nationalism.” International Journal of Communication 5, no. 1: 598. https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:240530/UQ240530_OA.pdf.
[iii] Martin, Judith N., and Thomas K. Nakayama. 2010. “Intercultural Communication and Dialectics Revisited.” In The Handbook of Critical Intercultural Communication, 59–83.
[iv] Kleiner, Juergen. 2008. “The Inertia of Diplomacy.” Diplomacy & Statecraft 19, no. 2, 327-328
[v] For the purpose of this paper, we will use Korea to refer to South Korea and use the terms Korea and South Korea interchangeably.
[vi] Cull, Nicholas John. 2019. “Chapter 7 – Nation Brands and Branding: The Metaphor Run Amok.” In Public Diplomacy: Foundations for Global Engagement in the Digital Age, 120–40. Medford, MA: Polity Press: 127-128
[vii] Martin and Nakayama 2010
[viii] Weaver, Gary R. 2014. “Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context.” In Intercultural Relations: Communication, Identity and Conflict, 178-192. Boston: Pearson Learning Solutions.
[ix] These changes are discussed in Geert Hofstede’s book Masculinity and Femininity: The Taboo Dimension of National Cultures, which falls outside the scope of our research.
[x] Martin, Judith N., and Thomas K. Nakayama. 2010. “Intercultural Communication and Dialectics Revisited.” In The Handbook of Critical Intercultural Communication, 59–83.
[xi] Manor, Ilan, and Elad Segev. 2015. “Chapter 5 – America’s Selfie: How the U.S. Portrays Itself on Its Digital Diplomacy Channels.” In Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 89–108. New York, NY: Routledge.
[xii] The 1988 Seoul Summer Olympics denoted the status of South Korea as a newly developed economy thanks to the unprecedented rapid development of the country termed the “Miracle on the Han River”, which will be referred to later in this paper.
[xiii] Martin, Judith N., and Thomas K. Nakayama. 2010. “Intercultural Communication and Dialectics Revisited.” In The Handbook of Critical Intercultural Communication, 59–83.
[xiv] Manor, Ilan, and Elad Segev. 2015. “Chapter 5 – America’s Selfie: How the U.S. Portrays Itself on Its Digital Diplomacy Channels.” In Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice, 89–108. New York, NY: Routledge.
[xv] Ibid.
[xvi] Ibid.
[xvii] Ibid.
[xviii] Ibid.
[xix] Ratner, Dan. 2022. “Trump’s Impact on the America Brand, and What It Can Teach Us about Branding.” Marketing Mag. May 9. https://www.marketingmag.com.au/news/trumps-impact-on-the-america-brand-and-what-it-can-teach-us-about-branding/.
[xx] Anholt, Simon. 2022. The Anholt-Ipsos Nation Brands Index – November 2022. Paris: Ipsos.
[xxi] A term used to reference the economies of Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan for retaining high economic growth since the 1960s driven by exports and rapid industrialization.
[xxii] The Miracle on the Han River, or 한강의 기적 in Korean, refers to the rapid economic ascent of South Korea from the end of the Korean War until the mid-1990s, with much of this achievement centered in the Han River that bisects Seoul, the capital of South Korea.
[xxiii] Hallyu is the romanization of 한류, or Korean Wave, which refers to the surge in popularity of South Korean culture, entertainment, and pop culture, particularly K-pop.
[xxiv] Choe, Sang-hun. 2021. “From BTS to ‘Squid Game’: How South Korea Became a Cultural Juggernaut.” The New York Times. November 3. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/03/world/asia/squid-game-korea-bts.html.
[xxv] Markessinis, Andrea. 2018. “Anholt’s Nation Brand Index 2008 Released.” Nation-Branding. Nation-Branding. October 30. https://nation-branding.info/2008/10/01/anholts-nation-brand-index-2008-released/.
[xxvi] Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism. 2009. “Press Release for the Launch of the National Brand Committee.” Seoul: Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism.
[xxvii] Ibid.
[xxviii] Presidential Archives. 2008. “Presidential Council on Nation Branding – Background and Objective.” Ministry of the Interior and Safety – Presidential Archives. August 15. http://17koreabrand.pa.go.kr/gokr/en/cms/selectKbrdCmsPageTbl.do?cd=0118&m1=1&m2=3.
[xxix] Ibid.
[xxx] Yoo, Jae Woong. 2013. “[Open World] ‘National Brand Committee’ / Jae Woong Yoo, Professor in the Public Relations and Visual Design Department at Eulji University.” Seoul Shinmun. February 3. https://www.seoul.co.kr/news/newsView.php?id=20130204030006.
[xxxi] Selim, Gamal. 2013. “The United States and the Arab Spring: The Dynamics of Political Engineering” Arab Studies Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 3, 255-272.
[xxxii] Jeong, Eui Gil. 2022. “After Democratization… Has Korean Democracy Regressed?” The Hankyoreh. The Hankyoreh. March 10. https://m.hani.co.kr/arti/culture/religion/1034433.html?_fr=nv#ace04ou.
The article’s title was translated from the original Korean title, “민주화 이후…한국 민주주의는 퇴보했는가?”
[xxxiii] Choe, Sang-hun. 2017. “South Korea Removes President Park Geun-Hye.” The New York Times. March 10. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/world/asia/park-geun-hye-impeached-south-korea.html.
[xxxiv] “How South Korean Entertainment Became a Global Phenomenon | About That.” 2023. CBC News. CBC News. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CvRHFADnBM.
[xxxv] Yoo, Jae Woong. 2013. “[Open World] ‘National Brand Committee’ / Jae Woong Yoo, Professor in the Public Relations and Visual Design Department at Eulji University.” Seoul Shinmun. February 3. https://www.seoul.co.kr/news/newsView.php?id=20130204030006.
[xxxvi] Kim, Suhyeon. 2021. “[Coverage File] Squid Game, Parasite, BTS… Can the Success of the Korean Wave Be Attributed to the Government?” SBS News. November 8. https://n.news.naver.com/article/055/0000932142?sid=103.
[xxxvii] U.S. Census Bureau. Various Years. Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement microdata [machine-readable microdata file]. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps.html
Leave a Reply