For everyone in the business world, there is no doubt in the importance of the logo. Since it is the key visual representation of the brand we are trying to create, it is at many times the first thing we attend to before making our content visible. The design has become such an important factor, that any companies have sprung up in recent years offering branding as a design service. Of course, we al know that a visually attractive design means nothing without content, and more importantly, if the brand doesn’t deliver its promise – it will surely fail.
For countries, the lead visual is usually their flag or coat of arms. The flag is almost always the most recognizable visual image that associates people with the country with some exceptions. For cities and places I could also be a unique landmark. The Eifel tower has become a symbol of love that has shaped the perception of Paris as the city of love in the minds of many, just like the Hollywood sign promises stardom and glamour. But the French flag that represents equality, fraternity and liberty does not always make us associate those values with the country and the design and colors can be easily confused with other nations’ flags and symbols. Ironically, the Statue of Liberty is an iconic manifestation of the USA’s brand promise, Freedom, and leaves its French origin almost forgotten.
In a quest to find one visual image that ties in everything they have to say, some countries have resorted in creating an altogether new visual image as part of their branding efforts, namely Spain.
Their success in doing so reflects on the totality of their strategies and their ability to deliver the brand promise.
Whatever flag, logo or symbol they chose, governments have a tendency to pass their message across in a variety of ways, some more effective than others.
Governments tend to view and treat their official websites as their primary interface with the public. They use them to concentrate information, statistics, consular services, media alerts, press releases and statements and of course, pre-written articles and stories that are meant to expose the public to the country’s accomplishments and successes.
The thought is that if the website gains a good reputation, people will go to it to get the latest news, especially in a time of crisis. However, it must be remembered that a mission’s website is not a credible news site. No matter how democratic and open a country may be perceived, the government is and will always be run by internal and external political interests that cannot be overlooked by the critical eye.
Even “show off” articles designed to accentuate a country’s achievements become plain propaganda and have less chances of making an impact.
Advocacy groups who tend to share content from government websites are also victims of the social media revolution, being an organization rather than a real person with his or her own thoughts and opinions.
In the case of digital diplomacy, Social media has made the logo a double-edged sword, and that should be taken into consideration when attempting to get the message make an impact and actually break out of the comfort zone.
Ever find yourself saying to someone “Well of course you would say that, you are bias”? How many times have you read something and quickly deleted it from your mind when you noticed that this groundbreaking research was funded and published by a commercial company that conveniently offers a solution? I bet that this doubt in credibility prevented you from forwarding or sharing it.
This simple logic should resonate with both government agencies and advocacy organizations and drive them to give more thought to who conveys the message when strategizing their digital diplomacy efforts.
In addition to this, there’s the element of quantity. The number of shares, likes and comments encourages or discourages people to share and determines how far the message is carried by an influential trend.
When using a hashtag or discovering a trending topic via twitter search bar, you can’t help but notice how many tweets include the particular hashtag and in what context. Also noticeable are the accounts using it. That has a big effect on the reach of the message. If it is clear that almost only organizations and government officials are using them rather than “simple people”, there is a problem…
Obama’s fake fans saga indicates that although his people understood and shared the points I raised here, their failure lies in the fact that they misjudged the public and underestimated our intelligence. They replaced the real engagement social media is based on with old propaganda methods.
Basically, they took the social out of their dipdip efforts and left it to the amount of professionals running accounts rather than creating enough attractive content for people to share. I am not naive, of course aliases will be used. But just like everything, they should be used wisely.
I would like to see more governments and advocacy organizations try to reach out to new audiences by creating accounts with less obvious affiliation and more original content geared towards people’s likes and interests rather than the grouping by nationality, color, sexual identity, political views etc.
