Africa's brand challenge

PERCEPTION is King; and in the case of Africa, there is so little global knowledge about individual African countries to the extent that every country ends up sharing the same reputation of civil strife, corruption and poverty.
In as much as individual African countries and persons who share an African heritage may try to distance themselves from the generally perception of Africans, Africans cannot avoid being painted by the same brush.
As Africans continue to mourn about why they are perceived lowly in the global development chain, it is important that we recognize that Africans and its people wherever they may be have not invested in better communicating who they are to the global audience. Although some Africans have done exceptionally well as individuals, body corporates and nation states, they cannot avoid being contaminated by the African image disease.
The need for Africa and its global family to communicate, differentiate and symbolise itself to all the global audience of consumers and investors cannot be overstated. It is very important to underline that the audience is split into two major categories: African people and everyone else.
In the case of Africa, government leaders are more concerned about improving the image of the continent to foreigners than invest in image building targeted at citizens. Ultimately, the hope of Africa and its global family lies in investing in a new identity of a functioning Africa than a selective approach where islands of hope are created in the midst of an ocean of hopelessness and misery.
Every African nation has its own brand in as much as each individual and family has theirs. A nation's brand is defined by its people, by their temper, education, look, by their endeavors. Africa with one geographical mass and many tribes has its own identity and it is not easy to come up with a one size fits all perspective on branding. It is very hard to change African people’s values and attitude to life. This requires an investment in literacy, a change in the economic status of Africans, and a new way of life. This takes generations to change but can be fast tracked by the few Africans who realise that it is in their self interest to work towards the collective transformation of Africa and its global family.
Africans need to write their own story in the own words. We need to ask why it is the case that non-Africans have the last laugh in Africa and its own natives have to bear the brunt of bad governance and policies. Africa and its leaders are more than eager to export African jobs through policies that reward imports and welcome foreign capital in preference to domestic capital formation while maintaining an anti-imperialist hypocritical posture.
The improvement of the Africa brand lies not in the work of branding agencies, not even of governments but instead in every person who shares Africa’s heritage and we need to invest in making Africa and its global family’s values being better known, minimise the effect of several accidents caused by individuals that affect the brand. Africa has a fair share of bad leaders who intentionally and unintentionally have made the African story difficult to sell and as long as they cling to power for the wrong reasons the job is cut out for all of us. Africa’s development and the advancement of its people will continue to be arrested by the few who have taken it upon themselves to monopolize the political and economic space whose enlargement is a prerequisite for the establishment of a new African identity.
Historically, nation branding and invention of tradition has always happened by accident more than continuous economic planning. Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea, China, India, Vietnam, Japan, New Zealand, Australia etc have created and represented much more consistent brand leadership than exhibited by most global companies. What is important is that some countries with the same colonial baggage as Africa took ownership of their own destinies and invested in new brand architectures that have resulted in the improvement of standing of their citizens in the global family of nations.
The Japanese have changed the global language by producing products that have now been accepted in the world as representing good quality and today the world speaks the Japanese language through the consumption of products produced in Japan. Equally countries like South Korea have demonstrated that a determined people can in one generation be accommodated in the global marketplace on its terms through the production of quality products and not through speeches that have now been the defining characteristic of African leaders at every opportunity they can get. To my knowledge South Korea still hosts American troops and yet did not use this as an excuse to invest in a uniquely Korean brand. If South Korea was an African country it is not difficult to imagine what its citizens would be subjected to in terms of propaganda.
Nation-branding as a discipline is the confluence of two seemingly disparate fields: marketing and diplomacy. In the 1960s, marketers became interested in what is called the ''country of origin'' effect. Why is it, they asked, that simply sticking a ''Made in Japan'' label on a stereo boosts its value by 30 percent? Clearly, they argued, there was something about Japan itself-perhaps its reputation as a technically savvy society-that made consumers value Japanese technology over similar products from, say, India. What are the roots of these national stereotypes, and how can marketing take advantage of them? And what if India wanted to develop its own high-tech export industry? How could it change those stereotypes?
In a world increasingly connected by 24/7 media, there has to be a ''brand'' strategy for Africans-the message has to be coordinated and consistent, and it has to respond to stereotypes already in circulation. Nation-branding, then, is what you get when you take traditional public diplomacy strategies and add marketing tools designed to change global perceptions.
True nation-branding is a complex and involved exercise that requires strategies to “harmonise” the brand message across African governments and communicating the message internally as well as externally. That means surveying citizens on the values they think should go into the ''Africa brand,'' as well as reiterating the importance of ''living'' that brand. The idea of defining and changing Africa's ''brand'' has to start with its citizens who stand to lose a lot if the message continues to be contaminated by bad apples which Africa continues to produce and nurture in their abundance. The way to address this issue is not through propaganda but through actions.
For Africans in general, it's very difficult to step back and listen particularly for the educated and affluent. I submit that this has to be the starting point. The first stage is for Africa’s people to first admit that Africa has a fundamental image problem whether caused by slavery, colonialism, imperialism, socialism, communism, etc that needs to be addressed.
One of the fundamental tenets of branding is consistency. We have only a certain number of chances to register in people's minds and unless each time we register, it appears to be making the same point; we don't have much of a chance. It's advice many African governments would do well to heed. After all, anti-imperialism and look East agenda is as much about rhetoric and symbols as it is about genuine development interest of Africa.
If Africans want to lead by example, then, Africa and its family has got to make sure that its message and actions are consistent. We have seen many authoritarians hijack the nation-building agendas of a number of African countries because inherently there are authoritarian undertones in nation-building strategies. Africa’s problem is not just with its brand-which could scarcely be stronger-but with its product. If you close your eyes, and think of Africa as a place to do business, what images spring to mind? Poor, corrupt and hopeless? Or a developing market with huge untapped potential? Too often, it's the former, which is one reason why the whole of Africa receives less than 3% of the world's total foreign direct investment annually.
South Africa where I am now a citizen has blazed the trail in Africa. In 1998, government and business came together to create a "Proudly South African" campaign. The logo can be licensed by companies for products whose content is at least 50% local, and who commit themselves to responsible labor and environmental practices. About 2,500 firms now use the logo, and are starting to enjoy the benefits. It's all part of a greater focus on Africa.
The continent's economy grew by about 5% last year, in large part thanks to improving prices for natural resources, including oil. Foreign direct investment in Africa, while still a trickle compared to the amounts flooding into China, is on the rise too. South Africa is the youngest African country with the biggest white population of a little more than 4 million. South Africa through its corporate citizens has now become one of the few African countries to join the global marketplace with products and services that have originality and reputation.
As we look at Africa’s 54 countries and try to locate companies that were originated by blacks and are led by blacks whose products and services have helped to reposition the African brand, we struggle to come up with any meaningful names. Yes, South Africa’s companies like Anglo American, South African Breweries, Old Mutual, Standard Bank, Investec Bank, Dimension Data, Bidvest, Sanlam, BAT, (the list is long), have now become not only pan-African players but world class players who share Africa’s heritage. But at the same time, the companies are driven by individuals who would ordinarily be classified as foreigners in Africa. In fact, many of Africa’s people and governments are cynical about the role of South African capital in Africa’s renaissance and yet they have done little to encourage domestic capital formation..........................................................I bumped into one Zimbabwean politician who had read my article entitled: “Is Mugabe Corrupt?” and he expressed his views about Mugabe and felt that I should not even have asked the question because in his mind there is no doubt that Mugabe is guilty of corruption. He was adamant that Mugabe cannot and should not be absolved of the decay in Zimbabwe and he should be personally identified as culpable and liable for the mess.
As an individual who has also been identified by the state appointed administrator, Afaras Gwaradzimba, as culpable and liable for my own company’s affairs, I can now understand why my views in the article may have been a source of misunderstanding. I had not thought through the implications of Gwaradzimba’s appointment by the government of Zimbabwe to steal my companies under the guise of reconstruction. It was only after the intervention of this politician who maintained that if I can be held culpable and liable for the alleged financial state of affairs of my company by the government, led by President Mugabe, then surely President Mugabe should be held culpable and liable for impoverishing Zimbabwe.
He argued that it is imperative that Zimbabwe urgently finds an administrator to take over the affairs of the country and investigate Mugabe in as much as Gwaradzimba has been appointed to do. Incidentally, I was shocked to learn that this politician had actually read the Reconstruction of State-indebted Insolvent Companies Act 2004 that is now the law of the land in Zimbabwe that allows the government to expropriate private assets without following any due process of the law.
The law applies retroactively and what is significant is that the state does not exist at law begging the question of how a person can be indebted to a ghost. Under this law, any person identified by a partial administrator as culpable and liable will have his assets forfeited to the state without any compensation. I was encouraged that the intervention of the Friends of Zimbabwe Coalition on the property rights question has helped to open the eyes of many Zimbabweans including politicians who had a naïve understanding of the ramifications of this draconian piece of legislation.
This politician observed that if Mugabe’s government can steal companies in broad daylight how can I dare say that he is not corrupt? I responded saying that all I wanted to do was to generate debate on Mugabe’s legacy and have come to accept that the expropriation of property rights of blacks will also be part of the legacy. What was more fundamental in the observation of this politician was that if the government of Zimbabwe can steal assets and citizens’ human rights, why should anyone trust such a government to hold an election where it will lose?
I was encouraged to learn that many people are indeed reading my articles and to the extent that they are helping expand the knowledge base, I am satisfied that my intervention is directing Zimbabweans and Africans in general to think hard about what kind of future they deserve and how they should be governed.
In pursuit of this, there can be no justification of anyone prescribing what is non-negotiable. For what is sovereignty worth when a government can operate outside its own laws and how can the challenge of building a new Africa be addressed when those in power are working constructively to undermine it?
Without the rule of law and not rule by law, there can never be a new Africa. Africa can rise to the challenge when its citizens get the respect from those they have chosen or those that have chosen themselves to lead Africa understand the true meaning of common citizenship and the need to create and nurture a new African identity premised on the respect of human and property rights.
In pursuit of the goal to help create a new Africa found on new values, I am a member of the Africa Heritage Corporate Council (AHCC) and from now onwards you can reach me on my new email address: mmawere@ahccouncil.com. I realise that this mission can only be considered as work in progress requiring the intellectual and physical resources of all persons concerned and interested about Africa’s destiny.
I know we can create our own identity through enterprise and as Africans we can made the difference that we enhance our collective profile in a competitive global environment. Let us invest in challenging the consensus that Africa should be a conveyer belt for what God has endowed it with in form of minerals and natural resources to feed the world without its citizens taking ownership of their resources.
The governments of Africa have consistently underestimated the potential of citizens in preference for the promise of investment that is solely aimed at exploiting the resources of Africa. While we are being encouraged to look East, let us begin to look at ourselves.
As I have said before, the only power people who have no power is the power to organize.