Unified Europe

I believe Europe is living a great opportunity to Rebrand itself. This is the moment to question, think, criticize and build.

If Europe does it, it will become the world # 1 economy, surpassing, the USA or China.

Here is an Idea that I like, and this is the first of many, showing this can go in the right direction.

If Europe would not be living a crisis, none of this would be open for discussion.

" French president Francois Hollande on Thursday called for a eurozone-wide “economic government”, with its own budget and full-time president as well as a harmonised tax system, as a step to deepen integration in the increasingly divided currency bloc."

With the appointed president, the proposed eurozone government would meet monthly to shed light on key economic developments in the unified bloc, said Hollande, who marked his first year in office as the most unpopular president in modern French history.

The French proposal, which Hollande said he would submit to his eurozone partners, also calls for much deeper fiscal integration between the eurozone nations, with a common budget and the authority to issue debt. The government would also debate the main political and economic decisions to be taken by member states and launch a battle against tax fraud.

"It is my responsibility as the leader of a founder member of the European Union...to pull Europe out of this torpor that has gripped it, and to reduce people's disenchantment with it," he said. "If Europe stays in the state that it is now, it could be the end of the project."

He acknowledged he could face resistance from Germany, Europe's paymaster, which opposes mutualising debt among member states. Berlin is also reluctant to give the eurozone its own secretariat for fear of deepening division in the European Union, between the 17 members of the single currency and the 10 others.

Instead, members have committed to much closer coordination of budget policies as well as the establishment of a centralised banking supervisor for the region.

Speaking at a separate event before Hollande announced his initiative, German Chancellor AngelaMerkel said she may not have a "bosom friendship" with her French counterpart, but her working relationship with Hollande was strong and crucial for Europe.

"Living in an open society we must have nuances between conflict and bosom friendship. It seems there is nothing between the two - but the reality is different," Merkel told a conference on Europe in Berlin.

Promising to lead the bloc towards a fully-fledged “political union” – implying EU treaty change – within two years, Hollande added:

Germany has several times said it is ready for political union, for a new phase in integration. Well France is ready to give body to this political union and gives itself two years to do so … It is a question of European urgency.

Hollande’s comments come a day after official data showed that France had fallen back into recession in the first quarter of this year and for the third time since 2008.

Critics say Hollande has been slow to tackle France’s job crisis which has seen unemployment hit 10 percent – its highest since records began in 1996 – as well as failing to bring the budget deficit back under 3 percent of GDP.

Brussels has since given Paris two extra years to bring its deficit in line with EU targets, but in return it is demanding tougher reform of the French welfare state and high public spending.

Source:

http://www.economywatch.com/in-the-news/france-calls-for-establishment-of-eurozone-goverment.17-05.html

Also: See an interesting article from Eduardo Oliveira about EU Brand published in 

http://placesbrands.com

It is a true story. Money rules de world!

Regardless if you or I like it - If you have economy, you have a very high chance of having a good Country Brand and South America will be the new Asia.    In 20 years time - Africa

China, despite any problems with its innovation perception, is now a center of economic power. And the importance of economy on country branding speaks for itself. Ten or twenty years ago, China did not have the image of sophistication and power that it does now. And this is all thanks to FDI investments and foreign companies that started doing business there.

What’s very interesting about world economies is how power has moved from region to region throughout history. From early civilization in Iran and Iraq, ancient Egypt, to more recent rules of Italy, Spain, Portugal, northern Europe, the move into the US and North America, the conflict with Russia, the power is always moving. Now, it’s China, and other parts of Asia are heating up thanks to China. And the world needs this constant motion.

So where to next? Where is economic power heading? South America. 

Latin America will be the new United States of America - I call it the United States of South America

South America, in my eyes, is basically going to be the next United States, and Brazil will be leading the way.

For so many years, South America has been stuck under perceptions of chaos, war, poverty. Its natural beauty has always been a positive note, but it was a double edged sword, because the focus on nature brought along the perception of that it was undeveloped in a negative way.

Just look at some movies from the 1980s, where people arrived at the airports of South America, and everything is chaos. Of course, it probably was, but it’s always exaggerated in the movies. These are the kinds of perceptions that surrounded South America, and it is only recently that the continent started to be seen more positively. It’s a great lesson for other regions in the world that are struggling to leave these negative perceptions behind.

One of the key successes here is the economic growth of the continent, particularly in regards to Peru, Columbia, Bolivia, and Brazil. Argentina, while once strong, has slipped and it currently can’t be considered one of the countries bringing South America to the next level.

One of the biggest enemies of Country Branding

Over and over again... The God Damn logo again.

This is an absolute classic. The eternal debate about logos and that logos are the Brand.

The brand is NOT the logo. Yes it could contribute to develop and build a brand, but the "pressure" and "attention" it generates normally destroys the hole strategy. How many Country Brand projects were extremely criticized thanks to logo design. The answer is just to many! And let me say one thing, if you don't stop putting the attention on the logo, many more to come will fail.

Very few Tourists or Investors will remember very few Country logos or tag lines. You can create a Country Brand strategy without the logo. Don't believe me? What is the logo of Japan? or Barcelona? or Mexico City? and what is the tagline of Rio or Sidney?

My guess is that 1 in 1.000.000 wil l be able to answer all these questions.

The recommendation I give to all leaders interested in Country Branding or City/Region Branding is:

Forget the logo - You can make your strategy with NO logo.

Here is an interesting case happening in Bulgaria right now:

Bulgaria’s new tourism logo to be reworked ‘until everyone likes it’ – Tourism Minister

The new Brand Bulgaria tourism logo launched on January 17 2013 and which has come under a torrent of criticism from some circles domestically is to be reworked “again and again until everyone likes it,” Economy, Energy and Tourism Minister Delyan Dobrev said.

Domestically, the logo, produced by a private agency, has been the subject of sharp criticism from some quarters in social networks, has come under fire from the Union of Bulgarian Artists and in media reports has been said to bear an uncanny resemblance to the logos promoting Kyrgyzstan and Odessa, respectively. Culture Minister Veshdi Rashidov described it as “primitive” and slightly kitsch.

Dobrev said on February 14 said that he had made the request for the logo to be reworked 10 days ago. There was no deadline for the project to be completed, he said.

He said that the logo should be redone so that it would be accepted by all of Bulgarian society and professional circles. The project to rework it would be carried out at the expense of the contract, Dobrev said.

The project to produce Bulgaria’s new branding campaign, logo and slogan, including research and design work and opinion surveys, cost 1.6 million leva (about 800 000 euro).



Original article from Sofia Globe at:

http://sofiaglobe.com/2013/02/14/bulgarias-new-tourism-logo-to-be-reworked-until-everyone-likes-it-tourism-minister/

Are the Olympics worth it?

Everyone is talking about Rio and the Olympics. 

But is really worth it?

Global events are great opportunities for countries to change their image.

At least, countries seem to view them as great opportunities. The Olympics always create a lot of controversy and a lot of press. Everyone wants to host them and be part of the games, especially during the medal ceremonies.

That’s because countries believe that the Olympics really boost their image as a nation. They think that being in the world spotlight for two weeks is going to have a major impact on their reputation and economy.
But are the Olympics really good for countries? Does it create a long term impact?
It depends…

For the Olympics to really make an impact, you need to have it at the right time. You need to show off changes in your country that the world has never seen before. And you need to make sure that whatever you want to show off is visible from every angle in the city.

I have to add that the Olympics can only make a tourism impact. Nothing else. All your efforts will go to tourism increase. Not because of the event itself, but because of the images that you see.
The preparations can have economic impact, in terms of infrastructure, but the results will all go towards tourism. You need to analyze and see if, as a country, the Olympics are worth it. Do you really need it? Will the changed image increase tourism in the future? Generally, the answer is no.
But what about the next Olympics in 2016?

Brazil will be hosting the 2016 Olympics. Is this a good idea for Brazil? Will it be worth it?
Definitely, definitely. It is so important because Brazil is now known for hostility, insecurity and social imbalances. Tourists are afraid to travel there because of favelas, the notorious Brazilians slums. The Olympics can do a very important task of setting up good infrastructure and showing how far Brazil has improved. It will benefit Rio, and Rio really needed it. I think it will be extremely beneficial in the future.

The Brazilian Olympics will help to revert Rio perceptions of insecurity

What other countries could do with an Olympics? Not Madrid! The city simply doesn’t need it. It already has a strong tourism industry, and honestly, it doesn’t need to spend the money right now.
Peru, as a country, and Bogota could benefit from the Olympics, as well as any country that has been changing and improving in the recent years. They need a platform to show off these changes.  Countries are starting to evolve. If a country is ready to be a world player and has a somewhat bad reputation, they need this kind of event to give a push to show they are ok. Any city in the developed world doesn’t need it. Because they have it already. So it’s ok.

Events can definitely help position a country and improve perceptions. But like I said, most countries don’t really need sports. Unless you want to unveil some great changes that have happened to your country and you’ve really tied to the event to your country, don’t even bother. Don’t bother unless you’re going to really own it. Otherwise, the returns are just too little.

And in terms of investing in sports to rack up the medal count? The return is even smaller. Having said that everyone wants to be on the winning team. It’s human! So even though it is very unreliable, I have to admit I would definitely invest in sports if I were a political leader.
Don’t forget, events like the Olympics and World Cup are only going to help you on the tourism side. Forget about anything else.

If you want investments and trade boos t from events, go for “boring”. You need the serious, socially conscious stuff: economics, human rights, the environment. We all want to know that your country is invested in the future.  Maybe it’s not as cool as winning a World Cup, but hey, it’s still a pretty big deal.

Really great article from the Economist from 1999!

Europe’s adventure beginsHistorians may well count January 4th 1999 as an epic momentDec 31st 1998 | from the print edition of the Economist 



IT WILL happen over a holiday weekend, and in a way which leaves ordinary citizens more or less unaffected, as new notes and coins will not replace old national currencies for a further three years. But the nature of its launch on January 4th should not let anyone underestimate the importance of the creation of the euro, the new single currency for 11 European Union members, nor miss its genuinely historic nature. It is the biggest risk the EU has ever taken, but also an adventure that could transform the economic and political landscape of the continent. It is the first time that countries of anything like this number, size or global economic weight have gathered together to share a currency, and thus to pool their monetary sovereignty. It is arguably the most momentous currency innovation since the establishment of the United States dollar in 1792.The superlatives could go on. But is the euro to be welcomed? Yes, it is, and all should hope that it will be a success. The European Union is an imperfect creature, with some of its actions based on fine principles of political economy and some on poor ones. The intentions behind the euro fall clearly into the first category. The EU was founded in 1957 on the desire to avoid war, and many of its best achievements have also been based on another sort of disarmament: policy disarmament. For external trade, for state aids, for the single-market rules and others, countries have handed over powers that seemed (though generally weren't) individually desirable but were in practice mutually harmful. A similar transfer is happening now with monetary policy. The 11 euro members' rights to inflate, to finance budget deficits by printing money, to boost exports temporarily by currency devaluation are being handed over to the new European Central Bank (ECB) in the most powerful way possible, by treaty.As with the other forms of policy disarmament, the transfer of powers to a supra-national body does not guarantee they will be used well. In trade, national protectionism has too often merely been replaced by pan-European protectionism. But the Treaty of Maastricht, which in 1991 paved the way for the ECB and the euro, gives cause for hope. The ECB has a strict and simple task: price stability. It is forbidden by treaty from bailing out a profligate government. Its independence from political interference is well entrenched.
That said, the risks associated with the euro also begin with the treaty. To paraphrase Keynes's criticisms of the Treaty of Versailles after the first world war, treaties often solve one problem but cause the next. In the case of Maastricht, one risk is that the ECB's task will be carried out too strictly and inflexibly. But the most worrying legacy lies in the treaty's strictures about national budget deficits and in the cementing of those concerns in the later Stability and Growth Pact. As our article argues, this deprives governments of the one power which, under a monetary union, they most need: the ability to use national fiscal policy to counteract recessions which affect one member state more than the others. They have not lost this ability altogether, but it will be severely constrained.The danger that this raises is that in the event of a sharp recession in one or more countries, there will then be a political reaction against the EU itself. The Union as a whole, and other euro members, will be blamed for the victim's inability to moderate its recession. Given that public support for the euro has been thin, to say the least, in most of the member countries (and is unlikely to grow much during the absurdly long, three-year period before people actually get hold of euro notes and coin), this is one helluva hostage to fortune.

A United States of Europe?Such an outcome, if it happens, could cause a political bust-up; or it could lead to more power being transferred to the EU in the worst possible circumstances, namely when the Union is deeply unpopular. But there is also a happier way to think about things. Perhaps this nasty outcome will not occur, either because no such “asymmetric” recession takes place or because governments, meanwhile, have dismantled the stability pact. In that event, the euro will have proved a success: its members will have achieved low inflation, and the currency will have ridden out the ups and downs of the economic cycle without itself becoming politically unpopular. That is the outcome for which everyone should be hoping during the next decade.

What then? The answer, most probably, is that a successful euro would give a big impulse to political union between the constituent countries, something close to the founding fathers'—and Winston Churchill's—original dream. The policy disarmament of monetary union would have been shown to have worked, would by then be justifiably popular, and would have encouraged governments to seek new ways to transfer their powers to common institutions. Such a union is not inevitable. And on a decade or two's timetable it would be unlikely to be as full a union as today's United States of America. To those who hate federalism, the very thought of political unity will anyway be anathema. But this would be the right way to arrive at a closer union: after a positive experience, and with popular support.Even this Elysian vision must, however, take account of other likely changes. By then the EUwill be bigger, with 20-30 members rather than the current 15. That fact, let alone the current division between the 11 euro countries and the four, led by Britain, that have not joined, is likely to mean that the Union should become a multi-system entity, with some countries signing up to everything and others opting for a different blend. It may well prove perfectly rational, in the long term, for some EU countries to stay out of even a successful euro. But that, too, is a happy thought: a Europe that is broad as well as deep, that takes account of national differences and is not thought of as a federalising bully. If the euro succeeds in creating such a Europe, its launch on January 4th 1999 will be looked back on as really quite a moment.

Original article here: 

http://www.economist.com/node/180539?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/tm/1998/europesadventurebegins

Angela Merkel, the European leader out of power or need?

Let’s take a look at Angela Merkel. Merkel, as most know, is the Prime Minister of Germany.

Merkel has a huge presence in the media, usually in the context of financial news. She’s under tremendous pressure internally, and in Europe, she is not exactly positioned as the leader of Germany. Rather, she is positioned as the leader of the EU, even if she doesn’t want the job. Merkel is perceived as the person holding the key, the money and responsibility for restarting or stalling everything in Europe.

In my opinion, this isn’t true. The poor woman holds it all; she is the only one floating. What’s the problem with holding the boat so not all the passengers sink?

Although Germany is in an excellent position economically, this is a double edged sword. Thanks to its strong economy and the structure and organization, the country has weathered the crisis with minimal difficulty.

Still, Merkel can’t rescue the entire Europe. She is only normal. For obvious reasons, it is necessary to provide aid to many struggling countries, and she has done this well. The euro is crucial here. If the market shrinks, there’s going to be a storm. So in her position, she needs to be extremely sensitive to potential changes. And she did a lot to be honest, by taking the bull by its horns.

Because of her actions in this aspect, she has positioned herself as the European leader, even if she didn’t explicitly ask for the job. Wherever she travels, riots and protests against her occur. People are against a woman who is not even the leader of her country. People blame her for the problems in their own country. They have already forgotten that the period of wealth of their own country was also initiated by Germany. A lot of countries benefit by European aid, and Germany gave away a lot of its own money so that everyone would prosper for a long time. So let’s please not forget the role they played.

But now, Merkel is seen as a mother who doesn’t want to give candy aways. The babies, well, the teenagers, are crying for this candy or toys or money. We’re asking Mom for money, and we are very upset. So her power is not seen in the best way. She doesn’t hold this power for the right reasons, but she is seen as holding it nonetheless.

I mean, who might other potential European leaders even be? Hollande? Not so much. Definitely not Cameron, and no other European leader really comes close in terms of perception.

So it has to be Merkel. She’s the face of Europe.

Who’s your mommy now?

Is New Zealand that Pure?

Interesting article about New Zealand Country Brand Strategy Back Clash.

This is an example of why Country Branding can't be about a nice Utopic idea, but rather a strategic and realistic one.

You can read the article here

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/business/global/new-zealands-green-tourism-push-clashes-with-realities.html?pagewanted=all