Reykjavík Grapevine - 04.08.2008, Qupperneq 21

REYKJAVÍK GRAPEVINE | ISSUE 10—2008 | 21
feasible place for high-tech companies who need both
the expertise and education, but let’s not forget that Ice-
land’s energy resources also raise hopes for quick col-
onisation-style profits, so let’s not sell ourselves cheap.
The image should be of a trophy-wife and not a street-
hooker.
CAN WE SERvE THEM ALL?
Then of course attracting tourists is all about image.
Here the image works both ways. We create an image
to attract tourists and then, like the report points out,
the way we treat our tourists is one of the most impor-
tant and visible factors in the nation’s image. The tour-
ists return home with an image of an unspoiled and hip
nation and the reputation spreads out and affects the
export of Icelandic goods and even eventually foreign
investment.
Though these three fields are different shouldn’t
they all rely on the same image? Bro-
chures intended for foreign investors
should have the same feel as tourist
brochures shouldn’t they? This is a
very important topic which is underly-
ing in the report but never directly ad-
dressed. Are we capable of promoting
the possibility of putting up an oil-re-
finery for the business executive while
promoting the idea of pure nature for
the common tourist? Even though the
report does not strictly define a rule
in this matter, it certainly suggests a
competitive identity that can be ap-
plied to all fields.
ENERGY, FREEDOM AND PEACE
The key to finding a competitive iden-
tity is to be focused. Volvo cannot
brag about making fast and safe cars
– at least not at the same time and
place. They usually go for safe. This is
one of the challenges when building
an image. Icelanders like to be known
for culture and nature. Is that possible
or do we have to choose? Or can we
find an identity that can serve both as
representation for culture, nature and
even more?
The way these issues are con-
fronted in the report is to draw out
three cores in the image of Iceland
that can be applied to four important
fields we want to promote. The fields
are nature, people, business and cul-
ture. The three cores are energy, free-
dom and peace. Let’s take a look at
this ideology and see if it works.
Energy reflects the nature be-
cause Icelandic nature is full of green
energy that can produce endless ener-
gy. It connects to the people because
Icelandic people are willing and de-
termined. It reflects business because
Icelandic business is full of pioneers
and it connects to culture because
Icelanders are creative and produc-
tive in the artistic field.
Freedom is connected to nature
through its empty spaces and purity.
It is the core of the people because
they are independent, the business
because it is not suffocating from
red-tape and corruption and culture
because free minds create pure art.
Peace has a role in the preserva-
tion of nature and today’s ecological
issues (this one is maybe a little farfetched). It reflects
the people because they have created a safe society. It
has to do with business because we are not on the verge
of a coup-d’état and have a solid infrastructure and it
reflects the culture because we are a peace loving na-
tion.
GOODbYE ELvES
This representation is very wide but not necessarily un-
focused. It may be foam but its good foam. It’s whipped
cream in a spray-can. Some connections, like the one
between peace and nature, is not solid and in my view
I think all the connections to culture are weak. Energy,
freedom and peace, in my opinion, are cores that reflect
Iceland as an option for foreign investment and tourism
but do not in a focused manner sharpen the image of
Icelandic export products. The image in my head is of
a big and unspoiled country with hard working people.
That is all well. But what about the high educational
level, the literature and last but not least the mysticism?
Do we have put emphases on unspoiled nature and
good infrastructure and leave mysticism to Romania?
We can’t have our cake and eat it too, but still it’s better
to do either of that instead of choking on it.
WHAT’S bEING DONE NOW?
As it has been pointed out there is a lot of work being
done, intentionally and un-intentionally, in building an
image for Iceland. We should be careful not to define
“work” too broadly here since in its widest sense pretty
much anything done by any Icelander in connection
with other countries contributes to the image. An Ice-
lander giving a bum a penny in downtown London is
certainly a good representation of Icelandic kindness
but what we are discussing here are big projects con-
cerning image-building. The report makes a good sum-
mery of what’s being done and includes an appendix
with a list of all governmental bodies that have to do
with externally promoting Iceland.
One of the things discussed is Iceland’s candidacy
for the UN’s Security Council and the Iceland Naturally
project which has been rolling since 2000. The latter is a
joint venture between the government and private com-
panies and revolves around events in
North-America and Europe that ac-
tively try to raise positive awareness
of Iceland.
WHAT ARE THE NExT STEPS?
The moral of the report, hats off, is not
to make petty complaints about the
situation at hand. On the contrary, it
merely presents the options available.
One chapter is dedicated to success-
ful image building in other countries.
The countries scrutinized are Switzer-
land, New Zealand, Ireland, Denmark
and Scotland; what they all have in
common that they have conscious-
ly worked on their image. Most of
them have been able to bring together
the government and the private sector
which seems to be a key factor in suc-
cessful nation-branding.
The report suggests the Icelan-
dic government should create a ven-
ue that would handle coordination
between different bodies in image-
building and name it “Promote Ice-
land”. Promote Iceland should look
for ways to simplify and re-organise
the current structure. It would need to
have participants from all private sec-
tors dealing with export and also The
Trade Council of Iceland, Invest in Ice-
land, The Icelandic Tourist Board and
other offices with a similar status. Its
basic tasks would be to evolve a ver-
bal and graphical trademark with a
slogan, a website that would serve as a
gateway to other information sites that
deal with promoting Iceland, handle
publishing of promotional and educa-
tional books, brochures and videos,
and manage events that promote the
image and do research.
LET’S NOT bE TOO GLObAL
The Prime Minister’s Office report is a
neat and professional account of the
status and potential of the image of
Iceland. It gives a good idea of what
course to take and serves its main
role which is basically to introduce
the term nation branding to Icelandic
authorities. For better or worse the re-
port is not inspired by Einar Benedik-
tssonesque claims of Icelandic intel-
lectual superiority. That would have
been a miss anyway. But still.
Here is a final thought from the place inside me
that doesn’t make a distinction between feelings and
logic. I think the Icelandic nation has two important
assets. Two significant assets that make all others fade
and crumble. The first is the nature and I can’t complain
about the awareness in that field. The second is the Ice-
landic language. Sadly we are more than willing to com-
promise our language when it comes to image building.
Most of our export trademarks have English names like
Farmers Market, Geysir Green Energy, Icelandic Group,
Cintamani and Icelandic Glacial. The same goes with
the big branding projects like “Iceland Naturally” and
“Iceland on the Edge”. I don’t understand this logic.
Does anybody have a problem with the word Volkswa-
gen? It’s German and means People’s Car. I would have
liked to see more emphasis on literature and language
in the report, and the presentation of research on how
we look at our language and its role in promoting our
country. The Icelandic language is the key to the cultur-
al and philosophical legacy of Northern Europe. If that’s
something we are not willing to use as a corner-stone
when building our image, I think we should not even
bother to build it at all.
IMAGE CRISIS
The image of Iceland has
been widely discussed
recently in connection with
difficulties in the economy.
Icelandic companies, es-
pecially banks, have com-
plained that the media in
Britain and Denmark have
been unfair in their cover-
age of the Icelandic econ-
omy and they claim it has
resulted in poor loan ratings
and financial damage.
These matters are discussed
in the report under the
topic image crisis. The re-
port hints that a big portion
of the coverage is based on
misconception and that it
is vital to have a strong im-
age to be able to unveil the
truth and to systematically
resist crisis like these. At
this stage the nation’s image
is not strong enough to do
that efficiently.
The report also discusses
Iceland’s decision to start
whaling after a 20 year
prohibition. It is the opinion
of the committee that the
decision could have been
prepared more profession-
ally in accordance with the
nation’s image of a peace
loving, environmentally
concerned developed coun-
try. In plain English that
means that with a more cen-
tralised control of our na-
tion’s image we could have
prevented pictures of gro-
tesque whale slaughtering
reaching the international
media and we could have
explained more carefully
the scale and purpose of the
whaling instead of handing
out a free card for negative
assumptions. I guess that’s
something we can call
damage-control.