At an event as large as WTM, I find that a degree of mental fatigue can sometimes set in even to the most open-minded of souls. Yeah, I know that Country A is different from Country B in many important and significant ways and that the inhabitants of both would be very upset if I got them confused.
But the time can come when a man tires of stands offering similar offerings and needs to go in search of something else. Perhaps a walk on the wild side.
So, with that in mind, I decided to venture (within the safe confines of WTM) into the ‘axis of evil’ - in other words, I decided that I would visit the stands of countries that draw a fair amount of opprobrium and see how just how they were marketing themselves from a…errr…negative brand position.
The end result? In some cases, ‘ethical’ concerns might matter but I suspect that this can successfully be got round by some nifty marketing that addresses the emotional fears that unethical actions are a proxy for.
What do I mean by it being a proxy? Well, for example, if I believe that a government ready to imprison and torture its citizens seemingly on a whim, then I fear that there might be a chance that I might be subject to the same treatment, equally on a whim. But, there are ways and means around these unconscious fears that can help present destinations in a more favourable light. And the stands here are WTM might well be interesting insights into how to deal with these perceptions.
Take Cuba for example.
Cuba is not officially a paid up member of the axis of evil but Human Rights Watch (hardly a US stooge) notes that it is still a repressive country but the international public perception of it (outside the US) is that it is, at worst, almost a slightly wayward social democrat country that it is important to visit before it is ruined by nasty commercialism. I suspect that Cuba is well aware of this and, as such, its stand here at WTM is big, brash and confident. Ironically for a communist country, it is is a well marketed and professional destination marketed with considerable commercial nouce.
And it is fun.
As such, Cuba would appear to have listened to research and market forces and responded to consumer demands in improving and diversifying its product.
On the other hand, the Iranian stand (representing a country that is officially a member of the ‘axis of evil’) lacks this confidence. Like many of the Middle Eastern countries, it seems to rely on old images and on a slightly worth line of products. Their product appeals to a bookish person like myself but I think it communicates at the level of the head, not the heart. By this, I mean I need to be reassured that Iran, for example , is a safe place to visit where I won’t be stopped for a cultural misunderstanding. This doesn’t seem to happen and so, despite the attractions, there is still some nagging doubt. Overall, there doesn’t seem to be a suggestion of fun and the emphasis seemed to be on the historic, not the living.
However, fun seemed to be on the minds of the fellow evil-ites in the Syrian stand. Although the cliches undoubtedly abounded here as well, they were living cliches with people enjoying themselves - people laughing, people eating and people chatting. All of which are reassuring images common to all humanity.
While not an official ‘axis of evil’ country, China is nevertheless working hard to improve its image as a destination to visit. They’re not at the Iran level but neither are they are the Cuba level. I think their game is a longer one that will slowly build their brand to the point that they are perceived as a super-charged Singapore - no better or worse but certainly not grounds to avoid.
Finally, I went in search of the really evil Hermit Kingdom of North Korea. However, if they are here, their reputation for secrecy is intact as I couldn’t find them.
So, what can we learn from this slightly silly excuse of a post? Well, I think it is the lesson that destinations need to market to the heart as well as the head. As we noted a while ago, many of us carry conscious and unconscious prejudices and destinations need to address these in order to position themselves effectively. And although I have been using perhaps extreme examples, this lesson applies also to mainstream destinations - I don’t care if somewhere has a spectacular castle if it is an area where I’m likely to be mugged, for example.
Right, I’m off to find the Zimbabwean and Guantanamo Bay stands.
Update 1700: Well, after my mention of the Zimbabwe stand, I did go to and it struck me as traditional (safaris and all that) but…actually good. Despite the situation in the country, the stand suggested safety and fun. Not sure what that means for my theory.
External Links:
GoCuba (Canadian official site)
Syria Tourism (actually not a great site in contrast to the stand - you need to come and talk to us, guys)
This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 11th, 2008 at 3:49 pm and is filed under Brand research, Conference learnings, Destination research, Marketing strategy, National tourism strategy, Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.