Brand Ireland: A Practical Opportunity to Revitalise our Economy - By Mary Lambkin©, Professor of Marketing, Smurfit Business School, University College Dublin March 2010

1. Brand Ireland: A Practical Opportunity to
Revitalise our Economy
Mary Lambkin©
Professor of Marketing
Smurfit Business School
University College Dublin
March 2010
0

2. Brand Ireland: A Practical Opportunity to Revitalise our
Economy
Mary Lambkin©
March 2010
Introduction
The top theme to emerge from the Global Irish Economic Forum last September was the strong
need to refocus and refine the brand or proposition that Ireland projects to the world market. A
new ‗playbook for the 21st Century‘ is required according to the report from that forum.
What exactly that brand or ‗playbook‘ should be is quite another story. The Farmleigh report
went on to offer various recommendations, most of which were sector specific. It said that our
tourism proposition should be clearer and more consistent and should recognise the importance
of culture in promoting Ireland abroad and developing a unique brand for the country in new
markets.
It also suggested that we develop Ireland as a leading location for intellectual property
protection and as a test bed for clinical trials. It suggested that we appoint an ―IFSC Tsar‖ to
restore confidence in the finance sector and to actively promote Ireland as a centre for global
asset management activity. It recommended that we create a ‗Gateway Ireland‘ website to
project Irish business, culture, sport etc to the wider world.
The recently published Innovation Task Force report picked up on many of the same themes,
summarised in a vision for the future in which Ireland becomes an international hub for
innovation, re-branded as ―The Innovation Island‖. It proposed that a single national brand
identity based on the concept of innovation should be developed and used consistently by
relevant agencies in all of their promotional efforts.
Their report mentions that the enterprise agencies are in the process of designing and
developing a common brand for the national enterprise and research agenda that is to be
compelling, future focused, and likely to generate awareness of Ireland at home and abroad as
a vibrant, innovation-led, modern enterprise economy. The first stage in this process was
completed by December 2009 and will shortly be rolled out and used across a range of
communications materials in support of the various communications strategies of the enterprise
agencies and other stakeholders involved in branding Ireland.
The acceptance of the importance of a single, clear brand identity is to be welcomed as is the
acknowledged importance of an active, integrated marketing campaign. Even the briefest review
of the points just mentioned, however, suggests that the concept of Brand Ireland means a lot of
1

3. different things to different people and sectors, and that we are a long way from a single,
coherent, unified brand in the sense implied by the Farmleigh participants.
Ironically, the latest incarnation of Brand Ireland is Nama which proudly launched a new logo
and brand identity on February 10 last. It is a stylised representation of the harp that has been
at the core of the Irish national identity since the foundation of the State. There is nothing wrong
with this per se but it does raise questions as to how it fits in with other national symbols and
whether it does or should tie in with a bigger agenda for managing the national brand.
This paper sets out some of the issues that branding and marketing professionals might
typically consider in the context of nation or country branding, and tries to offer a fresh
perspective to contribute to the debate on the future direction of Brand Ireland.
The Concept of Nation Brands
The idea of treating countries or nations as brands is not new but has been gaining currency in
recent years as competition for tourism and foreign direct investment (FDI) has intensified
among the developed nations and, even more so, as emerging nations such as India and China
have become serious challengers in the global market. That‘s why terms such as ‗nation brand‘,
‗country brand‘ and ‗place brand‘ are now heard so often, and a minor industry has grown up in
designing, managing and measuring nation brands.
So what is meant by the concept of a brand and is it appropriate to apply it in the context of
countries and nations, just as it is to commercial products and services? In marketing terms, a
brand is a name, sign, symbol, slogan or anything that is used to identify and distinguish a
specific product, service, or business. A brand‘s visual identity is the overall look of its
communications and at the core of every brand identity is a brand mark, or logo. An effective
brand visual identity is achieved by the use of a strong, attractive design appropriate to the
particular product, and consistent application of that design through elements such as colours,
typefaces, and graphic elements.
This name and symbol stands for the sum total of what that brand means to all relevant
audiences, and the term brand equity is used to signify the value-- both reputational and
commercial --that it represents. This value derives from the name recognition and goodwill that
2

4. the brand has earned over time, which translates into higher sales revenue and profits than
competing brands.
In principle, branding a country or nation should be the same or similar to a product or
service. It's all about identifying, developing and communicating the parts of the identity that are
favorable to specified target audiences. But the analysis of identity and of multiple applications
and target audiences, makes the brand building activities are much more complex for countries
than for products.
A nation brand must accommodate sectors as diverse as government, culture and heritage,
international trade, tourism, capital investment, and people (public opinion and migration). It is
difficult to conceive of a single brand that can represent all of these sectors simultaneously and
equally well. It is also far more difficult to achieve a fully integrated communication mix in nation
branding because of the number of diverse audiences that must be reached.
The fact is, however, that every nation has an international image whether it manages it or not,
based on a mixture of perceptions and experiences among the viewing public. There is no
doubt, either, that having a positive image can make a world of difference to a country, city or
region, just as it does for companies and their products. An imprimatur like “German engineering”
or “Made in the USA” can boost exports, investment and tourism. Labels can also be influential:
Consider the connotation of ―Third World‖ country versus ―Emerging Market.‖
In the past, nation brands tended to develop spontaneously without any intervention from state
or other sources, based on the ebb and flow of news and events that occurred in that country
and in its external transactions. For example, if you look at what is happening in India today,
and the perceptions about India, none of these are controlled. India has emerged in the last five
years in terms of perceptions in a quite different way from the way it was perceived ten or fifteen
years ago. It was spirituality and poverty, and now it‘s software; it‘s highly educated people. And
in some countries, Indian clothing — textiles and fabrics, are fashionable.… None of this is
managed. It‘s all spontaneous.1
Nowadays, however, most countries are trying to manage their brands in a planned, deliberate
way with varying degrees of success. One of the countries that has been most active in brand
building is New Zealand which has been so successful in its efforts that it has become a role
model for other countries. Starting in 1999, it launched a campaign with the slogan ``100%
Pure'' in all of its key markets for trade and consumer events, advertising and marketing. The
original target for ``100% Pure'' campaign was the tourism, farming and dairy industries, but the
government soon realised its shortcomings in marketing the local information technology and
next-generation industries, which gave birth to the follow-up slogan ``New Thinking New
Zealand'' in 2003.
1
Wally Olins, Chairman of the branding consultancy Saffron in London and Madrid, quoted in Interbrand
White Paper on Country Branding.
3

5. The success of this campaign can be seen in the results: incoming visitors increased 53 percent
since the ``100% Pure'' campaign kicked off and the ``New Thinking New Zealand'' efforts
substantially increased exports. New Zealand achieved a ranking of 4th place in the Futurebrand
Top 10 nation brands last year, behind major players including the US, Canada and Australia.
Commenting on this ranking, The NewZealand.com website says ―The world is in love with New
Zealand. People want to holiday here, live here, consume our primary produce and wine, and
even watch our movies. We're seen as a peaceful backwater in a harsh world of terrorism and
financial instability‖.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and many other countries have sought to replicate the
success of the New Zealand branding model. For example, the Korean government is currently
campaigning its vision for ― Brand Power Korea 2010,'' which aims to have 70 percent of total
Korean exports come from brand name companies and to place more than 10 Korean brands
on the world's 100 most recognized names list by 2010.
According to Futurebrand which publishes an annual ranking of nation brands, the best country
brands are those which have the most attractive perception through a whole mix of economic,
political and social activity. They propose that countries have the potential to become some of
the world‘s strongest brands, rivaling Nike, Sony and IBM. They say that "well-branded
countries can better promote economic value and export products; attract inbound investment,
tourists and talent, redress stereotypes or cliches and build competitive advantage".
All of this suggests the conclusion that there is much to be gained for this country by investing
considerable time and effort in developing Brand Ireland, and more to be lost if our competitors
around the world steal a march on us in this regard.
How Does Brand Ireland Stand Right Now?
The first step in brand building is to establish where the product currently stands and this
baseline information can then be used to identify key attributes upon which to focus—strengths
to build upon, weaknesses to be corrected, and knowledge gaps to be filled. This stage should
also help to set objectives to be pursued and metrics that can be used to gauge achievements
over time.
Many of our state agencies conduct their own research to find how Ireland is viewed by relevant
audiences in other countries. There are also several well-regarded annual surveys of country or
nation brands such as the Futurebrand Country Brand Index (CBI), the Anholt GfkRoper Nation
Brands Index, the Gallup Country Favorability Ratings and the Reputation Institute‘s Country
Reputation Index (CRI). Each of these rankings is based on a large international survey that
asks questions about a long list of topics that have a bearing on a country‘s image or reputation.
The Futurebrand CBI, for example, tracks the perceptions of approximately 3,000 international
business and leisure travelers from nine countries—the US, the UK, China, Australia, Japan,
Brazil, the UAE, Germany and Russia. They combine the results of that survey with insights
4

6. from an expert panel of 47 tourism, development, policy and academic professionals to compile
their index.
Ireland has not featured in the overall Top 10 countries which has tended to be dominated by
the very large countries, with the exception of New Zealand, which ranked 4th last year. The
USA topped the list in 2009 with Germany entering the Top 10 for the first time.
Table 1 Futurebrand Country Brand Index
Rank 2009 2008
1 USA Australia
2 Canada Canada
3 Australia USA
4 New Zealand Italy
5 France Switzerland
6 Italy France
7 Japan New Zealand
8 UK UK
9 Germany Japan
10 Spain Sweden
We have featured, however, in the top 10 for about a quarter of the individual variables
measured in this survey. For example, Ireland features in the top 10 for 6 out of 16 variables
under the tourism heading which is just one less than the UK and our rankings are very similar,
as shown in Table 2 below.
5

7. Futurebrand Detailed Nation Brand Rankings 2008
Table 2 Tourism Variables
Top 10 Number 1 UK Ireland
Authenticity New Zealand
Natural Beauty New Zealand 6
History Egypt 6
Rest/ Maldives 10
Relaxation
Beaches Maldives
Outdoor Australia 1 10 Scotland
Activities New Zealand 2
Fine Dining Italy
Holiday Options UAE
Nightlife Japan 9
Safety Norway
Ease of Travel Netherlands 6
Friendly Locals New Zealand 6 Scotland 2
Families Canada 9
Value for Money Thailand
Desire to New Zealand 7 6
Visit/Again
Most Like to Australia 1 10 8
Live In New Zealand 2
Predictably enough, the highest ranking is for the friendliness of our people (2), but we also do
well on natural beauty (6), desire to visit or visit again(6), like to live there (8),families (9), and
rest/relaxation (10). In contrast, we do not feature at all on variables such as fine dining, outdoor
activities, nightlife or, more surprisingly, history or arts/culture.
In terms of business, we feature in the top 10 for 4 out of 12 variables compared to the UK
which features in 5. Our best scores are for being easy to business with (5), a good place to
extend a business trip (5), and a preferred destination for conferences. Interestingly, we rank
10th as a new country with which to do business perhaps suggesting that we are not yet thought
of spontaneously as a business location.
6

8. We do not feature at all on advanced technology or high quality products suggesting that there
is much work to be done if we are to build our brand as an ―Innovation Island‖. This finding is
consistent with the European Innovation Scoreboard in which we ranked 9th among the EU27
countries last year and the year before.
Futurebrand Detailed Nation Brand Rankings 2008
Table 3 Business Variables
Top 10 Number 1 UK Ireland
Ideal for Business USA 3
Easy to Do Canada 6 5
Business
New Country for Japan 10
Business
Rising Star China
Quality Products Japan 6
Advanced Japan 3
Technology
Best Performance China
last Year
Standard of Sweden 1
Living Norway 2
Preferred Japan 8
Destination for
Conferences
Extend a Australia 1 5
Business Trip New Zealand 2
Environmentalism Sweden 1
Norway 2
Political Freedom Netherlands 10
These rankings are merely a small illustration of the kind of data that is available to inform our
thinking about where Ireland is currently positioned relative to our competitor countries and
relative to those against which we may wish to benchmark ourselves for the future.
7

9. The task for our government is to use research data of this type cleverly and imaginatively to
chart an overall direction for Brand Ireland, to decide on our desired positioning with regard to
individual variables, and to choose objectives and measures so as to monitor progress. Ideally,
we should have one summary message that transcends all the individual sectoral interests, but
one which can accommodate the individual sectors such as tourism and business in such a
way that they compliment and reinforce each other and generate positive synergies rather than
acting completely separately.
For example, there seems to be an obvious complimentarity between our rankings as friendly
people and as being easy to do business with. Also, the desire to visit and/or live here seems
positively related with attending conferences and extending business trips. These ―people‖
variables seem to offer one strong and unique platform upon which Brand Ireland could be built.
Undoubtedly, there are other alternatives also, but this example serves to illustrate the type of
building block approach that any branding effort should follow. Another critical issue to consider
is whether we wish to build our brand around what we are or have currently –such as our people
strengths, or whether we wish to build a brand to reflect our aspirations and to use it to lead us
forward in the desired direction. The concept of Innovation Ireland is a case of the latter—it
reflects what we would like to be seen as rather than where we currently stand.
As explained by Interbrand, one of the best known international branding consultancies, ―some
countries focus on what they believe is an asset currently and therefore a credible claim to
make. These countries feature a call to action that is immediate. Other countries, usually those
which are less developed, focus on the transformation that is occurring and emphasise the
potential for the future‖2.
Interbrand goes on to say that Ireland and Scotland are widely acknowledged as having created
country brands that punch far above their natural weight. They are seen as small, cocky fighters
who use the illusion of an enduring enemy to create a strong brand identity for themselves as
the underdog. Ireland has also enjoyed an enormous surge in popularity on the back of multiple
Eurovision Song Contest wins and shows such as River Dance and U2. Guinness helps too as
the quintessentially Irish Brand that at once feeds the reputation of Ireland, as Ireland-the
country brand- feeds it.
Undoubtedly these positive images and reputation have been dented in recent times due to our
economic and social problems, but we still have a strong base of awareness and visibility
around the world and it should be possible to refresh and recover our reputation with attractive
branding and communications.
2
Interbrand, White Paper on Branding a Country, London.
8

10. Brand Architecture
Talking about Brand Ireland or any other country brand implies that it is a single entity but that is
clearly an over-simplification because countries have so many constituent parts. There are
usually different geographical regions—cities and provinces, different ethnic groups, and a great
variety of activities and sectoral interests, both public and private. There are all of the
government departments and state agencies, for example, representing everything from
agriculture to education and environment, to arts and culture, and investment. There are also
many companies selling goods and services from the country, some of which are closely
identified with their country-of-origin (eg Guinness and Baileys), while others are global
businesses that just happen to be located here.
It would be easy to conclude that it is impossible for one single brand to capture all of this
diversity. On the contrary, however, a strong umbrella brand for the country can actually play a
very useful role in communicating a higher level vision and in uniting diverse activities towards a
common goal. There can also be economies of scale in a common branding strategy,
eliminating duplication of effort and leveraging benefits from marketing across sectors. That is
the ideal and is well worth striving for.
New Zealand, already mentioned above, has shown how its generic brand can be applied in a
coordinated way across many sectors. Although the principal tag line is ``100% Pure New
Zealand,'' the government allowed private corporations to extend the campaign to fit their
businesses, such as ``100% Romance'' and ``100% Pure Adventure.'' This catch phrase is now
used by 170 exporting and services companies.
Very large business corporations face similar problems of how to organize and brand their
businesses which typically include many products and markets. They make this complexity
manageable by considering their products and markets in terms of a hierarchical structure
known as a brand architecture. At the top of this hierarchical structure is the parent corporation
and below it reside all of the subsidiaries, divisions and products in an expanding tree structure.
By structuring their business in this way, they can see all of the connections and
interconnections both horizontally and vertically, and this helps to decide how to evolve the
brand structure over time.
The general approach followed by many of the world‘s leading service businesses is referred to
as a ―branded house‖ which means that they try to unite all of their businesses and markets
under a single master brand over time. This allows them to concentrate their marketing
investment on a single brand, getting a scale advantage, rather than dissipating spending
across a large number of small individual brands, with no synergistic benefits.
Citigroup and HSBC are two examples of this strategy which is now being copied by many other
companies with aspirations to become global brands. These companies manage their master
brands in a highly structured way with detailed manuals guiding all manifestations of the brand
9

11. across businesses, markets and applications. No deviation is allowed so as to ensure absolute
standardization of their brand across the world.
A similar approach could easily be envisaged for a nation brand as shown below. Central
government is at the top of the hierarchy with the master brand, and this brand is replicated in a
consistent way down through the hierarchy of government departments, state and semi-state
agencies, all the way down to the simplest and smallest application.
Such a vision is a long way from the current situation in which the Irish State is represented by
a kaleidoscope of images and logos with no common thread among them, and a highly variable
standard of design and execution, as shown in the chart below.
Current Irish Brand Architecture
Office of The President At the top of the hierarchy for Brand Ireland currently is the
Presidential Standard, which is a gold harp on a blue background as shown below. This is the
image that was registered with the Chief Herald as the official coat of arms of the State in
November 1945, and which is the sole property of the State ever since. The emblem is
protected internationally as a state emblem under the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property 1883.
For some reason, this official version has been changed in recent times and a new
interpretation shown below now appears on the Presidential website. There may be good
reason for this but, visually, it is a far weaker representation than the original and is introducing
colours that do not have any particular connection to Ireland.
10

12. Presidential Standard for Ireland
Current Logo on President’s Website
The Oireachtas, the Irish Parliament introduced a new corporate identity in 2008, shown
below. This new identity was presented as an update of the traditional symbol of the state--the
harp-- with a more stylised version set within concentric circles. According to the announcement
accompanying its introduction, the harp was ―specially drawn‖ in gold ink ―which best represents
the stature and position of the legislature‖. Furthermore, the green circles are in ―a lighter,
fresher colour which adds a modern quality to our new modern identity‖. The stated objective
was that ―Our new identity system expresses a suitably confident and engaging appearance for
the Houses of the Oireachtas.‖
11

13. The first thing to observe about this new identity is that it bears no relationship to the national
standard, either in colour or form. Furthermore, this new identity is rather weak and spidery
and does not demonstrate the strength or depth that would be desirable for a nation‘s identity.
Arguably, it would have been much better to use the national standard (gold on a solid blue
background) as a guide for the evolution of this new identity.
It is also curious to observe that this new identity does not seem to have been carried through
on the official government website which has the harp but uses a different colour scheme style
and colour scheme.
Government Departments This is where the brand architecture really breaks down. Each
department has a different visual identity, varying in colour, style, language (Irish versus
English) and every other aspect, and collectively, looking like total chaos.
The harp, which has been a central symbol of Irish nationhood since the foundation of the state,
features in the identities of some departments but has disappeared from many others. The
Departments of Health and Social and Family have abandoned the Harp completely and
adopted entirely new symbols with no obvious national resonance. Those that have kept the
harp have re-interpreted it in all sorts of ways, with no consistency among them. See, for
example, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries and the Department of Enterprise,
Trade and Employment.
12

14. Government Department Identities
Finance
13

15. Government Department Identities Continued
Each department has also adopted its own colour scheme, with no two similar. It is also
noteworthy that the role of the Irish language varies across departments. In some cases, Irish is
uppermost while in others it is presented only as sub-text.
State and Semi-State Agencies. This same looseness has carried forward into the various
state and semi-state agencies which have played fast and loose with the harp and shamrock in
evolving their own individual identities.
The IDA and Enterprise Ireland have completely different logos and identities, neither of which
has any obvious connection to Ireland or to each other.
14

16. The IDA logo is tired and faded in appearance with a clash between the angular emblem
suggesting something about scientific activity and the typeface used for the word Ireland which
is traditional and old-fashioned. In fact, it seems like a very unnecessary complication to have
two separate agencies with unconnected identities representing the single subject of
enterprise/business.
Similarly, having two different organizations with separate and dissimilar identities representing
tourism is difficult to understand. In both cases, the shamrock is used as the core image but it is
treated quite differently in each case.
Similar observations could be made about many of the other state and semi-state agencies
operating in this country. It is not necessary to review every one in order to arrive at the general
conclusion that our national branding is in a pretty chaotic state.
In fact, our Defence Forces Logo—another version of the harp—has actually been the butt of
jokes among an international audience. It seems the Irish Military have won the latest "who
sucks" opinion poll which invited internet users to compare 23 Armed forces logos from across
the world. And a quick look at the ―who sucks‖ website will tell you why. Whereas other armies
have gone for traditional crosses or swords, the Irish have settled for a swishy sort of harp thing
meets a pregnant lady holding a spear3.
3
http://www.who-sucks.com/politics/17-fearsome-defense-m...world
15

17. What Should be Done about Brand Ireland?
Marketing and branding people would be inclined to look in dismay at the current array of
identities within the Irish state sector. This represents a missed opportunity to build a really
clear, strong identity for the Irish State to represent the essence of how we want to be seen in
the world. This master brand would also provide leadership and coordination for the
management of the identities of all the constituent organizations that come under the State‘s
stewardship, ensuring a clear, coherent presentation of all facets of our communications.
It seems entirely unacceptable that core symbols such as the harp can be interpreted any which
way, as they are at present, and I believe that some investment of effort to decide on how we
wish to use these symbols in a unified way would repay itself in spades. In fact, the upside of
our current mess is that there is huge scope to make things better and to use a renewal of
Brand Ireland as a rallying cry to renew our whole economy.
It is interesting and inspiring that our literary and artistic communities are beginning to engage in
debate right now concerning how we want to redefine ourselves as a nation following the
trauma of the economic crisis. Articles published in the Renewing Ireland series in the Irish
Times over the last few weeks are an example of how adversity can be harnessed to generate
some good, unleashing fresh thinking from unlikely quarters that may well crystallise into some
strong ideas to refresh our vision of ourselves and thereby provide a new platform for our
national identity.
16

18. For example, in the first article in the Renewing Ireland series, my colleague Professor Declan
Kiberd expressed the issues thus4:
Before the Tiger years, Irish people understood that the real quality of life lies in those things
which cannot be quantified. The notion that market forces are vital is plain common sense, but
the idea that money should determine everything is a rather recent and barbarous development.
So is the proposition that people can express individuality through designer labels. For most of
their history, Irish people have felt connected to traditions of compassion for the young and old,
for the poor and infirm, and money has been subordinate. Our grandparents understood
Einstein’s maxim that “what counts can’t always be counted and what can be counted doesn’t
always count”. There is no point therefore in seeking to return to the spirit of Tiger Ireland. The
country needs to make not just a single step forward but a series of quantum leaps. These will
be based on new ideas, propounded mainly by those who work outside our sclerotic political
system.
In fact, it almost seems like history repeating itself because it was to the artistic establishment
that the first Irish government turned in the early 1920s to advise on the symbols and design for
the coins to be issued by the new Irish State. A committee was formed, headed by Senator W.
B. Yeats, and with Thomas Bodkin, Dermot O'Brien, Lucius O'Callaghan and Barry Egan as
members.
This committee decided at the outset that the harp, an age old symbol of Irish heritage, was to
be on most if not all coins, and all lettering would be in Irish. They decided that people
associated with "the present time" should not feature in any designs, probably due to the
political divisions which had led to the Irish Civil War. They also decided that religious or cultural
themes should be avoided in case coins became relics or medals. Since agriculture was
essential to the economy of Ireland, this theme was chosen for the coins, which used designs
featuring animals and birds. Finally, the harp and the words "Saorstát Éireann" were chosen for
the obverse side of coins.
A competition was held to generate design options and to choose a final design for the Irish
coins. Three Irish artists-- Jerome Connor, Albert Power and Oliver Sheppard --were invited to
submit designs, and also several foreign artists of whom four submitted designs ( Paul Manship
(American), Percy Metcalfe (English), Carl Milles (Swedish) and Publio Morbiducci (Italian)).
Each artist was paid and allowed to produce designs in plaster or metal, with a prize for the
winner. Images of animals and birds were presented to the chosen artists to design the reverse
and they were also given pictures of the Galway harp and Trinity College harp for guidance.
Identifying marks were removed from the designs so the committee did not know whose designs
were being judged.
Percy Metcalfe's designs were chosen and design modifications were added with assistance
from civil servants at the Department of Agriculture. The first coins were struck in 1928 and
4
―Renewing the Republic‖ series in the Irish Times edited by Peter Murtagh, which began with Declan Kiberd,
th
Weekend Review, March 13 , 2010.
17

19. were minted at the Royal Mint in London. Following the introduction of the Constitution of
Ireland in 1937, the obverse of the coins was modified with the Irish language name of the
State, "Éire", and the harp was also modified so that it wore better. The description of the state
as the "Republic of Ireland" did not require any change in the name on coins issued after 1948.
This little piece of history has important lessons for us almost one hundred years later. First of
all, there is the importance of involving creative thinkers who see the world in terms of images
and symbols that are at the centre of the Irish psyche. Second is the fact that they returned to
core values –the harp as part of our heritage and agriculture as a way of life. They were not
swayed by current events or political issues but sought to focus on enduring values that reflect
Irish life and culture. Thirdly, they were not afraid to look internationally for the best designs and,
ironically perhaps, the winning design came from an English artist.
It seems to me that we would do well to follow a similar approach now to come up with a new
identity for the Irish nation. It would be fascinating to conduct an international competition to
unearth the best ideas on how Brand Ireland might best be portrayed to the wider world for the
next phase of our development. The brief for participants in such a competition would include
some background on the two symbols that have been part of our culture and promotion since
time began—the harp and the shamrock.
Core Symbols of Ireland
The Celtic harp, often called "Brian Boru's Harp", is the primary symbol for Ireland. It was
selected as the state emblem on the establishment of the Irish Free State, and one of its earliest
treatments was on the Great Seal of the Irish Free State. It continued to be a state emblem after
the Constitution of Ireland was adopted. The image of the harp is used on coins, passports, and
official documents of the state; it is also the official seals of the President, Taoiseach, Tánaiste,
Ministers of the Government and other officials.
The Coat of arms of Ireland is blazoned as Azure a harp Or, stringed argent — a gold harp
with silver strings on a St. Patrick's blue background. The harp, and specifically the Cláirseach
(or Gaelic harp) appears on the coat of arms which were officially registered as the arms of the
state of Ireland on 9 November 1945. It is registered with the World Intellectual Property
Organization as a symbol of Ireland.
The Presidential Standard is the flag of the President of Ireland. It was instituted on February
13, 1945.] Its design consists of a golden Cláirseach (Gaelic harp) with silver strings on a
background of St. Patrick's Blue. The design is the same, except for shape, as the Coat of Arms
of Ireland.
18

20. These instructions are very clear and explicit and it is astonishing to see the amount of freedom
that state organizations have in using the harp symbol in modern day identities, as shown
above. At the very minimum, the government should revisit this issue and develop a tight set of
rules as to how and in what way the official state symbol may or may not be used.
The shamrock is the second, widely used symbol of Ireland. It is a three-leafed old white
clover. It is sometimes of the variety Trifolium repens (a white clover, known in Irish as seamair
bhán) but today usually Trifolium dubium (a lesser clover, Irish: seamair bhuí). According to
what the Oxford English Dictionary calls "a late tradition" (first recorded in 1726), the plant was
supposed to have been used by Saint Patrick to illustrate the doctrine of the Trinity although this
legend is somewhat .
The shamrock has been registered as a trademark by the Government of Ireland.[1] In Northern
Ireland, it is also used by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. Aer Lingus and Failte Ireland have
used the shamrock as their trademark since their foundation so that it has become the most
visible symbol of Ireland even though ti does not have the official standing of the harp.
An Aer Lingus aircraft with a shamrock on its tail fin.
Again, for such a fundamentally important symbol of Irishness, it is amazing to see how it can
be used and abused at will by a multitude of organisations and situations. It pops up all over the
place and no two applications are the same—even our two state tourism bodies have two
different versions.
19

21. The Bord Bia Quality Food marks shown below also demonstrates the variation in approach
and, to add to the confusion, the Guaranteed Irish symbol has no visible link to the food mark.
It seems unarguable that such variation in style and quality of execution is a sub-optimal use of
a key symbol and that much effort needs to be expended in considering how, where and when
we wish to use the shamrock in the future. The next question is who should take on this task
and how should it be tackled.
Managing Brand Ireland for the Future
The benefits of a consistent and professional country brand such as Brand Ireland are clear and
obvious - they include the ability to attract more tourists and to win more investment, as well as
the more intangible benefits of an improvement in national pride and wellbeing, and a
heightened status and visibility in the international political arena. The problem is a more
practical one--how to motivate and coordinate the myriad stakeholders involved so as to end up
with a unique but consistent identity that transcends all sectors and applications.
Creating a branding program for a country demands an integration policy that most countries do
not possess- the ability to act and speak in a coordinated and consistent way about themes that
are the most inspirational and differentiating a country can make. The identification of key
themes and symbols is an emotionally charged debate which runs the risk of being dominated
by sectoral interests. There is also the question of who leads and pays for the project --design
work, market research, and media communications.
20

22. It would be easy to be discouraged by the extent of the difficulties but there are some models
from other countries that may be helpful. The first principle is that a national or country branding
scheme must be instigated and led from the top—by the government of the day. Without such
leadership nothing will happen.
A growing trend is for governments to establish an Brand Steering Group or Brand Council to
manage the national brand. These groups act as champions and custodians of the brand,
manage investment in branding and communication and supervise integration. They also act as
champions for brand development and promotion both to national and international audiences.
For example, South Africa set up an International Branding Council in 2000 to coordinate efforts
to develop a consistent, positive and compelling message for South Africa. Its mission is to
establish Brand South Africa, create an integrated approach within public and private sectors
towards the marketing of South Africa, and to cultivate national support for the brand within the
community.
Similarly, Finland has a Country Branding Committee which made a presentation recently on its
findings about country branding. It portrayed the country brand as something that needs to lie
“close to the country’s DNA”, to be pure, honest and typical for the country. Additionally, a
country needs to have something unique to differentiate itself from the others – preferably
something with a ―wow‖ factor. Having a unique symbol like the ―Eiffel Tower‖, ―Little Mermaid
statue‖ or ―Big Ben‖, is a good way to create uniqueness for a country. They also advocate that
countries need to invest in continuous feeding of “brand material”. The social media ( Twitter,
Facebook, YouTube and blogging) are an efficient and cost effective tool for spreading the
country image in the modern world: a small effort can create a big effect.
It should be perfectly feasible for the Irish government to set up a Brand Ireland Steering Group
with representatives from central government, the organisations with responsibility for promoting
Ireland abroad and the arts. This group would be given the task of developing a new brand
strategy and visual identity system for the country. They would also have responsibility for
coordinating the range of applications for this new identity and for evolving the system over time
as conditions change. This would be an interesting challenge with a great opportunity to make a
contribution to our nation‘s economic and cultural wellbeing.
Summary and Conclusions
This paper was prompted by recent suggestions that Brand Ireland needs to be re-imagined and
re-designed so as to play a part in leading the renewal of the Irish economy following the recent
economic crisis. The objective was to examine the topic as a case study in country branding, to
investigate relevant issues, and to outline an approach that could be followed to realize the
concept of a new, unified brand to represent our country.
The first step was to describe what is meant by brands and brand identities, and to debate
whether it is feasible or appropriate to talk of countries as brands. The conclusion reached is
21

23. that, for better or for worse, most countries are now conscious of the importance of their image
or reputation abroad and are investing time and money in trying to manage this in a positive way
to enhance their economic performance.
Country brands are necessarily multi-faceted so some consideration was given to the concept of
brand architecture as a useful organizing framework for mapping and evaluating the levels and
connections among the constituent elements of a country‘s brand. The brand architecture of the
Irish government sector was then identified and examined to assess the extent of its coherence
and integration. This painted a very unflattering picture with an astonishing diversity of brand
identities with absolutely no consistency or possibility of synergy. Having multiple organizations
with different identities to represent the same activity –such as in tourism promotion (Failte
Ireland and Tourism Ireland) and industrial development (IDA and Enterprise Ireland) is the
extreme case but is representative of a general tendency to favour fragmentation over
integration.
A particular problem is the flagrant disregard for the importance or value of core symbols,
particularly the harp and the shamrock. These are both central to our sense of nationhood as
well as official state symbols. Yet the evidence suggests that individuals and organizations can
use these symbols when and how they like and the result is a sorry collection of topics and
applications. This is very unfortunate and should be corrected as a matter of urgency. No self-
respecting commercial company would allow its visual identity to be used and abused in the
way the Irish State has allowed its core identity to be applied.
It is easy to say what should happen but less easy to know how it might be done. A recourse to
history suggested one interesting possibility. That is to hold a major international competition to
come up with a new visual identity for the Irish nation similar to the competition that the first Irish
government ran to design the new Irish coinage. It would be fascinating to conduct an
international competition to unearth the best ideas on how Brand Ireland might best be
portrayed to the wider world for the next phase of our development. The brief for participants in
such a competition would include some background on the two symbols that have been part of
our culture and promotion since time began—the harp and the shamrock.
No such thing can happen, however, without enthusiastic leadership and management. Brand
Ireland is necessarily a national concern so the initiative and leadership must come from the
government. Responsibility for implementation can rest with a task force or steering group as
long as it has a clear mandate and some reasonable level of resources. Ideally such a group
should draw widely from the artistic as well as business communities and should include
marketing and branding expertise. It would also be desirable if the general public could be
drawn into the process to engage interest and support.
The best case scenario would be the creation of an entirely new, visually strong and confident
identity that would symbolize a major renewal of the Irish nation both economically and culturally
and that would endure for a long time into the future. This would be rolled out in a consistent
way throughout the state and semi-state sector resulting in an integrated presentation of all
22

24. constituent elements so that the sum seems greater than the parts. Hopefully, this highly
organized visual impression would be mirrored in practice by integrated service delivery
reflecting the ―joined up‖ thinking that we often mention as the ideal.
23