Simon Anholt v GOVSI podkastu: Ugled države gradijo dejanja, ne oglaševanje

V 32. epizodi GOVSI podkasta je voditeljica Polona Prešeren gostila Simona Anholta, britanskega svetovalca, raziskovalca in avtorja ter utemeljitelja termina nation brand (angleško znamka države). Pogovor v angleškem jeziku je bil posvečen ugledu držav, javnim zaznavam ter strateškemu razmišljanju o tem, kako se države uveljavljajo v mednarodnem okolju.

Anholt je poudaril, da je nacionalna podoba veliko več kot promocija turizma ali odnosi z javnostmi. Gre za področje, ki vključuje ekonomijo, mednarodno pravo, mir in varnost, zgodovino, geografijo in kulturo. Ljudje realnost doživljamo skozi zaznave, zato imajo te enako težo kot dejstva. Raziskave kažejo močno povezanost med podobo države in njenim uspehom pri turizmu, investicijah, izvozu ter diplomaciji.

Analiza skoraj milijarde podatkov v raziskavi Anholt Nation Brands Index kaže, da države z najboljšimi podobami niso nujno najbogatejše ali najmočnejše, temveč tiste, za katere javnost verjame, da pozitivno prispevajo svetu zunaj svojih meja. V tem kontekstu je posebej izpostavil Slovenijo, ki je v zadnji izdaji Good Country Indexa zasedla 8. , Estonija pa 9. mesto, kar je po njegovi oceni izjemen dosežek za tako majhni državi.

V razpravi o znamki I feel Slovenia je Anholt poudaril pomen doslednosti: znamke se ne menja pogosto, ker se javnost nanjo naveže skozi dolgoročno ponavljanje. Logotipi in slogani niso odločilni sami po sebi, temveč so učinkoviti, ko odražajo skupne cilje in avtentično ravnanje države.

Vabljeni k ogledu in poslušanju epizode podkasta!

[ENGLISH VERSION]

Simon Anholt in the GOVSI podcast: A country’s reputation is built by actions, not advertising

In the 32nd episode of the GOVSI podcast, hosted by Polona Prešeren, we welcomed Simon Anholt – a British advisor, researcher and author, and the originator of the term nation brand. The conversation, held in English, focused on the reputation of countries, public perceptions, and strategic thinking about how nations establish themselves in the international environment.

Anholt stressed that a country’s image is far more than tourism promotion or public relations. It is a field that encompasses economics, international law, peace and security, history, geography and culture. People experience reality through perceptions, which is why perceptions carry the same weight as facts. Research shows a strong link between a country’s image and its performance in tourism, investment, exports and diplomacy.

An analysis of nearly a billion data points in the Anholt Nation Brands Index shows that countries with the best reputations are not necessarily the richest or most powerful, but those that the public believes contribute positively to the world beyond their borders. In this context, he highlighted Slovenia in particular. In the latest edition of the Good Country Index, Slovenia ranked 8th and Estonia 9th – an outstanding achievement for two such small countries, in his view.

Discussing the I feel Slovenia brand, Anholt underlined the importance of consistency: a brand should not be changed frequently, because the public connects with it through long-term repetition. Logos and slogans are not decisive on their own, but they become effective when they reflect shared goals and authentic national behaviour.

The GOVSI podcast is available on all major podcast platforms and on the YouTube channel of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia.

Transcript

Voditeljica: Lepo pozdravljeni v 32. epizodi podkast GOVSI, ki ga za vas pripravljamo na Uradu Vlade RS za komuniciranje. Z vami sem Polona Prešeren in danes se bomo pogovarjali o ugledu in znamki držav. Naš današnji gost je Simon Anholt, britanski svetovalev, raziskovalec, avtor, utemeljitelj termina national brand oz. znamka države in eden najbolj pogosto citiranih strokovnjakov s področja nacionalne identitete in javne diplomacije. Današnji pogovor bo potekal v angleškem jeziku. Gospod Anholt, Simon, dobrodošli v Sloveniji. 

Gost: Hvala.

Voditeljica: Dobrodošli v tem podkastu. Resnično nam je v čast, da ste tukaj z nami v našem studiu.

Gost: Zelo mi je v čast, da sem tukaj.

Voditeljica: V Sloveniji ste že nekaj dni. Nekaj dni. Kako se počutite tukaj? Kako se počutite v Sloveniji?

Gost: Čutim ljubezen. Ali ni to pravilen odgovor na to vprašanje? Čutim Slovenijo. To ni prvič, da sem tukaj. Mislim, da je to verjetno moj četrti ali peti obisk Slovenije v življenju, in rad sem tukaj. Tako civilizirano je, lepo, čisto, dobro organizirano in čudovito na pogled, in vsi so tako prijazni, inteligentni in kultivirani — in vsi govorijo odlično angleško. Nekako je čarobno. Skoraj bi prišel in živel tukaj.

Voditeljica: Vesela sem, da to slišim. V svoji kratki predstavitvi v slovenščini sem vas predstavila kot ustanovitelja koncepta znamke države. In ker ste tukaj, se malo osredotočimo na vaše delo. Leta 1996 ste skovali izraz »nation brand«, kajne?

Gost: Ja, očitno to drži. Ne spomnim se tako daleč nazaj, ampak obstaja članek z mojim imenom, ki uporablja izraz »nation as brand«. In mislim, da je to prvič, da se je uporabil.

Voditeljica: Da. In kasneje ste pomagali več kot 70 državam po svetu, od svetovnih sil do majhnih otoških držav, pomagali ste državam, pomagali ste nam, graditi ugled, graditi znamko države. Ampak je še toliko več od tega, onkraj znamk držav.

Gost: Mislim, da je to veliko širša in globlja tema, kot si večina ljudi predstavlja. Ko ljudje prvič slišijo frazo, kot je »nation as brand« ali »national image« ali »national identity«, pogosto domnevajo, da je to precej ozka tema — nekaj kot odnosi z javnostmi za države ali promocija turizma. Ampak bolj ko to temo preučuješ, bolj se zaveš, kako globoka in široka v resnici je. Ker če razmišljaš o tem, kako se države kažejo preostalemu svetu, moraš razmišljati o ekonomiji, moraš razmišljati o mednarodnem pravu, moraš razmišljati o miru in varnosti, moraš razmišljati o zgodovini, antropologiji, geografiji — in na koncu to postane tema o vsem. In kot sem rekel v svojem govoru drugi dan na Dnevih slovenskega turizma, imam razvpit kratkotrajen razpon pozornosti. Običajno se mi stvari po kakšnih štirih minutah navadno začnejo dolgočasiti, ampak te teme se držim že več kot 25 let, ker je tako fascinantna. In moja grozna profesionalna skrivnost je, da sem se naučil veliko več, kot sem kdaj koli učil — kar je dober znak, kajne? To je definicija dobrega dela: da se učiš več, kot učiš.

Voditeljica: Se še spomnite, katera je bila prva država, ki vas je dejansko prosila za pomoč?

Gost: No, zabavno je, da je bila ena prvih držav, ki sem jih obiskal, Slovenija.

Voditeljica: Res?

Gost: Nisem bil povabljen s strani Vlade Republike Slovenije. Povabil me je British Council v Ljubljani, ki je za vlado izvajal srečanje o nacionalni podobi. To je bila zelo nova tema, zato so opravili nekaj raziskav in poskušali najti strokovnjake, ki bi jih lahko povabili — in našli so lahko samo enega. In to sem bil jaz.

In ker sem bil edini strokovnjak na to temo, sem samodejno postal vodilna svetovna avtoriteta — ker če je samo eden od vas, ste vodilna avtoriteta. Tako so me povabili sem v Ljubljano in imeli smo niz razprav in delavnic. To je bila moja prva izkušnja. In potem mislim, da sem bil kot neposreden rezultat tega povabljen s strani Hrvaške vlade, da v Zagrebu govorim o pristopu k EU in podobi Hrvaške — ali je dobra ali slaba, ali pomaga ali ne. In potem se je to v bistvu valilo naprej od tam.

Voditeljica: V zadnjih desetletjih se je svet zelo spremenil — globalno segrevanje, podnebni izzivi, digitalna transformacija, umetna inteligenca, dezinformacije, geopolitični premiki … Mislim, da danes bolj kot kdaj koli prej države potrebujejo jasne in avtentične narative. Bi se strinjali, da je nacionalna znamka še vedno strateška nujnost za države?

Gost: Ja, to je odlično vprašanje — in odgovor je da. Ena prvih ugotovitev, ki sem jih naredil, ko sem pred več kot 20 leti začel pisati o tej temi, je bila, da lahko »podoba« ljudem zveni površinsko. Lahko zveni kot družbena omrežja: »Kako izgledam? Kaj je na površju?« Ampak smo ljudje in realnost lahko doživljamo samo skozi svoje zaznave. Zato so zaznave enako pomembne kot realnost — pravzaprav sta dve plati istega kovanca.

Opravil sem veliko raziskav o tem, koliko podoba pomeni, in pomeni ogromno. Obstaja več kot 80-odstotna korelacija med kakovostjo ali močjo podobe države, če hočete, in količino denarja, ki ga zasluži s turizmom, tujimi neposrednimi investicijami, trgovino in drugimi viri, pa tudi varnostjo, sposobnostjo sodelovanja z drugimi vladami, diplomacijo. Vse je povezano s podobo. Zdaj, ali realnost poganja podobo ali podoba poganja realnost, je težko reči, ampak ni dvoma, da če se danes ukvarjate z vladanjem in nacionalno strategijo, morate razmišljati o ljudskih zaznavah. Ta tok poganja vse že desetletja in se ni spremenil — postal je še bolj pomemben. Zaradi demokratizacije medijev je zdaj lahko vsak novinar; vsak ima glas; vsak želi biti slišan. Celotna slika je postala precej bolj zapletena in kaotična. Kot veste, obožujem raziskave. Delo vlade mora temeljiti na resničnih meritvah — na pravilnih, robustnih znanstvenih raziskavah. In raziskave so pokazale, da so nacionalne podobe v zadnjih petih ali desetih letih postale bolj nestanovitne. Včasih so bile zelo predvidljive — pravzaprav zelo dolgočasne. Pogosto sem Nation Brands Index imenoval najbolj dolgočasna družboslovna anketa na svetu, ker ljudje preprosto niso radi spreminjali mnenja o državah. Švica je bila tukaj, Italija tukaj, Amerika tukaj — stabilno in pomirjujoče. A približno od leta 2015 ali 2016, ko vse več ljudi dobiva mednarodne novice z družbenih omrežij in ne iz klasičnih medijev, je vse postalo veliko bolj nestanovitno. Ljudje dobesedno spreminjajo mnenja o državah iz dneva v dan, in to ima ogromne posledice za državo. Zato je to še pomembnejše.

Voditeljica: Kaj vidite kot ključne sestavine znamke države v današnjem svetu?

Gost: To je vprašanje, ki sem si ga zastavil bolj kot katero koli drugo. Nekje okoli leta 2014 sem se odločil, da je smiselno analizirati vse podatke, ki sem jih zbral v prejšnjih raziskavah. Imeli smo skoraj milijardo podatkovnih točk — vsako leto od 2005 smo na deset tisoče ljudi spraševali: kaj si mislite o Nemčiji, kaj o Italiji, kaj o Kanadi, kaj o Paragvaju? In imeli smo milijardo podatkovnih točk. Tako sem si rekel: v redu, naredimo analizo gonilnikov — preprosto statistično tehniko, s katero ugotovimo, kaj je glavni razlog, da ima država dobro podobo, in kaj je glavni razlog, da ima slabo podobo. Rezultat je bil precej presenetljiv. Izkazalo se je, da države z najboljšimi podobami niso nujno najlepše. Niso nujno najuspešnejše. Niso nujno najbogatejše ali najmočnejše. To so tiste, za katere ljudje mislijo, da naredijo največ dobrega na svetu — torej da so izven svojih meja pozitivna prisotnost v mednarodni skupnosti. Recimo Norveška. Gospodarsko in geopolitično je razmeroma obrobna država. V redu je, a svetovnih zadev ne določa prav pogosto. Pa vendar je zelo visoko na Nation Brands Indexu in ima ogromno pozitivno podobo. Zakaj? Ker ljudje Norveški zaupajo. Menijo, da je to dobra država, ki jo je dobro imeti okoli sebe. Mislijo, da skrbi za okolje in morda pomaga preprečevati podnebne spremembe. Zanima jo mednarodno pravo, mir in pravičnost. Skrbi jo revščina in naredi veliko za njeno zmanjšanje. Torej preprost odgovor je: če želite boljšo podobo, morate delati dobro v svetu. Ne samo znotraj lastnih meja, ampak tako, da so ljudje veseli, da obstajate. Tako da ko gredo zvečer spat, pomislijo: »Hvala bogu, da Slovenija obstaja,« kajne? Tako dobite dobro podobo.

Voditeljica: Kaj menite, da so največje napake, ki jih vlade delajo, ko poskušajo graditi znamko države?

Gost: Prva je kratkoročnost. To je enostavno razumeti, ker v demokratičnih državah vlade niso dolgo na oblasti, da bi načrtovale in izvedle stvari. Sprememba podobe je precej dolg, precej počasen proces, in večina vlad ni okoli dovolj dolgo, da bi ga izpeljala do konca. To je zanje izziv, ki ga popolnoma razumem, in veliko mojega dela z vladami je, da jim pomagam upravljati to dihotomijo med tem, da imajo zelo malo časa, medtem ko je to dolg, počasen proces. Druga največja napaka, povezano s prvo, je, da se pogosto zatečejo h komunikacijam. Rečejo: želimo spremeniti svojo podobo. To je zato, ker mediji ne nosijo pravih zgodb o nas, zato poskusimo vplivati na medije, da bodo nosili pozitivne zgodbe. Potem bodo ljudje prebrali dobre stvari o naši državi in si mislili, da smo dobra država. Ko bi le bilo tako preprosto, bi imela vsaka država na svetu fantastičen ugled, ker bi bilo vse odvisno samo od denarja. In mislim, da splošno prepričanje, še posebej v komunikacijski industriji in vladah, je, da je to zelo enostavno in zelo drago. Da potrebujete tono denarja, stotine milijonov dolarjev, da vsem govorite: »mi smo fantastični, mi smo fantastični, mi smo fantastični«, in na koncu bodo rekli: »v redu, prav, ste fantastični.« To je zelo slaba psihologija. Ljudje ne marajo, da jim govorite, da se motijo. Zato je pravzaprav, kot pravim, ravno obratno: to je zelo poceni, ne bi smelo stati veliko denarja, ampak je zelo težko. Ker vključuje dolgoročno strateško razmišljanje, visoko stopnjo usklajene vlade, različne sektorje, ki sodelujejo in delajo skupaj, ter sodelovanje tudi z drugimi državami. Zelo, zelo težko je.

Voditeljica: Torej, če rečemo, da dejanja govorijo glasneje kot besede. Vi ste pogosto rekli — ali pa če sem prav razumela — da samo marketinški komunikatorji dolgoročno ne morejo spremeniti ugleda države in da nobena država ne more zgraditi dobrega ugleda zgolj na podlagi odnosov z javnostmi. Namesto tega poudarjate simbolna dejanja, resnična vedenja, ki odražajo vrednote države. Bi lahko delili primer države, ki je resnično zaslužila svoj pozitiven ugled zgolj na ta način?

Gost: Ja, seveda. Najprej ne želim pretiravati. Marketinške komunikacije so še vedno zelo pomembne — vendar zelo specifično na ravni posameznih sektorjev. Na primer, če ste v sektorju, kjer posebej promovirate turizem, potem so marketing, komunikacije, odnosi z javnostmi, znamčenje, logotipi, slogani, oglaševalske kampanje — vse to izjemno pomembno. Ker vaši konkurenti to počnejo in vi morate delati več tega in bolje. Tako je pri turizmu na primer: več kot porabite za komunikacije, več turistov boste dobili. To je zelo preprosto, a to neposredno ne spremeni podobe države, in to je nesporazum številnih vlad in praktikov na tem področju.

Sektorska promocija, promocija turizma, promocija investicij, promocija trgovine, kulturni odnosi niso isto kot znamčenje države. Znamčenje države — izraza ne maram prav posebej — je poskus vplivanja na globalne zaznave vaše države kot celote. Seveda je povezano s tem, kako promovirate turizem, vendar to ni isto.

Torej, ko rečem, da ne gre za komunikacije, v bistvu pravim, da sprememba podobe vaše države ni kot prodaja izdelka. Če promovirate turizem, prodajate izdelek. V bistvu ljudem pokažete dopust v Sloveniji in rečete: kupite to, dobro je, kajne? To je oglaševanje. Ko pa poskušate spremeniti podobo Slovenije, ne govorite »kupite to, dobro je«, ker Slovenija ni naprodaj — upam. Govorite: »spremenili boste svoje mnenje o moji državi«, in vsi vedo, kaj to je. To je tuja državna propaganda, in jo popolnoma ignorirajo.

Zato priporočam strategijo in vsebino: res delajte stvari, ki vam bodo prinesle boljši ugled, in simbolna dejanja. Simbolna dejanja pomeni samo to, da redno počnete neverjetne, čarobne stvari, ne le govorite. Ne govorite samo, da ste neverjetni. Kot sem rekel v svojem govoru drugi dan, to bi bilo kot komik, stand-up komik, ki pride na oder in reče: »Hej, jaz sem res smešen.« To ni smešno, kajne? Če ste komik, morate ljudi spraviti v smeh. Ne govorite jim, kako smešni ste. Enako je z državami. Ljudem morate dati občutek, da so veseli, da obstajate, ne pa jim govoriti, kako čudoviti ste. Simbolna dejanja so projekti, načrti, politike. Lahko pridejo od vlade, lahko od zasebnega sektorja. Če je dobra koordinacija med njimi, lahko redno prihajajo iz mnogih različnih sektorjev. To so dejanja, vedenja države, ki so nedvoumna, čarobna in pomembna za občinstvo. Na primer: »Slovenija odpravlja podnebne spremembe.« »Slovenija je pionir trajnostnega turizma.« To so stvari, ki se širijo. Poglejmo Ferske otoke. Majcen, majcen kraj v severnem Atlantiku. Zelo težko je, da jih kdo sliši, ker so tako majhni in imajo zelo majhne proračune. A so tako dobri v tem, da delajo neverjetne stvari. Na primer imajo idejo, da za nekaj dni vsako leto zaprejo otoke in rečejo: »brez turistov, ker moramo počistiti«, in spodbujajo tujce, da pridejo kot »volun-turisti« in pomagajo čistiti, vendar so za nekaj dni vsako leto zaprti za posel. To sporoča toliko stvari, a najboljše je, da je to odlična zgodba. Nihče še ni slišal česa takega, zato jim ni treba plačati za promocijo. Družbena omrežja jo promovirajo zanje. Če redno počnete neverjetne, čarobne stvari, ki jih ljudje še niso slišali, to pripoveduje zgodbo. Ne potrebujete denarja za PR. Potrebujete samo telefonsko številko novinarja, pokličete ga in rečete: »Poglejte, kaj smo naredili.« In želel bo objaviti to zgodbo.

Voditeljica: Če vprašanje obrnem … Imate primer države ali situacije, kjer besede in dejanja niso bili usklajeni in je neskladje škodovalo verodostojnosti države?

Gost: Zelo redko je, da bi imelo takšno neskladje tako dramatičen vpliv, da bi poškodovalo verodostojnost države. Kar se običajno zgodi, je, da ljudje tega sploh ne opazijo. Večina držav večino časa kaže neskladje med dejanji in besedami ali med enim sektorjem in drugim. Turistična organizacija govori o državi, kot da je obtičala sredi 18. stoletja, medtem ko agencija za investicije in trgovino govori o državi, kot da je obtičala sredi 22. stoletja. Klasično neskladje. Skoraj vse države to počnejo. Ali to poškoduje podobo države? Ne. Ali upočasni proces, da ljudje začnejo razumeti, kakšna država v resnici je? Da. Ker če iz države prihaja pet ali šest različnih zgodb, se to nikoli ne bo nabralo v globoko razumevanje tega, za kaj država stoji. Zato je strategija tako pomembna. Med vsemi deležniki mora biti temeljno skupno razumevanje — zasebnimi, javnimi in tudi državljani — ki pravi: vemo, za kaj stojimo, vemo, kakšne so naše vrednote, vemo, kakšno je naše poslanstvo kot države, vemo, kaj je narobe s svetom in kaj želimo poskusiti popraviti, vemo, kaj ljudje želijo izvedeti, kar jih lahko naučimo, vemo, kaj ljudje želijo kupiti, kar jim lahko prodamo, vemo, kaj ljudje mislijo, da je pokvarjeno, kar lahko popravimo. Ko obstaja to skupno razumevanje temeljnih vrednot, se bodo te neskladnosti postopoma odpravljale in začeli boste zaslužiti ugled.

Voditeljica: Ker smo v Sloveniji, se malo osredotočimo na slovenski primer. Govorimo o »I feel Slovenia«. Za nas — in upam, tudi za druge — je to čustvena zgodba. Zgrajena je na naravi, trajnosti, ustvarjalnosti, sodelovanju, in poskušali smo jo ohraniti avtentično. Ne preveč bleščečo, zvesto nam samim, ob gradnji znamke. Ustvarili smo jo v sodelovanju s strokovnjaki z različnih področij, ljudmi z različnih življenjskih poti. Vključili smo državljane, ki so prispevali svoje poglede, in potem smo dobili identiteto znamke. Identiteto smo celo gradili okoli zelene barve, ki jo imenujemo slovenska zelena. Kako vi zaznavate znamko »I feel Slovenia«? Ker ja, majhna država smo, pogosto rečemo, da presegamo svojo težo, še posebej v športu, kulturi, trajnosti, znanosti, ustvarjalnosti, torej …

Gost: Stvari, kot so logotipi in slogani … sem prestar in videl sem preveč raziskav o učinkovitosti teh stvari, da bi bil nad njimi zelo navdušen. Psihološke in nevrološke raziskave od petdesetih let kažejo, da so ljudje izjemno slabi pri učenju ali prepoznavanju sloganov in logotipov. Preprosto si ne zapomnijo, kateri je kateri. Tudi države, ki porabijo stotine milijonov — »Malaysia Truly Asia«? Ali je to »Indonesia Truly Asia«? Ne spomnim se. Ljudje si ne zapomnijo logotipov. Vsi so si precej podobni in večina ljudi, če bi jim pokazali »I feel Slovenia« brez besed, tega ne bi prepoznala. Ne pravim, da je to nekoristno. Ne pravim, da je denar zapravljen. Mislim, da je vse to uporabno, a mene zanima, kaj se dogaja na globlji ravni. To je, če želite, vrh ledene gore. In če je skupen logotip in slogan, ki je ljudem všeč, vrh večje ledene gore, ki je v tem, da veliko ljudi deluje s skupnimi cilji in nameni, potem deluje in je dobro. Vendar bi ljudi, zlasti na višji ravni, res spodbujal, naj ne postanejo preveč obsedeni s temi stvarmi. Razumem, da ima to nekakšno totemsko vrednost tudi za ljudi v državi. Zdi se, da povzema način, kako želijo biti pozicionirani, in to je v redu. A na koncu to ni tisto, kar naredi čarovnijo. Čarovnijo naredi to, kako se obnašate in kaj delate; ne komunikacije. Ampak ne odgovarjam res na vaše vprašanje, ker ste šli naprej in postavili bolj zanimiv drugi del. Pomagajte mi, kaj je bil?

Voditeljica: No, mogoče lahko nadaljujemo s strateškimi vprašanji. Kaj bi si morali v Sloveniji spraševati, da bi globalno gradili bolj odporno in cenjeno znamko oziroma ugled?

Gost: Vprašanja, ki si jih morate zastaviti, so tako preprosta: čemu je Slovenija namenjena? Čemu je? Zakaj obstajate? V dobi, v kateri smo, vsaka država potrebuje odgovor na to. Kakšna je vaša pravica do obstoja in do zasedanja tega območja na planetu? Kako si to zaslužite? Kot sem rekel tudi na Dnevih slovenskega turizma: če bi Božja roka na nebeški tipkovnici po pomoti pritisnila »delete« in izbrisala Slovenijo, kdo bi jo pogrešal in zakaj? Koliko ljudi po svetu bi reklo: »Oh ne, kaj se je zgodilo s Slovenijo?« in zakaj jim je mar?

Kaj je vaš dar svetu? Zakaj bi moralo naključno človeško bitje — običajno rečem 14-letno dekle v Tadžikistanu — čutiti, da je veselo, da Slovenija obstaja? To so strateška vprašanja, ki jih je treba postaviti in nanje odgovoriti na zelo širok, zelo demokratičen način. Ker podoba države pripada prebivalstvu, ne pripada vladi. Vlada je le skrbnik v času svojega mandata. Na koncu so državljani tisti, ki trpijo, če je ugled slab, in tisti, ki imajo koristi, če je ugled dober. Rad bi samo kot splošno pripombo dodal, ker mislim — prosim, ne razumite me narobe — mislim, da je Slovenija v zadnjih 30 letih opravila izjemno delo. In na Dnevih slovenskega turizma, kot veste, je STO praznovala 30 let in pravzaprav več kot 100 let tega, da se Slovenija sistematično promovira kot turistična destinacija. Mislim, da so obletnice pomembne, ker so lahko zelo uporabni simboli ali metafore za strateške točke na vaši poti. In strateška točka, na kateri Slovenijo vidim trenutno, je tik pred potrebo po zelo velikem koraku navzgor. Torej, ti Dnevi slovenskega turizma so bili odlični. Bila je velika pohvala samim sebi. Poglejte neverjetne stvari, ki smo jih naredili. Poglejte, kako daleč smo prišli. Poglejte, kako močno ljudje spoštujejo naše delo. A naslednji korak, ta en sam naslednji korak, je tako visok, da niti vrha ne vidite, ker se zdaj morate premakniti iz tega, da ste lokalno poznani in občudovani, v to, da ste globalno prepoznani. In to je popolnoma drugačna operacija in je zelo težka. Ni nujno, da je zelo draga, kot sem rekel prej. In mislim, da moramo, da tja pridemo, videti veliko nezadovoljstva. Videti moramo ljudi po vsej vladi, ki pravijo: bilo je super, a nismo zadovoljni. Narediti moramo več. In mislim, da je tesna vključenost vlade in odločevalcev v ta proces absolutno temeljna. Ker oni na koncu odločajo, kako se Slovenija obnaša. In na koncu bo to imelo največji posamezni vpliv na podobo Slovenije. Seveda lahko v zasebnem sektorju, seveda na ravni sektorjev, kot sta turizem in investicije, delate projekte, delate velike stvari, ki pošiljajo sporočila. A na koncu lahko ena velika vladna politika, še posebej v mednarodnih odnosih, dinamično spremeni način, kako ljudje zaznavajo državo. Poglejte, ko je Švedska naznanila, da bo imela prvo feministično zunanjo politiko na svetu — to je bila resnična, avtentična švedska politika, ki je dramatično učinkovito povedala ljudem nekaj o Švedski, česar niso vedeli prej. In da to naredite, potrebujete kombinacijo poguma in domišljije. Morate biti ustvarjalni. Resnično morate znati razlikovati med dobro idejo in dolgočasno idejo. Hkrati pa morate biti zelo, zelo, zelo pogumni. Politiki so morda rojeni z domišljijo in pogumom, a jim služba to zelo hitro izbije iz njih, in to je izziv: vaši odločevalci se morajo naučiti biti pogumni, domiselni in odgovorni. Ne želimo, da počnejo nore stvari.

Voditeljica: To ste verjetno že omenili, ampak moje naslednje vprašanje bi bilo: ja, ker se Slovenija spet približuje obletnici in smo spet pri obletnici, na kaj bi se morali osredotočiti — biti drzni ali delati nove stvari?

Gost: Nove stvari, nove stvari, nove stvari. Zdaj se spomnim, kaj sem hotel reči, ko ste me vprašali o logotipu. Doslednost na tem področju je zelo pomembna — bolj pomembna kot karkoli drugega. Pravzaprav je morda to sporno, a mislim, da je celo bolj pomembna kot kakovost. Javno mnenje in človeška psihologija pravita: bolje je vztrajati celo pri slabem sloganu — in vaš ni slab — deset, dvajset, trideset, štirideset, petdeset let, kot pa ga nenehno menjati za odličnega, boljšega, super. To ne deluje. Ljudje se stvari naučijo samo z navadnim ponavljanjem. Torej dejstvo, da je »I feel Slovenia« že — koliko — 18 let, ste rekli?

Voditeljica: 18 let.

Gost: Ja. In barva in vse? Ja, absolutno. Držite se tega. Nikoli ga ne spreminjajte. Nič ni narobe z njim. Če bo prišel čas, ko bo grozno napačen, boste to vedeli. In potem ga boste spremenili. Ampak sploh ni grozno napačen. Popolnoma je v redu in ljudje se ga šele začenjajo navajati, zato bi bil to popolnoma napačen trenutek za spremembo.

Voditeljica: Slovenija je lani precej dobro rangirala v Indeksu dobrih držav — indeksu, ki ste ga vi zasnovali. Rekli ste mi lani, da je bil to malo presenečenje. Kaj vas je najbolj presenetilo?

Gost: Hm, no, to je dejansko več kot samo precej dober rezultat. To je absolutno osupljiv rezultat. Naj razložim. Morda za poslušalce, ki niso povsem seznanjeni s tem, kaj ta dva indeksa merita: Anholt Nation Brands Index meri zaznave držav — kaj si ljudje po svetu mislijo o Sloveniji v veliki podrobnosti. Good Country Index meri realnost. Ne meri zaznav. Večinoma uporabljamo podatke iz družine OZN, da izmerimo, kaj države v resnici prispevajo svetu izven svojih meja. Meri, koliko miru in varnosti Slovenija izvozi drugim državam, koliko znanja, tehnologije, znanosti, izobraževanja, kulture izvozi — skozi približno sedem različnih kategorij: mir in pravičnost, zdravje in blaginja in tako naprej. In osupljiv rezultat je bil, da je Slovenija v zadnji izdaji zasedla osmo mesto. Torej, od vseh držav na svetu je Slovenija, glede na velikost svojega gospodarstva — ker je to uravnoteženo z BDP, da je pošteno — osmi največji prispevalec človeštvu na planetu izven svojih meja; Estonija je prišla takoj za njo na deveto mesto. To je izjemno, ker sta državi, kot sta Estonija in Slovenija, ki sta v zadnjih 30 letih, v živem spominu, izšli iz bistveno zaprtih ali polzaprtih sistemov in sta majhni gospodarstvi, ki sta se šele pred kratkim pridružili Evropski uniji in Natu itd. Nobena primerljiva država še nikoli ni bila niti blizu najboljših 20 v Indeksu dobrih držav. Vedno so bile to velike, bogate, zahodnoevropske demokracije in anglosaški svet — kraji kot Avstralija in Nova Zelandija. Zato je to, da vidimo Slovenijo na osmem mestu v deseterici in Estonijo v deseterici, neverjetno. To mi res sugerira, da se svet dramatično spreminja. In morda nam to govori, da bodo države, kot sta Slovenija in Estonija in druge podobne države iste velikosti, v prihodnosti varuhi mednarodne vladavine prava in reševanja podnebja in planeta. Morda je to vaša naloga. Veliko, veliko manjših držav, ki imajo vest, ki imajo specializacije in jim je mar za takšne stvari. Velike sile? Vemo, kam gredo velike sile v tem trenutku. Pogosto so na svojih norih in nasilnih pohodih, ker jih vodijo psihotiki in psihopati. Torej je to vznemirljiv razvoj. Posebej v kontekstu nacionalne podobe, o kateri govorimo danes, pa je to tudi zelo vznemirljivo, ker zelo močno nakazuje, da si Slovenija zasluži precej, precej močnejši ugled, kot ga verjetno ima. Slovenija ni globalno slavna država. Vsi vemo, da ni treba iti daleč od Evrope, da doživiš situacijo, ko ti nekdo reče: »Od kod si?« in ti rečeš: »Slovenija,« in oni rečejo: »Kaj je to?« Mislim, da je to verjetno univerzalna izkušnja. A dejansko ste osma najbolj koristna država na svetu, in še nimate osmega največjega ugleda. Ta rezultat mi pove, da si zaslužite boljši ugled, kot ga verjetno že imate. In to je vznemirljivo, ker če si tega ne zaslužite, tega nikoli ne boste dobili.

Voditeljica: … in lahko delite… kako lahko mi kot državljani prispevamo k gradnji dobrega ugleda za našo državo? Ali, preprosto povedano: kaj lahko mi Slovenci danes naredimo, da bo svet Slovenijo čutil še malo bolj?

Gost: To je res težko vprašanje. Realnost je, da posamezen državljan na ravni ena-na-ena ne more narediti veliko. Seveda lahko na osebni ravni. Vedno se spomnim zgodbe, kako sem imel neko posebno občutje do Šrilanke, dolgo preden sem kdajkoli šel tja. Šrilanka me je fascinirala in nisem vedel zakaj. In nekdo mi je rekel: zakaj ves čas govoriš o Šrilanki? In razmišljal sem in razmišljal, potem pa sem se spomnil, da sem enkrat srečal nekoga iz Šrilanke na mednarodni konferenci — dejansko v kopalnici — in da bi bil vljuden, sem ga vprašal: »Od kod ste?« Pogledal me je in se nasmehnil z lepim nasmehom in rekel: »Iz Šrilanke,« in jaz sem si rekel: »Vau,« in začela sva govoriti. Povedal mi je vse o svoji državi. Torej, na ravni ena-na-ena, kot ambasador svoje države, lahko imate popolnoma odločilen vseživljenjski vpliv, in to se dogaja povsod. Na ravni več kot enega, dveh, treh, štirih ali petih ljudi je to zelo, zelo težko. A včeraj oziroma predvčerajšnjim smo na turističnih nagradah na slovenskih turističnih dnevih videli veliko »navadnih« ljudi — ne politikov, ne bogatašev, ne velikih poslovnežev — ki delajo v turizmu in naredijo odlično delo ter vplivajo na precej veliko ljudi, ki obiščejo državo. Mislim, da ena od stvari, ki jih turistični urad zelo dobro počne, je, da ohranja tesen stik z vsemi temi ljudmi na destinacijah, z operaterji, lastniki hotelov in podobno, in da jim daje občutek, da so del družine, jim pomaga deliti zgodbo, energijo in občutek poslanstva. Zato kamorkoli greš v Sloveniji, je velika verjetnost, da boš dobil dober vtis in slišal isto zgodbo. To je zelo pomembno. Slovenija je v dveh pogledih nesrečna. Prvič, nima velikega prebivalstva. Slovenci so precej redke živali, zato jih na potovanjih po svetu ne srečaš pogosto. Nimate ogromne diaspore kot, recimo, Turčija, in to je škoda, ker če imate veliko prebivalstvo, so lahko potencialno vsi vaši diplomati. Drugič, še nimate veliko mednarodno slavnih znamk. Pod znamkami mislim izdelke, potrošniške blagovne znamke. V Sloveniji so podjetja, kot vsi vemo, ki izdelujejo zelo cenjene izdelke, prodajane po Evropi in včasih tudi širše — smučarska oprema, prikolice, takšne stvari.

A države z vrhunskimi podobami imajo ogromno oboževanih potrošniških znamk. Poglejte Italijo, Japonsko, Nemčijo, ZDA, Francijo, Združeno kraljestvo. Takoj lahko navedete dvajset odličnih znamk iz teh držav, in te znamke so močni diplomati za podobo države. Torej ena od stvari, ki jih mora Slovenija narediti za ta naslednji korak, je začeti razmišljati, kako lahko vzgojimo, razvijemo in spodbujamo naslednjo generacijo proizvajalcev globalnih znamk iz Slovenije.

Voditeljica: Če pogledamo malo v prihodnost: kaj mislite, da bo prinesla prihodnost na področju znamke države? Bo prevladala umetna inteligenca? Bo prevladala tehnologija ali bodo etika, države in čustva ostali?

Gost: Zanimivo je. Smo v obdobju tako hitrih sprememb. Ena od stvari, ki se relativno malo spreminja, so javne zaznave držav, zato vlade pri strateškem razmišljanju podobo države dojemajo kot precej uporabno stalnico. Ni ravno stalnica, je pa večja stalnica kot, na primer, vladna politika ali trgovinska politika. In to je koristno, ker je robustno. Lahko ste precej prepričani, da če so Francozi zadnjih 20 let ljubili Slovenijo, jo bodo na globlji ravni verjetno še naprej ljubili kar nekaj časa. Zaradi družbenih omrežij se lahko zgodi, da če gre kaj narobe, se za en teden odločijo, da vas sovražijo, a običajno se to vrne na normalno stanje. Francoski pogled na Slovenijo, nemški pogled na Slovenijo — to je del francoske kulture. Nemška kultura je zelo, zelo stabilna. Umetna inteligenca pa je povsem druga tema, o kateri bi lahko govorili ves dan. Ampak mislim, da je to, kar se dogaja z umetno inteligenco, zelo vznemirljivo, še posebej dodatna moč, ki nam jo daje pri analiziranju teh vprašanj. Nation Brands Index na primer temelji na … no, umetna inteligenca ni ravno prava beseda, strojno učenje je verjetno bolj ustrezna beseda, ki lahko izjemno razširi našo sposobnost, da vidimo svet, merimo svet, razumemo svet. Naš dostop do informacij je neprimerljivo boljši, kot je bil nekoč, in dostop do informacij je ključ do vsega tega, ker če države resnično razumejo svoje občinstvo, svoje sedanje in prihodnje občinstvo, potem lahko veliko bolj učinkovito porabijo davkoplačevalski denar, da te ljudi privabijo. V svojem poslu sem videl, kako je umetna inteligenca popolnoma revolucionirala našo sposobnost ustvarjati izjemno bogate in zanesljive podatke. S tega vidika je neverjetno dobra. Seveda obstaja tudi negativna stran, in umetna inteligenca v kombinaciji z družbenimi omrežji lahko povzroči zelo moteče učinke na razpoloženje človeštva, in to je tisto, kar vsi poskušamo razumeti in reševati.

Voditeljica: Še eno zadnje vprašanje, Simon. Svojo profesionalno pot ste posvetili temu, da ste gradili podobe in pomagali državam graditi podobe. Kaj je ena stvar, za katero si želite, da bi jo države razumele o ugledu in o tem, da delajo dobro?

Gost: Ko sem pred več kot 20 leti začel delati na tem področju, so bili politiki zelo zadržani glede pomembnosti podobe. Govorili so stvari kot: »Jaz sem politik, moje delo je realnost, te površinske stvari niso pomembne. Ni nam treba skrbeti za to.« Motili so se in velik del zadnjih 20 let sem porabil, da sem dokazoval, da se motijo.

Danes pa imam nasproten problem s trenutno generacijo politikov: zanimajo jih samo podobe in nenehno jih moram spominjati, da je pomembna tudi vsebina. Mislim, da smo se zelo premaknili v drugo smer, in verjetno preveč. In zato je potrebna neka prilagoditev. Razumem, zakaj se to dogaja. Politiki imajo vedno manj moči oblikovati stvari, ker toliko poganja javno mnenje, velike sile in njihovo lunatično vedenje, globalno gospodarstvo, globalizacija, ki je še vedno zelo resničen dejavnik in bo ostala z nami. Zato je veliko dela politikov danes ne v oblikovanju politik, ampak v odločanju, kako to povedati prebivalstvu. So komunikatorji. Ni presenečenje, da je bila, ko sem začel delati na tem področju, večina priljubljenih politikov po izobrazbi iz mednarodnega prava ali politologije. Danes pa jih veliko prihaja iz PR-ja ali novinarstva. Menim, da to razkriva nekaj zelo temeljnega o naravi vladanja v svetu, ne le na Zahodu. Torej moramo to nekako popraviti. Izbrati moramo novo vrsto politikov, ki imajo pravo ravnotežje med skrbjo za zaznave in skrbjo za realnost ter znajo oboje spet povezati, ker sta to dve plati istega kovanca. In to je kovanec, ki ga morajo razumeti, kako ga zaslužiti in porabiti. 

Voditeljica: To je zadnje vprašanje. Kaj bi bil en nasvet za Slovenijo za naslednje desetletje?

Gost: Bodite bolj nezadovoljni.

Voditeljica: Hvala.

Gost: Melnkost. 

Voditeljica: Najlepša hvala našemu gostu za obisk v studiu in za misli, ki nas opominjajo, da se ugled ne gradi z besedami, ampak dejanji. Drage poslušalke in poslušalci, dragi gledalci in gledalke, hvala za pozornost. GOVSI podkast lahko poslušate v vseh aplikacijah za podkaste in na YouTube kanalu Vlade Republike Slovenije. Več o znamki »I feel Slovenia«, njeni vsebini, identiteti in komuniciranju pa si lahko preberete na spletnih straneh gov.si.

[ENGLISH VERSION]

Host:  Welcome to the 32nd episode of the GOVSI podcast, produced for you by the Government Communication Office of the Republic of Slovenia. I’m Polona Prešeren, and today we’ll be talking about the reputation and branding of countries. Our guest is Simon Anholt — a British advisor, researcher, author, the originator of the term “national brand,” and one of the most frequently cited experts in the fields of national identity and public diplomacy. Today’s conversation will be held in English. 

Host: Mr Anholt Simon, welcome to Slovenia. 

Guest: Thank you.

Host: Welcome to this podcast. We're truly honoured to host you here in our studio.

Guest: I feel very honoured, to be here. 

Host: You have been here in Slovenia for some days. Couple of days. How do you feel it? How do you feel in Slovenia?

Guest: I feel love. Isn't that what the correct answer is to that question? I feel Slovenia. This is not the first time I've been here. I think it's probably the 4th or 5th visit to Slovenia during life and I love being here. It's so civilised and beautiful and clean and well organised and gorgeous to look at and everybody is so friendly and intelligent and cultivated and they all speak great English. It's kind of magical. I would almost come and live here.

Host: Glad to hear that. In my short introduction before in Slovene, I introduced you as the founder of the nation brand concept. And actually while you're here let's focus a little bit on your work. 1996 you coined the term ‘nation brand’?

Guest: Yeah, apparently that's true. I don't remember that far back, but there is a paper with my name on it that uses the expression nation as brand. And I think that's the first time it was used.

Host: Yes. And later, you've helped over 70 countries around the world, from global powers to small island nations, helping the countries, helping us, to build reputation to build nation brand. But there is so much more beyond all this, beyond nation brands.

Guest: It's much broader and much deeper subject I think than most people imagine. The first time people hear a phrase like nation as brand or national image or national identity, I think they assume that it's quite a narrow subject, that it's something like public relations for countries or it's like promotion for tourism. But the more you look at this subject, the more you realise that it is very deep and very broad. Because if you're thinking about how countries appear to the rest of the world, you have to think about economics, you have to think about international law, you have to think about peace and security, you have to think about history, anthropology, geography, of course and it ends up becoming the everything subject. And as I said in my talk the other day at the at the Congress, I have a notoriously short attention span. I get bored of things in about four minutes usually, but I've stuck with this subject for more than 25 years because it's so fascinating. And my terrible professional secret is that I've learned much more than I've ever taught. Which is a good job, right? That's a definition of a good job if you're learning more than you're teaching.

Host: Do you still remember which was the first state that actually asked you for help?

Guest: Well, funnily enough, one of the very, very first countries I visited was Slovenia. 

Host: Really? 

Guest: I wasn't invited by the Government of Slovenia. I was invited by the British Council in Ljubljana who were doing a session for the Government of Slovenia about national image. And this was a very, very new subject. And so they did some research and tried to find some experts that they could invite and they could only find one. And that was me. And because I was the only expert on this subject, I was automatically the world's leading authority because if there's only one of you, you are the leading authority. And so, they invited me here to Ljubljana and we had a series of discussions and workshops. That was my first experience. And then I think as a direct result of that, I was invited by the Government of Croatia. To talk to the government in Zagreb about EU accession and the image of Croatia, and whether that was good or bad, whether it was helping or not. And it just basically snowballed from there.

Host: Over the past decades, the world has changed a lot from global warming, climate challenges, digital transformation, and artificial intelligence, disinformation. Geopolitical shifts …I guess that today more than ever countries need a clear and authentic narratives. Do you think that would you agree that a national brand is still a sort of strategic necessity for countries?

Guest: Yeah, it's a great question. I mean - yes, is the answer. I think one of the first observations I made when I started writing about this subject more than 20 years ago was that image to some people may sound like a superficial thing. You know, it's like people on social media. What do I look like? What's the surface? But of course we're human beings and we can only experience reality through our perceptions. So perceptions are just as important as reality. In fact, they're two sides of the same coin.  I've done a lot of research to look at how much image matters, and it matters enormously. There's a more than 80 % correlation between the quality of a country's image, the strength of its image, if you like, and the amount of money it makes from tourism, from foreign direct investment, from trade and from other sources, but also security also its ability to engage with other governments, its diplomacy. Everything is connected to image. Now, whether it's driven by image or whether image drives it, is very difficult to say, but - no question that today if you're in the business of government and you're in the business of national strategy, you have to think about popular perceptions.  And I guess that's been the current that drives everything and that hasn't changed today. It's become even more important, because of the democratisation of media, because everybody now is potentially a journalist, everybody has a voice, everybody wants to be heard. And so, the whole picture has become enormously more complex and chaotic. As you know, I love to do research. I think that if you're doing government work, it has to be based on real measurements. Proper, robust scientific research and what the research has shown is that national images have become more volatile in the last five or ten years. They used to be very predictable, in fact, very boring. The Nation Brands Index I often referred to as the world's most boring social survey because people just don't, didn't like to change their minds at other countries, you know, Switzerland is there, Italy is there, America's here. And that's stability and reassurance. What's happened since about 2015, 2016, where more and more people are now getting their international news from social media rather than from news. Suddenly everything has become much more volatile and people are literally changing their minds about countries from one day to the next. And that has huge consequences for the country. So, it's more important.

Host: Well, what do you see as the key ingredients of the nation brand in today's world?

Guest: Well, it's a question I've asked myself more than any other question, and back in about 2014, I decided the sensible thing to do was to analyse all of the data that I've collected from my previous research. We had nearly a billion data points. Just going around the world every year since 2005, asking 10s of thousands of people, what do you think about Germany, what do you think about Italy, what do you think about Canada, what do you think about Paraguay? And we had a 1 billion data points. So I thought, OK, we just do a driver analysis, which is a simple statistical piece of arithmetic that you do to find out what is the main reason, why a country has a good image and what's the main reason why it has a bad image. And the result was quite surprising. It turns out that the countries with the best images are not necessarily the most beautiful ones. They're not necessarily the most successful ones. They're not necessarily the most rich or powerful ones. They are the ones that people think do most good in the world. So, outside their own borders they are a positive presence in the international community. So, a country like Norway, for example, which is quite a marginal country economically, geopolitically. It's fine, but it doesn't determine world affairs very often. And yet it's very, very high up in the Nation Brands index, it's got a huge positive image. Why is this? Because people trust Norway. They think that Norway is a good country to have around. They think Norway is looking after the environment and perhaps helping to prevent climate change. It's interested in international law and peace and justice. It's worried about poverty, and it does a lot to try and reduce poverty. And so that's why people like Norway. So, the simple answer … Sorry, it was a short question and this is a long answer, but it's a really important one: if you want a better image, you have to do good in the world. You have to not just be successful within your own borders. You have to actually be a country that people feel glad that you exist. As they go to bed at night they think: thank God Slovenia exists, right? So that's how you get a good image.

Host: What do you think are the biggest mistakes government make …

Guest: Number one ....

Host: … trying to build a brand nation brand?

Guest: Well, number one is shorttermism. This is very easy to understand, because in democratic countries, particularly, governments are not in power for very long planning and delivering. A change of image is quite a long, quite slow process and most governments are not around long enough to do it. So that's a challenge for them, which I fully understand and a lot of the work I do with governments is helping them to manage that dichotomy between the fact that they've got very little time, but this is a very long, slow process. The second biggest mistake, and it's connected to that, is that they often resort to communications. So, they say we want to change our image. That's because the media doesn't carry the right stories about us, so, let's try and influence the media and get it to carry positive stories. And then people will read good things about our country and then they'll think that we're a good country. If only it was that simple, then every country on Earth would have a fantastic reputation because it would be just down to money. And I think the general belief that people have, particularly in the communications industry and in governments is this is very easy and very expensive. So, you just need a tonne of money, hundreds of millions of dollars to tell everybody we're fantastic, we're fantastic, we're fantastic, we're fantastic. And then in the end, they'll say, OK, fine, you're fantastic. This is very bad psychology. People don't like being told that they're wrong. So, it's actually, as I say, it's the opposite. It's very cheap. It shouldn't cost very much money at all, but it's very difficult, very difficult indeed. Because it involves long term strategic thinking, it involves a very high degree of joined up government, different sectors working together, collaborating, collaborating also with other countries. It's really, really hugely difficult.

Host: So, if we say that actually actions speak louder than words. So, you often said or if I understood right, that only marketing communicators, they don't actually work on the long term, and that actually no country itself is going to make a good reputation based solely on public relations. So, you emphasise instead symbolic actions, real behaviours that reflect the country's actions, reactions, images and so. What's the … Could you share an example of a country that that truly earned it's positive reputation solely on this?

Guest: Yeah, sure. Let me say first that I don't want to exaggerate. Marketing communications is still very important. It's a very important part of the mixture, but very specifically at the sector by sector level. So, for example, if you are in a sector where you're specifically promoting, for example tourism, then marketing, communications, public relations, branding, logos, slogans, advertising campaigns, all of that is incredibly import. Because your competitors are doing it and you have to do more of it and you have to do it better than they do. So, tourism, for example, the more money you spend on communications, the more tourists you're going to get. It's very simple, but it doesn't directly change the image of the country, and this is the misunderstanding so many governments and so many practitioners in this area. Think that sectoral promotion, tourism promotion, investment promotion, trade promotion, cultural relations are somehow the same thing as nation branding, but they're not.

Nation branding - I don't like the expression very much, but - nation branding is about trying to manipulate global perceptions of your country as a whole. Now, obviously, that's connected with how you promote tourism, but it isn't the same thing. So, when I say it's not about communications, I'm what I'm basically saying is that changing the image of your country is not about communication. And that's because you're not selling a product. If you're promoting tourism, you're selling a product. You're basically showing people a holiday in Slovenia and you're saying buy this, it's good, right? That's advertising. And so, here's an advertisement that will convince you to buy it because it's good. When you're trying to change the image of Slovenia, you're not saying ‘buy this. It's good’ because Slovenia is not for sale -  I hope. What you're saying is: you will change your mind about my country’ and everybody knows what that is. That's foreign government propaganda and they ignore it totally. So, as you rightly said, what I recommend is strategy, substance. So, really do the stuff that will earn you a better reputation and symbolic actions. Symbolic actions just means do amazing magical things on a regular basis, don't just talk. Don't just say we're amazing. As I said in my speech the other day -  that would be like a comedian, a stand up comedian who goes on the stage and says, hey, I'm really funny. And that's not funny, right?

Guest: If you're a comedian, you have to make people laugh. You don't tell people how funny you are. And it's the same with the country. You have to make people feel glad that you exist, not tell them how wonderful you are. So, the symbolic actions are projects, plans, policies. They may come from government, they may come from the private sector. If there's good coordination between them, it could come regularly from many, many different sectors. But these are actions, behaviours of the country that are unmistakable, that are magical, that are relevant to the audience out there. Slovenia fixes climate change. Slovenia is a pioneer in sustainable tourism. These are the kinds of things that … I mean, talking about tourism, let's look at the Faroe Islands. OK, tiny, tiny, tiny place in the North Atlantic. Very hard for it to get heard because it's so small and their budgets are very small. But they are so good at doing amazing things, like, for example: they have this really great idea, where they shut the islands for a number of days every year and so they say - no tourists, because we've got to clean up. And they encourage foreigners to come along as volun-tourists and help clean up, but they're closed for business for a few days each year. And that gets across so many messages, but the best thing about it is it's a great story. Nobody's ever heard of something like that before, so they don't have to pay to promote it. The social media promotes it for them. So, if you do amazing things on a regular basis, but really magical things that nobody has never heard before, that tells a story. You don't need to spend money on PR. You just need the phone number of a journalist, and you just ring them up and you say, look what we've done. And they will want to carry that story.

Host: If I flip the question now …  Do you have an example of where of a country or a situation where words and actions didn't match and actually dismiss, mismatched and damage the credibility of the country?

Guest: It it's very unusual for it to have such a dramatic impact that it would damage the credibility of a country. What generally happens is that people just don't notice it. So, most countries most of the time show a mismatch between their deeds and their words, or between one sector and another. You know, the tourist board is talking about the country as if it were stuck in the middle of the 18th century and the investment trade, promotion agency is talking about the country as if it was stuck in the middle of the 22nd century. And so, there's a mismatch. One makes the country look super modern, full of roads, airports, factories and technology. The other one presents a a beautiful picture of a country that might have existed 150 years ago. Classic mismatch. Almost all countries do this. Does it damage the image of the country? No. Does it slow down the process of people beginning to learn what the country is really like? Yes, because if you're getting 5 or 6 different stories coming out of a country, it will never accumulate into a deep understanding of what the country really stands for. And this is why strategy is so important. There has to be a fundamental underpinning understanding amongst all the stakeholders, private and public, and this includes the population, the citizens as well, which says: we know what we stand for, we know what our values are, we know what our mission is as a country, we know what is wrong with the world and what we want to try to fix, we know what people want to learn, that we can teach. We know what people want to buy that we can sell, we know what people think is broken, that we can mend. If there's that common understanding of your fundamental values, then that will gradually eliminate these discrepancies, and you will start to earn a reputation.

Host: Since we were in Slovenia, let's focus a little bit on Slovenia's case study. We talk about ‘I feel Slovenia’. It's really for us - I hopefully for others too - it's an emotional story. It was built on nature, sustainability, creativity, cooperation and we've tried to keep it authentic. Not too flashy, true to ourselves, while building a brand. We created it in a collaboration with experts from different fields, people from different walks of life. We included citizens who could contribute their views and we then we got this identity of the brand. We even build this identity around the green colour, which we call the Slovenian Green. How do you do you perceive ‘I feel Slovenia’ brand? Because yes, we are a small country, we often say we punch above our weight, especially in sport, in culture, in sustainability, in science, creativity, so …

Guest: Things like logos and slogans… I'm too old and I've seen too much research into the effectiveness of these things to get very excited about them. Because what the psychological and neurological research has been showing since the 1950 is that human beings are extremely bad at learning or recognising slogans and logos. They just don't remember which one is which. And even the countries that spend hundreds of millions - Malaysia truly Asia? Or is it Indonesia Truly Asia? I just don't remember, right, and people don't logos. They all look quite similar and the majority of people, if you showed them, I feel Slovenia and you took out the words, they wouldn't recognise it. Now I'm not saying they're useless. I'm not saying the money is wasted or anything of the sort. I think it's all really useful stuff, but what really interests me is what goes on at a deeper level than that. This is, if you like, the tip of the iceberg. And if having a common logo and slogan which people like is the tip of a bigger iceberg, which is about a large number of people behaving with common goals and common aims, then it's working and then it's good. But I really would encourage people, particularly at the higher level, not to get too obsessed with these things. I mean, I understand that it has a sort of totemic value for people in the country as well. It appears to sum up the way that they want to be positioned and that's fine. But in the end, that's not really what does the magic. What does the magic is, as I said before, the way that you behave and the things that you do, it's not the, it's not the communications. But I'm not really answering your question because you went on and asked a more and more interesting second part to that question. Help me, what was that?

Host: Well, maybe we can continue with what are the strategic questions. Like we in Slovenia … Should be asking ourselves to build a more resilient and respected brand or reputation globally? 

Guest: The questions you need to ask yourselves and the questions you need to try to answer are so simple: What is Slovenia for? What's it for? Why? Why do you exist? I mean, in the age that we are in, every country needs to have an answer to that question. What is our right to exist to occupy this area of the planets territory? How do we deserve that? If the - I said this at the Congress as well - if the hand of God should slip on the celestial keyboard and hit delete by mistake and eliminate Slovenia, who would miss it and why, right? How many people around the world would say - oh, no, what happened to Slovenia and why do they care? What is, what is your gift to the world? Why should a random human being, I normally say, a 14 year old girl in Tajikistan feel glad that Slovenia is there? And I think those are the strategic questions that need to be asked and answered and in a very wide, very democratic way. Because the image of the country belongs to the population, it doesn't belong to the government. The government is just its custodian for its period in office. In the end, it's the citizens of Slovenia who will suffer if the reputation is bad and who will benefit is the if the reputation is good. I just want to, as a general point to this because I think - don't get me wrong - I think Slovenia has done a remarkable job over the last 30 years. And at the Congress, as you know, the SDO has been celebrating 30 years and in fact more than 100 years that Slovenia has been systematically promoting itself as a tourist destination. And I think I think anniversaries are important because they can be very useful symbols or metaphors for strategic points in your journey. And the strategic point that I see Slovenia at the moment is being on the verge of needing to take a very big step upwards. So this Congress has been great. It's been a big pat on the back. Look at the amazing stuff we've done. Look how far we've come. Look how much people respect our work. But the next step, the single next step is so high that you can't even see the top of it, because now you have to move out from being locally known and admired to being globally recognised. And that is a completely different operation and it's very difficult. It doesn't have to be very expensive, as I said before. And I think in order to get there, we need to see a lot of dissatisfaction. We need to see people throughout government saying it's been great, but we're not satisfied. We need to do more. And I think having the government and the policymakers closely involved in that process is absolutely fundamental. Because they're the ones who ultimately decide how Lavinia behaves. And ultimately, that's going to have the biggest single impact on Slovenia's image. Of course, in the private sector, of course, at the at the level of sectors like tourism and investment, you can do projects, you can do big things that send out a message, but ultimately one big government policy, particularly in international relations can dynamically alter the way that people perceive the country. Look at when Sweden announced that they were going to have the world's first feminist foreign policy - and that was a real piece of authentic Swedish policy making that was dramatically effective in telling people something about Sweden that they didn't know before. And in order to do these things, it's it what's difficult about it is you need a combination of courage and imagination. You need to be creative. You genuinely need to know what is the difference between a good idea and a boring idea. But at the same time, you need to be really, really, really brave about it. And politicians- they may have been born with imagination and courage, but their jobs shake it out of them very quickly, and that's the challenge your policymakers have to learn how to be courageous and imaginative and responsible. We don't want them doing crazy.

Host: You've probably already mentioned, but my next question that would be like, yeah, after Slovenia is approaching its 20th anniversary and we are again at anniversary so that's then what we should focus on, be bold or do new stuff.

Guest: New stuff, new stuff, new stuff. I mean the … I remember now what I was going to say when you asked me about the about the logo. Consistency in that area is very important. It's more important than anything else. Actually it's even maybe this is controversial, but I think it's even more important than quality. Because what I understand about public opinion and human psychology says: it's better to stick even with a bad slogan - and yours is not a bad slogan. But even a bad slogan it's better to stick with that for 10 years or 20 years or 30,40, 50 years than to be constantly changing it for a great one, better one, super one. That doesn't work. People only learn things by habitual repetition. So the fact that I feel Slovenia has been around for what - Is it 18 years, did you say? 

Host: 18 years.

Guest: Yeah. And the colour and everything? Yeah, absolutely. Stick to that. Don't ever change it. There's nothing wrong with it. If the time comes when it's horribly wrong, you'll know about it. And then you'll change it. But it's not horribly wrong at all. It's absolutely fine, and people are just starting to get used to it, and this would be absolutely the wrong moment to change it.

Host: Once, Slovenia ranked pretty well last year at the Good Country Index. The index that you ran and you said to me last year it was a bit of surprise. What surprised you most about it?

Guest: Uhm, well, it's actually more than a pretty good result. It's an absolutely stunning result. Let me just explain. Perhaps for the listeners, who are not fully aware of what the two indexes do, the Anholt Nation brands index measures perceptions of countries and that's what we've been talking about so far up until now. In other words, what do people think about Slovenia around the world in great detail over the last 20 years. The Good Country Index measures reality. It doesn't measure perceptions, so we use mostly UN family data to actually measure. In reality, what do countries contribute to the world outside their borders? How much of peace and security does Slovenia export to other countries? How much knowledge, technology, science, education, culture does it export? Right across a range of about 7 different categories. Peace and and justice, health well-being and so forth. And the stunning result was that Slovenia came eighth in the last edition. So, of all the countries in the world, Slovenia, relative to the size of its economy - because this is balanced by GDP to make it fair - is the eighth biggest contributor to humanity on the planet outside its own borders, Estonia came straight after at 9th. Now this is an extraordinary thing because countries like Estonia and Slovenia that have emerged from fundamentally closed or semi closed systems within 30 the last 30 years within living memory and who are small economies who've only recently joined the European Union and NATO and so forth. No country like that has ever been anywhere near the top 20 of the Good Country index. It's always been big, wealthy, Western European democracies and the Anglosphere places like Australia and New Zealand. So seeing Slovenia at this number 8 position in the top 10 and Estonia in the top ten, that's amazing. That really suggests to me that the world is changing in a dramatic way. And maybe it's telling us that countries like Slovenia and Estonia and other similar countries of the same size are going to be the guardians of the international rule of law and saving the climate and saving the planet in the future. Maybe this is your job. Lots and lots of smaller countries that have got consciences that have got specialisms and that care about this kind of stuff. The big powers? Well, we know where the big powers are heading at the moment. They're all often crazy violence trips of their, because they're run by psychotics and psychopaths. So, this is an exciting development, but also particularly in the context of national image, what we've been talking about today, it's also very exciting because it really strongly, powerfully suggests that Slovenia deserves a much, much stronger reputation than it probably has. Slovenia is not a globally famous country. I think we all know, that you don't have to go very far from Europe to have that experience where you say to somebody where they say, where are you from and you say Slovenia and they say, what's that? I think that's probably a universal experience. But you are actually the eighth most helpful country in the world, and you don't yet have the eighth biggest reputation. But I that that result tells me that you deserve a better reputation probably than you already have. And that's kind of exciting. Because in the end, if you don't deserve it, you're never going to get it.

Host: Just figure out but before you mentioned a little bit also the role of citizens and how important it is in in communicating actually also the nations band and the values of the country and can. How can we, as citizens, contribute to building a good reputation for our country. Or - also put it simply, how can we as Slovenians, what can we do today to make to make the world feel Slovenia just a little bit more?

Guest: It's a really tough question. I mean the the reality of the matter is that an individual citizen can't do a lot on the 1:00 to 1:00 basis. Of course they can. I mean, I always remember the story of how I used to have a particular feeling about Sri Lanka? This was long before I ever went there. I just was fascinated by Sri Lanka and I didn't know why and somebody said to me, why are you always going on about Sri Lanka? And I thought and I thought and I thought. And then I remembered I'd actually once met somebody from Sri Lanka at a international conference. It was actually in the bathroom and so to make polite conversation, I said to him, where are you from? And he looked him and he smiled this beautiful smile and he said I'm from Sri Lanka and I thought wow, and we got talking. And he told me all about his country. So, on a 1 to 1 level as an ambassador for your country, you can have an absolutely determining lifelong impact, and that really does happen all over the place. At the level of more than one or two or three or four or five people, it's very, very difficult. But we saw at the tourism awards in the Congress yesterday, the day before that there are lots of, quote unquote, ordinary people. I don't want an ordinary person is I'm not one. And I don't think many people are ordinary. But, you know, not politicians, not rich people, not big business people who are working in the tourism industry and doing a really good job and having an impact on quite a large number of people who visit the country. So I think one of the ways in which the Tourism Office does a really good job is in keeping very close contact with all of those, those destination people and those operators, hotel owners and so forth and making them feel part of the family making them share helping them to share the story energy and the sense of mission. And so wherever you go in Slovenia, the chances are you'll get a good impression and you'll hear the same story. So I think that's all very important. Slovenia is unlucky in two respects. First of all, it doesn't have a very large population. Slovenians are quite rare animals and so you don't meet them very often as you travel around the world, you don't have a huge diaspora like Turkey, for example, and therefore the number of Slovenians that the average person has met is very low. And that's a shame, because if you've got a large population, potentially those are all your diplomats. And you do quite a good job of producing world famous athletes, but that's kind of normal. Most countries have got one or two world famous athletes. Every country also has a couple of famous beer brands, but there's nothing unusual about that. The other reason for which I say that Slovenia is unlucky is because you don't have yet many internationally famous brands by brands, I mean products, consumer brands, there are there are some companies in Slovenia as we all know that make products that are highly respected and sold around Europe and sometimes even beyond skiing equipment caravans, that kind of stuff. But the countries that have world class images have loads and loads and loads of adored consumer brands. Look at Italy, look at Japan, look at Germany, look at the USA, look at France, look at the UK. You could immediately think of 20 great brands from those countries and those are powerful diplomats for your country's image. So, one of the things Slovenia needs to do in order to take this next step is to start thinking about how can we breed and develop and encourage the next generation of global brand producers from Slovenia, 

Host: If we look a little bit in the future. What do you think that the future in nation brand will bring? Will the AI prevail? Will technology prevail or will ethic state emotions stay?

Guest: It's interesting. I think we’re in an age of so much rapid change. One of the things that changes relatively little is public perceptions of countries, and so we find that when governments are doing strategic thinking, they find country image quite a useful constant. It's not exactly a constant, but it's more constant than for example government policy or trade policy. And so that's quite useful because it's quite robust. You can feel pretty sure that if the French have loved Slovenia for the last 20 years, they're likely to continue loving Slovenia at a deep level for some time thanks to social media, if something goes wrong, they might decide they hate you for a week, but typically it goes back to its normal position. The French view of Slovenia, the German view of Slovenia. That's part of the French culture. The German culture is very, very stable. AI is a whole other subject and we could talk about it all day.

Guest: But I think that what's happening in AI is very exciting, particularly the additional power that it gives to our ability to analyse these issues. The Nation Brands index, for example, is driven by … Well, AI isn't exactly the right word for it, machine learning is probably the more appropriate word which can massively and does massively expand our ability to see the world, measure the world, understand the world. So, our access to information is vastly better than it is to be. Access to information is very much the key to all of this, because if countries really, really understand their audiences, their current audiences and their future audiences, then they can do a much more efficient job of spending taxpayers money to attract those people. And I've seen for myself in my own business how AI has absolutely revolutionised our ability to produce extraordinarily rich and reliable data. So, from that particular point of view, it's amazingly good. There's the negative side of it as well, of course, and AI combined with social media can produce enormously disruptive effects on the mood of humanity, and that's what we're all trying to understand how to tackle.

Host: One last question, Simon, you've spent your professional life trying to build images helping countries build images. What's the one thing you wish countries would understand about reputation and doing good?

Guest: When I when I started in this field … However long ago, that was more than 20 years ago, I used to find the problem I had with politicians was that they were very reluctant to see the importance of and they used to say things like - I'm a politician, my job is reality, this all this superficial stuff, it's not important. We don't need to worry about it. And I think they were wrong and I've spent much of the last 20 years trying to prove that they're wrong today with the current generation of politicians. I had the opposite problem. That they're only interested in image and I have to keep reminding them that substance is important too. So I think we've swung very far in the opposite direction, and probably too far. And so, I think some kind of adjustment is needed. I understand why this happens. It's because politicians increasingly have less and less power to shape things that that so much is driven by public opinion, by, by major powers and their lunatic behaviour, by the global economy, by globalisation, which is still a very, very real factor and will continue to be throughout our lives. No question about it. And so politicians these days, so much of their work is not about shaping or making policy. It's about deciding how to tell the population. Their communications people and it's no surprise that when I started working in this field, the majority of popular politicians had a background in in international law or political science. Today, most of them come from a PR background or a journalistic background. And I think that reveals something very true about very fundamental about the nature of governance in in, in the world, not just the West today. So, we need to somehow correct that. We need to get to the stage where we are selecting,  selecting a new breed of politicians that have the right balance between worrying about perceptions and worrying about reality and putting them back together again, so that there are two sides of the same coin and that's their coin. And that's the coin that they must understand how to earn and spend.

Host: This is the last question. What would be one piece of advice for Slovenia for the next decade?

Guest: Be more dissatisfied.

Host: Thank you.

Host: OK.

Host:  A big thank-you to our guest for joining us in the studio and for sharing thoughts that remind us that reputation is not built with words, but with actions. Dear listeners and viewers, thank you for your attention. You can listen to the GOVSI podcast on all podcast platforms and on the YouTube channel of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia. You can also read more about the I feel Slovenia brand—its content, identity, and communication—on the gov.si website.