Wanted: A single brand for S'pore
Extract from The State's Times, 2/9/2006.
Uniquely Singapore. City in the Garden. Global City, World of Opportunities.
These branding campaigns have been used at some point or other by various government agencies to promote Singapore, often with sterling results.
But there is just one problem: Having each agency brand Singapore based on its own goals results in a fragmented image of the country.
So Singapore is now embarking on a search for a single, solid brand that will present the country to the world.
No wonder Singaporeans are always in one identity crisis after another. "Who are we?" "Where do we come from?" "Where do we go from here?" "Is racial tolerance the same as racial harmony?"
Even our dear fatherly Government cannot seem to make up his mind about what kind of overall identity we want Singapore presented as, much less us citizens who are already busy enough worshipping money and worrying about whether our work presentations needed for tomorrow has enough attention-grabbing visual aids.
For a citizenry that usually passively awaits and follows the Government's recommendations on everything from which overseas Special Economic Zone to invest in, to the type of bright tropical smile all 4 million citizens should maintain during the IMF-World bank meetings, we might be totally overwhelmed and confused by the different Government agencies' disparate branding of Singapore.
What's interesting is that this branding campaign takes on a very commercial function. Phrases like 'marketing image' and 'solid brand' seem to hint at a language of commerce. It seems that this new, unified image the Government so desires is made entirely for commercial consumption by the rest of the world. This of course reeks of crass pragmatism that we are so very used to. In fact, if i were asked for my opinion on how we might brand Singapore, I would say we are a pragmatic cosmopolis that listens to the demands of the 'world' and of the Government. Of course by 'world', what imean is those parts of this world that are internationally recognised and have important economic links with Singapore, be they neighbours or not.
Which brings me to my next point: Why aren't the local folks here being asked about what they would like their own country's unified corporate image to be? Hullo, i know not all of us have an MBA or a degree in economics, but i'm sure indigenous opinions carry a certain degree of importance and significance to such a branding campiagn. Imean hey, at least put out an online survey or sumthing, make it look like the folks here are actually being consulted on this issue, it may not be as potentially life-changing as the casino issue but at least it deserves the same veil of citizen consultation.
But no...What does the Government consciously choose to do instead? A tender bid is being put up by the Government for a consultant for this umbrella brand positioning. The cost for the exercise is capped at $3 million.
Oh yeah, do it in the way that seems most transparent. Nowadays it seems like the Government is holding open tenders for almost everything it wishes to be seen as open and aboveboard. The 3 lowest bids requirement instituted across the Civil Service and even the Army. Everybody who's experienced the 3 lowest bids system before knows the quality of goods/services you get in the end. But thats not my main point.
Hullo, instead of asking the folks here for opinions and in the process pacify the worst critics, our Government decides to throw 3 million bucks to any marketing agency able to come up with the most pragmatic, business-like and cohesive brand name for Singapore, that will perhaps last for at most 3 years before a name brand change is required to suit changing 'world' demands? 3 seems to be the magic number for the Government here, so i'm just following like a good citizen, and no prizes for guessing if a local marketing agency would actually clinch the deal if the Government in the first place discounted the cost-free views of its citizenry.
This also reminds me of one little-known fact about how the Government earlier on also went on a hunt for consultants to re-name/re-brand the Marina Bay area in preparation for the exciting IR and Marina reservoir developments there. So apparently millions were paid out for the marketing campaign but in the end the 'experts' concluded that Marina Bay was its most suitable name after all. If you haven't forgotten, even a 'reknowned feng shui master' was brought in to comment on Marina Bay's excellent feng shui during the IR hype.
What i find interesting is how a seemingly confident Government that professes the political will to chart its own foreign policy is so dependent on marketing/branding experts for affirmation of present images or the construction of new, abstract ones that bear great success to alienating the populace. And we may safely assume that these branding experts the Government has in mind are foreign ones. This perhaps exposes a socially nervous psyche that we posesss, one that is hungry for external affirmation but puts up a strong, stoic front that we are proud of our right to self-determination and our hard-earned economic success.
Why is it that we are so dependent on foreign opinions of ourselves? I guess that is a question all Singaporeans have to ask themselves from time to time. Do we judge ourselves based on a generally Western point of view or do we adopt an indigenously Asian perspective?
While the Government busies itself with closed-door meetings where open tenders are held, perhaps it would do us good to ponder what kind of image we are presenting to the world in the process of anxiously trying to re-brand ourselves time and again. Perhaps we could also have a good laugh about how the little autonomy the Government privileged the various self-serving agencies with has resulted in this identity tangle and mini-crisis that the father has once again to come out and iron things out.
Uniquely Singapore. City in the Garden. Global City, World of Opportunities.
These branding campaigns have been used at some point or other by various government agencies to promote Singapore, often with sterling results.
But there is just one problem: Having each agency brand Singapore based on its own goals results in a fragmented image of the country.
So Singapore is now embarking on a search for a single, solid brand that will present the country to the world.
No wonder Singaporeans are always in one identity crisis after another. "Who are we?" "Where do we come from?" "Where do we go from here?" "Is racial tolerance the same as racial harmony?"
Even our dear fatherly Government cannot seem to make up his mind about what kind of overall identity we want Singapore presented as, much less us citizens who are already busy enough worshipping money and worrying about whether our work presentations needed for tomorrow has enough attention-grabbing visual aids.
For a citizenry that usually passively awaits and follows the Government's recommendations on everything from which overseas Special Economic Zone to invest in, to the type of bright tropical smile all 4 million citizens should maintain during the IMF-World bank meetings, we might be totally overwhelmed and confused by the different Government agencies' disparate branding of Singapore.
What's interesting is that this branding campaign takes on a very commercial function. Phrases like 'marketing image' and 'solid brand' seem to hint at a language of commerce. It seems that this new, unified image the Government so desires is made entirely for commercial consumption by the rest of the world. This of course reeks of crass pragmatism that we are so very used to. In fact, if i were asked for my opinion on how we might brand Singapore, I would say we are a pragmatic cosmopolis that listens to the demands of the 'world' and of the Government. Of course by 'world', what imean is those parts of this world that are internationally recognised and have important economic links with Singapore, be they neighbours or not.
Which brings me to my next point: Why aren't the local folks here being asked about what they would like their own country's unified corporate image to be? Hullo, i know not all of us have an MBA or a degree in economics, but i'm sure indigenous opinions carry a certain degree of importance and significance to such a branding campiagn. Imean hey, at least put out an online survey or sumthing, make it look like the folks here are actually being consulted on this issue, it may not be as potentially life-changing as the casino issue but at least it deserves the same veil of citizen consultation.
But no...What does the Government consciously choose to do instead? A tender bid is being put up by the Government for a consultant for this umbrella brand positioning. The cost for the exercise is capped at $3 million.
Oh yeah, do it in the way that seems most transparent. Nowadays it seems like the Government is holding open tenders for almost everything it wishes to be seen as open and aboveboard. The 3 lowest bids requirement instituted across the Civil Service and even the Army. Everybody who's experienced the 3 lowest bids system before knows the quality of goods/services you get in the end. But thats not my main point.
Hullo, instead of asking the folks here for opinions and in the process pacify the worst critics, our Government decides to throw 3 million bucks to any marketing agency able to come up with the most pragmatic, business-like and cohesive brand name for Singapore, that will perhaps last for at most 3 years before a name brand change is required to suit changing 'world' demands? 3 seems to be the magic number for the Government here, so i'm just following like a good citizen, and no prizes for guessing if a local marketing agency would actually clinch the deal if the Government in the first place discounted the cost-free views of its citizenry.
This also reminds me of one little-known fact about how the Government earlier on also went on a hunt for consultants to re-name/re-brand the Marina Bay area in preparation for the exciting IR and Marina reservoir developments there. So apparently millions were paid out for the marketing campaign but in the end the 'experts' concluded that Marina Bay was its most suitable name after all. If you haven't forgotten, even a 'reknowned feng shui master' was brought in to comment on Marina Bay's excellent feng shui during the IR hype.
What i find interesting is how a seemingly confident Government that professes the political will to chart its own foreign policy is so dependent on marketing/branding experts for affirmation of present images or the construction of new, abstract ones that bear great success to alienating the populace. And we may safely assume that these branding experts the Government has in mind are foreign ones. This perhaps exposes a socially nervous psyche that we posesss, one that is hungry for external affirmation but puts up a strong, stoic front that we are proud of our right to self-determination and our hard-earned economic success.
Why is it that we are so dependent on foreign opinions of ourselves? I guess that is a question all Singaporeans have to ask themselves from time to time. Do we judge ourselves based on a generally Western point of view or do we adopt an indigenously Asian perspective?
While the Government busies itself with closed-door meetings where open tenders are held, perhaps it would do us good to ponder what kind of image we are presenting to the world in the process of anxiously trying to re-brand ourselves time and again. Perhaps we could also have a good laugh about how the little autonomy the Government privileged the various self-serving agencies with has resulted in this identity tangle and mini-crisis that the father has once again to come out and iron things out.
posted by Firefox at 7:19 AM
<< Home