Nation branding: a contested field for contested identities

When Nation Branding: Concepts, Issues, Practice met its readers in 2008, it was the first textbook to exclusively cover nation branding, a phenomenon described by Keith Dinnie, its author, as “exciting, complex, and controversial” (2008, p. 13). Although a few years later some academics predicted the potential demise of this practice (Aronczyk, 2013, p. 176), nation branding has continued to expand both academically and empirically. Discussions have become more complex, with scholars elaborating models to help practitioners while also discussing the social implications of these initiatives. Campaigns have in turn become a normalized element of foreign policy, tourism, and the economy, with governments around the world investing hefty sums of money in endeavors seeking to create and circulate a positive image of the nations they claim to represent. Not even the Covid-19 pandemic or recent armed conflicts have hindered national brands. Authorities in Iceland targeted audiences in lockdown, portraying their country as the perfect destination to visit once travel restrictions were lifted (Kaneva, 2023); China underlined its “vaccine diplomacy” as a means to boost its overseas reputation in science and international cooperation (Lee, 2021); and the Ukrainian government emphasized the bravery of its people in the face of the recent Russian invasion (Bolin & Ståhlberg, 2022). Nation branding consequently remains “exciting, complex, and controversial” among practitioners and scholars, with academics engaging in questions about its nature and practice in fields such as marketing, international relations, anthropology, cultural studies, and especially media and communications, alongside an ongoing stream of campaigns and promotional initiatives wrestling for attention around the world, like goods in a global supermarket of symbolic forms.