±±¾©Èü³µpk10

The first flaw in the NBI is its sampling. Despite claiming to be a 'unique barometer of global opinion', it is no such thing. Only 10 countries contributed to the research, meaning 95% of the world's countries and more than half its population were excluded from the supposedly global poll.

Despite claiming to be 'one of the world's leading authorities on the branding of countries', I suggest Anholt takes a good look at his atlas. The last time I looked, African people were part of the global community and deserving of representation. There are also quite a few Muslim countries too, yet their viewpoint is missing. Global is not a word to bandy around lightly. Something either is, or isn't, global. The NBI is very much the latter.

The second flaw is methodological. Even if the NBI had been conducted in a global manner, its crude and incorrect analytical framework would still render it worthless. To measure the strength of each country, the Index relies on the 'Nation Brand Hexagon' - a copyrighted system for assessing the six areas of national competence.

These areas include topics such as Tourism or Governance and appear to have been invented by Anholt on the basis that they seem to be about right. How do we know that these six areas are exhaustive and that the area of Culture and Heritage is perceptually distinct from that of People? Are all six areas weighted equally? If so, why?

If Anholt had the necessary training to develop brand metrics, he might have appreciated that to develop a scale like this he would have to conduct a rigorous secondary data analysis, followed by projective research, which would then lead to quantitative analysis of the resulting areas using a correlation matrix committed to a factor analysis, preferably using principle component analysis and a varimax rotation.

It might sound over-complex, but if you are going to tell the people of Russia that their nation brand is weaker than New Zealand, you had better not be doing it using data analysis that a second-year undergraduate student would be ashamed of.

The third flaw is theoretical. The NBI is an example of the ongoing bastardisation of brand. These days, anything that has popular cultural meaning is defined as a brand, despite patently being no such thing. The Labour Party is not a brand, it is a political party. Dannii Minogue is not a brand, she is a woman.

Countries are not brands. They can have an origin effect on the brands that they produce, but this is nebulous and varies from one category to another. Australia might be a great place to book a beach holiday, but how about a course there in medieval architecture?

When you publish a league table that relegates the Czech Republic from third to last on the basis of a self-generated, flawed research instrument, you are not just demonstrating your ignorance, you are denigrating a people, culture, and history that has every reason to see itself as unique and incomparable to any other.

Fear not, though. The only reputations damaged by the NBI are those of Anholt and the GMI. Oh, and the concept of branding too.

30 SECONDS ON ... THE NATION BRANDS INDEX.

- Twenty five nations were ranked to form the Nation Brands Index. The top 10 were: Australia, Canada, Switzerland, the UK, Sweden, Italy, Germany, Netherlands, France and New Zealand.

- Despite the NBI ranking 25 countries, consumers from only 10 countries (Canada, China, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Japan, South Korea, the UK and the US) were quizzed on their opinions. In each country 1000 consumers were asked to rank the other 24 nations. Participants were not permitted to rank their native country.

- Winner Australia was the first choice for quality of people, tourism and investment and immigration, but it suffered poor ratings for products and culture.

- The UK came fourth. The British ranked third in the People category and fourth for Culture. UK products were placed sixth.