Talk:Nation branding/Archives/2014

Nation Brands Index

Can anyone clarify why the ranking of the table is not according to the only numerical evidence/column that is specified. Any ranking depends on evaluation that has been (explicitly or implicitly) cast into numbers that are subsequently compared. So, I expect there is another index/category, unrevealed by the stated table, which motivates the ranking as it is. It would be nice to specify these numbers in an additional column, or in case I my reasoning is wrong in some sense, clarify the issue.Tomeasy (talk) 12:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The ranking is based on a survey including several "soft" indicators [1]. The total brand value of each nation is an estimation and represents rather a secondary priority/ supplement. Therefore the survey ranking has become the significant indicator to structure the table in the first place. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. I can see that this is more a problem of the source and my question cannot be answered satisfactory. It's very disappointing that the Classement général is stated without any mentioning of the based criteria and their respective weightings. Well, seems we have to live with the suboptimal solution that is currently presented. Tomeasy (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"The six key verticals/ indicators studied include: exports, governance, investment and immigration, culture and heritage, people and tourism." [2] Lear 21 (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. Now, we know at least the criteria underlying the index. Next step would be to find out their relative weighting. If then we also knew how the nations scored in the individual categories we would be able to state the figures that shaped the ranking and provide them, what I was after from the beginning.

Of course, all this should have been done by the original source in the first place, rather than diligent wikipedians ;-) In stead of being vague, they should have served their responsibility to provide transparency as to how they compute the ranking. How can one otherwise take this serious? This limitation is, however, not our mistake. Actually, Lear has already done a lot by digging up the criteria. I think it is a good idea to add them to the article. Tomeasy (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

One thing, I would like to put forward to discussing: I think we should also add a comment that the ranking is vague, since the underlying figures are not published. Basically, the original authors could have been done whatsoever--the table lacks reproducibility and verifiability. Tomeasy (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding the criteria to the article makes sense. Note that the Index is only available with subscription and therefore lacks transparency. The next Index will be probably issued this month. Lear 21 (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see. That gives some rationale to their actions. I have to say you really know a lot about them. Do you work for it ;-) Tomeasy (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

NBI is one sphere of my several interests. The updated index seems a little overdue according to their own schedule. If you want to ask Mr. Anholt specific questions here is his blog [3]. He might answer. Lear 21 (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Austalia seriously second on people brand?Vin300 (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Proposing to merge new article Country Brand Index into this existing article Nation branding. Country Brand Index seems to be a subset of Nation Branding. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 02:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, CBI should bemerge into nation branding. Country Brand Index is one way of measuring nation brand values. Another one is Nation Brands Index, another is Nation Branding Perception Index. They are pretty much proposed measurement styles. Esevin (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Support. Don't see why it needs its own article. 75.154.96.248 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

Please update

There is a newer score! --212.23.105.169 (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.futurebrand.com/cbi/2014. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)