FBlog

Natural disasters tend to be much more than a series of events with unfortunate results. They create opportunities to reflect on our relationships with the environment, from the geographical to the human.

At the time of a natural disaster, we depend upon human relationships with other countries for four reasons: 1) provision of immediate practical help and aid, 2) a market for continued purchase of products (exports), 3) sustained long term country investment 4) the endorsement required to maintain tourism.
Some countries have managed to maintain (and in some cases enhance) their perception and external appreciation following a natural disaster. Indeed this was the case for Japan and New Zealand, two countries that stood in the CBI 2011-2012.

In the case of Japan, this country suffered the worst earthquake in its history in March 2011; perhaps the most rebroadcast event by traditional media and social networks. Japan, with positive ratings in other categories and dimensions, reaffirmed (and increased) the strong appreciation and perception rankings of the country, despite suffering a natural disaster of such magnitude.

New Zealand also suffered at the hands of nature in 2011, an earthquake that increased awareness of the Country Brand amongst other nations. Simultaneously, New Zealand increased consideration and recommendation to visit by a third party, consolidating its reputation as a destination of great natural beauty. So how can a country that suffers constant attacks of nature remain a positive option for visit and recommendation to other potential visitors? The intrinsic strengths of New Zealand across different dimensions and categories projected a positive advantage even in a disaster situation, increasing the desire to visit, support and build relations with the country.

What can we conclude from this series of relationships between natural disasters and appreciations of a country?

The first major conclusion is that not all natural disasters result in a negative perception of the country concerned. In other words, an earthquake does not automatically make a country a worse place to live, a place to no longer visit or a market in which to no longer invest.

The second major conclusion is that nations with stronger Country Brands are those best equipped to turn the disaster into an opportunity; attracting more tourists, growing exports and increasing incoming investments. In contrast, a natural disaster in a nation with a weak Country Brand is likely to expose perceived weaknesses, in turn further reducing the world’s appreciation and perceptions.

The third major conclusion is that there is an emotional and empathetic component that can be triggered when disasters occur, often increasing the desire to visit a country and / or invest in its reconstruction.

In a world increasingly beaten by the surprise attack of the nature, countries face the difficult challenge of turning what was initially a negative into a positive result in order to help them grow as a nation and perhaps to even be in a better position than previously.