The concept of ‘NZ Inc’ is used a lot these days to refer to things where the national interest could benefit from more centralised planning/action (eg education, politics, science). The meaning is not entirely clear. It seems to lean towards the Singaporean, presumably with more freedom of expression.
Here is a thought experiment: suppose we wanted to refresh/develop New Zealand’s brand. How would we do that, and what would be the result? If this question seems crazy, ask yourself what foreigners think of when they hear “New Zealand”. Like it or not, New Zealand already has many brands: they are whatever people associate with the country.
A strategic (NZ Inc) branding exercise would start by recognising and getting better information on this starting point. We would then think seriously about how we want NZ to be perceived. Who are we? What do we offer? What are our values? To what do we aspire? These are nation-brand building questions. They transcend party politics. We absolutely need to confront them.
Delivery on the brand promise is critical. If NZ Inc is to act like a business we need to avoid the dreaded over-promise-under-deliver trap. The brutal truth is that we either need a replacement for the flagship 100% Pure brand, or a very convincing way to explain it. People are asking questions.
Obviously its been a great brand. But 100% Pure? This doesn’t sound like a country identified by the OECD as a leading waste producer.
If 100% Pure is to have lasting value as a brand we need a stringent quality assurance regime within NZ. Some firms would miss the cut, perhaps many. We might even want to ban certain activities on the grounds that they are inconsistent with the national brand. That’s how commercial brand management would work. It seems pretty dangerous to have a brand and allow it to be undermined.