China and the International Olympic Committee's (IOC) management of the 2008 Summer Games is rapidly turning into a brand image and PR disaster, not only negatively impacting on China’s nation brand but also that of the Olympics, an age-old brand synonymous with respect, peace, and teamwork.

The Politics of Sport
As any country knows, hosting the Olympics, or any international sporting event, is a big deal. It can stimulate a country’s economy, help attract tourism, and create sustainable infrastructure. Perhaps most importantly, it can unite and boost pride within a country—and it has certainly done so within China.

But the hosting of any international sporting event also makes a country vulnerable to scrutiny. Implicitly, every host country is inviting the world to view its nation, its people, and its policies. This level of attention needs to be managed from the outset—by China now, by South Africa for the hosting of the 2010 soccer World Cup, and by London for the 2012 Olympics.

“China and the IOC are in the public eye. By hosting the Olympics, China is expecting to feel like part of the developed world and the international sports movement,” says David Bruce, a brand strategist and sports brand expert at Wolff Olins, the agency responsible for developing London’s 2012 brand campaign.

The Olympics is an ancient brand—the first Games were held in Greece nearly 3,000 years ago. It is a sporting event that holds value and meaning to people around the world and across different generations. And these core values must be protected and respected by any host country.

“The Olympics is founded on bringing mankind together—on peace and harmony, understanding one another and celebrating life through sport,” says Bruce. “But how can you celebrate life and human achievement when everything in the press about China goes against that grain?”

Furthermore, the Olympic body has a duty to uphold those values that the Games encompass. “Those rings are sacred," Bruce elaborates. "They represent the Olympic way of life. The IOC must protect what the rings stand for and the Olympic brand.” This gives the IOC legitimate reasons to avoid potential flashpoints of conflict—such as running the Olympic torch relay through Tibetan areas, due in Lhasa, Tibet’s capital, on June 20th.

Nation Building
In today’s global communications climate, the host country of any international event needs a thorough long-term brand strategy that manages the country’s reputation both domestically and internationally.

“China needs to adopt a more strategic brand game if it wants to open up. It needs to decide whether it wants to push being the biggest or the best,” says Iain Ellwood, head of consulting at Interbrand UK. “An engaging and inclusive approach will multiply its investment in the Olympics rather than the singular approach it is currently taking. They need to have an integrated marketing plan on boosting China’s brand as well as the Olympics.”

One of China’s issues is the type and tone of message delivered. The slogans and blunt language used by the Chinese leadership are often aimed at a domestic audience (the largest nation audience with 1.3 billion people). Its leadership is more comfortable communicating this way rather than in the West’s softer language of international diplomacy and political “spin.” Consequently, many of China’s messages – often reported from a controlled state media – seem aggressive, one-sided, outdated, and irrelevant to an informed, online, and international audience.

“The Chinese government tends to take a hard line. Its approach does not align with western PR and the ideas of transparency and engagement. It is easier to throw up a wall and clam up rather than engage,” says Perry Keller, a media law expert and China specialist at King's College, London. “There are enormous difficulties. China must now shift and find a new model to present themselves to the rest of the world other than using the slogans that they relentlessly push—slogans that do not resonate outside of China although they may work internally.”

Yet, the seemingly softer language used by Western leaders and the international media can, in turn, seem confrontational within Chinese culture. Terms like “openness” may seem aggressive or expose vulnerabilities. The West’s demands for “transparency” spurred on by many corporate scandals, does not necessarily translate effectively in Asian culture. The Chinese leadership often prefers to adopt more subtle words like “harmony” or “peaceful rise”—the latter is used to describe China's strategy for becoming a competitive but peaceful global economic force.

However, there is evidence that the Chinese leadership is already softening its tone. The international media has been delivering open and extensive coverage of the tragic earthquake that hit China on May 12, in the Sichuan province, even as the death toll continues to rise. This contrasts sharply with the disaster and media management response by its neighbor, Myanmar, where the ruling military regime is refusing both international aid and press access to the regions recently devastated by a cyclone.

China and Tibet
There is a need for a new form of dialogue that bridges East and West. For the past decade, the dominant dialogue between China and the West has been based on a common language of business, economic growth, and new markets. China, after all, represents a market share that offers huge potential for corporate growth and brand presence, particularly with an ever-burgeoning Chinese middle class whose sheer numbers dwarf most other markets.

This focus on business has dampened any visible dialogue on human rights issues with China, particularly in relation to the oppression of the Tibetan people. Tibet is also rarely discussed through official channels like the United Nations (UN), where China is a member of the Security Council—one of five countries with the final say on issues to be raised within the UN.

“Tibet was last tabled at the United Nations in 1961. Any movement forward on Tibet would not come from the United Nations as China will veto any decisive action,” says Guglielmo Verdirame, a barrister and lecturer in international law at Cambridge University, UK.

It is not surprising, then, that recent vocal calls by the West to the Chinese leadership referring to “engagement” may appear a little hypocritical given the degree to which they both benefit from the current dynamics.

From a reputation standpoint, Tibet is one of the main issues that divides China and much of its international audience. The Tibetan cause represents a significant "brand," built up over years of international lobbying with a strong global exile community. It is a cause with huge international empathy and interest, and its spiritual leader, the XIVth Dalai Lama, is its greatest asset. He is respected by many in the West, including senior political leaders, in a similar manner that South Africa’s former leader, Nelson Mandela, is globally revered.

A resolution on Tibet, and the Dalai Lama’s calls for autonomy within China, seem a long way off, but China’s hosting of the Games has finally put the issue on the front pages. It is possible that, if international pressure continues post-Beijing 2008, there may be some progress on Tibet and other human rights issues.

“The Olympics has often been a vehicle for progressing international relations—part of its process and role has been to positively impact on foreign relations, progressing certain issues to further resolution,” says Ellwood. “The world will be in a better place and have a more refined point of view post-Beijing. There will be greater fluency in issues like human rights and Tibet—that would not have happened without China hosting the Olympics.”

Brand China’s Future?
In August, China will demonstrate her economic achievements to the world in a staged performance that will, no doubt, be breathtaking. But a perfectly staged event will not end the controversy, and—for the sake of China's international image—must not replace dialogue. It may be that China’s sensitivity to her own global reputation will encourage a shift; it has been reported that the Chinese leadership is currently seeking an international PR agency. But there is also an obligation on western powers to find a common public terminology that is less threatening and more conducive to positive, progressive dialogue about human rights.

China’s domestic reputation may currently rest on Beijing 2008, but her international reputation lies on what will happen in the months and years after the Games: “Social change is a longer journey—it is not a moment in time like the Olympics,” says Ellwood. “People need to take a longer, more strategic view of these issues and remember that China has come a long way in a short time. There needs to be patience and a strategic plan from all sides.”