Dialogue: Our brand is cash in the bank, let's tie it up tight

TERRY DUNLEAVY* says the more the world comes to recognise the brand "New Zealand" the greater the need to preserve it strictly for our own use.

Pacific Star, Kiwi Cuvee Sauvignon Blanc, GlobalCo - three titles from such disparate fields as airline, wine and dairy, but all having a common association with the intellectual property of New Zealand.

What started me thinking was the saddening example of Kiwi cringe reflected in the suggestion that Air New Zealand needs to change its name in the interests of international recognition to something like Pacific Star.

The unmistakable implication is that retention of the name Air New Zealand will be a handicap in remaking its image as a regional airline which has expanded to include Ansett; that New Zealand is a name of so little account on the international stage that we must conceal it if we want be accepted as a global player.

This topic has been given impetus lately by two statements worthy of note.

One was from Fran O'Sullivan, the Herald business writer, who on Radio New Zealand, advocated the urgent need for New Zealand "to capitalise our intellectual property".

The other came from Cheong Choong Kong, CEO of Singapore Airlines, bidding to lift his company's 25 per cent stake in Air New Zealand to 49 per cent. "We bought into Air NZ as a New Zealand brand and we don't want to see that brand diluted," he told the Business Herald.

No one would appreciate more than Dr Cheong the influence that a well-run national airline can have in establishing and maintaining credible and favourable branding for its country of origin. SIA might have carried the Singapore flag well and proudly to many more destinations worldwide, but Air New Zealand has served us at least equally as well on the fewer routes it flies.

Quite apart from the airline's decisive role in developing inbound tourism, it is its singular capacity to help in the branding of New Zealand which justifies the Government doing whatever is reasonably possible to ensure that Air New Zealand remains Air New Zealand.

Which brings us back to Fran O'Sullivan, who was, as usual, right on the button concerning our need to capitalise on our intellectual property, which has as its baseline our brand name "New Zealand". Before we capitalise, we must ensure that we protect that brand name.

Kiwi Cuvee Sauvignon Blanc is another reminder that we have long since lost any sole rights to the name "Kiwi". Citizens in Britain, Australia and New Zealand know it as a brand of boot polish; modern-day Brits and Europeans know it as a furry-coated berryfruit which New Zealanders have had to register as Zespri to achieve distinctive market differentiation.

(Indeed, that cheeky French wine may well get its comeuppence in the British market as consumers look dismissively at what they see as the incongruity of someone trying to sell a blend of fruit and grape wine made from kiwifruit and sauvignon blanc).

This French wine will be seen for what it is, and will make not the slightest dent in the quality wine niche held in Britain by our wines, marketed under the umbrella, "New Zealand Wines - Riches of a Clean Green Land."

In the case of wine, the European market, including Britain, is bound by rules of origin and labelling, set by the French who are fanatics in this matter. Kiwi Cuvee Sauvignon Blanc will fool only those who deserve to be fooled - and they are not the target market of our winemakers.

But as new markets emerge for wine and a raft of other New Zealand products and services - in Asia, Africa and South America where respect for intellectual property might not be as high as in, say, Europe or North America - it may be timely to consider measures to ensure that the brand name "New Zealand" is not allowed to go the same way as "Kiwi".

This is a task for the Government, as trustee for the people's rightful interest in ownership of the brand "New Zealand". And in assuming that ownership, and the duty of protecting our brand, the Government might also set rules for the use of that brand name by any new company.

In general, we are fortunate so far that the name "New Zealand" has been used by companies and organisations which are nationwide.

That's the way it should stay, even if - shades of the "bad old days" - it means that a body such as the Ministry of Economic Development has to be given the power to approve use of the brand name "New Zealand" in the title of any commercial product or company.

Except possibly on the rugby field and the waters of the Hauraki Gulf, New Zealanders seem reluctant to accept that we can attain and, indeed, have attained, levels of international quality, as we have in wine, software, boat-building, biotechnology, engineering consultancy, dairy by-products, television imagery and many more.

The more the world comes to recognise that the brand "New Zealand" stands for value, quality, integrity, creativity and ultimate consumer satisfaction, the greater will become the desire here and overseas to latch on to the rewards attaching to that brand.

That's why we need to register it worldwide, protect it, and regulate so the brand becomes available only to those New Zealand-based enterprises which can offer the standards which the brand represents.

And GlobalCo? I sincerely hope that, in spite of the truly global scope of its activities, this vast enterprise, owned by the dairy farmers of New Zealand, can find a corporate name which includes the brand "New Zealand" as its contribution to the nationwide crusade to make our praises heard afar.

* Terry Dunleavy, of Takapuna, is marketing director of Te Motu Vineyard, Waiheke Island, and editor of the quarterly industry magazine New Zealand WineGrower.