Through elements such as design and marketing, they create a perception about specific qualities attached to the brand.
For meat and dairy, the New Zealand brand is associated with green pastures, free-range animals, safe food and high-quality nutrition.
Emotions are attached to brands as well as money.
The concern about Fonterra selling its “legacy brands” is a case in point.
The money tied up in the brands will generate more income if invested elsewhere, but shareholders are still feeling the tug of the loss.
So are some of the processing staff who have given their working life to creating the brands.
It is difficult for anybody not directly involved to understand the beating heart behind a brand and whether change is going to be positive.
Clean, Green and 100% Pure, conceived last century, has been considered an economic success associated with “high international regard as a country brand”.
Although some groups and individuals have pointed to a growing gap between the country’s brand positioning and its actual environmental record, a third of visitors to New Zealand in the last quarter of 2024 identified “scenery and landscape” as the main reason for visiting (second highest number after 40% indicated friends and family as the main reason).
Further, 91% were satisfied or very satisfied with their experience here.
Tourist gripes tend to be with litter, lack of parking and the driving habits of others, not the environment or the countryside.
In 2024, New Zealand’s brand was valued by Brand Finance’s Nation Brands report at US$250 billion ($422b).
This was 25% up on the pre-pandemic valuation in 2019 (noting that general inflation in New Zealand over this period was 23% according to the Reserve Bank).
Inflation was rife across the world, but in global terms, Brand Finance ranked New Zealand 22nd out of 121 countries for brand strength (76.5 out of 100 and AA+), based on investment in the national brand, equity of a national brand in terms of public perceptions, and performance of the national brand.
Nobody is resting on any laurels.
Businesses, including those in the primary sector, are in a constant state of change, adjusting to the environmental expectations of customers here and overseas.
All are constrained by resources, including availability of raw material, infrastructure and labour.
In the primary sector, land use capability is a major factor; climate and topography impose limitations that are not generally understood by those who don’t live on the land.
That is why the flurry of articles “rethinking” New Zealand’s primary sector is confusing for farmers, growers and rural professionals.
These people have the land as their heartbeat, and most are thinking constantly about what they could do differently and better.
Kiwifruit and avocados taking over from dairy, arable cropping replacing drystock, occur only where climate and topography allow.
Pine trees are less fussy and have expanded on land not suitable for more lucrative uses.
RethinkX, suggests New Zealand meat and dairy could be the next Kodak — made redundant by new technologies such as precision fermentation and cellular agriculture.
The blow of the words is softened by the acknowledgement there will always be a niche market for red meat, “but if you think it will have any significance going forward, this is a mistake”.
“People might still own horses, but they definitely don’t ride them to work every day”.
People own horses for pleasure and sport, and food fulfils a pleasure and hobby role for many people.
Meat and milk also provide high-quality nutrition from land unsuitable for other food production uses.
The series of articles by Vincent Heeringa and Victoria Hatton discussed picking up the pace of change, not rebranding.
The authors urge more investment in research and development and collaboration between organisations and incubators.
Collaboration is vital to achieve the critical mass that allows the acceleration of progress.
Always, the clean green brand must be at the forefront of thinking, and for agriculture globally, the number of people who can be given adequate nutrition from a given area of land must be considered.
Areas that cannot be cropped can be grazed by sheep, cattle and deer or planted in pine trees.
Which makes more sense? And which can best capitalise on New Zealand’s trusted brand?
Might an addition to the current valuable brand assist?
For kiwifruit, could the addition be VitamiNZ?
And how about ProteiNZ for meat and milk?
One hundred per cent nutrition has a certain ring, and SustaiNZ sums up clean, green and sustainable New Zealand.
RethinkX has stimulated rethinking, and the primary sector is picking up the pace.
