America Brand Decline: Why Our National Story Matters
How the Decline of America’s Brand Impacts Global Perception and Influence
Click HERE to watch:
Yuval Harari, the author of Sapiens and Homo Deus, proposes something simple but profound. The world does not run on facts. It runs on stories.
What is money? A shared fiction. Religion? A beautifully constructed narrative. Nation-states? Collective myths we agree to believe in, represented with flags, mottos, anthems, and history.
The stories we tell become the brands we live.
The Power of National Narratives
America’s story has always been its brand. The land of opportunity. Home of the brave. A place where you can become something more than what you were born.
That story sold millions of people on emigration, entrepreneurship, education, and enterprise. It turned our cities into dreams and paved our sidewalks with gold.
But now America’s brand is declining.
The Historical Strength of America’s Brand
I was speaking at a financial conference in Bogotá, Colombia. It was a very buttoned-up, very global affair. As I stepped off stage, a young Colombian banker approached me and said, “My dream has always been to study at Stanford and then open my own firm in Miami. But now I wonder, why would I go to a place that seems like it doesn’t want me there?”
He wasn’t angry. He was confused. Disappointed. Like a loyal customer returning to his favorite store only to find the lights off, the windows boarded up, and the doors locked.
That’s the damage we’re doing.
Signs of Brand Erosion in Modern Times
On a recent episode of Pivot, Scott Galloway, the NYU professor with a voice like sandpaper and a mind like a scalpel, laid it out in brutal terms. He said the decline of America’s brand, from the rule of law to legal immigration to our once-envied university system, is undermining the true value of our companies. Not the day-to-day numbers, the deep, foundational stuff. The reason investors trust us, the reason talent comes here, the reason brands built in the U.S. carry more global weight than they might otherwise deserve.
C’mon, you don’t have to squint too hard to see this pattern repeating itself everywhere you look. When the story of America changes, the value of America declines. And not just the GDP or the Dow Jones, the real value, the aspirational one.
Global Perception: A Shift in Trust
You might think this is a political rant. It’s not. It’s brand truth.
I’ve spent the better part of my career explaining how branding works to companies, conferences, and countries. Branding is not a logo. It’s not a jingle. It’s not a Super Bowl ad. It’s not a flag. It’s the story you tell and the way people feel about it. It’s what they say about you when you’re not in the room or not on the ballot. It’s what they feel you do for them.
Right now, people around the world are saying something very different about the United States than they did just a few years ago, and none of it is good.
Read: Understanding the essence of branding through art.
Overcoming America’s Brand Decline
That matters.
Because America, like Nike, like Harvard, like Patagonia, like the Corvette, was never just a place or a product. It was a belief system. It was a promise.
What happens when you break a promise? You break the brand.
The good news? Stories can be rewritten. But only if we recognize that storytelling is not decoration. It’s strategy. It’s structure. It’s survival.
It’s time to stop watching the stock ticker and start paying attention to the brand meter.
Read: The impact of decisions on brand perception.
Call to Action: Your Audience Needs to Hear This
I keynote at conferences around the world, helping audiences understand how branding drives behavior, belief, and bottom-line results. If your team, organization, or event needs to hear this message and how to turn brand erosion into brand evolution, I still have a few dates available for 2025.
Let’s rewrite the story together.
Read: Building a brand over time.
Reach out. I’d love to talk.
You can learn more at www.bruceturkel.com
Bruce, point well taken! Is the honeymoon over? We are no longer safe when you see our social security, FDIC, major cutbacks and layoffs taking place. We can’t depend on the what the brand has always provided.
Absolutely true, Mike. But remember that nothing stands forever and the more things change, the more they change.
Thank you, Bruce. It’s very true, and I see this in my travels around the world. America doesn’t have the “cool factor” anymore. But what we Americans are just realizing, is that the tarnish on America as a brand started when the “America First” campaign started in 2017, and we decided not to play by the same rules as the rest of the world: pulling out of the Paris (climate change) Agreement, blowing up NAFTA, building border walls, and questioning political ties that have taken 70+ years to build, etc. etc. That’s when we (I say “we” because I’m also a Danish citizen) understood that America now only thinks about themselves and we’re not wanted. Like your Colombian attendee, we were confused and disappointed, which obviously changed our perception of our former friend and big brother.
I was in Denmark a month ago. Supermarkets are now running “Buy European” ads with stickers that tell you if the product is European. Flights to America are down 40%, and “How dare you to drive a Tesla?” I understand we have a hard time realizing this, and we still think we are the greatest country in the world. But unfortunately, we are not – at least not in the eyes of the people – and perception is reality, right?
Thanks for sharing your experience, Soren. Considering all the places you’ve been since we last saw each other, I’m sure you have a wide-ranging global outlook that few of us see. I appreciate you sharing it here.
Excellent and so true and truly sad.
Hi Bruce, So topical and on target and most critical, how do we create a new
story to repair the damage currentlly being created? And how long can we afford to wait? We need to ensure that we reinforce the foundation for our future society. The message has to be strong to cut through the clutter and misinformation.
As always, thank you.
Hello Bruce. This was definitely a political rant. The Colombian young man that you reference in your opening, should say in Colombia and make a name for himself there. We should be more worried about the “dreams” of our American children.
You said that “right now, people around the world are saying something very different about the United States than they did just a few years ago, and none of it is good.” Give me a break. We had a president that could not speak without the assistance of a TelePrompTer (I am being nice) and just about everybody was taking advantage of us. Now we are back to “America First.”
You have to admit that “America First” and “Make America Great Again” are excellent branding taglines brought to you by your not so favorite president.
I absolutely agree with you Dorcas. Our current president is first and foremost a master at messaging strategy. His time on TV trained him well.
Let me add, Dorcas, that we do want that Colombian banker and potential student to come here. He’ll pay full tuition at Stanford. He’ll start a business and employ people. He’ll pay taxes. And he’ll raise a family who will become Americans – just like you and me.
Why in the world would we want him to go anywhere else?
THAT’S the American way and the American dream.
Oh, Bruce – you are so, so right.
It’s distressing, perplexing and heartbreaking to see the Great Edifice destroy itself brick by brick.
And so shockingly quickly.
Yours, from afar…
So great to hear from you Simon, although sadly because of these circumstances.
Hey Bruce,
Good thinking, as always.
Since brand is the foundation of your thinking, I want to circle back to that lens.
If we define brand as the emotional result of consistent behaviors of promises made and kept, then can a company (or country) lose the right to be called a brand once those behaviors break down?
Too often, people equate brand with recognition. But brand, in its truest sense, is not just familiarity; it’s earned meaning. It’s the sum of actions that create trust, consistency, belief, and belonging. When those actions falter, when promises are broken, values diluted, or missions abandoned, does the brand remain intact? Or does it, by definition, collapse?
Take Southwest. Their brand was built on simplicity, fairness, and a clear value proposition. They broke that. And now? They’re not a differentiated brand—they’re just another shitty airline like all the others.
So what happens when the same thing plays out on a national scale?
Brand America isn’t just in decline, it’s terribly broken. It may no longer qualify as a brand at all. Because a brand, at its core, is a promise. And when you break the promise, you don’t just weaken the brand – you lose it.
Would love your take on this: At what point does a recognizable entity stop being a brand in the strategic sense, and become just another name we remember?
Your point about Southwest is well put, Marc.
I do question whether a brand is no longer a brand if the messaging and resonance changes, declines, or both.
There are plenty of “bad” brands that are defined by lots of different things that may or may not have anything to do with their function as a company, country, or product, or their honestly or dishonesty.
Edsel, Theranos, Blockbuster, Sears, Enron, MoviePass, The Weimar Republic, North Korea, etc.
I would argue they are all brands, just bad ones.
I would counter the argument with, if a brand turns bad, it has advocated that status. If not, then the word brand is meaningless.
I respectfully disagree Mark. The word “brand” is like the word “quality.” It does not have a value judgment attached unless you add a descriptor.
“Quality” by itself does not say whether something is good or bad, you need to add those words to give it its full meaning, As in “good quality” or “bad quality.”
It’s the same with “brand.” Just because you have a brand. Doesn’t mean it’s a good one.
Let’s keep this going. I see it differently but I am also seeking mentorship.
The term “bad brand” is a conceptual contradiction for me, because brand, in its truest sense, is not supposed to be neutral. It is earned meaning, built through coherence, consistency, trust, and promise-keeping. These are not subjective measures – they are structurally positive requirements.
Entities don’t accidentally become a brand. They earn that designation through behavior that creates trust, association, and belief. That is inherently a positive, value-creating process.
To say “bad brand” is like saying “bad trust.” If trust has been broken, it ceases to function as trust. Similarly, if a brand’s meaning becomes incoherent, negative, or self-destructive, it no longer functions as a brand – it becomes a name with baggage. This is where I am stuck.
Again, I’ll respectfully disagree, Marc.
I do agree with you that a brand is “not supposed to be neutral.” And of course it should build “earned meaning… through coherences, consistency, trust, and promise-keeping.” You are correct there.
But, just because a brand builds meaning other ways, doesn’t make it less of a brand, albeit a “bad” one.
Brands are not inherently good. They’re vessels of perception. Some inspire loyalty and admiration. Others breed fear, distrust, or revulsion. What matters is the association they create in the hearts and minds of their audiences.
Enron was a brand. So were Theranos, Lehman Brothers, and Pan Am. Each stood for something—innovation, disruption, stability, legacy—and each eventually stood for something else entirely: fraud, failure, collapse.
Nazi Germany had one of the most powerful and terrifying brands in modern history. Meticulously designed symbols, uniforms, slogans, and rituals. All building “earned meaning” through ruthless consistency and horrific coherence. Today, their brand remains instantly recognizable, and utterly reviled.
Communism, as branded by Stalin’s USSR or Mao’s China, was built with clarity, slogans, flags, and iconography. Those regimes made very specific brand promises. Andthey broke them. But the brand still stuck, for better or worse.
Even modern nations struggle with brand perception. North Korea. Russia. Venezuela, Cuba. Their brands exist, regardless of whether they engender trust or fear. In contrast, countries like Switzerland or New Zealand have cultivated positive brand equity through stability, transparency, and trust.
A brand isn’t defined by its moral compass, it’s defined by what people believe about it. And, as you’ve said, those beliefs are earned, not granted. When a brand breaks its promises or acts out of alignment with the values it claimed to uphold, it doesn’t cease to be a brand. It just becomes a bad one.
That’s what I meant when I said America’s brand is suffering. We’re still highly branded. But in some circles, what that brand stands for is shifting. And we’d be wise to pay attention
I would counter the argument; if a brand turns bad, it has advocated that status. If not, then the word brand is meaningless.
Bruce,
Thank you for that last reply and explanation. It was exactly what I was looking for from you. It’s likely a great blog post on it own!
Thank you for being so brilliant about this topic. Always learning from you.
I disagree. Open borders undermine safety, and have to be offensive to those who went through the proper steps and expense to legally enter our country.
That may or may not be true, Bill, but I wasn’t discussing immigration policy. I was specifically talking about the recent economic activities and what have done to a brand that was always built around stability, safety, consistency, and security.
You’re 100% on point, Bruce. The insight you’ve elaborated is one that came to me several weeks ago as a thought about Nike, that quintessential American brand. I found myself thinking, “People around the world buy and love Nike shoes. But if they fall out of love with America, won’t they start to turn away from Nike?” Their clothes and shoes aren’t markedly better than other national brands, like Adidas and Reebok. But they’ve got that immediately identifiable and iconic swish–that image–and they’ve got iconic American athletes like Tiger Woods associated with it. Brand loyalty is a feeling. To the extent that the brand partakes of more generalized, warm-and-sunny feelings about a nation, when you mess with people’s feelings about a nation, you mess with people’s affection for that brand. You said all this far more eloquently and thoughtfully than I just have, but that’s the thought I had. I’m trying to say all this, as you did, without mentioning the chief architect of this national brand destruction, but it’s….hard. I’ll stop now. 😉
Thanks Adam. Based on your comments on Nike, I wonder what’s going to happen to the international response to the cultural things you and I love, such as blues, rock & roll, and other uniquely American musics and cultural accomplishments.
Excellent piece, Bruce.
All the best,
Bill
Thank You Bill.