Macedonia rebrands as North Macedonia
Rebranding is often meant to signal a shift in a company’s strategy, a fresh start, a new marketing approach or a diversified range of products or services. The same can be true of national name changes, as evidenced by the recent case of the country formerly known as the Republic of Macedonia, which will now be known as the Republic of North Macedonia.
While the change may appear trivial, the rebranding to North Macedonia marks an effort to close the door on decades of acrimonious relations with neighbouring Greece, which felt the name Macedonia was appropriating Greek culture and suggested a territorial interest in the northern Greek region of the same name. In this instance, the name modification has already helped usher in welcome changes for Macedonia, such as their prospective acceptance into NATO and the European Union. Macedonia is not alone in its decision to nationally rebrand, a risky process that can present a number of unforeseen challenges and benefits.
One of the more common motives for commercial and national name changes is an effort to break with the past. This is especially true in the case of nations with a history of colonial rule. Ceylon became Sri Lanka in 1948 during the country’s push for independence from British rule. Similarly, the former French colony Upper Volta became Burkina Faso in 1984, and former British colony Rhodesia became Zimbabwe in 1980.
Other nations rebrand in an effort to symbolise a drastic shift in leadership. The nation known as Burma was rebranded as Myanmar in 1989 by the ruling military junta. While both names carry the same meaning, the change symbolised a new period of military government and the ruling faction’s power. Some nations, including the UK and the US, refused to recognise Burma’s change to Myanmar in protest of the undemocratic military government, and those in favour of democratic rule continued to refer to the country as Burma.
Indeed, even minimal name changes can reflect a change in political influence or rule. In 1999, Venezuela’s official name was changed from the Republic of Venezuela to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela by former president Hugo Chávez. This slight change was meant to honour the country’s founder, Simón Bolívar, but also represented a new era of dominant Socialist party rule.
On the other hand, occasionally a name change reflects nothing more than the whims and desires of those in leadership positions. This was certainly the case of the nation formerly known as Swaziland, a tiny country in southern Africa with one of the world’s few remaining absolute monarchs. In 2018, in honour of the 50th anniversary of Swazi independence from the UK and King Mswati III’s 50th birthday, the country was renamed the Kingdom of eSwatini, a name which simply means ‘land of the Swazis,’ but more significantly highlighted the unconditional control of the country’s king.
Additionally, while marketing purposes are a common rationale for commercial rebranding, this reasoning is less common, although not unheard of, in national rebranding. In 2016, the Czech Republic officially rebranded as Czechia, citing a desire for a simpler, shorter name that was easier for tourists to pronounce and would fit on national products and athletic uniforms.
However, no matter how minimal the change, all name changes run the risk of damaging brand identity or confusing potential or existing customers. In the case of Czechia, many have pointed out that this shortened name could be easily confused with the nation of Chechnya.
Macedonia’s name change became official on Tuesday, 12 February 2019, when Macedonian and Greek officials met to announce the official name change, which had previously been decided last year. While North Macedonia has five years to change the country’s name domestically and abroad, it was reported that signs have already been ordered bearing the new name.
