Monday, April 30, 2007

PRO’s Need to Embrace New Technologies to Keep Pace with Fast Changing Internet World

 

By Paul Dixon*

In my latest flirt with the on-line virtual world “there.com” I commented to a fellow avatar how great she looked in her bright pink boots - only for her to flee into the jungle.  Did I offend her?  Should I have pursued her?  I think I was more confused in suddenly facing a decision that was for me, well, weird.  But for 400,000 there.com members these kinds of experiences aren’t weird at all – in fact they’re perfectly normal.

Online social interaction is transforming the way people communicate, the emergence of blogs, vlogs, podcasts, RSS, and social interaction websites such as Facebook, Myspace, and Second Life have created an arena for people to communicate in a way the world has never seen before.  If PR is really about communicating with your publics, then PR practitioners – especially those who are just starting out like me – need to embrace the emergence of new media as a powerful tool for PR practice in the future.
 

The last thirty years has witnessed the proliferation of mass media.  Long before the advent of the now already out-dated internet-dial-up, audiences were able to choose media outlets dedicated to their special interest, rather than having to watch prime-time programs.  Greater choice is part of modern day life, look at food for example. Once upon a time you had the choice of maybe a strawberry, vanilla or chocolate ice cream - now you can enjoy green tea flavor, with nuts.  In today’s consumer-driven world, consumers – audiences if you like – are making choices based on their own preferences more than they have ever done in the past.  This new found ‘empowerment’ has caused the audience to fragment, requiring a fresh PR approach.

This newly fragmented audience is also doing something that has serious consequences for PR strategies:  they are placing their invaluable trust in fresh and new ‘credible’ sources.  Yes, that’s right, the public no longer only trust doctors, public organizations – and even governments – more than ever, people trust their peers and the people around them.  You may argue that word-of-mouth began when humans learnt to talk, but what is so clearly different today is that the public is empowered to find their peers – and talk to them directly - through the platforms the Internet provides.  One Chinese woman created a blog dedicated to the discussion of family matters – such as creating online photo albums from old photos tucked away in the attic.  The 60,000 netizens who regularly visit her blog learnt about the best scanner to use, the most efficient on-line photo sharing website – they placed their invaluable trust in the Chinese lady’s opinions.

If I was a CEO with the responsibility to up-hold the reputation of a brand that was built up over the course of decades, I would be pretty concerned by this paradigmatic shift in communications.  In these new environments brands risk losing control of their message – as PR practitioners, it is our role to guarantee to our clients that this never happens. I am not saying we should all abandon the bread and butter aspects of being a young PR professional – communicating with mainstream media will always be one of the cornerstones of PR.  For us all to build and preserve our own brand, as perceived by our clients, we do however need to look beyond these traditional push communication models and become familiar with the less formal platforms.  As professional communicators, embracing the increasingly influential two-way group communications found online can only help us along in our career ahead.

_________________________________________________________________                                                      * Paul Dixon is an Assistant Account Executive in the Beijing office of AC Capital Strategic Public Relations.

 

Posted by AC Capital Strategic Public Relations at 03:28:48 | Permalink | Comments (1) »

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Fasten Your Seat Belts, You Are Encountering Real Turbulence - Think Beyond The Danone And Wahaha Dispute

By Diego Hu*

I bet most PR people no matter whether they are working in-house or in an agency are doing everything to help companies get their names out in the media - and of course, the more the better.  But in reality, no one wants that to happen - because if it happens, it means you are in a crisis.

If you are a newspaper addict like I am, you will be surprised to find that in the past 30 days two company’s names have been appearing on the front page of most publications with an incredible frequency.  The debate between Danone and Wahaha has got considerable attention; and it’s changed from a simple acquisition case to a huge public debate involving media, government, dealers, employees, analysts, and academics.


For those who do not know, as a global leader in the F&B sector, Danone established a joint venture with Wahaha - a local leading brand - in 1997.  According to the contract, Danone owns 51% of the joint venture with an option for a full acquisition in the future.  However, when Danone started planning the acquisition, the CEO of Wahaha spoke in public and claimed that Danone is in breach of the contract.  In addition, if Danone completes the acquisition, there will be a great danger that the domestic economy and industry will be affected long term.  With more and more other parties getting involved in this dispute it has become a public debate on whether foreign investment is good for China or not.

If you are really interested in this story, a simple Google search will give you much more detail and in-depth analysis.

But to think beyond this case, the author of this article really wants to speak out about something that has been stuck in his throat for a long time: MNCs, it is time for you to fasten your seat belt in China.

In the recent National People’s Congress, we heard a strong voice calling for a restriction of foreign investment and for the government to give more support to domestic companies.  If you try and think of crises over the last four years, whose names jump out?  I bet they are Nestle, KFC, and P&G - just to name a few.

Doesn’t that tell us something?

Twenty years ago, when those big names entered the China market, everyone applauded - they were perceived as the provider of investment, leading technologies and management system.  Unfortunately, 20 years later, this perception has changed – the heroes are now seen as acting irresponsible and posing a threat to long-term economic development to China .

If the Danone case happened 20 years ago, the media and government would have definitely been on Danone’s side.  But now, when many successful Chinese companies are emerging - and going global - Chinese academics and the public have really started to think about the potential negative impact of the dominance of foreign investment in China .

Will foreign investment restrict the development of local industries in the long term?  Are foreign companies really bringing benefits to China or is it simply a capital game?  Is China just a place for them to make profits with very low costs?  These kinds of doubts are appearing more and more often in the Chinese media.

To make matters worse, countless foreign companies have been involved in crises making the Chinese public doubt whether they are really acting responsibly in China .

The media environment and public perception is changing a lot.  But are MNCs aware of that, or are they actually doing anything about it?

Just make a quick search for interviews conducted by many CEOs from MNCs and those common sound-bites immediately jump out, “we are the global industrial leaders”, “we come here to educate the Chinese consumers”, “we will contribute a lot to the local economy and taxation”.  It becomes worse in many crisis situations, “this is the standard we follow in other countries globally” or “we strictly abide the Chinese regulations”.

So the answer is “NO”.  Foreign companies have not realized the changing media environment and public opinion in China - or they do not think it is really important for them.  As a result, they still follow the “old” way of thinking in this “new” environment.  To make matters worse, many decisions are still made in the overseas headquarters who don’t understand or are even not aware of the changes taking place.

However, because of the development of new media and the transformation of traditional media in China, the media really have become a medium to reflect the public’s opinion and therefore have a real influence on government policy.  If MNCs are not doing anything to change these negative perceptions, the actual business environment will eventually change as well.

So the question is, what can the MNCs do to adapt to this shifting environment?

From a PR perspective, the author believes the Chinese public and academic world are beginning to focus on the non-economic and long-term contributions from foreign companies.  The messages MNCs need to communicate and the perception they need to build must reflect this shift in focus.  The author is not another old advocate for CSR programs, and actually the author thinks most CSR programs in China are not very successful.

When you do on-line research and read some in-depth media analysis on these topics, a good proportion of the Chinese public think most MNCs have CSR programs in China which are just part of their branding campaigns. Some even think it is just like a millionaire spending some pocket money.  A successful CSR program is a long-term, systematic partnership with the right organization – which is reflected in your overall business strategy and actions.

Again, a strategic communication plan is also needed to support it.  It is not about making some pleasant statements in your donation ceremony.  In any public speaking opportunity, you need to deliver the message that your company really takes actions and is committed to the long term social development of China.

It is also about changing your communication tones.  Instead of positioning yourself as the global leader to help China, you need to be perceived as a good company that respects and really listens and talks to the Chinese public, government, and your business partners.  Instead of positioning yourself as an educator of Chinese people, you need to be perceived as a company that really wants to understand Chinese culture and meet their needs.

Finally, remember that communication with the public is not the same as a legal debate.  Many companies win lawsuits - but lose their reputations and thus the trust of the public in the process.  This is more important for a foreign company in China because you are already perceived as a giant that does not respect Chinese people.

In Hollywood movies there is a famous saying, “nothing personal, just business”.  Here the author wants to say “nothing business, but perception”.  So to put it simply, it is not about business and it is not about whether you are following regulations and standards.  It is all about perceptions.  And these perceptions will finally impact your business and even the entire economic environment.

Coincidently, today a local IT person protested during a speech given by Bill Gate’s during his visit to China. There is some interesting “nationalism” coverage supporting this “hero” already.  So at least, the head of the most successful MNC in China has personally realized some changes.

 

* Diego Hu is a Consultant in the Shanghai office of AC Capital Strategic Public Relations. 

 

 

Posted by AC Capital Strategic Public Relations at 07:53:45 | Permalink | No Comments »

Virginia Tech Shooting Highlights Truth As First Casualty In A Crisis

The massacre of 33 students at Virginia Tech this week was a tragedy that robbed us of the promise of the young people killed.  Each one of them no doubt had much to offer the world – whether in great ways or small ones just to their own families.  Any way you look at it, it was a tragedy.  I don’t want to belittle that tragedy by writing about it when so much has been said in the media – some of it profound such as the comments I heard from a father of one of the victims on television who spoke not just of his own loss, but the loss of all the families.  But I do want to comment on two aspects of crisis management that were highlighted by the media coverage.


The first is that truth is the first casualty in a crisis just as it is the first casualty in a war.  Within the first hours of the shooting rumours about what was happening were flying thick and fast and reported as gospel across the air waves.  Reports ranged from “there might be two shooters” to “the shooter was Chinese”, right down to one reporter claiming the shooter had obtained his visa to the US from the American consulate in Shanghai .  Given that we now know the shooter was an American of Korean descent, it has to be asked, from what source had the reporter obtained that information.  We may never know.  The simple reality is that, in a crisis situation, reporters, in the rush to get a scoop, to be the first to report something, do not have the time to carefully check and verify every piece of information they hear – they only have time to report it and move on with finding further information.

Unfortunately now, more than ever, in the words of Mark Twain, “a lie gets half-way around the world before the Truth can get its pants on”.  Chinese who are complaining about the American media for reporting that the shooter was a Chinese student in the States should be asking why their Internet media were so quick to pick up the stories and run them rather than doing their own due diligence on the reports.  The simple fact is the news moves fast in a crisis situation.

What can companies learn from this for their own crisis management preparedness?  First of all accept that you will never have full control of the news reporting, especially in the very early hours of a crisis when every rumour, every whisper, every half-truth and even out-and-out lie will be reported and will travel across the Internet faster than news carried on telegraphic wires in Mark Twains day.  Then be prepared to spend much of your time issuing statements that set the record straight, that put your side of the story out there.  From the perspective of tools to do this the best is to have a “dark site” – a section of your website that is normally inaccessible to the outside world – ready to replace your website within hours of a crisis so that accurate information can be communicated to the public and to the media.  In other words, use today’s technology to bypass the purveyors of misinformation.

The second point that needs to be made is that the media will always sensationalise crises like this to the point that they drive the news for the next couple of weeks.  It has to be asked – again without belittling the deaths of those young people who were slain at Virginia Tech - how the deaths of 33 people compare with the deaths of more than 300 through the violence in Iraq on the same day.  Yet Iraq has been pushed from lead story all week in deference to the Virginia Tech massacre.

Perhaps it is because the media and all of us are trying to make some sense of a senseless killing.  Why would a student walk around his own campus on mindless killing spree?  But then, why would a suicide bomber kill himself and many who share his own faith?  Murder in whatever guise is mindless to this writer.

Maybe the media – and consumers of the media – paid more attention to the Virginia Tech slayings because they occurred somewhere that was supposed to be peaceful and safe.  After all, the killings in Iraq are to be expected as they occur in a war zone.  Or is it because the killings in Iraq have become mundane?  This author hopes not.

Leo Tolstoy captured the senselessness of violent death best: “Even in the valley of the shadow of death, two and two do not make six”.  Perhaps we’ll never have all the answers; but let’s hope we can keep our perspective on life.

Posted by AC Capital Strategic Public Relations at 03:43:15 | Permalink | Comments (2)