Advocacy—The Next Wave

It’s a story as old as innovation itself: Change is evolutionary, not revolutionary at first.

The first cars went where horses did, only quicker. The first word processors did what typewriters did, only easier. And the first wave of digital communications technology did what print and broadcast media had already done—share information—only faster and farther.

At first, in other words, new technologies usually enhance the performance of existing tasks—no small feat, but not a revolutionary one, either. The real revolution comes when people use the new technologies, not to improve existing tasks, but to create new possibilities.

Public relations caught the first wave, the adoption of new technology to spread information. We showed how it no longer makes sense to send a message to the many to persuade the few. But that first wave, sharing information with more segmented audiences, is cresting. A new one, a fundamental transformation of communication from information to advocacy, is rising.

For the first time, individuals looking for news, information and cues are relying less on institutions and more on each other. The technology may accelerate, but the human scale transforms. And personal interaction is a place where values—and responsibility—matter more. Three game-changers show why:

First, the news media aren’t dictating the "news" anymore. Instead of merely accepting what’s presented on traditional media from conventional sources, people increasingly are turning to each other for information and validation. Forrester used a simple Google search on the world’s 20 largest brands to prove the point: Less than 20 percent of search results were linked to the companies themselves. About half were related to experts, the media and other sources. The remaining—and growing—26 percent came from consumer-generated sources such as blogs and product reviews, which are playing an increasing role in what the public learns and thinks about current affairs.

As individuals take control, they’re demanding more, which brings us to the second game-changer: “Pull” now trumps “push.” Amid information overload, pushing messages is not enough. We need to pull people toward the ideas we want to convey in a true exchange. What’s required is engagement. Individuals the world over are increasingly striving to fulfill higher needs, if not more actively shape their own futures. As consumers, they’re looking for deeper total experiences delivered by companies that share their values. And values are something only personal engagement can convey.

The need for personal engagement helps explain our third game-changer: the law of the few. Initial forecasts said the new media would produce isolation, not interaction. As it turns out, people may not have as many close acquaintances, but they have multiple "core ties" to others they turn to and confide in. In this networked society, individuals don’t take their cues from centralised, institutionalised experts. They come from influentials, connectors, bloggers, activists and simply anyone willing to stand on top of a soapbox to voice their opinion, virtually or otherwise, anywhere in the world.

As the game changes, the public relations profession must too. Rather than pushing information for our clients, we need to engage individuals as advocates. In its strongest form, advocacy forges emotional bonds and higher levels of involvement—active, vocal, proud, informed, experiential.

Public relations’ new mission must be to move people faster to this highest form of loyalty—advocacy—and at Weber Shandwick, we’ve adopted this goal as our own. We are researching how best to mobilise advocates early on in the decision process. We are investing in new ways to sustain and build advocates as the core foundation of any client’s ongoing marketing communications program.

The world’s strongest brands already have grasped this potential. The public relations industry must, too. The first technological wave, the acceleration of information, has crested. The second, the use of information to transform individuals into advocates, is rising. Our choice is simple: We can catch it, or it can crash over us. That is, of course, no choice at all. It’s a necessity—and, more important, an opportunity—to lead. That’s why advocacy must start here.

	Crisis Management: Knowing first aid is not protecting your health

By Darren Burns, managing director, Weber Shandwick in Shanghai and Guangzhou.

The trouble with most companies is that they react to an issue or crisis after it has happened—very few companies actually manage issues before they become a crisis.  This is particularly true in China.

Other more urgent things always seem to cross the CEOs desk. Then when the crisis breaks the CEO exclaims— “Where is the action plan?” “Where is the crisis team?”

Two years ago company “X” prolonged a crisis that was largely avoidable because the issue was poorly monitored and inadequately managed when it became a crisis.

Everybody in the company had heard of a specific change of policy that was coming up within the organisation. You would think the management team would be preparing to talk to all its audiences on this specific change.

It seemed it was prepared to speak to some and not others. Well the others turned out to be probably the two most significant stakeholders to a company—below c-suite employees and the oft-feared media.

After the announcement was made, employees read about it in newspapers and were upset as it affected their very livelihoods. Disgruntled employees then spoke to the media and so the tsunami began—and what’s worse the company did not talk to the media after this issue broke thereby prolonging the crisis.

The effect was significant bad blood with the media and the departure of several key employees. Since then this company has seen an erosion of its market share.

But all this could have been very easily prevented. It was simply mishandled. Too often we see communications overlooked—you can’t do that. Especially in China.

So how do you prevent issues affecting your company?

Well the simple truth is that you can’t. But you can put in place a system whereby you constantly monitor issues. You can in effect create a hierarchy of tripwires in an organisation.

But if it doesn’t have the support of executives at the highest level it’s going to be a toothless tiger.

The first step is identifying potential issues and prioritising them.

The best way to do this initially is to review past issues, look at competitors’ issues and “brainstorm” potential issues that you might face.

This then gives the organisation a 360-degree view of issues that could compromise the effective operation of the company.

The lesson here is that there is no textbook solution for managing a crisis or an issue. No rules and formulas. The rule is there is no rule. That’s why we need to form “issues aware” organisations.

On being alert

But let’s get on to detection now. Simply creating good tripwires in an organisation can prevent many crises.  At its very basic it requires the daily monitoring of media with analysis of issues where required.

It also requires monitoring of relevant industry and regulatory bodies that affect your particular industry. You need to keep your finger on the pulse. For example, China has started to conduct more and more public hearings on proposed regulations. But a recent study by Weber Shandwick showed that many multinational corporations are either not participating or are not aware of these. 

While no organisation can escape a crisis, you can manage your issues by creating an “issues aware” organisation to survive and thrive in a rapidly changing environment.

On a positive note, proactive issues tracking also allows you to take offensive steps ahead of competitors and first leader advantages where prudent. 

As the Greek philosopher Hercalitus once said, “the only thing certain is change.”

	What’s in a Name? Companies Respond to Rebranding in Taiwan

By Wei Hsiang, general manager of Weber Shandwick in Taipei.

While the recent rebranding campaign in Taiwan has sparked discussion on the island, Taiwan actually has a history in place of renaming and rebranding. The China Shipbuilding Corp. (CSBC), which is to be rebranded as the Taiwan Shipbuilding Corp. (TSBC), is in fact returning to its original name. The company was originally founded in 1937 and known as TSBC until a renaming 36 years later in 1973, when it became China Shipbuilding Corp. Fast forward another 34 years, and the company returns to its roots. 

Similar cases have occurred as well. The quasi-government, non-profit trade organisation, Taiwan External Trade Development Council (TAITRA), assumed its name in 2004, before which it was known as the China External Trade Development Council (CETRA). The shift to “Taiwan” has helped clear confusion on which “China” the trade delegations were from: the Republic of China (commonly known as Taiwan) or the People’s Republic of China (referred to as China).

In total, the government is renaming or has renamed three state-owned enterprises, the fore-mentioned “China Shipbuilding Corp.”; the “Chunghwa Post Co., Ltd.”, which has been renamed as the “Taiwan Post Co., Ltd.”; and the “Chinese Petroleum Corporation” (CPC), which has been renamed as the “CPC Corporation, Taiwan”. Debate still remains on other potential changes, which could affect China Airlines, Chunghwa Telecom and China Steel.

The potential outcomes of the government’s rebranding campaign remind me immediately of the famous spaghetti Western movie, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. A quick analysis reveals that each company’s target market helps define where it falls.

The Good: Companies that are B2B focused in general will benefit from the renaming, as a shift from China to Taiwan helps clarify where the company is based. This can also generate new customers, while old customers are retained through light rebranding communications (after all, the business remains more important than the brand for B2B organisations). The Taiwan External Trade Organization has already seen increased clarity and recognition, which should also be the case for the soon to be named Taiwan Shipbuilding Corp.

The Bad: The Taiwan Post got a short end of the stick with its rebranding. As the only domestic post company, and with no international offices, only consumers in Taiwan are affected. But the name change will not change the way the company does business, and the renaming impact will only be limited to an estimated US$40 million the company will shell out for new uniforms, new stamps, new paper collaterals, new signs and new credit union materials.

The Ugly: Most companies in line to be rebranded serve both B2B and B2C markets and have much more on the line than just a name. Not only are millions of dollars spent on consumer education and rebranding, but the intrinsic value generated from the brand name and loyal customers hinges on the success of linking the old brand name with the new one.

As a more dramatic example, China Airlines invited international brand consultants, accountants and marketers to estimate its brand value, which reached US$10 billion. If the company renames, a portion of this brand value will disappear, as consumers unexposed to the new brand will turn to mainland China competitor brand Air China when their online search cannot find China Air. Similarly, China Airlines estimates the cost for paint supplies alone to repaint its entire fleet of 67 airplanes will total roughly NTD13.4 million (US$403,000)—not including the salaries of 20 workers for the 30 days needed to repaint one plane.

There is a potential way out of the ugly, though, for these companies. China Airlines is not wholly state-owned and is not under immediate threat to change its name. Chunghwa Telecom does not have the words “China” or “Chinese” shown in its English brand name and could escape unscathed. The former Chinese Petroleum Corporation, which was well known by its acronym, CPC, has just leveraged its nickname into its new English name, thereby retaining most of its brand value.

In the end, what’s done is done, and the three current name changes will not have too large an impact on each companies’ business. However, in the future, the government should take time to analyse its rebranding efforts, and approach each company in a case-by-case manner to ensure it receives the best value on its rebranding investments.

Just ahead on the Asia Pacific PR horizon lies the 2008 Beijing Olympics. On March 23, 2007, Media magazine raised an important topic for PR professionals. “Few people need reminding that the Beijing Olympics are barely a year away, least of all the many local Chinese brands that are hoping that the Games will help them achieve something akin to a global flowering,”said Media.  “Despite the rapidly accelerating hype, however, the ranks of Chinese brands realistically hoping for global lift-off remain suspiciously thin. To some observers, it may simply be that the 2008 Olympics will come too soon to have the anticipated impact on local Chinese brand development.” In Touch approached some of our experts in the region to find out what they thought… Wendy Loh, account director, Weber Shandwick in Beijing We should really give the Chinese more credit for their entrepreneurial and innovative spirit as there’s currently a good mix of those who have already jumped on the Beijing 2008 bandwagon. Even those who are not “official” sponsors have gained credibility through mere affiliation with the Games. A recent survey conducted by a Chinese daily and market research institute found that Chinese respondents identified Li-Ning as a Beijing 2008 sponsor. Even though it is not an official sponsor, the homegrown sportswear giant has ramped up efforts by being the official sportswear supplier for several national teams. In addition to building public goodwill with their affiliation to the Games, companies can also carry out corporate social responsibility programs and integrated A&P efforts to maximise their involvement with the Games (official or otherwise). It is crucial to leverage association with the Games by linking the company's mission, values and delivery with the spirit of the Games. Companies need to understand that they must deliver on the Olympic premise of “Faster, Higher, Stronger”—in terms of their own product, service quality and offerings. Christine Yin, vice president - Domestic Division, Weber Shandwick in Shanghai Though government encouragement has prompted many local companies to become involved with the Olympics, merely focusing marketing activities on the China market—rather than on establishing a global presence—falls short of achieving optimum brand success. To fully leverage the global potential of the Olympics, Chinese companies must further partner with international brands. So far, the companies most successful at leveraging the Olympics’ global profile are joint ventures like Johnson & Johnson and Budweiser. But many wholly owned Chinese sponsors need to look beyond increasing local market share to establishing world-recognised brands. Local advertising, marketing and PR agencies tend to concentrate on sales in the Shanghai, Beijing and Guangzhou markets, but are often unequipped to carry out global campaigns. The key to optimum brand success ahead of Beijing 2008 still lies in formulating global strategy, identifying key target audiences—such as urban, white-collar, Chinese youth—and conducting CSR initiatives designed to build international brand recognition.

Name: Betty Ng Position: Account Supervisor, Consumer Marketing Practice Office: Weber Shandwick in Hong Kong Client: A leading theme park in Hong Kong The Brief: The client requested a comprehensive communications plan on the hypothetical case of a cloned frog to be “born” in Hong Kong. What made the pitch so interesting? “Cloning” is a controversial topic that might spark off lots of ethical arguments. Though it is quite a developed topic in Europe and the rest of the world, it’s a fairly new concept to the Hong Kong audience. How did you pull off the plan? Though it was a hypothetical case, we treated it as a 100 percent real scenario and really made a point to generate and convey a high level of excitement to bringing the world’s first “cloned” frog to Hong Kong. We spent extensive time researching and studying frogs’ habitats and cloning technology, to back up our plan. Who was there? Senior executives of the park were there to listen to a pitching team who all dressed in green, to add an “amphibious” touch. How did you create the buzz? We pre-recorded “the frog sound” (croak) and played the clip during the presentation as we began to present one of our proposed ideas. Everyone in the room burst out laughing the moment they heard the croaking – everyone “got it”. What made the pitch succeed? The research effort and strategic thinking of the team was key to our success. We all had a high command on the issues on hand and prepared a comprehensive set of anticipated media Q&As which covered all potential issues. What were the client's metrics on success? I believe the client was looking for a team with a high caliber of strategic thinking and creativity. They needed us to show them that we can provide a 360-degree communications plan, not only restricted to create a buzz, but also safeguarding their reputation with solid skills in issues and crisis management. What were the results? We won it! Is there anything you could have done better? We could have considered bringing in real frogs to the pitch for a very memorable “close encounter” experience! Why was this a pitch to remember? We all had fun and became biological experts by the end of it! And we love frogs!