 |
 |
July 23, 2001 |
Untangling the reasons why high-tech programmes lag behind Everyone “gets” the importance of executing public relations (PR) programmes on a global basis. But “getting it” and doing something bout it are two different things. Although many corporate PR professionals and agencies in the high-tech sector claim they conduct global PR programmes, a truly global PR programme in the computer industry is as rare as a dotcom company in the black. The onslaught of research and rhetoric on the globalization of business begs the question: Why has high-tech PR lagged behind? There’s no single answer. The challenge starts when we apply an American mentality to the rest of the world. The fact that almost half of the world’s computer buying power resides in the United States provides tremendous leverage for US-grown companies. Unfortunately, it also leads many American computer companies to view the rest of the world through a US lens. Take the second-largest computer market in the world, Japan. The differences between Japan and the United States often defy logic. In borrowing an example from the consumer world, Coca Cola sells the conventional 12-ounce can of Coke as well as smaller, cylindrical eight-ounce can in the Japanese market for exactly the same price. The eight-ounce can outsells its chubby brother because the Japanese are more conscious of waste. They also fit better in the smaller Japanese refrigerator. Not exactly the American way to pay more money for the exact same product! Every country incorporates unique characteristics that must be accounted for in a global PR programme. Again, using Japan as an example, it takes more time to complete PR tasks because of the emphasis on protocol. This element can drive the American headquarters’ PR team crazy. For instance, “what do you mean the initial meeting with the hotel events manager was only a courtesy visit and you need to wait a couple days before discussing the reservation for a 60-person conference room?” On the other end of the spectrum, I’ve seen far too many companies paralyze their PR efforts for months attempting to craft global messaging. In the grand scheme of priorities, these companies would be better served putting their energy into the “how we’re going to communicate” rather than the “what we’re going to communicate.” Don’t get me wrong. I enjoy a pristine message as much as the next person. It’s just that such an exercise produces a poor return on your investment. It’s much better to identify themes such as enabling small businesses to sell over the Web, or improving the productivity of mobile workers, than tasking the French to package the theme for the French audience, the Singaporeans to package the theme for the Singapore audience, and so on. Corporate structure represents another obstacle to effective global PR. Ironically more structure does not automatically translate into better results. Establishing regional PR heads (Europe, Asia-Pacific and Latin America) definitely shifts the thinking away from an America-centric mentality. Unfortunately, companies fall short when structuring the rest of the region. Specifically, the create PR positions at national levels, but then structure those positions to report to the national manager, not the regional PR heads. Think about this one for a moment. The national manager’s compensation comes down to one factor: sales. As you would expect, he or she focuses on activities geared towards selling as much as possible in a given quarter. Yet when the company decides to launch a worldwide PR initiative that takes the high ground (not specifically tied to products) it doesn’t understand why the national PR people begin to feel like the equivalent of a human rope in a game of tug-of-war. Regardless of whether the national PR team consists of internal people, agency resources or a combination of the two, it’s primary allegiance should be to the long-term objective of building awareness and preference. Lack of resources, ie, money, certainly stymies global PR efforts. I recently heard from a vice president of marketing who shared the following rationale for PR budget allocation. Asia (excluding Japan) generates roughly 20 per cent of the company’s revenue generated in the United States. Since the US PR budget runs at US $600,000 per year, he’s going to allocate a grand sum of US $120,000 (20 per cent of US $600,000) for PR to cover Asia (with Asia defined as China, Republic of Korea and Singapore). Addressing Asia as one homogeneous market makes as much sense as approaching the United States, Canada and Mexico as a single entity because they reside in North America. As explained earlier, each country needs to be addressed as a unique market, meaning that each country carries a certain amount of overhead. Needless to say, allocating an average of US $24,000 per country for PR funding (or 4 per cent of the US PR budget) hardly sets the stage for success! A more effective tack is to identify your business objectives in each target country and outline the desired PR results to support those business objectives. Then you can work backwards to determine the budget needed to drive the desired PR results. Yes, it’s likely your regional or international PR budget can’t support every targeted country. No problem. Just focus your PR efforts on the top two or three countries in each region. At least this way PR can contribute to your business objectives in your priority countries instead of being spread too thin and producing mediocre results across the region. Effective global PR must be consistent. Parachuting your chief executive officer (CEO) into a press event in Germany just because he or she happens to be travelling to Germany makes no sense unless you have an ongoing programme there. In fact, it can create resentment in the marketplace when there is no follow-up to the grandiose plans touted by the CEO. The author is president of The Hoffman Agency, a PR company specializing in high technology based in San Jose, the United States.
|
