International Public Relations, as defined by Wilcox is the planned and organized effort of a company institution, or government to establish mutually beneficial relations with the public of other nations (p.343). With the emergence of communications technology, globalisation was soon a reality. The markets were now shrinking into one global village and so PR became very important.
The debate in class was that Global PR is a fantasy dreamed up by International PR agencies. The reality is that International PR agencies are now setting up offices all over the world catering to the needs of a diverse market. The hard part is deciding whether the practices in a particular country is suited for the another culture. An exercise was done in the class to assist us in determining whether certain practices are adapted or standardized. As expected, most practices used in planning programmes are adapted. In my view, a company cannot be truly global if they keep adapting different programmes to meet the different cultures. Some words that are synonymous with ‘Global’ are inclusive, comprehensive, universal, and overall. For a International PR agency to label themselves Global, their practices should be standardized, unified and comprehensive in all countries.
What is acceptable in one country may not be acceptable in another thus bringing on a conflict of interest. I believe that global PR is indeed a fantasy because, these International PR agencies are adapting and shifting the practices used by the ‘Mother’ company. When it comes to decision making as well, what will these decisions be based on? Will it be based on the standards and principles of the head office - say in London? Or will the company ‘adapt’ new procedures?
Whatever it is, the bottom line is these International PR agencies are going into various countries for what I would call personal gain. The name global PR is a term they use to basically propel themselves as leading agents worldwide. Some countries are even oblivious of the activities that these firms carry out. Who then, are they catering to?
According to Harris Diamond (CEO Weber Shandwick) ‘The strongest evidence that globalisation does not mean bland uniformity comes from the many corporations whose products and services penetrate scores of countries. These companies need to make their brands relevant in ways that are faithful to the core attributes of the brand, yet flexible enough to accommodate diverse trading patterns, differing consumer tastes and behaviour; and a variety of business, media and political cultures.’
Well I beg to differ. I believe if its going global it should be unified rather than a replica of the original.
The debate in class was that Global PR is a fantasy dreamed up by International PR agencies. The reality is that International PR agencies are now setting up offices all over the world catering to the needs of a diverse market. The hard part is deciding whether the practices in a particular country is suited for the another culture. An exercise was done in the class to assist us in determining whether certain practices are adapted or standardized. As expected, most practices used in planning programmes are adapted. In my view, a company cannot be truly global if they keep adapting different programmes to meet the different cultures. Some words that are synonymous with ‘Global’ are inclusive, comprehensive, universal, and overall. For a International PR agency to label themselves Global, their practices should be standardized, unified and comprehensive in all countries.
What is acceptable in one country may not be acceptable in another thus bringing on a conflict of interest. I believe that global PR is indeed a fantasy because, these International PR agencies are adapting and shifting the practices used by the ‘Mother’ company. When it comes to decision making as well, what will these decisions be based on? Will it be based on the standards and principles of the head office - say in London? Or will the company ‘adapt’ new procedures?
Whatever it is, the bottom line is these International PR agencies are going into various countries for what I would call personal gain. The name global PR is a term they use to basically propel themselves as leading agents worldwide. Some countries are even oblivious of the activities that these firms carry out. Who then, are they catering to?
According to Harris Diamond (CEO Weber Shandwick) ‘The strongest evidence that globalisation does not mean bland uniformity comes from the many corporations whose products and services penetrate scores of countries. These companies need to make their brands relevant in ways that are faithful to the core attributes of the brand, yet flexible enough to accommodate diverse trading patterns, differing consumer tastes and behaviour; and a variety of business, media and political cultures.’
Well I beg to differ. I believe if its going global it should be unified rather than a replica of the original.
References:
Diamond, Harris The Globalisation of PR: Myth or Reality? Outcomes Issue 10 March 2006 http://www.webershandwick.co.uk/outcomes/issue10/article1.html [Accessed March 11, 2009]
Wilcox, Dennis, Phillip Ault (et al) Public Relations Strategies and Tactics 6th ed. 2000 Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers
Posts
