Editor’s Note: I’m pleased to provide you with a guest post by Carlos Victor, general manager of CVComunicar Consultancy and a professor of Online Reputation Management in Madrid, Spain.
Traditionally, one of the most complex tasks multinational companies have is the management of the brand message through different geographies. This task has become even more difficult in recent years, since the news cycle is not a 24 hours one, but a continuous information flow and there is practically no delay between the facts and the information transmission. Consequently, companies are surrounded by opportunities (a viral advertising campaign in benefit of the brand), and threats (a global reputational crisis).
Global brands work in two levels: 1) the strategical level, which refers to core brand values and communications principles and policies (like tone, manner and visual identity), usually managed by the corporation’s headquarters; 2) the local level, where the communication needs to be localized to the specific needs and tastes of the market, which is an operational responsibility of the business unit.
Likewise, in the exchange of information and meaning with their stakeholders, global brands have to deal with forces and issues that may have a global impact on its market, or just a local impact. The BP crisis in the Golf of Mexico in 2010, for instance, was obviously a global phenomenon, the same happening with a huge airplane crash, despite if it happens in a small town in the middle of nowhere. In these cases, the corporate website (and their social media tools) work very well as a way to react immediately, being a reliable source of information. The web can offer key messages globally, as well as concentrating public opinion’s attention and criticism in a single information source, something that we call “channeling the conversation”.
However, not all issues – despite its relevance – have this kind of magnitude and coverage. In which case we are talking about issues that are contained in a specific country or region. In these cases, I suggest: 1) these issues have to be addressed locally and quickly to avoid further dissemination; 2) an assessment should be made regarding the potential risk of the subject to be picked up by multinational NGO’s, for instance, or even a press correspondent in the country as a “juicy” story that is worth bringing more attention to on a global front.
This was clearly the case of recent clashes between workers of an Apple Chinese supplier. It was something that could have been restricted to the local news, but it got worldwide coverage since it had a relation to the Cupertino company: it turned out to be “hot news”, in the end, regardless of geography. Therefore, if an issue has this kind of potential, then it comes to step 3: being prepared to address the subject everywhere online, despite the geography, because the damage is now being done on the “core values” of the brand and it is a responsibility of the corporation, at a global level, to deal with the problem wherever it is. Protocols and coordination will have to be in place to address this situation, so don’t wait until this point to define these procedures: plan ahead.
Finally, from a crisis management perspective, it is key to develop the ability to interpret the meaning of the information that flows in a given cultural context (like seismic signs), discover where an eventual information tsunami will occur, and react accordingly to the local and/or global relevance of the issue. Sometimes not all online monitoring can predict how this will develop since it is more of an art then a science, but ultimately it is the interpretation of the information flow and its trends that will define which strategy will be best for each situation at hand.
Leave a Reply