This is intriguing. I am a big fan of free speech and believe that organizations/people should get their voices heard in the court of public opinion. Even people or organizations that most despise should get their voices heard some how. It is the American way, as they say.
But some of these governments that pr firms represent are sometimes more trouble than they are worth. Bell Pottinger (a well known UK pr firm) is in hot water for representing the government of Bahrain whose claim to fame was unleashing thugs to shoot its own citizens.
The Huffington Post has a long article describing the various firms that are now finding themselves having to explain why they did pr for future Hague war crimes defendant Colonel Qaddafi.
Here is what i do not understand: If these firms are such respected experts in public relations, why do they take the risk of representing despots, dictators, thugs, and people on the "Most likely to make an appearance at the International War Crimes court" list.
Wouldn't an excellent pr strategist say: "For the reputation of our firm, I really don't think its a good idea to take on as a client a government that is at the bottom of Amnesty International's/Human Rights Watch rankings."
Finding out the human rights record of the government you are about to sign on as a client is not hard. Pr people should be experts at anticipating potential backlashes/crises.
The fact that firms are defending themselves for having signed despots and dictators as clients reveals one important thing: many people in these firms are not experts at pr at all.
An "expert" at pr should be able to see that representing terror regimes will probably backfire in the future and ruin the reputation of a firm. Just my thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment