AAB Plc

In Abu Dhabi this week Rupert Murdoch made an appearance at the AD Media Summit.  His arrival came with a number of announcements around News International's expansion plans in the Middle East and a deal with twofour54.  Alll good stuff.  With the big plans, also came a cautionary note from the media mogul.  In short he called on the region to reject censorship.  His remarks came at a time when censorship in the region is indeed an issue but not for the reasons you might think.
The Arab media is used to working under difficult circumstances.  There’s a long history of discomfit for Middle East journalists who’ve faced censorship in some countries, and sometimes worse.  So the latest onslaught at the Arab media’s impartiality and licence to operate comes from an unlikely quarter; the United States.

Here in Abu Dhabi, now home to a thriving and high quality media, there is amazement at a resolution, passed last December by the US House of Representatives, which could limit the ability of satellite channels from 17 nations in the Middle East including the UAE, from being transmitted to American audiences.

The bill’s sponsors argue that the legislation will serve as a brake on “incitement to anti-American violence”.  But opponents argue that the bill’s prohibitions against satellite broadcasts from the Arab world are both sloppy and potentially dangerous.  Its definition of incitement, “persuading, encouraging, advocating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a violent act against any person, agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the United States”, is far too open-ended.

The legislation has been shaped against a backdrop of grim coverage of acts of violence against US interests coupled with the polemics of the perpetrators, extremist groups, odious as they may be. But that is nothing more and nothing less than honest journalism; news broadcasters doing their job reporting the news.  The question then is does broadcasting these messages constitute incitement? The bill does not say. It does, however, provide the US congress with the authority to review the content of the region’s satellite operators and to brand them as “terrorist entities” if it sees fit.

Should the US government be in the business of curtailing press freedom?  And why try to legislate now, almost 10 years after the war on terror began?

I am reminded of my days running Burson-Marsteller’s Europe operations.  Burson is a good and proud US-based PR firm.  We were approached by Al-Jazeera to pitch for a job to launch the broadcaster’s new English language service to be based in London.  One short conversation with my bosses in New York and a decision was taken to decline the invitation to go after Al-Jazeera’s business.  I remember we explained the decision to Al-Jazeera and they were both astonished and frustrated.  It transpired that Burson had not been the only US-based PR firm to decline the business; others, too, followed our route.

I shared their frustrations.  At that time, there was a widespread view in the US that Al-Jazeera was the mouthpiece for terrorism, an unfair tag which it took a long time to shake-off.  But they were a team of savvy journalists who were producing quality news coverage in the Middle East. The fact that what they were reporting might not necessarily align to US foreign policy was, of course, irrelevant.  I consider Al-Jazeera to be one of the best providers of satellite news coverage anywhere.  

One of the greatest ironies, of course, is that London is the capital of the Pan-Arab media scene. Although its standing has been under fire in recent times with the development of both the Gulf and Beirut as media centres, it’s the capital city of the US’s closest ally in the war on terror which is home to a large quarter of the Arab media.
So why is the legislation coming out now?  It’s election year in the US and populist politicians want to appear to be tough on terror.  Attempts to censor the Arab media follow a year of remarkable effort and diplomacy by the Obama Administration with the Muslim world; it speaks volumes about the sclerotic relationship the US has with the Middle East.

To become law, the bill requires the approval of the US Senate and the signature of the President.   The hopes are that enough senators will understand the hypocrisy of preventing broadcasts from the Arab world from entering American homes. 

The reality is the Arab media is an important driver of the region’s progress. And Murdoch understands that.  An airing of respectful disagreement with the policies of governments in the region and abroad is part of that development.  It would ill-behove the United States to try to curtail media freedoms in the Middle East of all places.

Last month the British Social Attitudes Survey was released prompting some interesting, seemingly contradictory headlines.   Society in the UK, once hugely hung up about sex, is becoming more liberal in its views about gay rights and co-habitation.  While traditional views about welfare claimants and the unemployed has stiffened as has the appetite for further investment in public services.   Thirteen years of New Labour appears to have left a legacy of a society more relaxed in social attitudes but with less sympathy for traditional left causes.  An interesting irony!
 

The survey’s findings are bound to shape the election manifestos of all parties as they position themselves around values of tolerance coupled with a strong sense of fairness.
 

But these insights into society today reveal one depressing fact – fewer people have a sense of duty to vote, just over 50% of the population indicating a widespread prevailing apathy.  And that number falls to just 40% with the under 35s.  Cause for concern?  I think so.
 

The expenses scandal confirmed to many long-held but often foundless views about politicians as large self-serving.  No doubt, the backdrop of that scandal has shaped the thinking of the respondents of this latest survey.   But this survey largely confirms what many of us know from experience; there are many people, often the young, who are completely disengaged politically.
 

And a General Election looms large in which politicians and their parties will slug it out to try and capture popular support.  Unlike many elections before, I sense a distinct lack of interest in this coming campaign.   There’s a general sense of tiredness in the current government and that change is ripe.  But there’s little evidence of a groundswell of support for an incoming Conservative administration, let alone LibDem.  This is all overlaid with a deep suspicion of politicians and a break-down of trust between the electorate and those who are elected.
 

I see the May General Election returning a political party to power but on a seriously reduced public vote and skewed by our first past the post system.  Consequently, the legitimacy of that government will be undermined from Day 1.    It will require a hell of a campaign to win back trust and instil a sense of faith and pride in our democratic institutions from that the very low base.  So I really do mean it when I say, whichever party is elected to office, I really do want to see them succeed.
 

In the current economic climate, national reputations have been put through the grinder.  Some countries with strong economic track records have been severely challenged including the US and the UK while other countries with more fragile economic reputations, such as Greece and Spain have been floored by the end of the credit boom party.  I would find the latest economic acronym of PIIGS countries quite entertaining were it not for the fact that behind it lies a great deal of pain for a great number of people.  And as I sit here in Abu Dhabi, I haven’t got to look far to see that issue has not been just a European problem.  It even spread to the Gulf.

But events in the UAE in the last couple of days have revealed a remarkable story of intrigue, hit squads and murder.  It’s gripping and yet appalling and very Shakespearian.  And suspicions have been raised by the CCTV footage indicating this was a well orchestrated operation.  The finger is pointing to Israel and that it was a plan by its secret intelligence service Mossad to execute Hamas’ military chief.  

At this stage no one can be certain of the provenance of the team identified as the assassins.  But if evidence emerges to support the claim it was Israel, I think there is going to be inordinate damage to that country’s reputation on the world stage. 

Israel is no stranger to claims that it’s anything but a good world citizen.  It already bears the burden of Middle East conflict and I can think of no other more polarising topic.  Israel claims its military operations  are defensive and many countries such as the US have stood by Israel’s right to defend its territory and its people.  

But if the Government of Israel approved taking that conflict to a third country - in the Arab world no less - and anointed the operation, then it will damage relations with those countries, particularly with Europe, which has stood by Israel in the worst of times.  UK, France and Germany are all keen to build relations with the oil rich UAE which is set on tracking down the murderers. 

And it makes it very difficult to see how Egypt and Jordan which negotiate a fine line in middle eastern diplomacy remaining mute on the topic.  Could there be no worse challenge for Israel than its prime minister or defence minister being sought by the International Criminal Court for an act of murder?  That’s the threat.  And could there be no worse contribution to the Middle East peace process than the Israel playing a murderous game in the playground of the Middle East?

Who knows who was behind this murder?  But it is absorbing and appalling and sadly casts a shadow over Dubai's status as a peaceful place of cosmopolitan fun and entertainment.  Poor Dubai is struggling to regain its reputation as a viable centre for economic activity.  A blow to its reputation as a leisure destination is one that the UAE authorities, I suspect, will not take quietly.

PRODUCT RECALLS don't come much bigger than a car. We're all familiar with Cadbury's and its salmonella-infected chocolate bars, with Perrier and a host of other consumer products that have flared briefly in the media and public's consciousness, before fading from view down the years.

But while car recalls are nothing new, we're not just talking about any old car here. This is Toyota, an iconic marque, with a long track record of reliability and a reputation as the car of choice for Mr and Mrs Safe of Middle England. A brand with all the qualities you'd expect of a Japanese car that have contributed to its status as the world's largest manufacturer.
 

The problems with the car and the recall programme have been well documented in recent days so don't bear further repetition except to assess their impact on Toyota's brand and corporate reputation in the coming years.

What is almost more notable than the fault itself has been the relentless examination of the Toyota's public relations machinery and how the firm's management is handling a crisis of epic proportions. The general assumption is that the cars will be recalled, the problems will be fixed, motorists will be inconvenienced, but the show will go on. That's a given, the only issue being how slickly or otherwise that technical process is managed.

But how does the firm deal with far darker allegations that it ignored safety concerns for years, and that the faults its has now acknowledged have allegedly led to a number of deaths and scores of incidents of unintended acceleration? And how does it manage  the rising tide of xenophobia and protectionism evident in some of the reporting and reaction?  It took US Transport Secretary Ray LaHood just a few moments to send Toyota shares tumbling on the New York Stock Exchange after advising owners to 'stop driving' their Toyotas - comments he later retracted - by which time the firm's brand and corporate reputation had been damaged, possibly irreparably, at least in the mind of US consumers.

What the Secretary meant, but stopped short of saying, was that Toyotas are unsafe to drive. What could be a worse allegation to make against a car?
 

The CEOs of the US car manufacturers (and their PR teams) must have performed a victory jig round their boardroom tables. They had just been handed a gilt-edged piece of opportunism by a high-profile US politican that allowed them to capitalise on Toyota's discomfort at little or no cost. Expect massive marketing campaigns extolling the virtues of the good old American car, including its competitive pricing against foreign imports, some time very soon!
 

Faced with these odds, Toyota has no choice but to fight if it wants to salvage what it can, rebuild its reputation and start what is certain to be a long, uphill grind to recovery. Rehabilitation, and the consumer and political forgiveness that goes with it, comes at a high price. If the allegations (that safety concerns were ignored) are proved to be true, then the firm's senior directors are going to have to eat humble pie and say sorry, a potentially massive loss of face in a culture where respect means everything. Resignations seem inevitable.

They'll need to win back fickle consumers seduced by rivals with tempting deals and then back reliability messages with hard facts. They'll have to re-engage with the influential motoring lobby, and motoring writers, whose reviews can make or break a car's success. There may be law suits if they can prove that unfounded political allegations damaged their reputation or cost them sales. In short, it's going to be long and messy, with no immediate guarantee of a successful outcome except to the coffers of the reputation management, lobbying, branding and PR consultancies they will inevitably have to hire to support them.
 

Toyota's car crisis differs in one significant way from many other product recalls. Apart from the sheer scale of the recall operation, which means that the firm will be in the headlines for months, this is a global problem in every sense. Global in territorial terms but, of greater concern to the firm's reputation managers, global in a communications context. Bloggers and the many social networking sites are parading Toyota's current embarrassment for millions to read now and will do so for years to come. Toyota will be the butt of cartoons, false allegations, ongoing rumours - every one of which will need to be monitored,  managed and responded to. Skoda, the Czech car manufacturer now under the wing of VW, suffered for decades as the car industry's running joke, its rehabilitation only starting when it made cars (with VW) that actually ran and that didn't rust within a few years.
 

The scale of the task facing Toyota is perhaps best summarised in an article in this week's Economist which acknowledges that the firm has great strengths, including financial ones, but that the firm has lost something precious and may never get it back.
 

This one will run and run - can the same be said of Toyota?

This week we will know whether the shareholders have accepted the offer by Kraft for Cadbury’s.  Rarely are passions raised to the extent we have seen in recent days by a corporate acquisition.   And it’s fair to say, Kraft has not got off to a good start.
 

Take the announcement; it leached out on the very day that the Business Secretary, the publicity-friendly Lord Mandelson, was appearing before a Commons’ select committee maximising both the political commentary and stoking a fervent public debate at the highest levels of government. 
 

Kraft has also appeared to have poorly paved the way for the announcement.  Its offer after grudging offer sent out completely the wrong signals of its regard for the revered Cadbury’s business and brand.   And if it did have an active stakeholder engagement programme accompanying its acquisition strategy, it doesn’t appear to have been very successful.   It just doesn’t look good when one of your biggest stakeholders – Warren Buffet no less – casts scorn over the deal.  
 

As a corporate it’s little understood; it is seen as a big American behemoth that has a track record of buying British confectioners and then closing its manufacturing bases.  It’s associated with being part of the Philip Morris tobacco empire until very recently.  How far away from the Cadbury’s ethos can you get?!
 

And that is at the crux of the public debate at the moment.  There’s a huge sense of affection and loyalty for the Cadbury’s brand and there is deep suspicion of Kraft.  This is an emotional debate which Kraft needs to win.  The commercial dimension of the deal is clearly agreed but for this acquisition to succeed, Kraft has to engage to win over hearts and minds.  How do they do that?
 

First, they need to embrace Cadbury’s brand and promote it.  The attributes of the Cadbury’s brand are powerful, borne out of its Quaker heritage, a legacy of strong societal contribution and positive sentiments attached to eating some great chocolate.  Kraft has a bad habit of buying British confectioners and diluting the brand – take Terry’s of York which subsequently became Terry’s and its UK production closed.  It would be madness if Kraft is as clumsy with the Cadbury’s brand.
 

Second, integrate the two cultures.  Cadbury’s has a very strong culture and it would be wise for Kraft to look carefully at how they can weave that culture in to strengthen the wider organisation.  Commercially, Kraft may be taking over Cadbury’s but it’d be smart if this effectively becomes the cultural takeover of Kraft by Cadbury’s.
 

Third, engage, engage, engage.  Kraft should tap into the highly sophisticated Cadbury’s stakeholder engagement team to get its messages about the acquisition heard.  That communication needs to be frequent, open and, above all, honest about its intention for the medium to long term.
 

It is with a sense of sadness that I watch Cadbury’s being taken over.  My hope is that Kraft is not as arrogant or clumsy with that most cherished brand as it has been with many other great names that it has acquired. But I tend to agree with Martin Wolf. the FT's eminent commentator; he thinks the takeover will be a flop with the only beneficiaries being the shareholders in the very short term.