PR Professionals, Don't Make a Mountain Out of a Molehill

People are forgetful by nature.

All of us.

That's why many of us in the PR circle often sigh, “We work hard on so many things, but a few days later, almost no one remembers them.”

Tuoyuan has noticed that there's plenty to rant about lately, but due to various trivial matters delaying writing, looking back, those things that once seemed worth a good rant are now just stories people have forgotten.

Let's start with Malaysia Airlines.

This unfortunate airline ultimately couldn't escape bankruptcy. In the months following the MH370 incident, the PR firm they hired at great expense seemed to do only one thing: stall.

Whether in the media or on social platforms, in the months after the storm passed, we rarely recall the name MH370. We are constantly washed over by information from various channels, our eyes filled with events that PR and marketing folks want you to focus on. In my iDoNews column “‘Seeking One-Night Stand, Meal Provided’, That's PR Logic,” I discussed PR logic and analyzed these two types of people.

Tuoyuan thinks, perhaps except for the families of the deceased, many people really believe this matter has simply passed.

Maybe even Malaysia Airlines thinks so.

On June 30, 2014, a date with no special significance, Malaysia Airlines' WeChat official account updated for the first time since February 14. Besides a few bland statements that Malaysia Airlines was still safe, they started promoting their in-flight meals...

Tuoyuan wants to ask: do you really think people follow your WeChat account to see that you've upgraded your airline meal boxes?

July 7th is the anniversary of the Marco Polo Bridge Incident. This day has fallen to the embarrassing point where, without extensive promotion by CCTV, no one remembers it. For us Chinese, “anti-Japanese” might be more of an emotional release than something with deep meaning in our memory.

As the saying goes, the three treasures of anti-Japanese: parades, smashing cars, and shouting slogans. After more than 30 years of “intermittent anti-Japanese” sentiment, I've finally realized that our understanding of war and national humiliation is far less profound than we imagine. “Anti-Japanese” is just a way to vent our anger at certain injustices.

So, Tuoyuan can conclude that “anti-Japanese” has, in a sense, become a PR tactic. It has evolved into a basic process: the Japanese government provokes, we promote anti-Japanese sentiment, our people rise up, Japanese product sales decline, Japanese companies pressure their government, the government compromises, and then the Chinese people forget.

From a PR standpoint, that's pretty good. No real damage, and we achieve our PR goals.

Keep it simple. You tell us to be anti-Japanese, and we'll be anti-Japanese!

Tuoyuan remembers that Chairman Mao, with great foresight, once commented on today's internet circle: “Small temple, big evil winds; shallow pond, many turtles.”

In such a world where no one bows to anyone else, whether big or small companies, there will always be times when someone stirs up a wave of public opinion.

A few days ago, Sohu was hit by an anonymous letter that ignited a firestorm, with everyone commenting and jokes about Sohu flooding social media.

Hei Ge immediately received a heads-up from Sohu employees: “Bro, don't say anything yet...”

In my view, that heads-up was unnecessary. I never saw it as a crisis. For Sohu, the brand is all about video and Charles. Anything unrelated to those two is not a big deal.

PR folks, why make such a fuss? Ask around, which company doesn't have a few bad apples? Even the best company can't guarantee that all employees are moral paragons and model workers. The bigger the company, the more bad apples proportionally. A glorious brand image doesn't negate the fact that these brands are built by people. Since they are people, they have strengths and weaknesses; since they are a crowd, there will be both gods and scoundrels.

In another month, will anyone remember the name of that editor?

McDonald's and KFC are hit again. This time, they brought along Starbucks, Pizza Hut, and a bunch of other Western fast-food chains.

This isn't the first time these two fast-food giants have faced such a PR crisis, and it certainly won't be the last.

From past experience, we can see that regardless of their response measures or the quality of their PR statements, their PR performance has little bearing on future product sales.

Those who don't eat there say: their food is unsafe.

Those who eat there say: find the problem, solve it, and then there's no problem.

If we look at the pace of the whole incident, we can see that so-called public opinion pressure is actually a very vague concept.

When Shanghai Husi was exposed, the core issues should have been: who is responsible for the quality problems, what punishment will Shanghai Husi face, and what compensation will consumers get.

Instead, the focus shifted to its clients. Public attention moved from food safety to quality supervision. From punishment to “let's see how you PR your way out of this.”

So the entire pressure of public opinion was placed on McDonald's and KFC and other Western fast-food chains, while forgetting to address the core food safety issue.

KFC said: “We won't buy from you anymore. If there's a problem, we'll settle the score with you!” One sentence easily shifted the blame.

McDonald's said: “We won't buy from you anymore; we'll buy from Henan! Quality is guaranteed there.” Though the PR logic was weak, it basically expressed the intention to shift blame.

What about the onlookers and consumers?

Those who eat, eat; those who don't, don't.

They will still choose their own perspective, their own interpretation, and what they want to forget, based on their habits.