In 2001 the public relations agency I am a part of handled the launch of Hewlett Packard in Egypt, which was held at the Conrad Hotel in Cairo. The press conference we organized was well attended by reporters representing all the major Egyptian publications. The presentation was made and then the floor was opened up for questions. The first question came from Egypt’s leading newspaper Al Ahram. The reporter stood up and asked the following extraordinary question: “What is Hewlett Packard doing for the Palestinians?” This was Egypt. What on earth did Palestine have to do with Hewlett Packard?
Instead of being taken off guard the CEO recited a list of projects HP was implementing for the Palestinian Authority. It was a brilliant answer. After he finished he received an ovation from the press corps. After the applause the second question was posed by the journalist from Al Akhbar who prefaced his question by saying with great passion: “We congratulate you for the work HP is doing for our Palestinian brothers! My question to you is, what is HP doing for Egypt?”
This incident says everything there is to say about how brands are politicized in the Middle East. In our part of the world the entire issue revolves around Palestine and will continue to do so as long as this tragic political situation remains unresolved. The fixation on Palestine may be difficult for outsiders to understand but it is and will remain the single most explosive issue in the region; everything else that happens simply exacerbates this central political reality.
While 9/11 elicited great horror and sympathy throughout the Arab and Islamic world this sympathy was coupled with a feeling of betrayal, that the thousands and thousands of Palestinians that have died, been maimed, lost their homes and lived as a persecuted underclass in their own country in virtual apartheid were ignored and forgotten by the western democracies and the world media. Palestine is the prime issue that has impacted on brands in the Middle East.
Secondarily, there is a suspicion that global brands setting up shop in the Arab and Muslim world are like carpetbaggers, out to exploit the countries they operate in: hence, the “What are you doing for Egypt?” question.
Twenty-five years ago in the Middle East the concept of brand as we understand it today was virtually non-existent and yet brands, especially Western brands, have been politicized in the Arab and Islamic world for over half a century because of America’s pro-Israeli policies. American brands have always had to suffer the slings and arrows of America’s outrageous and self-created misfortune in the Middle East. During the 1970s in Egypt, whenever there was political unrest at the pro-Western policies of Anwar Sadat, the first target to be hit would be the TWA office in Tahrir Square. Coca-Cola vanished from the Middle Eastern market for a quarter century because of an Arab League ban over the company’s refusal to pull out of Israel. In consequence Pepsi Cola, which did not do business in Israel, remained in the Arab market and captured a 95% market share for decades. In addition, Pepsi built powerful brand equity in the region. Pepsi became the generic term for soft drinks in the Arab world and remains the dominant CSD brand with the lion’s share of the market a decade after Coca-Cola re-entered the Middle East market. Ironically, with the resurgence of antipathy toward U.S. and Israeli policies in the Middle East in the late 1990s Coca-Cola remained the prime target of the boycott while Pepsi, also an American brand, seems to have been inoculated. It was too much a part of the social fabric of the country. Indeed the flyover erected beside the Pepsi Cola bottling plant on Madinah Road in Jeddah was called ‘Pepsi Bridge’ by residents. One could say that brand equity can be equated with presence because there was simply not enough competition in the market. Cream cheese in Saudi Arabia was called Kiri, because the French brand, La Vache Kiri, was virtually the only product on the shelves.
Over the years we have handled public relations for Coca-Cola, Pepsi Cola, Macdonalds, Procter and Gamble, Visa International, Microsoft, Compaq and other American brands and we have seen many permutations of this politicizing process.
What we’ve found is that the more integrated a brand is to the infrastructure of the region, the less vulnerable it is to being politicized. For example, at the peak of the last Arab boycott, Microsoft, Dell, HP and other U.S. computer brands were never targeted, nor were Visa International or MasterCard. The prime targets were Coca-Cola and Macdonalds.
When we began working for Coca-Cola in the 1990s we discovered that there was a really virulent, almost atavistic antipathy to the brand because of its association as an American soft drink. Very early we had to address rumours that there was pig’s blood in Coca-Cola. Later on, some demented cyber-freak Islamist announced that the Coca-Cola logo when inverted read in Arabic ‘No Makkah – No Mohamed’. We spent weeks working with journalists, columnists and government officials to stop discussion of this fatuous and demented claim in the media. (The Coca-Cola trademark was developed in Atlanta during the 1880s when the soft drink was a regional beverage and when there was no awareness of Islam at all). Macdonalds and Coca-Cola suffered more than any other American brands during the recent boycott, because of their iconic status but also because they were expendable commodities – brands that consumers could easily avoid. Both organizations eventually found ways of successfully re-positioning their brands as local. Eventually even Pepsi began to suffer from the anti-American bias. Another of our clients, SADAFCO, a Saudi dairy and food production company, launched a drink made of Apple juice and carbonated water – a manufactured version of what had been called Saudi Champagne - they branded Saudi Majestic. It was one of many food and drink brands they launched at the same time but to their astonishment, Saudi Majestic became a runaway success. And they discovered they were the unwitting beneficiaries of a wholesale drift away from American CSDs.
One of the most bizarre examples of how brands can suddenly be politicized was Procter and Gamble’s anchor brand in Egypt, Ariel detergent. At the peak of the boycott, some cyber Islamist made a claim that Ariel soap was owned by Arial Sharon – accompanied by a crude cartoon of Arial Sharon’s picture on a box of Ariel soap. This claim spread through the simple and under-educated peasant populace – Ariel’s core market – via Friday sermons at provincial mosques. This kind of grass roots politicisation is much harder to combat. It was necessary to track down web portals posting these cartoons and messages and, one by one, convince them to remove the material.
As a regional communications agency we believe very strongly that far and away the most effective way to establish and build brand equity in the Middle East is to genuinely become a good corporate citizen and make lasting contributions to the communities each company trades in. This is particularly true of multinational companies operating in the region and even more particularly true of American companies. It is all too easy for foreign businesses to be seen as unbelieving carpetbaggers, out to exploit and corrupt Muslim and Arab societies. When all is calm and prosperity reigns then, of course, no one takes these undercurrents very seriously but when a crisis flares up, Western companies and their local partners panic and look around frantically for solutions. By then it is too late and the damage is done. Apart from the fact that the private sector has an ethical responsibility to give back to the community, social marketing programs can become a genuine hedge against crises.
The prevailing attitude among multinational corporations is that simply by turning up and providing employment for local people and investment in local industry with technology transfers, etc., they are contributing to the community. While this is not untrue, it’s not enough. Multinationals set up, invest, transfer technologies and hire people in a country to make money, not to contribute to the community. That’s an incidental side-affect. They need to give out, over and above their business investment. We believe that companies are missing a fantastic opportunity to become a genuine part of local communities by setting up and sponsoring programs that have a long-term positive impact on the society. Training and hiring the handicapped, providing scholarships, recognizing achievements, supporting remedial programs for the dyslexic, helping poor people set up businesses and contributing to local charities in a meaningful and lasting way are all activities that will earn the gratitude of both the public and of governments and fortify companies against attacks from extremists and xenophobes.
Instead of being taken off guard the CEO recited a list of projects HP was implementing for the Palestinian Authority. It was a brilliant answer. After he finished he received an ovation from the press corps. After the applause the second question was posed by the journalist from Al Akhbar who prefaced his question by saying with great passion: “We congratulate you for the work HP is doing for our Palestinian brothers! My question to you is, what is HP doing for Egypt?”
This incident says everything there is to say about how brands are politicized in the Middle East. In our part of the world the entire issue revolves around Palestine and will continue to do so as long as this tragic political situation remains unresolved. The fixation on Palestine may be difficult for outsiders to understand but it is and will remain the single most explosive issue in the region; everything else that happens simply exacerbates this central political reality.
While 9/11 elicited great horror and sympathy throughout the Arab and Islamic world this sympathy was coupled with a feeling of betrayal, that the thousands and thousands of Palestinians that have died, been maimed, lost their homes and lived as a persecuted underclass in their own country in virtual apartheid were ignored and forgotten by the western democracies and the world media. Palestine is the prime issue that has impacted on brands in the Middle East.
Secondarily, there is a suspicion that global brands setting up shop in the Arab and Muslim world are like carpetbaggers, out to exploit the countries they operate in: hence, the “What are you doing for Egypt?” question.
Twenty-five years ago in the Middle East the concept of brand as we understand it today was virtually non-existent and yet brands, especially Western brands, have been politicized in the Arab and Islamic world for over half a century because of America’s pro-Israeli policies. American brands have always had to suffer the slings and arrows of America’s outrageous and self-created misfortune in the Middle East. During the 1970s in Egypt, whenever there was political unrest at the pro-Western policies of Anwar Sadat, the first target to be hit would be the TWA office in Tahrir Square. Coca-Cola vanished from the Middle Eastern market for a quarter century because of an Arab League ban over the company’s refusal to pull out of Israel. In consequence Pepsi Cola, which did not do business in Israel, remained in the Arab market and captured a 95% market share for decades. In addition, Pepsi built powerful brand equity in the region. Pepsi became the generic term for soft drinks in the Arab world and remains the dominant CSD brand with the lion’s share of the market a decade after Coca-Cola re-entered the Middle East market. Ironically, with the resurgence of antipathy toward U.S. and Israeli policies in the Middle East in the late 1990s Coca-Cola remained the prime target of the boycott while Pepsi, also an American brand, seems to have been inoculated. It was too much a part of the social fabric of the country. Indeed the flyover erected beside the Pepsi Cola bottling plant on Madinah Road in Jeddah was called ‘Pepsi Bridge’ by residents. One could say that brand equity can be equated with presence because there was simply not enough competition in the market. Cream cheese in Saudi Arabia was called Kiri, because the French brand, La Vache Kiri, was virtually the only product on the shelves.
Over the years we have handled public relations for Coca-Cola, Pepsi Cola, Macdonalds, Procter and Gamble, Visa International, Microsoft, Compaq and other American brands and we have seen many permutations of this politicizing process.
What we’ve found is that the more integrated a brand is to the infrastructure of the region, the less vulnerable it is to being politicized. For example, at the peak of the last Arab boycott, Microsoft, Dell, HP and other U.S. computer brands were never targeted, nor were Visa International or MasterCard. The prime targets were Coca-Cola and Macdonalds.
When we began working for Coca-Cola in the 1990s we discovered that there was a really virulent, almost atavistic antipathy to the brand because of its association as an American soft drink. Very early we had to address rumours that there was pig’s blood in Coca-Cola. Later on, some demented cyber-freak Islamist announced that the Coca-Cola logo when inverted read in Arabic ‘No Makkah – No Mohamed’. We spent weeks working with journalists, columnists and government officials to stop discussion of this fatuous and demented claim in the media. (The Coca-Cola trademark was developed in Atlanta during the 1880s when the soft drink was a regional beverage and when there was no awareness of Islam at all). Macdonalds and Coca-Cola suffered more than any other American brands during the recent boycott, because of their iconic status but also because they were expendable commodities – brands that consumers could easily avoid. Both organizations eventually found ways of successfully re-positioning their brands as local. Eventually even Pepsi began to suffer from the anti-American bias. Another of our clients, SADAFCO, a Saudi dairy and food production company, launched a drink made of Apple juice and carbonated water – a manufactured version of what had been called Saudi Champagne - they branded Saudi Majestic. It was one of many food and drink brands they launched at the same time but to their astonishment, Saudi Majestic became a runaway success. And they discovered they were the unwitting beneficiaries of a wholesale drift away from American CSDs.
One of the most bizarre examples of how brands can suddenly be politicized was Procter and Gamble’s anchor brand in Egypt, Ariel detergent. At the peak of the boycott, some cyber Islamist made a claim that Ariel soap was owned by Arial Sharon – accompanied by a crude cartoon of Arial Sharon’s picture on a box of Ariel soap. This claim spread through the simple and under-educated peasant populace – Ariel’s core market – via Friday sermons at provincial mosques. This kind of grass roots politicisation is much harder to combat. It was necessary to track down web portals posting these cartoons and messages and, one by one, convince them to remove the material.
As a regional communications agency we believe very strongly that far and away the most effective way to establish and build brand equity in the Middle East is to genuinely become a good corporate citizen and make lasting contributions to the communities each company trades in. This is particularly true of multinational companies operating in the region and even more particularly true of American companies. It is all too easy for foreign businesses to be seen as unbelieving carpetbaggers, out to exploit and corrupt Muslim and Arab societies. When all is calm and prosperity reigns then, of course, no one takes these undercurrents very seriously but when a crisis flares up, Western companies and their local partners panic and look around frantically for solutions. By then it is too late and the damage is done. Apart from the fact that the private sector has an ethical responsibility to give back to the community, social marketing programs can become a genuine hedge against crises.
The prevailing attitude among multinational corporations is that simply by turning up and providing employment for local people and investment in local industry with technology transfers, etc., they are contributing to the community. While this is not untrue, it’s not enough. Multinationals set up, invest, transfer technologies and hire people in a country to make money, not to contribute to the community. That’s an incidental side-affect. They need to give out, over and above their business investment. We believe that companies are missing a fantastic opportunity to become a genuine part of local communities by setting up and sponsoring programs that have a long-term positive impact on the society. Training and hiring the handicapped, providing scholarships, recognizing achievements, supporting remedial programs for the dyslexic, helping poor people set up businesses and contributing to local charities in a meaningful and lasting way are all activities that will earn the gratitude of both the public and of governments and fortify companies against attacks from extremists and xenophobes.
No comments:
Post a Comment