By Katie Paine
The news here is not that Georgia and Russia are fighting a war; it's that they are fighting just as hard in the headlines and in cyberspace as they are on the streets of South
Ossetia.
There's no doubt that Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili is good at PR. Shortly after Russia launched its first physical salvo, Saakashvili launched his own PR attack with
an editorial in the Wall Street Journal explaining why the conflict was "Europe's War." That was followed up by a barrage of releases, news bulletins and talk-show
appearances by Saakashvili describing Russia's aggression, and including the accusation that Russia had launched a full-fledged cyber-attack on Georgia's servers.
While the server offensive was real, there was some question as to whether it was an official Russian attack or simply the act of rogue hackers supportive of the South Ossetian
cause. Nonetheless, pundits around the world acknowledged that Georgia won the PR war, thanks in part to its Brussels-based agency Aspect Consulting.
In the meantime, Russia, using Ketchum affiliate GPlus, struggled to catch up, making Russian generals available to the media (a highly unusual move) and providing transport
and access to Russian-selected battleground areas.
It is clear that Saakashvili's accusations and point of view dominated the discussion. And, even though Medvedev and Putin also put forth their own accusations of ethnic
cleansing, bloggers quickly dismissed them.
The lesson in all of this is that anyone planning any major activity on the world stage needs a well-researched and battle-tested PR program.
Turn to pages 6 and 7 for both sides' PR report card. PRN
CONTACT:
Katie Paine is the CEO of KDPaine & Partners. She can be reached at [email protected].
| Georgia | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Criteria | Grade | Comments | Advice |
| Extent of coverage | A | There was widespread speculation that Russia
assumed that foreign media would be distracted by the Olympics and, in turn, would not pay much attention to its actions. Regardless of what assumptions were made, the war quickly eclipsed the Olympics in news headlines. However, the strategy backfired against Russia; since so many foreign correspondents were in Beijing or on vacation, most of the early war coverage relied heavily on official Georgian war ministry information simply because it was the most readily available. |
In this era of consumer-generated media,
assuming that "journalists" are distracted is never a good idea. |
| Effectiveness of spokespeople | B | Saakashvili is clearly an effective spokesperson
for Georgia, but highly visible politicians sooner or later get overexposed and become the subject of attack. In less than a week, journalists had found plenty of Georgians to criticize him, and even more "military experts" to question his judgment in going after the South Ossetian separatists. |
Beware of overexposure of your key spokespeople.
No matter how effective and engaging they are, sooner or later the media will tire of them. At best they will seek alternatives; at worst, they will attack. |
| Communication of key messages | A | The dominant message in all English-language
coverage was that Russia was the aggressor, despite the fact that it was Georgia which actually moved first. Saakashvili and the Georgian PR machine were incredibly effective at framing the discussion in the context of historical Russian invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. |
History speaks for itself, and no amount
of PR can wipe your slate clean. |
| Management of negative messages | A | Georgia did an amazing job of keeping the
fact that they were actually the ones that acted first out of the headlines. The government also very quickly defused Russia's accusations of ethnic cleansing and genocide against South Ossetians, replacing that storyline with its own accusations of horrific acts perpetrated by Russian forces. |
As we've learned from the American presidential
races, the best defense is a strong offense. |
| Impact on voters | C | This is the one area where Saakashvili strategy
may fail. A large number of Georgians see his gambit as risking the health and safety of the civilian population for political gain. |
Don't believe your own rhetoric. Continuously
check the pulse and opinions of your stakeholders. |
| Impact on diplomatic relations | B | Clearly, Georgia has gained sympathy and
esteem in the eyes of the world as a result of the conflict. Whether that esteem is real or based on other East/ West agendas remains to be seen. |
Short-term media gains don't always translate
into long-term improvements in reputation. You need to test and question the stakeholders to make sure the improvement is real. |
| Overall score | B | I'm guessing that the Aspect/Saakashvili
strategy will be studied for years in PR courses around the world. Whether the country is better off is still debatable, but in terms of PR, there's no doubt who won this battle. |
Don't lose sight of the goal. Winning a
battle in print or in cyberspace is great, but if you don't ultimately achieve the desired outcome, how can you justify the cost? |
|
Russia |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Criteria | Grade | Comments | Advice |
| Extent of coverage | D | If in fact Russia was hoping that this skirmish
would remain under the radar because most of the world was either in Beijing or wishing they were, the strategy failed. People were glued to their TV sets, and when tanks and destruction replaced swimmers and medals, they kept on watching. |
In this age of universally accessible news
and media, never assume that anything will remain under the radar. |
| Effectiveness of spokespeople | C | In reality, this was Medvedev's debut on
the world stage, and he was entirely eclipsed by Putin, who remains the more visible and the more-often quoted. The bigger problem for Russia was the lack of credibility on the part of their spokespeople. When Russian accusations were made, they were all too frequently followed by "no evidence could be found to support those claims." |
In this era of Flickr and YouTube, remember
that words are the least important part of communications. Photographic evidence is necessary to establish credibility. If you don't have it, a citizen journalist will. |
| Communication of key messages | D | The Russian message that they were simply
defending Russian citizens was drowned out both by the sheer volume of Georgian rhetoric and by Russia's own lack of credibility. Russia's move of issuing passports to South Ossetians was widely seen as just another chess move in their aggression. |
Just because you plot out a strategy and
execute it well doesn't mean the rest of the world will see things your way. |
| Management of negative messages | D | Russia's attempts to justify its actions
based on Georgia's ethnic cleansing were quickly negated by discussions of Russia's previous invasions of Afghanistan and Czechoslovakia. |
In this Google-ized era, anything you have
ever done can and will be used against you. |
| Impact on voters | A | Clearly, Russian propaganda is winning the
war back home. Because most of what they see is state-supported media, Russian voters believe that military aggression was completely justified and that Putin and Medvedev are restoring Russia's reputation. |
Ultimately, all that matters is how your
stakeholders perceive your actions, and then what they do with those perceptions. In the case of voters, to paraphrase Huey Long, as long as they reelect you, what better measure of success do you need? |
| Impact on diplomatic relations | C | The conflict in Georgia has brought Russia
into direct conflict with Europe and heightened tensions with the U.S. According to Condi Rice, it has worsened Russia's reputation, but that is probably only among those Western countries that agree with her. Certainly many other, less pro-Western countries may see this as a positive move. |
Just because the big, obvious influencers
may not agree with your strategy doesn't mean it's a bad one. In this era of the long tail, you may do just as well convincing many smaller stakeholders (or countries) to support you as you would lining up the big boys in your camp. |
| Overall score | D+ | Russia seriously underestimated the strength
of the Georgian PR machine. It needed to be as well prepared to wage war in the media as it was on the ground; because it wasn't, Georgia was able to win all the early skirmishes. The best news for Russia was the weakness of the grounds on which the U.S. based its protests (that bullying and invasion aren't the answer. Iraq, anyone?). |
Never underestimate either the strengths
or the weaknesses of your enemies. |