What Amit Shah, BJP can learn from Pepsi, Coke, Cadbury

The new paradigm in handling negative media as far as brands are concerned is to first listen to conversations on all forms of media, including social and digital media, then analyse the content for positive and negative sentiment, and for the credibility of those speaking about the brand. The next step is to assess the potential positive or negative impact of these conversations, and create content that builds on positive conversations and attempts to neutralise negative conversations, and finally, amplify the content that has been created.

Fundamentally, there are two critical elements in this paradigm.

1. The brand accepts that things can go wrong and mistakes can be made. And if they are, it is critical to be in conversations

2. That, in today’s world, time is of the essence and no brand can ignore negative conversations

The broadcast era is over. No more of a brand talking to consumers and not listening to what they have to say. No more ignoring negative comments and remarks. Most importantly, consumers need to receive answers — and they need the answers immediately.

Against this backdrop, it’s amusing to see the letter from Amit Shah, president of the BJP. Take this report from this morning’s Indian Express . “… he wants the party to monitor media constantly, prepare and distribute talking points, ensure that its spokespersons in TV debates are able to question points made against the party, and get articles that portray the government and party favourably published in newspapers and magazines,” the article says. “The party should publicise the good work of its governments through research and documentation and negative news on the government policies and programs should be documented,” it continues.

It goes on to say, “Finally, to protect the party’s image, Shah has asked the party to exert a “strong influence” on social media.“Prepare tips to see that there is positive campaign about the party in the social media and counter the negative campaign effectively. Respond to those who are lenient to party and those who are in debates with party through social media and ensure that the followers of the party leaders are increased.”

Shah refers to ‘negative news’ in the early part of the letter, perhaps in error. If the news is, indeed, negative (as opposed to the ‘negative campaign that he refers to later), there’s a lot more that needs to be done than just the preparation of talking points.

In (successfully) handled PR crises in India such as the worms in Cadbury or pesticides in colas, the companies concerned first acknowledged that there were problems and then decided to address the problems.

The negative ‘news’ could not be countered by talking points. “Information about recent events or happenings,especially as reported by means of newspapers, websites,radio, television, and other forms of media,” is how news is defined.

Information about recent events or happenings, especially as reported by means of newspapers, websites, radio, television, and other forms of media,” is how news is defined. To be clear, news refers to FACTS, as opposed to opinion and analysis, which are views. Negative opinion and analysis can be countered by talking points, relationships with journalists and editors, and so on – but negative news cannot.

If a plane has crashed or a lives lost in a hotel fire, these events are news. It is the interpretation of what caused the plane to crash or the hotel to burn which is opinion or analysis.

The news is FACT.

Amit Shah’s letter makes no reference to reacting to the publishing or airing of negative facts. This reaction is internal first more than external. Introspection is required to understand why something has gone wrong and a deep analysis is required to look for the root causes of the failure. Once this is done, one needs to address the communication to the consumer which, in today’s world, include an honest acceptance and acknowledgement of mistakes made and credible assurances that the same will not be repeated. This requires no spin, talking points or relationships with journalists or media outlets.

If the facts are dealt with in honesty of purpose, the opinions and analysis can never do much harm. Ask Pepsi, Coca-Cola and Cadbury.