Talking Point

Laotian tourism deaths an exercise in poor issues management

By Stephanie Furler

There has been a torrent of media articles following the recent deaths of Australians in Laos and the near death of another. Much of this negative publicity calls for fresh regulations in the local tourism industry and prosecutions of people breaking the already existing (and fairly lenient) rules.

In case you missed it, the deaths have stemmed from “tubing”. This involves sitting in tyre tubes while floating down the Mekong River and stopping along the way to drink (excessively) at makeshift bars.

It all sounds fine - until ridiculously cheap and sometimes free home-brewed whisky is mixed into the equation. 

It’s then that backpackers start jumping from rickety two-storey towers and swinging from ropes into shallow, rocky water below.

   

So what can we take from these deaths from a PR perspective?

Tourism is Laos’ fastest-growing industry but there has been no public comment from the Lao National Tourism Administration, addressing the fatalities or the international backlash. 

Granted, it is a very strict Communist country and its values and way of life are different, but if this situation was applied to a business or government organisation in the Western World, the time to go public would have been a month ago. 

In some situations a “no-comment” policy works – but this isn’t one of them.

Businesses need to constantly assess their position when an issue becomes a public concern. Timely and appropriate comments can reassure the public and ensure that someone else doesn’t fill a news vacuum.

It is unlikely that any of the regulations being called for in Laos will be implemented, so it’s important for the Tourism Administration to work with international government agencies and media to educate tourists about the dangers of tubing.

The need for personal responsibility is a something that many journalists fail to mention in their stories and is a key message that the Tourism Administration should be pushing.

The only information on the Administration’s site that remotely resembles a warning about excessive behaviour (after much searching) is in comic form.

No mention of tubing. 

It is important that organisations tailor messages to their key audiences and clearly in this case, the message needs to be louder, broader and maybe delivered with less levity.

A carefree, unregulated holiday destination is an appealing prospect for many Australians, but if the negative publicity continues, tourists may be deterred from visiting Laos.

Stronger messages, better issues management and awareness campaigns are essential to keep this industry thriving.  

 

US scores lopsided win but sharks lose PR brand war

By Craig Regan

The news that recorded shark attacks have hit a global 10-year high has me thinking that these much-maligned animals really need some good PR. 

I’m not talking about the National Rugby League side that goes by the same name. They’re notionally the team I support, but while my base points the opposite direction from my apex I know, deep down, that they’ll never win a premiership.

Shark is a brand. It evokes images of the gnashing of razor-sharp, multi-rowed teeth, plumes of blood in the water and movies like “Jaws”, where the central character was almost more animated than Richard Dreyfuss.

Drop the word "shark" in a game of word association and you'll come up with "nature's finest killing machine".

Australian sharks have a particularly poor reputation overseas. They’re probably number-three or four on most tourists’ bucket lists of thing not to see when Down Under, just behind Mark Latham.

According to Live Science, of the 79 unprovoked attacks around the world, 32 occurred in US waters and only 14 off Australia. They’ve clearly outnumbered tourists on Australian beaches this summer – which admittedly wouldn’t be hard.

While there have only been a handful of recent Australian attacks, that probably stems from the strength of the Aussie dollar sending all but the incapacitated or the truly lounge-addicted overseas for their holidays, and the surf being deserted.

A serious point can be made here about the frequency and volume of an event featuring in the media being a driver of public perceptions of the level of risk that's way out of proportion with reality.

According to the Florida Museum of Natural History, the odds of being attacked by a shark in the US are roughly one in 11.5 million. Only two percent of attacks are fatal.

On the other hand, the chances of dying in a hunting accident (even without the involvement of Dick Cheney) are one-in-ten.

Which event would attract the most media space?

As an aside, 1500 Americans managed to injure themselves using a toilet bowl product in 1996 (I’m not making this up) while 2599 fell victim to a household deodoriser or air freshener.  

PR always has an uphill battle in balancing public perceptions when working against ingrained perceptions, prejudices and emotion. That's what makes it interesting.

Phoot credit: MSNBC 

Qantas brand war not black and white

Opinions about the Qantas PR War are like backsides – everybody has one. As of this morning, a Google search showed 8418 news articles containing the words “Qantas” and “brand”.

Right now there are more assessments flying around than Qantas jets - and most are coloured by the ideologically-tinted glasses of whichever expert happens to be delivering an opinion.

A straw poll of the Lighthouse office reveals richly divergent opinion – especially when it comes to media coverage. If you ask us, Nine’s breakfast TV coverage over the weekend was as pro-Qantas as Seven’s UK correspondent was as virulently critical of airline groundstaff’s handling of stranded passengers.

The bad guy in this fight wears an airline hat or comes from a trade union background – there’s no middle ground. Throw political colour and movement into the mix and you see more polarisation.

So was the iconic Qantas brand was fatally damaged the minute Alan Joyce pulled flights out of the sky?

You don’t need to go far for a definition of brand. Most people agree that it’s the personality that identifies a company, product or service.

Brand perceptions are about the feelings evoked. They’re also very much in the eye of the beholder. One person’s Maker’s Mark Bourbon is another’s ready-mixed UDL.

PR people are fond of saying brands can be destroyed in an instant because (a.) there are many examples and (b.) it’s good for business. In reality, most brands are built or decline over years. The Qantas brand has been eroded over time.

As the world’s longest continually-operating airline, it would be surprising if that wasn’t the case. In 2005 it was rated by consultants Skytrax as the world’s second-best airline. Today it rates eighth.

Increasing competition, the erosion of its monopoly routes and increasing access to the air travel experience by people for whom it was previously a novelty have all played a part. Along with years of “we’ll all be rooned” press conferences by the world’s highest paid airline executive, Geoff Dixon.

Iconic brands are those that inspire adulation that’s out of the ordinary. It would be surprising if Qantas has been one to most people for some time.

A long campaign of industrial whiteanting in the media – a union response to Qantas’ restructuring and off-shoring of its maintenance hub – has chipped away at the airline’s safety reputation.

Ask yourself: Have there been more in-flight incidents or have they just been reported more frequently?

Looking at recent events, the unions handled the executive pay issue brilliantly. They made it a focus of public discussion - even though 98 per cent of shareholders voted in favour of rises because CEO retention is an issue in a global market.

Management overplayed its hand when it leaked details of death threats. On the other hand, it looked decisive when it forced the Government into acting. The subsequent Fair Work Australia judgement that was highly critical of Qantas has barely been reported.

Industrial negotiations may yet break down. Even so, the biggest PR challenge for Qantas now is how to win the hearts and minds of the 300,000-plus travellers inconvenienced this week.

Qantas has to take the public pulse and show it’s able to listen and change. Leverage the fact that the cheaper alternatives don’t appeal to everyone. Give more back to customers.

It’s going to take more than a few thousand free flights and some expensive TV commercials featuring massed choirs of pious, ethnically-balanced choirboys.

Tiger: Three stripes and you're out

The difficulties Tiger Airways find themselves in have been compounded on a few fronts, three to do with PR but all of their own making.

The absence of a senior spokesperson from much of the media coverage when the Civil Aviation Authority grounded them made the embattled budget carrier look like it was unable or unwilling to act.

The resignation of the CEO should be the catalyst for further decisive action but don't hold your breath.

Selling tickets online to customers without appropriate warnings when it wasn't apparent if and when Tiger would fly again was a breathtaking act. Few companies take on the ACCC head-on.

Tiger's already battered public image also says something about the impact of reality TV.

If you missed it, Tiger took the plunge to be the focus of the "Airways" program, a local version of a long-running UK series. Here's a taste for how that panned out.

Tiger might have five percent of the Australian market but the enduring images in most peoples' minds is of an airline with frazzled staff and long lines of unhappy or oddball passengers. The happy customers don't make for good TV.

Reality TV is a useful channel for reaching people but you really have to wonder if Tiger Air knew what they were getting themselves into.

All of this suggests that if this drags on, this might be a story that's replicated in Australia before too long.

 

Grinning and baring it

It takes about 15 facial muscles to crack a smile and considerably fewer to frown. It’s surprising, then, that media trainers spend uncountable hours working on this aspect of their clients’ presentation skills.

Watching someone through a visual medium like TV, a large percentage of an audience forms general impressions from how a person looks rather than what they say.

A smile can convey openness, warmth and a sense of approachability. We usually like people who smile. It’s important, however, to only smile in all the appropriate places.

Former Federal Treasurer Peter Costello had a habit of breaking into a smug grin at inopportune moments. Of course they’d be the parts of the media conference that the press gallery used as grabs.

Word was that he’d tried hard to work this out with intensive training, to no avail. Nerves – which contrary to what you might think, can be a good thing in front of a TV camera, when managed – were probably to blame.

Maybe it’s not such a big deal when you’re Treasurer anyway – people hate you for putting your hand in their pocket and that only turns to mild dislike when they’re given a tax cut.

I saw an unfortunate example of The Inappropriate Grin a few weeks ago when Virgin honcho Richard Branson was ambushed by an Australian media crew while in SE Asia.

It was at the height of Virgin Blue’s computer nightmare and he was asked to proffer a comment about his subsidiary company’s woes and their impact.

He did so but I can’t recall of word of what he said. I only remember his big, goofy grin - and the way it contrasted with grabs from cranky and stranded (non-flying) customers.

(Who Virgin Blue refer in their own peculiar corporate-speak as “guests”, by the way. But that’s for another blog.)

So next time you’re fronting the media, put on a happy face if it’s appropriate. Just remember the adage about smiles and crocodiles.

If in doubt, remember that we do supply media training services so we’ll be happy to help.