When in Rome, do as the Romans do...

I believe the main difference between Western and Asian countries is the amount of government interference. We cannot argue that Asian countries are falling behind - in fact most of our Asian countries are 'westernized' in their thinking and way of life. One evidence would be the technological advancement that our Asian countries have achieved - Japan and Korea have succeeded in building a reputation for themselves in establishing brands that are trusted. However, government intervention in countries like China, North Korea and Singapore is more 'active' than our Western counterparts who are more liberal.

Public relation practitioners dealing with government-sensitive countries should be wary when handing out information, especially when it might offend the government. British freelance journalist Benjamin Bland's visa renewal application was rejected without explanation by the Ministry of Manpower because of his history of writing articles offensive towards the Singapore government.

I believe that when dealing with Asian countries, a lot of respect should be given and relationships should be built first, therefore inevitably making the process much slower as opposed to dealing with a Western company I suppose. This is because Asian countries are still very much rooted to their culture where these values are held in high regard.

It's a small world after all

I believe new media has greatly helped PR practitioners maintain their relationship with, and continue growing, their network. The Internet for example has broken down geographical boundaries and allowed access to all parts of the world. Information can now be passed on immediately, instead of having to wait days - especially when having to deal with crisis where assurance needs to be spontaneous.

The issue have been, and will always be, on transparency. As argued in my debate, companies now are able to respond to the public faster and disseminate information to a wider audience. However, some argue that companies are also able to delete comments that are not desirable or withhold information. But look at it this way: with the public fast becoming more demanding with the information that they receive, and more outspoken hidden behind that mask of anonymity that the Internet offers, do you really think companies would want to risk hiding information? I don't think so. Even if they do, it will come back to haunt them sooner or later, and everybody finds out eventually.

I feel the earth move under my feet...

With global warming becoming more and more of an issue in society, companies cannot run away from the fact that they need to be in step in keeping up with environmental efforts. Most companies are now consciously aware of the scrutiny that they are under when they take an action that is not environmentally responsible.

The public relations department is responsible for putting across to the public the efforts that the company is undertaking in preserving the environment and ensuring that the company maintain their efforts. However, they play a bigger role when the company comes under scrutiny by activists. At this point two things should be put across immediately and with a sense of urgency: sincerity and honesty.

An example would be the Toyota recall that happened in January 2010. While this is not exactly related to the environment, it examplifies the potential danger that a company can be in should they not apologise quickly, sincerely and with an honest explanation. Read on...

Toyota chief blasted by lawmakers despite apology

The Art of War

If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.

That was basically what was covered in this week's reading: strategies to proactively manage activity. Inevitably, strategic planning constitutes a large function of Public Relations, in relation to managing their client.

It's really like going to war.

According to Sun Tzu in his book the Art of War:

"One who knows the enemy and knows himself will not be in danger in a hundred battles."

Which brings us back to the SWOT analysis. Internally, a company needs to know their strengths and weaknesses in order to truly know how they will fare among their competitors. They will then be clear on what to use as their ammo, and what to protect from their competitor's knowledge. Externally, a company needs to know their opportunities and threats in order to gain the best advantage among their competitors.

I believe it's as much about foresight as anything else. To be able to predict and preempt is lethal. It gives any company an upper hand to be able to look ahead and plan alternative routes of action.