Healthy Skepticism Library item: 10317

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: news

Fry E.
Spinning a New Image
Bangkok Post 2007 May 27
http://www.bangkokpost.com/Perspective/27May2007_pers01.php

Full text:

One of the more interesting stories to come out of the ongoing US-led battle against Thailand’s stance on compulsory licensing of pharmaceuticals is the increasing role of public relations firms in the global political sphere.

Earlier this month, while Thai Health Minister Mongkol na Songkla was in the United States making a case for the country’s decision to issue compulsory licenses on Aids drugs, American Ashley Wills – a former ambassador and present adviser for a Washington DC law firm with drug company clients – was in Bangkok to speak at the Foreign Correspondent’s Club. Turnout was low and those that showed up were prone to asking Wills questions that, representing neither the drug companies nor the American government, he couldn’t answer.

He had made the trip to Thailand on behalf of a concerned and informal group of “friends of Thailand,” (no connection to his firm’s pharmaceutical clients, he assured) and given the urgency of the matter, had planned the trip hastily, with just 24 hours to pack his bags, send a few emails, and arrange for “Road Map to Fostering Good Thai-US Relations” press kits.

The urgent matter at hand was the souring of US-Thai relations which, having withstood the coup, the YouTube debacle, and an alleged threat by a Thai health official to kidnap western tourists, had become officially pack-the-bags-and-fly-to-Thailand sour when Thailand’s health ministry decided to issue the compulsory licenses for Aids and heart disease medications.

Like Thailand’s decision to issue the compulsory license, Wills’ visit was not particularly transparent. While he conceded that intellectual property laws as they related to drugs needed to be reviewed and targeted drug pricing strategies needed to be examined, it was clear that his views ran west of centre and that he wished to steer clear of any talk about people dying because of a lack of access to prescription drugs.

“Thailand has many friends, but this decision hurt and depleted some of Thailand’s reputational capital,” he said.

Along with that loss, Thailand patent-breaking helped place it on the US’ intellectual property priority watch list (though the country’s continued counterfeiting of optical discs and software may be just as much to blame) and subject of a “Sliding towards Burma” smear campaign that ran – with some truths and some fictions – in advertisements in this paper, the Post Today, the Wall Street Journal, and the Nation.

The campaign’s efforts, which even Wills called “extreme,” also included the mounting of the thailies.com and thaimyths.com websites (the buck apparently stops at thaifibs.com) and were the work of USA for Innovation, an organisation which seems to exist only with a website, a telephone number, an employee named Maura (@usaforinnovation.org) who receives but does not respond to emails, and another former ambassador (to the United Nations in the early ’80s), Ken Adelman, at its helm.

Besides being the Executive Director of USA for Innovation, Adelman is based in Washington DC as a senior counselor with Edelman Public Relations Worldwide, a firm with drug company clients and a history (sometimes embarrassing – see walmartingacrossamerica.com) for creating front groups and making up organisations.

Whether through elaborate acts of subterfuge or more diplomatic efforts to sway public opinion and Thailand’s patent-breaking stance, both Wills’ visit and Adelman’s campaign reflect the growing role lobbying and public relations firms are playing in international trade and modern politics.

They also hint at the increasing importance of international perception, and in striving for that, only one aspect of the Thai government’s current public relations mess.

The government has also been occupied with Edelman’s other – possibly former – client, ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. While no longer in power, Dr Panitan Wattanayagorn, an academic adviser to the Prime Minister in foreign affairs and an associate professor of international relations at Chulalongkorn University says “Thaksin continues to captivate the imagination of the people” with the help of a handful of foreign PR firms and a range of stunts that have included his election to Thailand’s PGA presidency and a prolonged, public mulling over a bid for the Manchester City football club.

“It is a sophisticated and orchestrated effort with fingerprints of a big corporation, but he has a winning PR formula,” says Dr Panitan. “Few leaders can keep up with him.”

MESSAGE MUST BE REPETITIVE

Meanwhile, the government’s struggle with its public and international image is just as much due to its own foibles and the fact that it came to power via a military coup in the 21st century. (Even smooth as silk and with flower-laden tanks, a coup is a coup.)

And so when the government announced that it, too, would hire a US lobbying firm for $600,000 and three months of PR, the last thing it needed – but perhaps the first thing it should have expected – was bad publicity.

While there were supporters, the government was widely ridiculed for spending so little, while simultaneously lambasted for spending so much (USA for Innovation issued a press release stating “PR trumps Public Health”).

“Three months is either very naive or very ambitious,” says Ken Hong, Managing Director of the public relations firm Weber Shandwick Thailand.

Hong says the PR business is about conveying a particular message and influencing people. It takes a repetitive, long term effort to change minds. It takes us 3 months to plan a press conference.”

He said he wouldn’t have taken the assignment and hopes that the firm that did was clear and realistic about what the government stands to gain from a 3-month contract.

Tharit Charungvat, Director-General of the Foreign Ministry’s Department of Information tried to clarify the pricing issues, explaining that while the firm they were negotiating with had strong connections and a history with foreign government clients, Thailand had been able to strike a deal through long negotiations because Thailand was a poor country.

He added that the firm was hired not to counter a particular person or particular organisation, but to promote foreign understanding of the Thai situation and to help the country advocate its causes in Washington, where trade deals are made and where Thailand, with an $11 billion trade surplus, has many interests to protect (see side story about lobbying industry).

Dr Panitan acknowledged the government is working to put together a “we will recover soon” package, but that it is a challenge as Thailand is a very small player in a large and well-funded PR war.

“Hiring these firms is not cheap, but in the end you cannot avoid it. Thai politics are increasingly global and connected to the international community. This is new era politics where government must be marketed to media and a foreign audience,” he says.

Hong agrees, but adds that the new importance of nation-branding is global. “Sooner or later, countries are going to realise the way the international community perceives them on matters in business and politics.”

He says for most it will become an issue “when it hits the pocketbook,” or when something affects a country’s tourism or revenue generating means.

While Thailand recently saw tourism earnings rise, Dr Yubol Benjarongkij, dean of Chulalongkorn’s Faculty of Communication Arts says the government’s PR campaign will need to demonstrate to tourists, investors, and the international community that the country is stable and on a swift path back towards democracy.

Because it is an interim government, political leaders don’t need to focus on their image, but simply “prove that the country is not collapsing or going backward into the junta system,” she says.

To some the hiring of the firm came as a surprise. “The coup government is not keen in terms of advertising,” she said.

Yet, while the call to hire communication specialists may not have been expected from a group of cabinet ministers who have been branded the “Old Ginger”, public relations are not new to Thailand, or Thai politics.

Dr Gee Ekachai, an associate communications professor at Marquette University in the United States who has written a book chapter on the subject, says “Professional PR in the very beginning was used as a mouthpiece of the Thai government starting in 1932, when the nation changed its political system. The government felt the need to educate the Thai population, who at the time were not well educated about democracy. It was mostly one-way, persuasive communication.”

THAKSIN’S PR BLITZ

Dr Panitan says the field first began entwined in modern politics during some low-profile campaigns in the 80s, and then more publicly in 1996, with an effort to soften and internationalise the image of Suphan Buri boss-turned-prime minister Banharn Silpa-archa.

Even so, it was really Thaksin who took the use of public relations to new heights in politics, he says, through policy branding efforts like the 30-baht health scheme and OTOP, and ploys like a highly publicised helicopter ride over Bangkok (which came with his promise to rid the city of traffic jams in 6 months or less).

He says Thaksin’s approach to politics was novel, and in the void left by the ’97 economic crash, his ability to reinvent himself and politics, made him popular and energised the electorate.

While Dr Panitan says this approach was much less successful during Thaksin’s second campaign because he had failed to produce on earlier promises, he believes the technique signalled a new era of Thai politics, and the style – if not the man – is here to stay.

Other parties have started following suit, he notes, including the Democrat Party which, although “less dynamic and flamboyant” than Thaksin’s efforts, is currently rebranding itself through new logos and can-do policy.

“Capitalism and politics are merging,” he says, predicting that money politics – with focuses on image building and marketing tools – will assume new importance in running campaigns. “This is a new phase of Thai politics where politicians will be more sophisticated, well-rounded and connected.”

He generally believes this to be a good thing, as governments or politicians with a public relations focus, can reach larger audiences, promote better understanding of issues, and also better understand and “penetrate the mood” of its people.

This is especially beneficial to young democracies, he asserts, because the improved understanding from both ends can lead to more modern and appropriate policy for the people as well as a more interested and engaged public.

CRISIS CONTROL

The PR industry has also become a force in government and politics because of its role in crisis (Hong says this is an overstatement and prefers “issue”) management. Hong explains that firms assist clients to develop strategies, responsibility and contact lists, victim policies, and a comprehensive plan to handle any reputation-imperiling issues that come about.

He uses Thailand’s YouTube blocking debacle, which he says could have been handled in better ways, to explain the value of crisis management, and how a small issue can sometimes lead to disproportionate change in international perception.

He notes that the blocking of YouTube is ultimately not a big deal, though in the ordeal “Thailand has received a black eye from the IT community” and categorisation by some with China and Myanmar.

“This is not accurate, but ask 100 westerners, and they wouldn’t know the difference. In general, the ‘we will just shut you down mentality’ will almost always trigger negative perceptions. Everyone knows that’s how China works, but it was surprising for Thailand, especially because of the severity of the response.”

While he supports Thailand’s right to exercise its laws, he suggests spelling out and educating the international community on little-understood cultural laws in order to avoid conflict in the future.

“Californians don’t know lese majeste laws,” he says, adding that the situation could also be improved with more open communication to local citizens and the IT community.

“The decision makers don’t understand the IT community, where there’s lots of quick, word-of-mouth exchanges. While the government might not consider this a priority audience, their perception of Thailand has fallen.”

He says this can have repercussions because “major news outlet monitor the Internet for news stories. It’s not just 18-year-olds anymore – communication is much faster. The Internet has changed everything.”

Hong believes openness and transparency is the key ingredient to good public relations.

“If people smell spin and propaganda, they shut you down right away. People have to believe you are being honest. Honesty is more effective than invisibility these days.”

He notes that technology, and particularly the Internet, make it easy for consumers to know when they are being duped.

It took only a few days, for example, for Internet audiences to connect Adelman-Edelman-USA for Innovation and the pharmaceutical industry and post it all on SourceWatch.org, a site run by the US’ Center for Media and Democracy that monitors public relations professionals and lobbying activities.

Maybe because of this, USA for Innovation’s web Action Center has been quiet since the last in its flurry of press releases (“USA for Innovation Launches Thai Myth #4”) was posted May 10, only a few weeks after the site was launched.

(The answering machine at USA for Innovation still picks up, though emails, phone calls and inquiries regarding USA for Innovation at Edelman have been ignored or passed off with an “I have no idea. Ken Adelman is only a consultant here.”)

Nonetheless, the organisation still incenses some, including Dr Yubol, who found USA for Innovation’s ads to be in violation of the spirit and ethics of public relations.

“Like in any career there are those that will do things they want, but I don’t think PR is something we use to attack other people. Maybe explain misunderstandings, but not to attack.”

She added that she understood the drug companies needed money for research and development purposes, but thought that the USA for Innovation smear campaign was the wrong way to pursue that goal.

Striking a compromise and “making the drug available to Thais for an affordable price, would be the best PR move a drug company could make,” she says.

As an afterthought, Dr Panitan mentions that even in these globalised times, there are probably cheaper and more natural means to bettering a country’s international image. He suggests the work of NGOs or the old-fashioned diplomacy for which Thailand has been admired and which proved successful earlier this year at the EU-ASEAN summit.

He adds that while PR and lobbying firms may help settle anxieties of tourists, investors and parties abroad, “in the end it comes down to real facts.”

“It is quite complicated to win the hearts and minds of people,” he says “A government has to capture the feelings of its constituents as well as the mood as it changes day to day and with current issues.

“That’s going to take effective communication, management and governance.”