Kazakhstan & Borat

by Maija Baijukya

If you'd never heard of Kazakhstan before you heard of this guy, don't feel ashamed - I hadn't either. In fact, even in the 2000s many of the Former Soviet Union countries are unknown to most people and clouded in some sort of mystery. Sacha Baron Cohen made use of this ignorance and created his film Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan. Released in 2006, it was a critical and commercial success, even being nominated for an Oscar (!?). However, it appears that the Kazakhstani's themselves have mixed feelings about it all.


Even before the film was released, Borat was featured on the Ali G Show, and managed to gain the negative attention of Kazakhstan's officials. In 2005, Kazakhstan's Foreign Ministry threatened to sue Baron Cohen for portraying the country in a "derogatory way." In 2006, prior to the release of the film, Borat acted as the host of MTV's Europe Music Awards and behaved in a manner again caught the attention of Kazakhstan's Foreign Ministry. They released a statement, read by the Foreign Ministry spokesman Yerzhan Ashykbayev told a news conference: "We view Mr. Cohen's behaviour at the MTV Europe Music Awards as utterly unacceptable, being a concoction of bad taste and ill manners which is completely incompatible with the ethics and civilized behaviour of Kazakhstan's people."


Here is how Borat responded.

Once the movie itself was released, Kazakhstan responded to the negative publicity by launching a so called PR blitz - videos, advertisements and infomercials presenting Kazakhstan as The Heart of Eurasia.

It would appear that in this case,  the old saying there's no such thing as bad publicity* is as true as ever. After all this, Kazakhstan actually started having tourists! Borat - though controversial - put Kazakhstan on the world map of the trendy traveler (note, trendy in 06/07). According to Kenzhebay Satzhanov, deputy chairman in Kazakhstan's tourism and sports ministry, "It [the movie] was free of charge advertising and lots of people want to come and see our country...The rise (in tourists was) maybe not so huge like we expected but in any case we saw interest."


In fact, both Satzhanov and the deputy Foreign Minister Rakhat Aliyev invited Sacha Baron Cohen to visit Kazakhstan and found out what it's really like. Apparently, he has yet to take them up on the offer.




What is most interesting to me about this case, is that it shows how important the the country's brand is to Kazakhstan's officials. I doubt that Austria will launch a campaign to straighten up the presumptions people may have after Baron Cohen's new film - Brüno.

SOURCES:

• Kazakhstan Not Laughing at Ali G http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=1315240
• Bush to hold talks on Ali G creator after diplomatic row http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-404852/Bush-hold-talks-Ali-G-creator-diplomatic-row.html
• Borat boosts tourism in Kazakhstan http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,26058,24644937-5014090,00.html
• Starmer-Smith, Charles. Borat brings a tourist boom to Kazakhstan http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/travel/charlesstarmer-smith/3666861/Borat_brings_a_tourist_boom_to_Kazakhstan/
• Fletcher, Phyllis. Kazakhstan Embassy Responds to Borat http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6276973

* The actual quote is by Brendan Behan, and goes There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary. 

White-washing Stalin – Grey or Black PR?

Suvi Hurri

Nina wrote earlier this week about Russia and commentators asked for current PR trends In Russia. I tried to answer this demand and drilled into newspapers. I found an illustrative example of black PR, one of the issues Nina wrote about.

In the end of October EUobserver.com published an article which claims that Russian state-owned news agency Ria Novosti is trying to white-wash the image of Joseph Stalin. EUobserver is a Belgian non-profit organization concentrated on EU issues. The article says that Ria Novosti has a new public relations campaign, and one of the goals is to improve the image of Russia abroad. This sounds innocent, but there may be dubious agendas.

According to EUobserver, Ria Novosti has a partner, a consultancy called RJI Companies. This agency has recruited other PR firms in this campaign. Here is one part of the conversation between RJI Companies and a major PR firm from Brussels:

PR firm: Do you want us to say that Stalin was not such a bad guy?

RJI: Well, I know it will be difficult.

PR firm: So, you want history to be rewritten?

RJI: Yes, in a way.

Ria Novosti says the claims EUobserver made are “utter rubbish” and denies launching any new projects on Russia's image. Co-operation with RJI Companies is focused on events abroad and the distribution of the Arabic-language edition of the Moscow News weekly, Ria Novosti objects.

If the claims are true, it verifies that the golden era of propaganda has a heavy legacy. If not, we have to ask who benefits of these accusations. If this case is only a bullet in the Russian media war, why would PR professionals from Brussels pull the trigger?

Some Russian journalists are assured that the restoration campaign of Stalin’s image exists and is being executed. Journalists’ opinion is based on for example recent school books with positive expressions of Stalin and statements politicians have made about him in the near past.

In my opinion this kind of image restoration campaign would be dangerous. Obvious attempts to change strong public opinion can create counter reaction and discussion which would only raise Stalin’s crimes on the table over and over again. In that case the campaign would work against itself. If something, campaign could harm Russia’s image because other countries lose their faith on Russia’s ethics.

For me it is also difficult to understand where this need to alter Stalin’s image originates? Valery Shiriaev, the deputy editor of Moscow-based paper Novaya Gazeta explains that it is important for the psychological health of the old Russian elite because otherwise they see themselves as cannibals.

Every country and every generation has their burdens. Russians should just carry theirs and eventually start to focus more on present and future.

EUobserver’s article: New pro-Russia campaign comes to EU capital

Ria Novosti’s answer: Ria-Novosti hits out against claims that it launced a PR campaign to improve Stalin's image

PR in the war between Georgia and Russia

by Päivi Jauhiainen

The war between Russia and Georgia affected the puclic relations actions of both countries. According to a Finnish journalist, Salla Nazarenko (2009) Georgia was fully aware of the countries that could benefit Georgia in their lobbying of their side of the war. Nazarenko claims that e.g. German newspapers let all the "Georgian proganda" through without any hesitation. Another example is Estonia, which was a strong supprter of Georgia during the war in their media. She also states that the Finish media was more calm and realistic in their comments despite of the passion and fury that took place in Georgia and that the Finnish media did not defend the comments of "the theatrical president of Gerogia", Mikheil Saakashvili.

Nazarenko continues that the Georgian president Saakashvili was always willing to give interviews to the international press and television stations and that the Georgian people in power always gave interviews with perfect English. According to Nazarenko, the other counterpart of the war, Russia, did not present itself as well as Gerogia: the language skills of the sullen Russian politicians were not as good as the Georgians. On the other hand, the Russians had improved their media skills by having military experts and and politicians daily available for the international press, which had not been the case before in the Russian PR.

According to Nazarenko, some of the Russian PR was actually war propaganda. She says that the way the Russian television media conducted itself was ruthless and tacky war propaganda, but the newspapers gave more perspective to the matter at hand. On the other, she criticises how the international media never remembered the previous actions of the Republic of Georgia. She claims that under Saakashvili's rule South Ossetia was in a ready-to-exblow-state already in 2004 and the same thing in 2006 in Abkhazia where Georgia had a small military operation to restore some of the area to itself. Nobody remembers these events because the mighty Russia was not the other counterpart. Nazarenko says that Russia made the war interesting because of its history as a huge country that suppresses the small ones and this is the viewpoint Gerogia played for their own advantage in their PR. The vigorous Georgian PR machinery used the history of Russia - the Winter War, invation of Afganistan etc. - in their international PR and the western states bought it all and used it in their writing. "Russia is back" was one of the slogans.

An interesting point is the actual PR machinery of Georgia. They hired a public relations company based in Brussels, London and Paris, Aspect Consulting and Orion Strategies and two lobbying concerns, Squire Sanders Public Advocacy based in Washington. The next quote is from an article A Media Drive to Groom Georgia’s Image (28.08.2008) from a website www.intelligenceonline.com where one has to register in, so therefore I have copied the quote straight here so that everyone can read it.

"In Washington, Orion Strategies, founded by Randy Scheunemann, the current foreign affairs adviser to the Republican candidate for the presidency, John McCain, has earned nearly USD 800,000 in fees from Tbilisi since 2004, including USD 300,000 since January of last year. Scheunemann managed to arrange a telephone call between McCain and Saakashvili in April, after which McCain publicly came out in favour of Georgia’s sovereignty. The clear conflict of interest led Scheunemann to step down as boss of Orion the following month. Since 2004, the two lobbyists in the firm organized over 70 telephone calls between McCain or his advisers and foreign customers, most of them candidates for membership in NATO(IOL 565)."

On the other hand, the Russians also know how to brush up their image (A quote from the same page): "For its part, Russia has been using firms belonging to the communications giant Omnicom to burnish its image since 2006. These are Ketchum in London, the office of Gavin Anderson in Japan, GPlus in Brussels and the Washington Group in the United States. Moscow can also call on the fire power of its pro-government press in Russia and recently set up think-tanks in Paris, Brussels and Washington to get its messages across."

I have also attached a figure of the Georgian PR and lobbying network from the same article:

Click image for larger view.





















According to what I have read about this topis, one cannot but to ponder how things were during the Soviet Union. The international press would not have the chance to explore the situation from both countries' view points, but it would have been forced to get the information from the Soviet Union goverment. In addition, the word "PR" would not even been mentioned, but "propaganda". On the other hand, as one reads the article by Nazarenko and looks at the companies hired to do the PR, has anything changed? Is the communication open or is it just something what the counterparts want the media to write and other people to think? I am quite sure that there are many that things that are not spoken about openely and that the both countries give out the information that benefits themselves in the war.

Even though my writing may seem that I am on "the Russians' side" in this discussion, it is not he case, I take no sides. I do not have all the facts and am not competent to criticise anyone's actions. The reason I chose to write about this matter is that I found it fascinating how media and the way one handles PR have a huge impact on such an important and terrible things as war. In the end, in my opinion, there are no winners in wars, only innocent wictims who are pawns of the ones who have the power and the wealth, and the power of affecting other people's opinions.

Sources:

A Media Drive to Groom Georgia’s Image 2008. Intelligence Online: Global Strategic Intelligence. Online (3 Nov 2009). http://www.intelligenceonline.com/detail/detail_articles/p_detail.asp?DOC_I_ID=47544219&CONTEXT=CAN&CONTEXTINFOS=CHAN_RUB_IOA_SOMMAIRE&SERVICE=GRA&CODEAFFILIE=A_INDIGO

Salla Nazarenko 2009. Journalistit ja Georgian sota: tietämättömyyttä, PR:ää ja matkustusrajoituksia. Journalismikritiikin Vuosikirja 2009. Online (3 Nov 2009) http://www.hssaatio.fi/Journalismikritiikin%20Vuosikirja.pdf

The Development of Public Relations in Estonia

by Tuomas Muhonen


Introduction
Estonia under totalitarian rule

In this article (with links) I will give a short introduction to the background of public relations in Estonia. According to Kaja Tampere (2003: 6) the main aim of the communist ideology was to keep people uninformed. Almost all were controlled in a totalitarian system. Especially media was controlled very strictly. The official ideology was that people were happy in the Soviet family (Tampere 2003: 6).

Next article in the Estonian newspaper Postimees will give a good perspective to public relations and journalism under Soviet rule in Estonia. The article tells about the fire of University of Tartu in 1965. The original article is in Estonian, but I have translated it in English (with a help of compiler). Here is the link to the original article: Oled kuulnud, et ülikool põles? and here is the translation of the article: Have you heard that the university burnt?

Public relations must be understood as a continuous process. Because of that the history of public relations affects to situation nowadays. As Kaja Tampere (2003: 10) has stated "The term public relations was unknown in the Soviet Union. But communication, communication management and propaganda existed."

USED SOURCES:

Tampere, K (2003) Public Relations in a Transition Society 1989-2002: Using a Stakeholder Approach in Organisational Communication and Relations Analyses, Doctoral Theses, Jyväskylä University Press (Finland)

__________________


I would like to continue with the theme of communist ideology. According to Maarja Lõhmus (2002: 145–164) there were 8 kinds of myths of communist ideology in the public texts. Those myths were:

1. The myth of the creator Lenin and the Party and Marx and Engels as their predecessors
2. The myth of victory of the Great Soviet Socialist Revolution (Russian Revolution) and of a new era
3. The myth of the Great Patriotic War and the invincibility of the Soviet Union with many enemies ‘out there’
4. The myth of historical progression of socialism, communist world revolution and communist future
5. The myth of the Soviet republics as a united family
6. The myth of labour and constant improvement of the Soviet economy
7. The myth of the working class as ‘the leading power’
8. The myth of free and happy Soviet people and the new type of human

USED SOURCES:

Lõhmus, Maarja (2002) Transformation of Public Text in Totalitarian System. A Socio-semiotic Study of Soviet Censorship Practices in Estonian Radio in the 1980s. Doctoral Theses, Turku University Press (Finland)

The Development of Public Relations in Russia

by Nina Kinnunen

INTRODUCTION

Since it is rather impossible to cover all the former Soviet Union countries as a whole, we will concentrate on certain ones of them. I have planned to focus on Russia in my posts. It is quite an obvious choice to start writing about, because it was the core of Soviet Union. Russia is probably the state that you find the hardest not to mention while talking about former Soviet Union countries. So, from now on I will discuss the development and changes in the role of PR in Russia. It would be especially insightful to get some comments or reflections from someone from Russia or other former USSR states – if there are any attending this course? But all fellow students, we are welcoming and waiting for your comments!

So, what have I already learned about the development of the Russian PR field? All the scientific or other accounts I have found so far, place the emergence of Russian PR to the end or to the last years of Soviet Union. Many writers start their accounts from the year 1989. Around that time the launch of McDonald's in Moscow took place and some consider it to be the first public relations campaign in the country and thus even the origin of Russian PR. (How accurate this is, one can question, but maybe it truly was first or one of the first commercial PR campaigns of that kind.) The conventional thought thus seems to be that the Russian PR industry is about 20 years old now. Its history is not very long, but it has already developed into a complex and significant industry. According to Andrew Sveshnikoff in 2005 the industry was growing at an annual rate of 30-40 per cent a year and was worth around US $100 million of fees paid to agencies, (but in addition to this a huge proportion of PR is carried out in-house). (Sveshnikoff 2005.)

The complexity of the PR field reflects the complexity of Russia itself: a country of 142 million people, 89 regions, 11 time zones, vast number of cultures, nationalities, and many religions. The same complexity applies to the Russian communications and media environment. In that huge country there are hundreds of national media outlets and dozens of local media in every city, and every year there are new publications and broadcast channels. (Sveshnikoff 2005.) The soviet past has also had significant influence on this complexity. The transition from propaganda to public relations has not been that simple and has led to the emergence of the so called “black” and “white” PR as a consequence. I would like to discuss these terms a bit more as “today’s specific topic”.


“BLACK” AND “WHITE” PR 
Transition from Propaganda to Public Relations

The Soviet Union had its own working tool of communication - propaganda - and although public relations has now gained ground as an accepted communications field, the influence of propaganda is still traceable (Sveshnikoff 2005). The transition process from propaganda to PR created the terms "black” PR and “white” PR. These two terms emerged in the early 1990s and soon became widely used among Russian professionals and scholars. “Black” PR is associated with unethical, manipulative techniques. Russians tend to connect it especially with political public relations, particularly with election campaigns and such methods as spreading misinformation of political rivals. (Tsetsura 2009, 605.) But of course, questionable practices have not been restricted only to political PR: the richest and biggest companies have bought themselves positive publicity. They have bought stories, editors and reporters, even entire media outlets. (Sveshnikoff 2005.) “White” PR, in contrast, presents the ethical view of PR (Tsetsura 2009, 605).

However, there are scholars who refuse to categorize PR practices into “white” and “black”. They argue that “black” PR should not be called public relations at all, but simply propaganda. (Tsetsura 2009, 605.) I find this view rather understandable and not just from the scholarly viewpoint of making precise, analytical divisions between different concepts. These arguments have also a lot to do with protecting and creating a positive image for the profession. It is understandable that such labels as “black” PR create distrust. If it becomes an accepted, popular view that it is characteristic or normal to PR professionals to practice their profession unethically, general attitudes towards PR won’t obviously be very positive. But the fact, as Katerina Tsetsura points out, is that the formulation of the image of Russian PR has already happened strongly in relations to “black PR versus white PR” -thinking (ibid.). Wonder what people in general think of public relations in Russia?

Many scholars point out that discussions of “black” and “white” PR exist mainly because the profession has been slow to adopt ethical standards. Russian professionals have joined associations such as the International Public Relations Association (IPRA) that expect them to follow codes of ethics. As well as the Russian Public Relations Association has its own code of ethics. Nevertheless, Russian PR professionals often consider such codes idealistic and not applicable in the Russian environment. Many of them argue that it is simply impossible to practice ethical or “white” public relations because nobody would pay for it. Some senior managers of Russian organizations are still heavily influenced by Soviet past, and do not value the importance of open communication. (Tsetsura 2009, 605-606.) It seems that PR professionals have felt/feel that there are environmental factors that force them to use “black” PR. Still, in 2005 Andrew Sveshnikoff was optimistic and predicted that even though “black PR agents” still worked in Russia, they would not have a future or their future would be very limited as the market and PR industry would mature (Sveshnikoff 2005). Wonder if there have been any chances in this by now? Maybe further research will tell.

Thank you for reading! (This was quite a long post, hopefully you survived through : ) )





USED SOURCES:

Sveshnikoff, Andrew (2005) PR in Russia: Gloom vs. Growth. Weber Shandwick, Outcomes, Edition 7, May 2005.
http://www.webershandwick.co.uk/outcomes/issue7/topstory.html

(According to that text Andrew Sveshnikoff was then the vice president of ADV, Russia’s leading communications group, and founder of PRP, one of Russia’s largest PR agencies.)

Tsetsura, Katerina (2009) Development of public relations in Russia: a geopolitical approach. In Sriramesh, Krishnamurthy &Verčič, Dejan. (ed.) The global public relations handbook: theory, research, and practice. New York: Routledge 2009, p. 600–617.