One size does not fit all: The pitfalls of centralized communications
The Economist magazine doesn’t usually make me laugh out loud. But a few issues back, they reported on a $2.5 billion deal between Russia and Nigeria for natural gas exploration rights. The correspondent quipped that the new company, ‘Nigaz’, showed a “refreshing ignorance of politically incorrect language”.
Examples like this are not difficult to find. What seems like a brilliant marketing idea in one culture may be horrifying to another. Europeans are not likely to want to drink ‘Pee Cola’, a popular soda brand in West Africa; Canadians would have never voted for CRAP (the Conservative Reform Alliance Party); and Americans didn’t trade in their vacuum cleaners after hearing that “nothing sucks like an Electrolux”.
While certainly humorous, these examples are indicative of a larger issue prevalent in most global organizations: one-size-fits-all communications.
In an effort to reduce cost, align messaging and manage risk, many organizations follow a centralized communications model, where all content is generated from Head Office and disseminated into the colonies.
There are a number of risks inherent with this model, not least of which is pandering to the lowest common denominator.
The greatest risk, of course, is of committing a cultural insensitivity (the likes of ‘Nigaz’) that negatively impacts or even devastates your corporate reputation.
That said, if you’ve read my previous posts, you would know that I am a huge proponent of centralized messaging. It is vital to your brand and your corporate reputation that everyone is on the same page and using the same key messages.
But on the country level – or even regional (think Quebec or Hawaii) – the most successful strategy lies in local customization. While globally-approved key messages should form the backbone, local resources must be engaged to provide strategic guidance, and to ensure that the content and intention are not misunderstood.
Global communications should be a well tailored suit, not a one-size-fits-all Mumu.
on October 7th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Interesting post, although I was laughing throughout the most of the read after seeing some of names used. Keep up the good work, it’s always nice to get some refreshing ideas from simple blog post.
on October 8th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Naming is always difficult as products travel the world. I’m not sure that it has a lot to do with centralized communications, but there ought to be a naming czar in place who is sensitive to the issues, and there are also the name registration processes that lawyers typically oversee.
One of my favorites is, when I lived in France, I discovered that the breakfast cereal we knew in the U.S. as “Sugar Smacks” was reduced to “Smack” and on the shelves of French grocery stores. I doubt that the intent was to mine the potential customer-base of heroine users, but it certainly caught my eye. Nothing like a bowl of Smack in the morning, I always say.
on October 12th, 2009 at 8:53 am
Someone had rightly said ‘Think Global, Act local’. This concept is quite old but is still very much in Fashion & I doubt if it will ever go out…
on October 15th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
You make a good point.
I reccomend to client that they think of their “corporate voice” that relates to their values and is infused with appropriate risk management.
That requires getting out of the home office or “homous officex” mode to include the regional and global perspective.