EDITORIAL: The problem with global PR

Failure of international campaigns are usually laid fairly and squarely at the door of international PR groups or networks, and there has been much debate whether a loose affiliation of agencies can provide sufficiently coherent support, or whether it is safer to invest in the services of a wholly owned group.

Failure of international campaigns are usually laid fairly and

squarely at the door of international PR groups or networks, and there

has been much debate whether a loose affiliation of agencies can provide

sufficiently coherent support, or whether it is safer to invest in the

services of a wholly owned group.



But now a recent poll by Edelman of 70 its senior consultants, passes at

least part of the buck back to the client. The two main reasons quoted

for failure of international campaigns were poor communications between

agencies and internal politics between local managers at client

companies and their headquarters.



Many of the problems encountered by agencies in terms of delivery of

service, boiled down to the issue of client briefings. While a central

office might have grand plans regarding a global rebranding, local

offices have their own territory to protect. As highlighted in the first

best practice debate (17 September ), the first priority for any PR

consultancy must be to secure a well researched brief from the client,

and to refuse to be fobbed off with unrealistic objectives. What holds

true for domestic work, is doubly so for international accounts.



Have you registered with us yet?

Register now to enjoy more articles and free email bulletins

Register
Already registered?
Sign in