Showing posts with label Communications Strategy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Communications Strategy. Show all posts

Wednesday

Soft Power Index 2017 leaves few questions unanswered



The Soft Power 30 Index of 2017 was released in July 2017. As per the report, when it comes to Soft Power, France is the most powerful nation in the world. The report states: 

"France’s vast diplomatic network, its cultural richness and the promise of Emmanuel Macron have contributed to the country’s No 1 position. While France leapfrogged, the US has fallen from first place in 2016 to third in 2017. As per the report this may be due to President Donald Trump’s "America first" policy, that “played poorly abroad, alienating allies and damaging links with the rest of the world.” This is too simplistic.

The report raised more questions than providing answers. If we look at Soft Power, from the context of 'influence,' it's hard to accept France at the top spot. US would still be at the top.
That brings us to the polling that was conducted in 25 countries. While Asia and Europe seems to have bigger representation, a major portion of Africa and Middle East wasn't polled? We also need to contextualize the fact that the opinions or votes received are deeply conditioned by historical experiences. While North Africa may feel a tug towards French culture and institutions, South Asia may lean towards the Anglo Saxon model it would be interesting to see such trends reflected as well.

 While Trump's "America first" policy might have hurt the image of US in the short term, what needs to be understood is that the interventionist policy approaches of past administrations contributed immensely to a decline in a favorable perception of US. Have we forgotten Colin Powell lying at the United Nations in 2003? If we have this only goes on to prove how good the US propaganda machinery is in replacing collective public memory with newer issues and 'delink' old ones.


The report cites BBC as the most trusted media institution but does 'trust' necessarily translate into 'influence'? The pervasiveness of American media is hard to challenge and along with it the influence they can peddle for their country. Silicon Valley is doing it's bit too with the social networks, OTT content platforms and giants like Netflix and Amazon Prime.

The report cites that China's One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative will boost it's soft power. This may turn out to be a perception nightmare for China as OBOR and it's terms are not really admirable and one of the many reasons why countries such as India are abstaining. Without India there's no silk road or OBOR - it would not just be the real deal! Besides, with OBOR gaining visibility China might have to become accountable for it's trade and development aid practices that are pushing lesser countries into debt trap sort of scenarios (Eg. Sri Lanka).

I tried reaching Portland Communications for a discussion on questions such as above. But my emails went unanswered. The initiative to release such a report is great especially when it leads to questions such as above. Soft Power translates into an attraction for a 'way of life' and viewed in that context "Power and Influence" is central to any understanding of soft power. It goes beyond culture, cuisine and 'feeling good'. How much will the elements considered in the report eventually shape the future of our world is what remains to be seen.

Posted by Madhurjya Kotoky 0 comments

Thursday

"Culture is there, to be Shared - Not Sold" - SIMON ANHOLT


"... international public opinion favours countries that contribute to the common good of humanity, rather than countries which are merely successful, beautiful or powerful..."

- Simon Anholt

The recent Good Country Index had a surprise. India's rank under the category of "Culture" was a lowly 119 among the 163 countries that were surveyed. For India watchers like us this was indeed interesting given the huge interest in government and policy circles to promote Indian culture overseas as a component of Indian soft power. 


The Public Diplomacy Blog spoke to Simon Anholt on this aspect trying to understand why India ranked low on "Culture". Simon brings to the fore an important distinction between promotion of 'culture' versus 'cultural contribution' and there seems to be a good opportunity for India's creative economy to be internationally 'participative'.


The following is what Simon Anholt had to say:


How is 'culture' defined in the survey?

Simon: We follow the UNESCO definition of culture that incorporates cultural production, the creative industries and expressions of national/regional culture; we also consider how each country facilitates freedom of movement and freedom of expression in order to allow the production, sharing and dissemination of culture. As explained on the website at https://goodcountry.org/index/source-datathe way we ‘sample’ a country’s cultural contribution to the world in the Good Country Index is by combining the following datasets:

  • Creative goods exports: Exports of creative goods (UNCTAD's Creative Economy Report categorization) relative to the size of the economy.
  • Creative services exports: Exports of creative services (UNCTAD's Creative Economy Report categorization) relative to the size of the economy.
  • UNESCO dues in arrears as % of contribution: UNESCO dues in arrears as percentage of contribution (negative indicator).
  • Freedom of movement, i.e. visa restrictions: Number of countries and territories that citizens can enter without a visa (according to Henley & Partners).
  • Press freedom: Freedom of the press (based on mean score for Reporters without Borders and Freedom House index as a negative indicator).

Of course these five indicators don’t give a complete or exhaustive account of a country’s cultural output – it’s just a sample – but they’re the best and indeed the only suitable datasets we were able to find. 

Cultural expression just isn’t very fully measured internationally, and obviously we need data that’s collected in a consistent way, every year, in at least the 163 countries we cover in the Index. These five datasets were the only ones we could find that fitted the bill.

2. Indian government does a lot in promoting Indian culture and there is a tacit acceptance in policy and media circles that it is India's biggest soft power - and we see a lower rank for India as a whole. What is your comment on this?


Simon: I think they’re doing the right thing (although I would argue that simply ‘promoting’ one’s national culture isn’t a very Good Country thing to do: culture is there, after all, to be shared – not sold to people as a way of enhancing the country’s image). Of course a lot of this activity is 'unmeasurable' in a comparative survey like the Good Country Index, and this is one of the reasons why we are hoping to start producing more qualitative, in-depth, country-specific surveys in the near future: this will enable us to cover a lot of the activity in all seven categories that the Good Country Index is unable to measure.


3. Does the ranking reflect a perception by people of "culture" in the country or the state of culture in the country ?

Simon: Neither: the Good Country Index isn’t an opinion poll, it’s a measurement of reality; however it doesn’t directly reflect the state of culture in the country, it attempts to measure how much of that culture is shared internationally.
4. How do you think the ranking would impact India's perception?

Simon: My research over the last 15 years has consistently demonstrated that international public opinion favours countries that contribute to the common good of humanity, rather than countries which are merely successful, beautiful or powerful. So whilst a high ranking in the Good Country Index on its own is unlikely to affect public perceptions of the country, the good behavior that gives rise to that ranking certainly will. 

Simon Anholt


Suggestions/Critiques welcome.
- Madhur





Posted by Madhurjya Kotoky 0 comments

Tuesday

The politics of perception in Charlie Hebdo

As world media discusses and debates the impact of Charlie Hebdo massacre on freedom of expression, Noam Chomsky, offers, as always, a point of view that is unique. 

Chomky brings to our attention a serious concern with regards to the dominant media narrative on the Charlie Hebdo incident. Speaking on the commentary that followed, Chomsky writes,
“The crimes also elicited a flood of commentary, inquiring into the roots of these shocking assaults in Islamic culture and exploring ways to counter the murderous wave of Islamic terrorism without sacrificing our values. The New York Times described the assault as a "clash of civilizations," …
Chomsky juxtaposes this against media commentary that followed recent act of violence across the world such as:

All the above incidents were marked by violence against civilians, public institutions, journalists but never quite qualified to feature in narratives of attacks against freedom of expression, freedom itself, or even narratives of outrage and concern on a scale similar to reactions received by the Charlie Hebdo incident. 

It's only sensible to wonder why.

In the politics of narrative and perception, Chomsky’s position is significant. The “media power structure” of our world is no different and is the same as the political power structure in international politics. We don’t often realize this, but as stories compete, some voices tend to get lost or are never expressed.

Chomsky states,
“These few examples illustrate a very general principle that is observed with impressive dedication and consistency: The more we can blame some crimes on enemies, the greater the outrage; the greater our responsibility for crimes -- and hence the more we can do to end them -- the less the concern, tending to oblivion or even denial.”
This awareness surprisingly resulted in some Middle Eastern states like Qatar to take the initiative and establish their own international media outlets (Eg. Al Jazeera). 

However Middle East’s media landscape, as I experienced in the last couple of years, is completely dominated by experienced professionals from the West or from Asia, who come with great knowledge, but not necessarily always with a “contextual perspective” that is required to tell a story of the “other”. 

Coupled with controls over free media in the entire region, difficult questions remain unasked; indigenous experiences remain hidden and the introspection that is required to understand “why is it happening to us” never happens. 

Instead, people are told what is wrong with them, often by groups who have no context. The tradition of the story is alien.

As Chomsky states,
Contrary to the eloquent pronouncements, it is not the case that "Terrorism is terrorism. There's no two ways about it." There definitely are two ways about it: theirs versus ours. And not just terrorism. 
Posted by Madhurjya Kotoky 0 comments

Wednesday

4 tips for an effective outreach into India

"The new circumstances in which we are placed call for new words, new phrases, and for the transfer of old words to new objects"
- Thomas Jefferson 

 This year’s been difficult for India. From economic policy paralysis, corruption of a scale unheard of earlier and a rapidly depreciating Rupee, it is not a very happy situation. Nonetheless, given the country’s strong institutional framework, its influence in South Asia, commitment to a democratic tradition, size of economy and size of population, attempts to engage with India (politically, socially, culturally or for business) will continue. Besides, India underwent a lot of changes in the last two decades and is a very different country today. 

 For an effective communications outreach into India, remember to factor in the following:
I. AUDIENCE: Youth will be the primary drivers of your message. Find ways to engage with them on almost everything. According to the ‘State of the Urban Youth, India 2012: Employment, Livelihoods, Skills,’ a report published by IRIS Knowledge Foundation in collaboration with UN-HABITAT, every third person in an India city is a youth and by 2020 the median age of the country will be 29 years. See INDIAN YOUTH PORTAL of the Government of India : http://www.youthportal.gov.in/
II. MESSAGE: Localize your message and content for India; for each of its regions. India has a long tradition of assimilation and a composite culture. We like to give our own shape to stuff. Remember to package it audio visually, sometimes it helps to overcome barriers presented by linguistic diversity or illiteracy.
III. TONALITY: Aspiration is what it should represent. Irrespective of geography or socio economic standing. Here I would like to draw the approach of Harvard Professor Dominique Moisi’s much criticized work - “The Geopolitics of Emotion” - where he maps the world according to three primary emotions – hope, fear and humiliation.
 IV. MEDIUM: Do not forget alternative media, the ubiquitous mobile phone and social co-creation. The mainstream press and journalists remain important but the monopoly over production of viewpoints is  broken and so is the monopoly over the medium. Also remember access to technology and media in India is often ‘informal’ – people without the means or know-how still manage to access through friends, family, community groups etc. See this excellent slideshare presentation below by Mohit Chhabra: 

                       
      Indian digital consumer from Mohit Chhabra

 Suggestions/Critiques welcome.

 -- Madhur
Posted by Madhurjya Kotoky 0 comments

Sunday

Public Diplomacy and communications strategy

One of my consistent arguments in this blog is that for public diplomacy to be effective it is important to be backed by an effective communications strategy. What I also mean by this is that not all PD programs can be/necessarily be like a communications campaign, but, there are communications implications (potential?) nonetheless of any PD program. 

What is the story that we want to tell? 

An interesting story carried today by Hindustan Times, quoted UNAIDS Executive Director Michel Sidibé, to a question on how much difference was made to the fight against HIV by cheaper drugs made available from India,
"In 2001, no one had access to treatment. Now 86% of drugs given to poor people are from India. Within 10 years of setting the goal to provide treatment to all, 6.6 million people were on antiretroviral therapy (drugs used to treat HIV infection) at the end of 2010, a nearly 22-fold increase since 2001"
 He also said,
"We need new partnerships between India and Africa to transfer technology to help African countries make cheaper Aids drugs"
This statement is important when seen in the context of the recent summit level meetings between India and Africa. This is also a great story that talks a lot about India's scientific prowess, business prowess in the context of drug companies and is also a significant political issue when we consider  trade and business issues in the context of global pharmaceutical industry. Does having a communications strategy in place help exploit the potential of such stories - that are so intertwined in politics, diplomacy & human issues of global nature?

The argument for a communications strategy have recently found support in the article "Making public diplomacy work: The need for an effective communications strategy", in the Journal of International Communication, Volume 17, Issue 1, April 2011, by Amit Dasgupta. Dasgupta, who is the current Consul General of India in Sydney and former head of Public Diplomacy division in the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India (2007-09) says, 
"In many countries, such as India, foreign policy formulation and practice has, till recently, been the exclusive reserve of professional diplomats. Such countries are new entrants to the world of public diplomacy and have begun to recognize the importance of engaging with non-State players. However, the success of public diplomacy lies entirely in the efficacy of the communication strategy it adopts."

 Suggestions/Critiques welcome.


-- Madhur
Posted by Madhurjya Kotoky 0 comments
Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)