Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts

Monday, April 7, 2008

Love is in the Air........somewhere.














Ah, the wafting scent of tear gas in the air, police klaxons blaring, the sounds of rocks hitting plexiglass shields, riot police with arms linked marching through the streets. It must be Paris in the Spring.


I know. It’s not particularly sporting. Anyone can have a pretty good go at the French. This, however, is a return to a subject covered some weeks ago when unrest in Tibet first broke out and we explored both issues that corporate sponsors of the games may face and some strategies for dealing with these challenges ( See March 17 blog entry). Today’s efforts by thousands of protestors in Paris to extinguish (or steal?) the Olympic torch on its way to Beijing not only marks the French equivalent of Opening Day of the baseball season (protesting, sanctions violating, and slander being the national sports), it also suggests that there will be a real and sizeable community seeking to politicize the games and draw attention to China’s human rights record. Since the chances of China responding to French protests or any other type of criticism are slim, the ante has just gone up for Olympic sponsors.

Despite the government mobilizing some 3000 police, protestors so disrupted the running of the torch across Paris that the torch was indeed extinguished several times as it was ferried from area to area on a bus, and eventually the run was abandoned altogether. In a remarkable break with tradition, the French even stood up to a foreign force in their country. According to AP, “Outside, a few French activists supporting Tibet had a fist-fight with pro-Chinese demonstrators. The French activists spat on them and shouted, ‘Fascists!” What, instead of welcoming them with open arms, champagne, and dates with their sisters? How bizarre. “Le Monde” reported at least twenty arrests.

So, what now for the companies that have sunk millions into sponsorship of the games and built entire marketing campaigns and product launches around the games? Withdraw support and face an angry board-room and being shut out of the world’s largest potential consumer market? Stick it out with tired lines like Omega’s “We don’t get involved in politics”? With French protesters actually showing some spine, the likes of VW, a Beijing games sponsor, have to be getting increasingly nervous. At the Eiffel Tower, Green Party activist and politician Sylvain Garel commenced today’s fracas by lunging at the torch shouting “Freedom for the Chinese”. Later, some 35 legislators shouted “Free Tibet” outside Parliament as the torch passed. The Green Party is a serious force in VW’s home market, a reasonably strong movement across northern Europe, and influential with a lot of 70mpg diesel VW Polo buyers. When mainstream politicians are saying things like, “It is inadmissible that the games are taking place in the world's biggest prison”, things are getting tricky indeed. Socialist Party spokesperson Julien Dray said that the games were” turning into a sinister farce before they had even begun” and attributed the disturbances in Paris today “entirely to the Chinese government which has not seized the opportunity it was offered to show its desire for democracy and recognition of civil liberties”. He also called on the International Olympic Committee to announce that a boycott of the games is possible unless the Chinese government makes concessions on human rights.


And what of the IOC? Spokeswoman Giselle Davies said, “We respect that right for people to demonstrate peacefully, but equally there is a right for the torch to pass peacefully and the runners to enjoy taking part in the relay,” she said. IOC President, Jacques Rogge, a Belgian, shook off today’s reaction by the French saying "there was no momentum for a boycott of the games". This despite French Foreign Minister Kouchner reiterating President Sarkozy’s earlier statement that he would reserve the right to do so "depending on conditions". In Beijing at an IOC meeting, and well aware of China’s increasingly furious response to criticism over its handling of unrest in Tibet (the government announced that the first group of people charged with “inciting unrest” will go on trial this week,) Rogge called for the “rapid, peaceful resolution of unrest in Tibet”, the first time he has done so and a sign that the pressure is mounting on the IOC.

The Beijing meeting was doubly tough with Rogge under pressure to issues guidelines on athlete conduct with regard to their views on China and the games. Patrick Hickey, President of the 49 member group of European Olympic Committees and a substantial IOC power-broker said, "We just want him (Rogge) to tell us straight out where athletes cannot give their opinion or make demonstrations. There will be absolutely no gagging whatsoever of our athletes. We just want to be absolutely clear, and the only one to hear it from is the IOC president." Rogge will allegedly reveal those rules during a Thursday meeting. Expect more fireworks.

Time to review strategies, sponsors. “Masterful Inactivity” is looking less and less like a winning approach, although the Bloated Plutocrat seems to still favor it. While he has a good deal to say about the undervalued Yuan, he has been remarkably silent on this subject. Speaking to me this afternoon, he said, “It’s bad for business, all this fuss and noise, not what we need now. It’s not like the Chinese intervened when all those long-haired hippies and yippies were getting knocked on the head in Chicago in ’68, so people need to calm down and let the Chinese handle this. With recession afoot and the amount of US debt that China holds, some discretion is in order”. The Bleeding Heart could not be reached. Apparently he is in San Francisco, where today activists draped the Golden Gate Bridge in pro-Tibet banners. He did send Your Genteel Moderator an e-mail calling for everyone “to come together and love one another right now”, along with some star-struck saga about meeting Richard Gere. It sounds like he was revisiting some rather dubious Haight-Ashbury locales…


A boycott of the games is not what sponsor companies need fear most. In fact, for those with good risk management and aggressive insurance policies, a large scale boycott could help extricate them from an increasingly difficult situation by providing them a relatively face-saving way out. The games going forward against the backdrop of an increasingly truculent China and a growing movement of consumer boycotts against sponsor companies is the scenario that should be causing sleepless nights. Especially in Europe, politically and socially motivated consumer boycotts over the last decade have been extremely well organized and largely effective in forcing changes in corporate behavior. Without getting out in front of such boycotts, companies face the increasing likelihood that down the road they will have to choose between angering China or angering their shareholders (and in some cases both!).

Monday, March 17, 2008

Will the Tibet Crackdown Put a Kink in Corporate Sponsorship of Beijing Olympics?





With Chinese troops in the streets of Lhasa and an estimated 50-80 already dead while unrest spreads to ethnic Tibetan enclaves in the Sichuan and Gansu provinces, more violence can be expected. George Clooney was already making news in the run-up to the Olympics about pressing Omega, the company that he promotes watches for and a 2008 Olympics sponsor, to “talk” to China about the Sudanese government’s policies in the Darfur region. Long-time Tibetan campaigner Richard Gere is already making the circuit backing the Dalai Lama’s calls for an investigation by the international community into what he terms China’s policy of “cultural genocide”. Mind you the airtime won’t hurt Gere’s fading career either. Meanwhile, International Olympic Committee President Jacques Rogge issued a statement expressing concern about the Chinese government’s crackdown in Tibet and calling for [I kid you not] “an appeasement as soon as possible”. Let’s hope that’s a translation issue. Nevertheless, he was quick to forcefully reject any talk of a boycott of the games to be held in Beijing later this year.

http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Sport/Article.aspx?id=727723
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJJfyHsrrUJHJiag2avOh_W1OtbA
http://en.beijing2008.cn/90/53/column211995390.shtml

This is going to make things tricky for Olympic sponsors in a way that the Darfur issue hadn’t yet. Clooney and Spielberg making noise over the Chinese government’s unwillingness to confront client state Sudan over its human rights abuses is one thing. Scenes reminiscent of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests - and don’t think that B roll isn’t coming out of the can this week - while the Nobel Peace Prize winning Dalai Lama talks about the oppression of his people is going to be quite another. So are the likes of McDonalds, Omega, Visa, GE, Kodak, Coca Cola, Johnson & Johnson, etc., ready to address the pressure they may come under in coming weeks? Omega doesn’t look ready. In response to their own spokesman Clooney’s call to action, the company issued a statement saying its policy is “not to get involved in politics”. That might have held water over the Sudan, but it isn’t going to cut it over Tibet.

http://www.bostonherald.com/track/star_tracks/view.bg?articleid=1079650

So what can they do? Let’s assume that withdrawing from the games is not a viable option at this time. Unless things get considerably worse in China, there will be no boycotts and sponsors with millions in sunk costs are not going to walk away from the Olympics. But they face the prospect of several months of dancing around China’s issues and, potentially, facing consumer boycotts over their failure to address those issues head on.
Here are some strategies that the non-Chinese sponsors of the games should consider:

“Safety in Numbers”. Were a large number of the non-Chinese sponsors (nobody can seriously expect the Chinese companies to act, can they?) to adopt the same approach, the safety of the herd would likely protect them from the wrath of Beijing. A joint appeal, rather than demand, to the Chinese government to use the games as a platform for making a more robust commitment to human rights both at home and abroad could be worded in such a way so as to appease most of their Western consumers and critics while not overly provoking the Chinese government. Of course, Beijing has traditionally not reacted well to this sort of pressure and signature sponsors run the risk of alienating a billion Chinese consumers. This approach would likely work well if a sufficient number of sponsors opted in. Without support by a substantial number of sponsors, it is unlikely that any smaller number of sponsors or single company would feel secure enough to undertake what Beijing would likely view as confrontation.

“Do the Hustle”. Well, not literally. But in the great tradition of politics, when criticized about a specific instance of poor judgment, a transgression etc., dance around it while talking about all the other great work one has done. In this instance, companies would acknowledge and “express concern” about China’s human rights record, state that they do not involve themselves in politics, and then go on at length about their own social responsibility programmes and initiatives. Provided things don’t get much worse with Tibet between now and the games and provided there are no well-organized consumer boycott campaigns, this strategy is the safest bet. Listening to corporate flaks drone on about corporate social responsibility is so boring that the media are likely to turn down the heat on sponsors just so they don’t have to endure the experience.

“Smoke and Mirrors”. A variation on “the Hustle”, this is essentially about buying absolution. If a company can’t afford to anger the Chinese government, there are plenty of governments that it can. Now may be the time for example to divest from unprofitable operations in Colombia over allegations that right wing factions with government connivance are targeting union leaders for intimidation or worse. Setting up a fund to help soon to be unemployed workers there and making a big donation to a civil society organization in the country of choice would all allow the company to talk about its serious commitment to human rights while dodging the China issue with “…one country at a time, we’re involved in a serious course of action in Ruritania right now and don’t want to diminish focus on that critical process at this juncture”. It would certainly get them through the games.

“Masterful Inactivity”. A time-honoured classic and the default mode for most large organizations, it could also be named “toughing it out”. Companies don’t actually “do” anything about criticism over sponsorship of the 2008 Olympics and hope that media and consumer pressure never mount to a level where any action is required. As a sort of pressure release valve, they formulate some bland language about how their “engagement” in China will contribute to the further development of civil society and improved human rights, how “criticism from afar is unlikely to produce any results” and how their support for the games and increasing involvement in the Chinese economy “will ultimately give us a stronger voice at the table”, without suggesting what words that voice might utter. Unless things do deteriorate further in Tibet over the next week or so, or unless another big issue emerges in the coming months, this strategy is a pretty safe bet. Of course, if things do get worse and criticism mounts, “masterful inactivity” puts a company behind the curve and could exacerbate a problem that a somewhat more proactive approach would have been able to manage.

Unfortunately neither of my learned commentators was available to join in today’s post. The Bleeding Heart is apparently in an ashram somewhere in Northern California spinning prayer wheels at a frantic pace, while the Bloated Plutocrat is allegedly busy at a board meeting…..in Shanghai.