LG Admits Defeat with New Branding Campaign

Hiya sports fans! We're back after a long hiatus. Sorry for being gone, I'm sure we were missed.

Today comes news that LG, Korean maker of just about everything (a chaebol that has department stores, mini-marts, chemical companies and of course a consumer electronics division) has finally acknowledged that it can't compete with the likes of Sony or Samsung. At the same time, they've given up on trying to market their products as being technologically sound, decent or even remotely non-crappy. That's right, LG has decided to don the velvet sweatpants ("You know the message you're sending out to the world with these sweatpants? You're telling the world 'I give up.'") and launch a $100 million "emotional" branding campaign.

Said an LG spokesman:

“Although we don’t spend as much as Samsung or have the brand heritage that Sony has, there is a good opportunity for the LG brand,” he said. “We are addressing the market with a different strategy with an emotional approach, instead of focusing on picture quality or this function or that function.”

So there you have it, global business as an exercise in low self-esteem. Based on my experience back in the day at LG's Seoul HQ, this isn't surprising. This type of thinking is inherent in the business culture of  a Korean chaebol. Remember also, this is a country where Samsung is spoken of in reverent tones usually reserved for the almighty and they can basically do no wrong. The mid-level suits at the other companies such as LG go through their lives with a serious "second-class citizen" mentality due to never having made it into the ranks of the Samsung elite.

In the new "campaign," LG will talk about "‘Life’s Good’, freedom and infinite possibilities, all those kind of emotional attributes, for a broad range of products.”

This "emotional" approach may work for an established company that already has a brand image and solid profile (in the rest of the world, not just Korea), like a Coke or a BMW. Will it work in the outside world (read: the intended real market for such a campaign) where we don't have much of an idea, image or brand consciousness of LG at all?

Perhaps the bulk of the $100 million will be spent at home in Korea where the company leadership will see the branding everywhere and assume the campaign is working and LG's image has changed (the Westmoreland-in-Saigon form of blinkered leadership). Anyway, that really is not much money for a company that sells its products in 90 countries. How much impact will the velvet sweatpants campaign really have anywhere?

Thanks for reading.
Jonathan Gardner

Angry Samsung Slings Poo in PR War

The New York Times has an interesting story (here) about an insider's book that "reveals" the massive corruption that has plagued Samsung for years. Those of us who have worked in Asia and with Korean companies (I consulted inside LG for years) find this "news" completely unsurprising. Huge Asian companies generally got that way by cheating (as did the US's own Goldman Sachs), and in the insular, feudal, confucian and patriarchial "family" business model, corruption and outright thievery is endemic.

As expected, Samsung's PR "strategy" has been to bully the media to pay no attention to Kim Yong-chul's book and is circlingthe wagons. The company is responsible for 20% of Korea's exports, so their tactics have been pretty effective at keeping things quiet. Also, Koreans have this bizarre, worshipful slavish regard for Samsung. This is something you need to go there and see to believe (it reminds me of the mindless Khmer Rouge minions and their devotion to the ruling organization "Angka" in the "Killing Fields")

Of course, we are in the connected age, so Twitter, blogs and the like have led to runaway success for this book. Leading to the Times writing about it.

The deafening silence coming from Samsung HQ has been broken by the one and only quote the reporter gets from the company. And boy, oh boy, it's a doozy!

I ask all my fellow crisis communications, PR and branding brethren what they think about this PR approach. If your company was going to issue one and only one official on the record statement to rebut the HUGE allegations made in a book that blows your company's kimono open, would this be what you would say?

“We are seething with anger, but we are not going to sue him and make him a star again,” said Kim Jun-shik, Samsung’s senior vice president for corporate communications. “When you see a pile of excrement, you avoid it not because you fear it but because it’s dirty.”  

Sometimes we have to hit back when we are attacked. But isn't this a bit over the top? I'm guessing from the title that this is perhaps the TOP PR person at Samsung. Doesn't this strike you as a really juvenile, unprofessional and defensive way to comment? This is the spokesperson for the most "respected" company in Korea. Is this the best person the TOP electronics company in  the world could hire?

Based on my experience, this kind of company has NO clue how to do PR/communications and they mostly hire idiots. Also, I don't get this "make him a star again" bit. This would make one assume that the author has been a "star" before. A star of what? Isn't saying that only serving to elevate the opponent?

Also, I agree poo is dirty and I do not fear it.

Anyway, I really have to spend some time thinking about this one. This is really extreme PR.

Thanks for reading.

Jonathan Gardner

Wherefore art thou, Weber Shandwick Korea?

A few months ago, Weber Shandwick (not sandwich, SHANDWICK) made a "pledge" to open an office in Korea before they end of the year (2009). You can read about their promise (now broken) here. For whatever reason, they have never had a presence in one of Asia's biggest markets. Realizing their misguided strategy, they poached a guy named Tyler Kim from Edelman Korea. Tyler's a good PR guy but maybe this assignment was too much for him? Or was it too difficult for Weber Shandwick to handle? They have NOT been doing too well in Asia recently, that's for sure.

Anyway, they made this pledge more four months ago and yet, they still have no Korea office listed on their website, only an "affiliate" (In marketing-speak this is a local office that you farm work out to because you are too cheap or poorly managed to have an office there. You tell your clients, "sure, we have a great local team" when you've probably never even met them and have no idea of their competency or lack thereof). Based on experience, it is REALLY not that hard to get at least a small presence up and running within a few months. Perhaps this doesn't bode well for them.

In the marketing game we believe in something (maybe there are other things, but this one I'm sure of): under-promise, over-deliver. It means, for example, you say "we'll have our Korea office open within 6 months or so" and then you have it open in 5 months and everyone is like "wow, they did better than expected." This is why Amazon.com (et al) tells you the stuff you ordered will arrive in 7 days and they get it to you in 3 days. They know it will impress you, it will make you happy. There is only backlash if you do the opposite: over-promise, under-deliver. If Amazon.com had said you'll get it in 3 days but it takes 7 days, you'll be pissed off. If a PR company says they'll be open by the end of they year, and they're not, people start to question their integrity and their ability to deliver.

HOW is a prospective client of Weber Shandwick Korea to believe ANYTHING they say? Looks like they need some lessons in the basics. Remember guys, UNDER-promise, OK?

Thanks for reading.
-Jonathan