Jacobstahl will provide media relations services focused on medical trade media, assist with public relations activities at global and U.S. medical meetings, and help develop overall communications plans for the company. Reported on PRWeek by Beth Krietsch June 09, 2011

“The Lure,” and the questions posed by its authors, remain relevant today. What marketer with global responsibilities doesn’t want his or her product to become the next Coke?

For PR, the distinction between building a global brand and establishing a brand leader market-by-market is an important one. It throws the light directly on the effectiveness of global brand communications strategies developed for in-market execution. Given the demands of today’s marketing environments, PR departments – already lean – always pressed for time and with ever-dwindling budgets, the appeal of one-size fits all (or most) communications is significant. And, while verbal homage is always paid to local considerations, the anticipated efficiencies of a “global” brand communications plan can blur the best intentions.

A shift to a market-by-market strategy – especially if the focus is on the priority, say, three to five countries – suits PR. It allows global PR teams and their agencies to sharpen their research and tactical programs as well as target resources and execution to specific geographies and stakeholder universes. An additional benefit of this strategy, which cannot be under emphasized, is the more frequent and richer dialogue with market affiliates. Finally, measurement on a market-to-market basis is easier and more robust; learning and successes can be collected and transferred to other markets.

When it is possible to do the deep dive a few important countries at a time, it is clear the benefits deem it worthwhile.

When it’s not possible, for whatever reason, PR has a fantastic opportunity to create a hybrid strategy that captures the benefits of the market-by-market plan as well as the cost and time efficiencies of a “core” approach.

To achieve success using this middle ground approach requires more than taking a few of the standard ideas from column A and column B. Instead, it asks us to draw on our communications capabilities to research and identify a common ground or platform that makes sense for our brand’s emotional and functional attributes but is also resonant with stakeholders around the world. This platform becomes the cost and resource-efficient framework for a broad array of tactics (now, you can draw from Column A and Column B) that can be developed both on a global basis as well as locally. Think “happiness” for Coca-Cola, “self-esteem” for Dove or “endurance” for Timex – all current and successful platforms for some of the most recognizable global brands. Under an umbrella platform that is universally embraced, tried and true PR tactics as well as new ideas, developed either by the HQ team or locally, become part of a greater whole and contribute to a truly global brand identity.

Taking aim at the middle can sometimes open a whole new world of possibilities that end up superior to those on either end of the spectrum.

Another post will be available to view on FridayI

I have two more blog posts to add during the coming week, one on Wednesday the final one on Friday. The first blog post is PR needs more “gentle collisions”.

Before I go any further, a word of disclosure. I’m not a particularly huge fan of Apple products. I have an iPod that’s so old that my family refers to it as a DinoPod (perhaps because of the content I’ve downloaded rather than the product itself). But mostly, I resent being told what the next cool thing is by some guy my own age, and I am further horrified by the lemmings that follow him over the cliff. Now, of course, Apple is bigger than Microsoft, so all these Apple geeks have to grapple with the fact that the cool upstart is now bigger than the beast itself. Does that make Apple yesterday’s news? That’s for another column.

Anyway, I digress. This is about the incredibly poor management of this “crisis” by the arrogant communications team at the big Apple. I’ve been around the crisis communications block a few times in my 25 years in PR and I can smell a “crisis management” strategy a mile off. This was a fairly transparent example, and not very well thought out. Two common principles in crisis management were on display here: first, “widen the circle of guilt,” and secondly, “blame the media.” Let’s take a closer look. Mr. Cool was on stage last Friday telling the world that AntennaGate was indeed an issue, but it’s not Apple’s problem alone, others suffer from the exact same problem. To illustrate his point, he embarked on one of the tackiest pieces of PR I’ve witnessed in a long time. It was pathetic watching Jobs on TV trying to widen the circle by saying Blackberrys have the same problem rather than saying what I was dying for him to say which is, “Hey, we’re Apple, you love us, we love you, but sometimes even we screw up and here’s what we’re going to do to fix it.” Did he really have to show (unsubstantiated) video of other manufacturers’ problems? Tacky in the extreme, and more importantly, most un-Apple like. Great leadership brands lead partly by ignoring the competition. Then, blame the media? Jobs said this issue has been “blown way out of proportion.” Oh really? Seems to me that the master of media manipulation may have lost his playbook for a second. He who lives by the media frenzy can also be hurt by it (just ask Tiger). This flaw was not created by the media. It was not brought to his attention by the media but rather by the legions of loyal followers he so covets. (As as side note, take a look at Dennis Kneale’s great piece called “Apple’s Core Problem: Credibility” on CNBC.com about the truth, lies and antennagate. www.cnbc.com). Again, bad crisis management strategy, and of course, the ironic vision of Jobs on stage trying to manipulate the very people he’s partially blaming for his little crisis.

So, what would have been the best approach? As with most things in life, the best path here would have been the truth. All Apple needed to do was admit to the problem, offer a solution and move on. Letterman’s strategy vs. Tiger’s? But when you have an ego the size of Apple’s and have drunk so much of your own Kool-Aid, the truth can sometimes be a hard thing to locate. What’s truly sad about this tale of poor communications is that Apple will have learned nothing from it. This week, the company reported blow out earnings with the Showman back on stage saying he could have sold more iPhones if only he could manufacture them fast enough.

Not sure what’s sadder in this tale – the blatant arrogance and deceit of a great American icon brand, or the continued stupidity of the great American public. Probably a tie, and no doubt both will continue to do what they do best.