Mining for trouble

This is a post I wrote for our company’s blog

Those who have an interest in media handling skills would find this interview — between the BBC’s Rebecca Henschke and Terry Filbert, the CEO of Baru Gold Corp that runs Tambang Mas Sangihe — a masterclass on what and how not to say things.

The company has been attracting a lot of attention lately following the sudden death of Sangihe Deputy Bupati Helmund Hontong, after the BBC reported that he openly wrote to the national government opposing the setting up of the mine.

Two days after that report, he collapsed and died on a Lion Air flight between Denpasar and Makassar.

Read the rest of the story by clicking on the link below:

Sangihe: Did the Messenger kill the message?

Clubhouse is all the rage – and the likely site of the next business crisis

Don’t get me wrong. I think Clubhouse, the audio chat app that is taking the world and Indonesia by storm is fantastic.

Here you have an app that makes interaction easy among people with same interests. And because its audio only it also creates a feeling of intimacy and ability to network during sessions.

Another added benefit is that since it is organized usually as an informal and chilled-out chat, there is little preparation needed.

The result: Every Indonesian what fancies themselves as connected has signed onto the service and many have already organized Tchaikovsky rooms from a few people to a few hundred. Either that or they are desperately waiting for an invite to get onto Clubhouse.

The ease and informality of these chat rooms are Chatroom’s great strengths. But they also harbor its great danger – the likelihood of uncontrolled blabbering, under the mistaken notion that its an informal chat and there are little consequences to speaking your mind.

Users of Clubhouse or any social media application should always remember that whatever you do or say there can be recorded or copied and shared to a wider audience. There is little control once words are written, images are shared or words are uttered and you can never be sure who will be listening in, first hand or second hand.

Today I saw a chat room discussion on PR matters in which a spokesperson for a company that was recently in a crisis-like situation agreeing to talk about their recent experience.

Sharing is great but when your company has just undergone a reputation all crisis and nerves are still tender, one wrong word or phrase can plunge it back into the couldron.

I am sure that there will be a crisis or two arising from Clubhouse chats.

This is not to say that people should avoid something new like Clubhouse . They should try it and use it by all means but they should never underestimate how whatever happens on social media can often be taken out of context.

No matter how new or sexy the technology, skill, deliberation and awareness are still needed.

Plumbing the depths with Eiger

I love the Eiger outdoor brand. Their products are affordable and often of good quality. A sandal I bought has lasted me years and looks like it will continue for at least another year or two. Damn comfortable too.

But good as they are in making outdoor gear they apparently suck at customer relations. Here’s what happened:

On 28th January, competitor outdoor gear brand Arei’s issued a letter inviting Netizens to review its products.

Arei’s invite sounded very inclusive and cool. Reviewers could use any method, any camera, any theme or in any location they liked to do these reviews.

Eiger must have thought it could do the same but when netizens began reviewing their products and uploading them on YouTube – and the reviews weren’t flattering – Eiger’s Legal General Manager began to get antsy.

He started sending nasty letters to the reviewers. They began with a faux politesse of “Firstly, we thank you for uploading a review of our product on your YouTube channel…” then quickly drew out the stiletto.

Instead of explaining in a rationale manner whether the review was fair to Eiger, it instead criticized the video’s quality, specifically the angle it shoes to show their products in an unflattering manner.

The Eiger Legal Manager also was an audiophile. Complaining that the sound quality was bad to make it quite inaudible and lastly, he criticized the suitability of the location of the shoot.

With that, the manager hoped that the YouTuber would take down that posting and, a bitchy parting shot: “We hope you will become a better Youtuber in [shooting] review videos.”

That’s a shot in their own foot by any measure but that’s not all. When news of that came out on social media it, of course, went viral and Eiger became a trending topic.

Eiger’s troubles did not end there. It turns out that the manager had sent out at least identical letters to two other YouTubers.

That makes it at least three shots to two legs. How many shots the manager had fired nobody really knows.

Netizens have a habit of digging up interesting information about foot shooters and one of them dug up a poster of the manager giving a talk.

The topic: How to Implement Agile Human Capital in Transition and Shifting Era. Oh irony of ironies.

Makes you wonder the caliber of people invited to give talks these days. And what possessed Eiger to entrust its communications function to a legal person instead of a communications professional

Al manager

KPAI isn’t all wrong about PB Djarum

Something important is lost in the rancour against KPAI (The Commission for the Protection of Children) for calling out PB Djarum’s (Djarum Badminton Association) badminton auditions.

KPAI, as we know has accused the cigarette maker Djarum of using its foundation, PB Djarum (Djarum Badminton Association) to exploit children.

To be sure, KPAI has chosen its accusation poorly, using the word manipulate instead of exploitation or a more neutral used. It has caused a groundswell of opinion and invective against its stand, drowning out the one important issue that should be addressed: how should corporations discharge their Corporate Social Responsibility?

If KPAI had been more measured it could have advanced a more persuasive argument against Djarum because it does have a point. Djarum is indeed using PB Djarum to give it visibility in the youth segment where the Djarum tobacco brand has been forbidden to enter.

PB Djarum has undoubtedly contributed immensely to Indonesia’s domination of badminton worldwide/ But setting up a foundation or creating an event that is seemingly divorced from the parent brand’s activities, yet giving the brand a high visibility is one of the oldest tricks in the book of corporate communications.

Why else, you might ask, would the foundation still carry the logo and brand name of the parent brand? In this instance, you cannot look at the PB Djarum logo

Without being reminded of the tobacco company’s parent brand.

Why can’t Djarum (and other Indonesian companies). for instance, adopt the route taken by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that is in part funded by Microsoft Stock dividends. The Foundation’s logo.

And why, among all the gin joints and causes, does Djarum have to alight on a cause to do with the target demographic for continuing tobacco sales? Why can’t it, instead, channel its vast resources in, say, helping improve the lot of tobacco farming families?

Study the marketing campaigns and events of other Tobacco companies and you will see the same cynical insertion of their branding elements.

On the other hand, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation can never be accused

Can never be accused as a vehicle for Microsoft.

The problem in Indonesia, I think, is that most corporations have not thought through the role of business in helping the nation develop economically and socially.

What is their role? How should they go about it? In which causes or issues? And will they have credibility and trust if they proceed.

Many corporations Here grasp at the most convenient concept around: Corporate Social Responsibility.

It’s a concept that sounds nice but is dated and ineffective, especially during these times when trust in business is at an all-time low.

Harvard Business Professor Michael Porter have argued convincingly that CSR doesn’t quite work because it does not reconcile a business’ imperative to make profits with the need to contribute to economic or social development in the Harvard Business Review on Creating Shared Value. Here is a video of Michael Porter speaking on CSV to business leaders

To me CSV makes more sense. It posits the notion that businesses are aware that unless the communities with which they work with prosper, neither can they. As such, the corporations – because of the resources at their disposal – should take the lead in helping these communities generate economic or social value in their activities. By doing this they are effectively creating shared values.

This will help them to rebuild the trust that Business Has been losing ground on. An with this trust comes greater social capital with which they can achieve more and perform better. It’s a virtuous circle.

The KPAI-PB Djarum issue has given us a chance to reexamine and review the role of business in society, especially the businesses in controversial industries such as tobacco, alcohol, large-scale agriculture and mining. because of their huge revenues they are under scrutiny by many activists, NGOs, social organizations and regulators.

Business has a great opportunity to do it right and embrace CSV, or they can continue to dwell in their comfort zones and keep plugging away at CSR – and then wonder why, after all the money and effort they have altruistically committed to an activity, people still distrust them.

The Monsanto Dossier case puts stakeholder mapping on back footing

It is now being dubbed by the Press as the Monsanto Dossier case, where a usual public affairs practice – stakeholder mapping – is perceived as a crime and a sinister move that violates privacy.

The context: Bayer had hired international PR/PA firms FlieshmanHillard (FH) and Publicis Consultants for public affairs work for its pestiside company Monsanto. The year was 2016 when there was a high-profile debate on renewing authorization for glyphosate, the key ingredient in its controversial Roundup weedkiller.

Like all PR/public affairs outfits FH and Publicis set about trying to know the influencers in this debate. One of them is the media and they compiled information on 200 journalists from public sources and possibly private sources as well.

Learning about the list of journalists, French newspaper Le Monde and broadcaster France 24 filed a complaint with French prosecutors alleging that the list broke several laws:

‘Implementation of the processing of unlawful personal data’;
‘Collection of personal data by fraudulent, dishonest or unlawful means’;
‘Computerized storage of personal data revealing the political and philosophical opinions of a person without his consent’; and
‘Unlawful transfer of personal data which is or is intended for processing to a State not belonging to the European Union or to an international organization’.

Bayer has taken the unusual step of suspending FH and Publicis. It’s actions as well as the complaint by le Monde and France 24, however, rises important questions on where to draw the line where gathering information on professional journalists that can influence the course of debate on an issue.

Stakeholder Mapping is standard practice in public relations and and public affairs. You gather information about stakeholders. There is nothing sinister about this but its a matter of framing. Supporters of this practice ask how else can you understand and hope to educate or persuade stakeholders on an issue. Opponents, however, see this as some sinister attempt by underground forces to compile dossiers on others for nefarious ends.

Yet this is a process that we all do, even in our daily lives when we compile a mental list of impressions of people, what their LinkedIn accounts say or do not say, what they like on Facebook and what they post on Instagram.

The line, if one is to be drawn, is between information obtained from public sources including public posts social media, or information obtained from muck raking, including hacking into accounts and databases.

In the meantime, however, all European companies that have to adhere to the GDPR (general Data Protection Regulation) should keep a close eye on how the Monsanto Dossier case pans out.

For a thorough analysis of this case check out The Holmes Report.

The call to boycott Traveloka

I posted this in the Maverick blog today:

A snarky comment on the eagerness of the mob to boycott brands at every slight whiff of suspicion

Deliberate misunderstandings and righteous piety seems to be the order of the day in Indonesia’s poisoned and acrimonious political settingThe latest flap involves a call to boycott travel site Traveloka and uninstall their mobile app following a walkout by detractors when newly installed Governor Anies Baswedan delivered the keynote speech at Canisius College’s 90th anniversary on November 11.

The walkout was led by well-known composer Ananda Sukarlan who objected Anies’s politicking methods to win the gubernatorial election. The walkout generated lots of publicity and social media chatter and somewhere out of this mess t someone somewhere gan to spread information that one of Traveloka’s founders, Derianto Kusuma, had walked out on Anies together with Sukarlan. Derianto had been slotted to receive a recognition award from the College.

From there things snowballed an soon a “movement” was formed where its supporters asked other netizens to uninstall the Traveloka app on their mobile phones as a sign of protest against Derianto’s action.

The fact of the matter, however, was that Derianto, as explained by Traveloka in a press release, was unable to attend the event as he was traveling overseas. So he couldn’t have joined the walkout.

read more

More than just business

We read the news every day but how much do we know about the editors behind the news? What informs their thinking and decisions? At Maverick we decided to find out about this important group of people the good old-fashioned way, by actually talking to them.

Here, published in Maverick’s blog, we talk to Arif Budisusilo who helms Indonesia’s most important business publication, Bisnis Indonesia. We found that he has very original views about nationalism and national interest, among other things.

My thanks to Iwan Kurniawan for coming up with the idea of interviewing the literal newsmakers, and also Nurniyati who was in the media relations team but has left for greener pastures in Singapore, for coming up with the idea and making things happen.

Arif Budisusilo of Bisnis Indonesia: National Interest over Nationalism – Maverick Indonesia

Last year, when the Rupiah was falling alarmingly and Indonesia’s economy looked increasingly shaky, Bisnis Indonesia chief editor Arif Budisusilo was confronted by a young reporter who felt that the nation’s premier business newspaper was being too pro-Government. “’What’s with our coverage? Are we speaking on behalf of the Government? Have we been given projects by the Government? The young reporter demanded to know,” said Arif, who’s also known as AB, the first two syllables of his full name. The young reporter was indignant because he felt that Bisnis Indonesia had not been critical enough in its reporting of the government’s handling of the economy. Then, explained AB, Bisnis Indonesia had adopted the policy that it is to no one’s benefit if all it did was report on the anxiety, fear and pessimism felt by businesspeople. “If we did just that, then all we would do is to make businesses more anxious and worsen the situation.”

Read more

Go Jek, Uber, Grab and other ride-hailing services is a KPPU issue

The demonstration by taxi and the public transport rivers yesterday received much criticism from the Netcitizenship, who naturally gravitate to things Webby, disruptive and saves them money.

The transport drivers are apparently disgruntled over dwindling income caused by their ride-hailing services and the ostensible reason for objecting to the latter’s presence are claims that they do not pay tax, do not have proper permits and may be foreign companies invading Indonesian turf.

These are wrong reasons to demonstrate, even though a demonstration is justified. It is justified because the ride-hailing services are engaging in unfair trade practices. It is unfair to the taxi and other public transport drivers because they cannot compete against heavily subsidised prices of Go Jek and the other ride hailers. The ride hailers aren’t making money at this stage but trying to win market share through heavily discounted prices. They can sustain their discounts because they have investors who are willing to pump money into them in the gamble that they would turn out to be the Next Big Thing. 25d067bf-a9b8-4276-b8a9-53df94733391_169

How long will these subsidies last? As long as investors are willing to inject capital into the ride hailers. It may be six months ayear or beyond but what’s interesting are the repercussions they cause in the meantime.

Never mind the fly-by-night and dubious taxi companies who provide shoddy and unreliable service. They deserve to perish. But a company such as Blue Bird that has won the trust of many Indonesians because they had relative clean and serviceable cars and reliable drivers when the market was full of bad ones are affected too.

So a scenario could develop where the taxi companies, even Blue Bird, all start to fold or deteriorate because of reduced revenues. This situation, however, is no guarantee that the ride hailers would succeed or become a viable replacement. What if most of them fold because the investors got bored or dismayed by the continual financial losses? Where would we be then? Bereft of quality traditional public transport as well as affordable ride hailers?

This issue also raises a question of how much and how long it is fair to provide discounts to win market share. Most products hold promotions and provide discounts to do just that but they are usually short-lived ones as the real economic pressures assert themselves. But with ride hailers the only economic hidden hand is that of the investor, often with access to huge funds.

So is this unfair business practices, that should be looked at by the KPPU? Or is this the new world of disruption that will herald new business models for public transport?

Contracts not valid if it ain’t in Indonesian?

Whoa! This may have far reaching implications for foreign companies that have signed contacts with Indonesian companies — and result in lots of work for Indonesian lawyers and translators.

Another mess for the Jokowi government to try to sort out if they want to attract foreign investment.

INDONESIAN HIGH COURT AFFIRMS FIRST INSTANCE COURT DECISION THAT CONTRACTS WRITTEN IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARE VOID

There has been continuing uncertainty and concern about the Indonesian legislative requirement that the Indonesian language be used in contracts with Indonesian parties.

In the absence of anticipated implementing regulations, there are many unresolved questions about the meaning and applicability of the broadly expressed requirement.

In May 2014 the Jakarta High Court rejected an appeal against the 2013 ruling by the West Jakarta District Court which declared an Indonesian law governed loan agreement between an Indonesian borrower and a foreign lender to be void on the basis that the loan agreement was written in English in contravention of the requirements under Indonesia’s Law No. 24 of 2009 concerning Flag, Language and Symbol of State and National Anthem “Law 24/2009” – please click here for our previous e-bulletin on the impact and effect of the first instance decision.

There was no new legal reasoning provided by the Jakarta High Court as to why the first instance judgment should be upheld. The judgment simply stated that the appeal submitted by the foreign lender to overturn the first instance judgment was rejected on the following grounds:the Jakarta High Court was of the view that the first instance decision was decided correctly in compliance with prevailing laws; andthere were no new facts submitted by the appellant that would undermine the first instance decision.

via 2014/09/17 – Indonesia Update | Indonesian High Court affirms first instance court decision that contracts written in English language are void.

Cutting through the clutter about the Cut the Crab incident

One of the ever-present threats of companies in the Food and Beverage business is food poisoning. This is especially so when you deal in seafood that spoils easily.

Cut the Crab, a hip new restaurant chain with a great gimmick – eat the crabs served on the table without plates, forks or spoons – recently found out how difficult it is to deal with allegations of food poisoning, especially when these allegations are boosted by social media. The allegations, and their consequences especially when they are amplified by Twitter, provide an interesting study for students of crisis and issues management.

So what are the salient learning from this incident (which has been summed up meticulously in Zeit Post – see below)?

Hip restaurants attract hip, young diners who use social media extensively. If they have a complaint, whether justified or not, they will Twit first, think later. Companies that court such clients must have a response plan or a SOP to handle complaints, especially when the swarm starts to scale up these complaints.
The chances of seafood spoiling at some point in time are very high, even when you take all the right precautions. So anyone dealing with seafood – and food generally – must prepare for the probability of complaints of stale, spoiled food or food poisoning. The restaurant should have a response plan not only to investigate the complaints and how to reach out to the victims – but also to demonstrate these actions to the media.
The media, especially news portals with dedicated food writers such as detikfood and Okezonefood, will pick up whatever is hot on Twitter and run with it. Their coverage will in turn fuel a spate of Retweets and comments, in a Voracious Cycle around the issue. Controlling the situation means slowing the momentum of this cycle by engaging both the individual users and engaging the media proactively to demonstrate that you regret the incident, the reasons why it could have happened and what steps you are taking to remedy the situation – the Three Rs of crisis management.
When under siege it is never a good idea to sound defensive or to point fingers. It only arouses people’s suspicions of you when you are already under intense scrutiny. Therefore saying that you’re a victim of sabotage by rivals is a definite no-no

The Cut the Crab incident is still on the boil (ok, pun intended) at this posting. Will the franchise emerge out of this unscathed, as continued crowds at the restaurant even after the Twitter-news portal brouhaha broke out, seem to indicate; or will their business take a hit? Let’s watch the incident unfold.

Cut the Crab, Pelanggan Keracunan Makanan – Zeit Post

FEBRUARY 26, 2014 BERITA

Mungkin akan terasa asing bagi anda mendengar nama restoran Cut the Crab. Tapi jika anda orang yang up to date dengan berbagai macam restoran seru di Jakarta. Cut the Crab adalah salah satu restoran seafood yang fenomenal.

Cut the Crab, Makan Kepiting dengan Bebas

Tentunya anda tidak makan kepiting layaknya di restoran all you can eat. Bebas yang di maksud adalah anda bisa makan dengan tangan dan bergaya seperti di rumah. Penyajian nya juga unik, pesanan anda akan datang di dalam kantong plastik bening dan di tuang begitu saja di meja makan. Tentunya meja sudah di sterilkan terlebih dahulu sebelumnya!

Ilustrasi: Penyajian Cut the Crab yang di sajikan di meja makan

Wow seru sekali bukan? Tentunya dengan penyajian yang unik ini, banyak orang yang penasaran dan kembali lagi untuk pengalaman lain menyantap makanan seafood. Restoran ini mengusung kepiting sebagai salah satu menu spesialisasi. Restoran ini juga ramai dan selalu penuh pengunjung pada akhir pekan.

Baru kali ini terjadi pemberitaan yang mencuat di media semenjak di bukanya restoran ini pada Mei 2013. (Belum di ketahui apakah ini restoran di CTC Cikajang atau cabang lain).

Masalahnya ..

Pelanggan yang Keracunan Makanan

Tentu tidak ada restoran yang ingin mencelakakan pelanggan, apalagi menyediakan sajian yang tidak segar dan berpontensi mengandung racun.

Read more…

Why you need to help your new employees find jobs elsewhere

Having staff retention problems? For years we struggled with this problem, trying to stop people from leaving.

Then one morning we thought” “Why are we trying to stop something that can’t be stopped?”. So we changed strategies and and decided to manage the departure process instead.

We put together the Chrysalis program with Indra Soebardi from AAC – she’s the only headhunter who was imaginative and adventurous enough to get a grasp of what we are setting out to do – and rolled it out to the staff last week.

Will it work? Time will tell but if you’re interested in the details and the concept read this post below from our blog:

Chrysalis – A New Approach to Growing Our people

Here’s a wild idea. Come to work for us. We train you and groom you to be a first-rate communications practitioner. Then, after three years if you’d like to spread your wings and leave us for greener pasture, we’ll help you and we’ll even make sure you’ll get paid for this.

That is the basic idea of Maverick’s new career advancement program, Chrysalis that we announced last week. Stunt silence was the first reaction when people heard Ong Hock Chuan, the big boss, broke the news. I’m sure the second reaction, though probably uttered silently, was, “Is this for real?”

Yes, it is for real. Through Chrysalis, Maverick will help those employees who express a desire to explore new career opportunities outside of Maverick, providing that they have worked with us for at least three years. AAC, an Executive Placement Consultancy with specialty in the Communications industry, has bravely partnered up with Maverick.

“We know young people tend to stay in a company for two to two and a half years top before they start itching for new experience. We understand that need, so with Chrysalis, we ask them to invest at least three years in Maverick and learn as much as they can because we think that’s the minimum time you need to put in to become a capable communication practitioner,” explained Ong. “It will up your chance in landing in-house higher communications positions.”

Read more…

Three is a good number

This is a post I wrote in Maverick’s blog about us winning the Agency of the Year award for the third year running.

Satisfied is a word that comes to mind. But also paranoid because I’d sure like to see us retain that title for the next few years coming, as well as winning other awards. There’s just no pleasing some people.

On being MIX’s Agency of the Year – for the 3rd year running

AWARDS / COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT / CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS / DESIGN / DIGITAL /JOURNALISTS / MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS / MAVERICK / MEDIA RELATIONS / PR & COMMUNICATIONS / RESEARCH & MONITORING / RESEARCH AND MONITORING / TRAINING

We are delighted to read the October edition of marketing communications MIX, in which Maverick was named Agency of the Year 2013 – for the third year running.

Journalists were polled by the magazine and asked which PR firm they thought had the best media relations. They apparently voted for Maverick for the third year running, so although we think that PR is much, much more than just media relations and that we are more of a consultancy rather than an agency, we are still pleased by the verdict.

This recognition is important to us because it means that one of our most important “customers” thinks highly of us (the other is the client, who usually vote with their check books and we’ve been fortunate in that area as well). To have journalists giving us the thumbs up on how PR people should deal with them is a rare endorsement as journalists are one hard crowd to please.

As a partner in Maverick I was interviewed by the magazine as a prelude to their announcement of the award. I was asked how Maverick could consistently be at the top of the media relations game for three years running and I told them that there was no big secret to media relations. All we had to do is adopt a customer service mentality when it comes to dealing with journalists. We need to understand what they want, when they want it and how best to give it to them.

Journalists don’t want spin and they despise PR people who go to them with a begging bowl instead of a strong, newsworthy story . And they usually want the information now, or as early as possible before their deadline. So what all the Mavericks are trained to do is to work with our clients so that they have a great story to tell instead of the usual corporate pabulum that their executives are so fond of. We also, using all our skills as consultants, remind, cajole and sometimes push our clients to meet the deadlines.

The tricky part is to have a team of colleagues that understand this and work relentless to super-please the journalist-customer. In this we are very fortunate to work with a great team of consultants who are probably the best customer service professionals on top of their communications and specialised skills. So a shoutout to the Mavbros and Mavchicks, as they like to call themselves, in the Corporate and Marketing Communications practices as well as the specialists in Digital, Research and Monitoring, Design, Community Engagement, Training and, of course, Media Relations.

And a big thank you journalist friends for voting us Agency of the Year once again. We’ll continue to try our best in serving you together with our clients.