Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation

This is not 'reputation laundering'. We're helping nations improve

This article is more than 13 years old
Rebranding can bring real democratic change to countries that desperately need it

In describing the capital's PR firms as "earning millions of pounds a year promoting foreign regimes with some of the world's worst human rights records", your article overlooked the many progressive benefits that skilled reputation management can have on developing countries (Welcome to London, world capital of reputation laundering, 4 August).

By labelling such work "reputation laundering" (with its deliberately criminal overtones), you suggest an unscrupulous airbrushing of an unsavoury past. But effective positioning can help a developing country reach out to potential investors, visitors, media and politicians.

National branding isn't the same as sanitising the image of a rotten regime. MP Paul Farrelly's comment, that "more and more PR firms are moving from representing companies to representing countries, whatever their records", fails to distinguish between a brief to burnish the reputation of a distasteful government and one to improve the standing of the country as a whole.

It's a crucial distinction because, done properly, good reputation management can lead to change. On Monday, Rwanda is holding presidential elections for the first time in 16 years – a modernising step that has been propelled by the return of foreign interests.

If we want to see democracy in developing nations, we need to help them to reposition themselves – by promoting trade, boosting tourism, and winning allies diplomatically. That can only be done by skilled communications, promoting the best aspects of these nations to the stakeholders that matter. By encouraging British firms to shun countries whose public images have been "stained" by "controversial activities", we obstruct their development.

Changing a national image is difficult. A nation, by its nature, is diverse, sprawling and complex. Yet often, as with Rwanda, a country finds itself defined by a single negative ("genocide"). Surely it is right to offer a broader view?

Depressingly, your report defined stakeholder relations in primitive terms: "promoting regimes", "managing images", "handling negative stories". Proper communications advice will go beyond spin. A decent reputation management firm will start by looking at the audience's current perceptions and identifying why they exist. As Francis Ingham of the Public Relations Consultants Association said in your report: "Autocratic governments are realising they need to be more sophisticated in the way they act rather than just telling people how it is."

The benefits can be real and deserved. The best communications consultants will explain how to shape perceptions by "living the brand" – making changes to the behaviours or policies that are harming reputation – rather than just disseminating propaganda.

And even if we assume these firms really are just drafted in to spread positive partisan messages, it's only as dodgy as a law firm making money by defending known criminals – yet no one would suggest that it's unethical to provide legal representation. Like skilled prosecutors, today's NGOs are sophisticated enough to shred reputations. Is it unethical for UK firms to provide balance by offering a counter-argument?

Most viewed

Most viewed