Install

Get the latest updates as we post them — right on your browser

Today's paper. Last Updated: 02/10/2012

Rebranding Russia’s Agitprop

Ever since the young and energetic Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev became president, the issue of rebranding Russia has been actively discussed. In a Dec. 10 Moscow Times comment, “Rebranding Russia From Communism to Cool,” Andrej Krickovic and Steven Weber rightly highlighted the country’s totally unsuccessful efforts since 2005 to improve its image and reputation abroad. But even if implemented, their proposal to rebrand Russia based on eco-friendliness, multiculturalism and resilience is wedded to an outdated view of public relations, image and branding.

Throughout the Commonwealth of Independent States, most so-called PR is a legacy of the old Communist “agitprop.” Russia does whatever it likes in internal politics, foreign policy and business, and then it utilizes the state’s loyal domestic media and employs PR agencies in Washington, Brussels, Berlin and London to try to fix its rotten reputation. Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan have tried this, but such measures are invariably short-term, uncoordinated and lack any long-term strategy. The failure to achieve immediate results invariably leads to disillusion on the part of stubborn government clients. At times, they seem almost willfully bent on creating a bad image. The U.S. and European PR approach of doing great things and boasting about them hasn’t made any headway anywhere in the CIS because no one understands it.

But even that angle doesn’t work these days. In this era of instant global communications, bad news from anywhere is flashed everywhere within seconds, often accompanied by video from mobile phones as Iran and China have realized all too well. And what Russia simply doesn’t understand is that you cannot create a world-class image, brand and reputation on bad news. And sadly, Russia has bad news in spades. For example, in a little more than three weeks, Russia has suffered the severe reputational blows of the death of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky in jail, the Nevsky Express terrorist attack and the Perm fire tragedy.

This may have been a particularly unlucky cluster of image-ruining events, but ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the international media have focused on issues such as vicious hazing in the military and the murders of bankers, businessmen, politicians, journalists and human rights activists. Foreign and domestic observers alike say Russia’s centuries-old problems of bureaucracy and corruption have ballooned since 2000.

The Western media have also had a field day with constant stories of boorish Russian behavior at home and abroad — for example, at the exclusive French ski resort Courchevel every winter and when children of Russian oligarchs gravely injured a 70-year-old German while racing their Lamborghini along a Swiss autobahn in late November.

The leading global media outlets will continue to point out the cronyism of Russian top business and its close connections with the Kremlin. But despite the lionization of the Russian megarich in magazines like Forbes, not one Russian company has created a global brand and few, if any, are well-known outside the investment community or Russia followers. And for all the reports about the fabulous wealth and spending of Russia’s oligarchs, none has created a “personality cult” and valuable trademark as Apple boss Steve Jobs or Virgin’s founder Richard Branson have done.

Russia’s bad PR rap should come as no surprise. After all, if the country’s PR at home is wholly inadequate, it makes sense that Russia can’t cut it internationally.

Russia’s bad image is a direct result of its deep systemic problems. Officials have been arrested for negligence in connection with the Perm nightclub fire, but the same negligence was the cause of a deadly fire at a retirement home in which the windows were barred and exits locked.

Russia’s problems are objective and widely known throughout the world. Therefore, attempts to rebrand the country as “eco-friendly” will be immediately negated by its appalling environmental record. A “multicultural” Russia will also fail given the country’s bad record on attacks against non-Russians — mainly people from the Caucasus and Central Asia. Finally, a “resilient” Russia is a big stretch. The outside world is more familiar with the image of a “long-suffering Russian people” — a society that is highly immobile socially and economically.

If this litany of problems looks like an anti-Russian rant, then Medvedev, Putin and millions of other Russians are also extremely “anti-Russian” as well. To their credit, in the aftermath of the Perm and Nevsky Express tragedies they have been very direct in openly criticizing Russian negligence and carelessness.

Nonetheless, over the past 18 years Russia’s appalling image has greatly reduced Moscow’s international influence and cost the country and its companies trillions of dollars in lost foreign direct investment and international sales. That’s why serious international media paid such little attention to Medvedev’s recent address to the nation. The assumption was that Russia is long on rhetoric but short on action, and Medvedev proved once again that this is correct.

Many foreigners living and working in Russia see the country and its people more positively than its awful global image would suggest. But Russia has no idea how to sell this at home or internationally and lacks the expertise and infrastructure to develop an overarching vision and mission for the country and the numerous government initiatives needed to implement that vision and mission.

Hiring expensive Western PR and lobby agencies lacking both excellent Russian and expertise on the country will not fix the problem. Buried deep in Medvedev’s November address to the nation was a little-noticed admission: “Nothing [in Russia] will change until we change ourselves.”

The Germans say “PR ist Chefsache” (PR is the boss’ direct responsibility). In a top-down society like Russia, there is only one person — or perhaps two — who can fix the problem. Putin (and Medvedev) have to lead from the front and make a serious and professional start on changing the country’s image. Only then can Russia’s rebranding begin.

Ian Pryde is founder and CEO of Eurasia Strategy & Communications (ESC) in Moscow. Adam Fuss is senior vice president of ESC North America. Laura Mitchell is managing director of ESC North America.


Also in Opinion

Putin Chasing Imaginary American Ghosts

Here we go again — another round of anti-Americanism from the Kremlin and state-controlled media. Blaming outside forces for Russia's woes has a long history in the country. The closer we get to the March 4 presidential election, the more intense the anti-American hysteria becomes.


Putting Everything In Its Place

Remember how I drove you all nuts with the innate propensity of Russian creatures and inanimate objects to stand, sit or lie? And how relieved you were when I moved on to other topics?
Well, I'm back.

Russia Gets Bad Rap Over Syria

As the violent standoff between Syria's security forces and armed opposition groups roils the country, the crisis has opened heated divisions at the United Nations Security Council.

A Propaganda Breakdown

Propaganda is not as powerful as many think. You might convince Russians that people in Egypt, Italy and Ukraine are paid or otherwise persuaded to join street protests, but you certainly cannot convince them that their own dissatisfaction with the government is the result of a foreign conspiracy.

Violent Reaction to Protests Could Bury Putin

Nonviolent revolutions do not always remain nonviolent, as the examples of uprisings in Egypt, Libya and Syria in the Arab Spring have shown. But peaceful movements for regime change often do succeed. For example, they have toppled illegitimate rulers, as with the post-Soviet Color Revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, and ended apartheid in South Africa.

Realpolitik Without Realism

People have been asking me all week why the Kremlin is so stubbornly supportive of Syrian President Bashar Assad. "Is Russia's support based solely on weapons contracts with Syria," they wonder, "or the Kremlin's desire to maintain its naval base at the Tartus port?"




Discussion
The Moscow Times welcomes your comments and invites you to discuss topics with other readers. Your comment will be posted automatically to enable a live discussion. If you aren't familiar with our comments policy, you can read it here.

If you're a registered user, you can start typing your comment below. If not, take a moment to sign up. and then return to the article.

If your comment doesn't appear, contact us by using our web form.

Comments

Comments via Facebook

print


Comments

This article has no comments.

Be the first to leave a comment



To Our Readers

The Moscow Times welcomes letters to the editor. Letters for publication should be signed and bear the signatory's address and telephone number.

Letters to the editor should be sent by fax to (7-495) 232-6529, by e-mail to oped@imedia.ru, or by post. The Moscow Times reserves the right to edit letters.



Most Read