Representing Countries: An Especially Risky PR Proposition

What would you do if an infamous dictator asked your PR firm to rehabilitate his country’s image? Martha Boudreau, Regional President for Mid-Atlantic and Latin America at Fleishman-Hillard, is one of the few PR professionals who can draw on experience to answer that question. In a column written for AdAge.com, Boudreau reveals that the Libyan government under Muammar Gaddafi approached Fleishman-Hillard about PR representation during Libya’s rapprochement with the West in the previous decade.

Boudreau explains the dilemma that Fleishman-Hillard faced when confronted with the possibility of taking on the Libyan government as a client:

By that time, it was well established that Libya’s openness to the West was real. Although its image problems were clearly based on a bad reality, all evidence indicated that the government was legitimately taking steps to address them. Time to go to work? Not necessarily. First, Libya was still led by Muammar Gaddafi, who over the years had established himself as a notorious bad actor. And there remained deep wounds from its past behavior, particularly the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 and the accompanying loss of life, for which a Libyan intelligence officer was convicted.

Fleishman-Hillard decided not to represent Gaddafi’s Libya. This was a wise decision, since a PR firm that signs on to rehabilitate the image of a despotic regime always, by extension, signs on to rehabilitate the image of the despot at the helm of that regime.

Boudreau reveals:

When the Libyan government approached Fleishman-Hillard, we had an internal debate, and declined the assignment because we felt Gaddafi would never be able to fully conform to international norms and standards. The regime’s history and Gaddafi’s reputation gave us serious concerns about his true intentions and plans for the future.

Boudreau’s column offers a fascinating glimpse inside the process of how PR firms which represent sovereign governments (Fleishman-Hillard represents many, including those of Brazil and Turkey) decide whether or not to work with a specific country. She explained:

As a first step, we must ask ourselves whether the country’s image problem is a matter of perception or reality. If it is the latter, our next question is whether government leaders are genuinely seeking to address that reality. After many years of work in international public affairs, I have learned the answers are seldom clear-cut.

Countries lie on a continuum from the most free and humane to the least. At the positive end are those that use communications to promote trade, economic development and tourism, but likely do not need “reputational” support. At the other end of the spectrum are countries such as North Korea and Syria. At either extreme, the decisions are easy. The challenge comes from countries in the middle.

No matter how PR agencies decide whether or not to represent countries that fall in the middle of the spectrum Boudreau describes, they must not lose sight of the fragility of their own brands. A PR agency’s clients reflect its values. If a PR firm is associated with a “notorious bad actor” like Gaddafi, it will suffer irreparable damage to its brand if the client proves not to be serious about image reform.