Financial Times

Brand-building in tsunami aid
Is the tsunami relief work becoming a brand building exercise for some people? Or an exercise to build the image of prominent tycoons, such as those with a penchant for promoting themselves by bombarding the public with advertisements about their generosity or charity? That seems to be the case considering the way companies and businessmen are trumpeting their efforts to help those affected by the disaster.

All sorts of companies engage in this practice, from media organisations to insurance firms and phone companies. It almost seems as if getting a picture or press release of their relief work published in the media is more important than the aid itself and ensuring that it actually reaches those victims of the disaster.

Very often the aid that they distribute is not their own but rather what is collected from the public although it is all given in the name of this or that company that is doing the collecting.

There is nothing wrong with such collection efforts themselves, as they serve as a mechanism or an organised and reliable method of collecting funds and contributions from the public. Such centralised collection efforts make it easier for the public to give aid. However, it is wrong for the organisation or company that is doing the collecting to show the effort as entirely their own, or to use such aid to promote the company or its brands. In some cases tycoons are promoting themselves. Some companies have got business leaders in affected areas to appear in advertisements praising the good work done by them or their corporate bosses.

We have commented before over the spectacle of companies vying with each other to seek publicity for their charity and of the many claims being made to be the 'first' to do a particular act of charity. The unfortunate victims of disaster have no choice but to accept such charity.

We are now hearing stories of how the survivors, especially those who had some standing in society and belonged to the better-off sections of the community but who now have lost everything, objecting to the sometimes demeaning manner in which the aid is given.

Some companies and business executives seem to be of the view that the promotional efforts that go along with corporate aid to the tsunami victims could eventually result in building brand loyalties in the future.

The thinking here appears to be that the grateful victims would remember the generosity of the aid givers and repay them later on by buying their products - that displaced people will be loyal to the brands that come to their aid.

If indeed there is such a line of thinking, there appears to be flaws in it, as the anticipated repayment would depend on the purchasing power of the victims as well as the efficacy of the efforts of rival brands. A good example of such brand promotional efforts is the manner in which donors prominently display their company or brand name on trucks taking aid to the survivors. It could be argued that foreign aid agencies like the UN or NGOs do the same - have their names on vehicles displayed prominently. But the difference is that aid agencies and NGOs are non-profit humanitarian organisations. Corporate entities are driven by the profit motive.

Our people seem to be unable to help others, such as victims of calamities, without publicising their efforts and making a big fuss about their generosity. It is better to give aid without publicising it or taking credit for it. To exploit a natural disaster and its victims in such a manner is unseemly, to say the least.

Back to Business