From the leader or the led

When a company or its message promotes negativity or aggression in their advertising and messaging, is it simply a matter of being competitive or is it a reflection of the character and personality of its owners and leaders?

Is it acceptable for companies to discredit or demolish others and justify corporate aggression as “trabaho lang, walang personalan” or “it’s all about business and nothing personal”? Should we not hold CEOs and business leaders equally accountable for the “dirty jobs” that their executives sanction and implement at other peoples’ expense?

As an opinion writer, it is par for the course to receive numerous requests, suggestions even propositions to write on issues or business concerns. More often than not, the requests are generally of public interest, which makes it almost necessary to act on. Recently however, I’ve started to notice how a number of PR people, corporate affairs persons and so-called media handlers have made similar suggestions but with very negative or critical intent.

On the surface, they present information that looks and reads like their material or fact sheets are of public concern or in the interest of protecting consumers. But once you analyze the message and the messenger, it all becomes too clear that the intention is to demolish the competition if not the enemy.

I have noticed the same “behavior” or “creative approach” being used by advertisers and advertising agencies. Many radio and some television ads I see or hear nowadays, often discredit a product, undermines a corporation or simply generates fear, doubt or uncertainty whether in consumer products, financial instruments or government for that matter.

Perhaps it is a culture where “desperate times call for desperate measures”, where economic challenges and job security have pushed managers, creative artists, and even product endorsers to use all weapons for the sake of securing jobs and bottom lines.

But just like the dirty foam that rises from the angry sea, the dirty foam generated by corporate competitiveness also rises to the top floors of CEOs and company owners. The very same dirty foam that drowns and stains the competition ultimately rises to stain the reputation of the bosses.

What really concerns me in my observations is whether todays crop of CEOs actually sanction the negativism or have they simply been too preoccupied with running the business to the point that they failed to realize the dirty foam coming their way?

I recently pointed this out to a corporate player and told him how his group has been the source of very “negative messaging” and aggressive business conduct in various industries. As a consequence of their aggressive behavior, the conglomerate has started to make enemies in various quarters. But like many empires, the group has also become proud and disconnected from other stakeholders who were part of their climb to power. Instead of continuing engagements, the group has become the “Boy’s club”, a circle of modern day managers living out the western doctrines of hostile takeovers, hostile marketing while having weekly cocktails full of high priced wines, expensive cheeses and lots of talks about yachts, sports cars and foreign travel.

While the “Boy’s club” regale in their “Take no prisoners” propaganda, their boss has slowly piled up critics, enemies, and will ultimately reach a point of becoming the target instead of being promoted and protected by the “Boy’s Club”. I even compared the CEO to a Thaksin Shinawatra, the once charming and successful businessman of Thailand who used his business to catapult him to political power only to be removed from office by the Thai Military.

As I regularly do the rounds of business establishments and events, I’ve seen so many local executives mimic the language and behavior of American TV stars playing the role of business executives. I know more than a handful of executives who have studied and trained abroad or have read lots of business related books written from the American experience. The tragedy in all of it is, that their mimicked behavior is so out of context with Philippine culture and reality.

Unlike the west where it’s all business and nothing personal, business in the Philippines is personal, generational and political. They don’t fight in the boardroom and then have dinner like best friends. In the Philippines, some Taipans still don’t do business with some tycoons because of a perceived offense committed during the Japanese war.

Even among today’s next generation business leaders, there are current animosities or feuds, that continue to be fueled not by the CEO’s but by their “alalays” namely ambitious executives whose short sightedness have blocked many big players from partnering in even bigger projects both locally and regionally.

When an executive from another organization approached me to point out the “anti-consumer” promos of their competitor, my reaction and advice to the person was to spend their time, effort and PR money to promote their products, the good things they do for the public and not on the bad things the competition does. Why remind people that your competitor exists? Highlight your brand, the benefits your products give to users, highlight your partnership with your customers.

During the summer price wars, several airlines fought tooth and nail just to grab market share. Things got so competitive that some flights were actual losses. In the short term, the smaller companies managed to bite off chunks from PAL. But it didn’t take long for the competition to discover they bit off more than they could chew. People began to complain about long lines, unfair policies, being bumped off, erratic services etc. In the mean time, PAL simply carried on with their business model. What PAL may have lost to cut throat competition, it also earned back when customers flocked to PAL.

Yes, the leader must lead and never be misled.