Required Assignment: Human Rights, Part II, Due Friday, May 23, by 5:00 PM
May 5th, 2008
I enjoyed reading your definitions of and perspectives at the post, Human Rights Part I. Given recent events in China, and, the fact that the Olympics and related protests are heating up, we have been given a golden opportunity to study and debate this issue.
This follow up assignment is due in the form of a 1 page (max) memo, and is due no later than Friday, May 23 at 5:00 pm.
Your comment below, and any follow up comments you make below do not count as part of your required quarterly blog comments as discussed in the syllabus.
I again publicly thank John Wu, Lonnie Hodge and David DeGeest for their input and comments on this post. Any errors in the below are solely my own and my responsibility.
Below is an excerpt from John Bryan Starr’s book, Understanding China: A Guide To Understanding China’s Economy, History and Political Culture (pp. 211-219) that I sometimes assign as a foundational piece to get people started thinking about this issue. What I like about his summary is that it nicely captures the main points without taking hundreds of pages to do it. In his excerpt below I have taken the liberty to work in some of my own thoughts and edits, where relevant, as well as some of the comments from my colleagues listed above, to make it more applicable to this course and trip. But I expressly give credit Mr. Starr — much of the below work, writing and ideas are his work, not mine.
I appreciate that someone with an agenda on either side of the human rights debate can easily go through the below, skewer it, and offer selected example(s) to contradict or support below said statement(s).
Have at it. I have no beef with that, nor do I hold out the below as absolute truths for all people in every situation; but rather, general background commentary that most reasonable, balanced, pragmatic, critically thinking, life experienced, and well-traveled people in the bell curve (not the outliers) would not fight to the death over.
Here we go:
As a starting point, you might review the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was ratified by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948.
There are strengths and weaknesses to this Declaration. One problem I have with it is that it is so broad and expansive that when I read over it I am left thinking, “Geez. Is there anything that these do-gooders did not throw in as a ‘right’ of each and every human?” I felt much the same way with how several of you defined human rights in Part I — your definition was so broad that it would be difficult to apply to real world situations.
If one searches, they can find other declarations and definitions of human rights that are more expansive or more restrictive that the UN Declaration. What I have found to be more helpful in studying this issue is to focus on the categories of human rights that a comprehensive definition of the term is thought to encompass. That is, economic, social, political and civil categories or rights.
Economic rights protect the individual’s access to sustenance and participation in the workforce.
Social rights guarantee access to goods and services provided by the state, such as education, social security and health care.
Political rights guarantee the individual’s ability to participate in the political process.
Civil rights protect the individual from illegitimate interference by other individuals or by the state.
An assessment of the level of human rights in all four of these categories reveals both positive and negative results in both China. Ironically, in China, economic reforms and development have expanded human rights in some areas, but restricted them in others.
Economic Rights
With respect to economic rights, China points with pride to its accomplishments of the state in extending the right of sustenance to the entire population. With the exception of the period following the Great Leap Forward, when many Chinese starved to death and hunger was widespread, China has managed to avoid the devastating famines of the past. Food output has increased, their distribution systems have improved, and public-works-projects have reduced the destructive effects of natural disasters. There have been considerable advances in emergency relief in China — the Yangtze river regularly floods in the spring, and China frequently deals with Katrina-level disasters with a startling amount of efficiency and care for human lives. Clearly, Deng Xiaoping’s Reform and Opening Up policies have made a positive difference for many Chinese. Studies differ but the numbers range from 200 million to 400 million (this latter number is more than the entire US population) who have been lifted out of abject poverty in China due to these reforms.
On the down side, while economic reform has both advanced the access to sustenance by enhancing productivity, it has also jeopardized its future by failing to limit population growth and reduced the amount of land under cultivation in China. Further, prior to China’s economic reforms, started several decades ago, most people had employment for life (I used to think this was a good thing until I ran my own business, became involved in management and I witnessed how this motivates (or not) performance). As China shifted to a “socialist market economy” the days of the “Iron Rice Bowl” and guaranteed lifetime employment are over. As the collectives have died, so have the medical and social protections essential to everyday living. Further, property seizures by the government for eminent domain purposes have been on the rise the past decade. Also, unknown to many Americans (and Chinese) is the 18,000 annual documented social uprisings to protest a variety of government activities. All of this will be pivotal and get more attention as the Internet spreads and 3-G becomes available in China.
Social Rights
With respect to social rights, the achievements of the Chinese Communist government were impressive during its first 50 years in power. For example, in 1949, less than 50 percent of China’s elementary school age children were in school. Fifty years later, this figure rose to 97 percent, although the quality of said education, with one can argue that its emphasis on memorization, is suspect. The early numbers for college education have gone from 2-3 percent (mostly boys) to 40 and 50 percent — this is a tremendous accomplishment. In 1949, there was one doctor for every 1,500 people and one hospital bed for every 7,000 people. By 1999, these figures had increased to one doctor for every 650 people and one hospital bed for every 380 people. But again, the quality of said medical care is hit and miss (as is access due the fact that a number of hospitals in China now require you to pay up front for their services; but this is also becoming a problem in the US — see this recent WSJ article, Cash Before Chemo; US Hospitals Get Tough). Similarly, 1n 1999 about one of every five members or the workforce had access to some form of state-provided retirement plan. The economic reforms noted above have had mixed effects on the state’s ability to guarantee these social rights, particularly to rural citizens. The household responsibility system in China has also led to an increase in the number of children leaving school before graduation, since the system’s incentives encourages parents to make their children work in the fields or local factories as soon as they are old enough. As for social security, clearly, in recent years the shrinking state sector has reduced the number proportion of workers with access to state funded pensions.
Political Rights
China’s record for political rights is somewhat different. While the right to participate in the political process is widespread, that participation is generally devoid of significance. Elections are regularly held for executive and legislative posts, but, until recently, usually never with more than a single candidate for each post, a candidate selected and vetted by the CCP. Since the 1980s, a democratization of politics as we (the West) generally view it has occurred at the local levels, where several candidates run for office, and it is by no means the CCP endorsed candidate who wins (however, see this recent People’s Daily article that highlights how more and more non-CCP members are being tapped for top posts in the government) . (By the way, the Chinese will counter that our current state department (i.e., Condi Rice and crew) is now a politically controlled police agency, our judicial branch controlled by the ruling party, and that our current president was elected on the basis of a conservative Supreme Court who themselves became “judicial activists” to determine the election — folks, don’t shoot the messenger.)
Important note: for a recent CCTV segment I watched that peels off deeper and different layers of the above statement re: the import of these local elections for political rights and the development of Western style democarcy, click HERE to watch this very interesting and thoughtful 17 minute CCTV segment, where the China Law Blog’s lawyer extraordinare Steve Dickinson appears. CCTV is considered by most to be the English speaking mouthpiece for the CCP, but in this segment, I did not see that this was much of an issue. Also while this segment is not the finale of Survivor or Desperate Housewives, it is really quite good. Steve does an excellent job offering a thoughtful analysis, he holds his ground against the other fellow and show’s moderator, and, he conducts himself with professionalism and like a gentleman.
Civil Rights
Civil rights, the area where most Americans focus, is a debate that is difficult for the Chinese to understand. Asked whether their lives are subject to more or less government interference than they were fifteen years ago, the majority of Chinese would likely respond that they are significantly more free (you can verify this when we go to English Corner). Today they can speak freely and critically about political issues, and they are able to hear a reasonably broad range of information and opinions, and make decisions about their places of residence, careers and leisure that were formerly made for them. But this expansion of civil rights is less the intended consequence of CCP policy than the unintended consequence of the weakening of the party and government influence in recent years and the intervention of technology (e.g., fax machines, satellite dish, cell phones, the Internet, etc.).
While Chinese can speak freely and critically about a broad range of political issues, their is little dispute that they must be careful how and when they do so when said speech is coupled with what we label in the U.S. Constitution as freedom of association — e.g., a group or people meeting in person or on-line, and any kind of a celebration on campuses or bulletin boards critical of governmental policies are shut down. It is not uncommon for the CCP to take heavy handed action against group activity and group speech when it’s political power is being challenged by the discussion and activity. Part of this societal trepidation toward the threat that groups can pose, particularly by the older generation in China, can also be traced back to the days of the Cultural Revolution, where a number of these individuals found themselves attacked and/or under suspicion from the infamous Red Guards that roamed the cities and countryside of China persecuting scores of people. As an example, the father-in-law of one of my listed colleagues above spent six years in a re-education camp because he had been an officer of Mao’s and therefore had been given too much privilege and needed to be “reformed.” Also keep in mind that part of the desire for cohesion and stability in China is driven by its past often violent history and the identity of some of its neighbors. Think of the countries that border China who might be classified as threats — Japan, the Koreas, Russia, India, the various Muslim “stans” countries that border China on its western border, Vietnam (who China recently fought a war with and lost), Taiwan, etc. (now, compare and contrast the US — do you feel any threat from Canada, Mexico or Cuba? Right now, our closest geographic military threat may be Venezuela via Mr. Chavez).
Contrary to the assumption of most Westerners, the Chinese are free to practice their religion if said religion or church is a registered and sanctioned one (meaning Catholicism, Protestant, Christianity, Taoism, Buddhism and Islam) and/or its spiritual leaders are favored by Beijing and not Rome in the case of Catholicism (or the Dali Lama). Some point out that if anything, the past few years has seen a resurgence in China of the government’s tolerance of religion because many recognized organized religions tend to preach respect for authority (i.e., the government) and this now plays into to hands of the CCPs’ current strategy of “maintaining harmony in society”. See, e.g., this NY Times Op-Ed piece, How China Got Religion and this recent NY Times video report (Christianity in China) by China hand and famed journalist, Nicholas Kristoff; see also this excellent April 12-13, 2008 Wall Street Journal article that elaborates on the above, In Search of … Something: A Growing Number of Chinese, Ummoored by Rapid Change, are Finding Answers in Religion.
Others contend that the situation is much more bleak on the religion front. For example, they point out that underground churches are routinely destroyed and/or non-state supported religions attacked. See, e.g., this Times Online article on how China “outlaws” reincarnation.
Further, schools have been instructed and taught to identify and remove missionaries posing as English teachers. Note that it is not uncommon for certain churches to send missionaries to China under the guise that they will be “teaching English” when the true primary aim is to proselytize (see, e.g., this recent SLO New Times article about one of our local citizens who went on a Mormon mission to the PRC; see also this Wall Street Journal article on this very point: Christian Groups Step Delicately in Sichuan). Some Chinese will point out, with heavy sarcasm, that Jesus would not have entered China under false pretenses(again, don’t shoot the messenger).
Whatever the current state of affairs re: religion, it is important to note that most inside China agree that said religious activity must ‘render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and not challenge the CCP or its authority. This is perhaps where where Falun Gong went wrong — they did not help their cause when several thousand of them showed up right outside Chinese government offices in Beijing to publicly protest their persecution. Falun Gong is an interesting phenomenon. What originally started as a non-political association that was little more than a practice of a form of tai qi, became political as it amassed a huge following and began representing a threat to the CCP because of its rapidly growing organization, the development of a sophisticated network, and the charisma of its leader. (By the way, few people in/from China have much respect for Falun Gong. See this related NY Times article that reports a number of Chinese walked out of a show at Radio City Music Hall in New York due to its not to subtle Falun Gong outreach attempt).
As a comparative benchmark, it would be a mistake for Americans to assume that no tension and/or persecution exists in the US between the government and organized religion. For example, in recent years the U.S. Supreme Court has routinely taken, heard and decided cases on the issue of church-state separation that did not side with the church. As a further compare and contrast point, today’s churches who run afoul of ‘rendering unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s’ are sometimes seen as running more of a business rather than a charity, and the IRS has responded accordingly (see, e.g., this Wall Street Journal article, A Taxing Issue: What to Render Unto Whom?). Also, if, in the US, a preacher or church endorses or promotes a political candidates from the pulpit, and they violate the ‘render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’ maxim noted above that China also takes quite seriously, they too are in serious danger of losing their tax exempt status as a non-profit (see this recent Wall Street Journal article re: the Obama camp and his outspoken pastor). Thus, while some would say this is not a direct frontal assault from the government, these are examples of where a church will be hit with a consequence that will effectively put them and their congregation out of the religion business overnight because they will now have to pay taxes on income like everybody else and the vast majority of churches cannot withstand such a financial blow.
It is also interesting to note that with respect to the civil rights component that makes up human rights, the Chinese do not talk just about ‘rights’, but also ‘responsibilities’. In Imperial China, the concept of individual rights did not exist. Confucian ideology emphasized social relationships that created duties, not right. Examples of such expected responsibilities include the priority of family, society and nation, over the individual.
How often do you hear of people in the West speak of their responsibilities? In fact, we often see the contrary — see/refer to this recent March 30, 2008 SLO Telegram Tribune article advocating for an “outdoor children’s bill of rights”, and my previous blog post on Millennials)
Relatedly, if you follow China regularly you will hear much use of the word “harmony,” as in creating a “harmonized China” where multiple ethnic groups and others are able to exist in one, unified China. China has 56 different ethnic groups (that is not a typo) that are able to live in China in relative piece, and these different ethnic groups suffer none of the express or hidden prejudice seen in the US and the treatment of native peoples and long-standing ethnic minorities (German, Irish, Japanese, Chinese, French, and others). While in the US we often talk about civil rights for minorities in the US for women, African-Americans, Native Americans, gays, etc.; most that have lived in the US and China agree that in China these 56 minorities enjoy a freedom and equality in China that rivals what is available in the US.
American human rights groups and the U.S. Congress have been interested less in the rapid expansion of civil rights for the majority of Chinese people than in the very serious violation of a small minority of civil rights, the individuals who have been imprisoned or sentenced to reform through labor for their dissident political or religious views. In China, a country of 1.3 billion plus people, approximately 1.5 million people are behind bars. A significant number are also believe to be in labor reform camps. It is very difficult to find reliable estimates of the fraction who are imprisoned for political crimes. Note that as of 2006, in the United States, with its 330 million plus people, roughly 7 million people are behind bars, on probation or on parole; and of this total, roughly 2.2 million are incarcerated. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, with African Americans comprising a grossly disproportionate percentage of this number. China is second. Russia comes in third with 870,000 incarcerated people.
The Chinese government says that it is holding two thousand political prisoners, but that number does not include those in labor reform camps. Those who survive their stay in labor reform camps often report that they conditions were severe and that they were treated harshly (the Chinese will counter with Guantanamo and Iraq). Harry Wu, the famous Chinese political activist and dissident who was imprisoned in a Chinese labor camp for a number of years, argues that the number of people held in labor camps is much larger than the government number, but his numbers in this regard have been questioned in recent years (the Chinese will also argue how gullible we are by pointing out that the war with Iraq was initially and primarily based on the crack-pot claim of weapons of mass destruction).
Reflection
There are several points worth reflecting on as we consider what Americans can or should to do bring about an improvement in our read and interpretation of China’s human-rights record.
The first has to do with our assumption about the universality of our views on human rights, our notion that they are appropriate standards for all societies to adopt, regardless of their possible disjunction with other traditions and cultures. Related to this point is the following story passed along by one of the colleagues I note above:
Chris — I recently had a discussion with a fellow alumnus from my university and who is also a PRC citizen about voting. This young Chinese man is a believer in the Republic of China (Sun Yat Sen, the founder of modern day China’s, organization), and wants to see the republic restored. This Chinese fellow is progressive and radical by Chinese standards and might even be in danger were he to voice his ideas in the PRC. He is a believer in democracy. However, we had a long and serious discussion about the creation of a voting test to be used in China. Naturally, I talked with him about Jim Crow and the serious problems Americans have with this idea, and he insisted that it would be quite a natural and responsible thing to do in China. This is because people would happily agree to a voting test to ensure that only reasonably educated, informed individuals were voting. They would have no interest in having something similar to the 2000 US election occur in their country, nor are they interested in granting power to a large body of individuals who cannot make informed decisions about the country’s political development. He compared his system to the ancient Greek democracies, where only a small and capable group of leaders were able to democratically elect leaders. And I then realized that that the PRC fellow was probably right: Chinese citizens would probably prefer to have a voting test to ensure that a demagogue with the ability to manipulate the hundreds of millions of relatively uneducated peasants would not be able to take power. This conversation drove home to me that historical precedents radically inform our understanding of “universal human rights.” US citizens see voting test and think about Jim Crow; PRC citizens see a voting test and think of the Confucian values of examinations that demonstrate political acumen.
The second point relates to Chinese rejoinders to American complaints about their human-rights violations. In looking at conditions in another country, Americans often measure real conditions abroad from an idealized vision of conditions at home, and thus seem blind to violations of human rights in their own society at the same time they ferret out evidence of violations elsewhere.
While PRC citizens often have difficult access to balanced world news (e.g., one of my listed colleague’s above notes that his Chinese students famously had no idea that Pope John Paul had died), many Americans with an education remain willfully stupid of world events (e.g., how many Americans did you run into that did not know that Benazir Bhutto was assassinated or who she was?).
A third point to keep in mind is that in asking China’s leaders to allow dissidents freedom of movement and expression, we are asking them to do the very thing they are least likely now to do willingly. China’s leaders understand the Party’s weaknesses and are well aware of the many sources of dissatisfaction within Chinese society. And they often say, political instability threatens the nation’s continued economic development; more, it threatens the leaders’ own power, position and perks. Under these circumstances, they would regard giving free rights to dissidents as an act of national betrayal and political suicide. Note that there are number of Sinologists who believe that China does not need to democratize to continue to grow as it is growing. E.g., click HERE.
The fourth point relates to the issue of sovereignty. As Dr. Morris highlighted in his history lecture, rightly or wrongly the Chinese interpret the history of their interaction with the outside world during the nineteenth century as a long series of painful episodes of national humiliation in which foreign powers constantly trampled on China’s sovereignty. “Ours will not longer be a nation subject to insult and humiliation. We have stood up,” were the words that Chairman Mao chose to market the founding of the PRC in 1949. Their position in this regard may not be irrational. Imagine the reaction of the American government were the Chinese to make continued American investment in joint ventures in China contingent on the U.S. Congress’ strengthening of affirmative action programs or complete, full and market rate reparations for Native Americans or African-Americans, for example.
The fifth point has to do with tactics. Americans are often not aware that when dealing with Chinese officialdom we need to consider doing so in a way that minimizes the potential for losing face. This is problematic, for very often US government actions are effective in the American political context only if they are carried out in a high-profile and public manner. Open up the paper and you can see daily examples of this on both sides of the political aisle (e.g., can you spell N-A-N-C-Y-P-E-L-O-S-I, or, T-R-E-N-T-L-O-T-T?). Further, think of how American politicians often seek to link Chinese access to the American market to human rights (e.g., Most Favored Nation trading status, Chinese entry into the WTO, getting the Olympics, etc.). Yet, there continues to be fierce debate whether using trade sanctions (or boycotting the Olympic Opening Ceremony) to promote greater attention to human rights in China is counter productive.
(As an aside, one of my colleagues above has worked with Olympic athletes and he raised the following point that I had not thought about — have you given thought to the destruction of careers and lives that accompany the boycotting the Olympics should countries start deciding to go there (and not boycott only the Opening Ceremonies)? The toll on the athlete who has trained his/her entire life for that one shot at greatness? Is human rights the burden of the athletically gifted, and if so, why? Nic Marlin, what say you?)
For example, trade sanctions cannot be crafted in such a way as to hurt those in the CCP for the violation of the civil rights of dissidents and cannot avoid penalizing the very sectors of Chinese society that are most receptive to the very ideas we may want to promote. Sanctions can also reduce contact with the outside world, through which some Chinese have begun to become familiar with the rights of citizens in other countries, and, armed with this new knowledge, to press their own government to guarantee them the same rights. Some argue that constraining that contact may reverse that process and the political liberalization that is already under way that has significantly expanded the freedoms enjoyed by the majority of Chinese citizens. Further, some NGOs (e.g., Heartland) openly require the “democratic proliferation of ideas” as a condition of funding for human rights initiatives. People often ignore or underplay the enormity of the reforms China is pursing as part of its attempt to modernize. See, e.g., Randall Perenbooms’ China Modernizes.
As an aside, when CNOOC (Chinese state owned firm) made a bid for Unocal (American owned energy firm) several years back, but their bid was beaten back by American politics, protectionism and xenophobia, Yang Hua, CNOOC’s chief financial officer said the use of political prejudice to deny access to the energy it needed amounted to a violation of human rights. “What are human rights?” he asked at a news conference in Hong Kong. “I’ll tell you what it means. For us it means guaranteed access to the energy we need to become a modernized country.” You can agree or disagree with this fellow, but the interesting point is that some Chinese see access to energy as a human rights issue.
The sixth point is that for better or worse, rightly or wrongly, your own United States government recently dropped China from its list of “worst” human rights violators. See the NY Times article by clicking HERE. On the other hand, moving from “worst” to “bad” is not a terribly effective marketing pitch.
Seventh, re: T1b*t (hereinafter “T”), which is currently a hot, emotional topic that I suspect some will raise and focus on. Look, I am no T expert. None of us on this campus are. The only thing I can conclude in my own mind is that it’s a crazy mess (which statisticians call an outlier). The best I can offer to help deepen your understanding of the T issue is to refer you to what I consider the be the best piece I have ever read on T that helped me better understand what has happened and what is happening there. It was a three part series by Peter Hessler that appeared several years ago in The Atlantic.
Peter Hessler is, in my view, one of the best writers I know, and he sees things about China that others can only dream of noticing. He is also the famed author of River Town: Two Years on the Yangtze and Oracle Bones: A Journey Between China’s Past and Present. (River Town is without question one of my favorite books on China.)
Click below to read Hessler’s take on T. Are the Han Chinese in T ideological missionaries or progress who are to be commended for their work, or, are they agents of cultural imperialism? He argues, they are inescapably both.
Part I, Part II, Part III. See also this related NY Times, article, Chinese Students in U.S.Fight View of Their Home.
Finally, in life, you will encounter many ‘business bashers” and/or people that thrive on either of the extreme side of the business and human rights debate. My hope in making these posts is that you now better understand and appreciate the human rights issue, how it relates to business, and how complex it can be if you study it at more than a superficial level.
Your Assignment
You work for Coca-Cola. You firm is a major sponsor of the Beijing Olympics. You are the heads of the firms public and governmental relations unit. China is a market your firm must have and be a player in for your long-term survival. Coca-Cola is bullish about China. No serious, credible, global businessperson disputes that fact. In fact, you have been in the China market off and on since the 1920s. Protests against your firm inside the US and elsewhere for doing business with the CCP Chinese regime and in a country that some contend violates “human rights” have been heating up. Conversely, you are getting hit from protesters on the other side of the coin — you are finding that if you do not back and support the Chinese, the locals there may come out, en masse, to protest against and even boycott you for being “anti-China” and/or wanting to keep China down (see, e.g., the below Carrefour articles). Stated differently, as is often the case in life, no matter what position you take re: China, in today’s political climate, you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
Your CEO is getting nervous about how this could all backfire on the company and she is struggling with how to proceed. Your CEO has asked you for a memo, one (1) page max single spaced, that provides a recommendation on how the firm should proceed in response to: (1) protests/boycotts of the firm outside of China that the firm is too “pro-China”; and (2) the protests inside China that Coca-Cola is “anti-China” and not doing enough to recognize China’s economic, social, and political accomplishments the past few decades.
What will you tell your CEO? Below are some articles to help you get started. Your CEO is a busy person. She does not have the time or desire to read anything from you that is more than 1 a page, so get to the point. Devote 1/2 page, max, to each the above questions and how to deal with them.
If, in examining your conscience, you find you cannot support your firm’s continued sponsorship of the Olympics and doing business in/with China, and you conclude that you must resign, no problem. You should instead write your resignation letter as your required comment. What should a good resignation letter do and say? What will yours say?
China Public Relations, The Image Thief Primer, China Law Blog, May 2, 2008
Olympic Marketers Seek to Dodge Politics, WSJ, March 20, 2008s
Coke Scales Back its Japan Torch Relay Plan, WSJ, April 19, 2008
Cheering for China Before the Games Start, WSJ, April 18, 2008
Brand Strategies, WSJ, April 12, 2008
Companies Return Criticism From Dafur Group, NY Times, April 25, 2008
Protests of the West Spread in China, NY Times, April 21, 2008
France Tries to Limit Olympics Fallout, NY Times, April 22, 2008
Protesters Confront American Outside French Carrefour Store in China, NY Times, April 23, 2008
French Firms Lower Profiles in China Amid Calls for Boycott, WSJ, April 29, 2008
Anti-French Boycott Falters in China, NY Times, May 2, 2008
***I will take you to a Carre Four for shopping and to study how their model differs from Wal-Mart.
I am not looking for a dissertation. Something along the lines of page of a 1 page total max, concise, well-written piece, with no typos. This is not an arms race — don’t read other people’s comments and feel that you cannot disagree, agree, or that have to come up with something that is “better and more insightful” or “different” than what they wrote. Stop comparing yourself to others, focus on your task at hand and take care of your own business, do you own thinking, and say what you need to say in a way that you can look back on in a year or two and re-read and be proud of.
Good luck.
Entry Filed under: China, Pre-Departure, Beijing
48 Comments Add your own
1. K Liu | May 6th, 2008 at 12:31 am
To China you are just a bunch of kids full with idealism only. During the several thousand years of China’s history rulers made the law & people obeyed the law, that’s it & everything has been very simple until the West showed up & made things complicated.
Most of Chinese inside China don’t understand this-rights & that-rights that you talk about. What they want is just a “good” ruler/leader instead of the rights that you Westerners trying so hard to throw at them. The issue now is the different definitions of “good” between you, the West, and Chinese, the East. Your so called being “good” may not be the “good” that they are searching for in life. Never thought of that!? Ha! That is exactly the key problem always existed between East & West.
You always say what you want to say, but they do not know what you are saying. Got that?!!
2. Chris Carr | May 6th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
K Liu,
Wouldn’t a good balance be a China that is more “rights” conscious (and less responsibility/group emphasis) and an America that is more “responsibility” conscious (and less individual rights emphasis)? Seems to me there is much (more) China and the West can learn from each other in this regard.
3. Gary Chou | May 7th, 2008 at 1:05 am
You said that China has been a totalitarian for thousands of year and things as they are at the present time are simple and fine.
However post hoc ergo propter hoc, the current peace cannot justify the preexisting context.
Furthermore, things aren’t always fine. Totalitarian states throughout the history have faced continuous uprising and warring.
Isn’t the history of China itself not as continuous as what an ordinary Chinese might think, but a tearful saga characterized by bloodshed and civil wars?
4. Sin-Yaw Wang | May 7th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Wow! What a piece. Best summary of the topic I have encountered so far. Candid too.
How would your students follow this one?
5. Shasta Palmer | May 7th, 2008 at 8:57 am
To: CEO of Coca-Cola
From: Shasta Palmer – Head of Firms Public and Governmental Relations
Date: 5/7/2008
Re: Response to recent protests
CEO of Coca-Cola:
I have thought about what our response as a company should be to the controversy over our presence in China. I think we should stay as far away as we can from playing on the patriotic side of each country, but focus more on Coca-Cola as a brand. Being patriotic in China and then coming over and telling the U.S. something different can only mean trouble in the long run. However, responses I do think are suitable are listed below.
Response Coca-Cola could have to protests outside of China saying we are too pro-China:
Coca-Cola is an American based company. For our survival here in the U.S. and aboard we must contend in the International marketplace. We do not see working with China on the Olympics as supporting a country that violates human rights. China has made improvements in many areas over the last several years, and is putting forth a large amount of effort to ensure the Olympics are as good as they can be.
Response Coca-Cola could have to protests within China about being anti-China:
Coca-Cola is trying to put forth as much effort to aid China in the Olympics as feasibly possible while maintaining employee safety. We have dedicated about 150 people in marketing alone to help with this event. We support the efforts China has put forth to make the Olympics a great event in 2008, and will do what we can to help.
I realize these statements are brief and slightly vague, however sometimes that is the best approach. We want to say that we are interested in employee safety, therefore if things become dangerous we can show our concern for our employees, while still saying we will support China as much as we can. America was our first market, and any idea that we are betraying that could be a catastrophe at this time. Though we still have strong brand recognition and loyalty in the U.S. if we try to appeal to another countries patriotic side that could make Coke look like a trader. Ultimately there is no way to please everyone, but contradicting ourselves could be worse that making vague supportive statements.
Sincerely,
Shasta Palmer
Head of Firms Public and Governmental Relations
6. Dena Malloy | May 7th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Dear Coca-Cola CEO;
It is my recommendation that you do not boycott the Chinese opening ceremonies or any portion of the Olympic events. First, you are primarily a sponsor of the Olympics and not necessarily the host country, but in this instance, the fact that the host country is China creates a politically sensitive situation. China is a huge market for Coca-Cola and we will be relying on it for our future growth. The soft drink industry in the U.S. is saturated and for the continued growth of the company, we must look to foreign consumers. With China positioned as an extremely large and growing market, we must to all we can to maintain a favorable presence.
It is entirely possible that this course of action will create protests in the U.S. market. In response to these activities, we should highlight the following reasons for our participation. The protestors in the U.S. believe that the Chinese people are repressed and showing up Olympic ceremonies would be condoning this repression. I believe the people of China should be afforded more freedoms, but most importantly for Coca-Cola, as China has been slowly becoming freer, they have started to consume far more American-made products. If we boycott participating in Olympic ceremonies, we will cause a loss of face to the Chinese government. An angry and insecure government is not likely to suddenly allow people to have more freedoms and more freedoms mean less profit. Making an enemy of the Chinese government would be an extremely impudent move. If China feels that the rest of the world is against it, the country may choose to become more isolated. Currently, the Chinese government is making slow progress in human rights. I think it would be a terrible thing to do anything that might stop this progress.
As for our marketing strategies, we should show traditional Olympic commercials showing American athletes, but I also think we should add a few commercials showing Chinese people doing “American” things. We could show them drinking coke at a baseball game or teenagers drinking coke and hanging out at the mall with their friends. We should humanize the Chinese and show them enjoying freedoms they may not have had several years ago. A campaign showing just how far they have come may help take some of the wind out of the sails of our protestors.
Sincerely,
Dena Malloy
7. Matthew Sprecher | May 8th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
To: CEO of Coca-Cola
From: Matthew Sprecher; Governmental Relations
Date: 5/8/2008
Re: How to deal with recent protests…
The following memo outlines my beliefs and thoughts as to how we can and should respond to recent human rights issues surrounding our product and the country of China…
Despite the potential impact, monetarily, that China could have on our product, I feel it is essential that we remain impartial in the eyes of China and other countries as a whole. As we have seen with other Fortune 500 companies, taking sides and making remarks about the political situation in China will not only have an adverse affect on our sales in China, but other countries of interest as well. I think instead we should focus our efforts on advertising and marketing that can relate to any country. Although this non-partisan approach could be viewed as “taking a back seat,” I feel that looking at both potential situations could show why we should take this view.
Situation: Protests/boycotts of the firm outside of China that the firm is too pro-China
China currently makes up only a portion of our world-wide sales. Although we as a company promote employee safety and other regulations currently under fire in China, we must remain loyal to all of our customers. By having the view of “Pro-China” we will alienate a large portion of our market. Patching up those broken relationships could prove to be costly economically and socially.
Situation: Protests inside China that Coca-Cola is “Anti-China”
With the upcoming summer games in China, we as a company have an opportunity to separate our selves from the competition in terms of sales and marketing. If we as a company are viewed as Anti-China there is no telling how much our sales will be affected during the upcoming games. Considering the money already invested in Beijing it would be business suicide for us to garner such a point of view.
For these reasons, I hope it is obvious to you why we should focus our efforts on the logo and brand identity of Coca-Cola, rather than our political stance. The human rights issue in China is not one that is going to end any time soon and it would be foolish of us to get caught up in it. Taking no side may cause people to question our dedication to human rights, but contradicting ourselves and taking both sides would be far worse. Although loyalty is something that people want from a company, I feel this is a certain situation where we need to step back and let our product do the talking.
Sincerely,
Matthew Sprecher
Governmental Relations
8. Darold Parsons | May 8th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
To: CEO of Coca-Cola
From: DJ Parsons – Public and Governmental Relations
Date: May 8, 2008
Re: Response to Olympic Protests
I suggest that the Coca-Cola Company responds to the recent political pressure surrounding the 2008 Beijing Olympics with a non-partisan stance.
The Coca-Cola Company is a business. Our responsibility is to our employees and our shareholders not to political activist or politicians. Our sponsorship of the Beijing Olympics is purely for advertisement purposes and in no way shows our support or opposition to the Chinese government. We need to make it clear that we are a business, we leave politics to politicians.
I would also like to stress the importance of illustrating our care for our employees and for our product. We are a company based upon an ethical backbone, but one that extends only through what we control. Here at Coca-Cola we treat all of our employees with an egalitarian view and we provide our employees with safe working conditions and quality benefits. We are a company that cares about the environment and we practice sustainable practice. Coca-Cola also insures that every business we deal with treats their employees and the environment similarly.
Our goal is to supply a quality product capable of being shared and enjoyed by all no matter what religion, race, or political agenda.
9. Angie Q. Dip | May 8th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
COCA-COLA, INC.
MEMORANDUM
TO: CEO
FROM: Angie Dip, Head of Public and Governmental Relations
DATE: May 7, 2008
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Protests Re: China
With all the protests going on recently, Coca-Cola is in a tough position. We know that China is a very important market for our company and our future growth, and we certainly do not want to disappoint our loyal customers from the United States. However, we cannot choose which country to side with. Although Coca-Cola is an American company, we do business worldwide and must aim to please all of our customers globally. The following are recommendations you requested in dealing with the protests regarding China.
I feel that we should not be separating the two recommendations in how Coca-Cola should respond to protests/boycotts of our firm outside of China that Coca-Cola is too “pro-China,” and in how Coca-Cola should respond to the protests inside China that Coca-Cola is “anti-China.” Instead, I think we should respond to both problems in the same way. Since our business is becoming more globalized, we should respond in a way that will satisfy both sides. Because we cannot tell our customers whether we are pro- or anti-China, we must respond by being more ambiguous and impartial. We must not attach ourselves to any issues and just stay neutral. If we voice our opinion about which side we pick, people from around the world would easily be able to learn about it through the Internet and we may end up losing some of our priceless customers. Therefore, we must also be careful in how we promote our product.
Even though our intention for using LeBron James and Yao Ming for one of our commercials was to show how people from different cultural backgrounds can come together in the spirit of friendship, we must be 100% sure that these and other celebrities we contract with do not express how they perceive certain political issues, before it gets associated with Coca-Cola. To solve this issue, one solution may be to have the celebrities we deal with sign a contract in which they agree not to voice their opinion about human rights or anything else that may signify whether they are pro- or anti-China for at least a certain period of time. Any other type of promotion or advertisement we do should remain neutral toward any human rights issue or other political issues, but should be focused on our company, our products, and our brand itself, especially during these critical times before the Olympics.
The main thing we have to keep in mind is to stay neutral, make sure we do not take sides for any political issues, and just focus on our company and our products. Make sure any future advertisements or promotion does not leave room for people to interpret as being pro- or anti-China, such as our “Red Around the World” song, which people have been interpreting as being pro-China, and make sure we do not contradict ourselves in what we say or do. Otherwise, not only would we look bad in seeming to be either pro- or anti-China, but we would also have a good chance in losing our loyal customers from the United States and other parts of the world, as well as our future growth market in China.
10. Ryan Moore | May 8th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Coca – Cola Company
Memo
To: Ms. CEO
From: Ryan Moore
Date: 5/8/2008
Re: PR Strategies
____________________________________________________
Outside of China
It is my recommendation that we immediately issue a company wide statement that no employee with the exception of the CEO is to make any statements to any media outlet regarding any political or human rights issues. The company should neither endorse nor object to any anti-Chinese protests or boycotts, but should maintain the approach that is it the desire of Coca-Cola to foster understanding and unity among all cultures throughout the world. Furthermore, it is not Coca Cola’s practice to make operational decisions based on political issues. We will continue to provide the citizens of China the same quality products that we have been providing them since 1928 in an effort of continue to build a brand relationship with different people and different cultures throughout the world.
Boycotts / Protests Inside of China
We should begin monitoring anti Coca Cola and anti American corporate blog sites to gain a strategic advantage on any negative publicity being generated among the citizens of China. This will enable us to effectively counter the attempts to organize any boycotts or protests and give us a strategic advantage to defend our position in the Chinese marketplace. We should immediately counter any claims that Coca Cola is not pro China by issuing a press release to the contrary. We should continue with our pro-China / pro-Olympics marketing campaign with full endorsement of the Olympic Games and Chinese athletes. Coca-Cola considers China a valuable partner in our efforts to continue the globalization of our brand. We must work closely with the PRC Government to ensure that this years Olympic Games highlight the importance of China and the Chinese economy to the world and we are willing to work with them to ensure that neither China nor Coca-Cola lose any face in the media during the upcoming Olympic games.
11. Simeon Trieu | May 10th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
MEMO
To: CEO of Coca-Cola Inc.
From: Simeon Trieu, Head of Governmental and Public Relations
Date: 2008 May 10
Re: Protests in China
I hope this memo finds you well. I assure you that the present situation in China is nothing our of the ordinary. From the concerns you have addressed earlier, namely,
(1) protests/boycotts of the firm outside of China that the firm is too “pro-China”
(2) the protests inside China that Coca-Cola is “anti-China” and not doing enough to recognize China’s economic, social, and political accomplishments the past few decades,
I would like to take a moment to explain the intricacies of the issue here in China.
As you know, we have scaled back our support of the Olympic torch relays, which were due, in part, to pressure from outside of China. While we do not want to lose much more of the Western market, we must continue to expand into the Eastern markets, as Pepsi Co. is quickly taking market share. I would not make anymore concessions to the Western boycotts other than the steps we have already taken.
As for the Chinese, we must approach them delicately. Soft drinks and other sweet beverages are still not widely accepted over alternatives like tea and beer. Negative reactions to our campaign could hurt future sales for years. We have had many letters from Tibetan monks asking for our withdrawal of sponsorship from the Olympic games. While Tibet is a hot issue among our Western counterparts, we must pay respects to the PRC. It is important to respect the government’s policies in order to continue doing business in China. Tibet has their right to protest against the PRC, but we should not swing too widely towards one side, lest we lose the business with either the West or the East. China has come a long way since we left in the mid 1900’s and came back in the 1970’s. Their political achievements, human rights improvements, and economic acceleration should be viewed as positive. While the conditions are not perfect, as evidenced by Tibet and Darfur, we hope that China’s stance on these human rights issues will improve as a direct response to the very Olympic venue that we are supporting.
Sincerely,
Simeon Trieu
Head of Governmental and Public Relations
12. Brandi Eng-Rohrbach | May 10th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 10, 2008
To: Mr. Isdell
From: Brandi Eng-Rohrbach, Director of Public Relations
Subject: Recommendations for Olympics Promotions
Our company has been a proud sponsor of the Olympics consecutively since 1928. The Olympics have always been about bringing the world together. In a similar way, our products have been the centerpiece of many positive shared moments in the collective conscious. Our marketing needs to further emphasize that Coke like the Olympics brings the world together. We need to make sure that the Olympics are not just “One World, One Dream” but “One World, One Coke, One Dream”. Using the approach of coming together through our products in our promotions will address your concerns about our perceptions in China and the United States.
We need to make sure not to make a political statement of any kind. Our responsibility is to provide our customers with the best products we can. Our only statements should be regarding the attributes of these products and our positive influences as a company. We have scaled back some of our advertising presence in the United States to be sensitive to concerns here during the Olympic Torch Relay. However, we cannot afford to have a similar response internationally. China is the largest market in the world for our products. China is where our future is. As the Olympics approaches, we need to continue to advertise as we always have. We need to promote our products’ attributes and their ability to bring the world together.
I have forwarded my recommendations to the marketing department as well as the rest of our public relations team. I will continue to keep you updated in regards to my recommendations as the situation continues to develop.
Sincerely,
Brandi Eng-Rohrbach
13. Catriona Banks-Orosco | May 11th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
MEMO
To: CEO Coca-cola
From: Catriona Banks-Orosco
May 11, 2008
Re: PR Response/Beijing Olympics
Dear Ms. CEO:
In response to both of your concerns I offer the following reminder and recommendation:
Coca-cola is in the business of bringing refreshment to the world, our support of the Beijing Olympics is critical to spreading recognition of our brand. Coca-cola’s exceptional marketing department has risen to the challenge of elevating coca-cola to a world brand that promotes harmony and celebrates our differences by bringing forth slogans such as Have a Coke and a Smile and I’d like to Teach the World to Sing. It is time to stand by our history and continue to celebrate our differences and our ability to live together peacefully. The Olympics symbolizes humanity’s ability to bring the world together in a friendly environment and celebrate the best people have to offer. It is a reflection of years of hard work and the opportunity to show the world and ourselves the best of humanity. It is unrealistic to think We as a company can please all sides politically. We are not in the business of politics, we are in the business of providing refreshing taste and supporting individuals around the world to take time to relax and refresh.
Press statements in western countries should neither condemn nor support China’s political practices in regards to human rights. Press statements within China should remain focused on promoting the spirit of the Olympics. Advertising should remain focused on the importance of humanity putting aside differences to celebrate the best in all of us. At the same time, we must recognize the reality of the world market. Boycotting the Olympics, by any nation, will strain relations and further reveal a lack of understanding toward the culture of China. China has opened its doors to the world, to come and see the great strides the country has made. As people from all over the world gather and have the opportunity to learn from and interact with each other, dialogue will develop and understanding will be fostered. The political activism surrounding this year’s olympics is no different from the olympics of the last two decades. Coca-cola’s participation in supporting the spirit of the olympics and the efforts of the world’s athletes should remain focused on positive messages.
Our duty is to further the mission of Coca-cola to refresh the world…to inspire moments of optimism…[and] to create value and make a difference.
14. David Zarcone | May 13th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
To: CEO of Coca-Cola Inc.
From: David Zarcone, Head of Governmental and Public Relations
Date: May 13, 2008
Re: Olympics
There is no doubt in anybody’s mind that China is one of the fastest growing economies in the world, and it would be a huge mistake to hinder our relationship with them. The Chinese market is and will continue to provide us with the means to expand our ever growing international sales. The recent protests involving the Olympics in Beijing have created various problems for us but we should not be hasty to choose either side.
Supporting the Olympics has been our privilege for many years now and this year should be no exception. Simply supporting the Olympics does not necessarily mean we support the nation’s political and ethical laws but instead we support the unity of countries through this international event.
I recommend that we do everything possible to ensure that our relationship with China continues to expand without creating a political mess. By continuing business with this escalating nation we will secure our presence as one of the most globally recognized and loved brands.
Let’s keep living on the coke side of life.
Sincerely,
David Zarcone
15. Jesse Bilsten | May 14th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
To: CEO of Coca-Cola
From: Jesse Bilsten, Vice President, Public Relations
Date: 5/14/2008
Re: Olympic sponsorship participation
-
Executive Summary
It is Coca-Cola’s mission to be a facilitator of optimism and support for the athletes and their fans participating in the 2008 Olympics. Coca-Cola is dedicated to this mission and to bring refreshment to the world, inspire moments of optimism, and offer value to our customers through quality products. It is not in Coca-Cola’s interest as an international business to have any political alignment as this would negatively affect product sales in all our markets.
Regarding protests outside of China that Coca-Cola is too pro-China
Coca-Cola needs to assert its mission and only its mission. Making a political agreement for the PRC purely to be aligned and allow us to do business there will only alienate our original market of the United States and possibly some of our customers in China as well.
Regarding protests in China for being too anti-China
Again it should be asserted that Coca-Cola’s only mission is to support the athletes in the Olympics and facilitate optimism in the fans.
I can’t stress enough that it is not in Coca-Cola’s interest to express any political alignment one way or the other in favor or against China.
Sincerely,
Jesse Bilsten
Vice President, Public Relations
16. Nic Marlin | May 14th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Re: Dr. Carr’s question about boycotting the Olympics from an Olympic athlete’s perspective
The first thing I think about when I hear anything about a boycott is the impact it will have on the athletes. Words cannot express my sympathy for those unfortunate athletes who have been subjected to this pain- it is simply not fair. As many of you know, most athletes work their entire lives (I began at age 4) towards the ultimate goal of competing in the Olympics. Once the commitment is made, one must devote every waking hour towards that goal, and often their identities become entwined with their sport and level of success. Those who go through the excruciating process of qualifying for the Olympics, only to have all of their hard work thrown away because of someone’s political agenda, would consider it devastating.
My former gymnastics coach, Mihai Bagiu, experienced this awful scenario during the 1980 Olympics in Moscow. He had qualified for this Olympic Games and was not allowed to compete. He told me that the result was that he tried to kill himself (literally), his coach retired, and many of his fellow athletes quit the sport. Fortunately, he pulled himself together and won the Olympic gold medal in the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles.
17. Deanna Haskell | May 16th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
To: CEO of Coca-Cola
From: Deanna Haskell, Public and Government Regulations
Date: 5/16/08
Re: Olympic Protests
Coca-Cola should continue to sell their products in China and to sponsor the 2008 Olympic games. It would greatly decrease shareholder value if we were to exit this market. It would also be insulting to the Chinese people and Chinese immigrants in other countries that we have a presence in. While there are human rights violations in China, there are also human rights violations in the United States and in other countries that we do business in. Every host of the Olympics has done questionable acts. However, the games will continue. Exiting the Chinese market would not only insult the Chinese but pulling away support of the Olympics would be pulling away from athletics as well.
Athletes are often part of Coca-Cola’s advertisement campaigns. It would not be wise to discontinue our support for their sport. The Olympics is not meant to be a political event. It is a celebration of athletics. Coca-Cola should continue to support that celebration so as to not lose customers globally. People who believe that we are too supportive of the Chinese should realize that we are supporting athletes all over the world.
A possible solution to the protests would be a campaign that highlights the treatment of Coca-Cola workers in China. This campaign would show that Coca-Cola treats every employee across the world equally. It can be symbolic of a joining of all cultures under the same human rights policies. An advertisement expressing Coca-Cola’s commitment to environmentally and socially acceptable bottling facilities around the world may decrease the negative sentiments of both the Americans and the Chinese because it highlights equality and improvements. We should continue to monitor the protests and act accordingly.
18. Tai Massion | May 17th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
MEMO
To: CEO, Coca-Cola
From: Tai Massion, Public and Government Relations President
5/17/08
Re: Coca- Cola’s PRC Strategy
Any decisions made by this firm need to be marketed as non-political. As in the past, you and I need to be the only spokes people for the company. I will issue a second memo reminding everyone to refrain from comment. Briefing our staff, monitoring the Internet and selectively responding with non-political pubic statements will begin full-force today. However, we need to play both sides, without really saying anything at all. In all honesty, it would be in picking a side that would ruin us.
1. Outside views that deem Coca-Cola as overly “Pro-China”—Internationally we need to downplay our strategy within China. Fewer discussions with the media regarding “Red Around the World” and scaling back advertisements in China that will be highly visible in the US during the Olympic games are advised.
2. Inside views that Coca-Cola is “Anti-China”— Inside China we need to play up our sponsorship of Chinese athletes such as Liu Xiang and diver Guo Jing Jing. We need to keep doing what we are doing to connect Coca-Cola with Chinese people and their culture. However, we need to refrain from adds and actions that can be seen outside China as too “Anti-Everyone Else”.
19. Ashley Drum | May 18th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
To: Coca-Cola CEO
From: Ashley Drum, Public and Governmental Relations
Date: 5/18/2008
Re: Olympic Protests
The upcoming Olympics can be very profitable for our company but we are going to have to take precautions as to how we market our brand. I feel that we need to develop different strategies within and outside of China due to the various feelings people have about the upcoming games. In regards to our advertising outside of China, we are marketing towards consumers with mixed feelings about the Olympics. Because of this, I recommend we not make direct reference to the Olympics in China to avoid damaging our brand image through controversy. Instead, I feel we should focus on the underlying themes of the Olympics, such as community, hard work and perseverance. By focusing on these aspects of the Olympics, our market audiences outside of China will be reminded of what the games truly mean and will disassociate the Coca-Cola name from any political issues.
Our Chinese audience is a completely different story. In a recent poll published by the Wall Street Journal, 72% of Chinese people are proud of China’s role in the Olympics and 90% of television audiences will be tuned in to the games this September. In our advertising to this market, we want to reintroduce our previous marketing strategy in the US and link Coca-Cola to patriotism in China. China will be our next big market, and we need to capitalize on the strong sense of loyalty within the country. In some respects, we are showcasing their country and adding our product to the picture. Acquiring the Olympics was a huge accomplishment for China and within the country, we want to link the Coca-Cola name to everything that has any relationship to the games.
I am not proposing these goals will be easy, but I feel this is the only way we can have the “best of both worlds.” We have drastically different audiences, and we will have to do our best to appease both.
20. Simone Michel | May 18th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
M E M O
To: E. Neville Isdell
From: Simone Michel
Date: May 18, 2008
RE: Recommendations to protests regarding China
In response to your questions regarding protests and boycotts of our firm due to our viewpoint of the current economic, social and political events in China, I offer the following recommendations:
In general we should focus on our mission, vision, and values, as well as our Olympic sponsorship. It is not in our interest to propagate a political standpoint.
Regarding boycotts outside of China
It is very important that we make sure none of our marketing campaigns offend any minority or culture in order to avoid unnecessary uproar, as for example happened when an advertisement of ours showing a group of “T” monks in a roller coaster showed up. Furthermore, we do not support nor condemn current human right issues in China. To communicate this to our western markets, a press statement should be released that clearly states that our engagement in China focuses solely on the Olympic Games.
Regarding boycotts inside of China
We are facing a very mature market in North America, whereas we saw a strong unit case volume increase in China. This market is very important for our future growth and we should therefore try to keep negative publicity at a minimum. As mentioned above, our focus should be on the summer games since it is an important global platform in terms of brand exposure. On the other hand, our Olympic commitment also gives us the opportunity to foster communication between international athletes of different cultures. In addition, we should raise the awareness of our award winning social responsibility programs that we are operating in China.
All in all, our focus should always be on our mission to refresh the world, inspire moments of optimism, create value, and make a difference.
21. Pierre Michael | May 19th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
To: CEO, Coca-Cola Company
From: Pierre Michael, President of Public Affairs
Re: Involvement in China
Date: 5/19/2008
As you are aware, protesters outside of China are claiming that we are becoming too “pro-China” because of our Olympic participation in Beijing. Although we are operating heavily in China, we are not condoning the Chinese business or political practices. We just want to spread our reach and get as much market share as possible so that a Chinese cola company doesn’t wipe us out in a couple decades.
It is important to stress that we are not becoming “pro” any country, we are simply maintaining our company’s sustainability by operating in a global context. I believe you should conduct an interview with some of the main news reporting networks like CNN and BBC where you will elaborate on our expansionary strategy. Try to remove yourself and the company from any issues related to China. It is also important to note that we have been investing our marketing efforts in the Olympics since 1928, the fact that the games will be held in China this year should not, and will not dissuade us from participation. Furthermore, to address marketing communications, we should focus US commercials on athleticism and camaraderie by emphasizing the Olympics’ goal to transcend political events.
In China the threat of protests and boycotts are becoming very real. To contend with these issues, stay neutral and unbiased in public statements, but portray excitement and loyalty towards China through marketing communications. Commercials should play off of the fact that both company and country share the same vibrant red color. Write a song that people could chant during the games. Consider placing a yellow star on the coke cans with a small Olympic symbol at the bottom. Try to make Chinese aired commercials portray Coca-Cola as a very Chinese thing to drink, ingrain it in their culture by dominating the sponsorship of the Olympics.
China is a huge player in the economy right now, and Beijing is especially sensitive to criticism. We cannot afford to miss out on this market, so just be sure that your statements and actions are sensitive and well thought out. Make sure you are genuine, but tailor your messages to your audience.
22. Gary Chou | May 19th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
I like how you mentioned in term of disproportional incarceration among Black, here is a great video clip for you all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsCfByN68c0
23. Gary Chou | May 20th, 2008 at 1:41 am
Hi Bob,
I am writing this memo in response to rising protests against us in domestic and CN markets. Pertaining domestic, we recommend a coordinated and comprehensive effort to win back American’s support. As far as the nationalistic sentiment within CN, my office has worked with Government Relation of Coke, China, and come up with a top-down approach. All in all, the time frame for the completion of both efforts should be no more than a month. Cost for this campaign is estimated at $2 millions ($1m in each country). See you at the hobnob this Friday.
—————
Domestic-Multi-Point Effort
—————
1. Crisis Control & Contingency office had always used plan 426 and I think we should continue corresponding with Mark from his office. Yes, American people have a very short attention span and easily manipulated by the media. The usual positive spin would quickly tone down the attacks from Senator Vitter (ranking member on the Sen. Sub-Comm. of E.A.P. Affairs) and Congresswoman B. Lee (House Appropriation comm.). Let’s send Mark’s people to the Hill, figure out what they REALLY want this time, and take care of their constituents.
2. The most fervent and persistent dissenting voice comes from grassroots NGO namely “CokeSux” and the pepsi-backed “Bring Truth Back to Cola.” We can mitigate the bad press they bring by publicizing our ‘08 CSR results, especially in the Asia Pacific theater. Emphasize our innovation on environmental sustainability.
3. From local to state to national level, use our established shell corporations to initiate level 2 misinformation campaign. Confuse and compound real issues and at the same time change focus. Eventually these protests would go unnoticed and lose traction.
—————
China-Top Down
—————
We have spent $500k since last year Moon Festival in the Foreign Cooperation Program, but I guess the loot didn’t reach the new sheriff in town. There has been a recent personnel shakedown, but from our business intelligence contractor’s report, the new officials are just as corrupted. Let us teach them how their former counterparts cooperated and follow orders. Send Mai’s people there and do the usual night club, bath house, all on black expense accounts.
Once the leaders are taken care of, propaganda ensued, Chinese people would easily be satisfied. Just to make sure, let us make a few new packaging designs, emphasizing the local cultures. Conduct surveys (by using local shell companies), focus group, and use variety of themes in the province (make them politically correct too to satisfy our CCP constituents).
All in all, bolster and intensify our Olympic sponsorship. We believe these protests would remain to be child plays and in the grand scheme of things, the worldwide publicity could propel us into other emerging sectors and beyond.
24. Mark Fairman | May 20th, 2008 at 8:46 am
To: CEO of Coca-Cola
From: Mark Fairman, VP Government/Public Relations
Date: May 15, 2008
Re: Coca-Cola Sponsorship of Beijing Olympics
CEO of Coca-Cola;
The following statement is a summary of how I believe Coca-Cola should address its position leading up to—and during—the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, China.
Coca-Cola is a very powerful and influential player on the world stage—just as the Olympic athletes trying to achieve greatness for their home country, large corporate brands are constantly viewed, judged, and affected by their business strategies. Coca-Cola has been involved in the Olympics for 80 years, and it has always been our position to provide the world with an outstanding product, and to be non-partisan in our political views. China provides an interesting situation for us, as the recent protests have persuaded many countries and sponsors to reconsider their role in the games. Coca-Cola has been in China since 1928 and has set up 38 factories and employed 30,000 workers. In this regard, we must not seem “anti-China” in any way, as our future success in that country may be at stake.
I propose that we do not become involved with the political nature of this event, but instead view the Olympics as what it is—a global event. We are there to promote our name and product to the world, and we cannot let the political actions of the host country to deter us from our mission. By celebrating the achievements of the athletes at this momentous occasion, our brand image will convey a positive message that members of the global community will recognize and respect.
In closing, let us show the countries that see us as “pro-or anti-China” that we are simply “pro-refreshment.” We are here solely to provide the best product possible, to everyone.
Sincerely,
Mark Fairman
VP Government/Public Relations
25. Steve Munio | May 20th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
COCA-COLA, INC.
MEMO
To: CEO
From: Steve Munio, Head of Public and Governmental Relations
Date: May 7, 2008
Subject: Company position in reaction to possible protests
There are potential protests from US consumers which will be based upon accusations of Coca-Cola’s excessively “pro-China” stance and “support” for a government that violates human rights. These will be downplayed and met with reassurance that Coca-Cola solely intends to pursue sales opportunities within China, while standing by its own strong business ethics and not become directly involved with any violation of human rights. These include exploitation of unfair labor, the environment, and acts of unconscionable collaborations with the government such as those recently of Yahoo… a statement I suggest we stand by.
Any accusation of being too “anti-China” will also be downplayed and we will respond by strong positive public relations and generous, highly publicized participation in highly charitable causes such as production of jobs, school scholarships, etc., and most recently, disaster relief aid.
Coca-Cola is not in the business of politics, nor should we begin to be. Strategically, our brand identity is well established in the Unites States and expansions into growing global markets such as China are a priority for our continued growth. We will proceed into the Chinese market as with any other, and embrace the Olympics event to its full marketing potential. With care, this market penetration may be achieved without abandoning our strong business ethics.
26. William Jencks | May 21st, 2008 at 6:06 pm
To: CEO of Coca-Cola
From: William Jencks – Public and Governmental Relations
Date: May 20, 2008
Re: Response to Olympic Protests
Dear Ms. CEO,
The recommendation of the Public and Governmental Relations Department regarding Coca-Cola’s involvement in the 2008 Olympics in Beijing is to proceed with business and sponsorship as planned, with standard precautionary measures as follows:
Contingency Plans:
Review the corporate contingency plans re: activity in China. Make sure that there are documented action plans for every conceivable problem that could arise. In this way the company will be able to quickly and successfully respond to any abrupt disruption with positive public relations measures.
Transparency of Position:
Ensure that the tone of public communication coming from the company remains open and optimistic. Coca-Cola is a proactive company trying to encourage globalization and fair trade while respecting all stakeholders.
Limited Public Comment:
Assign official spokespeople internationally who are authorized to publicly comment on the situation re: the Olympics and business in China. Make sure these spokespeople are all “on the same page” as to the company’s position of transparency and fairness. Attempt to limit official public comment from any other source within the company.
Employee Education:
Educate all employees, domestic and foreign, on proper response to controversial topics surrounding China and the Olympics.
Monitor Media Channels:
Assemble a system to do internet surveillance for rumors related to the company. These volatile times can foster outrageous and unfounded claims that can hurt the company unnecessarily if they gain popularity or are not caught early.
Promotions such as the Coca-Cola Olympics Song in China, found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JclQFqriYTU, are extremely important marketing to help us strongly enter the Chinese Market, but may evoke negative effects in some global market segments. Thus the company should try to limit global media coverage of these Chinese promotions.
Controversy around international business and the Olympics is nothing new. Using these strategies Coca-Cola will limit its liability and negative media exposure, and be able to enjoy an increasing global market share over the coming years.
27. Nick Miura | May 22nd, 2008 at 7:55 am
MEMORANDUM
TO: CEO
FROM: VP, PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
SUBJECT: Strategy for Olympic Promotions
20 May 2008
1) In response to growing political protest both in and abroad of China, this office recommends the following strategies.
- Continue your sponsorship of the Olympic games
- Avoid political or controversial statements or advertising
- Support athletics, competition, and global friendship
2) In the United States, there have been a growing number of protests regarding Coca-Cola’s aggressive business operations in a country that violates basic human rights. This is temporarily highlighted by our sponsorship of the Olympic games. In these times,we feel it is important to highlight Coca-Cola as a brand that brings people worldwide together. Furthermore, as with previous campaigns, focus on athletics, competition, and friendship rather than specific places or events. After the olympics are over, we recommend starting a new advertising campaign to shift focus away from controversial issues.
3) In China, the Olympic games provides an excellent platform for expanding brand image. It is estimated that 90% of Chinese will watch the Olympic games. We recommend sponsoring specific Chinese athletes; although this approach must be faced with caution. Coca-Cola must be positive that sponsored athletes do not jeopardize the Coca-Cola image through comments or actions. Also, focus on bringing joy and friendship to the Chinese people. Aligning the brand with the Chinese people will ease concerns that Coca-Cola is anti-China without aligning the brand with the government.
4) We recommend that Coca-Cola in no way try to make a political statement regarding China, either pro- or anti-China. Global sales represent the future of Coca-Cola, and our long standing presence in China has shown that our brand can withstand changes in governments and beliefs. Continue on the path of promoting a global brand that accepts all people and has a goal of bringing happiness and friendship.
Respectfully,
NICHOLAS Z. MIURA
VP, Public and Government Relations
28. Richard Ciesco | May 22nd, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Coca-Cola Company
P.O. Box 1734
Atlanta, GA 30301 USA
May 23, 2008
To: Coca-Cola CEO
From: Richard Ciesco – Public and Government relations
Date: May 23, 2008
Subject: China Recommendations.
The growing protests/boycotts of the firm outside of China, that the firm is too “pro-China” cannot be ignored any longer. We need to come up with a marketing plan that will help combat this issue. As we know China is not a perfect country. It has it’s issues with civil rights and human right, as do every other country in the world, including the US. What many people who are protecting our growing and continued business relations in China, is that China has made many big improvements over the last 30 years. We should try to educate help inform our customers on these changes.
One proposal I have to help combat this is to start a marketing campaign the uses our sponsorship of the Olympics encourage learning about Chinese culture. We should hold a contest for anyone to enter that would have applicants to do research and write an essay about changes occurring in China. This will help people become more educated and see that things are slowing changing over in China.
With respect to the protests inside China, that Coca-Cola is “anti-China” and not doing enough to recognize China’s economic, social, and political accomplishments the past few decades, we need to take action here also. To help make our brand more liked and welcome in China we need to begin giving back to the communities in ways that will affect their well-being. Setting up funds to help people become education, building community centers and sponsoring events that will show that we can about the Chinese people will help in this matter. As a company we have obligations to give back to the communities that allow us to prosper.
29. David Dougherty | May 22nd, 2008 at 2:05 pm
To: CEO of Coca-Cola
From: David Dougherty – Head of Firms Public and Governmental Relations
Date: 5/22/2008
Re: Response to Olympic protests
This memo presents my recommendations on the political actions we should take in response to the Olympic protests and international politics associated with them.
Coca-Cola is not an entity of politics nor should we become one. I would like to advise you to support and distribute a companywide policy of political neutrality on these issues. Catering to either the “pro-China” or “anti-China” political issues will have a serious adverse impact, regardless of the choice we make. Neutrality is the only way not to damage our corporate identity in either of these market segments, which are essential to the continued success of our corporation. This may been seen as a cop-out to some politicians, but let me re-emphasize that we are a global corporation with many stakeholders, not an entity of politics.
As far as the Olympics are concerned, we should continue to market this event to their full potential, and give it our full support. The location of the games should not be the basis of whether or not we support this magnificent event that happens only once every four years. In order to do this, we will continue to promote the ideals of which the Olympics were founded on and represent.
These ideals include the spirit of a global, communal friendship, through a gathering of the world’s best athletes on the greatest stage for competition available. Supporting the Olympics in this manner is in the best interest for our corporation and that of our stakeholders.
Respectfully Submitted,
David Dougherty
Head of Firms Public and Governmental Relations
30. Chris Kirk | May 22nd, 2008 at 2:40 pm
To: CEO of Coca-Cola
From: Shasta Chris Kirk
Date: 5/22/2008
Re: Response to recent protests
I have given some thought to the recent situations both inside China and throughout the rest of the world in regards to our sponsorship of the Olympic games in Beijing. I realize that we as a company are placed in the challenging position of balancing our message. We want to make sure that we promote the well being of our customers around the world with respect to basic human rights without alienating the Chinese people which represent a very significant market for our products. Below are my suggestions for handling both the situation in China as well as throughout the rest of the world.
I firmly believe that Coca Cola can maintain a balance in our message during the Olympics if we focus on the values and qualities that are promoted by the games – these values include goodwill between countries, sportsmanship and dedication to our fellow man. Taking an aggressive stand for China or for Human rights will only cause more harm than good. If Coca Cola wants to get through the Olympics without hurting part of our market, then our message will have to focus on the positive outcomes of the games.
I suggest that Coca Cola air and ad campaign that runs throughout coverage that depicts the greatest moments in sportsmanship throughout the history of the games. These are the special instances where personal triumph and a lifetime of glory have been compromised or sacrificed in order to maintain the goodwill between human beings. This message will both serve to inspire the international community as well as indirectly promote the humane treatment of all individuals throughout the world. We can support human rights without coming out and saying it in bold letter print. This message will also curb the “anti-China” protest within the country. Coca Cola can take a positive stand for human rights and for China without directly doing so. The best practice in my opinion would be to sidestep both issues as much as possible while placing the focus on the real reason the games exist – to promote goodwill through competition between countries.
Sincerely,
Chris Kirk
31. Andrew Steen | May 22nd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
To: CEO of Coca-Cola
From: Andrew Steen
Date: 5/22/2008
Re: Response to protesters
In response to protesters outside of China, we must first admit to them that we acknowledge various injustices throughout the world that may to some cultures seem unpleasant, discouraging, or even inhumane. But we must assure them that we are doing everything within our power to uphold the rights of these people to enjoy an ice cold cola, just as citizens of developed countries do. By providing the pleasure of refreshments, we are no more in violation of human rights than a medic in battle. Instead of protesting us, they should protest the policy makers, who determine which rights citizens are endowed with.
We should assure the Chinese protesters that we are in China to stay, and that we appreciate doing business in the country very much. We may even initiate a Coca-Cola protest blog where people can vent, and where we may respond to individual concerns on a personal level.
Our general disposition should remain neutral so as to deflect and absorb protest, rather than reflect it back as fuel on a fire.
If we can represent ourselves respectfully throughout the Olympic gauntlet, we will be welcomed wholeheartedly.
Sincerely,
Andrew Steen
32. Naomi Guy | May 22nd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
To: CEO of Coca-Cola
From: Naomi Guy – Head of Firms Public and Governmental Relations
Date: 5/21/2008
Re: Protest Strategy
Protests are always feared mainly because companies do not know how to handle them. There are many options and typically finding the best option is next to impossible. I will quickly brief you on our approach to protests in the US and in China.
In the US, we plan to highlight the power Coca-Cola can bring to the people. We are drink, that has for centuries brought people together. In China, human rights may be a concern, but they are moving towards higher standards and we want Coca-Cola to be there with them during this process. By highlighting the progress they have made and showing the US how Coca-Cola can bring the Chinese together will help to quell the protests. We need to avoid taking a stand politically but show we are there for the people and to enrich their lives.
In China, we also need to avoid the political arena. We are a beverage there to support the Olympics and the Chinese people. We should taut ourselves as the beverage that will unite all athletes and all citizens in China. It is important to show as much support as we can to the Chinese people to ensure we capture the market. We can be a powerful force in the human revolution as long as we hold off on political agendas. Just as in the US, showing the changes that have happened and being involved as they continue to happen will be in the firms best interest.
I hope you find these words of some comfort. Coca-Cola has a strategy to quell the protests and come out on top. We will focus on the changes that are occurring while avoiding crossing the political boundary.
Sincerely,
Naomi Guy
33. Nic Marlin | May 22nd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
TO: CEO of Coca Cola
FROM: Nic Marlin-Public Relations
DATE: May 15, 2008
RE: Current situation with China
The most appropriate plan of action regarding our company’s current situation in China is to heedfully respond to the concerns of both protesting parties. As a global company in multiple markets, these kinds problems are unfortunately somewhat inevitable. Our goal here should be to maintain our position as a company catering to multiple markets, who is committed to honoring and contributing to all of our customers worldwide.
Regarding protests/boycotts outside of China:
We need to separate our brand from the politics that are stirring up these protests in China. As we continue to gain market share in China, those who are against certain Chinese policies will surely protest our involvement with them. The best way to handle this situation is to use the media as an outlet to express our position as a global company committed to the contribution, cooperation, and betterment of all of our customers and the countries they reside in. We should consider an international advertising campaign that creatively boasts our brand as a worldwide symbol of cooperation and hope for future peace. A few years ago we released a commercial during the Christmas season that demonstrated Coca-Cola unifying the polar bears and penguins in Antarctica. Perhaps, a campaign with a similar feel could instill our commitment to global cooperation into our customers worldwide.
Regarding protests inside China:
The Chinese people should be recognized for their accomplishments. Perhaps now would be a good time to acknowledge all of the countries we do business with for they have achieved. Acknowledging all of our customers worldwide would be consistent with our new commitment to global contribution, and would satisfy the demand of protestors in China without upsetting protestors outside of China. Again, the focus here should be on the acknowledgement for achievements that coincide with our new commitment of honoring and contributing to all of our customers.
34. Andria Greenlee | May 22nd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
MEMORANDUM
TO: CEO of Coca-Cola
FROM: Andria Greenlee, VP Public Relations
DATE: May 22, 2008
RE: Strategy for responding to protests in China
In order to best respond to the current controversy surrounding Coca-Cola’s involvement in China, namely this Summer’s Olympic Games, please review the below strategy. It is important to keep in mind that Coca-Cola is not the only American brand facing protests at home and in China while considering the best approach.
Protests outside China for being too “pro-China”:
Coca-Cola should continue to express our support for the Beijing Olympics through sponsorship of athletes and facilities. Other American companies such as McDonalds are also getting unnecessary pressure to scale back support for the Games simply because of China’s politics. The Olympics have always been a celebration of athletic achievement and international harmony, despite political structure. It is in Coca-Cola’s best interest to continue to support the Games in order to continue to maintain marketshare in the PRC. Coca-Cola has always supported the Olympic tradition, regardless of the country they are taking place in. Coca-Cola is not being to pro-China, and instead is continuing its support for an important international event as we have for decades.
Protests inside China for being too “anti-China”:
Coca-Cola must stress the tens of thousands of jobs that we have brought to China since we began operations there in 1928. As one of the first American companies to do so, we have helped bring visibility to the vast opportunities in China and thousands of other American companies have followed. As a sponsor of the Olympics, we need to make sure that the Chinese audience be reminded of Coca-Cola’s commitment to its partnership with China. Coca-Cola is proud to be a part of the economic growth taking place in the PRC, and should continue to make this known through ad campaigns thought out the Olympics. It is important that these ads celebrate Coca-Cola’s dedication to improving the lives of the Chinese through employment opportunities and providing a quality product. These ads must avoid associating Coca-Cola with any politics having to do with China, America, or any country.
In conclusion, it would be foolish for Coca-Cola to miss out on the opportunity to be a major sponsor of the Olympic games. By not following our company tradition of supporting the Games, we are making a huge statement to the Chinese people that we are not committed to China and our market share will dissipate.
Best Regards,
Andria Greenlee
35. Amy Linker | May 22nd, 2008 at 6:49 pm
•MEMORANDUM
TO: CEO of Coca-Cola
FROM: Amy Linker, VP Public Relations
DATE: May 22, 2008
RE: Strategy for responding to protests in China
Things are heating up for us on the debate over whether or not we are pro or anti Chinese. This is a serious matter that could have huge ramifications for our company. Both sides, the United States and China, feel that we are overly supportive of the other and immediate action needs to be taken in order to quell their dissatisfaction with our position on the Chinese government’s handling of human rights.
The Chinese have made improvements on their human rights issues in leaps and bounds over the past few decades but they still have a way to go. We need to find a way to encourage them to continue making these improvements while letting them know that we respect and support their decisions. I believe that keeping our sponsorship in the 2008 Beijing Olympics is crucial in communicating this information. We need to promote a mass marketing scheme that lets the people of China know that we are proud to be a part of this wonderful event that they are hosting. I suggest hosting a variety of booths at important local events both political and social that provide free or largely discounted Coca-Cola beverages and or related paraphernalia.
In addition, I suggest providing free soda to several of the poor villages in the Chinese countryside to help start a campaign in the United States. We can use footage of said events to market this campaign in order to raise funds for food, shelter, and medical benefits. During the Olympics, as we promote Coca-Cola, we can show the results of said campaign and encourage its continence. A possible slogan could be: Coca-Cola, helping the world to be a better place. This would show the protesters in the United States that we are not just over there to sell our product but also to improve the countries human rights issues.
These are, of course, just preliminary plans. However, I feel that they are a good start to pacifying the growing negative attitudes towards the Coca-Cola Companies affiliation with China.
Sincerely,
Amy Linker
36. Robyn Bowie | May 22nd, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Coca Cola, Inc.
Memorandum
To: CEO, Coca Cola, Inc.
From: Robyn Bowie, Head of Public and Government Regulations
Date: May 22, 2008
Re: Protests in China
As you know we have recently had protests over our presence at the upcoming Olympics from both the U.S. and China. This has put our company in a difficult place as we are being accused of being both too “pro-China” and too “anti-China.” My feeling is the Olympics aren’t about being “pro-China” or “anti-China,” but they are about the whole world coming together. After all, the slogan for this year’s Beijing Olympics is “One World, One Dream.” As an international company, we should embrace this idea. We aren’t supporting the Olympics to support China, but to support the world’s coming together and everything the Olympics stand for, which is what we should focus on in all of our international ads.
As for the “anti-China” protests, we are an international company that doesn’t “take sides.” It is not our place to praise or criticize a country and how it is run. We must treat the Chinese with respect and focus on appealing to their market without taking a positive or negative stance on China and its government. The Chinese market is an important one not to be overlooked, so this must be our goal while dealing with these protests. My suggestion is focusing on our sponsorship of the Beijing Olympics in our Chinese ads. This focuses attention on the fact that we are supporting this huge event for China that they see as their way to show themselves off to the world. It also sends the message that we are supporting China because we are putting support behind the Olympics at a time when others are boycotting them.
I hope this helps quell your worries.
Sincerely,
Robyn Bowie
37. Eric Kvilhaug | May 22nd, 2008 at 11:02 pm
To: CEO of Coca-Cola Inc.
From: Eric Kvilhaug, VP of PR
Date: 5/22/08
Subject: China, The Olympics, and Corporate Responsibility
My task at hand is to determine the severity of the situations with respect to the protest of our company in China and in the United States. This challenge will be especially difficult because of the delicate balance of a deeply rooted US company operating and cooperating in China. Our Chinese demographic is having problems with our lack of support for the Olympics, they feel we are not doing our best to foster the Olympics as a company of our stature should. We are also in hot water with our loyal US customers over our perceived support of China. They feel we are going after profit at all cost, human rights and democracy aside. Medium ground needs to be reached, it is our duty as a responsible business entity to support or home country, but also to flourish in the international market to satisfy our shareholders. The following is a plan of action that can make the best of the current situations and turn around our state of affair in China and the US.
1) Make it known to all, especially in China, that we will be supporting the Olympics vigorously, the pinnacle of world sports deserves to be supported by the pinnacle of refreshment companies. It is our duty to support athletes from all countries in their strive for unprecedented greatness.
2) Make it known to the US protesters that Human Rights in China is not something to be taken lightly. In an effort to allow the Chinese citizens as much freedom of choice as possible, our product needs to be available for consumer choice. In an effort to support democracy we will treat all countries under or distribution system the same, equal treatment for emerging economies as well as established ones. They all deserve the best we can put in front of them, which is a Coca-Cola product.
I think it would be a mistake to let the confusion over our support of the Olympics linger in the minds of one billion potential customers in China and countless loyal customers in the US. A strong presence for doing the right thing will appeal to both sides.
Sincerely,
Eric Kvilhaug
VP of PR
38. Chris White | May 23rd, 2008 at 8:42 am
MEMO
To: CEO of Coca-Cola Inc.
From: Chris White, Head of Governmental and Public Relations
Date: 5/23/08
Re: Protests in China
Political controversy preceding the Olympic Games is nothing new. This year, however, there seems to be an increased amount of global scrutiny surrounding China’s stance on human rights and environmental neglect among other issues. Despite these concerns, I do not recommend Coca-Cola pull its sponsorship of the Olympics and its business relations with China. We have been a major sponsor of the Olympic Games for decades and a late pull out of this year’s event may signal the wrong message. We are a global company and we need to show our support of a worldwide event. The key for our company is to distance ourselves from the political controversy surrounding the Olympics. We need to focus on the athletes and the global unity that the Olympics inspire. Our advertising campaign should concentrate on simple and uncontroversial themes such as camaraderie and global communities coming together. The Olympics offers a unique opportunity to expose our product to millions of people living around the world in one single marketing campaign. We cannot afford to miss this opportunity.
Again, in terms of our marketing campaign within China, we need to separate ourselves from Chinese politics and focus on our product. The demand for soft drinks within China is increasing rapidly and it is a market that we simply cannot ignore because of its shear size and potential. Campaigns within China could feature prominent Chinese athletes or pop stars that avoid political activism and are admired by the Chinese citizens for their amazing talent and bright personality. Despite the controversy that seems to surround China, it is a market that we need to attack. The key is to avoid politics in our marketing campaign.
39. Glenn Hughes | May 23rd, 2008 at 10:24 am
To: CEO of Coca-Cola
From: Glenn Hughes
Date: 5/23/2008
Re: Proposed Coca-Cola Public Relations on Olympics
_____________________________________________________
Historically, being an Olympic sponsor was a great tool for companies to increase brand awareness as well as corporate image. This year it seems the tables have turned with political controversy trickling down to corporate sponsors of the games. Being one of the most globally recognized brands, Coca-Cola has a significant interest in keeping a good image, while at the same time continuing with our Olympic sponsorship. The Olympics are supposed to be about the athletes and the great feats that they accomplish, we should keep this in mind when we revise our advertising campaign.
In response to outside countries protesting that we are too pro-China: Advertisement is a powerful tool for both our own business and the surrounding environment. We need to capitalize on the fact that we are an Olympic supporter who is very thankful for our hosts. If we run an ad campaign that is pro-athlete, rather than pro-China or anti-China hopefully we can remind the public what the focus of the Olympics is. Coca-c