Chopsticks, chips and foreign investors
.jpg?w=728)
By Andrew Salmon
KT readers may have read a recent article criticizing an ad recently run by KOTRA in The Economist. (KOTRA, incidentally, stands for “Korea Trade Investment Promotion Agency.” So why is it KOTRA not KOTIPA? Oh, never mind.)
The ad’s visual featured a pair of metal chopsticks plucking a semiconductor. The text suggested that Koreans’ dexterity with metal chopsticks ― with which they apparently pick up beans ― makes this nation an attractive investment destination.
A gentleman who contributed to the KOTRA ad responded to the KT’s critique with a Letter to the Editor. Fair enough. As a former PR professional at an international agency, permit me to wade in to this controversy.
Firstly, KOTRA got one thing right: The media buy. An ad in The Economist is, indeed, an appropriate space to catch the eye of potential investors. This may seem obvious, but over the years, various Korean bodies have advertised in media inappropriate to their target audiences.
Examples? Are tourists in Times Square interested in reading an ad about the Dokdo dispute? A political magazine might be a more appropriate forum.
Would readers of The European edition of The Wall St Journal be interested in a makgeolli ad? A food and beverage magazine might be better. (Though as makgeolli is barely distributed in Europe, that ad seems like wasted money.)
Are CNN News viewers interested in Korean tourism promotion? A lifestyle channel like Discovery, Nat Geo or BBC Knowledge might be more fitting. And so on.
But if KOTRA got the media right, I have been scratching my head over the message.
As professionals in marketing communications – the dark arts engaged in “branding,” (the process of managing public perceptions) and which include market research, media sales, direct marketing, public relations and advertising ― know, there are two basic drivers of human behavior: rationality and emotion.
Do chopsticks plucking a semiconductor (a difficult and odd task) rationally convince anyone to invest in Korea? I would say no. And given that readers usually just glance at ads, if it requires explication, it has failed.
Likewise, the ad fills me with no emotion related to investigating Korea as an investment destination.
Of course, many quirky, off-the-wall and even shocking publicity stunts and viral ads successfully capture global attention. Some are works of genius.
But personally, I don’t find KOTRA’s ad compelling, I find it confusing. Two foreign friends (marketing communications and media professionals) agreed.
KOTRA said “30 foreign journalists” chose this ad from among several concepts. This raises two questions: (1) “How dire were the other ad concepts?” and; (2) “How was this question posed?”
A reporter hosted by an organization might, if asked about that organization’s work, give a polite, rather than a frank reply. (The same is true for diplomats, another common sounding board for bureaucrats’ marketing initiatives. Problem: diplomats are programmed to be polite, not critical.) This is why ad agencies conduct focus-group interviews to canvas opinions about ad concepts. Did KOTRA do this?
I also wonder: Who came up with the ad concept? And which ad agency carried out design and copywriting?
I suspect ― just a guess ― that the concept was ideated in-house by non-professionals, for during my days in PR, I was frequently gob-smacked by the amateurism I witnessed in Korean governmental marketing communications.
When it comes to services like accounting and law, organizations hire professional accountants and lawyers. When it comes to international marketing communications, Korean bureaucrats seem to rely on in-house brainstorming, “public competitions” or local agencies.
This is odd, for world-class expertise is readily available: major international PR and ad agencies maintain offices in Seoul.
And you can be sure that international agencies were not responsible for such howlers as “romantic mushrooms” (a reference to penises?) or “Hi Seoul” (a slogan of awesome vagueness).
English-language marketing amateurism is problematic for two reasons. First: “Brand Korea” is devalued. Second: Taxpayers’ money is wasted. On the first point, the private sector ― from cellphone manufacturers to soap opera producers ― is (thankfully) doing a more professional job of selling brand Korea. The waste of taxpayers’ money, however, remains.
But perhaps I, my foreign friends and the KT reporter are dolts. If we are, KOTRA can easily prove it.
Marketing communications is a complex, long-term business merging, PR, public ads, viral ads, social media outreach, etc. Even so, The Economist ad must have cost a fair whack and professional marketers (I am sure KOTRA retain many) track the outcome of their initiatives.
So what was KOTRA’s return on investment? Has it gotten more web-clicks? Have potential investors contacted KOTRA as a result of the ad? Has foreign direct investment risen?
Forgive my cynicism…but I suspect not.
Andrew Salmon is a Seoul-based reporter and author. Reach him at andrewcsalmon@yahoo.co.uk.