China: Ad Insults National Dignity, Research Paper Example

Scenario One

The advertising manager’s first mistake was gathering Japanese business professionals together to do a brainstorming meeting. Although brainstorming is a good idea for getting new ideas generated, it fails on a cultural level for a couple of reasons. One such reason is that Japanese simply don’t do brainstorming exercises. The purpose of a brainstorming session is to bring new ideas from a group dynamic. Meetings themselves serve as a “decision-making body, a place of force and persuasion” (Miller, n.d., p. 223). A meeting (American meeting) is a place in which people try to persuade each other to their idea or way of thinking; to accomplish a hegemony through force and dictatorship, not as a platform to engage in innovative techniques and ideas to apply to the company in order to boost it in some capacity (as the Japanese manager was trying to do). Thus, the meeting was a problem because it tried to enforce the idea of communication in an environment in which fostering innovation was not the proper platform. There is no resolution (brainstorming) or conflict (problems in advertising) that could have surfaced from such a venture simply do to the overwhelming fact that meetings aren’t conducive to brainstorming exercises in Japanese culture. For instance, employees will defer to their elders/or superiors because the culture respects such people and will not counter-argue against their ideas, seeing such an argument as a platform of patronizing behavior and disrespect (Lehrer, 2012, para. 3).

In Japanese business culture, there are necessary steps a manager has to adhere to in order to even begin setting up a meeting. For instance, there must be a pre-meeting or nemawashi (Miller, n.d., p. 225) in which schedules, ideas, and group cooperation are all defined, included and assessed before the brainstorming meeting may begin, “Japanese meetings themselves are really only a type of ritual approval of what has already been decided during numerous individual conversations during the pre-meeting period” (Miller, n.d., p. 224). The Japanese favor harmony above all else, and if harmony is disrupted (as in the manager not having a pre-meeting before the meeting) then a sort of chaos ensues. Nemawashi serves as a type of precursor to the main event, the meeting, and allows Japanese business people to effectively sort out any problems before hand, “…it is now used in business to refer to prior preparation before proposing a plan or holding a formal meeting. It refers to an activity which in essence is a type of pre-meeting held one-on-one. One function of nemawashi is to allow people the opportunity to argue privately, rather than publically, which might entail a loss of face” (Miller, n.d., p. 225). During the unsuccessful brainstorming meeting, the manager was trying to get individuals to relate or express their ideas to the group. In Japanese business culture, however, such expectancy is poorly executed as Japanese business culture adheres to the unwritten rule that decisions are made as a group not as individuals. As Miller (n.d.) states, Japenese use a ringi sho or consensus form, in order to get at problems in the company that the adertising manager was trying to do with his brainstorming meeting:

…both prior to the circulation of a form and in cases when the form is not used,

co-workers will nevertheless engage in frequent one-on-one interactions with

those most affected by the project. The busy effort involved in achieving

consensus, whether formalized or not, is often seen in activity that goes on prior

to the actual ‘business meetings’ (Miller, n.d., p. 225).

In Japanese meetings, the pre-meetings are necessary because they offer advanced planning and talking, that Japanese business people see as conducive to business. One very easy way the advertising manager could have handled the situation better is to have laid the groundwork for his meeting, or conduct nemawashi.

Scenario Two

LeBron James’s Nike commercial was seen as offensive to Chinese culture (AP, 2006, para. 1). In the commercial James is seen defeating a kung fu master in one-on-one combat, as well as two traditionally dressed Chinese women (the women were equipped with dragons on their attire, which is considered to be a sacred animal in Chinese culture) (AP, 2006, para. 3). The State Administration for Radio, Film and Television stated that this advertisement “violates regulations that mandate that all advertisements in China should uphold national dignity and interest and respect the motherland’s culture. It also goes against rules that require ads not to contain content that blasphemes national practices and cultures” (AP, 2006, para. 4). China, a Communist country, considers such use of culturally sacred symbols as blasphemous, especially when used by Western society (meaning that the outside society is using the symbols beyond their sacred, and intended use).  A further problem that the advertisement brought up was that a Western icon was depicted as defeating a Chinese (traditional) icon (whether that icon is the dragon, the women, or the kung fu master). Further propelling the problem of the advertisement was that James was imitating Bruce Lee (who did a similar advertisement during the 70’s/80’s in which Lee defeats a kung fu master). The advertising agency did not consider the Chinese’s negative response to this advertisement.

The first advertisement (with Lee) had a Chinese man defeating a Chinese kung fu master. Some argue that despite Lee’s progressive style of teaching, he was considered a kung fu master (despite also, his break with traditional teaching styles in western culture). Thus, the advertisement for Nike twenty years ago wasn’t offensive because it didn’t allow a Westerner to conquer an Eastern culture, but instead allowed an iconic Chinese figurehead to defeat a traditional kung fu master. The difference between the two advertisements exists mainly in this point: James is American, Lee is Chinese.

James and Nike expressed concern over China’s reaction to the advertisement, and apologized for any upset that it may have caused. They said that the advertisement was intended for a young audience. Nike officially said that they respected the government’s decision in this manner (AP, 2006, para. 7-9). After this incident, the Chinese television regulator “tightened controls over programming in May by prohibiting the use of English words and imported programs that promote “Western ideology and politics” (AP, 2006, para. 10).

The best way to remedy the situation is for Nike to have a cultural resource as part of their company infrastructure so that problems such as this may not begin to exist. Potentially Nike isolated itself from potential Chinese consumers who may have potentially increased the company’s stock numbers exponentially. This was during a time when James was revered around the world, and especially in China, as he was visiting during the Olympics. The potential for a market campaign for Nike was huge, and with a cultural resource department in the company, such mishaps may have been avoided.

Another way to remedy the problem is to have had James do a Chinese tour (or a Nike representative) in which they reached out to different impoverished cities in the country and supplied free Nike footwear. Short of a public apology this would have shown the company’s true remorse in de-valuing an entire country’s traditions and beliefs. Giving away free footwear to such towns would have physically proven the extent of that remorse as well as provided a correlated depth of regret. Nike could also have given away any number of useful items to these times as a public apology.

Another way in which the company could have fixed the problem would be to issue another commercial in which the opposite happened: James was defeated by a kung fu master wearing Nikes. This would have avoided the misuse of traditional values in the commercial. Having the kung fu master defeat such a powerful iconic hero would have reinforced the idea of power for traditional Chinese heroes, and the dragons as symbols of this power, would not have come into play at all. Boosting the Chinese culture’s ego would have been a safer route to go. Avoiding the issue altogether may be an mediocre effort by the company, but by being laissez-faire about the issue is better than stoking the fire. Another way that Nike could have avoided the problem was to not have released a commercial in China in which there were present any Chinese iconic symbols.

The company’s outreach program could also have donated to charitable causes in China thereby securing a name brand associated, not with defilement of a culture or its traditions, but by its services to a country and people in need. This would have made a great PR campaign as many Chinese towns (in the very rural parts of the country) are still lacking in proper education, or road systems. United children with opportunities that are not otherwise afforded to them would have been a boon for the company to be a part of. In advertising, any time a company can brand itself in a humanitarian fashion, is a positive PR campaign.

References

Associated Press. (2006). China: Ad insults national dignity. ESPN. Retrieved from http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1939582

Lehrer, J. (2012). Groupthink. The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all

Miller, L. (n.d.). Japanese and American meetings and what goes before them: a case study of co-worker misunderstanding. Pragmatics 4(2), pp. 221-238.