Category: Articles

On November 14, 2017, Robert Mugabe’s iron-fist rule over Zimbabwe came to an abrupt end. In just a matter of hours, the country’s military placed the 93-year-old ruler and his wife under house arrest, and quickly declared his days as president over.

While Africa is no stranger to power-struggles and coups, what happened in Zimbabwe is rather peculiar in the fact that no one—not even the international press—knew exactly what was going on. This was not because information was not getting out. Actually, it was quite the opposite.

The country’s military put forward a communications strategy that controlled the narrative and helped drive support internally and externally for their actions. While it’s safe to say that Mugabe’s ousting garnered very little sympathy, the international community typically frowns upon non-democratic coups. But in this case, the world seemed okay with this development.

While the situation in Zimbabwe bears all the hallmarks of a coup, the military did a very good job of convincing the international press to report it otherwise. In any time of crisis, the first priority is to take control of your message and start shaping the narrative.

Zimbabwe’s military commanders knew this, and they quickly took control of the national broadcaster. While this is common practice in most government takeovers (there have been 300 or so over the past 50 years in Africa), it was what the military said on national television that raised eyebrows:

 

“We wish to assure the nation that his excellency the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe and commander-in-chief of Zimbabwe defence forces comrade R.G. Mugabe and his family are safe and sound and their security is guaranteed. We are only targeting criminals around him who are committing crimes that are causing social and economic suffering in the country, in order to bring them to justice. As soon as we have accomplished our mission, we expect that the situation will return to normalcy.”  – Major General SB Moyo

 

Military spokesman Major General SB Moyo took to the airways and declared his men had carried out “a bloodless correction of gross abuse of power” and that the country would return to genuine democracy as a “modern model nation.” He went on to say “to both our people and the world beyond our borders, we wish to make it abundantly clear that this is not a military takeover of government.”

General Moyo’s statement is a perfect example that despite all evidence pointing towards a coup, sticking to your key talking points, no matter how much the evidence says otherwise, helps to shape the conversation. He managed to cause enough confusion that the African Union condemned the events as “what seems like a coup” and the international media had no idea what to call it. While some networks labeled the events as a ‘coup’, many others refrained from using that terminology altogether.

So what happened? By announcing the military was going after corrupt criminals and not Robert Mugabe himself, the army effectively positioned itself, not as power-hungry thugs, but as civilian partners ending the rule of a man who bankrupted a country with unemployment rates north of 95%.

By promising to restore civilian rule as quickly as possible, the military painted itself as a sort of caretaker-government. Whether military leaders are telling the truth, or just playing kingmaker by installing another iron-fist leader, so far their communications strategy has been paying off: the vast majority of Zimbabweans are celebrating their swift actions.

In the world of communications, persuasion campaigns take time to effectively shift public opinion. Recognizing that Mugabe still had small legions of supporters out there, the military decided to trot the world’s oldest leader out from house arrest to preside over a university ceremony in the nation’s capital. In what was Mugabe’s first public appearance since the alleged coup, the frail 93-year old delivered a rambling, incoherent speech, then promptly fell asleep on stage in front of hundreds of people.

Pictures of him asleep at the job, so to speak, were quickly broadcast across the country, driving home the military’s message that Mugabe must go. A convenient PR-boost for a coup that is not a coup, by allowing Mugabe himself to show his country he is incapable of leading. As the old saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words, and no amount of military-propaganda could have a better impact than this.

While scholars will debate whether or not the events in Zimbabwe are actually a coup or not, the military did an expert job of amassing support on its side, including those who are quick to dismiss any form of political change through the barrel of a gun. If things couldn’t be any more complicated, Mugabe’s former Vice President, who was sacked just days before the military moved in, has just been sworn into power.

But as history has shown, coups, (or “bloodless corrections” in this case) are often popular immediately after they happen, especially when the end result is the fall of a tyrant like Mugabe. However, even popular coups elicit negative responses from the international community.  Perhaps this military’s communications strategy kept the international community at bay, preventing it from making rash decisions that could have caused the situation to spiral out of control. In the end, this strategy bought the military—and Zimbabwe—time, which is crucial when a government that has been in power as long as the country has existed comes to an abrupt end. For the sake of Zimbabweans, let’s hope positive change is in store in the post-Mugabe era.

Context

In a favorable economic environment that helped to generate annual growth of 2.5% in the second quarter and reduce the unemployment rate (6.1% in October), the government’s budget had a surplus of $2.6 billion after only five months of the 2017-2018 fiscal year. The remaining question was how the Liberal government, after months of fiscal discipline, intended to use this surplus with less than a year to go before the next provincial election.
Minister of Finance Carlos Leitao made the announcement yesterday during the Fall fiscal and economic update in the Quebec National Assembly. The main goals of this announcement are:

• Improving Quebecers’ standard of living and reducing poverty.
• Increased academic success and improved health services.
• Fostering regional development.

Overall, this represents an additional investment of about $2 billion, where 50% of this will be directed first and foremost to Quebec households.

Key New Measures

• 1 billion tax reduction ($250 per person or $500 per couple).
• Support for families with children in school: $100 will be allocated annually for every child aged 4 to 16.
• Increases in education and health spending: $1 billion over five years will be invested, in addition to the $5 billion announced last spring. This represents an increase of 4.2% for the health services sector in 2017-2018.
• The 3rd Poverty Reduction Strategy Plan: $2 billion will be invested by 2023. The Minister of Employment and Social Solidarity, François Blais, will announce in the next few days the details of the program but specified that the priorities would be single parents with children.
• Regional development: $667 million will be allocated, including 367 million for the implementation of infrastructures to ensure better access to the very high-speed Internet.

Also, worth mentioning is the announcement of a readjustment of the school tax, which will be discussed with the School Boards.

Strategic Perspective

Less than a month before Christmas – and approximately 10 months away from the next provincial election – this is one of the Liberal government’s last major chances to score points with the public. While the opposition CAQ is challenging the Liberals in the polls following a recent cabinet shuffle that did not seem to have made a significant difference.
By avoiding too much sprinkling, and by concentrating its efforts on Quebec middle class households, the government probably wanted to cut off the legs of the CAQ by trying to reinvest in public services as well.
It also means that in the end:

• The estimated surplus of $1.7 billion in June will soon be swallowed up by the tax cuts announced today;
• Business tax relief will have to wait, maybe in next spring’s budget?

Navigator is pleased to announce that its Chief Strategy Officer, Heather Watt, has completed the joint Canadian Investor Relations Institute (CIRI)/Ivey Investor Relations Certification Program and is now a Certified Professional in Investor Relations (CPIR).  Heather is excited to apply this experience to serving Navigator’s clients facing strategic communications challenges in the capital markets space.

CIRI President and CEO, Yvette Lokker acknowledged the graduates, saying,“Congratulations to those who have earned the CPIR designation in 2017. The CPIR represents a higher level of knowledge, skill and commitment. The designation lends additional credibility to the investor relations profession and creates greater awareness of the important role that IROs play in the capital markets.”

CIRI’s CPIR designation is the first investor relations certification in North America. CIRI describes the CPIR as a program and certification that “allows investor relations professionals to demonstrate their commitment to lifelong learning and excellence in investor relations.”

In addition to serving clients, as Navigator’s Chief Strategy Officer, Heather Watt is responsible for the growth, innovation, revenue management and margin improvement of the firm. Prior to joining the firm, Heather was responsible for leading complex corporate strategy projects for clients including Fortune 500 companies and governments, in industries such as consumer products, life sciences, health insurance, retail pharmacy, industrials, and private equity.

For more information see CIRI’s press release here. 

About Navigator

Navigator is Canada’s leading high-stakes public strategy firm retained by clients when they can’t afford to lose. Navigator was created by public affairs and government relations practitioners who recognized a market need for an organization that truly understood how to develop a winning, overarching plan, bringing together research, planning, stakeholder outreach, communications and government relations tactics. Navigator has grown to become a diverse firm with consultants from a variety of backgrounds including journalism, public opinion research, politics, marketing and law.

Navigator serves clients from offices in Toronto, Montreal, Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, Ottawa and London, UK.

About CIRI

CIRI is a professional, not-for-profit association of executives responsible for communication between public corporations, investors and the financial community. CIRI contributes to the transparency and integrity of the Canadian capital markets by advancing the practice of investor relations, the professional competency of its members and the stature of the profession. With close to 500 members and four Chapters across the country, CIRI is the voice of IR in Canada. For further information, please visit CIRI.org.

Sharing Something Online Doesn’t Mean I Would Pay For It

Two weeks ago the world got to read a European Union report on online piracy and copyright material from 2015. The report was 304 pages long and cost about USD$428,000. Its authors likely thought it would never see the light of day. Except, Julia Reda, a member of the European Parliament from the German Pirate Party, got her hands on a copy and shared its contents on social media. The report’s bombshell conclusion? “In general, the results do not show robust statistical evidence of displacement of sales by online copyright infringements”.

The report does qualify this statement, however, by saying it “does not necessarily mean that piracy has no effect [on sales] but only that the statistical analysis does not prove with sufficient reliability that there is an effect.” Specifically, the study found some limited effects on sales numbers for “blockbuster films.” 

Intuitively, online piracy — the act of taking something without paying for it — means less money for whoever is selling that which is pirated. However, this is not the only lens through which to look at this issue. 

There are two notable aspects of the report:

1. Why the study could not quantify online piracy’s effect on artists’ bank accounts
2. The importance its findings hold for content producers.

First the data.

It is impossible to compare the world before and after illegal downloading. The popularization of online piracy is a watershed, fundamentally changing the relationship between patrons buying art and artists creating it.

We cannot compare a purchase made in a world where piracy exists with the same purchase in a world before mainstream piracy.  There is no way to use totals from one era to extrapolate behavior in another. The numbers cannot prove with sufficient reliability the impact piracy has on sales. Which explains why the study was inconclusive.  

The study looks at the entirety of art being consumed and assumes everybody downloading content illegally would have paid for that material if not for online piracy. Colloquially, when we speak about shows that are not worth watching, we say they are “not worth the download.” It’s an expression that illustrates how my generation’s cultural industries have been shaped by piracy. Piracy breaks the connection between paying for art and experiencing it. This is acute in the age of social media, when fandom is celebrated like never before and when we can measure how many people are talking about a particular piece of art. But today, an artist who creates trending content is not necessarily compensated for making it to the charts. 

Art is an experience. The act of sharing that experience provides a way to measure its value. You pay for access. It is impossible to separate how people pay for art with how they talk about it, which means it’s impossible to look at online piracy without considering social media. Illegal downloading makes it possible to share the experience or talk about it without paying for access, while the explosion of social media conversations reveal the extent to which a piece of art captures attention. It is perfectly reasonable for artists and publishers to see significant engagement with their content on social media and wonder if those people ever paid to experience their art.  The answer is, almost certainly, no.

Illegal downloading lets people who would not otherwise pay for art still experience it. The study confirmed that this group of people represents an entirely separate audience from those that pay the full price for the same piece of art. In fact, there are cases where online piracy actually raises overall revenue by exposing more people to content and creating merchandising or licensing opportunities that would not have been available without free access to that original content.  

This is not to suggest that the combined rise of illegal downloading and social media did not fundamentally change how people buy and sell content. Though it makes intuitive sense to blame declines in publishers’ and creators’ revenues on online piracy, this study—while flawed—suggests that there are other factors. An obvious one is competition. File-sharing technology removes barriers to publishing and lets more artists reach more people than ever before. Consumers have more choice, so it stands to reason that established players would see some losses in a more crowded market.

So what are creators to do? How can they succeed in a world where some pay for content and others don’t? Maybe it doesn’t matter. The payers and non-payers collectively contribute to the online discussion, helping others discover the creative work.

Of course, it is natural for creators to consider the increased number of people accessing their work when taking into account lost revenue. The study suggests that these people are really a bonus audience, existing in addition to the core fans who will consistently pay for content. This turns online piracy into an opportunity for content producers. Rather than stealing customers, online pirates remove barriers to access. The net outcome is a larger pool of people familiar with the work, which means a larger pool of people who are potentially interested in tie-in products. It also means a larger pool of people generating more exposure through the simple act of talking about it online and offline. This is most obvious in situations where individuals who have downloaded an album pay to see the performer live in concert. 

More people engaging with your work is always a positive. Illegal downloading is not going away. While it may be hard to accept, “free” movies, music, and books should be looked at as loss-leaders instead of the core product. With online piracy removing the connection between accessing and discussing art, the burden is on publishers to distinguish between core fans who pay for art and those who download it illegally. Publishers need to convert pirates into payers through merchandise, licensing, and other revenue streams. 

This is not to say that piracy is right. But, we live in a world where online piracy is the reality, and we need to deal with that world as it exists. Campaigning against piracy risks alienating an entire generation and will likely shrink secondary audiences rather than turning them into additional revenue streams.

As fans, it is important to support our favourite creators by paying for work we enjoy. It is equally important for creators to recognize that—more and more—being a fan of someone’s work does not always mean being a paying customer.    

Donald Trump has thrown American politics for a loop. With the success of the former Apprentice host, popular entertainers are hinting at—or even declaring their intentions—to run for office. Caitlyn Jenner has suggested she may run for Senate in California, a race for which George Clooney’s name has also been floated. Current and former WWE wrestlers are also throwing their names into the proverbial ring as Kane and Booker T announced plans to seek the mayoralties of their respective hometowns: Knox County, Tennessee, and Houston, Texas. Even aging rockers like Ted Nugent and Kid Rock have expressed their desire to run for US Senate.

Of course, this is not the first time this has happened. Shortly after pro wrestler Jesse Ventura’s electoral success to become Governor of Minnesota in 1999, two of his Predator co-stars (Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Sonny Landham of Kentucky) sought gubernatorial office. While only Schwarzenegger succeeded in being elected, the entry of entertainers into American politics has tended towards success and away from failure.

The reason, to paraphrase comedian Joe Rogan, is that politics is a popularity contest and someone who was actually popular finally entered the race.

A particularly intriguing candidate is the rap-rocker and ‘90s icon, Kid Rock. Rock — real name Robert Ritchie — has all but officially announced his campaign for U.S. Senate in Michigan. Rock has used a recent concert tour of the state to boost media coverage of his run. For the past several weeks, Rock has been starting his concerts with political speeches outlining his belief system. Taking a page out of former-presidential candidate Jesse Jackson’s playbook, Rock’s speeches usually rhyme. Giving them his own rock ‘n’ roll flair, his statements are accompanied by an emphatic backing band and light show.

The former headliner of MTV’s Spring Break outlined his support for universal health care, but opposition to Obamacare; his support for gay marriage, but opposition to transgender bathroom rights; and his desire to get “those who can’t even take care of themselves, but keep having kid after [expletive] kid” off of welfare. He also condemned variously deadbeat dads, Black Lives Matter activists, and members of the KKK and Neo-Nazi organizations.

While Rock’s style of politics is certainly over-the-top and unusually theatrical, in the time of such political upsets as Trump and Brexit, his unique campaign style may surprise observers with its effectiveness. With the announcement of his exploration of a senate candidacy, Rock also announced he was founding a 501(C)(3) non-profit with the express purpose of registering attendees at his rock concerts to vote.

A survey of Rock’s concerts in Michigan over the past month show that the average arena could hold 21,000 people. If Rock is able to register even 10% of those in attendance, he would get 2,100 likely supporters per night. His six-night stop in Detroit alone could leave him with 12,600 newly registered supporters. In a state where the GOP primary has garnered an average of 661,000 voters over the past two elections, Rock’s ability to organize could surprise. Rock has further declared his intention to dovetail any potential run with a concert tour of Michigan, equating his decision with that of presidential candidates like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who coupled their presidential campaigns in 2007 with book tours.

It’s insufficient to chalk up the potential political success of entertainers to “living in the time of Trump,” however. Simply believing that public individuals can successfully make the transition to politics because of their popular appeal ignores many of the reasons President Trump won both the most competitive Republican primary in the past 50 years and an historic U.S. presidential race.

Subsequent analysis of the 2017 presidential election has affirmed what many early observers noticed: Trump’s success was due in large part to his appeal among white, working-class Americans in rust-belt states like Kid Rock’s own Michigan. This is a voting bloc that has not coalesced definitively behind a Republican candidate since the Reagan Democrats in 1980. Trump was the first Republican to win the Great Lakes State since George H.W. Bush in 1988. Likewise, Trump’s success in winning the Midwest states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ohio was unprecedented since Ronald Reagan’s near-sweep of the electoral college in 1984.

Kid Rock’s road to electoral success lies in his appeal to this voter group as well. But while Donald Trump appealed to these folks as a straight-talking and financially successful outsider who could fix a corrupt political system, Rock appeals to them as one of their own. A Michigan boy raised in Detroit who grew up alongside the Motor City’s rougher elements. Rock’s music signifies this similarly broad appeal. While regularly panned by critics, Rock has consistently maintained high record sales (breaking platinum numerous times) by marketing primarily to rural and working-class Americans.

Rock’s music — a mix of rock ‘n’ roll, heavy metal, hip-hop, and country — helped to establish his success early in the ‘90s. His combination of divergent sounds, garish outfits, and outlandish performances drew crowds of Americans to his concerts who saw him as speaking to their personal experience in a way that both entertained and excited. With all the lamentations of lovers leaving “on the midnight train to Memphis” and the braggadocious self-styling as “Pimp of the Nation,” Rock’s oftentimes ridiculous lyrics and driving guitar riffs helped to guide the vastly different life journeys of working-class Americans from coast to coast.

Rock’s unique emotional connection with working-class voters would put him in a particularly advantageous position. Cults of personality often lead to political success. Canada’s own Justin Trudeau would likely be an unknown were it not for the success of his father Pierre. Ditto George W. Bush. Rock has been able to establish goodwill after decades of performance, and his commitment to establish numerous local businesses in Michigan. This is particularly evident by the fact that Rock is far out-polling his potential competitors in the Republican primary. Recent polling puts him up around 50% support among Republican voters — with his closest competitor trailing 41 points behind.

Rock is offering traditional Republican talking points in a style that (to put it mildly) is uncharacteristic of American politics. He is the opposite of staid Democrat incumbent Debbie Stabenow. His combination of eye-catching performance and meat-and-potatoes “cultural conservative” stylings could lead him to the U.S. Senate, a win the GOP has not experienced since 1994. If Kid Rock’s intentions are serious, he may have created a new form of campaigning that could blow his opposition out of the water.

The informed observer would do well not to take his candidacy lightly and to take Kid Rock at his word when he says:

And if Kid Rock for Senate/

Has some folks in disarray/

Wait until they hear Kid Rock/

For President of the USA!/

‘Cause wouldn’t it be a sight to see/

President Kid Rock in Washington DC/

Standing on the desk/

In the Oval Office like a G?/

You’ve never seen a [expletive]/

Quite like me!