The News Corp phone hacking saga continues like a runaway train.
Actually, to my mind it's not about phone hacking, although it did start when the public discovered that the News of the World hacked into the phones of people other than celebrities. That meant the illegality which had been accepted for years was suddenly an outrage.
And although it's called the phone hacking scandal, the real story is corruption.
The UK has long prided itself on being corruption free. It can't any more. Media, politicians, police all scratching each others' backs with secret deals, payoffs, freebies, exchanges of confidential information.
Politicians playing for Murdoch's media support. And in return he expected...?
A relationship between police and Murdoch's empire that included police being paid for information.
Former executives from the NoW being given well- paid jobs with the police and government.
The original enquiry finding no problem other than a couple of minor underlings, who went to jail, and the enquiry being closed with unseemly haste.
And so it was back to business as usual.
But every day sees more sensational developments. It's not just underlings taking the rap any more, big names are beginning to fall.
The latest is the top cop, Sir Paul Stephenson, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, who resigned yesterday.
There were a number of pressures on him but the one that to me is the biggest is that he accepted a gift of thousands of pounds of free health spa accommodation.
It doesn't matter who the owners were, who arranged it, whether it had anything to do with Murdoch.
The problem is the nation's top policeman accepted a valuable gift from someone.
At the very best it shows appalling judgement and naivete.
And like others being outed in this drama, he just doesn't get it.
Here's what he said:
Sir Paul insisted there was "no impropriety" in relation to his use of the spa. He said: "I am extremely happy with what I did and the reasons for it — to do everything possible to return to running the Met full time, significantly ahead of medical, family and friends’ advice. The attempt to represent this in a negative way is both cynical and disappointing."
See, accepting gifts is perfectly OK for senior police officers. There is such a thing as free lunch. People will give them gifts worth thousands of pounds and never even think of wanting a favour in return.
Just watch it, this story will grow like a snowball because it's becoming a really dirty fight. People involved are looking to deflect dirt from themselves by naming others, people are settling old scores, good friends are hurriedly being dropped, there's a mad a scramble as people scurry to put distance between themselves and News Corp. And of course, anti-News Corp forces, including media rivals, are throwing fuel on the fire.
There are widespread reports of Sir Paul's dig at the Prime Minister who he said risked being compromised by his closeness to former News of the World editor Andy Coulson.
And, naturally, not for himself did Sir Paul kept secret his relationship with and employment of Caulson's former deputy Neil Wallis as a 'strategic adviser'. No, that was to protect others: "I did not want to compromise the prime minister in any way by revealing or discussing a potential suspect who clearly had a close relationship with Mr Coulson."
Very senior people, including long-standing friends of Rupert Murdoch, have gone and are among those arrested. The top cop has gone and his deputy should be next.* The opposition is baying for government blood.
They'll make a movie of it one day.
Quotes are from:
Sir Paul turns on PM. The Guardian.
Daily Telegraph.
* Breaking News
It's ninety minutes after I posted this and the Assistant Commissioner has just resigned. Things are moving faster than we can keep up with.
Showing posts with label mismanagement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mismanagement. Show all posts
Monday, July 18, 2011
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Power tends to corrupt...
So said Lord Acton back in the eighteen eighties.
Very relevant to the momentous events going on in the UK surrounding Rupert Murdoch's brand of 'journalism' I would say.
Another saying that springs to mind is 'one law for the rich, one for the poor', but this one is happening in reverse from the usual meaning.
The hypocrisy of the general public is never more evident than in the Murdoch saga.
He's made his squillons and gained his power & influence by feeding the public obsession with gossip and personal details about people's private lives, the more dirt-raking the better. His papers are as downmarket as you can get, with even the once internationally respected The Times and Sunday Times going on a rapid downward spiral when he took them over.
The public's insatiable appetite for dross gave tabloid rags like The Sun and the News of the World the highest readership in the UK. In Australia it's the same with his tabloids versus the broadsheets.
Then the hypocrisy. As long as the gossip and lurid details were about royalty, footballers, politicians and 'celebrities' the illegal means of obtaining the information were not questioned.
But when exactly the same methods were used against ordinary people - an uprising.
It's not the unprofessional, immoral, illegal actions which have caused such outrage. It's who the victims are this time.
They won't of course, but people should take a long hard look at themselves for accepting illegal practices when they were used against well-known people. That's encouraged the practitioners to see their illegal, immoral actions as normal practice, happily accepted by the public.
Then there's the side to this saga that will be society changing.
When the Dirty Digger, as Private Eye* famously dubbed him, bought into the UK's newspaper world he was a breath of fresh air. He challenged the establishment, as very few did in those days, and broke the print unions which were killing the hand that fed them. (I had personal experience of them when I worked in London ad agencies).
But as his influence with the public - read voters - increased so did his interference in politics. Now there is evidence not only of his power to influence the highest levels of government but of his organisation's illegal activity in phone hacking, fraudulently obtaining personal information ('blagging') and bribery of police.
The mutual back-scratching of News Corp., politicians and the police isn't new but it's reached new depths.
No-one knows how much more there is to discover. Was it confined to the now thankfully defunct News of the World? (Always a dreadful example of tabloid 'journalism'). Was it even confined to the UK? The FBI in the US is looking into alleged breaches of US law. In Australia, where his empire began and where he owns nearly two thirds of big city newspapers, MPs are calling for an inquiry into media regulation.
This time News Corp won't be able to sweep it under the carpet as they did earlier, sacrificing a couple of, albiet guilty, fall guys. I've always maintained that the culture of an organisation is set at the very top. Underlings do what they believe the boss will be happy with, often what the boss indicates he'll be happy with.
To make matter worse, far from making a couple of minor mistakes in handling the crisis, as Murdoch told the (his) Wall Street Journal they'd done, he's made uncharacteristically massive errors. Maybe he's simply lost the plot. But I suspect it's more that the years of increasing power and influence have made him overconfident about what he can get away with. Arrogance and treating people with disdain aren't cutting it any more.
It needed an immediate admission that the practices were totally unacceptable. An immediate apology and promise that he was on his way to sort it out and hold those responsible, right to the top, to account. An urgent personal apology to the family of the murdered teenager Milly Dowler, the hacking of whose phone started the public outrage.
He should not have refused to attend the parliamentary hearing - a bad decision since reversed only as he realised the severity of the storm and threats of a summons to appear were made.
He should have immediately dropped his bid to buy the whole of BSkyB, 'pending the outcome of the current investigations'. Instead he tried to remove it from the political arena by having it referred to the competion watchdog, then had to withdraw the bid anyway. Calls are now being made to consider whether News should be allowed to retain its existing 39% holding.
All in all, mistake piled on mistake. As I said, out of character and massively damaging to the empire. Perhaps even fatal to it in its present form.
It will certainly lead in the UK to a formal distancing between media proprietors and politicians and between the media and police. Perhaps a new media regulator, maybe no more self regulation. More attention will be paid to the meaning of a 'fit and proper' person in relation to media owners. Quite possibly stronger regulations about the percentage of media one person can control.
Very senior people are going to be held responsible for their actions and lose their jobs - instead of the usual platitude of 'I take full responsibility' with absolutely nothing happening thereafter.
And much more transparency all round.
It's a big, big story and, as they say, it has legs. And there'll be more sensational revelations as it evolves.
* Private Eye covers are consistently brilliant. Do have a look at their website, click on 'Covers Library' and search Rupert Murdoch for example.
Very relevant to the momentous events going on in the UK surrounding Rupert Murdoch's brand of 'journalism' I would say.
Another saying that springs to mind is 'one law for the rich, one for the poor', but this one is happening in reverse from the usual meaning.
The hypocrisy of the general public is never more evident than in the Murdoch saga.
He's made his squillons and gained his power & influence by feeding the public obsession with gossip and personal details about people's private lives, the more dirt-raking the better. His papers are as downmarket as you can get, with even the once internationally respected The Times and Sunday Times going on a rapid downward spiral when he took them over.
The public's insatiable appetite for dross gave tabloid rags like The Sun and the News of the World the highest readership in the UK. In Australia it's the same with his tabloids versus the broadsheets.
Then the hypocrisy. As long as the gossip and lurid details were about royalty, footballers, politicians and 'celebrities' the illegal means of obtaining the information were not questioned.
But when exactly the same methods were used against ordinary people - an uprising.
It's not the unprofessional, immoral, illegal actions which have caused such outrage. It's who the victims are this time.
They won't of course, but people should take a long hard look at themselves for accepting illegal practices when they were used against well-known people. That's encouraged the practitioners to see their illegal, immoral actions as normal practice, happily accepted by the public.
Then there's the side to this saga that will be society changing.
When the Dirty Digger, as Private Eye* famously dubbed him, bought into the UK's newspaper world he was a breath of fresh air. He challenged the establishment, as very few did in those days, and broke the print unions which were killing the hand that fed them. (I had personal experience of them when I worked in London ad agencies).
But as his influence with the public - read voters - increased so did his interference in politics. Now there is evidence not only of his power to influence the highest levels of government but of his organisation's illegal activity in phone hacking, fraudulently obtaining personal information ('blagging') and bribery of police.
The mutual back-scratching of News Corp., politicians and the police isn't new but it's reached new depths.
No-one knows how much more there is to discover. Was it confined to the now thankfully defunct News of the World? (Always a dreadful example of tabloid 'journalism'). Was it even confined to the UK? The FBI in the US is looking into alleged breaches of US law. In Australia, where his empire began and where he owns nearly two thirds of big city newspapers, MPs are calling for an inquiry into media regulation.
This time News Corp won't be able to sweep it under the carpet as they did earlier, sacrificing a couple of, albiet guilty, fall guys. I've always maintained that the culture of an organisation is set at the very top. Underlings do what they believe the boss will be happy with, often what the boss indicates he'll be happy with.
To make matter worse, far from making a couple of minor mistakes in handling the crisis, as Murdoch told the (his) Wall Street Journal they'd done, he's made uncharacteristically massive errors. Maybe he's simply lost the plot. But I suspect it's more that the years of increasing power and influence have made him overconfident about what he can get away with. Arrogance and treating people with disdain aren't cutting it any more.
It needed an immediate admission that the practices were totally unacceptable. An immediate apology and promise that he was on his way to sort it out and hold those responsible, right to the top, to account. An urgent personal apology to the family of the murdered teenager Milly Dowler, the hacking of whose phone started the public outrage.
He should not have refused to attend the parliamentary hearing - a bad decision since reversed only as he realised the severity of the storm and threats of a summons to appear were made.
He should have immediately dropped his bid to buy the whole of BSkyB, 'pending the outcome of the current investigations'. Instead he tried to remove it from the political arena by having it referred to the competion watchdog, then had to withdraw the bid anyway. Calls are now being made to consider whether News should be allowed to retain its existing 39% holding.
All in all, mistake piled on mistake. As I said, out of character and massively damaging to the empire. Perhaps even fatal to it in its present form.
It will certainly lead in the UK to a formal distancing between media proprietors and politicians and between the media and police. Perhaps a new media regulator, maybe no more self regulation. More attention will be paid to the meaning of a 'fit and proper' person in relation to media owners. Quite possibly stronger regulations about the percentage of media one person can control.
Very senior people are going to be held responsible for their actions and lose their jobs - instead of the usual platitude of 'I take full responsibility' with absolutely nothing happening thereafter.
And much more transparency all round.
It's a big, big story and, as they say, it has legs. And there'll be more sensational revelations as it evolves.
* Private Eye covers are consistently brilliant. Do have a look at their website, click on 'Covers Library' and search Rupert Murdoch for example.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Don't call us...
"Gulf News was unable to get a response..."
Absolutely typical of all-too many companies here.
This time it's from Sharjah, where according to the Gulf News report, expat residents have found notices from SEWA (Sharjah Electricity and Water Authority) on their doorsteps demanding payment of additional deposits of at least Dh3,000...to be paid within seven days or the services will be disconnected.
"We tried to contact Sewa to inquire through their phone number attached with the notice but in vain as no one ever responds," said one resident.
High-handed or incompetent? Both, probably. And just so typical. Make a statement, say something controversial, change the rules overnight, go into hiding.
You can read the full story here.
And on that note I'm getting away from it for a few weeks, back to Oz. I'll be back towards the end of June, although I'll probably post the odd piece on Life in Dubai while I'm away.
The suitcase is packed with sweaters; Sydney will be sunny but with a max of 20C and a minimum of only 8C tomorrow when I arrive according to the forecast. But cool as it is at least I'll be able to breathe the air, it won't be full of dust as it is today in Dubai.
Absolutely typical of all-too many companies here.
This time it's from Sharjah, where according to the Gulf News report, expat residents have found notices from SEWA (Sharjah Electricity and Water Authority) on their doorsteps demanding payment of additional deposits of at least Dh3,000...to be paid within seven days or the services will be disconnected.
"We tried to contact Sewa to inquire through their phone number attached with the notice but in vain as no one ever responds," said one resident.
High-handed or incompetent? Both, probably. And just so typical. Make a statement, say something controversial, change the rules overnight, go into hiding.
You can read the full story here.
And on that note I'm getting away from it for a few weeks, back to Oz. I'll be back towards the end of June, although I'll probably post the odd piece on Life in Dubai while I'm away.
The suitcase is packed with sweaters; Sydney will be sunny but with a max of 20C and a minimum of only 8C tomorrow when I arrive according to the forecast. But cool as it is at least I'll be able to breathe the air, it won't be full of dust as it is today in Dubai.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Benihana Kuwait's blogger attack
Here's the review that resulted in a blogger being sued for damages:
My Benihana Experience
A few days back I posted about Benihana opening up at the Avenues and yesterday night I decided to pass by with Nat and try it out. The service wasn’t too bad for a restaurant that’s just been open for a few days and the staff were really friendly. The restaurant itself is made up of islands and bars with a grill in the middle of each one. You sit around the grill and the chef will come to your table and prepare the food right in front of you which makes things entertaining. It’s actually why I prefer sitting at the bar in Japanese restaurants in general, since you can talk to the chef and watch them put your dish together. The problem with my experience last night though was with the food, it was disappointing to say the least.
I shot the two videos above of the chef preparing our meal. Benihana are known for the live shows they perform when preparing your dish so I was expecting to see [This] but ended up with the above . Would I go back to Benihana? No I wouldn’t. Their sashimi and maki’s are pretty cheap (KD1.5 for 5 pieces of Salmon sashimi for example) but there are two other Japanese restaurants at the Avenues, Wasabi and Maki, and I would prefer either one of those to Benihana.
(You can read the original post here. )
There won't be many internet users who aren't aware that Kuwait-based blogger Mark is being sued by Benihana Kuwait for writing that review of his experience in their restaurant.
In spite of universal negative reaction, franchisee Benihana Kuwait is continuing with its legal attack. The franchiser Benihana of Tokyo has taken the decision to hide and pretend it isn't happening, isn't damaging their brand.
Benihana Inc, a separate company, has spoken out, issuing a press release distancing themselves from the debacle, saying they welcomed customer feedback and advising people to 'share your comments and opinions directly with Benihana of Tokyo, Inc'.
I originally posted about it here, under the heading 'Sued for saying he didn't like his meal'.
I also said in an update post that it was a balanced review and along with many other bloggers today, I'm reproducing it.
The reason this is being re-posted today by many people on various internet platforms is to continue to draw attention to the attack on freedom of speech.
There's nothing in the review to warrant such an attack.
Read the blogs, the tweets, the Facebook comments - the damage to Benihana is being done by the actions of the Kuwait franchisee and by Benihana of Tokyo themselves by their silence. Just google benihana kuwait or on Twitter look for #BenihanaKUW to see what's being said.
Benihana can begin to repair the damage they've created for themselves by announcing that they are dropping the legal action.
My Benihana Experience
A few days back I posted about Benihana opening up at the Avenues and yesterday night I decided to pass by with Nat and try it out. The service wasn’t too bad for a restaurant that’s just been open for a few days and the staff were really friendly. The restaurant itself is made up of islands and bars with a grill in the middle of each one. You sit around the grill and the chef will come to your table and prepare the food right in front of you which makes things entertaining. It’s actually why I prefer sitting at the bar in Japanese restaurants in general, since you can talk to the chef and watch them put your dish together. The problem with my experience last night though was with the food, it was disappointing to say the least.
We ordered beef negimayaki for starters followed by an Orange Blossom maki and a Hibachi Chicken. The negimaki arrived looking good and was probably the best thing we had there even though I prefer Maki’s negimaki which has a richer teriyaki sauce. The Orange Blossom was very ordinary, wouldn’t order it again. Now the Hibachi chicken which is basically grilled chicken, that was the worst. The chicken was very chewy (I could swear it was undercooked if not raw) and tasted terrible. Even after I had the chef add some more teriyaki sauce in hopes of improving the taste it didn’t work. I tried to dip it into the sauces that came with the chicken but it was hard to figure out if they were actually making things worse or not. Nat only ate one piece of chicken and left the rest while I needed my protein since I’m on a strict diet and forced myself to eat my whole plate (I can do that) but the after taste was really bad. Even the rice and the veggies that came with it tasted bad AND were under cooked. Once we left I considered picking up a frozen yogurt from Pinkberry even though I hate frozen yogurts but I just needed something to get rid of the aftertaste. A few moments later we ended up at Chocolate Bar ordering the gooey chocolate cake (bye bye diet).
I shot the two videos above of the chef preparing our meal. Benihana are known for the live shows they perform when preparing your dish so I was expecting to see [This] but ended up with the above . Would I go back to Benihana? No I wouldn’t. Their sashimi and maki’s are pretty cheap (KD1.5 for 5 pieces of Salmon sashimi for example) but there are two other Japanese restaurants at the Avenues, Wasabi and Maki, and I would prefer either one of those to Benihana.
(You can read the original post here. )
There won't be many internet users who aren't aware that Kuwait-based blogger Mark is being sued by Benihana Kuwait for writing that review of his experience in their restaurant.
In spite of universal negative reaction, franchisee Benihana Kuwait is continuing with its legal attack. The franchiser Benihana of Tokyo has taken the decision to hide and pretend it isn't happening, isn't damaging their brand.
Benihana Inc, a separate company, has spoken out, issuing a press release distancing themselves from the debacle, saying they welcomed customer feedback and advising people to 'share your comments and opinions directly with Benihana of Tokyo, Inc'.
I originally posted about it here, under the heading 'Sued for saying he didn't like his meal'.
I also said in an update post that it was a balanced review and along with many other bloggers today, I'm reproducing it.
The reason this is being re-posted today by many people on various internet platforms is to continue to draw attention to the attack on freedom of speech.
There's nothing in the review to warrant such an attack.
Read the blogs, the tweets, the Facebook comments - the damage to Benihana is being done by the actions of the Kuwait franchisee and by Benihana of Tokyo themselves by their silence. Just google benihana kuwait or on Twitter look for #BenihanaKUW to see what's being said.
Benihana can begin to repair the damage they've created for themselves by announcing that they are dropping the legal action.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Benihana Kuwait update
You surely must know that the big story in cyberspace is Benihana Kuwait, that's the Japanese-style restaurant franchise, suing a Kuwaiti blogger because, in what is a balanced review, he said he didn't like the food and wouldn't go back.
In my post on Monday I said the story needs to get as much exposure on the 'net as we can give it, and I urged other bloggers and social media users to expose these people.
You could hardly have done better!
It's all over cyberspace and now all sorts of media is picking up the story and joining in the universal condemnation of the crass stupidity.
There've been a couple of recent developments.
Michael Kata, COO and Executive Vice President of Benihana of Tokyo, who license the Kuwaiti franchise, told boingboing.net that the franchise agreement didn't allow them to order franchisees to sue or withdraw lawsuits, but that they were empowered to terminate the agreement should the franchisee bring the brand into disrepute.
As I said on Monday, that's exactly what they should have done. It'll be interesting to see what the franchiser does.
The other development is a press release from the other half of the company, Benihana Inc. in Miami.
Obviously concerned at the effect of the stupidity on investors in their company, they're distancing themselves as far as they can from it.
Absolutely nothing to do with us, they say. There are two totally separate companies and we have no control or authority over what the other company does.
They take a dig at the franchisee, saying their half of the company seriously consider all feedback an opportunity for improving operations and We encourage you to share your opinions and comments directly with Benihana of Tokyo, Inc. The company's contact information is available on www.BenihanaGroup.com.
They're well aware what a storm the stupidity has created and that there's universal condemnation, and they clearly want us to let the franchiser know our feelings directly. The full press release is here.
By the way, if you haven't started at the beginning of this story, the original post with the restaurant review is here.
Like me, I don't think you'll see anything in the review that relates to the claims made in the lawsuit. The words Mark uses have no connection with the claims made in the writ.
boingboing have a translation, which includes: "And so, we order the payment of KD5001 as a compensation for the damages caused to the restaurant management and for encouraging large number of customers not to try the restaurant by insulting, doubting the quality and food served by Benihana and using expressions that disgust people from trying the food. The person has caused huge material damages to the restaurant, ethic damage to the restaurant's reputation as an international brand that has chains all over the world as well as hurt the restaurant's potential to expand in Kuwait by influencing all kinds of nationalities not to try a restaurant that offers a specific type of food that is subject to taste preference.
If anyone should be sued for causing 'ethic damage to the restaurant's reputation' it's their own management.
In my post on Monday I said the story needs to get as much exposure on the 'net as we can give it, and I urged other bloggers and social media users to expose these people.
You could hardly have done better!
It's all over cyberspace and now all sorts of media is picking up the story and joining in the universal condemnation of the crass stupidity.
There've been a couple of recent developments.
Michael Kata, COO and Executive Vice President of Benihana of Tokyo, who license the Kuwaiti franchise, told boingboing.net that the franchise agreement didn't allow them to order franchisees to sue or withdraw lawsuits, but that they were empowered to terminate the agreement should the franchisee bring the brand into disrepute.
As I said on Monday, that's exactly what they should have done. It'll be interesting to see what the franchiser does.
The other development is a press release from the other half of the company, Benihana Inc. in Miami.
Obviously concerned at the effect of the stupidity on investors in their company, they're distancing themselves as far as they can from it.
Absolutely nothing to do with us, they say. There are two totally separate companies and we have no control or authority over what the other company does.
They take a dig at the franchisee, saying their half of the company seriously consider all feedback an opportunity for improving operations and We encourage you to share your opinions and comments directly with Benihana of Tokyo, Inc. The company's contact information is available on www.BenihanaGroup.com.
They're well aware what a storm the stupidity has created and that there's universal condemnation, and they clearly want us to let the franchiser know our feelings directly. The full press release is here.
By the way, if you haven't started at the beginning of this story, the original post with the restaurant review is here.
Like me, I don't think you'll see anything in the review that relates to the claims made in the lawsuit. The words Mark uses have no connection with the claims made in the writ.
boingboing have a translation, which includes: "And so, we order the payment of KD5001 as a compensation for the damages caused to the restaurant management and for encouraging large number of customers not to try the restaurant by insulting, doubting the quality and food served by Benihana and using expressions that disgust people from trying the food. The person has caused huge material damages to the restaurant, ethic damage to the restaurant's reputation as an international brand that has chains all over the world as well as hurt the restaurant's potential to expand in Kuwait by influencing all kinds of nationalities not to try a restaurant that offers a specific type of food that is subject to taste preference.
If anyone should be sued for causing 'ethic damage to the restaurant's reputation' it's their own management.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Sued for saying he didn't like his meal.
In case you've missed it I have to draw your attention to a post by Alexander on Fake Plastic Souks.
Briefly, a Kuwaiti blogger posted a restaurant review, in which he gave a couple of positive comments but said he was unimpressed with the food and wouldn't go back.
Fair enough, you'd think.
I'll quote a few lines from Alex's post:
And then there's the comment from a geezer called Mike Servo, who claimed to be the general manager of the Benihana management of Kuwait and who threatened to sue Mark.
"...our rights and name is being used in a wrong way and broadcasting the video without a proper consent from us is really annoying specially Benihana is just opened up its doors to the public. We are seeking and consulting our legal dept. on how we can form a type of law suit against your website to be brought up to the Kuwait authorities."
He goes on to trill: "We want you to give us your information, your name, your number and your address so our lawyer will take it from there and be sure that you in Kuwait were the jury is 100 % clean and fair."
Mark posted up on Twitter yesterday that he had received the lawsuit. Benihana Kuwait actually went ahead and sued a blogger for writing a bad review of their restaurant.
It's something that infuriates me. Justifiable criticism from a customer and a company rushes to the legal system.
Benihana HQ needs to look at this seriously and quickly because the action by their Kuwaiti franchisee is bringing their brand into disrepute.
In my opinion the unprofessional, unbusinesslike action needs to get as much exposure on the 'net as we can give it, which is why I've repeated the story here. I hope you other bloggers and social media users will expose these people too.
PS an hour later.
Just before shutting down and heading off to the airport I thought I'd see what cyberspace had on this. Bloggers, Twitter, Facebook - have a look folks. Benihana Kuwait have created a PR disaster for themselves. All their own work.
I wonder if they're beginning to understand how business works in the real world. You know, the place where customers have a say too. Where bullying and threatening creates a backlash.
If you are beginning to understand it, it's too late guys, you've damaged the brand already. You've poured ridicule on your own brand.
Briefly, a Kuwaiti blogger posted a restaurant review, in which he gave a couple of positive comments but said he was unimpressed with the food and wouldn't go back.
Fair enough, you'd think.
I'll quote a few lines from Alex's post:
And then there's the comment from a geezer called Mike Servo, who claimed to be the general manager of the Benihana management of Kuwait and who threatened to sue Mark.
"...our rights and name is being used in a wrong way and broadcasting the video without a proper consent from us is really annoying specially Benihana is just opened up its doors to the public. We are seeking and consulting our legal dept. on how we can form a type of law suit against your website to be brought up to the Kuwait authorities."
He goes on to trill: "We want you to give us your information, your name, your number and your address so our lawyer will take it from there and be sure that you in Kuwait were the jury is 100 % clean and fair."
Mark posted up on Twitter yesterday that he had received the lawsuit. Benihana Kuwait actually went ahead and sued a blogger for writing a bad review of their restaurant.
It's something that infuriates me. Justifiable criticism from a customer and a company rushes to the legal system.
Benihana HQ needs to look at this seriously and quickly because the action by their Kuwaiti franchisee is bringing their brand into disrepute.
In my opinion the unprofessional, unbusinesslike action needs to get as much exposure on the 'net as we can give it, which is why I've repeated the story here. I hope you other bloggers and social media users will expose these people too.
PS an hour later.
Just before shutting down and heading off to the airport I thought I'd see what cyberspace had on this. Bloggers, Twitter, Facebook - have a look folks. Benihana Kuwait have created a PR disaster for themselves. All their own work.
I wonder if they're beginning to understand how business works in the real world. You know, the place where customers have a say too. Where bullying and threatening creates a backlash.
If you are beginning to understand it, it's too late guys, you've damaged the brand already. You've poured ridicule on your own brand.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
So where's Studio City?
Whiled away a couple of fun, interesting hours with fellow bloggers on a Dubai Eye Radio programme this morning.
Suzanne Radford and Alexander McNabb on Dubai Today's 'Techno Tuesday' decided they'd devote most of the programme to blogging and bloggers.
But that's not what this post is about. Far better, if you're interested, to go to the podcast, which Alex said should be up soon on their website. Instead of me telling you about it you can listen to the programme.
No, the post is another in my 'bloody useless signage' series.
Over the years of blogging I've complained many times about the road signage being confusing, inaccurate and dangerous. In this case it simply doesn't exist.
I've driven out to Global Village the past two weekends (I must post about that too), going from Al Sufouh along Umm Suqueim Road to Arabian Ranches.
I had no idea that Studio City, where Dubai Eye is located, is there, right across the road from Arabian Ranches.
Today I saw the reason. Following Suzanne's instructions on how to get there I found it was exactly the way I'd driven to Global Village. But I didn't see one single sign to Studio City. Nor when I got there did I see a sign identifying the place.
Millions spent on developing a new 'city', plenty of companies operating from it and not a sign anywhere.
You can get a temporary one run up for a few dirhams if the permanent one isn't ready.
Although why it wouldn't be I can't visualise. The time it took to build the impressive-ish entrance gate was plenty of time to get a sign made.
Come on guys, it isn't rocket science it's just road signage. How can you get it so wrong so consistently?
Back to the programme for a minute to guide you to the bloggers who participated in it. Reflecting the blogosphere, they're all very different. But as they were hand-picked by Alex they're all well worth a read.
Dubai-ified
Mich Cafe
Who-sane
Hellwa Fashion
A Nabulsi Story
andfaraway
And Alex' own blog is Fake Plastic Souks
You can listen to the podcast here, at DubaiEye103.8
Suzanne Radford and Alexander McNabb on Dubai Today's 'Techno Tuesday' decided they'd devote most of the programme to blogging and bloggers.
But that's not what this post is about. Far better, if you're interested, to go to the podcast, which Alex said should be up soon on their website. Instead of me telling you about it you can listen to the programme.
No, the post is another in my 'bloody useless signage' series.
Over the years of blogging I've complained many times about the road signage being confusing, inaccurate and dangerous. In this case it simply doesn't exist.
I've driven out to Global Village the past two weekends (I must post about that too), going from Al Sufouh along Umm Suqueim Road to Arabian Ranches.
I had no idea that Studio City, where Dubai Eye is located, is there, right across the road from Arabian Ranches.
Today I saw the reason. Following Suzanne's instructions on how to get there I found it was exactly the way I'd driven to Global Village. But I didn't see one single sign to Studio City. Nor when I got there did I see a sign identifying the place.
Millions spent on developing a new 'city', plenty of companies operating from it and not a sign anywhere.
You can get a temporary one run up for a few dirhams if the permanent one isn't ready.
Although why it wouldn't be I can't visualise. The time it took to build the impressive-ish entrance gate was plenty of time to get a sign made.
Come on guys, it isn't rocket science it's just road signage. How can you get it so wrong so consistently?
Back to the programme for a minute to guide you to the bloggers who participated in it. Reflecting the blogosphere, they're all very different. But as they were hand-picked by Alex they're all well worth a read.
Dubai-ified
Mich Cafe
Who-sane
Hellwa Fashion
A Nabulsi Story
andfaraway
And Alex' own blog is Fake Plastic Souks
You can listen to the podcast here, at DubaiEye103.8
Sunday, May 02, 2010
More Metro nonsense
A problem that shouldn't have happened, no information for those affected, waffle that insults our intelligence from the official spokesman.
Situation normal then.
The Metro had another technical fault yesterday, this time to do with the signals the trains send back to the computer, so trains were stopped on most of the system for three to four hours.
Inevitably, passengers complain that they were given no information, had no idea what was happening, they were just shuttled about on buses.
Lack of communication is exactly what I complained about last week, when the Metro's last 'technical issue' inconvenienced passengers but they were told nothing.
Seven new stations were opened on Friday and additional trains were added. You'd assume that it would all be tested and any problems fixed before the public was invited to use it. Yet it all ground to a halt during peak time.
But according to Pehyman Younes Parham, Director of Marketing and Communication for the RTA, such technical issues are normal and to be expected.
Oh really.
It's just the same old comment that's been used before, an insult to our intelligence repeated yet again to explain away a problem that should not have occurred.
Last week's technical issues were to be expected too, according to Mr Parham after that episode.
I realise it's alien thinking to companies here but what I think should be 'normal and to be expected' is that technical issues are all sorted out before something is opened to the public.
The Metro system is closed for seven hours during weekday nights and for fifteen hours Thursay/Friday. Time enough, I would have thought, for the necessary testing to be carried out, any glitches fixed and the system running efficiently before the public was encouraged to use the new stations and extra trains.
I've always thought that the worst thing any company can do is set the bar for achievement so low that the target is 'we're no worse than anyone else'. I was reminded of this during Mr Parham's interview on DubaiEye radio this morning.
He began by saying that the Metro has been benchmarked against other similar systems around the world and guess what - we're no worse than them.
That's OK then, if that's the lofty goal that's been set.
Then the old 'it's to be expected' excuse was trotted out yet again to explain away the problem.
On behalf of several listeners who complained about the total lack of communication he was asked what the RTA had done to tell inconvenienced passengers what was going on. He took the time-honoured route and ignored the question, waffling on about something entirely different for a couple of minutes.
In true UAE journalistic style the question wasn't repeated and he wasn't pushed for an answer.
The answer I suppose comes from the passengers - nothing was done to tell them what was going on.
True to the Dubai customer service ethic, something is opened before it's ready, infuriated customers are given no information at the time they're being inconvenienced, then are later told it's all perfectly normal.
Gulf News has the report here.
Situation normal then.
The Metro had another technical fault yesterday, this time to do with the signals the trains send back to the computer, so trains were stopped on most of the system for three to four hours.
Inevitably, passengers complain that they were given no information, had no idea what was happening, they were just shuttled about on buses.
Lack of communication is exactly what I complained about last week, when the Metro's last 'technical issue' inconvenienced passengers but they were told nothing.
Seven new stations were opened on Friday and additional trains were added. You'd assume that it would all be tested and any problems fixed before the public was invited to use it. Yet it all ground to a halt during peak time.
But according to Pehyman Younes Parham, Director of Marketing and Communication for the RTA, such technical issues are normal and to be expected.
Oh really.
It's just the same old comment that's been used before, an insult to our intelligence repeated yet again to explain away a problem that should not have occurred.
Last week's technical issues were to be expected too, according to Mr Parham after that episode.
I realise it's alien thinking to companies here but what I think should be 'normal and to be expected' is that technical issues are all sorted out before something is opened to the public.
The Metro system is closed for seven hours during weekday nights and for fifteen hours Thursay/Friday. Time enough, I would have thought, for the necessary testing to be carried out, any glitches fixed and the system running efficiently before the public was encouraged to use the new stations and extra trains.
I've always thought that the worst thing any company can do is set the bar for achievement so low that the target is 'we're no worse than anyone else'. I was reminded of this during Mr Parham's interview on DubaiEye radio this morning.
He began by saying that the Metro has been benchmarked against other similar systems around the world and guess what - we're no worse than them.
That's OK then, if that's the lofty goal that's been set.
Then the old 'it's to be expected' excuse was trotted out yet again to explain away the problem.
On behalf of several listeners who complained about the total lack of communication he was asked what the RTA had done to tell inconvenienced passengers what was going on. He took the time-honoured route and ignored the question, waffling on about something entirely different for a couple of minutes.
In true UAE journalistic style the question wasn't repeated and he wasn't pushed for an answer.
The answer I suppose comes from the passengers - nothing was done to tell them what was going on.
True to the Dubai customer service ethic, something is opened before it's ready, infuriated customers are given no information at the time they're being inconvenienced, then are later told it's all perfectly normal.
Gulf News has the report here.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Getting the easiest part wrong
I never cease to be amazed that the simplest part of any problem is so consistently mishandled by companies.
It's always been the same, they never learn and I don't expect they ever will.
The easiest part is communication.
Tell the people affected what the problem is, what you're doing to correct it and, if possible, when you expect the problem to be rectified and service back to normal.
How hard is that?
For some inexplicable reason it's so hard it's impossible.
We've had it throughout the volcano ash cloud chaos, the biggest complaint from people, as always, is the lack of communication, lack of information.
Dubai's Metro is at it again too.
Passengers using the Dubai Metro once again faced delays yesterday following a disruption, which was not explained by the Metro operators.
However, what frustrated the passengers the most were confusing announcements made inside the trains and by ill-informed staff at the stations.
Situation perfectly normal then.
Metro operations remained suspended once again for around 50 minutes after 12:15pm on Sunday and then around 3pm while passengers wondered what had happened.
Leaving passengers stranded with no information makes it impossible for them to know what to do. Do they stay in the station and wait for an unknown amount of time or do they make other arrangements to get to their destination?
They can't make the decision thanks to the lack of communication from the Metro operators. Even worse, they're getting the usual 'five minutes' rubbish from staff.
How many times have I been told 'five minutes', or 'take a seat, coming'. It's just a way of getting rid of you, to stop you pestering them.
It's typical too of the 'customer service' we've come to expect. Take your money and that's it, nothing after that is of any concern to the company.
The problem was later explained with the usual platitudes.
A Dubai Roads and Transport Authority (RTA) spokesperson said that technical issues were behind the slight disruptions.
"We are preparing to add more trains with the opening of new stations from April 30" said Peyman Younes Parham, director of marketing and communication at the RTA.
"Techical issues are being sorted out, especially regarding the train headways and waiting time of passengers and this has led to some delays. It is quite normal when you add more services on a running track."
Why didn't you tell your passengers that? Why weren't your staff briefed? Did it happen unexpectedly - your statement 'it's perfectly normal' indicates it didn't? So why no advance notice?
If it was unexpected, why wasn't information put on the electronic boards and the public announcement system?
The story's here.
It's always been the same, they never learn and I don't expect they ever will.
The easiest part is communication.
Tell the people affected what the problem is, what you're doing to correct it and, if possible, when you expect the problem to be rectified and service back to normal.
How hard is that?
For some inexplicable reason it's so hard it's impossible.
We've had it throughout the volcano ash cloud chaos, the biggest complaint from people, as always, is the lack of communication, lack of information.
Dubai's Metro is at it again too.
Passengers using the Dubai Metro once again faced delays yesterday following a disruption, which was not explained by the Metro operators.
However, what frustrated the passengers the most were confusing announcements made inside the trains and by ill-informed staff at the stations.
Situation perfectly normal then.
Metro operations remained suspended once again for around 50 minutes after 12:15pm on Sunday and then around 3pm while passengers wondered what had happened.
Leaving passengers stranded with no information makes it impossible for them to know what to do. Do they stay in the station and wait for an unknown amount of time or do they make other arrangements to get to their destination?
They can't make the decision thanks to the lack of communication from the Metro operators. Even worse, they're getting the usual 'five minutes' rubbish from staff.
How many times have I been told 'five minutes', or 'take a seat, coming'. It's just a way of getting rid of you, to stop you pestering them.
It's typical too of the 'customer service' we've come to expect. Take your money and that's it, nothing after that is of any concern to the company.
The problem was later explained with the usual platitudes.
A Dubai Roads and Transport Authority (RTA) spokesperson said that technical issues were behind the slight disruptions.
"We are preparing to add more trains with the opening of new stations from April 30" said Peyman Younes Parham, director of marketing and communication at the RTA.
"Techical issues are being sorted out, especially regarding the train headways and waiting time of passengers and this has led to some delays. It is quite normal when you add more services on a running track."
Why didn't you tell your passengers that? Why weren't your staff briefed? Did it happen unexpectedly - your statement 'it's perfectly normal' indicates it didn't? So why no advance notice?
If it was unexpected, why wasn't information put on the electronic boards and the public announcement system?
The story's here.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
People power stops Barasti gig
Talking, as I was in my earlier post, about heads rolling, that should be happening at Le Meridien Mina Seyahi.
We have a three day official mourning period for Sheikh Ahmed Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, killed in a glider accident in Morocco.
Non-Arabic radio stations are playing classical music and Arabic stations are broadcasting readings from the Quran in place of regular programmes. Venues have been asked to ease off with their entertainment, generally meaning no alcohol and no loud music.
But giving at least one finger, and probably two, Barasti Bar at Le Meridien sent an early morning text message to its regular customers about the gig featuring rapper Vanilla Ice:
"NORMAL OPERATION. WE ARE NOT DRY! NICE, NICE BABY! 5PM-3AM C U ON THE SAND"
If you want to provoke a response, a backlash against expats' disrespectful behaviour, I can't think of a better way to do it.
But it misfired because, in spite of the lurid stories in the UK tabloids, in reality only a tiny minority of expats behave that way.
This afternoon Arabian Business is reporting:
"Barasti bar scraps concert after Twitter outrage
...social networking site Twitter was inundated with comments criticising the remarks for being insensitive, given Tuesday’s announcement of the tragic death of Sheikh Ahmed...
...When approached by Arabian Business over the (community) outrage, the hotel released a statement saying the concert had been shelved."
I have no doubt that most expats, all but a very few, will applaud the decision to cancel - and be appalled at the original one.
The vast majority of us, as the campaign demonstratess, are not the badly behaved, disrespectful drunks depicted by people like Johann Hari. (BTW, I responded to his article here.)
Whoever was responsible for deciding the concert would go ahead and for sending out the original text needs to be fired. And to try to salvage their reputation, the hotel needs to tell us that's what's happened.
The Arabian Business story is here.
We have a three day official mourning period for Sheikh Ahmed Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, killed in a glider accident in Morocco.
Non-Arabic radio stations are playing classical music and Arabic stations are broadcasting readings from the Quran in place of regular programmes. Venues have been asked to ease off with their entertainment, generally meaning no alcohol and no loud music.
But giving at least one finger, and probably two, Barasti Bar at Le Meridien sent an early morning text message to its regular customers about the gig featuring rapper Vanilla Ice:
"NORMAL OPERATION. WE ARE NOT DRY! NICE, NICE BABY! 5PM-3AM C U ON THE SAND"
If you want to provoke a response, a backlash against expats' disrespectful behaviour, I can't think of a better way to do it.
But it misfired because, in spite of the lurid stories in the UK tabloids, in reality only a tiny minority of expats behave that way.
This afternoon Arabian Business is reporting:
"Barasti bar scraps concert after Twitter outrage
...social networking site Twitter was inundated with comments criticising the remarks for being insensitive, given Tuesday’s announcement of the tragic death of Sheikh Ahmed...
...When approached by Arabian Business over the (community) outrage, the hotel released a statement saying the concert had been shelved."
I have no doubt that most expats, all but a very few, will applaud the decision to cancel - and be appalled at the original one.
The vast majority of us, as the campaign demonstratess, are not the badly behaved, disrespectful drunks depicted by people like Johann Hari. (BTW, I responded to his article here.)
Whoever was responsible for deciding the concert would go ahead and for sending out the original text needs to be fired. And to try to salvage their reputation, the hotel needs to tell us that's what's happened.
The Arabian Business story is here.
At last - changes at the top of Nakheel
I've posted in the past about the delay in removing people ultimately responsible for the excesses of Nakheel and for experienced executives from the established merchant families to be brought in to sort out the mess.
So I'm pleased to see today's news that both have happened.
A new board has been appointed for Nakheel with the prominent businessman Ali Rashid Lootah named as the new chairman to replace Sultan Bin Sulayem.
The CEO, Chris O'Donnell, has not been reappointed to the board and there are naturally rumours that a new CEO may be appointed.
The Financial Times says:
"The ruler's lieutenants behind Dubai's real estate boom-to-bust years are being gradually replaced by established names from the city's mercantile elite."
I've said before that it's a pity they weren't in charge from the beginning. I'm sure we would have had far less ego-driven, commercially unviable, too-rapid development.
This news comes days after the announcement of the debt restructuring plan, which in spite of too little detail being included seems to have met with general approval by creditors.
At long last the right moves are being made.
It's taken far too long, which has caused huge and unnecessary damage to Dubai's business reputation. Better late than never though, I suppose.
Gulf News.
So I'm pleased to see today's news that both have happened.
A new board has been appointed for Nakheel with the prominent businessman Ali Rashid Lootah named as the new chairman to replace Sultan Bin Sulayem.
The CEO, Chris O'Donnell, has not been reappointed to the board and there are naturally rumours that a new CEO may be appointed.
The Financial Times says:
"The ruler's lieutenants behind Dubai's real estate boom-to-bust years are being gradually replaced by established names from the city's mercantile elite."
I've said before that it's a pity they weren't in charge from the beginning. I'm sure we would have had far less ego-driven, commercially unviable, too-rapid development.
This news comes days after the announcement of the debt restructuring plan, which in spite of too little detail being included seems to have met with general approval by creditors.
At long last the right moves are being made.
It's taken far too long, which has caused huge and unnecessary damage to Dubai's business reputation. Better late than never though, I suppose.
Gulf News.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Officials and the law
We poke fun at the well-established procedure of a major policy change being announced only to be later 'clarified' - which means cancelled.
I did that in my last post, about the ban-then-no-ban on alcohol being used in restaurant recipes.
But there's a very serious issue involved, one that was raised in the 'clarification' of the alcohol confusion.
That issue is 'officials' far exceeding their authority and believing they have the authority to, in effect, make new laws.
Only government can write laws. As Dubai Municipality's 'clarification' said, DM alone does not have the authority to issue such a ban, of alcohol, it must pass through a number of governmental authorities.
It certainly isn't within the authority of one 'official' to write laws, as has happened so many times.
We've seen it previously with tourist visas, property residence visas, ID cards, the pork ban/no ban...
Seems to me there's a need for clear directives to 'officials' telling them that they must work within the laws as they stand, and explaining to them how far their authority extends.
I did that in my last post, about the ban-then-no-ban on alcohol being used in restaurant recipes.
But there's a very serious issue involved, one that was raised in the 'clarification' of the alcohol confusion.
That issue is 'officials' far exceeding their authority and believing they have the authority to, in effect, make new laws.
Only government can write laws. As Dubai Municipality's 'clarification' said, DM alone does not have the authority to issue such a ban, of alcohol, it must pass through a number of governmental authorities.
It certainly isn't within the authority of one 'official' to write laws, as has happened so many times.
We've seen it previously with tourist visas, property residence visas, ID cards, the pork ban/no ban...
Seems to me there's a need for clear directives to 'officials' telling them that they must work within the laws as they stand, and explaining to them how far their authority extends.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
I can't believe how stupid we are!
Last week a new directive was sent to hotels by Dubai Municipality:
"Use of alcohol in preparation and cooking of food is strictly prohibited. Display and sale of food products containing alcohol as an ingredient is strictly prohibited," said the circular, seen by The National.
As I posted on Sunday, after confusion in the industry a 'clarification' was promised for Tuesday.
The 'clarification' has been duly issued, when the Director of the Food Control Department at Dubai Municipality said that the circular was misunderstood.
It said: "Use of alcohol in preparation and cooking of food is strictly prohibited."
I just don't understand how the media and the industry could be stupid enough to think that it meant that the use of alcohol in preparation and cooking of food is strictly prohibited.
To clear up our confusion and misunderstanding the new statement actually has two 'clarifications'.
One, the use of alcohol in preparation and cooking of food is not prohibited.
Two, DM alone does not have the authority to issue such a ban anyway, it must pass through a number of governmental authorities.
The 'clarification' says that food containing alcohol must be treated in much the same way as pork - handled separately and clearly labelled.
As I've said several times before, we really should pay more attention to what we're being told. The authorities have enough work to do without constantly having to clarify things we've got wrong.
Here it is in The National and Gulf News.
"Use of alcohol in preparation and cooking of food is strictly prohibited. Display and sale of food products containing alcohol as an ingredient is strictly prohibited," said the circular, seen by The National.
As I posted on Sunday, after confusion in the industry a 'clarification' was promised for Tuesday.
The 'clarification' has been duly issued, when the Director of the Food Control Department at Dubai Municipality said that the circular was misunderstood.
It said: "Use of alcohol in preparation and cooking of food is strictly prohibited."
I just don't understand how the media and the industry could be stupid enough to think that it meant that the use of alcohol in preparation and cooking of food is strictly prohibited.
To clear up our confusion and misunderstanding the new statement actually has two 'clarifications'.
One, the use of alcohol in preparation and cooking of food is not prohibited.
Two, DM alone does not have the authority to issue such a ban anyway, it must pass through a number of governmental authorities.
The 'clarification' says that food containing alcohol must be treated in much the same way as pork - handled separately and clearly labelled.
As I've said several times before, we really should pay more attention to what we're being told. The authorities have enough work to do without constantly having to clarify things we've got wrong.
Here it is in The National and Gulf News.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Let's be clear about this...
The theme of expats falling foul of the laws rumbles on with a opinion piece by Sultan Al Qassemi in The National today. In my opinion it's one of the most sensible columns on the subject so far.
Sultan mentions some recent cases that have hit the world's media, including the text messaging case, the Bob's Diner kissing case, the beach sex case and the alleged rape in a five star hotel. I've posted about them previously but it's worth looking at them briefly here because they're actually quite different from each other.
Sex on a beach, or anywhere in public, isn't going to be tolerated in any country, so that falls outside the debate about what's acceptable in Dubai.
The alleged rape case was a mixture - the stories said that a woman's report of being raped was ignored and instead she was charged with illicit sex with her fiance. In fact she wasn't ignored and when CCTV footage proved she had not been raped she admitted that she couldn't remember the evening and withdrew the complaint. It is true that she and her fiance were charged with illicit sex.
The text messaging case certainly is about what's acceptable in Dubai and how things are dealt with. I posted about it here.
The kissing case was also about what's acceptable here - and also about the justice system, which I posted about here.
Sultan's column includes four extremely important points.
One, the ambiguity surrounding the whole question of what is and is not acceptable. The column is headed "Nothing should be ambiguous about what’s indecent"
Two, the country needs to decide what it wants to be.
Three, there is a vacuum of information regarding what is and isn’t officially acceptable.
Four, the inconsistency of court sentences.
That's something I've posted about several times, a minor misdemeanor attracting a longer jail term than a serious offence. As Sultan points out, a kiss is not a hazard to others' lives, as drunk driving is. He asks how both can be punishable by a jail sentence.
I would add another point - enforcement. If you have rules and laws you must enforce them, not routinely allow people to ignore them as happens here on a daily basis.
Looking at these important points, ambiguity and the resulting confusion is a real problem.
Comments left on my posts on the subject invariably include 'when in Rome do as the Romans do', accepting that a country has the right to to its own laws but expressing confusion about what is and is not acceptable.
Innocent public displays of affection are an offence yet prostitutes operate openly on the streets of Deira and Bur Dubai, in hotels and even in malls.
There is a dress code yet the malls are full of men in football shorts & singlets and women in revealing clothing.
Alcohol is legally available, the Friday drunken brunches are legendary, yet you can be jailed for drinking alcohol.
No wonder there's both confusion and criticism.
All of this has to be sorted out and Sultan's most important point in my opinion is that the country has to decide what it wants to be. Not just to clarify the situation for expats and visitors but, more importantly, for Emiratis.
As he says, "It is no longer possible to expect that these issues will sort themselves through a policy of ambiguity".
He wants Emiratis brought into the conversation as stakeholders in the future and shape of their country. He says, ideally this is the role of the Federal National Council because it should be the voice of the citizens.
He also wants more media involvement: "the local fourth estate can play the role of the parliament by debating what citizens deem acceptable".
That's critical. Decide what you want to be, then within that framework write the laws.
But they must be consistent and hypocrisy must be removed from the equation.
To tell people that holding hands is indecent while turning a blind eye to prostitution simply won't do. To jail people for 'planning a sin' because sex outside marriage is illegal but allowing thousands of unmarried couples to share hotel rooms won't do.
These inconsistencies in what's said and what actually happens 'won't do' not just for foreigners but also for Emiratis. Surely they want consistent laws and enforcement of them as much as, probably more than, foreigners do.
By all means have laws that reflect the country's culture, and expect people to obey them, but there has to be consistency. If not, there is confusion, there are charges of hypocrisy, there is cynicism.
As for the vacuum of information, that's simple.
When the laws and rules are clearly written it's the simplest thing in the world to distribute them to travel agents, tour operators, airlines and to give a leaflet to everyone passing through an Immigration desk.
I think this is an important column by Sultan and I hope it generates urgent debate that results in the ambiguity and increasing confusion being resolved. You can read it here.
Just In
As I was typing this an e-mail came in from a friend on a related subject so I thought I'd add it.
It's about ambiguity, confusion, statements and rethinks, and 'clarifications'.
According to Arabian Business, Dubai Municipality has issued a letter stating that the use of alcohol in the preparation and cooking of food, and the display and sale of food containing alcohol is 'strictly prohibited'.
Not surprisingly it caused mass confusion in the industry leading to officials to rethink the ban. They are now set to issue revised restrictions on Tuesday, sources said.
If it happened once it would be funny but it's become the standard way of doing things.
Here, read it for yourself, I'm tired...
Here it is.
Sultan mentions some recent cases that have hit the world's media, including the text messaging case, the Bob's Diner kissing case, the beach sex case and the alleged rape in a five star hotel. I've posted about them previously but it's worth looking at them briefly here because they're actually quite different from each other.
Sex on a beach, or anywhere in public, isn't going to be tolerated in any country, so that falls outside the debate about what's acceptable in Dubai.
The alleged rape case was a mixture - the stories said that a woman's report of being raped was ignored and instead she was charged with illicit sex with her fiance. In fact she wasn't ignored and when CCTV footage proved she had not been raped she admitted that she couldn't remember the evening and withdrew the complaint. It is true that she and her fiance were charged with illicit sex.
The text messaging case certainly is about what's acceptable in Dubai and how things are dealt with. I posted about it here.
The kissing case was also about what's acceptable here - and also about the justice system, which I posted about here.
Sultan's column includes four extremely important points.
One, the ambiguity surrounding the whole question of what is and is not acceptable. The column is headed "Nothing should be ambiguous about what’s indecent"
Two, the country needs to decide what it wants to be.
Three, there is a vacuum of information regarding what is and isn’t officially acceptable.
Four, the inconsistency of court sentences.
That's something I've posted about several times, a minor misdemeanor attracting a longer jail term than a serious offence. As Sultan points out, a kiss is not a hazard to others' lives, as drunk driving is. He asks how both can be punishable by a jail sentence.
I would add another point - enforcement. If you have rules and laws you must enforce them, not routinely allow people to ignore them as happens here on a daily basis.
Looking at these important points, ambiguity and the resulting confusion is a real problem.
Comments left on my posts on the subject invariably include 'when in Rome do as the Romans do', accepting that a country has the right to to its own laws but expressing confusion about what is and is not acceptable.
Innocent public displays of affection are an offence yet prostitutes operate openly on the streets of Deira and Bur Dubai, in hotels and even in malls.
There is a dress code yet the malls are full of men in football shorts & singlets and women in revealing clothing.
Alcohol is legally available, the Friday drunken brunches are legendary, yet you can be jailed for drinking alcohol.
No wonder there's both confusion and criticism.
All of this has to be sorted out and Sultan's most important point in my opinion is that the country has to decide what it wants to be. Not just to clarify the situation for expats and visitors but, more importantly, for Emiratis.
As he says, "It is no longer possible to expect that these issues will sort themselves through a policy of ambiguity".
He wants Emiratis brought into the conversation as stakeholders in the future and shape of their country. He says, ideally this is the role of the Federal National Council because it should be the voice of the citizens.
He also wants more media involvement: "the local fourth estate can play the role of the parliament by debating what citizens deem acceptable".
That's critical. Decide what you want to be, then within that framework write the laws.
But they must be consistent and hypocrisy must be removed from the equation.
To tell people that holding hands is indecent while turning a blind eye to prostitution simply won't do. To jail people for 'planning a sin' because sex outside marriage is illegal but allowing thousands of unmarried couples to share hotel rooms won't do.
These inconsistencies in what's said and what actually happens 'won't do' not just for foreigners but also for Emiratis. Surely they want consistent laws and enforcement of them as much as, probably more than, foreigners do.
By all means have laws that reflect the country's culture, and expect people to obey them, but there has to be consistency. If not, there is confusion, there are charges of hypocrisy, there is cynicism.
As for the vacuum of information, that's simple.
When the laws and rules are clearly written it's the simplest thing in the world to distribute them to travel agents, tour operators, airlines and to give a leaflet to everyone passing through an Immigration desk.
I think this is an important column by Sultan and I hope it generates urgent debate that results in the ambiguity and increasing confusion being resolved. You can read it here.
Just In
As I was typing this an e-mail came in from a friend on a related subject so I thought I'd add it.
It's about ambiguity, confusion, statements and rethinks, and 'clarifications'.
According to Arabian Business, Dubai Municipality has issued a letter stating that the use of alcohol in the preparation and cooking of food, and the display and sale of food containing alcohol is 'strictly prohibited'.
Not surprisingly it caused mass confusion in the industry leading to officials to rethink the ban. They are now set to issue revised restrictions on Tuesday, sources said.
If it happened once it would be funny but it's become the standard way of doing things.
Here, read it for yourself, I'm tired...
Here it is.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Handled the worst way - again
The official statement:
"Due to unexpected high traffic, the observation deck experience at the Burj Khalifa, At the Top, has been temporarily closed for maintenance and upgrade".
From a visitor:
"I was walking around the observation deck when I heard this really loud noise and what looked like smoke or dust coming out from one of the elevator doors. One of the elevators had not reached all the way to the 124th floor and I saw some people climbing a ladder from the elevator up on to the observation deck."
The story goes on with visitors' reports that around sixty people were trapped on the deck for over an hour until they were taken down by service elevator, that they were scared, angry, crying, that there was a lack of information
Absolutely typical. And absolutely the wrong way to handle issues.
It's not rocket science. First, tell the people involved what's happening. Quickly. It's not hard.
'There's a mechanical problem with an elevator. There is no danger and you will shortly be taken to the ground floor by the service elevator. While we're arranging that please continue to enjoy the view.'
Then tell the media what's happened. That's not hard either.
'There was a fault with an elevator, no-one was hurt and there was never any danger. All visitors were taken to the ground floor by service elevator. The deck will remain closed for one week, affected tickets will be refunded and there is no delay in handing over the rest of the building.' Take questions and answer them honestly.
But what's the normal way to handle a problem here?
The immediate reaction is 'can we deny it outright'?
If what's happened is too public to deny outright, make an excuse that dismisses the problem as routine or so minor as to not require comment. Under no circumstances do you say what actually happened. All senior people immediately go to ground.
Pointless. Wrong. Counter-productive. You've added hugely to the problem.
Because people who were affected reveal what really happened.
Senior people remain in hiding. The 'ignore it and it'll go away' strategy. But the damage is done and they're adding to it by their actions.
I've ranted about it many times in the past. It's not the problem that's the problem, the way you handle it is the problem. And here we have yet another repeat of the absolute worst way to handle a problem.
It's yet another blow for Brand Dubai too, because it's making news around the world. Bad news.
I've seen it in US, Australian, British, New Zealand, Indian papers already this morning.
The Huffington Post story, for example, includes:
Electrical problems are at least partly to blame for the closure of the Burj Khalifa's viewing platform – the only part of the half-mile high tower open yet. But a lack of information from the spire's owner left it unclear whether the rest of the largely empty building – including dozens of elevators meant to whisk visitors to the tower's more than 160 floors – was affected by the shutdown.
The indefinite closure, which began Sunday, comes as Dubai struggles to revive its international image as a cutting-edge Arab metropolis amid nagging questions about its financial health.
In a brief statement responding to questions, building owner Emaar Properties blamed the closure on "unexpected high traffic," but then suggested that electrical problems were also at fault.
Despite repeated requests, a spokeswoman for Emaar was unable to provide further details or rule out the possibility of foul play. Greg Sang, Emaar's director of projects and the man charged with coordinating the tower's construction, could not be reached.
The shutdown comes at a sensitive time for Dubai. The city-state is facing a slump in tourism – which accounts for nearly a fifth of the local economy – while fending off negative publicity caused by more than $80 billion in debt it is struggling to repay.
It goes on to say:
Questions were raised about the building's readiness in the months leading up to the January opening.
The opening date had originally been expected in September, but was then pushed back until sometime before the end of 2009. The eventual opening date just after New Year's was meant to coincide with the anniversary of the Dubai ruler's ascent to power.
There were signs even that target was ambitious. The final metal and glass panels cladding the building's exterior were installed only in late September. Early visitors to the observation deck had to peer through floor-to-ceiling windows caked with dust – a sign that cleaning crews had not yet had a chance to scrub them clean.
Today's story on what really happened is here.
The Huffington Post story.
A couple of previous examples of how not to handle a problem are here and here.
"Due to unexpected high traffic, the observation deck experience at the Burj Khalifa, At the Top, has been temporarily closed for maintenance and upgrade".
From a visitor:
"I was walking around the observation deck when I heard this really loud noise and what looked like smoke or dust coming out from one of the elevator doors. One of the elevators had not reached all the way to the 124th floor and I saw some people climbing a ladder from the elevator up on to the observation deck."
The story goes on with visitors' reports that around sixty people were trapped on the deck for over an hour until they were taken down by service elevator, that they were scared, angry, crying, that there was a lack of information
Absolutely typical. And absolutely the wrong way to handle issues.
It's not rocket science. First, tell the people involved what's happening. Quickly. It's not hard.
'There's a mechanical problem with an elevator. There is no danger and you will shortly be taken to the ground floor by the service elevator. While we're arranging that please continue to enjoy the view.'
Then tell the media what's happened. That's not hard either.
'There was a fault with an elevator, no-one was hurt and there was never any danger. All visitors were taken to the ground floor by service elevator. The deck will remain closed for one week, affected tickets will be refunded and there is no delay in handing over the rest of the building.' Take questions and answer them honestly.
But what's the normal way to handle a problem here?
The immediate reaction is 'can we deny it outright'?
If what's happened is too public to deny outright, make an excuse that dismisses the problem as routine or so minor as to not require comment. Under no circumstances do you say what actually happened. All senior people immediately go to ground.
Pointless. Wrong. Counter-productive. You've added hugely to the problem.
Because people who were affected reveal what really happened.
Senior people remain in hiding. The 'ignore it and it'll go away' strategy. But the damage is done and they're adding to it by their actions.
I've ranted about it many times in the past. It's not the problem that's the problem, the way you handle it is the problem. And here we have yet another repeat of the absolute worst way to handle a problem.
It's yet another blow for Brand Dubai too, because it's making news around the world. Bad news.
I've seen it in US, Australian, British, New Zealand, Indian papers already this morning.
The Huffington Post story, for example, includes:
Electrical problems are at least partly to blame for the closure of the Burj Khalifa's viewing platform – the only part of the half-mile high tower open yet. But a lack of information from the spire's owner left it unclear whether the rest of the largely empty building – including dozens of elevators meant to whisk visitors to the tower's more than 160 floors – was affected by the shutdown.
The indefinite closure, which began Sunday, comes as Dubai struggles to revive its international image as a cutting-edge Arab metropolis amid nagging questions about its financial health.
In a brief statement responding to questions, building owner Emaar Properties blamed the closure on "unexpected high traffic," but then suggested that electrical problems were also at fault.
Despite repeated requests, a spokeswoman for Emaar was unable to provide further details or rule out the possibility of foul play. Greg Sang, Emaar's director of projects and the man charged with coordinating the tower's construction, could not be reached.
The shutdown comes at a sensitive time for Dubai. The city-state is facing a slump in tourism – which accounts for nearly a fifth of the local economy – while fending off negative publicity caused by more than $80 billion in debt it is struggling to repay.
It goes on to say:
Questions were raised about the building's readiness in the months leading up to the January opening.
The opening date had originally been expected in September, but was then pushed back until sometime before the end of 2009. The eventual opening date just after New Year's was meant to coincide with the anniversary of the Dubai ruler's ascent to power.
There were signs even that target was ambitious. The final metal and glass panels cladding the building's exterior were installed only in late September. Early visitors to the observation deck had to peer through floor-to-ceiling windows caked with dust – a sign that cleaning crews had not yet had a chance to scrub them clean.
Today's story on what really happened is here.
The Huffington Post story.
A couple of previous examples of how not to handle a problem are here and here.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The clarifications begin...
The first of the 'clarifications' on the visa story I posted about yesterday appears in Gulf News today.
I said in the post that one of the things the announcement hadn't explained was whether the rule that visitors cannot re-enter the country for one month applied to the 33 passports which get an automatic visa on arrival.
Today's 'clarification' actually talks about 36 passports - they've added Cyprus, Malta and Paraguay to the previous list.
Citizens of those 36 countries are exempt apparently and can come and go at any time.
So that's one question answered.
Now they need to give some thought to the effects of the one month ban on the cruise business, which Dubai is trying so hard and expensively to develop, and on the general tour business here. Thirty-six exempt passports means citizens of about 170 countries are not exempt.
The 'clarification' with the list of passports exempt is here.
I said in the post that one of the things the announcement hadn't explained was whether the rule that visitors cannot re-enter the country for one month applied to the 33 passports which get an automatic visa on arrival.
Today's 'clarification' actually talks about 36 passports - they've added Cyprus, Malta and Paraguay to the previous list.
Citizens of those 36 countries are exempt apparently and can come and go at any time.
So that's one question answered.
Now they need to give some thought to the effects of the one month ban on the cruise business, which Dubai is trying so hard and expensively to develop, and on the general tour business here. Thirty-six exempt passports means citizens of about 170 countries are not exempt.
The 'clarification' with the list of passports exempt is here.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Act now think later
We had a report on Sunday that an official has confirmed that visit, transit & tourism visas are for one visit only. Visitors leaving the country can't re-enter for one month, after which they'll need a new visa to come back in.
This visa 'clarification' is another example of the sort of nonsense we get all-too regularly. There's no thought about what it actually means before an announcement is made.
Relate it to another subject we've had stories on recently, about Dubai being a regional cruise ship hub. That's not to mention huge government investment in infrastructure for it.
So are the cruises for residents only?
If visitors enter the UAE and get on a cruise ship they can't, according to this 'clarification', come ashore when it docks back in Dubai. They've already used up the one entry allowed by their visa. And they can't come back in for a month.
So what happens?
The report is also yet another example of something else I complain about ad nauseum, the lack of questions from 'journalists'.
An official makes a statement which raises more questions than it answers, yet the questions aren't asked.
In addition to the cruise customer questions, what about the 33 passport holders who get an automatic visa on arrival? Does the one month ban apply to them too?
Gulf News has the visa 'clarification' here.
This visa 'clarification' is another example of the sort of nonsense we get all-too regularly. There's no thought about what it actually means before an announcement is made.
Relate it to another subject we've had stories on recently, about Dubai being a regional cruise ship hub. That's not to mention huge government investment in infrastructure for it.
So are the cruises for residents only?
If visitors enter the UAE and get on a cruise ship they can't, according to this 'clarification', come ashore when it docks back in Dubai. They've already used up the one entry allowed by their visa. And they can't come back in for a month.
So what happens?
The report is also yet another example of something else I complain about ad nauseum, the lack of questions from 'journalists'.
An official makes a statement which raises more questions than it answers, yet the questions aren't asked.
In addition to the cruise customer questions, what about the 33 passport holders who get an automatic visa on arrival? Does the one month ban apply to them too?
Gulf News has the visa 'clarification' here.
Friday, January 08, 2010
Still in the pre-internet age
There's a huge gulf between the claim that Dubai is an ultra-modern commercial/financial centre and the out-of-date thinking of so many of the companies operating here.
We're still in the age when to get anything sorted out people are expected to visit companies personally and wait in endless queues. In an age when e-mails aren't even read let alone replied to. In an age when material needs to be sent to companies by fax.
Companies got as far as understanding that a website was a good idea - but having set them up they simply left them. Huge numbers of them are several years out of date, making them useless.
On various forums there are regular complaints from people overseas that they get no response to e-mails to hotels, tour companies and others.
There are a couple of reports in Gulf News today that continue the story, relating to the ultra-modern tallest structure in the world, Burj Khalifa.
The first is headed "Confusion over Burj website owner persists" and talks about the people involved in registering burjkhalifa domain names.
How could it be allowed to get to this? When the name Burj Khalifa was decided on it should have immediately been protected. It's very basic stuff that the domain names such as burjkhalifa.com and .ae and .org and .info and the others should have been registered.
They weren't, so we have the free-for-all that's now going on.
The official website is all over the place too.
That Emaar site is still burjdubai.com and that's what the tower is still called on the site.
The second report is about the queues for Observation Deck tickets, in which the final para says "The announced online ticket booking on the tower's website was not yet active at the time of going to press."
I went to check it. If you browse through the Observation Deck section you'll find the valuable information: "At The Top will open in January 2010." Will open. How long ago was that put on the site?
A pop-up tells you to: "Purchase your tickets online for the date and time of your choice" but nothing happens if you click on it.
The Observation Deck was obviously planned years ago, everything's now in place, it's up and running - but no-one thought to have the website ready.
What's going on with management and IT people here?
The stories are here and here.
We're still in the age when to get anything sorted out people are expected to visit companies personally and wait in endless queues. In an age when e-mails aren't even read let alone replied to. In an age when material needs to be sent to companies by fax.
Companies got as far as understanding that a website was a good idea - but having set them up they simply left them. Huge numbers of them are several years out of date, making them useless.
On various forums there are regular complaints from people overseas that they get no response to e-mails to hotels, tour companies and others.
There are a couple of reports in Gulf News today that continue the story, relating to the ultra-modern tallest structure in the world, Burj Khalifa.
The first is headed "Confusion over Burj website owner persists" and talks about the people involved in registering burjkhalifa domain names.
How could it be allowed to get to this? When the name Burj Khalifa was decided on it should have immediately been protected. It's very basic stuff that the domain names such as burjkhalifa.com and .ae and .org and .info and the others should have been registered.
They weren't, so we have the free-for-all that's now going on.
The official website is all over the place too.
That Emaar site is still burjdubai.com and that's what the tower is still called on the site.
The second report is about the queues for Observation Deck tickets, in which the final para says "The announced online ticket booking on the tower's website was not yet active at the time of going to press."
I went to check it. If you browse through the Observation Deck section you'll find the valuable information: "At The Top will open in January 2010." Will open. How long ago was that put on the site?
A pop-up tells you to: "Purchase your tickets online for the date and time of your choice" but nothing happens if you click on it.
The Observation Deck was obviously planned years ago, everything's now in place, it's up and running - but no-one thought to have the website ready.
What's going on with management and IT people here?
The stories are here and here.
Friday, December 04, 2009
The real problem
"It's not the problem that's the problem, it's how you handle the problem that's the problem."
An old truism, which I've been preaching to colleagues and clients for as long as I can remember. I believe it's one of the most important rules in business.
An example. I worked for a hotel group and was in a restaurant of one of our hotels when a waiter slipped and tipped a drink over a customer.
The manageress immediately hurried over with a clean, dry cloth and gave it to the customer. She apologised, said his meal would be on the house, asked him to drop the suit off at Reception, it would be dry-cleaned at no cost and returned the next day.
In a few seconds a possible problem was replaced by a positive outcome. The customer would only remember the drink spilling in the context of how well the hotel had handled the incident. A plus for the brand.
The most important thing you have in business is the brand.
It's hard work to build the brand image and its positioning, to instil a good feeling about it in the mind of users and potential users.
But to damage or destroy it is the easiest thing in the world.
There's a fairly recent absolute classic of how quickly a brand can be destroyed, which gave rise to the phrase 'Doing a Ratner'.
Gerald Ratner was CEO of a successful family chain of discount jewellers in the UK. Discounted but believed to be good value for money. A good brand image.
Then he made a speech to the Institute of Directors, which was picked up by the media.
He said the brand's products could be sold at low prices because 'it's total crap' and he went on to say that some items were 'cheaper than a Marks & Spencer prawn sandwich but probably wouldn't last as long'.
Damage to the brand? The share value fell by about half a billion pounds Sterling, the company almost collapsed. Share price had been at a high of 400 pence went as low as 9.5 pence, sales plummeted, investor dividends disappeared.
Gerald Ratner went but the damage was done. He'd been in charge for 25 years but destroyed it all in a few minutes.
I relate these stories because we currently have two examples of damage to a previously strong brand running in the media.
Very different stories but the difference demonstrates the truth of the saying and that it applies to any brand, whatever the business.
The subjects of course are Tiger Woods Brand and Brand Dubai.
Tiger Woods Brand is worth a huge amount of money, a large amount of its value based on a perception of perfection, unrealistic but that's what people tend to do.
After the row with Mrs Woods and subsequent minor car prang the damage to the brand began.
He hired a criminal attorney, refused to talk to the police and made no public statement.
The rumour mill went into overdrive, in the mainstream media and the blogosphere, and those actions added to the rumours. I haven't heard any jokes but I'm sure there must be hundreds.
He stayed silent for several days, and by the time he eventually made a statement the damage was already done.
The problem was the way the problem was handled.
Dubai World, although a very different story, is a similar example of the real problem being the way the problem was handled, which has resulted in damage to the brand.
I've already posted about the mishandling.
Brand Dubai has been built for decades on the basis of being a great business centre, perfectly located and commercially astute. A city with a long and succesful commercial history, a place where it was safe to do business, where the business people really knew how to run successful companies. Brand Dubai meant successful, safe investing.
As a result of the mishandling of Dubai World's debt restructuring and how it was announced we're now seeing things like this said in the world's media about Dubai:
"Dubai default...Dubai debt meltdown...Dubai financial crisis...bloodbath...risked triggering the biggest sovereign default since Argentina...city is now so swamped in debt that it's asking for a six-month reprieve...shock announcement that a debt-laden Dubai state corporation was unable to meet its interest bill...Dubai cast adrift as credibility crumbles...Dubai's financial health is under scrutiny"
OK, it was inaccurate, it was unnecessary blind panic, it was a misunderstanding of the status of Dubai World, it was lack of knowledge of how much debt was the subject of the announcement, of how much it was relative to the amount of debt in the world. But those reactions were caused by the mishandling of the situation in Dubai. Had the old saying been remembered the fallout would have been very different and without damage to Brand Dubai
If you are a potential investor, publicity like that will make you pause and rethink. If you are a financial institution you'll look much more carefully at Dubai companies requesting loans or offering bonds. There are plenty of other places around the world competing for your investment and loans.
However successful you are, however well you've built your brand, however long it's taken to build it to where it is today, make a mistake in handling a problem and you can damage it instantly. It can take years to regain the reputation and it can even end up as permanent damage.
An old truism, which I've been preaching to colleagues and clients for as long as I can remember. I believe it's one of the most important rules in business.
An example. I worked for a hotel group and was in a restaurant of one of our hotels when a waiter slipped and tipped a drink over a customer.
The manageress immediately hurried over with a clean, dry cloth and gave it to the customer. She apologised, said his meal would be on the house, asked him to drop the suit off at Reception, it would be dry-cleaned at no cost and returned the next day.
In a few seconds a possible problem was replaced by a positive outcome. The customer would only remember the drink spilling in the context of how well the hotel had handled the incident. A plus for the brand.
The most important thing you have in business is the brand.
It's hard work to build the brand image and its positioning, to instil a good feeling about it in the mind of users and potential users.
But to damage or destroy it is the easiest thing in the world.
There's a fairly recent absolute classic of how quickly a brand can be destroyed, which gave rise to the phrase 'Doing a Ratner'.
Gerald Ratner was CEO of a successful family chain of discount jewellers in the UK. Discounted but believed to be good value for money. A good brand image.
Then he made a speech to the Institute of Directors, which was picked up by the media.
He said the brand's products could be sold at low prices because 'it's total crap' and he went on to say that some items were 'cheaper than a Marks & Spencer prawn sandwich but probably wouldn't last as long'.
Damage to the brand? The share value fell by about half a billion pounds Sterling, the company almost collapsed. Share price had been at a high of 400 pence went as low as 9.5 pence, sales plummeted, investor dividends disappeared.
Gerald Ratner went but the damage was done. He'd been in charge for 25 years but destroyed it all in a few minutes.
I relate these stories because we currently have two examples of damage to a previously strong brand running in the media.
Very different stories but the difference demonstrates the truth of the saying and that it applies to any brand, whatever the business.
The subjects of course are Tiger Woods Brand and Brand Dubai.
Tiger Woods Brand is worth a huge amount of money, a large amount of its value based on a perception of perfection, unrealistic but that's what people tend to do.
After the row with Mrs Woods and subsequent minor car prang the damage to the brand began.
He hired a criminal attorney, refused to talk to the police and made no public statement.
The rumour mill went into overdrive, in the mainstream media and the blogosphere, and those actions added to the rumours. I haven't heard any jokes but I'm sure there must be hundreds.
He stayed silent for several days, and by the time he eventually made a statement the damage was already done.
The problem was the way the problem was handled.
Dubai World, although a very different story, is a similar example of the real problem being the way the problem was handled, which has resulted in damage to the brand.
I've already posted about the mishandling.
Brand Dubai has been built for decades on the basis of being a great business centre, perfectly located and commercially astute. A city with a long and succesful commercial history, a place where it was safe to do business, where the business people really knew how to run successful companies. Brand Dubai meant successful, safe investing.
As a result of the mishandling of Dubai World's debt restructuring and how it was announced we're now seeing things like this said in the world's media about Dubai:
"Dubai default...Dubai debt meltdown...Dubai financial crisis...bloodbath...risked triggering the biggest sovereign default since Argentina...city is now so swamped in debt that it's asking for a six-month reprieve...shock announcement that a debt-laden Dubai state corporation was unable to meet its interest bill...Dubai cast adrift as credibility crumbles...Dubai's financial health is under scrutiny"
OK, it was inaccurate, it was unnecessary blind panic, it was a misunderstanding of the status of Dubai World, it was lack of knowledge of how much debt was the subject of the announcement, of how much it was relative to the amount of debt in the world. But those reactions were caused by the mishandling of the situation in Dubai. Had the old saying been remembered the fallout would have been very different and without damage to Brand Dubai
If you are a potential investor, publicity like that will make you pause and rethink. If you are a financial institution you'll look much more carefully at Dubai companies requesting loans or offering bonds. There are plenty of other places around the world competing for your investment and loans.
However successful you are, however well you've built your brand, however long it's taken to build it to where it is today, make a mistake in handling a problem and you can damage it instantly. It can take years to regain the reputation and it can even end up as permanent damage.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
A PR disaster
On Thursday, the morning after Dubai World's bombshell announcement that payment of the Nakheel bond due on December 14 was to be delayed, I said it was "badly, badly handled all round".
An understatement.
It was actually a classic of mishandling. Business schools should use it as a case study of exactly what not to do. Of how to turn bad news into a disaster.
There's inevitably been over-reaction, with bond and stock markets plunging from Europe to Asia to the US to Australia, bank shares hammered, a flight to safe havens, damning stories all around the world.
"Nervous traders, trying to understand what it meant, caused havoc across global markets. Shares plunged, currencies were battered and billions of pounds were wiped off the value of all companies with Middle East connections. British banks, considered to be among the most exposed to Dubai, were at the centre of this new maelstrom and collectively shed £14bn in value on Thursday alone."
Daily Telegraph
An overreaction of course but panic is the natural reaction of markets to bad news. After a short period it settles down as people think rather than just act but blind panic is always the first response.
To put it in perspective the amounts involved (about $60billion) are tiny in relation to what's been going on in the world. Companies like Lehman Bros ($613billion liabilities), banks by the dozen, countries like Iceland were leveraged multiple times more than DW, making Dubai World's debts almost petty cash.
But Dubai's reputation is taking a battering because of the way the thing was handled.
Statements in the months leading up to the maturing of Nakheel's bond were that the finances were all in order, then came the terse announcement on Wednesday that payment due on December 14 would be deferred at least six months. The timing of the announcement minutes before the ten day holiday added immeasurably to the problem, causing the doubts and panic, increasing the fallout. An obvious attempt to dodge the hard questions that were bound to be asked.
The problem isn't only the admission that the commitments couldn't be met - there's still belief that Abu Dhabi will come to the rescue. The way it's been handled leads people to believe that Dubai's much-vaunted business acumen is a myth. If they can't even handle something like this competently...
I've been glancing through some of my regular reads and I'm finding:
"Released after the markets shut, ahead of the 10-day Eid holiday and the Thanksgiving break in America, the notice was designed to have minimum impact. It wasn't the Dubai government's first miscalculation.amateurish...botched messaging...episode of incompetence...the biggest debt-market cock-up...this week's events have damaged its reputation for economic competence"
The Nakheel bond has been the subject of much speculation for a year at least. It was the big test of Dubai's ability to service its debt, of Dubai's ability to run businesses effectively. In a wider sense it was also taken a representative of Islamic bonds in general.
Past months have seen senior government figures reassuring the markets. Dubai could and would meet its commitments they said.
Even earlier in the day of the announcement statements were released about Dubai raising another $5 billion from Abu Dhabi banks.
So everything was under control.
What happened?
They decided to make the announcement of what is being seen as a default at close of business.
At close of business on the eve of a ten day holiday.
Drop a bombshell as you leave for holiday.
"Dubai’s authorities have acted badly....This week’s revelations were not only unexpected; they were also delivered just as the Gulf states shut up shop for an extended holiday. This is the action of a company that seems to think that it can operate in a globalised marketplace only when it suits its purposes."
The Times
I seems it's not only investors and traders who were caught by surprise. More than one report suggests that even Abu Dhabi wasn't aware that the announcement was going to be made.
"Thursday's market turmoil appeared to take federal officials in the capital Abu Dhabi by surprise. One person familiar with their thinking said there was dismay over the reaction to the handling of the announcement."
Wall Street Journal
There are also reports that 'frantic phone calls' to government officials and business leaders were unanswered.
Naturally. Everyone's on holiday. Try again about December 6. No problem, that's not even two weeks away and everything's under control anyway.
It was carefully planned, according to the statement issued late on Thursday.
I like the column by Alistair Osborne in the Daily Telegraph on the subject:
"Why we must consider Dubai's 'careful planning' a work of pure genius
Let's be generous here. Maybe Dubai was just trying to set another record.
It's already given us the biggest building, biggest indoor ski slope, biggest shopping mall and biggest theme park. Surely, it was only a matter of time before it went for another biggie: the biggest debt-market cock-up.
The Wall Street journal says:
"For Dubai to now claim it had anticipated the market reaction to its "sensible business decision" is preposterous. Dubai stands accused of irresponsibility, incompetence and bad faith. Few will trust now anything it says."
So, a PR disaster of the highest magnitude. Unbelievably badly handled. I can't imagine what they were thinking, it shows a complete unawareness of the real business world.
It's astonishing from a city that owes its very existence to commerce. A city that's been a successful trading, commercial centre from its beginnings. Where business is the culture.
It really should, and probably will, be required study at business schools.
But it won't be the end of Dubai, in spite of what some commentators will now be saying. We've already seen some of that, plus highly critical pieces using the announcement as an excuse to come back into print, such as the latest Johann Hari piece in The Independent.
The sky won't fall in. The desert won't reclaim the city. It won't be a ghost town.
Think of it terms we've grown accustomed to over the past year. Think of it as toxic debt. It's separate from the real economy. It's like the financial markets and the real economy, they're very different from each other.
This is about the ability of one company in particular, and associated companies, to repay its loans.
Dubai has two sectors, the most important is the real economy where tens of thousands of generally SMEs are still trading, still doing profitable business. Dubai Chamber of Commerce has over 100,000 members for example, and Jebel Ali Free Zone alone has over 6,000 companies registered there.
Other large government-related companies such as Emirates Airline, Dubal, Ducab, Dubai International Airport, Dubai Duty Free are all producing excellent profits.
And of course the old established merchant family conglomerates are still going strong - Al Ghurair, Al Futtaim, Al Majid, Al Habtoor, Galadari and the others.
So business goes on much as usual in the real world. It's always been there, trundling along quietly and profitably out of the news. Dubai's history since the early eighteen-hundreds has been about being commercially successful and going on into the future that will continue.
The other sector is the fantasy world of unsustainable development. But that was a blip in the grand scheme of things for the last five or six years, for other parts of the world too, not just for Dubai - although Dubai's was more outrageous, more unsustainable than probably anywhere. That's what's dead, the fantasy world, the parallel universe, to which Nakheel was the worst contributor.
I said earlier that Dubai's culture was business, which is what I've long argued with people who've said there's no culture. People are here to work, to do business, and always have been. It's the focus of just about everyone here and it's the reason for the city's existence.
But another part of the culture is 'I must have it now' and that's been a large part of the problem. Wanting to build a city the size of Singapore in a decade.
What's actually been achieved is amazing but Nakheel in particular went far too far in too many grandiose developments at the same time. Reality went out of the window and they were off in the land of the fairies. Reality always reappears as it has now.
It's a pity the old established merchant families weren't in charge. In fact it seems with the recent sackings and sideways transfers of some big-name rising stars that the old guard is being brought in to get things back onto a more sensible level.
A huge PR disaster, damage to Dubai's reputation, damage that will take some time to repair, and a setback for Dubai's growth. But not its collapse.
You can read some of the international press I've quoted from here:
The Times.
Daily Telegraph.
Wall Street Journal.
An understatement.
It was actually a classic of mishandling. Business schools should use it as a case study of exactly what not to do. Of how to turn bad news into a disaster.
There's inevitably been over-reaction, with bond and stock markets plunging from Europe to Asia to the US to Australia, bank shares hammered, a flight to safe havens, damning stories all around the world.
"Nervous traders, trying to understand what it meant, caused havoc across global markets. Shares plunged, currencies were battered and billions of pounds were wiped off the value of all companies with Middle East connections. British banks, considered to be among the most exposed to Dubai, were at the centre of this new maelstrom and collectively shed £14bn in value on Thursday alone."
Daily Telegraph
An overreaction of course but panic is the natural reaction of markets to bad news. After a short period it settles down as people think rather than just act but blind panic is always the first response.
To put it in perspective the amounts involved (about $60billion) are tiny in relation to what's been going on in the world. Companies like Lehman Bros ($613billion liabilities), banks by the dozen, countries like Iceland were leveraged multiple times more than DW, making Dubai World's debts almost petty cash.
But Dubai's reputation is taking a battering because of the way the thing was handled.
Statements in the months leading up to the maturing of Nakheel's bond were that the finances were all in order, then came the terse announcement on Wednesday that payment due on December 14 would be deferred at least six months. The timing of the announcement minutes before the ten day holiday added immeasurably to the problem, causing the doubts and panic, increasing the fallout. An obvious attempt to dodge the hard questions that were bound to be asked.
The problem isn't only the admission that the commitments couldn't be met - there's still belief that Abu Dhabi will come to the rescue. The way it's been handled leads people to believe that Dubai's much-vaunted business acumen is a myth. If they can't even handle something like this competently...
I've been glancing through some of my regular reads and I'm finding:
"Released after the markets shut, ahead of the 10-day Eid holiday and the Thanksgiving break in America, the notice was designed to have minimum impact. It wasn't the Dubai government's first miscalculation.amateurish...botched messaging...episode of incompetence...the biggest debt-market cock-up...this week's events have damaged its reputation for economic competence"
The Nakheel bond has been the subject of much speculation for a year at least. It was the big test of Dubai's ability to service its debt, of Dubai's ability to run businesses effectively. In a wider sense it was also taken a representative of Islamic bonds in general.
Past months have seen senior government figures reassuring the markets. Dubai could and would meet its commitments they said.
Even earlier in the day of the announcement statements were released about Dubai raising another $5 billion from Abu Dhabi banks.
So everything was under control.
What happened?
They decided to make the announcement of what is being seen as a default at close of business.
At close of business on the eve of a ten day holiday.
Drop a bombshell as you leave for holiday.
"Dubai’s authorities have acted badly....This week’s revelations were not only unexpected; they were also delivered just as the Gulf states shut up shop for an extended holiday. This is the action of a company that seems to think that it can operate in a globalised marketplace only when it suits its purposes."
The Times
I seems it's not only investors and traders who were caught by surprise. More than one report suggests that even Abu Dhabi wasn't aware that the announcement was going to be made.
"Thursday's market turmoil appeared to take federal officials in the capital Abu Dhabi by surprise. One person familiar with their thinking said there was dismay over the reaction to the handling of the announcement."
Wall Street Journal
There are also reports that 'frantic phone calls' to government officials and business leaders were unanswered.
Naturally. Everyone's on holiday. Try again about December 6. No problem, that's not even two weeks away and everything's under control anyway.
It was carefully planned, according to the statement issued late on Thursday.
I like the column by Alistair Osborne in the Daily Telegraph on the subject:
"Why we must consider Dubai's 'careful planning' a work of pure genius
Let's be generous here. Maybe Dubai was just trying to set another record.
It's already given us the biggest building, biggest indoor ski slope, biggest shopping mall and biggest theme park. Surely, it was only a matter of time before it went for another biggie: the biggest debt-market cock-up.
The Wall Street journal says:
"For Dubai to now claim it had anticipated the market reaction to its "sensible business decision" is preposterous. Dubai stands accused of irresponsibility, incompetence and bad faith. Few will trust now anything it says."
So, a PR disaster of the highest magnitude. Unbelievably badly handled. I can't imagine what they were thinking, it shows a complete unawareness of the real business world.
It's astonishing from a city that owes its very existence to commerce. A city that's been a successful trading, commercial centre from its beginnings. Where business is the culture.
It really should, and probably will, be required study at business schools.
But it won't be the end of Dubai, in spite of what some commentators will now be saying. We've already seen some of that, plus highly critical pieces using the announcement as an excuse to come back into print, such as the latest Johann Hari piece in The Independent.
The sky won't fall in. The desert won't reclaim the city. It won't be a ghost town.
Think of it terms we've grown accustomed to over the past year. Think of it as toxic debt. It's separate from the real economy. It's like the financial markets and the real economy, they're very different from each other.
This is about the ability of one company in particular, and associated companies, to repay its loans.
Dubai has two sectors, the most important is the real economy where tens of thousands of generally SMEs are still trading, still doing profitable business. Dubai Chamber of Commerce has over 100,000 members for example, and Jebel Ali Free Zone alone has over 6,000 companies registered there.
Other large government-related companies such as Emirates Airline, Dubal, Ducab, Dubai International Airport, Dubai Duty Free are all producing excellent profits.
And of course the old established merchant family conglomerates are still going strong - Al Ghurair, Al Futtaim, Al Majid, Al Habtoor, Galadari and the others.
So business goes on much as usual in the real world. It's always been there, trundling along quietly and profitably out of the news. Dubai's history since the early eighteen-hundreds has been about being commercially successful and going on into the future that will continue.
The other sector is the fantasy world of unsustainable development. But that was a blip in the grand scheme of things for the last five or six years, for other parts of the world too, not just for Dubai - although Dubai's was more outrageous, more unsustainable than probably anywhere. That's what's dead, the fantasy world, the parallel universe, to which Nakheel was the worst contributor.
I said earlier that Dubai's culture was business, which is what I've long argued with people who've said there's no culture. People are here to work, to do business, and always have been. It's the focus of just about everyone here and it's the reason for the city's existence.
But another part of the culture is 'I must have it now' and that's been a large part of the problem. Wanting to build a city the size of Singapore in a decade.
What's actually been achieved is amazing but Nakheel in particular went far too far in too many grandiose developments at the same time. Reality went out of the window and they were off in the land of the fairies. Reality always reappears as it has now.
It's a pity the old established merchant families weren't in charge. In fact it seems with the recent sackings and sideways transfers of some big-name rising stars that the old guard is being brought in to get things back onto a more sensible level.
A huge PR disaster, damage to Dubai's reputation, damage that will take some time to repair, and a setback for Dubai's growth. But not its collapse.
You can read some of the international press I've quoted from here:
The Times.
Daily Telegraph.
Wall Street Journal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
