The PR industry needs to do much more for employees and their mental health

For many of you, the headline will be no surprise. When it comes to mental health issues, the public relations and communications industry just isn’t doing enough. A survey undertaken by the PRCA and ICCO, in partnership with IABC, across Europe and the Middle East underlines the scale of the issue that is facing the industry. Here are my highlights from the 140 plus respondents.

1. Mental Health is an issue for many of us

Mental Depression Suffering PR people

A quarter of respondents to the survey said that they had suffered from mental ill health

A quarter of those surveyed said they’d had mental health issues, the majority of them being diagnosed (either professionally or self-diagnosed) with depression or anxiety.

2. PR Practitioners don’t feel the industry is accepting of people suffering from mental ill health.

MentalDepressionfour

The majority of respondents felt that the PR and communications industry isn’t accepting of people suffering from mental ill health

There’s a widespread perception among people working in the PR industry that the industry as a whole isn’t willing to help those suffering from mental ill health. A quarter did say that they felt the profession was fairly accepting, while almost half said the industry was either not very accepting or very accepting. Almost a third responded by saying they didn’t know.

3. Few Organizations have a mental health policy in place

MentalDepressionthree

Less than ten percent of respondents answered that their firm has a formal mental health policy

What’s most concerning is the the apparent lack of any formal mental health frameworks or policies in place among both agencies and client-side teams. Fewer than ten percent of respondents said their team had any systems in place. I’d assume this would also extend to insurance coverage for mental health issues. If there are policies in place, it’s clear that they’re not being communicated effectively to employees.

4. Workloads up, and Stress is also on the rise

MentalDepressionsix

Unsurprisingly, over fifty percent of respondents felt more stressed today than they did a year back

These responses mirror my own observations about workloads. The industry is struggling with workloads, especially on the agency side where margins are tight. Over half of respondents said they’re suffering from more stress today compared to 12 months ago, partly due to internal pressures and also partly due to client demands (this was a frequent issue that was flagged up by agency people, underlining the lack of understanding many on the client side have on agency pressures).

5. Colleagues, not Managers, are the go-to people to talk about mental health

MentalDepressiontwo

Employees are much more eager to talk to colleagues, rather than managers. There’s a 50/50 split on those who would be willing to talk to colleagues, compared to a 40/60 split for those who would prefer to talk to their manager.

MentalDepressiontwo

Management need to do more to be approachable on the issue on mental health. This may prove a challenge for some, especially if the employee believes that the manager is responsible for his or her poor mental health.

This is just a snapshot of the research that the PRCA and ICCO will be releasing today. I’d like to thank both organizations for their work, as well as the CIPR, for promoting debate on a topic which has been ignored for far too long. The PRCA will be hosting webinars on mental health and how you can best deal with this issue. The CIPR also has a host of resources online. Please do visit their respective websites to keep up to date on the issue. I hope more associations begin to understand the importance of talking about this issue, so that those in our industry who need help get it, and so that employers realize the importance of promoting mental well being and a balanced approach to how we work.

The Art of the Pitch – Advice from UAE Media on what works, and what doesn’t

keepcalm

The pitch – these two words can strike fear into the hearts of a PR executive. And with good reason; journalists can tear a pitch to shreds in the time it takes you to read this sentence. Perfecting a pitch doesn’t need to be hard. But don’t take my words for it. I’ve asked four Dubai-based journalists to talk about the best and the worst pitches, as well as what advice they would proffer to people working in public relations. Thank you to the journalists who shared their answers (disclaimer: no PR people were hurt during the writing of this post). Here we go!

  • What’s the best pitch you’ve received?

Journalist 1

It was from Rachel Maher at PHD UAE.

The pitch was regarding coverage for PHD’s upcoming Brainscape conference. The theme of the year was ‘AI’. She took the time to go through my editorial calendar, factor in the deadlines, and then approach me with a few initial ideas on how we could work together. She then met for a coffee to further brainstorm and was perfectly happy to be part of another feature I had planned around AI – instead of expecting and insisting massive coverage on the event alone.

To summarize, what I liked was:

  • Factoring in the magazine’s timelines
  • Brainstorming to see what works best for the title – not just the company
  • Supporting with contacts and relevant material
  • Not expecting and insisting on exclusive coverage; instead collaborating and adding value to the magazine

Journalist 2

I don’t think there’s been a ‘best’ pitch that has stood out for me – sorry!

Journalist 3

No particular pitch is very memorable – but I’ll tell you the most successful ones were the simplest. “Hey, saw you had a story on X yesterday. Would you be interested in a follow-up/ related story.” Provided they’re telling the truth, I’ll likely stop what I’m doing to listen.

Journalist 4

Best pitch was possibly from a junior PR girl at MSL handling Cadillac, who had found the “Penalty of Leadership” ad and suggested getting the Cadillac marketing manager to write about how it resonates today. I was impressed because it was about advertising, not about the car, I’d not seen the ad, and it was a bit random. Mind you, they never filed. But I was impressed at the pitch.

  • And Worst pitch:

Journalist 1

Honestly, too many to name, so here’s are the kind of pitches that really suck:

  1. The one where they just name the client and state that they want exposure (duh!)

Getting exposure for the client is a PR agency’s job! It’s also their job to figure out how. A generic email stating that we have XYZ client and want to get them featured – without mentioning little else – is frustrating, to say the least.

  1. The one where the client wants control of everything

The client decides when, what and how, they’ll contribute without any regard for the title’s editorial style and/or guidelines. I’ve had several people call asking (rather rudely) why a comma was changed or why a sentence was paraphrased… please, let editors do their jobs!

  1. The one where the agency knows nothing

I’ve had PR folks reach out with random pitches from artificial insemination to the hottest ladies’ night out. While the latter is helpful personally, I don’t know how it’s relevant to the magazine. So, in some instances, I ask which section they’re pitching this for. Of course, the replies are sections that don’t exist.

  1. The one where they overestimate their client

As harsh as this might sound, sometimes a company/spokesperson is just not worth being featured. They don’t have anything interesting or new to offer – even if the topic fits within the editorial structure of the title. PR folks refuse to understand the shortcomings of their client and get extremely pushy by suggesting different angles and story ideas.

Journalist 2

LITERALLY everything in October that’s centers around Breast Cancer Awareness. From pink cupcakes to pink drinks to yoga on the beach, there’s absolutely no connection and it’s just a way for brands to peddle their name for the month.

Journalist 3

I am actually failing to come up with the example of a really bad pitch. I think it’s because I’ve heard so many bad pitches over the years, I assume that everything is a bad pitch; as a result, I only listen for about 10 seconds. If the PR hasn’t gotten to the point, I either ask them to get to the point NOW (if I sense there may be some usable behind the rambling) or just shut them off. If I shut them off, it means I’ve probably forgotten about them about 10 seconds later.

Journalist 4

So many! One girl pitched me the new line of Samsonite suitcases and I asked her where I should run it. “The Business News section,” she suggested. (I was on Communicate then). I told her I couldn’t find that section, so she said wherever I saw fit. I said the back page, Dish section would probably be best. She agreed. Then when I ran the conversation in full on our back page, her boss called me to say she was in tears. Should he fire her? No, I said, as she’s guaranteed to always read the mags she’s pitching to from now on. I felt like a bit of a shit, though.

  • What’s your advice to PR people re pitching to media

Journalist 1

Be considerate. As cliché as it sounds, please understand the pressures under which journalists and editors today are working. Stop wasting their time with numerous calls; a barrage of emails; irrelevant messages; and being pushy.

Be relevant. Do your research, go through a couple of previous issues (not just the most recent one), and then see how you can add value. Your job is to get exposure for your clients, not ours. Figure out how. We’d be happy to work with you, not do your job for you.

Push back. Sometimes, you know your client is wrong. Let them know. And if you can’t, don’t approach with us something you don’t believe in yourself.

Know how much is too much. I can’t say this enough but please stop calling, emailing and Whatsapping…all at the same time!

And most importantly, you don’t always need to pitch! The best PR folks, in my opinion, are the ones who are responsive, quick and present when journalists and editors need a comment or contribution.

Journalist 2

Know. Your. Audience. I don’t want to receive pitches or releases about going back to school or the latest women’s fall collection if that’s not what I write about. Also, if you’ve emailed me about something, there’s absolutely no need to give me a phone call a few hours later to see if ‘I’ve had a chance to review the email’. If something really does interest me, I will respond and take things forward myself.

Journalist 3

Get to the point. Be honest, even if you think it means I won’t be interested. Be ready to accept rejections (I’ve send emails telling me entire dept to ignore emails from a PR if – after getting a no from me – they try to go around me to another editor or reporter. Deliver on what you promise.

Journalist 4

The usual. Know the magazine. Tailor the pitch to the readers, not to your client. No one gives a damn about how market leading your client’s solutions are; they want to be informed, educated or entertained. The point of a B2B mag is to help readers do their jobs better, not to let them ignore free advertorial.

  • Has Social Media changed the pitch?

Journalist 1

This is hard to answer because I am the social media generation. I haven’t personally experienced pitches prior to social media. Having said that, for better or for worse, I don’t see the growth of social media having any bearing on the pitching process.

Journalist 2

I thankfully haven’t been pitched too often via SM, but on occasion an agency or PR person will tweet me or send a message on Facebook saying that they’d like to connect for a story or brand. It’s certainly an easier way to connect with people, but I still think it’s better to pitch something via email or phone call (provided the pitch is relevant!)

Journalist 3

Thanks to social media, it’s just gotten more chaotic because about half the industry isn’t using social media (hi, just calling to let you know I sent you an email) and the other half hits you up on random platforms I really don’t use. I get more pitches of LinkedIn, which I hate and am almost never on, than Twitter, which I am on waaay to much.

Journalist 4

Everyone used to want to see their clients in the mag. Saying I’d use a story online would always be seen as second best. That’s because they all wanted to leave it on their desks, show it to their mums, etc. Now, it’s the opposite. They all want it online, not just in print, so they can share it with their social networks.

Podcasts, Podcasts and more Podcasts. Just remove the Comments!

636066150393391521-651031690_itunes-on-iphone-podcast-headphones-24

Podcasting is a popular move for publishers in the UAE (image source: theodysseyonline.com)

If, like me, you’re a news junkie who feels they spend far too much time in a car, you’re in luck. The UAE’s media outlets have gone on a Podcast frenzy.

The Gulf News business desk began their podcasting about five months back. Named Dirhams and Dollars, the series is an eclectic mix of anything and everything business related, from social media and e-commerce, to the impact that politics has on economics and economies. Headed up by the trio of business editor Scott Shuey, and staff reporter Ed Clowes and Sarah Diaa, the casts are hosted on Soundcloud and usually run for about 15 to 30 minutes. The series is distributed by Twitter  as well (disclaimer – I do love the team picture).

As part of their relaunch, The National has launched a new series of current affairs podcasts, named Beyond the Headlines, where they aim to deep dive into issues which the editorial team feel deserve more attention. The podcasts are hosted on Audioboom and are normally curated by the Assistant Editor-in-Chief Mustafa Alrawi for about 30 minutes.

Others are set to follow. Motivate’s Emirates Woman will soon be launching a podcast series focusing on women’s issues across the region.

While some publishers are putting out more content, in new formats (I’d love to see if the move to podcasting will have any impact on radio in the region), others are doing away with some sections of their website. Al Jazeera is removing its comments section, and here’s why:

The mission of Al Jazeera is to give a voice to the voiceless, and healthy discussion is an active part of this. When we first opened up comments on our website, we hoped that it would serve as a forum for thoughtful and intelligent debate that would allow our global audience to engage with each other.

However, the comments section was hijacked by users hiding behind pseudonyms spewing vitriol, bigotry, racism and sectarianism. The possibility of having any form of debate was virtually non-existent.

Also, over time, we found social media to be the preferred platform for our audience to debate the issues that matter the most to them. We encourage our audience to continue to interact with us this way.

This decision also comes at a time when we as a publisher need to evaluate what our priorities are. We feel that rather than approaching the problem with a collection of algorithms and an army of moderators, our engineering and editorial resources are better utilised building new storytelling formats that resonate with our audience.

Al Jazeera are looking at how to host comments, so this may only be temporary. However, it does highlight the issue of anonymity online, especially in a region which is beset by a number of political disputes between different countries.

Why we shouldn’t be patting ourselves on the back over the Bell Pottinger saga

atul_gupta_protest_banner_-_cape_town_zuma_must_fall

Bell Pottinger has fallen from grace due to its work with the Gupta family, but there are many other instances of ethically dubious work being done by PR practitioners and agencies.

Unless you’ve been living in a cave, with no cellphone connection and no newspaper rounds, there’s only one topic of conversation today in the PR industry. That is the expulsion of Bell Pottinger from the UK’s Public Relations and Communications Association for its work with the South Africa-based Gupta family. The agency was found to be promoting racial divisions through fake social media accounts in order to divert attention away from their client’s government connections and accusations of improper acquisition of wealth. Here’s a brief background, from the UK’s Guardian newspaper.

Bell Pottinger, one of the City’s leading public relations agencies, has been expelled from the industry’s trade association after an investigation found its secret campaign to stir up racial tensions in South Africa to be the worst breach of ethics in its history.

The Public Relations and Communications Association said Bell Pottinger was unethical and unprofessional, had brought the industry into disrepute and has banned the firm from its membership for at least five years.

The punishment, unprecedented for a firm of Bell Pottinger’s size, was handed down after the PRCA investigated a complaint from South Africa’s main opposition party that the PR firm sought to stir up anger about “white monopoly capital” and the “economic apartheid” in South Africa.

Bell Pottinger was being paid £100,000 a month by client Oakbay Capital, the holding company of the wealthy, powerful and controversial Gupta family, who have been accused of benefiting financially from their close links to the South African president, Jacob Zuma. Both have previously denied such a relationship.

The PRCA decision to investigate and then expel Bell Pottinger was announced following a complaint by the Democratic Alliance, South Africa’s main opposition party, about Bell Pottinger’s work.

There’s been a chorus of voices congratulating the PRCA for this decision (could they have taken any other route?), and insisting that the industry should follow more rigorous ethical guidelines.

What concerns me is 1) how any agency would have taken on a brief to harm others on behalf of a client, 2) why any body would need a complaint to be made to take action when the information was in the public domain (the story broke in Spring of this year, and we’re now into September), and 3) why is this particular case being highlighted when there’s a myriad of other client-agency relationships which should be under the spotlight.

Let me spell out some of the ethically-dubious issues that are there for all to see. We have the US Special Counsel Robert Mueller who is issuing grand jury subpoenas seeking testimony from public relations executives who worked on an international campaign organized by former Trump campaign adviser Paul Manafort as part of his investigation into the alleged Russian interference in US elections, a whole raft of PR agencies and lobby groups working for governments with poor to nil human rights (a recent example is APCO and the Egyptian government), and agencies working with firms who impact public health. Bell Pottinger’s founder Tim Bell has an interesting CV; he’s worked with the Pinochet Foundation, Syria’s First Lady Asma al-Assad and Alexander Lukashenko, the Belarusian dictator.

The industry has historically had a reputation for spinning. The father of PR, Edward Bernays, was long associated with the tobacco industry. Anyone who has worked in the industry in the region will know of the role that Hill & Knowlton played in pushing the United States into the first Gulf War through the use of a fictional story about dying babies. More recently we’ve seen agencies use fake digital and social media accounts to discredit groups, corporations or countries on behalf of clients. I could go on…

We have to face up to the fact that the PR industry has an ethics problem. There are far too many agencies who will take the business if the cheque has enough zeros. For an industry that trades in reputation above all, we have to take a far stricter stance on ethics, at least at an agency level. While I applaud the PRCA for what it has done, this is only scratching the surface. We shouldn’t start patting ourselves on the back when the job to clean up the industry has only just begun.

 

How to get not-for-profit marketing right (and some examples of how not to do it)

Every now and then I see something so bad that I have to write a blog post. Above you’ll see two text messages I received this week. There was nothing about which charity this was coming from (I received them from two separate four digit codes), no ability to choose how much to give (beyond that amount or nothing), and nothing about what the money was to be spent on. This was it.

Apart from theoretically being illegal in the UAE (any fundraising needs to clearly state which charity is involved), there really was nothing good about these messages from a marketing point of view. There was no transparency about the charity or recipients, no additional information, and the misuse of a national initiative to drive giving. It was all wrong.

 

notforprofits

These are the five key characteristics of not-for-profits, as described by Kotler. One of them is transparency, and the other is orientation.

Charity marketing is tough; asking people to hand over their money for a product that won’t directly benefit them is much harder than commercial marketing. However, here’s a few simple steps that anyone in this sector in the Gulf should follow.

Define Your Audience(s)

The first step in any engagement is to know who to talk to. In the case of a charity these are the questions to ask:

  • Who comprises your donor base? How do you know these people and what are they
    getting from you?
  • Who do you impact and who impacts you? Create a list of everyone
    your organization comes into contact with. This list will help you determine what you should be saying to them, as well as when and how.
  • How do you engage? How do you treat your audiences? How often do you send fundraising appeals, information, updates, or policy alerts? What other types of communication are you sending? And what recognition do you offer donors for their generosity?

Clearly Craft Your Call to Action

A charity appeal must spur action (preferably in the shape of a donation). An effective call to action has five necessary attributes.

  1. Be highly specific and realistic. Focus on a very specific action that people can understand and are able to do. The easier the request, the more likely is that it’ll be acted upon.
  2. Personalize your messaging. The more personal the message is, the more likely the recipient will want to act. No one likes being on a mass mailer, especially one which doesn’t use your name or specify why you’re receiving this message.
  3. Give donors options. Not everybody can donate. Give people choices to make a difference, through opportunities such as volunteering. Think about how you
    can build your community of potential supporters.
  4. Make it simple. Is the contribution process easy and barrier-free? Cut out any unneccesary steps for those who want to help.

Clearly Describe the Donation

Consumers should be able to easily understand how their action will benefit a charity.  Advertisements, websites and any material used to promote a donation should prominently disclose:

  • The name of any charity receiving a donation, as well as the mission of the
    organization if it is not readily apparent by the name.
  • The benefit the charity will receive from the donation.
  • Who or what the charity will be spending the money on.

There’s much more to it than the above, but I hope it’ll help you get the basics right. If you need more information, then please do drop me a note and I’ll send over further information on charity marketing best practices (this list of 10 great charity marketing campaigns is a good place to start being inspired).

 

Trump’s CEOs: Why they felt having a dialogue was better than taking a moral stand

Trump-Merck-CEO

The CEO of Merck, Kenneth Frazier, was the first executive to quit President Trump’s business councils after the events of last week (Photo: Evan Vucci, AP)

For a moment, you could hear the sighs of relief in boardrooms across America. The CEOs of blue chip firms such as General Motors, IBM, Johnson & Johnson and PepsiCo are no longer under the microscope for their response, or lack of, to the happenings in Charlottesville, Virginia last week. These executives were part of President Trump’s business advisory groups. To quote more on the story for those who haven’t been following the news, here’s the report from The Guardian:

Donald Trump was forced to disband two White House business councils that were disintegrating around him on Wednesday in the wake of his controversial remarks about the weekend violence in Charlottesville.

The Strategic and Policy Forum and the White House Manufacturing Jobs Initiative were both dissolved as corporate leaders continued to resign.

Trump claimed in a tweet that this was his decision, writing: “Rather than putting pressure on the businesspeople of the Manufacturing Council & Strategy & Policy Forum, I am ending both. Thank you all!”

The collapse of the advisory bodies follows seven different corporate leaders stepping down from the two councils in recent days including the CEOs of both Campbell’s Soup and 3M on Wednesday.

Trump had previously stated that resignations from both panels were of no consequence. “For every CEO that drops out of the Manufacturing Council, I have many to take their place. Grandstanders should not have gone on. JOBS!” he said on Twitter on Tuesday.

Wednesday’s abrupt decision came after Trump confidante Stephen Schwarzman, chief executive of the Blackstone Group, held a conference call for about a dozen members of the strategic and policy forum who decided to abandon it, the New York Times reported. Executives from the manufacturing council had been due to hold a similar call that afternoon, the paper added.

On Wednesday, corporate leaders who sat on the councils raced to denounce Trump’s comments about Charlottesville and to support the dissolution of the advisory bodies. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan and a member of Strategic and Policy Forum, said in a statement: “I strongly disagree with President Trump’s reaction to the events that took place in Charlottesville over the past several days.” He added that he agreed with the council’s decision to disband.

Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, who had previously said on Monday that he would not step down from the manufacturing advisory board, put out a statement on Wednesday afternoon announcing that he had resigned.

Three members of the manufacturing council resigned on Monday after Trump’s initial refusal to condemn the neo-Nazi and white supremacist protesters in Charlottesville by name. Two more followed on Tuesday after Trump defended some of the protestors in a press conference at Trump Tower. The president targeted one of the CEOs, Kenneth Frazier of Merck, in two tweetsincluding one where he mentioned Frazier, the lone African American CEO to step down, by name.

What is most striking about the events of last week was the slow reaction of these executives, particularly from firms who champion diversity and inclusion. Merck’s CEO, who was the first to act, felt compelled to leave the council due to a matter of personal conscience.

This was a minority opinion, and may CEOs were determined to remain, despite the President’s refusal to condemn extremist hate groups. To quote from the Washington Post, some, such as the four government contractors on the president’s advisory councils — Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Harris Corp. and United Technologies — waited until after the councils had disbanded to publicly weigh in, if they did at all. Even then, several stopped short of singling out the president for blaming “both sides” for the violence at a white supremacist rally this past weekend in Charlottesville.

One example was Lockheed Martin, which offered no public statement. The firm’s chief executive Marillyn A. Hewson sent a note to employees on Wednesday, hours before the councils were folded, explaining that she would remain a member because the group’s mission “remains critical to our business,” even as she insisted that “white supremists, neo-Nazis, and other hate groups have no place in our society.”

Other, such as PepsiCo’s Indra Nooyi, personally condemned the violence, but failed to act beyond that.

Michael Dell, chairman and CEO of Dell Technologies was unmoved, with his spokespeople telling the media that: “While we wouldn’t comment on any member’s personal decision, there’s no change in Dell engaging with the Trump administration and governments around the world to share our perspective on policy issues that affect our company, customers and employees.”

So, what was behind the inability to move? Did these executives believe that it was worth remaining to engage with a President whose position on the Charlottesville events has been condemned?

The best comment I read was shared by a communications colleague online (thank you Tim for this share). Corporate language consultant Michael Maslansky stated, “The era of the fence-sitter corporation is over. If you’re silent about an issue, then each side will assume you’re on the wrong side. You end up really having to choose.”

Corporate leaders have to choose; they can no longer sit on the fence. And they have to be prepared for the backlash, particularly from a President who takes anything and everything personally. Corporate leaders also need to act individually, as the CEO of Merck did – it’s telling that the CEOs who stuck it out decided to end the council via a conference call, preferring collective responsibility over personal ownership (which seems to be a habit of corporate life these days).

I hope those leaders who didn’t criticize what happened last week finally do so. Apple’s Tim Cook has been vocal about his position. It’s time to get off the fence people, and not only say what you believe in and advocate for as a company, but turn those words into actions.

Is Your Content Legal? A Q&A with Al Tamimi’s Fiona Robertson

hallerandlouis_thelincolnlawyer

If your content is in breach of the UAE’s laws, you may find yourself in the courthouse (maybe not with Matthew McConaughey, however).

There’s few people who know more about media laws that Al Tamimi’s Fiona Robertson, who has strived to raise awareness of legislation that impacts those working in communications and marketing. I had the fortune of sitting down with Fiona, to talk content. I started by asking, what is legal and illegal when it comes to content.

Fiona: All content must comply with the print and publications law, which was first published in 1980 and then expanded upon by and executive resolution in the 2000s. This law applies to all media, and how it is distributed, including online. The other law people need to be aware of is the Cybercrimes law of 2012.

These laws include a list of issues which are off-limits, such as criticizing UAE culture, the UAE government, Islam and any subject which could bring disrepute to the country. In relation to the Cybercrimes law, the penalties are stiff, with up to 500,000 AED in fines as well as jail terms. Anyone who is prosecuted and found guilty under the 2012 Cybercrimes law and who is not a national will be deported.

There was a case a couple of weeks ago where a media outlet didn’t obtain the correct releases for material. This material was published on a website, and the two hosts of the show were deported. When these laws are broken, there are serious consequences.

Q: Are enough publishers, brands or agencies aware of these laws?

Fiona: We don’t see enough awareness that people are concerned about this. We get to do pre-publication compliance review for foreign brands, who often approach us, but not for local brands. People don’t realize the laws are there, as they’re not well publicized.

Q: Who oversees these laws?

Fiona: It’s the National Media Council, and Telecoms Regulatory Authority who have the power to block websites.

Q: So how are these laws applicable to social media and social media influencers?

Fiona: The provisions of the Cybercrimes law does not specify who is liable for the content. The brand, the publisher, the agency or the author could be liable for the content under the Cybercrimes act. It could the content producer, the influencer. It could be the owner of the blog. If it’s on a Facebook site, then it could be you or the brand as the account owner. In the recent case which I referred to above, the authorities prosecuted nine parties for one action which was considered to be against the Cybercrimes act.

Q: Wouldn’t the platforms, the likes of Facebook, Snap or Twitter, potentially be liable?

Fiona: Potentially, yes, they could be liable. Most are based outside of the UAE’s jurisdiction so it becomes difficult to apply sanctions against a foreign entity. But the TRA could block their sites for being in breach of the UAE’s content regulations, as they do with materials relating to topics such as gambling.

Q: So what should brands and agencies do in terms of making sure that content is legal?

Fiona: There’s several laws that brands, agencies and publishers should be aware of, including both the Cybercrimes laws and the National Media Council advertising regulations. Familiarity is the most important thing. I’m still alarmed by the number of people who tell me there’s no media laws here, where there clearly are. Start there, train your staff to know what the big red flags are in relation to content, so they’re picked up before the content goes into production.

There’s not only legal issues, but also the reputational issues. Today, UAE nationals will take to social media to make complaints and disparage brands. Sometimes the issue isn’t so much legal as it is reputational. An issue is better resolved before it becomes a problem.

Q: Is producing content in Arabic more difficult than in English?

Fiona: Foreign brands and producers may not understand the culture of the region well. They may not understand the reality versus perception, and we’re often asked to help review not just from a legal perspective but also a cultural one. Having said that, the biggest advertising fail in the last 12 months was Arabic language content produced by Arabic speakers for an Arabic country.