Much has been written recently about the rise of the Global South, with reference not just to countries of the southern hemisphere, but to pretty much all those beyond the G7 advanced economies that dominated the global system world since 1945.

These Global South countries now account for approximately 85% of the world’s population and 50% of GDP. India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Nigeria, Brazil, Mexico are among the countries set to dominate global growth in the coming decades.

Despite this, most ‘global’ communications programs are still being driven from North America or Western Europe. This is perhaps understandable, given that the bulk of multinational companies are headquartered in these regions, and most global agencies are US-centric in structure and mindset.

Over the years this structural bias has led to several high-profile examples of global campaigns gone wrong: from a brand name that translates into something unintentionally funny, to more serious and sensitive issues around how US-driven DEI initiatives can and should be rolled out.

The solution to this has largely been to get international team members’ early input on communications strategies and creative concepts originating from HQ level, testing how things resonate on the ground. This is a big, important step forward and to be welcomed.

However, we are often still left with a structural issue, which for want of a better term we can call the ‘campaignification’ of global PR. The issue can be summarized as follows:

• The HQ team and/or global lead agency develop a campaign idea for use in the first instance by the US and a select number of other ‘wave 1’ markets

• Campaign assets are developed centrally, first and foremost with wave 1 markets in mind but also thinking through how they can be adopted/adapted for wider use internationally

• When wave 1 is a good way through implementation, the ‘Rest of the World’ gets going and implements the global campaign regionally and locally

• Progress is monitored, measured and evaluated and fed into learning points for when the next campaign is developed

Nothing wrong with this per se, if the campaign is developed and executed well.

However, in the US and other top-tier markets, these global campaigns are moments in the communications calendar; complemented by national campaigns and crucially by significant daily work to engage stakeholders, build relationships and create a regular drumbeat of communication.

This ongoing drumbeat of communication is critical in building reputation and relationships with stakeholders and shaping sentiment on a company or its products and services. Some would say it is even more crucial than the big set-piece creative campaigns and assets. 

However, this required a local team and resources to deliver, and for many country teams outside the US and other top-tier markets, they have very limited resources beyond those that are hypothecated from ‘global’ to deliver on globally originated campaigns. As a result, the calendar is dominated by global campaigns and assets that are handed down from HQ.

Sound structural reasons

There are many good structural reasons for driving things from the center through global campaigns, including greater control and greater efficiency. It is after all critical to get the best ‘bang for buck’ in markets that are often not huge profit drivers or contributors to the group.

But the result of this approach is a massive structural overweighting of campaigns and a massive underweighting of the core job of understanding, engaging, educating stakeholders. Be they government, regulators, employees, media, or others.

To date this has been unfortunate but not hugely detrimental. In future ­– with the inevitable and rapid rise of the Global South – it is something that needs addressing otherwise many western MNCs (and CCOs) will increasingly lose ground to those that are prepared to put the emphasis on the unglamourous work of daily communications and engagement, rather than HQ-led campaigns.

Across the Global South one sees emerging-global companies that have stakeholder relations as a core part of a value proposition that sets them apart from legacy leaders. One also sees a new wave of disruptor brands winning hearts and minds among the roughly 85% of the global population that live in these countries. 

Soon this will start having cut-through and impacting the hitherto dominant role of Western multinational companies and brands. To avoid this there needs to be a pivot away from campaigns and towards the sort of multi-layered, nuanced approach that works in the US and EU.