Piaras Kelly PR - Public Relations in Ireland

I read with interest on the BBC about a plan being considered by the British Government to use mobile phones in a bid to combat Taleban propaganda. The BBC reports that:

The programme involves using new media like mobile phones and the internet to empower ordinary Afghans to contradict the prevailing Taleban message. Non-governmental organisations would distribute mobile phones to Afghans for them to make their own video diaries. Anti-Western films already circulate on Afghanistan’s estimated 6m mobiles. These films are also distributed among the country’s half a million internet users.

For me the strategy is flawed. The idea behind the plan revolves around the premise that mobiles are increasingly used to distribute personal content. It is assumed by introducing videos that are effectively pro Western content that it will spread in a similar fashion to Taleban propaganda. This is why the plan fails.

Consumer brands often make a similar mistake by assuming once they are on social networks they will be able to engage with a youth audience. Fact is, if their content isn’t relevant, then they will simply end up overlooked.

A video which recently spread on Afghan phones was footage of bodies killed in a recent raid. A BBC correspondent notes that it was particularly damaging to the coalition from a PR perspective. Much like the newspaper industry, bad news is far more popular than good news. Search any video sharing website and the most popular content invariably has an element of controversy. Not being an expert on the Afghan conflict, I still think it’s safe to say that even if video diaries of the ordinary public was introduced, should a similar incident take place that single video will prove to be far more viral.

The coalition would be far better served winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan population. If they want to pursue a viral strategy successfully, then the coalition would be to fight fire with fire and distribute similar controversial Taleban footage. However from an ethical perspective, the coalition could not be seen to be doing this…but then again when are ethics a consideration during conflict?