Garena PR Siwei Tan on finding ‘non-aggressive’ journalists to interview ‘media shy’ CEO

“PR is about understanding the management’s preferences and tailoring it to suit their needs and comfort.”

That’s the most ridiculous statement on PR I have heard from a professional. Does she even know what PR is or is she taking cues from how Kelly Conway is handling PR for the Trump administration?

Wesley you obviously haven’t tried working with/for the Chinese. Or maybe you’ve been taking too many cues from this write-up which has been twisted to fit the journalist’s need to sell a story.

Firstly this is Singapore and not China. Let’s not compare apples to oranges. And yes I do agree that the article was biased against her somewhat but the quotes are what they are. Bottomline is this lady does not understand the fundamentals of PR.

Why Forrest Li needs to be protected:

https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/2dsgs5/heres_the_story_garena_doesnt_want_you_to_read/

here’s the original chinese text from steven liu, plus (not in the reddit post) forrest’s email reply to a chinese email interview with an attachment of the msn messaging contents between the founders.

http://www.yan.sg/garena/

the contents are not secret. they are all over the chinese internet.

Bit surprised by the reaction I’m seeing online that sorta follow Wesley’s line of thinking. While I don’t fully agree with the Siwei, she isn’t exactly wrong. PR isn’t about journalists, its about the company and the fact that PR people are paid by corporates and not the media, means we work for the corporates.
Where I disagree or at least need more info, is why Siwei hasn’t tried to educate the Garena team about being more aggressive themselves and not shying away from difficult questions.
Anyway I like the fact this was highlighted and hope it raises real questions instead of the usual ‘PR is a trash industry..’ diatribe online.
Terng Shing
(10yrs in PR & currently working for MyDoc)

I must say that I’m somewhat surprised that someone with 10 years of PR experience would say that PR isn’t about journalists. Sure we’re paid to represent companies… via journalists. That’s the job. So it very much is about journalists. Our job is to best represent companies as they interact with the media. A media that we do not control (and rightly so). Cultivating tame pet journalists may sound like a clever trick, but it’s not a viable long term solution and leaves you tremendously vulnerable. Good PR people know how to put the company’s best foot forward, brief journalists and prepare spokes people well so that they can handle tough questions, not run away from them. You’re not helping anyone by running away.

I think if you look at PR in a singular, very narrow-focus way then yes you’re right. However, it is much more than that and the industry is moving towards that.
However, I’d like to agree to disagree on this.
Working with journalists is a must, and I didn’t agree with Siwei on quite a bit of her points. What I do like to point out is simple; if we work for a company (agency or in-house) our first priority is to protect and then help elevate our brand. I didn’t agree with her methods, but the reasoning is standard.

PR that works as a gatekeeper for the company is bad PR.

PR that builds solid, mutually beneficial relationships between the company and a range of public stakeholders is good PR. The clue is in the name. Duh.

“protecting the brand” – why so defensive? I see this so often in PR, particularly in-house. It is so regressive.

I’m not sure what you mean by looking at PR in a singular narrow way nor where you believe the industry is moving to. What I was saying isn’t controversial. PR is about the cultivation of a positive public image. And yes, social media may have given companies more direct access to the public, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. We were talking specifically about PR’s relationships with journalists. And in that context asserting that “PR is about understanding the management’s preferences and tailoring it to suit their needs and comfort” by selecting tame journalists is just plain wrong. It’s wishful thinking at best. Better to educate your management and prepare them for the tough questions. That’s the responsible thing to do.

It’s about keeping the balanced link between the needs of the company and the needs of readers and journalists. This lady swings vrey heavily in favour of the company, so it’s hard to trust the comms.

Worth noting that Siwei Tan is relatively junior in terms of PR experience, so some leeway should be given for comments she made at an event (and where by her own admission she was very nervous).

A discussion on the role of PR is good, but let’s not make this too personal.

Whether they are willing to admit or not, there are sadly many PR people who have the same view as Siwei, from Kelly Ann Conway downward. But if you are in PR and you hold this view, never, never say it- just DO it. But remember, it’s not a sustainable strategy. Someday, somewhere your boss is going to have to field the hard questions. Having a history of being mollycoddled and protected from probing questioning will not help.

Ehrmygad, she said this?! WTH. Lady, who showed your cards. I’m from the school that believes there’s nothing wrong with what you are doing, but don’t be stpid enough to say it in public.

Whether people say it or not, journalists know.

I am in PR now but in my previous editorial role we separated PR people into two categories: gatekeepers and enablers. Guess which ones got the best coverage in the publication? And which ones got our support when they were in a tough position (for example, when they asked us to delay an exclusive)?

It’s not rocket science. Media relations is about…wait for it…relations! And relations are a two-way street. Help us and we help you. Simple. Siwei will learn. Or she will get very frustrated in her job.

I was there at seminar. This article was taken out of context. Bits and pieces of her word taken out and put in such manner.

Hi Lindsay,

Thanks for your feedback. I was in the audience too that day and as you’ll remember the talk in it’s entirety lasted 25 minutes. Both logistically and editorially, it’s not in either ours or the readers’ interests to quote her full speech verbatim. Therefore, we have to take the most interesting quotes otherwise there is little of value to the readers. This is a fair representation of Siwei’s argument and has indeed not been disputed by Garena in our discussions with the company since publication.

Cheers,
Eleanor

nothing wrong. girls doing it safe to keep a job. just stupid enough to say it out in public.