By Editor Morten B. Reitoft

Just a few weeks ago, I interviewed former Elanders GmbH CEO Peter Sommer, who publicly criticized the strategy announced by Heidelberg just a few weeks before. To be honest, the reactions have been overwhelming, and quite interesting, from every corner of the world. 

Reading these messages got me to think.  

Is the Heidelberg strategy good and just poorly communicated, or is the strategy not good at all?  

Both the communication and the strategy is worth discussing, so I have divided my article into two, so we can discuss these separately. Of course, we have to define a few things before going into each subject, and I also want to raise a disclaimer. 

A strategy is per definition designed to bring you from one market position to the next. For companies, this is typical to ensure growth or sometimes a better future market position. A good strategy has to be developed based on in-depth knowledge about your company, your markets, your products/services, and a qualified guess/analysis of where the future market is.  

A crucial element in rolling out a new strategy is that stakeholders are aligned with the strategy, and all know their role. The communication process is, therefore, critical - both internally and externally. 

In the next article, we will dive into top-down vs bottom-up execution of strategies. 

The way we communicate with each other, both as individuals and businesses, changes all the time. With Social Media, things spread faster than ever, but it also has to be open for dialogue. A company today must have a clear communication strategy where the response is fast, engaging, and including. Many American companies have experienced that primary communication is now Twitter - and to declare, I am not a big fan of that development. However, don't you think that Donald Trump is aware of the reach and speed of Twitter? Don't you believe that American Airliners are aware of the importance of Twitter? 

So what is corporate communication? Well, first and most important is to understand the difference between marketing and communication. Marketing is in broad terms related to the products and services from a company. Even followers, influencers, and stakeholders can be considered part of the marketing effort. Communication, however, is mostly concerning the company and the brand. Communication is also in broad terms to 'protect' the management from journalists and media, to ensure that a company continues to have a strong identity in peoples minds.  

Below are some examples of communication/marketing ideas that completely failed (from grasshopper.com:) 

"Cartoon Network Causes Boston Bomb Scare. Cartoon Network once undertook a guerrilla marketing campaign that involved placing suspicious-looking LED devices around Boston to promote one of their TV shows. When residents mistakenly believed the LED characters were actually bombs, any upside to their campaign was quickly lost, as was the job of then Cartoon Network boss Jim Samples." 

Or what about this? 

"Fictitious Chevrolet Nova in South America. Have you heard the story about how GM made a disastrous but straightforward mistake when they tried to introduce the Nova in Latin America? They thought they could use the same brand name they used in the United States. They couldn't figure out why no one wanted it until they learned it translated in Spanish to 'No-go.' Here's a tip: this story never actually happened, but millions believe the urban legend!" 

The purpose of communication is, therefore, to ensure brand and company in the public opinion. Silence isn't an option. Large corporates MUST communicate and respond to potential criticism since even small media (like INKISH), can become PR-tsunamis of bad-will.  

INKISH is an independent media, and though I never thought we would be the one that should bring stories like this one to the market, it is a fact that there is a need for transparency. I have been asked whether I have something against Heidelberg or why I am "bashing" them? First of all, I believe that being in the spotlight of criticism is never something you aim for - so neither Heidelberg or INKISH for that matter enjoy this spotlight very much. I, however, believe when companies and individuals with enormous financial power and reach, do things that can influence an entire industry, the role of the media is to report, analyze, and maybe even represent the under-represented part. INKISH has since our origin declared that we work after the seven news-criteria that also major newspapers like the New York Times, Washington Post, and a wide range of other international media, comply to. Being an independent media also demand that we do stories regardless of potential loss in revenue, being stressed by possible threads from the industry, or even being accused of things that I can't recall ever said or done. Since most trade-media have chosen not to discuss the Heidelberg strategy, of course, we can be entirely wrong in our analysis. I take that on my shoulder, but as you will see in the next article, the simple answer to a very complex question is: 

Is the printing industry moving towards a digital future or not? That should answer at least one question why the Heidelberg strategy seems misaligned.  

So when Heidelberg decided to communicate their strategy, they chose to address the press, rather than their customers, and stakeholders - and not doing so may have, in my opinion, caused PR damage. I can't believe that nobody at Heidelbergs PR- and Communications team wouldn't think that announcing the termination of the Primefire platform and the VLF platform could impact industry opinions, and lead to a need for rapid responses? 

When Peter Sommer publicly criticized Heidelberg and their strategy, the response from Heidelberg was silence. After publishing our interview with Peter Sommer, we offered an interview with Rainer Hundsdörfer, to clarify not only the strategy but also the questions addressed! So far - no interest. Shareholder value, however, clearly speaks its language. Not because of INKISH or Peter Sommer, but because Heidelberg doesn't understand how the world communicates today? 

From a communications perspective, I believe the best option from Heidelberg would be to respond in public. However, and I don't know if this is the case, or it just is a fact since I have connected with a large number of current and past Heidelberg employees. Still, it seems that Heidelberg is pushing more content to social media than usual, and unfortunately, this content is products, services, COVID-19 responses, rather than what the industry really need - answers.  

The industry doesn't need new equipment, information about services, and Heidelberg's COVID-19 responses, but answers about where Heidelberg is in the future. In a corona crisis like the one we see now, it doesn't make sense that Heidelberg communicate that THEY are System Relevant. As both BVDM and Andreas Weber explain, it's the printing industry that is system relevant and not Heidelberg - or any other vendor for that matter. To announce statements like this has, of course, been through the Heidelberg PR-engine. One can only speculate why this has been managed SO bad.  

So - the communication strategy. Well, judge for yourself whether you find it good or not good.

If you want to read more - see part two by clicking here.