Issues and Crisis Communications 2007 / 1st Place / Starptautisks arhitektu plenērs „Jūraslīča” teritorijai
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Issues and Crisis Communications 2007 / 1st Place / Starptautisks arhitektu plenērs „Jūraslīča” teritorijai

on

  • 317 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
317
Views on SlideShare
237
Embed Views
80

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

3 Embeds 80

http://balticprawards.com 43
http://balticprawards.com.samanta.ambero.lv 20
http://www.balticprawards.com 17

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Issues and Crisis Communications 2007 / 1st Place / Starptautisks arhitektu plenērs „Jūraslīča” teritorijai Document Transcript

  • 1. L AT V I J A SS A B I E D R I S K O AT T I E C Ī B UG A D A B A LVA 2 0 0 7Konkursa darbu pieteikuma anketa Iesniedzējs: Komunikāciju aģentūra/Edelman Affiliate Kontaktpersona: Ilona Zacmane Adrese: Kr. Barona 13/15, Rīga, LV-1011 Tālrunis: 6720 1460 E-pasta adrese: ilona.zacmane@ka.lv Kampaņas pasūtītājs: Jānis Loze un SIA „Alerts Plus” Kampaņas datumi & realizācijas laiks: 2006. gada maijs Kampaņas nosaukums: Starptautisks arhitektu plenērs “Jūraslīča” teritorijai Kampaņas kategorija: problēm-situācijas ilgtermiņa risinājumi Papildus iesniegtie drukātie un elektroniskie materiāli: projekta apraksts, fotogrāfijas, publikāciju izgriezumi Darba iesniedzēja vārds, uzvārds un paraksts: Ilona Zacmane Kampaņas pasūtītāja pārstāvja amats, vārds, uzvārds un paraksts: sk. pasūtītāja vēstuli
  • 2. I N T E R N AT I O N A L A R C H I T E C T S ’S Y M P O S I U M AT J Ū R A S L Ī C I SCAMPAIGN DESCRIPTION RESEARCHClient: Owners of the Jūraslīcis site – three compa- KA/Edelman analysed the earlier flow of publicnies belonging to Jānis Loze. information and media coverage relating to this subject and identified the critical aspects. Similarly,Programme name: long-term resolution of a prob- through an informal survey of media and commu-lem situation (or post-crisis recovery of reputation nity representatives, it was established that thereor brand) was an overall negative attitude to this subject in both the media and the public.Description of situation:In August 2005, lawyer and businessman Jānis STRATEGYLoze acquired, from Edgars Šīns, three companieswhich owned the site of the bankrupt sprat can- Having acquired the site, the owner had decided tonery Jūraslīcis and leasing rights to 23 ha of land in invite the best and most talented international andthe town of Lielupe, not far from where the Lielupe Latvian architects to become involved in the devel-river flows into the sea. opment of the project. Unfortunately, the companies had a history ofownership transfer which had not been transpar- Utilising the positive image of the Internationalent and which had been associated with a number Architects’ Symposiumof prominent political names. This was sufficient KA/Edelman pointed out that the internationalreason, in autumn 2005, for an avalanche of articles high-level architects’ symposium presented an op-in the press and TV items, all of which hinted at pri- portunity to achieve the communication objectives,vatisation ‘schemes’, and the new owner’s links to because a cultural event such as an architects’ sym-the previous owners. posium enables the creation of an image of a signif- Nevertheless, Jānis Loze did not hide his in- icant occasion and the promotion of the architects’tention to privatise the land, as was his right as the visions alongside the business objectives.legal tenant and stated that he wanted to create astylish leisure, business and residential location of Individual cooperation with target mediahigh architectural quality, of which Jūrmala could Individual approaches to target media were strate-be proud. gically important in achieving the objectives, using In this situation, there was a risk that similar very subtle and finely nuanced communication,unjustified and unpleasant reproaches could re-ap- given the sensitive nature of the project.pear at the same intensity. In this case it was also necessary to develop The land was privatised in spring 2006, in full public communication with a high intensity of indi-compliance with the law, at a cost of millions of vidual communications.lats, however the media did not pick up on this The strategy provided for public transparencypublicly available information at the time. and for communication to commence with theIn turn, in the spring of 2006 the whole of Jūrmala Diena newspaper whose editorial staff value goodfound itself at the centre of a corruption scandal, architecture and is a leader of public opinion in thisand any development in Jūrmala automatically sphere. The second target medium was TV news,came under suspicion of corruption. which has a significant effect on public opinion. The opinion of the Rīgas balss newspaper was alsoObjective: important because its readership included Jūrmala• To convince the public, including local residents, residents (the Jūrmala supplement)that the intention was to develop the site in a pro-fessional and quality manner, balancing public and Executionprivate interests. The client organised the Symposium for which• To convince the public that Jānis Loze’s intention eight architectural practices were selected from 40is the long-term development of the site, not the candidates. They included a number of the world’spopular Latvian pursuit of land speculation. leading architectural practices.
  • 3. Symposium architects – the stars of the designs, were sent to the media, architectureA soon as the best-known of the participants, Lon- portals, which in turn secured KA/Edelman furtherdon’s Zaha Hadid Architects confirmed their atten- individual contact opportunities with their read-dance (a week before the symposium), KA/Edelman ers – for example, Diena journalist Ieva Zībārte,informed the most important target media about who, while living in Australia, was writing an articlethe planned Symposium, sending an outline press for an international architecture journal and whorelease and previously collated information about needed high-quality illustrations.all the architectural practices. When the press release was supplemented Transparencywith the name of jury member Sigurds Grava (town In relation to the fact that the land had already beenplanner, Columbia University, USA), it was sent to privatised, KA/Edelman mentioned this among theother media. other information in press releases about the Sym- posium and unequivocally confirmed it to all whoSymposium closing and prize-giving ceremony – enquired.invitation of media and ensuring of informationPrinted invitations to the Symposium closing and RESULTSprize-giving ceremony, held in Jūrmala on the Sun-day evening, were sent to journalists in the name of • All media that covered the Symposium wroteJānis Loze. Even though there was no expectation and broadcast about it positively. The Latvian andthat many journalists would attend an event at a Russian daily press and the three largest internetplace and time so inappropriate for the press, the news portals had an average of one article beforepurpose of the invitations was to stress the impor- the Symposium , another afterwards – already withtance of the event, so creating a positive attitude. pictures and accounts of the concepts. As a resultAt the Symposium closing ceremony on the Sun- of the Symposium, the media created a convincingday, KA/Edelman familiarised themselves with all portrayal of the site development solutions for theirthe designs, listened to the architects’ presenta- readers.tions, and obtained the architects’ project visualisa- • All three targeted media published original ar-tions in electronic format, so that a summary of the ticles. Diena – twice. Both articles were positive,results, with a competent and persuasive report, reflected the views of Jānis Loze and made no refer-could be prepared for the media as soon as on the ence to earlier criticisms. The TV news items alsoMonday. showed the event and the owner in a very positive light.Emphasis on target media • Reading other publications, it was clear that someDuring the Symposium, KA/Edelman communi- journalists had also referred to the informationcated with the media, including Rīgas balss, Diena in Diena. This reinforced the successful choice of(helping their journalist to meet all the architectural strategy.practices) and Panorāma – all three media attended • All other articles were 95% based on the informa-the Symposium closing ceremony. For example, the tion and pictures supplied by KA/Edelman.jury completed its deliberations and announced the • A week after the Symposium, the Delfi portal, aswinner only a few minutes before the deadline for the result of information supplied by a third party,the Panorāma film crew to return to the studio from published an article about the site’s privatisation,Jūrmala. To enable Panorāma to prepare their story repeating some of the information seen in the au-(in creating it, they attended the Symposium both tumn. This year, however, the information gainedduring the day and on Sunday evening ) and film minimal response (one follow-up). A very differentthe winners, KA/Edelman hurried up the jury and story to autumn 2005.provided the journalist with the information sheneeded to develop her story even before the officialannouncement of the results. Had that not beendone, the story would not have gone to air.Communication of the striking developmentof the siteThe Symposium was a success and very strikingdevelopment visions had been created for the site.KA/Edelman prepared a press release describingthe most colourful and innovative elements of thewinning concept – by Danish architectural practiceHLK. These materials, together with many pictures