One culture, one campaign?

Advertisers know it. Car makers accept it. Film distributors have finally accepted it. Public interest campaigners are starting to. One of the most famous human rights principles ever is that we were all created equal. Indeed, one would think that certain issues are universal. Violence against women is wrong in any context. Child labour should not exist. Universal education should. Nicotine affects anyone and everyone. Whether you are from the Philippines or an Inuk from Nanuvut, it is addictive and stopping is identically difficult.

On the advocacy side of the equation, one would assume the same. All politicians need votes and so all of them are subject to similar pressure tactics. Fundraising one assumes has common global guidelines. A philanthropist in Colorado expects the same transparency as a foundation in Spain.

And yet, experience shows that very, very, very few campaigns have ever succeeded across all borders, cultures, languages and demographics. Granted, our genetic hardwiring is identical. We all need food, water and sleep. But our imprinting - all that we have ever learned - is so powerful that we have diverse expectations.

The car maker example is simply great. Finding universal car model names is next to impossible, they have finally accepted this. Car makers hire very expensive consultants to find names that are acceptable one culture at a time. And if, by chance, the name fits more than one market, it's the exception that confirms the rule. Film distributors have also understood that a given language is not enough. French Canadians do not listen to the same film as the French in France. Most distributors produce two language versions. To a degree it's the affinity for their individual accents. It is also because many words have different meanings, sometimes rather offensive ones. In France, des 'gosses' means kids. In Québec, it means testicules.

In principle this sounds perfect. In practice it leaves many poorer organisations in the cold. A typical problem is one of posters. When the global campaign produces posters, they will print hundreds of thousands and distribute them worldwide. Maybe the message is off, but at least the posters get there and ultimately get distributed. Instead, when the local adaptation model is used, rarely will the global partner provide funds for local printing. It is assumed that the local partner will both conceive and produce the output. The same happens with television public service announcements. It is very difficult for local partners to afford their production.

What are the solutions? How does one manage a global campaign and produce locally adapted materials? If the global partner expects local partners to emulate the campaign, they must make resources available. Direct funding is one way, but not the only one. Facilitation is another. Helping local partners to obtain funding from national or local sources helps. The added weight of the international body is always welcome. The international partner can also help with the donor appeal documents. Local partners rarely have the manpower to generate the kind of documentation donors expect.

Another option is to make a 'reasonable' number of declinations. No matter how hard we try, we will never manage to adapt a theme to every local reality. We can, however, make a reasonable number of adaptations. The trick is to have the will to do so because it can cost quite a bit. The first choice is usually a language breakdown. And yet, though Indians from India and Indianans from Indiana both speak English, they have extremely different points of reference. The next most often used breakdown is continental. Latin America is often grouped into one, with a language exception for Brazil. The USA and Canada are usually one and they usually inherit the UK, Australia and New Zealand. Europe is a grouping temptation though language is always a problem. The Middle East and North Africa are like Latin America, one campaign except for Hebrew for Israel.

Continental campaigns for the rest of Africa are usually split into the two historic colonial languages: French and English. Asia is the biggest problem. The cultural and linguistic split is huge. It is next to impossible to find a common thread to bind the differences between Russia, China, India, Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia and the other countries. Each has a different language, religion, set of traditions or systems of government. Campaigners who want to produce a continentally split campaign should expect to generate a dozen versions, no less.

In a perfect world, this would be the ideal global campaign strategy:

• One global toolset translated into the five most common languages (these are not necessarily the most spoken worldwide, but they are the ones most requested): English, French, Spanish, Chinese, Russian.
• Twelve to fifteen continentally-sensitive variants. These can either be produced at the international level and distributed or pre-produced centrally and produced locally.
• A set of very clear guidelines for local adaptation. This helps local campaigners to create a local version that remains connected to the international campaign.
• Resources made available to local campaigners by the international body.
• A central validation authority that local campaigners are encouraged (or expected) to consult with prior to finalising their adaptation. This crucial step ensures consistency.

The Internet is making cultural adaptation simpler. It does so in a couple of ways. Posters, brochures and other tools can point to a localised page. This approach allows local campaigners to provide locally skewed details avoiding costly printing or production costs. Local language sites also come up more quickly on similar language search engines. Blogs and forums are an additional locally sensitive campaign tool. It allows local citizens to discuss campaign issues in a local context and in their local language. Global campaigns can easily create the forum shell and let local campaigners moderate their local subforum.

In today's global village, the need for local messaging remains strong. One cannot assume homogeneity because it does not really exist. Nairobi and Nagasaki are two very different worlds. They might both get the same Hollywood blockbuster but once the cinemagoers are out of the cinema their worlds are drastically different. Successful global campaigns of the future will be those that set aside the necessary resources to make their global message as local as possible.