Engaging With 'Fiji Media Gal': Is it Possible to Converse with a Multinational Corporation?

BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
by Margaret Smith

Last week on Wednesday I wrote an article about the current crisis in the country of Fiji and its obscurity here in the Western hemisphere. Currently under a military dictatorship, the country has been recently suspended from The Commonwealth and expelled from the Pacific Islands Forum for their failure to hold democratic elections and resume dialogue with opposition groups. Many Americans are out of the loop, however, because no major news outlets have done any lengthy reporting on the situation and brands such as Fiji Water are arguably blurring our vision of the situation.

I started researching the topic because Mother Jones did an investigative piece on Fiji Water last month that briefly touched upon some of these issues, although much of the piece questioned Fiji Water's environmental image and whether it should have as much credibility as it does. In response, Fiji Water blogged about the article and defended their company, quoting statistics on how much they give back to the local community and what they do to keep their water green.

And who happened to be the first person to comment back on the Fiji Water blog? Anna Lenzer, author of the original article, and Clara Jeffery, Co-Editor of Mother Jones.

"[Fiji Water spokesman] Six doesn't address the key questions raised in my Mother Jones story, from the polluting background of Fiji Water's owners past and present, to the company's decision to funnel assets through tax havens, to its silence on the human rights abuses of the Fijian government," Lenzer says via Jeffery. "My piece doesn't argue that Fiji Water actively props up the regime, but that its silence amounts to acquiescence."

From there the conversation runs back and forth, with the public writing in comments and Fiji Water trying to answer questions through their online presence, "Fiji Media Gal" and "Fiji Green Gal". Reading the debate, it provides for an interesting insight not only into journalism today but also gives us an idea of just how much accessibility regular citizens have to influential members of society thanks to modern technology. Here is a national debate over human rights, healthy water and the environment, and the public is able to have a back and forth conversation with writers at Mother Jones and people working at Fiji Water.

It would work much better, however, if Fiji Water's comments gave us more to go off of. For a corporation that is trying to promote an image of grassroots advocacy, many of their responses to the comments posted on the blog are very run-of-the-mill. For example, in response to criticism raised by one reader, Fiji said:

We're sorry that you believed everything in the article. If there are any specific concerns we can address for you, please let me know.

If you're going to try and have a real conversation with consumers, why not take a stab at addressing their concerns rather than using the same line and constantly referring them to the public relations site? Perhaps large corporations know how to use the tools, but they still need to learn a lesson in real discourse.

For the record, here's what I would tell Fiji Water:

Fiji Water certainly has many commendable qualities. For a private company that has no obligation to give back to the community, Fiji Water goes above and beyond by successfully employing 350 rural Fijians, spending $5 million annually on labor, supporting clean water organizations in the area and funding both kindergartens and secondary schools in surrounding villages. And I'll be the first to admit that, truth be told, Fiji Water does taste really good.

The debate here, however, isn't about what Fiji Water is doing -- we already know all of that. The issue at stake is what Fiji Water could do. For example, $5 million divided between 350 people is roughly $15,000 a person per year, and while this may be a lot of money for some Fijians, it could be a lot more. How is a father or mother supposed to support a family on that kind of money? And, while it's understandable that you cannot actively speak out against the government, in what other ways could you still try to help the citizens of Fiji?

These are the real questions that I think we're all trying to pose here. At the very least please come up with some language in response to questions on Fiji's current crisis that makes you seem more neutral other than "We cannot and will not speak for the government" shtick.

Whether this is unintentional or not, the fact also remains that the brand Fiji Water is giving the country an image of paradise that just isn't there anymore. Fiji has been through four coups in the past two decades and is currently in the middle of a military dictatorship that has decided to hold off all democratic elections until 2014, yet the general public doesn't know about most of these issues because Fiji Water is selling rain forests full of palm trees, exotic flowers and waterfalls.

Fiji Water should be applauded for all the work they do to help local citizens survive in their situation and under the current government. But since when did we decide that survival is enough? Only by questioning such corporations can we finally push them to be the best they can be.

That's what I would tell Fiji Water. But I can just skip a step and check out one of their many other public relations Web sites for their answer.

BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Technorati Tags: Analysis Fiji Fiji Water Corporations Blogging