Anti-PR of good news, or the big story of a small rescue

Akim of Bostandyk district of Almaty Azamat Kaldybekov saved a pheasant on the Terrenkur. But users of social networks did not appreciate the act, but blamed the official. What's wrong here? Maybe the mayor was just unlucky with the people? Let's figure it out.

So that's what we have. At first glance, it's an ideal information guide for all the canons of classic PR. There is a specific action, visual content, an understandable hero, and an emotional element - the salvation of a living being. The story is reinforced by the media factor - the event is recorded and published by Sabina Takayeva, a blogger with an audience of millions. In theory, this should have provided coverage and a positive response. In practice, the opposite happened, and the key problem here is not in the event itself or even in its possible staging, which is not proven, but in how this event was considered by the audience.

The picture is too perfect

Imagine the media environment of twenty years ago, when we had one-way communication with monopolistic transmission of information through the media. The audience simply accepted the proposed picture. Now the situation is different. An overabundance of content, instant feedback, and general skepticism force people to check any story for authenticity, especially when there is an overabundance of staged content on social media.

In commercial marketing, collaborations with bloggers work to increase trust and engagement. On the contrary, extreme caution is required in political communications. In this case, the presence of millionaire blogger Takayeva gave the story an aestheticized, almost lifestyle character. This shifted the perception of the event from the plane of ordinary urban life to the plane of "filing content", reinforcing the feeling that what was happening was primarily intended for filming.

In addition, the akim of the Bostandyk district turned out to be a participant in the event taking place in the Medeu district. It would seem that the official could be nearby and reacted to the situation outside the formal boundaries of his area of responsibility, what's the big deal? But it was the issue of the geography of the event that confused the commentators the most.: What was the mayor doing in the prosperous Medeu district if he works in Bostandyk? Another reinforcing element is the synchronicity of actions. According to reports, the mayor arrived at the scene along with rescuers. Physically trained rescuers could certainly cope with the pheasant without the help of akim. All these triggers are not particularly critical individually, but together they form a stable feeling of artificiality.

Competition of subpoenas

You should also pay attention to the reaction in the comments. In addition to irony and sarcasm, a significant part of users switched the discussion to the infrastructural problems of the area - roads, bridges, landscaping. "It would be better if the akim of the Bostandyk district saved the Bostandyk district," they write in the comments. This is a typical effect of competing agendas. Any positive case of power is automatically compared with system expectations. If these expectations are not closed, even a neutral event is perceived as a "distraction from something important." In the eyes of the audience, there is a "civil servant doing the wrong thing."

It is important to emphasize that this case is not a classic reputational crisis. It is not associated with violations or conflicts, but it creates a so-called "negative noise" - a background that reinforces the effect of "ostentation" and reduces the seriousness of the institution of power. It is precisely such micro-episodes that, when repeated, create a stable negative perception more strongly than isolated high-profile scandals.

Could such an effect have been avoided? Yes, if communication were structured differently. In such situations, it is important not to strengthen, but, on the contrary, to reduce the importance of a key person. The frame of "ordinary reaction to treatment" is perceived much better than "personal involvement and salvation." To remove the feeling of personal PR, it would help to explain the context - why this particular official was in place, how the interaction of the services was built, and why the intervention of the head of the neighboring district was necessary at all.

The main conclusion from this story is that the audience is no longer ready to "swallow" anything. "Showing the good" and glorifying government officials in political communications is not the best tactic, because sustainable trust is formed not through single "beautiful" cases, but through consistent demonstration of normal, routine work and its real results. The pheasant story is a clear confirmation of this shift in information perception, which should not be ignored.