Tag: crisis PR

Best and Worst in PR Crisis Management 2014

Posted on by Dorothy Crenshaw

The year is only half over, and already there have been all manner of PR “crisis” situations for professional communicators to dissect. But some recent shenanigans, and the accompanying reputational consequences, have been so varied and so fascinating that I’ve decided to bestow informal “awards” for crisis PR.

Most entertaining: Hands down, the Donald Sterling fiasco, a PR blogger gift that has kept on giving since tapes of the not-yet-former Clippers owner’s racist remarks were leaked in April. The best game plan here was the one followed by NBA Commissioner Adam Silver, who wasted no time in showing us what kind of leader he is. In slapping Sterling with a $2.5 million fine and a lifetime ban from the sport, Silver pretty much followed the classic reputation rule book; he was swift, strong, and clear.

The real question is whether Sterling’s reputation can be redeemed. Most say no, although some bold ideas have been floated. Are you listening, Olivia Pope?

Most inevitable: Another sports figure felt the heat as fans turned towards the World Cup (and host country Brazil fought off challenges to its own reputation.) Charges of corruption and bid-rigging connected with Qatar’s winning tender for the 2022 World Cup were aimed at longtime FIFA chief Sepp Blatter and many of his cohorts. Blatter’s response to the evidence of bribery broken by  The Sunday Times showed both weakness and arrogance, however. As giant corporate sponsors like BP, Budweiser, and Coca-Cola pressed for an investigation and cleanup, Blatter blamed the accusations on “racism and discrimination.” Not very credible.

Most well handled: When U.S. speed skaters turned in a dismal performance at the Sochi Winter Olympic Games, some blamed the heavily hyped high-tech uniforms provided by Under Armour. But what could have been an agony of defeat for the company was averted by deft handling of the situation.

Rather than take issue with its own athletes, or admit that its technology could be the problem, the company reminded the public of the new suits’ stellar marks in pre-race heats, but then supported the team’s decision to swap them for older suits (also made by Under Armour.) The team’s performance never improved, and Under Armour quickly skated past the problem to focus on the future by announcing it would re-up its sponsorship for eight more years. Well played, Under Armour, well played.

Least surprising: Ousted American Apparel founder Dov Charney‘s antics might have been less eyebrow-raising than Donald Sterling’s, but they were no less colorful. This is a company with a founder that thrives on shock PR. It cheerfully newsjacked the Hurricane Sandy tragedy to sell clothing, labeled a South Asian model “Made In Bangladesh” in a controversial ad, and featured store mannequins with pubic hair.

Just last week, as the Charney situation was cooling, AA ran a July 4th ad that featured an image of the doomed Challenger shuttle explosion instead of fireworks. (The mistake was supposedly inadvertent, but it did nothing to help matters.) The AA Board did the right thing in firing Charney, but they may be in for a messy legal battle, as he’s unlikely to go quietly.

Most thorny: Facebook‘s now-infamous “emotion study” raised cries that it had crossed ethical (and possibly legal) lines by manipulating users’ emotions without their consent or knowledge. Yet there are those who think it’s been unfairly singled out given the “opt-in” nature of so many social networking sites and communities.

In any event, Facebook’s response to the controversy has been to “circle the wagons,” as one privacy expert put it. CEO Sheryl Sandberg acknowledged that the study was “poorly communicated” and assured users that “we didn’t mean to upset you.” But for Facebook, which is now in the crosshairs of the FTC following a complaint filed by a privacy group, the lack of transparency and halfhearted apology probably raise more questions than they answer.

The PR Verdict On Paula Deen’s Apology (Again)

Posted on by Dorothy Crenshaw

From the frying pan to….yesterday Paula Deen, the queen of comfort cooking, faced Matt Lauer, and the outcome was not so comfortable for either one.

Some have criticized Lauer for his brusque grilling of Deen. My view is that he took a no-nonsense approach, cutting to the business issues and her motive for finally living up to her original commitment to a live interview.

The real story here is Paula’s apology, if you can call it that. It was all over the place. Things started out okay, with Deen describing herself as “overwhelmed” – an honest, but not loaded, word. Then she thanked the partners who have stood by her and declined to blame The Food Network for dropping her. All good.

Then things really got overwhelming. First, she insisted she had used the n-word only once, after being robbed at gunpoint by a black person “a world ago.” This contradicted her deposition and her original excuse that she grew up in the days of Jim Crow. Her demeanor became indulgently sorrowful. The drama peaked when she tearfully challenged anyone watching who has never said something they regret to “please pick up that stone and throw it so hard at my head that it kills me.” Whoa, Paula. It was both a not-so-coded biblical reference and an overemotional response.

As the interview wrapped, defiant Paula emerged, proclaiming “I is what I is,” and referring darkly to “someone evil out there” who sabotaged her out of envy, presumably the former restaurant manager who filed the suit that set up the media feast. Lauer, rather than following up on her reference to enemies and “horrible lies”, ended the interview. For Deen, this was probably a good thing.

Is Paula cooked? It does look that way. Her handling of the interview lacked the key ingredients for an effective public apology and her inconsistent and overemotional responses stirred things up instead of calming them down. It’s best to take responsibility, express sincere remorse, then make amends if possible. Deen would have done well to admit the truth, talk about what she has learned, ask for forgiveness, and pledge her time and/or money to a cause or program that promotes tolerance.

Also, an effective mea culpa doesn’t focus on the one apologizing. It should be about those offended or harmed by the situation, – in this case, sponsors, staff, viewers, and fans. It would have been impossible to deflect all the questions about her business and her brand, but she didn’t even try to take herself out of it. Ironically, her apology video, though stilted and inadequate, did a better job on that score.

Deen’s fumbles may also be tied to a lack of good PR counsel. Her original publicist, a 36-year veteran of the biz, resigned after Deen disclosed her diabetic condition and announced a partnership with Novo Nordisk. I’ve no idea who’s been advising her now, but she should consider a change. There’s a rumor that she’s hired Judy Smith, the D.C.-based crisis guru known as the model for Kerry Washington’s character on “Scandal.” I hope it’s true, because Paula needs professional help.

6 Myths of Crisis Management PR

Posted on by Dorothy Crenshaw

In the past several weeks, brands from Burger King and Penn State to Chick-fil-A and CelebBoutique have grappled with serious reputational threats.  These days, it’s almost routine for communications pros to be managing some kind of potential crisis situation along with proactive PR programs.

Yet true “crisis management” is probably a misnomer.  Though there are principles that apply to many situations, much of the analysis and advice from people like me comes in hindsight.  Armchair reputation managers sometimes forget that the conventional wisdom isn’t always relevant in the heat of the moment.  Here, then, are my favorite crisis management myths and misperceptions.

Myth #1. The Tylenol case is still the industry standard.
With respect to Johnson & Johnson and Burson-Marsteller, this 1982 crisis management “classic” is badly outdated and likely exaggerated.  As a victim of a frightening attack, the company faced a sympathetic press and public. And while it deserves credit for the fast introduction of tamperproof packaging months later (under FDA mandate), and for an extraordinary reintroduction of the brand, the immediate response was a poor prescription for today’s damage-control experts. For example, it took the company eight days to respond to the first signs of crisis, an eternity in today’s compressed media environment.

Myth #2. A business crisis, by definition, is impossible to predict.
Not always. In fact, most crises grow out of foreseeable ills, and many have happened before. Or they may be simmering situations left untreated or concealed, like the Penn State child sex abuse scandal. A study by the Institute for Crisis Management showed that sixty-five percent of business crises from 1990 to 2009 were “smoldering” or slow-burn situations, as opposed to thirty-five percent that were sudden events. A random catastrophe like the Tylenol poisonings is truly rare, accounting for roughly seven to eight percent of crises, as opposed to product defects, lawsuits, mismanagement, and other theoretically foreseeable happenings.

Myth #3. Any crisis is manageable with advance planning and preparation.
There’s not really a handbook for handling a business calamity. We sometimes preach advance planning and preparation as if they can prevent or preempt the damage, but often these measures can only shorten the window of negative scrutiny or moderate the tone of the resulting media coverage and chatter, at best. As basic as it may sound, sometimes the most important measure is the communications protocol. Who will lead? How many are involved in decisions and statement review? Who speaks to the press? These are basic questions that can be decided in advance.

Myth #4.  You should never stonewall media inquiries.
Professional communicators warn against ignoring journalists in a crisis because they’ll write the story with or without you, and because it can harm media relations for the future. But we’ve all done it. When you don’t have the proper information or cannot legally share it, it’s better not to engage at all. You’ll take the heat, but staying silent can avoid worsening the situation when the facts aren’t yet clear.

Myth #5.  In a crisis, always get the top guy involved.
This is where some inexperienced handlers jump the gun. Many negative situations are better handled by a corporate officer with enough seniority to be authoritative but not enough to jeopardize the CEO office or distract from other critical business. And where relevant, local market managers with community roots are nearly always preferable to home-office execs. CEO involvement is usually best reserved for the most acute situations such as those involving loss of life.

Myth # 6.  Media and message training can save the day.
In my experience media training is helpful but often overrated, and, more importantly, it’s not often possible when a crisis is fresh. No PR professional or crisis manager will negate the importance of a blueprint for damage control and response. Yet, John Weber of Dezenhall Resources summed up the intangible and chaotic aspects of crisis PR when he said, “Given the choice between a good plan and a good leader, I’d take a good leader every time.”

This post was originally published on MENGBlend.

Armstrong’s Crisis PR Is In Fighting Form

Posted on by Dorothy Crenshaw

As evidence that he used performance-enhancing substances has gained traction over the years, cyclist Lance Armstrong always managed to stay out in front, avoiding major reputation damage.

Until now. But even now, he may be down, but he’s not out. As he threw in the towel, announcing that he’d no longer contest the US Anti-Doping Agency’s charges, Armstrong attacked. When news of the decision hit, his take on the matter, in the form of a passionate and angry personal statement, was widely shared on social media platforms. If nothing else, team Armstrong’s handling of the situation looks like championship crisis management.

The USADA’s announcement this morning that he will be stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and be banned from the sport are a big part of the story, but so is Armstrong’s aggressive defense. “Enough is enough,” is how he explains his decision. Armstrong’s statement admits no guilt; in fact, he continues to defend his reputation and harshly criticizes the agency for what he sees as a witch-hunt.

Not only is the statement well-articulated, but the no-contest move is probably the closest thing to a winning strategy for Armstrong. He and his advisers must know that. If he were to fight the Agency’s charges, the evidence against him would be presented in open court. And by all accounts, that evidence is overwhelming – USADA claims to have incriminating blood samples, and ten eyewitnesses, including former teammates, are prepared to testify against him.

A public hearing would be devastating for Armstrong’s reputation as an elite athlete, cancer beater, and American hero, and it would threaten the anti-cancer mission of his Livestrong Foundation.

A quick glance at public comments  on the social web indicates Armstrong still has plenty of fans and defenders. So, while admitting defeat may not be much of a victory, as a communications strategy and crisis management case, it may be as good as it gets.

Herman Cain’s PR Problem

Posted on by Dorothy Crenshaw

Until recently, Herman Cain had shown himself to be a pretty savvy communicator. The plainspoken ex-pizza prez showed he understands the value of a simple idea, well packaged and often repeated, with his “9-9-9” tax proposal. (No one understood it, he couldn’t really explain it, but everyone knew about it. Can you say that about any other candidate’s tax plan?)

Even Cain’s campaign ad – which looked like a 1970s commercial for the tobacco industry – racked up over a million views on YouTube, and another million on the Cain website, in part because it was so unorthodox. Quirky? Yes. Off-putting? Maybe. But the spot was pretty smokin’ on the Web; it blew away the competition and dominated the news cycle for a couple of days without costing a dime.

But Cain’s latest PR crisis is more serious, and this time, snappy sound bites won’t be enough. A report of sexual harassment allegations against Cain when he served as head of the National Restaurant Association during the 90s left the candidate and his campaign looking flat-footed, defensive, and decidedly indecisive. These things can’t always be managed by the handbook, but there were some glaring rules that were broken or ignored.

Vetting and preparation. Politico sat on the harassment story for a good ten days while waiting for the Cain campaign to respond. That’s an eternity in crisis response time, and it makes Cain’s charges of media bias look lame. Any candidate for public office knows that they must be aware of all potential skeletons and have a plan to deal with their inevitable disclosure. Better yet, have a plan to disclose them yourself. (Remember Obama’s casual mention of his occasional cocaine use as a student in his biography? Masterful.)

Candor. Cain’s flip-flops when confronted with the harassment allegations were inexcusable given the timeframe, and weak even under the best of circumstances. When asked about the story, he denied the accusation, and also denied that any settlement had been made – a nonsense answer given the easy verifiability of the settlement in question. Cain might have had a false sense of confidence because the complainant signed a confidentiality agreement with the NRA, but he and his people had to know it would come out. And chalking up his response to semantics (“agreement” versus “settlement”) made him look like he was hiding something.

Consistency. Cain’s first response was a weaselly sounding denial, followed by hostility. Then, he backpedaled, pleading faulty memory. Following that, he became conciliatory and even jocular before again attacking the press for bias. He’s tried so many responses and behaviors that he’s got Condoleezza Rice warning him not to play “the race card.” In crisis PR, consistency, coupled with message control and transparency, is usually the best course.

Counterattack. It’s common for candidates to chalk up stories like this one to political opposition research, and it’s usually true. Of course the harassment story was leaked by an opponent. But good PR practice (and common sense) dictates you need to respond truthfully to the accusation first, then hit back. The way Cain responded made him look defensive and deceptive.

Activation of allies. Four days after the story’s publication, some close Cain friends and advocates have been quoted about his character, maintaining that the Herman they know would never engage in inappropriate behavior. This has been too little, and maybe even too late. And his most important ally, his wife of 43 years, had yet to be heard from. Her chance will come Friday when she’s interviewed on Fox News by Greta Van Sustern. Stay tuned.