Mr. Media Training

I love this time of year. Leaves begin changing colors, butternut squash soup starts making its way onto restaurant menus, and political debate season gets into full swing. And there’s nothing I enjoy more with my autumn foliage and hearty soup than a big bowl of politicians saying dumb things.

Here are the five worst video media disasters of September! (Or, as Rick Perry might say, “Here are the best of the worst before they were good they were bad media victory disasters, five of ‘em.”)

#5 (Tie) Rick Perry Blows His Attack Against Mitt Romney

Rick Perry had clearly prepared a vicious attack against his main Republican foe, Mitt Romney. But what came out of his mouth was a barely coherent string of words. It was almost sad to watch.

#5. (Tie) Rick Perry Can’t Be Bought. Not For That Paltry Sum, Anyway.

There’s an old story, probably apocryphal, that’s often attributed to Winston Churchill. It’s said that while drunk one night, the former British Prime Minister had the following exchange with a woman:

Churchill: “Madame, would you sleep with me for one pound?”

Woman (offended): “No, of course not.”

Churchill: “Would you sleep with me for one million pounds?”

Woman: “For one million pounds? Maybe.”

Churchill: “Now that we’ve established what you are, why don’t we negotiate the price?”

Texas Governor Rick Perry fell into a similar rhetorical trap with a careless retort to fellow candidate Michelle Bachmann during one of this month’s Republican debates. Fast forward to 2:45 to see Mr. Perry’s gaffe – and Ms. Bachmann’s perfect reply.

#4: When a Hoffa Says It’s Time To Take Somebody Out, It’s Time To Worry.

As readers of this blog know, I have little tolerance for violent rhetoric in politics. Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa Jr. ran afoul of that line by shouting, “Let’s take these [Tea Party] son of a bitches out” while introducing President Obama to a pro-union crowd.

Mr. Hoffa later said that by “take them out,” he meant “vote them out of office.” But that’s the same excuse Sarah Palin used to explain her infamous “crosshairs map” – and neither piece of rhetoric should have a place in public life. President Obama failed to distance himself from Hoffa’s language when given the chance, which must mean he tacitly approved of it.  

#3: Republican Debate Audience Boos Gay Soldier

Most audience members attending September’s three Republican debates behaved honorably. But a few made headlines for cheering the execution of 234 people in Texas and for the death of a fictional 30-year-old man who opted not to purchase insurance and entered a coma after an accident. 

But the moment that stood out the most is when a few members of the audience booed an active duty soldier in Iraq. He was gay, you see, and his gayness apparently made it okay for a few people in the audience to boo an active duty member of the military. You can blame this incident on a few extremists in the audience – but none of the candidates took them to task, which must mean they tacitly approved of it. 

#2: Congressman Andre Carson Suspects Tea Party of Holding Same Views as KKK

At a town hall meeting last month (the audio became available after last month’s media disasters list was published), Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN) made some incendiary remarks about the Tea Party:

“Some of those folks in Congress right now would love to see us as second class citizens. Some of them in Congress right now of this tea party movement would love to see you and me … hanging on a tree.”

When given an opportunity to apologize, Mr. Carson refused. If Mr. Carson has evidence that members of Congress would like to see African Americans “hanging on a tree,” he should offer it publicly. Otherwise, he should be careful to avoid the same types of broad generalizations that have been used against African Americans for centuries.

#1: Michele Bachmann Suggests HPV Vaccine Causes “Mental Retardation”

Michele Bachmann opposes a mandate that would require young girls to take the HPV vaccine. But when she relayed a story about a mother who claimed her daughter “suffered mental retardation” after being vaccinated, Ms. Bachmann jumped the shark. There’s not even a shred of medical evidence to support that claim.

Not only did the media turn on Ms. Bachmann after her comment, but many ideological allies suggested her comment would irrevocably damage her campaign. It did. Ms. Bachmann, who was leading the Republican polls just two months ago, now badly trails the rest of the field.

BONUS VIDEO: Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) Tries To Explain Where She Went During Hurricane Irene

This one requires little explanation. If you go on vacation to Italy when you know a massive storm is coming, you should probably spend a little more time crafting a better response for your constituents than this one.

Have the best of the blog (and more media gaffes) delivered to your inbox twice per month! Enter your name in the box on the upper right of the blog to join our mailing list.

Related: The Five Worst Video Media Disasters: August 2011

Related: The Ten Worst Video Media Disasters of 2010

I’m frequently asked whether it’s a good idea to attack the media (or a reporter, or a reporter’s questions) during a media interview.

Generally speaking, the answer is no. But the more nuanced answer is that it depends on your goals.

Phil Kent, a member of Georgia’s Immigration Enforcement Review board, serves as a perfect example. When he sat down with a reporter from Atlanta’s 11Alive News last week, he attacked several of the reporter’s questions (and even questioned whether the reporter fell asleep during Journalism 101).

That’s not necessarily a surprise – the conservative firebrand once served as Sen. Strom Thurmond’s press secretary, acts as the national spokesperson for Americans for Immigration Control, and has written incendiary books such as The Dark Side of Liberalism. 

But are his attacks on the media effective? Watch this must-see video below and decide for yourself:

If Mr. Kent’s goal is to build his name recognition to sell books to a relatively narrow (but enthusiastic) base of supporters, then his attacks are effective. But if his goal is to persuade other people to agree with his beliefs, I’d argue he is squandering his opportunity. His smug delivery may turn on people who already agree with him, but it almost certainly alienates many viewers who might otherwise have been open to his ideas.

I draw an analogy between Mr. Kent and Sarah Palin. Like Mr. Kent, the former Alaska governor has made sport of attacking the “impotent” “lamestream” media for asking “gotcha questions.” If Ms. Palin’s goal is to build a relatively limited but enthusiastic base that will allow her to increase her appearance fees and remain a darling on the conservative speaking circuit, she’s been effective. But if her goal is to build a wide-enough base to win a national election, I’d argue that her attacks have been counterproductive.

Reporter Doug Richards's questions elicited annoyed responses from Phil Kent.

Here’s my bottom line: If you want to use the media to influence the widest-possible group of people, attacking the media is rarely a good long-term media strategy. If you’re a political candidate or interest group on the political right or far left, it might be.

A grateful to tip of the hat to reader Juliet Charney, who forwarded me this clip.

In the category of things that sound dirty but actually aren’t, I want to tweet you. Follow my Twitter feed at @MrMediaTraining to keep up with the latest media and presentation training tips. 

Related: How To Beat an Unfair Host During an Interview

Related: Five Tactics Reporters Use to Intimidate You

Many of our clients have to discuss difficult topics during their media interviews and speeches. 

For example, I work with more than 100 burn survivors each year. They have a story to tell – but telling their stories about barely escaping a house fire or surviving brutal domestic abuse isn’t easy.

Another client, a zookeeper, could barely contain her grief when discussing the death of one of her beloved animals.

Another recent client chose virtual schooling for her children and got upset when asked whether her neighbors thought her decision was strange. It’s no wonder she got emotional – few things will make people more defensive than having their choices as parents questioned by outsiders.

So what should you do when you find yourself getting emotional during a speech or media interview?

Here are three things to keep in mind if you find yourself getting emotional during a speech or media interview:

1. Ask Yourself Whether It’s Okay To Be Emotional: Most audiences understand why a burn survivor might get emotional when discussing his or her injury. Exhibiting emotion may feel uncomfortable, but in some cases, it may actually enhance your delivery. So don’t automatically try to squelch your emotion just because you’re embarrassed by it.

Context matters. When a loving mother, a caring zookeeper, or a disabled burn survivor cries when telling their story, the public tends to understand and empathize. When House Speaker John Boehner cries (as he does regularly), well, that’s a different story.

2. Take a Moment: If you get choked up for a moment, stop talking for a few seconds instead of rushing through your remarks – just put your head down and pause for a few seconds, then look up and continue when you’re ready.

If you’re more than just momentarily choked up and fear you may not be able to continue at all, you may need to move on to the next option.

3. De-Personalize and Detach: When people get emotional during a talk, it’s usually because they’re too close to the material. By de-personalizing their stories, they’re often able to get through the material much more easily.

For example, the mother might have said:

“I know that some people think virtual home schooling is strange, but I love my kids (begins to choke up) and other people have no right to judge me (begins to tremble and sob). You know (begins to de-personalize), it’s not just about me and my choice. Thousands of parents in our state have decided to pursue virtual schooling for their children, and there are several good reasons for that, such as….”

When emotional speakers make their content less concrete and more abstract, they can often proceed without emotion getting in their way. And once they’re on more solid ground, they can return to the more emotional parts of their story – if and when they’re ready.

Have the best of the blog delivered to your inbox twice per month! Enter your name in the box on the upper right of the blog to join our mailing list.

Related: Why John Boehner’s Crying is Selfish

Related: Can You Stop an On-Air Laughing Fit?

Last week, I asked readers to weigh in on the best way to answer the most cliché media training question of them all: “When did you stop beating your wife?”

It’s a difficult question to answer well, since an angry denial will inevitably lead to a negative headline, such as: “Senator Smith Angrily Denies Abusing His Wife.”

The “right” answer, most media trainers claim, is to answer by saying: “I never started.” But that answer has always seemed cold and inhuman, and last week’s question of the week asked for ways to answer that question better.

You offered some terrific options. Here are some of your answers:

David Holman advises a spokesperson should say: “That’s an absurd question to ask that holds no ground”.

Another reader disagreed with David, saying his response would lead to a headline that says: “David Holman refuses to discuss wife beating!”

Daniel wrote: “I would answer: ‘Before I met her.’ Shows a sense of humor while answering the question honestly.”

Another reader named David wrote: “I always heard the question phrased as, ‘Have you stopped beating your wife?’ Then, whether the answer is ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ the person is screwed.” He suggested asking the reporter, “Excuse me, who are speaking to?” or “Why would you say something like that?”

Media trainer Paul Lima suggests something along the lines of, “I love my wife. We’re heading off to the Caribbean next week, on our second honeymoon.”

Chris wrote: “This just came to me: Why not call the interviewer on it? ‘That’s a terribly leading question, why are asking that?’”

Andreas Andersen suggests this clever line: “It is impossible to stop doing something I have never done.”

Craig wrote, “I’d go with something like, ‘It’s never appropriate to beat a spouse. I stand by that statement in both words and actions.’”

So what should you do when asked a question like this one? First, watch this short video from a 1988 presidential debate, when CNN anchor Bernard Shaw asked Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis a rather provocative question:

Governor Dukakis was roundly criticized for that emotionless answer, which didn’t show even a trace of emotion. He would have been better to begin his answer by saying: “Bernard, if that happened to my wife, I would want to pull the switch on that guy myself. But public policy shouldn’t be set from a standpoint of rage and revenge.” He could have then continued with the answer he gave.

Similarly, this question demands an honest emotional response. I like many of the answers above, especially those that offer a genuine response but stop short of offering a dramatic headline. Here are two rules of thumb to consider when you find yourself in a similar situation:

1. Avoid using “the language of denial,” which creates the dreaded “I did not beat my wife” type of quote.

2. Offer at least some type of genuine reaction rather than match Mr. Dukakis’s emotionless response.

So here’s my try at this question:

“That’s an awful and baseless question. I love and honor my wife deeply – always have, always will.”

Related: The 21 Most Essential Media Training Links

Related: Seven Things You Need to Know Before Going on TV

Rick Perry, the national frontrunner for the GOP nomination, had a lousy debate performance in the last debate. So the media’s main storyline going into tonight’s debate wondered whether Governor Perry could mount a comeback, or whether another weak performance would jeopardize his place at the top.

For political geeks, this debate had two other storylines. First, would former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman finally emerge as a credible alternative? And second, would the sudden re-appearance of former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (who was banned from the past several debates due to low poll numbers) change anything?

Here are tonight’s grades, in order of best to worst:

THE TOP TIER

MITT ROMNEY (1st Place, Grade: A)

Gov. Romney’s growth as a candidate since 2008 is impressive. He appears strong, confident, and almost completely nonplussed by attacks from his opponents.

Great media spokespersons know how to answer questions with a clear, definitive answer before circling back to add additional context – Mr. Romney does that like a pro. Mr. Romney is also becoming more skilled at delivering a rhetorical punch, effectively knocking his main opponent, Rick Perry. He deftly waved off one attack from Rick Perry with a dismissive (and effective) “nice try.”

Mr. Romney answers the questions he wants to and avoids questions he doesn’t want to answer. For example, he evaded answering what his definition of “wealthy” is. That might work for now, but at some point, he’s going to have to answer those types of questions with greater detail.

NEWT GINGRICH (2nd Place, Grade: B+)

Once again, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich turned in a solid performance tonight. He appears overly-strident at times, and would benefit from using his humor more often to smooth out his rough edges. 

Mr. Gingrich is one of the best candidates at delivering a memorable sound bite, such as this one: “A leader [Ronald Reagan] came along. He said when your brother-in law is unemployed, it’s a recession. When you’re unemployed, it’s a depression. When Jimmy Carter is unemployed, it’s a recovery. Nothing will turn America around more than election night when Barack Obama loses decisively.”

MIDDLE OF THE PACK

HERMAN CAIN: (3rd Place, Grade: B)

Mr. Cain gave a steady performance tonight that demonstrated his continued growth as a candidate. He is clearly a sentimental favorite, a candidate whose obvious charisma has led to a high favorability ranking among Republicans. He’s amiable, his message is aligned with much of the public, and he radiates a sense of optimism.

Like Mr. Gingrich, he’s also gifted at delivering a witty sound bite, such as this one: “Ronald Reagan once said we are a shining city on a hill. We slid down the side of the hill. Americans want somebody who’s going to lead them back to the top of that hill.”

JON HUNTSMAN (4th Place, Grade: C+)

Gov. Huntsman had one of his steadiest performances tonight – he was much more disciplined and didn’t attempt any lame Kurt Cobain jokes tonight. His answers were serious, and he didn’t hesitate to defend his views — even those that were unpopular with the audience in the auditorium.

Mr. Huntsman doesn’t bring nearly enough joy to the debate. Americans tend to elect the happier warrior – Ronald Reagan was a happier warrior than Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale, Bill Clinton was a happier warrior than George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole, George W. Bush was a happier warrior than Al Gore and John Kerry, and Barack Obama was a happier warrior than John McCain. That trend doesn’t bode well for Mr. Huntsman.

RICK PERRY (5th Place, tie, Grade: C)

Gov. Perry’s debate performance was better tonight, but not because he performed particularly well – he just performed less badly.

Mr. Perry’s halting, hesitating delivery makes him look lost and unsure. He has an unseemly habit of refusing eye contact with the person he’s attacking or the person who’s attacking him – instead, he looks down or straight ahead, his face looking strained the entire time.

It wasn’t all bad for Mr. Perry. After one particularly effective jab about Mitt Romney editing out a line about “RomneyCare” in the soft cover version of his book, Perry joked that the back and forth between the two men was like a game of badminton. It was a well-timed quip that helped soften Mr. Perry, who more frequently uses brass knuckles.

He’s defiant when defending even unpopular policies among the Republican base, such as his support for a statewide mandate to administer the HPV vaccine. That defiance will likely read as strength to a lot of voters, including those who disagree with him on a given issue.

RICK SANTORUM (5th Place, tie, Grade: C)

Like some of his peers, Sen. Santorum appears not only joyless, but permanently annoyed. He landed a few effective punches against Gov. Perry on immigration and health care, but hasn’t done anything to elevate his candidacy out of the middle of the pack. On the plus side, he’s energetic and passionate, and clearly believes in his message. But at this point, he’s running for a cabinet post, an ambassadorship, or higher speaking fees.

TRAILING THE FIELD

MICHELE BACHMANN (7th Place, Grade: C-)

The only headline with Rep. Bachmann from this debate is that there is no headline. She has become almost irrelevant, the invisible candidate who has gotten weaker in almost every debate.

It’s barely worth pointing out, but Ms. Bachmann made yet another misstatement tonight in saying that President Obama is the least popular president in modern history. According to Gallup, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and several others have all polled lower at some point in the presidencies.

GARY JOHNSON (8th Place, Grade: D+)

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson wasn’t allowed in the past several debates due to his low poll numbers – and his lack of debate experience showed tonight. Throughout most of the debate, Mr. Johnson looked nervous and uncomfortable. He has a nervous tic of moving his left thumb repeatedly while he speaks, a distraction that reinforces his lack of ease.

Toward the end of the night, he demonstrated one singular moment of joy on the stage when he quipped: “My next door neighbors’ two dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than this president.” But that moment didn’t make up for his overall lackluster performance.

Because this is a media training blog, it’s worth pointing out that he wore a tie with thin stripes, which led to a distracting shimmer effect on television. In order to avoid the shimmer effect, ties should be solid or feature broad stripes.  

RON PAUL (9th Place, Grade: D)

Since 1980, there have been eight presidential elections. In all eight of them, the more charismatic candidate won (unless you considered Bob Dole more charismatic than Bill Clinton).

Inevitably, I’m going to hear from fans of Dr. Paul who criticize me for a superficial analysis of his delivery instead of focusing on his content. But voters don’t cast their votes based solely on their content; personal qualities loom large in the voting booth. Dr. Paul may be a fan favorite, but he comes across as a crank. He’s joyless – and that’s a problem for him, since few joyless candidates have won the presidency since the invention of television.

Follow politics and the media? Like our Facebook page to keep up with our latest posts.

Do you agree or disagree with my analysis? Please leave your opinion in the comment section below, but remember the blog’s comment policy – no ad hominem attacks or pejorative name-calling will be posted.

Related: September 12, 2011 Republican Debate Scorecard

Related: September 7, 2011 Republican Debate Scorecard

Related: August 11, 2011 Republican Debate Scorecard

Related: June 13, 2011 Republican Debate Scorecard

Related: May 5, 2011 Republican Debate Scorecard

Niggardly (adverb): grudgingly mean about spending or granting. Synonyms: cheap, chintzy, close, closefisted, mean, mingy, miserly, niggard, stingy, parsimonious, penny-pinching, penurious, pinching, pinchpenny, spare, sparing, stinting, tight, tightfisted, uncharitable, ungenerous – Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I was speaking to my wife yesterday when I referenced the word “niggardly.” She immediately thought I had said something racist. (In fact, the word traces back to the 1300s, derives from the word “miser,” and has nothing to do with race.)

Our exchange reminded me of a controversy that occurred in the late 1990s when I lived in Washington, D.C.

David Howard, the head of Washington, D.C.’s Office of Public Advocate, used the word “niggardly”  when speaking about his budget. At the time, Mr. Howard, who is white, was speaking with two African American employees. The employees thought he had used offensive language, and word got out that he had said something racist. Mr. Howard quickly resigned, and DC Mayor Anthony Williams, who is black, accepted his resignation.

Normally, that would have ended the crisis. But then Mr. Howard received support from unexpected places. Julian Bond, the head of the NAACP at the time, jumped to Mr. Howard’s defense:

"You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people’s lack of understanding. David Howard should not have quit. Mayor Williams should bring him back — and order dictionaries issued to all staff who need them.”

So here’s the question: What should your crisis response be if you say something that sounds offensive, but technically isn’t?

Should you resign because you’ve used a word that could be easily misconstrued, or should you fight back and point to other peoples’ ignorance? In this case, I place most of the blame on Mayor Williams. He should have refused to accept Mr. Howard’s resignation and issued a statement along these lines instead:

“Mr. Howard was using a word that means ‘miserly,’ and which has nothing to do with race. I’m not going to accept the resignation of a talented public servant just because some people didn’t know the definition of the word. That said, I might suggest that people working for city government try to avoid using the word from now on. We’ve all seen how easily words can be misconstrued in a city that has too often had a difficult racial history, and we can express the concept of ‘miserly’ without using a word that’s so easily misinterpreted.”

Within a couple of weeks, Mayor Williams finally did the right thing – he offered Mr. Howard his job back. In a statement, Mr. Williams admitted the obvious: “I believe I acted too hastily in accepting David’s resignation."

Have the best of the blog delivered to your inbox twice per month! Enter your name in the box on the upper right of the blog to join our mailing list.

Related: Maine Gov. LePage Tells NAACP To “Kiss My Butt”

Related: Battered Women, a Tasteless Ad, and a Clueless Apology

A reader named MJen recently wrote in asking how she should handle a reporter who regularly writes negative stories about her organization. She writes: 

“Brad, what are your thoughts on reporters or press that are consistently negative in their coverage? When it seems as though they have an angle or agenda already to a story…and when asking for another interview I am really not going to help them bash us again, just so it seems as though they are trying to cover both sides of their article. Would also love to hear how you would word turning down a reporter as well.”

There are times when it’s appropriate to turn down an interview (this article lists seven such times). But generally speaking, I advise against turning down interviews – if you know the story is going to be about you and it will be written regardless of whether or not you participate.

I explain why in this video, called “The Rule of Thirds.”

Blacklisting a reporter is a serious step, one you should reserve for extreme cases. I recommend trying these seven steps first. Here are three of those steps, which may be relevant in MJen’s case:

1. 1. Write a Response: In print journalism, you almost always have forums available to you for a response, such as a letter-to-the-editor or op-ed. If it’s an option, use it. Don’t repeat the original errors in reporting, since it just gives those errors more airtime – just articulate your point of view.
2. 2. Speak to the Editor: If you’ve gotten nowhere with the reporter, it may be a good idea to raise your objection with the reporter’s boss to insure he or she is aware of your complaints. Who knows? Perhaps you’re the fourth person to complain about the same reporter in a week.
3. 3. Respond with Statements Only: If it has become abundantly clear to most independent observers that the news organization in question is irrevocably biased against you or your organization, you have two choices: cut off all access, or respond with precision. I almost always recommend the latter option, which means sending a short written statement in response to a reporter’s query. It’s hard to take a two-sentence statement out-of-context – and it prevents the reporter from writing that you “refused to comment.”

Thanks for the question, MJen! I hope this helps, and wish you the best for future media interviews.

Do you have additional advice to offer MJen? Please leave it in the comments section below. And if you have a question you’d like answered in a future blog post, please send it to me at Contact-at-MrMediaTraining.com.

Related: Five Reasons Why Journalists Lead Miserable Lives

Related: How To Beat An Unfair Host In a Media Interview

Back in July, Netflix raised its rates by 60 percent for customers who subscribe to its DVD and streaming video services.

Customers were outraged. Hundreds of thousands of people canceled their subscription, and Wall Street responded by punishing the company’s stock, which is down more than 50 percent over the past two months.   

Despite the outrage, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings declined to apologize to his customers for two months, arrogantly adopting a crisis communications approach toward his customers that can best be described as: “Deal with it.” 

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings

Last night, Mr. Hastings finally posted an “apology” on his company’s blog that missed the mark. It reads, in part:

“I messed up.…It is clear from the feedback over the past two months that many members felt we lacked respect and humility in the way we announced the separation of DVD and streaming, and the price changes. That was certainly not our intent, and I offer my sincere apology. I want to acknowledge and thank our many members that stuck with us, and to apologize again to those members, both current and former, who felt we treated them thoughtlessly.”

Mr. Hastings then continued by announcing a new change, one that would split his company into two different entities – one for DVDs, another for streaming video. The two websites won’t be coordinated – customers will have to rent videos from two different sites, reviews will no longer appear on both sites, and customer service requests (such as address changes) will need to be made twice.

Here are six reasons Mr. Hastings’ apology failed:

1. 1. It Came Two Months Too Late: Why did Mr. Hastings allow customer resentment to simmer for months before stepping in and issuing an apology? By waiting, he allowed customer dissatisfaction to deepen and his company’s reputation to suffer additional damage. Plus, it makes it look like he apologized because he had to – not because he wanted to.
2. 2. He Combined The “Apology” With Yet Another Unpopular Change: By combining his apology with the announcement that his company was going to make the customer experience even less pleasant, he completely negated the value of the apology. He should have issued the apology weeks (or months) earlier as a stand-alone statement, which would have been viewed as a more sincere act.
3. 3. He Didn’t Give Anything to Customers: Mr. Hastings could have increased the value of his apology by offering customers something for their inconvenience – a free month, a free movie, something. Instead, he continues to appear more self-interested than customer-oriented.
4. 4. He Never Explained Why Netflix Had to Increase Its Fees: He alluded to additional streaming content, but didn’t explain how customers would benefit from the additional costs.
5. 5. He Offered a Tepidly-Worded Apology:  Mr. Hastings offered one of those half-hearted “if you were offended” types of apologies. He shouldn’t have written “To members who felt we treated them thoughtlessly.” He should have simply said: “We treated our members thoughtlessly, and we apologize.”
6. 6. Didn’t Give Customers an Easy Way to Contact Them: Many commenters on the Netflix blog complained that the company didn’t provide them with an easy way to communicate with them regarding their accounts. The company made a phone number available, but didn’t have an easy way to email their questions or complaints to an account representative. 

Almost 18,000 people have commented on the Netflix blog over the past 24 hours. Kathryn E. Krieger of Miami eloquently summed up her frustrations with the company:

“I think the decision to create two totally separate companies is foolhardy. While they may not feel like two separate companies on your end, they absolutely will on the consumer’s. In exchange for paying the same amount of money and receiving the same quality of service, customers can now look forward to two… separate websites, two separate queues, two separate billing statements, two sets of ratings, two sets of searching, etc. "What’s in it for me?" is the first thing I must ask myself – the first thing every consumer asks themselves when they see a change like this – and your email offers no good answers to that question. As far as I can tell, Netflix gets all the benefits here and the consumer gets all the negatives.”

Want the best of the blog delivered to your inbox twice a month? Of course you do! Enter your email address in the box in the upper right corner of the blog.

Related: Seven Rules to Remember When a Crisis Strikes

Related: The Right Way to Apologize In a Crisis