Mr. Media Training

A few years ago, I provided media training to an executive who worked for a private water company that provided water to a few hundred thousand local residents.

One of their customers hadn’t paid his bills for three years. They sent him dozens of past due notices and numerous letters trying to make him aware of a program they had for low-income residents. He refused to respond. But he kept using their water.

Normally, they would have cut off his service after a few months. But they kept it on for one reason: the man was paralyzed and in a wheelchair. After so many attempts to speak to him, they finally decided enough was enough. Paralyzed or not, he was using a service that cost money to provide, and he wasn’t willing to communicate at all with the company.

The water company decided to cut his water. And the executive wanted my advice on the best way to handle any negative press that resulted from their decision.

The advice I offered wasn’t what he wanted to hear. “Keep the water on,” I said.

Here’s why: The media would inevitably cover this as a David vs. Goliath story – the big, bad water company versus the poor, disabled man. The visuals in the television story would show the exterior of the water company headquarters building and a well-dressed corporate spokesperson, butted up against the man’s modest home and his aged wheelchair.

Worse, the media could have easily said something like this:

“The water company says it had no choice but to turn off Mr. Tucker’s water since he owes them $4,300. But that’s a drop in the bucket for the company. Last year, CEO John Smith made more than $1.2 million in salary and stock options.”

To make the inevitable P.R. headache that their decision caused go away, the company would probably end up reversing its decision and restoring the man’s water anyway. Plus, they would have tipped their hat to every other disabled resident in the community that they, too, could stop paying their bills and get away with it. Instead, the right decision was simple. Keep the water on.

I thought of that story when I came across an excellent post by Jodie Heisner, president of Arizona-based Bottomline Media Coaching. In her piece, she argues that:

“When it comes to public opinion there are four groups that I consider untouchables, that is if you do or are accused of doing anything wrong to a member of one of these groups you are pretty much up the creek without a paddle. The groups are: small children, elderly, animals and the disabled.”

She’s right. And to help make her point, Jodie shared this clip from a local news station about the abusive behavior of one company toward a woman with cerebral palsy:

So tread carefully with those four groups. They’re usually portrayed by the media as the story’s David – which means that you’ll be portrayed as the big, unfeeling, awful Goliath.

Click here to read a follow-up post about this topic, based on a couple of reader comments.

*Note: I changed the example at the beginning of this post slightly to protect the client’s confidentiality.

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.

An incident involving a controversial performer earlier this week brought up a question I’ve been thinking about for a while: when should a public figure – a CEO, a sports star, or an entertainer – stop using Twitter?

Here’s the background: Chris Brown is a 22-year-old R&B singer who’s burned up the charts over the past few years with seven top ten hits. He’s a fabulously talented entertainer who dances as well as he sings.

Of course, there’s a good chance you know who Chris Brown is even if you’ve never heard his music. He’s the guy who badly beat up the singer Rihanna, then his girlfriend, in 2009. According to the police report:

“He took his right hand and shoved her head against the passenger window…[Rihanna] turned to face Brown and he punched her in the left eye with his right hand. He then drove away in the vehicle and continued to punch her in the face with his right hand while steering the vehicle with his left hand. The assault caused [Rihanna’s] mouth to fill with blood and blood to splatter all over her clothing and the interior of the vehicle.”

Here’s what Rihanna looked like after he was done with her:

Afterwards, Brown hired a crisis management firm, repeatedly apologized for his actions, and said, "Words cannot begin to express how sorry and saddened I am over what transpired." His tour of contrition likely didn’t persuade too many people, but it at least appeared to be a step in the right direction.

Well, not quite. He was soon back to his old ways.

In December 2010, he sent out an anti-gay tweet that taunted a fellow musician who claims to have been molested by his manager. 

In March 2011, after an interview with ABC’s Good Morning America, he damaged a window, angrily confronted ABC producers, and stormed away from the building shirtless after being asked about the incident. Afterwards, he tweeted:

Brown deleted that tweet shortly after sending it. So you would think he’d know to better than to tweet before thinking. But after winning his first Grammy Award last Sunday, he tweeted (and quickly deleted) this:

Chris Brown’s actions seem to confirm that he’s not particularly committed to reforming his behavior or doing what it takes to earn any form of public redemption. As the expression says, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, and Mr. Brown’s past suggests we can expect more negative headlines along the way (though hopefully not of the domestic abuse kind).

But this post is only nominally about Chris Brown. The bigger question is this: does there come a point at which a public figure must stop tweeting as a key component of reputation management?

In Chris Brown’s case, I’d submit that his refusal to quit Twitter – despite his track record of saying controversial things over the social network – confirms his lack of seriousness about personal rehabilitation. If he’s willing to give nothing up, the public can only conclude that he’s the same man that beat Rihanna three years ago.

On the other hand, consider Anthony Weiner. After being caught in a sexting scandal last June, Mr. Weiner – a serial tweeter – suddenly stopped. He hasn’t sent out a new tweet since June 1, 2011. And his Twitter silence seems to be a critical step toward an eventual image rehabilitation, since it demonstrates an actual sacrifice and change in behavior.

Same thing with singer John Mayer, who shuttered his Twitter account, along with its 3.7 million followers, shortly after telling Playboy that his penis discriminated against black women.

Same with Ashton Kutcher, who turned his Twitter account over to his management company after sending out a tweet that complained about Joe Paterno’s firing but said nothing of the victims. 

In the final analysis, Twitter can be a great avenue for stars to communicate with their fans and enhance their personal brands. But when their communications go awry, quitting Twitter may be a critical step toward regaining their image.

If you like my blog, please stay in touch! Like us on Facebook here and follow us on Twitter here.

After beating charges of larceny and fraud in 1987, former U.S. Secretary of Labor Ray Donovan famously asked, “Which office do I go to get my reputation back?”

I thought of that phrase last week when the co-anchor of Fox’s Good Day New York, Greg Kelly, returned to work after rape charges that had been filed against him were dropped.

Ray Donovan asked his question rhetorically, but I wondered what the answer to his question was in Greg Kelly’s case. How should he go about getting his good name back?

I forgot to mention one other factor complicating this case. Mr. Kelly’s father, Ray Kelly, is the New York City Police Commissioner, leading to conflict of interest concerns. (The case was investigated by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office in an effort to remove such an obvious conflict.)

Fox Host Greg Kelly

Here are the facts of the case, as summarized on Wikipedia:

“Kelly was being investigated by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office after a woman walked into the 13th Precinct on January 25, 2012, and claimed he raped her in her law office near South Street Seaport. The woman who accused Greg Kelly of raping her also claimed she became pregnant as a result of the alleged sexual assault. The accuser told police that she was passed out when Kelly allegedly sexually assaulted her on October 8, 2011, at her law firm. Kelly, through his attorneys, denied the allegation. His lawyers turned over text messages between Kelly and the woman that they believe undermined the woman’s allegation. They claimed the encounter was purely consensual. On February 7, 2012 all allegations of rape were dropped against Kelly.”

After being cleared of the rape charges last Tuesday, Mr. Kelly released this written statement:

"I am thankful that the investigation established what I’ve known all along, that I am innocent of the allegations that were waged against me….Thank you to the thousands of Good Day New York viewers who expressed positive support through social media.…And I am grateful to everyone at Fox 5, especially Rosanna Scotto, my co-host. I will always remember her kindness, and I look forward to soon resuming my post on Good Day New York next to her.”

When he returned to his co-hosting duties on Friday, he made the following on-air statement:

“Folks, thank you, it was a tough couple of weeks, obviously for a lot of people. And I’m very, very grateful for all the support I had here at Fox 5, the support from my family, friends, those I care about. And the viewers, of course, they’ve been just great. The people who watch this show and have weighed in through social media with positive remarks, thank you very much. It’s great to be back. I’m especially grateful to this lady who sits next to me every day, Rosanna Scotto. You ready to get back to work?”

Greg Kelly with Co-Host Rosanna Scotto

I have no way of knowing what transpired between Mr. Kelly and his accuser. But based on the district attorney’s statement, I’m willing to give him the presumption of innocence.

If I were falsely accused of rape, I would want to scream from the mountaintops that I was wronged. My instinct would be to do dozens of interviews, protesting the injustice of the false charge and the damage it did to my reputation.

But Mr. Kelly’s instinct not to do that is right. He’s handled this crisis well, briefly but directly acknowledging that something happened, but quickly moving on. Time will diminish the negative impact on his reputation – he wasn’t married (there’s no scorned spouse in this case), and the investigation was dropped quickly. 

The public tends to forgive scandals of sexual misconduct: As examples, Marv Albert, Bill O’Reilly, Kobe Bryant, and Ben Roethlisberger were also accused of (or committed) acts of sexual harassment, assault, or rape – and their careers have continued to thrive.

Sometimes, the best thing to do is to not protest too much. Mr. Kelly’s approach is right, and is the best path toward eventually getting his good name back.

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.

What types of people do you trust?

That question, posed by the PR firm Edelman in its annual Trust Barometer, gives companies and organizations valuable insight into the people who should – and shouldn’t – be speaking on their behalf. To help understand what types of people are most trustworthy, Edelman surveys “informed publics” between the ages of 25-64 in 20 countries.

The following numbers reflect the percentage of people who deemed these people “extremely” or “very” credible:

1. 68%: Academic or expert
2. 66%: Technical expert in the company
3. 65%: A person like yourself
4. 50%: A regular employee
5. 50%: NGO (non-governmental organization) representative
6. 46%: Financial or industry analyst

But one additional number caught the eye of eagle-eyed reader and crisis pro Chris Syme, who sent in this terrific question:

“I noticed one of the big shifts in this year’s Edelman’s Trust Barometer was CEO trust–down from 50% to 38% (people asked if they would trust info from a CEO). In light of this slide, do you recommend training a CEO to be primary spokesperson in a crisis?”

Her question made me think of another survey I often read, one that finds that voters regularly tell pollsters that they hate Congress, but like their own member of Congress. Similarly, I’m not surprised that people don’t trust CEOs in the aggregate, but the more important question is whether they trust an individual CEO.

And the answer to that question, as unsatisfying as it might be, is “it depends.”

Some CEOs are terrific on-camera – credible, sincere, and immediately likeable. I’d hate to take them off the list of being a primary spokesperson because a study said that their peers aren’t trustworthy.

So yes, I’d continue to train them as a primary spokesperson. But I also wouldn’t ignore the data that show that 66% of people deemed a technical expert as highly credible, or that 50% of people found a regular employee highly credible. For certain crises, a media-savvy technical expert or regular employee might fit the bill better than the CEO.

Crisis pro Jane Jordan-Meier offers a few additional tips for selecting the right spokesperson in a crisis, one of which is to select a spokesperson who can bring their heart and their head to the response.

By the way, only one group rated lower than CEOs. Only 29% of respondents deemed government officials or regulators as “extremely” or “very” credible.

Have a question about media training or crisis communications that you’d like answered on the blog? Please send your question to Contact-at-MrMediaTraining.com.

As you’ve surely heard by now, the Susan G. Komen Foundation ensnared itself in a major corporate crisis this week after its decision to discontinue grants to Planned Parenthood, a women’s health provider that provides abortion services.

The Foundation (kind of) reversed its decision this morning after suffering overwhelmingly negative coverage – but it even got its reversal wrong.

On Tuesday, Komen appeared to have been caught flat-footed when news broke of their decision to defund Planned Parenthood. Their inability to respond swiftly is particularly surprising given that they made their decision back in December. But in a New York Times story, Komen board member John Raffaelli offered some insight into what went wrong:

“Avoiding this kind of controversy was the very reason Komen chose a quiet ending to its relationship with Planned Parenthood.”

A “quiet” ending? Seriously, Komen? You couldn’t have anticipated that ending your relationship with Planned Parenthood, an organization that evokes incredibly strong emotions (both pro and con), might generate some controversy?

Komen’s decision to bury their heads in the sand instead of breaking the news themselves is one of the biggest acts of reputational recklessness I’ve seen. In fact, Komen’s initial crisis communications response violated all seven of the seven truths of a crisis.

Komen shouldn’t have waited for Planned Parenthood to break the news. They should have broken it themselves and helped to shape the media narrative. My strong suspicion is that their announcement still would have created a major controversy – but it wouldn’t have been this bad.

They could have pointed out, for example, that Komen gave Planned Parenthood just $700,000 of the $93 million it gave out in grants last year. They could have touted the vital work that their other $92.3 million dollars did last year. They could have expressed their deep commitment to continuing to help women who have benefitted from Planned Parenthood’s services and offered them some ideas about how to receive the care they so vitally need.

TODAY’S REVERSAL

This morning, Komen released a statement reversing its initial decision. It’s a step in the right direction, but the statement itself violates at least three rules of crisis communications.

First, their statement is ambiguous. It reads:

“We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants.”

What does that mean? Komen seems to be preserving its right to cut off Planned Parenthood’s funding again next year. That’s a non-committal statement, at best, and looks like a temporary salve.

Second, Komen CEO Nancy G. Brinker (sister of the late Susan G. Komen) wrote:

“We believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women.”

Sorry, Ms. Brinker, but you’re hardly in a position to lecture your supporters right now. Instead of telling your supporters that they should “slow down,” you should only express your own commitment to getting this right.

Third, her awkward phrasing makes it look like Komen just wants to make this episode go away:

“We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue.”

Your supporters don’t want to “move past” this issue, Ms. Brinker. They want to be heard, reassured, communicated with, and respected.

CONCLUSION

Conservative groups are already denouncing the Komen Foundation’s decision to fund Planned Parenthood. Komen’s statement said that they “do not want our mission marred or affected by politics,” but it’s far too late for that. Their decision to defund Planned Parenthood made that impossible.

The Komen Foundation will now be seen by large swaths of the American public as either anti-abortion or pro-choice. For most of its history, Komen didn’t have to choose sides in that debate. But because of Komen’s lousy management decisions, the American people will now make that decision for them.

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.

There may be no “I” in “team,” but there are two in “Bruins goalie.”

When members of the Boston Bruins NHL championship team went to the White House this week for the Stanley Cup winners’ annual meet-and-greet with President Obama, goalie Tim Thomas refused to attend. On his Facebook page, Mr. Thomas explained his decision:

“I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People…Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL.

This is the only public statement I will be making on this topic.”

Photo Credit: Jewel Sanad/AFP/Getty Images

What caught my eye (other than his odd grammatical choices) was the last sentence of his statement. But Thomas wasn’t alone in taking that “one and only statement” stance. Bruins President Cam Neely released his own statement:

"As an organization we were honored by President Obama’s invitation to the White House. It was a great day and a perfect way to cap our team’s achievement from last season. It was a day that none of us will soon forget. We are disappointed that Tim chose not to join us, and his views certainly do not reflect those of the Jacobs family or the Bruins organization. This will be the last public comment from the Bruins organization on this subject."

Mr. Thomas has received mixed reviews for his decision, some seeing his move as selfish and others seeing it as principled. I side with those who labeled his a selfish act, since it hijacked the headlines for his own beliefs instead of allowing the spotlight to shine solely on his team’s achievement.

But the two statements got me wondering: Is it a good idea for media spokespersons to release a statement that says, “This is the only comment I will be making?”

Generally speaking, I’d say no. Anthony Weiner and Herman Cain also released similar statements – but the questions kept coming anyway, and both men were forced to abandon their pledges not to discuss their sex scandals any further.

That happened in this case, as well. Despite his Monday pledge not to talk about this issue any further, Cam Neely talked about it again on Tuesday. His pledge lasted less than 24 hours.

Goalie Tim Thomas' Decision Hijacked The Headlines

There’s good reason for a goalie to put up a defensive guard on the ice, but there’s little reason for media spokespersons to do so in a public statement. Doing so can make them look obstructionist, controlling, or both – and they could accomplish the same result without taking that risk.

Both Mr. Thomas and Mr. Neely should have left that sentence out. When reporters inevitably asked them about the incident, they could have simply said:

“You know, I’ve said everything I’m going to about this matter. It’s time to put the focus back on our play in the ice, and I’m not going to allow this to create any distractions.”

Note: I bolded the last line of each statement for emphasis. They were not bolded in the original statements.

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.

Penn State University has been embroiled in a major reputational crisis since November, when allegations emerged that former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky engaged in numerous acts of child rape.

The past few days have brought the scandal back into the headlines for two reasons: First, former head coach Joe Paterno granted his first interview, and second, Penn State’s new president made a stunningly tone-deaf statement. 

1. Joe Paterno’s First Interview: Mr. Paterno gave his first interview since being dismissed to the Washington Post’s Sally Jenkins. Lung cancer, Jenkins wrote, “has robbed [Paterno] of the breath to say all that he wants to about the scandal he still struggles to comprehend.”

Mr. Paterno claims ignorance, saying this about the moment when Assistant Coach Mike McQueary reported the incident involving Jerry Sandusky to him:

“You know, he didn’t want to get specific,” Paterno said. “And to be frank with you I don’t know that it would have done any good, because I never heard of, of, rape and a man. So I just did what I thought was best. I talked to people that I thought would be, if there was a problem, that would be following up on it.”

Joe Paterno speaks to Sally Jenkins. Photo Credit: The Washington Post

Which leads to a question: Is Joe Paterno intentionally trying to appear ignorant as a deliberate reputation management strategy? Sally Jenkins admitted that she, “certainly didn’t walk away from the interview satisfied,” and questioned whether he was telling her the entire truth.

At best, Mr. Paterno comes off as an aloof manager from a different generation who wasn’t aware of things he should have been aware of and who failed to establish a culture in which people could tell him the blunt truths he needed to hear.

In fairness, Mr. Paterno didn’t coordinate his interview with Penn State, so they shouldn’t be blamed for his interview – but the school holds full responsibility for the next example.

2. Penn State President Rodney Erickson Blows It: Last Thursday, Penn State’s new president told alumni during a town hall meeting that:

"It grieves me very much when I hear people say ‘the Penn State scandal.’ This is not Penn State. This is ‘the Sandusky scandal.’ We’re not going to let what one individual did destroy the reputation of this university.”

Mr. Erickson seems to believe he can recast the Penn State scandal as one restricted to the actions of one man. But he seems to be willfully ignoring the findings of Pennsylvania’s Attorney General, who found that two top University officials had committed perjury and failed to report suspected child abuse. By trying to minimize the scope of the scandal, Mr. Erickson violated one of the seven key rules of crisis management. 

Penn State President Rodney Erickson. Photo Credit: Penn State University

His statement also undercut a November pledge by Penn States’ Trustees, which promised that a:

“Special Committee will be commissioned to determine what failures occurred, who is responsible and what measures are necessary to insure that this never happens at our University again and that those responsible are held fully accountable.”

So much for “those who are responsible.” If this is a “Sandusky” scandal in which “one individual” destroyed “the reputation of this university,” why would the Trustees need to investigate any other people or institutional failures?

The school can’t have it both ways. Either it will investigate this scandal with a wide net that may implicate numerous university staffers, or it’s going to try to minimize the scandal by pinning it solely on one person. Mr. Erickson’s statement makes it appear they’re leaning toward option two.

If I’m wrong and they’re truly leaning toward a full investigation, Mr. Erickson should forever banish that tone-deaf statement from his lexicon.

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.

Many companies have a crisis communications plan in place that identifies the spokespersons they will use during a crisis, usually managers or executives.

That’s a good start, but it’s not enough.

That’s because during a crisis, the most credible voice may not belong to you. After all, the public expects that you’ll say things that are favorable to your cause. And after being lied to through the years by too many corporate spokespersons to count, the public may be skeptical of everything you say.

So who’s going to speak on your behalf? Have you identified and written down the names of third party surrogates from outside your organization who might help you defend your brand when a crisis strikes?

Who Should Speak For You?

The “right” person or people to speak on your behalf will likely differ depending on the crisis. Examples of good third party surrogates might include:

1. 1. “Real” people – Customers, clients, and other users of your products or services who are both familiar with and enthusiastic about your work
2. 2. Well-known activists who carry a high degree of public trust
3. 3. Local leaders or politicians who don’t have a lot of public baggage
4. 4. Other well-regarded businesses who can testify on behalf of your safe and responsible practices
5. 5. Recipients of your charitable work

Coordinating With Third Parties

Companies in crisis often walk a fine line when they try to coordinate the testimonials of third party surrogates – if they look overly coordinated, you’ll lose whatever benefit the “outside” parties might have bestowed upon you.

Testimonials usually work best when they appear unsolicited. Still, it’s not unusual to coordinate with third parties, at least somewhat. The scale runs from almost no coordination at all, perhaps asking a person on your list to write a letter-to-the-editor on your behalf without you seeing it in advance, to signing joint statements together. The key is to make sure the third party testimony appears genuine and motivated by sincere belief, not obligation.

Exercise

Here’s your assignment: Write the names of six outside people you might ask for support when a crisis strikes. You won’t need an outside surrogate for every crisis – if your communications aren’t suffering from a trust deficit, you might not need one – but if you do, you’ll be glad you have your list standing by.

Like our blog? Don’t go yet! Like us on Facebook here and follow us on Twitter here.