Posts Tagged ‘crisis communications’
Crisis management professional and friend of the blog Melissa Agnes recently delivered her first TEDx Talk.
Her talk, “The Secret to Successful Crisis Management in the 21st Century,” made the case that being proactive during a crisis isn’t enough—but that companies need to be thinking proactively during their day-to-day business operations.
“Crisis management today, in large part, needs to be instinctive rather than solely reactionary,” Melissa says. “This real-time news cycle makes it increasingly difficult for you to get ahead of the story before the story is already ahead of you.”
Therefore, she argues, “Successful crisis management depends on your team’s ability to manage these real-time challenges that this digital landscape presents to us in a crisis while simultaneously actually managing the actual crisis in real time.”
TED Talks (or TEDx Talks, which are independent) are some of the most high-profile talks a professional can ever give. A great TED Talk can catapult an unknown to instant fame, with all of the perks that accompany it: bestselling books, consulting and speaking fees that reach well into the five figures, and widespread industry recognition.
Not all TED or TEDx Talks accomplish that for every speaker. But even if it doesn’t, the mere fact that a speaker delivered such a talk—and survived the test—boosts their professional bona fides. In Melissa’s case, it’s easy to believe that future potential clients coming across her speech during an online search will be impressed by her accomplishment (not to mention her smart advice).
With so much at stake, I was particularly interested in how Melissa prepared for her talk. She generously shared her approach, which strikes me as good advice for anyone preparing for a TED or TEDx Talk.
Melissa’s Three-Step Approach to Preparing a TED Talk
“For a TED or TEDx Talk, you’re given 18 minutes to discuss ‘an idea worth sharing.’ These 18 minutes are meant to be motivating, inspiring and, hopefully, aspirational for the audience. With only 18 minutes available to you, every second needs to count. Every word, every message needs to be thought out, timed and impactful.
I took a solid three months to prepare for my TEDx talk.
MONTH ONE: RESEARCH
The first of these three months was dedicated to research. In this time, I read three amazing books on the subject and I watched the 20+ most viewed TED talks repeatedly, all with the goal of inspiring myself and learning everything I could about the structure of a great TED talk.
MONTH TWO: MESSAGE REFINEMENT AND SPEECH DEVELOPMENT
The second month was spent refining my message and developing my speech. To do this, I outlined the stories I wanted to share, the actionable and (hopefully) inspiring message I wanted to leave my audience with and the overall structure of my speech. But a great speech cannot simply be written and delivered. It needs to be rehearsed and tested. For this, I looked to my trusted friends and colleagues for their honest and critical feedback.
For each version of my speech, I would record myself delivering it and send the recording to friends and colleagues that I trust and admire. With every piece of feedback that I received, the speech got better, more refined and more impactful. Quite frankly, the speech wouldn’t have been nearly as successful without their generous help.
MONTH THREE: REHEARSAL
With one month left before I was to take the TEDx stage, I dedicated myself to rehearsal. I set time aside to rehearse my speech 3 to 4 times per day, sometimes recording myself and always timing myself to make sure I was able to deliver my message in the allotted 18 minutes.”
Thanks for sharing your approach, Melissa, and congratulations on a terrific presentation.
Want to learn more about public speaking? Check out our recommended reading list!
Tags: crisis communications, crisis management, Melissa Agnes, presentation training, TED Talk, TEDx Talk
Posted in Presentation Training | 1 Comment »
On Wednesday, a 243-page report found it was “more probable than not” that New England Patriots Quarterback Tom Brady was “at least generally aware of the inappropriate actions” his team’s staff took to deflate footballs in January’s AFC Championship game against the Indianapolis Colts.
In other words, there’s a better chance than not that Brady is a lying cheater.
Yesterday, Brady gave his first interview since the report’s release as part of a prescheduled interview at Salem State University. If you believed Brady was innocent of the allegations against him before the interview, you might have changed your mind after watching him dodge question after question in a manner that strained credulity.
Interviewer Jim Gray did his journalistic duty by asking Brady for his reaction to the report. The audience heartily booed every question Gray asked on the matter and enthusiastically applauded every Brady evasion.
Kelly Carlin, George’s daughter, summed up the interview perfectly in a tweet last night:
I believe the crowd’s hero worship will work against Brady, who relished the audience’s response and hid behind their angry boos to Gray’s fair and necessary questions. Brady’s response may not lose him any diehard fans, but the audience beyond the room—including many people reasonably asking whether Brady is the latest Lance Armstrong, Mark McGwire, or Barry Bonds—were probably not impressed.
My biggest problem with this interview is that his tone was generally unserious. The questions swirling around him go to the center of integrity, honestly, and playing within the rules. Regardless of his guilt or innocence, he treated the cheating allegations with a defiant and casual air instead of as the legacy-tarnishing accusations they are.
Brady should have stepped up and managed the crowd. He would have scored points by encouraging them to listen to Gray’s questions respectfully and giving him a chance to respond to them. He could have said:
“Jim is asking me fair questions, and it’s his job to ask them. So let me do my best to answer them.”
If he didn’t want to answer the questions, he could have said something along the lines of what he did say at one point during the interview:
“I haven’t had time to read the full report yet, and I’d like to have the chance to read it in full before commenting on it.”
Instead, he hid behind a hometown crowd, made a lame joke about his reading skills, and played the victim. And not once did he say he was innocent. All of that leads me to believe that he’s a cheater.
Don’t miss a thing! Click here to instantly join our mailing list and receive the best of the blog twice each month.
Tags: crisis communications, New England Patriots, sports, Tom Brady
Posted in Crisis Communications | 3 Comments »
I try to be objective on this blog, but this story makes my blood boil.
Britt McHenry, an ESPN reporter based in Washington, DC, was caught on tape recently berating, belittling, and dehumanizing the cashier at a tow lot. Her vicious, bullying, and entitled rant would make her the perfect cast member for the next installment of the “Mean Girls” film series.
Watch this one for yourself.
Among other gems in her disgusting rant, McHenry said:
“Yep, that’s all you care about is just taking people’s money. With no education, no skill set, just wanted to clarify that.”
“Do you feel good about your job?
“So I can be a college dropout and do the same thing?”
“Maybe if I was missing some teeth they would hire me, huh?”
“Lose some weight, baby girl.”
Making this incident even worse, McHenry had been warned by the clerk that she was on video. If this was the version of McHenry that knew she was being taped, I can’t imagine what she would do if she didn’t. (Editor’s note: This video may have been edited, so it’s possible that warning came after she had already said those things, not before.)
After this video went viral, McHenry took to Twitter to offer a lame and woefully insufficient apology.
Sorry, but reacting in such a vulgar way to an ordinary, everyday “intense and stressful moment” doesn’t even come close to being a credible explanation for her actions.
I suspect that, like me, many people will view this video and conclude that McHenry is a person with a vicious streak who is simply sorry because she got caught. And I also suspect that most people will conclude that she’s engaged in similar behavior in the past.
ESPN suspended Ms. McHenry for a week for her actions. One week. As this columnist with USA Today says, ESPN got its weak disciplinary action very, very wrong.
What should Ms. McHenry do now?
Although I’d like to continue my rant about Ms. McHenry, I’ll call to my higher angels and offer her some actionable advice instead.
Her reputation will be damaged by this for a long time, and justifiably so, but in order to begin rehabilitating her image, Ms. McHenry has to be much more honest about her flaws. The type of glib de rigueur apology she offered only magnifies her reputation crisis.
I’d suggest something closer to the following as a way of acknowledging the incident in a more honest, forthright, and credible manner:
“There is no excuse for my dehumanizing behavior. I used my privileged position to belittle someone else. I understand that many people who watched this video were horrified by my behavior, and they should be.
I am very sorry to the woman I spoke to in this way. She didn’t deserve it. No one does. But I also understand that apologies alone are insufficient at convincing anybody that I’m not the type of person who thinks this type of behavior is okay. All I can say is that I’m more aware of my inner demons than ever before, will work to fix them, and hope that the way I comport myself in the future will eventually convince people that I’m worthy of their trust.”
What do you think? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.
Photo credit: Keith Allison, Wikimedia Commons
Tags: Britt McHenry, crisis communications, ESPN
Posted in Crisis Communications | 12 Comments »
Editor’s Note: A student at North Carolina’s App State recently wrote and asked me a series of questions about Bill Cosby for a case study he’s working on. It’s been almost five months since the Cosby scandal broke, so this feels like a good time to revisit the case with some distance. Here is our Q&A.
1) What do you think of the actions the media has taken against him and the actions he has taken in response to them and the questions regarding the assaults?
The media’s coverage of this case has been predictable. Any star of Cosby’s caliber should expect this level of scrutiny when more than 20 women accuse him of sexual assault and/or rape. For better or worse, people tend to look at the reaction of the person publicly accused to help determine whether or not they believe he is guilty. Cosby’s defensive and bizarre responses have done little to bolster his parsed claims of innocence.
How bizarre has Cosby’s PR approach been? One of his first public statements was to release this video, in which he appeared to be wearing silk pajamas (not the best look for an accused sexual predator) and speaking from an 80s-era telephone.
2) Do you think his strategy so far has been effective?
If we’re defining “effective” as “not in prison,” then yes. If we’re defining it as “career salvaging,” then not even close. You have to remember that we’re talking about a man who was one of the most beloved celebrities of our time. During its peak in the mid-1980s, The Cosby Show was seen by an average of 30 million Americans every week. And although his celebrity has dimmed in recent years, he was on the cusp of a comeback with a new NBC sitcom and a nationally televised stand-up special. Today, he’s playing to half-empty concert venues and trying to manage the hecklers who interrupt his performances.
3) You said in your article that you’ve rarely seen a celebrity fall like this. Does it remind you of any other instances? If so, can he or we learn from that case or is Cosby’s situation unprecedented?
I can’t think of another case that’s analogous. Other people come to mind—Woody Allen, Roman Polanski—but their cases were different, at least in terms of the scale of the accusations. Plus, Cosby’s public identity was built on being a Cliff Huxtable-like figure. The perceived hypocrisy of the actual person versus the person he presented to the public only made this crisis more severe.
4) He’s faced some issues with reporters bringing up the allegations in interviews. Does he have to start turning down interviews or changing his strategy with choosing them? What would be the best way to do that?
Cosby’s representatives can try to make a deal with media outlets—an interview in return for not asking him about the allegations—but it’s hard to see what self-respecting journalist would consent to such an agreement. After watching Cosby’s interviews, like the one he did with Associated Press last November (below), I’d be reluctant to put him in front of the press. He has been unpredictable and has caused himself more harm than good through his public utterances.
5) You mentioned in your article about how you think, if he’s innocent, he should have declared he was innocent instead of choosing the middle ground, “no comment,” area. Do you believe his strategy will change as things go on or has been saying “no comment” for so long, he’s got to continue doing so?
At this point, most members of the public have already made up their minds regarding Cosby’s innocence or guilt. If he is innocent—which seems difficult to believe, if not impossible—saying so at this point is unlikely to change many minds. Public opinion sets fast, which is why it’s critical to address false allegations quickly.
6) If statute of limitations limits any criminal charges/investigation on him, his main opposition is public perception. Do you think he’ll ever escape this or will it continue to be an underlying tone to his career moving forward?
The severity of the charges against Cosby would make it difficult for almost anyone to successfully come back from them. The one factor that can work for scandalized public figures is time. Cosby is 77 years old—and he just doesn’t have enough time left on Earth to benefit from any sort of public rehabilitation.
That may sound harsh, but it also points to one possible, posthumous path to rehabilitation. Cosby’s work—much of which was excellent—will be reevaluated years after his death. His scandal may recede in public consciousness over time, allowing a new generation to enjoy his work without the ugly baggage that surrounds it now.
Tags: Bill Cosby, crisis communications
Posted in Crisis Communications | Please Comment »
Imagine you’re the communications director for Hartown Manufacturing, a midsize company based in California. You’re responsible for all communications in the western United States.
One morning, you arrive at work and log in to your Twitter account. You’re scrolling through the rather dull tweets when you suddenly see one that takes your breath away: “Breaking News: Major Explosion at Salt Lake City Hartown Plant.”
Within minutes, dozens of people are tweeting about it, spreading rumors along the way. Some eyewitnesses claim they’ve seen ambulances pulling away with dozens of victims. One claims a plant supervisor has been killed. You call a colleague who works at the plant who tells you that no one knows whether anybody was badly hurt—and that no ambulances have arrived yet.
You immediately post that accurate information to Hartown’s social media pages. Journalists who follow your feeds see your posts and decide against reporting any of the rumors they’ve read about possible injuries or deaths until you confirm them.
That type of scenario is commonplace in the age of social media, and it underscores three important truths:
- 1. The public and the press may learn of a crisis affecting your company through their social media networks before you even know there’s a problem.
- 2. People will begin discussing (and speculating about) your crisis before you’ve had time to obtain the facts.
- 3. You need to use your social media channels to immediately correct misinformation and establish yourself as a primary source of accurate information.
Most reporters now use social media as an essential tool of crisis reporting. As Jane Jordan-Meier reported in The Four Stages of Highly Effective Crisis Management, “Two journalists I spoke with saw Twitter as the new police scanner.” You can no longer afford to relegate social media to being of secondary importance.
Communicate through your social media networks as quickly as possible, ideally within half an hour of learning about an incident. You can include links to lengthier statements and additional resources in your posts.
There’s one additional way to help manage a crisis using social media: be engaged with your social networks before a crisis strikes. You’ll need fans to defend your integrity when something goes wrong, and few people are more credible than the unaffiliated third parties who voluntarily vouch for you.
Case Study: Domino’s Pizza and a Disgusting Video
In 2009, an employee of a North Carolina Domino’s franchise filmed a coworker sticking cheese up his nose before appearing to send the food out for delivery. The two workers uploaded the video to YouTube, where it quickly racked up a million views. Television anchors showed the disgusting clip on their newscasts and customers stopped ordering pizza.
Company president Patrick Doyle waited two days before finally responding. He issued a two-minute YouTube apology, in which he appeared genuinely pained by the incident. He was deservedly given credit by many crisis management professionals for releasing the heartfelt video— but most suggested that he waited too long and incurred unnecessary financial and reputational damage by waiting 48 hours.
Mr. Doyle’s response was noteworthy for one additional reason: it was the first time a major company president used YouTube as the primary method of responding to a crisis.
Tags: crisis communications
Posted in Crisis Communications | Please Comment »
Hillary Clinton faced reporters for 20 minutes this afternoon to answer questions about the personal email account she used while serving as Secretary of State.
Secretary Clinton repeatedly came back to the same talking points: She had operated within the rules of the State Department and opted to use a personal account (and her own server) due to the convenience of carrying one phone instead of two.
But a key question continues to hang in the air, and today’s press conference did little to answer it: If Clinton’s team decided which emails to keep and which to delete, how can anyone know whether something work-related but embarrassing was deleted?
Clinton answered that, in part, by saying that State Department rules make it incumbent upon the employee to differentiate between personal and professional emails.
But Clinton also said she wouldn’t allow an independent investigator to review the content on her server—and that it wouldn’t matter anyway, because she recently deleted all of her personal emails on topics such as her daughter’s wedding and mother’s funeral.
That, more than anything, strikes me as odd. Other than preventing other people from ever being able to see them, why delete those emails? Could she not have reached an agreement with a trusted third-party—such as a reporter or respected former government official—to review the personal emails with a guarantee of confidentiality for all emails that truly contained no work-related content?
It’s possible that Clinton’s experienced team considered and rejected that idea, calculating that the potential risk of those emails becoming public was greater than the risk of being perceived as secretive.
Several people pointed out to me that her body language—specifically her lack of eye contact—was telling. I noticed her lack of eye contact too, but due to “Othello’s Error,” am reluctant to speculate on its cause. What seemed obvious, though, is that she didn’t exactly forge a warm connection with her interrogators.
Just like Mitt Romney found out after his refusal to release several years’ worth of tax returns, narratives can be difficult things to reverse. In 2012, I wrote the following for Politico:
“Mitt Romney has already lost the tax debate. By not releasing additional returns, he has allowed his opposition to paint the worst case scenario onto him — that there are years he failed to pay any taxes whatsoever.”
Clinton is fortunate that it’s early in the campaign. This story is unlikely to stop her seemingly inevitable march to the Democratic nomination. But she must know that any future stories appearing to confirm a lack of transparency will take hold—and that her Republican opponents will be doing everything possible to exploit that.
What do you think? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.
Tags: crisis communications, crisis management, Election 2016, Hillary Clinton
Posted in Election 2016 | 3 Comments »
The most-viewed article on The New York Times website today is about Justine Sacco, the PR executive whose infamous tweet from December 2013 sent her life—and her career—into turmoil.
The article, titled “How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life,” paints a sympathetic portrait of Sacco (and others) who have endured the painful wrath of online mobs.
As a reminder, the tweet above, sent to Sacco’s 170 Twitter followers prior to boarding an 11-hour flight without Wi-Fi, quickly became Twitter’s top trending topic. By the time she landed, she had become a source of outrage for some—but short-term amusement for many others.
Sacco says her tweet wasn’t meant to be taken literally: “Living in America puts us in a bit of a bubble when it comes to what is going on in the third world. I was making fun of that bubble.” Regardless of her intent (she had sent other insensitive tweets the same night), the Twitter mob had selected its target. And, as The New York Times contributor Jon Ronson writes, being the target of online rage comes at a steep cost:
“For the past two years, I’ve been interviewing individuals like Justine Sacco: everyday people pilloried brutally, most often for posting some poorly considered joke on social media. Whenever possible, I have met them in person, to truly grasp the emotional toll at the other end of our screens. The people I met were mostly unemployed, fired for their transgressions, and they seemed broken somehow — deeply confused and traumatized.”
A Problem of Proportionality
The issue, it seems to me, is one of proportionality. In a bygone era, similar comments overheard in an office hallway might have prompted a friendly boss to throw an arm around her shoulder and say, “Hey, I need you to cut that out.” But those same comments made publicly today can lead to a fierce and life-altering blowback that far exceeds the original grievance.
There’s value in society enforcing publicly accepted norms by holding people who violate them to account. But social media makes it too easy to turn an act deserving of a mild rebuke into a moment that turns the offender into an unemployed moral reprobate. Perhaps it’s reasonable to ask who among us could endure such scrutiny and make it out unscathed?
Was Justine Sacco An Appropriate Target?
My preference is to analyze and critique bigger targets, people who put themselves into positions of responsibility by choice. But occasionally, the unknown PR professional, random university student, or obscure business manager comes along and says or does something stupid. And I occasionally decide to write about that person.
The question, then, becomes whether I’m simply joining the large chorus of attack or writing something intended to be at least somewhat productive. As readers of this blog know, I succeed at that only some of the time.
Still, I aim to remain mindful of this brilliant monologue from comedian Craig Ferguson, who delivered these thoughts about choosing the “right” targets while Britney Spears was enduring her much-publicized breakdown.
To see if I met the “Craig Ferguson Test,” I went back and looked at my Twitter timeline from the period when the Justine Sacco story broke. I was relieved to see that despite sending a few snarky tweets, I lived up to my standards for myself at least some of the time.
What Do We Owe The Justine Sacco’s Of The World?
If the first rule of media training is this:
“Don’t say anything you wouldn’t want published on the front page of tomorrow’s newspaper.”
Then perhaps the first rule of blogging and interacting on social media should be this:
“Don’t write anything about another person that you wouldn’t feel comfortable defending if you went to dinner with them tonight.”
I’d maintain that it’s okay to write, tweet, and post about Justine Sacco, or any of the other formerly anonymous people who committed dumb thoughts to paper (or Twitter). It’s okay to ask that they be held to some sort of account for their actions.
But I’d argue that we have also have an obligation to talk about these people with some measure of compassion. Perhaps we should allow the person to defend themselves before assuming the worst about them. And maybe we should pause to examine whether our online bloodlust is coming from a place of genuine outrage or cheap titillation. For if we don’t, we diminish ourselves.
What do you think? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.
Tags: crisis communications, Justine Sacco, social media
Posted in Social Media | 4 Comments »
NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams announced yesterday that he would take a voluntary leave of absence from his broadcast. It’s a smart—and necessary—move that preserves the most options for both the anchor and his network.
In this post, I’ll offer NBC News and Brian Williams a few ideas about how to handle this controversy most effectively.
Advice For NBC News
By pulling himself off the air, Brian Williams has given you some breathing room. Take it. You don’t have to make any immediate decisions, and can use the next several days (probably weeks) to conduct a full investigation into Mr. Williams’s previous claims.
It’s good that you’ve named Richard Esposito, the head of the NBC investigative unit, to look into his previous reporting. But that’s an insufficient step. I know nothing about Mr. Esposito and don’t doubt that he’s an honest reporter who will work doggedly to uncover the facts. But the very fact that he’s paid by NBC News will, fairly or not, call his final results into question, particularly if they validate Mr. Williams’s previous reporting.
Therefore, in addition to your internal investigation (which has merit and should proceed), you should immediately name someone of prominence and widespread respect to run a simultaneous external investigation. A well-known reporter, media critic, academic, executive, or government expert (a former Inspector General, for example) could work.
Finally, you should release the results of both investigations publicly. There’s risk attached to that, of course, but I don’t believe it’s an inappropriately high-risk step. With outside reporters and bloggers continuing to dig up dirt, they’ll probably find many of the same things your investigators will anyway—but you will bolster your news department’s credibility by finding and revealing any shortcomings first.
Considering that the rumor mill is growing—and that Mr. Williams’s reporting from Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, and Haiti are all coming under fire (including an inconsistent story he’s told about saving a dog from a fire)—these steps are necessary to either partially restore Mr. Williams’s credibility before returning to air or demonstrating why he can’t.
Advice For Brian Williams
First, cancel your appearance on the Late Show With David Letterman, scheduled for this Thursday. Letterman can be a tough interviewer, and you’re a charming guest—so, in the perfect circumstance, I could see how an appearance would benefit you.
But your first post-crisis interview shouldn’t be held with a tough comedian—it should be held with a tough reporter who knows the details of your story inside and out and can ask the pointed questions that require direct answers. CNN’s Brian Stelter, who has done an admirable job of covering this story, might be a good choice. But you shouldn’t do the interview until the shock of the past few days has receded a bit; you, probably more than most, understand how public figures in the middle of crisis too often respond with a defensive tone that serves them badly.
And since you’ve been accused of spending too much of your time building your entertainment brand by hosting Saturday Night Live and slow-jamming the news with Jimmy Fallon (among many other appearances), this would send a message that your critics are right.
(Update: Shortly after this post went live, I learned that Williams canceled his Letterman appearance late this afternoon.)
Second, you’ll need to think about exactly what you would say. That you “conflated” your experiences and misremembered the events on an Iraqi helicopter was met with widespread derision. Even if you accidentally misremembered, it calls your ability to serve as an anchor into question—why should viewers trust someone whose memory of first person events is unreliable? You’ll need to dig deeper. Did you feel the need to exaggerate stories to bolster your credibility, popularity, or news bona fides? If so, you’ll need to cop to that in direct and unsparing terms—and announce specific steps you’d take to avoid that in the future.
Third, slow down. Your statement said that you would “take myself off of my daily broadcast for the next several days,” but also presumed that you would make an inevitable and probably rapid return. That’s a mistake. If you’re innocent of pervasive résumé-inflation (beyond the Iraq RPG story), time is on your side. Allow the results of an internal and external investigation to come in, vindicating your integrity, and come back to the newscast strengthened—at least in relation to your current position.
Fourth, adding more humility to your tone would go a long way. Your on-air apology on Wednesday—deemed insufficient by many—bordered on glib. And I wasn’t crazy about the statement you released on Saturday:
“In the midst of a career spent covering and consuming news, it has become painfully apparent to me that I am presently too much a part of the news, due to my actions.
As Managing Editor of NBC Nightly News, I have decided to take myself off of my daily broadcast for the next several days, and Lester Holt has kindly agreed to sit in for me to allow us to adequately deal with this issue. Upon my return, I will continue my career-long effort to be worthy of the trust of those who place their trust in us.”
Your statement used vague, distancing language: “Due to my actions” didn’t admit to anything specific, nor was there any apology attached to it. Second, calling it “my broadcast” seemed unnecessarily possessive and heavy handed. I’m sure NBC views Nightly News as its broadcast—and the journalists who work for you probably think of the broadcast as a collective effort. Finally, as discussed above, “upon my return” is not fait accompli. If an investigation finds other instances of inaccurate reporting, you’re probably gone.
Finally, I’d recommend that you hire an experienced crisis management firm, stat. Your career is at risk, and it’s normal to feel defensive, angry, and disoriented. So don’t rely solely on your own instincts. Professionals who understand today’s media climate, the evolution of crisis, and who have helped public figures facing severe reputational risk can help you navigate this crisis with better precision. Perhaps you’re already working with such counsel; if so, that’s good.
READERS: What have I missed? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.
Tags: Brian Williams, crisis communications, NBC News
Posted in Crisis Communications | 6 Comments »