The Law of Crisis PR

President Obama’s Olympic Bid: Law of Crisis PR says Effective Messaging is Everything

2009-10-15T19:03:00.001-04:00

President Obama’s unsuccessful bid for Chicago to host the 2016 Olympic Games may have come and gone, but there are lasting lessons we can glean from that experience. Of course, Obama was all for his adopted hometown having spent a good portion of his adult life there. In his bid to appeal to the International Olympic Committee early on, Obama alongside the First Lady, Michelle Obama and Mayor Richard Daley hosted a White House event on Olympics. Although enthusiastic, Obama appeared to waiver on how much more support to publicly give Chicago. When initially asked whether he would make a personal trip to Copenhagen to lobby for the games, the president deferred to his wife as being the better candidate of the two to make the case for Chicago in Europe.

But as the date for the IOC Session drew nearer, the president, perhaps responding to pressure from Chicago’s formidable Mayor Daley decided to make a quick trip to Copenhagen to augment the efforts of his wife, Mayor Daley himself, Oprah Winfrey and a myriad of sports celebs.

Palpable enthusiasm? Very likely. Overkill? Possibly. A fine line that the Obama inadvertently crossed. Had Chicago won the bid, chances are no one would have noticed the misstep. But as fate would have it, Rio stole the glory and we temporarily wondered how Obama’s inability to “bring home” the games would impact the other pressing issues he is working on.

In most areas, Obama has skillfully grappled with his transition from presidential candidate to Commander-in-Chief. But in other areas, he leaves us scratching our heads. While he is extremely popular he is not an entertainer, but you wouldn’t know it from his late night show appearances in the recent past. He will ultimately be judged by what he’s able to accomplish during his administration not by how many balls he can keep in the air.

In the meantime though, here are some key lessons we can learn from the president’s Chicago Olympic bid:

Identify your primary messages and utilize the best mediums to deliver messages to specific audiences: In any communications initiative it’s fundamental to identify your primary goals. We typically help our clients identify three to five primary goals that form the foundation for many other secondary goals. Only after doing this do we start exploring the best ways to reach their audiences. Convincing the IOC to host the 2016 in Chicago was a primary message for the Obama team. However, the manner in which that message was delivered mattered tremendously with this particular audience than emphasis on exuberance.

Stay on message: Take the time to identify your messages and then stick with them! One week the President declined going to Copenhagen, another week he was boarding the Air Force bound for the capital of Denmark. This move made at such a time came across as jerky and inadvertently portrayed the IOC as one easily swayed by star power. A misstep with this particular audience.

Fully utilize your team: You know your team’s strengths well, so use them effectively. Who is the most capable and appropriate person to deliver certain message(s)? Under which circumstance(s)? Identify them, bring them to speed and have them go at it. Obama at the onset said Michelle Obama, would make the best candidate to make the case for Chicago in Copenhagen. He was right. Mrs. Obama, a native Chicagoan, spoke passionately about the city where she was born, grew up, started her career and gave birth to her own children. The IOC said they were truly impressed with her delivery. But not so much with the President’s – a rare criticism of Obama from an international body.

Law of Crisis PR says Negotiating an “Exclusive” with a Journalist and Clients Can Yield a “Win-Win” situation

2009-09-28T18:16:00.002-04:00

If you’re not competitive then you’re not only not a real journalist, you are probably not a very good journalist. As a public relations practitioner who wants to get the most for clients I would much prefer to deal with good journalists who appreciate the value of exclusives in owning a story or breaking news with it.

Because I was a former print journalist who later became a major market network reporter and producer, I absolutely understand the drive for exclusive stories on the part of reporters, especially journalists working for top news outlets. That drive can be used to the advantage of both the PR practitioner’s client and the journalist.

We bargain on a regular basis with all kinds of journalists for exclusive status or a situation where the news outlet gets special access to a source or a story. That goes for everything from a paper's “of-the-record” arrangements to national TV or radio network news organizations or magazine shows. They want a competitive edge. We want the best story for a client to be told and granting exclusives give our clients the best chance at getting their story told in a more balanced or favorable way because the journalists are more likely to listen to our suggestions under the aegis of an exclusive bargain.

This is not to say we can manipulate stories or help a client get away with anything for an exclusive granted to a journalist. Those kinds of bargains demean both parties and eventually cause relationship and credibility problems. We can, however, get journalists to listen more acutely to our story when they know they are getting the advantages that an exclusive provides. Journalists like anyone else appreciate a perceived or real favor.

Granting an exclusive also provides a good investment in the credibility bank for everyone. And when managed properly it can develop a long-term, positive relationship for the journalist, the PR practitioner and certainly the client the practitioner represents. This happens whether we are trying to get the client in the news for a quality placement in the future or to get them out of the news when that client doesn’t deserve to be pilloried.

Michael Vick, Advisors and the Law of Crisis PR

2009-08-17T18:23:00.002-04:00

Michael Vick, his personal advisors and the spin-doctors I've seen commenting on his comeback have been dancing around the subject of his apology and road to redemption. I watched the 60 Minutes interview with Vick and reporter James Brown appeared to ask all the right questions but Vick didn’t provide a definitive answer or a gutsy promise to advocate against dog fighting and animal cruelty.

The Law of Crisis PR calls for those accused of wrongdoing to be crystal clear about their epiphanies and reasons why the public and the authorities should forgive them. I don't think Vick and his advisors have met these criteria. He still sounds like he is saying he is sorry he got caught but not that he has truly changed his mind about the validity and justification of dog fighting. He didn't explain what caused his change of heart other than being arrested, fined, sent to jail and having his career almost destroyed.

Unless I have missed such quote, possible given how much has been said about Vick's release and reigniting his career, I have not heard Vick say something truly sincere like, "Dog fighting and what I did to dogs, what my friends have done and may still be doing to dogs and what those who still dog fight are doing is wrong. Despite the thrill and cultural machismo involved there is no redemption or reason for dog fighting, cock fighting, or any of that kind of sport in America or anywhere else. Anyone who is involved in that kind of activity is a bully and a coward driven by peer pressure. I should know because I’ve been there."

I still haven't heard a strong denunciation from Vick, he’s said close - but no cigar. Vick did say on 60 Minutes that he rationalized dog fighting because cops in his neighborhood turned a blind eye and he had seen the blood sport practiced by adults and others ever since he was a kid.

I’ve covered dog fighting and cock fighting stories as a reporter in Colorado and have some firsthand insight into this twisted world. Vick has taken baby steps by promising the Humane Society, the court and the NFL he will continue to lecture kids but I don't think this is enough to make a substantial difference. These are all safe actions.

We haven’t heard whether he lectured against dog fighting while he was in prison and tried to convince fellow inmates about his change of heart. Would he do this in prisons or on the street where it would take real guts and might be seen as him being soft? We don’t know. Is he testifying against other dog fighters or planning to be an expert court witness on the matter? No indication there either. Will he talk to other athletes and particulary NFL players who didn't seem so ruffled by Vick's actions until after their advisors told them to shut up? Your guess is as good as mine.

If you are going to play the system in this case and other crises by taking the safest road possible you should consider redemptive behavior that really makes a difference and truly can win over most audiences. In order for that to happen you have to be very clear about why you changed your actions and your mind. Maybe Vick has changed and truly wants to help others. I hope so. Maybe he has received some pretty good but not great advice, which leaves questions hanging out there.

Everyone should get a second chance, especially after they've served prison time. But society and all of our systems should take the opportunity to push that person to not only change their actions in the future but take all steps to correct the disgraceful situation or subculture that they had been part of. Or else, nothing or very little will change and one is left dealing with a public – in Vick’s case - that remains largely unconvinced of one’s remorse.

Be a Pragmatic and Flexible Communicator or Violate the Law of Crisis PR

2009-06-09T17:47:00.001-04:00

The 18th century Irish philosopher-Poet Edmund Burke is a role-model for many so-called conservatives who would be well-served to follow what Burke scholars report was his belief that policy innovation must come in response to specific problems. That means changing one’s position given new circumstances doesn’t mean you are a spin-master or a flip-flopper. Such repositioning could actually mean you are laudably a pragmatist looking for the best solutions.

Those of us who deal with crisis communications should address head-on accusations that we represent convenient positions and that staying-the course always translates to good leadership. In fact, “staying the course” may in reality translate to perpetuating a mistake.

So as the Obama administration deals with the realities of timetables or costs to leave Iraq or close Guantanamo Bay, the administration’s messengers aren’t being opportunistic or hypocrites, they are basing new actions or positions on changing circumstances. Crisis communicators must be flexible, also protecting their positions or clients’ positions as problem solvers and not ideologues that are intractable and subsequently unsuccessful.

Share your thoughts – do you agree or disagree?

The Law of Crisis PR Demands Complicated Messages Be Simplified Not Dumbed-Down

2009-06-02T10:29:00.001-04:00

President Barack Obama stated late last month, “the biggest mistake … is this notion that you have to dumb things down for the public.” We couldn’t agree more, especially when the issue at hand is complex as most “crisis” communications tends to be. So, to be clear, we need to not lose the nuances of complexities but to make them more easily understandable to all audiences when critical communication is at stake.

In order to reach our communications goal here several points need to be addressed, including: concise messaging, perception of intelligence and use of jargon.

Since we are quoting famous people in this blog, another reference is illustrative regarding concise messaging. News icon Walter Cronkite said that there is no story that can’t be told in thirty seconds. Of course, most stories can be told better if there is more time to tell them but Cronkite had the right idea. Start your communications with a simple image-inducing message. For example, effective crisis communication is like driving by a good roadside ad; if you understand the message in a few seconds the ad was successful. If you need to think too long about what the ad was trying to communicate, the message was lost and it’s an ineffective ad.

Great communicators must leave their egos at the door. No one wants to hear what you have to say if you relate to them with a condescending tone. Don’t confuse the use of jargon or inflated words for intelligence. All audiences will benefit from clear communication from empathetic messengers who respect their audiences. Audiences will respect them in return and want to hear and learn about what the messenger is communicating.

What do you think?

Burris’ Debacle: Simply Denying Wrongdoing Breaks The Law of Crisis PR

2009-03-03T12:15:00.001-05:00

Illinois Senator Roland Burris is being investigated by federal authorities as they question the legitimacy of his appointment to the Senate seat. With questions looming and stories changing, Burris is in the middle of a challenging public relations crisis that could have been avoided.

In the wake of Rod Blagojevich’s impeachment, it’s plausible that Burris wanted to distance himself from the former governor. However, as Blagojevich’s appointee strong political affiliations between the two were inevitable. If Burris did nothing untoward, then he should have come clean and spoken out about his professional relationship with Blagojevich. Instead, this detail surfaced after the fact. In the midst of the sensationalism that has followed, we are left wondering whether Burris is hiding even more information.

Another PR misstep for Burris is that he has not taken a clear, consistent position on the events leading up to his appointment. He recounts situations and conversations differently each time he is interviewed. Instead of enlightening this confuses the public and builds mistrust in him. The level of public confidence he holds - if it were ever high – is extremely low.

Burris left the public and the media to their own devices. In a crisis situation, you must tell your story. Otherwise, others will tell it for you and fill in the blanks as they see fit. Denying wrongdoing is simply not enough if you expect the media or the public to feel real empathy and believe you.

Here are some lessons we can learn from Burris’ mishap:

1. There are no closets big enough to hide high-profile skeletons. Ask Elliott Spitzer. Gary Hart. And now Senator Burris.

2. Come clean - early. You’ll appear honest and it will downplay the story.

3. Consistency is key. Develop some clear key messages. If you change your story, or if you backtrack, the public will not know what to believe.

4. Make a statement. If you don’t speak for yourself, others will speak for you.

The Law of Crisis PR Says Put People First and Shelve Hypocrisy in Time of Trouble

2008-12-15T12:31:00.001-05:00

Business can be all about acronyms: P&L, ROI, IBIDA. But the bottom line for business is, however, how circumstances affect people. So when the stock market or a plane crashes the test of a businesses’ future viability and image may very well fulcrum on management’s public statements in relation to how the crisis is reflected in the lives of the employees, customers, investors - people.

You can never go wrong when expressing sympathy, concern, even an appropriate empathy for people first and material things next.

This priority is especially true when the arbiters of the company’s future and even resurrection depend on mass consumers or politicians. Consumers identify with other people, the “every man.” Politicians are ultimately answerable to voters, the very same “every man” with whom consumers identify. Even juries want to hear first that a responsible party apologizes or cares about what happened to a victim.

Of course, any public statement has to be backed-up by an appropriate action or it will be seen a spin or, worse, an outright lie. A business manager can’t express grief for someone lost in an industrial accident and then cut off medical benefits to surviving family members. Corporate titans can’t apologize for losing stockholder’s investments and not take pay cuts themselves or ask congress for money before spending hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars on lush retreats. Mistakes can be forgiven. It is much harder to forgive hypocrisy or a long-planned crime, malice aforethought.

So, when reacting to crisis, prioritize your public statements based on what your neighbor might think and not necessarily how the numbers add up.

The Law of Crisis PR Dictates Common Sense: Jetgate’s Huge Faux Pas

2008-12-03T11:09:00.002-05:00

Automaker CEO's were nailed for flying-in on their luxury jets to beg congress for a $25-billion bail-out. The faux pas became a cause célèbre for all the news media and congress certainly didn't let the PR perception blunder go unnoticed. Little wonder why the automakers are still trying to convince congress to buy into their proposal.

The Homer Simpson character would have responded with a big fat "Duh" if he would have witnessed Jetgate.

The automaker CEO's and their organization's lack of PR judgment is inexcusable although one could argue they were focused on other issues - like staying afloat in the current stormy sea of the financial maelstrom. But bad PR generally boils down to ignoring common sense while good PR usually happens when you consider consequences from a "little guys" perspective - that is certainly how most journalists view the world.

Now let's look at Jetgate in the context of the little guy. When you go to ask for a loan from your banker do you offer to take out the loan officer to an expensive lunch in a Lamborghini while wearing a $3-thousand suite and big diamonds? No.

Did Martha Stewart win the hearts and minds of the public and the court system when she showed up for her insider trading trial in a limo toting a very expensive pocketbook and dressed like a queen? No.

Martha Stewart's poor judgment did loft a softball in the air for critical journalists to smash out of the park and so did the automaker CEO's. She has paid dearly and so have they. A little common sense with an eye toward hungry journalists and the little guy's perception would have saved all a bunch of trouble. The lesson for the rich and famous - make sure that you and the people around you think about public perception details before you leap into the headlines.

What do you think?

Set Right Expectations from Onset

2008-11-20T18:32:00.001-05:00

Surprise! A few weeks into the financial bailout Secretary Paulsen announces his strategy is changing and by the way, no one is really 100 percent sure about where half of the $700 billion-dollars went. Oversight is about over before it begun. So now there is yet another crisis of credibility with the current administration and certainly of Congress which became an enabler in this situation.

That credibility could have been preserved to a great degree if Paulsen and the other bailout advocates had better expectations. If you are definitive in order to quell fears during a crisis you should also clearly explain how things may change as any new situation will almost invariably change. But, if you don’t set this kind of expectation, you set yourself up for criticism later and certainly loss of credibility.

We are not proposing starting a campaign by saying, “this is a completely new situation and nobody knows how it will turn out.” Because if you said that nobody will believe you are the best person for the job. It is, of course, very touchy. However, you can’t be wishy washy at the outset because that doesn’t instill confidence and your credibility will suffer even more if you don’t enunciate possibilities.

So messaging should include phrases like:

“Here is what we will do and here is what could happen …”

“We know what we are doing but our experience says we must be ready to change direction when it makes sense to change …”

“We know there will be changes to our plan as this is a unique situation but we will be ready to deal with those changes and put the best resources to bear …”

You get the picture. If you don’t qualify actions, especially during a crisis, nobody will trust you.

We are interested in your thoughts.

The Law of Crisis PR Predicts: Smart People Will Do Stupid Things

2008-10-27T17:30:00.001-04:00

The AIG executives who decided on a $400K retreat after their firm was in the process of being bailed-out by the US government (American taxpayers) for $85B may have:

1) Taken a calculated risk that no one would notice.

2) Figured they needed time to regroup and the retreat expense was a reasonable business expense.

3) Selfishly decided they deserved a break from an incredibly high-stress time in their business and/or professional lives.

4) Lived in such an insulated C-suite/rich guy’s bubble disconnected from mainstream society that they golden-parachuted into a PR mess that would hurt them professionally and further damage their business’ reputation.

Whatever the truth is about the decision to hold the retreat you would think those executives would have better common sense and business acumen to dictate corporate and fiscal conservatism in the face of theirs and the nation’s financial crisis. We have, however, seen this mentality before of not-living-in-the-real-world famously manifest itself many times in crisis situations and play out away from the public spotlight.

Remember, the media and public outcry when Martha Stewart went to court for insider trading carrying an extravagant handbag worth thousands of dollars? Or when presidential hopeful Senator John McCain while campaigning under the aegis of economic prudence and a populist banner couldn’t even count how many mansions he owned? Or potential First Lady Michelle Obama who said the first time she was proud to be an American was when her husband decided to run for the presidency?

All of the above gaffes were perpetrated by smart folks who should have thought out better answers or taken other commonsensical actions given their situations. Of course, those kinds of faux pas keep PR crisis counselors in business. That said, a responsible PR counselor should also be in the business of creating preventative PR plans or teaching clients to predict what kinds of actions will hurt reputations, increase legal liability or decrease brand value.

So what are the lessons learned? How can people of power understand what their reactions will trigger from the common man or the mainstream news media – the surrogate of the common man?

Lesson 1. When you are open to high-profile public scrutiny list all possible perception outcomes on a matrix.

Lesson 2. If the stakes are high enough, role play in front of outside PR counsel who is not afraid of telling the boss they are pulling a bonehead move.

Lesson 3. Put yourself in an enemies’ or critic’s position and decide what their reaction would be before you act.

Lesson 4. Don’t forget details or common sense. If you are going to be seen in public or comment upon a sensitive issue make sure you speak appropriately, dress appropriately, act appropriately for the given context; i.e. don’t wear expensive jewelry if you are raising money for the poor or speak before a Mothers Against Drunk Driving audience when you have DUI tickets unless you are talking about changing your life because when you are under the public magnifying glass nothing is secret.

Lesson 5. Don’t surround yourself with “yes men” and expect to break the Law of Crisis PR and survive.

The Law of Crisis PR Demands Leaders Put Skin in the Game

2008-10-20T10:47:00.000-04:00

Presently, the president of the United States, members of Congress and corporate executives all share the dubious notoriety of having remarkably low credibility ratings. If they were football players they could all run around stadiums holding up index fingers and shout, “We are number one!” … number one on the public’s list of losers. We are sure Wall Street’s titans will also top that loser’s poll during the next go around.

So what can our leaders do to restore public faith in themselves, their institutions and the American system? What can they do to get us going in the right direction and keep this nation’s productivity and confidence on an upward path?

They can roll up their collective sleeves and put some skin in the game and show they personally have something to lose if they don’t perform well or do the work of their subordinates as a gesture of commitment and connection.

In almost every famous example of a leader finding someway to demonstrate serious commitment, there has followed success - at least immediately after the gesture.

President Harry Truman’s words always inspire confidence when repeated by a leader accepting responsibility – “The buck stops here.” Lee Iacocca resurrected Chrysler when he appeared on advertisements personally promising quality products and was more visible at factories and employee functions. James Burke, the chairman of Johnson & Johnson that produced the tainted Tylenol medication in the 1980’s regained public confidence for his corporations when he appeared in public, immediately yanking product off of shelves and demonstrating a willingness to lose money while turning his company around. Malden Mills factory owner Aaron Feuerstein immediately promised to personally keep paying salaries and insurance for employees after a huge fire destroyed his fleece factory in 1995, keeping the business viable, at least for the short term – now that is putting skin in the game and extraordinary leadership.

So, to inspire confidence, let’s turn crisis into opportunity and help our wounded economy rebound. We need leaders to abide by the Law of Crisis PR, get their hands dirty, and not fly over our current disaster looking out of a jet window at 15 thousand feet.

We are interested in hearing what you think.

Banks Must Emphasize Positives but Address Negatives: Law of Crisis PR Advocates

2008-10-16T18:41:00.000-04:00

It is time for banks to do more than advertise interest rates and financial products. The Wall Street credibility crisis has infiltrated the very heart of our economy and winning back personal trust must be a priority. There should be bankers across America who are working hard with both internal and external PR departments to create long term communications plans that indicate their banking models are safe and secure.

Smaller banks that were more conservative in their lending practices have an advantage and should figure inroads into the market shares of the larger institutions where there may not have been a so-called “run on the bank” but there has certainly been a “walk on the bank.” Customers have been pulling accounts and squirreling away money in coffee cans and mattresses almost like the days of the Great Depression.

So here blossoms a smaller bank’s public relations and business opportunity. The home-town banks should acknowledge any failures, but emphasize failures were honest mistakes and present instances where their practices have actually saved customers money now. They should underline how they know their customers, are neighbors, and are sympathetic but smart and prudent. Think back to the hero of the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life.” Jimmy Stewart’s George Bailey character was just the kind and compassionate, small-town hero banker that was a good neighbor when folks needed him and his neighbors were there for him when he needed them.

This is the time for the nation and communities of all sizes to pull together. Banks should consider hosting town hall meetings or Q & A sessions to personally explain issues and concerns. Ads and news stories can reinforce the bank’s theme but we bet grass roots positive word-of-mouth stories about a good neighbor bank will be the best investment a bank can make now.

More than Virtue: Patience and Persistence Follow the Law of Crisis PR

2008-09-23T17:26:00.001-04:00

Vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is thrust into the media and political spotlight. America, searching for its next idol, reacts from its gut and not with its head and the McCain ticket jumps in the national polls. Much the same happened when Barack Obama first surfaced as the new kid on the block when he spoke a few years ago at the Democratic convention. Now those polls reacting to Palin are cooling after the American people have had a chance to digest her intelligence and experience. The lesson here?
The American people and news media eventually will get it right eventually but the initial reaction of the masses and even journalists is based on emotion. That’s a broad statement but it applies to a wide-range of issues facing America. Let's look at two examples.
The more complex the subject the more volatile the American poll reaction. The most recent McClatchy Newspaper poll shows America's reaction to the latest developments of the financial crisis: "These events are accelerating the country's fast-shifting politics just six weeks before the presidential election, as voters weigh how much they want to strengthen regulation after decades of faith in unbridled free markets and hostility to government intervention. Nine out of 10 adults said they think the failure of Lehman Brothers and sale of Merrill Lynch will hurt jobs and the economy." The poll goes on to show that most American's are very pessimistic about the economy.

Now remember, in this election cycle the economy didn't start as a concern as high as it is now and American's were wary of more government regulation. But here comes a crisis and there goes that idea ... America is now confused, scared and want the government to act like a parent and "protect us."

The key takeaway for this Law of Crisis PR entry is to understand first what short term reaction will be from unsettling news but have a perspective about what long term reaction will eventually be and gear public relations campaign accordingly. Never box yourself into a corner with campaigns that unequivocally target short term public or media reaction. Recognize the public and media will follow the next shiny object, grabbing for it with a smile or grimace. Don't bet though that just because America first grabbed an object or idea that we will hold tight -history shows minds will change.

What do you think?

The Law of Crisis PR Rules Teamwork fundamental to Presidential Candidates and Voter Perception

2008-09-11T14:18:00.000-04:00

By Scott Sobel

The two presidential/VP teams have been set and are settling into to the final lap of the presidential race. Everyone has been fielding attacks, questions about experience and campaign planks for the respective platforms – Sarah Palin is just beginning her punditry and positioning. We believe the vast majority of US voters from the largest centrist demographic to the media will certainly make decisions on individual candidate positions but will make the salient decisions based on how the Republican or the Democrat presidential “Team” is presented and perceived.

How do Obama and Biden and Mc Cain and Palin work together? Do the teams stay on message or do they contradict one another? Who defers to whom on what topics? Do they look relaxed in each other’s company? Do they finish each other’s sentences? What is the body language? Is there a sense of real respect and admiration between them?

Our firm, Media & Communications Strategies is in the reality and perception business. As a PR/government relations/media relations expert and former journalist myself, I am looking for cues from each team that will or won’t resonate with various audiences. I have advised several politicians and continue to advise them. My best counsel now to both teams would be to take a breath whenever possible (no matter how hard that is) and just talk through issues and presentations – teammates should spend some quality time so there are no surprises and the media and public see two leader’s comfortable in each other’s company. If the team doesn’t mesh and work well together how can the media and voters believe the individuals can lead a nation?

We are interested in hearing your thoughts on how important this kind of “teamwork” is to the presidential campaign of 2008.

McCain vs. Obama: The Law of Crisis PR Demands Countering Misconceptions Promptly

2008-08-20T20:19:00.001-04:00

The McCain campaign is smart and opportunistic and using a Democrat strategy to hurt the presumptive presidential candidate Barak Obama. The campaign leaders are beating Senator Obama over the head with a Hillary Clinton strategy called the “3 a.m. Moment” and the Obama campaign should consider a faster or stronger reaction to the McCain message or risk being “Swift Boated” – a reference to the successful Republican attack against former Democrat presidential candidate Senator John Kerry’s armed forces service.

The 3 a.m. Moment references former Democrat opponent Hillary Clinton’s now famous TV ad casting Obama as not having the experience to handle a crisis call at 3 a.m. if he is elected president.

McCain keeps alive a prime question about Obama’s credentials by taking-up the Clinton strategy and questioning Clinton’s own standing as a new Obama supporter. Obama’s campaign has enough ammunition to counter the claim but, to date has not fired that ammunition powerfully enough or on target. The PR point here is you can’t let misconceptions languish because they become more firmly implanted with time.

The best way to counter those kinds of misconceptions or lies is with the simple truth and facts that are delivered on message and passionately by the candidate or a believable surrogate and delivered immediately.

At the very least the Obama campaign should be show-casing foreign policy experienced surrogates to counter the McCain “3 a.m. Call” claims. Where is Senator Biden, Senator Bayh, maybe a Colin Powell if he finally decides to jump into the fray – others on the Obama side or even non-partisan academics, think-tank pundits – others with weight who can argue for Obama’s judgement? After all, experience or times on the job are important but the ability to make proper decisions is much more important than just experience in the context of poor judgement.

This is a salient lesson for Obama, a CEO or corporation or any entity under fire and damaged by lies or misconceptions. Wait and lose. Wait too long and you reinforce the perception that you can’t indeed make the right decision when that surprise phone call comes.

We are interested in your thoughts.

China Restricts Media: Fails Expectations, Breaks Law of Crisis PR

2008-07-31T16:00:00.000-04:00

Today’s New York Times Editorial Page reads: “To win the coveted right of holding the Olympics, China promised to expand press freedoms for foreign journalists and dangled the prospect that, more broadly, human rights would also be improved. Instead authorities have harassed and locked up critiques, intimidated journalists, selectively denied visas, silenced grieving parents who lost children in the May 12 earthquake and relocated thousands of Chinese whose homes or businesses were seen as marring Beijing’s image.”

It seems China went the proverbial extra mile to set the world’s expectation of changed and more open policies and then egregiously disappoint. Even the Bush administration, recently notorious for attempting to clamp down on journalistic freedoms by gerrymandering proposed news media shield laws, is demanding the Chinese government reconsider its restrictions. The U.S. is demanding the Chinese government permits journalists to use the Internet and other forms of free communications before, during and presumably after the Olympics.

The Chinese obviously have ongoing freedom of information and credibility issues but they have decided to make it even worse by setting and then dashing expectations. Sure, there would have been a public, governmental and media focus on Chinese restrictions anyway but this obvious flip-flopping and prima facie lying is just plain unforgivable.

Not only does China’s action offend common sensibilities and ethics but it also sends a message to tourists and businesses everywhere that the government can’t be trusted, personal rights will be ignored and China doesn’t care what the world thinks – which seems conflictual since thwarting free speech really says, “I am so paranoid about reality and perception that I will go to any length and risk everything to control my image.” This closed positioning badly damages China’s presumed message that things have changed, business and the world is now welcome.

Whether you represent a government, corporation, personal entity, there are mindful steps to take when setting expectations or changing policy. Here are some lessons we can learn from China:

• Anticipate outcomes of fluctuating messages or actions
• Be ready to explain policy change and justify actions. For example, China may have been concerned with terrorism liabilities if certain communications are not monitored
• Have facts and information in place to support your actions
• Publicly explain your policies before you are caught in a lie

In the case of China’s communications restrictions there may be no redemption or justification but there is absolutely no doubt the Chinese government turned an issue of credibility into a disaster of duplicity.

Share your thoughts.

Christian Bale: Silence on news of assault ignores Law of Crisis PR

2008-07-22T16:39:00.001-04:00

In the aftermath of news that ‘Batman’ star, Christian Bale, allegedly assaulted his mother and sister in a hotel room, the actor’s future appears to ride on how forthright he is about the current allegations. We always advocate learning all the details before advising clients on steps to take, but in general we recommend he issues a “holding statement” that denies the assault (if in fact no assault took place); allude to no legal liability; and express concern and compassion for family members and fans who are upset by news related to the incident.

However, if the news reports are correct, we have an especially touchy issue because it involves female loved ones and not a shoving match with an insensitive or predatory paparazzi. Mr. Bale’s criminal history (or lack thereof) would be noteworthy here. If this is the first time he is accused of a violent act, he can be more proactive in his future discussions and should appear in public expecting tough questions but being armed with reasonable explanations – again, the more forthcoming the better. If any history of violence surfaces, he better decide quickly how he will apologize and participate in an anger management program.

There can be variations of what he does depending on the details but he should take a lesson from football star Michael Vick and not seem to apologize for getting caught as opposed to a genuine apology for a mistake. He could then take actions to correct such behavior in the future and even help others as a role model on related issues.

What do you think? As always, we are interested in your comments.

Lessons from Dominion: The Law of Crisis PR advocates leading with the benefits

2008-07-08T22:31:00.001-04:00

The fate of the recently approved Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center spearheaded by Dominion, a leading energy company could have been that of the cancelled Dynegy Longleaf plant in Georgia but the project was ultimately saved by the fact that Virginia law does not regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. A judge in Georgia ruled differently in Dynegy’s case. However, Dominion’s journey to clinching approval to build its $1.8 billion, 585-megawatt, coal power plant had been laced with lessons coal companies and other businesses who need community support to survive can learn from.

It’s not news that Dominion faced strong opposition from environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, given overall awareness and a U.S. Supreme Court finding in 2007 that carbon dioxide is one of the major contributors to global climate change. But the fact is the Virginia City Energy Center is far from all bad. The proposed Center will use up to 20 percent biomass in addition to coal for its fuel thereby reducing its emissions. According to the Washington Post, the plant is hybrid because it will be “engineered to burn coal, plant matter and “gob”, a kind of mine waster made of rock and coal piled around the mining districts of southwest Virginia.” Additionally, the project will bring 1,000 jobs to Virginia during the construction phase, a permanent staff of more than 75 people, and about 350 mining jobs for residents.
While powering 146,000 homes, a Virginia Tech economic impact study indicates the City Hybrid Energy Center will generate about $440 million a year in tax revenues and other benefits for the county.

But all of these great points seemed to get lost in the shuffle. They ended up been secondary messages instead of helping to make the case for the Virginia Hybrid Energy Center.
Here are some key takeaways from Dominion’s experience:

·Poll the community and host town-hall meetings to uncover sensitive issues before issuing proposals. This will stand a company, especially a coal plant or large-scale manufacturing company, in good stead in terms of incorporating various components that are important to residents into it plans.

·Plan a comprehensive public relations program that effectively engages your key audiences. For Dominion, each audience base, be they policy makers, residents or environmental interest groups needed targeted messaging that described why this wasn’t like any other coal power project – a perception the company didn’t successfully get over.

·For community and all issues-related communications programs, lead with the benefits. This can be orchestrated as an educational process rather than a series of disparate tactics that scream cold selling. And it should come even before a formal announcement is made and before the plant is built.

NBA “Air Ball”: Law of Crisis PR Rules as Tim Donaghy Referee Scandal Dies Slow Death

2008-06-25T14:49:00.000-04:00

National Basketball Association Commissioner, David Stern, was right on the money when he stated last Thursday in a court filing that dealing with the allegations of embattled former referee Tim Donaghy against the NBA and referees in the league was “an unwelcome study in crisis management.”

In the filing, the NBA requested Donaghy repay the league “$1,395,104.89 for the games he bet on or provided information about and the legal cost of investigating [Donaghy’s] crimes,” according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. This was the latest development in a messy crisis that has smeared both the NBA’s and Donaghy’s reputation.

While Stern gets major kudos from being responsive and not shying away from the media throughout this ongoing fiasco, there have been missed opportunities to cast the NBA in a positive light. In fact, the NBA’s crisis management tactics has pretty much resorted to denials and name-calling. This tactic has only dug a bigger and deeper negative publicity hole. What has been said about preventing this debacle from repeating itself? Not much.

Here is an opportunity, just like with the Duke Lacrosse scandal, for powerful institutions to fix damaged ethics systems and use the process as models for improvements. It’s a quantum leap of sorts that fulcrums bad publicity into a platform to be an innovator, an ethical icon.

Also, Stern states that the NBA embraces transparency yet offers no explanation as to why Donaghy could have gotten away with fixing games dating back to the 2002 playoffs. Actually, all he managed to tell Sports Illustrated was “we are in the process of formulating our own assuredness, if we possibly can, that nothing like Donaghy will happen again. But if it does, it won’t be because we fell short in our efforts to make sure it didn’t.”

As Stern knows, the scandal is far from over. And it’s the sort that doesn’t help the game one bit not if Stern wants basketball to remain relevant compared to the NFL or even MLB. It looks like it’s going to be a long trek even after Donaghy’s sentencing on July 24.

However, here’s what Stern and the rest of us can glean now from a new playbook:

a) A crisis need not always be perceived as a doomsday episode. It can also be a time for redefinition and rejuvenation; it depends on how the crisis is handled. Stern should have used (and can still use) this opportunity to highlight the positive steps the NBA has taken to prevent game fixes from recurring, especially if the NBA really does prohibit such actions.

b) Don’t use a scandal to apologize for future scandals especially when you’re maintaining that your organization did nothing wrong; it’s condescending to your audience. Acknowledge any responsibility you can in the matter and share steps you are taking to fix the problem not offer a disclaimer that mistakes are inevitable.

We are interested in your thoughts.

Who’s Standing Up for the Children? Rev. Al Sharpton & New York chief, Joel L. Klein sterilize important message of education reform

2008-06-17T12:32:00.002-04:00

The issue of public education reform is one that is ever relevant – and rightfully so. Minorities continue to have lesser access to quality public education than the rest of the nation more than 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education, which heralded equal educational opportunity for minority students.

However, when New York City Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein and the Rev. Al Sharpton recently stepped to the podium to announce their objective of making education reform a campaign issue through their new national group, Education Equity Project, they successfully relegated this important issue to a bland affair.

Rather than strike a chord and galvanize support for the project at the news conference held at the National Press Club, they almost invoked a yawn.

There were no children there. No success stories to share. No recommendations as to how the presidential candidates or voters could make education policy an issue of focus during the campaign. Just intentions to drive the debate through “position papers, public forums at national conventions….behind-the-scenes advocacy,” according to the Washington Post. If it sounds just like any other initiative out there, that’s because it was presented as such. With no real heart or conviction.

But Klein and Sharpton’s oversight held some important lessons for us all when it comes to presenting any issue to the public, including:

1. Ask why should people care? What’s the human interest? Don’t get so lost in the details that you can’t see the forest for the trees. For example, at the core of the subject of education reform are real children, real lives that will be impacted by this reform yet there was little indication children’s perspectives were being considered in the initiative. Nor were there any children in photo ops.

2. Finger-pointing is only so effective. Use the opportunity to present new thinking, solutions or recommendations. What better way to get the “debate” going.

3. When tackling a politically-charged topic such as education reform, take the time to vet the issue and look at the different sides of the argument. It indicates that you really care about the issue and are not just paying lip service to it which hurts not help your message.

We are interested in your thoughts.

Sharon Stone Fiasco: Apology should be extended even if original intent was not to offend

2008-06-06T18:10:00.002-04:00

There’s no doubt Sharon Stone’s heart was in the right place. She thought she was advocating for Tibetans when she pondered aloud whether the recent earthquakes that plagued China was karmic retribution for the country’s invasion of neighboring Tibet. For the popular actress who had recently converted to Buddhism, her response was instinctive, if you will. And so was the incredibly strong criticism that followed. She had succeeded in inadvertently offending millions of people. She tried to clarify her statements to little avail.

Instead, it appeared she was stalling; trying to negotiate a carefully-worded apology with fashion house, Christian Dior with whom she has a modeling contract to represent in China. Dior, on the other didn’t waste any time issuing a smart, fast apology for her comments.

The company’s savvy move further alienated Stone; the public perceived Stone’s dissent with Dior on how to issue an apology insult to injury. Her subsequent apology came a little too late. Christian Dior dropped her from all of its ad campaigns in China and the Shanghai International Film Festival (where she was a juror only last year) officially banned Stone and her films from the festivities.

Ms. Stone broke the Law of Crisis PR on several levels. The lessons here include:

1) Stone should have apologized – immediately.
2) No matter how seasoned a performer a celebrity is (or anyone for that matter) messages on delicate subjects should be run in front of a public relations professional to be safe before those messages are publicly disseminated.
3) A spokesperson for a cause or, especially for a corporate product, should vet their thoughts thoroughly with their employer.
4) Conversely, the public spokesperson employer should make every effort to be aware of celebrities’ position and head off trouble.

Stalling an apology, especially where it’s warranted (in this case, to a country or group of persons), in any crisis situation is sure to backfire. You can always speak a safe “holding statement” and follow up with more details. Perhaps Stone hesitated because she believed the strength of her personal convictions would tide her over. But they didn’t.

Your comments are welcome.

Scott McClellan Lessons: Message points should support not hurt credibility

2008-05-30T18:51:00.002-04:00

This week the White House woke up to a new crisis: How to respond to the allegations former Press Secretary Scott McClellan, made in his new book What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception. What followed is a non-credible barrage of repetitious message points from both McClellan’s and the Bush Administration’s crisis communications playbook. While we are not condemning the themes and messages, we are questioning the execution.

In a day of innumerable media-outlet choices, credibility is hurt when your audience sees or hears the exact same wording over and over again. It is fodder for John Stewart’s Daily Show, MSNBC or Fox to butt-cut together sound bites in order to ridicule the authors. The Law of Crisis PR has been unnecessarily broken here and all parties barely get passing grades.First the White House was “stunned” by McClellan’s tell-all attempt.

Then Administration talking heads were “puzzled.” And for inquiring minds wanting to know more pundits became “puzzled and bewildered.” No, these were not quotes from one or two high-profile White House sources; they were responses from Dan Bartlett, Dana Perino, and Karl Rove, respectively who scratched their heads saying, “this is not the Scott we know.” As for the President himself? Rove speaking on his behalf said Bush was also “puzzled.” And the list goes on.

But birds of a feather also flock together. Or in this case sound very much alike. After all, McClellan and his Administration attackers were once a family and spoke, literally and figuratively, the same language. So McClellan is at every turn criticizing the “permanent campaign” the Bush administration has created in Washington and around the nation and is, of course “disappointed.”

But alas, there are always lessons to be learned from any communications crisis situation and McClellan and the White House has taught us some important ones.Stay away from canned, rehearsed, buzzword-filled responses and be familiar enough with your subject so you can target specifics… in this case Scott-bashers might want to actually read the book.Choose the most effective message points that really appeal to your audience. Message points should be created for different audiences - anything else is laziness and kills you in front of the audience du jour or the consumer who sees the exact quote over and over and over and over and over again.

What do you think? Your comments are welcome.

The Law of Crisis PR: Message points should support and not hurt credibility

2008-05-30T16:01:00.001-04:00

This week the White House woke up to a new crisis: How to respond to the allegations former Press Secretary Scott McClellan, made in his new book What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception. What followed is a non-credible barrage of repetitious message points from both McClellan’s and the Bush Administration’s crisis communications playbook. While we are not condemning the themes and messages, we are questioning the execution.

In a day of innumerable media-outlet choices, credibility is hurt when your audience sees or hears the exact same wording over and over again. It is fodder for John Stewart’s Daily Show, MSNBC or Fox to butt-cut together sound bites in order to ridicule the authors. The Law of Crisis PR has been unnecessarily broken here and all parties barely get passing grades.

First the White House was “stunned” by McClellan’s tell-all attempt. Then Administration talking heads were “puzzled.” And for inquiring minds wanting to know more pundits became “puzzled and bewildered.” No, these were not quotes from one or two high-profile White House sources; they were responses from Dan Bartlett, Dana Perino, and Karl Rove, respectively who scratched their heads saying, “this is not the Scott we know.” As for the President himself? Rove speaking on his behalf said Bush was also “puzzled.” And the list goes on.

But birds of a feather also flock together. Or in this case sound very much alike. After all, McClellan and his Administration attackers were once a family and spoke, literally and figuratively, the same language. So McClellan is at every turn criticizing the “permanent campaign” the Bush administration has created in Washington and around the nation and is, of course “disappointed.”

But alas, there are always lessons to be learned from any communications crisis situation and McClellan and the White House has taught us some important ones.

Stay away from canned, rehearsed, buzzword-filled responses and be familiar enough with your subject so you can target specifics… in this case Scott-bashers might want to actually read the book.

Choose the most effective message points that really appeal to your audience. Message points should be created for different audiences - anything else is laziness and kills you in front of the audience du jour or the consumer who sees the exact quote over and over and over and over and over again.

What do you think? Your comments are welcome.

Scott Sobel and Ufuoma Otu handle high-profile government, media and litigation public relations as part of the D.C.-based Media & Communications Strategies, LLC. Visit our crisis PR firm website for more information.