I haven't seen the New York Metropolitan Opera's controversial, "The Death of Klinghoffer" but I've read enough about it to know that from a PR viewpoint it's a disaster, especially because the Met needs supporters, not adversaries, to continue its operations.

Nevertheless, the Met has every right to produce the opera. And those protesting it have the same right.

[Klinghoffer, a disabled American Jew on the Achille Lauro in 1985, was shot when the ship was hijacked by Palestinian terrorists and while in his wheel chair was tossed into the ocean.]

Readers of this web site know that I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment and its protection of free speech. But the amendment also gives people the right to “peacefully assemble” as those who protested the staging of the opera did.

A main criticism of the opera is that it gives moral equivalency to Palestinian terrorists and Jews when Klinghoffer, a man who had nothing to do with the politics of the situation, was singled out and dumped into the ocean.

That same twisted equivalency logic could be used as sympathizing with ISIS' beheading journalists whose only mission was to act as reporters and with Rev. Jeremiah Wright's contention that “…America's chickens are coming home to roost," during his sermon the Sunday after 9-11.

Is there any justification for the Met to stage an opera that gives voice to the murderers of a 69-year-old disabled man just because he is Jewish? Not in my opinion. The Klinghoffer opera is not the only time in modern history that artistic license was used as an excuse by critics when praising deplorable subjects. During and after the Nazi era, the German film director "Leni" Riefenstahl's Nazi propaganda film Triumph of the Will was lauded by film critics and Riefenstahl was cited as being perhaps the greatest female movie maker in history.

The Met is not a university that should present all sides of a discussion. It is a money-making endeavor that needs patrons and sells tickets in order to remain in business. As such the Met should take into consideration the likes and dislikes of its audience. Obviously, Met management either failed to do so, misread its audience, or like many Big Businesses took a take it and like it attitude to many of its customers.

What the Met did do is to provide some PR Lessons Learned:

  • Protests can be counter productive. The outcry against the John Adams opera produced millions of dollars of free publicity for the production. Ignoring it might have been wiser as the Mormon church did when it was made fun of in Broadway's Book of Mormon.
  • Those in our business who advise top management should remember important lessons from two more decisions -- the National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell's misunderstanding how the public would react to his decision in the Rice situation and now the outcry about the Met production. The lessons to be remembered are that no matter how powerful an entity thinks it is, it's easy to misread the public's reaction and that when selling a product, especially in the performing arts business, success depends upon acceptance by the mass public and not just by a select few.
  • The Met made a major PR mistake by canceling the movie showing of the opera. It either deserved to be shown as planned or if Met management believed it would foster anti-Semitism it should have canceled all the performances. Compromise often satisfies no one.
  • Also, the best PR crisis minds in our business can't help the NFL and the Met until the public and the media decide enough-is-enough.

The U.S. has a long history of protesters, on the right and left, using their First Amendment rights. But when the subject is “art” protesters are denounced as favoring censorship. That's a bunch of hooey. Just because someone likes an opera, a Broadway show, or a museum exhibit doesn't mean that those peacefully protesting against the works are in favor of censorship. People who say protesters of the Klinghoffer opera are censors should read the First Amendment.

Despite laudatory reviews, the Met showed poor PR judgment in staging “The Death of Klinghoffer,” especially when so much of its support comes from patrons who have opposing viewpoints. If Met management wanted controversy they certainly got it.

My advice to Met management would be to save your PR crisis money and try some humble apologizing for misreading much of your public. Because there are many other worthy cultural institutions that patrons of the arts can support.

Met management should remember that ignoring the protests of those it needs to exist doesn't always fade away. Perhaps the most famous example is the U.S. auto industry which for years ignored its customer's complaints while switching to Japanese vehicles because of their superior performance. “Just a passing fancy,” said the auto moguls. “They'll be back.” The U.S. auto industry still hasn't recovered from their high-handed attitude. That's a lesson that Met management should consider.

I might not know if I am always seeing great opera when I go to the Met but I do know when I'm seeing sub-standard PR.

* * *

Arthur Solomon was senior VP/senior counselor at Burson-Marsteller.He now is a frequent contributor to PR and sports business publications, consults on PR projects and is on the Seoul Peace Prize nominating committee. He can be reached at [email protected].