By Arthur Solomon
“I always tried to turn every disaster into an opportunity.” – John D. Rockefeller
The alleged sexual abuse trial has finally begun. Also on trial should be Penn State’s handling of its crisis communication’s problem.
Crisis specialists should remember Rockefeller’s quote because we are well into 2012 and one characteristic that remains constant is that companies are up to their necks in PR disasters.
Another invariable is that many PR crisis responses are still from hackneyed, by-the-book manuals. Example: at least one crisis “expert” opined that PS “broke the golden rule” of crisis communications by not issuing a statement within an hour. Yeah, sure, that would have helped.
While rushing to get out a statement abut a crisis ASAP is still practiced by many, if not the great majority, of PR crisis specialists, I’ve always believed doing so can cause exceedingly more harm than good to a client.
Let’s examine what can happen by rushing a statement.
- Your client has a PR crisis. You go by the traditional playbook and issue a statement within hours, or as some say within one hour. That keeps the media happy for a little while, maybe until the next news cycle, when follow-up stories are needed.
- After you keep the media happy with a rushed statement, new facts that contradict your initial announcement inevitably are discovered by investigators or reporters. You then have to issue a corrective statement each time new information becomes known.
The media are cynical about any other statements issued.
The client is now in a defensive position of having to respond to stories claiming initial statement(s) are not credible. Also, the media rehash the original statement in follow-up stories, resulting in doubt about the truthfulness of all client statements.
- Now the client has three PR crisis situations – the original one, another with a skeptical media and perhaps the most damaging, the belief that there was an attempted cover-up.
That’s why I am a firm believer that it is often better to initially issue a “non statement” that expresses sympathy, if called for, and then wait until facts are fully analyzed and a comprehensive response plan is decided upon before aggressively going public.
Until the facts are analyzed internally, press inquiries should be answered with statements like, “We are investigating the situation and have no further details to share with you at this time. We will definitely keep you informed as new facts emerge.”
PS’s handling of the alleged sexual abuse scandal is a prime example, in my opinion, of why it’s best to wait a while until you get your ducks in order before aggressively addressing the media.
Here’s why:
- Its initial rushed press conference, it was reported, didn’t allow for any questions to be asked, except from attendees up close to the front of the room.
- The cowardly, insensitive way that Joe Paterno was notified of his firing, by telephone, received criticism even from those who felt that JoPa deserved dismissal.
- Statements about the status of wide-receiver coach Mike McQueary were incomplete. First he would be allowed to coach, but not from the sidelines. Then he would not be allowed to coach and finally he was placed on administrative leave.
- PS received media criticism by having members of the Board of Trustees placed on the independent special investigation committee.
- On December 9, it was announced that PS will no longer permit official branded Joe Peterno merchandise to be sold.
- On January 5, 2012, the Associated Press reported that an internal PS memo said that donors irate over the alleged sexual abuse scandal should be reminded that they could not get their money back.
- On January 11, ESPN reported that Jerry Sandusky watched the Oct. 29 Illinois-PS game from the university president’s box (along with members of the PS board of trustees) a week before his arrest on alleged child sexual assault, even though the trustees knew about the grand jury investigation.
- And on January 12, PS said that it will publicly honor Joe Paterno, despite an on-going internal investigation and Paterno saying “…With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."
- Also, on January 12, PS said Paterno was fired because of “extraordinary circumstances,” (what ever that is supposed to convey).
- PS president Rodney Erickson’s inability to answer questions to the satisfaction of attendees about the trustee’s decisions at the political-like town hall meetings was another negative facet of the school’s crisis communication effort.
- Board of Trustees members “tell all” interview with the New York Times on January 19, followed by additional interviews, is questionable. But if they felt they had o talk, it should have been done much sooner. Even the timing of these interviews can be questioned, coming just a few days before the NFL championship games, when much of the is focused on which teams will advance to the Super Bowl.
After being mute so long before going public, a case can be made that waiting an additional two weeks (until after the Super Bowl) would have resulted in much more coverage for the trustees’ view points. Also, saying that Paterno was relieved of coaching duties because he didn’t meet his “moral obligation,” but nevertheless would be honored for his coaching and contributions to the school is questionable, especially since the investigation was not concluded when the statement was made.
- On Feb. 13, PS launched an “openness” website, which according to the university “represents reform and change and our commitment to improve the university’s openness with the public.”
- On March 12, PS trustees again ignited coverage with a statement saying that Paterno was fired because doing its minimum legal obligation was not enough and showed a lack of leadership.
- On March 21, PS kept the sexual abuse scandal in the news by saying it would offer free counseling services to alleged victims of Jerry Sandusky.
- On April 19, PS announced that it had paid the Joe Paterno estate $5.76 million in retirement benefits and payments.
- On April 25, PS announced that it had hired two new PR firms to help with its continuing image crisis.
- On May 2, PS announced it has given more than $1.1 million in football revenues for child abuse research and treatment at its new center.
- On May 4, PS said it might have its largest incoming class in six years.
Of course, the media reports in all of the above announcements referred to the alleged sex-abuse scandal. Some of the above revelations obviously were not from official PS announcements. But too many were.
This flawed PS response, by dribbling out information piecemeal over a lengthy time span needlessly fueled the story, constantly keeping it in the news. A better strategy would have been to limit official PS announcements to a few detailed press releases after the initial press conference.
It should be remembered that the faulty PS PR crisis response actually started way before the most recent sexual abuse allegations. Even though it was much reported, the university’s refusal to make public a 1998 investigation of a campus police report regarding Sandusky’s conduct immediately created a cover-up scenario with the media.
My questions to so many crisis specialists are “Why are there so many adherences to the ancient “get it out immediately” rule that was conceived by a mere mortal many decades ago? PR is not a science, so why accept its tenets as such? Also, other than preparing a crisis prevention template to impress clients (what some Army PR guys used to call “eyewash”), how can anyone adequately prepare a crisis plan until one actually occurs, unless one has the prescience of knowing what the crisis will be?
Waiting too long to issue a statement might give the impression of having a poor PR crisis plan. But there can be serious consequences of rushing a statement just to satisfy the media. In situations with potential legal implications, the timing of the initial statement should be a joint decision involving attorneys, company executives and in-house and agency PR teams.
I know this goes against many PR crisis beliefs, but I feel that the attorney’s advice should have the highest priority. That’s because protecting the company from possible legal problems is much more important than getting “good press.”
“Get it out fast” wasn’t the only crisis PR tenet that I have faulted over the years. My thanks to Herman Cain for proving that another time honored crisis communication dogma doesn’t work, “getting out ahead of the story ” by revealing on November 28 that a woman would claim they had a lengthy affair. That kept the press at bay, didn’t it?
Experienced specialists know that executing a PR crisis plan skillfully does not assure that the crisis will be contained, no matter how high the hourly fees of the experts are.
What worked in one crisis situation does not mean the tactic is evergreen. New crises need new strategies and crises plans need continuous updates.
After many years of watching how crises are handled and being involved in client crises situations, I have come to the conclusion that “common sense” is the most important element in crisis management.
Many people and agencies in our business have the egotistical belief that they can solve all problems. Those of us who are realistic know that is not so and are not afraid to level with a client in crisis about what can and cannot be accomplished. In the PS situation only time will be the problem solver, not know-it-all crises control PR people.
Want proof? Just keep up with the fallout from the PS sex abuse scandal over the next few years.
But no matter how you think a PR crisis should be handled, one thing is certain: if you’re in the PR crisis business, there never has been a recession. This is especially true if your client list includes Goldman Sachs, J&J, News Corp, the NFL, MLB, NHL, the NCAA or JPMorgan Chase, managed by “the best banker in America.”
* * *
Arthur Solomon is a former senior VP at Burson-Marsteller, where handled national and international accounts. He now is a frequent contributor to public relations and sports business publications, consults on public relations projects and is on the Seoul Peace Prize nominating committee. He is available at [email protected]. |
Wes Pedersen (6/06):
If I ever find myself fumbling about in crisis mode, my first thought will be: Call Arthur Solomon.
Media guru (6/22):
This is a bleeding wound that cannot be staunched by PR. By attempting to cover up when the scandal broke, Penn has kept te problem alive. Every day it becomes more and more evident that a great many people knew about the coach's "thing" for young boys. Maureen Dowd shows the coach unable to keep his eyes off the photos of his victims, despite the fact that his wife his testifying on his behalf. He's a sick SOB and has been for years. You cannot wash any of that away with PR.
The sooner Penn and the community admit that they harbored a known pervert for decades, the sooner the scandal will begin to fade away. It will never die, however. Confession is good for the soul, but you have to wonder: Did, and does, Penn have a soul?
Wes Pedersen (7/16):
Arthur, I have been reading the latest report on this unholy message. I must tell you this column holds up stupendously well. What is marvelous about yours is that it written for PR practitioners and should required -- nay, mandatory -- reading by every practitioner, instructor and student. Congratulations on yet another instructive analysis.
Wes Pedersen (7/20):
Arthur, I have been reading the latest report on this unholy message. I must tell you this column holds up stupendously well. What is marvelous about yours is that it written for PR practitioners and should required -- nay, mandatory -- reading by every practitioner, instructor and student. Congratulations on yet another instructive analysis.
wes pedersen (7/23):
Arthur, I have been reading the latest report on this unholy message. I must tell you this column holds up stupendously well. What is marvelous about yours is that it written for PR practitioners and should required -- nay, mandatory -- reading by every practitioner, instructor and student. Congratulations on yet another instructive analysis. |