I'm in PR and I'm here to help. (Image by Thomas Hawk.)

Allow me to indulge in a fanciful scenario. You are a maker of product X. Out of the blue, it comes to your attention that your product is being accused of causing the deaths of those using the product.

You look into it, but you can’t confirm that is actually the case. Reports of deaths begin to increase, and front page headlines have confirmed for you that your product is at fault.

You look and look but you still can’t make internal confirmation that your product is dangers. The media and consumers have their minds made up. Your attorneys caution silence. PR people around the globe, however, have a recipe for you: You must speak. Openly and candidly.

You must apologize, they say.

Befuddled, you don’t know what to do. One the one hand, denial makes you look bad. Silence, even worse. But apologize? Okay, but for what?

“Should I apologize for something even if I can’t confirm that we are at fault?” you ask.

You can say you are investigating the problem. But deaths are still climbing.

You recall the product. Evidence of some potential problems arise, but nothing that would lead to the drastic claims being made.

Your hesitation to speak leads to legal actions against you. Costs to deal with the situation climb, exceeding millions of dollars. You are vilified in the press. PR people cluck and shake their heads.

“You did not get ahead of the issue,” they say.

“You didn’t express empathy for the victims,” they clamor.

“You didn’t apologize.”

The chorus of criticism is unrelenting.

Six months later, evidence and investigation results begin to trickle in. Overwhelmingly, the story is finally more clear: Your product did not not cause deaths. User error did.

The media has since moved on to other stories, other crises around the globe. A few nibble on the investigation results and cover your story, but the once passionate coverage is largely met now with silence. Consumers don’t care as much, and the “victims” … they too retreat.

The PR critics have also stepped away from the story. Their expertise is needed elsewhere. Having once expressed concern about your bottom line, and their PR remedy to protect it, their valuable advice is now needed for the current news crisis. You are old news.

Your product safety and your vindication, however, are barely noticed. You financial losses are staggering, and your reputation is in tatters and may never fully recover.

***

It would be nice if the above were science fiction. I am of course referring to Toyota, which has all but been vindicated by internal and external investigations, processes that take longer than dramatic news coverage will tolerate.

Yet, predictably, many raked Toyota over coals.

Communications consultant and leader Shel Holtz wrote the following in response to one of my posts:

“So companies should all behave like Toyota, allowing facts to be dribbled out over time so it seems there’s no end to the crisis? So it leads to government hearings? So it appears that they don’t give a damn about the people who have been injured? Leading to a groundswell of consumer backlash that pretty much goes, ‘I’ll never buy another Toyota?’”

Another drafted a list of compensatory actions that seemed to  assume news reports were accurate, saying that Toyota should apologize.

The list of heavy-hitters weighing in here appear as if they too believed headlines – that Toyota was at fault and avoiding the possibility that consumers were, perhaps, delusional or engaging in fraud. This is despite Toyota’s situation being eerily like Audi’s in the 1980s, when the company was ultimately cleared of wrong doing after dramatic and widespread claims of “sudden acceleration” in its vehicles.

I wrote the first piece on brand crisis in February, in which I attempt to debunk the traditional assumptions about responding to crisis events, especially when the salient facts are not available. My lead stated the predictable: When a major crisis erupts, the PR experts will readily provide their perspective on what should be done.

I missed what also should have been expected: When the issue of right and wrong is further muddied down the road, these experts will be less forthcoming with advice. More to the point, advice on dealing with fraud and deceit by both consumers and the press won’t be as widely available as their original invective.

I noted previously that despite PR’s lexical roots in warfare, it is a profession of bridge builders. With that in mind, organizations should considering calling in the damage control experts when a crisis erupts.

They should also consider putting a muzzle on their PR people.