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.

I vividly remember

What reminded me of this was reading the local weekly (online) yesterday. The editor wrote a stunning piece. It’s a first-hand account of his drunk-driving arrest. The paper placed it on its front cover, and the article is a stunning admission of what happened. As I was reading it, I couldn’t help but wonder how such an open acknowledgement of wrongdoing could feasibly raise the bar for those caught in the act of screwing up.

Too often journalists prey on public figures and their misdoings, real or imagined. Yet when their own hands are caught in the cookie jar, reporter transparency becomes askew. Not in this situation.

I have maintained that trying to prevent wrongdoing can be a futile effort; rather, the act of owning up to misdeeds is more telling of character.

There’s much to be learned from this article. While the moralists will, predictably, pick it apart as if they have never done anything wrong in their own lives, and most surely judgments will be passed, I consider this one of the finer pieces of journalism I’ve read locally in a long, long time.

Many have had a field day with the David Letterman fiasco regarding his jokes about Sarah Palin and her daughter(s). Key to the debate is the point that Letterman and his writers clearly screwed up in their innuendo about Palin’s daughter.

It is obvious the joke in question was meant in reference to Palin’s oldest daughter, age 18, who became pregnant before marriage and while still a teenager. But Letterman and his writers inadvertently were referring to the daughter at the ballgame in question, who is 14, getting “knocked up by Alex Rodriquez.”

Palin rightfully pushed back against the joke. And she continued pushing. While Letterman initially tried to diffuse the situation with more humor, Palin clearly wasn’t satisfied.

She went too far in attempting to reframe the context of the joke, such as suggesting her youngest daughter should stay away from David Letterman. However, the situation was precipitated by Letterman’s inadvertent mistake and Palin was correct to fight back.

As an added touch of grace to the situation, both Letterman’s eventual apology and Palin’s acceptance of it, shows that in such situations a good fight must ensue before a true resolution can be find.

Palin necessarily stood up for herself and her family in order to get to that point. She should be commended.

[EDIT: Jim Lukaszewski just chimed in and he takes Letterman to task. You may read his response here.]

Like this post? Buy the book!

Available in paperback ($18.98) or as an eBook ($7.49).

This Bike is a Pipe Bomb photo by Jeff Moser / Bike Carson on Flickr

Public relations’ Code of Ethics serves as a viable reminder for being honest not just in your professional life, but for life in general. Honesty, the free flow of information and accuracy serve as valuable credos for personal and businesses relationships.

Nothing exemplifies this more than the ongoing hubbub about appropriating content from other sources. Taking content from someone else for your blog, or other use, and not crediting the original source is a clear violation of PRSA’s Code of Ethics, yet far too many people do it.

Me included. Looking back on past posts, I have strived to cite sources as much as possible, but when it comes to mainstream news outlets, I have played loose with the ethics, mainly in using photos from the Associated Press or other global news outlets for my own posts.

While it can be argued that such use falls under the Fair Use doctrine – which is a considerable point, as Rogers Cadenhead knows too well from his noted controversy with the Associated Press – using such content without crediting the original source is clearly wrong.

I’ve fucked up. More than once. I know better too but I’ve been careless. From here on out, if I cannot find a suitable image to use for my posts, I will credit the original source if I use an image from elsewhere. If a concern is raised about even using the image, I will remove it. (Most, I’ve learned, are more than happy to see their content referenced, cited and even republished, which is a part of what being networked is all about.)

Another element to misappropriating content is taking it, using it without attribution and then claiming it as your own. This is what FOX News has done to Carson City, Nevada blogger Jeff Moser, which he just discovered.

Jeff writes about the bike culture in Nevada’s capital, Carson City. Jeff is a long time friend and he, to me, exemplifies citizen journalism or niche blogging. More importantly, he uses his blog not only to convey relevant and up-to-date information, but to connect with real people in real life and, in general, to improve the quality of life in Carson City.

One day Jeff noticed a bike parked at a coffee shop with a sticker that read, “this bike is a pipe bomb.” The sticker is actually the name of a punk band that apparently is put on bikes all over. Jeff took a picture of the bike and posted it on Flickr where it’s licensed under Creative Commons, which means anyone can use it but they must give credit to the original source.

Months later Jeff did a search for the image, and what he discovered resulted in a new blog post: FOX News used the image for a news story without given credit to Jeff. It also later claimed the image as its own by watermarking the image with its own logo.

While bloggers must keep out own ethics and houses in order, so too must the news media.

I am not hopeful for any kind of public outcome for Jeff, other than some snarky comments on his blog and a little bit of online hype. The reason is this: While PR folks – and really, people in general — should be prepared apologize, or acknowledge wrongdoing, the news media business must also do the same. The problem is that too often, it doesn’t.

The same day Jeff posted his “No Spin Zone” story, a local columnist posted this, where he details news business advice he once received: “Never explain, never apologize.” (The columnist, to his credit, selectively ignores the advice.)

Let us hope that as news businesses are forced into radically transforming their operations, part of what is left behind is the “never explain, never apologize” attitude.

[NOTE: I emailed the myFOX Mephis reporter who originally reported the story using Jeff's image and requested comments and aswers to questions. I will update this post with her reply should it be received.]

April Fool’s Day wasn’t kind to Slideshare,

On April 1, Slideshare sent to its users an email saying, “You are a Slideshare rockstar.” It detailed the number of views users had received on their presentations, claiming a number higher that what was really the case (by adding two digits to the actual count). Slideshare then invited users to tweet about this success.

But it wasn’t true. And there was no indication – at all – that it was a joke. The cat came out of the bag on a broad scale when Mashable wrote about the company’s deceptive prank.

I read it and was pissed. I was a victim of the joke and believed that my one and only Slideshare presentation, which was embedded on my LinkedIn profile, had received hundreds of views. I quickly removed my presentation and posted on Twitter my thoughts about Slideshare’s stunt.

Within minutes I was contacted directly by a Slideshare representative, who asked if there was anything that they could do. I responded. We ended up having a number of exchanges by both email and phone (Slideshare’s Daniel Lu called me twice), where I suggested approaches to handle the situation.

While Slideshare did not send a follow-up email apology to those who received the original email, which is what I suggested, the company’s representatives were aggressive in managing fallout. A summary of the situation was posted on the Slideshare blog.

It is, to me, a shining example of taking ownership of a situation unintentionally gone bad.

Here’s why:

The effectiveness of an apology is at least a two-part process. First, grave grievances must be acknowledged by the offenders. Making mistakes comes with the human territory. We are fallible creatures and we will create quandaries and exacerbate conflicts with resounding effects, intentionally and unintentionally. It is one thing to have nagging critics always on our backs; on the other hand, if we do not, or cannot, see where we have done something wrong, more trouble is around the corner.

Second, the apology must be sincere. In this sense, Slideshare went above and beyond the call of duty in dealing with its mistake. The apology, written by CEO Rashmi Sinha, reads beautifully, like a work of prose (at least to us PR geeks). It is detailed, well written and tackles the situation head on. It also points out just how the prank had an impact on its users. (I can imagine legal counsel cringing at the statement.)

One reader comment pointedly says in response: “You’ve put this really nicely and thoughtfully. It’s going to be a harsh critic who’s still unhappy.”

If had an award to give out for this kind of PR situation, Slideshare would win the gold. It is that well done.

A Summary of the Undercover Food Lion Story

The University of Nevada’s “J-week,” a series of cutting-edge journalism events running this week, is just about over. I was fortunate enough to be able to attend two lectures yesterday.

Lynne Dale, former reporter and producer from ABC’s Primetime Live, gave a tell-all account of going undercover at Food Lion grocery stores in the early 1990s. In her presentation, she outlined how ABC began receiving complaints about employee mistreatment and poor handling of meat products at various grocery stores in the chain.

Dale ultimately went undercover for two weeks with a hidden video camera and documented employees engaged in unsanitary meat handling and repackaging of out-of-date meat. The crux of the investigation, she said, was that Food Lion employees were systematically pressured to maintain a certain level of profit and performance. If unattainable, the employees were fired.

So, despite printed company policies and what appeared to be a lack of appropriate training in safe food handling procedures, employees maximized profits with purposeful repackaging and recycling old meat into new products, such as sausage.

From a journalistic point of few, the story was a slam-dunk.

“I was very single-minded,” Dale said. “Document it, prove it.”

Legally, however, the story became a battleground as Food Lion took ABC to court, not for libel but for Dale’s hidden documentation (fraud), trespass and breach of duty of loyalty.

Tellingly, Dale admitted, Food Lion fought its battle against ABC in the press. ABC took the legal high road and ignored its own public relations by staying mute about the accusations and case, which dragged on for years.

The result: “ABC lost in the court of public opinion,” Dale said.

Legally, ABC ultimately “won.” While Food Lion won the case on some technicalities and was awarded nominal damages, the victory was questionable. Perhaps most notably, the case had legal implications for undercover stories of this sort for years to come. Food Lion now has the authority to prevent undercover videotaping at its stores.

So too does ABC. During the Q-and-A portion of the presentation, one question I posed was: “If someone were to go undercover with a hidden video camera into the Primetime Live newsroom, what might we see?”

Dale’s response was adequate – that the newsroom has built-in accountability for fairness with attorneys and others to evaluate story balance. Her reply also fell flat because she failed to admit that ABC, like any other business, will inherently have internal problems.

There’s no organization on the planet that doesn’t have some element of dysfunction, disgruntled employees, people jockeying for higher positions, backstabbing and so on.

In the audience was Gene Grabowski of Levick Strategic Communications, who is a crisis communications consultant (and who gave a stellar presentation after Dale’s). He pointed out that ABC has a “no videotaping” policy at its gate.

“You mean ABC’s newsroom isn’t transparent?” I asked him.

“Of course not,” he replied with a smile.

Most importantly, though, I asked Dale, if, at any point, Food Lion apologized and vowed to tighten up procedures.

The answer, sadly, was no.

My father introduced me to the term “professional agitator,” a term that has since been seared into my head to describe those quick to jump into the social justice fray while accepting a paycheck for doing so. Jackson exemplifies this description. I don’t doubt his sincerity—at the same time, I don’t think his publicly expressed passion tells the complete story.

There have been a number of stories portraying Jackson as a self-interested empire builder, which is probably true and which adds to Jackson’s more complete portrait.

His recent comments about wanting to hack off Obama’s nuts add to picture of imperfection, which in some ways is refreshingly honest by unmasking Jackson’s id.

Today’s news of Jackson referring to blacks as niggers almost seals the deal, especially in light of Jackson’s career of protestations.

It’s not that Jackson shouldn’t be expected to be perfect. It’s that Jackson, while being recently exposed for his more egregious faults, would be well-served to keep his mouth shut.

His apology yesterday should be followed with a long bout of silence. He will otherwise fall victim to the principle of “the higher the pedestal, the harder they fall.”

I’m no Buddha*

The amount of perfection expected for people is unrealistic and often contradictory. The world’s noted scandals are often the results of character flaws of familial, biological and sociocultural origins, of which most of us possess.

Yet the bar is raised particularly high for public figures. It’s at the point of being unrealistic, so much so that I get a sense of cynical, voyeuristic enjoyment from the Peter Dohertys and Dennis Rodmans of the world. People like them, who relish in their careless, destructive behaviors, are refreshingly honest even while being distasteful to some.

Not giving a shit, when compared with the uppity expectations placed on many public figures, or just about anyone who screws up and is publicly exposed for it, is a healthy perspective. Suspending judgment of others is even healthier because the levels of expectation we place upon one another is, on some level, dependant upon our own mistakes and misjudgments.

That being the case, the celebration of our current, past and future misdeeds is even more critical in light of what I see as misguided attempts at trying to erase past negativity. The Search Engine Optimization movement, especially when used to manage online reputations, comes close to avoiding real issues even though SEO tactics are currently en vogue. There are books-galore being published about the topic.

The problem is that the bury-the-negative-search-rankings approach does not work for three reasons:

• First, it doesn’t address pre-emptive visions that guide not getting into trouble in the first place.
• Second, one of the leading firms that specializes in online-reputation management has the honor of having a number-two search ranking being a site devoted to criticizing the firm.
• Third, if an organization or person truly screws up, it is basic public relations to acknowledge fuck-ups, not try to bury them. Fuck-ups are opportunities to shine, not things of which to be ashamed.

There are many kinds of heroes. Some of my favorites are the Eliot Spitzer- and Marion Jones-types, who come out and admit their wrongs. When they go down in flames, they do so with a sense of humility they perhaps have never before experienced. This takes more strength, conviction and honor than winning in life, casting stones or being a sideline critic.

*For the record: Like most folks, I have my share of faults. I back-peddle, flip-flop and I contradict myself. I tend to speak off the cuff and occasionally my mouth gets me into trouble. However, I hopefully better recognize when I screw up, openly acknowledge it and do something about it if it is too serious. Having a wonderful wife helps.

Ferraro recently said of Barack Obama: “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

Taking heat for this remark, she resigned from a fund-raising position on the Clinton campaign.

Her closing remarks:

“I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign.

“The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you. I won’t let that happen.

“Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”

Here are five clues that will tell you whether your organization is facing more than normal criticism:

1.  A medium–usually a Web site–appears to target your organization and its actions
2. An organization forms to target your organization and its actions
3. Attackers go to the news media first–dialogue is absent, in other words
4. Reporters knock (if you’re lucky) rather than call
5. You did something wrong

Just one of these in and of itself may not represent a true attack (e.g., a disgruntled employee whining to the press or the existence of McDonaldsSucks.com). Two or more means crisis communications principles and practices should be quickly invoked.