If today’s media covered the Gettysburg Address…

President Lincoln’s Remarks at Cemetery Dedication Disappointing

---

President’s address, only 3 Minutes Long, Lacked Substance

It was the greatest battle ever fought to date on the continent - over 50,000 casualties were suffered.  So many of those in attendance at the dedication of the Gettysburg Nations Cemetery yesterday were somewhat taken aback by President Lincoln’s address to the crowd in this small southern Pennsylvania town.

In a three minute speech that contained only ten sentences, Lincoln offered nothing new in the way of strategy or a plan for winning the war, now approaching its fourth year.

‘There was no plan offered here today,” said one pundit. “It was just another speech from another politician.”

“Somehow, I expected more from him,” he added.

The President’s uninspired performance was judged by some to be a reflection of the Union effort in the battle at Gettysburg earlier this summer, and the Northern campaign as a whole.  Despite a major loss of life suffered by Union forces, the battle did not end in a decisive Federal victory.  In fact, many experts have severely criticized the Union Commander, Gen. George Meade, for his decision allowing Gen. Robert E. Lee’s crippled Army of Northern Virginia to escape across the Potomac River in the two week period following the battle. Lincoln did not address this issue in his speech.

The battle, culminating the second major Confederate invasion of Northern territory in as many years, was within minutes of becoming a catastrophic Federal defeat at several points.

Some military consultants say Lee’s defeat was due only to the absence of Gen. Thomas E. “Stonewall” Jackson, who died two months before Gettysburg at the Battle of Chancellorsville. 

The irony of the circumstances surrounding Jackson’s death was not lost on one expert at yesterday’s ceremony.

“It wasn’t even Union troops who killed Jackson,” chuckled the observer. “He was accidentally killed by his own men.”

This fact only reinforces the widespread belief that Northern forces, who have consistently outnumbered Confederate units throughout the war, can only win when Southern troops present them with a “can’t miss” opportunity to do so.

“Even then, it’s an iffy proposition,” the consultant added.

With Election Day less than a year away, most political experts saw today’s speech as a way for Lincoln, who only received 39% of the vote in 1860, to galvanize support. Most polls show the President trailing badly, and many Northerners have grown weary of the fight, as this summer’s draft riots in New York City showed.

“Lincoln’s political prospects are dim, and his lackluster performance today didn’t help him any,” said one Washington-based consultant. “He missed a golden opportunity to crystallize the case for the Union, outline a strategic plan for victory and help his re-election bid.”

Observers noted yesterday that even after the Federal victory at Vicksburg, touted by Lincoln as “cutting the Confederacy in two,” the South fights on ably and effectively.

Instead, the President offered a speech laden with platitudes about the battle and its fallen heroes. Short on facts and substance, Lincoln made no reference even to the number of Union dead felled at the battle. His awkward gimmick of “four score and seven years ago,” a device he used to note the 87 years which have passed since the signing of the Declaration of Independence, fell flat.

“The world will little note nor long remember what we say here,” Lincoln said. From the reaction to his speech, the President was right on both counts.

Nov. 20, 1863

The Patriots Were Ready in a Crisis

Loyalty is a two way street.  For instance, when a football team signs a player to a 7-year, $40 million contract, with $26.5 million of that guaranteed to the player, the team has a reasonable expectation that the player will not be indicted for first degree murder.

Aaron Hernandez didn’t keep up his end of the bargain this summer. As a result, the Patriots moved quickly and effectively to sever their relationship with him. Here’s how they got it right:

They Were Decisive

It’s rare for pro athletes to pay a price on the field, and in their wallets, for brushes with the law – particularly in the NFL.  What usually transpires is an elaborate rationalization of “errors in judgment” “regret", faux-“responsibility”, “let the process play itself out” - or just plain gibberish. 

The Patriots did none of that (although there was an initial stumble by owner Bob Kraft.)  Certainly the severity of the charge against Hernandez helped clarify their thinking, but the team didn’t indulge in the usual language of equivocation. They just cut him.

What makes this even more impressive is that according to media reports, had Hernandez been under contract and unable to play because he was in jail or suspended by the league, the Patriots might have been able to save up to $37 million.

They Understood that a Crisis is not the Right Time to Save Money

The Patriots calculated that the damage to the team’s brand was greater than the millions of dollars that it would cost them to cut Hernandez, plus the cost of some free uniform jerseys (see below).  Similar to US Airways brilliant handling of its passengers after one of their planes landed in the Hudson a few years ago, the Pats understood the costs and made the (correct) decision to pay them. 

They Were Prepared

The biggest enemy of preparedness is indecision.  Since the Patriots had taken the time to think things through and arrive at a decision, they were ready to act without delay when Hernandez was arrested.

It’s a Rule: The Media Needs Someone to “Take Responsibility”

The Patriots realized that, and Bill Belichick got the job.  "I'm primarily responsible for the people that we bring into the football operation.” Belichick had characteristically left you wondering about the depth of his sincerity, but he had checked the “responsibility” box, and defused the line of questioning.  (Conversation for another day:  You have to wonder how effective this would be if the Coach didn’t have three Super Bowl rings and a .729 winning percentage in New England.)

They Didn’t Add Fuel to the Fire

In this case, the Patriots got a “Twofer”, because nobody can remove fuel from a fire like Bill Belichick (see above).  Belichick’s unique ability to stick to his message worked well here.

Nobody Said “No Comment”

No comment – the worst possible thing you can say, at least explicitly.  In this case, particularly in the immediate aftermath, Belichick effectively delivered the “no comment” message, but in the most effective way –

• “I think we already addressed that.”
• “I don’t have anything further on that.”  
• “I’m not going to dwell on that.”  
• “I’ve got to focus on winning for our football team.”
• Etc.

The media knew they weren’t going to get anything more out of him, so they stopped asking.  And the fire goes out.

They Got a Little Lucky

Fortune favors the prepared they say, and in this case, the Patriots preparation yielded a little bit of luck: on the same day Hernandez was arrested and the Patriots cut him, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long awaited ruling regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  This helped reduce the intensity of the media spotlight on Hernandez, at least for that crucial day. If the Patriots had been indecisive and not prepared to act in the immediate aftermath of Hernadez’ arrest they would not have benefited from the dilution of the media attention created by the DOMA ruling.

They Thought of Practically Everything

Giving yourself enough time to think clearly in a crisis can pay enormous dividends.  In this case, the Hernandez arrest was actually more about the Patriot’s brand than anything else – including winning on the field.  The Patriots realized quickly that in a region where almost everyone owns a player game jersey it would be damaging to have thousands of people walking around wearing the team jersey of an accused murderer who was no longer on the team.

They acted quickly to get the Hernandez jerseys off the street by offering a free replacement at the Gillette Stadium gift shop.  (At the same time they also no doubt collected an enormous amount of very valuable consumer data about fans passionate enough about the team to drive to Foxboro to get new jerseys.)

“We know that children love wearing their Patriots jerseys, but may not understand why parents don’t want them wearing their Hernandez jerseys anymore,” Patriots spokesperson Stacey James told the media. “We hope this opportunity to exchange those jerseys at the Patriots ProShop for another player’s jersey will be well-received by parents.”

Post Game

In the aftermath of the team’s success in countering the crisis communications challenges raised by the Hernandez case, Coach Belichick would be justified in offering his standard analysis after a Pats win:  “I think we executed some things well today.  Anything else?  Thank you.”

What Does That Poll Really Mean?

Now’s the season for political “polls,” but what do they really mean – if anything?

There are two reasons to conduct a poll:
1. To find out information that you need to know.
2. To get some degree of validation for information that you want others to know.

Reason #1 is the political equivalent of market research. Some may find this idea unsavory because of worries that it could lead to pandering by candidates. Well, maybe. Certainly poll-driven candidates are out there, but I give voters more credit for seeing through them. In reality, it’s crucial for candidates to have good information about what voters care about in order to stay in touch with the electorate’s top priorities. If a candidate wants to talk about apples, but the electorate wants to know about oranges, the campaign’s in trouble. A poll can help a candidate know what voters want to know about – and address those concerns.

Unfortunately, polls with reliable numbers are hard to find and expensive. What makes it hard – and expensive - to conduct a good poll?
• You need good callers who understand the questions and ask them the right way;
• You need callers who can be trained to pronounce candidate names and place names correctly;
• Informative polls are long, and it’s difficult to get people to stay on the line all the way through to the end;
• It’s harder to find voters in the era of the cell phone, which are off-limits to pollsters by law;
• It takes time and a real expertise to draft a sound, useful questionnaire;
• It takes time and expertise to interpret the data, weighing it properly so it’s reflective of area demographics.

In short, the kind of good data you need for the first kind of poll is expensive and difficult to come by – and becoming even more so.

Which brings us to the second kind of poll. These tend to be notoriously unscientific and rigged to score points for whoever is releasing it. Your radar should really go up if poll numbers are released by a political party, an organization affiliated with one or a special interest group.

In reality, all public polls should be greeted with healthy skepticism. Media outlets used to do them with the necessary rigor, but few can afford it anymore, with some national exceptions (NY Times, CBS, etc.). Local media outlets are, for the most part, unwilling to spend the money it takes to get really good data. They usually settle for on-line polls or automated telephone polls. (I think my dog Buster responded to one of those the other day.) What you end up with is very cheap data that barely passes the accuracy laugh test – but is reported by the media with a straight face. The best information is usually found in the hands of well-funded candidates, and jealously guarded like the precious commodity that it is.

If you want to know who’s really up and who’s down, the best indicators are not public polls but the activities of the candidates. If they’re spending precious time and resources campaigning in neighborhoods, towns, counties or states they are expected to win, they’re in trouble. If they’re launching a desperate attack on an opponent, they’re in trouble. But if they’ve kept a consistent message, are counter-attacking from the high ground, and campaigning in areas that are considered a toss-up, they’re looking at good numbers.

What Could Schilling Have Done?

Below is an e-mail interview I recently did regarding the travails of Curt Schilling and his company, 38 Studios.  I’d be interested in your comments on my responses.
-  DP


From: Jeff Derderian [mailto:jeffderderian@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 11:43 AM
To: dpreston@nharbor.com
Subject: Schilling Piece-GoLocalProv.Com

Hey David--

I hope this note finds you well.

I write a weekly media piece for GoLocalProv these days and I am doing a piece on Schilling and his lack of media response.  We'll look at from PR perspective---what Schilling could have done differently to handle this better. 

I'm wondering if you might be able to answer a few questions for my piece---which will run Tuesday.  I'll put it together over the weekend if you have time to get back to me on it.

Thanks, David.

Jeff

Jeff Derderian
Media Writer
-----

From: David Preston [mailto:dpreston@nharbor.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 12:16 PM
To: 'Jeff Derderian'
Subject: RE: Schilling Piece-GoLocalProv.Com

Hi Jeff – Good to hear from you. 

These are hard questions to answer since I’m missing some key information: 

• What is this the financial condition of 38 Studios? (Other than “bad”).  
• What were/are Schilling’s business goals for 38? 
• Does he know of, or suspect, that there has been any malfeasance involved?  (I am an attorney, but before answering this last question, he would probably want to hire our firm as a sub-contractor to his law firm in order to preserve attorney-client privilege.  This is something we do quite often in a crisis communications situation.)

I should also note that I’m approaching your inquiry as if Schilling, personally, were the client.  If my client was an agency of Rhode Island state government, an individual in government, or the theoretical “Citizens of Rhode Island”, my answers to these questions would be very different.

Communications is not an end in itself -  all communication, crisis or not, should support the goals of an organization, and be designed to create a climate where those goals can be achieved.  38 Studios disintegrated so rapidly that there may not have been anything Schilling could have done business-wise.  If so, all that is left is to try and protect his reputation.

If, as it appears, this is a case of protecting his reputation, I’d advise him to be candid and forthright about how things happened, thank and praise his employees, express regret and accept responsibility for his role.  Above all, he should avoid bitterness or finger-pointing at all costs.

The only possible business scenario that works here would have been that some type of private investment was imminent, and 38 Studios just needed a bridge – money, time or both – to realize the new capital.  In that scenario, I would advise him to make the case that 38 was on the verge of new capital, and that the state would be positioned to preserve and reap the benefit of their entire investment with just a little more time and/or money.

The bridge scenario is unlikely, so it’s probably now strictly about his reputation.  The bottom line with Schilling’s silence so far is that what Rhode Islanders think about Curt Schilling may not be a priority for him.  He also knows that outside of Rhode Island very few people that matter to him will be concerned about this.  If this happened in Massachusetts, New York or California he would have to respond much differently.

Here's a list of questions--and feel free to add any perspective I may be leaving out. 

Q:  What should have Schilling done immediately---press release?  Sit down with all three TV’s? One on one interviews?  If so, why?  What would that have done? 
A:  In the scenario where funding was imminent, I would recommend that he define his position very quickly with a clear, direct written statement.  I would let that stand for about a day, and see what kind of reaction it gets, particularly from decision-makers in government, and in the private capital markets.  From there, I would follow up with a day or two of one-on-one interviews - Rhode Island, Boston and nationally - to further press the case for a bridge.  Stringing these out over a couple of days would allow him to calibrate his message in response to developments, and allow him to define the conversation by constantly creating “news.”  One-on-ones are more conducive to the appearance of a conversation.  They also convey a sense that regardless of what is going on around him, Curt Schilling is calm, rational, thoughtful and accessible, i.e., direct and has nothing to hide.

Q:  Allow workers to talk (about) how they tried to make it work, etc.?
A:  It’s very rare to see the kind of media discipline among employees that seemed to be almost unanimous at Studio 38.  (I would caution him, however, against overtly trying to manufacture expressions of support.)  At this point, with it likely that only Schilling’s reputation is at stake, the employees could be helpful in defining Schilling as someone who had built a strong, team-oriented culture.  Last Friday’s “We Love Curt” sign in the window, regardless of who posted it, reinforces the impression that Schilling is well-regarded by his ex-employees and that he had earned their loyalty.

Q:  Is too late for him to get in front of this?  Why – why not?
A:  From a business perspective, it’s probably over.  From the standpoint of preserving his reputation, I’d advise him to do a couple interviews with friendly reporters (probably in Boston or a couple national sports reporters).  He should be candid and forthright, thank and praise his employees, express regret and accept responsibility for his role. 

Q:  What would you advise him NOT to do?
A:  No finger-pointing or bitterness.  This is unlikely to damage him outside Rhode Island, unless he brings it on himself by appearing to be a self-absorbed, entitled jock who blames everyone but himself, tells lies or denies incontrovertible evidence (see: Roger Clemens, Pete Rose)

Q:  Does this hurt his baseball great image?
A:  This is an interesting question, because the consensus seems to be that he is “on the bubble” for the Hall of Fame, something that would matter very much to a guy like him. Fortunately for him, most – if not all – of the people who elect players to the Hall are from outside Rhode Island.  In order to make sure this doesn’t damage him with Hall voters, the interview regimen I outlined above becomes even more important.  If the interviewer is also a Hall of Fame voter, so much the better.

If he executes the interviews well, they should be enough to prevent this episode from damaging his Hall of Fame prospects - and there are scenarios where it might even help.

However, his career as a political activist may not be as robust as it once was, and the days of delivering his stump speech about how government should stay out of the private sector are probably over.

Q:  When advising crisis clients who don’t want to talk — what do you tell them and why?
A:  It is exceedingly rare for silence to be a good option.  In almost every instance I tell clients that they have to fill the vacuum and define their position on their own terms, even if it is only with a written statement.  Keeping silent is a dangerous choice – it lets other people define you on their terms, which is almost without exception a bad idea.  In this case, however, silence doesn’t seem to have done Schilling any meaningful harm – yet.  As facts become known, however, silence will become an increasingly risky choice for him.

Q:  If Schilling were to call you—what is the one thing you would tell him?
A:  I’d ask him how he viewed the viability of the business.  If, as I suspect, he told me it was over, I would suggest that he take steps to protect his reputation.  The lawyer in me would recommend that his attorneys hire our firm as a subcontractor.  We’d set up a couple interviews and we’d put him through some intense media training.

Apologize Like You Mean It…

Recently, Susan G. Komen for the Cure® faced an avalanche of criticism when they announced their decision to eliminate most of their grants to Planned Parenthood. Within hours, the decision dominated online chatter and social media outlets, making it the lead headline on the network news cable news, and almost every major newspaper and online news-site across the country. Realizing they had made a major misstep, Komen eventually released a statement of “apology,” and revised their decision.

Now that the dust has begun to settle, it’s worth taking some time to address Komen’s apology and assess its effectiveness. In my view, the apology was flawed for several different reasons.

First and foremost, the apology rang hollow. Why? Because Komen seemed more focused on asking the public to relax and calm down, rather than truly seek forgiveness. As they put it, “We believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect.” They also urged “everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country … to help us move past this issue.”

I understand Komen’s leadership desperately wanted to put the barrage of criticism behind them, but when you make a mistake, part of the learning process means having to hear from those you’ve disappointed. And if you’re an organization that raises millions of dollars from hundreds of thousands of donors, you should be willing to show some patience.

Second, Komen tried to deflect their blame as a misunderstanding between why the decision was made and how the public interpreted it. According to the Foundation, the criticism erupted as “a presumption” from the public that the decision was based on politics. Building upon that theme they insisted they did not want their “mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.”

But was it really the public’s fault that their decision became politicized? Surely, they recognized well before issuing the new policy that there would be major political ramifications. If not, you would have to wonder if their policy team was asleep at the wheel, which in itself would warrant an apology.

Most importantly, the apology was ineffective because despite using more than 300 words to express their “apology,” not once did Komen “take full responsibility” for the decision, and the fallout that rocked the organization. Within hours of the decision being deemed unacceptable by millions of people who had supported Komen in the past, they should have recognized immediately that they had greatly misjudged the public’s reaction.

In my view, taking full responsibility for that misjudgment would have gotten Komen quite a bit farther in repairing the public’s trust. When an individual, a company, or an organization has done something wrong, you can never underestimate how important “taking full responsibility” can be to repairing the relationship between the public and those at fault. Taking responsibility, showing patience, and admitting your flaws in judgment are some of the most important keys to making a genuine, sincere, and effective apology.

Sometimes Doing Nothing is the Best Move

There's a sign in my office that says: "Nothing is often a good thing to do and always a good thing to say." The man at the center of the Penn State scandal, former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, might have benefited from that advice earlier this week when he agreed to be interviewed by Bob Costas this past Monday on NBC.

Sandusky's performance was a disaster on every count. He did nothing to mitigate the damage to his reputation, or begin the work of balancing the scales of public opinion - two things that should be the primary goals of an interview like this. (Hard to see how that could even be achieved here, given the circumstances.) For good measure, Sandusky acknowledged behavior that created legal openings that any prosecutor in America could drive a truck through. Doing the interview was just a bad idea all around.

So why did he even talk to Costas? His communications counsel and attorney certainly advised against it. But Sandusky is not a guy who has heard the word "No" very often in his career, and his status at Penn State created an environment where (tragically) he could get away with anything and talk himself out of everything. The audience in his little world of Happy Valley was always willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, believe everything he said and look the other way.

In this regard, Sandusky reminds me of Roger Clemens, who insisted - contrary to a mountain of evidence - that he had not used steroids. Like Clemens, you can almost hear Sandusky overruling his advisors: "I'm Jerry Sandusky. I've been pulling it off for decades. Why should this be any different?" Clemens will stand trial in April for perjury. His first trial ended in a mistrial.

Famous for Being Famous

Somewhere along the way in our cynical universe the phrase, “Any publicity is good publicity” became the mantra in some quarters. In fact, it’s not true, and self-evidently so. Just ask BP, Goldman Sachs or Toyota if they’re pleased with the publicity they’ve received over the past year, and whether that publicity has made the company more profitable. Clearly, the answer is no.

But while “bad” publicity is rarely a good thing, there are a small handful of circus acts out there where Barnum’s old adage, "I don't care what you say about me, just spell my name right" still does apply. Primarily, this is reserved for those who are famous for being famous. Then, almost any publicity is a good thing.

For instance, Paris Hilton. Most of my clients (all, in fact – at least so far) would view getting busted for cocaine possession as a bad thing. But for Paris, it’s all in a day’s work. She gets coverage for the arrest; then she gets coverage for tweeting about the arrest; then she gets banned from a Las Vegas casino; then there’s the court appearance; then she gets publicity for the time honored Mick Jagger/Paul McCartney Denied Entry to Japan stratagem. It’s practically endless, but all feeds into her unending quest to be famous and talked-about (er, tweeted about).

For Paris, the “bad” publicity actually pays off, in a diversified, far-flung business empire which includes nightclubs, cosmetics, a clothing line, an energy drink (at least at one time), a best-selling autobiography published when she was 24 and, last, but certainly not least - herself! Paris reportedly gets hundreds of thousands of dollars just to show up at parties.

“If it's in Japan, I get more,” she once said. Great work.

So, yes, there are rare instances where any publicity is good publicity. But not many, and not if you take yourself seriously. Because unless you’re Paris Hilton, a rapper/gang-banger, Mike Tyson or PT Barnum, there are a lot of ways to get publicity that isn’t good, and is actually harmful. I wouldn’t recommend any of them.


Posted by David Preston

Media Training for Generals

Last week I conducted media training with the board of my client, the R.I. Society of CPAs. Based on the events of the last 24 hours, I think it’s fair to say that the CPAs are probably better equipped to successfully manage their media relationships than (now retired) Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his staff.

Here are four points straight from New Harbor’s media training presentation that Gen. McChrystal might want to ponder in his retirement.

• DON’T say anything you don’t want to see on TV or in print attributed to you.

This is Rule #1. If they quote you and you didn’t say it, you might be able to get it fixed (yes – even then, only “might.”) But if you said it, you own it. And as the years go by, it gets increasingly difficult to ensure that the pieces of your interview a reporter uses are even put in the right context.

When President Obama said the General exhibited “poor judgment,” he wasn’t kidding. This is basic stuff.

• Set limits. Don’t let a reporter go on an indefinite fishing expedition.

Two weeks, practically uninterrupted access?! Big, big mistake. It’s hard enough not to say anything you regret in an hour, never mind two weeks.

• DON’T say anything ironic or sarcastic. Think twice about trying to be funny – it usually doesn’t work, especially in print.

Gen. McChrystal and his team never claimed to be misquoted, or taken out of context – they just came out with their hands up. But if you get too comfortable, the temptation to try your new stand-up routine can become overwhelming. Don’t do it!

• DON’T assume the microphone, camera or tape recorder is off immediately before or after an interview.

As long as the reporter is there, you should assume you are on the record and anything you say is “in play.” (I talked about the dangers of “Off the Record” here.) In fact, my rule is that if there’s an interview taking place or a reporter on the premises, I carefully consider everything I say until that’s no longer the case.

And finally, question the concept of “reporter as friend.” Clearly Gen. McChrystal and his team got awfully comfortable with Michael Hastings of Rolling Stone – way too comfortable. Perhaps after two weeks they saw Hastings as one of their group, or even a “friend”. Very dangerous. There are some reporters I consider to be my friends, and I’m always “friendly” with all of them. But when they’re working, they simply cannot be expected to do what your friends routinely do – overlook all the silly, unwise, injudicious or out-of-character things you may say.

When it comes to interacting with the media, it’s all on the record. Even between friends.

Notes on Central Falls, and Crisis Communications

A busy week in Central Falls, R.I. with the superintendent of schools, and later the court appointed receiver for the city, helped reconfirm some fundamentals of the PR business, and bring a new twist to some old lessons.

Who are you?
A thoughtful, self-aware answer to this question lays the foundation for everything else. It goes beyond the cliché of “What is your brand?” to a deeper question about you, your organization and its values. Without this core understanding, it is almost impossible to deliver your message consistently and effectively.

Know the Key Point you’re Trying to Convey…
In Central Falls, the schools superintendent Fran Gallo was able to identify the issue at hand: “I need the flexibility it takes to run the high school in a way that gives the students a chance to succeed.” Pretty simple. And the reporters got it. The next day, Gallo’s pull-out quote on the front page of the Providence Journal likewise summed up her main point, illustrating the other side of the same coin: “In the past, when we wanted to make changes, the contract was an immediate barrier.”

… And Don’t Get Tired of Saying It
Most human beings with good social skills learn early on that repetitive = boring. But when conducting multiple interviews -- particularly one after the other, as was the case in the Central Falls schools matter -- you have to say the same thing every time. If you don’t, every media outlet will have something different, and your message gets muddy.

Give the Communications Team as Much Time as Possible to Mount the Learning Curve
Your communications advisor should have the time not just to learn the facts, but to get to know the client. What are they comfortable saying? What’s their voice? What’s the back story? Is there any area that seems harmless, but is actually a trap in disguise? The sooner communications is brought into crisis planning, the better the result.

Summarize – and on one page, if possible
Reporters don’t have a lot of time these days (see below), and neither do citizens, so it’s important to answer the question “What’s this all about?” quickly and clearly. I like to do it on one page. This summary of the agreement between the school department and the teacher’s union in Central Falls is a good example of laying it all out one page.

There’s no Substitute for Preparation
I’ve been doing this for a long time, but I never, ever speak with a reporter without preparing ahead, even if the circumstances only allow for a few moments to collect my thoughts. There’s no such thing as doing an effective interview without preparation. Whenever someone says, “I’ll just wing it” or, “I know what to say,” what I hear is, “Just give me the keys so I can drive this interview into the ditch.” As much as anything, last week was about taking the time to prepare for the interview.

Be Responsive
A reporter’s existence these days is a lot harder than it used to be. Most newsrooms in 2010 are very thin, with reporters who cover several stories a day – so their existence can be daily scramble. In addition, there are very few reporters who actually cover a “beat.” This means that quite often a reporter is assigned to a story in an area where they have little, if any, background or expertise. In both instances for Central Falls, we made an extra effort to get news outlets the information they needed right away, to take the time to answer background questions and to make the principals available for interviews at a place and time that fit into their schedules. Reporters will tell you that they will always be fair, but my experience is that when you work to accommodate them in this way, they will be even more “fair.”

Pick Good Clients
In the end, it’s always great to get a note like this from a client: “I can't imagine where we would have been without your valuable help.” The best clients are those who know they need your advice, and appreciate your counsel in their time of need. If they value what you have to offer, your job will be that much easier, and their message that much clearer.


Posted by David Preston

“How Did Tiger Do?”

Many people have asked me, "How do you think Tiger Woods did?"

My initial response was that it depends on the answer to a central question I pose whenever considering a communications strategy: What were Tiger’s goals?

Was his goal to get the issue behind him so that it’s not a distraction when he returns to golf? This is the most readily achievable objective. For some, it is a goal that he may have already accomplished with his public apology.

Was his goal to make himself more marketable as a pitchman for potential sponsors? If so, he’s got a long way to go before winning back that kind of corporate trust.

Was his goal to redeem his reputation and stop being the nation’s favorite punch line? This may happen as the initial shock fades, but not any time soon. And like Bill Clinton, Tiger’s going to have to live with the fact that this unflattering episode is destined to appear near the top of his obituary.

Was his goal to save his marriage? Some of Tiger’s remarks seemed to be aimed at accomplishing that important goal more than any other, but we’ll have to see what happens there.

Overall, Tiger’s performance last Friday was a good one. He did all the right things. He did not try to pass the responsibility for his behavior onto anybody else. He did not make excuses, and he didn’t whine. Tiger accepted full responsibility for his behavior in a complete and unequivocal way something that is very unusual for these kinds of celebrity apologies, particularly for athletes.

One notable comment in Tiger’s speech, which struck me as a parent, was that he specifically expressed regret that children who held him up as a role model had been let down and disappointed. He made a point of apologizing to both children and their parents. That’s in marked contrast to most other athlete apologies, where the fallen star says, "It’s not my fault or responsibility that your kid looked up to me as a role model, and if your kid was let down, that’s your problem, not mine." This was not your standard apology of the Roger Clemens/Barry Bonds/Kobe Bryant variety: "If you were offended, I’m sorry that you were offended, but I’m not sorry for anything that I did because it’s somebody else’s fault." In his almost 14-minute apology, Tiger used no weasel words.

So Tiger’s performance was good, as far as it went. But in order to complete the process, and achieve at least some of his goals, Tiger will have to sit down sooner or later and answer questions in a formal interview. There’s simply no other way to put this thing behind him.

Here’s how that interview will probably play out: Tiger’s advisors will reach out to a friendly interviewer and set very strict parameters for what can and can’t be asked. Ten years ago this interview would have gone to Barbara Walters. Today, however, my money’s on Oprah Winfrey, since Diane Sawyer and Katie Couric, as "hard" news anchors, won’t credibly be able to agree to the ground rules that Tiger’s people will require. Oprah will ask some tough – but not too tough – questions based on the parameters that will be established ahead of time. (If she’s really lucky, it will be in September, during the final week of her show – I know, I’m a cynic.)

And with that piece of business complete, Tiger will be able to approach the next step of the plan – starting to win golf tournaments again.

One final note: The biggest single element of Tiger’s attempt at redemption will be whether in fact he does save his marriage. If that were to happen, people would be in a position to say, "Well, if she can get by it, I guess I can, too." If the marriage is not saved, it will be a loose end that will make tying up the rest of it very difficult.

So the short answer is: Tiger did what he had to do last Friday, and he did it well. But there’s a long way to go before it’s over for him – if the exposure of multiple extra-marital affairs can ever really be over.

Posted by David Preston

Crisis Communications, Big Papi Style

Come clean. Do it quickly. Don’t fuel the fire.

The Red Sox’ David Ortiz used all those crisis communications techniques recently in a mostly successful effort to address his alleged failure to pass a 2003 doping test administered by Major League Baseball.

Big Papi’s PR at bat was made even more difficult by this curve ball: He hasn’t been able to see the actual test results, which are under a court seal. This made the “come clean” part of the equation very difficult, since Papi wasn’t completely certain what may have triggered the positive test result. Further, taking the time to find out would have violated Rule #2: Do it quickly. So he balanced the two by finding out what he could in a reasonable amount of time (meaning quickly enough so that it didn’t look like he was ducking allegations and not giving harmful speculation time to gain credence), then offering up the best possible response given the lack of information available to him. He believes he was “careless” with over-the-counter supplements.

There are a number of useful PR lessons that can be gleaned from Papi’s performance:

• Stay in control. Always maintain your composure. Even though the release of information that was supposed to be confidential made the “victim card” available, Papi – to his credit -- didn’t play it.
• Be candid and accurate. Get as much information as you can about what you’re up against, and make your points with as much candor and clarity as you can. Then, don’t push your luck. Don’t speculate, don’t protest (see: “victim card,” above) and of course, never lie. Just stay focused and say what you know to be true.
• When it’s over, stop talking. After you’ve presented your side of things clearly and succinctly, there is no reason to keep fueling the conversation. Leave the spotlight as soon as you can. Too often, those accused of scandals or corruption get carried away defending themselves (we’re talking about you, Roger Clemens), and it often only serves to raise suspicion or create vulnerabilities that didn’t exist. Once you’ve said your piece, fade from public view with as much dignity and grace as you can muster.
  

Bottom Line: Big Papi’s reputation for candor and being one of the Good Guys sustained little damage, and the matter has faded from the public consciousness – for now.


Posted by David Preston

Click here to Listen to David discuss this topic on WPRO

The PR Lessons of Jon & Kate

The celebrity machine runs on public displays of humiliation.

The world has been mourning the death of Michael Jackson – an undoubtedly huge talent, but one whose signature move was a crotch-grab, and whose relationship with children leaves lingering suspicion in some minds. And shades of Eliot Spitzer, the governorship of South Carolina’s Mark Sanford teeters in the wake of outright lying regarding his whereabouts and the publication of lovelorn e-mails to his Argentinean mistress in the national press.

So why are fans everywhere riveted as the growing rift between TLC super parents Jon and Kate blasts across tabloids and TVs around the country?

Because all those other people – the Britneys, MJs, and Spitzers of the world – are not “normal” people. They are performers and politicians who have sought the spotlight. And while Jon & Kate did agree to let TLC camera crews document their lives for “Jon & Kate Plus 8,” they perhaps didn’t know exactly what kind of attention they were inviting, or just how much drama was in store. After all, the show’s producers have an incentive (ratings) to make this couple’s life look as salacious and dramatic as possible.

Some say there is no such thing as bad press, which may be true when you’re selling a product or growing a brand. But when the quality and privacy of eight kids’ lives is at stake, and a marriage is strained to the breaking point, that aphorism is not entirely true.

Somebody should have warned these two that when you’re a celebrity, there’s no such thing as a private moment, or a “pass” when it comes to even a momentary lapse in judgment. Even the small failings are grist for the national mill – or threaten a marriage.

The Jon and Kate debacle also highlights one of the first key pieces of advice we give at New Harbor Group to clients who find themselves in hot water: Stop talking - until you figure out what, if anything, needs to be said. (See here how Disney skillfully used silence to end a “crisis.”)

Don’t go running off to People (Jon) and US Weekly (Kate) to tell your respective versions of the home-wrecking scandal that is bringing you down. Don’t book a dozen interviews that will only dig you deeper into the hole you’re trying to climb out of. You might be tempted to tell the world your side of things, but don’t. It doesn’t work, and it just never ends. Gov. Sanford felt the need to announce publically that his mistress was his “soul mate.” Maybe it felt cathartic for him to hold a public therapy session, but the public only shook its head and wondered whether he was really equipped to be governor.

Likewise with Jon & Kate. Their now sad, desperate search for a media outlet that will tell the truth as they see it, will continue to be in vain. The only truth tabloids and entertainment television care about is that scandals sell ads.

The public is not on your side. The public is on the side of entertainment. And when you’re talking about the lives and futures of eight innocent kids who did NOT sign up for the spotlight, that is just not enough. Even Michael Jackson – who hid his kids from the media – knew that.


Posted by David Preston

There’s No Substitute for Preparation

We do a lot of crisis communications work, helping clients prepare for crises that may never happen – or are already well underway.

A prominent local attorney found himself in hot water recently, and the initial newspaper story reflected a common, understandable – but completely avoidable – mistake in handling the media during a crisis. In the story, the lawyer’s secretary was quoted describing what services he was still providing for his clients. No real harm was done, but I cringed when I read it, because it had the makings of a real disaster. It was clear that the poor woman just happened to pick up the phone when the reporter called, didn’t know what to do, and was too polite to end the call quickly enough.

Based on our experience, here’s what we would have recommended:

• Get the reporter’s name, where they work, why they are calling and their deadline.
• Tell the reporter that someone from the company will respond to them as quickly as possible.
• Notify the designated person inside the firm (or outside, like us) about the call immediately. This is crucial, because the inquiry is not going to just “go away.” If it’s TV, their next option may be to show up in your reception area with cameras rolling, a la ’60 Minutes’.
• Avoid answering questions, regardless of how innocuous they seem, or engaging in any further conversation.

The reporter may try to press you by saying they are “on deadline.” However, in this initial call, that does not require you to offer a response. You do, however, need to respond in a timely manner. (Ultimately, the response may be no response – but at least make that a conscious decision.)

From there, take a few minutes to think it over. What’s our key message? How do we want to communicate it to the reporter? Phone call? E-mail? What about the other reporters who will follow? Who else do we need to talk to? Board of directors? Boss? Employees? Customers? Regulators? How will we deliver the message to them?

Bottom line: Don’t feel pressured, take a deep breath, and think through what you want to do. You may not have all day, but believe me, there’s at least enough time to avoid making a damaging, irreversible mistake.

There’s a lot more to this, so if you want to know more about what else you could do here, or what you could be doing right now to prepare for or mend a crisis, shoot me an e-mail or give me a call.


Posted by David Preston

What’s it worth to you?

After a rough ride on the fast ferry from Quonset Point, RI to Martha’s Vineyard, an unhappy customer took the plane to Providence and a cab back to Quonset to get his car. Once there, he asked the ferry owner for his money back. The ferry owner told him to, basically, pound sand.

From there, the one-way passenger wrote a letter to the Providence Journal. So now, everyone can Google ‘Vineyard Fast Ferry from Quonset Point’ and get all the gory details in the letter which comes up fourth, before you even have to scroll down.

So what do you do? In the old days, “pound sand” was probably a safe answer. Now, the business owner may be better off very quietly refunding the handful of complaints along these lines (and they probably are very few). Refunding a dozen tickets a year is less harmful to the bottom line than having this type of letter on the web. However, once the refund number gets too high, you’d have to rethink things.

Of course, in a world where no good deed goes unpunished (and unpublished), the now happy ex-customer would probably reward your generosity by writing a letter to the paper praising you for graciously refunding their money - unleashing a deluge of similar requests.

Disney Debacle Sucessfully Diffused?

Here’s a PR challenge old Walt Disney never had to deal with – the pure as Snow White 18-year old ingénue in his latest blockbuster movie showed up on the Internet this summer — stark naked. While Walt was rolling over in his grave, the company that bears his name flawlessly executed two key crisis communications tactics to preserve the franchise and move beyond the problem

If you have kids older than 7, you’ve probably heard about (and watched) High School Musical, numbers 1 and 2, Disney’s spectacularly successful and lucrative made for TV movies. August’s premiere of ‘High School Musical 2’ was the most watched program ever on basic cable. (Previous #1: 1993’s Gore vs. Perot NAFTA debate.) The HSM franchise is so successful that among girls ages 6 to 11 who were watching TV that night, an incredible 80%(!!) were watching HSM2. Another smash for Disney, as they geared up for - what else – High School Musical 3, and more wholesome singing, dancing and happy endings.

But then, a slight problem: a few days later Vanessa Anne Hudgens, who plays HSM’s brainy, sweet-as-pie female lead Gabriella Montez, was on the Internet – in a nude ‘self-portrait’. Not exactly in alignment with Gabriella’s image – or Disney’s enduring 80 year-old brand.

Disney quickly did two very smart things. After deciding to keep Hudgens as Gabriella going forward they did Smart Thing #1 – they quickly announced it, which swiftly and emphatically stopped speculation about the young star’s HSM future. By filling the vacuum, the company effectively cut off media conversation about Gabriella’s future as a student at East Side High. After that, there was very little to talk about.

Then, Smart Thing #2 – with nothing else that would be helpful to talk about, Disney just stopped talking about it. This is a technique that I call “Denying fuel to the fire.”

Hudgens, for her part, also doused the fire with a matter-of-fact but genuine sounding Disneyesque apology to “my fans, whose support and trust means the world to me” for the “private” photos…“lapse in judgment”…”embarrassed”…”regret”, etc.

Case closed.

Now the caveat: Smart Thing #2 - denying fuel to the fire - only works when no additional newsworthy information will be exposed, and the only thing left to do is speculate, analyze, etc. In a dynamic situation, with changing facts and circumstances, there is no choice but to execute Smart Thing #1 over and over again: fill the information vacuum immediately, and define the issue on your own terms. But in the case of Gabriella Montez, with nothing left to say, the story was over.

Rest easy, Walt.