Filed under: Customer relations, reputation management | Tags: bloogger relations, budget, Dartmouth, media relations, Nancy Fontaine, public relations
Somewhere out there on the Web, most of us – individuals, sole-proprietorships, companies, non-profits – have a “data cloud,” comprised of all the many contexts in which we appear online. When somebody uses a search engine to search our name, or elements thereof, they access that data cloud. Most entities have very little control over their data cloud, and this is especially true for large organizations. That’s why they try to shape that cloud as best they can.
Prominent organizations, like Dartmouth College, for example, can’t possibly engineer every reference to them online. But they certainly can – and do – search for mentions of their institution relative to hot-button issues. This is what happened yesterday, when I posted the blog entry immediately preceeding this one. In it, I discussed Dartmouth’s handling of its budget cuts and layoffs; my conclusion was that they did a great job of segmenting their audiences. I was contacted the same day by Nancy Fontaine of Dartmouth Public Affairs, who pointed me toward the college’s comprehensive budget website.
This is an example of extremely astute public relations: finding out what is being said about your organization, and helping those sources to do a better job. Examination of the website reveals that the college has put out an enormous amount of information about its budget; the subtext is therefore that Dartmouth is committed to complete openness about its financial situation and ongoing fiscal management.
If you have the resources to help shape your data cloud by reaching out to bloggers and others who contribute to it, it’s a smart move and can pay dividends in the long-run. Blogger relations is growing to in importance, and someday will rival media relations as a critical tool for image and reputation management.
Filed under: Political | Tags: Associated Press, Liz Sidoti, media relations, messaging, Obama, political communications, public affairs
Although political communications is a field of endeavor distinct from the type of public relations I typically practice, I’d like to point out lessons you can draw and generalize to your own business or non-profit needs. Two of the most important are the quality of your media relations skills and the power of your messaging.
Barack Obama, as we have all seen, is an absolute genius when it comes to both of thise critical factors.
First, the media relations. This story from AP is about as close as a news story can come to being a press release right from the White House’s public affairs office. The transfer of messaging from the Obama administration to the news story is almost total, with almost no countervailing opinions. The lead paragraph is positively glowing:
Barack Obama opened his presidency by breaking sharply from George W. Bush’s unpopular administration, but he mostly avoided divisive partisan and ideological stands. He focused instead on fixing the economy, repairing a battered world image and cleaning up government.
This is stunning stuff, for PR people to get such clear messaging into a wire service story. It’s as if the reporter, Liz Sidoti, cut and pasted the top three key messages from the White House PA staff’s vision document. This could conceivably be due to Sidoti’s personal bias, but that would require the collusion of her edito(s) as well. While not impossible, as a former journalist I would hope it’s unlikely. So what we’re left with is that the PA staff is really good at its job.
The second factor is the power of the messaging. In Obama’s case, as is the case with any President of the United States, the issues he’s addressing are weighty and of concern to virtually everyone. When it comes to our sinking economy, our standing in the world, and the ethics of politicians (appointed and elected alike), there are plenty of low-hanging fruit to pluck when it comes to improvements, and Obama’s administration has leveraged them to great effect.
When powerful messaging is used, it can translate into very positive news coverage. It also can serve as a shield against criticism. If one frames the discussion in terms of saving the economy, repairing our damaged international image, and cleaning up government, there are few counter-messages to worry about. Nobody is in principle against these things, and therefore critics are put in the difficult position of trying to counter the messaging with detail-oriented messaging.
So a visionary president can propose saving the economy, while critics have to counter by saying, in essence, that they also want to save the economy (making them sound like “me too!” afterthoughts), but they disagree on the way it’s being done. Then the visionary messagers can counter by dismissing the critics as “nitpicking” or practicing the “politics of divisiveness.”
Messaging that allows you to set the agenda and frame the discussion, therefore, is critical to success. Repeating the messaging and ensuring that you have plenty of proof-points is also important. As you keep up on news coverage of politics, look for these tactics among politicians… that can inform your decisions in the much more civilized world of business or non-profit communications.
Filed under: Customer relations, crisis communications, reputation management | Tags: Austin Quality Foods Toasty Crackers, crisis communications, Food and Drug Administration, Kellogg Co., Kellogg's, Kris Charles, media relations, peanut butter, peanut corp., public relations, salmonella
The huge peanut butter recall that has dominated headlines over the last several days offers a great illustration of how important it is to be proactive and engaged with the media when an incident threatens your organization’s core. The salmonella outbreak linked to Peanut Corp. in Georgia has affected many brands that have had to pull their products due to the contamination, but the Kellogg Co. is one of the biggest food companies impacted, and has garnered the most media attention.
The odd thing, however, is that Kellogg has come out of this looking pretty good, despite having to pull a long list of products from store shelves. The key is how they handled it, and how they communicated their handling of it.
First, they started pulling products from the shelves before there was any report of illness linked to any Kellogg’s products, and they framed it in terms of their highest purpose: We’d rather be safe than sorry; we want to ensure that our customers can remain confident of their safety when they buy a Kellogg’s product.
This is a critical element of branding: every point of intersection between a consumer and a particular brand must be positive in some way. So even in dire circumstances surrounding a salmonella outbreak, Kellogg’s is keeping to the brand values.
Second, and just as important as pulling product early, Kellogg’s has engaged the media actively. This recent story is a prime example, because most of the information comes from Kellogg’s Co. spokespeople and statements, rather than from the FDA:
On Monday, the company based in Battle Creek said that contamination was confirmed by the Food and Drug Administration in a single package of Austin Quality Foods Toasty Crackers with Peanut Butter.
And here:
It was not immediately clear how many packages of Kellogg crackers had been tested, if more tests were being made on other products or if some had already been found not have salmonella, Kellogg spokeswoman Kris Charles said. A spokesman for the FDA said the agency was not providing any new information Monday.
This latter passage is particularly good, because the Kellogg spokesperson is providing information, which contrasts nicely with the FDA’s refusal to comment. Even if the casual reader doesn’t discern such detail, you can be sure the reporters do. In the world of reporting, those who help them do their jobs well and make deadline are heroes; by building up a bank of good will with journalists, the Kellogg spokesperson is laying solid groundwork for future media relations efforts. And, if she’s done her job well in the past, what we’re seeing could be the result of long-time relationships she has established with these journalists.
It’s often the case that crisis situations bring out the worst tendencies of a company, and only those who have a truly superior crisis communications plan – one that they have practiced over and over – will come out of a terrible incident looking good. Kellogg’s is in that position… so far.
Filed under: Business columns, Economic | Tags: marketing, media relations, PR strategy, public relations, recession, target audiences, unique value proposition
It took economists a long time to declare us “officially” in a recession, but just because economists seem slow to react to market conditions doesn’t mean businesses should be.
The common denominator of organizations that succeed – especially during recessions – is that they provide obvious, unmistakable value to their customers and clients. Defining that value and communicating it to your stakeholders is essential during a recession — more so than at any other time.
Therefore, a strong business communications plan is one of the tools that should be considered by those businesses or non-profits that plan to emerge from the recession in a strong position. Public relations cannot take the place of real value, but if done effectively, it can make sure your stakeholders recognize that value.
Whether or not you’ve been using a well-planned public relations strategy, dire economic times are a good reason to re-assess what you offer and how you communicate it. In other words, if the recession has you worried, start with a blank slate when it comes to your communications.
Re-think your business objectives: It could be that your business objective during lucrative times was to achieve $100,000 in sales for three consecutive quarters, or expand your clientele by 35 percent. As the economy contracts, revisions almost certainly are in order. However, even if your business objectives can stay the same, rain or shine, that doesn’t mean the rest of your communications don’t need an overhaul.
Refine your target audiences: During a recession, it’s almost always the case that people grip their money more tightly; each purchase is considered more carefully. As we work our way through this trough, there is no shortage of news stories detailing how even the rich are watching what they spend. It could be, therefore, that your target audience has changed due to these economic realities; maybe targeting middle-class wage-earners is no longer practical because your product or service has started to fall into the “non-essential” category for these folks. This might mean you need to target those with more disposable income.
It’s equally possible that the economy has necessitated a refocus of your attention to a non-customer audience. For example, you might discover an urgent imperative to implement a communications plan that targets your investors, to convince them that your company is on the right track. Maybe you have to target your employees, whose morale is falling because there are rumors of layoffs and they’re nervous about who might face the axe.
There may be multiple audiences that need to be addressed simultaneously, and a plan that takes them all into account ensures that you keep your messaging consistent and meaningful.
Adjust your messaging: With a change of business objective or a change of audience, the messaging must be re-examined and almost certainly will need to be adjusted. For example, if you are in the position of retailing “luxury” items or services — which may have fallen off the radar for many people who are watching their budgets — you have already decided whether you can continue to target the same audiences. And, either way, messaging must change.
If you shift to targeting a new audience, you need to keep in mind what their needs and wants are, and recognize that they might be very different from those of your previous target audience. Similarly, if you stick with your original target audience, they might need to hear something entirely different from you during these lean times. It’s unlikely that anyone wants to hear that what you offer is an indulgence or something that’s “exclusive.” These are the first things to go when household or business budget-cuts are made.
One important caveat to keep in mind is that shifting your messaging must be done carefully; you can’t suddenly turn your high-end wine and cheese shop into a bargain booze bin or your exclusive jewelry store into a bucket-o-bracelets emporium. Instead, you make adjustments that focus on the value you provide, rather than on the attributes of what you sell. Speaking of value…
Always focus on value: When people have to make difficult decisions about where to spend their limited resources, they want to know they’re making the right decision for themselves and their families. That means your job is to identify your unique value proposition — the one thing that you, and nobody else, can offer. And it has to be something that has a positive impact on your customers’ lives.
Think about the things that matter most to everyone, and it is likely that you can contribute to at least some aspect of it: family togetherness, a bright future, easier or quicker work, long-term savings, immediate savings, safety and security, fun and laughter, good health, peace of mind, long-lasting use, less environmental impact, more free time, meaningful contributions to the community. The specific characteristics of your product or service are important, but not as important as what they enable people to have or provide for their families.
When it comes to non-profits, especially those that depend on the generosity of donors to continue operating, the focus on value is even more important. When people donate to a cause or an organization, they must feel like they are becoming a part of something greater than themselves, and that they are able to see direct results from their contributions. In order to demonstrate value, non-profit messaging must be visionary, transparent, and accountable. In other words, present the grand vision of your organization (whether it’s safe housing for the homeless, food for families, or intensive therapy for at-risk juveniles), show exactly where the money goes, and detail the good works you’ve done with other people’s money.
When it comes to local businesses that focus on local clientele, then your messaging and value proposition might be well-aligned with people’s concerns if you point out that spending their dollars with locally-owned businesses (rather than trying to save a few dollars at the big chain store) makes the local economy healthier.
Make the most of “free” media: It’s painfully true that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. However, there are plenty of public relations techniques that allow you to get your messaging across with minimal financial outlay, as long as you’re willing to substitute time and effort for dollars and cents. Just a few of them include:
· Press releases: Inventory all the things you do, and think about what would be newsworthy. New hires, promotions, awards, expansions, new equipment purchases… scan the business pages of your local paper to see what types of stories they run, and see if your business could offer something similar. Keep in mind that poorly-written material can do more harm than good — if you don’t know how to write news stories, hire someone who does.
· Talks: Lots of civic organizations (business associations, chambers of commerce, Rotary, etc.) welcome speakers from businesses. Tell them about what you do, but not as an “infomercial.” Instead, give them information that is interesting and helps them improve their lives.
· Internships: Bring in promising high schoolers to learn about what you do; this can help you get things done and convey your message of competence and community-mindedness.
· Expert sources: Identify a few of your top people who can provide background information to local reporters on stories. If you’ve ever read a news story about your line of work and thought, “That guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about!” then you might be a good source for local journalists.
· Volunteer: Your employees care about the community. You care about the community. So why not all get together and do something positive as a group? People like spending their money with an organization if they know it cares about its neighbors.
One final word about communicating your value: be sure that the value is actually there. Nothing will alienate customers more than the perception that your words don’t match reality. In the end, good public relations is not about “spin,” it’s about effectively communicating the truth. Rest assured, you can never afford to be stingy with the truth.
Filed under: Political, reputation management | Tags: Gaza, Hamas, IDF, Israel, media relations, New York Times, Palestine, public relations, reputation management
Disclaimer: It’s a dicey proposition for me to draft a public relations blog on the war in Gaza, because I am not an objective observer; nonetheless, I present my thoughts on the image- and reputation-management implications of this horrific situation and leave it to the reader’s judgement whether my bias shows through.
Throughout this conflict, Israel has let its media-savvy show. Their spokespeople are relentless and disciplined when it comes to repeating their key messages, and their audience-targeting is absolutely perfect. They have used a combination of carrot and stick – proactively showing reporters the damage by Hamas rocket fire, while actively preventing reporters from entering Gaza, where the death and suffering of Palestinians dwarfs anything the PR flacks can display in Sderot or Ashkelon.
This is from a NY Times reporter’s blog:
for an 11th day of Israel’s war in Gaza, the several hundred journalists here to cover it wait in clusters away from direct contact with any fighting or Palestinian suffering but with full access to Israeli political and military commentators eager to show them around southern Israel, where Hamas rockets have been terrorizing civilians. A slew of private groups financed mostly by Americans are helping guide the press around Israel.
Like all wars, this one is partly about public relations. But unlike any war in Israel’s history, in this one, the government is seeking to control entirely the message and narrative for reasons both of politics and military strategy. [emphasis added]
In terms of messaging, Israel sticks to those that give it the broadest possible latitude for action in the densely-populated Gaza Strip: 1) This war is a defensive action that is not targeting Gaza civilians, 2) Its real target is Hamas, which is a terrorist organization lobbing rockets at Israeli civilians, 3) Hamas hides fighters and weapons amongst Palestinian civilians.
Whether the spokesperson is from the military or the civilian government, they do not stray from the approved line, and it is repeated on media outlets all over the world, hour after hour. Regardless of the credibility you attach to the messages, the simple fact is that by repeating them under all circumstances, they work… but only with the target audiences.
There are huge swathes of the world – comprising the vast majority of it, in fact – that opposes Israel’s assault for various reasons. Public opinion around the globe is decidedly against the war and regards the civilian deaths as deplorable and avoidable. But Israel isn’t wasting resources trying to convince the world that it holds the moral high ground; its messaging targets only those audiences that matter, and those that want to believe them: the United States and Israel’s citizens.
This illustrates a key consideration in public relations: some audiences will never believe you, and you should therefore not bother trying to convince them of anything. Ignore them. Say things they would regard as pure fabrication; from a strategic standpoint, they simply don’t matter. In the U.S. and Israel, however, the three key messages are believed by many, are high-impact, and result in strategic gains: financial and political support for Israel.
One of the key factors contributing to this credulity in the U.S. is the vast difference in coverage of the war by U.S. news outlets compared to foreign ones. From the beginning of the assault, foreign news organizations have tended to focus on the human suffering in Gaza, with painful images of the Palestinian injured and dead. American news coverage, by contrast, did not show as many civilian casualties until days into the conflict. And, interestingly, the Israeli line is evident even when civilian casualties are being depicted. On this CNN slide show, for example, babies and other civilians injured and killed by Israeli bombs are shown under the headline, “Israeli forces target Hamas sites in Gaza” [emphasis added].
The Israeli PR machine, I must note, is not successful in the absence of supporting facts; it is undeniably true that Hamas continues to fire rockets into civilian populations of Israel, regarding all Israeli citizens as legitimate military targets. This, of course, is a notion completely at odds with reality. From a PR standpoint, one can point to decades of injustice and oppression under Israeli occupation as reason for the ongoing rocket attacks by Hamas, but relatively few are convinced that this means all Israeli civilians are legitimate targets. What about peace activists in Israel who deplore their government’s actions against Palestinians and actively advocate for Arabs’ rights? What about Orthodox Jews who believe the state of Israel shouldn’t even exist as a political entity? How can they be regarded as military targets?
As long as Hamas continues to fire rockets at Israel, thereby creating randomly-selected Israeli victims, they will be giving Israel all the rhetorical ammo it needs to continue the assault and further brutalize Palestinian civilians under the umbrella of “a defensive action.”
Filed under: Political, reputation management | Tags: Brad Ellsworth, Congressional raises, Dan Burton, Dianne Feinstein, Evan Bayh, Ginny Brown-Waite, Gus Bilirakis, media relations, Mel Martinez, Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi, National Taxpayers Union, Pete Sepp, political communications, politics, reputation management, Steve Ellis, Taxpayers for Common Sense
Members of the U.S. Congress long ago figured out a way to give themselves raises every year without having to vote on it each time, but this year the mechanism has served to further tarnish their already horrendous image. From a PR standpoint, this story offers another illustration of the dangers of clamming up in the face of uncomfortable media inquiries.
From your perspective as a business owner, PR person, head of a non-profit, or someone else whose image and reputation impact your effectiveness, the short version of the lesson is this: if you are faced with media scrutiny that threatens to make you look bad, the last thing you should do is refuse to respond, either by telling the reporter you have nothing to say, or simply by being inaccessible. Why? Because it allows others – primarily your detractors – to tell your story for you.
In the case of Congress and its 2.8 percent “cost of living” raise, the issue is a no-brainer: almost everyone around the country – that is to say, the people represented by Congress – are losing jobs, reducing work hours, going without raises, wondering if their businesses will survive; in this climate, for Congress to give itself a raise to $174,000 is extremely unseemly. I understand fully the argument that we need high-salaried positions in Congress to ensure that we can attract qualified people and provide at least a modicum of disincentive to bribery and kickbacks.
However, this is an issue of perception during one of the hardest economic downturns in a generation. Surely these people can come up with something to say about it, right? Apparently not:
Finding anyone brave enough to defend the pay hike in Washington these days is like looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack. When they’re asked to comment, usually accessible members quickly go missing, are on vacation, are extremely busy with family members or can’t be reached on their cell phones because they’re in remote locations.
And…
Pelosi’s office declined to comment on the raise.
So what’s the result? The story is heavily skewed against the Congressional pay raise, with taxpayer watch-dog groups excoriating Congress members for their perceived perfidy:
“When you look at the rest of the country, people are hoping to hang on to their jobs, much less get a salary increase or a bonus,” said Steve Ellis , the vice president of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Other critics say that Congress has done nothing to deserve a raise. “The general public can’t help but think that lawmakers are patting themselves on the back, and padding their wallets, for presiding over the worst fiscal-policy blunders in recent history,” said Pete Sepp , the vice president for policy and communications for the National Taxpayers Union.
And this:
While members of Congress will receive a raise, 12 percent of seniors are living at or below the poverty line, said Daniel O’Connell , the chairman of The Senior Citizens League. A senior who receives average Social Security benefits will get a $63 monthly increase in 2009, he said. The congressional pay raise is expected to cost taxpayers $2.5 million next year. “This money would be much better spent helping the millions of seniors who are living below the poverty line and struggling to keep their heat on this winter,” O’Connell said.
So now the story has been framed by Congressional critics. A few folks who have adopted a voter-friendly position come off as heroes in this discussion:
Four members of Congress from Indiana have announced that they won’t accept the pay increase: Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, Republican Reps. Mike Pence and Dan Burton and Democratic Rep. Brad Ellsworth. In Florida, Republican Sen. Mel Martinez and Republican Reps. Gus Bilirakis and Ginny Brown-Waite said they’d vote to block the raise if congressional leaders allowed a vote. California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she wanted nothing to do with the raise. Feinstein, the chair of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee , intends to donate her raise to charity, spokesman Phil LaVelle said Tuesday.
These folks look good not because they talked to the media, but because they are talking about turning down taxpayer-financed raises. But this illustrates another important point: the more you clam up in the face of scrutiny, the more you’re going to have your story written for you, and your options restricted when you finally decide to talk.
What can the holdouts say, once they become accessible again? Naturally, they’re going to have to toe the line and turn down the raise. They’ll have a hell of a time coming up with messaging that resonates with their constituencies if they take any other position.
Filed under: crisis communications | Tags: crisis communications, crisis recovery, media relations, news templates, press releases, public relations
This story on the Huffington Post is written tongue-in-cheek, but it illustrates the utility of a common crisis communications tool. The story notes that news organizations are gutting their reporting staffs in order to squeeze additional profitability out of journalism, and suggests they could reduce them even further if they used a series of fill-in-the-blank templates rather than actual reporters.
Here are a few examples:
* ________ has asked Treasury officials for federal funds. In a statement,
______ CEO ______ argues that it is only current economic conditions that have brought the _____ industry to its knees. Decades of inept management have had nothing to with these problems, and if billions are not forthcoming, bankruptcy and massive layoffs will be the only alternative.* ________ corporation today announced it is filing for bankruptcy and immediately closing its plants and laying off _____ workers. Company chairman ______ expressed regret. “The ______ billion dollar infusion of cash from the government was not enough to prevent this unfortunate development” he said. He went on to point out that while all severance and pension agreements could not be honored, top executives will still receive their bonuses.
—— has been charged with fraud in connection with the collapse of his —– fund. Prosperous clients like _____ said they have lost millions. —–s of others say their 401k’s have been wiped out and they lost their entire nest egg for retirement. Regulators at the _______ agency said this was a total surprise. “We had no idea” said Chairman ______.
Although these are meant to be jokes, these tools are used regularly as aids during crisis communications situations for two reasons: speed and to overcome the “fog of war.”
The need for speed is obvious; if your organization’s image and reputation are in jeopardy because something has gone terribly wrong, you need to get information out to your stakeholders as quickly as possible, before others are able to start telling your story and framing the issues for you. Having templates ready reduces the time you need to spend crafting a well-worded press release, intranet post, message from the CEO, etc.
Overcoming the “fog of war” is just as important as speed. During a crisis situation, you likely will have dozens of inputs from various sources, all of which are important in some way. By having templates at the ready, with blanks waiting to be filled in, you don’t have to worry about whether you have left out critical information or messaging simply because you’ve been overloaded during the drafting phase.
I remember during one crisis drill, I was caught without my templates and had to wing it during a very hectic simulation that involved an explosion, fire, and fatalities. The first release I drafted for the incident-commander’s review had carefully delineated the incident, how we were responding, and included a reassuring quote from a high-level executive. Fortunately, the incident commander was astute enough to catch the fact that I had left out the date, time, and location of the incident (I had provided the distance from shore, but which shore of which country was not specified!).
So although the HuffPost story is intended to be a cynical joke, fill-in-the-blank templates are extremely useful for organizations that might face crisis situations. A vulnerabilities inventory followed by a scenario analysis can lead to a series of very useful templates that will be a godsend if things go bad.
Filed under: Business columns, Political, crisis communications | Tags: Department of Defense, media relations, Pentagon, public relations, spokesperson, Susan Davis International, Washington DC
Not even highly-experienced public relations firms are immune to incompetence in the face of poor publicity, as evidenced by this story about a Washington, D.C. firm, Susan Davis International. The story summarizes the findings of a Pentagon report concluding that Susan Davis International ran a PR program for the Department of Defense that was a multi-million dollar waste of our taxpayer dollars. In response, a Susan Davis International spokesperson “declined to comment on the report.”
Just to be clear, this is a spokesperson for a PR firm in our nation’s capital – one of the toughest PR environments in the world – and he declined to comment. That’s so mind-boggling, it deserves a little thought and commentary.
The PR program was pretty straightforward to begin with: it was a campaign to demonstrate to U.S. combat troops that they were supported by the folks back home. But apparently it morphed into something more (something that involved a lot more billable hours, in other words), when the PR firm began actively soliciting support for the troops from various groups of people, and set up a private non-profit to collect donations, using the same name and logo as the DOD program. The whole thing ended up bringing $9.2 million to the PR firm.
It’s no surprise that a PR firm would want to convince their clients to spend more money on a more comprehensive program, because every element they can add will increase their profits. And, to be fair, the program as a whole might have achieved more than the client had initially thought possible. Maybe. But perhaps most importantly, when it comes to feeding at the taxpayer-filled trough… well, let’s face it; that’s what firms in Washington are there to do, whether lobbyists, PR, law, caterers, whatever.
Likely taking that into account, the audit blamed the public affairs staff at the DOD, not the PR firm itself; after all, they wouldn’t have been able to do squat if the public affairs folks hadn’t authorized it.
So a messaging opportunity for Susan Davis International (SDI) was squandered in a big way. Very rarely, it’s wisest to keep quiet and not say anything to the media about something potentially damaging to image and reputation, but this is not one of those circumstances. The audit blamed the DOD public affairs staff, not SDI, so the SDI spokesperson could have said:
Susan Davis International provided a comprehensive program to keep morale high among our fighting men and women overseas, and we’re proud of the work we have done in this area.
or
We haven’t had a chance to look at the entire report, as it was just issued today, but we are confident that we provided high-quality services that were authorized and requested by our client.
or even
We haven’t had a chance to see the report, but we’d be happy to get back to you once we have looked at it. Can I call you back on Monday?
The latter response, I grant you, could be construed as “declined to comment,” and for all we know, it’s something like what the SDI spokesperson said. But generally, a reporter of good conscience would note in the story that, “An SDI spokesperson said he had not had an opportunity to see the report, and declined to comment.”
And I swear to you, these are just off the top of my head. My wife just showed me this news story less than an hour ago, and the above statements are the result of about 12 seconds of thought – 2 minutes and 12 seconds if you include how long it took to read the story first. So how can an SDI spokesperson let himself get burned? Here are the possibilities:
1) Afraid of speaking without authorization: Maybe SDI is a very rigid, heirarchical organization, and nobody can say something about a client as high-profile as the DOD without Susan’s go-ahead. This would require that the spokesperson was taken by surprise when the reporter called, which means he’s a woefully unprepared spokesperson (see the next point).
2) The spokesperson didn’t have any information about the report: No friggin’ way. The audit began in July, 2007. SDI had to have known about it, because DOD made policy changes in its public affairs area before the audit results were even finalized. The very fact that an audit was taking place at all should have alerted SDI to have some statements in place in case it came out looking bad for them.
3) DOD told them not to comment: I suppose this is possible, but since the DOD folks had a few statements prepared (they have put policies in place to address the problems, and the person responsible for the program has resigned), I can’t imagine they would require silence from SDI.
Again, this situation highlights the importance of always providing the media with a statement; otherwise, everyone shapes the story except you. Even PR firms need a refresher, it seems.
