The No Comment Pitfall

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/04/05/masters-of-sexism/

          Never ever say “no comment.” It amazes me how fast people forget this concept, especially public relations professionals who have experience with crisis management. What shocks me more, though, is when the everyday average citizen uses the “no comment” way out of a sticky situation.

The most recent case I can think of is this years Masters golf tournament. As many of you know, IBM is one of the three sponsors for the tournament (the company handles the tournaments websites, apps, and media center). The issue was, Virginia Rometty, IBM’s CEO, is a woman. August National Golf Club does not admit women. So, the question burned in many individuals’ brains: would Rometty attend the tournament?

When Augusta Chairman Billy Payne was confronted with the issue, he stated, “All issues of membership remain the private deliberations of the membership. The statement remains accurate.” Reading between the lines, Payne essentially said the words, “no comment.”

As a public relations graduate student who has taken a course in crisis management, I am knowledgeable of the mistake Payne made in those statements. Wouldn’t an individual understand the desire for other average citizens to know the situation and what will come of it? Why on earth would Payne decide to make these statements? It boggles my mind.

What is worse is the fact that Augusta has refused to offer membership to Rometty, disregarding the history of offering membership to all IBM’s past CEO’s. While Rometty did attend the tournament this year, she was not offered membership to the club. In this day and age, sexism is viewed as a reprehensible perspective, one that must be defeated. I’m for one curious how Augusta will address this issue even now that the tournament is over (or if they will address it at all). What do you think the club with do?

When an Employee Makes a Mistake

http://www.guystuffcounseling.com/counseling-men-blog/?Tag=Midlife%20Crisis

            Almost every company has been there. A current or former employee makes a monumental mistake that jeopardizes not only their reputation, but potentially the companies as well. Media begin reaching out to the company, asking questions. Who is the employee? How do they conduct themselves at work? Have you ever noticed this odd or peculiar behavior in the workplace?

The question remains for the company, how do you navigate this crisis? While each situation fluctuates in its intensity and the ripple effects on the company’s reputation, all of the crises should be handled with care and the proper set of skills. In recent weeks I’ve heard of a number of companies that have found themselves in the midst of a situation where either a current or former employee has committed a crime. So, what should the companies do?

First and foremost, get the facts. Understand the situation inside and out. Know what is true and what is not. Know what is not yet proven true or false. Any possible piece of information about the crisis, learn it.

http://www.communiquepr.com/blog/?p=3369

Then, form a general statement that you deem fits the level of information the media needs to know. For a former employee, it can be as simple as, “So-and-so was employed at our company 3 years ago for a duration of 1 year. We have not had contact with him/her since we parted ways.” For a current employee, the statement can read, “So-and-so is currently employed at our company. He/she has been temporarily suspended due to the ongoing investigation. No decisions will be made on their status as an employee until the investigation has come to a close.”

The first statement released to the media by the company is critical. It is essential that the company does not say, “No comment.” If you wish to hammer the nails into your own coffin, go right ahead. But, if you wish to continue working, I’d advise another route. The first statement is an opportunity for the company to explain their part in the crisis situation and how they intend to handle it. You do not need to provide full-blown details, but you do need to respond.

Goldman Sachs Resignation Crisis

Photo Courtesy of: The Telegraph (2012)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9142641/Goldman-Sachs-chief-Lloyd-Blankfein-disappointed-by-claims-of-toxic-greed.html

            The resignation of an executive in any corporation, large or small, can rock the very foundation on which the company functions. As with all resignations, there is a chance that it is a mutual parting of the ways or disagreement and bad blood. The recent resignation of Goldman Sachs executive Greg Smith happens to have occurred under the latter. Now what does this mean for Goldman Sachs? The company is now faced with fighting off a negative corporate culture reputation as a result of Smith’s harsh words in his very public resignation letter.

Photo Courtesy of: heatingoil.com
http://www.heatingoil.com/blog/goldman-sachs-advice-sell-oil-futures-triggers-big-price-fall-0412/

            Goldman’s PR department released a statement disputing Smith’s claims of a corporate culture that flourishes by making as much money as possible off of its clients. In the statement, Goldman Sachs executives stated, “Needless to say, we were disappointed to read the assertions made by this individual that do not reflect our values, our culture and how the vast majority of people at Goldman Sachs think about the firm and the work it does on behalf of our clients.” However, was the statement enough? Smith’s comments were strong, laced with resentment and disgust towards the company’s practices.

            I believe that an attack on corporate culture runs deeper than an attack on a defunct or poor-quality product. Corporate culture is the very essence of a company. A poor product is easier to fix than the ‘personality’ of a corporation. Regardless of the statements released by Goldman Sachs, Smith has planted a seed in the publics mind. He has made them question the corporation and its practices. For this reason, I believe Goldman Sachs needs to provide proof to customers, stakeholders, and other important publics that the culture of the company is one that fosters ethical behavior.

            How can Goldman Sachs do this? Reassess and rebrand. Create an initiative that will foster and promote an ethical corporate culture where all employees strive to provide the utmost service to customers. It is a tough challenge, but one that needs to be accomplished by Goldman Sachs.

What do you think the company should do?

Social Media as a Rallying Tool - Creates Crisis for Police

            In recent days, the news of Trayvon Martin’s death has resurfaced a multitude of times on every news station, in every newspaper, and on a number of social media sites. Didn’t expect the last medium to be a strong player in the story? Neither did I.

            The first time I heard about Martin’s death was on the Today Show earlier this week. Like many others, I found the incident to be shocking, sad, and unnecessary. Martin’s life was far too short and was taken away by someone who did not have the right to do so. It was a tragedy in the world of his family and friends and touched the hearts of many around the world.

            What I didn’t know up until recently was the role social media played in the case. Essentially, social media got the ball rolling on the news coverage about Trayvon Martin. Messages began surfacing about Martin’s death on Twitter and other social media sites. Radio host Michael Baisden tweeted to his 65,000 followers just a day later: “Unarmed 17-year-old boy shot by neighborhood watch captain in Sanford, FL outside of Orlando”. The tweet included a link to a story about the incident. Baisden also posted the message on his Facebook wall, where he has 585,000 fans.

            The pick-up in social media is fast and cannot be denied when there is passion behind the message. Outraged citizens took to social media as a form of expression – expressing their anger, disappointment, and confusion regarding the lack of justice being served. The story has been mentioned on Twitter almost 600,000 times, according to PeopleBrowsr. A Facebook page has been created in support of Martin’s family and rallying for justice to be served. The page has more than 78,000 likes.

            With the vast amount of support on social media from citizens across the United States, Sanford Police Department is challenged to provide justice for the heinous crime. The voice of the people is strong and loud, it cannot be ignored. Only time will tell if the police department will eventually charge George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin. It is a crisis they must face immediately, for fear of loss of trust and reputation.

            What do you think will happen?

Apologizing in the Heart of a Crisis

Photo Courtesy of:
http://www.inquisitr.com/200801/rush-limbaugh-apologizes-to-sarah-fluke-for-calling-her-a-slut/

            Rush Limbaugh: radio talk show host, conservative, politically outspoken. Most recently, many have began associating Limbaugh as being anti-women’s rights (particularly in regards to birth control). By this point, most of us have heard about the disparaging remarks by Mr. Limbaugh about Georgetown University law student, Sandra Fluke. When I first heard Limbaugh’s comments, I remember feeling angry, shocked and frustrated. Who is he to question the character of women throughout America (particularly Ms. Fluke’s) who use prescription birth control? After all, he is not a woman.

After my feelings of anger and resentment had subsided to a manageable level, I immediately went into my public relations mentality. I began thinking about how (and if) Limbaugh could recover from this situation – or, shall I say, crisis? His words received intense backlash and criticisms from many. Advertisers and musicians began pulling their ads and songs from Mr. Limbaugh’s show, communicating that they do not support his perspective on a woman’s right to obtain prescription birth control. What would be the next step that Limbaugh would take?

That next step turned out to be an apology for the comments he made on his show. Mr. Limbaugh explained that he stooped to a level that was below his standards as a conservative, stating, “I acted too much like the leftists who despise me. I descended to their level, using names and exaggerations to describe Sandra Fluke. It’s what we have come to know and expect from them, but it’s way beneath me.”

Photo courtesy of:
http://blisstree.com/live/why-rush-limbaugh-and-sandra-fluke-matter-for-your-health-993/

From a public relations viewpoint, this apology falls short of what should have been delivered. It’s a start, but there are still things left unsaid. Instead of explaining that this is the type of action one would expect from the “leftists,” Limbaugh should have left them out of his apology completely. Own up to your actions, instead of shining the light onto a different group of individuals other than yourself. Mr. Limbaugh should have simply stated he was wrong, and not placed any attention on the (expected) actions of others.

His apology did not include a personal apology to Sandra Fluke. While Limbaugh did express his sincere apologies for using those words to personally attack Ms. Fluke, he did not reach out to her in any other means than that. Calling Ms. Fluke on the telephone to personally apologize for his words would have taken the sincerity of the apology a step further. After all, it was she that the comments were directed towards. She is the number one audience in this crisis.

It will be interesting to see how Mr. Limbaugh’s reputation and radio show will recover from this crisis. Personally, the apology fell short of what it should have (and could have) been. If I were Sandra Fluke, I would want Mr. Limbaugh to personally apologize to me, express his disappointment in his words to me, and show that he has learned something from his actions. I guess only time will tell if he has learned or not.

Remember Your Mission - Komen and Planned Parenthood

Photo from: http://tinyurl.com/7lzev89

We’ve all heard about the Susan G. Komen for the Cure and Planned Parenthood dilemma throughout the past few weeks. Questions are swirling around in the media regarding the actions taken by Komen for the Cure. What were the organization leaders thinking? What was their motivation for cutting funding to Planned Parenthood? And most importantly, how will the organization (or can the organization) bounce back? All of these questions are difficult to answer. But many public relations professionals are attempting to take a stab at understanding the situation and suggesting ways for Komen to rebuild its reputation.

            In the hours that followed Komen’s announcement that the organization will cut funding to Planned Parenthood, donations to Planned Parenthood spiked. In fact, the increase in donations was so vast that the funding Planned Parenthood would have received from Komen was more than covered. The opposition against Komen was clear.

            Although Karen Handel, former senior vice president for public policy at Komen, resigned from her position mere days after the news to cut funding (and then the reversal of the decision) was announced, the organization is still struggling to regain its composure and strength of brand. Again, not only is the opposition against Komen evident but it has proven in the past few weeks to run deep.

Photo from: http://tinyurl.com/7kg4lk4

            Komen’s decision to cut funding to Planned Parenthood blatantly went against its core values and mission. Early detection saves lives; it saved my own mother’s life. Diagnosed in June 2009, my mother is now in remission, living life cancer free. Had she not gotten a mammography and found the breast cancer as early as she did, I cannot say confidently that the outcome would have been the same. Revoking funding to Planned Parenthood prevents many women (and men) who cannot afford a mammography from receiving the disease catching test. This is the most egregious part of Komen’s decision. They violated the very foundation of the organization and its supporters by pulling the funding.

            Komen for the Cure has a long road to travel back to redemption. I don’t doubt that the brand can succeed and return to the level at which they once stood, but I do believe it will be trying and difficult to gain back the trust they lost. I only hope that the organization and its leaders understand the mistake they made and vow to follow the mission of the foundation more closely in future decisions.

Welcome to My Blog

This blog is created as part of requirements for my Public Relations and New Media class taught by Professor Laskin at Quinnipiac University's graduate program in public relations. I will also write guest posts on Dr. Laskin's blog, Investor Relations for Academics and Professionals, and contribute to class discussion on Twitter at #MyPRClass.