A Tale of Two Situations: Tiger Battles Sex Scandal; Obama Bags Nobel Peace Prize

Tiger Woods - Many PR practitioners have called for Tiger to be totally transparent early in the crisis, explain what happened, and to make blanket apologies. That kind of knee-jerk reaction to a complex crisis would have set him up for legal disaster. There is no doubt he should have been more forthcoming and gotten out some kind of statements immediately but you also have to protect your legal standing.
The Tiger reaction to crisis also applies to other celebrities and celebrity CEOs because Woods himself has been a celebrity since he was a child. Until now, he had never really had bad PR and the media has always treated him with respect because they wanted even greater access to him down the line. So he had no point of reference to understand that his media “friends” would become sharks as result of this scandal. He thought he could dictate the terms of engagement here but he quickly found, as have other celebrities and CEOs that they can’t tell the media what to do if theirs is a juicy story or a scandal.

Kobe Bryant got caught up in the same mess and had, to a large extent, Tiger’s history as a celebrity athlete. Bryant is just now getting back into the public eye in a good way because he’s tried to keep a low profile and has played great ball since his own scandal. Part of Tiger’s reconstructive image surgery will have to follow that model.

CEOs and celebrities who surround themselves with “yes men” or dictate media ground rules in good times learn very quickly they are not bullet-proof when there is a scandal. Talk to the automaker CEOs who were attacked by media when they testified before Congress after flying into town in their corporate jets.

Obama and Nobel Prize - The President has navigated the awarding of the prize very well by being humble in his acceptance and using the award as a bully pulpit to explain his agenda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. His maneuvering here is a great example of not only how to keep bridging back to primary messages but certainly using the same concept during speeches or interviews.

Of course, his War Doctrine is a much more complex and multi-faceted issue than a simple media training session can get into but, really, the concepts are the same. Do not digress from primary messages. Use all opportunities to reinforce those messages. Read your audience and gear your presentation toward the audiences and subject matter. President Obama and his team are accomplishing their communication goals to various audiences. A final lesson is not to dilute your message in order to win over fanatics who are absolutely opposed to whatever you say. You can’t make everyone happy but do play to your base first.

President Obama’s Olympic Bid: Law of Crisis PR says Effective Messaging is Everything

President Obama’s unsuccessful bid for Chicago to host the 2016 Olympic Games may have come and gone, but there are lasting lessons we can glean from that experience. Of course, Obama was all for his adopted hometown having spent a good portion of his adult life there. In his bid to appeal to the International Olympic Committee early on, Obama alongside the First Lady, Michelle Obama and Mayor Richard Daley hosted a White House event on Olympics. Although enthusiastic, Obama appeared to waiver on how much more support to publicly give Chicago. When initially asked whether he would make a personal trip to Copenhagen to lobby for the games, the president deferred to his wife as being the better candidate of the two to make the case for Chicago in Europe.

But as the date for the IOC Session drew nearer, the president, perhaps responding to pressure from Chicago’s formidable Mayor Daley decided to make a quick trip to Copenhagen to augment the efforts of his wife, Mayor Daley himself, Oprah Winfrey and a myriad of sports celebs.

Palpable enthusiasm? Very likely. Overkill? Possibly. A fine line that the Obama inadvertently crossed. Had Chicago won the bid, chances are no one would have noticed the misstep. But as fate would have it, Rio stole the glory and we temporarily wondered how Obama’s inability to “bring home” the games would impact the other pressing issues he is working on.

In most areas, Obama has skillfully grappled with his transition from presidential candidate to Commander-in-Chief. But in other areas, he leaves us scratching our heads. While he is extremely popular he is not an entertainer, but you wouldn’t know it from his late night show appearances in the recent past. He will ultimately be judged by what he’s able to accomplish during his administration not by how many balls he can keep in the air.

In the meantime though, here are some key lessons we can learn from the president’s Chicago Olympic bid:

Identify your primary messages and utilize the best mediums to deliver messages to specific audiences: In any communications initiative it’s fundamental to identify your primary goals. We typically help our clients identify three to five primary goals that form the foundation for many other secondary goals. Only after doing this do we start exploring the best ways to reach their audiences. Convincing the IOC to host the 2016 in Chicago was a primary message for the Obama team. However, the manner in which that message was delivered mattered tremendously with this particular audience than emphasis on exuberance.

Stay on message: Take the time to identify your messages and then stick with them! One week the President declined going to Copenhagen, another week he was boarding the Air Force bound for the capital of Denmark. This move made at such a time came across as jerky and inadvertently portrayed the IOC as one easily swayed by star power. A misstep with this particular audience.

Fully utilize your team: You know your team’s strengths well, so use them effectively. Who is the most capable and appropriate person to deliver certain message(s)? Under which circumstance(s)? Identify them, bring them to speed and have them go at it. Obama at the onset said Michelle Obama, would make the best candidate to make the case for Chicago in Copenhagen. He was right. Mrs. Obama, a native Chicagoan, spoke passionately about the city where she was born, grew up, started her career and gave birth to her own children. The IOC said they were truly impressed with her delivery. But not so much with the President’s – a rare criticism of Obama from an international body.

Law of Crisis PR says Negotiating an “Exclusive” with a Journalist and Clients Can Yield a “Win-Win” situation

If you’re not competitive then you’re not only not a real journalist, you are probably not a very good journalist. As a public relations practitioner who wants to get the most for clients I would much prefer to deal with good journalists who appreciate the value of exclusives in owning a story or breaking news with it.

Because I was a former print journalist who later became a major market network reporter and producer, I absolutely understand the drive for exclusive stories on the part of reporters, especially journalists working for top news outlets. That drive can be used to the advantage of both the PR practitioner’s client and the journalist.

We bargain on a regular basis with all kinds of journalists for exclusive status or a situation where the news outlet gets special access to a source or a story. That goes for everything from a paper's “of-the-record” arrangements to national TV or radio network news organizations or magazine shows. They want a competitive edge. We want the best story for a client to be told and granting exclusives give our clients the best chance at getting their story told in a more balanced or favorable way because the journalists are more likely to listen to our suggestions under the aegis of an exclusive bargain.

This is not to say we can manipulate stories or help a client get away with anything for an exclusive granted to a journalist. Those kinds of bargains demean both parties and eventually cause relationship and credibility problems. We can, however, get journalists to listen more acutely to our story when they know they are getting the advantages that an exclusive provides. Journalists like anyone else appreciate a perceived or real favor.

Granting an exclusive also provides a good investment in the credibility bank for everyone. And when managed properly it can develop a long-term, positive relationship for the journalist, the PR practitioner and certainly the client the practitioner represents. This happens whether we are trying to get the client in the news for a quality placement in the future or to get them out of the news when that client doesn’t deserve to be pilloried.

Michael Vick, Advisors and the Law of Crisis PR

Michael Vick, his personal advisors and the spin-doctors I've seen commenting on his comeback have been dancing around the subject of his apology and road to redemption. I watched the 60 Minutes interview with Vick and reporter James Brown appeared to ask all the right questions but Vick didn’t provide a definitive answer or a gutsy promise to advocate against dog fighting and animal cruelty.

The Law of Crisis PR calls for those accused of wrongdoing to be crystal clear about their epiphanies and reasons why the public and the authorities should forgive them. I don't think Vick and his advisors have met these criteria. He still sounds like he is saying he is sorry he got caught but not that he has truly changed his mind about the validity and justification of dog fighting. He didn't explain what caused his change of heart other than being arrested, fined, sent to jail and having his career almost destroyed.

Unless I have missed such quote, possible given how much has been said about Vick's release and reigniting his career, I have not heard Vick say something truly sincere like, "Dog fighting and what I did to dogs, what my friends have done and may still be doing to dogs and what those who still dog fight are doing is wrong. Despite the thrill and cultural machismo involved there is no redemption or reason for dog fighting, cock fighting, or any of that kind of sport in America or anywhere else. Anyone who is involved in that kind of activity is a bully and a coward driven by peer pressure. I should know because I’ve been there."

I still haven't heard a strong denunciation from Vick, he’s said close - but no cigar. Vick did say on 60 Minutes that he rationalized dog fighting because cops in his neighborhood turned a blind eye and he had seen the blood sport practiced by adults and others ever since he was a kid.

I’ve covered dog fighting and cock fighting stories as a reporter in Colorado and have some firsthand insight into this twisted world. Vick has taken baby steps by promising the Humane Society, the court and the NFL he will continue to lecture kids but I don't think this is enough to make a substantial difference. These are all safe actions.

We haven’t heard whether he lectured against dog fighting while he was in prison and tried to convince fellow inmates about his change of heart. Would he do this in prisons or on the street where it would take real guts and might be seen as him being soft? We don’t know. Is he testifying against other dog fighters or planning to be an expert court witness on the matter? No indication there either. Will he talk to other athletes and particulary NFL players who didn't seem so ruffled by Vick's actions until after their advisors told them to shut up? Your guess is as good as mine.

If you are going to play the system in this case and other crises by taking the safest road possible you should consider redemptive behavior that really makes a difference and truly can win over most audiences. In order for that to happen you have to be very clear about why you changed your actions and your mind. Maybe Vick has changed and truly wants to help others. I hope so. Maybe he has received some pretty good but not great advice, which leaves questions hanging out there.

Everyone should get a second chance, especially after they've served prison time. But society and all of our systems should take the opportunity to push that person to not only change their actions in the future but take all steps to correct the disgraceful situation or subculture that they had been part of. Or else, nothing or very little will change and one is left dealing with a public – in Vick’s case - that remains largely unconvinced of one’s remorse.

Be a Pragmatic and Flexible Communicator or Violate the Law of Crisis PR

The 18th century Irish philosopher-Poet Edmund Burke is a role-model for many so-called conservatives who would be well-served to follow what Burke scholars report was his belief that policy innovation must come in response to specific problems. That means changing one’s position given new circumstances doesn’t mean you are a spin-master or a flip-flopper. Such repositioning could actually mean you are laudably a pragmatist looking for the best solutions.

Those of us who deal with crisis communications should address head-on accusations that we represent convenient positions and that staying-the course always translates to good leadership. In fact, “staying the course” may in reality translate to perpetuating a mistake.

So as the Obama administration deals with the realities of timetables or costs to leave Iraq or close Guantanamo Bay, the administration’s messengers aren’t being opportunistic or hypocrites, they are basing new actions or positions on changing circumstances. Crisis communicators must be flexible, also protecting their positions or clients’ positions as problem solvers and not ideologues that are intractable and subsequently unsuccessful.

Share your thoughts – do you agree or disagree?

The Law of Crisis PR Demands Complicated Messages Be Simplified Not Dumbed-Down

President Barack Obama stated late last month, “the biggest mistake … is this notion that you have to dumb things down for the public.” We couldn’t agree more, especially when the issue at hand is complex as most “crisis” communications tends to be. So, to be clear, we need to not lose the nuances of complexities but to make them more easily understandable to all audiences when critical communication is at stake.

In order to reach our communications goal here several points need to be addressed, including: concise messaging, perception of intelligence and use of jargon.

Since we are quoting famous people in this blog, another reference is illustrative regarding concise messaging. News icon Walter Cronkite said that there is no story that can’t be told in thirty seconds. Of course, most stories can be told better if there is more time to tell them but Cronkite had the right idea. Start your communications with a simple image-inducing message. For example, effective crisis communication is like driving by a good roadside ad; if you understand the message in a few seconds the ad was successful. If you need to think too long about what the ad was trying to communicate, the message was lost and it’s an ineffective ad.

Great communicators must leave their egos at the door. No one wants to hear what you have to say if you relate to them with a condescending tone. Don’t confuse the use of jargon or inflated words for intelligence. All audiences will benefit from clear communication from empathetic messengers who respect their audiences. Audiences will respect them in return and want to hear and learn about what the messenger is communicating.

What do you think?

Burris’ Debacle: Simply Denying Wrongdoing Breaks The Law of Crisis PR

Illinois Senator Roland Burris is being investigated by federal authorities as they question the legitimacy of his appointment to the Senate seat. With questions looming and stories changing, Burris is in the middle of a challenging public relations crisis that could have been avoided.

In the wake of Rod Blagojevich’s impeachment, it’s plausible that Burris wanted to distance himself from the former governor. However, as Blagojevich’s appointee strong political affiliations between the two were inevitable. If Burris did nothing untoward, then he should have come clean and spoken out about his professional relationship with Blagojevich. Instead, this detail surfaced after the fact. In the midst of the sensationalism that has followed, we are left wondering whether Burris is hiding even more information.

Another PR misstep for Burris is that he has not taken a clear, consistent position on the events leading up to his appointment. He recounts situations and conversations differently each time he is interviewed. Instead of enlightening this confuses the public and builds mistrust in him. The level of public confidence he holds - if it were ever high – is extremely low.

Burris left the public and the media to their own devices. In a crisis situation, you must tell your story. Otherwise, others will tell it for you and fill in the blanks as they see fit. Denying wrongdoing is simply not enough if you expect the media or the public to feel real empathy and believe you.

Here are some lessons we can learn from Burris’ mishap:

1. There are no closets big enough to hide high-profile skeletons. Ask Elliott Spitzer. Gary Hart. And now Senator Burris.

2. Come clean - early. You’ll appear honest and it will downplay the story.

3. Consistency is key. Develop some clear key messages. If you change your story, or if you backtrack, the public will not know what to believe.

4. Make a statement. If you don’t speak for yourself, others will speak for you.