Tiger Should Go With His "New Hugh" Persona

Now that the stories about Tiger Woods have descended from "marital woes" to "all out sex/party maniac," I think Tiger needs a new strategy:

Tiger should go full-steam ahead and plant his flag as "the new Hugh Hefner," or in my shorthand (trademark pending), "The New Hugh."

I'm serious here.



Hugh Hefner has made a bloody fortune screwing beautiful women and leading the party life. But he's ooollllddd. I can't believe he's still going strong, supposedly.

Hugh ain't gonna last forever. We need a new role model, a new Adonis to do all the things we dream about: Tiger.

He's incredibly handsome.

He's incredibly rich.

He's one of the greatest athletes in the world.

He's one of the greatest commercial pitchmen in the world.

He's perfect.

Go for it, my man.  Stock your mega-yacht Privacy with hot-and-cold running hotties, Cristal and pate, enjoy it and cash in on it.

You have nothing left to lose.

The Ugly Truth About Tiger Woods and All His Enablers

So it turns out that Tiger Woods has been a carousing, hard partying guy, both as a bachelor and as a married man. In essence, this doesn't surprise me one bit -- in fact, it makes a lot more sense than the partial stories that were coming out the first week about his "transgressions." I believe that one of the unexplored tensions in our society is the tamping down and frowning upon mens' natural desires for the attention of women.

What does stun me is all the media and sponsor handwringing and clucking that has ensued now that the stories about Tiger's wild party life have burst into the open. Where were you, golf media, when Tiger had a bottle of Cristal in one hand and a babe on each arm? Were you partying along with him? Were you up in your rooms playing Nintendo? Or were you just flat out clueless?

And sponsors, starting with Accenture: you mean to tell me that you didn't check out Tiger's behavior before or while you employed him? You didn't do any due diligence to find out if the image you were buying was real? And you want me to trust you (Accenture) with my corporate consulting work?

It seems clear to me that the media, sponsors and the PGA tour all turned a blind eye toward Tiger's behavior, for one good 'ol fashioned reason: money. The man has made billions for all the parties above, boosting ratings and selling soap. He was their cash cow, their golden goose. To call him on his behavior would have been commercial suicide.

I understand that too. But spare me the holier-than-thou statements now generally along the lines of "we didn't know" or "he doesn't represent the right image for us." Puh-leeze. How about "we knew all along but we didn't say anything, so we share the blame for this unfortunate situation, and we'll do a better job next time."

PS -- And then there's his wife, Elin Nordegren. She knew before she married Tiger that he was a major ladies man, yet she jumped on the gravy train as well. Here's People mag, via the NY Daily News:

Nordegren's friends tell People she knew about Woods' extracurricular activities but that he promised before their marriage that he would change.

"Elin had talked to other golfers and their wives about Tiger's wild parties," a friend told the magazine. "When she asked Tiger about it, he said he would stop doing it. And she believed him. But he never did."

Tiger Woods and the Concept of Super-Replicators

One of the more interesting things that has been said about Tiger Woods  is that now he is "human like the rest of us." This is undoubtedly true, though quite painful for him and us to live through this week. We all have our human failings -- can you imagine coming to terms with yours under the spotlight he has been under this week?

When you think about it, though, it's pretty obvious that Tiger had some learnin' to do. He was raised to be a golf-playing robot by his parents, and by his teenage years, was playing golf at the highest levels of the sport. Before long, he was earning millions playing golf, practicing golf and dealing with sponsors. When did he have time to learn about life?

Somewhere this week, I read a quote from him, via his girlfriend, that he complained of being unhappy in his married life and that being a husband and a father "wasn't all it was cracked up to be." I should have saved the link, because now I can't find it.

What Tiger has fallen victim to is known as a super-replicator -- a belief that we as humans transmit among each other regardless of its factuality, because to not do so might imperil our very existence.

What was this belief? That marriage and children bring happiness to the lives of adults.

It's not that there aren't many aspects of marriage and parenting that are pleasurable, but the reality is that in many moments, being married or raising children isn't as fun, as, say, having sex with a hot cocktail waitress.

But if our society didn't pass along the "marriage and children equal happiness" super-replicator, then what would happen? Fewer marriages and children -- which is why our failure to pass it along threatens our very existence.

So people coo at babies, say things like, "you must be so happy!" and generally send adults the message that, in fact, parenting = happiness. The problem with this is that in the moment that you are up to your eyeballs in diapers or dead tired from chasing the kids, you don't understand why you aren't as happy as everyone says you are supposed to be. And that's where the trouble starts.

For most of us, there are safe ways to reconcile the disparity between the super-replicator and our own experience. We talk with friends, we observe other people, and we generally make it through. Of course, some people turn to booze, drugs, gambling, affairs and the like, as well.

For Tiger, though, he likely hasn't had anyone to share his feelings with, to try to square what he was feeling with what the world was telling him. He got together with his wife in his late-twenties, she was a knockout blonde, what's the problem? We get married, we start a family, life's good. Only when it turns out that Elin is a real person, and that being married isn't all romance and hot sex, and that having babies isn't all cute photo ops, Tiger likely had no safety net.

I'm also guessing that despite his Joe-cool exterior, Tiger is a pretty immature, undeveloped guy. Which would explain why he would be comfortable with cocktail waitresses who demanded little of him and likely allowed him to "be himself." The gorgeous blonde, Swedish wife was who Tiger thought he ought to be married to, in order to live out the super-replicator life that he thought he was supposed to live. Hanging out with cocktail waitresses was probably closer to the real life he was ready to live.

*****

Where did I get all the stuff above? Mainly from reading a great book called "Stumbling on Happiness" by Daniel Gilbert. It's about the reality of what does or might make us happy versus what we think will make us happy. I highly recommend it.

As it happens, I found a blogger who liberally quoted from the section of the book that deals with the concept of super-replicators. Here is the key quote:

“Children bring happiness” is a super-replicator. The belief-transmission network of which we are a part cannot operate without a continuously replenished supply of people to do the transmitting, thus the belief that children are a source of happiness becomes a part of our cultural wisdom simply because the opposite belief unravels the fabric of any society that holds it.

Tiger Woods Caught With His Pants Down, But He Keeps His Guard Up

Uh-oh. It turns out that where there was Thanksgiving Day smoke, there was definitely fire. Tiger Woods has been caught red-handed being a philandering adulterer. Goodbye pristine reputation, maybe goodbye marriage.

But is it goodbye golf game and goodbye endorsements? No and probably not.

Woods issued another statement today, this time saying he "let my family down and I regret those transgressions." [Full text of Tiger Woods' statement here.]

But just as Tiger redefined golf, he may be in the process of redefining celebrity scandal-mongering. His statement goes on to say:

No matter how intense curiosity about public figures can be, there is an important and deep principle at stake which is the right to some simple, human measure of privacy... Personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn't have to mean public confessions.

That's right. He hasn't been accused of using performance-enhancing drugs, betting on the game, animal cruelty or physical violence. Those are the types of things that derail sports careers.

He's one of the world's sexiest men, he probably had and has woman propositioning him constantly, and he took some of them up on it, even after he was married. That makes him a fool and a cad, but that's all. No evidence yet that he paid for it, a la Eliot Spitzer, who after all was an elected official, and a sanctimonious one at that. Unless this saga goes into one of the above-mentioned areas, I think it tarnishes him but doesn't really afffect his public life.

Further, I really like that he shot back at the media mongrels who are demanding more information and confessionals. Tough. If you want information, go dig it out. He owes you absolutely nothing.

Tiger Woods Takes the Right Media Relations Tack

As the Tiger Woods car accident story was becoming known and starting to be covered in the media, my other half passed along an article talking about "what Tiger should do," and suggesting that I weigh in. In the moment, I have to say that I had a hard time forming a strategy, partly due to Thanksgiving overload and partly because I was at a loss as to what I would recommend.

In the meantime, on Sunday, Tiger released a statement that, I thought, hit all the right notes.

Here's the statement:

As you all know, I had a single-car accident earlier this week, and sustained some injuries. I have some cuts, bruising and right now I'm pretty sore.

This situation is my fault, and it's obviously embarrassing to my family and me. I'm human and I'm not perfect. I will certainly make sure this doesn't happen again.

This is a private matter and I want to keep it that way. Although I understand there is curiosity, the many false, unfounded and malicious rumors that are currently circulating about my family and me are irresponsible.

The only person responsible for the accident is me. My wife, Elin, acted courageously when she saw I was hurt and in trouble. She was the first person to help me. Any other assertion is absolutely false.

This incident has been stressful and very difficult for Elin, our family and me. I appreciate all the concern and well wishes that we have received. But, I would also ask for some understanding that my family and I deserve some privacy no matter how intrusive some people can be.

Here's what I like about the statement and the strategy it implies:

1. He gives some helpful details at the beginning


2. He shifts the story back to its core -- a single-car accident, mostly on private property, minor injuries, my fault. He went on the offense instead of playing defense.


3. He clearly states and repeats that he wants his privacy, as would any of us, famous or not, in such a case involving a minor accident.


4. He praises his wife, signaling a united front with her.

The fact is, none of us -- the general public, his fans, the police or the media -- really needs more information about this situation. I think the police acted irresponsibly in showing up at his house twice for an interview, thereby giving TV a fresh shot to air, when they could have called on the phone and been told whether or not he would speak to them. It looked to me like the cops were seeing this case as a possible gravy train rather than focusing on doing their jobs.

Is Tiger having an affair? Was his wife whacking him with a golf club as he ran out of the house and jumped in his car? Who knows? If you care, go to TMZ.com and get your fill.

Here's a blessedly sane media story with the headline "Tiger doesn't owe us an explanation."

Ticketmaster Tries to Solve a Big Problem With a Little PR Push

One of the most important lessons of crisis communications is that most crises are not communications problems, they're operational problems. Communications can help in many ways to diffuse a crisis and calm people down, but if the operational issue at the heart of the problem isn't addressed, no amount of PR spin is going to distract interested parties from that fact.

This, is a nutshell, is my fan-level reaction to Ticketmaster's new PR ploy involving its captive reseller program, TicketsNow. Ticketmaster had a big problem earlier this year when it was caught transferring ticket seekers from the original ticket onsale screen to the TicketsNow resale screen, where the same tickets that had just gone on sale were now supposedly only available for huge markups on TicketsNow.

Online Media Echo Chamber Tries and Convicts Domino's

I'm skeptical about the supposedly major damage done to the Domino's brand by a gross YouTube video a couple of its employees made showing them sneezing on a sandwich and doing other inappropriate food-handling things (you can search for the video online if you want).

Soon after the video hit YouTube and started to make the rounds, Domino's responded with its own video apology, and they posted apologies on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.

Still, online communications pundits seem to believe that the company didn't do enough, fast enough, to combat this incident and that the video and their response had "damaged" the brand.

You know a story like this is peaking when the New York Times weighs in, and so they did, saying,

In just a few days, Domino’s reputation was damaged.

The proof of brand damage? Found online, of course:

The perception of its quality among consumers went from positive to negative since Monday, according to the research firm YouGov, which holds online surveys of about 1,000 consumers every day regarding hundreds of brands.

An online survey? Is that a joke?

Two observations: Domino's pizza is terrible: cheese and tomato sauce on cardboard. It's hard to imagine that their brand's "quality" image was materially harmed by a sophomoric (obviously) online video. And how many of Domino's core customers are tracking the brand online? I didn't do any man-on-the-street interviews, but I doubt that the "average" Domino's customer cares what is being said about the company online.

Even as powerful as the online world can be at times, it's still only a tiny fraction of the real world. My advice is to keep that in mind, and in perspective.

UC San Diego PR Nightmare!

It's that time of year again, as parents and high school seniors anxiously await the 'fat' or 'thin' envelopes from the colleges of their choice. Only this year and for some time, colleges have also sent out emails announcing the news.

That's what UC San Diego did this week -- except they sent the "you're accepted" email to all 47,000 people who applied -- not just the 17,000 who were accepted! Oops!

“It was one of the greatest moments in my life and then, boom, it was one of the lowest,” said Arya Shamuilian. “UCSD was my first-choice university.”

UCSD apparently recognized the mistake immediately and sent out a correction and apology. Then, the admissions office stayed in late to take angry phone calls.

One of the hallmarks of a crisis is that it becomes public and requires a public response. After all, we all face fire drills every day in our jobs. They only become crises when our problems become big and widely known.

In this case, it would seem that UCSD did a pretty good job. They quickly issued a follow-up email, they made themselves personally available, and they posted everything on the web.

This last part is the learning of the day. Since we all have access to web search, it's crazy to hide behind false walls trying to avoid sharing information under circumstances like these. People will find the stuff anyway, and you'll look extra bad in the process.

So I give UCSD an A for how they handled this crisis.

Was Maddow's Rant Against PR Fair or Foul?

By now you've probably heard about the otherwise wonderful Rachel Maddow's rant about PR and specifically, about industry giant Burson-Marsteller, regarding B-M's representation of AIG, the big insurance company that has gotten tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout cash.

Maddow let her inner media whiner out and went on a classic anti-PR rant about Burson, saying that AIG shouldn't be spending taxpayer money to spiff up its image, and simplifying (or dumbing down) a segment of Burson's client roster to a who's who of evil-doers (the manufacturer of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, for example) -- the latest of which, by extension, is AIG.

Now my perspective is that this kind of criticism is to be expected in our industry and tolerated to some degree. We are the industry of spin, we are relatively easy to understand (and hence criticize), and we make so many gaffes that we are easy targets. But we're not alone. How would you like to be a "trial lawyer" or a "tax collector" or a "meter maid"? See my point? They get ribbed all the time too, but you don't see them and their industry associations crying about it.

So my question is not whether we are fair game (we are), but is AIG's decision to hire PR help a good move or a bad one? Should AIG be spending any taxpayer money on outside PR counsel, or should it acknowledge that spending money on outside PR help is counter-productive because it generates the negative coverage that AIG is, presumably, trying to avoid?

Blagojevich PR Blitz is a Laughable Farce

With imbeciles like Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich using media relations tactics to try to influence the outcome of his impeachment trial, PR gets another black eye.

Yes, there are many times when you should go on the offensive, make yourself available to the press, and try to sway public opinion
to your cause. In fact, it's really the heart of PR.

But when losers like the Illinois governor use these tactics, they set the whole profession back a step.

Worse yet is the gullible media that readily provide airtime to this guy, telling themselves they are being "fair" and "balanced." Baloney! They're being used, pure and simple.

Real PR in this situation: resign quietly. Lick your wounds in private. Emerge as a do-gooder after a respectful period of reflection.

SEC Looking into Apple's Comms

Update on my earlier post about the lame job being done by Apple and its board regarding Steve Jobs' illness: according to Bloomberg, the SEC is looking into Apple's recent disclosures "to insure investors weren't misled."

Good Auto Industry PR Means More Than Flying Coach

So GM and Chrysler say they “get it” and that their CEOs won’t be flying in corporate jets when they return to DC this week for Round Two of begging/arm-twisting/cajoling/blackmailing Congress into forking over billions of dollars to their companies. (Ford hasn’t said yet what its CEO will do to get to Washington)

“We’ve gotten the message,” said GM spokesperson Tom Wilkinson.

Really? News reports out of Detroit suggest that so far, all they have “gotten” is that it would be beyond dumb to show up in Washington aboard three separate corporate jets, which cost about $20,000 each for a round-trip from the Motor City.

I’m not sure they’ve “gotten” the message that Congress and especially the public wants to see and hear a lot more from the Big Three than “give us the money or we’ll ef-up the country by going bankrupt.”

So I’m going to make believe for a moment that I’m sitting in a conference room at GM or Chrysler being asked to give my best PR advice on how to get the public on our side going into these hearings:

• Drive from Detroit to DC in Ford/GM/Chrysler cars or trucks!! This is the biggest no-brainer of all time.


• Get dealers, suppliers, union men and women, and multi-generation car owners to join your caravan.


• Drive through as many Congressional districts as you can on the way and stop once or twice in each to make note of the auto industry’s impact on that area.


• Send out PR info to Big Three dealers and other auto-related businesses across the country in every other Congressional district giving them talking points and simple PR guidance on how to get local coverage of the impact that the Big Three have in their town.


• Suspend all new car advertising — all of it! — for the 48 hours prior to the hearing, and replace it with heart-rending stories of Big Three employees, suppliers and car owners who would be hurt if the companies were to go under.


• When you get to Washington, have an awesome press conference on the steps of the Capitol with all your constituencies present, and make your case for the bailout, using as many personal stories as possible.

Oh, and one more thing: have an actual plausible plan that everyone can grasp about how you will use the money to stave off bankruptcy and get your companies back on the right track.

How to Earn the Boss’s Trust in a Crisis

The phone rings. It’s the boss and there’s a crisis. Now’s your chance to shine — or be permanently relegated to the scrap heap. What should you do?

Here’s what:

• Be prepared to give solid advice on the spot. “I’ll get back to you” is the kiss of death.


• Give the boss options, not just your preferred idea. Bosses like to have options and make decisions. They don’t like being told what to do.


• Tell the boss things they don’t already know. Duh!


• Be prepared to outline next steps.

Tips courtesy of Jim Lukaszewski, the crisis guru. He’s got a new book out called, “Why Should the Boss Listen to You? The Seven Disciplines of the Trusted Advisor.”

Some Communications Guidance for Weathering the Financial Crisis

As much as anything, what people are craving right now is some guidance on what to say to employees, customers, partners, the media and others about how the financial crisis is impacting their business. Unless you work on Wall Street, what’s been going on is largely a mystery, and unless it has walloped you directly, it’s a little hard to know what to say about it. Any help is appreciated.

This blog has already offered some guidance, but here’s some more: an excellent new white paper from Waggener Edstrom called “The Communications Impact of Financial Turmoil.”

It’s a quick five-page read and I recommend you download it and read the whole thing. But here’s the kicker at the end, titled “What we are recommending to our clients:”

• Most importantly, stay focused on the long term. This crisis will pass; there will be fallout, but the globaleconomy will continue on. This is an opportune time to broaden interaction with stakeholders; to think globally; and to begin employing innovative communications tools such as social networking and online strategies, to support corporate business goals and strengthen those critical stakeholder ties.


• This is not a good time to cut back on employee communications. In fact, constant and open dialogue between company leaders and employees is essential during times of uncertainty. Clearly all of this external communications needs to map as well to internal communications —both formal and informal. Senior management will want to understand this media dynamic and why story lines are being altered — but broader employee communication will be of value in maintaining morale and helping the company as a whole understand how its story is being told in a media climate that is lunging from headline to headline. Now is the time for CEOs to be more visible than ever before, not less


• Utilize every communications channel. Organizations need to move beyond (but not exclude) traditional media communications. This includes a heavy focus on direct stakeholder interaction (global citizenship, investor relations, employee communications, to name a few key elements). The use of online and social communications tools, from blogging to tweets, opens up new avenues for organizations to build communications bridges beyond mainstream press.


• Be authentic. Not just today, but every day. Transparency and global citizenship are increasing in importance every day, and are key differentiators in the marketplace. Given the current degree of media scrutiny and public skepticism over the motives behind corporate behavior and performance, an organization’s activities — and to whom and how they are communicated — must be ethical, authentic and credible. Indeed, we believe that authenticity will become the single biggest defining factor for successful corporations and those who lead them into the future.

Key Tactic in a Crisis: Communicate, Communicate, Communicate

Luckily for most of us, the global financial crisis is affecting us indirectly. Sure, home values may be down and our 401(k)s may now only be “201(k)s,” but those are paper losses. Thus far, the rest of the economy hasn’t really caught Wall Street’s flu.

Nevertheless, it’s an edgy time, a near-crisis that any date could spill over into the broader economy. So at this time, what should business leaders do: a) hunker down and adopt a siege mentality or b) communicate with key constituencies, including employees, investors and customers?

Duh — the answer of course is b).

But are America’s overpaid CEOs following this advice? What do you think? Check out this blog entry from ReputationXchange.com about the survey they released today:

We surveyed employed Americans about the financial upheaval and asked them how satisfied they are with their leadership’s communications.

In short, we learned that working Americans are not hearing enough from senior leaders about the global financial crisis.

In fact, a huge 70% expect the current economic problems in the U.S. is going to have a negative impact on the company they work for over the next year. Of those, 26% believe their company will have lay offs and 62% said their company will have trouble meeting goals.

These survey findings highlight a genuine leadership deficit! A hefty 71% of people felt that their company’s leadership should be communicating more about current economic problems, and 54% have not heard from company leaders at all on the impact of the financial crisis on their company.

This is pathetic — really. Luckily, there’s still time for leaders to do something. Assemble your comms team, figure out what to say and then say it! Call an all-hands meeting, post it on your blog, do a voicemail blast — whatever floats your boat. But speak up!

Avast Matey! Even 21st Century Pirates Have PR Flacks

Pity the poor, misunderstood modern-day pirate. People think of them as swashbuckling outlaws of the sea, inflicting terror, swilling moonshine and saying things like “Arrr!”


“We don’t consider ourselves sea bandits,” said Sugule Ali, spokesman for the Somali pirates who seized a Ukrainian ship full of weaponry last week. “We consider sea bandits those who illegally fish in our seas and dump waste in our seas and carry weapons in our seas. We are simply patrolling our seas. Think of us like a coast guard.”

What!?!?

Yes, even modern-day pirates have PR flacks, apparently. When the New York Times dialed up the bridge of the seized ship, a pirate answered and then put Sugule on the phone, because “he was the only one authorized to speak.” A 45-minute interview resulted in the much-read story, “Somali Pirates Tell Their Side of the Story.”

[Note to lazy corporate flacks and spokespeople: #1 rule — be available!]

Some other misconceptions that were cleared up through the interview [complete text here]:

Mr. Sugule spoke on everything from what the pirates wanted (“just money”) to why they were doing this (“to stop illegal fishing and dumping in our waters”) to what they had to eat on board (rice, meat, bread, spaghetti, “you know, normal human-being food”).

He insisted that the pirates were not interested in the weapons and had no plans to sell them to Islamist insurgents battling Somalia’s weak transitional government. “Somalia has suffered from many years of destruction because of all these weapons,” he said. “We don’t want that suffering and chaos to continue. We are not going to offload the weapons. We just want the money.”

He said the pirates were asking for $20 million in cash; “we don’t use any other system than cash.” But he added that they were willing to bargain. “That’s deal-making,” he explained.

Piracy in Somalia is a highly organized, lucrative, ransom-driven business. Just this year, pirates hijacked more than 25 ships, and in many cases, they were paid million-dollar ransoms to release them. The juicy payoffs have attracted gunmen from across Somalia, and the pirates are thought to number in the thousands.

Serious point to Gucci-wearing first-world PR people and their corporate bosses: if you want the media to understand your story, you’ve got to explain it to them. No more whinin’ about “they don’t understand us” or “they’re biased against us.” If pirates can change their image, so can you!

Paulson Makes Himself Available and Controls the Debate

Say what you will about the current financial mess on Wall Street, you have to credit Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson for making himself fully available to the media despite the crushing responsibilities and obligations he must have. He was on four Sunday talk shows yesterday and did countless other media appearances and press conferences over the past week.

By making himself available and credible, Paulson is currently controlling the story about the crisis (hello, paging Ben Bernanke…) and therefore will have the most impact on the final form of any bailout or other remedy.

Paulson’s moves echo the advice of uber-crisis wizard Sam Singer, who says the number one thing spokespeople must do in a crisis is “be available.”

“Even when you don’t have a lot to say, be there to say it,” Singer advises.

Singer spoke last week at a PRSA Silicon Valley spokesperson training event at Microsoft’s Silicon Valley campus. It was the third of our four professional development sessions on media training this year, and I’m serving as one of the trainers for the series (the fourth is on November 7, “Inside the Newsroom: A day in the life of reporters, editors, producers, anchors.”).

Singer’s other tips:

• You always want to be the first one out of the chute with your version of events


• The best thing you can do is raise key questions that change the way people are looking at the crisis


• Be a reliable source, even in non-crisis times and when you don’t have a story — it’s how you build credibility


• To win a battle during a crisis, you’ve got to be willing to push back — don’t be passive

SoCal Train Wreck: PR Takes Fall for Telling the Truth

On Friday, an LA commuter train slammed into a freight train, killing 25 people. On Saturday, the PR person for the Metrolink train system said publicly it appeared that the passenger train’s engineer was at fault for the crash. On Sunday, her bosses issued a statement saying her pronouncement was “premature.” On Monday, she resigned.



This is a good ethics-in-real life case study in public communications. Was it right for the PR person to state the obvious truth before she was cleared to do so by her bosses? What if she believed she was told it was OK to announce the preliminary cause of the crash, only to find out the next day that she wasn’t fully supported in doing so?

On one hand, you have to applaud the spokesperson, Denise Tyrell, for coming out with the honest truth in a timely fashion. The public, and the families, have a right to know as soon as possible, even if it wouldn’t have changed the outcome of the tragedy. On the other hand, Tyrell worked for Metrolink, and owed a duty to her bosses to follow their lead. [It’s unclear whether Tyrell was told to make the announcement she made or did it on her own.]



In the real world, PR has a big ongoing problem with situations like this. Most PR people are by nature communicators and storytellers, so our instincts are to find out information and tell people. But this is not always what our higher-ups want us to do — even when it is apparent that being forthright is the right thing to do, both for the institution and the wider audience. It puts us in a sticky, no-win professional situation: lie/obscure because it’s your job, or be more open and candid and risk losing your job.

Here are some more links for this story:

• Tyrell’s statement


• Was the announcement a rush to judgement?

(Image by ThreeWeinerGuy, CC 2.0) 

When News is Bad, Change the Subject

Here’s the scenario: you’ve had to make a controversial decision or taken a difficult step, and you’re getting hammered by your key constituencies. What do you do?

The most tried-and-true strategy under most cases is to change the subject. If you’re been criticized because of Decision A, the longer you let people talk about and stew on Decision A without further information or actions, the more the reaction to Decision A will become the storyline.

So try to move people off that news as quickly as possible. You’re walking a bit of a tightrope, because if you announce Decision A on a Monday, and then try to bury it on Tuesday, that will be a little too obvious. But by the following Monday, it’s time to start filling the pipeline with new information, to send the message of “we’re moving on. You can either get on the bandwagon or get out of the way.”

And the more you fill the pipeline with incremental news and actions that demonstrate progress, the more you marginalize the complainers and naysayers, who are still stuck on the original storyline.

Bankruptcy PR is the Newest Agency Market Niche

You know the boom times are over when it “bankruptcy PR” becomes the newest market niche for PR agencies. PRWeek reports that “retailer Mervyns is working with Joele Frank, Wilkinson Brimmer Katcher for communications support during its Chapter 11 filing,” which the company made on Tuesday.

What does a PR agency do for a Chapter 11 retailer? According to PRWeek:

The agency is conducting proactive outreach to key vendors and investors via letters, e-mails, a restructuring hotline, and a section on the company’s Web site outlining the restructure, according to Andrew Siegel, a managing director at Joele Frank, Wilkinson Brimmer Katcher.

The team also provided employees in the stores with communications materials to help address consumers who may have questions about the restructuring.

Our message is business as usual, and customers can continue to expect the same thing,” Siegel said. “[Vendors] are comforted that the company has a $465 million dollar dip [once court approved] with cash from operations to provide financing throughout the filing process.”

The agency will continue to update company stakeholders, customers, employees, investors, and landlords through Web updates and letters.

One question not addressed, but that agencies should consider: getting paid. When a company files for Chapter 11, bankruptcy judges and lawyers get involved regarding when and what order creditors get paid. This is usually negotiated before a business starts working with a post-Chapter 11 company.