Author Archives: Gil Rudawsky

7 guidelines for responding after a tragic event

By | Published:

So many Coloradans uttered the same phrase on Friday, “Oh, no! Not again.”

The shooting spree at a movie theater in Aurora couldn’t help but bring up memories of the Columbine High School shootings 13 years ago—and a mere 20 miles away.

As a newspaper editor at the time, I remember reporters coming back into the newsroom in tears, staring blankly at their computers. On Friday, Dave Perry, the editor of the Aurora Sentinel, wrote a blog post about how the newsroom was full of reporters, and there was silence.

“Quiet’s not good in a newsroom. Quiet is the sound of tragedy. It’s the sound of crisis. It’s when reporters and editors clench their jaws and squint,” Perry wrote.

Journalists are supposed to be neutral observers, but that’s impossible in such cases. On Sept. 11, 2001, when I found out my childhood friend had been killed, I hid out in the newspaper’s stairwell and cried, then went back to reporting the news.

Denver is a small community, and many of us know people directly affected by Friday’s shootings. Several members of our firm are helping clients respond to media calls and counseling other clients about whether and how to respond publicly.

This shooting spree transcends the functions of journalism and public relations. It taps into our fears and evokes our deepest compassions. In such instances, just doing your job isn’t good enough; you have to be a real person first.

For journalists, that means getting the accurate story out to the world—without breaching common decency—and for PR professionals, it means accurately getting information to the media and those affected while respecting privacy and people’s need to mourn.

Though there is no magic formula for how your organization should respond to the media in these instances, these guidelines might help:

1. Your first responsibility is to the victims and their families. They should get the information first, whenever possible.
2. Acknowledge social media as an instantaneous source for not-so-reliable news.
3. Be professional with the media, but don’t be afraid to show emotion. Members of the media can stay detached from the tragic event and focused on covering the news. That doesn’t mean you should.
4. Work with law enforcement. Everyone should provide consistent and complementary information at regular intervals.
5. Tighten up leaks. This will keep media from playing sources off one another.
6. Don’t be afraid to say that you don’t know or, “that’s confidential at this time.” Sharing information that families should get first or that could compromise an investigation should be avoided.
7. Provide a briefing schedule and stick to it. Consistency helps build confidence.

The best we can do in trying times is to provide accurate facts in a timely fashion. Whether we are citizens trying to digest information or messengers from the media or the PR world, a simple revelation of facts might not bring closure.

In a radio interview Friday morning, Frank DeAngelis, who was principal of Columbine High School during the 1999 shootings and remains in that job today, said in an interview that the healing process in such tragic situations is a marathon, not a sprint.

We are still in the first mile.

(This post also appears on Ragan’s PR Daily)

Who wins when reporters cut and paste press releases?

By | Published:

Journalists and PR pros are closely watching the ongoing dispute between Steve Penn and his ex-employer, the Kansas City Star, regarding a controversy over press releases.

The Kansas City Star claims Penn, a former columnist at the paper, plagiarized by using material from press releases in his columns without attribution. He countersued last week saying that it’s commonplace in newsrooms to cut and paste from press releases.

It’s not plagiarism, because the writers of press releases give up ownership of the information when they send it to a newsroom, according to Penn’s suit. The suit adds that it’s a regular practice for reporters to crib from press releases.

The situation raises interesting issues. Having been on both sides of this argument—in the newsroom and in the PR world—I can tell you that reporters regularly cut and paste information from press releases. And that’s exactly what PR practitioners hope they will do.

Is it a good practice on the part of reporters? No, but it certainly does help, particularly as newsroom staffs continue to dwindle.

The issue has caused quite a stir in journalism circles. The dozens of comments on a story about the case posted by journalism think-tank Poynter.org ran the gamut:

• Press releases are written to be “plagiarized.” In fact, that’s the PR home run. A story appears just as you wrote it.
• Press releases are useful but must be treated with the same skepticism as any other piece of information: their sources identified, their assertions accepted only provisionally until checked for accuracy by other means.
• It’s as simple now as it was back in school: If you didn’t write it, don’t put your name on it as though you did.
• It’s lazy and dishonest, but not plagiarism.
• If journalists don’t write their own stuff or even fact-check the materials they’re given, what exactly are they being paid for?

The standard in newsrooms is that before a reporter uses a press release in a story, it must be checked out and information must be rewritten. There are a couple of reasons why this should be done.

Reporters must be sure the information in the release is true and accurate. It’s too easy to get duped by a fake release, and information may not always be right.

The rewriting rule has to do with different audiences. A news report is written more conversationally, and press releases can be overwritten by multiple authors, including the legal team. Plus, whether it’s plagiarism or not, a reporter worth his or her salt would never use someone else’s wording.

But that standard is hard to follow, particularly on deadline. If there’s a quote in a press release relating to a news story a reporter is covering, it’s just too easy to cut it and paste it right in the story.

It happens all the time, and that’s exactly what the PR world wants when they send a press release. We want it to be printed just as we wrote it. Do we expect that to happen? No, but it’s nice when it does.

Depending on which side you are on, fortunately, or unfortunately, it’s becoming more frequent.

(This post also appears on Ragan’s PR Daily.)

CEO For An Hour Prompts PR Crisis

By | Published:

Corporate mergers are never pretty.

But the surprise ouster of the CEO several hours into the completed Duke Energy- Progress Energy mega-merger has all the signs of a particularly awful deal. Even as news spread of the completed $32 billion merger, creating the nation’s largest electric utility, a corporate takeover in the corner office was underway.

The deal originally called for Bill Johnson, the head of Progress to become the CEO of the merged companies, but shortly after the deal closed, Johnson took the job then promptly stepped down “by mutual agreement,” according to a press release. Johnson had held the title for several hours before being relieved, prompting “CEO for a day” headlines.

Taking over was James Rogers, the former CEO of Duke Energy, who most people assumed would step down once the merger became official. Corporate coups are not unusual, but one so quickly after a deal closes certainly raises eyebrows.

The fallout has been immediate. All of the good will built up over the past 18 months to convince shareholders and regulators that this was a good deal is gone. Several regulators are already launching investigations into the shuffle.

“This is the most blatant example of corporate deceit that I have witnessed during a long career on Wall Street,” John H. Mullin III, the former lead director of Progress Energy, said in a pointed letter to The New York Times.

Analysts are looking at cutting ratings of Duke, a sure sign that stockholders should be worried. On Friday, the traditionally steady stock dropped 3.5 percent, and S&P proclaimed, “The sudden shift in management raises concerns about effective corporate governance, successful handling of the anticipated merger integration and the ongoing effective management of pending challenges that face the combined entity.”

Compounding the news is the deafening silence by the newly merged company. The New York Times reported that Duke’s spokesperson is refusing to comment on the board’s change of heart, and no one is available for interviews.

From a crisis communication perspective, bunker mode may be the smartest tactic since even the best crisis plan would not have predicted this scenario.

The rough week does have a chance to get better, with Rogers expected to speak to employees about the merger on Tuesday. Instead of focusing on looking forward, employees will likely want some answers about what happened and if it is an indication of the what’s to come.

It is a good opportunity to offer some insight into the post-merger coup, take some lumps and focus on the future.

(This post also appears on Ragan’s PR Daily.)

The ethical way to crash a press conference

By | Published:

There’s nothing wrong with crashing a press conference or a community meeting, if you do it honestly.

If you are asked by the organizers who you are, you should be open, honest, and clear about your intentions. This ethics rule about honestly representing who you are covers journalists and PR professionals.

Apparently, this rule was broken by a public affairs firm employee who misidentified herself to gain access to a labor group that opposes a proposed Walmart store planned in L.A.’s Chinatown. The firm fired her, and Walmart, in turn, fired the firm.

I’ve attended numerous events without a formal invitation, and I have never been kicked out even after I have identified myself and the organization I represented. Nearly all the time, they respect that someone from the “other side” is there to listen.

On most occasions, I’ve been pulled aside and asked to be respectful. I also was told that if I wanted to speak to reporters or participants, I should do so outside, so as not to disrupt the event. At one press conference, they gave me a seat up front even though I represented the other side.

It comes down to credibility. The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics handbook says reporters should “avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public.”

In 1995, a Wall Street Journal reporter won the Pulitzer Prize for exposing dehumanizing and dangerous work at a chicken-processing plant. On his application for employment at the plant, he listed Columbia University as his education and Dow Jones & Co., the publisher of the Journal, as his current employer. The story was held up as the standard of honest reporting.

On the flip side, ABC’s “PrimeTime Live” was dragged into court for fraud after its reporters lied about their work experience to gain “hidden camera” access into a supermarket chain to try to expose labor law and unsanitary food violations. ABC ultimately prevailed in the case, but not after a long legal battle.

In the world of PR, I can’t see any instance in which lying about who you are would be vital to the public. It may be vital or important to your client, but that’s not good enough. In the Walmart incident, this misrepresentation clearly was not in the public’s interest, and the damage it caused far outweighs the benefits.

(This post also appears on Ragan’s PR Daily.)

Amid historic wildfires, Twitter becomes go-to news source

By | Published:

There’s nothing like a natural disaster to further drive home the point that social media is the best place for immediate news.

As the Boulder, Colo., neighborhood next to mine was issued a pre-evacuation order on Tuesday night when a one-acre fire quickly spread to 300-acres in the foothills above our home, I turned to Twitter for the latest updates. The hashtag #FlagstaffFire gave me direct access to people who are witnessing the historic blaze’s movement, making decisions, and providing up-to-date photos.

It’s the same for the devastating fire in Colorado Springs (#waldocanyonfire). Both tags were trending, and Twitter’s top images and videos were all from the Colorado wildfires.

Twitter offers a live news feed. While the traditional media—television and newspapers—offer updates following news conferences, Twitter updates come in constantly, and from official sources, too.

We turned off the television early on since broadcast coverage is overly dramatic and reporters sitting in a studio miles away from the fires are prone to speculation. Newspapers are trying to cover the news, but the physical edition is 12 hours behind the fast-moving news, and websites are not updated frequently enough.

My local paper’s website still touted a little-known study that showed our community as being the most creative in the nation, even as thousands of pre-evacuation notices were being issued. Today, a car crash story is featured along with fire coverage, despite all of the top-five most viewed stories being about the fire.

The Colorado Springs newspaper, on the other hand, blew out its site, featuring nearly all fire coverage and even offered its online edition for free.

Still it doesn’t compare to Twitter. In the hour that it took me write this post, there were 75 tweets using the fire’s hastag, which included photos of air tankers making slurry drops, news about 4th of July fireworks being cancelled, the latest on road closures, and news about the Feds taking over command of the fire. My local newspaper’s site was still featuring a fire story updated three hours ago.

But following live tweets is not without its hiccups. On several occasions throughout the day and night, Twitter kicked me out, saying it was “over capacity.” That’s not surprising, given its role as the primary news source.

(This post also appears on Ragan’s PR Daily.)

Facing new doping allegations, Armstrong fights back—again

By | Published:

Will the latest doping allegations against Lance Armstrong cause a chink in his so-far impervious armor?

There have, of course, been other attempts to sully his legacy, but this time around, his over-the-top response takes particularly nasty shots at the powerful yet little-known group called the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).

Last week, the agency filed new doping charges that could strip the seven-time Tour de France winner of his victories. The case comes months after federal investigators quietly dropped their two-year case against Armstrong. This time, the USADA says its case is strong and based on rock-solid testimony from Armstrong’s former teammates.

Armstrong, in a terse, five-paragraph statement, stuck to messaging that shoots holes in the case, blasted its methods and evidence, and further highlighted his track record of never being found guilty. To wit:

“I have been notified that USADA, an organization largely funded by taxpayer dollars but governed only by self-written rules, intends to again dredge up discredited allegations dating back more than 16 years to prevent me from competing as a triathlete and try and strip me of the seven Tour de France victories I earned.

“These are the very same charges and the same witnesses that the Justice Department chose not to pursue after a two-year investigation. These charges are baseless, motivated by spite and advanced through testimony bought and paid for by promises of anonymity and immunity.”

Armstrong further said the USADA uses “star-chamber practices” of punishing first and getting the facts later. Try getting some of those words past your legal department when you’re drafting a public-facing response.

The problem for Armstrong is that the USADA doesn’t have to prove that anything criminal took place, simply that there was performance-enhancing drug use taking place by Armstrong or those associated with him. Armstrong’s lawyers are actively involved in the courtroom of public opinion with this latest case, saying that USADA was involved in the federal case and that this is part of an anti-Armstrong campaign.

“It is a vendetta, which has nothing to do with learning the truth and everything to do with settling a score and garnering publicity at Lance’s expense,” Armstrong’s attorney said.

Given Armstrong’s resources and track record of fighting the same charges over the course of his 20-year career, USADA must have a good case and a thick skin. They picked a venerable opponent who doesn’t pull any punches and continues to set the standard in terms of promoting his image in the media and social media world.

Remember, this is the guy who buried a “60 Minutes” exposé with one tweet. Guilty or not, Armstrong has made a career of fighting doping allegations with the same success he had on the seat of a bicycle.

(This post also appears on Ragan’s PR Daily)

Best Buy’s lax response lets PR crisis drag on for months

By | Published:

There’s nothing like a slow-moving crisis to inflict long-term harm on a company’s reputation.

During the last five months, retailer Best Buy saw how a lack of a clear response and action took its toll on the company. The trickle of news about an inappropriate relationship between the CEO and an employee went from bad to worse. It took down the chief executive, then found its way into the boardroom; the founder and chairman of the company submitted his resignation this week.

According to reports, the crisis began in December when Best Buy founder Richard Schulze confronted then-CEO Brian Dunn about his relationship with the employee, but Schulze never reported it to the rest of the board.

The news of the romance spiraled from there, with an audit committee investigating the incident. During the next few months, the top two executives for the company lost or left their jobs, and the company, looking to regain its footing among competitors, was dealt a huge blow.

Initial media coverage stated that the CEO’s resignation had to do with poor financial results, but the situation got worse with every revelation.

Clearly, announcing an investigation in December would have helped over the long term by rebuilding Best Buy’s reputation. Since the crisis began, Best Buy’s stock has lost one-third of its value.

Here are some crisis response basics that would have more swiftly resolved the matter:

• Quickly activate response strategies and messaging for internal and external audiences;
• Engage in online and offline stakeholder communication;
• Designate on-the-ground staff to support employee teams locally, regionally, and nationally, if applicable;
• Monitor and respond to traditional media and social media around the clock;
• Develop and implement proactive reputation-management campaigns;
• Review and revise crisis procedures and plans;
• Continue to foster relationships with the media and key influencers and audiences.

Though companies can’t always prevent bad news from happening, they can lessen the damage with a quick, transparent response. In Best Buy’s case, a few weeks’ barrage of terrible news would’ve been preferable to this months-long bloodletting.

(This post also appears on Ragan’s PR Daily.)

The No. 1 PR lesson from Yahoo CEO’s résumé gaffe

By | Published:

There’s an old saying in journalism: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”

These days, the same should hold true for CEOs and what they put on their résumés.

In the latest résumé embarrassment, a Yahoo investor called out the company’s chief executive for misstating his academic credentials. An SEC filing, verified by CEO Scott Thompson, stated that he had a degree in computer science. As it turns out, his college said the program wasn’t even offered at the time he attended.

Yahoo continues to be in full crisis response mode since the news broke last week, saying it was an “inadvertent error” and that the company’s board was looking into it. The Yahoo board member who headed the search for Thompson is reportedly stepping down.

Some Yahoo investors are calling for the CEO to resign. What’s so frustrating is that there really wasn’t any need for Thompson to bend the truth; the CEO’s experience at other companies is more important than what degree he did or didn’t earn 30+ years ago.

It’s an all-too-familiar story. Over the last several years, there have been numerous top executives caught “misstating” their résumés, including top bosses at RadioShack, Herbalife, MGM Mirage, and Bausch & Lomb. Even a Massachusetts Institute of Technology dean was caught claiming degrees she never earned.

If the PR world is going to learn from these examples, this latest instance should prompt us to fact-check our clients’ corporate executive profiles, including those posted on LinkedIn.

When I was an editor, we fact-checked public résumés of executives as a matter of course. Not surprising, it would take only one well-targeted phone call to find whether an executive had boasted a bit too much on his or her résumé.

You might want to take a run through your résumé and LinkedIn profile to make sure they are accurate. Chances are there’s something that is not quite right. According to CareerBuilder.com, just 5 percent of workers admitted fibbing on their résumés, but 57 percent of hiring managers say they have caught a lie in a candidate’s application.

Social media might help this problem. Researchers at Cornell University found that college students were less likely to lie on LinkedIn than on their print résumés. Still, the study noted that a whopping 92 percent of college students lie on their résumés.

Some of those students will grow up and join the C-suite. You do the math.

(This post also appears on PRDaily.com)

Is the media phone interview dead?

By | Published:

It used to be that editors would do everything in their power to coax reporters out of their chairs and into the world where they could talk to their sources and cover stories in person.

Nowadays, that has evolved to the state where reporters hardly pick up the phone to talk to sources, let alone cover stories by face-to-face meetings. Interviews are now done via email, Facebook, Twitter, and Skype.

During a recent talk on social media and crisis communication, Dallas Lawrence, chief of global digital strategies for Burson-Marsteller, mentioned a survey indicating that 49 percent of reporters find story sources on Twitter.

For reporters, it takes the hard work out of searching for sources, because they can simply perform a hashtag search on a topic and find numerous sources, then contact one or more of them with a targeted tweet or direct message.

This phenomenon is particularly true with the new generation of reporters who have grown up with social media and texting, said Steve Myers, managing editor of Poynter.org, a site covering journalism issues, news, and trends.

“Maybe some of it is a natural evolution of our industry,” said Myers. “There still feels like there’s something transactional about it: Send questions on email, get answers on email, and put the story together without actually physically talking to someone.”

The email interview lacks the color a phone call can have, and it loses the natural back and forth that comes from a conversation. Plus, there’s no personal relationship building, however slight, when everything is done in written form.

Though Myers conceded it is probably not the best work practice, he adds that some reporters have better results contacting people through email. Sources can take time to craft responses to questions provided beforehand instead of being surprised by them on a phone call.

I work on many statements to provide reporters, but I will always make a point of calling the reporter back, or having them call me before I forward a statement. This way I can talk to them about their story angle and provide additional background that is simply too obtuse to be included in a statement.

I’ll admit that sometimes it feels futile. One reporter recently emailed me seeking a statement. I asked the reporter to call me before I provided one.

The reporter did not call and ran the story ran without the statement. I guess it was too much effort for that reporter to pick up the phone.

(This post also appears on Ragan’s PRDaily)

Mom bloggers assert their influence on politics

By | Published:

Don’t call them “mommy” bloggers, and don’t underestimate their role as a political force in this year’s election.

The rest of the world learned last week what the PR world has known for some time: The so-called soccer moms of yesteryear now have a strong voice that can sway legislation, product consumption, and corporate and government decision-making.

The power of this group—regardless of whether they work inside or outside the home—cannot be underestimated, and as the political season gets into full swing the public is likely to see more checks and balances offered in real time by the mom blog contingent.

From a crisis communication perspective, the strategy for responding when caught in the crosshairs of mom bloggers is straightforward: Quickly and completely apologize, and change your actions. Anything less will be futile and will simply bring gasoline to the already burning bonfire. And remember to duck, as online conversations always take on a life of their own, even if there’s a heartfelt apology.

Lobbyist Hillary Rosen, herself a mom with an online presence, learned this the hard way when she commented on a CNN program about how presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s wife has “never worked a day in her life.”

Within minutes, the mom bloggers went to work. By the end of the day, after some attempted sidestepping, Rosen was offering a full apology. Even the First Lady of mom bloggers, Michelle Obama, jumped into the fray, ignoring political lines and backing the wife of her husband’s likely challenger in November’s election. She tweeted: “Every mother works hard, and every woman deserves to be respected.”

That was tame. Most comments were along the lines of what @resourcefulmom tweeted: “The next person to tell me it was okay for Hillary Rosen to state that Ann Romney ‘never worked a day in her life’ is getting kicked. Hard.”

To the fray, the mom bloggers added a powerful new member, Ann Romney, Mitt Romney’s wife.

Ann Romney’s new Twitter account was set up Thursday to offer a brief response, and with only four tweets so far, she’s already pushing 40,000 followers. Her first short missive said: “I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work.”

In 2012, women’s votes will matter more than ever, and with social media as a platform for sharing opinions and ideas, “mom bloggers” have a legitimate and forceful voice that speaks to women—moms or not—and inspires action in politics and other arenas. They have a strong voice and are being heard.

(This post also appears on Ragan’s PRDaily.)