Can a law improve accuracy of news coverage? We may see in Texas.

Posted on March 11, 2013 by gbaron

ABC News might wish it was headquartered in Texas, if a new Texas law goes into effect. The Disney Company’s news network is facing a $1.2 billion lawsuit for defamation brought by BPI for the networks “Pink Slime” coverage.  (see previous post). The proposed Texas law could protect it by giving ABC, and all other news outlets the opportunity to retract false reporting to avoid defamation damages. (This story from Nieman got the sub-head wrong I believe, suggesting they could retract to “receive” punitive damages, when I think they meant to say “reduce.”)

Anyone who visits here frequently knows that one of my main beefs is the sensationalized and often mightily inaccurate reporting that constitutes one of the greatest risks for those concerned about their reputations. So, this would seem good news. Yet I am also philosophically highly skeptical of legal and regulatory responses to problems. We can’t remove all risk and take away everything that bothers us through legislation or ever more powerful government regulations.

So, is this Texas idea a good one or a bad one? I think the law of unintended consequences may take effect here. If this kind of legislation is widespread it will no doubt give encouragement to any and all who have a beef with the way they are covered in news reports. And, as has happened far too much in our legal system, the cost of litigation becomes a primary driver in making decisions what to do about it. That means that news organizations will quickly retract, correct, and go along with a complaint about their coverage even if they feel the complaint is not justified. The threat of being dragged into court is just too expensive. The end result of a bunch of these “business decision retractions” will be to stifle press freedom and cause further loss of trust–both in the press and the organizations complaining.

I honestly don’t think we need a legislative solution to the problem of “ratings chasing” and the often disgusting news coverage that results from it. What we need is an informed news viewer and the ability of those aggrieved to take their case directly to the only court that really matters: the court of public opinion.  But as Elon Musk recently showed, brands and organizations have that ability now. They just need to exercise that freedom–and keep the legislators out of it.

IMHO.

 

Posted in Crisis Case Studies, Crisis Communications, Crisis Communicator, crisis management | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

ABC News’ $1.2 billion “pink slime” lawsuit may affect journalism for years

Posted on March 6, 2013 by gbaron

ABC News slimed the beef industry, and producers of “lean, fine-textured beef” (LFTB) in a series of news reports about the product made from beef trimmings and used as an ingredient in much of the ground beef supply. I highlighted it in several posts because it was in my opinion a classic example of scare tactics and false reporting aimed at ratings that resulted in real harm–not just to the company, but the public. As such, it was an example of the kind of media coverage that I think is hurting us as well as an example of what the food industry overall is in for.

Personally, I was very happy to see BPI, the company nearly bankrupted by the attacks, fighting back with a defamation lawsuit against ABC News. A lawsuit that could conceivably cost The Disney Company, owner of ABC, $1.2 billion. This article from Reuters does a great job of exploring in detail the claims and counter claims involving this case. I think it is one that crisis communicators need to be watching carefully. Here are some key issues:

- our laws protect the news media against defamation to a very great degree. This is great giving our high value on free speech. This case has more potential because of state law designed to help protect agriculture. While news media can do just about anything they want, they need to be careful about intentionally saying things they know not to be true. This is largely where this case will hang.

- The tweets of ABC reporter Jim Avila are critical to BPI’s case. So there is going to be an important question raised here. In those tweets he said in effect that pink slime was not meat. But he knew it was meat. But, he didn’t say it wasn’t meat on the air. Is there a difference in defamation between a tweet and an on-air broadcast? This will be very important to watch.

- There is much the ABC reporters did not say that would have contributed to the balance in the story. One example: the prime former BPI employee who they used to attack his former employer lost a wrongful termination lawsuit and the company got a restraining order against him for his threats against the owner. He threatened to find another way to get even. None of this was included in the ABC report–instead they treated him as having high credibility.

- The core question is, is name calling defamation? It’s interesting to read the Reuters article to see how opposing attorneys are using dictionary definitions of “slime” to bolster their case. The law protects the media against name calling, so calling it slime in itself would be protected speech. But to knowing say that something is harmful when you know it isn’t constitutes defamation. So, if somebody says to you, “don’t eat that, it is slime,” is that saying to you it is harmful? I think so, but I am clearly biased. The point however is how cautious journalists need to be in labeling something they are covering. And I think journalists all over are watching this and the result will be a little more caution about the use of “rhetorical hyperbole” which ABC’s lawyers are using to justify their coverage.

Whether the Roths win this case or not, I for one am grateful that they brought it forward. There is far too little accountability on the damage done by journalists. There is a trend developing here, such as Elon Musk and New York Time’s John Broder’s nasty review of the Tesla. Where there was a great imbalance in power in the mainstream media, that power is shifting. In part it is shifting because of irresponsible ratings chasing that has resulted in extremely low trust ratings But the biggest reason is that the monopoly on information distribution and sharing has been forever broken.

 

Posted in Crisis Case Studies, Crisis Communications, Crisis Communicator, crisis management | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Snark comes to big corporateness–the Budweiser lawsuit and response

Posted on March 4, 2013 by gbaron

Snarkiness rules in this age of Internet-driven conversation. I participate far too often and decry its affect on our discourse and society. But, it is a big and increasing part of how we communicate. What is snarkiness? David Denby wrote a book called “Snark: It’s Mean, It’s Personal and It’s Ruining our Conversation.” The reviewer (link provides a review) notes that it’s hard to write about snarky without being snarky.

Mediabistro’s PR Newser almost epitomizes snarky in many of its comments about what is going on in the world of PR. Editor Patrick Coffee is strong left leaning, anti-corporate sentiments which color nearly every article they write about the PR world. And its clear from this post about the Budweiser lawsuit accusing the world’s largest brewer of watering down its beer, that he is no Budweiser fan–in that I share his opinion even while wishing he’d tone down the snarkiness.

His intense desire to show his taste in beer is far more refined than those poor saps who drink Bud Light (how am I doing on the snarky scale), he misses what to me is the main point in this story: how Budweiser is responding to its lawsuit. The company seems to have taken a page from the TacoBell playbook about how to respond to a lawsuit against your product. You may recall in that situation TacoBell took out large ads in major newspapers with the headlines: Thank you for suing us. It gave them the opportunity to tell the world that its meat was actually 88% beef or something like that.

Budweiser is responding to the claims of watered down beer with an even more aggressive and even snarky response that also very cleverly contains a promotional message about the good it is doing in the world–CSR in PR technical terms.

Budweiser’s response shows a can of water (with a Anheuser-Busch logo) and the headline says: “They Must Have Tested One of These.” The ad then goes on to say that Budweiser has donated 71 million cans of drinking water to the Red Cross and other disaster relief organizations. Clever, isn’t it. Highlight the good they are doing. Leverage the publicity and attention from the lawsuit. And communicate the idea that they are looking at those who sue them with disdain and sarcasm.

I have to say I like the response alot (I suspect Patrick Coffee dislikes it because he’s hoping the plaintiffs win). But, I’m also a little uneasy. There’s a trend developing here. Remember how Bodyform responded to the online criticism about its advertising for its feminine product? I loved that too. (3.7 million views on youtube so far). I am an advocate of large organizations getting away from the officious sounding communication that is typical, and adopting a more personal, informal and humorous writing style (doing some training on that right now). But, my unease comes from further encouraging a trend that I find distasteful and harmful when taken to an extreme.

There’s a fine line and good judgment is called for. Kudos to Budweiser. But, like any other very strong denial, you had darn rights better win that lawsuit and prove those suing you are indeed bozos because if you don’t, the snark you threw will land on you.

Posted in Crisis Case Studies, Crisis Communications, Crisis Communicator, crisis management | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Groupon CEO’s farewell letter provides lessons in messaging and writing today

Posted on March 1, 2013 by gbaron

If your CEO or GM was fired and wrote a farewell message to the troops, can you imagine what it would be? Lots of officious BS and dishonesty–like I’m leaving to spend more time with my family. Lots of spin, lots of putting lipstick on the pig.

But when Groupon’s CEO Andrew Mason was fired for the disastrous performance of the company he founded, he wrote in the “new style” and in the process shows some important lessons for writers and “messagers.”

Here’s what he wrote:

(This is for Groupon employees, but I’m posting it publicly since it will leak anyway)

People of Groupon,

After four and a half intense and wonderful years as CEO of Groupon, I’ve decided that I’d like to spend more time with my family. Just kidding – I was fired today. If you’re wondering why… you haven’t been paying attention. From controversial metrics in our S1 to our material weakness to two quarters of missing our own expectations and a stock price that’s hovering around one quarter of our listing price, the events of the last year and a half speak for themselves. As CEO, I am accountable.

You are doing amazing things at Groupon, and you deserve the outside world to give you a second chance. I’m getting in the way of that. A fresh CEO earns you that chance. The board is aligned behind the strategy we’ve shared over the last few months, and I’ve never seen you working together more effectively as a global company – it’s time to give Groupon a relief valve from the public noise.

For those who are concerned about me, please don’t be – I love Groupon, and I’m terribly proud of what we’ve created. I’m OK with having failed at this part of the journey. If Groupon was Battletoads, it would be like I made it all the way to the Terra Tubes without dying on my first ever play through. I am so lucky to have had the opportunity to take the company this far with all of you. I’ll now take some time to decompress (FYI I’m looking for a good fat camp to lose my Groupon 40, if anyone has a suggestion), and then maybe I’ll figure out how to channel this experience into something productive.

If there’s one piece of wisdom that this simple pilgrim would like to impart upon you: have the courage to start with the customer. My biggest regrets are the moments that I let a lack of data override my intuition on what’s best for our customers. This leadership change gives you some breathing room to break bad habits and deliver sustainable customer happiness – don’t waste the opportunity!

I will miss you terribly.

Love,

Andrew

 

A few comments:

- it was a private message that he went ahead and made public because he knew it would be anyway. Which means, he wrote it for a public audience. Big lesson: everything is public.

- he pokes fun of the officious BS, which resonates well with “the Internet” today

- he is honest, funnily and brutally honest, making both his sorrow and pride very clear

- he does nothing to duck his responsibility or even hint that those lousy busybodies on the board don’t know what they are doing

- he gives credit to the success they enjoyed to his employees–and challenges them on to greater things.

I’m doing some training right now with a major client on writing for the web. What I see is that it is a struggle for many in larger organizations to understand and adapt to the remarkable change in communication style. I am convinced that one of the reasons large companies earn the disdain of too many young people is that the continue to present themselves publicly covered in that officious BS. They can’t relate, and they mistrust as a result. Let Andrew Mason show how such writing should be done.

Posted in Crisis Communications, crisis management | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Legal vs PR–the BP trial highlights the conflicts between two competing courts

Posted on February 28, 2013 by gbaron

So BP is on trial and the news headlines are filled with stories about former BP executives testifying about the company’s putting “profits above people.” This situation highlights the often-discussed conflict between the court of law and the court of public opinion. And the often-discussed conflict between lawyers and PR folks.

The CEO and leadership of the company must make the decision when these two forces collide. Clearly Bob Dudley and the BP board have decided that winning in the court of law is more important than winning in the court of public opinion. Let’s look at this decision because as a PR person, like I suspect most PR people, my inclination is to think: how stupid can they be? Why encourage all the old outrage and hatred against their company to resurface? After spending an unbelievable amount of money to convince everyone they are doing it right in restoring the gulf after the spill, why waste the goodwill that that money was intended to generate by allowing this trial to scratch the scab off all the old wounds?

But, things are not so simple. And as we PR folks often accuse the lawyers of only looking at it from the legal perspective, we can be accused of only looking at it from the reputation perspective. According to one estimate, there is at least $17 billion at stake in this trial. 17 billion–that’s enough to pay the federal deficit for–wait, we won’t go there. 17 billion is a lot of money for even a company the size of BP. A CEO has to take numerous factors into consideration, including share value, responsibility to shareholders, and the long term future of the company. A major point of this trial is assigning blame, so there is also the consideration that when all is said and done, blame will be shared (as it has so far in the court of law far more than in the court of public opinion) between Transocean, Halliburton and others. So there is reasonable hope that a positive outcome in the trial will not only save billions, but help the public understand this was a complex event with multiple causes and multiple points of failure.

I think there is another reason why its more rational to proceed with this trial than first glance suggests: ExxonMobil. The shadow of the ExxonValdez lingers, but has been much diminished by the BP spill. You may recall that Exxon’s CEO took great heat for not showing up at the spill. BP CEO Tony Hayward, intent on not making that mistake, made the mistake of showing up too much until he was caught in an unfortunate comment. Funny thing–that comment is now tied to his name so the headlines read: Tony”I want my life back” Hayward. This is so ridiculous. But after the Exxon headlines died down then CEO Lee Raymond took a very strong anti-reputation position. It’s well known in the industry that his view was “people may hate us but they are going to keep buying our product.” So he set about continuing to build a company that would be the envy of everyone else in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and share value. He did. ExxonMobil recently regained its position, which it lost relatively briefly to Apple, as the world’s most valuable company. While many who buy its products may still have a lingering distaste over the ExxonValdez, the shareholders may be happy that the company didn’t waste too many dollars and too much effort on convincing everyone what a nice company they are.

The upshot: sometimes do we PR types make too much out of reputation? Oh my goodness, I feel like a heretic just asking that question. But, Jim Lukashevski (I’m using phonetic pronunciation rather than actual spelling which I can never get right) has made a career out of teaching PR folks to gain a seat at the table of organization leadership. One of the best ways they can do that is demonstrate they can think like a CEO and not just have a knee-jerk PR reaction to everything.

The BP trial is right now a PR disaster. That doesn’t mean Dudley and the others were wrong to refuse to settle. Time will tell.

Posted in Crisis Case Studies, Crisis Communications, Crisis Communicator, crisis management | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Did you hear about DKNY’s big crisis about using unauthorized images?

Posted on February 26, 2013 by gbaron

Wow, this is a big one. Looks like DKNY was negotiating to buy some images from a prominent photographer, they didn’t agree on a price and the next thing you know these unpurchased images showed up in a DKNY store window! Big problem, right?

No, not really. And the reason you may not have heard of this “crisis” is because it was identified quickly, and quickly and smartly addressed. It did show up in PR Newser but by the time anyone, including the fast-on-the-draw PR newsletter, the issue was already resolved. 

And that’s the point. It could have been big. It wasn’t. (I almost feel bad for helping to bring it more attention). And the reasons why?

- the issue was identified quickly
- an apology along with a reasonable explanation was offered
- they backed it up with a $25k payment (which seems to me way more than reasonable given the inadvertent error that caused the problem)
- the offended person, the photographer, was quite gracious (even though I think his $100k donation suggestion was a bit over the top–good thing he didn’t suggest it go to him)

This is how a lot of crises should be handled. Probably many more are than we realize because they are dealt with before they come to our attention. When they are handled this way, we need to recognize the success and emulate it. Great job DKNY pr team!

 

 

Posted in Crisis Advice, Crisis Case Studies, Crisis Communications, Crisis Communicator, crisis management | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Obama the “puppet master”? What White House communications can tell us about the change in public communication

Posted on February 21, 2013 by gbaron

This story from Politico is very enlightening. The headline is this: mainstream media power is rapidly waning and the Obama administration understands and is taking full advantage of the change.

I avoid politics here, but politics and crisis communication are closely linked. As one former White House press aide told me: every day in the White House is a crisis. The level of media and public focus is unrelenting, and the stakes are high.

President Obama states flatly that his administration is the most transparent ever. The White House press corp couldn’t disagree more. Here is a quote from the Politico article:

“The way the president’s availability to the press has shrunk in the last two years is a disgrace,” said ABC News White House reporter Ann Compton, who has covered every president back to Gerald R. Ford. “The president’s day-to-day policy development — on immigration, on guns — is almost totally opaque to the reporters trying to do a responsible job of covering it. There are no readouts from big meetings he has with people from the outside, and many of them aren’t even on his schedule. This is different from every president I covered. This White House goes to extreme lengths to keep the press away.”

So, who is right? Perhaps both. And the difference is the Internet, digital communications, social media, and direct engagement–all the things we talk about here.

I remember clearly early in the president’s first term when he announced a press conference, not by a media alert, but through social media alone. Having seen first hand during the Gulf Oil Spill the way in which this administration demanded and took full control of the communications about the spill–much to the dismay of some of the government communicators and certainly BP–it is clear that the directive from the top is to control, manage and manipulate. That is certainly consistent with Politico’s analysis.

The lesson for crisis communications is quite clear. The old game was “media management,” which in my mind was always an oxymoron. I can no more manage the media than I can manage the moon. Now the game is direct communications. That means knowing who is important to you, establishing on-going channels of communication, directly engaging, being responsive, quick to catch and correct rumors and misinformation. Where does the media fit in this? Reporters are one of the important audiences–but with their own agendas and own motives (ratings). They are far less important than most in crisis communication continue to believe. They do so, I believe, because “media management” is what they know, and is to some degree “easier” than all that work of direct engagement.

 

Posted in Crisis Case Studies, Crisis Communications, crisis management | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Tesla wins–John Broder and I both have black eyes

Posted on February 20, 2013 by gbaron

This is a follow up to my earlier post about Tesla Motor’s CEO Elon Musk and his battle against the New York Times, specifically John Broder and his negative review of the Tesla Model S.  Initially I applauded Musk for violating the sacred rule of “never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel,” believing as I do that the web changes that rule. But, I criticized Musk for his emotional tone and personal attack and believed that Broder’s calm and very factual-sounding response was winning the day and the argument. So did most others it appeared.

But, the facts win out. My main point in the previous post was that these battles always come down to credibility: who can be believed and trusted. I still think Musk was out of line in his tone and approach. He would have been far more credible to be less emotional and just stick to the facts. But, it appears now that the facts have won out.

Here is what NYT Public Editor Margaret Sullivan said:

My own findings are not dissimilar to the reader I quote above, although I do not believe Mr. Broder hoped the drive would end badly. I am convinced that he took on the test drive in good faith, and told the story as he experienced it.

Did he use good judgment along the way? Not especially. In particular, decisions he made at a crucial juncture – when he recharged the Model S in Norwich, Conn., a stop forced by the unexpected loss of charge overnight – were certainly instrumental in this saga’s high-drama ending.

In addition, Mr. Broder left himself open to valid criticism by taking what seem to be casual and imprecise notes along the journey, unaware that his every move was being monitored. A little red notebook in the front seat is no match for digitally recorded driving logs, which Mr. Musk has used, in the most damaging (and sometimes quite misleading) ways possible, as he defended his vehicle’s reputation.

While this is quite straightforward, I must say that most of her blog is pretty mealy-mouthed. It attempts to take a middle ground and would have been much better for her to say Broder did not live up to the paper’s high standards of journalistic integrity and we apologize.

As mealy-mouthed as it was, Musk and Tesla are certainly claiming victory and it is right they should. 

Other major news outlets are careful to make a fellow media outlet look bad, but tend to confirm that Broder messed up.

Very important lessons here:

1. If you are going to go after someone who buys ink by the barrel, you better have your facts straight.

2. The natural tendency of the news media is to defend themselves and assume their conclusions are unassailable. Ms Sullivan makes it clear it was the high level of public pressure generated by Mr. Musk’s attacks that prompted her to look carefully into this.

3. Tone matters–I and others gave the win earlier to Broder based on our sense that he was being factual and not emotional while Musk was attacking personally and with emotion.

4. A question remains: did Musk help himself or hurt himself by making such an issue out of this? Now far more people know about the impact of cold weather on Tesla’s performance, about the challenges of not having enough charging stations, and the picture of the car on a tow truck is in far more minds than likely would have been. Would it have been better for him to more quietly make his case on his own website, within the trade publications and to all those interested in his vehicles–quietly undermining the bad review rather than blowing it up into a major controversy. Personally, I think so.

5. But Musk has done much to bury the old saw about those who buy ink by the barrel, and that is the biggest lesson for both professional journalists and those they cover. I suspect anyone else who does a review on Tesla (or any other car for that matter following this) will do a better job of taking notes and being able to defend themselves if they decide to give a bad review. And, that is a good thing.

Posted in Crisis Case Studies, Crisis Communications, crisis management | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Media training note: hiding under your desk is NOT an effective strategy

Posted on February 19, 2013 by gbaron

Sometimes we in this business think everyone gets the basics of crisis communications–like never hide from or turn your back on the media. But even substantial businesses, like Roberts Brothers, a prominent St. Louis real estate firm, clearly have not gotten the basics.

I suspect this video posted on a PR Daily report will serve many media trainers very well in making an important point. It’s hilarious–and sad. When an investigative reporter from a local TV station showed up at the company offices while following up on a complaint from a property owner about a dangerous tree, the receptionist hid under her desk for over 30 minutes instead of buzzing the reporter into the reception area. You see her pop up from under the desk every once in a while to see if the cameras are still there. Yep, they are, and still rolling.

The finally send someone out, He’s wearing a Security jacket (good move, send a Security guy out to talk to the press). He’s unbelievably unhelpful and rude, slamming the door on the reporter’s face (who remains calm and professional throughout). Then, perhaps getting some advice from a PR person probably also hiding under some desk, the security guy comes out with a changed attitude.

This story via crisis expert Chris Syme and Mr. Media Training Brad Phillips, will serve as a great training aid. Plus, it will provide encouragement to any in the media training business that, sadly, there is still much work to be done.

 

 

Posted in Crisis Case Studies, Crisis Communications, crisis management | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Elon Musk of Tesla and John Broder of New York Times duking it out over review

Posted on February 15, 2013 by gbaron

This is sort of like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Not a pleasant thing to watch, but hard to take your eyes off of it.

For those unaware: NYT Broder took Tesla’s much-touted electric car for a test drive and ran it out of juice. Had to be towed. Wrote a pretty nasty review. Musk (a celebrity entrepreneur) CEO of Tesla who had courted the review responded on Twitter by calling the review a fake. Strong words. He presented evidence that Broder did not follow the instructions and mis-reported the ride.

OK, a classic. The review is powerful–in this case, powerful bad for Tesla. But who got it right? And was Musk smart in challenging the paper–you know the old saw: never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.

Well, without looking at it, I was pulling mightily for Musk. The press does get it wrong more than occasionally, and that old saw about ink by the barrel has been put out to pasture. Because anyone with a smart phone and Twitter account has the power of the biggest press in the world.

Above all, this little train wreck demonstrates one fundamental truth of all controversies being played out in the public: it’s about credibility. It’s about telling the truth. It’s about honesty, transparency, full disclosure. When one says right and the other says wrong, usually someone is going to end up looking bad.

Well, it looks like the credibility battle may very well go to Broder and the New York Times. (Dang!)

Broder, now under an attack from Musk that could be as damaging to him and his reputation as a journalist as his negative review was to Tesla, responded with just the right tone, and with clarity and honesty (it seems anyway).  Musk, it appears, is continuing to accuse Broder of falsifying the information, providing charts to back up his claims, and leveling some pretty nasty personal attacks on Broder.

What does all this mean for crisis communication.

I think most in public relations would take from this the lesson that it is still pretty foolish to attack a reporter (especially from a publication that buys as much ink as the NYT) for a bad review–as it definitely draws attention to the review.

I still believe if the reporter got it wrong, seriously wrong, undeniably provably wrong, that it is a good thing to make a lot of noise about it. But, note the caveat. I’m not sure yet how this will play out. Broder may indeed have not been fully honest in the review and in his explanation (there are some questions like–did you really pick up your brother in Manhattan and give him a ride and did this play into your loss of battery power). But I think Musk did not pass the undeniably provably wrong test.

These battles are about credibility. Trust measures show that both CEOs and reporters have very little initial credibility–but the edge would go to the reporter. So the CEO or accuser of bad reporting had better be on very very solid ground when making big accusations.

One other thing that bothers me–Musk’s tone. Broder’s tone in contrast is quiet, straightforward, non-emotional. That is so important in credibility. Musk’s tone is that of an aggrieved victim–angry, emotional, over the top in personal attacks. Even if he is right, he would be so much more credible with a less emotional tone. There is a time for righteous indignation, but damn, you better be righteous.

 

 

Posted in Crisis Communications, crisis management | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment