In the aftermath of what is becoming a nationally-known story here locally in Richmond, many folks have come up to me over the last day or so both in person and on social media platforms wanting my opinion over the handling of this particular case.
It is never fair for those on the outside of such a situation to comment or criticize. Instead, let me share some thoughts and some of the “standard” ways we approach things at our office:
- In this new online/social media world it is more important than ever to react and respond quickly. The news cycles are now compressed with online media now driving competition more than ever before.
- The longer you wait to respond or reveal, the more it looks like you have something to hide. It is better to react and to “break” the bad news yourself than to be discovered by the media.
- We’re big fans of the “written statement” first as opposed to making people available for in-person or on-camera interviews. That way you can control what you do and don’t say.
- If you happen to have a blog, use it. It is a great place to state your case and get instant feedback.
- More important than anything else, be truthful. And if appropriate, be apologetic. They are both obviously very important in the court of public opinion.
I probably missed some things along the way, so please chime in.
Mariane Matera
/ August 27, 2009Also…cry on camera.
jonnewman12
/ August 27, 2009Not something we recommend. Unless of course it is genuine.
Jon
Robert Holland
/ August 27, 2009Those are good principles to keep in mind, Jon.
However, I am not sure I agree with your statement that it’s “never fair for those on the outside of such a situation to comment or criticize.” If that were the case, what would become of blogs and other social media, which have been quite active related to this story over the last several days?
In fact, I believe such open discussion and debate is healthy for our society. The Richmond SPCA and Robin Starr have been taking quite a bit of heat from bloggers and commenters, but perhaps the discussion that’s taking place will a) lead to a change in how the organization advocates for the humane treatment of animals, b) cause the organization to rethink its communication/PR strategy and c) actually help the folks at the RSPCA hone its messages that are coming out of this incident.
If we shut down the commenting/criticizing, the conversation that’s taking place right now would be much less robust. Granted, there are always extremists who try to hijack the conversation, but most reasonable people can spot them a mile away.
Besides, your good list of principles really is commentary prompted by the story, isn’t it?
Robert
jonnewman12
/ August 27, 2009Robert,
Thanks for the comment and kind words. An open discussion is fine, I guess what I’m saying is that it’s hard for those on the outside to know the flow of events that led to the decisions that were and are made. In many cases we have been involved in crisis that from the outside look one way but in reality were totally different on the inside. Because of those experiences, I’m hesitant to criticize the handling of a specific situation without knowing all the facts.
That’s why in this case I chose to be as generic as possible. Perhaps I should have said that “I personally don’t think it is fair for me to comment or criticize about a specific case.” If others want to, that of course is their right.
jon
AnnMarie
/ August 27, 2009All interesting to see, read, re-act the last few days. Some media outlets I wouldn’t have thought about participating in what was normally a TV or print land.
I agree it is hard to comment unless knowing all the details. I mean there are always 3 sides to every story as we all know.
I think there is room for comments and opinions but everyone (telling & reading) need to know they weren’t a part of what may have happened so tread lightly.
Jessica Haddad
/ August 28, 2009Another fascinating PR case study in Richmond this week is CenterStage’s rejection of Roy Proctor’s commissioned manuscript and his very outspoken response in both the RTD and a Style Back Page. This incident raises so many questions, not just about CenterStage, but about the differences between journalism and public relations.
While I understand Proctor’s outrage, surely he understood that he was being paid to create a public relations piece, which is quite a different animal from investigative journalism.
Sorry to comment off topic (though I don’t doubt CenterStage considers this to be a crisis), but I would love to see some discussion of this incident!