Is PR shady? (4460)

We had to write a blog about ethics in public relations for my other class, and writing it took my mind back to a lecture I attended last semester. The guest speaker for the evening was a lawyer who consulted with companies during crisis situations. He was the one the PR director would go to to figure out what to say and what not to say. He was incredibly intelligent and someone I’d love to have on my team during a crisis, but his presentation gave me an overall icky feeling about public relations.

His presentation was centered on the then-recent Jerry Sandusky case. It wasn’t the fact that the case was about a pedophile who used a position of power to sexually abuse young boys that gave me the icky feeling. Well, that wasn’t the only thing that gave me an icky feeling. It was how often the speaker told us cases like this come up. The lawyer said that he personally had dealt with over 70 cases “exactly like this one.” Powerful pedophiles who get caught. Unbelievable. He said we would be amazed to learn how many people with money and power think they can get away with anything.

He told us how often PR people are asked to cover up facts and skew the truth by their bosses. He said that PR pros in big companies are either blatantly as unethical as the executives they represent, or that their ethics are challenged so often that they have to quit jobs on a fairly frequent basis. What a shame. Who should or could even be forced into being held accountable for such deception? This seems to be a big problem in modern corporate culture.

On the day the speaker gave this presentation, Sandusky had given an interview with Bob Costas in which he admitted things about harmlessly showering naked with children, “horsing around,” touching their legs, etc. This was the interview in which Sandusky had the ridiculous pause before answering that he is not sexually attracted to young boys.

The guest speaker told us that often in these cases the perpetrator is so sociopathic that he truly believes he can fool the public. He told us that most people in a position of power believe everyone else is stupid and easily manipulated. He said that Sandusky’s lawyer likely advised him not to do any live interviews, but that Sandusky thought he could handle it and ignored his lawyer’s advice. He told us that as PR practitioners, we should always attempt to muzzle the person who committed the dirty deed.

I thought that that was a horrible way to think about it. If I had been Sandusky’s PR person, I would have gladly put that disgusting monster in a situation in which he could implicate himself with comments that show his true colors. Quit? No. Manipulate the monsters? Absolutely.

The whole idea made me skeptical about PR. Is this what it’s really like? Should I be worried about going into this field?

Luckily I’ve been able to study some cases this semester that demonstrate positive communication and ethical PR. No matter what happens, I know my own principles and will never compromise them. Especially for monsters.

Sources

“Penn State Sex Scandal Jerry Sandusky Full Interview with Bob Costas,” via YouTube. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Xy0L8MUsOE

Ethics and modern public relations (4470)

Almost everyone thinks that public relations professionals are shady. PR pros are seen as deceptive, sleazy sales people who are only interested in selling the perfect conception of their company, product or service to the public, even if it means lying about the facts. PR pros are almost always thought of as unethical people who will say or do anything to get what they want. Unfortunately, there have been publicized cases in which PR pros have breached professional ethics, and a few bad apples can make the tree look sour.

Most of the practice of public relations is commonplace and unnoticed. Companies seldom have to publicly defend themselves for something written in a brochure or newsletter. News releases don’t really incite passionate rebuttals. Backgrounders generally don’t destroy reputations. The incidents that taint the PR field are big, public catastrophes in which someone or something has caused a stink, and the PR pros who clean up the messes try to hide or alter the truth.

What most of the public doesn’t realize is that the information the company gives out is ultimately approved, and often directed and or/dictated by the leaders of that company. PR pros and agencies are almost never given carte blanche to handle situations. There’s no concrete evidence, but it can be argued that often times the company leaders tell the PR pros exactly what to do and say in crisis situations. It’s an unspoken understanding among PR pros that when a PR representative or firm uses the words “no comment,” the order to keep quiet probably came from the company’s executives. PR pros often know what to do in a crisis situation, but the company bigwigs get scared and are afraid of the potential implications of conveying any information at all. When the PR pros say something to spin public opinion away from the facts, the order to do so likely came from the company’s executives.

However, some PR pros and agencies exaggerate or omit certain aspects of cases to alter public perception of a company or individual. We recently studied the lawsuit Mike Leach brought against ESPN, Inc. and Spaeth Communications, Inc. The lawsuit claims, “…[Craig] James was enlisting the aid of a public relations firm to inflict further damage on Mike Leach’s reputation.” Exhibit 5 in the case is an email sent from Merrie Spaeth of the PR firm Spaeth Communications to Sally Post, who was the director of communications for Texas Tech at the time. The email appears to offer suggestions about how to make the staff’s treatment of James’ son Adam seem worse than it actually was. The doctor’s report claimed that Adam had been diagnosed with a “mild” concussion. About the concussion being mild, Spaeth writes, “There is no such thing.” She suggests they downplay the doctor’s report, saying, “…recant ‘mild’ and talk about the need for rest.” The email contains a report from Mark Chisum, Texas Tech’s director of sports medicine for football, which gives a detailed, factual description of the building Adam James was put in. The report proves that Adam’s public claims were exaggerated, yet Spaeth wrote, “The Chisum statement is really irrelevant.”  The email seems to prove that Spaeth was indeed trying to skew the facts. Also, on December 30, 2009, more than a week after the facts of an investigation by Texas Tech University’s attorney proved that Adam James’ story had been exaggerated, Spaeth Communications published a video of Adam “locked” in a closet to YouTube. The video, which is still on YouTube as of the publishing of this blog, is captioned with information that had been refuted by TTU’s attorney. Spaeth Communications obviously distorted the truth of the case in the interest of its client.

This does happen from time to time, and it sullies the image of PR.

When thinking about ethics in the field of PR, the public needs to understand the bigger picture. When something goes wrong with an individual or business, there are so many factors that must be taken into account. If a politician is involved in a sex scandal, what would be the best way to handle it so as not to cause more harm to his or her family? How much information must be shared to be fair to the public as well as the people involved? If a CEO is caught in an insider trading scandal, how do you keep one person’s mistake from tainting a business that is only guilty by association? What about the innocent employees and stakeholders? Communication has to be handled expertly, and sometimes difficult choices must be made. PR pros must weigh the ethics of what is revealed so as to hurt the fewest individuals.

Sources

“Mike Leach v. ESPN, Inc. and Spaeth Communications, Inc.” Cause No. 2010554969. District Court of Lubbock County, Texas. 72^nd Judicial District. Filed 2010 Nov 24, PM 12:34.

Everyone rags on restaurants (4460)

Communications strategist Simon Salt gave a presentation to my social media class this week, and I asked him how companies are responding to customer complaints that pop up on the Internet. I wanted to know if companies could tell the difference between customers who were truly upset about a bad experience and who were complaining just for the sake of it. He said that when dealing with a whiner, ask yourself two questions:

1.    Is public complaining the only thing the person does (griping on multiple sites)?

2.    Is the problem fixable?

If it is fixable, Salt said, take the conversation out of the public forum as soon as possible.

This is probably the best that companies can do as far as battling the swing of negativity that seems to be coming more and more from the public. People seem to be reacting more negatively to customer service experiences, and I think there’s a reason.

It seems as though the more big corporations took over, the more the shopping experience became roboticized and impersonal. Sales representatives at corporate businesses didn’t remember customers’ names or greet them in any way that hadn’t been previously scripted. Customers grew to feel marginalized and powerless, so the only way to be heard was to gripe. I know from experience that the closer your relationship to the customer, the less likely they are to become upset. Corporate culture has put the customer at arm’s length and ruined the customer experience.

I’ve worked in restaurants for close to 13 years, and I’ve learned a great deal about complainers. Out of all the different jobs I’ve had, from factory worker to dishwasher, data entry and reception work, people complain in restaurants exponentially more so than they do in any other business where a customer-provider transaction occurs. Part of it is the situation. When someone arrives at a restaurant at 6 p.m., he or she has likely had a crappy, stressful day at work, and his or her blood sugar is probably rock bottom since lunchtime was five or six hours earlier. (For those of you out there who work in restaurants and don’t know: if something goes wrong, just get food on the table – give them something to snack on.) The other part of it is that complainers at restaurants are chronic restaurant complainers. It’s almost part of their personalities to complain at restaurants. I’ve been able to study this behavior pattern by working in different restaurants that are frequented by the same customers.

Combating negative comments on the Internet is a serious problem for independent restaurant owners. The restaurant business is one of the hardest in the world to succeed in on one’s own, let alone in a country whose citizens gain their power through finding a voice on the Internet. Everyone looks at restaurants online, and a majority of potential patrons decide whether or not to try one based on customers’ reviews that litter dozens of websites. This is a shame, because the customers writing the reviews are almost never credible journalists or individuals with any culinary level of expertise, and an independent restaurant can be buried by online reviews. Corporate restaurants can contact the complainers and offer coupons or free food, but small business owners can’t afford to give things away to anyone and everyone who complains.

This all goes back to Salt’s questions. Will trying to make the whiner happy even matter, and is the problem fixable? This is a great way for restaurants to approach online complaints, but what can really be done? Restaurants get caught in the undertow of the sea of customer complaints, and I’ve worked in too many that don’t have the means to handle all of them. Salt said the answer is that customer service problems must be addressed when complaints arise, but I think it’s a bigger issue than that. Simply blaming it on the front line if the battle is lost is pretty shortsighted. Blame it on the side that started the war.

I appreciate the outlet for free speech that the Internet has provided. Oppressive dictators have been ousted and countries freed because of its power. But there is a problem with anyone out there being able to say whatever they want whenever they want. Restaurant critics were best when they were trained, published, credible journalists who had experience in the culinary world. I’m not saying that someone who has a bad experience isn’t entitled to an opinion and an outlet to express it, but too many people use the Internet just to rant.

I don’t know exactly what’s going to evolve out of this situation, but it’s really unfair. Will most independent restaurants close while only the big money corporate chains and hoity-toity places survive, all just because some jerks have been given the power of a critic? Will people start ragging on companies just to see if they can get something for free? Who knows? But the next time you’re reading reviews online, think about how much you know about the people writing them. Maybe you’d be better off reading an article in an accredited online news outlet.

American Airlines poorly handles hysterical flight attendant incident (4460)

Something crazy happened today. An American Airlines flight was about to taxi off from DFW Airport on its way to Chicago, when a flight attendant on board started ranting over the loudspeaker. At first, the passengers thought that the flight attendant had just forgotten that the PA system was on, but then they realized that she was trying to communicate something to them. According to reports, she made remarks about the plane crashing and referenced 9/11 and the airline’s union issues.

Greg Lozano, a passenger on the flight, heard her say over the loudspeaker, “Hey pilot, I’m not going to be responsible for your crash.” Shortly after that comment, another flight attendant attempted to take the microphone away from her, and a scuffle ensued. The flight attendant fought back and began screaming as the other flight attendant and some passengers wrestled her into the first row. She struggled against them, and it took several adults to restrain her. She continued to scream until authorities removed her from the plane. She and the other flight attendant who took the microphone from her were each transported to different hospitals.

The plane went back to the gate, changed out the crew and took off for Chicago at 9:46 a.m. No passengers were harmed during the incident, and the plane arrived safely in Chicago.

The news media picked up on the sensationalist value of such a bizarre story and have been reporting on it throughout the day. CNN has been airing an iReport of the incident taken by one of the passengers. The video shows passengers crowded around the front rows of the plane and maniacal screaming can be heard. The flight attendant can be heard screaming, “Get off the plane!”

As reports of the incident started surfacing today, I went to American Airlines’ newsroom on its website to see what sort of information was being made public. I couldn’t find anything. There wasn’t even a news release about the facts of the incident available as of 8 p.m., almost 12 hours after it occurred. This seemed strange to me under the circumstances. If CNN is reporting a story about something that happened with your company, calling the sounds that the flight attendant was making “demonic” and showing video of panicked customers, shouldn’t there be some kind of public information available? I’m no public relations veteran, but if I worked for American Airlines, I would have immediately pooled the facts of the situation and issued a news release for the media. You can’t just leave such bizarre behavior unaddressed, especially in a country full of people who are pretty paranoid, and with good reason, about the safety of air travel.

ABC News published a statement issued by American Airlines which reads, “This morning Flight 2332 had left the gate at DFW bound for Chicago, when an incident occurred involving some of the cabin crew. The aircraft returned to the gate, where it was met by Department of Public Safety officers. Two flight attendants were taken to local hospitals for treatment. We continue to investigate the details and circumstances and will have no further comment at this time.

We will ensure that the affected flight attendants receive proper care, and we commend our other crew members for their assistance in quickly getting the aircraft back to the gate so that customers could be re-accommodated. Our customers were not in danger at any time.

The cabin crew was replaced. The flight departed for Chicago at 9:46 a.m., and is scheduled to land around noon. We apologize for any inconvenience to our customers and we appreciate their patience and understanding."

This is an acceptable reaction by American Airlines, but the statement is minimal and only accessible on a few of the news outlets’ websites. When Diane Sawyer is reporting a story about something that happened with your company entitled “Rage on the Runway,” in which she uses wild, sensationalist language regarding the incident, you should have more information accessible to the public and definitely on your company’s website. The PR department should have published a fact sheet, including a more detailed timeline of the incident, and links to other information, such as on board emergency protocol for flight attendants and whether or not tranquilizing materials should be administered to hysterical individuals. Have something written and available about what could be done if something like this were to happen midair. Make available a 24/7 call center for potentially traumatized passengers. Delineate the steps being made to ensure that this will never happen at your company again.

Customers need to know that a company has customer safety as a top priority. They deserve more than a few cold sentences about an incident that could have jeopardized their safety. American Airlines failed to cover all their bases on this and let the news media have a field day with a sensational incident. They should have combated the media coverage with comprehensive information on their website.

Bad PR.

Sources:

“Flight attendant’s outburst delays flight,” by Mike M. Ahlers via CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/09/travel/dallas-airpot-flight-delay/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

“Attendant outburst called ‘demonic’” by The Situation Room via CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/us/2012/03/09/tsr-oleary-attendant-outburst.cnn

“Rant on American Airlines Flight Ends With Flight Attendant in Hospital,” by Jim Scholz, Matt Hosford and Genevieve Shaw Brown via ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/flight-attendant-rant-sends-american-airlines-flight-back/story?id=15886557#.T1rCBnl62So

School shooting handled well by administration (4460)

A boy opened fire in the Chardon High School cafeteria in Chardon, Ohio on Monday morning. Three students were killed and two were injured when the shooter fired indiscriminately into the crowd of students gathered around the tables at breakfast time.

Unfortunately, school shootings are not unheard of in our country. We have had to witness all too many tragedies exactly like this one. It’s hard enough hearing about them in states far removed from where they took place - but imagine being there. Imagine being a high school student whose life is threatened one morning before first period. Imagine being the teenager who witnesses another student being shot in the head. Imagine being a parent of a child who is trapped in a building with a rampaging gunman. Imagine being a teacher who has to take control somehow.

In a crisis like this, police and school administrators have the difficult responsibility of handling the situation best for all involved. Communication has to take place quickly, and saying the right thing the right way is paramount. Luckily, the Chardon Local School District had a crisis plan in place.

Since the Columbine massacre in 1999, more and more public schools throughout the nation are training for school shooting incidents, much like they do for fire drills. Lockdown drills are required for Ohio public schools, and Chardon schools had been practicing for a few years. Parents were notified in a mass message on Monday morning as to the details of the situation and the location of the evacuation site where they could pick up their kids. Law enforcement officials communicated with the press as updates on the case became available.

We’ve learned in our PR classes that appointing the head honcho of a company or organization as the spokesperson in a crisis situation is a bad idea. Usually the bigwigs lack the social finesse needed to communicate directly to the public. This was not the case in Chardon.

Chardon Local School District’s superintendent Joe Bergant was the perfect spokesperson to handle this crisis. He met the press on Monday afternoon to communicate the details of what Chardon schools were going to do in response to the tragedy. In his presentation to our social media strategies class, Chief Pathfinder Steve Lee of QuickSilver Interactive Group said, “The first thing you need to talk about in crisis management is people.” Bergant did just that, and with touching sincerity. First he thanked the local law enforcement officers for their quick response to the emergency, then he expressed pride in the teaching staff for handling the situation as well as they did. Next he offered condolences to the families of the victims, and informed the public that there would be a candlelight vigil held for anyone who wished to come on the following evening. He announced that grief counselors would be available to anyone who needed them, be they students, teachers, staff, parent or community member, and gave them the times and places that they would be available. He then invited parents to join their children on Thursday to walk around the school and reacclimate before classes resumed on Friday.

“Hug your kids,” Bergant said. “Kids, hug your parents. You news media, when you get the chance to get home, do the same. We’re not just any old place, Chardon. This is every place. As you’ve seen in the past, this can happen anywhere.”

Bergant was the perfect spokesperson. He was collected, well-spoken and genuine. Great crisis management. Excellent PR.

Sources:

“Ohio high schoolers head back to class after fatal shooting,” by CNN Wire Staff via CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/02/justice/ohio-school-shooting/index.html?iref=allsearch

“Chardon High School shooting shows value of school security, crisis planning,” by Ken Trump via newsnet5.com. Retrieved from http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/oh_geauga/chardon-high-school-shooting-shows-value-of-school-security-crisis-planning

“Video: Chardon shooting: Supt Joe Bergant at press conference,” via irishcentral.com. Retrieved from http://www.irishcentral.com/video/?videoTitle=Video%3A+Chardon+shooting%3A+Supt+Joe+Bergant+at+press+conference&clipSynID=3309512

“Chardon superintendent: ‘Hug your kids,’” via cnn.com. Video retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2012/02/28/bts-chardon-reopens-presser.cnn

“Latest Chardon School Shootings Press Conference,” via myfox28columbus.com. Retrieved from http://myfox28columbus.com/shared/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wtte_vid_16365.shtml