Tag Archives: crisis communications

Not So Sweet Surprise: How Product Messaging Makes or Breaks Brand Trust 

Posted on by
Reply

In the world of consumables, consumers experience a brand with all five senses. The look and feel of a product, what the package sounds like when opening it, how it smells and of course, how it tastes. In short, when a consumable product changes, people tend to notice. 

In the case of any product or brand, consumers and their appetites shift, markets transform and costs rise, making change inevitable. But it is not necessarily the change that can be a risk to brands, it is how they communicate that change to their stakeholders. Failing to thoughtfully and proactively message around a product in the face of change can leave even the most loyal consumers questioning their brand allegiance. 

The Reese’s Family Legacy 

The Hershey Company experienced this firsthand just a few months ago when one of their legacy brands, Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups, came under fire by the original creator’s grandson.  

In February, Brad Reese took to LinkedIn in an open letter to Todd Scott of The Hershey Company. In his letter, he alleged the “Reese’s identity is being rewritten,” going on to criticize the company’s decision to replace milk chocolate with more cost-effective compounds and ingredients. The letter gained national media attention, covered by The Associated Press, CBS News, NPR and more. Days later, The Hershey Company opened their doors to a local CBS news station claiming the recipe had not changed, and gave them a tour of the factory in an attempt at transparency. But the tour was not perceived as transparent at all. 

A few weeks later, The Hershey Company made a public announcement that they would return to using “classic milk and dark chocolate recipes” in all its products by 2027, suggesting they did in fact change the recipes. This promise fell flat on Brad Reese, who was quoted in the New York Times saying “if they were serious, they would do it right away.” 

Lessons in Product Messaging 

Though Brad Reese’s viral LinkedIn post and the subsequent national media attention the incident received is an extreme example, the risks that brands take when they are not proactive with communication, in particular in communicating a change, is clear. The very minute Brad Reese posted his letter to LinkedIn, The Hershey Company was forced to react rather than lead the narrative and use the change as an opportunity to build trust with their audiences. A decision that was likely rooted in the rising costs of chocolate was quickly escalated to a conversation on the future of the entire Reese’s brand. Consider the following relevant lessons in product messaging: 

  • Be Proactive: Business communications is about more than “sharing the fun” or the positive company announcements with the world. When it comes to product messaging, businesses must think strategically about how a change to a product may be received by its stakeholders. This is where involving a communications professional from the beginning of a process can be helpful. They can carefully and strategically consider various scenarios and possible outcomes. The Hershey Company, for example, likely did not predict that Brad Reese’s LinkedIn post would spiral into a crisis. Having ample time to consider all scenarios and adjust messaging before any changes are made public can help prevent misinterpretation, confusion and subsequent distrust. 
  • Be Transparent: Too often when companies are criticized, it comes down to a lack of corporate transparency. In The Hershey Company’s example, quietly changing the product over time then claiming the recipe had remained untouched diminished their credibility when they inevitably had to come clean. Transparently communicating product changes and providing context around its reasoning, especially in cases when changes are received unfavorably, can help reinforce brand loyalty.    
  • Be Prepared: The court of public opinion is unpredictable. When changes are made to a product, a proactive and transparent approach can help limit backlash, but it is always a good idea to be prepared for the worst scenario. Having responses and spokespeople ready to provide context and answer questions can help ensure any negative public sentiment is contained, the business can promote an accurate narrative and avoid rash decision-making. Failing to prepare for such scenarios leads to further inconsistencies in media coverage, misinterpretation by stakeholders, and eventual dissolution of trust. 

Brad Reese’s public dissatisfaction with The Hershey Company is a perfect example of how a single voice can turn the public’s perception upside down overnight. Communicators must be alert to change and consider how that change is not only shared with the public, but how the public may respond. By being proactive, transparent and prepared for all scenarios, businesses can avoid unnecessary crises, while maintaining loyalty and trust among their stakeholders. 

When Silence Speaks Loudest: Lessons from ABC’s “Bachelorette” Crisis

Posted on by
Reply

In March, ABC made the unprecedented decision to pull an already-filmed season of “The Bachelorette” from the air just three days before it was set to premiere. The cancellation came after an unsettling video surfaced of the former lead, Taylor Frankie Paul, involved in a physically violent domestic dispute with her ex-partner, Dakota Mortensen. 

From a public relations perspective, this is more than just reality TV drama; It’s a case study on how not to handle a PR crisis. What unfolded after the cancellation was a series of communications missteps that serve as an important lesson for brands.

Choosing a Spokesperson for “The Wrong Reasons”

Originally chosen as The Bachelorette after her rise to fame on “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives” (SLOMW) despite controversy she stirred up there, Paul was an unexpected choice from the start. The center of this crisis is a foundational mistake: ABC built an entire season, and promotional campaign, around a volatile figure with a known history of domestic abuse.

Despite publicly accessible records and a SLOMW episode depicting the domestic dispute and Paul’s arrest in 2023, the network vastly underestimated the risk of elevating Paul as the face of the long-beloved franchise. From a reputational standpoint, the lead of a show serves, in a way, as the brand’s spokesperson. Because Paul was involved in a major public scandal, blame shifted to ABC’s decision to choose her as their lead and as a result, public scrutiny shifted to the network. 

Will You Accept This Apology?

After the video of the domestic dispute went viral, a spokesperson for Disney Entertainment Television, the parent company of ABC, issued a statement announcing the season would not be aired. Although the statement came quickly after the video circulated, the public viewed it more as an act of damage control, rather than an authentic response.

ABC remained relatively quiet immediately after the cancellation was announced. When ABC did speak out, their response was short, leaving many with unanswered questions. 

“In light of the newly released video just surfaced today, we have made the decision to not move forward with the new season of ‘The Bachelorette’ at this time, and our focus is on supporting the family.”

This Changes Everything

The poor and inauthentic statements from the network and its parent company resulted in an ineffective and failed crisis response. 

Rather than taking ownership of the fact that they had prior knowledge of the incident, offering clarity on their casting process and providing transparency, ABC’s response was curt and ineffectual. What’s more? Promotional content for Paul’s Bachelorette season remains on ABC’s social media channels a month later. 

The network’s silence was met with increased speculation, rumors and criticism, damaging its reputation and creating narratives outside of its control. 

The PR Takeaways

The real cost of ABC’s poor crisis management is the lasting impact this could have on its reputation. The lack of a clear response statement has led to a decline in audience trust, which could ultimately cause the deterioration of the franchise, which has been successful for two decades. 

So, what can brands do to avoid these missteps?

  • Bring a knowledgeable and proven PR team in early in the process of a large campaign and ensure there is a strong communications plan in place, including a crisis strategy. 
  • Thoroughly vet spokespeople, including background checks and reviews of social media presence. 
  • Prioritize substance over speed in crisis responses. Your audience wants a thoughtful explanation, not a Band-Aid statement.
  • If you’re not in control of your brand’s reputation, someone else is. By acknowledging crisis situations with thoughtful, authentic statements, you minimize speculation and false narratives.

In a moment where a clear, values-driven response could have stabilized the brand, a brand known for a reality show where no one is afraid to speak up, ABC failed to provide that clarity. If your brand is facing a reputational threat, we can help. Reach out to us at https://www.kimballpr.com/contact.

Brand Beckham: When Muddy Messaging Leads to a Brand Breakdown

Posted on by
Reply

Family is complicated. We have all faced our fair share of uncomfortable familial conflicts, but for most of us, those conflicts don’t end up as front-page news. The same can’t be said for the Beckham family, whose years-long family drama has consistently made headlines. 

Since Brooklyn Beckham’s wedding in 2022, gossip around the former Spice Girl-turned-fashion mogul and international soccer phenom’s dislike of their new daughter-in-law, Nicola Peltz, has circulated online. The feud came to a head in a recent Instagram post from Brooklyn, where he detailed the many ways his parents had allegedly undermined and embarrassed him and his bride on their wedding day. In the post, he also claimed Brand Beckham always came first, with the behind-the-scenes feuding clashing with the close-knit public-facing image Victoria and David had spent years cultivating. 

This isn’t the first time family feuds have turned public. Of course, the former Prince Harry and his wife Megan Markle’s separation from the Royal Family also continues to drive headlines. Such is the price of building a public image so closely entwined with your personal life, but it also reflects a larger issue that arises when brands fail to ensure internal alignment on strategy and purpose. 

Even for those whose businesses aren’t centered around family, there is valuable insight to gain from these famous family fallouts. If you’re building a brand, buy-in across your team is critical. Otherwise, if there is a public rupture, it can color your brand, stain your reputation and generate costly financial losses. Just one ill-planned comment or social media post could be enough to send the house of cards tumbling. 

Building Internal Alignment

As communication professionals, we often work with corporate partners to incorporate internal teams into long-term branding strategy. Consider the following best practices for making sure your team is on the same page with your organization’s brand narrative: 

  • Align company culture with brand identity: Team members shouldn’t only be hearing about your organization’s values amid a crisis. Those values should be visible in every aspect of the organization. If you build a company culture that reflects your external messaging, your team members have a greater likelihood of buying into it. Building and communicating a supportive, collaborative culture will incentivize team members to contribute positively to the brand’s narrative. A communications team can help drive this cultural push to build a team that genuinely has a positive view of the brand.  
  • Be direct and concise: Make the strategy and purpose behind your brand narrative and accompanying communications clear. If internal teams are working off muddied messaging, it can clog execution and increase the likelihood of communications that contradict an organization’s mission. Consider pulling together a brand book to consolidate messaging and ease your team’s access to important communication tools.  
  • Plan ahead for crises: Accidents—often in the form of poorly worded social media posts—happen. Even with the proper mitigation, there are still outside sources that could put an organization’s reputation at risk. A crisis communications partner can help formulate a plan of action, consulting on messaging and potential next steps to keep public-facing channels transparent without making you vulnerable to further speculation. 

Whether the Beckham family’s public dispute will be enough to hurt their brand’s bottom line in the long run remains to be seen. In the meantime, business leaders should learn from their mistakes and invest in culture to evaluate their team’s alignment on messaging. With the right communications partner, you can build clear and consistent messaging to reinforce your values and culture, help build your team’s confidence in the organization, empower them to handle any obstacles your brand encounters and pave the way for future growth. 

Speaking with Authenticity: Lessons from the ‘Phillies Karen’ Viral Drama

Posted on by
Reply

The rules of crisis communication have changed drastically over the last decade. Crisis communication and reputation management have quickly become must-haves due to the nature of digital devices. Incidents that would once blow over in a day or even hours can snowball, fueling endless media coverage and content. Today, a story can be instantly amplified on social media; however, it can also stoke up misinformation, creating a crisis or viral drama of its own.

As caught on camera during a recent Philadelphia Phillies game, a fan demanded that a father give her a home run ball, causing a stir on social media. The father took the ball back from his young son and handed it to the woman, who proceeded back to her seat, ball in hand. The incident stirred a public manhunt to find the ‘Phillies Karen’ in question. Multiple misidentifications ensued. Interestingly, a recent study from Science reported that misinformation travels “farther, faster, deeper and more broadly than the truth.”

A comprehensive, thoughtful and tested crisis communication plan, as well as a commitment to speak with authenticity to set the record straight, are two key elements to navigate any crisis or national outrage. Here are lessons from the ‘Phillies Karen’ incident worth noting.

Get the Facts Straight to Avoid Premature Conclusions

In the case of the viral Phillies incident, social media rumors led to the false identification of a school administrator and later, a Red Sox fan, causing viral online condemnations. Both the school and the individual quickly took to social media to set the record straight, each releasing timely, clever and light-hearted, prepared statements and responses.

“The woman identified on social media as ‘Phillies Karen’ is not and has never been, an employee of the Hammonton Public Schools … Anyone who works for our school district, attended as a student or lives in our community would obviously have caught the ball bare-handed in the first place, avoiding this entire situation.”

“I’m not the crazy Philly Mom (but I sure would love to be as thin as she is and move as fast)… and I’m a Red Sox fan.”.

The falsely accused school and individual swiftly jumped in to provide clear, concise and witty posts to mitigate risk. The statements and responses provided detailed feedback on their lack of involvement.

Effective crisis communication and reputation management hinge on getting the facts straight. Viewers count on their favorite news sources and social media platforms for the latest headlines, and from there, often make quick assumptions.

During times of crisis, it’s important to align internally on key messaging before releasing any information on behalf of a brand or individual. Once an incident is on the radar, be ready to monitor for media coverage and social media mentions, and stay alert for inbound media requests as they arise.

Have a Plan and Respond Authentically

Crisis communication plans and strategies are essential for managing crisis incidents and allow brands and individuals to get ahead of potentially business damaging premature conclusions.

Incident management requires a strategic yet thoughtful approach. In addition to respecting the gravity of each situation, brands and individuals must look to protect their reputations and share the facts while staying true to their brand voice and values.

Responding with authenticity can defuse a crisis. When a predicament hits, brands and individuals can be adversely affected, even if they’re not at fault. False accusations and other misinformation can quickly diminish trust in a company or personal reputation, causing inconvenience, damage or disruptions if not corrected.

A prompt crisis communication response that is truthful and genuine without bias can be crucial for managing false news and other propaganda, as well as mitigating risk. Brands and individuals must look to set the right tone based on the incident, while also ensuring that their brand messaging and positioning are reflected.

In the case of the Phillies Karen, both parties showed integrity and accountability while also staying true to their brand voice. Their respective statements were factual, with a bit of humor sprinkled in to match the severity of the situation.

So, while memes come and go and headlines fade away, damage to a brand or personal reputation can stick around. Don’t get caught up in the internet’s next big drama—brands and individuals must have a crisis communication plan and strategy ready to mitigate potential crisis or national outrage.

Navigating Verbal Missteps: Warnings from the Reality Show “Big Brother”

Posted on by
Reply

George Orwell’s novel “1984” first introduced the concept of “Big Brother,” a totalitarian surveillance state watching your every move, to the lexicon in 1949. And in 2000, CBS launched its own spin on the concept with the reality show “Big Brother.” Equal parts social experiment and competitive event, “Big Brother” follows a select number of contestants, referred to as houseguests, as they compete to win $750,000 while living together in a house isolated from the outside world.  

Many reality shows may tout an up-close-and-personal glimpse at their stars, but little offer as much access to participants in real time as Big Brother. Since the show’s premiere, CBS has provided viewers with a 24/7 live feed of the contestants living in the house. At any point in the day, save for certain competitions or ceremonies restricted for the episodes, someone can hop on Paramount Plus to watch houseguests hang out, strategize and often, say the wrong thing.  

Though houseguests are made aware they are being filmed continuously via live feed, several houseguests have been recorded on camera making racist, homophobic or sexist comments. Consequently, some have been forced to leave the show and navigate long-lasting consequences.   

Houseguest Rylie Jeffries landed in hot water online for his treatment of fellow contestant and “showmance”, Katherine Woodman, in the season currently airing. When host Julie Chen asked him about some of the declarations he’d made in the house after he was voted out, his response was, “I can’t believe y’all heard that.”  

Just like other Big Brother houseguests of seasons past, anyone can turn into a headline overnight. It’s a story becoming increasingly common – an executive or employee makes an insensitive comment and puts themselves and their company in the hotseat. You may think it can’t happen to you, but who knows? Here are a few lessons to take from Big Brother contestant missteps:  

  1. Always assume someone is listening: Big Brother houseguests are required to wear microphones at all times. Every conversation, no matter how benign, is recorded for the audience to hear. While this kind of 24/7 surveillance once seemed unbelievable, social media has opened the floodgates and provided individuals with a platform to expose public slip ups. Social media is riddled with countless comments calling for the employment or other personal details of individuals caught in hot-mic moments or who may have said something controversial publicly. 
  1. Understand how you want to be perceived: Contestants are frequently shown saying one thing in diary confessionals, only to be shown saying and doing something completely the opposite in the house. This sort of flip-flopping may be understandable in the context of a game, but it won’t always fly in the real world. People want to connect with brands and companies that align with their values and when individuals representing the company’s stated mission fail to reflect them, it can breed frustration.  
  1. Utilize your communications team: Big Brother contestants spend their time in the house with no contact or input from the outside world. No one is there to guide messaging or consider public perception. Companies don’t have to be at the same disadvantage. The right communications team will anticipate crisis situations before they happen, working with leadership and serving as a resource for the wider team.  

100-plus cameras may not be following your every move, but the court of public opinion is. It no longer takes signing up for a reality show to launch your public misstep to virality. We can learn from these houseguests’ mistakes and use it for smart and effective communications that strengthen relationships with audiences.  

The Velvet Rope is Gone. Today’s Executives Must Be Aware of the Public Eye and Act Accordingly

Posted on by
Reply

Executives behaving badly, particularly CEOs, is nothing new. But in an era where anyone with a phone is de facto paparazzi, every Instagram story becomes Exhibit A in the court of public opinion. It’s become clear C-suites can no longer operate exclusively behind closed doors. Corporate leaders, once protected by layers of privacy, PR and legal gatekeeping, are now finding themselves subject to a bright, unrelenting, and at times, unforgiving spotlight.

The expectations for executive conduct haven’t necessarily changed, but the surrounding environment and the stakes certainly have. When an executive, particularly the CEO, says one thing and does the opposite, it erodes trust quickly. For example, a CEO demanding that employees endure daily office commutes, only to work remotely from St. Barts, sends a very clear message to employees and the public that they see themselves as an exception to the rule.

Additionally, we’ve entered into an era of “optics-driven accountability.” Perceptions will shape the narrative faster than the facts will surface – and boards need to recognize that as well as the value a good comms team can bring to play in these situations. Just a screenshot, a caption and a handful of internet sleuths with time on their hands have the power to shape a narrative.

Of course, this brings to mind the recent viral incident of Astronomer CEO Andy Byron caught on the jumbotron at a Coldplay concert in Boston, embracing the company’s head of HR, Kristin Cabot. The moment raged across social media, quickly raising questions about an alleged affair. It also continues to generate endless mimicry and judgment of a CEO engaging in such a public display with an employee. The company’s board quickly launched an investigation, and Byron resigned shortly after the incident. No crime was committed, but all the same, the company was thrust into uncomfortable optics of blurred boundaries that CEOs regularly cross and a storyline that quickly outpaced the PR team’s ability to contain it.

This is far from the only case. California Governor Gavin Newsom famously dined, indoors, at French Laundry, amid one of the strictest COVID lockdowns in the country. The public became outraged by the perceived hypocrisy of being stuck at home, FaceTiming friends and family and ordering DoorDash while a public figure sidestepped the very rules he imposed. Again, countless headlines, social media posts and memes followed.

On a slightly smaller scale, a CEO of a Florida-based insurance company made headlines this July after his wife’s social media posts highlighted their extravagant lifestyle – luxury cars, private planes and yachts, designer bags, clothes and jewelry. While there was seemingly no misconduct, the posts ignited a social media firestorm and drew widespread media attention. The backlash quickly escalated, with consumer advocates and even elected officials weighing in. Many Florida homeowners, already grappling with rocketing premiums and shrinking coverage options, found the display as emblematic of a deeper disconnect between wealthy executives and the public.

These incidents, and others like them, highlight a new reality: C-suites are as visible outside the office as they are inside. They are now part of the story whether they intend to be or not. Choices matter – behavior in and outside the “office” – can signal values, and intent. And in a world full of corporate messaging, actions often speak louder than an entire comms team.

So, what is company leadership to do?

Encourage executives to practice conscious transparency. This doesn’t mean living ascetically; it just means living in alignment with the company and personal values. For example, if the company just laid off staff, don’t post a video calling it a “difficult decision” from the luxury penthouse. If customers and employees are making sacrifices, don’t show off excessively. If the brand stands for integrity, make sure executive conduct reinforces it.

Lean into the expertise of your comms team. Reputational equity is as valuable as financial equity. Consumers latch onto brands, and leaders, that align with their values. Executives should work with their comms teams to make sure the optics they present as an individual are in line with the company’s mission. Experienced communications teams can help identify risks early and direct leaders away from avoidable reputational mistakes. Quiet counsel, ones that operate behind the scenes, can prevent public missteps that can put executives – and the company – in the media hot seat.

The velvet rope is gone. Individuals with cameras, notepads and press credentials are no longer the only means for a story taking hold. The court of public opinion is in control and armed with its own tools to take a story viral.

The Secret to Great Public Relations: Client Candor

Posted on by
Reply

This July marks the start of Kimball Hughes Public Relations’ 30th year in business. Reflecting on the agency’s history along with my own 22-year run as a PR professional, I’ve thought a lot about some of the most valuable PR lessons, for agencies and organizations that hire them. The one I keep coming back to is this: stop selling. And I’m talking to the clients. 

Of course, agencies of all kinds, at least in the beginning, need to sell clients on hiring them. Meanwhile an interesting, frequent and largely unspoken parallel exists where clients—for- and non-profits alike—continue to sell themselves to their agencies well after contracts are signed.  

What I mean is this: As the agency employees meet with subject matter experts or hold meetings with leadership, the organization will present its products, services, market position and even its executives as the best, most innovative, most insightful people and products within their space. While some of that may be (hopefully) true, there’s a bit of salesmanship involved. Put another way, if you aren’t telling your PR team about concerns, pain points, missteps or potential obstacles, you are setting up your messaging partners as well as your organization for potential disaster.  

Could This Be a Problem? 

My favorite example, now 20 years in my professional rear-view window, was when I worked with a large multi-national company. They faced no challenges, and every employee was the best and the brightest professional to be found. During our initial discovery, I asked if there were any areas of concern, topics to avoid or past issues that might create complications with the media. Nothing. The horizon was wide, bright and full of promise, or so I was told. In fact, their leadership team seemed put off by my question. 

Months later, I received a call on a Friday afternoon. One of their executives had been convicted of a crime almost one year prior, and on the upcoming Monday this executive would be in court for sentencing. Could this be a problem, asked my contact from within the company? Emphatically, yes, I responded.  

Because this executive had not worked for the client at the time the charges, and the later conviction, came down, the company’s name had not been connected to the scandal. This executive was not on the list of media-facing representatives of the company, so none of this came to light during discovery. Senior leadership had not been forthcoming, and our team didn’t know this executive was even employed by the client.  

I spent the weekend scrambling to pull together a crisis communications strategy. And while the executive’s conviction led to wall-to-wall media coverage, the client was not mentioned. The media couldn’t imagine, given his crime, that anyone would employ him. But he was a childhood friend of the CEO who helped him with a job while he awaited sentencing. The press simply didn’t investigate his work history post-conviction and LinkedIn wasn’t wildly adopted at the time.  

Because the client wanted to present everything in the most positive light possible, they missed an opportunity to better protect the company, its employees and its customers. In the above example, disaster was averted by dumb luck. In the interconnected, all-online world of today, I don’t believe such a near miss would again be possible. 

Honest Assessments Matter 

No one wants to start a new relationship with dirty laundry. Many a first date has probably tanked a potential relationship by employing absolute candor. While not recommended for a first date, absolute candor is mission critical when onboarding a public relations agency. PR professionals are only as effective as the information clients provide. By failing to share information about challenges, concerns or potential obstacles, clients tie the hands of their agency partners to do their jobs effectively. PR partners are best positioned to help protect client reputations from unnecessary harm, but only if they know the messages to amplify as well as sensitive areas to avoid or plan around. 

If you are considering hiring a public relations agency, the most valuable advice I can offer is to be absolutely candid about the good and bad; what you want to talk about and the issues that keep leadership (and maybe HR) up at night. There is power in doing so, and complete transparency can create an extremely productive partnership to both promote and protect hard-won reputations.

Diddy’s Silence Spoke Volumes: Why Secrets Are Toxic to Crisis Public Relations

Posted on by
Reply

When a brand or a public figure waits too long to tell the truth, they rarely escape the gravitational pull of a crisis unscathed. Whether it’s the ENRON scandal of 2001, Bernie Madoff’s 2009 arrest or the failed 2017 Fyre Festival, one common thread rings true; you can only evade the truth for so long.

Making recent headlines is Sean “Diddy” Combs’ ongoing public downfall. After decades of alleged abuse and misconduct from multiple sources, Combs is facing mounting legal and reputational crises. The musician and producer’s situation is a worst-case scenario from a PR perspective; a stream of headlines that could have been prevented with a wider perspective and proactive approach.

Don’t Let the Crisis Define the Timeline

In May 2024, CNN released a video of Combs from 2016 that showed a violent interaction with his former girlfriend Cassie Ventura after she filed a lawsuit against him in 2023. Allegations quickly began to accumulate, each one painting a more tainted picture than the last. CNN’s video was a turning point for Combs’ case in terms of his reputation and control of the narrative. What could have possibly been one or a few headlines became a viral cultural moment. For months, hundreds of allegations surfaced and by October 2024, an attorney announced he was representing 120 accusers with sexual misconduct allegations against Combs.

For PR to be effective, you cannot allow third parties, in this case the media, to define the narrative. This is paramount. Crisis teams are brought in to either diffuse or help to ensure a factual story, rather than lighting more fires. To do so, public relations professionals need every detail, every time stamp and every skeleton out of the closet from the very start.

Get the All the Facts Out

Secrecy is a dangerous thing in public relations. A slow cadence of new details like in Combs’ situation keeps a story alive and slowly tears down public trust. Letting the PR team know the details, and what might be out there waiting to be found, can give these professionals the tools they need to take a bit of the wind out of the media storm that just won’t seem to quit.

Speaking to your PR team could be viewed similarly to speaking with an attorney insomuch as all the details, warts and all, need to be shared with the PR team, with whom should have a non-disclosure agreement, up front. Being transparent and thorough with the crisis team early on, no matter how difficult, will help businesses avoid a slow leak of damaging stories and details. Sometimes the situation is simply bad, as in the case of Combs. Even in these scenarios, there can be a benefit to taking some measure of responsibility and trying to shape the narrative; not with spin, but with facts and taking a measure or responsibility. While doing so may not mitigate the public’s interest, it can sometimes allow you to get everything out at once which can, in some instances, shorten the lifespan of media coverage and attention. Once a crisis team is equipped with the full scope of a problem, they can work with business leaders to shape a fact-based narrative around it and try to develop a reasonable plan through the situation. Rarely can one avoid or go around a situation like Comb’s without some obvious reputational damage, even under the best of circumstances.

The Value of a Crisis Team That Knows the Right Questions

A good crisis team asks hard questions. They map out worst-case scenarios, poke holes, identify risks and prepare messaging that anticipates the next batch of headlines. They can only do so if they are brought into the room before the cameras start rolling, footage leaks and lawsuits multiply. In Combs’ case, every new, salacious detail draws more coverage and confirms what many had already assumed about the man. That’s the cost of self-preservation. Had his team had the full picture earlier, it may have been less of a sensational story, or at least less frequently publicized, and more focused on accountability.

In Combs’ case, his actions and behaviors have been further reinforced by past tragedies and altercations like his involvement in and reaction to the Heavy D & Puff Daddy Celebrity Charity Basketball Game stampede and the East Coast vs. West Coast hip-hop rivalry that allegedly contributed to the deaths of Tupac Shakur and The Notorious B.I.G. A crisis team will consider how a company’s past mistakes might be uncovered and rehashed in the media as a current crisis unfolds.

Secrets Don’t Age Well

While Combs’ case is particularly extreme for many reasons, any global brand or a public figure could find themselves in a crisis that plays out in the media. And when speaking with a crisis PR team, it is critical to lay all the facts out early. Anything left unsaid can quickly be found by the media, the courts or random sleuths on the internet. Owning the story and being forthcoming with information might not prevent backlash, but it does allow a crisis team the time and details necessary to manage a situation with clarity, compassion and some measure of control to ensure the client’s side of the story is told with care.

An Outie’s Perspective: If I worked in Comms at Severance’s Lumon Industries

Posted on by
Reply

Photo by AppleTV

The wildly popular Apple TV+ series Severance has many of us considering ourselves in the shoes of a so-called “severed” employee. For example, I wonder – what would my “innie” do during her workday at the fictional Lumon Industries?

Spoiler alert – if you have not yet seen the show, the premise centers on an elective surgical procedure to the employee’s brain that separates work and personal life. The severed main characters’ “innies,” or in-office versions of themselves, spend their days behind desks in the Macro Data Refinement Department of a bio-tech company called Lumon Industries.

For me, a public relations professional for Kimball Hughes PR in real life, I would think my “innie” might have some communications expertise to share with Lumon leadership, particularly on the so-called Severed Floor, designed exclusively for innies.

Communication Breakdown

At Lumon, when innies ask why they do the work they do, they are told, “The work is very important and mysterious.” The lack of transparency provided by leadership fuels the innies’ curiosity to learn more about what is really going on and results in a growing distrust of management.

As professional communicators, we always advise our clients to be transparent in both internal and external communications. In internal communications, conveniently leaving out key details or worse, lying about events or covering up incidents, can build distrust, chip away at employee morale and lead to quiet or actual quitting. Communication from the top can be a critical aspect of strengthening the company’s reputation and the trust of employees as well. At Lumon, the board communicates mysteriously through a retro public announcement-like system in a way that no one but the board’s translator can hear or understand.

Leadership should set the bar in a corporate structure and they should lead by their own actions to inspire others. Management should make it a priority to be present, relatable and accessible. For example, if a company is encouraging teams to volunteer and engage in charitable giving, leadership should step up to the plate to motivate others. If leadership is implementing a return-to-office mandate, leadership should be onsite as well and ensure they are relaying clear reasons for how the mandate will benefit the company, as well as its employees – beyond perks, like new coffee flavors or the occasional Music Dance Experience (IYKYK).

A Lesson in Crisis Management

While every Severance episode seems to present a slew of crises, the Lumon Industries PR team (assuming the fictitious company has one) was likely engaged for crisis communications services when (another spoiler alert) the innies escaped to see how their outies live at the end of Season 1.

When the main character Mark S. returns to the Severed Floor at the start of Season 2, his manager, Mr. Milchick parrots a company narrative about the innies’ escape. He explained the incident led the innies to be named heroes, inspired a review of the treatment of severed employees and resulted in a series of reforms – complete with a newspaper article and an animated internal comms video.

The Lumon PR team may deserve credit for seemingly responding to the situation proactively by engaging the media and creating messaging, but, from a professional communications perspective, it was certainly lacking. The Lumon team manufactured untruthful messaging in an elaborate effort to spin their way out of the predicament. Likely, they did not have a comprehensive crisis communications plan in place – a best practice for any business owner.

Instead, the Lumon team should have followed crisis communications best practices that center on collecting facts related to the situation and following a pre-designed plan for leadership that can help deter people from acting rashly on emotion in a crisis. Lumon leadership should not have created messaging and collateral around a lie, but instead around fact-based messaging.

Anyone who has seen the show, sees countless parallels between the fictional Lumon world and the traditional corporate workplace. Aside from the more obvious light the show shines on work-life-balance and corporate culture, it also presents a case study on corporate communications, mostly on what to avoid.

AI: How to Avoid Becoming a Cautionary Tale

Posted on by
Reply

AI will cure what ails you.

That seems to be the mantra of the 2020s. If you have a problem, it appears the solution is to implement artificial intelligence. However, AI is not a cure-all. While AI can be an incredibly powerful tool, it isn’t perfect and there are cautionary tales to consider as countless organizations incorporate AI.

Glitch in the System

Any adult functioning in the digital world knows technology sometimes fails to live up to its promise. AI is not immune to being glitchy, especially when humans fall short in their quality control roles, many of which are still evolving along with the tech. There are countless AI snafu examples that include:

  • Less than two years ago, Reuters reported on a U.S. District Judge who sanctioned two New York attorneys when their ChatGPT-built brief included six fake case citations.
  • Last spring Google was pilloried by users and media alike when its then-new AI capabilities roll-out resulted in a cascade of false information—including telling users to eat glue and rocks.
  • And Fast Company produced a cringe-worthy list of brands last summer whose AI-driven marketing efforts ranged from total failure to deeply offensive, including household names like Toy “R” Us, McDonald’s and Sports Illustrated.

Reliance Risk

The risk of AI is becoming overly reliant on AI. Reliant on its promise. Reliant on its ease of application. Reliant on its accuracy.

Large language models or LLMs—the engines that drive most generative AI tools—train on massive content libraries. As a result, AI is prone to repeating, in whole or part, both the words and style of some of the content on which its LLM trains. These AI tools aren’t designed to violate copyright laws. Rather, they are working with what they know, and what they know is existing, written—and often copyrighted—content. The intent is to mimic human creativity with enhanced, faster output. The risk, of course, is not only plagiarism, but also inaccuracies due to AI hallucinations as well as content that, frankly, often falls short of being truly creative or distinguishing.

Both the quality and legality of AI generated content will be adjudicated in the court of public opinion, as well as courts of laws, for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, humans are working to catch up. Plagiarism software is continually being stood-up and refined to catch the errant bot-writer. Publishers and others are setting policies for how they will handle contributed AI-generated content. And the legal industry is, most likely, viewing AI as the next asbestos as everyone considers its implications.  

Practical Realities

Learning to live with, and employ, AI is an evolving state. What business and nonprofit leaders must consider now regarding their use or incorporation of AI is this:

  • Brands and business leaders trying to position themselves as thought leaders will fail—possibly in very public ways—if they cede their expertise to the expedience and perceived accuracy of AI where content is concerned.
  • Leveraging AI as a starting point in the creative process can create efficiencies. Relying on AI to drive that process is simply lazy.
  • From courts to publishers as well as clients and consumers, much of the early AI-driven content we are seeing runs the gamut from being declared unacceptable to the merely unpalatable with limited exceptions.
  • Developing policies around how and where to apply AI in your organization is essential to avoid being left behind.
  • Closed AI—essentially a non-publicly accessible AI model—is the only practical approach to AI implementation for many businesses to protect sensitive company and/or client data.
  • A detailed dive into how and if your organization’s errors and omissions liability insurance addresses claims arising from your use of AI is most definitely warranted.
  • AI can be a remarkable improvement to one’s operational efficiency and even client engagement, but only if thoughtful guardrails are in place with humans overseeing the work and conducting frequent quality and accuracy checks.

Without question, AI is and will continue to shape the future of business. Guiding that process with high ethical standards, transparency and rigorous human oversight is required if non- and for-profit organizations are to maintain the trust and confidence of those they serve.