Here we are at the end of another year. (Unbelievable how fast the years are speeding by nowadays, isn’t it?) It makes me think of other endings. Since I am in the business of media training, it brings to mind several things you can do to improve the closing moments of a media interview, thereby enhancing the positive impression made in the entire exchange with a reporter.

To be honest, most people I know are glad to have media interviews conclude. Very few executives enjoy the experience of being grilled by a reporter, especially when the reason for the interview has been some sort of a negative event, if not an actual crisis. They have been thinking the whole time about how to stay out of trouble, avoiding saying something that will be trumpeted in headlines that will embarrass themselves or their organization. So when the reporter says something like, “Well, that’s all the questions I have. Thank you for your time,” the tendency is to help them pack up and show them to the door.

Conclusions Are Often Most Remembered

Professional speakers are taught that audience members who have been fading in and out of attention during a 20-30 minute speech often perk up when the speaker says, “And in conclusion…” because they think they may be able to obtain a nice,neat summary of the whole thing or at least the major points. And I’ve been told that many reporters, especially if they are on a tight deadline, will pay more attention when putting their story together to the notes they jotted down at the very beginning and the very end of an interview. So you should take advantage of this opportunity.

Things to Consider Including in Your Conclusion

Anyone who has been through media training knows that, before you go into an interview, you should have ingrained in your mind 2-3 major (or “must air”) messages that you have taken the time to word properly and positively. It is entirely possible that, during the interview, you did not get to “bridge” to one of these. Here, then, is a perfect opportunity. You can say something like, “Before we conclude, I just want to make sure your readers understand _________________(major message).”

Or, if you’ve been successful in verbalizing your major messages, you can use this opportunity to reiterate one of the most important by saying, “I just think it is vitally important in this situation that people realize ________________ (major message).
You can even use this time to summarize a few of the important points that you made, or wanted to make, during the interview.

Following Up After the Interview is Over

Be sure to exchange contact information with the reporter. The reporter should be told that you are open to having him or her call you if they need clarification on anything as they are writing the story. You’d much rather answer another question than have an error appear in the news story. This is particularly true when the story involves a lot of technical information that isn’t in the reporter’s general knowledge base. Perhaps, after the reporter has left your office, you’ll think of something you wish you had said or – in debriefing with your colleagues – you may come up with a better way to explain something, whether it is a clearer description, a graph or a chart. It is not a bad idea to contact the reporter to provide that information; they might choose to use it to improve the story and thereby provide a more positive impression of your organization.

In conclusion…(there, are you paying more attention?) Since people tend to remember the first and last things they hear or read, do whatever you can to make the ending of an interview a positive one that portrays your organization in the best possible light.

My family has numerous personal connections to Penn State. What we have seen unfold on that campus this month is unspeakably sad and tragic for many people. Because so much has been written about what the individuals involved and the university itself did wrong, I don’t want to rehash all of that.

What I want to point out is how Syracuse University is currently handling similar accusations against one of the members of their athletic staff. When the first news reports surfaced alleging sexual molestation many years ago by Assistant Basketball Coach Bernie Fine, Syracuse University officials acted quickly. Our younger daughter, who graduated from SU in 1995, sent us a copy of an e-mail she received from the Chancellor the very next day. If SU had called me for advice on how to respond when this news broke, I would have advised them to do exactly what they did – take the actions described in the e-mail and get the message distributed as quickly as possible to their various stakeholders, emphasizing each of the points covered in this letter.

Dear Syracuse University Alumni,

Last night, we were contacted by an ESPN television reporter regarding allegations dating back to the 1980’s and 1990’s that Associate Head Men’s Basketball Coach Bernie Fine had engaged in inappropriate behavior with a minor, now 39. Following the terrible news that came out of Penn State in the last several weeks, this is clearly distressing to all of us in the Syracuse University community. The news is already being covered widely by the media.

I want to tell you what we know and what we are doing about it.
First, as has been announced, Bernie Fine has been placed on administrative leave pending a new investigation by the Syracuse Police Department. He has vehemently denied the allegations and should be accorded a fair opportunity to defend himself against these accusations.

As we have communicated publicly in response to media inquiries, in 2005, Syracuse University was contacted by an adult male who asserted that he had reported allegations in 2005 of abuse in the 1980’s and 1990’s to the police. That same individual told us that the Syracuse City Police had declined to pursue the matter because the statute of limitations had expired.

On hearing of the allegations, the University immediately launched its own comprehensive investigation through its legal counsel. The nearly four-month long investigation included a number of interviews with people the individual said would support his claims. All of those identified by him denied any knowledge of wrongful conduct by the associate coach. At the end of the investigation, as we were unable to find any corroboration of the allegations, the case was closed. Had any evidence or corroboration of earlier allegations surfaced —even if the Police had declined to pursue the matter —we would have acted.

As of last night, we became aware that the Syracuse Police have determined to open an investigation, and we will cooperate to the fullest extent with their review of the matter.
Let me be clear. We know that many question whether or not a university in today’s world can shine a harsh light on its athletics programs. We are aware that many wonder if university administrations are willing to turn a blind eye to wrongdoing that may disrupt a successful sports program. I can assure you I am not, and my fellow administrators are not. We hold everyone in our community to high standards and we don’t tolerate illegal, abusive or unethical behavior —no matter who you are.

As you know, this week, I affirmed Syracuse University’s steadfast belief that all of us have the responsibility, individually and collectively, to ensure that Syracuse University remains a safe place for every campus community member and everyone with whom we interact on a daily basis on campus or in the community as part of our learning, scholarship, or work. We do not tolerate abuse.

The dilemma in any situation like this, of course, is that—without corroborating facts, witnesses or confessions —one must avoid an unfair rush to judgment. We have all seen terrible injustices done to the innocent accused of heinous crimes. And we’ve all seen situations where the guilty avoid justice.

At this time, all we really know is that a terrible tragedy is unfolding for both the accuser and the accused. I want you to know that we will do everything in our power to find the truth, and —if and when we do find it—to let you know what we have found.

Sincerely,

Nancy Cantor

Masterfully done, in my opinion. The letter was factual, providing details of what the University did years ago and what they were doing. It stated that they were not rushing to judgment on either the accuser or the accused, but were working with the proper authorities and conducting their own investigation to find out the truth. The Chancellor forcefully affirmed their values – “We don’t tolerate illegal, abusive or unethical behavior.” She committed to communicate what they find out.

The only misstep I saw came from Head Basketball Coach Jim Boeheim. Contacted for his comment on the allegations, he fired back that the accuser is “a liar.” The coach was understandably emotional about such accusations being made against his colleague of many years, allegations he obviously did not want to believe. His comments were dramatic (therefore quotable), but until all the facts become known, it was dangerous to go out on a limb like that. He would have been better off adhering to the official organization position as expressed in the letter (above) and repeated in the official press statement. That’s what “speaking with one voice” is all about.

As events continued to unfold last weekend, you could see the wisdom of the University’s initial position. When new facts came to light (e.g., the legally taped conversation of the initial accuser and Mr. Fine’s wife that seemed to corroborate the victim’s story), the University moved to terminate his employment. Again, a letter was issued quickly by the Chancellor to the Syracuse community announcing his firing and expressing their extreme dismay. The Chancellor went on to say that she was requiring that a full investigation of the University’s procedures be undertaken to see if there were things they could do to improve their response to such a situation. She did not have to retract anything said in the initial communication.

Whatever happens in this particular case, I would advise you to make a copy of this initial letter to the alumni. Keep it as a template of how to handle things when a story first breaks, putting your organization’s reputation on the line because an employee is accused of doing something illegal or immoral.

# # #

That acronym stands for Single Overriding Communications Objective. Effective use of the concept can improve your ability to prepare many types of presentations. These might be written proposals, verbal presentations at organizational meetings, speeches to various audiences, business correspondence, or a media release related to a good news event or a crisis.

WHAT IS A SOCO?

Think long and hard about the ONE thing you want your audience to understand and remember after you have finished communicating with them. This is your SOCO. Work hard to word it with the four C’s so that it is:

CLEAR – Use simple words that are easy to understand and that are not
full of unexplained acronyms or technical jargon.

CONCISE – People’s memories are not long and everyone is in a hurry; if you say too much, you’ll bury your message.

CONSISTENT – Your message must not run counter to your actions and must not conflict with messages to various audiences.

COMPELLING – You must find a way to convey it in an interesting way
which hits home and rings sincere.

THEN DEVELOP YOUR “MUST AIR” MESSAGES

Once you have settled on your SOCO, you can use this as the focus for writing down your three (no more!) major messages that must see air time when you are quoted after the communication is complete. In the case of a crisis response, these messages should convey needed information that will interpret the events and express empathy for people negatively affected.

Drawing from my own background as Manager of Public Affairs for a chemical manufacturing company that made one of the smelliest chemicals known to man, I offer here an example that I hope will clarify this. In my 16 years as the company spokesperson, I was often called upon to comment on an odorous release that had escaped the plant facility and made its way into the local neighborhood. (I should tell you it smelled like rotten fish and was noticeable to the human nose at around 21 parts per billion!) After an instance like this, the SOCO would be “The odorous release noticeable in the community has been controlled.” The three “must air” messages would be: (1) the company sincerely apologizes for the incident; (2) it was a nuisance odor, not a health threat; and (3) the company has undertaken an investigation to determine the cause of the operational upset so that we can attempt to prevent a recurrence.

EMBELLISH WITH A FEW MEMORABLE DETAILS

If you have an opportunity to elaborate – if your speech or presentation is scheduled to be 20 minutes, not a 30-second “sound bite” for a media interview – you should use that time to expound on your “must air” messages which are based on the SOCO. Provide interesting examples to which your audience can relate. Tell human stories that illustrate a point. Describe personal insights. Highlight some statistics if they are powerful (but not boring, leading to the MEGO response – My Eyes Glaze Over). Most people can remember these types of things rather than straight statements of facts.

Just don’t get carried away with too much detail. As professional speakers are often told, “Try to finish talking before your audience has finished listening.”

RETURN TO YOUR SOCO AT THE END

At the conclusion of your statement or presentation, close with another reference to your Single Overriding Communications Objective. Say it in slightly different words so you don’t sound like a broken record, but try to make sure it is the last thing people read or hear.

Your ability to successfully communicate in various high pressure situations is directly related to (1) your ability to develop a SOCO that is clear, concise, consistent, and compelling and (2) how well you practice so that you can effectively stay on message in order to persuade or convince your audience.

# # #

It is no accident that the first of my “Ten C’s of Good Crisis Communications” as described in my book and taught in my workshops is “Be Cooperative.”  Cooperation is crucial to getting your side of the story told in any media coverage.  My favorite quote in this regard is, “If you don’t manage your news, someone else is sure to MISmanage it for you.” A cooperative attitude expressed when the media first contacts you about an incident at your facility or an allegation of some sort of wrongdoing will set the stage for dealing with the whole situation successfully.  Even if you are surprised by an unexpected call alleging something you weren’t aware of, it does your situation no good at all to get defensive or combative.

Because of how strongly I feel about this topic, it resonated with me deeply when I read perspectives on this issue in a new book, “Beat the Press: Your Guide to Managing the Media.”  The author is Mark Macias. For many years, Mark was an investigative producer for programs on major television networks. He oversaw and managed consumer, medical and investigative units for WNBC.  He was also a Senior Producer of Special Projects for WCBS, tasked with coming up with original story ideas to increase ratings which led him to go after a former US Congressman, public corporations, restaurant chains, governmental bodies, and small business owners.  You’ve all seen consumer advocacy shows, whether it’s called “Channel ___ On Your Side,” “Help Me Howard” or some other name.  Because of these experiences, Mark is uniquely qualified to provide advice on how to deal with these types of reporters and producers if they should decide to come after you and your organization.

In this e-zine, I want to condense a small portion of the book as it has applications not only to those times when a consumer advocate sets his sights on you, but also to those times when there has been a newsworthy incident that a regular reporter has been assigned to cover.  The following is taken from Chapter 6, with Mark’s permission.

“DEFENSIVE DECREE #10: DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WANT DONE UNTO YOU

You never get a second chance to make a first impression, and when it comes to crisis management, this is one of the most important items to remember when dealing with a reporter or producer. There were many times in my career when a business owner or accused person came across over the phone as haughty, arrogant, defensive, pompous, or even above the law. In almost every case, it only pushed me to project the same attitude back. This type of behavior will never help your dealings with the media, and in the initial stages of a story, any form of hostility will almost always hurt you and your case.
Worse, if a relationship between you and the media gets off to a bad start, it will probably remain on that trajectory….The story can continue on without your cooperation. In many cases, the story is easier for the reporter if you choose not to work with him because he has one less person to deal with. He only has to research one side, and he can simply end his story by saying he gave you the opportunity to talk but you refused to comment….
You also don’t want a reporter to harbor any grudges against you. This could make him work harder to uncover evidence against you or your business. Reporters and producers are human, and if you make them angry, you could very well be pushing them into enemy territory. In crisis management, keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
It’s natural for you to become protective or even defensive over the phone when a producer or reporter calls with accusations against you. However, you must resist this natural tendency to become combative. Instead, put your best face forward to appear affable and genuine. You can’t underestimate the nice-guy factor when it comes to working with the media. A kind disposition from the onset can disarm journalists faster than new evidence supporting your case.
Many reporters believe they have a strong gut instinct or intuition, and I’ve seen it at work myself. If a reporter’s initial gut tells him that you are a jerk, it will only support the allegation someone else is making against you. So do unto others as you’d like done onto you.”

Particularly if you see yourself as a possible target for an unhappy customer or an individual trying to advance a personal agenda against your business or industry, you would be well served to pick up a copy of this book.  Mark provides a great deal of sound advice on how to convince the reporter/producer that there is no legitimate story worthy of their coverage or, possibly, that they might be opening themselves up to a lawsuit if they are determined to pursue it.

Thanks, Mark, for letting me share this solid information. Remember, you really never do get a second chance to make a first impression.

WHO CONTROLS A TV INTERVIEW?

There was a pretty amazing piece of TV footage captured this past month.  Whether you saw it when it happened on Piers Morgan’s talk show, caught one of the numerous replays of the incident, or just heard about it, it will likely be remembered for a long time. I’m referring to the interview Piers conducted with Christine O’Donnell, who had agreed to conduct a remote interview to talk about her new book.

Ms. O’Donnell has been talked about a great deal in the past year or so as one of the rising stars of the Tea Party movement.  Earlier, she ran into some tough times, admitting on another talk show that she had once – in her youth — belonged to a coven. The media, of course, had a field day with that revelation and it was part of what derailed her run for a Delaware Senate seat in 2010.  But she still had a devoted following. Her hope was that her new book would provide further support for the principles she believes in.

A RECAP OF WHAT HAPPENED ON THE SHOW

Piers Morgan reviewed her rise to a very public position within her Party—both the positive and the negative things.  In her answers, Ms. O’Donnell often said, “As I say in my book…” Then came the trouble.  Piers indicated that he wanted to talk to her about her position on gay marriage. Ms. O’Donnell became visibly flustered, called Piers “rude,”  and told him that was not what she came on his show to discuss.  She even said, “Don’t you think, as a host, that if I say that’s what I want to talk about, that’s what we should address?” Piers replied, as would any reporter I know, “Not really, no.”

He was genuinely surprised, he indicated, because he was merely asking her about something she had written in the book that she was so actively promoting on his show.  At this point, her eyes obviously shifted off stage as she began looking for her staff members stationed off camera. One of them positioned himself between her and the camera so all you could see was his back while she was taking off the microphone and getting ready to walk off the set.

DON’T BE NAÏVE IF YOU ARE BEING INTERVIEWED

I find it difficult to believe that Ms. O’Donnell really thought she could control the questions she would be asked by a talk show host.  The same can be said for any reporter to whom you have granted an interview.  When you step in front of the camera, you are open to any and all questions.  Some people could possibly be blindsided by a question based on a long-past incident. But that was not the case in this instance. This was especially amazing, because the question Piers asked is one that is part of the current political debate and  something she had written about in the book Piers was holding in his hand!

Never forget: You do not have the ability to control the questions you will be asked.  You can only control your answers.  Therefore, in preparation for an interview of any sort, you should have thought through all of the probable questions you could be asked. You should carefully word and rehearse your answers, seeking to bridge from the questions asked to one or more of the key messages you want to have the listening public understand, believe, and remember about your positions.

THE NEGATIVE IMPRESSION OF BAILING OUT

Without a doubt, whatever answer Ms. O’Donnell would have given to Piers’ question about her position on gay marriage might have given rise to some controversial media coverage.  On such a divisive issue, she surely would have displeased some segment of the electorate, no matter what she said.  But whatever fallout might have occurred paled in comparison to the coverage she received after walking off the set in a huff.  She looked inexperienced and unable to defend her beliefs. The clip was shown over and over not only on YouTube, but also when Piers Morgan made a point of re-airing the entire segment and soliciting the opinions of various experts as to whether or not he had been out of line. (Ms. O’Donnell had gone so far as to characterize his treatment of her as sexual harassment, which was clearly not evidenced by the way he asked her questions. The accusations only made her look more foolish.)

I have no idea what Ms. O’Donnell’s future in politics will be.  This type of incident, however, is one that will go in every media outlet’s archives to be pulled out and shown again whenever her name comes up, especially if she should choose to pursue public office.  Let her experience be a lesson for you.  Recognize that media interviewers can and will ask you anything that they believe is relevant for the public to know. Plan your answers ahead of time so that you can remain calm and controlled when you deliver them.  The impression you leave will be much more positive than a damaging clip played for days on end on YouTube and traditional media!

Quote of the Month: “Relying on miracles is not the best way to manage (our organization).”
Pete Rahn – Transportation Commissioner of Missouri

If you have had some good media training, you probably already know that before you meet your interviewer, you need to commit to memory three key messages that will convey a positive impression to your audiences.  These are the things that you want them to know, understand, believe, and remember about the news story in question.  You should brainstorm these key messages with your Crisis Management Team to make sure that they are, indeed, the most important messages.  Then you need to work hard to word them clearly and effectively.  Try to incorporate memorable sound bites.  And develop two or three ways of saying the same thing so you don’t sound like a broken record.

Right there I have described a lot of work – hard work. Nowadays you have to do this work fast because, in our 24/7 news cycle world, someone will be banging on you for answers before you know it.  This is where the preparation that I’ve been preaching for all these years will pay off.  If, at times of no crisis, you’ve developed stand-by statements for the most likely types of incidents to occur in your organization, you will have the luxury of a lot more time to think through the three you want to communicate in the heat of the moment.  You could even have passed them around to the appropriate corporate and legal staff to obtain their blessing before you file them away in a readily accessible place.

BUT HAVING YOUR KEY MESSAGES ISN’T ENOUGH

You could have the best possible key messages prepared.  You could know them cold and be ready to expound on them at any time.  But instead of giving you a chance to speak, the reporter asks you a lot of questions, which you try your best to answer.  Before you know it, the camera is turned off or the reporter flips closed his notebook and heads out the door.  You didn’t have a chance to deliver those key messages.

It is not the reporter’s job to draw those key messages out of you.  It’s YOUR job to find a way to insert them into the interview.  It’s not easy and it takes some skill and practice to do it in ways that are effective and not blatantly obvious.  It is called, in media training parlance, “bridging.”  A bridge is a verbal way to get from the question asked to one of your major messages.

WHAT DO GOOD BRIDGES SOUND LIKE?

We know what they DON’T sound like.  Lots of politicians use them.  Prior to a press conference, they have been prepared by their staff with major “talking points” or key messages.  They memorized them and feel certain they can convey them well.  But in the press conference, a reporter asks a question that the politician was not prepared for.  He/she says something like, “I appreciate that question on what we are doing about gun control legislation; let me tell you more about our plan to put people back to work.”
NOT a good bridge.  People figure out right away that you are trying to totally evade the question and resent the clumsy effort to avoid a difficult subject.

You have to make a sincere effort to answer the question asked.  Be concise; don’t draw it out and get involved in details.  Then, without even taking much of a breath, use a bridge to shift people’s attention to what you want to spend your time talking about.  Make sure it is valuable information, beneficial to the audience – not merely self-serving statements about what a good organization you are.  Tell them what you are doing to bring a difficult situation under control and protect their interests.

Good bridges are statements like:

    Don’t forget that the REAL issue here is….
    What concerns us even more is…
    I would describe it differently…
    There is an even tougher issue that we need to address…
    While I understand your concerns about … we can’t forget that …
    Our real focus in dealing with this issue is…
    Even more to the point is the fact that…
    What I think people need to understand is…

DON’T BE AFRAID TO REPEAT YOURSELF

If your key messages are truly what you want people to know, understand, believe and remember about the situation at hand, do not hesitate to use several of these bridges to get a chance to communicate them.  In your statements that will be transmitted on TV or another digital format, the media will likely edit your remarks so that all of your repetition won’t be played. Yet you will have been able to get at least one of your major messages across to your audiences.  When speaking in a live interview or in front of an actual audience, remember that people need to hear something 6-7 times before they can recall it, so repetition is a good thing.

If a news story about your organization doesn’t achieve your goals, one question you should ask yourself is whether you did a good job of bridging to your major messages often enough.  If not, do some more of that role-playing I always advocate and practice this valuable skill.  It will come in handy the next time!

# # #

PRE-PUBLICATION SPECIAL:  The 2011 version of my book, “Keeping Cool on the Hot Seat: Dealing Effectively with the Media in Times of Crisis – 5th Edition” is off to the printer.  Besides updating references throughout, I’ve added new material on (1) the need to use social media as a tool in crisis response and (2) looking at lessons learned from some of the biggest news stories of 2008-2011 (the BP oil spill, the implosion of Tiger Woods, the Johnson & Johnson recall debacle, the Japanese tsunami/nuclear facility crisis, and the messaging surrounding the killing of bin Laden).  This plus the two previous editions that added material have increased the size of the book considerably over the original 2001 version, so I have finally decided to raise the price to $24.95.  But if you, a valued e-zine subscriber, want a copy of the new edition, please e-mail me and tell me you want the pre-publication special price of $15.95 plus $2.55 for shipping. Give me your mailing address and I’ll get it off to you as soon as I get them (likely late August).

CLEARANCE SALE:  And since I still have one carton (30 copies) of the 2008 version left in the garage, I will sell those at 75% off the original price ($6.00) plus $2.55 for shipping.  Again, e-mail me that this is what you want and send me your mailing address. I can get it off to you immediately.

Until next month…KEEP COOL! (easier said than done THIS summer…)

Judy Hoffman
jchent@earthlink.net
www.judyhoffman.com
1-800-848-3907 PIN 2145

QUOTE OF THE MONTH:  “It’s frustrating when you know all of the answers, but nobody bothers to ask you the questions!” — Anonymous

“COULD IT HAPPEN HERE?”

As soon as journalists were done transmitting video, photographs and written reports of the horrific earthquake and tsunami overwhelming the coast of northern Japan, reports started surfacing of the troubles of the Fukushima Nuclear Plant in that area. I predicted what would come next. I will wager that the most alert people on the staffs of nuclear facilities around the world figured it out as well.  With the public watching the explosion that occurred at that facility and listening to reports of radioactive fallout raining down on the surrounding area, we knew that it would not take long for reporters from coast to coast in the U.S. — and the rest of the world — to start questioning, “Could it happen here?”

IT’S A NATURAL QUESTION FOR REPORTERS AND THE PUBLIC TO ASK

And it’s certainly not limited to the nuclear industry.  Any time a tragic accident occurs in any industry, people jump almost immediately to wondering if it could happen where they or a loved one live/work.  When an operational upset causes environmental damage to air, land, or water anywhere, people begin speculating about how likely it is that it could happen in their neck of the woods.  (We saw that dramatically when the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig owned by BP exploded and caught on fire and sank in the Gulf of Mexico a year ago. The government’s quick response was to shut down deep water oil exploration for some time.)  When an epidemic outbreak of a contagious disease occurs at a hospital, current and prospective patients and their families in the surrounding area are frightened.  I’m sure you all can imagine troubling situations related to your type of business.

There is a nuclear facility in my area - Raleigh, North Carolina — so I was able to watch the local TV news coverage of a nuclear plant spokesperson being put on the spot.  He was peppered with questions about their plant’s safety programs and the engineering standards used when it was constructed and what upgrades have been implemented in the intervening years.  Most of the time, the spokesperson looked very uncomfortable.  He tried to be reassuring about how unlikely it was that an earthquake would be strong enough to create the kinds of problems that were occurring in Japan. I’m quite sure this news story which was local for me played out in numerous media markets around the world wherever other nuclear facilities are located.   Maybe all of we viewers heard the various spokespersons saying something like the words found in the Fukushima plant’s disaster plan: “The possibility of a severe accident occurring is so small that, from an engineering standpoint, it is practically unthinkable.”  But the TV coverage would inevitably revert to the video clip of the explosion at the Fukushima facility and reports of radioactivity levels so high that workers could not respond as effectively as they would like.  So the words of the spokespeople anywhere probably did little to reassure a nervous public, whichever facility they live close to.

IT’S CALLED ISSUES MANAGEMENT

For some larger organizations, there may be a whole department called “Issues Management.”  In smaller organizations, one person usually wears a lot of hats, including this one.  For the sole proprietor running his or her own enterprise, he/she has to wear all of the hats!  All of these people have to be aware of what is going on in the world outside their own doors.  When they see a situation developing - or exploding — on the scene and realize that a lot of people are going to be upset by it, one of the first things they need to do is objectively assess “Could it happen here?”

NO OSTRICHES PLEASE!

When you see a serious issue developing in your industry or in your community, you should not adopt the ostrich position - with your head buried in the sand - and just hope it will somehow pass you by.  Be proactive. Start immediately to prepare yourself and your colleagues with well developed talking points, backed up by as many solid facts as you can gather, so that you can answer that very reasonable question from a local reporter. Work with a couple of people in your organization to word your statements well.  Pass the talking points by Legal.  Then communicate them widely in the organization because - even though only a few designated people will talk to the media - all employees must be confident they have the right information to answer that question when posed by their friends or neighbors.

It is a wise organization that spends some quality time — right when something dramatic happens — developing their answers and preparing for that reporter or blogger or concerned neighbor who contacts them.  It is an even wiser organization that has thought of these potential problems way in advance, has developed its major talking points and gotten them approved, done whatever is possible to reduce the likelihood that this situation could actually occur, and held role-playing exercises that simulate the exact potential crisis.  In this way, they can practice delivering their public statements and get feedback — from their own employees and other trusted individuals — on how those messages are likely to be received.

# # #

Special Note:  Thanks to all of you who checked in to make sure we were all right down here in the Raleigh, NC area after the tornadoes of April 16th.  Our family here was all safe, but NC residents to the east and west of us were not so fortunate.  And yesterday even more deadly tornadoes and floods came through neighboring states.  Over 300 people were killed. Thankfully many were spared, at least in part because they had done advanced planning and knew the safest places to go when a disaster was predicted to come to their area.  There are obvious parallels to crisis planning. For those of us not personally impacted, let’s say a prayer for those who were and lend a helping hand or send a donation to those organizations who are working so hard to help.

Until next month…

KEEP COOL!

Judy Hoffman
www.judyhoffman.com
jchent@earthlink.net
Author of “Keeping Cool on the Hot Seat: Dealing
Effectively with the Media in Times of Crisis”

QUOTE OF THE MONTH:  “It’s frustrating  when you know all of the answers, but nobody bothers to ask you the questions!”  — Anonymous

“COULD IT HAPPEN HERE?”

As soon as journalists were done transmitting video, photographs and written reports of the horrific earthquake and tsunami overwhelming the coast of northern Japan, reports started surfacing of the troubles of the Fukushima Nuclear Plant in that area. I predicted what would come next. I will wager that the most alert people on the staffs of nuclear facilities around the world figured it out as well.  With the public watching the explosion that occurred at that facility and listening to reports of radioactive fallout raining down on the surrounding area, we knew that it would not take long for reporters from coast to coast in the U.S. — and the rest of the world — to start questioning, “Could it happen here?”

IT’S A NATURAL QUESTION FOR REPORTERS AND THE PUBLIC TO ASK

And it’s certainly not limited to the nuclear industry.  Any time a tragic accident occurs in any industry, people jump almost immediately to wondering if it could happen where they or a loved one live/work.  When an operational upset causes environmental damage to air, land, or water anywhere, people begin speculating about how likely it is that it could happen in their neck of the woods.  (We saw that dramatically when the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig owned by BP exploded and caught on fire and sank in the Gulf of Mexico a year ago. The government’s quick response was to shut down deep water oil exploration for some time.)  When an epidemic outbreak of a contagious disease occurs at a hospital, current and prospective patients and their families in the surrounding area are frightened.  I’m sure you all can imagine troubling situations related to your type of business.

There is a nuclear facility in my area - Raleigh, North Carolina — so I was able to watch the local TV news coverage of a nuclear plant spokesperson being put on the spot.  He was peppered with questions about their plant’s safety programs and the engineering standards used when it was constructed and what upgrades have been implemented in the intervening years.  Most of the time, the spokesperson looked very uncomfortable.  He tried to be reassuring about how unlikely it was that an earthquake would be strong enough to create the kinds of problems that were occurring in Japan. I’m quite sure this news story which was local for me played out in numerous media markets around the world wherever other nuclear facilities are located.   Maybe all of we viewers heard the various spokespersons saying something like the words found in the Fukushima plant’s disaster plan: “The possibility of a severe accident occurring is so small that, from an engineering standpoint, it is practically unthinkable.”  But the TV coverage would inevitably revert to the video clip of the explosion at the Fukushima facility and reports of radioactivity levels so high that workers could not respond as effectively as they would like.  So the words of the spokespeople anywhere probably did little to reassure a nervous public, whichever facility they live close to.

IT’S CALLED ISSUES MANAGEMENT

For some larger organizations, there may be a whole department called “Issues Management.”  In smaller organizations, one person usually wears a lot of hats, including this one.  For the sole proprietor running his or her own enterprise, he/she has to wear all of the hats!  All of these people have to be aware of what is going on in the world outside their own doors.  When they see a situation developing - or exploding — on the scene and realize that a lot of people are going to be upset by it, one of the first things they need to do is objectively assess “Could it happen here?”

NO OSTRICHES PLEASE!

When you see a serious issue developing in your industry or in your community, you should not adopt the ostrich position - with your head buried in the sand - and just hope it will somehow pass you by.  Be proactive. Start immediately to prepare yourself and your colleagues with well developed talking points, backed up by as many solid facts as you can gather, so that you can answer that very reasonable question from a local reporter. Work with a couple of people in your organization to word your statements well.  Pass the talking points by Legal.  Then communicate them widely in the organization because - even though only a few designated people will talk to the media - all employees must be confident they have the right information to answer that question when posed by their friends or neighbors.

It is a wise organization that spends some quality time — right when something dramatic happens — developing their answers and preparing for that reporter or blogger or concerned neighbor who contacts them.  It is an even wiser organization that has thought of these potential problems way in advance, has developed its major talking points and gotten them approved, done whatever is possible to reduce the likelihood that this situation could actually occur, and held role-playing exercises that simulate the exact potential crisis.  In this way, they can practice delivering their public statements and get feedback — from their own employees and other trusted individuals — on how those messages are likely to be received.

# # #

Special Note:  Thanks to all of you who checked in to make sure we were all right down here in the Raleigh, NC area after the tornadoes of April 16th.  Our family here was all safe, but NC residents to the east and west of us were not so fortunate.  And yesterday even more deadly tornadoes and floods came through neighboring states.  Over 300 people were killed. Thankfully many were spared, at least in part because they had done advanced planning and knew the safest places to go when a disaster was predicted to come to their area.  There are obvious parallels to crisis planning. For those of us not personally impacted, let’s say a prayer for those who were and lend a helping hand or send a donation to those organizations who are working so hard to help.

Until next month…

KEEP COOL!

Judy Hoffman
www.judyhoffman.com
jchent@earthlink.net
Author of “Keeping Cool on the Hot Seat: Dealing
Effectively with the Media in Times of Crisis”

Quote of the Month:  “Being kind is more important than being important.”

– From “What Dogs Teach Us: Life’s Lessons Learned from Our Best Friends”  by Glenn Dromgoole

I make it a habit to look at my competition.  When something good comes along, I am happy to share it with my clients and e-zine subscribers.  This month I want to tell you about an excellent new book entitled “When the Headline is You: An Insider’s Guide to Handling the Media.”  It was written by Jeff Ansell, a former journalist who is now a media trainer like me, and published by Jossey-Bass.

If you have a particularly thorny public relations issue, I suggest you read his book so that you can use his very practical Media Messaging Toolkit.  It will prove extremely useful in helping you develop messages that will resonate positively with your many audiences.  It is too complicated for me to address here, but explained clearly by Jeff so that you can use it to your advantage.

What Jeff has given me permission to share with you here are the three most difficult types of questions that reporters (and sometimes members of the public in a hostile group meeting) can throw at you.  If you hear any of these types of questions which are purposefully used to entrap, confuse or mislead the person being interviewed, be very careful about how you answer them!

“YES OR NO?”

The reporter may have asked a series of questions to which the spokesperson has supplied lengthy answers trying to explain the intricacies of the situation.  At a certain point, the reporter imitates lawyers he’s seen on a law and order TV show.  “Just answer ‘yes’ or ‘no…” and then he asks a potentially dangerous question.  Let’s say that you know you are supposed to be honest, and since you are being forced to pick just between these two absolutes, you give in to the reporter’s belligerent demands.  The trouble is that you know that if you start off with either a “yes” or a “no,” any explanation you provide in the rest of the sentence — trying to put your answer into context — could very well end up on the editing room floor.

Remember that you are not in a court of law.  You do not have to comply with the reporter’s demands that you provide a “yes” or “no” answer.  Continue to provide an answer that puts your response in the proper context.  Defend your position that the situation is too complex for a simplistic answer and assert that the audience needs to know more facts.

“IS IT POSSIBLE THAT…”

It is quite interesting that the example Jeff uses here is jumping off the pages of today’s news at us.  If a nuclear engineer in the U.S. were asked if it were possible that a nuclear incident such as we are seeing played out in Japan could happen in this country, any professional person would have to answer in the affirmative.  He would surely go on to maintain that there are safeguards in place and a very unlikely set of circumstances would have to occur.   But these explanations are not very reassuring to a public that has been seeing scenes of explosions and fires at the reactor in Japan and knows that there is radioactive fallout being detected in the area around the plant.  The only advice here is to stick to the message you’ve prepared ahead of time to point out the multiple levels of safety engineered into the system. If the reporter continues to badger you, something Jeff suggests is the Closure Strategy. You say, “I’ve answered the question a couple of times. If you like, I’ll answer it one last time before we move on,” and then paraphrase your message one final time.  It’s admittedly not perfect, but it’s the best you can do in a difficult situation.

“CAN YOU GUARANTEE…”

Chances are very good that you cannot guarantee anything and the reporter or angry townsperson knows that.  If you say you CAN guarantee it, you are apt to be met with great skepticism.  If you say you CAN’T guarantee it, that’s likely to be the headline of the story.  I once had the experience of being the representative of my chemical manufacturing company at a meeting of a homeowners association that had built their housing development within a quarter mile of our plant.  A woman stood up and shouted, “Can you absolutely guarantee me that nothing that comes out of your plant now and for the next 50 years won’t harm my children?”  I responded, “If I DID guarantee you that, would you believe me?” Of course she replied, “NO!” I then said, “I’m not going to guarantee you that; what I will guarantee you is that every person who works at our plant takes their responsibility to run an environmentally sound and safe facility very seriously.”   I didn’t know it at the time, but Jeff calls that “deflecting the question…and redirecting it to a guarantee that reflects your intended message.”

In Chapter 23 of my book, “Keeping Cool on the Hot Seat: Dealing Effectively with the Media in Times of Crisis,” I cover what I call “Reporters’ Tricks and Traps” and provide you with additional tools to manage situations like these.  Be sure to go on High Alert if a reporter you are dealing with starts out his questions with any of the three phrases above.  You will be treading in dangerous territory.

# # #

SPECIAL NOTE:  Next week I will be travelling to Appalachian State University in Boone, NC.  This is the most recent university to have ordered by book as a text for a communications course.  After being a guest lecturer in two classes, I will also have a chance to address the student chapter of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSSA) that evening.  In preparation for that speech, I have put together a short two-page document entitled “The Role of the PR Professional Before, During and After a Crisis.”  If you or anyone in your organization — especially in your PR/communications department — would like a free copy of this, just e-mail me at jchent@earthlink.net.

Until next month….KEEP COOL!

Judy Hoffman
Author of “Keeping Cool on the Hot Seat: Dealing Effectively with the Media in Times of Crisis”
www.judyhoffman.com
(919) 550-8302

JCH Enterprises, 116 Nelson Lane, Clayton, NC 27527, USA

Perhaps you have heard about the prank call made to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker earlier this month. He is the Governor who has called for taking away the rights of the state employees to bargain collectively with their union. (It started out as asking them to pay towards their health care benefits, but now has come to be seen as a full-blown union busting effort.) It has sparked massive demonstrations in the Wisconsin state capitol for weeks and has spread to a number of other states.

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of trying to strip collective bargaining rights from workers in order to help meet seriously battered state budgets, there is a lesson to be learned for all of us in crisis communications. Whenever you are contacted by someone, unless it is a face-to-face conversation where you can actually see the person talking to you, you MUST be sure they are who they say they are.

In this case, Ian Murphy, a fellow who writes for the liberal blog, Buffalo Beast, called the Governor. He claimed to be David Koch, a conservative businessman who – with his brother – has supported many conservative political campaigns of those whose ideas they espouse. The brothers had donated $43,000 to Governor Walker’s campaign. Naturally, when his staff heard David Koch was trying to contact the Governor, they wanted to be responsive.

In The Washington Times article about this incident, it is reported that some of the Governor’s staff people at least tried to do what I teach my clients. I warn that anyone can place a phone call and say they are someone they are not. They could claim to be a well-known reporter from a respected publication – someone you know from past experience operates under a code of journalistic ethics. When you later find out that it is blogger for a forum that is diametrically opposed to your views, you are apt to find out the hard way that they can use your remarks in such a way to make you look as bad as possible. (Yes, I know…some people think any reporter is capable and ready to do this if it helps sell newspapers and make a name for himself, but that is not usually the case.)

The person who initially answered the phone in the Governor’s office didn’t pass the caller right through to the Governor, but took a message. That’s good. It is why I tell people they should have someone in their organization who is designated to take initial calls from the media so that The Boss doesn’t end up on the phone with a reporter without a chance to pull his thoughts together and make a coherent statement. The message that David Koch was calling was passed to Governor Walker’s top-level assistant.

She did what she should have done. She called the individual back and, instead of putting the Governor right on the line, asked for a phone number where the Governor could reach him. This technique allows time for some research to be done to see if the caller is authentic if you don’t immediately recognize a phone number as being legitimate. Mr. Murphy is either a very quick thinker, or he knew that someone would be trying to verify the phone number he was using. He made up an excuse that his maid had accidentally thrown his phone away and he was using a substitute. Unfortunately for the Governor’s aide — and the Governor — she accepted this excuse. The Governor called and the conversation took place and was recorded. Thinking he was speaking to someone who totally supported what he was doing, the Governor went into detail about the strategies he planned to use to dupe some of the state senators so that he could pass the legislation he wanted. He even claimed to have a baseball bat in his office that he could use on the recalcitrant ones. And he seemed to accept “Mr. Koch’s” offer to treat him to a nice vacation in California when the whole mess was over.

Needless to say, when Mr. Murphy made the recorded conversation available on his blog, it caused quite a sensation. It spread virally on the Internet. (Just Google “Wisconsin Governor and David Koch” to see for yourself.) The whole thing has proven to be a great embarrassment to the Governor.

Lesson to be learned: Know to whom you are speaking! Do not take people at their word. Legitimate folks, be they reporters or someone else, will not mind having to verify they are who they say they are. Those who are trying to trick you may not show you any mercy if you fail to do so.