RepMan

Top 10 reasons why David Letterman did a great job of managing his crisis

10.) He was prompt
9.) He admitted fault
8.) He called his actions 'creepy'
7.) He made the announcement on national TV
6.) He apologized
5.) He used comedy, a powerful weapon, in an appropriate way
4.) He made clear he hadn't violated the workplace policies of either CBS or his own company
3.) He made clear that the timing of the workplace liaison predated his becoming married
2.) He was genuine in his remarks, and, drum roll please................

1.) He used the right platform at the right time and in the right way to convey the message

Too many CEOs balk at disclosing negative information. Or, they bumble their way through stiff, obviously rehearsed remarks. Or, they stop short of admitting fault and assuming responsibility. Or, they'll have a PR spokesperson handle the media on their behalf. Or, they'll let the lawyers control the message which ends up sounding like pure gibberish. Or, they'll bury their heads in the sand and hope to ride out the storm.

The Letterman story may have additional chapters before it ends. But, in my book, the man handled the image and reputation elements of the communications as well as I've ever seen.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, here's Paul Schaefer and the 'Late Night' Band playing, 'I'm a Man,' by Chicago.

Silence kills

I was shocked to read about the horrific happenings at France Telecom, the global telecommunications giant. Based upon huge staff reductions and other Draconian measures taken during the recession, no fewer than 23 employees have committed suicide in the past 18 months.

I was even more shocked and, in fact, sickened to read about senior management's apparent lack of communication and abject indifference as the crisis unfolded. One France Telecom employee, Monique Fraysee-Guiglini, said management had been in total denial for a long time. “It has refused to listen to what the office doctors had to say about the restructuring. We tried to sound the alarm several times, in vain. Speech is very restricted,” she said.

What a terrible indictment. And, what a horrible way in which to manage an organization and treat fellow human beings. I've seen lots of corporate cultures over the years, many of which were positively toxic. But, I've never, ever experienced one that seems as totally detached from common sense, business ethics and basic decency as the one at France Telecom.

Having just attended the Arthur Page Society's annual conference, I know how critically important honesty and transparency is to a brand's reputation and performance. During the two-day conference, we had the opportunity to listen to the CEOs of such companies as US Airways, Darden Restaurants, CDW and others. Each consistently stressed the critical importance of placing ethics ahead of expediency. These companies succeed because they do the right thing.

If the allegations against the senior executives of France Telecom are true, then the company will most surely be forever branded as the evil doppelganger of J&J/Tylenol in the annals of crisis communications management.

Today’s hero is often tomorrow’s road kill

I tossed on an old t-shirt before heading out for my five-mile run Sunday morning. It wasn’t until I’d come back and taken it off, though, that I noticed the writing. It featured the slogan of a long gone Web 1.0 client. This wasn’t just any Web 1.0 company. It was the first-to-market in its field. Remember first mover status? Ooooh. It was soooo important.

Anyway, this dotcom had raised millions of dollars from top venture capital firms and its Israeli-led management team believed they walked on water. I remember their unbelievable hubris when they’d descend on our office. When not brow-beating our account team in the conference room, they’d stroll up and down our hallways screaming into their cell phones at some administrative type or banker on the other end. And we permitted it because, well, these were dotcom gods, that’s why. I think they went belly-up in 2002.

I remember another Web 1.0 CEO and his henchwoman who thought they, too, walked on water. Their business model had something to do with being on the edge of the Web and, like the Israelis, they were first-to-market with their business model. They’d raised tons of money, hired hundreds of people and demanded that our account team work 24x7 just like they did. I still remember their ‘coming out’ party at Lotus. It was a ‘must attend’ event for anyone who was anyone in what used to be called Silicon Alley. I also remember the CEO acting like some sultan from “A Thousand and One Arabian Nights”and holding court in a back room. That company imploded two or three months later.

I also recall a gaming company whose head of public relations had the foulest mouth this side of a Bayonne longshoreman. She, too, thought she walked on water and regularly browbeat our team. I think the worst moment came when an industry trade publication named her ‘Young PR Professional of the Year.’ I remember thinking at the time that either some judge hadn’t done her homework or the industry was now including verbal abuse as a key component of the successful, young PR pro. Happily, it turned out to be the former and this horror show and her firm soon disappeared from the Web 1.0 landscape.

I bring all this up because I’ve noticed more and more hubris of late from Web 2.0 CEOs and their in-house marketing communications types. Hopefully, what I’m seeing is an exception to the norm. Even if it’s not, I’m sure I’ll be running one day soon in a  t-shirt from a company that went very quickly from being today’s hero to tomorrow’s road kill. That’s because there seems to be a direct correlation between short-term abuse and long-term failure.

Hell hath no fury

The alleged murders of erstwhile sports stars Steve McNair and Arturo Gatti have given new meaning to the old phrase, 'Hell hath no fury like that of a woman scorned.'

From what I've been able to piece together, McNair and Gatti both shared a fondness for the ladies, but made the mistake of two-timing the wrong ones. McNair was the apparent victim of a murder-suicide while Brazilian authorities say Gatti's wife is the lead suspect in his slaying.

McNair's assailant had purchased her murder weapon just days before, again pointing to the need for more stringent gun control laws. I'm not sure what Mrs. Gatti used to deliver the final knockout to her ex-pugilist hubby, but the odds are good she bought it recently.

Weapons of choice aside, what's with the sudden rash of cuckolded concubines committing the ultimate crime of passion? I'm sure there are myriad societal factors involved in each, not the least of which is the pro athlete's belief that he can do or say anything and get away with. And, I'm sure Mrs. Gatti's defense team is already preparing a case of justifiable homicide as the rationale for her actions.

Whether it's easy access to guns, sports stars who think the rules don't apply to them or criminals blaming society for their heinous actions, something has gone badly awry.

The same society that vilified Michael Jackson now worships him. Sarah Palin, despite delivering a rambling, nonsensensical resignation speech, remains beloved by seven out of 10 Republicans. And, now it looks as if the Bush Administration deliberately withheld classified CIA information from Congress. What's a reasonably rationale blogger to make of all this?

It all comes down to one word: accountability. The rules have changed and the guilty are no longer being held strictly accountable. Black is now white and white black.

If nothing else, aging and randy sports stars should study the McNair/Gatti massacres and think twice about their next liaison. In a society gone mad, mad women are feeling more empowered than ever.

This cannot be good news for Sparks, Morton's and Ruth's Chris

A newly-released study of more than 500,000 Americans confirms that men and women who consume the most red and processed meat are likely to die sooner, especially from heart disease and cancer. Results of the decade-long survey were published in a recent issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine.

As a long-standing fan of fish, the news comes as comforting confirmation that I was right in withstanding all that peer pressure over the years from the Ed Moed's and Art Cody's of the world who'd say, 'C'mon Steve. You're at a steak house. Order a damn porterhouse!'

More to the point of this blog, thought, it'll be interesting to see how the meat packing plants, trade associations and multiple steak houses will deal with this news (not to mention good old McDonald's which, in this blogger's humble opinion, has done more damage to more arteries than any other entity in the history of mankind).

How will the pro-meat spin doctors spin these new facts? My guess is they'll trot out some medical shill who's been on some company's payroll for awhile. Taking a page out of the tobacco industry strategies of the 1960s, said 'medical expert' will present contrarian evidence proving that meat is a beautiful thing and, like those Wonder Bread commercials of yesteryear, '......helps build strong bodies in 12 ways.' (Note to Wonder Bread: What, exactly, were the 12 ways white bread helps build strong bodies?).

So, if you're a Peter Lugar, Morton's or Sparks Restaurant whose claims to fame are outrageously tasty steaks, what strategy makes the most sense?

- Aggressive counter-claims
- Reactive messaging to be trotted out only if, and when, the subject comes up, or
- Simply adopting a 'this too shall pass' philosophy?

Image aside, what are the moral and ethical implications of continuing to dish out a food product that has now been directly linked to disease? Do I see a Surgeon General's report in the making?

As for me, I'll continue to order the Dover Sole and keep my fingers crossed there isn't another study underway that links fish consumption to, say, leprosy.

With a Name Like Cash, You'd Think the Quest Board Would Have Been More Vigilant

Quest CEO Jerry Cash has been removed from his position after diverting some $10 million of company funds into a personal account.

I don't know Mr. Cash's track record, but this latest scandal is dripping with irony. For example, do you think any Quest board members worried that, in hiring a guy with such a surname, Cash might play loose and fast with their organization's funds? Are there one or two directors who now find themselves shaking their heads and sighing, "Damn, why didn't we pick that guy named Francis Fiscally Responsible when we had the chance? Or, what about Louise Long-term Growth? She was a viable candidate."

To their credit, the Quest board acted quickly to ditch the Cash problem. In fact, one might say they cashed out. Sadly for Mr. Cash though, his attempts at cashing in were uncovered. And, the only cash stashing on this former chief executive's horizon will probably involve Cash's checking into a minimum security prison.

Let's hope the Quest board does a better job of vetting surnames in their next search. "So, Mr. Sarbanes, I see you've had some legislation named after you? Tell us more."

Hello, Is There Anybody in There?

Believe it or not, there's a Mastercard print ad running right alongside massive coverage of a horrific assault on a British honeymooning couple on the tropical paradise island of Antigua.

The advertisement depicts a beautiful, deserted island and the headline: "Arriving: Priceless." Ouch. Talk about bad timing. Talk about horrific placement. Suffice it to say there was nothing "priceless" about this use of the corporate sobriquet.

Who's to blame when something like this occurs? Is it the paper? Mastercard's advertising agency that bought the space? Or, does the final responsibility lie with the brand itself? Surely, it's the brand that suffers the image and reputation damage from such an obvious blunder.

Mistakes happen, and to err is human. But, if I'm a friend or family member of the ill-starred honeymooners, I'd be slow to forgive Mastercard. This particular advert is tasteless, not priceless.

Is full transparency always the smartest move?

Is full transparency always the smartest move?

Crisis communications 101 teaches us that full disclosure of an 'issue' early and often is the best course for mitigating negative fallout.

The approach seems to work especially well in politics. How many politicians have short circuited such potential career disasters as drug use and infidelity by pre-empting an investigative reporter with a hastily-called press conference? The announcement is followed a feeding frenzy of short-term coverage but, usually, life goes on.

As we know, the pre-emptive, full disclosure strategy is aimed at defaming the media in particular. So, I found it fascinating last week to see a top reporter employ the very same technique in his own behalf.

The reporter was David Carr of The New York Times. His subject: the alleged 'pit bull' media relations strategies of Roger Ailes and his Fox Network. Sensing that his kiss-and-tell column would engender a spiteful retaliation, Carr 'outed' his own prior drug and alcohol abuse. Fair enough, such an admission may well have pre-empted a Fox counter offensive. But, at what personal cost?

I've long admired Carr and his work. Now, though, I'll always think of him as David Carr of the Times, the recovering drug and alcohol addict. And, all future news searches will pull up the same information. Is that a good thing? 

The Web 2.0 world in which we live enables us to create and manage our personal image and reputation. So, my question is this: by disclosing his past problems in order to prevent a future Fox assault, did David Carr win the image battle, but lose the war?

Mugabe Squashes a Beacon of Hope in Africa

Guest post by Joe Becker.

There’s a famous story about a impoverished man who grew up in a small town in Rhodeshia who went on to lead the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) for African independence from European colonists and then get elected as the head of government for Zimbabwe.  This man was invited to speak at the United Nations as the leader of an African nation which was seen as a beacon of success for peace, economic growth, job development, personal safety and commerce.  Not 25 years after the UN speech, which was met with universal fanfare and hope, Robert Mugabe has transformed his homeland into an example of heartbreak. 

The New York Times ran a news piece on Mugabe’s arrest of opposition party leaders being arrested for treason.  If you didn’t already follow this story, Mugabe has strong armed voters, rigged election results and harmed thousands in his quest to iron fist his role as leader of Zimbabwe for nearly 30 years. Recently he actually lost a reelection to opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, getting 43% to his 47.9%.  I can’t imagine how many more people actually voted for Tsvangirai to overcome the fixed election, but Mugabe has been fighting the results and recounting votes in select areas of the country for weeks now.  Mugabe who once offered hope and peace instead invented hyperinflation, expelled tens of thousands of people from their homes and built a government of corruption and brutal repression. 

I share story because my wife studied urban and rural planning in Zimbabwe a number of years ago and speaks fondly of happy people, trusting people and a people looking for hope and reform.  I’m not entirely oblivious; I know governments and people can be corrupt, I’m just sadden that one man can temporarily destroy a country and its sprit. 

I look forward to seeing how this story and election plays out in Zimbabwe, I’m optimistic but the results to come are slightly predictable and sad.

What you don't know can hurt you, your career and your organization's image

The marketing geniuses at Woolworths (now a UK company with no stores in the US) must have skipped their English Literature class en masse while growing up. How else to explain their total ignorance of the blockbuster book and movies, 'Lolita'?

Woolworths just had to recall an entire line of girls' bedding named after the ubiquitous and promiscuous 12-year-old heroine of the Nabokov novel, Lolita.

Parents were justifiably outraged at the mere thought of purchasing bedroom furniture that celebrated the antics and acrobatics of the pre-teen tart. And Woolworths' defense? They'd never heard of the character, the book or the movie.

One would have to lead a fairly sheltered life to have missed the any of the movies, starting with the "original" featuring a comely Sue Lyon as Lolita, a sinister James Mason as her paramour Humbert Humbert and a pathetic Shelly Winters in an Oscar-nominated performance as Lolita's mother. But, then again, the mass ignorance at Woolworths could merely be indicative of a prevalent and disturbing trend among marketers of a certain age (read: youngish): if an event happened before they 'came of age,' it simply didn't exist.

The losers? The young girls, their parents. Woolworths' image and reputation, and all of us. Which is why I urge young people to read, read and read some more. The more you know, the smarter you'll be. The smarter you are, the less likely you'll be to make foolish mistakes that can derail a career and sideswipe a corporate image.