When asked what coaching they had received before the hearing, James Murdoch said that they had been advised - correctly - to be “truthful and transparent”. Hopefully they were also told to come across as likeable and to remember they need to appeal to the audience beyond the committee room (we can assume that doesn’t include setting up a physical attack on you to generate sympathy).
James clearly listened to the briefing but was his father asleep (as indeed he sometimes appeared to be during the hearing)? Select Committee hearings are not a forum for being argumentative or flamboyant or offering soundbites and spin (these are the preserve of the questioning politicians). But that was Rupert. You should be robust but respectful, honest and helpful. That was James.
James recovered well from being denied the opportunity to read out a pre-prepared statement. Mainly by using the first question to make it anyway. He set his tone right at the start – a fulsome apology, an outline of his actions to resolve matters and an attempt to offer some perspective. He’d clearly listened to his PR advice and so avoided ‘doing a Tony Hayward’. He was assured, measured and focused over the three hours. He made clear what he knew about and of what he did not – frequently - have ‘direct knowledge’. But most of all he was respectful.
Rupert on the other hand made me cringe with his artlessly delivered, pre-prepared, ‘Americanised’ soundbite that “this is the most humble day of my life”.
Expertly dissected by Tom Watson MP, he was reduced to long pauses (which made what he then said sound insincere), monosyllabic answers and appealing for his son to help him. But this is what select committees can do with their passive ‘grilling’. Just ask the ex-banking executives. Thereafter, he looked confused and irrelevant to the proceedings. Until the foam pie assault which seemed to wake him up.
"I just did what I was told," said Rupert when asked why he came in through the back door at Number 10. That may just be the millstone quote around his neck.
Egg on his face? Or humble pie?
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
Monday, 11 July 2011
Being A Likeable And Credible Interviewee
Likeability and credibility are key attributes for a successful interviewee.
For a masterclass in how to destroy both in 30 seconds, look no further than Paul McMullan,Deputy Features Editor of the News of the World 1994-2001, on Friday night's Newsnight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUjrIn6OzJA).
Debating with Greg Dyke and comedian Steve Coogan who's phone had been hacked, McMullan's answer to the first question was a corker "... what better source of getting the truth is there than to listen to someone's messages". Not just totally out of keeping with the nation's moral compass but what has he missed in this story that he thinks the audience will be sympathetic to that as an opening gambit?
McMullan then went on to break another cardinal rule of interviewees, of unnecessarily introducing a negative about yourself that will stick in the audience's minds by going on to volunteer that "several celebrities have called us evil and scum" at which point he was interrupted by Greg Dyke with the pertinent question "What right do have you to listen to their messages?". None. Which is Why News International is paying out huge compensation.
Steve Coogan then stated that McMullan was "a walking PR disaster for the tabloids because you don't come across in a sympathetic way". Spot on.
And with McMullan sitting there in a crumpled suit with papers stuffed in his jacket's left pocket and a tie half way round his navel, he had made himself into a caricature of what the public believe tabloid journalists to be like. And they didn't like it.
Andrew Caesar-Gordon
For a masterclass in how to destroy both in 30 seconds, look no further than Paul McMullan,Deputy Features Editor of the News of the World 1994-2001, on Friday night's Newsnight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUjrIn6OzJA).
Debating with Greg Dyke and comedian Steve Coogan who's phone had been hacked, McMullan's answer to the first question was a corker "... what better source of getting the truth is there than to listen to someone's messages". Not just totally out of keeping with the nation's moral compass but what has he missed in this story that he thinks the audience will be sympathetic to that as an opening gambit?
McMullan then went on to break another cardinal rule of interviewees, of unnecessarily introducing a negative about yourself that will stick in the audience's minds by going on to volunteer that "several celebrities have called us evil and scum" at which point he was interrupted by Greg Dyke with the pertinent question "What right do have you to listen to their messages?". None. Which is Why News International is paying out huge compensation.
Steve Coogan then stated that McMullan was "a walking PR disaster for the tabloids because you don't come across in a sympathetic way". Spot on.
And with McMullan sitting there in a crumpled suit with papers stuffed in his jacket's left pocket and a tie half way round his navel, he had made himself into a caricature of what the public believe tabloid journalists to be like. And they didn't like it.
Andrew Caesar-Gordon
Wednesday, 6 July 2011
News of the World phone hacking: crisis management lessons for all businesses
As we observe News International’s phone hacking crisis lurch from bad to truly horrendous, it’s tempting to feel a little smug, safe in the knowledge that nothing quite this awful could ever affect our business. But whilst the alleged behaviour of the newspaper and its private investigators sinks below the behaviour of the vast majority of corporations, there are nevertheless lessons in crisis management that businesses would do well to heed.
1) Your corporate culture has the power to create or prevent crisis
Reports from ex-News of the World journalists and other sources indicate that reporters were under enormous pressure to come up with the next scoop, whatever it took. This would likely lead to an atmosphere where the end result is all that matters: this is exactly the culture in which crises can flourish.
In a corporate environment, similar issues can arise. A blinkered focus on the bottom line – “I don’t care how you do it, just hit the number” – or an unwillingness to hear about problems which may hint at broader failings - “just sort it out” – are examples of this.
The best crisis management is crisis prevention: this requires leaders to set and exemplify the right culture.
2) Denial is your greatest enemy (part one)
The News of the World appears to be suffering from denial in both senses of the word. Its initial response was to deny that widespread hacking had taken place. That early denial has been thoroughly undermined by subsequent developments. The effect is that the credibility of the newspaper’s subsequent statements are diminished. Worse, the paper is seen as either incompetent or disingenuous in making the initial claim.
Businesses must heed this important crisis communication lesson: never make a public statement unless you are 100% certain of its truth. Ignore this, and serious reputational damage will inevitably follow.
3) Denial is your greatest enemy (part two)
Denial that there was a problem may be one of the key reasons why the News of the World has been unable to get to grips with its reputational challenge. Businesses can suffer the same fate. When a negative situation faces a corporation there’s a temptation to dis-believe or ignore it: leaders can find it almost impossible to comprehend that such a thing could afflict their business. The problem is that until you recognise and acknowledge a problem, you cannot deal with it. Beware corporate denial at all costs.
4) Pay special attention to the internally generated crisis
The News of the World is facing a crisis of its own making, created by the behaviours of its own employees. This makes its crisis communication challenge so much harder. The same applies to other businesses: accidents, natural disasters, even terrorist attacks all constitute crises and require professional management. But the fact that the organisation in question is also a victim of the event gives them a degree of sympathy and understanding in responding to it. Don’t abuse this position: many businesses have suffered sgnificant reputational damage not because of the crisis itself, but because of the way in which they have mis-managed their response to it.
Far more challenging though is the self-inflicted crisis, where no one is at fault but the organisation itself. Exacerbating this is the fact that many businesses fail to plan thoroughly for the internally generated crisis (it’s much more uncomfortable to contemplate management fraud or sexual harassment than it is to plan for a fire).
Businesses must avoid being blind-sided by internally generated crises by properly considering them as part of their reputational risk assessments, and testing their ability to respond via a well-conceived programme of crisis communication training.
Manage the crisis – don’t let it manage you
The News of the World has failed to apply effective crisis management to the phone hacking saga: the crisis seems to have managed it rather than the other way round. And that really is the final learning for all businesses: effective crisis communication is about recognising a problem quickly; taking decisive action to address it; and communicating pro-actively to stakeholders to protect relationships and reputation. News International appears to have failed on all counts.
Jonathan Hemus
1) Your corporate culture has the power to create or prevent crisis
Reports from ex-News of the World journalists and other sources indicate that reporters were under enormous pressure to come up with the next scoop, whatever it took. This would likely lead to an atmosphere where the end result is all that matters: this is exactly the culture in which crises can flourish.
In a corporate environment, similar issues can arise. A blinkered focus on the bottom line – “I don’t care how you do it, just hit the number” – or an unwillingness to hear about problems which may hint at broader failings - “just sort it out” – are examples of this.
The best crisis management is crisis prevention: this requires leaders to set and exemplify the right culture.
2) Denial is your greatest enemy (part one)
The News of the World appears to be suffering from denial in both senses of the word. Its initial response was to deny that widespread hacking had taken place. That early denial has been thoroughly undermined by subsequent developments. The effect is that the credibility of the newspaper’s subsequent statements are diminished. Worse, the paper is seen as either incompetent or disingenuous in making the initial claim.
Businesses must heed this important crisis communication lesson: never make a public statement unless you are 100% certain of its truth. Ignore this, and serious reputational damage will inevitably follow.
3) Denial is your greatest enemy (part two)
Denial that there was a problem may be one of the key reasons why the News of the World has been unable to get to grips with its reputational challenge. Businesses can suffer the same fate. When a negative situation faces a corporation there’s a temptation to dis-believe or ignore it: leaders can find it almost impossible to comprehend that such a thing could afflict their business. The problem is that until you recognise and acknowledge a problem, you cannot deal with it. Beware corporate denial at all costs.
4) Pay special attention to the internally generated crisis
The News of the World is facing a crisis of its own making, created by the behaviours of its own employees. This makes its crisis communication challenge so much harder. The same applies to other businesses: accidents, natural disasters, even terrorist attacks all constitute crises and require professional management. But the fact that the organisation in question is also a victim of the event gives them a degree of sympathy and understanding in responding to it. Don’t abuse this position: many businesses have suffered sgnificant reputational damage not because of the crisis itself, but because of the way in which they have mis-managed their response to it.
Far more challenging though is the self-inflicted crisis, where no one is at fault but the organisation itself. Exacerbating this is the fact that many businesses fail to plan thoroughly for the internally generated crisis (it’s much more uncomfortable to contemplate management fraud or sexual harassment than it is to plan for a fire).
Businesses must avoid being blind-sided by internally generated crises by properly considering them as part of their reputational risk assessments, and testing their ability to respond via a well-conceived programme of crisis communication training.
Manage the crisis – don’t let it manage you
The News of the World has failed to apply effective crisis management to the phone hacking saga: the crisis seems to have managed it rather than the other way round. And that really is the final learning for all businesses: effective crisis communication is about recognising a problem quickly; taking decisive action to address it; and communicating pro-actively to stakeholders to protect relationships and reputation. News International appears to have failed on all counts.
Jonathan Hemus
Saturday, 2 July 2011
The Miliband Loop
Electric Airwaves' expertise was sought again by The Independent and published on 2nd July:
It has become known as the "Miliband Loop", the robotic interview technique adopted by the Labour leader on television news when attempting to communicate his disapproval of Thursday's mass walkout of public sector workers. Like a waxwork in Madame Tussauds that has been fitted with a voicebox, Ed Miliband replayed the same words to each question he was asked by ITV journalist Damon Green, over and over again.
"These strikes are wrong... the Government has acted in a reckless and provocative manner... both sides should put away the rhetoric and get around the negotiating table," he trotted out, irrespective of what he was asked.
The performance horrified media training experts ..... Andrew Caesar-Gordon, owner of Electric Airwaves, the company which prepared Nick Clegg ahead of his well-received, pre-election televised debates, said Mr Miliband would have made a greater impression if he had developed a narrative from a speech he gave on the day of the interview.
"He had a line that the Labour Party I lead will always be the party of the mums and dads who know the value of a day's education. For anybody watching the BBC who is a parent, and that's a lot of people, that would have struck a chord with them. But his automaton response made it look like he can't trust himself to talk about the issue genuinely without having his automatic paragraph generator to guide him."
Miliband was trying to ensure that the broadcasters used his pre-prepared soundbite when they edited this pre-recorded interview. Such repetition might seem therefore to be a legitimate strategy. But you need to fineness and refresh your key message to each question. How?
If you are focused on 'bridging back' to a key message you sound insincere if you end up robotically repeating a key message that all too often has little resonance with the audience, and especially if you repeat it word-for-word in answer to every question. Bridging back instead to a narrative allows for greater flexibility.
In every interview that he undertakes, Miliband should be trying to tell us what kind of Labour Party he is looking to create and lead. Which is why the line from his speech the previous day to the LGA that "the Labour Party I lead will always be the party of the mums and dads who know the value of a day's education" was so much more powerful.
He can make his point about the strikes and the government being wrong but contextualise it in an emotionally compelling way that drives to the heart of his political project. And then he can use other examples (e.g. lead a party that knows the importance of job centres being open at a time of economic hardship; courts dispensing justice to the perpetrators of crime etc) in answer to each question that makes the same point.
Andrew Caesar-Gordon
Tuesday, 21 June 2011
Setting the communication agenda: How Primark seized control
When the BBC’s Panorama programme apparently showed Primark’s use of child labour in Bangalore, the retailer’s reputation took a serious hit. With the recent BBC Trust report concluding that footage of boys checking stitching on Primark products was “more likely than not” “not genuine”, it is now the BBC whose reputation is under the microscope. Indeed this is especially challenging for the BBC whose brand is associated with trust, integrity and high editorial standards. As we have seen in previous incidents, when a crisis strikes at the heart of an organisation’s brand essence, it has the power to do more damage than would otherwise be the case.
Primark meanwhile has taken the opportunity to seize the communication agenda and lead the post-report debate (in contrast to the policy of non-engagement advocated by a recent Economist article). Central to this is its microsite “Primark and Panorama; the true story” . It includes: YouTube footage created in a reportage style which seeks to reveal the alleged falsehoods in Panorama’s original programme
- a detailed statement in response to the BBC Trust’s ruling (and a link to the full report)
- a timeline of events
- an ethical trade factsheet
- the opportunity for people to post comments to the site
- a “contact us” section for bloggers, the media, NGOs and other interested parties
The site serves as a template for other businesses wanting to pro-actively manage issues, rather than simply react to them. Primark clearly made a decision to treat the publication of the report as an opportunity to surround stakeholders with materials and messages supportive of its position. Using an online platform to host these materials and messages means that anyone interested in the Primark perspective can use it as a “one stop shop”. Note also how Primark has made good use of search engine marketing to guarantee prominence for its point of view: search for “primark panorama” with Google and at the top of page one is a sponsored link to the microsite. Without this core resource, Primark would still have been represented in the post-report discussion, but in a less prominent way.
I applaud Primark for the way in which it has exerted control of the communication agenda, but would also sound a word of warning to other businesses before replicating its response in totality. In communication there are grey areas between influencing, spinning and manipulating. By failing to allow comments to be posted to its YouTube footage and by claiming that the BBC Trust had found that the footage was “fabricated” when the actual ruling fell short of stating this, Primark could be accused of over-stepping the mark.
It’s also worth noting that the company’s robust and strident response carries an element of risk as it means that any future transgressions will be an even bigger story than would otherwise be the case. With this in mind, Primark needs to plan both operationally and reputationally for the fact that it is a highly visible media target.
Finally, I would observe that an organisation’s crisis communication response needs to be in keeping with its usual tone of voice. That’s why Ryanair can be bullish in response to a problem whereas Virgin Atlantic would tend to be more empathetic. The way in which Primark has communicated following the Panorama programme mirrors its positioning as a down to earth, straight forward brand, underlining the fact that for crisis communication to be truly effective, it must be authentic.
Friday, 17 June 2011
Crisis communication – why the dustpan and brush no longer works
I attended a conference earlier this week at which the head of corporate communications from a UK police force described the overwhelming media interest in a high profile murder investigation. In particular, she explained how the names and personal details (not necessarily accurate) of two people were communicated by the media within hours of their arrest and then widely circulated by social media. This happened despite the fact that the names were not revealed by the police (and that one of them was never charged with any offence).
The speaker explained how this experience has led to an increased understanding within the Force of the importance of involving communication professionals before an arrest is made in high profile cases. It struck me that this has broader implications for crisis communications at all organisations.
It’s already well understood by PR people that social media has increased the pace and spread of bad news and that this imposes new standards for effective crisis communication. But to what extent has this been recognised by our operational colleagues? Scrambling to react to operational decisions with a communication dustpan and brush was never a very good idea. Today it is an almost impossible task.
Friday, 27 May 2011
World class crisis communication essential if FIFA is to restore trust
News that FIFA President Sepp Blatter is under investigation regarding alleged corruption further plunges football’s governing body into crisis communication mode.
It’s not the first sporting body to face challenges of this kind. Indeed, it’s a sad fact of modern sport that all governing bodies will have to deal with corruption issues from time to time: cricket, tennis, snooker and horse racing are just four of the high profile sports that have grappled with corruption allegations in recent years. But FIFA’s challenge is even greater for one important reason: the alleged corruption is not amongst its players, but within the organisation itself. As a consequence, time is running out for the organisation to seize the initiative and commit to the changes necessary for it to restore trust.
As someone who advised the International Cricket Council when it first grappled with match-fixing allegations, I know that it’s possible for organisations to recover their reputations, but it requires commitment, courage and communication. Commitment to rid the sport of corruption. Courage to take difficult short term decisions in the interest of long term reputation protection. Communication to give stakeholders confidence that the organisation is genuinely honest, transparent and open.
More than anything, successful crisis communication requires leadership. And when the current leadership is itself at the heart of the crisis, it often requires a new chief to lead the change.
As FIFA faces the biggest reputational threat in its history, football fans around the world must hope that this crisis turns out to be the catalyst for a more credible organisation in future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)