Tag Archives: lawyers

The danger of email and text, especially to a reporter

It is now big news that Johnny Manziel’s attorney, Bob Hinton, accidentally sent a lengthy text message to an Associated Press reporter about his client’s case.  The text was meant for Hinton’s co-counsel, certainly not the media.

When Hinton was asked about the text by the AP, he was unaware he had mistakenly sent it to one of the biggest media outlets.  Further, it contained legal strategy and facts about the case — information no lawyer wants to reveal publicly.

Hinton tried in vein to claim the text was privileged and threatened to sue the AP if they released details of what he wrote.  The AP wasn’t scared off, printed the contents, and it spread throughout the internet within seconds.  A day later Hinton was off the case.

This inadvertent mishap underscores what I have said many times.  In our digital age where information is sent, received and spread immediately via email, social media and texting, everyone must use extra caution when communicating.  We do it so often, and so rapidly, that sending a confidential message to the wrong person is an often and easily made mistake.  Just hitting “reply” in an email and you could be sending a private message to someone unintended.

That’s why we advocate the “three second rule.”  Our “three second rule” is before any email, text or social media post is triggered, we take three long seconds to look at who it is being sent to, whether there are any attachments that shouldn’t be there and the content.  The worst thing someone can do is respond immediately either in haste, anger or because there is a deadline involved.  The odds of making an honest error is just too great — as Mr. Hinton realized.

If you want to be really paranoid, as we sometimes are, when we send an email we do not insert any recipient in the address bar.  This will avoid sending an email accidentally before we finished it or have a chance to think about it.  The worst that can happen is the email system will tell you it can’t send the email because there is nobody listed to send it to.  So we write our emails first, think and examine them, then manually insert the recipient(s).  We don’t forward or reply too often, and when we do, we remove the recipient name then re-insert them manually to avoid what happened to Mr. Hinton, and I am sure countless others.

Give the “three second rule a try.”  You’ll be glad you did.

 

 

Crisis Communications — Not if but when

We’ve all heard the phrase, “not if but when.”  It can apply to many aspects of life.  It also applies to the fact that most businesses will face a public relations crisis sooner or later.

Most crises can’t be predicted, but organizations can be ready for them.  That’s why we recommend that every client have a crisis communications plan in place.  Some make it part of their marketing plan.  While we sometimes recommend this, we often create it as a stand-alone document.

The crisis communications plan will not prevent a crisis, but it will help you deal with the ramifications if one occurs.  There is no substitute for preparation, as we have learned from disaster relief drills recommended by the LAPD, LA Fire Dept. and so forth.

But a PR crisis is different. At stake is not life or limb (though in extreme cases it could be) but rather your reputation.  It takes years, sometimes decades, to build a good reputation, and only an hour to destroy it if a PR disaster strikes and it is not handled properly.

If you don’t have a crisis PR plan in place, create one.  If you need some guidance to do so, we are here to help.

Telling your nonprofit story

We are often asked “what makes a good news story?”  Interestingly, the answer is in the question.

If you run a nonprofit, you probably have a strong desire to see your organization written about in positive, feel-good ways in the press, online or on television.  Of course you do.  Media coverage brings recognition and often, recognition brings donor dollars.

But what is a good story?  What do the media cover and what do they look for?

Like I said in the beginning, the answer is in the question.  The media look for good stories.

The media are not in the business of promoting nonprofits or any business.  They are in the business of writing stories that are interesting, engaging and will hold their readership or viewers.  That’s why when you structure your message in story form, the chances of it being reported in the press are much higher.

So when you write that next news release, don’t talk about how great your organization is.  Talk about the people you help and how the efforts of your nonprofit are changing peoples’s lives.

You just may get a nice new story out of it.

The PR Plan: Don’t start a campaign without one

Some may recall the American Express commercial with the slogan, “Don’t Leave Home Without It.”  The same holds true for PR and marketing campaigns.  It is foolish to launch one without a plan.

The challenge with marketing and PR plans is they run the risk of all looking the same.  There are standard issues to consider, standard steps to take, standard tasks to perform.  One can go online and find numerous templates for marketing/PR plans to download.  All you have to do is fill in the blanks.

But since the essence of marketing and PR is determining and then exploiting how your company or organization is different, why would you create the same plan that everybody else has?

Creating a plan is easy.  Creating a unique and effective one isn’t.

First it starts with in-depth research into the organization.  A self-analysis or a needs assessment is where to start.  Every organization must ask itself, “who are we,”  “what do we stand for,?”  “What makes us different,?” When these questions are answered, from a consensus of management, staff, volunteers, donors and so forth, only then can an organization begin to create a plan that will be truly effective and convey the right message to the right audiences.

Trump’s PR 101 class

A number of years ago Donald Trump started a school to teach would-be real estate investors how to be successful, like him.  From all accounts, the school charged a lot of money but didn’t deliver much information, and the school went bust.

The mistake Trump made was he taught the wrong subject.  Yes, he is a master real estate mogul.  But he is even a better PR pro.

Years before Trump declared his candidacy for any public office, he was a national figure.  His high profile projects, reality show and many appearances on late night talk shows, often on the Late Late Show with David Letterman.  He was an entertaining figure and made for good conversation, even if Letterman poked fun at him.

Now that he is running for president of the United States, his PR skills are being put to good use.  While his competitors for the Republican nomination have to shell out millions of dollars in paid advertising, all Trump has to do is say something outrageous and he is on TV that night.

Donald Trump is a master publicist, for the Trump brand.  He knows how to get attention and does it every day.  His formula is simple: say something crazy and controversial, and the media will come running.

With the South Carolina primary a few days away, Jeb (Bush) pulled a great media event by having his brother, the former president, appear at a rally.  George W. has been very quiet since he left office, but now he is on the campaign trail.  But knowing that it would be Jeb’s day in the media spotlight, Trump wasn’t going to have it.  On the same day as Jeb’s event, he threatened to sue Ted Cruz, claiming he is ineligible to run for president because he wasn’t born in the U.S.  Everybody knows such a lawsuit, if it is indeed filed, will go nowhere.  But that wasn’t the point. It got Trump on TV that night, right along side Jeb’s big media event.  It took Jeb Bush money, work and coordination to get George W. to appear at his rally.  All it took for Trump was to pick up the phone and call a news conference.

So if Trump doesn’t become president, and if he gets tired of real estate, he really should go into PR.

That’s where his real talents lie.

NBC says “murder sells” Steven Avery case proves the point

In case you haven’t noticed, primetime TV is full of crime mystery programs.  CBS’s 48 Hours Mystery, Dateline NBC and on and on.  These are “real life” docu-dramas usually about a murder in a small town, and in almost every case the husband or wife did it.  As a recent interview with an NBC producer who said plain and simple, “murder sells.”

Then there is the Steven Avery case in Wisconsin.  It was so compelling that Netflix produced a ten part series chronicling the case which started with a young man Steven Avery being convicted of sexual assault and serving 18 years in prison.  Then, DNA testing proved him to be innocent and he was released.  But to recoup something for the time he spent in prison, he sued the county and police department for $36 million dollars.  A year later a woman who had visited his business (car parts lot) went missing.  The remains of her body were found in an incinerator on his property and he was tried and convicted for murder.

The case was defended by Avery’s lawyers as a set-up by the police to put him back in prison after he filed his lawsuit.  The argument included planted evidence, dirty cops and all.  It was a compelling trial, all captured on cameras and produced by Netflix.

As Avery languishes in prison, the story continues. Many who saw the Netflix series believe he was indeed framed.  Then the D.A. countered with evidence that the TV series didn’t include that provided even more proof of his guilt.

When real life hits the silver screen, or the silver TV screen, everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt — both ways.  Is there such a thing as a truly objective documentary?  When editors are deciding what to film, what words to narrate and how to edit, can it ever be truly objective?  Every decision that a producer makes can make a difference one way or another.  And this holds true for dramatic murder stories and news stories such as 60 Minutes.

Case in point:  Michael Moore is a documentary filmmaker.  But he is hardly impartial in the subjects he chooses.  He doesn’t even pretend to be.  He starts with a point of view and then structures his films to prove his opinion.  This is quite different from beginning with a clean slate and searching for the real story.  I am not saying TV producers have a vested interest in whether someone is guilty or innocent.  They couldn’t care less.  But they do care about cases that are dramatic and compelling, as that attracts viewers.  That, they care about.

There is a fine line between reality and entertainment, and many believe they are the same.  News, some argue, is just entertainment said with a serious face.  Unless it is the local weatherperson, who seems to exist for comic relief.

How to write a PR Firm RFP

In the PR consulting business, we get many RFPs (Request for Proposals).   Sometimes they are called an RFQ (Request for Qualifications).  In either event, the process is simple.  An organization is seeking the right PR/marketing firm and wants preliminary information before either making a decision, or taking it to the next step.

We are always happy to be considered to represent an organization.  When we receive an RFP we first read the document carefully and look at the organization’s website to determine whether we are the right PR firm for them.  We do a lot of things, but we are not right for every organization.  Most, but not each one.

It is clear that much thought goes into the creation of the RFP.  Most are comprehensive and ask the right questions.  But sometimes one comes across our desk that we wish we could have written.  Not because we’d skew it toward our abilities, but because it misses some of the questions that are most important, and places emphasis on areas that are least important.

For example, we get RFPs from nonprofits wanting to know our nonprofit experience.  Being one of our specialties, that is a no-brainer for us.  But not all nonprofits are created equal nor do they all work in the same area.  Just because a PR firm has represented nonprofits, that doesn’t mean they understand every cause.  So it’s important to find out if the firm has ever worked in the area the organization works.

The way this is often done is to ask the firm to describe a similar situation and the outcomes.  Often there have been similar campaigns that a PR firm has undertaken, but every campaign is unique.  If a marketing firm has done the exact campaign for another agency, then what you’ll get is the same campaign that’s been done before.  Don’t you want original thinking?  Why not ask what is the firm’s approach to problem solving a situation, rather than show that they’ve done it before successfully so it can be copied?

The other area that we believe often needs work is that organizations seeking a PR firm want the firm to create and deliver the entire PR plan — with monthly budgeting — before they are on-board.  To ask a PR firm to create the plan without the benefit of knowing more about the client; objectives, is like asking a lawyer to defend a client without meeting them.  Campaigns are created with clients; and without their input it is just something off the shelf.

Last is budget.  It is totally understandable that an organization wants to know the fees a PR firm charges before they hire them.  Or, whether they can create and implement a campaign within the available budget.  But it is difficult to predict to the penny how much time a PR campaign will cost and how the expenses will run.  It is best to speak in terms of time, campaign objectives and so forth that is tied to budget, rather than ask for a budget for a campaign that has yet to be created.

These are just some of the tips we’d like to put out there if you’re considering creating an RFP.

And if you do, we hope you’ll include us in your search.

 

When the media tries to become the story

The CNBC-hosted Republican debate turned into a debacle.  From the first question, it was clear that CNBC didn’t want to be the conduit of information for the candidates.  They wanted to insert themselves into the debate by asking ridiculous, mean-spirited and mostly irrelevant questions.

Candidate Ted Cruz, after several questions, took them to task and received loud audience approval.  He blasted the questioners for wanting to turn a civil debate into a “cage fight.”

This post has nothing to do with politics.  It has to do with money.  Since Donald Trump entered the race, the Republican debates have earned Fox, CNN and now CNBC big ratings.  And big ratings translate into big ad revenue.

It was no accident that CNBC asked the questions they asked.  They wanted the “debate” to be as bloody as it possibly could.  They wanted to turn it into a reality show that is talked about and YouTubed over and over.  And by doing so pump up the ratings.

The question is: what is the role of a news organization that hosts an election debate?  Are they supposed to ask meaningful questions that allow each candidate to state his/her positions on important issues, or is the media’s role to grab as many eyeballs as possible for its own bottom line?

The historic 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate, which cemented John Kennedy’s election, was the first televised presidential debate.  But it was not an exercise in who could mess up the most.  CBS took its role as a news organization seriously and allowed each candidate to talk about the issues, not about their personalities, short-comings, poll ratings and everything else that had nothing to do with being president.

But, unfortunately, that time may have come and gone.  Today news organizations are profit centers and they cherish the opportunity to host election debates because they make money, especially if there are fireworks.

And if it takes a network like CNBC to flame the fires, well, so be it.

On the other hand, the fall-out from the CNBC was so pronounced and embarrassing that future primary and then election debates may actually do what they are supposed to — showcase the candidates qualifications for the most powerful job on earth.

Let’s see if that is the case.

 

Does Subway have a crisis on its hands?

Jared Fogle was the face of Subway, the multi-billion dollar sandwich chain. His story helped the chain triple its sales in the decade or so he was affiliated with the company.

Today, he pleaded guilt to child pornography charges and will find himself eating prison food instead of Subway sandwiches.

The question is, does Subway have a PR crisis on its hands through its affiliation with Fogle?

Typically, a PR crisis focuses on the actions of an organization or one of its employees. But Fogle was not an employee, he was merely its spokesperson. Is there a PR crisis by association?

The obvious answer is no. Subway has done nothing wrong and there are no guarantees that an advertising face will remain an angel forever. It was a good advertising idea when it started and helped the company increase sales over the years. But now its over. Subway immediately cut ties with Fogle when it was first learned that Fogle’s nonprofit director was accused of similar crimes. It seems apparent that he led authorities to Fogle.

So the best thing Subway can do is forget they ever heard of Fogle and move on. He is history. His name and likeness should be scrubbed from every document in the Subway headquarters, and I am sure this was done a long time ago.

I would close by advising that companies choose their reps wisely, but predicting the future and predicting human nature is a skill that has yet to be perfected, and we have a long way to go.

Crisis PR: Getting the facts vs. taking action

When asked what is the first thing an organization should do when faced with a reputation management, or crisis PR issue, some will say to first get the facts. Others will say take immediate action — the longer you wait the more it may appear like a cover-up. After all, history has shown that the downfall of Richard Nixon was not Watergate per se, it was the cover-up.

In reality, both are true. And both need to be done simultaneously. Getting the facts is critical to devise an immediate plan of action. How can you know what to do if you don’t know what happened? This is easier said than done, as in the world of immediate communication, when every news outlet wants to be first, miscommunication is often the rule. News outlets can be wrong. They are not held accountable. But an organization can’t afford to be wrong.

At the same time taking instant action is critical. For example, if a staff member sends out an offensive tweet, albeit unintentional, there often is no other course of action than to terminate the employee — depending on the nature of the tweet and other factors. Once something is in cyberspace, and the world deems it racist or sexist or insensitive, there is no taking it back. A million apologies and explanations can’t undo the damage. Plus, it is a chance for an organization to show leadership by cutting the crisis off immediately. Then, a plan of restoring the integrity and reputation of the organization can be devised and implemented with the cause of the problem gone.

What is most important is that organizations be prepared for any eventuality. Anything can happen at any time and every company or nonprofit must be nimble enough to act. Acting can mean finding the facts and devising a plan. It can also mean taking immediate action.

There is no one right answer, as every crisis, or potential crisis, is unique; like every organization is unique. So the real way to prepare is not to decide whether you will first gather the facts or take action, but have an internal system that allows you to quickly make the right decision when and if crisis time comes.