StevenSilvers.com

Is it ever appropriate to answer a reporter with “no comment”?

In almost all cases, no.

Imagine this scene that never happens:

Reporter:     "Mr. Fiebish, allegations are that you took bribes from your vendors. Are they true?"
Mr. Brown:   "No comment."
Reporter:     "Oh. Sorry. Forget it then. Lunch?"

"No comment" isn't the same as not answering a reporter's question. It's a quotable refusal left open to interpretation. That's usually not a good thing.

There are only three good answers to a reporter's direct question: I can, I will and I can't. For you more formal executives that would be: Thy shall, Thy whilst and Nay! Thy mustn't.

Here they are in real life:

1. I know the answer and it is thus. Using "thus" is optional
2. I don't know the answer but will get it for you. Maybe not you specifically, but your minions. Or your PR people.
3. I can't answer the question because (insert here) I don't know the answer, the information is proprietary, I'm already late for my Zumba class, etc. You get the idea.

There's no problem not answering a question for a legitimate reason. Just understand that using "no comment" as the extent of your answer will make you look guilty, arrogant and afraid even if you're not.
. . . . . . . . .

The funniest and most accurate political commentary ever.

 

. . . . . . . 

And while we're at it, let's fine teams for kicking extra points.

A New Orleans law firm has filed a class action lawsuit against the NFL on behalf of a Saints ticket-holder, arguing that commissioner Roger Godell's “Bountygate” penalties against the team have ruined fans' game-day experience. 

By that logic, people who attend NFL games should have the right to summarily duct tape the obscenity-screaming drunk dude with painted beer belly.
. . . . . . . . . 

More advice for new PR people. Some of it even helpful.

Up-and-coming PR maven Kia Jarmon does a fine job offering up six things that young public relations professionals should do to get a job.  Notice how she uses the word "pro." That's because your career in strategic communications begins way before your first paycheck.

Also check out my always-popular (and often maligned) post, "Five things all PR students should know about their choice of career."  
. . . . . . . . . 

Yea, spank my brand. Spank it good.

Horrible fall-out of a publicity stunt gone bad included AP photo in Washington Post showing both the President of the United States and GOP nominee eating company's product.

Pizza Hut’s marketing stunt was to offer free pizza for life to any attendee at the last presidential debate who asked if the candidates prefer sausage or pepperoni.

Noting that the silly question would never have gotten through the screening process, finger-wagging media and flack pundits nonetheless generated a few gazillion dollars worth of publicity for the brand in connection with one of the nation’s most-watched TV events.

One intelligent journalism student even pointed out that the stunt probably got more people to watch the debate as well.

A new PR defense by ex-Penn State president

The Pittsburg Trib asked a few crisis experts include me for our take on former Penn State president Graham Spanier’s press offensive over his alleged role in the Jerry Sandusky scandal.  Read the story here.

All the news that fits for free

I got an unsolicited email from an online news site offering to run a story on my client in exchange for answering a few questions:

1. What is your organization's background?
2. How has it changed over time?
3. What are its main products and services?
4. Who are some of its biggest customers and how did the company attract them?
5. How does your organization differentiate itself from its competition?
6. What are your organization's biggest challenges?
7. What are Your organization's plans for the future?
8. Could you please include two or three images (or could we have permission to reprint images from your website)  to run with the story?
9. Who should we attribute these answers to?

I chuckled at the audaciousness of the request, and then it occurred to me. While sites that live on "contributed" material aren't legitimate news sources, they're flourishing like unchaperoned bunnies on a summer picnic.

For a lot of flacks, these sites are easy publicity.  They're another hit to include in the coverage report and repost on the company's web site. It doesn't matter that nobody's ever heard of the source, as long as it sounds good.

For the online news sites, it's easy profit by selling click-through advertising on web pages stuffed with free content.  Beats having a newsroom full of reporters demanding paychecks and office furniture.

In the end everybody's making money on one of the Internet's most disingenuous contributions to the information age:  Publicity masquerading as journalism masquerading as news media.

Social media is an unruly street corner. Not a billboard on the highway.

Amazing. Another successful brand launches a social media campaign only to be pummeled by people who loath the company.

That’s what happened to McDonald’s, which after only on hour pulled the plug on a Twitter promotion the company thought would “highlight the hard-working people who help to produce its meals and promote the chain’s use of fresh produce.”

The company's contracted Tweeter team posted just two items, including one from a guy claiming to be a french fry supplier who said, "When u make something w/pride, people can taste it.”  And that did it. 

Within minutes McD’s happy patter was hijacked by people who said they got sick eating the food, animal rights activists accusing the company of torturing pigs and former employees who claimed they were wrongly fired. And – always the cherry on any PR disaster cake – the news media soon reported on McDonald’s misfire.

It’s an embarrassing lesson that even the biggest companies learn the hard way.

Best blogs for college PR students

Education resource site Bachelors Degree Online included StevenSilvers.com as one of the 50 Best Blogs for the Public Relations Major.  

. . . . . . . . . .

Penn State’s response to scandal underscores the uselessness of many crisis communications plans

For days the sexual abuse scandal broke, Penn State University did not put forward a single human being – leadership or spokesperson -- to answer questions from media and the public.

This breaks every rule of modern crisis communications. As an institution, Penn State knows this. The university is home to the prestigious Arthur W. Page Center for Integrity in Public Communications. It has a College of Communications.

It puts on conferences on crisis communications, like the one in 2009 where an expert told agriculture people that speed of response is critical to maintaining credibility and trust (picture). There's also a 2006 Penn State draft crisis communications plan floating around the Internet.

So what happened?

How did Penn State make its situation far worse by violating one of the most basic tenets of crisis management?

We can assume that its crisis plan doesn't have a section titled, "Allegations of Sexual Abuse of a Minor By An Official and Related Perjury Or Inaction By Other Officials Who Had Information." Or maybe there are guidelines but those went out the window when the president promised "unconditional support" for two of the people involved. Maybe the board was never coached in how to use the plan. Maybe they've never seen a crisis plan at all.

Perhaps lawyers convinced the university to hunker down. Or maybe somebody thought any backlash from stonewalling the press would be mitigated by whatever action they're planning to take. Maybe it's happening too fast. Maybe there's lack of consensus.

Hard to say.

All we know is that Penn State has taken the position to not address the public in real time.

Make no mistake about it. Penn State's communications is a crisis in and of itself, one that will add months of life and millions of dollars to the situation. People are going to lose their jobs.

The lesson here is not that your company or university needs a crisis communications plan.

The lesson from Penn State is that your crisis plan is useless if it hasn't established how you will respond to situations nobody saw coming. That includes horrible acts and cover-up by people in positions of trust.

. . . . . . . . .