“Never pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel.”

Mark Twain

Antagonizing the press is often times not a good idea. You pick on them, they pick on you back, no matter how “right” you think you are. This doesn’t mean reputation managers should never get tough, it just means to expect a strong reaction rather than capitulation.

This, I suspect, Lucas Van Praag already knows, but doesn’t seem to be much bothered by. Goldman Sachs’s top communications guy is receiving what can only be described as a revenge-fueled beating in the (mostly New York) press, which has found their dealings with the sharp-tongued Van Praag to be less than pleasant. See the Dealbook’s roundup of the criticisms.

It shouldn’t be a surprise that Van Praag is vigorously defending the company he gets paid to defend and trying to correct the record where he feels it’s been inaccurately reported, whether that’s true or not. It’s not realistic for the media to expect him (or anyone) to simply hang their head in shame, though it would be in some ways gratifying to see, and accept what the media reports. That’s not his job.

But in doing his job, he sounds like a complete…well, insert expletive here. And it sort of seems he’s having fun with it.

There is a way to do it and way to do it. He should recognize by now, as he should have at the outset, that such a truculent approach isn’t going to accomplish any real objective. He seems smart enough to know that after the bonuses, “God’s work”, the boiling public resentment, the Congressional inquiries, and so on, that bookending this with hostile explanations and journalism lectures isn’t doing much for the GS image he purports to protect. He’s seen evidence that what he’s doing isn’t really working.

With all the external forces congealing into a thick sludge that is difficult to penetrate with the GS message, whatever it is, Van Praag is doing the PR equivalent of lighting cigars with $100 bills while his neighbor’s house is on fire.

Seems to me a change in tone, and strategy, is needed.

Mike Sacks can be reached at msacks@mww.com.

msacks Crisis Communications, Executive Visibility, General Corporate, Sustainability

Despite my desire to avoid jumping on the Tiger Woods and Toyota bandwagons, the events of the past week make it nearly impossible for me to avoid the topics.

First, Tiger Woods sets the example for what not to do with apologies. My colleague Mike has already written about the need for authenticity for apologies to be impactful. Apparently Tiger doesn’t read our blog. So Tiger delivered the canned apology we all expected, with about as much personality and sincerity as a doorknob. The winning personality that matched his golf game, and made him a sponsorship darling, was nowhere to be seen. But at least he re-assured his sponsors that he intended to compete.

But even more striking to me was the artificial, overly managed nature of the event. Press credentials were carefully guarded, and only issued on the condition that the news outlet not ask any questions. Some, like the golf writers, boycotted the event in protest and refused to cover it. But Tiger’s hand selected group of friends was there, creating the appearance of a press event and public appearance, but in reality Tiger’s people could have hired extras from SAG with the same result. Perhaps the ultimate irony is that Tiger used that opportunity to chastise the media for harassing his innocent wife and children – when the media feeding frenzy was exacerbated by the fact that he was nowhere to be found. Does he really think this orchestrated “press conference” will be enough to feed the media beast?

Tiger is presumably a smart guy. (And his extra-curricular love life is certainly the best thing that ever happened to Kate Gosselin since her new hairdo – but I digress.) He certainly had the resources to hire enough advisors and handlers to orchestrate this inauthentic apology. It’s hard to imagine that this approach was originated by these strategists and approved by handlers whose livelihood depends on Tiger’s image rebound. And while the American public is forgiving, and will readily move on as soon as Tiger returns to the PGA tour, it is hard to imagine that the objectionable stalking of his family will stop any time soon.

My grandmother used to tell me, “The only way through something difficult is through it.” And I think that requires legitimately going through it – not creating a sanitized version of through it.

No one knows this better than Toyota as they prepare their leaders for Congressional appearances and some pretty tough questions, particularly in light of documents revealing the cost savings of a phased recall, and the potential perception that the automaker chose profits ahead of the safety of the people driving those vehicles.

Carreen Winters can be reached at cwinters@mww.com.

cwinters Crisis Communications, General Corporate Tiger Woods, Toyota

What can you do with an old brand?

Even new media companies face that dilemma in Twenty Ten – AOL and MySpace, for example. Struggling to stay relevant, both companies are searching for a leg up in the brand wars.

AOL and MySpace both have a similar challenge – recovering from being the eclipsed top dog in their sectors. It’s too easy for many critics to say their time has passed, but with some smart acquisitions, sharpened brand management and a serious socially-responsible corporate outreach program, they could each recapture market share and relevancy.

Generally this involves buying or merging with an up-and-coming company first, and then setting out to freshen the brand with a high-visibility communications/PR project, preferably of the CSR persuasion. Both of those companies could take acquisition lessons from Xerox, which just merged on February 5th with the IT giant ACS. ACS is a terrific growth story, a global company with a 21st-Century business model and reputation for being well-managed and fast-moving. With one fell swoop Xerox made itself newly relevant and cutting-edge, and I’m sure their branding and CSR programs will follow.

Xerox is a known and trusted brand that defines the duplication and printing business – but their name and their image needed a new infusion of immediacy and impact, and ACS gave that to them. AOL and MySpace could do the same with one smart acquisition — and they’re probably looking as we speak.

David Langness can be reached at dlangness@mww.com.

dlangness CSR, General Corporate, Sustainability, Uncategorized AOL, CSR, MySpace, reputation

Tiger Woods’ Thanksgiving weekend car crash spawned a cottage industry for the media. The tabloids have reported breathlessly 24/7 about his alleged extra-marital exploits, the participants (both outed and self promoted) and a possible stay at a rehab facility. Cable and national TV news programs have to various extents joined the tabloid fray or just reported on the tabloid reports. The business/financial media have covered Tiger’s myriad sponsors and their varying reactions to his debacle as well as the financial impact on him, his sponsors and the golf industry.

Now comes Tiger’s first public pronouncement on the dalliances that have gripped the nation (ABC News ran the news as their lead story last night in front on the release of Americans held in Haiti, the one-year anniversary of the stimulus and the US gold medal haul in Vancouver). Tiger and his people, who already have a nice record of pr/crisis communications missteps since late November, have dictated that his appearance in front of a group of hand-picked friends, colleagues and close associates will include only a short statement in front of one camera with no reporters or Q&A.

The logistics and choreography of this event should be a primer for celebrities/sports stars as well as corporations/executives on how not to respond to a reputational crisis. Corporations and sports stars who deal with crises successfully have learned that the best way to move forward and begin reputational repairs is to address the situation quickly and factually, to be transparent and to engage the questions of the media and the public. To do otherwise only perpetuates the crisis, allowing others to fill the void with their own answers, competitors to seize on the opportunities that are afforded and reputations to remain denigrated.

The executives at Toyota (who made numerous communications missteps but are slowly figuring things out) and former baseball star and now avowed steroid user Mark McGwire (who after years in the wilderness is making his way back) are just two recent examples of what works and what doesn’t when it comes to crisis communications and reputation. Tiger is arguably the greatest golfer of all-time but is terms of crisis communication and repairing the reputation he worked so hard to build he is nothing more than a weekend duffer.

Richard Tauberman can be reached at rtauberman@mww.com.

rtauberman Crisis Communications Crisis, reputation, Tiger Woods

My favorite corporate message these days comes out of Ann Arbor, Michigan, where Domino’s Pizza calls home. Don’t get me wrong – I rarely eat the stuff, although back in the day I could go toe-to-toe with a large pie (Canadian bacon, green pepper, extra cheese) at the drop of a hat.

I’m intrigued by Domino’s determined attempt to re-establish its image as a quality quick-serve restaurant that lives up to its corporate promise – delivering a quality product in 30 minutes or less. They seem to be doing okay on the 30-minute promise, barring a couple of expensive lawsuits back in the 1990s. But the quality product part… well, not so much.

In 2009, consumers participating in a series of focus groups totally trashed Domino’s pies. Common complaints – the crust tastes like “cardboard,” the sauce is just “ketchup,” and so on. In response to this harsh criticism, the company launched an aggressive campaign called The Pizza Turnaround designed to re-claim the consumer’s hearts, minds, taste buds and wallets.

The logistics and complexity of The Pizza Turnaround resemble the invasion of Normandy, except in the pizza industry. There are multiple points of engagement: TV and print advertising, in-store signage, a huge web presence, Twitter feeds, YouTube videos, Facebook pages and even Domino’s Championship Gear celebrating the company’s epic win over Papa John’s in a recent taste-off.

So is Domino’s delivering (pun intended) on the Pizza Turnaround? It sure seems that way. The folks at Pizza Throwdown liked the new recipes. So did the gang at Slice (“America’s Favorite Pizza Weblog!”). Even Stephen Colbert jumped on the bandwagon.

But to me, the most fascinating piece of this has to do with Domino’s corporate reputation. By building its loud, but engaging advertising campaign and the other elements of The Pizza Turnaround on the idea that, “you told us we suck and we’re doing something about it,” the company is sending some powerful messages to consumers. We listen. We heard you. We acted based on your feedback. Your opinions are as important as your dollars. We care. One Web pundit called it “reverse engineering reputation management.”

So was the pizza really so bad that the company had to start over? Not likely, since their annual revenues clock in north of $3 billion. But that’s not the point, is it? This is all about image, perception and reputation, and Domino’s has baked together a potent recipe that resonates well with the public.

In many respects, corporate reputation is a function of public perception and I’d wager that the public perception today about Domino’s is very positive. It’s the kind of enviable position that any corporation would love to be in these days.

Bob Silver can be reached at bsilver@mww.com.

bsilver General Corporate advertising, Domino's, reputation

This quote from a young Haitian man featured in an Associated Press article headline describes his and his country’s dependence on tourists to meet their basic survival needs. Those needs have existed for years, but were profoundly exacerbated when the 7.0-magnitude earthquake befell his country last month.

Certainly, life is fragile. As Abraham Maslow introduced with his Hierarchy of Needs, the most basic level of human existence is based on meeting needs necessary for survival. This includes the need for water, air, food and sleep. Many Haitians never took those needs for granted and since the earthquake hit, those needs have been severely magnified.

Three days after the earthquake, one of the largest foreign investors in Haiti, Royal Caribbean Cruises, detailed its plans to help. With a solid corporate social responsibility framework already in place, the global cruise line launched its relief program and announced a minimum of $1 million in humanitarian aid. The company coordinated with its existing charitable partners Food for the Poor, Pan American Development Foundation, in addition to its own Haitian foundation, the Solano Foundation.

Royal Caribbean laid out its plans to continue cruise ship calls to its private beach in Labadee, Haiti, complete with deliveries of food, water and other necessary provisions on each stop. The brand outlined how it would support its Haitian employees and their families, and how its cruise guests could contribute to the cause. On top of all that, a Haitian United Nations representative endorsed Royal Caribbean’s plans and fully supported the continuation of cruise ship calls, highlighting their positive economic benefits for the country.

Royal Caribbean covered its bases, activated existing crisis protocols, engaged with its charity partners and committed significant financial support to the cause. The brand put its commitment to Haiti into action.

But more proactive stakeholder engagement and education was needed. Even with all the efforts to do the right thing, the cruise line’s reputation came under fire when people learned calls to Labadee would continue. As in any highly-emotional situation, critics jumped to conclusions because they simply didn’t have the proper context, they didn’t know the whole story.

Mainstream news organizations reported the information, which elicited a very negative response with many comments on mainstream online news outlets. Bloggers and advocacy groups criticized the company. Pictures were painted of tourists lounging on the private beach sipping pina coladas and jet skiing while just 60 miles away people suffered in Port-au-Prince.

This tragic situation reinforces the important role a sensitive, responsible and quick 360-degree stakeholder engagement strategy is to sustaining corporate reputation, especially in highly-emotional scenarios. It’s a reminder that even when great measures are taken to do the right thing, unfortunately doing the right thing often isn’t enough to protect reputation.

Not only do crisis protocols need to be in place, polished and ready to activate at any minute, an organization’s plan must include immediate steps to inform all of its important stakeholder groups of what it’s doing and why it’s doing it to mitigate any misinformation or ill-informed opinions that may be formed simply due to lack of awareness.

There are those who saw the bigger picture and defended the brand. They pointed to the very important role Royal Caribbean and its competitors actually play in facilitating the kind of sustainable tourism that will help a developing nation like Haiti not only recover from this tragedy, but actually grow stronger for the future.

Arthur Applbaum, a Harvard professor of ethics, told the Associated Press that while it shows … “moral sensitivity to be disturbed by the thought that one is vacationing on the beach when others are suffering nearby … it also shows insufficient moral reflection to think that proximity makes a moral difference. The people of Haiti are suffering whether you take your beach vacation in the Dominican Republic or in Hawaii,” he said, “and it is a failure of the moral imagination not to be equally troubled in Waikiki.”

In emotionally-charged situations, brands must take into account the big picture, while remaining exceptionally sensitive to extreme tragedy. The young Haitian man’s quote, “Without this, we don’t eat,” puts everything into perspective. This is the point around which Royal Caribbean’s decision to continue responsible Labadee port calls with a heavy emphasis on aid to Haiti must be based upon. It is the most basic level of human need and is a huge opportunity for the brand not only to deliver aid in this time of tragedy, but also to take the lead role in building a stronger future for Haiti and its people.

Matt Averitt can be reached at maveritt@mww.com

maveritt Crisis Communications, CSR Crisis Communication, CSR, Haiti

One of the trends of 2009 that is sure to continue in 2010 is the emphasis on Corporate Social Responsibility as a critical element of success for organizations of all sizes. And while history has shown the tendency to seek a silver bullet – CSR = philanthropy, or more recently, CSR = “GREEN” (a topic for an entirely different post, I think) I am pleased to see more companies and more clients taking a substantive approach to CSR that is comprehensive, authentic and pardon the already over-used word, SUSTAINABLE.

People are taking notice of citizenship, on Main Street and in the media — Target’s commitment to education and its communities (full disclosure – an MWW Group client), Starbuck’s Shared Planet and Best Buy’s eco-responsibility platform come to mind. Recently, Chipotle’s support of the “real food” and “slow food” movements was enough to score them the holy grail of PR – an Oprah endorsement.

All great issues. All authentic to the brand and the business. Makes you feel good about spending your hard earned dollars there, doesn’t it? That’s the idea.

That’s why I am so disappointed that so few of the leaders in CSR talk about CSR as it related to workplace, culture and employees. Clearly, some of them are thinking about it, and even building their programs with employee input. A Fortune magazine article about Best Buy tells me that their entire platform was created because it was meaningful to employees – long before it was meaningful to customers. But it is more than that…

Citizenship and responsibility begin at home. You can’t be a good corporate citizen – no matter how well you treat the planet or support the arts – if you haven’t created a culture of citizenship within your organization….responsibility to and for your employees is key to the sustainability and authenticity of your “Citizenship Story” – and the ability to sustain communities is rooted first and foremost in the creation of good jobs for its residents. And in this era of high unemployment and mistrust, I thought I had found someone who “GETS IT” when I started reading about the Coca Cola Live Positively platform….defined as living positively for their people, their products and their planet. BINGO.

Except that PEOPLE is defined as the customers who buy and drink Coca Cola products…not the people who make them, sell them, deliver them or discover them. What a missed opportunity – to make this platform meaningful to the employees, who go to work every day in the face of public outcries against soda in schools and the big bad soda companies. And what a missed opportunity to engage and activate those employees to demonstrate and communicate the values of Coca Cola in their interactions with their colleagues, business relationships and in their communities.

If you want to be a “good citizen” what could be more important that your interaction with employees, and your inclusion of them in your external CSR story.

Citizenship isn’t just about the big external programs – it is about the careers you create, and the opportunity for people to sustain their own lives. It is about a reputation earned through the word of mouth in the community – which often begins with the words of your employees. Citizenship begins at home. Or it can’t be sustained for long.

Carreen Winters can be reached at cwinters@mww.com.

cwinters CSR, Employee Engagement citizenship, CSR, Employee Engagement

We need a robust scientific community exploring and determining and discovering. But science costs money. And corporations, which often rely on science for validation of things like product safety, environmental impact, or efficacy, have it.

For corporations involved in things that require scientific testing, don’t we expect them to do that testing, to engage outside experts to reach conclusions? I think we, society, do. Their reputation is tied up in it. But still we roll our eyes when we see some science that confirms facts in favor of the company that funded it. When it seems self-serving, we are incredulous.

Writes John Tierney in the New York Times: “Too often, corporate conflict-of-interest accusations have been used as smear tactics to silence scientists who ended up being correct.”

Science is at once a most revered and most reviled field, and corporate reliance on it cuts both ways.

There is in fact little proof, though there are some extreme, isolated examples, that the scientific community has been compromised by virulent corporate funding. Many might even argue science has flourished because it is so well-funded by corporations and other organizations, including government.

But it remains a communications and reputation challenge for corporations to convince its audience that the science it sponsors is honest.

From a message standpoint, “corporate” science is generally referred to in one of two ways. If you are against what the corporate-funded science purports to prove, you call it “junk science.” If you are for what the science shows, you say “Look, don’t take my word for it, this is independently conducted science.”

Actually, the same framework applies, if say, an advocacy group puts out science that delegitimizes a corporation’s particular claim.

It’s an easy narrative trap to fall into. But perhaps, for corporations, the best way to win the battle – and make no mistake, the media loves a science dust-up – is to demonstrate how they maintained a proper distance from the process and allowed for scientific integrity. In this age of transparency, the burden of proof rests with them.

We should care if corporate money funds science and I’m not saying there is never a conflict that the public should be made aware of. The trick is for corporations to show that the conflict is only perceived, not actual.

Mike Sacks can be reached at msacks@mww.com.

msacks General Corporate reputation, science, scientific testing

This weekend JetBlue successfully migrated over to the SABRE system in what can only be described as a magnificent feat of great planning and operations. For those of you who are industry buffs, you will recall that WestJet recently experienced difficulties in this migration, causing all kinds of airport delays and hassles for customers.

In the interest of full disclosure, MWW Group is JetBlue’s crisis communications agency…and in my opinion, this is an airline that continues to be unfairly burdened with the events of a certain winter snowstorm, despite pulling off major operational feats – like the opening of T5 at JFK and the migration to SABRE – without a hitch.

After some time working with them and observing them, it is clear that JetBlue practices some important things that so many other organizations seem to miss:

They operate under a common sense philosophy that empowers their “crew” (that’s employees to you and me) to use their own judgment to DO WHAT THEY THINK IS RIGHT FOR THE CUSTOMER. Not just in special situations, but every day.

They plan for the worst case scenario, pretty much all the time, and they are willing to sacrifice short term dollars for long term success. For the Sabre switch, that meant sacrificing ticket revenue to ensure a good customer experience – by reducing the schedule and the load factors on all of their flights this weekend.

JetBlue gives their people permission to make mistakes, and learn from them.

At JetBlue, knowledge is power –and not in the “keep it a secret so you have an edge over your colleague” kind of way. They talk about the good, the bad and the ugly. They acknowledge challenges, and provide guidance on how to manage through those challenges.

JetBlue entrusts their people with meaningful substantive information – not just what to expect, but what is expected of them. They don’t expect those solutions to be perfect, so when someone comes up with a better one, they share the knowledge.

So when they got through the airline version of an SAP conversion – something that sends shivers down the spines of corporate types everywhere – they got through it without a hitch.

For anyone that knows JetBlue or flies them regularly, this is no surprise.

Congratulations JetBlue! Looking forward to the next time you don’t need my services!

Carreen Winters can be reached at cwinters@mww.com.

cwinters Employee Engagement employee communication, JetBlue

Saturday’s Business Day section of the New York Times offered an interesting juxtaposition of perspective for anyone who was paying attention. Page B4 featured a continuation of a story on Toyota’s belated apology to customers for the recall of vehicles announced January 21st due to some brake issues and on page B5, a column entitled “An Attempt to Revive the Lost Art of Apology, “ by Alina Tugend. I noticed the latter item when I turned the page of the newspaper while wondering why the CEO of Toyota waited nine days from the day of announcing the recall to apologize and why he did it from Davos as opposed to returning to his company to sort out an issue which is clearly devastating to sales.

It’s understandable that companies do not like to communicate with customers when things go wrong until they feel that have the complete story and can answer the question “what will you do to fix the problem.” It may even be legal counsel that is discouraging a public apology or communications.

But, the equity gained by saying “I’m sorry this happened” first, and then communicating as information and solutions are found, is profound. The need for an apology has even been noted in reviews of malpractice litigation where plaintiffs frequently report that all they wanted was for the doctor to say “I’m sorry.”

The power and value of an apology is clearly pointed out by Professor Jonathan R. Cohen, a law professor at the University of Florida, in Ms. Tugend’s piece. “Saying I’m sorry, or asking forgiveness permits you to have a future relationship,” he said.

While the apology finally came from Toyota’s Akio Toyoda, one has to wonder if it came too late to allow a future relationship with affected customers as they look to take advantage of the trade-in incentives being offered to owners of the recalled Toyota vehicles by competitors such as Chrysler, GM and Hyundai.

Ame Wadler can be reached at awadler@mww.com.

awadler Crisis Communications apologies, reputation, Toyota