By Neil Bayley, director and crisis & issues specialist

It’s not true that online noise has made it impossible for brands to minimise negative publicity once it’s out there. These eight steps can help keep the fire under control.

1. Speed is of the essence. You will be able to react more quickly if you have clear processes already outlined, based on a thorough risk assessment and involvement of all the key internal decision-makers. You need to anticipate as much as possible and avoid bureaucracy at all costs

2. Make sure the organisation is behind you. Internal communications based on a strong idea of who you are and what you stand for will help staff adapt more easily to rapidly changing situations

3. Employ people who are specialists in crisis communications. There are lots of pitfalls the experts will have been through – they will be able to act decisively

4. On the digital front, concentrate only on the relevant online chatter (you can’t be everywhere) and react swiftly when something happens. Silence is often taken as an admission of guilt

5. Stay the course. Digital channels thrive on conversation, so watch how people react to your response. Be prepared to provide more comment, but take care with answering back. There will be limitations to how much you can influence in social media. It may be better to watch and respond via other channels than jump straight in there, as Ryanair found to their cost earlier this year

6. Reacting via digital channels requires the right tools (e.g. equipment to record video, social media knowledge, web design expertise, pre-emptive purchase of the most helpful search terms in a crisis). Make sure your staff already have them and know who to turn to if they need specialist help

7. All organisations should have a crisis blog set-up ready to activate quickly as a means to getting their side of the story out in a crisis. Having a blog that links in and out of your web site provides flexibility and improves search ranking

8. I’d also encourage organisations to think about using ‘talking head’ video posts from executives and experts to provide responses in crisis situations. Here is how Dominos used one to good effect when responding to their recent in-store hygiene crisis in the US

This morning I received a tip-off on an interesting development from a company who had been the target of an aggressive, and very public, lobbying campaign by Greenpeace.

This case study, and another one, My Green Apple, have in my opinion displayed the opportunities that a well mitigated crisis communications plan can provide. Instead of running and hiding, which a lot of companies do when faced with a public witch hunt, these two companies listened and responded in a positive and mature corporate way. Let’s look at them.

Timberland stands up to criticism, and ends up looking the hero

Faced with an assault of more than 65,000 template letters from green activists, consumers and members of a genuinely concerned community, Timberland had two options. Run and hide, and don’t respond to the increasingly ferocious lobbying of perhaps the world’s biggest and most trusted green group, Greenpeace, or stand up and listen to the concerns and action them in a mutually beneficial and mature manner. Timberland took the latter option and in turn has proven that a crisis can be a PR dream.

Now, the criticism and resulting public lobbying from Greenpeace was a result of an investigation in which Timberland were implicated as being unwitting contributors to the destruction of the Amazon for cattle farming. Timberland were buying 7 per cent of their leather for their products, from cows who were destroying the world’s most vulnerable forest through grazing.

As a result, Timberland got on the radar of Greenpeace, along with other companies such as Adidas/Reebok and Nike to name a few. This was secondary to the main villains, being the actual cattle farmers Bertin, JBS and Marfrig (interestingly, part-owned by the Brazilian Government).

Taking the road less travelled

It would have been easy for Timberland to play dumb, to cry foul and essentially ignore the brand assault enveloping their operations. Afterall, the PR ’spin’ would have been easy. Can’t you imagine them issuing a media release pleading ignorance and pushing back to their supplier, Bertin, in terms of laying the blame?

Then, behind closed doors, you can picture the discussions with Bertin. “Mate, you have to take this heat. It’s your cows, your farming, your operation. We just buy your leather.”

But Timberland have taken the road less travelled, faced up to the crisis, and in turn, have looked a hero. Why?

Turning the crisis into an opportunity

Timberland have done two things right. They have acknowledged the concerns of the lobbyists and their customers, and have addressed them. Check out their CEO, Jeff Swartz, responding in his blog here.

Not only has Timberland engaged with their supplier, Bertin, to develop a plan that would answer the challenge, but they have managed to respond to the public criticism with a mature corporate tone which places them as the hero. They are using their small leveraging currency to engage with Bertin and other organisations such as Nike, to look at their business operations in the Amazon.  In fact, Bertin have just announced they are no longer sourcing cattle from protected areas of the Amazon.

Confronting the crisis head-on

What interests me is the fact they have confronted the crisis head-on. They have facilitated a major organisation to look at the issue, they have facilitated face-to-face meetings with the villain (Bertin) and the agitator (Greenpeace) and they have put the issue on a major stakeholder’s agenda (the Leather Working Group).

In addition, Timberland have created a positive public relations opportunity out of this action. The CEO blog announcing this action, the covering letter distributed to all 65,000 consumers who wrote to Timberland, and the prominent placement in their CSR website, are all big wins.

The tone in the CEO blog is also interesting. A couple of paragraphs I think are spot on include:

So when 65,000 new friends introduce themselves to your e-mailbox in a week, endlessly resending a form letter written by Greenpeace accusing your company of being part of the deforestation of the precious ecosystem called the Amazon rainforest, what would you do?

To understand Greenpeace’s assertion that our business practice directly leads to deforestation in the Amazon, you’ve first got to know that it is cattle ranching that is causing the deforestation — ranchers cutting down the forest in order to allow livestock to graze. That livestock is raised primarily for tailgate hotdogs or your mom’s meatloaf recipe — not for leather.

So in other words, wow you guys are persistent and we’re listening. Oh, and it’s not our fault.

No more leather from Brazil, no more issues with tracing hides which may have come from cows grazing in deforested areas of the Amazon rainforest.  We’re only talking about 7% of our production — so cut and run, right?

Tempting, but not the right thing to do. Disengaging would have solved OUR problem — no more headaches or emails from angry activists — but would do nothing to solve the problem of deforestation.  Even as we fumed at the way Greenpeace had approached this issue we asked ourselves, what is the responsible thing to do?  Do we walk away and let the beef processors sort this out with Greenpeace, or do we risk further ire, by staying in the conversation and engaging the leather tanner and the beef processor to solve the real environmental challenge?  What would you choose to do?

Or, look we are a really small client of Bertin and you have placed us in an untenable position, but…

We decided to stay engaged.  We pressed our Brazilian leather supplier, Bertin, for a plan that would answer the challenge posed — demonstrate that the cattle grazing in the field were not contributing to deforestation.  Find a way to ensure trace-ability back into the value chain — now.

For its part, Greenpeace has done an outstanding job gathering data, creating a complete and compelling case for the issue, and mobilizing its tens of thousands of supporters to call for action from brands like ours on an issue they care about.  Their effort has driven change into the system.  We applaud their activism, even as we wish next time—and there will be a next time, in the complex global value chain — they would seek to engage brands like ours before they pull the “let’s confront ‘em” lever.

We’re the hero, and we’re impressed that Greenpeace had the balls to push us.  And, finally..

Business can be a force for positive environmental change … collaboration yields more powerful outcomes than the effort of one … learnings reinforced by our experience to date on the Amazon deforestation issue.  We’re not closing the book on this topic yet – we’ll continue to monitor progress through regular reports from Bertin and through our work with the LWG and HWG, and we’ll continue to share milestones and challenges with you here on Earthkeepers.

CEO thanks Greenpeace for full frontal email assault?  Next thing you know, world leaders will actually come up with a meaningful global agreement at Copenhagen…

So, what are the key insights into this case study?

• Timberland have managed to salvage their business relationship with Bertin, by engaging with them, showing them how they can also evoke change in a positive manner, and then credit Bertin in their communications
• The CEO, and Timberland as an organisation, have leveraged the crisis as an opportunity to display good corporate citizenship without actually losing any income or business
• Timberland have approached the PR crisis with a mature corporate voice, and have responded publicly in a tone which mitigates Greenpeace’s concerns. They have put a human face to the response (CEO) and have managed to communicate some pretty convincing business messages
• Instead of an attack on Greenpeace, Timberland have managed to engage with them, and in a side-ways slap, highlighted how  they thought it was unfair that Greenpeace targeted them, via the CEO blog
• The CEO responded to each and every one of the 65,000 agitators via the same mechanism they lobbied to Timberland – through a personalised email
• Greenpeace have commended Timberland’s response and actions, providing a PR win-win. Timberland looks good, and Greenpeace look like a victor.

So, what do you think? Would your company have the balls to confront the PR crisis head-on and come out looking like the hero? And, are you prepared for an assault of this size, by the likes of Greenpeace?

“Hope for the best, prepare for the worst, and always seek an opportunity”—this is a line that I think explains what you should do when dealing with a PR crisis situation.

Since class on Tuesday, I’ve been looking into tips for people dealing with crisis situations in PR. I was caught off guard when we were asked to do the exercise in class, and it really got me thinking about whether I could handle doing something like that once I got into the PR field.

A crisis is defined as a situation that threatens the integrity or reputation of the company that you work for. It can be made into a crisis by being brought on by negative media attention. These situations can be any kind of legal dispute, theft, accident, fire, flood or manmade disaster that could be pointed at your company. It can be a situation where in the eyes of the media or public, your company did not react to situation in the right way.

Here are some different pointers from professionals that I found on the subject of crisis situations:

1. If handled correctly the damage can be minimized.
2. The first and foremost goal is protecting the integrity and reputation of the Company.
3. Never try to lie, deny or hide your involvement.
4. If you ignore the situation, it will only get worse.
5. If you don’t communicate immediately, you lose your greatest opportunity to control events.

In a PR crisis, you can work with the media or work against them. Knowing how to handle the media can help make your company look so much better in the media spotlight. You can’t prevent every crisis before it strikes, but you can take preventative actions to avoid certain situations before they become a PR nightmare.

It’s going to be an interesting season for the team of PR and image consultants who are delivering the winning strategy for reinstated NFL player Michael Vick. Known as one of the most dynamic quarterbacks in the league, Vick’s rise to gridiron fame and fall to criminal intent has proven to be a PR challenge to tackle.

Without knowing the details of the team’s members and plans, their attempt to carefully rebrand Vick and map out a road to redemption following his release from federal prison is turning out to be a PR victory.

Since Vick’s admitted act of animal cruelty, his team has made a public effort to present him in a repented and reformed fashion. They recently positioned Vick to confess his sins and express immense guilt on CBS “60 Minutes” along side former NFL coach Tony Dungy, commissioned by the league to be his mentor, and President of the Humane Society of the United States, Wayne Pacelle, to be his community partner. We all know you’ve got to have a bit of cache to tell your story on “60 Minutes” and the PR team that knows Vick has to come back with some credibility.

Whether his remorse is scripted or sincere, you must admit his team is gaining yards toward the goal. Yet, the ultimate test of a winning strategy is whether the public believes you. Vick is going to have to walk the walk. If he doesn’t, his PR team will end up seeing a bigger chunk from that first $1.6 million to keep him on the straight and narrow. Judging by the execution and perceived outcome, Vick has gotten his money’s worth, but the team must continue to move strategically so the public won’t think Vick’s efforts are contrived.

Personally, I’ve always been an advocate for second chances. Only time will tell how Vick shapes up while his PR team shows out. Our culture often forgives, and, most times, forgets the sins of public figures. So the more touchdown passes Vick throws, the further his wrongdoings will be from our minds.

I’m not much of a soda drinker. And now I can’t imagine taking a sip of soda out of a can after hearing of the Florida couple’s unfortunate discovery of what they think was a mouse in can of diet Pepsi. Amy Denegris and her husband, Fred, poured out the remains on a plate after Fred had taken a sip and discovered something tasted a little “off”.  

The Denegris’ apparently aren’t planning a lawsuit, but that doesn’t mean Pepsi is off the hook. Although an unfortunate situation for both the Denegris’ and Pepsi, I get excited to see the way large company’s unfold their crisis management strategies, and this story is no exception.

Pepsi responded with a statement saying that in similar reported cases that were sent for testing, the results showed that the specimen did not enter the can during production, and likely entered the can once it was already opened. Perhaps not the smartest statement to make. It sounds like Pepsi is defensive and putting the blame on the couple. If you take a look at the decomposed remains of whatever was in the can, it more or less rules out the possibility that it could have entered the can after the customer opened it.

However Pepsi’s efforts haven’t been all off. Let’s take a look at what, in my opinion, they have done right to effectively manage this crisis.

• They have been in contact with the couple and have offered to assist the FDA
• They have reviewed all production logs to ensure the specimen did not enter the can on the production line
• Provided a statistic to backup their claim that this incident did not happen on their production line and to ensure their confidence in their products (We run about 1,250 cans per minute on these production lines. Their speed along with the rigorous quality control systems we have in place throughout our manufacturing process, give us great confidence in the quality and safety of our products.) 

With that said, all the above listed was in a statement to mainstream media. Pepsi and Pepsico (corporate site) have nothing on this incident, as well as the company’s twitter and facebook pages. Pepsi’s PR team… where is the social media management during this crisis?? I have yet to see Pepsi blogging, tweeting, or in general interacting with their online audience. Pepsi, here’s a refreshing idea, stop ignoring your online community!!!!

We will wait to see how the story unravels, especially when the FDA reports come back to prove whether indeed this claim is genuine, or a hoax. Either way, it should still be treated as a brand crisis for Pepsi.

Let me know what you think and if you come across a Pepsi presence online!

I’m not typically one for ‘lists’ or ‘tips’ but given the potential for brand crises engendered by instantaneous & social media, every company, big and small, public and private, needs to know the basics when it comes to handling consumer criticism, negative press, and averting the looming crisis.

[Disclaimer: Ronn Torossian is my boss and the CEO of 5W Public Relations.]

Ronn, well versed in Crisis Communication, brings us the following 5 tips, upon which I’ve expounded a bit, and added one of my own.

• It can be tempting to immediate respond to negative comments and criticism, but a thought out, well crafted response has a much better chance of mitigating any potential crisis, even if it takes more time than you’d like.

• If you feel you must respond right away, the best thing to do is to explain, as sincerely as possibly, that your audience’s voices are heard and that remedying whatever issue is plaguing them is the sole focus of your attention at the moment. Details can come later.

• In today’s world of instant communication and social media, big brands should actively be monitoring ALL media, especially, social platforms & the blogosphere, both for general consumer feedback, and to keep apprised of any potential crisis. Motrin and Domino’s are recent examples of brands that failed in this arena. They had an underdeveloped or no established presence in the social media realm and were thus unable to negate their respective consumers’ concerns before they snowballed into a full-blown PR Crisis.

• Every business and brand should have a crisis contingency plan. This includes a list of friendly media outlets to contact, a predetermined spokesperson to be the voice of the company, and a clear and succinct message as your bottom line. All employees, receptionists to Senior Vice Presidents, should be apprised of the proper protocol.

• Choosing the media outlet that serves as your vehicle for response in a crisis can be as important as the actual message you deliver. Some brands are apt for TV, others, print, and still others, online platforms and bloggers. Be cognizant of which outlets have been amicable in the past and with which and whom you have relationships. If bloggers are the ones rioting against your brand, it’s you may be enticed to take your message to them directly, but such a move could end up providing them with more fodder with which to attack you.

• A crisis is not the time for risky maneuvers or innovation. Stick to your principals and remind your consumers and customers why they value your brand in the first place.

I’ve talked too much about Pizza Hut & Domino’s and their various Social Media Exploits, I know. But after the Domino’s Debacle and the initial Aftermath, I couldn’t help but gauge how they’ve since handled their digital ventures. We all saw the apology videos…ok not bad, a bit late, but not bad. @dpzinfo was created after the public practically dictated they invoke a legitimate presence…again, not bad, but waaay too late.

So how has dpzinfo handled the pressure? Until yesterday, I would have given him/her a B+. He/she has been fairly responsive to my inquiries and seems to be a viable customer service channel, though, as expected, most responses are as ‘safe’ as they can be, only a few details away from being a ‘no comment.’ Either way, you can see that they’re trying, and for that, I must admit, they were moving in the right direction. The only negative was the endless promotion of the new “breadbowl.” Again, however, a certain amount of shameless product plugging is expected, maybe even warranted, when you’re a brand.

But here’s where they went wrong, in my opinion. In a move that reeks of desperation; in a sour attempt to negate their social media ineptness, as made public by the Domino’s PR Social Media Crisis, Domino’s now allows you to integrate your online order status, or “Pizza Tracker” (which has always seemed a bit…um, shady, perhaps automated & meaningless…at least to me anyway) with your Facebook profile.

My Question – Does ANYONE really give a proclaim to their Facebook ‘Friends’ – half of which they’ve never even met or interacted with – their pizza’s estimated time of arrival, per an automated, poorly constructed, and probably inaccurate, widget? Yes, Facebook is known for offering individuals the ability to broadcast the inane, mundane & TMI to the world, even in that light, this move seems a bit much.

This move practically screams “We Still Don’t Get Social Media.” In fact, all it does is acknowledge that there’s a demographic overlap in those who use Facebook and those who eat pizza and pretty much banks on the hope that some of those individuals will be bored enough to use this app.

And while we’re on the subject…in the words of Julian Matthews “Dear Domino’s Pizza @dpzinfo One wonders why you haven’t claimed @dominos and @dominospizza yet after the fiasco.”

Julian…Spot on!

But what do I know? I’m not an expert, just an observer, an experimenter, a pontificator (man I hate that word). So PLEASE, let me know what you think about this!

It really shocks me how much damage two employees and a 2 minute and 27 second video can do. But, I guess that’s the nature of the game now that the Internet is so integrated into our lives.

Yesterday, Brian Solis added the post The Domino’s Effectthat tracked the way Domino’s has been handling an extremely inappropriate and down right disgusting viral video. The video was made by two employees and it shows them tampering with customers’ food. In the post he includes emails from the president of Domino’s as well as their official response to the issue. Solis gives his opinion on the subject, and believes that so far, Domino’s has been handling the situation in the most appropriate way. I have to concur, they responded immediatelywith a statement (from the president no less) and by removing the videos off the web. This way, Domino’s’ publics are reassured that important people in the Domino’s corporation are not only aware of it, but that they are sorry. Also, by taking the original videos down, they will receive less exposure and hopefully allow the crisis to blow over quickly.

Go check out the post (and honestly, I wouldn’t watch the video if you have a weak stomach) for the rest of his advice on how Domino’s should handle the crisis.

Man, this is a tough one.  Large company (McDonalds) gets bad wrap for PERHAPS not covering the medical costs of employee who was SHOT on the job.  Media does not traditionally look favorably at large businesses vs. small guy.  As Rhonda Sanderson, founder of Chicago-based public relations firm Sanderson & Associates, says, issuing a statement quickly is important in crisis communications, which is what the McDonalds operator did.  Read more here.

This month has been pretty busy for the sports and entertainment industries. Events like the Grammy Awards, Oscars, Super Bowl and NBA All-Star Weekend are enough to keep a celeb on the red carpet and a PR pro on their trail. But with all the glitz and glamour of star-studded events, sometimes a PR crisis is waiting to happen. Actors, entertainers, athletes and personalities are under such close scrutiny in the public eye that anything they do or say can be held against them and their PR pro and could possibly put their careers on the line.

Understanding how to deal with a crisis is not an easy job. PR pros should have a crisis contingency plan but that doesn’t mean they should result to being a babysitter. It means that should a client face an arrest, argument, embarrassment, lawsuit, divorce and even death, a plan is in place to help them navigate the problem and save any instant damage to their career. Crisis management is often an overlooked PR strategy. Who sits and waits for a crisis to happen? No one. But they happen. No one is above a crisis or immune to one. And when the danger lurks, it must be dealt with.

PR pros - fight the urge to make hasty decisions in a crisis. One snap comment, untrue statement or rash decision can ruin your credibility, upset the media and make your client resent you. Once you have proven you can handle a crisis in a methodical and graceful manner, you may become the Johnnie Cockran of PR.

Companies and celebs - be honest with your PR and legal counsel. They need to know the facts of your situation. Remember that most incidents involving the police, courts or emergency medical are public record. That means they can be readily accessed for fact-finding in media reports. If your family would be embarrassed or you’d be ashamed by your words or actions, then its probably not a wise move.

The cliche, any publicity is good publicity, is false. Contrary to what we may have assumed for decades, publicity means nothing if your name is as good as mud. Good crisis management makes a distinct difference between a few minutes of fame and a long-lived run of notoriety. Bad crisis management can lead to terrible publicity, severe ramifications and a long battle of image recovery.

Here are a few do’s and don’ts to remember when communicating with the media as you approach a crisis:

DO be calm, alert and positive.

DON’T fill in silent pauses. Say what you have to say and stop! Get comfortable with silence.

DO be cooperative. Know what you will and won’t say.

DON’T ever say “No Comment.” Whenever possible explain why you can’t give them the information. For instance, “I cannot speak about that at the moment due to legal reasons.” No comment IS a comment.

DO have a one sentence message you want to communicate no matter what is asked. For example, “I am committed to my family, my career and my fans.”

DON’T start an argument with reporters. Look and sound calm and controlled. An argument makes you look hostile.

DO make your point in 20 seconds or less to avoid being taken out of context. An uncontrolled or long-winded response could contain conflicting statements and confuse the media.

DON’T say or do anything you don’t want reported. There’s no such thing as “off the record” when speaking to the media in a crisis. Any statement you make is likely to make the news. Avoid speculation, lying or talking about anything that’s not a known fact. It’s OK to say “I don’t know.”

DO stand still behind the microphone and use comfortable, meaningful gestures. Make friendly hand movements and facial expressions. It shows you’re not intimidated by the media nor have intentions of intimidating them.

DON’T keep talking as you’re walking away. Stop talking before you walk.

DO allow a PR professional or legal counsel to advise and coach you in ways that are most comfortable for you.

Ok, you’re going to need to take a look at your crisis communications plan. You have got one haven’t you? You haven’t? Well, don’t say I didn’t warn you. Let’s take a look at what you SHOULD have done before this all kicked off.

PR and handling the media is about relationships. You can’t expect to just waltz up to a journalist “delighted” with your good news if he/she doesn’t know you or your company from Adam/Eve.

Well, you can, but you’ll have a far better chance of a positive response and some quality editorial if you have bothered to do some groundwork, found out what they want, when they want it and begun to build a two-way relationship.

Relationships in business are crucial, whether it is with clients, suppliers, employees or the media. Journalists need stories. Good news stories make great copy but unfortunately so do negative stories. Journalists deal in news. Your bad news is just as important to them as your good news.

So, what can you do? Don’t bury your head in the sand and hope it will go away because the deadline for comment will pass before you get back to them. There really are two sides to every story and you need to ensure you get yours over. If it involves you, or your business, you really should be on top of the facts. If you are still looking into the situation or are legally shackled, say so, but clarify any information that you can and don’t leave things open to speculation. If you ignore or shun a journalist, speculation is all they have to go on and any relationship built up to date is ruined or scuppered before you’ve even begun.

If you do go down the “no comment” route, you don’t look like an iron-willed corporate shark, you look ill-informed, unprepared and sometimes, unsympathetic. There is only one thing you can control in a crisis – preparation. If you work in a more high risk environment consider the “what if” scenarios.

What would you do if X happened? What are your processes for clarifying the situation, communicating it to colleagues and then the media? In that order? Yes, I think so. Your employees deserve to know the facts from you and not from tomorrow’s papers. Also, if you do go for the “no comment” approach, guess where the journalist is heading next?

In conclusion, journalists are not out to get you, they are out to get a story. Make sure at least half of it is yours.

The BBC is currently giving us a  master class in how not to handle a PR crisis, marks should be awarded for (lack of) style, grace or  basic competence.  I can’t help feeling though that, yes Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand’s comments were crass and stupid.  And no, it’s not big or clever to leave offensive nuisance calls on someone’s answerphone.  And yes, indeed, they are both over-paid, overgrown school boys who aren’t as funny as they think they are and should think about the responsibility that goes with taking public money.  BUT do we really need questions in the House, a Prime Ministerial statement and some spluttering from David Cameron to highlight how terribly serious it all is?  The media response seems to me to be completely out of all proportion and is feeding the outrage – the number of complaints was pretty insignificant until the papers and the politicians jumped onto the bandwagon.  I was researching some stuff for a presentation I’m doing later in the week and came across this, which made me laugh out loud in recognition of today’s papers.  “I have long felt that any reviewer who expresses rage and loathing for a novel is preposterous.  He or she is like a person who has just put on full armour and attacked a hot fudge sundae”.

Back in the day when radio was live and mattered, the most popular DJ in the region was a middle-aged, overweight woman-crazy guy who called himself Big Ange.  Big Ange had a deep, Barry White type voice that he used to advantage, moving in close to the mic for a warm, intimate, often borderline lascivious feel. 

Despite his chauvinism (or maybe because of it)  women loved him. I didn’t pay much attention to Ange, whose controversial babble actually  helped set the stage for shock jocks.  I was assistant PR director at Elmira College in upstate New York.  My boss’s name was Martha.  One morning in January I woke up to a foot of snow.  I was trapped in my rural home.  I turned the radio on to get the local news.

What I got was  Big Ange ranting, “I don’t know if Elmira College is closed!  The PR people won’t call me.  I’ve pleaded with them to call me.  “Martha Horton, Dennis Miller, they’re the worst PR people in the world!  The worst!”

His screaming went on until my boss got through to our college president who confirmed classes were cancelled.  She called the station and the ranting stopped.

But the damage was done. 

The next day, the president called us into and wanted to sue the station.  “At the very least, you guys should sue for slander,” he said.  “Or get a public apology.”

I said no and asked to check into a couple of things.  I called a friend in the station news department. 

“Umm, Ange is really sorry about what he did,” he said.  “He was under a lot of pressure and it just broke.”

“Is he willing to do something to help us on campus feel better?” I asked. 

“I can’t speak for him, but I think so,” my friend said.

So I came up with an idea.  It was unorthodox.  In fact it was so crazy that it had to work.

It involved a master chef and a six foot surprise.

Part 2 tomorrow.

In my previous post about Moose Toys’ lame response to deadly toxic beads being swallowed by children, the media writer for The Australian, Amanda Meade, kindly pointed out the company issued a release.

For sure it did, then “hid” it in the “kids” section of its web site, which probably explains why it wasn’t picked up by the media until 24 hours-plus after the hospitalisation of three children. I went to the kids section (http://www.mooseworld.com.au/content/kids2/Home.aspx) and I still couldn’t find it. You’d think it would be under the corporate section, at least.

Apart from hiding the release, some of the language isn’t too encouraging.

Quote: “made this decision in the best interests of the brand and the children who love playing with it”.

I didn’t know you could play with a brand. But “in the best interests of the brand”. They really have their priorities wrong. This type of stuff is amazing in this day and age of supposed corporate responsibility.

In the second paragraph they’re also indirectly blaming children for playing with it incorrectly. Cripes, it’s what kids do … put things in their mouths. But to shift blame on to children (customers).

Then it goes on to say Moose voluntarily recalled the product. So if no one found out and didn’t make them recall it, then they wouldn’t have.

I see the statement is issued by a marketing person, which is why you need communicators to handle things like this.

This company has seriously abrogated its responsibility. It’s reputation is tarnished.

I’ll be teaching this as a case study in how not to do PR for a long time.