LESSONS LEARNED #6

PLAYING THE GAME OF HARDBALL PR

By James E. Lukaszewski, APR, Fellow PRSA

As Published in PBI Media LLC's PR News, October 2, 2000

Copyright © 2000, James E. Lukaszewski. All rights reserved.

When the boss or client comes to me and says, "It's time to play hardball public relations," it's hard to keep from laughing. Let's see, shall we coerce them with conjunctives? Pummel them with participles?

If someone says something that's inaccurate, insulting, inane, or irritating, the instinct is to fight back with something that destroys their arguments, and perhaps even punishes them. Right?

Can public relations actually play hardball the way the boss or clients expect? The answer is sometimes "yes," sometimes "maybe," and usually "no." After all, public relations is about relationships, not about winning or losing.

One classic PR hardball game was played and won by General Motors in 1993 when it discovered that NBC's Dateline used a demonstration that made certain truck model gas tanks explode. An analysis of videotapes indicated the presence of detonators NBC technicians used - but did not disclose - to enhance the effect they were trying to illustrate.

The result of that episode was, of course, humiliation for NBC and capitulation for Dateline. NBC News temporarily became the subject of much wailing and penitential moaning in journalism circles; then things went back to normal.

In 1999, the Chiquita Brands International Inc. forced the Cincinnati Enquirer to run front-page apologies and pay millions of dollars in settlement for a series of 1998 articles on Chiquita's business practices. The newspaper articles contained information from illegally obtained voice mail messages. The Enquirer apologized for the articles, paid more than $10 million to Chiquita, and fired the reporter, who later pleaded guilty to two felony charges of illegally gaining access to Chiquita's voice-mail system.

What is the game plan when a boss or client wants to strike back? There is a rather underwhelming list of overwhelming tasks and strategies, which, if attainable, can support a tougher, more direct kind of public relations approach. These lessons come directly from General Motors, Chiquita, and other recent circumstances:

• Establish an internal mechanism and staff to activate a process to develop a hardball strategy promptly. Waiting even a day can destroy the exceptionally important edge such an effort requires.
• Get the facts, all of the facts. The facts must line up to support our conclusions and subtract from the position of the opponent or antagonist.
• Develop conclusive evidence - conclusive, direct evidence. If you are sitting on a jury, you learn that there are two kinds of evidence in a court of law: direct evidence, (you see the snow falling); and, indirect evidence; (you go to bed and see nothing on the ground, then wake up to seven inches of snow on the ground). This circumstantial evidence, or indirect evidence, would indicate that it must have snowed during the night. When it comes to challenging the media, you need direct evidence.
• Develop a drop-dead-accurate timeline of events. The purpose of the timeline is to be able to tell the story of how things began, what was attempted, what actually happened, and what the results were.
• Decide what the ultimate purpose of the strategy is - acknowledgement, modification, capitulation, apology, retraction, what?
• Act promptly, preferably within the same news cycle and get the jump on a continuing story or situation if it's primarily in mainstream news.
• Test the process. President Clinton, primarily in his first term, had a special adverse news reaction team to sniff out and then stomp on adverse news, rumors, and gossip. The team was successful because of its over-preparation, helping team members be ready for the real thing. Untested strategies will not work.
• Prepare to let the legal department take the lead. Most successful hardball PR models have heavy involvement from the legal department or legal counsel. Providing excellent staff support to these legal functions will ensure an appropriate role for public relations once the balls start flying.

Playing hardball is the toughest kind of PR. While it seems so appropriate in many situations, rarely do the facts line up to conclusively support the use of this technique.

The primary lesson for those bosses and clients who like hardball is that to win, this game must be played from the very beginning. On controversial issues, better start playing hardball from the perception that there might be a problem. When you're the victim, follow steps, act promptly, and prepare to learn from your victories.

SIDEBAR:

These are the questions to ask the boss if he or she wants to play PR hardball:

1. Is there conclusive evidence that supports a hard, contrary position?
2. Is there a solid legal basis for the hardball position?
3. Is the organization willing to devote the kind of resources necessary and expose itself extensively to gather the evidence and information needed to win?
4. What else may be revealed, which could be equally or even more embarrassing, or newsworthy, as a result of this method?
5. What is gained, who wins, what are the benefits of using this approach - beyond good feelings on the executive floor?
6. Who takes the fall when the approach fails or backfires?

James E. Lukaszewski APR, Fellow PRSA, is recognized as one of America's top authorities on litigation visibility management. Although not an attorney, nearly half of his practice involves civil, criminal, or class action litigation. He'll be conducting a pre-seminar workshop, "Managing PR and Legal Concerns During a Crisis" on Monday, June 19, 2000, 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon at the Advanced Crisis Management Seminar sponsored by PR News, the PRSA, and others. Check out his Web site at www.e911.com for even more fascinating information about litigation visibility management. Lukaszewski is a regular columnist for PR News on a wide variety of crisis communication and management communication topics.