Comments on: Handling ‘No-Win’ Media Stories

By: Sean

Sean — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:31:38 +0000

The say-do disconnect isn’t likely to be solved only on the “say” side — there is persuasive language, but it can’t work if the behavior (action) is oppositional. The organization fails the snicker test.

Example: “We value our employees and communities.” Simple statement, clear, easy to back up with examples that demonstrate that value statement. Easy also to puncture with layoffs, plant closings, etc. Requires more explanation, and needs to avoid the appearance that “we value employees and communities” is contradicted by our actions.

Behavior is a demonstration of values; language is limited in its ability to demonstrate…

By: Sean

Sean — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:50:20 +0000

Thanks for your comment, Peter — especially:

“It’s much easier, of course, to avoid no-win situations when your company toes the line and doesn’t find ways to adjust the rules, in compensation and other areas as well. As always, words can be powerful when behavior is correct; they’re powerless to gloss over incorrect behavior.”

One of my regular chat points is, “that’s more of a management issue than a communication issue.” The disconnect between saying and doing is fatal to trust (or at least, emetic) in internal communication.

That’s partly how PR gets caught in the spin cycle — if you’re at the table and know the truth…

By: Peter Faur

Peter Faur — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:41:40 +0000

Hi, Sean. I enjoyed this post. I’ve been in the same situation and at times have received the same directive from a CFO or treasurer. I’ve also had reporters say, “If you’d like to decline comment, I understand.”

I’m in your camp. I’d rather provide an explanation, and I’ve been fortunate enough to work for companies that have not paid bonuses when they failed to make their targets. That was a KEY talking point when bonuses were paid.

It’s much easier, of course, to avoid no-win situations when your company toes the line and doesn’t find ways to adjust the rules, in compensation and other areas as well. As always, words can be powerful when behavior is correct; they’re powerless to gloss over incorrect behavior.

By: Sean

Sean — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:23:04 +0000

Hi Jim — thanks for your comment. There’s “no-win” and then there’s “NO-FREAKING-WIN” — I think repping Dick Fuld is the latter…

By: Jim Savage

Jim Savage — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:19:29 +0000

Hey Sean – Excellent post. You may recall when Dick Fuld, Mr. $400 million, was being interrogated by Congressional blowhards…One of them asked him “Mr Fuld, do you think you earned that $ 400m?”. Fuld spoke for about 5 minutes explaining board compensation committees, contractual obligations, etc etc….Just as you point out, a total no-win to an emotionally-driven question. Personally (not what I might advise but close), I might have said something like “Heck no!! But that is what they paid me, and that was considered ok by all concerned, including Congress, at the time. If they offered you that kind of money what would you do? Would you turn it down?”….

In a similar vein, as a car guy I enjoyed Jay Leno interviewed by the wonderful Jeremy Clarkson on BBC Top Gear last week. Leno owns something like 150 classic cars, and in response to the question “why?” shouted out to the car enthsiast audience “Wouldn’t you do the same thing if you could??”. Applause all around….totally disarmed what could’ve been a sticky rich-guy-caught-in-the-crosshairs moment….

I do think there is a way to combine candour with a story that will disarm the emotion with at least part of the public with whom you want to communicate. And every question deserves an honest answer – I don’t “bridge”. But you don’t have to answer on the questioner’s terms when it is a “question with intent”….

You raise a good point about advocacy vs Excellence Theory best practice. Many firms, indeed more every day, simply have to engage in the latter even if they might like to have the luxury of the former. Hence raising this is timely and important…