Lerbinger O. Corporate Public Affairs. Interacting with Interest Groups, Media, and Government

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Engage in Preemptive Communications

When an organization knows or suspects that a critical source is about

to announce disturbing or controversial news in an upcoming news

release or news conference, a targeted organization can preempt the

release by publicizing its version of the story first. It engages in preemp

tive communications by holding a news conference, distributing news

releases, arranging to appear on broadcast talk shows, taking out advo

cacy ads, and using direct communications to each audience. The ad

vantage of taking the initiative is that the news can be placed in a fuller

and more favorable perspective. Subsequent stories by others then lack

news value. President Clinton often did this in connection with ques

tionable political fund raising. Madeline Albright also did this when the

media were about to reveal that one of her parents was Jewish, a fact

that might suggest she could not be unbiased in negotiations between

Israel and Palestine.

Metabolife. Michael Ellis, CEO of Metabolife International, decided

on a formidable and expensive preemptive strike after he was inter-

viewed by Arnold Diaz, a reporter for the ABC television news magazine

program 20/20 on September 9, 1999. Diaz was preparing a segment

on the reported dangerous side effects of the company’s popular diet

pill, Metabolife 356. Ellis said the interview “felt more like a deposition.”

After learning the reporter ran a website, “Schemes, Scams and Savin’ a

Buck,” and one of the critics cited in the story was on the board of a com-

peting company, Ellis expected the program to be unfair.

He took the

advice of his publicist Michael Sitrick, known for his aggressive damage

control on behalf of Food Lion supermarkets, and launched a preemp-

tive attack.

Using an Internet site (www.newsinterview.com), Metabolife

posted Diaz’s complete, unedited 70-minute videotaped interview of

Ellis and Randy Smith, the company’s medical director. Before the seg

ment was aired, Ellis also spent $1.5 million on full-page newspaper

ads, which appeared on October 6, and radio programs to publicize the

site and the company’s concerns that ABC would broadcast an unfair

report on the medical risks of its dietary supplement. ABC News

spokeswoman Eileen Murphy considered the posting “a not very sub

tle attempt at intimidation.”

After the Metabolife segment appeared on 20/20 on October 15, Ellis,

however, judged it as “not terribly unfair.” He said, “I think they did the

best job of doing a balanced ‘unbalanced’ story that they could do.” But

he credited the $2 million publicity campaign as “effective in holding

‘20/20’s feet to the fire to some degree.”

Diaz, however, maintains, “I

don’t think they were successful in neutralizing our report. I don’t think

our report would have been any different, as far as the thrust of it, had

they not done this.… If their intent was to get more people to watch the

102 I CHAPTER 4

story, they were successful in doing that.”

The broadcast was in fact

the highest rated that night among women ages 18 to 49. Furthermore,

the website attracted more than 1 million users in its first 15 hours, ac

cording to publicist Sitrick.

Metabolife’s preemptive attack undoubtedly attracted widespread

media and public attention. Ellis’s side of the story was better known

through the website, and despite its denials, ABC perhaps took greater

care to make the segment balanced and fair. However, Ellis faced two

risks: More people would know of the possible side effects of the diet pill,

and embarrassing personal information would be revealed, namely,

that in 1988 he was charged with illegally making methamphetamine,

or speed. Now the “dynamite idea,” as Ellis called it, of drawing millions

of visitors so that people can make up their own mind would be tested.

His lucrative business, which claims to sell 225,000 of its diet capsules

an hour and was expected to yield revenues of $900 million in 1999,

was at stake.

EMFs. Preemptive communication can also be employed when a

company expects an emerging issue to escalate and move to the next

stage of public communication. Regular monitoring of an issue, includ-

ing the use of public opinion surveys that track changes over time, is re-

quired to determine when an issue progresses in its life cycle.

The survey approach was used by the Edison Electric Institute when

it learned from a 1993 Cambridge Reports/Research International sur-

vey that the percentage of people who were aware of electric and mag-

netic fields (EMFs) suddenly jumped 18 percentage points to a 63%

awareness level. Previously the increase had averaged about 4 or 5 per-

centage points a year.

For some utilities, that jump was a signal to be-

gin a public communication program. Although most utilities preferred

to communicate with only their own stakeholders, others sent news re-

leases to the media in an attempt to interest them in the EMF issue. Their

strategy was to preempt the issue by publicizing their side of the story

before opposition groups presented their own side.

Similar jumps in news coverage can be monitored through another

method: computer tracking of issues and sources of news. Brent Baker,

former dean of Boston University’s College of Communication, illus

trates how a system, which he calls frame mapping, works.

By ana

lyzing the frequency of stories (about animal rights) appearing in

three sources—print media, television, and the Internet—he was able

to plot frequency distribution curves for each. He discovered that the

Internet curve peaked several days before the curves of the print and

television media. This information can thus serve as a leading indica

tor that allows an organization affected by an issue to take proactive

measures. Because an increasing number of journalists visit websites,

one of these measures could be to participate in newsgroups covering

the issue. A 1996 survey by Successful Marketing Strategists (Berke

PROACTIVE MEDIA RELATIONS I 103

ley, California) lends support to this approach because it found that

51% of journalists believed that Web pages today offer more news

valuethaninpastyears.

Correct the News

In an ideal business world, a company could review stories prior to pub

lication or broadcast. Thus, if a story is judged false or distorted, it can

attempt to correct it. With the advent of computer monitoring of wire

service stories and stories written in foreign countries before they reach

the United States, the possibility of “refining” inaccurate stories is

greatly enhanced.

As more newspapers first publish online versions of a story before

hard-copy ones, some companies assign staff members in a 24-hour cycle

to monitor stories about them. When inaccuracies, half-truths, and mis

information are spotted, specific reporters and editors are immediately

sent fact sheets, corrected quotes, and counterstories on the Internet.

Monitor and Respond to Internet Attacks. Recognizing the poten-

tial danger of negative stories on the Web, companies are monitoring

what people do or say on the Web and respond. Middleberg Interactive

Communications in New York launched a computer monitoring service,

called M-3 (the 3 stands for monitoring, analysis, and response), that

scans the Internet daily for online complaints about its clients’ prod-

ucts.

As stated by Steve Ulfelder: “The downside [of the Internet] is

that anyone can run a smear campaign full of libelous information that

reaches millions of people in seconds. There are no editors or safeguards

ensuring that ’net information is fair and factual.”

Another monitoring service is Cybersleuth, a product from Dallas-

based eWatch sold through the Edelman Interactive Solutions public re

lations agency and PR Newswire. “We can neutralize the information

appearing online, identifying the perpetrators behind uncomplimen-

tary postings and rogue websites,” says the company’s online promo

material. Its objective: “To stop the spread of incorrect information and

to ensure that what has already spread is eliminated,” eWatch says. For

example, if someone is spreading phony tips about XYZ stock on an on

line financial forum, XYZ could “work with” an Internet service pro

vider to erase the comments from the site.

Northwest Airlines Corp.

used this service to help it identify employees who organized a “sickout”

that nearly halted flights over a Christmas holiday (see Box 4.2).

The danger in such a tough approach is that people will fear saying

anything critical about a company online, whether factual or not. An

employee could no longer share his or her opinion about a company

online without worrying that the company would find out about it.

Even if no legal action is taken, a person may become the target of a

company “reeducation” campaign (e.g., an e-mail trying to change the

employee’s mind). Free speech is endangered.

104 I CHAPTER 4

Companies must decide how to respond to Internet-monitoring re-

ports about customers as well as employees. The Ford Motor Company

is one company that failed to respond to Internet smearing. After

watching his Ford Ranger pickup burn on his driveway, Ed Goldgehn

of Marietta, Georgia, and his wife opened a website they named

www.flamingfords.com. The New York Times and CNN credited the Web

page as one of the catalysts for a recall, which eventually added up to

8.7 million vehicles estimated to have cost Ford $200 million to $300

million. Ford never went online to combat the website. Ford spokes

woman Joy Wolfe explained, “Anything we’d do on our own [corporate]

site would validate what these people are saying”; this reflects the rather

old-fashioned attitude of not recognizing an opponent.

In contrast to Ford, the Tommy Hilfiger Corporation, a publicly

traded clothing manufacturer, took action when it fell victim to a rumor

that spread like wildfire. The rumor asserted Hilfiger, a designer, ap

peared on The Oprah Winfrey Show and made racist comments about sev

eral groups, after which he was tossed off the set by Winfrey. After the

rumor was a year old, it hit Usenet in the spring of 1997 and conse

quently spread so rapidly and generated so much controversy among

customers and potential customers that the company responded. Com

pany spokeswoman Ruth Pachman said, “As soon as the misinformation

was brought to our attention,” the company posted a statement to the

appropriate newsgroups denying the allegations, a step that produced

“immediate results.”

PROACTIVE MEDIA RELATIONS I 105

Box 4.2 Northwest Airlines Uses Monitoring Service to Combat

Strike

When the flight attendants’ union and several others staged an illegal

strike, Northwest Airlines resorted to Cybersleuth to strike back by su

ing the unions. The service helped it identify employees who organized

a “sickout.” Obtaining a court order, Northwest forced a veteran flight

attendant, Kevin M. Griffin, who had hosted the message board, to

turn over his computer so it could copy his hard drive. It also subpoe

naed the company that hosted Griffin’s website for the Internet ad

dresses of the people who posted prosickout messages. Sometimes

an offended company files a John Doe suit to obtain a sender’s

Internet protocol address from the Internet provider and then files a

second subpoena “for any and all records” related to the person who

had anonymously criticized the company. In one case, the provider

disclosed not only the name of the person but also his credit-card

numbers, the location of his checking account, and a list of some of

the books and software he had purchased online. Although the pro-

vider says it no longer gives out this information, the law requires pro-

viders to honor court subpoenas.

Companies are advised to familiarize themselves with newsgroups,

mailing lists, chat rooms, and websites. When misinformation is found,

these rules should be followed:

1. Go to the source of the attack and try to establish a dialogue, mak

ing sure to document everything. For example, Shell International

bought banner advertising on the Mother Jones website after the

magazine repeatedly ran articles on its website critical of the com

pany’s environmental and human rights policies. The ads led read

ers of the magazine to Shell’s site, which included a forum area

where users were invited to engage in a dialogue with the com

pany about the issues the magazine had raised.

2. Try to avoid the phone because it may seem like a “ham-fisted

threat and will be immediately described and mocked on the ‘net.’”

3. Prepare a contingency website that provides information that re

inforces your position.

4. Muzzle your lawyers; they should be used as a last resort. “Noth-

ing raises the hackles of the ’net faster than a legal threat.”

Influence Reporting

Some individuals and organizations establish working relationships

with reporters who cover them on their beat, thereby lessening the re-

porters’ independence. In one example, President Lyndon Johnson

hired Robert E. Kintner, former NBC News president, as a White House

special assistant in communications. Kintner revealed in a memoran-

dum to the president he was willing to use his former connections. He

stated he would “do some work” with the news chiefs of ABC, NBC,

and CBS with reference to the “Civil Rights portion of your State of the

Union address.”

In another example, Ronald Reagan hired columnist

George Will to coach him in preparation for his debates with incum

bent Jimmy Carter in 1980. After one of the debates, Will went on tele

vision and, exercising his role as a journalist, commented favorably on

Reagan’s performance.

This practice raises the ethical question of a

conflict of interest.

Speaker’s fees may be paid to journalists as another way of influenc

ing reporting. The National Speakers Forum, representing about 50

print and electronic journalists, says fees range from $3,000 to

$30,000. ABC’s Sam Donaldson reportedly receives the top sum of

$30,000 for a speech. When David Gergen was editor-at-large at U.S.

News & World Report, he earned $466,625 for giving 121 speeches in

1992.

Cokie Roberts accepted a $35,000 fee to speak at a Junior

League-sponsored function, with the money coming from a large

Florida Toyota distributor.

Although the giver of an honorarium may

have the intention of influencing news stories, a reporter may not even

know the source of his or her honorarium.

106 I CHAPTER 4

If a company is fortunate enough to hear of an upcoming news

conference by an adversary, it can attempt to present its side of an is

sue at the same time. For example, someone at the Washington Post

tipped off Chrysler that Consumers Union (CU) was planning a press

conference in New York City to announce findings that Chrysler’s

subcompact cars, Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon, were unsafe.

Chrysler immediately asked to attend, a request supported by

friendly media representatives, but CU refused. As an alternative,

Chrysler held a news conference at its Chelsea proving grounds on the

same day—attended by Detroit and network television and radio re

porters—and declared there was no relation between CU’s test and a

real driving situation.

TAKE A TOUGH MEDIA STANCE

Proactive media relations can often go beyond taking the initiative and

become confrontational and aggressive. A recent book by Washington

Post’s media critic Howard Kurtz, Spin Cycle—Inside the Clinton Propa-

ganda Machine, demonstrates the White House’s tactics and its use of

this approach. In response to press corps hostility, the White House de-

nies accusations, releases as little information as possible, attacks the

accuser’s motives, focuses on any inconsistencies, describes the allega-

tions as part of a right-wing conspiracy, and changes the subject to the

economy or some administrative initiative.

As applied to the corporate world, Herb Schmertz’s Good-Bye to the

Low Profile introduces executives to his fundamental operating principle

of “creative confrontation”—the willingness and ability to challenge

your opponents and critics head-on, with imagination and flair.

“Don’t try to make friends with reporters,” he warns, “but do try to es-

tablish a real relationship.”

Public relations professionals may have

overdone this advice, however. When 32 South Florida broadcast and

print journalists were asked what these professionals do right, only 3

said “build a relationship.” The pros don’t know the publication or the

reporter, said 61% of the journalists.

Part of that relationship is a mutual recognition that business and

other news sources have as much power as the reporter: “Because the

reporter needs your participation to do the story, you are in a position to

set up conditions that are favorable to you as the price for your partici

pation and cooperation.”

If a story involves delicate issues or technical

information, tell the reporter you’d prefer to take down questions and

give your answers in writing.

Schmertz rejects the fourth-estate status of the news media, their in

sistence on “viewing themselves as surrogates for the American public.”

If they are, he asks, “Who appointed them?”

He apparently rejects the

notion that the American public has accepted the special status of the

news media.

PROACTIVE MEDIA RELATIONS I 107

Following the clarion call by Schmertz, many companies have taken

a tough media stance in several ways: demanding rebuttal time, setting

conditions for cooperation, boycotting the news media or imposing a

“freeze-out,” rating reporters, threatening to withdraw advertising, re

quiring advance notice of upcoming articles, and mounting a preemp

tive strike.

Demand Rebuttal Time

When media relations professionals are dissatisfied with how their or

ganizations are treated by the news media, they have traditionally writ

ten or called the appropriate reporter, columnist, editor, or producer.

Heeding the advice of veteran political consultant Bob Gray of Hill &

Knowlton, some companies have now decided to “go after the little lies

in a big way” so that the media would be less likely to fight them on the

major facts.

(Three of the big ways—disclosing errors in an advocacy

ad, referring such instances to media accountability groups, or suing

the media—are so important that they are discussed in chaps. 6 and 7.)

A method of challenging the media, specifically the broadcast media, is

to demand rebuttal time.

How Kaiser Aluminum succeeded in this ef-

fort is described next.

Kaiser Aluminum. When Kaiser Aluminum was accused on 20/20,

ABC’s news magazine, of intentionally selling unsafe house wiring and

hiding information about its dangers, the company immediately went

on the offensive with an advertising, publicity, and political campaign

against what it termed “trial by television.”

The company’s advocacy

ad asserted: “When a TV production team does an unbalanced investi-

gative report, the production team becomes the accuser, the judge, and

the jury of people or institutions. By controlling the editing of pre-taped

interviews, they even control what the accused can say on his own

behalf.”

Ron Rhody, then Kaiser’s vice president for advertising and public rela

tions, further explained, “Since the producer edits the tape or film, all the

taped or filmed interview does is put the producer (that is, the accuser) in

full control of deciding what portions, and how much of the accused’s de

fense the public will be allowed to see. The viewing public is led to believe

that what it’s seeing represents the accused’s best arguments.”

Kaiser demanded rebuttal time, at first, and ABC offered an unprece

dented 4 minutes of unedited rebuttal, but then it reneged. Kaiser filed a

formal complaint with the Federal Communication Commission de

manding that ABC be ordered to give 10 minutes of response time. The

suit was later dropped after ABC promised to accommodate Kaiser in a

new program, called Viewpoint. It was designed to “deal with broad sub

jects affecting broadcast journalism generally, and at the same time pro

vide a forum for a discussion of complaints about accuracy or fairness.”

108 I CHAPTER 4

Kaiser’s rebuttal was aired on the premiere of the new show.

However,

Geraldo Rivera, ABC’s correspondent on 20/20, was on hand to respond

to the rebuttal. In answer to Kaiser’s objection to Rivera’s final words,

Rivera said it would have destroyed “the responsibility of responsible

journalists.”

Besides demanding and receiving rebuttal time, Ron

Rhody assembled arguments to show that adversarial interviews and

one-sided reporting are damaging to the concept of a free press.

Set Conditions for Cooperation

During the Reagan administration, officials harnessed the broadcast

media by setting their own terms for appearances. Lesley Stahl said she

could not get Secretary of State George Schultz on CBS’s Face the Nation

unless she guaranteed him two thirds of the airtime and promised that

no unfriendly foreign spokesman would appear.

Companies have also set the conditions for cooperation. Former

Celanese (now Hoechst) vice president of corporate communications,

Dorothy Gregg, said she would not permit television interviews unless

the station agreed to show the company the final edited film in advance.

When asked about possible press antagonism to these rules, she replied,

“New York media think you’re a dummy unless you take these precau-

tions.”

She did not, however, demand to see final copies of print media

articles, even to check for factual accuracy.

Set Strict Guidelines. Following this pattern, Johns-Manville

(now called the Manville Corporation) established some strict press

guidelines when, as the leading producer of asbestos in the United

States, it had to defend itself against charges that it knew about the link

between asbestos and cancer. The company’s “Reserved Cooperative Ap

proach” in working with the media stated:

1. If a reporter calls and deadline is too short to lay out company’s case

effectively, [respond with] no comment or “uncooperate.” Do not

help legitimize story as objective.

2. If a PR person detects by reporter’s questions that story is already

written, refuse to cooperate. Chastise reporter for lack of objectiv

ity and fairness.

3. For TV programs, learn about the number of people to be on show, and

who they are, before committing to appear. J-M will not participate if

more than 3 people [are present] because there won’t be enough time

to present company’s story. Medium is surfacy anyway.

4. When a medium runs a story which is totally unbalanced and un

fair, respond to it promptly with letter or phone call.

5. Sales force and other non-media sources act as early warning system,

alert corporate relations to local media questions. PR responds by

initiating call to press instead of waiting to see what develops.

PROACTIVE MEDIA RELATIONS I 109

6. Corporate relations covers all key events on subject—whether trials,

government testimony, science conference, OSHA hearings. Goal is

to learn—and work with media.

7. J-M has installed direct phone line to Denver HQ for Washington

media—with 7 digits—to help meet their deadlines.

8. Materials are kept not only at HQ but in D.C. office and at NYC PR

firm. If media calls from NYC or D.C. and has a day to do story,

company has package of position papers delivered immediately.

9. PR gives AP, L.A. Times, N.Y. Times special attention. “Their coverage

has been most fair and balanced” although “company hasn’t al

ways agreed.”

10. PR responds to every phone call immediately and promptly.

Through these guidelines, Johns-Manville seized the initiative in

dealing with the media and rewarded those who played the game

right. Curtis Linke, then the company’s senior director of corporate

relations, defended the guidelines by saying the press is generally un-

informed on health and science topics and doesn’t show a willingness

to give the couple of hours needed to hear facts on a complex issue. He

said the company’s media relations would “continue to be one of mu-

tual advocacy. I respect the power of the media, but I do not believe

any of us can condone or permit unfair, biased treatment to go un-

challenged.”

Insist on Accompanying Filming. When a demand is unlikely to

be met, some companies prepare rebuttal material that enables them

to reach important audiences through other media. Illinois Power

was an early user of this counterattack technique.

In October 1979,

60 Minutes approached Illinois Power and, according to company

spokesman Howard Rowe, said that “CBS was going to produce a bal

anced, factual presentation of the economics of building nuclear

power plants.”

Illinois Power decided to cooperate because CBS, intent on doing the

story, had alternative sources of information, mainly from hearings by

the Illinois Commerce Committee. The company saw cooperation as

“the only opportunity to get the truth told and straighten out some of

the misinformation.… Refusing to cooperate could only lead to the shot

through the plant gate with a statement that we had refused to talk,

carrying its ‘guilty as charged’ insinuation.”

As a precaution, how

ever, Illinois Power added one critical stipulation in its agreement to co

operate: Whatever CBS filmed on its property, a camera crew hired by

the company would also film. How Illinois Power used their film is

described in Box 4.3.

Companies that are approached by 60 Minutes should heed the advice

of Robert Chandler, CBS’s vice president in charge of the program and

other public affairs programming: “Get the best representative available

… somebody who doesn’t ‘ramble.’ ” He elaborated:

110 I CHAPTER 4

You could be contacted by a researcher just beginning to explore a story, a

producer or correspondent. The “60 Minutes” representative might want

background material, an off-camera chat, or he might want to film the site

to interview someone in authority. If they do want to talk to someone in au

thority, “60 Minutes’” representatives may not tell you much about the sub

ject matter.

PROACTIVE MEDIA RELATIONS I 111

Box 4.3 Prepare to Counterattack—Illinois Power Raps

60 Minutes

When company officials saw the 60 Minutes broadcast, they were ap

palled. So were many shareholders. By the end of Monday following

the Sunday broadcast, three times as many shares had been traded as

ever before in a single day, and the stock, which had been selling in

the low 20s, closed the day off a full point. A few weeks later, the stock

fell to $15 a share.

Employee morale was also suffering badly, and

hate letters soon began arriving at company headquarters. Com-

pounding its problems, the company knew that CBS had timed the

segment to air just 3 days prior to a decision by the Illinois Commerce

Commission on the company’s rate case.

Illinois Power had to act quickly to defuse the 60 Minutes program

and get the facts of the case to its employees, the press, the financial

community, stockholders, and the public. The company’s trump card

was its own filming of what 60 Minutes filmed. Working speedily, the

company prepared a 45-minute rebuttal tape within a week of the

broadcast. It was first reviewed by company officers, then released for

showing to employees, their families, and retirees, and finally shown to

the local media.

Response was favorable. Harold Deakins, Illinois Power’s media

representative, reported, “Many of our employees sat down to write

their congressmen that very night.”

Numerous media articles written

about the event opened the door to a much wider audience. The

company suddenly found itself busy with requests for showings before

business clubs, church groups, suppliers, and high school and college

classes. The company reported that 3,000 cassette videotapes of its

film 60 Minutes/Our Reply were in circulation.

Interestingly, CBS threatened to sue, on the basis of copyright vio

lation, if the Public Broadcasting System or independent stations pre

sented the company video. Furthermore, CBS defended its actions. In

answering the complaint that the CEO of Illinois Power was inter

viewed for one and a half hours, but only 3 minutes appeared on tele

vision, Robert Chandler, CBS’s vice president in charge of 60 Minutes

and other public affairs programming, said, “We’re paid to synthesize

material. We’re reporters. We’re not common carriers.” He added,

“Corporate decisions affect a wide number of people, and it’s our job

to go after those stories.”