Page 175 - Crisis Communication Practical PR Strategies

5
6
1 156 Crisis Communication

Media and the public got what they needed and seemed to
understand and accept what was offered. The legal system was
well-served and allowed to maintain the dignity of its protocols
and practices – there was no ‘media circus’ or manipulation of
what needed to be a very deliberate and precise process of
sorting out and accepting responsibilities and consequences.

Operating simultaneously in the legal system and in the court of public
opinion requires careful orchestration, and should be built on solid
understanding of the ‘rules of engagement’ in each environment.
There will be unavoidable constraints going back and forth – the rep-
utation management team must navigate through them.
The language of public discourse is not the same as the language of
the legal system. Legalistic jargon gets in the way of creating under-
standing or empathy when it finds its way into a company’s public
statements. Conversely, judicial officials are not amused when they
find themselves the setting for a media feeding-frenzy. Respecting the
needs of each environment is critical.
In general, the time involved to move a matter through the legal
system will far outstretch the media (or the public) attention span. As a
result, major milestones in a legal dispute carry the risk of creating vis-
ibility ‘bounces’ that are often out of line with their legal significance,
simply because they reintroduce the original story of the conflict. In
the case above, a five year-old incident is replayed in significant detail
upon news of its legal settlement, and duplicates the reputational risk
that the company faced at the time of the original event. The commu-
nication challenge, then, is to optimize the potential for balancing the
story in a way that was impossible at the time of the incident, in order
to rebuild the reputation that was tarnished.

Conclusion

Companies working their way through litigation must act responsibly,
honestly and respectfully. Those injured by a company’s actions – even
if those actions are completely unintentional – must be considered first
and foremost. A company must do the right thing by telling its side of
the story in a forthright manner (including taking responsibility, if
appropriate), compensating fairly, and showing in a tangible way how
it will rectify a bad situation. Only by taking the high road can a
company hope to salvage a damaged reputation.