November 12th 2008

A Well-Formed Message From Victoria’s Secret

I

cky, nasty formaldehyde in some poor gal’s bra?! That’s just not right! But that’s the charge:

Roberta Ritter claims she had an allergic reaction to the Very Sexy Extreme Me Push-Up and Angels Secret Embrace. “I had the welts … very red, hot to the touch, extremely inflamed, blistery. It itched profusely. I couldn’t sleep, waking up itching,” the 37-year-old told ABC News. Ritter’s lawyers purchased and tested the bra styles at issue and found that they contained formaldehyde. Since filing the lawsuit in May, Ritter’s lawyers say they have been contacted by dozens of women with similar complaints; they hope to soon launch a class-action lawsuit. (Source)

From a corporate communications point of view, this is nasty stuff. You can’t really say the lawyer is a bottom feeding scumbag who’ll do anything for a buck (you know, a John Edwards type), but you don’t have a scientific analysis handy to prove the case is nothing more than a pile of dirty skivvies.

The typical response is, “Until we see the lawsuit, we can’t comment.” Or, “We never comment on pending litigation.” These are the granny’s panties of corporate messaging functional, for sure, but they do nothing for your image.

Victoria’s Secret is looking fine, however, after issuing this statement:

“We are sorry that a small number of people have had an issue and we want to help them determine the cause. Customer safety and satisfaction are always our primary concerns and we take seriously any issues our customers may have with our products.”

They didn’t deny the problem; neither did they give it credence. They offer assistance in finding out the cause, and speak on behalf of their customers, not the corporation.

I’ll give them an A. A double A, even.

Share

No Comments yet »

September 23rd 2008

Apologies From Hell: Winner Edition

E

than Winner, who suddenly became famous yesterday when The Jawa Report busted him for trying to make a shamefully false hit-piece video on Sarah Palin go viral h as issued an apology a statement.

What he owed Palin and the voters of our free, Democratic nation was an apology for deliberately befouling the channels of communication with a video that contained a known lie, this lie:

Sarah Palin and her husband were members of this anti-American organization, which supports separation of their state from the United States.

In Winner’s video, the screen text behind this statement reads:

Alaskan Independent Party

Sarah Palin, Member

Todd Paliln, Member, 1995-2002

Source: New York Times.

Of course, Sarah Palin was never a member of AIP. That’s been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt by a review of her voter registration, and the NYT published a correction eight days before Winner uploaded his video.

So let’s not mince words: It’s a lie, a deliberate lie, a lie designed to dupe the unread into a misbelief about a candidate for VP. In his apology statement, Winner does not apologize for telling a lie:

I believe the American people have a right and a need to know information about candidates for political office and their views. I made this video because I think it is important for the public to be aware of the association between Sarah and Todd Palin and the Alaskan Independence Party. The New York Times has reported that the Alaskan Independence Party website describes the party as seeking, in the words of the party, “a range of solutions to the conflicts between federal and local authority,” including “advocacy for state’s rights, through a return to territorial status, all the way to complete independence and nationhood status for Alaska.”

What the American people have a right to know, and what Winner, as a communicator, has an obligation to tell them, is the truth. Parse Winner’s statement carefully, and you see he doesn’t repeat the exact lie of the video but makes it sound like he hasn’t backed off on iota. It’s the sort of thing really crappy crisis communications managers do – play petty little word games when big issues are at stake. Imagine a statement that close to a lie being issued on behalf of a company responding to a major accident. They would be media vulture lunch meat in minutes.

As for the rest of the statement, Winner says he made the video himself and was not paid for it by anyone – possible, even probable, but he presents no proof and since we’ve already established that he’s a liar, what is his word worth?

As I told you yesterday, I wrote Lou Capozzi, the (former, now emeritus) chairman of Publicis’ PR and Communications Group, of which Winner & Associates is a member. Yesterday evening I received a very nice response from him, promising to look into the matter, but stating that there no longer is a direct reporting relationship between Winner and himself. Still, it seems like dealing with a matter like this is a perfect assignment for someone in the Chair Emeritus role.

Share

2 Comments »

September 15th 2008

Metrolink Spokeswoman Resigns

D

enise Tyrrell, who shocked just about everyone when she said within hours of last Friday’s Metrolink crash that the Metrolink engineer was to blame for the accident has resigned her position as the agency’s spokesperson.

Metrolink Spokeswoman Denise Tyrrell said she has quit over comments made by the Metrolink board.

She claims that Metrolink’s Chief Executive told her she could release the basic facts of the investigation after Friday’s crash, including an initial statement suggesting the Metrolink engineer may have been at fault in the deadly crash after ignoring a red warning signal.

Tyrrell says she decided to resign after a statement read by board member Ron Roberts to a Los Angeles Times blogger Sunday that her announcement was “premature.”

Tyrrell says she believes that the public should know the facts as early as possible. (source)

I would agree with Tyrrell to a point. It is perfectly good crisis management to roll out facts as quickly as you get them, and the consequences of not doing so can be profound. But you should only disclose information that has been proven true, because having to admit you disclosed misinformation in the middle of a crisis can make reputation recovery much tougher.

In this case, Tyrrell’s statement was proven true – or as close as you can get to true at this point – when the NTSB also tagged the engineer with blame on Sunday.  But that was Sunday, and Tyrrell pegged him on Friday.

Tyrrell said she had Metrolink’s Chief Executive permission to give an initial statement suggesting the Metrolink engineer may have been at fault in the deadly crash after ignoring a red warning signal, but her resignation today suggests either she misunderstood the direction … or is being sacrificed to protect a CEO who overstepped.

It all goes to show how important internal communications and clear directions are in crisis situations.  The issue of blame is the biggest issue in a crisis, and it demands considerable care.  As refreshing as it seems to hear an immediate mea culpa, it’s essential everyone who’s in the leadership of the “mea” agrees with the “culpa.”  As Denise Tyrrell is painfully aware today.

Share

No Comments yet »

With Obama winning the presidency by seven percent, we can't blame the media. Their laudatory coverage and refusal to extensively probe into Obama's background and [lack of] experience was at best responsible for five percent of his vote, the pundits tell us. Here is a compilation of over 100 significant instances of pro-Obama/anti-McCain bias during the 2008 campaign.

For all 'Media Bias 2008' – Click Here