What you believe will partly be influenced by what he said, where he said it and how he said it. And your opinion of why he said it will also be influenced by them, as well as the opinion of other commentators.
Before I look at his case in detail, it’s worth looking at what I think it’s fair to say is a good example of apologies which don’t really work from the PR perspective – those ones issued by football clubs when headstrong players have tweeted something controversial.
Put simply, does anyone believe the player genuinely regrets his action at all? Or only just the consequences, if at all?
For obvious commercial reasons clubs and sponsors need and have to at least go through the motions of having a statement issued by them and the player and they need to take the position that they believe them. But does anyone else other than their most dedicated fans? [This said, I’m sure at least some of these are genuine on both parts.]
The problem with too many of these is that organisations usually feel they have to be limited in form and content by the potential legal and financial risks of admitting liability. But the collateral reputational damage created by such ‘plastic’ apologies is a PR fail, which in its own way can inflict financial damage through the effect on key stakeholders. How much will depend on each organisation’s reputational elasticity of demand.
What you need to be able to do is be as transparent as possible about what has happened, in simple, non-legal or technical “weasel words” language (otherwise it looks ‘plastic’ and just about limiting damage and liability).
A TV interview or YouTube statement by the person responsible is best — so people can see from all your non-verbal communication (89% of what people perceive) that they/you mean it.
Briefly, best practice crisis PR starts well before any event, with planning for probable internal and external crises by putting in place an emergency communications process including preparation of agreed holding statements and a media relations strategy.
Moving back to Lance Armstrong’s Oprah Winfrey interview, there were, IMHO, both PR wins and fails in it.
Wins
- Doing it at all and not limiting or agreeing Oprah’s questions, if we believe what has been said.
- Admitting, in simple words, the main accusations.
- His non-verbal communication —throughout most of it he looked, IMHO, as if he meant what he said. Media commentators and other stakeholders have made their comments, but many have their own agendas. You can only make your own judgement by watching the interview yourself, but I’d say he’d have to be a very good actor to fake what we saw.
- Admitting to having an untrue ‘perfect story’.
- Admitting “that guy” was still inside him i.e. he is still fighting the urges which led to his failures.
- Taking full responsibility for his actions.
- Accepting, at least verbally, (almost all) of the consequences.
- Being frank about his reasons for doing the interview — wanting to compete again.
- Showing his upset at letting his son down. For someone so controlled and controlling that will have been hard.
Fails
- Choosing to give an exclusive interview — it may be
negative as no matter what was said on-air it leads to reasonable suspicion
that some kind of pre-recording agreement, if only informal or psychological, was
made about how hard the questioning might be and that gives him more control and
hits the credibility of the interview and Oprah.
A media conference would have been a bear pit, but perhaps get better media coverage if he could be as controlled in reaction to the tough questions as he was here. Oprah had flack for ‘missing’ and leading questions — “In your opinion, was it possible to win…without doping?” That’s a defence counsel question. That wouldn’t have happened in a media conference. Sometimes you have to relinquish some control to give the best impression through transparency. - Saying he had used “Only EPO” — Cheating is a digital issue – you either did or didn’t, there are no degrees.
- Blaming his “character” — As Jean-Paul Sartre says in Being And Nothingness, it’s no excuse. Our actions define our character, not vice versa. A coward is a person who does cowardly things. It’s a plea in mitigation, not an excuse.
- Saying his most humbling moment was the reaction of his foundation — why not his family’s? It made it look like achievements and kudos mean more to him than them. But if that’s his honest feeling, then best to say it.
- Choosing to start his ‘humbling moment’ answer with his ‘$75m day’ — As the WW1 phrase put it, “Self-inflicted wound — expect no sympathy.” Why did he mention it at all?
- Describing his punishment as a “death penalty” — we understand what he meant, but over-dramatising it like this wins no fans or acceptance.
So who are his audiences with this, what are his messages and will this get what he wants from them?
- The General Public (for the benefit of him, sponsors & other business contacts) – “It’s true and I’m sorry”. He wants acceptance of his apology so it’s ok for him to be involved with sport again and maybe brands who might help him recover some revenue. Only time will tell. Socialmention.com shows that so far most people are still on the fence in terms of sentiment about him.
- Sports bodies (who already said he has to submit to their processes to gain some relief on his punishment) – same messages. He clearly wants to compete again. Who knows how far this will go to helping. Likely some way — it can’t be ignored.
- Commercial partners – same messages, plus ‘here I am doing the right thing’. This will should lead to them being at least be open to working with him in time, entirely dependent on the public reaction. But those who might want to work with him will be pleased his reputational clan-up is under way.
No comments:
Post a Comment