publications

Crisis Communication: What the Public Sector Can Learn from the Private Sector

By Mel Harkrader Pine, ABC

When an industry I was advising discovered that some of its commissioned research painted a not-so-healthy picture of its product, I advised the industry to get out in front of the story—to release the information as quickly as possible in an open and non-defensive way. Just about any corporate crisis communication expert would do the same. The best course is always to release bad news yourself and to take responsibility and apologize as appropriate. We even went so far as to send personal letters to reporters who may have felt misled because the new data differed substantially from what we had recently told them.

That’s what you might call the corporate model of crisis communication, and Gap Inc. supplied a great example of it on 12 May. In releasing its Social Responsibility Report, the company made clear that many of its suppliers were failing to meet its standards for labor practices. “Few factories, if any, are in full compliance all the time,” said the report. The result was praise from groups working to eradicate sweatshop labor. Said the Public Reporting Working Group,“This report contains a great deal of information that many companies have not provided publicly, and includes valuable insights from a company that we believe is sincerely struggling with these complex issues.”

Not all corporate executives are willing to admit to a mistake or to own up to a weakness, of course. We’ve seen plenty of how-not-to examples in recent years. But experts in corporate crisis communication will invariably give the same advice: If the news is bad and it’s bound to get out anyway, put it out yourself and show that you care.

So why is it so hard for politicians? Despite years of digging themselves deeper into a hole when faced with bad news, politicians have not learned their lesson. That’s because the political model is different, and negative advertising works in political campaigns. The political model is something like this: React to any surprise by lobbing charges at the other side, and never admit a mistake.

That works for elections, and it may work for run-of-the-mill problems, but when a gut-churning crisis comes along, politicians seem unable to change tactics. And today’s politician is tomorrow’s public sector officeholder. So it’s easy to understand why the Bush administration took more time than it should have to accept responsibility and apologize for the prison abuse in Iraq. It’s the same reason why it took Bill Clinton so long to admit that he just may have had what many would consider ‘sex with that woman.’

Imagine how different the Abu Ghraib story would have been if back in February or March, the administration had held a press briefing explaining that

1. An investigation was revealing highly inappropriate behavior with prisoners.

2. The president and defense secretary wished personally to apologize to the victims.

3. The Pentagon was investigating whether there are training improvements that need to be made.

4. Numerous photographs were taken.

5. The administration was releasing a sample of them with the identities of the MPs obscured to protect their right to a fair trial.

We’ll never know, of course, the extent to which preemptive action like that would have softened the subsequent outrage, but it’s hard to believe that the difference wouldn’t have been substantial.

The history of politicians failing to get ahead of bad news goes back at least to 1987, when Senator Gary Hart, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for President, was dogged by questions about extramarital affairs. “Follow me around,” he responded. “I don't care. If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead. They'd be very bored.”

The Miami Herald took him up on his challenge, and it was far from boring. It obtained and published photos of Hart, 50, with 29-year-old model Donna Rice sitting on his lap. He dropped out of the race a week later.

Although it took the Bush administration too long to address the PR realities of the crisis, once the news was out, it did take strides to publicly address the situation:

• A week after the Abu Ghraib photos became public, high figures in the administration began apologizing, and that included President Bush after his TV interviews for Arab countries.
• Roughly 10 days after the story broke, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made a contrite statement before both Senate and House committees.
• The following week, he visited the Abu Ghraib prison.

As I was watching Rumsfeld testify, I remember thinking that he should visit the prison. There’s healing symbolism in the boss coming to the scene of the crisis. I remembered how in 1989, when Lawrence Rawl, then chairman of Exxon Corporation, seemed to dawdle for a week before visiting the site of the Exxon Valdez spill. The resulting bad will was an enormous lesson to observers.

The Bush administration’s recovery can never erase its failure to have acted earlier, but we can all hope it’s a sign that the public sector is beginning to learn from the successes—and failures—of the private.

Mel Harkrader Pine, ABC, is President of MHP Communications LLC, an independent public relations agency specializing in issues management and crisis control. You can reach him at mhp@mhpcommunications.com.