Tag: crisis communications

The S.A.F.E. Resource Guide

Posted on by Carrie Cecil

Our team is working with public and private sector officials and communications experts to develop strategic and crisis communications guidelines as well as media best practices that support your back-to-work operational plan.

New health and safety protocols are only one half of the equation: policies may keep your constituents safe but, without carefully constructed narratives, your constituents won’t feel safe. How, what and when you communicate during this public health crisis will influence the perception of your operational actions and your brand’s integrity.

S.A.F.E. combines the novel need for urgency, accuracy and empathy with tried-and-true expertise and multi-level implementation strategies and tactics. S.A.F.E. is a proprietary methodology for communicating Pandemic Age protocols and information within a framework that makes constituents feel safe.

Colleagues, partners and friends: we invite you to download our COVID-19 Communications Resource Guide today by visiting, and registering, on our Resources page.

Helping Litigators Win in the Court of Public Opinion

Posted on by Carrie Cecil

“A defense attorney may pursue lawful strategies to obtain dismissal of an indictment or reduction of charges, including an attempt to demonstrate in the court of public opinion that the client does not deserve to be tried.”

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy re Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada

Is it inappropriate to engage a communications professional to influence the outcome of the court case by encouraging early or favorable settlement or by pressuring the prosecution into bringing lesser or no charges?  Absolutely not!  In fact, it would be unprofessional not to: every case or dispute is tried in front of a judge within the legal system AND in the court of public opinion on social media and influencer circles.  

All too often, perceptions become reality.  A case could be settled in favor of a defendant but, due to a poor communications strategy before or during a trial, the defendant’s reputation could suffer permanent damage, resulting in financial and opportunity loss.

The litigation communications experts at ANACHEL Communications specialize in high-profile reputation management.  We carefully craft media relations strategies for our clients so that when litigation is resolved, careers and livelihoods continue to thrive.

If you’re an attorney who would like to hear more about our approach to litigation communications or book a confidential consultation to learn how we can help your practice, feel free to email info@anachel.com. 

Litigation Communications v. Strategic Communications

Posted on by Carrie Cecil

Litigation Communications is a specialty within strategic communications. Litigation communication strategies are laser-focused plans created in lockstep with legal strategies prior to, and throughout high-stakes legal disputes. They are designed to establish and protect proper narratives and defend an individual, company, or organization facing a legal action.

As public exposure of court cases has increased, plaintiffs and prosecutors utilize the media to get their side of the story out and to sway constituents’ opinions. It has created a massive need for experienced litigation communications for the following reasons: 

  • there is a greater focus on the legal implications of any communications,
  • there are strategic aims and sensitive rules around disclosure during court proceedings, and
  • digital publishing and social media platforms have hastened the proliferation and permanence of information and opinion, both positive and negative.
  • a corporation or individual may win the court of law but lose in the court of public opinion causes irreparable financial and brand damage.

ANACHEL Communications specializes in high-profile litigation, crisis and strategic communications.  Our media training program and bespoke reputation management practitioners help our clients navigate the narratives when it matters most.  To learn more about our and book a confidential consultation to learn how we can help, feel free to email info@anachel.com. 

When the boss is accused of sexual harassment companies must be prepared to take quick action

Posted on by Carrie Cecil

Any smart company already has a crisis communications plan in place. Corporate crisis plans, however, tend to rely on how to best manage external threats to the company and potential operations flaws that put the company in legal jeopardy. Few companies have serious plans on how to manage potentially destructive behavior by its executives and board members.  That must change. 

Moving forward individuals and companies should assume that any allegation of sexual misconduct will become public. The media are dedicating resources to coverage of  allegations against high profile business leaders and the public is consuming the content and taking action against companies and its leaders guilty of wrongdoing. 

Companies that are slow to take action against executive wrongdoing will suffer damage to their reputation, loss of revenue, and potentially complete implosion of operations. As such, now is the time for companies to establish better protocols for how to identify and take action if and when serious allegations are raised — whether they occurred in the workplace or not.

There has already been a lot written about steps to be taken from a Human Resources perspective including a recent article published by the Society for Human Resource Management titled “Workplace Sexual Harassment: Me Too or Not Us?”  The article, written by Christina M. Reger, Esq. and Robyn Forman Pollack, Esq. provide wise guidance to employers: “Ignoring claims, whispers, or “open secrets” about bullying, sexual harassment and other predatory conduct will (not may) have severe ramifications for any company. In addition to legal and financial consequences, dismissing or even discounting employee complaints will have a domino effect inside an organization: 

  1. “It sends a message of unacceptable behavior which permeates the organization’s culture. 
  2. “It rewards the wrong individual and legitimizes the conduct, while simultaneously further stigmatizing the victim.
  3. “It can have a disastrous effect on the future sustainability of the company once exposed.”

So, what happens when a chief executive accused of sexual harassment becomes public?  How should companies communicate about it and to whom? The remainder of this article focuses on how companies should proceed from a communications perspective when faced with sexual harassment allegations that become public.

Scenario

Let’s consider a scenario where a company learns of a sexual harassment suit against its chief executive from an online news report. The report claims the CEO is being sued for making unwanted sexual advances to an employee in exchange for a promotion. Social media is lighting up about the allegations, employees are talking, calls are coming in from the media, board members are asking questions and customers are judging. 

Immediate steps

Once a threat is lodged against an executive or the company, the crisis protocol should be launched. It will be important to be in agreement for steps that need to be taken in the first hour and within the first 24 hours.  These decisions will largely be driven by several factors including: 

  • What are the facts?
  • Is the allegation credible?
  • Who needs to be informed of the allegation?
  • Is the story being accurately reported?
  • What are the next steps?

Initial Action

Companies have options of which steps to take depending on the facts, which include dismissal or suspension of the executive, or full on defense of the executive. The given action will depend on what the company leaders learn following an initial inquiry and investigation into the matter (which obviously must include an interview of the accused).

For the purposes of this article let’s assume the executive claims no wrongdoing and the facts are circumstantial at best.  

Designated spokesperson

As part of the crisis protocol there should be a designated media spokesperson who will serve as the face of the company during a crisis. Most of the time this should be the VP Communications, which can ensure the company is responsive to the claims and positively represent the company.  For internal communications it makes sense to follow normal company policy as long as the message is consistent. For example, if HR normally communicates with employees then it should continue to do so in unison with the VP communications. 

Company statement

Meanwhile, rumors are spreading like wildfire on social media; reporters and others are waiting for answers.  Something has to be done and quick to manage the message. A prepared company will have a “standby statement” on the ready, update it and distribute upon request and as needed on social media.  

It’s important to say that “no comment” is a terrible response.  It sends a message that the company is on the defense and the executive is most likely guilty.  Second, it surrenders any opportunity to shape the narrative. So, take the opportunity to make a well constructed and thoughtful statement. 

The initial statement should do three things.  First, it should acknowledge the allegation(s) and that the company is actively engaged in getting the facts. Further, the company should use language that recognizes the seriousness of sexual harassment and repeat company policy that it has a zero tolerance for any such conduct regardless of title or position in the company. The third element of the initial statement should be to let your audiences know that updates will be provided as necessary.  In no instance at this stage of the process should a spokesperson speculate or discuss any of the allegations. 

This may seem pretty bland to many (especially those audiences who want a head on a platter), but it allows the company to be responsive and engage in the dialogue.  It also buys the company some time to better understand the facts and what the company is truly facing.

Social media channels must be monitored regularly for false information and the gauge reaction to news and statements.  Obviously, the same message shared with traditional media should be shared on the social media platform. 

As said above, consistent messaging should be sent to employees and other key stakeholders from normal channels of communications.  Employees should be reminded to be careful about what, if anything, they say about the matter, and certainly not to speculate. 

Finally, any and all communications must be coordinated with the legal team and approved by the crisis team. 

After the first 24 hours

Following the initial company statement there should not be any back and forth with media and others.  The company statement should stand on its own as long as nothing about the matter materially changes. Media and social media should be monitored for information and misinformation. 

Reputation Management

Skipping ahead to the final action, the company will want to be prepared to communicate about moving forward.  Whether the executive is exonerated or found guilty, there will be reputation work to do.

If the executive is dismissed from the company, it will be important to reassure key audiences that the company takes the issue seriously and has taken steps to try to prevent it happening in the future.  The company should develop specific steps with regard to how it will do a better job to create a better workplace and it should be communicated broadly to key stakeholders.

If the executive is exonerated, it is still worth restating the importance of safe work environments and the corporate policy on sexual harassment and how issues can be reported  

The tolerance for sexual harassment has finally reached a tipping point.  Victims are being heard and the media is exposing wrongdoing on the part of powerful people.  These are ultimately positive steps for businesses and the people who work in them. As the allegations are taken seriously and reported by the media companies must be prepared to act quick and take positive action. 

Thank you to Anachel partner Ramsey Poston for this insightful blog.

Reaching out to info@anachel.com if you need a concierge consult.

###

What’s on the record? A guide for executive interviews

Posted on by Carrie Cecil

Business executives are often pressed into service to speak to reporters about high stakes business issues. This can be part of a sound strategy to set the record straight and communicate with primary audiences. After all, the chief executive is where the buck stops and often a company’s most credible voice. However, it’s a dangerous proposition if the executive doesn’t understand the ground rules of the media road.

The ground rules are often the most talked about part of our media training sessions. Before engaging any reporter the executive must understand the difference between “on the record” and “off the record” and everything in between. Here’s a rundown of the ground rules for speaking with reporters.

On the record – Everything said to a reporter is just that, “on the record.”  The reporter is free to report everything said with direct attribution to the executive spokesperson. This is the most desired situation for the reporter because he or she can substantiate their reporting with direct quotes. Additionally, most editors and publishers are demanding on record quotes because they make a far more credible news stories. In this day of so called “fake news,” the media are fighting to protect their authority as a trusted source of news resulting in greater transparency.

Off the record – None of what is said can be used in anyway in any news story by the reporter. Reporters hate “off the record” because what is said to them is pretty much useless. There are a couple points that all interviewees must be aware of before attempting an “off the record” discussion with a reporter. First, and this is vitally important, “off the record” cannot be claimed retroactively. This is a classic mistake. The spokesperson, while engaged in an interview, provides a great deal of information and then says, “…but that is off the record.”  Nope. “Off the record” must be established and agreed to by the reporter in advance of what is said.

The other aspect of “off the record” is that while the reporter cannot print/broadcast the information, there is nothing stopping the reporter from getting a different source to put the same information “on the record.”  So, proceed with caution. We regularly advise clients, “If you don’t want it reported, don’t say it.” In other words, it’s usually best to avoid “off the record.”

On background – Everything said to a reporter can be reported, but there is no direct attribution to the spokesperson. Spokespeople often choose to go “on background” because they might not be authorized to speak on the record or for other reasons wants to shield the source of the comments. Quotes “on background” can easily be recognized in stories that include quotes from unnamed sources. For example, you might see something like this in a news story: “The president was very upset about coverage in the mainstream media,’ said a White House source.” This quote is attributed to an unnamed source but the reporter tells you he or she works in the White House, which would suggest the person has direct knowledge of what the president said. There are different levels of attribution. Reporters, and their editors, want to describe the source as specifically as possible. Attribution such as “a White House source” is pretty vague, while “…according to ‘a member of the president’s cabinet,” is much more specific.  Attribution is also something that must be clarified and agreed to by the reporter before the interview starts.

Deep background – Is the same as “on background” except for attribution cannot connect the source in anyway to the story.  Again, deep background must first be agreed to by the reporter. Whereas “on background” the reporter might attribute a quote to a “White House source.”  Under the rules of “deep background” the reporter can only say something like, “…according to a source familiar with the situation.” The farther away attribution gets from the name of the source the less compelling news stories received by the reading public, which makes editors loath to use sources on “deep background.”

Thank you for this great piece by Ramsey Poston, Anachel Partner and founder of Tuckahoe Strategies.

For media training and media strategies, we’re here for a concierge consult. Reach out at info@anachel.com.

Creating Effective Core Messages

Posted on by Carrie Cecil

How are Messages Created?

The message development process cannot be done in a vacuum.  It requires time and the direct input from the C-suite and obviously must be consistent with the organization’s vision and overall strategy.  The best way to generate key messages for an organization is by conducting a facilitated SWOT analysis to discuss the organization’s strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities.  

Image result for swot

The SWOT Analysis is a simple but useful framework for analyzing the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. The strengths and weaknesses are internal factors, while opportunities and threats are external factors that can have an effect on the overall business. Ideally the weaknesses will be offset by the strengths, the threats should be addressed with a specific crisis protocol and there should be a plan to take advantage of the opportunities.The SWOT Analysis delves into each of the four areas by asking several interrogative questions similar to those provided below:

Strengths:

  • What are organization’s strengths?
  • What does the organization do better than others?
  • What makes the organization’s mission unique?
  • Which people in the organization bring strengths?

Weaknesses:

  • What are the organization’s weaknesses?
  • How can the organization minimize or eliminate the weaknesses?
  • What do competitors do better than the organization?

Opportunities:

  • Identify the organization’s underserved audiences/customers
  • Which strengths could be utilized better to eliminate current weaknesses and/ or threats?
  • What are the changes in regulations or mindset that can help the organization better achieve its mission?

Threats:

  • Which emerging competitors pose a threat to the organization?
  • How could current or future government regulation affect the organization’s mission?
  • How has the media negatively covered the organization?

The Core Message

When the SWOT is completed there should be ample information to create core messages and supporting proof points. Below is an example of a message about March Madness and how messaging could be used to describe it. The primary message is concise, informative and declarative. The proof points support the primary message with facts and useful information.

Key message:

The NCAA Division I basketball tournament known as “March Madness” is the best competition and most enjoyable event in all of sports.

Proof points:

  • All 68 teams have an equal opportunity to win the championship.
  • To win the championship, the team must win six straight games.
  • The tournament has compelling storylines and buzzer beaters over nearly three weeks.
  • It has to be the greatest, it’s called March Madness!

Message Deployment 

Once the message development process is complete there should be three or four core messages that appear in all of the organization’s internal and external communications.  Message consistency is essential to convincing audiences to take positive action. Messages are not just for the media. The organization’s core messages should be adopted by the marketing team, used in advertising, social media and executive presentations.  

Thank you to Anachel Partner, Ramsey Poston for this insightful blog.

For a concierge consult, we’re here for you. Reach out at info@anachel.com.