Melbourne Storm and the Crisis Ripple Effect – How would you handle the media if this happened to you?
It will be a long time before the dust settles following the eruption last week within the rugby league football club, Melbourne Storm. The unprecedented crisis for an Australian sporting club unfolded into what we call a Crisis Ripple Effect.
What was a crisis for Melbourne Storm last Thursday afternoon as the news broke had become, by early Friday, a crisis for a range of other organisations as the Crisis Ripple Effect took hold.
Organisations such as sponsors and other sporting bodies across Australia found themselves swamped by calls from a media, desperate for comment on this incredible story.
A series of quickly organised media doorstops and media conferences were held, as individuals and organisations attempted to limit the damage to their reputations.
Dealing with a Crisis Ripple Effect is different to dealing with a direct crisis: a different media strategy needs to be quickly implemented.
If you suspect you may be hit by a Crisis Ripple Effect, ensure you start preparing your key messages and spokesperson or spokespeople immediately.
If the media is coming to your premises, pick your interview location and ensure your signage is NOT in the background. Choose your words carefully and only speak about your issues, not others.
Look professional, sound professional, remain calm and stay on-message.
For Aker it must have seemed like a good idea at the time
When Corporate Media Services conducts media training courses, we make the point over and over: Why are you engaging the media? Why are you giving up your time to conduct a media interview? What’s the point?
There are generally only two reasons why you would speak to the media:
1. To be proactive – promote a positive message.
2. To be reactive – manage a crisis.
In both of these situations, it is absolutely essential that you understand what you’re going to say, how you’re going to say it, why you’re going to say it and what the likely fallout will be from your comments.
You should never speak to the media unless you are absolutely clear, or as clear as you can be, in relation to these points.
There has been an enormous amount of publicity given to the comments made by AFL Western Bulldogs Forward, Jason Akermanis, about gay football players revealing their homosexuality. He suggested there was “gay hunting going on” in order to encourage gay footballers to come out.
In one interview he said, “Football is seen to be at the peak of masculinity, which of course then makes homophobia almost at its peak. So we, as footballers, need to be more open if there is, and accept people if they would come out, but at the moment, I’m not sure that while you’re playing, it would be a safe thing.”
The storm these comments created is clear to even the most casual media observer. It even created the ‘crisis ripple effect‘ that we spoke about in the last e-Bulletin.
So what was the point of all this? Maybe we will never know.
What we do know is that his public comments were not clear or focused, they were confusing. Most importantly, what was the point he was trying to make and what was he trying to achieve? His message was ambiguous and his stance unclear.
Never fall into this trap. If you are going to engage media, know what you want to achieve and why. What is the benefit to you and your organisation?
If your comments are going to be controversial, understand that they may create a media frenzy. Be ready for that and know how you are going to handle it.
New Media – Old Rules – How one quick quip can destroy your reputation
More than 30 years ago when I began my journalism career, we didn’t have Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, LinkedIn or any of the other new communication tools that we have today.
But we did have senior editors who gave good advice. Some of that advice has lasted a lifetime for me. It should be taken on board by those using new media in 2010.
I can remember on my second day as a cub reporter, an editor said (or screamed), “If in doubt, leave out”.
Throughout the years, I have passed those words on to younger journalists and I now find myself giving the same advice to clients who need to deal with media situations.
That advice is even more relevant now as we all try to grapple with and use social media and social networking.
We began talking about social media and social networking in our media training courses when it became clear that clients could use these tools to extend their media reach, but more importantly, when it was clear the damage that could be caused when not controlled.
Every day, the list of those being hammered by the misuse of new media grows:
. A Professor from the University in Pennsylvania sacked after making “light-hearted” comments about looking for a hit man after a bad day in the classroom
Two employees at Domino’s Pizza sacked after doing “vile things” to food and posting it on YouTube
An Age newspaper journalist recently sacked for sending out “offensive comments” on Twitter during the Logies
Not only have these incidences impacted on the employees, they have impacted on the reputations of their now former employers.
While new and social media expands our ability to reach new and larger audiences, it needs to be treated with extreme caution. The absence of journalists or interviewers can lead people to relax to the point where little thought is put into what is being posted or broadcast.
The problem is compounded by the ability of these networks to go “viral” and send the information rapidly to hundreds if not millions of people. Journalists are also using sites like Facebook for research as hot issues arise.
While on Facebook, don’t think that limiting the number of people who can access your Facebook site is a safeguard – it’s NOT. Text and pictures can be copied in a moment and spread far and wide and you have no control over this.
There is one simple test for new and social media postings for you and your team.
Would you be happy to see your new and social media offerings on the front page of the newspaper or on the TV news?
If so, go ahead and hit send.
If not, think about it.
As my crabby old editor said more than 30 years ago – “If in doubt, leave out”.
These strikes are wrong at a time when negotiations are still going on. But parents and the public have been let down by both sides because the government has acted in a reckless and provocative manner. After today’s disruption I urge both sides to put aside the rhetoric , get around the negotiating table and stop it happening again.
Damon Green, ITV News Correspondent:
Um, I listened to your speech in [inaudible] and you talked about the Labour Party being a movement. A lot of people in that movement, uh, are the people who are on strike today and they’ll be looking at you and thinking… “Well, you’re describing these strikes as wrong, why aren’t you giving us more leadership as a leader of the labour movement?”
Ed Miliband, British Labour Party Leader:
At a time when negotiations are still going on, I do believe these strikes are wrong. And that’s why I say both sides should, after today’s disruptions, get around the negotiating table, put aside the rhetoric, and sort the problem out. Because the public and parents have been let down by both sides and the government has acted in a reckless and provocative manner.
Damon Green, ITV News Correspondent:
I spoke to Francis Maude before I came here and the tone he was striking was a very conciliatory one. Do you think there’s a difference between the words they’re saying in pubic and the attitude they strike in private in these negotiations? Are their negotiations in good faith would you say?
Ed Miliband, British Labour Party Leader:
What I say is the strikes are wrong when the negotiations are still going on. But the government has acted in a reckless and provocative manner in the way it’s gone about these issues. After today’s disruption I urge both sides to get around the negotiating table, put aside the rhetoric, and stop this kind of thing happening again.
Damon Green, ITV News Correspondent:
Um, it’s a statement you’ve made publicly and you’ve made to me and this will be broadcast obviously. But have you spoken privately to any union leaders and expressed your view to them on a personal level, would you say?
Ed Miliband, British Labour Party Leader:
Well, what I say in public and in private to anybody involved in this is; get around the negotiating table, put aside the rhetoric, and stop this kind of action happening again. These strikes are wrong because negotiations are still going on. But parents and the public have been let down by the government as well who’ve acted in a reckless and provocative manner.
Damon Green, ITV News Correspondent:
You’re a parent, I’m a parent, alot of people who are watching this will be parents. Um, has it affected you personally this action? Has it affected your family and friends I mean and what is the net effect of that going to be on parents needing to take a day off work today?
Ed Miliband, British Labour Party Leader:
I think parents up and down the country have been affected by this action and it’s wrong at a time when negotiations are still going on. Parents have been let down by both sides because the government has acted in a reckless and provocative manner. I think that both sides, after today’s disruption, should get around the negotiating table, put aside the rhetoric and stop this kind of thing happening again.
A great deal has been written about what Rupert and James Murdoch said before yesterday’s Commons Media Committee, but little has been said about their appearance.
While their attire was fine, we were unable to get a clear view of their eyes. This is a major negative, especially when television is involved and you are dealing with a crisis.
James Murdoch’s eyes were often partly obscured by the upper part of his glasses and Rupert Murdoch’s eyes were almost constantly covered by his glasses.
The public must be able to see your eyes, especially when you are trying to reassure people in a crisis.
Maybe the position of their glasses was the last thing on their minds, and yes the camera angle is partly to blame, but if you wear glasses while on TV make sure they are pushed well back so your eyes are clearly visible.
Gillard and Rudd need to stick to the basics of media communication
Both Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd have one thing in common this week – both are having to deal with the mess they created after failing to follow basic rules of media communication.
Julia Gillard is being seen as ‘evasive’ after her now infamous interview on Four Corners.