Question

Topic: Strategy

Dealing With Negative Pr

Posted by Anonymous on 6/2/2005 at 2:59 PM ET 1000 Points
Dear MarketingProffers,

Scenario: Your in a not for profit organization of 30 people. A local union has declared you an enemy for opposing them on a previous issue. In an effort to hurt your reputation, the union has issued a press conference calling for a full investigation into company finances, and business transactions with a mutual client. The additional motivation of the union is to smoke screen an hotbutton issue their involved in regarding health care.

Need: Looking for general tips on dealing with Negative PR, particularly when 100% sure that the motivations of the antagonist are purely for political gain. I'm interested in advice, examples, quotes, and gameplans.

**I need your help folks...

Regards,

~mjk
To continue reading this question and the solution, sign up ... it's free!
SUBSCRIBE
Or, SIGN IN

RESPONSES

  • Posted by michael on 6/2/2005 at 3:41 PM Member
    Two options that I see:

    1) A full page open letter to donors of the organization identifying the believed tactics of the union and its harmful effect upon the good work you are doing.

    2) A similar letter asking the union to provide similar information about all their political dealings including copies of e-mail and any correspondence related to the previous issue. Once they have provided that, you are open to sharing information with an agreed-upon third party.

    Michael
  • Posted by mgoodman on 6/2/2005 at 7:24 PM Member
    I would NOT counter-attack the union. That will only keep the issue front-and-center longer, incite them to find more dirt, and drag you down to their level (in the eyes of the community).

    I would basically follow Randall's approach, with a reminder of your mission and how much good you've done for how many people over the years. As long as you're getting unwanted attention, you might as well take the opportunity to publicize your mission and position yourselves as the "good guys."

    The damage control people at the large PR firms usually advise you to deny the false charges, state your positioning/reason-for-being, and then disappear. Of course, there are exceptions to that, but most of the time it's good advice.

    Is there a PR firm in your area that can provide you with professional guidance on this? How about an alumnus who might be willing to help out?
  • Posted on 6/2/2005 at 8:59 PM Member
    As a parenthetical statement to Randalls great reply I would add:

    “We are deeply disappointed at the steps taken by our respected colleagues (local unions) and can assure our target market (or community) that we will not let such adversity deter us from our mission.”

    I would be looking to turn such negative publicity into a positive one for my company somehow. And it may sound silly or strange but id try to be respectful to the Unions because I think it might start to break some of their motivation in trying to discredit your organisation. Oh and at the same time your organisation comes out looking like a million dollars.

    :)

    Hope it helps.

  • Posted by Chris Blackman on 6/3/2005 at 3:30 AM Member
    Is there any truth whatever to the union's allegations?

    If not, the union may have damaged or impugned the NFP's reputation and the NFP may be able to claim damages. Talk to your lawyer or legal aid counsellor.

    Is the NFP part of a larger group, e.g. the University, that can provide help and resources to deal with this attack?

    If there is even one slight shred of truth to the union allegations, you need to deal with that. Address the problem transparently and openly. If there's a cover up, it will make the whole affair much worse and longer lasting.

    However, if the NFP is without spot or blemish, take the action to court as fast as possible. Hell hath no fury like someone who knows they are in the right.

    Good Luck - and hey, Michael, come back and tell us what happens!



  • Posted by koen.h.pauwels on 6/4/2005 at 8:57 AM Accepted
    Hi Michael,

    Intruiging research on how to fight rumors validates the better of the above arguments:
    Remember the rumor that McDonals was using worm meat instead of beef? How should the company respond? Traditional wisdom told it to refute the argument, so it did, with quite powerful logic (e.g. it said it had never used worm meat, was certified for its 100% beef use, and would be stupid to use worm meat as worms cost more per ounce than beef does!). However, information processing theory claims that such direct arguments simply reinforces the link between McDonalds and worms in our brain, despite it being false (as a result, people told survey researchers they did not believe the rumor, but McDonalds sales were still way down in the affected regions).
    Instead, consumer experiment research concluded that Mc Donalds should work on weakening the link between itself and the bad worm thought, by either
    1) strenghtening other links, eg from McDonalds to good times, fun for kids,...
    2) establishing a positive link with worms (in the experiment, a confederate said: 'this reminds me of a funny fact: while in an exquisite French restaurant, I saw worms on the menu and got it- it tasted quite delicious)

    While the latter may be too hard and risky to implement, Mc Donalds decided to go for the former solution and sales went up.

    bottom line: it is always good to create/reinforce positive associations with your company. Beyond that, whether or not you should refute the union's accusations publicly depends on how many people have heard about and believed it: don't wake up sleeping dogs, but try to target your refutation to influential believers.

    The article reference on McDonald's worms:
    Alice Tybout, Bobby Calder, Brian Sternthal: Using information processing theory to design marketing strategies. Journal of Marketing Research, 1981, 18, 73-79
BACK TO TOP

Post a Comment

Related Discussions

Community Info

Top 25 Experts
(Strategy)