Posts

Media Training 12: Passing the Cynic Test

By Gerard Braud

(sign up for the free audio version of this program at https://blog.braudcommunications.com/?p=397)

Reporters are among the biggest cynics in the world. They doubt everything you tell them and you have to prove everything to them. This is especially true if you are trying to promote a good news story.

I have found over the years that reporters are quick to believe something negative about your organization and slow to believe your positive side of the story. We discussed some of these issues in lesson 5 when we talked about opposition groups and NGOs.

Reporters are always wondering what you are trying to hide and what you are not telling them.

We walk a thin line sometimes, because while I am in favor of always telling the truth, I do agree that there are times when you need to practice the sin of omission. At no time are you obligated to go to confession with a reporter just as you are not obligated to tell a competitor all of your secrets, as we discussed in lesson 2.

As a Catholic, I learned early the virtues of going to Confession. But while we are taught that when you go to Confession in the Church you receive absolution and forgiveness, I can assure you that if you go to confession with a reporter you will go to hell.

I know because there were many days when people went to confession with me, only to end up on the front page of the paper the next morning or leading the newscast that evening.

I have two rules as it relates to passing the cynic tests. The first rule is to write well worded key messages using simple language that everyone can understand. Those key messages need to be void of any flowery words that would be construed as heavy on PR (public relations) or full of BS (the stuff that you find in a pasture near a cow).  PR and BS stink a mile away and cause reporters to become very cynical.

My second rule is what I call the “3 Bucket Rule.”  Imagine three buckets sitting in a row.

  1. In bucket number one I would put all of the positive key messages that I need to say in an interview.
  2. Bucket number 2 would be filled with well worded key messages about a vast number of negative things the reporter may ask me about. I label bucket number 2 as things I will only talk about if asked.
  3. Bucket number 3 will be the smallest bucket and it will contain things that I cannot talk about.
Such issues might be confidential employee information, confidential corporate information, or private medical information. Various laws by various governments may prohibit you from discussing these private details.

As you share the key messages from bucket number one you should be telling a logical story using the reporters own inverted pyramid style. The facts should fall logically into place. At the end of each key message you should create a “cliff hanger,” as we discussed in lesson 6, designed to make the reporter ask you a logical follow up question. This natural progression will make the reporter feel as though you are being open and honest with them, because you are.

Should you be asked something that is in bucket number 2, you will follow the same procedure of giving a well worded, pre-written key message using the inverted pyramid style. The facts should fall logically into place. At the end of each key message you should create a “cliff hanger” that helps the reporter craft a logical question that you can answer. In the process, you should be guiding the reporter back to more of the positive key messages from bucket number one.

In media training classes we teach the technique of block, bridge and hook. This technique traditionally teaches that when you are asked a negative question, you block the negative by bridging to something positive and hooking the reporter with new information. The technique is designed to distract the reporter with perhaps something that is more appealing and has more wow.

The danger with the block, bridge and hook technique is that the redirect or bridge, is so overt that you never answer the reporter’s question and that makes the reporter even more cynical and skeptical. It may actually anger the reporter and cause them to become hostile.

The approach that I teach is to answer the question with a well worded key message, which serves as a “block” because it gives enough information to answer the question without exposing more vulnerabilities. That key message from bucket number 2 is then followed with a bridge back to more positive information, which is then followed by a fact, statistic, story or example that might contain more wow than the line of questioning the reporter was previously persuing.

The block, bridge and hook is a difficult task to teach without actually role playing and it is difficult for me to do true justice to it in this forum. To truly learn the technique you should really schedule a training class with extensive on-camera role playing.

And remember, as we learned in lesson 8, the faster you get to a quote, the faster the interview will end. Make sure your key messages are full of quotes.

In our next lesson we’ll go deeper into crisis communications and examine how those cynical reporters quickly cast a vote of no confidence in you when you don’t respond in a timely manner.

 

Media Training 10: What Does That Mean?

By Gerard Braud

www.braudcommunications.com 

The question I ask most often these days is, “What does that mean?”

I’m relatively well educated. I’m well read. I travel the world constantly teaching media
relations and crisis communications.

But what bugs the ever living daylights out of me is hearing people speak in mumble jumble that they think means something, but it means nothing at all.

The mumble jumble is corporate speak, buzzwords, jargon and government acronyms.

I’m fortunate enough that people pay me an honorarium to speak at numerous conferences, corporate meetings and association meetings every month. I always make a point of listening to what other speakers say so I can incorporate their lessons into my presentation.

But many of the speakers fill their presentations with so many buzz words, jargon and mumble jumble that I find myself sitting in the audience asking, “What does that mean?” The speaker thinks they have said something profound, but they’ve really said nothing at all.

I hear things such as, “If we work in a customer centric capacity to increase productivity and to create a win-win situation for our partners in a collaborative fashion, then we can achieve our goals for the betterment of our strategic partners in the hopes of benefiting those with whom we do business?

  • What does that mean?
  • Were you trying to say put customers first?
  • What is a win-win situation? (with all due respects to Steven Covey)
  • What are examples of collaboration?
  • What are the goals?
  • Who are the strategic partners?

Please, spell it out. Please give me meaningful examples. Please give me tangible examples. Please give me anecdotes. Please communicate with real words. Please put some emotion into your communications. Please make the communications more visual by describing who and what you are talking about.

Let’s go back to lesson one.  Would those words work at career day with a 6th grade class.  A friend of mine uses this test – if you said it to your grandparents at Thanksgiving dinner, would they know what you mean?

Let’s touch on one other important point that I find in the politically correct world, especially among non-profit organizations. There is a propensity to say things in a way that will not offend the people that you serve. However, in the process of crafting your statement with sensitivity, you become so ambiguous that no one really knows what you are talking about, including… and sometimes most importantly, even the people they are trying to help. That’s right, the people you are trying to help don’t know what you mean, because the organization is being so sensitive and so politically correct.

If you keep changing the labels and the terminology out of sensitivity, then the audience, the reporter and the people you serve will be left asking, “What does that mean?”  As we learned in lesson 4, that could lead to you accusing the reporter of taking you out of context. And as we learned in lesson 2, it affects your bottom line when you use terms that your audience cannot understand because of the politically correct ambiguity.

Consultants and trainers are also guilty of trying to coin clever phrases. A few years ago my wife, who works at a small private school, mailed out the class schedule for the fall semester. Her phone started ringing off the hook because after years of promoting the school’s top notch computer lab, computer classes were no longer listed on the class schedule. She told concerned parents she would check it out and get back to them. As it turns out, someone on the school staff had taken the term computer class off of the schedule and replaced it with the term “information literacy.” Yes, it seems someone had gone to a summer workshop in which the trainer/consultant preached that “it’s so much more than just knowing the mechanics of a computer, the internet and the programs – It’s really about ‘information literacy.’” What does that mean? It’s a dumb term. Call it what it is. It’s computer class.

If you’d like more examples from my “What Does that Mean?” file I have a great PDF that I’d be happy to share with you so you can share with the offenders. It is available as a download at www.braudcasting.com

In our next lesson, we’ll examine how people criticize the media for what is often referred to as interviewing people who have no teeth.

This is Gerard Braud

Media Training 9: The Myth about 3 Key Messages

By Gerard Braud www.braudcommunications.com 

So in the last lesson, we talked about not letting facts get in the way of a good story. The secret is to keep it simple.

When you go through media training (which I enjoy teaching more than anything in the world and I would still do every day even if I won a $200 million dollar lottery)… when you go through media training you are always taught the concept of identifying your “3 Key Messages.”  In other words, what are the 3 most important things you need to communicate during your interview with the reporter?

But what is a key message?

  • Is it a bullet point?
  • Is it a talking point?
  • Is it a set of words that incorporate more spin than truth?
  • Is it a set of verbatim words that incorporate both truth and quotes?

In my world, it is a set of verbatim words that incorporate both truth and quotes. But many media trainers teach only bullet points and talking points.  I call this the myth about 3 key messages.

Let’s put this in the context of a U.S. political candidate in a debate with his or her opponent. The moderator of the debate might ask a question such as, “Please give me your thoughts on education.”

The candidate, whose strategist may have determined that the key messages should only be about energy, the economy and international relations, is left with nothing to say. Hence, the candidate will BS his or her way through 50 seconds of a 60 second answer, then conclude by saying, “education is important and you can get more details on my website.”

That is such bull.

When you give a spokesperson or executive only bullet points and talking points for an interview, you give them license to ad lib. Have you ever seen anyone who can truly ad lib well? They are few and far between. The person who ad libs is doing what? They are winging it. What did we learn in Lesson 2?  When you wing it you crash and burn.

In my world you should start an interview with 3 key areas that you want to talk about. For each of those areas, you should have learned and internalized several pre-written sentences that are also very quotable sentences. Then, each of those 3 areas should have 3 key messages of their own, that are well written, internalized and quotable. And conceivably, each of those 3 key messages will have 3 more messages to go with them.

Think of your conversation as a large live oak tree like you see in the south. Picture that tree with a huge, study trunk and 3 large branches. In my training programs, I teach the executives what I call my tree trunk message, which usually consists of 2 sentences that anchor the entire conversation. These are the first words out of your mouth when the reporter asks the first question. These first two sentences provide context for the conversation you are about to have. Both sentences must be quotable. The first sentence serves virtually as a headline that sums up your organization’s vision, value, mission and belief. The second sentence points to the 3 key areas that the spokesperson is prepared to talk about. The second sentence begins the foreshadowing process that we talked about in lesson 6. It is this type of foreshadowing that will help the reporter develop his next question for you.

Next, I write 2 more sentences for each of those 3 large branches that grow from the tree trunk. Can you visualize this large oak with 3 large branches? The sentences must again be highly quotable. These sentences add a few more overarching facts and point to other important areas that you may want to talk about. Again, you are foreshadowing other areas that you are prepared to talk about.

Again, this is a technique that I usually take half a day to teach in my “Kick-Butt Key Messages” workshop. But if you can visualize a tree with a large trunk and 3 large branches, you begin to understand how the conversation grows. Then add 3 limbs to each of the large branches. Then add 3 twigs to each of the limbs. Then add 3 leaves to each of the twigs. Draw it out if necessary to fully visualize the tree. Ultimately, just as a tree sprouts limbs, twigs and leaves, your conversation needs to sprout additional sentences with slightly more detail.

In our visualization, the leaves represent great detail while the tree trunk and 3 branches symbolize very basic facts.

If you invest time to populate your tree with verbatim, quotable sentences that you internalize, your next interview will be the easiest interview ever.

Basically, your populated tree has created a full conversation and an interview should be a conversation. It should tell a story.

Additionally, our tree analogy has prepared us to tell our story in the inverted pyramid style – the same style reporters use when they write.

Is this easy? No.

Does it take preparation? Absolutely.

How much preparation? An interview is as important as any business deal. If you could attach a dollar to every word that comes out of your mouth, would you make money or lose money?

Bottom line – know what you want to say, know it verbatim, and be prepared to tell a story.

In our next lesson I’ll ask you the question I ask often when I talk to people who use lots of jargon, corporate speak and acronyms. The question is, “What does that mean?”

Media Training 8: The Facts Don’t Matter

By Gerard Braud www.braudcommunications.com

One day, as a joke in the newsroom, I uttered the phrase, “don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.” We all laughed. A colleague was pushing for a story to make the evening news, but there were lots of holes in the story and I (who in lesson 3 emphasized that it’s all about me) wanted my story to be the lead story. I won and got the lead story. The colleague’s story was killed.

Over the years we used the joke several times daily just to raze each other. But then we began to realize that way too much of what made the news at our TV station and at those of our competitors, made the news regardless of the facts. Ultimately, it was one of the reasons I left the news business after a great 15-year ride.

But let’s be honest. How many news stories are filled with facts? The truth is, not a lot.  Newspaper stories will always have more details than TV and radio news reports. But TV stories, especially, are driven by visual images. The example that I always use is that if the story is about a brown cow, I need video of a brown cow. If I have no video of a brown cow, I can’t put the story on the evening news.

Another example I always use is the mixed metaphor that says, “If a tree falls in the woods and it is not on video, is it news?”

When I used to cover hurricanes in the ‘80s and ‘90s I was always upset when I didn’t have video of something blowing away. I needed the visual on video to tell the story.

I laughed a few years ago when there was a news report about a landslide in Japan. A highway traffic camera captured trees sliding down the side of a hill. It was only news because there was dramatic video. Trust me, as a guy who has worked around the world and extensively in the Pacific rim, there are landslides all over the world every day. This one happened to be captured on video and therefore became news.

As I mentioned in lesson 4, a print reporter will likely write only a 12-20 sentence synopsis, a radio reporter is only writing 6-8 sentences and a TV reporter is only writing 10-12 sentences.

The average person tries to give way, way, way too many facts in a news interview. Take this comment with a grain of salt, but the reporter doesn’t really care about you or the facts. Sure, they seem interested in you, but their report is more important to them personally than your facts.

A news report is a puzzle. Certain pieces must fit exactly together. In a TV report, quotes make up 1/3rd of the story. The lead and the conclusion together make up 1/3rd of the story. I don’t want to burst your bubble, but can you guess how much room we have in the story for your facts? In a TV news report, that equals 4 sentences. In a print report that equals 8-12 sentences.

If there is no room in the story for a bunch of facts, why would you spend so much time giving lots of facts to the reporter?

So, in conclusion for this lesson… don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.

In our next lesson we’ll explore the media training myth about 3 key messages

Media Training 4: They Took Me Out of Context and They Left My Best Stuff on the Cutting Room Floor

By Gerard Braud

www.braudcommunications.com

The 2 single biggest complaints I have heard from executives over the years, after they have done an interview, is that “the reporter took me out of context” or that “the reporter left my best stuff on the cutting room floor.” (If you are young, the cutting room is where
film was edited for TV news prior to the mid 1970’s. Film that was not used in the story was thrown to the floor during editing.)

Here is the God’s Honest Truth – First, if it was your best stuff it would be in the story. What you think is your best stuff and what the reporter thinks is your best stuff may be very different. But no reporter leaves your best stuff on the cutting room floor.  Secondly, reporters never intentionally take anyone out of context. If you are taken out of context there must be a reason for it and I think I know why. Let’s break it down –

In lesson 3 I emphasized the importance of talking in well worded, professionally written quotes. Why do we all know Neil Armstrong’s quote, “That’s one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind?” The reason we know it is because it is a well written quote from a professional writer and Armstrong practiced as part of his pre-flight training. It was not a spontaneous thought or ad lib by Neil Armstrong as he became the first man to set foot on the moon.

Your best stuff should be a well written practiced quote. Hey, if it is good enough for Neil Armstrong, it should be good enough for you.

Unfortunately, spokespeople who refuse to go through media training are usually guilty of making some spontaneous, inflammatory statement that becomes the quote. Generally they say something really dumb that they regret later. The problem is once it is said, it’s said. There is no taking it back. There is no do-over.

So my big rule for you in this category is that someone is going to edit what you say; it should be and must be you. Editing starts when the quote is written.

And remember this — reporters all recognize a good quote. If you want proof, attend a news conference and watch the reporters as they take notes. It is like watching a ballet as all of the reporters raise their notebooks at the same time to write a quote or fact as the spokesperson says something important. Then all of them put their notebooks down together, then raise them all together again as they hear the next important quote or fact.

Let’s now look at the issue of, “they took me out of context.”

Being taken out of context is usually the fault of the spokesperson. It is generally caused by the spokesperson being unclear, transposing important words, speaking in jargon or trying to give too many facts. That results in the reporter misunderstanding what the spokesperson meant. In short, something gets lost in translation.

How can you keep from being taken out of context?

Don’t try to overload the reporter with facts. Reporters write in an inverted pyramid style. That means they start with a headline that is the synopsis of the story. Then they add the next broad general fact and so on. Seldom does the reporter get into great detail and an abundance of facts. So, don’t get caught in the trap of trying to give too many facts.

Also, realize that the flaw of giving lots of facts and details is often a personality trait. Accountants, engineers, doctors and lawyers live in a world of details where numbers and facts must be precise. Hence, they want to be exact in what they say and they say too much; they give details beyond the reporter’s comprehension. A print reporter is likely only writing a 12-20 sentence synopsis, a radio reporter is only writing 6-8 sentences and a TV reporter is only writing 10-12 sentences. Usually the miscommunication begins when the spokesperson may want to tell the details of “War and Peace” but the reporter is only looking for the CliffsNotes.

If you keep it simple you help the reporter write their story without miscommunications or misinterpretation and you won’t be taken out of context. That’s why in so many media training programs the trainer will ask the spokesperson to focus on just their 3 most important messages.

Next, forget the corporate and non-profit jargon, buzzwords and the government acronyms. Jargon, buzzwords and acronyms are speed bumps to comprehension. They are easily misunderstood by the reporter. The reporter then writes what they think they heard you say. However, if you were not clear, then the story will be wrong. It is your fault and not their fault.

Finally, before the interview is over, ask the reporter if they clearly understand all of the words you used. An embarrassed reporter may nod their head in agreement, yet be too embarrassed to ask you to define certain terms that you used.

In summary… Keep it simple.

In our next lesson we’ll address bias in the media.

 

Media Training Breakthrough 2: Ask Yourself the Big IF Question

By Gerard Braud

www.braudcommunications.com

The Big IF is what I call my philosophy of media training.

I ask every executive that I media train this all important question: If you could attach a dollar to every word that comes out of your mouth, would you make money or lose money?

This is true for corporations that depend upon customers.

This is true for non-profits that depend upon donations.

This is true for government agencies that depend upon taxpayer and legislative approval for funding.

  • Say the wrong thing and your customers will buy elsewhere.
  • Say the wrong thing and your donations will dry up.
  • Say the wrong thing and funding to your government agency gets cut.
  • Say the wrong thing and lose your job. It is that serious.

Many executives are hesitant to carve out time in their schedule for media training. Why? Primarily because they think they are too busy. That translates into they are too busy doing things that help them or the organization make money (although, send them an invitation to a charity golf tournament and most will fit it into their schedule.).

Many people who do media interviews also let their egos get in the way. They are afraid to go through media training because they are afraid someone will see them mess up. It is for that very reason that I tell all of my media training students that at the end of class I insist they destroy the video tape used in our role playing interviews so that all of their mistakes stay in the training room.

The things I hear most often from executives who will not train are:

• I’ll just wing it.

• I’ll just be honest, shoot straight and tell them what I think.

• I don’t want to sound rehearsed. I like to be spontaneous.

My answer to that is that if you wing it, you’ll crash and burn.

As for honesty, I believe you should always be honest. The key to honesty is to choose every word carefully. For example, if we gathered a group of your biggest competitors in a room and asked you to unveil all the secrets to your business model and success, would you really tell them everything you know? Would you give them your playbook? It is a question of honesty after all. So if a reporter asks you the same question, will you tell them everything? They are going to print it and give it to your competitors.

As for being spontaneous, I spent 15 years in the media listening to people be spontaneous with me everyday. As they spoke, most days my general thought was, “I can’t believe this idiot just said that to me on camera.” By the time those comments were edited into my report and put on the evening news, most of those spontaneous, poorly worded comments were damaging to the spokesperson’s reputation, which also has a negative impact upon the organization’s revenue.

Was it fair for me to use the dumb, incriminating, negative things people said to me? Absolutely. After all, those people must have thought it was important because they said it to me. I’m just sharing their honesty with the public.

Let me also emphasize this. It’s one thing to look stupid in the news report. But the damage does not stop with the damage you do to your personal or organizational reputation. Every time you damage your reputation you lose money. How much you lose depends upon how big of a gaff you make and the specific topic.

When you say something stupid that gets in print, on the radio or on TV, you also destroy your credibility with your employees. You also cause embarrassment to your employees and you potentially have a negative effect on their productivity; that will cost you money also.

So I ask the question again: If you could attach a dollar to every word you say, would you make money or lose money?

A well prepared, well rehearsed, well internalized message makes people want to do business with you, buy your products or support your cause.

As for not wanting to sound rehearsed, it is important to realize that the old adage about practice makes perfect, is true.

Many people make the mistake of trying to memorize what they want to say. Memorizing means you only know the words in your head. The secret is to internalize what you want to say. Internalizing means you know it in your heart and you know it in your heart to be true.

In order to internalize your message, you first have to go through the process of learning it in your head before transferring it to your heart, then sending it from your heart to mouth.

If it is a lie, you cannot store the message in your heart and you will not be able to effectively verbalize it.  So internalizing your message means that it is a well worded honest message.

My final tip on this topic is to treat every interview with the same importance that you treat every business deal. Before entering into a contract, countless hours are spent in preparation and negotiations. Why? Because it affects the bottom line. Well, the same due diligence and time needs to be put into preparing for a media interview. That means you need to schedule time to anticipate questions, prepare well worded answers, and to train and practice until you get every answer perfect every time. Then and only then should you do an interview with the media.

Every interview is as important as every business deal.

In our next lesson, we’ll take a look at the wants, needs and desires of the media.

Crisis Communications Statements That Say Nothing

GW TodayBy Gerard Braud

Leaders are slow to communicate in a crisis, so I get excited when I see an executive initiate some type of crisis communications. However, the example I’m going to show you here, in my expert opinion, does little to effectively communicate. Also, with two potential crises, this executive opts to focus on the lesser of the two and ignores the bigger crisis.

I was contacted by reporter Colleen Murphy with the George Washington Hatchet, the student newspaper at George Washington University. Her initial call was to get my reaction because a past GW president had made a comment on NPR regarding college women being drunk and how that might contribute to them being a victim of sexual assault.

Critics of the past president resented the suggestion that a woman would be anything more than a victim in a sexual assault. (In fairness, if you listen to the full interview for full context you would likely agree with what was actually said and not what people perceive was said.) Sensitive to the negative outcry, the current president decided to issue a statement. However, at the time the president is issuing his statement, a co-ed had just filed a sexual assault complaint after she reported being assaulted in a fraternity house.

GW presidentGW President Steve Knapp writes, “My responsibility as president is to make my own and the university’s position — and the steps the university is actually taking — as clear as I can.” To that, I say bravo.

But read on and see how Knapp’s statement is anything but clear. He also fails to outline any real steps. And, in light of the sexual assault report just filed, notice how Knapp fails to mention the assault in his statement:

“My strongly held position is that sexual assault under any guise and regardless of the circumstances is utterly repugnant and unacceptable. In recent years, we have hired a Vice Provost for Diversity and Inclusion and a Title IX Coordinator, and we are currently seeking a Coordinator of Sexual Assault Prevention and Student Advocacy. Together with others across the university, including many dedicated faculty members, students, and staff, this team is advancing our efforts to create a university culture in which every member of our community understands that sexual assault must not and will not be tolerated. Our work must focus unambiguously on ensuring that the university is fully supportive of the survivors of such acts and treats appropriately those who are found to have committed them,” Knapp’s statement concludes.

As I told the reporter, this was an excellent time to advance the discussion about assaults. Hiring a new Provost will not stop assaults. Lost from Knapp’s statement is anything that educates female students as to how to prevent an assault. This was a perfect time to give the best three tips for avoiding being a victim. Absent is an attempt to educate male students about what is unacceptable behavior. Lost is the opportunity to set new, strong standards for attacking this problem at GW.

I laugh at the sentence, “Our work must focus unambiguously on ensuring that the university is fully supportive of the survivors of such acts…” because the entire statement is ambiguous.

Some executives and public relations people have a way of saying many words, but failing to effectively communicate. Behold: I give you GW University.

Did Lululemon’s Crisis Communication Efforts on Social Media Create a Bigger Crisis?

By Gerard Braud

A bad media interview caused by insufficient media training is creating a crisis communication problem on social media. Experts will weigh in on this, but I don’t think any one expert has the answer as to the best way to handle this.

reax Lululemon FBI really want to know what you think.

The founder of Lululemon has posted a video to the company Facebook apologizing for comments he made in an interview on Bloomberg Television. Read the full details on my blog from last week.

As I write this, nearly 500 people have clicked “Like” on this particular Facebook post while more than 700 comments are posted. The vast majority of these comments are negative.

I have several crisis communication questions for you:

1) Do you think the founder, Chip Wilson, has made the situation better or worse by attempting to apologize on Facebook for comments he made on television?

2) Do you think the situation is getting better or worse on the Facebook brand page as the company’s public relations and social media teams try to engage in a conversation with those who post comments?

Without providing an answer to those questions, here is something to consider — Each time the public relations and social media team replies to a comment on the Facebook post, it moves the discussion higher in the news feed of the page followers, increasing the odds that someone new will jump into the conversation.

Was this a big mistake to take this discussion to Facebook?

Could this apology have found a better home in the company’s newsroom?

Was the apology itself poorly worded, leading to more negative comments?

Was the apology made only to employees and not to customers?

If the apology was to employees only, should it not have been posted where only employees would see it?

Could all of this crisis on the back end been eliminated by doing things differently on the front end?

As a father, I’ll tell you that my wife and I had a couple of basic rules when we were raising our two daughters. One rule was that you never have to fix the big things if you fix the little things. In this case, the lesson for all PR people, CEOs, and executive spokespeople, is to understand that the apology would never have been needed if the CEO had not said a foolish ad lib in the interview.  The foolishness would have been eliminated if executive media training had been done prior to the original interview.

I’m amazed on a daily basis at how under valued media training is among executives and public relations teams.

In every media training class that I teach, I challenge the CEO or spokesperson with this question, “If you could attach a dollar to every word that you say, would you make money or lose money?”

StopSpending LuluLemmon FBOf the more than 700 comments on the Lululemon Athletica Facebook page about this issue, many clearly say they will no longer buy the company’s product. Need I say more to prove my point? I think not.

In every crisis you should consider my “Crisis Rule of Thirds,” which states that one-third of the people love your company/brand, one-third will hate your company/brand, and the third in the middle will swing like a pendulum, based on what is popular at the moment.

In a social media crisis, in a world that is already filled with negative comments, I think many companies will lose the battle, lose the war, lose customers, and lose money.

Consider this: Delete the video, delete the Facebook post, and stop talking about it.

What do you think?

Lesson 8: Which Team is in Charge During Your Crisis Drill?

By Gerard Braud

Gerard Braud * 15I worked in drills in which I facilitate everything on behalf of the crisis communications team, while also developing the scenario for the drill. I’ve also worked in drills in which the emergency manager selects the drill scenario and acts as lead facilitator. Simultaneously, I facilitate only the cascading events dealing with internal and external communications, as well as managing the mock media.

The fact is, I don’t care which team is in charge, as long as every team gets to experience the realistic anxiety and decision making necessary for everyone to learn.

A crisis communications drill is an opportunity for all teams to execute their respective plans to test their readyness, while also making sure that each team can coexist with the others, both in a drill and in a real crisis.

The bottom line is just make sure someone sets the course to have at least one drill a year. Remember, a drill allows you to mess up in private so you never mess up during a real crisis.

Lesson 3: Test Your Crisis Communications Plan

By Gerard Braud

IMG_2621There are many articles throughout this blog about what makes for a good crisis communications plan. I believe so many documents that proport to be crisis communications plans fall far short of what is needed to effectively communicate when “it” hits the fan.

A great way to find out if your crisis communications plan is up to par is to test it with a crisis communications drill.

During a crisis, anxiety is high, tensions run high, and pressures can be enormous. During times like this, it is easy for important things to fall through the cracks. However, if you write them all down on a clear sunny day and organize them in sequential order, then you have the foundation for a good crisis communications plan. Furthermore, if you can easily read them during your crisis and follow the pre-ordained steps, you are able to achieve effective communication.

I don’t know of anyone else who tells you to read your crisis communications plan during the crisis.  That may be because most crisis communications plans only list the rule of standard operating procedures.  Most plans fail to be organized chronologically with clear directions that you can read and follow during your crisis. My prescription is to have a plan written with clear directions and follow it every step of the way throughout your crisis communications drill.

This important step accomplishes several goals. First, you get in the habit of carrying your communication plan with you. Secondly, you learn to trust your plan and trust that in your worst times it will guide you toward a brighter conclusion. Thirdly, if there is a flaw in your plan, your crisis communications drill will expose that flaw, allowing you to make important rewrites.

youtubeKeep in mind also that the tools of communication change constantly. This means your crisis communications plan needs to be a living document. What worked during last year’s drill may need to be revised this year because the tools of communication have changed. Just look at how in recent years, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube went from being non-existent to being available but irrelevant, to being a vital consideration and important communications tool in a crisis.

A crisis communications drill is designed to let you screw up in private on a clear, sunny day, so you don’t screw up in public on your darkest day. The same is true for your plan. Discover any flaws on a sunny day and fix them before your darkest day comes.