Clients going through PR crises or litigation always want to get every bit of positive information out there. They are convinced that if only the world could hear their full side of the story, they would surely be vindicated. Unfortunately, crisis management and litigation communication strategies are easily doomed by such utopian expectations. Education campaigns don’t always defuse outrage. Sometimes hostile groups are not open to being educated.
It’s important to know that you likely won’t win the hearts and minds of all but what matters most is what your key stakeholders think. It’s vital to focus on what’s realistically achievable, which might not be what’s most ideal.
Crisis management is about managing the scope of loss, and while crisis managers may have solid track records, they are not saviors.
What we can do is take steps to avoid key audiences scrambling for the hills in a PR crisis and develop media strategies that positively influence judges and juries in litigation cases. Sometimes, companies are able to avoid threat completely or fully clear their names, returning to pre-crisis performance soon after a crisis situation. However, oftentimes, the best possible outcome can look like a quiet lawsuit settlement that avoids public scrutiny of your company; a rebrand under a new name like Firestone had to do with Bridgestone; facilitating a more watered-down exposé than what reporters had initially planned; or successfully convincing the public and thus, a jury that while you may not be a saint, your accuser is far from credible.
The purpose of a crisis manager in PR and litigation communications is not to perform magic on a bad situation or provide a therapeutic outlet for clients, but rather, to identify and release messages that are strategic in managing the reactions of key audiences and preventing the worst-case scenario.
CONTROL, by Fiayo. 