Behind the highly publicized controversy over the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration's authorization of specialty license plates bearing the Confederate Flag is a lesson in crisis communications and media relations.
PR NEWS turned to James Lukaszewski, a management advisor in communications, to see if the MVA scenario could have played out differently. And we also spoke with the MVA press officer who was essentially empowered to handle the media with little direction from upper management.
Unlike with crises affecting corporations, the license plate issue and the ensuing media coverage of the MVA will most likely not lead to lower sales; rather it's a matter of image. Whether MVA's reputation will be scarred from this event is yet to be determined.
"This is an example of how people let the media drive foolish stories," Lukaszewski said. "This was a silly little year-end story that now has legs."
Lukaszewski heads the nearly-decade-old The Lukaszewski Group in White Plains, N.Y., providing those in senior management and PR practitioners with guidance on how to deal with crises. For instance, the highly publicized Denny's case. Or the Texaco fiasco, which Lukaszewski called an illustration of "one of the more profound axioms of corporate life today - there are no secrets."
And now the MVA deal: a look at whether the Sons of Confederate Veterans should have the right to display the Confederate Flag on their license plates the same way other non-profits, like the Elks, Knights of Columbus, college alumni groups and firefighters, have the right to publicize their favorite logos.
The Lukaszewski Perspective
The MVA controversy is an example of the domino effect, said Lukaszewski. A paper like the Post runs a front-page story and others who are part of the newspaper pack philosophy that late is really better than never follow suit. (In fact, Lukaszewski read an article about the Maryland tag dilemma in the Minneapolis Tribune.)
"Some PR people are driven by the notion that they have to call every journalist who calls them," Lukaszewski said.
What Lukaszewski is stressing isn't not responding to the media, but knowing when it's important to respond and, then, knowing what the message will be. "When you're asked something beyond your expertise, then you don't comment," he said. "You should affirmatively and positively direct the reporter to where they can get the information."
In this case, what Lukaszewski believes happened was that the MVA's PR office decided to be responsive to reporters' queries, but instead of that quelling press reports, they fueled them. What should have happened, according to Lukaszewski, is the MVA should have directed journalists to call Maryland Governor Parris Glendenning's office since the tag policy is state law.
But MVA's Public Information Officer Jim Lang - the one who fielded most of the press calls which came into the MVA - sees it a different way. With a skeleton PR and administrative crew, Lang was the one left on Dec. 24 to respond to the Post reporter's questions and to decide what PR route the MVA would take.
"This is an interesting PR situation," Lang recalled. "We were kind of left at a disadvantage" because the story broke during the holidays.
What Lang had to do was answer queries about the tag policy. The policy allows non-profit organizations with at least 25 members wh are registered state drivers to submit, for review, any language or artwork they want to have featured on the logo-type plate.
"Obviously, they didn't find this (the flag) objectionable," Lang added about what he told reporters who called. "They (MVA workers) look at what's submitted to see if it's profane or drug related, for example, or if it has sexual overtones. They're looking for anything that's blatantly offensive or causes them to pause."
But who exactly is Lang answering for? In this case, it's as much the MVA workers who review the specialty tag applications as it is the lawmakers who signed legislation setting up the program. Not an easy task.
Lang was charged with getting in touch with MVA Director Ronald Freeland to inform him that the Post reporter had called. He was also charged with deciding what message would be communicated and what media requests would be accommodated. For example, he decided that MVA representatives wouldn't go on camera for CNN.
Lang also was given the responsibility of trying to foresee what media attention the Post article would trigger as well as the task of explaining that the MVA would now probe whether or not the policy is a fair one.
And he was responsible for all of this during Christmas week. "It never entered our minds to ignore the press calls," Lang said. "Ultimately, we have to serve our customers. Not to say anything is not only denying them an explanation, but the support we should give them (the customers).... I decided it was my job to articulate the message and I know I would need some tough skin" for what would follow.
Whether or not state legislators question the law for its appropriateness - and whether or not the policy is changed - has nothing to do with how many newspapers pick up the story. "It's potentially a serious story at this point in time when it was a non-story to begin with," Lukaszewski said. "The story isn't critical - the issue is critical."
His advice? Every call from a reporter or editor doesn't require that you - the PR person - go into detail. Sometimes it's a simple as directing the journalist elsewhere - a move that's still responsive. (James Lukaszewski, 914/681-0000; MVA, Jim Lang, 410/768-7386)