For all the emphasis on bigger crisis situations (a la CrowdStrike), a more common issue companies face is the prospect of a one-off negative article. Whether it’s fact-based reporting on a real issue, a true hit piece or somewhere in between, many people struggle with managing both the initial article and the potential aftermath.
Here are six recommended actions for PR pros in this situation:
- Get the facts, including the basis for the story and where the information is coming from. If a journalist has accurate information from a credible source, it’s very different from partial or incorrect information with dubious origins. The first step is always finding out everything you can about the article and then cross-checking it with people who know the facts. As you do this, be honest with yourself and stakeholders about what you find and set appropriate expectations on how much you can influence the situation.
- Understand the timeline you are working on and how far along the journalist is in the process. If you get asked to comment with a tight deadline, the story is likely already written. Anything you say might be forced to fit into the writer’s existing narrative. In most cases, journalists will give you time to engage. The key is to ask and then either respect, or proactively negotiate, the timeline in a way that works for you and the journalist.
- Remember, there are many ways to engage. This could be anything from an on-the-record interview to a written statement to conversations on background or off-the-record. It can help to pull in credible third parties who can validate facts or support your point of view. It’s also important to consider how statements or information will look in context. In many cases, it’s not helpful to have more commentary. It can look defensive or even increase the surface area for negative counterpoints.
- Don’t think about a negative piece as one and done. Part of your strategy needs to be thinking through whether a story is going to drive additional interest. This is where taking the time to get the right perspective and data into the initial piece can set you up for success with follow-on questions. For example, if the initial piece has inaccurate or partial info, making sure this information is corrected (or at least countered) and/or put in context will be critical in responding to follow up questions.
- Consider the employee impact. A negative piece can be alarming for current or even prospective employees. Have this in your mind as you think through how best to engage: How will employees feel about it? Will any commentary ring true? Will it raise additional questions? Equipping leaders and managers on how to handle potentially tough questions is important.
- Know when to stop engaging. At a certain point, a negative story is going to be a negative story. Resist the urge to provide more commentary… especially if it is rooted in some element of truth. A better path is to think about what actions can be taken to shift the narrative moving forward. There will be ample opportunity to disprove naysayers with positive news and momentum. Remember, tangible action will always speak louder than words.
A final comment on “no comment”: This is a default posture for many, but I would urge using it with caution. Certainly, there are times when this is appropriate, particularly when material information or other parties are involved. The same goes for a strategic “could not be reached for comment.” But in most cases, it’s better to engage and own your narrative, lest someone else do it for you.
Tara Smith is Managing Partner at Voxus PR.