It is best to be prepared in the face of a public relations catastrophe. In order to do that, here is a short list of dos and don’ts that may prevent or mitigate damage:
• Create a crisis management and communication plan. As chess master Garry Kasparov said: “Even a bad plan is better than no plan.”
• Respond swiftly with cool rationality. Try to rise above the fray and view things objectively.
• Continue to communicate as the situation evolves or if new information is discovered.
• Don’t dismiss a small mistake. It can quickly grow into a big one.
• Pay careful attention to your association’s digital and social media image. Social media is an accelerant. It can ignite a disastrous situation when added to just a little bit of kindling.
• Always be honest. Trying to manipulate reality or twist the truth is a road to nowhere.
• Your personal views and opinions are irrelevant to many issues. Remind your staff and elected leaders of the same. It’s about the organization and its mission, not the individual.
• Don’t become negative, no matter what the communications channel. Seize and hold the high ground.
• Express understanding and empathy. It’s okay to say, “We made a mistake.” Then promise to correct it, and keep your promise.
• Don’t say “No comment.” You might as well say, “We’re probably guilty, but please just give us enough time to figure out what to say.”
• Be proactive with your public relations presence. There is a lot of newsworthy content that every association can share.
It’s no secret that nonprofit organizations enjoy a privileged place in American society. In exchange for the good works they do regularly, nonprofits are granted broad exemptions from most taxes. But that doesn’t mean they’re exempt from public scrutiny. All organizations, irrespective of their missions and purpose, are fair game with the media and need to be careful about the image they project. There are lessons to be learned from organizations that have made very public missteps. The following are a few examples of PR calamities that nonprofit organizations have faced and how they fare today.
Susan G. Komen for the Cure. As the nation’s leading breast cancer advocacy group, the organization’s work has made it possible for millions of women to receive annual cancer-screening mammograms. But a firestorm of outrage erupted two years ago when a staff vice-president announced Komen would no longer provide funding to Planned Parenthood.
As news spread, Komen’s Facebook, Twitter and website were bombarded with charged comments. It took Komen more than a day to respond. By the time it did, the media had seized the story. Komen’s delayed response and the vagueness of its position prolonged the debacle, and the belated resignation of the responsible staff member also kept the blaze stoked. Planned Parenthood seized the opportunity not only to defend itself but to take complete control of the issue; Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, immediately offered an interview to the Associated Press, a strategy that resulted in favorable coverage in most of the nation’s daily newspapers.
Komen reversed its decision a week later. Eventually the founder and CEO of Komen, Nancy Brinker, also resigned. But the agony continues. The organization’s principal fundraiser, the “Race for the Cure” walks, have faltered as the result of boycotts by those who took issue with Komen’s original decision. It canceled seven races scheduled for 2014.
The Livestrong Foundation. Formerly the Lance Armstrong Foundation, Livestrong was upended after the foundation’s namesake and founder, Lance Armstrong, admitted he had been involved in illegal doping for each of the seven consecutive years he won the Tour de France bicycle race.
Armstrong’s confession, broadcast during a January 2013 interview by Oprah Winfrey that was viewed by millions, was the culmination of years of speculation and muffled chatter. For almost a decade, Armstrong’s own PR machine used some of the nations’ most respected and robust broadcast and social media channels to crank out what, to most observers, seemed to be the cyclist’s sincere and profound denials. The interview, some say, was Armstrong’ s final and desperate bid to win back some public support.
But when the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency issued a 200-page report in 2011 following a years-long investigation, the roof began to crumble on both Armstrong and his foundation. In late 2012, he resigned from its board of directors, which then swiftly rebranded the organization as the Livestrong Foundation. But the damage was deeper than just a face-lift could fix: In 2012, contributions plunged 8 percent to $23 million, a 24 percent decline in just two years. A negative trickle-down soon took its effects on the foundation. Nike, which had severed ties with Armstrong in 2012, announced in the spring of 2013 that it would stop manufacturing Livestrong-brand shoes and apparel and would only remain the foundation’s corporate backer through 2014.
Will the Livestrong Foundation rebound? Over time and with proper leadership and careful messaging, it may, because the cause of the tempest was isolated primarily to the shattered credibility of just one individual.
The Boy Scouts of America. One of the nation’s most venerable and oldest nonprofits fell victim to its own intransigence by placing itself in the cross hairs of a no-win social debate orbiting around questions of gay rights and the proper role gay scouts and leaders should play in the organization.
The BSA’s policies ban membership to atheists, agnostics and, until January 2014, “open and avowed” homosexuals. In what the BSA believes was a compromise, it now allows gay scouts to participate but still bans gay troop leaders. It believes its policies “are essential in its mission to instill in young people the values of the Scout Oath and Law.”
In a classic example of having its eye on the wrong ball, the leaders of the BSA were so focused on the organization’s history and traditions that they failed to take into account the massive and ongoing shifts in social norms, behaviors and attitudes. They also mistakenly believed that taking only half-measures would bring an end to the controversy. Because emotions were, and continue to be, so visceral on both sides of the gay rights issue, the BSA could have approached the challenge as one of risk management rather than doctrine.
Using the Four Principles of Risk Management. To avoid a public relations catastrophe, start with these vital elements of risk management:
Avoid: Determine how it might be possible to avoid damage entirely.
Reduce: Create a strategy designed to mitigate damage that might take place.
Transfer: Seek a way to shift the burden of damage to a third party willing to assume the risk. (For example, in business transactions, this would be an insurance company.)
Retain: Maintain the exposure to potential harm only if the anticipated damage (the worst case) is acceptable.
To use the BSA issue as an example, without “selling out” its core beliefs, its leadership needed to find a compromise that could have averted the spin-down that continues to erode the organization. A constructive step would have been to objectively and quietly analyze the attitudes of current members, prospective members, sponsors and society at large using a broad array of diagnostics. It may have yielded valuable insight that could have helped executives make more informed decisions. Instead, the BSA distributed a survey that many inside and outside the organization viewed as an attempt to justify its policies. Members were asked questions such as this: “Bob is 15 years old, and the only openly gay scout in a Boy Scout troop. Is it acceptable or unacceptable for the troop leader to allow Bob to tent with a heterosexual boy on an overnight camping trip?”
Fueling the controversy even more, the BSA ordered a Maryland chapter to remove an innocuous non-discrimination statement from the chapter’s website. What harm would have been done had the BSA simply deferred that relatively minor issue until it was able to secure a greater measure of stability? Instead, it was the public relations equivalent of provoking a two-front war.
Annual BSA revenue is sinking; its IRS 990 for 2010 reports a total revenue of $268 million, while its 2012 revenue was a reported $192 million. Its 2013 revenue is almost certain to be less. And in March, the Walt Disney Company announced it would no longer contribute to the BSA because the organization bans openly gay troop leaders.
No one can challenge the BSA’s right to ban whomever it wishes from membership. It is a private membership organization, and several court cases have consistently upheld its right to define its membership criteria. It is difficult, however, to excuse the organization for the inept way that it has mismanaged its own public relations.
Pushing for Positive Change. Failure to seize control of our public relations can result in mishandled situations that may erode the historic status of the association community. If we learn anything from these examples, it’s that integrity and fortitude are essential when it comes to leadership and navigating the deep waters of publicized disasters.