Category Archives: Uncategorized

Rachel Dolezal, Reputation Management and the NAACP

Uncategorized, ,

Rachel Dolezal, the President of the Spokane, Washington chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) announced that she was resigning her post following revelations that she has been lying about her race, claiming she is African-American when she is indeed white. She is under investigation in Spokane that she lied about her race in other instances including her application to serve on a police oversight commission. The NAACP had issued a statement on Friday standing behind Dolezal despite the media firestorm and the fact that she had become the focus of late night comedians’ jokes.

Many were outraged that the NAACP was standing behind Dolezal as the story gained momentum and photos surfaced showing she was clearly white and came from a privileged background in Montana and was not subjected to racism as a child as she had stated. Even worse some unnamed sources cited as being within the NAACP were reported to have tried to blame law enforcement for the story emerging while refusing to say what Dolezal did was right or wrong.

The NAACP has a long and storied history in fighting racial discrimination including the legendary Supreme Court case, Brown v. Ferguson that ended segregation in the schools. Yet during the years it has lost some of its luster in its fights, member misconduct, and finances. It has always battled back though. Today, its defense of Dolezal has not been among its finest moments. The credibility of the NAACP has suffered because of her actions and its initial response.

So what should the NAACP do to repair the damage it has suffered?

  1. Condemn Dolzeal’s action categorically and suspend her from the organization. The NAACP should state unequivocally that what she did was wrong and hurt the cause of civil rights, diminishing legitimate cases of discrimination.
  2. Apologize to members and the public for her actions and its initial mishandling of the crisis.
  3. Announce what steps the organization is taking to ensure that such an incident never occurs again. Dolzeal’s action hurt the organization, caused it ridicule, and has led many to question its very credibility. The NAACP needs to address this and show how it is taking steps to ensure that such an incident does not happen again.
  4. Announce a review of all of Dolzeal’s actions as President of the Spokane chapter and redress any errors committed by her.
  5. Refocus on what the organization was created for – fighting racism.

The Rachel Dolezal episode has done serious damage to the reputation of the NAACP. The organization is learning that just one member can sometimes tear down an organization’s reputation that took years to build and rebuild. Failing to address the crisis will cause only more harm.

Lessons To Be Learned From TLC and Josh Duggar

Uncategorized, ,

Several of the cardinal rules in crisis communications are – always have a plan and prepare for any scenario. Yet time and again, we see organizations, brands, and celebrities forgetting those rules. The latest example of this is the scandal involving Josh Duggar of TLC’s hit show, “19 Kids and Counting”. When dealing with reality television, anything that can happen in real life can happen to a reality star, networks have forgotten this at their own peril.

Josh Duggar admitted last week to sexually molesting underage girls including several of his sisters. While the admissions were shocking, they should not have been to TLC   Such allegations about him have been around for a number of years. The Oprah Winfrey Show was aware of these rumors and reportedly contacted a child protection hotline.

Yet as the story broke last week, surprisingly TLC appeared to have been caught unprepared. The day Duggar admitted to sexually molesting underage girls and apologized for his actions, TLC was running a “19 Kids and Counting” marathon. Only belatedly did the network announce that it was pulling the show from its schedule. Yet it has not announced that it is cancelling the show. The network has also failed to express sympathy for Duggar’s victims. Advertisers on the other hand are leaving the show in droves realizing that associating their brands with a show that features an admitted child molester would be devastating.

So what should TLC do?

  1. Cancel the show. The network cancelled “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo” when it was revealed that June Shannon, Honey Boo Boo’s mother had dated a convicted child molester. Shannon is already calling TLC hypocritical in not cancelling “19 Kids and Counting”. She may have a point, in how do you have a show about family values with a confessed child molester as one of its stars? Advertisers are pulling the plug (as previously mentioned). The longer TLC does not cancel the show, the worst the situation will become for the network. Some extreme critics will say the network is putting ratings over child safety and tacitly condones Josh Duggar’s behavior.
  2. Issue strongly worded statements of sympathy to Duggar’s victims and state categorically the network condemns such behavior and has a zero tolerance for it.
  3. Launch an investigation with a credible independent investigator to find out who knew of Duggar’s actions, prior to this story. Then once the investigation is done terminate anyone involved and release the report publicly.
  4. Fully train all network employees on how to handle situations that regard such allegations for the future.
  5. Donate free commercial time to organizations that are involved in child protection for public service announcements.

The Josh Duggar story shows that in reality television reality can often have an ugly face. Brands and networks need to be prepared for any situation as this case shows. More importantly, TLC’s situation should serve as a reminder for any brand or celebrity the need to have a crisis communications plan ready and to be prepared for possible situations that might arise that could cause damage to a company’s or person’s reputation.

#DeflateGate Crisis Management – Next Moves by the NFL & Tom Brady?

Uncategorized, , , , ,

For the NFL, 2014 was a year of crisis after crisis. The League and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell came under heavy scrutiny and criticism for failing to punish key NFL players guilty of domestic violence. Two thousand and fifteen started with many questioning the integrity of the game when it was discovered that the New England Patriots used suspiciously underinflated footballs in the American Football Conference (AFC) Championship Game against the Indianapolis Colts in what became known as ‘deflategate’.

The Patriots, Super Bowl Champions and star quarterback, Tom Brady denied any knowledge of the incident. A beleaguered NFL Commissioner Goodell appointed attorney, Theodore Wells to head an investigation into ‘deflategate’. The investigation concluded that it was “more probable than not” that New England Patriots equipment personnel were deliberately circumventing the rules. Further, Brady was implicated as it being more probable than not that he was aware of the deflation.

Brady, one of the best quarterbacks of the era finds his integrity under attack. Fans consider him a lie and cheat. Many believe he should not be eligible for the NFL Hall of Fame in the future. His brand as one of sport’s elite players is tarnished.

So what should he do?

  1. Come clean and admit what he knew, apologize for not being more forthcoming and honest with investigators, and ask fans to forgive him. Yes, he will admit to lying but to continue to be evasive over a long period of time and then admitting he lied would be even worse (just ask Lance Armstrong how lying over a long period of time and the coming clean worked). When he does this Brady should do it at a news conference and take questions from the media. Let the media exhaust themselves with questions.
  2. Accept any suspension and fine from the NFL and do not appeal them.
  3. Stay low profile during his suspension. No media interviews. Remain invisible from the public eye.
  4. Grant a high profile interview to a key interviewer at the end of his suspension.
  5. Show fans that his playing ability remains among football’s elite.

The Brady brand has suffered from ‘deflategate’. Failing to come clean now will make the damage even worse and perhaps irreparable.

Yet it isn’t just Brady who must handle this right – the NFL must as well. As mentioned the NFL brand because of its ham-handed response to domestic abuse cases last year is damaged. Many people not just fans question the integrity of the sport and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. So what should Goodell and the NFL do?

Quite simply suspend Tom Brady for the entire 2015 season. This sends a message that misconduct will no longer be tolerated and the NFL has learned from its mistakes in 2014. Anything less and the NFL’s brand will be diminished further.

For the NFL, 2014 was a year of crisis after crisis. The League and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell came under heavy scrutiny and criticism for failing to punish key NFL players guilty of domestic violence. Two thousand and fifteen started with many questioning the integrity of the game when it was discovered that the New England Patriots used suspiciously underinflated footballs in the American Football Conference (AFC) Championship Game against the Indianapolis Colts in what became known as ‘deflategate’.

The Patriots, Super Bowl Champions and star quarterback, Tom Brady denied any knowledge of the incident. A beleaguered NFL Commissioner Goodell appointed attorney, Theodore Wells to head an investigation into ‘deflategate’. The investigation concluded that it was “more probable than not” that New England Patriots equipment personnel were deliberately circumventing the rules. Further, Brady was implicated as it being more probable than not that he was aware of the deflation.

Brady, one of the best quarterbacks of the era finds his integrity under attack. Fans consider him a lie and cheat. Many believe he should not be eligible for the NFL Hall of Fame in the future. His brand as one of sport’s elite players is tarnished.

So what should he do?

  1. Come clean and admit what he knew, apologize for not being more forthcoming and honest with investigators, and ask fans to forgive him. Yes, he will admit to lying but to continue to be evasive over a long period of time and then admitting he lied would be even worse (just ask Lance Armstrong how lying over a long period of time and the coming clean worked). When he does this Brady should do it at a news conference and take questions from the media. Let the media exhaust themselves with questions.
  2. Accept any suspension and fine from the NFL and do not appeal them.
  3. Stay low profile during his suspension. No media interviews. Remain invisible from the public eye.
  4. Grant a high profile interview to a key interviewer at the end of his suspension.
  5. Show fans that his playing ability remains among football’s elite.

The Brady brand has suffered from ‘deflategate’. Failing to come clean now will make the damage even worse and perhaps irreparable.

Yet it isn’t just Brady who must handle this right – the NFL must as well. As mentioned the NFL brand because of its ham-handed response to domestic abuse cases last year is damaged. Many people not just fans question the integrity of the sport and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. So what should Goodell and the NFL do?

Quite simply suspend Tom Brady for the entire 2015 season. This sends a message that misconduct will no longer be tolerated and the NFL has learned from its mistakes in 2014. Anything less and the NFL’s brand will be diminished further.

Rebranding @HillaryClinton

Uncategorized,

The wait is over. Hillary Clinton announced via YouTube and Twitter what everyone already knew. She is running for president. Her candidacy presents both opportunity and challenges from a public relations and branding perspective.

Hillary Clinton launched her campaign with a rebranding effort. Taking a page out of Richard Nixon’s playbook, she is introducing the ‘new Hillary’ (just as every election cycle there was a new Nixon, who always seemed to return to the old Nixon). The previous brands of ‘ new Hillary’ have included:

  1. Bill Clinton’s partner in the White House who had more influence than Vice President Al Gore.
  2. The wronged wife.
  3. New York’s Senator who worked across the aisle to get things done.
  4. The candidate who would break the glass ceiling in 2008 and become America’s first female president.
  5. America’s chief diplomat above politics, as President Obama’s Secretary of State.

Just as with Richard Nixon, none of these ‘new Hillary’ brands succeeded. The media and the general public didn’t quite buy the new brand and viewed her as the Hillary who polarized Americans during Bill Clinton’s failed health care reform efforts. There was a belief that each rebranding effort was just an attempt to get Americans to forget the old Hillary.

Now with the launch of her campaign, the new Hillary brand is that of the loving grandmother. This is the latest attempt to soften Hillary’s image and allow her to connect with voters.

To be successful, rebranding must be fully transparent, sincere, and authentic. At this point of Hillary’s rebranding, the public is skeptical. Many in the media and even voters see it as nothing more as a gimmick and expect the old Hillary to remerge.

So what should she do?

The biggest problems with Hillary’s rebranding efforts in the past have been a lack of transparency and when she has encountered difficulty or criticism, she has reverted back to the polarizing Hillary of 1992 – 1994. If she is sincere and wants voters and the media to believe her, she needs to be transparent, fully answer questions, and allow herself to be vulnerable. Beyond that, throughout the campaign, she needs to stay consistent with her new brand and act accordingly.

Her second obstacle that she faces is offering a new vision for America without running away from an increasingly unpopular President Obama. If she can do that, she will succeed where Adlali Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, and John McCain all failed.

Trying to extend a third electoral victory by one political party is rare (excluding succession due to the death of a president). George H.W. Bush was the last presidential candidate to achieve that. Before him, it was Herbert Hoover in 1928. Both Bush and Hoover ran promising to be a third term of the popular incumbents (Reagan and Coolidge) while moving the nation forward. Even Richard Nixon in his failed 1960 presidential campaign attempted to convince voters that he would be an extension of the popular Dwight Eisenhower with a youthful vigor.

Hillary Clinton if nominated will not have the luxury of a popular president. She will face the challenge that Stevenson faced in 1952 with Harry Truman; Humphrey faced in 1968 with Lyndon Johnson; and John McCain faced in 2008 with George W. Bush. All failed to give a clear vision of how they would be different and each feared to repudiate their president for fear of losing their base. If Hillary distanced herself from President Obama (whose Secretary of State she was) she would alienate her base and bring back stories of the ‘old Hillary’ hurting her rebranding efforts.

So how should she handle this dilemma?

She needs to communicate to voters that she will preserve the Obama policies that are popular and enhance them. But beyond that she needs to outline her vision going forward in clear language. She needs to make clear that while she supports her party’s leader, she hopes to take America a step forward and by her work with the President and her own husband has learned what to do and also what not to do. She must be willing to communicate a big vision that will allow her to expand her base rather then just cater to it.

As the campaign unfolds, it will be interesting to see if the ‘new Hillary’ succeeds or she bombs like New Coke. And even more critical can she communicate a vision without running away from her President.

The wait is over. Hillary Clinton announced via YouTube and Twitter what everyone already knew. She is running for president. Her candidacy presents both opportunity and challenges from a public relations and branding perspective.

Hillary Clinton launched her campaign with a rebranding effort. Taking a page out of Richard Nixon’s playbook, she is introducing the ‘new Hillary’ (just as every election cycle there was a new Nixon, who always seemed to return to the old Nixon). The previous brands of ‘ new Hillary’ have included:

  1. Bill Clinton’s partner in the White House who had more influence than Vice President Al Gore.
  2. The wronged wife.
  3. New York’s Senator who worked across the aisle to get things done.
  4. The candidate who would break the glass ceiling in 2008 and become America’s first female president.
  5. America’s chief diplomat above politics, as President Obama’s Secretary of State.

Just as with Richard Nixon, none of these ‘new Hillary’ brands succeeded. The media and the general public didn’t quite buy the new brand and viewed her as the Hillary who polarized Americans during Bill Clinton’s failed health care reform efforts. There was a belief that each rebranding effort was just an attempt to get Americans to forget the old Hillary.

Now with the launch of her campaign, the new Hillary brand is that of the loving grandmother. This is the latest attempt to soften Hillary’s image and allow her to connect with voters.

To be successful, rebranding must be fully transparent, sincere, and authentic. At this point of Hillary’s rebranding, the public is skeptical. Many in the media and even voters see it as nothing more as a gimmick and expect the old Hillary to remerge.

So what should she do?

The biggest problems with Hillary’s rebranding efforts in the past have been a lack of transparency and when she has encountered difficulty or criticism, she has reverted back to the polarizing Hillary of 1992 – 1994. If she is sincere and wants voters and the media to believe her, she needs to be transparent, fully answer questions, and allow herself to be vulnerable. Beyond that, throughout the campaign, she needs to stay consistent with her new brand and act accordingly.

Her second obstacle that she faces is offering a new vision for America without running away from an increasingly unpopular President Obama. If she can do that, she will succeed where Adlali Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, and John McCain all failed.

Trying to extend a third electoral victory by one political party is rare (excluding succession due to the death of a president). George H.W. Bush was the last presidential candidate to achieve that. Before him, it was Herbert Hoover in 1928. Both Bush and Hoover ran promising to be a third term of the popular incumbents (Reagan and Coolidge) while moving the nation forward. Even Richard Nixon in his failed 1960 presidential campaign attempted to convince voters that he would be an extension of the popular Dwight Eisenhower with a youthful vigor.

Hillary Clinton if nominated will not have the luxury of a popular president. She will face the challenge that Stevenson faced in 1952 with Harry Truman; Humphrey faced in 1968 with Lyndon Johnson; and John McCain faced in 2008 with George W. Bush. All failed to give a clear vision of how they would be different and each feared to repudiate their president for fear of losing their base. If Hillary distanced herself from President Obama (whose Secretary of State she was) she would alienate her base and bring back stories of the ‘old Hillary’ hurting her rebranding efforts.

So how should she handle this dilemma?

She needs to communicate to voters that she will preserve the Obama policies that are popular and enhance them. But beyond that she needs to outline her vision going forward in clear language. She needs to make clear that while she supports her party’s leader, she hopes to take America a step forward and by her work with the President and her own husband has learned what to do and also what not to do. She must be willing to communicate a big vision that will allow her to expand her base rather then just cater to it.

As the campaign unfolds, it will be interesting to see if the ‘new Hillary’ succeeds or she bombs like New Coke. And even more critical can she communicate a vision without running away from her President.

Duck Dynasty Patriarch’s Media Firestorm: A Lesson in Crisis Management

Crisis Communications, Uncategorized, , , , ,

Duck Dynasty star and patriarch, Phil Robertson (Duck Commander) is the subject of a media firestorm over comments he made about homosexuals in GQ Magazine. In his interview, Robertson uses lewd imagery to discuss why he doesn’t understand homosexuality, which he goes on to call it a sin and compare homosexuality to bestiality based upon his Christian beliefs. GLADD vehemently denounced Robertson’s comments as some of the vilest ever directed towards homosexuals. While the controversy has been focused on the remarks he made about homosexuals, he also made controversial comments about African Americans, saying the cotton farm workers he knew in Louisiana were “happy” with their jobs. A&E, the network that carries Duck Dynasty announced that it was suspending Robertson indefinitely over his remarks. This in turn has led to a massive reaction against A&E and in favor of Robertson. Social media is burning up with tweets and Facebook posts defending Robertson. Sarah Palin, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and even Geraldo Rivera have come to his defense. So can the Duck Dynasty brand survive? How has Robertson handled his crisis communications efforts?

The answer to the first question is obvious. Of course the Duck Dynasty brand will survive and will actually flourish as a result of this controversy. Some will say, Paula Deen was caught admitting using the ‘n’ word over twenty years ago and her brand has been damaged severely, why the difference. The difference is that Deen’s brand was built around her persona of being a sweet grandmotherly personality her use of the ‘n’ word didn’t go with that image and her crisis communications efforts were abysmal.

Robertson and the Duck Dynasty brand have never pretended to be politically correct. Part of their appeal and brand identity has been built around their authenticity and saying what is on their mind. Even more so much of their appeal has been their strong Christian faith that appeals to a large number of their fans. In that aspect, Robertson’s remarks and his explanation reinforce that branding. Fans of Duck Dynasty fit into a more conservative outlook and are apt to agree with Robertson. Beyond that many of the shows fans will sympathize with Robertson believing that it was his first amendment right to say what he believes. Overall, the Duck Dynasty brand has strengthened their ties with their existing fans.

Beyond that, people who have never watched Duck Dynasty will probably tune into the show to find out what all the controversy is about that the media is reporting. Not all of these new viewers will stay but some will and become Duck Dynasty fans. So overall the brand comes out ahead earning itself millions in free publicity.

Robertson’s crisis communications efforts have been good so far. He released a brief statement that reaffirmed his Christian belief while stating he would never disrespect anyone. Beyond that he has been quiet and done no embarrassing YouTube videos apologizing nor attacked either his critics or A&E. His cast members (as would be expected since they are family members) are all supportive of him. His fans are vocal on social media and are petitioning A&E to drop his suspension. He has prominent supporters who appeal to his brand’s demographics supporting him. Next he needs to do a media interview with Oprah or perhaps Barbara Walters and address the issue and then continue his silence.

Despite the media firestorm, the Duck Dynasty brand and Phil Robertson are probably stronger as a result of this controversy. Robertson played to his authenticity branding that appeals to his fans and reinforced that appeal. His crisis response has avoided the pitfall that we often see in which the crisis response becomes the story (see Paula Deen and Lululemon). This is living proof that in the 24/7 media cycle and social media world that we live in, at times a crisis can be the best thing to happen to a brand.