Crisis PR Case Study
The famous Goldman Sachs experience is a scary reminder for us in Crisis PR that departing employees may attempt to have the last laugh. While this particular employee shafted GS in an Op-Ed in the New York Times (15th March, 2012), social media has made this so easy.
Goldman Sachs did not respond appropriately (just read the comments below the Op-Ed to see that). Read the Letter and Responses to the Letter
- Be prepared. Have a crisis plan so you have an internal process to handle this simply and nimbly. Have a strategy, including a crisis team or person with decision making powers, key messages and spokespeople ready to go.
- Respond quickly and appropriately. The problem with the GS response (below) is that it is weak, and smacks of PR speak. Speed was good.
- Be competent with traditional media. Crises almost always involved traditional media and its impact on a company. Your decision may be ‘no response’, but it has to be an informed decision.
- Be competent with social media. Many of our clients become advocates of the use of social media after a crisis has passed and the damage done, and they’ve seen us struggle to manage from behind. Better to be prepared.
- Ask employees to respond online. Current and former. Not a lot, just enough to have some input – silence is damning. Outsiders want an alternative point of view.
- Attempt to seize the agenda. Make an announcement that creates alternative news reflecting company culture. Rupert Murdoch closed a paper – one example. Another example might be the release of a company staff satisfaction survey – if there is one. The simple denial is not always enough; that is simply referring to a negative (“I didn’t hit my grandmother”).
- Communicate with all relevant stakeholders. Staff first, then use a ‘ripple in the pond’ diagram. Speed is again critical.
- Keep your head. Certainly you will be anxious, but it will pass (‘ If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you… (RKipling))
GS’ PR department’s response to the New York Times: “We disagree with the views expressed, which we don’t think reflect the way we run our business. In our view, we will only be successful if our clients are successful. This fundamental truth lies at the heart of how we conduct ourselves.”
