On The Mark -- Crisis Communications 101 and Mark Penn

I’ve worked on crisis communications cases for more than 25 years, including many of the biggest issues, some of which are taught in university public relations classes today.

Today, when I walk into a chief executive’s office whose company is under siege (and sometimes the chief executive as well) I always tell them that your priority audience is your customer and prospective customers. It’s not the media. This usually requires a very long discussion because the media coverage is typically top of mind, but to put it simplistically – it’s not what the media are saying, it’s what your customer is thinking that really matters. If your customer trusts and has confidence in your company and or brand, then you can weather the media storm. This requires good brand equity to begin with, but it also means that communicating with your customer base during a crisis is most important.

Mark Penn reportedly stated to his employees at Burson-Marsteller that the media coverage of his demise would dissipate in a few days and everything will be ok. The media coverage prediction may be true (although they’ll do their best to keep it alive a little longer now that they’ve heard this). But only time will tell what the impact will be on their current and prospective customer base.

I have some clients, for example, who believe their businesses would be impacted negatively if a democrat got into the White House. I’m sure they wouldn’t be happy if they saw that I was trying to make it happen. Magnify my business a zillion times to Burson and one can only imagine the potential fallout. It wouldn’t be obvious. Prospective opportunities that may have presented themselves at one time won’t be there anymore. Clients with contracts expiring may find it easier to move on.

If there ever was a situation that called for a leave of absence in order to work on a separate project, this was it. But it’s too late now. One has to wonder what the top brass at Burson were thinking when they allowed Penn to continue to run the company while also being the chief strategist for the Clinton campaign. That Clinton was a slam dunk for the White House, maybe?

On the Mark -- Mark Penn Follow-Up

As I was saying about conflicts.



This from Ad Age (beginning of story):



NEW YORK (AdAge.com) -- To see how the tables have turned on famed crisis counselor Burson-Marsteller in the past few days, consider this. Ted Smyth, chief administrative officer and senior VP-corporate and government affairs at Heinz, is used to his company paying the firm big bucks for PR counsel. Now he's got some of his own PR advice for an agency that, after decades of quietly helping corporate giants out of sticky situations, is caught up in a crisis of its chief executive's making.


"He forgot the importance of avoiding conflict of interest or any apparent conflict of interest," Mr. Smyth said in an interview. "It was impossible to balance the responsibility of being the chief strategist for Clinton while representing a number of clients for Burson. At some stage it was going to end up in tears." ..."What Burson should make clear is that they have rules in place to avoid conflicts of interest and that these rules will be strictly articulated and enforced, which they weren't in this case," Mr. Smyth said. "The agency will need to issue a policy or, if they have one, re-issue it, indicating how this would be handled in the future."

On the Mark -- Mark Penn and The Scent of Power and Money

I found the stories today about Mark Penn getting the boot as Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist very interesting. Actually, previously I had found it more interesting that, as CEO of Burson-Marsteller, long a giant in the world of public relations agencies, he was even trying to do both. I spent a little more than 10 wonderful years at Burson-Marsteller. I got to work with the best minds in the business and was able to work on big-time assignments that I still talk about today.

But there was that ever-present wall of conflicts. Burson-Marsteller, like every agency, worked on controversial business when I was there, but I recall there was always a strict “is this a conflict” analysis that took place before we worked for a new client – this covered both whether there was a competing product or if the new business would affect work we were doing with other clients. I remember that we had to turn down many new business opportunities.

We were taught to be very loyal to the brands we represented (for example, you would never find a can of Pepsi in any of the offices since we represented Coca-Cola – especially if Harold was coming into town). Although I never heard it directly from Harold Burson, founder and still chairman, there was an unwritten rule to stay away from politics (you can see it’s been a while since I worked there). There was, however, a written rule to not take on any business that might have a direct or indirect negative impact on current client business.

My guess is that Harold Burson didn't like this arrangement, and probably saw the trouble that would be coming their way, but it looks like the scent of money and power was too strong for those now making the decisions.