Barbara Paynter – Paynter Communications

Legends and Leaders in Public Relations

Thanks to Brittany Thompson for profiling me in the Public Relations Society of America Cleveland Chapter’s “Legends and Leaders” feature.

http://www.prsacleveland.org/legends-leaders-barb-paynter/

Paynter Joins PRSA’s Prestigious College of Fellows

NEW YORK — The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) has announced that Barbara Paynter, president of Paynter Communications, is among 11 new members elected into the national organization’s prestigious College of Fellows. The College is an honorary organization within PRSA comprised of more than 350 senior practitioners and educators, each of whom has left a significant footprint on the public relations profession.

The 2017 College of Fellows inductees will be welcomed officially on Saturday, Oct. 7, at a special ceremony and dinner in Boston.

“These 11 College of Fellows inductees are prime examples of the standard of excellence all practitioners are striving to achieve. They demonstrate strategic leadership that includes serving as sage counsel, mentors and role models for the entire profession,” said PRSA 2017 National Chair Jane Dvorak, APR, Fellow PRSA. “I congratulate them on their well-deserved honor and encourage them to continue challenging their peers to strive to be leaders at every level.”

Paynter has more than 30 years’ experience in public relations, and is a trusted advisor to clients in a variety of industries. She specializes in strategic communications, reputation management, crisis communications and issues management. She has helped clients communicate effectively during high-stake situations, including environmental incidents, sudden leadership changes, accusations of unethical and criminal behavior, labor disputes, medical malpractice, data breaches and product recalls.

Paynter currently serves on the Board of Directors of JumpStart, as the public representative on the Board of Directors of the Federal Bar Association-Northern District of Ohio Chapter, and on the Marketing Committee of the Beck Center for the Arts. She is a 2013 graduate of Leadership Cleveland. She has served as president of both the Cleveland and Akron Chapters of PRSA, and is a member of PRSA’s Counselors Academy.

Her work has been recognized with numerous awards, including two PRSA Silver Anvils, the industry’s highest honor, and a “Best of Show” Cleveland Rocks Award from the Cleveland Chapter of PRSA. A graduate of the University of Missouri, she began her career as a newspaper reporter.

Election to the College, which was created in 1989 as part of an initiative focused on the future of public relations, is considered the pinnacle of a professional’s career. Fellows are seen throughout PRSA and the profession serving in Chapter, District, Section and National leadership positions, mentoring students and professionals, and teaching and engaging in professional practice.

To qualify for admittance into the College of Fellows, the public relations practitioner or educator must have at least 20 years of experience, hold the Accredited in Public Relations (APR) credential, and have demonstrated exceptional capability and accomplishment in the practice or teaching of public relations. Fewer than 2 percent of PRSA members are accepted into the College of Fellows.

——————–

About the Public Relations Society of America
PRSA is the nation’s largest professional organization serving the communications community. The organization’s mission is to make communications professionals smarter, better prepared and more connected through all stages of their career. PRSA achieves this by offering its members thought leadership and innovative lifelong learning opportunities to help them develop new skills, enhance their credibility and connect with a strong network of professionals. The organization sets the standards of professional excellence and ethical conduct for the public relations industry. PRSA collectively represents more than 30,000 members consisting of communications professionals, spanning every industry sector nationwide, and college and university students who encompass the Public Relations Student Society of America (PRSSA). Learn more about PRSA at www.prsa.org.

###

Making the Case for Transparency

“Rather than protecting students, the University appears to be protecting an employee charged with sexual misconduct. Not surprisingly, that does not sit well with students who filed complaints.”

This headline recently caught my eye: “University will sue its own student newspaper for reporting on sexual assault case.” Really? I was intrigued because I’ve helped quite a few schools share news about a staff member accused of sexual misconduct. These are difficult cases, due in part to the tricky balance between revealing enough information to protect students, while respecting the rights of employees accused of behavior that could destroy their lives.

It turns out the University of Kentucky (UK) is suing the independent student newspaper, the Kentucky Kernel, to avoid releasing documents related to an associate professor, James Harwood, who resigned after an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment and assault. The Kernel requested both the resignation agreement and the school’s investigative documents. When UK declined to provide the records, the newspaper appealed to the Kentucky Attorney General’s office, citing the Commonwealth’s open records law. According to news reports, the Attorney General ordered UK to release the documents with any identifying information redacted. UK still refused, citing privacy concerns, and is appealing the Attorney General’s decision.

Meanwhile, the student newspaper obtained the documents through other sources and published articles detailing charges filed against Harwood by the Office of Institutional Equity and Equal Opportunity: two counts of sexual assault and two counts of sexual harassment. Harwood resigned before a disciplinary hearing was held.

I don’t pretend to know whether the University will win its appeal but it has already lost in the Court of Public Opinion by picking a fight with its own student journalists and by not presenting a reasonable justification for withholding the documents. In his statement, University President Eli Capilouto says that, “in a handful of very specific cases, we are faced with the decision of whether transparency is more important than the need to protect the privacy and dignity of individual members of our community. It is not.”

He goes on to justify the decision by citing irrelevant examples – patient information, which is legally protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and student information, which is legally protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). He also cites the importance of protecting the privacy of victims of violence, but in this case the Attorney General allowed for redacting identifying information.

Rather than protecting students, the University appears to be protecting an employee charged with sexual misconduct. Not surprisingly, that does not sit well with students who filed complaints. They want the allegations made public so Harwood can’t simply continue his behavior at another university. That’s the dilemma for any organization faced with this choice. Protecting someone who is charged with misconduct gives the appearance of guilt by association. In the Court of Public Opinion, only those who have something to hide will cover up for an abuser.

UK is home to the Scripps Howard First Amendment Center, whose mission is “to promote understanding of the First Amendment among citizens of Kentucky, to advocate for First Amendment rights in the Commonwealth and nationally, and to produce internationally recognized scholarship concerning the First Amendment and its related freedoms.” Perhaps the University’s president should pay them a visit.

Meanwhile, the Kentucky Kernel is a finalist for the Pacemaker Award, presented each year for outstanding collegiate journalism by the Associated Collegiate Press. My journalism degree is from the University of Missouri but, this year, I hope UK student journalists take home the prize.

Identifying Villains in the Panama Papers Line-Up

A lot has been and will be written about the 11 million documents leaked from Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca, as journalists all over the world comb through a massive amount of information. So far, news accounts have focused on high-profile leaders from Russia, China, Argentina, Pakistan, Ukraine, Syria and Saudi Arabia, among others. The prime minister of Iceland resigned after news broke that his wife had millions of dollars in offshore accounts.

The law firm, Mossack Fonseca, posted a statement and FAQ about the situation on its website, addressing what it calls the media’s “inaccurate view of the services we provide.” The statements clarify exactly how the law firm advises its clients and how its activities are regulated. They explain the difference between “tax avoidance” and “tax evasion” and the firm’s responsibility to report unlawful activity to the authorities.

“For 40 years, Mossack Fonseca has operated beyond reproach in our home country and other jurisdictions where we have operations,” the statement says.

But, from my perspective, an even bigger issue for the law firm’s long-term survival is how this information was leaked in the first place. A data breach has to be the biggest reputational risk for anyone responsible for safeguarding sensitive client information. No one has yet explained how a German newspaper got its hands on the documents, except that the original source was Mossack Fonseca. Yet, the law firm’s statement contains no apology or expression of concern for the clients whose confidential information is now public.

Relationships with attorneys and other advisors are based on trust. This leak shatters that bond of trust. How will the firm survive such an egregious breach? Other clients whose information has not yet been reported must be looking over their shoulders, wondering if – when? – reporters will be calling, ready to plaster their confidential information across the internet. How could the attorneys at Mossack Fonseca possibly reassure them? If I’m a client, I’m quickly looking for a new attorney.

So who’s the villain – the clients who followed their attorneys’ advice or the law firm? If I was giving crisis communications advice to the individuals or companies whose information is now public, I’d recommend they point the finger back at the law firm. Let Mossack Fonseca explain both how they advised their clients and how their clients’ confidential information was leaked to the media. Sure, they should deny wrongdoing if, in fact, they have done nothing wrong. But since the media’s always looking for a villain, I’d make sure they know exactly where to look.

Lessons from Hollywood – and The Boston Globe

I’m not going to predict which of the eight movies nominated for Best Picture will win the Oscar; in fact, I haven’t seen all of them yet. But I can enthusiastically recommend “Spotlight” for any executive or organization worried about media scrutiny.

“Spotlight” tells the compelling story of the Boston Globe’s investigative team that revealed a systematic cover-up of sex abuse by Catholic priests. The Globe’s reporting initially focused on allegations against John Geoghan, a defrocked priest accused of molesting more than 80 boys. (Geoghan has since died in prison.) As the story unfolds, we see the investigation spread far beyond a single priest to a scandal engulfing Cardinal Bernard Law, who eventually resigned from the archdiocese and was reassigned to the Vatican. Just before the “Spotlight” credits roll, we watch as multiple screens list countless other cities where major abuse scandals were also uncovered.

I’ve seen a lot of journalism movies over the years but I can’t recall another as realistic as “Spotlight” since “All the President’s Men,” which 40 years ago told the story of how two reporters from the Washington Post uncovered the Watergate scandal that eventually led to President Richard Nixon’s resignation.

Fortunately, most organizations will never face the level of media scrutiny highlighted in these two films. Unfortunately, journalism as a profession has changed significantly in the short time since 2002, when the Globe won the Pulitzer Prize for the story behind this movie. Local newspapers no longer have the resources to support full-time investigative teams that spend months – or even years – producing these kinds of stories.

But many insights still apply. For example:

Reporters do their research and build their stories before approaching the targeted organization for comment. If you are the target, it’s very difficult to reshape the story at that point. That’s why it’s so important, when something bad happens, to be proactive and tell your stakeholders directly before they learn about it in the media. If you wait, the story will be framed for you and you’ll be the Villain.
Whatever good you do in the community is not a sufficient defense against bad behavior. In “Spotlight,” Cardinal Law tries to convince the Globe’s editor that the newspaper should not embarrass the Church. “I find that the city flourishes when its great institutions work together,” he says. The editor responds that a good newspaper has to be independent to perform its function. And every good journalist believes that. The Globe was not dissuaded in the least by Law’s objections.

To me, one of the most interesting dynamics in the film was the role of the editor, new to Boston and viewing the potential story differently than anyone with a history at the paper. He asks why there hasn’t been more coverage of the Geoghan case when it appears the priest abused 80 children and a lawyer claims to have proof that Cardinal Law knew about it. Other staffers are stunned that the new editor wants to take on the Catholic Church.

That’s perhaps the most valuable lesson of the movie. Sometimes we are so close to a situation that it takes someone from the outside to see it clearly. I have often found this to be true for those in leadership roles. An outside perspective can inform difficult decisions and prevent missteps, especially in communications. Those can be difficult conversations, but leaders benefit from “truth tellers” who are not afraid to offer another point of view.

As a Catholic, I found “Spotlight” very troubling – even though I already knew the story and have helped numerous organizations dealing with abuse cases. As a former journalist, I found “Spotlight” inspiring because of the revelations that came from good, solid reporting. And as a crisis communications consultant, I found “Spotlight” affirming.

More Lessons from the Volkswagen Cheating Scandal

Volkswagen is finally reaching out to its customers with a “goodwill package” for those who own cars equipped with the software designed to cheat emissions tests. The package, outlined in full-page newspaper ads, includes a $500 gift card, another $500 card that can be redeemed at Volkswagen dealerships, and three years’ worth of free roadside assistance. They still haven’t said how they’ll fix the emissions problem so they’re hoping this offer will buy time with customers stuck driving cars with significantly lower resale value that continue to violate emissions standards.

Many VW customers and dealers must be wondering why it took the company two months simply to apologize and ask for patience. Meanwhile, the news continues to get worse, involving many more vehicles in both the United States and Europe.

The latest revelations about problems in Europe came from a whistleblower – a company engineer who, according to news reports, alleged that employees manipulated tests for carbon dioxide emissions and fuel economy on diesel- and gasoline-fueled cars. The New York Times reported that internal investigations have been hampered by employees’ “ingrained fear of delivering bad news to superiors.”

In response, Volkswagen is offering an amnesty program for workers covered by collective bargaining agreements. (The offer does not include top management.) Of course, the company can’t protect employees from possible criminal charges, but they are promising that employees who come forward with information by the end of November will not be fired or face damage claims.

While this is unusual, it may be the only way Volkswagen can overcome a culture of secrecy and obtain the information it needs. We’ve seen this in other crisis situations, where employees knew of significant problems but did not come forward out of fear they would lose their jobs or face other repercussions. This meant top management was blind-sided by problems it might have been able to address.

Every senior executive should be concerned about a company culture that discourages employees at all levels from reporting problems. Frankly, the more layers of management a company has, the less likely it is that concerns will make their way to the top.

That’s why it’s so important for company leaders to regularly leave the executive suite and talk with hourly employees. That can take the form of periodic plant visits, town hall meetings, or random invitations for groups of employees to have coffee with the CEO. It’s also important to clearly articulate a process for employees to report concerns to risk management, compliance, human resources, or whatever department is appropriate within your organization. Anonymous reporting should always be an option, whether that’s by using old-fashioned suggestion boxes, a hotline or online channels.

Then, management must make a commitment to determine whether the concerns raised have any legitimacy. If employees don’t believe their concerns are taken seriously, they will stop voicing them.

You can’t fix a problem unless you’re aware of it. Now is a good time to remember Ben Franklin’s admonition, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Crisis communications: Still waiting to hear from Mizzou

I’m a proud Mizzou alumna but I am not so proud of my alma mater this week. The fall semester at the University of Missouri has been a tumultuous one, with protests and rallies over everything from health care for graduate students to incidents of racism on campus. As a result, the university president and chancellor of the flagship campus in Columbia both resigned yesterday. It became almost impossible for the two men to remain in leadership after a graduate student began a hunger strike and football players said they would boycott games until the president resigned. Those were just the highlights that grabbed national headlines. Many – faculty, students and alumni – publicly expressed their deep concern about the situation on campus, especially for students of color, and the lack of communication from the administration.

One academic department summed up the feelings of many in a statement of support for Jonathan Butler, the graduate student who began the hunger strike: “The ELPA faculty would like to share our disappointment and grief related to a long history of racism, prejudice, and discrimination at MU and the inadequate response of campus leadership to an ongoing culture that permits these incidents to thrive…”

As both an alum and a crisis communications expert, I’ve followed the coverage with interest. I watched the YouTube video of the president remaining in his car while student protestors blocked its path during the homecoming parade. I read articles in the student newspaper (www.themaneater.com) and posts from students that fellow alumni shared on social media. Where was the communication from the university? Even after the president and chancellor resigned, it took much too long for the university to post a release on its website. As of this writing, the university has yet to post updates on Facebook or Twitter, or send anything to my email inbox, where I frequently receive fundraising requests. In fact, I’ve received two emails within the past week – one from the School of Journalism, the other from the Alumni Association. Neither mentioned the incidents I’ve been reading about in The New York Times.

By not communicating directly with its most critical stakeholders, the university missed an important opportunity to solidify those relationships. Perhaps they hoped we wouldn’t hear about the controversy. That’s very naïve in these days of social media and online access to information. Unfortunately, without any communication from the university, we’re left to draw our own conclusions based on media coverage, which was alarming. Keep in mind that Mizzou has a renowned journalism program so there is no shortage of ambitious student reporters on campus, posting information that is easily accessible to alumni, donors, prospective students and their families.

It’s a huge mistake in a crisis to remain silent and allow key stakeholders to hear bad news only from the media. The good news is that, with new leadership, the university has an opportunity to take meaningful steps to change the culture on campus. Let’s hope they also improve communications – not just with those on campus but with all of us who care about Mizzou.

Enhance your company’s reputation: Five tips to humanize social media content

“People who follow corporate social media accounts that present a human voice are more likely to have a positive view of the company,” according to a recent study conducted by researchers at VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and published in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. The study goes on to say a human voice translates into a better corporate reputation.

“People who follow corporate social media accounts that present a human voice are more likely to have a positive view of the company,” according to a recent study conducted by researchers at VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and published in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. The study goes on to say a human voice translates into a better corporate reputation.

As consumers, we know that to be true. Many of us have tried to interact with a company and encountered what felt like a robot spewing canned messages. This is not only frustrating but can actually cause a social media crisis. I recall reading a company’s Facebook page when the response to every complaint was exactly the same. They apparently had turned on “auto reply” and let it crank out automated messages which then went viral.

But change hats from consumer to PR professional and suddenly it’s not so easy. Especially when something bad happens, many companies hold a tight rein on their communications team, allowing them to only use “approved” messages. That leaves those in charge of social media with very little latitude in what they can and can’t say.

And watch out if the messages have gone through multiple layers of editing and approval! That often means “human vocabulary” has been translated into “business vocabulary” that means nothing outside the walls of corporate offices.

Here’s some advice on how speak like a “human” when you craft corporate messages for social media:

Don’t get comfortable with anonymity. Remember, anonymous comments are written by a person and, even if that person posts a nasty comment, never respond in kind. Take a deep breath, count to 100, get up and walk around – anything to calm down before you respond.
Be friendly but not condescending. Try to smile while you read it out loud. If you feel a frown coming on, rewrite it with a friendlier tone. But don’t try to be funny. Failed attempts at humor can be easily misinterpreted.
Use first or second person (I, you, we) and active voice. You wouldn’t tell your neighbor, “The flower bed was dug up by my dog.” Rather, you’d say, “My dog dug up the flower bed.” (And you’d probably add, “I’m sorry about your flowers.”)
Read it out loud. Is the tone conversational? For example, don’t say “utilize” when you mean “use” or “reside” instead of “live.” Contractions are fine on social platforms (I’m, you’re, can’t, won’t). Keep it simple.
Don’t be afraid to say, “I’m sorry” but make sure your apologies are genuine. Be careful not to blame others or even to imply blame. Don’t “hedge” with phrases like, “I’m sorry if you were offended” or “I’m sorry if you liked those flowers.” That implies the other person is at fault or perhaps too sensitive.

These same tips work for media interviews and presentations. Saying what you mean in clear, concise sentences can go a long way toward humanizing your company.

Amazon vs. The New York Times, Rounds Two, Three and Four

First, the New York Times published an article exposing a brutal workplace culture at Amazon. Then, Amazon’s Senior Vice President Jay Carney pushed back with a blog post on Medium.com, accusing the Times of sloppy journalism. Another round ensued. Times’ Editor-in-chief Dean Baquet defended the reporting in a lengthy blog post, also on Medium.com, and Carney responded again.

First, the New York Times published an article exposing a brutal workplace culture at Amazon. Then, Amazon’s Senior Vice President Jay Carney pushed back with a blog post on Medium.com, accusing the Times of sloppy journalism. Another round ensued. Times’ Editor-in-chief Dean Baquet defended the reporting in a lengthy blog post, also on Medium.com, and Carney responded again.

I’m not a fan of Amazon’s response for a number of reasons – primarily, that Carney renewed interest in an article published more than two months ago. Carney also revealed what most companies would consider private personnel information about former employees quoted in the article. For example, he argued that a primary source in the story is not credible because “an investigation revealed he had attempted to defraud vendors and conceal it by falsifying business records. When confronted with the evidence, he admitted it and resigned immediately.”

When something goes wrong – especially if the media exposes an employee or former employee’s misconduct – organizations may be tempted to reveal damaging information about that individual. Transparency is usually a good policy, but once that bridge is crossed with the media, an organization can never again insist that type of information is protected. In fact, in Amazon’s case, some have suggested Carney and company released this information to intimidate other employees – which, of course, reinforces the original narrative of a bullying culture depicted by the Times.

In spite of concerns about what Carney wrote, it’s a smart strategy to counter the Times on a public forum. We always advise clients to find ways to “go around the media” in a crisis and speak directly to critical stakeholders whether through emails and letters or social media platforms, including blog posts. It’s a good way to protect your reputation and effectively tell your organization’s side of the story without the media filter.

A Crisis of Deception at Volkswagen

Volkswagen is struggling to respond after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) accused the company of installing “defeat device” software on its diesel-powered vehicles to cheat emissions tests. Essentially, EPA says the cars were programmed to turn on emissions equipment during tests, then turn the equipment back off when the testing was complete. As a result, although the cars performed better on the road, they produced as much as 40 times the allowed amount of pollutants. Latest reports say 11 million diesel cars worldwide are equipped with the software used to cheat on U.S. emissions tests.

Make no mistake, this is a self-inflicted crisis. Someone within Volkswagen decided to cheat so they could sell more cars. We don’t know yet who authorized this or even who knew about it. Before resigning, CEO Martin Winterkorn said they will get to the bottom of this and “rebuild trust,” but how reassuring is that coming from a CEO whose role in the scandal is clouded with suspicion?

Let’s face it, the company was caught red-handed violating its brand promise. Many consumers drive small cars like VWs because they want to minimize the environmental impact. Now, consumers feel doubly deceived. They worry about the environmental damage they’ve caused and about the resale value of their cars. Their anger is all over social media platforms.

It will take a while to comprehend the full impact of this crisis but it’s already being compared to the BP oil spill. The lawsuits started almost immediately, with a Seattle firm filing for class-action status within hours of EPA’s announcement. The stock price fell precipitously and the CEO resigned.

Winterkorn apologized for breaking “the trust of our customers and the public.” He unfortunately said they will “reverse the damage this has caused,” but of course they can’t reverse the environmental damage. Michael Horn, chief executive of the Volkswagen Group of America, was more direct. “Our company was dishonest, with the EPA and the California Air Resources board, and with all of you and in my German words, we have totally screwed up.” But apologies are not enough.

A good reputation is built by first doing the right thing. Too many crises can be traced to people and companies claiming to be something they’re not. When the truth comes out, their apologies fall on deaf ears because they have lost credibility.

Volkswagen can’t recover from this self-inflicted damage by saying the right thing. They have to actually do the right thing.