Author: Barbara Paynter

Barbara Paynter is president of Paynter Communications LLC, a Cleveland-based public relations firm specializing in strategic communications, reputation management, crisis communications and issues management. Paynter Communications also provides litigation support and media relations services to its clients.

Can Amazon Defend its Reputation in Light of Powerful Personal Stories?

A weekend New York Times article about the demanding work environment at Amazon has sparked significant conversation in both traditional and social media, not to mention those in “real world” offices everywhere. Many have commented on the impact of “purposeful Darwinism” in which the only survivors are those willing to work incredibly long hours and sacrifice their personal lives for the company’s increasingly ambitious goals.

It’s the individual stories, mostly anonymous, that resonate – a woman with breast cancer and another who gave birth to a stillborn child, then were placed on “performance improvement plans” for not “giving their all” to the company. Parents of young children learned that colleagues had sent negative feedback to their bosses because they didn’t consistently put in the same long hours. Another former employee “cut back working on nights and weekends” to help care for a dying parent, then was told she was “a problem” because she wanted to transfer to a job with less pressure.

In response, Amazon Founder and CEO Jeff Bezos claimed the article painted an unfair picture of his company. But his denial felt like too little too late. His first mistake was declining to be interviewed for the story. Even more importantly, he did not have a good counter to the portrayal of what he described as “a soulless, dystopian workplace.”

How can an organization protect its reputation when anonymous employees or former employees make damaging claims?

First, of course, you have to do the right thing. But even when you do everything right, someone can still make accusations. That’s when it’s helpful to be able to point to policies in place to prevent those bad things from happening. How different would the story have been if Bezos had been able to tell the New York Times about specific policies? What if he had said, “We allow employees to take up to four weeks of paid leave for personal or family health reasons…” or “We have a procedure in place for any employee to appeal an unfavorable performance review and here’s how that works.”

Instead, Bezos sent a memo to employees after the story appeared asking them to contact him directly if they knew of “stories like those reported.” If Amazon’s culture is anything like what’s portrayed in the article, I wouldn’t expect a flood of emails.

Meanwhile, while consumers will continue to shop at Amazon, how many talented job seekers will line up to work there in the future?

‘All In’

I wrote an earlier blog post about Derek Jeter’s website, “The Players Tribune,” that allows athletes to communicate directly with fans, thereby going around the media filter. Earlier today, Kevin Love used this platform to announce his decision to remain in Cleveland, much to the delight of Cavaliers fans.

His message was simple and direct: “I’m going back to Cleveland.”

The lesson for organization is this: If you want your message to be heard and not distorted, communicate directly with those who matter most. That’s what Kevin Love did today, dispelling rumors created by earlier media reports that had him meeting with the Los Angeles Lakers. Thankfully, there’s no doubt now. After the team’s great performance in the playoffs this year with Love injured in the Boston series and Kyrie Irving injured in game one of the NBA finals, we can’t wait for next year.

Here’s the post:

http://www.theplayerstribune.com/kevin-love-cavaliers-unfinished-business/

Privacy or Transparency?

We preach transparency to our clients (“Tell the truth. Tell it first. Tell it all.”) – not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because it works to help protect your reputation in a crisis. But in some situations, you have to be very careful about what you say, especially when issues of privacy are involved.

Certainly, you must protect privacy in some situations. It’s a violation of HIPAA laws for healthcare providers to release private health information without patients’ permission, and it’s a violation of FERPA for educational institutions to release private information about their students without their permission.

But what about your employees? Companies often say that personnel information is confidential, but that’s a matter of policy, not necessarily of law. One of the trickiest situations arises when an employee is accused of criminal behavior. For example, we have worked with numerous schools and social service agencies when an employee is accused of sexual misconduct with a minor. Our clients invariably struggle with the question of whether to release the name of the employee versus protecting his/her privacy.

We believe it’s important to protect privacy and that everyone deserves fair treatment in the criminal justice system. The problem is that you may be very concerned about the employee’s behavior even if authorities don’t have enough evidence to pursue a criminal case. Or the statute of limitations may have expired. You may decide to terminate the employee and find yourself criticized for suddenly firing a long-time employee without explanation. Should you be transparent and tell the truth? If you don’t, what if the truth comes out?

Every case is different but, in general, it’s important to take the side of the victims. Think about what will happen if you don’t reveal an accused employee’s name – at least internally. Are your other employees at risk? And if you fire the employee, are you just passing the problem along to his/her next employer, potentially placing others at risk?

If the answer is yes, then difficult as it may be, transparency is the right approach.

Why Did Starbucks Think “Race Together” Was a Good Idea?

In mid-March, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz announced an initiative that would encourage baristas to engage customers in conversations about race. By writing “Race Together” or placing “Race Together” stickers on customers’ cups, Starbucks would lead the country into meaningful conversation and help to heal racial divisions.

The backlash on social media was both immediate and fierce. Twitter lit up with comments about Starbucks’ disproportionately white male leadership team and questioned why there are no Starbucks in places like Ferguson, Mo., where police fatally shot an unarmed black man last summer. Things got so ugly that the senior vice president of global communications blocked negative comments on his Twitter account – and, in response, people pointed out the hypocrisy of expecting 20-somethings to talk about something he couldn’t deal with.

Just one week after the initiative began, Schultz told baristas they would no longer be asked to write “Race Together” or place stickers on customers’ cups. Somewhat disingenuously, Starbucks said they were not reacting to the backlash, but following a schedule to end this phase.

Why would Starbucks think this was a good idea? Race has always been a divisive topic in America, difficult to talk about even among close friends. Why would anyone presume that a customer who comes into your shop for a cup of coffee – perhaps to check email, visit with a friend or simply relax – cares what your employees think about race? Even more, when customers stop for coffee on the way to work, it’s completely insensitive to expect engagement on ANY topic, let alone one so difficult.

But this went beyond not understanding its customers. The company’s tone-deaf communications suggest their CEO is doing something courageous. Remember, not all that long ago, brave people in this country were blasted with fire hoses, brutally beaten and killed for speaking out about civil rights. Now Starbucks says “It began with one voice” – its CEO’s voice. That is so wrong. It ignores history. It dismisses true courage. And it shows a lack of appreciation for those who are doing the hard work to resolve these issues.

If Schultz actually wants to contribute to the conversation on race, he should spend serious time in minority communities, listening to the disenfranchised, to church and community leaders. He should ask them how he can help. He should offer support to community organizations that are already working to improve race relations.

Starbucks could also have positioned itself as convener, prompting customers to discuss tough issues with each other rather than promoting forced and awkward small talk with employees. Difficult conversations have taken place over coffee for decades. But the next time I buy Starbucks, I’d prefer prompt and friendly service to a conversation with a barista on such a complex issue.

When is an apology not enough?

Earlier this week, Alex Rodriguez issued a handwritten apology to Yankees fans for “mistakes that led to my suspension for the 2014 season.” This, of course, comes after A-Rod lied for years about using performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs), attacked those who claimed otherwise, and filed lawsuits against his own team physician, a New York hospital, Major League Baseball and Commissioner Bud Selig. His aggressive tactics did not endear him to fans any more than his inability to get clutch hits during recent post-season play.

A-Rod’s “apology” comes as pitchers and catchers report for spring training and he looks to return to Yankee Stadium. At 39 years old, and after being suspended all last season, most baseball fans are skeptical and many Yankee fans wish he would just go away. But the Yankees still owe him $61 million on a 10-year, $275 million contract.

Should we be relieved that, finally, after all these years, A-Rod says he’s sorry? Will fans forgive and move on? Not a chance – and here’s why:

  1. The apology is too little too late. It’s hard to forgive someone who has lied for years and attacked others when they called him on it. And, once again, he can’t resist playing the “Victim” card by pointing out that he served the longest suspension in league history. A-Rod is not a Victim and his attempts to claim that role negate his efforts to apologize.
  2. While he says he “takes full responsibility” for his “mistakes,” he doesn’t even say what those mistakes are. Is he sorry he got caught or that he used PEDs? That he sued those who tried to help him? Or even that he was suspended last season?
  3. He says he wants to “put this chapter behind me and play some ball” – and the implication here is that fans should, too. But it’s not that easy. Fans had great expectations of A-Rod, reflected in a contract that at one time made him the highest-paid player in the game. Fans who were let down year after year are not likely to forgive and cheer his return.

An apology is absolutely appropriate – and essential – when you do something wrong. But that apology has to be timely, it has to be genuine, and it has to include a commitment to fixing whatever it was you did wrong.

When baseball season finally opens (and it can’t come soon enough!), the Yankees will likely start Chase Headley at third base, while a player with a very expensive contract and a terrible reputation watches from the dugout.

Six Steps to Building a Good Reputation

There’s a lot of chatter on talk shows and social media about reputation – mostly when something goes wrong. Most recently, the focus is on Patriots Coach Bill Belichick since news broke of deflated footballs in the AFC title game. This isn’t the first time for Belichick, and he can’t exactly draw from a reservoir of goodwill among fans of other teams.

Before those inevitable challenges occur in your organization, we recommend taking steps to build a solid reputation so that your employees, customers – and maybe even the public – will give you the benefit of the doubt when bad news breaks.

A company’s reputation is one of its greatest assets. Even though it may not show up on your balance sheet, you’ll definitely notice a shift in the bottom line if something happens to seriously damage your reputation – and the shift will not be in the right direction.

Your reputation is a reflection what other people say about you. Their perceptions can be greatly influenced by the small things – how people answer the phones at your call center, how visitors are greeted when they walk in the door, how clean your facilities are and what people say about you on Facebook, Twitter and Yelp.

In the simplest terms, a good reputation is built by doing the right thing. The “building blocks” of that foundation include:

  1. A commitment to quality – quality products, quality service, quality people.
  2. A commitment to innovation. Customers are inclined to trust companies that consistently introduce new products and adapt to the changing marketplace.
  3. A commitment to safety – making sure your employees have the proper training and the proper equipment to do their jobs safely, and making sure your facilities are safe for visitors.
  4. A commitment to sustainable practices – not just respecting the environment, although that’s important, but also choosing long-term viability over short-term profits.
  5. A commitment to your community. It’s important to take your neighbors’ concerns seriously because, ultimately, companies operate with the consent of their communities.
  6. A commitment to transparency within your organization so that, if employees see something wrong, they will speak up.

Good marketing and public relations are designed to build positive impressions and, by reaching enough people with strong marketing messages, you’ve taken the first step. But, because people make decisions based on trust, marketing and public relations aren’t enough if you don’t do the other things. Whether customers and visitors have a good experience will determine whether they return and recommend your company to family and friends, or whether they post negative comments online.

You can build up a reservoir of goodwill by doing the right thing, and that goodwill can be invaluable if something bad does happen.

Eight Lessons from the Top Media Crises of the Year

  1. Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappeared in March 2014, while flying from Malaysia to China, with 12 Malaysian crew members and 227 passengers from 15 nations aboard.Lessons learned: Tell the truth and tell what you know when you know it. Communications were fraught with confusion and contradictions. The government didn’t release data and searchers were in the wrong location for days. In any crisis, but especially in matters of life and death, it’s important to provide accurate information so that you are a trusted, credible source.
  1. Texas Presbyterian Hospital diagnosed the first U.S. case of Ebola after Thomas Duncan showed up in the emergency department. Duncan is at first misdiagnosed and sent home, then admitted two days later. Two nurses are later diagnosed with Ebola.Lessons learned: When lives are at stake, you must communicate as quickly and as transparently as possible, and provide clear guidance on what to do. And, if something goes wrong, you must apologize and reassure your stakeholders that you are taking steps to make sure it doesn’t happen again. It took much too long (11 days) for a hospital spokesperson to apologize. Let’s hope the hospital can recover its reputation just as the two nurses recovered from Ebola.
  1. Target’s data breach occurred during the 2013 holiday shopping season – affecting 40 million customers – and the aftermath continues. Target apparently did not take action when it received alerts from its security system before the data was stolen. Both the chief information officer and CEO later resigned.Lessons learned: Tell it first. No one wants to share bad news, but Target didn’t tell its customers until after a blogger revealed the breach weeks later. Had Target informed its customers, as Home Depot did under similar circumstances, they might have preserved customer loyalty. Home Depot actually had a larger breach but communicated much more effectively, focusing on the “fix” and steps it was taking to protect its customers.
  1. Ed FitzGerald tried to portray himself as a “victim” when news reports reveal the Democratic candidate for governor of Ohio was in a car with another woman in the middle of the night and, worse yet, drove without a valid driver’s license for decades.Lessons learned: FitzGerald should have accepted responsibility and apologized. Instead, he sent an email saying his family was focused on his son’s health issues, not on “gutter politics.” (A diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma had previously been “off limits” during the campaign.) FitzGerald’s efforts to portray himself as a “victim” made a bad situation even worse. Using a child’s illness to distract from your own wrongdoing is offensive to anyone smart enough to see through the tactic.
  1. The NFL’s botched handling of domestic violence cases, especially that of Ravens running back Ray Rice. To recap, after TMZ released video of Ray Rice dragging his unconscious fiancé (now his wife) out of an elevator, Rice was suspended for two games. At a news conference, his wife apologized for her part – and the Ravens tweeted HER apology! Eventually, we saw the videotape of Rice punching his wife inside the elevator and the NFL suspended Rice indefinitely – a decision that is now on appeal.Lessons learned: Never blame the victim. In this case, the only reason for the NFL to discipline Rice before reviewing the videotape from inside the elevator was to keep a talented player on the field. They showed more concern for winning a football game than they showed for a victim of domestic violence – forgetting, along the way, their female fan base and everyone else who reacts with horror to a 200-pound athlete assaulting a female.
  1. Colleges and universities struggle to address sexual violence on campus in response to numerous media reports and the Department of Education’s investigations for possible Title IX violations. Big-name schools from throughout the country – most recently the University of Virginia – have been spotlighted in news reports and most college administrations have struggled to respond.Lessons learned: First, do the right thing; then you will have a good story to tell. Historically, crimes of sexual violence have been veiled in secrecy. Victims are finally speaking out publicly – and that’s a good thing. Bringing these crimes out of the shadows will encourage other victims to come forward and result in more criminal prosecutions. Colleges and universities must do a better job of dealing with these cases and communicating transparently, rather than counting on victims to remain quiet.
  1. Ferguson, Missouri, has been the site of protests since a police officer fatally shot 18-year-old Michael Brown on August 9. It’s hard to find another case where so much was mishandled – from leaving Brown’s body in the street for several hours, to police showing up at peaceful protests in riot gear, to arresting journalists who were there to report about the unrest. And for some mysterious reason, the prosecutor announced the grand jury’s decision not to indict at 9 p.m., leading to another night of intense rioting, looting, burning and mayhem.Lessons learned: So many lessons to be learned from this case. Certainly, do the right thing. But it’s also important to admit mistakes quickly and apologize. And then say what you will do to correct your mistakes. It took six weeks for Police Chief Thomas Jackson to apologize, and it was at best an awkward apology. Visuals matter, especially in these days of social media. Photos of police blocking the entrance to the Justice Center say far more about access to justice than all the statements from elected officials. I don’t pretend to know why Michael Brown was shot, but a display of compassion and concern might have reduced the anger.
  1. It took GM more than a decade to correct a faulty ignition switch traced to at least 30 deaths and 31 serious injuries. A jostling of or too much weight on the faulty switch caused the ignition to slip from “on” to “accessory” so that air bags and electric steering were deactivated. At last count, more than 30 million cars have been recalled because, apparently, no one within the organization took the problem seriously enough to do something about it.Lessons learned: By all counts, GM’s new CEO Mary Barra has done a good job of communicating. Just as the crisis communications rule book dictates, she has admitted mistakes, apologized and said what she will do to make sure it never happens again. But this is not just about crisis communications; it’s also about changing the culture within GM so that whistleblowers are not ignored. Employees must feel comfortable coming forward when there’s a problem. Barra says she wants GM to be “the most valued automotive company” and the “safest in the industry.” She has a lot of work to do to make that happen.

Lessons from A-Rod’s Shattered Reputation

Remember when Alex Rodriguez was famous for being the highest-paid player in baseball history? The debate wasn’t whether he was a great player; it was whether he deserved more than $250 million a year. Now, instead of heading to Cooperstown, the Yankee shortstop joins the long list of professional athletes who used performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) and lied about it.

We often talk about the “3Vs” frame for crisis stories, named for the three roles the media typically assign – a Villain, a Victim and a Vindicator. For years, A-Rod tried to portray himself as a “Victim,” even though it’s hard to feel sorry for someone who makes that kind of money, regardless of how he performs. Most Yankee fans remember how badly he performed in the 2012 playoffs, and he spent the entire 2014 season suspended for his role in the doping scandal. A-Rod denied the accusations and contested the suspension.

Now we learn that, when the DEA granted immunity from prosecution, Rodriguez admitted to using PEDs. In fact, he told them in January but continued to deny it publicly. A-Rod has been lying for years. His denials were vehement in 2007, when the Mitchell Report came out. Then two years later, he admitted using while playing for the Rangers. Then he went back to denying – and not just denying, but he attacked his accusers. He filed lawsuits against Major League Baseball and Commissioner Bud Selig, accusing them of trying to destroy his reputation and his career. He even sued his doctors and hospital. (He eventually dropped the lawsuits.)

A-Rod didn’t need help destroying his reputation. He did it entirely on his own. He is clearly not a Victim, but a Villain. Villains do not tell the truth and they try to blame others. Just like Lance Armstrong – who denied and attacked, before finally admitting the truth – Rodriguez has absolutely no credibility. He was suspended all last season and is eligible to return in the spring, but many Yankee fans don’t want him back – even though the Yankees still owe millions of dollars on his contract. How’s that for a shattered reputation?

Remember, to preserve your reputation, you must tell the truth.

A Sense of Mistrust in Ferguson

By Barbara Paynter, APR

September 1, 2014

As the Missouri National Guard withdraws from Ferguson, Mo., the thought of quiet in the streets must be welcome news to residents after nearly two weeks of protests and violence following the fatal shooting of an 18-year-old by a police officer. Based on media reports, blogs and social media posts, it will be difficult for community leaders to rebuild trust after nightly stand-offs between protesters and law enforcement. Will residents trust the outcome of the investigation into the shooting? Will the officer be prosecuted? What will happen if he’s cleared?

As crisis communications experts, we are not qualified to analyze how law enforcement should have responded on the ground. But there is no question they could have handled communications much better.

Attorney General Eric Holder referred to a “sense of mistrust” in Ferguson. In our experience, trust is earned by first doing the right thing, and then communicating effectively about what you’re doing. That has not happened in Ferguson. Three serious missteps come to mind:

  • Transparency is the best way to maintain credibility in a crisis: Tell what you know when you know it. For several days after Michael Brown was shot, the police department released very little information. They refused to name the officer out of concern for his safety and they wouldn’t reveal how many times Brown was shot. Lack of information fueled more anger in the community.
  • Six days after the shooting, we finally learned – not from the police, but from a former medical examiner hired by the family – that Brown was shot at least six times. The news contradicted an earlier statement by St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar that Brown was struck by gunfire “more than just a couple (of times) but I don’t think it was many more than that.” We always advise clients not to minimize events or speculate. If Belmar knew how many gunshot wounds the victim suffered, why not release the information rather than sound dismissive? And if he didn’t know, why did he speculate?
  • We’ve heard it many times: Actions speak louder than words. Photos from earlier this week showed officers lined up in front of the Justice Center in St. Louis, surrounded by police tape keeping everyone else out. What message does that send about access to justice? If your words and actions aren’t consistent, no one will believe what you say.

These are just a few of the many crisis communications lessons we can learn from Ferguson.

 

Scenes of Violence at Home

My heart has been heavy all week from watching video and reading news coverage of the clashes between police and residents of Ferguson, Missouri. I grew up in Jefferson City, Mo., and have a lot of family and friends in the St. Louis area. I’m not familiar with Ferguson specifically but I suspect it is not that different from other communities I know – some here in Cleveland, where I’ve lived for 12 years.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has done a terrific job of covering what’s happening and there have been numerous insightful columns written about why it’s happening and why in Ferguson.

It’s the images that are so startling – the juxtaposition of military vehicles and police in riot gear, carrying rifles usually associated with warfare, against a backdrop of men, women and children on the streets of American suburbia. The photos of bewildered children, walking down the street with adults or holding protest signs, made me wonder what lasting impression they will have of police officers.

But there’s more. Members of the community uploaded cell-phone images of Michael Brown’s body lying in the street after the police officer shot him. Journalists uploaded cell-phone images from McDonald’s, where police in riot gear confronted and arrested them. This is not the St. Louis I know and love. How long will this negative impression of one of my favorite cities persist?

It’s a powerful reminder for every organization: If something bad happens, anyone can capture photos and videos that will live forever online. In the blink of an eye, your reputation can be permanently damaged. In these times of instant access to information, you must be prepared before the crisis occurs.

These images are now seared into our memories. When we think of Ferguson, we will think of the riots – just as we associate school shootings with Columbine and a theatre massacre with Aurora. That’s the lasting impact a crisis can have on reputation. How you respond can change the narrative.