Risky PR

“I’ve never seen someone help himself by explaining himself”
- Defamation Attorney Barry Langberg

Two headline stories are creating buzz - and some dire predictions — in the crisis PR field. Last week Baseball player Roger Clemens went on a public relations offensive related to accusations of illegal steroid use, and the San Francisco Zoo went on the offensive related to the mauling death of a young man by an escaped Tiger.

The PR management critique in the Clemens case is that his team was slow to respond to the crisis, and put Clemens in the public eye in an uncontrolled fashion (i.e. appearing on 60 Minutes). The zoo also failed to mount an effective message strategy in the first few weeks of the crisis, and have now landed on a risky blame-the-victim message.

In the case of Clemens, the PR strategy is being widely criticized by industry leaders. First, Clemens waited 24 days before going on the offensive and filing a defamation suit, which caused some to view the lawsuit as more spin than substance. Second, Clemens agreed to an interview on 60 minutes, which resulted in regrettable statements. Third, Clemens held a news conference where he appeared angry and combative.

Defamation lawyer Barry Lanberg criticized the 60 Minutes strategy, commenting that in crisis PR “you shield the person from direct confrontation”.

Crisis PR expert Gene Grabowski said, “I don’t know that we would be advising him to do 60 minutes. That is a very powerful venue, but its high risk. Things can go wrong”.

Crisis management consultant Marina Ein advised, “People who are under the microscope tend to not do themselves favors when they go on the offensive. They’re much better off being brief and allowing others to speak on their behalf.”

Crisis specialist Matt Traub is also critical of the overall effort at crisis management for Clemens, saying, “Unless there’s some evidence clearing him, he’ll be remembered for his transgressions first and his achievements second”.

Anti-zoo extremists

In the midst of a PR campaign by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, a tiger escaped from the San Francisco zoo and mauled a young man to death. The tiger also injured two other zoo guests. About an hour after the Christmas-day incident, the Association’s PR consultant Steve Feldman got briefed on the incident and went to work on a strategy. Within 24 hours the President of the Association had issued a statement and posted information about standards on the website. By New Years a local firm headed by Sam Singer had also been hired to manage a crisis spiraling out of control.

Feldman’s strategy is to take aim at “anti-zoo extremists” who he believes are trying to use the tiger attack as an excuse to attack the zoo industry. Feldman falls back on safety statistics to make his claim. Singer blames the victim. He is working furiously to assert that the tiger was motivated to scale the zoo walls by the victims, who allegedly had teased the tiger with slingshots.

I am dubious that blaming the victim - even if he used a slingshot - will be successful. Common sense tells us that the zoo cages ought to be impossible for animals to overcome, especially dangerous animals like tigers. Anyone who has taken a child to a zoo expects that the cages will be reliable, even if teasing occurs.

Secondly, the zoo industry may be fully entrenched in battles with “anti-zoo extremists”, but the general public is not. I don’t think blaming zoo critics in the aftermath of a mauling will be successful. In fact the story continues to gain steam locally, with some critics calling for the resignation of the Zoo Director, a new audit underway by the city’s Controller, and a demand by city commissioners for a safety report.

Even so, I give Feldman credit for a well-crafted statement in response to the incident. The statement hits the classic elements of a crisis response: a) acknowledge the human element and grief; b) indicate proactive steps, such as submitting a thorough report; c) put the situation in context:

“The entire zoo and aquarium community joins me in expressing sympathy to the family of the guest that lost his life and our deepest hope that the two injured guests will recover.
The San Francisco Zoo is a great zoo, it’s an accredited AZA member in good standing, and it has our support during this difficult time.
AZA mandatory accreditation standards require that the San Francisco Zoo provide a thorough report to its independent Accreditation Commission, which will review it and determine any actions that need to be taken. We will not speculate on what action might be taken until the facts are fully reviewed.
AZA-accredited zoos are safe. Until this incident, there had not been a visitor fatality resulting from an animal escape at an AZA-accredited zoo. AZA mandatory accreditation standards require safety and emergency protocols that go beyond federal, state or local requirements. Regular safety training and annual emergency drills are required by these mandatory accreditation standards.”