CLARITY STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS
the holding company’s spokesperson: “All employees were notified on November 30 that the company had been sold and that the jobs were eliminated and the vast majority of folks have been hired back.” He also said there was no severance package offered to the 20 fired employees. To bring the story to its sad conclusion, the company closed the plant in August, giving the employees a half-day notice. The holding company’s CEO was quoted in the Rutland Herald as saying, “We’ve tried to dispose of Neo with a buyer, and absent a suitable buyer, we chose to close the company.” That statement shows an appalling lack of sentiment regarding the impact of the decision. The lesson: It may well be that the private equity firm that bought Neo EMS will never do business again in Vermont, and therefore doesn’t care whether people see them as callous and greedy. It may even be part of its corporate strategy to build an image of ruthless efficiency. But for most businesses, expressing caring and regret is not just good for your image and reputation; it’s the absolute truth. If a company — especially a local company — has to scale back its operations by letting people go, there is genuine regret and sadness in almost every case. That needs to be communicated early and often, and if you can afford it, the right thing to do would be to back up your words with action that helps soften the blow. Case #3: Talking out of both sides of your mouth Last December, the Wall Street Journal reported that Chrysler was in deep financial trouble, based on an interview with the company’s CEO, Bob Nardelli. He acknowledged that he had told employees that the company was operationally bankrupt (although not technically bankrupt) in order to create a “sense of urgency” in the workforce. Immediately after the Wall Street Journal ran the story, Chrysler’s PR folks cranked out a statement that was touted as a response to the “inaccurate picture” of Chrysler’s finances portrayed in the media. In it, they noted that the company “is not only meeting, but in many cases exceeding its financial targets heading into 2008.” This is the kind of stuff that ethical PR practitioners won’t do. I’m sure it’s true that Chrysler was indeed meeting and/or exceeding its financial targets at the time, and I’m sure it’s true that Chrysler was “operationally bankrupt,” as the CEO had stated. But the impression we’re left with is that either Chrysler is lying to the public or its employees, or it doesn’t really have a handle on what’s going on. The lesson: When you portray the same situation in widely divergent ways to two different target audiences, you will get burned. In such a situation, your assumption has to be that nobody from one audience is going to talk to anyone in the other audience. When I was a reporter I relied on that assumption being false, and I was never disappointed; people talk all the time about this kind of thing. The truth is the truth no matter who you’re addressing, and if you tell it in a way that makes it sound different to various groups depending on what you think they want to hear, your image and reputation will suffer. Why? Because at its core, misrepresenting the truth is called lying, and there’s no profession that tolerates lying, and no relationship that can thrive in the face of it, especially with customers or employees. Based on these three short case-studies, we’ve learned some basic PR best-practices. From case #1, we learned to be prepared in a crisis so you aren’t caught off-guard. From case #2 we learned that you should be human and caring if you have bad news to announce. And last, we learned that talking out of both sides of your mouth will cause problems for you, especially if the Wall Street Journal is listening.
jamal.kheiry@clarity-stratcomms.com www.clarity-stratcomms.com