What makes people decide whether an apology is worthy of forgiveness? According to an article in yesterday’s Washington Post, there’s a huge body of research that explores this very subject. We are often counseling our clients on how to deal with a crisis and take responsibility for their actions.

There are many factors that lead to whether people are willing to forgive and forget. The article points to one in particular that I found interesting: Is the initial act viewed as intentional or a mistake? The author uses the example of Anthony Weiner and suggests that the reason people wouldn’t forgive his behavior is because it came across as intended. Arnold Schwarzenegger, on the other hand, was able to transcend past harassment allegations by suggesting that he didn’t understand his behavior was perceived as anything other than playful. This was, of course, before his more recent scandals for which he hasn’t been forgiven.

It’s an interesting finding and one that will make me think as we help our clients navigate crisis situations. But I have a hard time thinking of how Anthony Weiner could have sold his sexting controversy as unintentional.

Rupert Murdoch

There are some people who believe the only truly pure news is the weather forecast.

How ironic it is that forecasting the weather used to be more about entertainment than news. Consider that Diane Sawyer was referred to as a “weather bunny” back in the days she worked as a forecaster at a TV station in Kentucky.

With the advent of Doppler radar, forecasting the weather went from iffy suggestion (“you might want to grab your umbrella on the way out the door today”) to life-saving directive (“a Category 5 hurricane will make landfall on the Outer Banks by midnight tonight”).

As media mogul Rupert Murdoch weathers his own storm today, appearing before the British Parliament to defend his tabloids’ alleged illegal tactics, I was again reminded of the current nature of the news, and how it has become more about titillation than information.

Some believe the News of the World scandal is a sad commentary on the failure of corporate leaders to keep a tighter rein on the actions of their employees.  But as a PR person, I am prompted to consider just how low so-called journalists can go in pursuit of the next big headline.

For some, it’s all about the race to the bottom. When did bribing police and hacking personal phone lines become acceptable journalistic practices?  In today’s tough economic times, perhaps these journalists thought their jobs depended on uncovering and reporting – by any means possible – the most salacious and shocking stories. Grieving families of terror victims and murdered children be damned.

Or maybe it’s just always been this way – the muckrakers (in the original sense of the term) vs. the scandal-mongers.

As media continues to morph on a daily basis, many are predicting the death of journalism. Yet there is still cause for optimism. Blogger Lauren Rae Orsini, an unabashedly dedicated young journalist, puts it this way: “I worry that a lot of young journalists have given up because they don’t see the opportunity that still exists, even as the state of the media changes. My story is the reminder that many of us need. Journalism jobs are dead. Journalism opportunities are everywhere.”

She continues, “In 2011, there are so many ways a young woman can use her journalism degree. She simply needs to look outside of the box of ‘traditional’ journalism jobs and not wait for The New York Times to hire her when she can become a fully realized journalist on her own.”

For Orsini, “the tenets of journalism that I learned in school have remained my life philosophy: Be curious. Be honest. Be bold.”

Perhaps she could teach Murdoch and his minions a thing or two.

Seasoned

It seemed everyone wanted to share their POV on the “take this job and shove it” moment. News reports included comment from Slater, the self-proclaimed “bag Nazi,” his ex-wife, passengers on Flight 1052. Even Nancy Grace had an opinion on the dramatic job exit. But I haven’t heard much from JetBlue.  

A post on Blue Tales from August 11 states:

While we can’t discuss the details of what is an ongoing investigation, plenty of others have already formed opinions on the matter. Like, the entire Internet. (The reason we’re not commenting is that we respect the privacy of the individual. People can speak on their own behalf; we won’t do it for them.)

This is understandable. But JetBlue is a company with a strong social media presence. Perhaps the co-tweeters could send messages other than stating they can’t comment on ongoing investigations? Maybe something a little more creative, like: “Our emergency slides are tested regularly” with a link to relevant news coverage?  Though, this is probably easier said than done, as legal issues are undoubtedly at play.

The buzz surrounding the Slater incident is huge. This could be carpe diem moment for JetBlue. The company could embrace the Slater-related publicity and remind the public why JetBlue has hundreds of thousands of brand ambassadors -including great customer service, an engaging online presence, the most leg room in coach, and an outstanding safety record.

In the past, JetBlue has been a company with personality and strong customer interactions. Just because Slater left everyone wondering WTH, JetBlue corporate shouldn’t do the same.

If Toyota did indeed have a plan, it didn’t adhere to the core principles for communicating during a crisis. Once synonymous with safety, Toyota has backed its way into a corner in which company executives are being reactive rather than proactive.

The crisis began with a lack of responsiveness to consumer complaints. In an age where conversations on social media channels can cause irreparable damage to a brand, Toyota drivers first learned about the potential mechanical/safety issues from other irate Toyota owners. From the start, Toyota didn’t take control of the message.

Toyota drivers also seem to be waiting for the other shoe to drop. Just this week, the recall expanded to 436,000 hybrid models including the popular Prius because of a malfunction in the braking system.

So what core communications virtues did company executives ostensibly ignore?

1. Honesty: The company should have publicly acknowledged the situation long before it did. The delayed response caused consumers to believe executives were being dishonest. Even if they didn’t know the extent of the problem they should have communicated potential issues about other Toyota makes and models.
2. Explanation: It took executives too long to offer up an explanation.  And when one was presented it seemed to point fingers at part makers and manufacturers, looking to place blame elsewhere.
3. Apology: Toyota’s CEO,Akio Toyoda, has been widely criticized for not being sincere in his initial apology in late January. He continued to participate in the World Economic Forum in Davos despite the fact that his company was facing the worst crisis in its history. His driving off in an Audi also didn’t inspire confidence in the Toyota brand.
4. Learning: We’ve yet to hear the company’s learnings from this incident and the policies and procedures it has created (or will) to ensure that this never happens again. The company still needs to reassure consumers that future models aren’t impacted.

The company’s handling of this crisis will shape perception of the brand for months and years to come. According to a PRWeek blog, consumer opinion of Toyota has dropped below the Hummer, arguably the most vilified gas-guzzler on the market. Significant damage is already done, but there’s no time like the present to get the brand back on track.

Sounds a touch like a Fox special, but I am referring to an incident that occurred last week when the top human resources executive at media firm Carat inadvertently emailed working drafts of messaging documents to the company’s entire staff. Unfortunately, the documents were developed to communicate information about impending layoffs at the company. There’s been plenty of banter already about whether it is appropriate to develop canned messaging for such a sensitive situation.

Others questioned the positioning intended for clients and whether it was disingenuous. North America CEO Sarah Fay said in an interview with Adweek that she hadn’t even seen the documents before they were sent. What I can’t stop thinking about is what they could have done to prevent something like this from happening in the first place. Whether sensitive news is good or bad, a communications plan – including messaging – is key. It would be naive to think a plan such as theirs isn’t necessary. In similar situations with clients, we’ve found ways to prevent information from leaking prematurely. Of course, no one is perfect. More than anything, this recent email gaffe reminds me we can never be too cautious with the information we receive.