This article originally appeared in PR News.
The “one article” crisis. For all the emphasis on bigger crisis situations (a la CrowdStrike), a more common issue companies face – and need to know how to handle – is the prospect of a one-off negative article. Whether it’s fact-based reporting on a real issue, a true hit piece or somewhere in between, many people struggle with how to manage both the initial article and the potential aftermath.
The reality is that not all coverage is going to be positive. Business is complicated and every organization will eventually find itself on the receiving end of a negative piece. It can be frustrating and stressful, but there are several steps you can take to improve the situation, especially if you get a heads-up that an article is coming and have an opportunity to engage with the reporter in advance.
If this is a situation you are facing – or want to plan for – six things I always recommend:
- Get the facts, including the basis for the story and where the information is coming from. If a journalist has very accurate information from a known and highly credible source (or multiple sources), it’s very different than partial or incorrect information with dubious origins. The first step is always finding out everything you can about the article and then cross checking it with people who will know the facts. As you conduct this due diligence, be intellectually honest with yourself and stakeholders about what you find. I’ve had to explain to many people over the years that I can do many things, but I can’t correct facts.
- Understand the timeline you are working on and how far along the journalist is in the process. If you get asked to comment with a very tight deadline, then chances are, the story is already written. Anything you say might be forced to fit into the writer’s existing narrative. This certainly happens, but in most cases, journalists will give you a decent amount of time to engage and be willing to share details on what they are working on. The key is to ask and then either respect, or proactively negotiate, the timeline in a way that works for you and the journalist.
- Remember, there are many different ways to engage. This could be anything from an on-the-record interview to a written statement to conversations on background or even off-the-record. It can also be helpful to pull in credible third parties who can validate facts or support your point of view. It’s easier to make the right call if you have a firm grasp of #1 and #2. It’s also important to think about how statements or information will look in context. For instance, if you provide a super long statement – as many companies do – that statement will almost certainly get edited down or sprinkled throughout the piece. In many cases, it is not helpful to have more commentary in a negative article. At best, it increases the footprint (i.e., length) of the article. At worst, it can look defensive or even increase the surface area for negative counterpoints. It also matters who is engaging and the message that sends. Is it a CEO-level matter? Would a product/technology expert be more appropriate? Is a general spokesperson enough?
- Don’t think about a negative piece as one and done. Part of your strategy needs to be thinking through whether a story is going to drive additional interest. This is where taking the time to get the right perspective and data into the initial piece can set you up for success with follow-on questions. For example, if the initial piece is going to highlight a product issue or delay, but has inaccurate or partial info, making sure this information is corrected (or at least countered) and/or put in context will be critical in responding to follow up questions.
- Consider the employee impact. A negative piece can be alarming for current or even prospective employees. Have this in your mind as you think through how best to engage – how will employees feel about it? That means not only thinking through whether any commentary will ring true but also what type of questions you may get when employees read it. Equipping leaders and managers on how to handle potentially tough questions is important.
- Know when to stop engaging. At a certain point, a negative story is going to be a negative story. Period. Resist the urge to keep providing more commentary or trying to “fix” it…especially if it is rooted in some element of truth. A better path is to prepare to manage follow on interest as best as possible and think about what actions can be taken to shift the narrative moving forward. In many cases, there will be ample opportunity to disprove naysayers with positive news and momentum. And remember, tangible action will always speak louder than words.
Now, what happens if you don’t get a heads-up in advance? Much of this advice holds true if you are dealing with an article that is already published. Especially the importance of getting the facts.
A final comment on “no comment.” This is a default posture for many, but I would urge caution. Certainly, there are times when this is appropriate, particularly when material information or other parties are involved. Same goes for a strategic “could not be reached for comment.” But in most cases, it’s better to engage and own your narrative, lest someone else do it for you.
If your situation feels too challenging or you’re ready to bring in the experts, let’s chat.