In the late ’90s everyone was talking about the Bre-X scandal. Thousands of people who lost fortunes investing in the company’s stock were pointing the legal gun at its chair David Walsh. With a throng of microphones in his face, Walsh’s lawyer, Alan Lenczner, defended his client: “Mr. Walsh had no idea there was no gold at Bre-X. He was duped, just like everybody else.”
In mere seconds, Lenczner ensured his message got out to the public, that is: “My client is no villain, but rather just another victim of the scam.”
His short statement contains the two crucial elements of successful “messaging.” The first is determining what the appropriate message is. The second is knowing who the audience is and ensuring that the audience receives and understands the message.
Whether an executive is messaging to shareholders, stakeholders, clients, employees or to the public through the media, preparation is imperative. Unfortunately, it is very easy to make a mistake. For the untrained messenger, the mistake can be disastrous.
For example, a plane crashes into the ocean killing all 300 people on board. The first news reports suggest the pilot may have made a fatal error. There should only be one message from the airline: “As you know, a full investigation has begun in order for us to be able to find out how and why this tragedy occurred. Our main concern at his moment in time is for the families of all the victims. We are going to do everything we can for those family members right now.”
But what happens if the spokesperson responds to questions about alleged pilot error by saying, “It’s obvious that something went wrong and, indeed, perhaps it was our pilot’s error. We will have to wait to see what the investigation shows.” Here, the airline is putting forward the wrong message — it’s accepting blame, not taking responsibility. Taking responsibility is messaging what the company is doing to investigate and remedy the situation. Accepting blame will have enormous legal and public relations ramifications. It is for this reason that all companies should prepare for crisis communication/messaging. Indeed, even outside the crisis paradigm, knowing what your message is takes a certain amount of planning, but it yields tremendous dividends.
Once it is determined what the proper message is, it is imperative to ensure the message gets out. This involves fully understanding the audience to whom you are messaging, as well as utilizing some well-established messaging techniques.
One such technique is called “bridging.” It involves taking a question you are asked and bridging back to the message you want. For example, after the airline spokesperson states the proper message, a reporter responds with: “We have information that this plane had maintenance problems in the past and your airline was ordered to keep it grounded for safety reasons.” The proper response from the spokesperson using the bridging technique would be: “Right now a full investigation is under way and all issues will be examined thoroughly. The main concern at this moment in time, of course, is for the families of the victims and we are going to do everything we can to help them at this moment.”
The spokesperson responded to the reporter’s allegations but, in essence, said “no comment” without using those words and then bridged back to the message the airline wanted to get out.
This is sometimes referred to as the technique of “staying on message.” While it appears simple, if it is not done properly, it can lead to an absurd exchange and, again, disastrous results. Last year, Toronto mayor Mel Lastman got himself into some hot water, so to speak, during Toronto’s bid for the 2008 Olympics. The mayor made some disparaging remarks about Kenya, when he jokingly told a reporter he did not want to go there in case he ended up in a bowl of soup. The mayor met the media to publicly apologize.
Instead of responding to the many questions such as: “Are you a racist? Will you resign? How could this have ever happened? What do you plan to do now?” The mayor responded over and over again, indeed more than 20 times, with, “I’m sorry for what I did, it was wrong.” By not at least appearing like he was responding to the specific questions, simply staying on message for the mayor produced embarrassing results. Every news story focused on the mayor refusing to respond to questions. His apology was totally lost. The mayor simply went from bad to worse.
These potential problems and pitfalls can happen anytime someone is messaging, even if it is a presentation to shareholders, a lender or the board of directors. Determining what the message is and then ensuring it gets out properly is an essential skill to have in our information-hungry age.
The good news is that it is a skill that can be easily mastered by everyone. The best way to learn the skill quickly is to sit in the “hot seat,” as the person facing tough questions in a media-training session.
The format for most media-training and messaging programs consists of an intensive three- to four-hour session. Videos of people speaking to the media are used to demonstrate the numerous problems that arise and the techniques to avoid them.
The majority of the time is spent doing mock interviews. With the lights on, camera rolling and a scripted scenario, participants are “under fire” for three to five minutes. The line of questioning produces a real world experience with an opportunity to make mistakes and lessons on how to correct them. Some have described it as going on your first roller coaster ride.
The coach will then play back the tape of the interview and the participants will analyse the good and the bad by going through each part of the interview in detail. Each person can do two to three mock interviews, and typically each one is significantly better than the one before.
While some people become more proficient than others, everyone can reach a level of messaging competency with proper training and coaching. But perhaps most importantly, you can then start to use the technique effectively in a proactive manner, rather than being caught off guard reacting to an event.
Lorne Honickman is a litigation lawyer at Toronto-based law firm Goodman and Carr LLP, and heads its media training consulting service. For more than 20 years he was CityTV’s legal specialist and remains active in the media with a weekly talk show on the Toronto station. He may be contacted at [email protected], (416) 595-2303 or visit www.goodmancarr.com.
In mere seconds, Lenczner ensured his message got out to the public, that is: “My client is no villain, but rather just another victim of the scam.”
His short statement contains the two crucial elements of successful “messaging.” The first is determining what the appropriate message is. The second is knowing who the audience is and ensuring that the audience receives and understands the message.
Whether an executive is messaging to shareholders, stakeholders, clients, employees or to the public through the media, preparation is imperative. Unfortunately, it is very easy to make a mistake. For the untrained messenger, the mistake can be disastrous.
For example, a plane crashes into the ocean killing all 300 people on board. The first news reports suggest the pilot may have made a fatal error. There should only be one message from the airline: “As you know, a full investigation has begun in order for us to be able to find out how and why this tragedy occurred. Our main concern at his moment in time is for the families of all the victims. We are going to do everything we can for those family members right now.”
But what happens if the spokesperson responds to questions about alleged pilot error by saying, “It’s obvious that something went wrong and, indeed, perhaps it was our pilot’s error. We will have to wait to see what the investigation shows.” Here, the airline is putting forward the wrong message — it’s accepting blame, not taking responsibility. Taking responsibility is messaging what the company is doing to investigate and remedy the situation. Accepting blame will have enormous legal and public relations ramifications. It is for this reason that all companies should prepare for crisis communication/messaging. Indeed, even outside the crisis paradigm, knowing what your message is takes a certain amount of planning, but it yields tremendous dividends.
Once it is determined what the proper message is, it is imperative to ensure the message gets out. This involves fully understanding the audience to whom you are messaging, as well as utilizing some well-established messaging techniques.
One such technique is called “bridging.” It involves taking a question you are asked and bridging back to the message you want. For example, after the airline spokesperson states the proper message, a reporter responds with: “We have information that this plane had maintenance problems in the past and your airline was ordered to keep it grounded for safety reasons.” The proper response from the spokesperson using the bridging technique would be: “Right now a full investigation is under way and all issues will be examined thoroughly. The main concern at this moment in time, of course, is for the families of the victims and we are going to do everything we can to help them at this moment.”
The spokesperson responded to the reporter’s allegations but, in essence, said “no comment” without using those words and then bridged back to the message the airline wanted to get out.
This is sometimes referred to as the technique of “staying on message.” While it appears simple, if it is not done properly, it can lead to an absurd exchange and, again, disastrous results. Last year, Toronto mayor Mel Lastman got himself into some hot water, so to speak, during Toronto’s bid for the 2008 Olympics. The mayor made some disparaging remarks about Kenya, when he jokingly told a reporter he did not want to go there in case he ended up in a bowl of soup. The mayor met the media to publicly apologize.
Instead of responding to the many questions such as: “Are you a racist? Will you resign? How could this have ever happened? What do you plan to do now?” The mayor responded over and over again, indeed more than 20 times, with, “I’m sorry for what I did, it was wrong.” By not at least appearing like he was responding to the specific questions, simply staying on message for the mayor produced embarrassing results. Every news story focused on the mayor refusing to respond to questions. His apology was totally lost. The mayor simply went from bad to worse.
These potential problems and pitfalls can happen anytime someone is messaging, even if it is a presentation to shareholders, a lender or the board of directors. Determining what the message is and then ensuring it gets out properly is an essential skill to have in our information-hungry age.
The good news is that it is a skill that can be easily mastered by everyone. The best way to learn the skill quickly is to sit in the “hot seat,” as the person facing tough questions in a media-training session.
The format for most media-training and messaging programs consists of an intensive three- to four-hour session. Videos of people speaking to the media are used to demonstrate the numerous problems that arise and the techniques to avoid them.
The majority of the time is spent doing mock interviews. With the lights on, camera rolling and a scripted scenario, participants are “under fire” for three to five minutes. The line of questioning produces a real world experience with an opportunity to make mistakes and lessons on how to correct them. Some have described it as going on your first roller coaster ride.
The coach will then play back the tape of the interview and the participants will analyse the good and the bad by going through each part of the interview in detail. Each person can do two to three mock interviews, and typically each one is significantly better than the one before.
While some people become more proficient than others, everyone can reach a level of messaging competency with proper training and coaching. But perhaps most importantly, you can then start to use the technique effectively in a proactive manner, rather than being caught off guard reacting to an event.
Lorne Honickman is a litigation lawyer at Toronto-based law firm Goodman and Carr LLP, and heads its media training consulting service. For more than 20 years he was CityTV’s legal specialist and remains active in the media with a weekly talk show on the Toronto station. He may be contacted at [email protected], (416) 595-2303 or visit www.goodmancarr.com.
