Photo by Elijah O'Donnell on Unsplash
Photo by Elijah O'Donnell on Unsplash
Getting mainstream media exposure for your brand can be a great thing for marketers to do.
But when there’s an issue running in the media which is tarnishing the reputation of your brand it can be highly damaging.
My general advice to clients when the media are running news stories which put your brand in a bad light - fairly or unfairly - is that you need to engage with journalists on the matter.
This often necessitates doing media interviews where the quality of your answers to tough media questions is crucial.
Seeking to avoid answering media questions - framed in the public interest - has serious consequences.
This is all the more so if the avoidance actually takes place in the media spotlight while the cameras are rolling.
So being able to either give great answers to tough media questions yourself - or work with others in your company to craft and deliver those answers to defend the brand where it’s justified and justifiable - is imperative.
The really good news is that being able to give great answers is a learnable and improvable skill.
Alas, there many examples of people in the media spotlight who have not taken advantage of the opportunity to improve their responses before they’re under pressure from journalists.
They and their organisation typically end up paying a big price.
Photo by Natalie Chaney on Unsplash
One of the more infamous examples in recent times of adverse consequences resulting from avoiding a question involved one of Britain’s biggest housebuilding firms, Persimmon.
The now ex-boss of Persimmon significantly tarnished the company’s reputation when refusing to properly answer a question that he wasn’t ready for.
Before being removed as Persimmon’s Chief Executive Officer, Jeff Fairburn was the biggest beneficiary of a highly contentious executive bonus scheme.
There was an uproar when it was revealed that a result of the scheme - which was linked to the Persimmon share price and was completely uncapped - was that Mr Fairburn’s bonus amounted to £75-million.
This was - not surprisingly - labelled “excessive” by shareholders and criticised by charities, politicians and Persimmon customers.
Now it’s probably fair to assume that a typically community-minded member of The Academy of Chief Marketers might strongly believe that those at the top should set a better example than Mr Fairburn.
But rather than concentrate on the dubious morality of the bonus, let’s focus what happened to Mr Fairburn from a media perspective - and what can happen to anybody who tries to duck a tough media question on a legitimate subject.
Getting mainstream media exposure for your brand can be a great thing for marketers to do.
But when there’s an issue running in the media which is tarnishing the reputation of your brand it can be highly damaging.
My general advice to clients when the media are running news stories which put your brand in a bad light - fairly or unfairly - is that you need to engage with journalists on the matter.
This often necessitates doing media interviews where the quality of your answers to tough media questions is crucial.
Seeking to avoid answering media questions - framed in the public interest - has serious consequences.
This is all the more so if the avoidance actually takes place in the media spotlight while the cameras are rolling.
So being able to either give great answers to tough media questions yourself - or work with others in your company to craft and deliver those answers to defend the brand where it’s justified and justifiable - is imperative.
The really good news is that being able to give great answers is a learnable and improvable skill.
Alas, there many examples of people in the media spotlight who have not taken advantage of the opportunity to improve their responses before they’re under pressure from journalists.
They and their organisation typically end up paying a big price.
Photo by Natalie Chaney on Unsplash
One of the more infamous examples in recent times of adverse consequences resulting from avoiding a question involved one of Britain’s biggest housebuilding firms, Persimmon.
The now ex-boss of Persimmon significantly tarnished the company’s reputation when refusing to properly answer a question that he wasn’t ready for.
Before being removed as Persimmon’s Chief Executive Officer, Jeff Fairburn was the biggest beneficiary of a highly contentious executive bonus scheme.
There was an uproar when it was revealed that a result of the scheme - which was linked to the Persimmon share price and was completely uncapped - was that Mr Fairburn’s bonus amounted to £75-million.
This was - not surprisingly - labelled “excessive” by shareholders and criticised by charities, politicians and Persimmon customers.
Now it’s probably fair to assume that a typically community-minded member of The Academy of Chief Marketers might strongly believe that those at the top should set a better example than Mr Fairburn.
But rather than concentrate on the dubious morality of the bonus, let’s focus what happened to Mr Fairburn from a media perspective - and what can happen to anybody who tries to duck a tough media question on a legitimate subject.