This morning courtesy of business.ca, the online Canadian Technology News site, we have a timely item in answer to the question, "How do you stop a disgruntled employee blogger?" by Vawn Himmelsbach. You can see it here. The following two tidbits are my favorite parts and they are attribited to Stephen Turcotte, president of Backbone Media.

Keep lawyers out of the social media as much as possible… don’t automatically turn it over to the PR department. If this disgruntled blogger is a developer, for example, they probably want to hear from a developer, not a PR person.

I can think of a couple hundred dozen other reasons why they wouldn't want to hear from a PR person, can't you?

Meanwhile, some advice I would add is try reading the adversarial blog with an open mind. Sometimes, not always, the blogger has a valid point or two. Also, if you have a corporate blog of your own (don't be ridiculous, Sterling) you have a platform and presumed audience with which you can make your case.

You know, I think we're all genetically predisposed to disgruntlement. The words fired and disgruntlement have a way of snapping together in real life like H2 and O in nature. Some angry or disappointed people feeling hard done by are going to blog. Some will cross the line. Some may even break the law. That's different. But if someone has a legitimate gripe, he or she has a right to write about it. You have a right to read it. Then you can call the cops, the lawyers, the PR team and all the rest if you want, but you should first consider joining the conversation. Since there are at least two sides to every story, tell yours.

Share This

I'm not exactly sure why I have decided to feature this news today, except it is really unusual news and because it highlights the way bureaucrats and their PR people often can't say anything straight out in person. They issue 'press statements' and 'releases.' For crying out loud, can no one respond on their feet anymore in person, face-to-face, to a straightforward question or two?

First, the whacky news item courtesy of Cayman Net News. Here's the opening graph:

Following the birth of Lateisha Clarke on a Cayman Airways flight to Jamaica on Tuesday, 2 October, the public debate has centered around who is to be held responsible for allowing Shellesha Woodstock to board that flight after her water broke.

Um… might the mother bear some responsibility? Never mind. Let's not make this about my personal view on why it seems fewer and fewer people hold themselves and others responsibile for their own actions these days and, in this instance, seem to prefer to start looking around at the authorities for fault. Also, that opening paragraph can be a bit confusing if you're over 100 and not hip, daddio, to the fact that unmarried people make babies together. Ms. Woodstock is the Mom. Laflin Clarke is the Dad. So far so good? In a minute I'll return to the obvious issue for most of us which is can you imagine being on this flight?

Meanwhile, here's a sampling of the expressions used to describe how media questions have been answered:

Minister of Health Hon Anthony Eden on Monday, 8 October also joined the debate by issuing a statement…

In a press release from Caswell Walford, Public Relations Officer at the HSA (Health Services Authority)…

However, a release from Cayman Airways Limited (CAL) appears to contradict the HSA’s statement…

The document goes on to explain that…

The release further suggested…

People! Could this be a more clear cut case of Obstetrics Obstruction of Justice? Just kidding.

Lastly, as promised earlier, I'm wondering just exactly how and where on a plane to anywhere do they manage to make room for a passenger giving birth. As the famous line from Gone with the Wind goes, "I don't know nothing about birthin' no babies," but I've attended a few and can't imagine doing it at a few hundred miles an hour. How come this news doesn't include a couple of first-hand accounts of the passengers who unfortunately found themselves aboard Air ER?

There you have it. Comments anyone?

Share This

Let us PRay?

If your company is a corpse does it make sense to hire a big-time communications agency to put a happy face on it with the media? After all, if there's no future, what's to say?

Well, according to this article by Daniel Wagner at Newsday, that's what American Home did, and apparently wanted to continue doing, until some lawyers for the unsecured creditors presented a court filing objecting to it. The filing seems to have brought this dead lender to its senses:

Melville-based American Home Mortgage has decided to stop paying a high-priced crisis communications firm that creditors had objected to as "a waste," a lawyer for the bankrupt lender's committee of unsecured creditors said Friday.

Curious about what this sort of communications casket costs? In this case, American Home had already paid a nonrefundable $50,000 retainer. Going forward, they were going to spend $200 to $875 an hour, plus expenses. Dearly beloved!

Here's what the lawyers said about the communications deal in their filing (italics added for emphasis):

"…(the agency) does not appear to be performing any services which will assist in maximizing the values obtained for the debtors' assets or minimizing estate expenses," the creditors' attorneys wrote in an Aug. 30 filing. "Instead, the primary purpose… appears to be to assist management in putting its best face forward with the media and its stockholders concerning the failure of the company."

In my humble opinion, it seems likely that the same sort of business judgement that led to this high-priced media funeral may have been at work in decisions leading up to the company's failure in the fiurst place?

Share This