Communications as Ikor

PR CASES 2  < ?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 

언젠가 제가 클린턴 스캔들에 관하여 이 사이트에서 잠시 언급 한적이 잇는데 여기 한 PR 전문가가 클린턴 스캔달의 PR적 대처 방법을 잘 분석하여 놓은 글이 있어서 오늘의 케이스로 추천합니다. 참고로 미국 백악관은 세계 최고의 PR 팀을 이끌고 있는 엄청난 두뇌 전문가 집단입니다. 그들은 단순하게는 대통령의 복장과 화장술에서 부터, 이슈에 따라 종교, 가족적 가치, 프론티어 정신, 고향에 대한 인간적인 대통령의 모습(Humanism)등의 여러가지 사회 가치를 적절하게 대통령과 연계 시켜, 대통령의 기존 아이덴티티에서 다양하고 시기 적절한 대통령의 이미지를 창조하는 멋진 사람들입니다. 스테파노플러스라는 클린턴의 전직 미디어 참모는 현재 컬럼비아 저널리즘 스쿨에서 굉장히 어린나이로 교수를 맡고있기도 한데 그는 대통령에 대한 모든 것을 알고 있는 참모 중의 참모였고, 그의 개인적 논리성은 과히 동물적이라 할것입니다.

 

이번 클린턴 스캔달의 백미는 클린턴이 사용한 “Mislead”라는 단어 입니다.

대통령의 사과 단계에서 사용된 이 단어는 클린턴 PR팀의 장고를 거친 작품입니다. 이렇게 우리 PR인들은 “단어 하나”로 역사에 영향을 주는 멋진 직업을 가지고 있습니다. 아래의 케이스를 읽다 보면 알수 있습니다.

 

그럼 오늘도 “홍보!”

**************************************************************

 

Lessons From A Troubled White House                                          

 

By Aviva Diamond

 

After every corporate crisis, analysts wonder how yet another company could repeat the errors of Exxon or Sears. How could they fail to manage issues? How could they betray the public trust? How could they communicate so poorly? It happens time after time. But this time, the executive making the all-too-familiar errors has been the President of the United States.

 

President Bill Clinton lied, stonewalled, and then made what many feel was a belated and inadequate apology regarding the Monica Lewinsky episode. In essence, he made the same mistakes as many top corporate executives in crisis situations. Even as this article is being written in late August, before Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr has submitted a report to Congress, it is obvious that the President broke the rules of both open communication in a crisis and good faith with the public.

 

Rule No. 1: Be honest.

This seems to be a particular problem for Clinton. He gives lawyerly answers aimed at creating “wiggle room” when he’s in a tough situation. In answering campaign questions about his alleged youthful marijuana use, for example, he said, “I’ve never broken the laws of my country.” (He later admitted that he tried the drug in England.)

 

While we don’t advise clients to tell everything they know, there is a middle ground. Whatever you do say in public must be honest. The kind of hair-splitting answers that have become known in the media as “Clintonspeak” are obvious obfuscations &#8212; misleading and ineffective.

 

Last Jan. 21, the accusations about Clinton’s relationship with Lewinsky first appeared in the news. According to The New York Times, his advisers pushed for early candor while his lawyers pushed for minimal comment. The lawyers apparently won. That evening, on “The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer”, the President said, “I did not ask anyone to tell anything other than the truth. There is no improper relationship.” Maybe there was an improper relationship, but by using the present tense, Clinton indulged what NBC’s Len Cannon called his “resistance to full body contact with the truth.”

 

Rule No. 2: Don’t be defensive.

The next day, Clinton made things worse, engaging in defensive, circuitous language during a photo opportunity with Yasser Arafat and ending by planting a negative image. “You and the American people have a right to get answers,” he said. “[A]nd we will give you as many answers as we can as soon as we can at the appropriate time consistent with our obligation to also cooperate with the investigations. And that’s not a dodge.”

 

Rule No. 3: Ask yourself whether what you’re saying or doing will enhance trust or destroy it.

Once you lose the public trust, it is extremely difficult to regain it. On Jan. 26, the President finally communicated well. With his wife at his side, Clinton spoke with passion and conviction. His entire demeanor demonstrated determination, sincerity and contained anger. “I want you to listen to me,” he said, jabbing his finger as he looked directly at his audience. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky, these allegations are false, and I need to go back to work for the American people.”

 

It was a masterful performance. He was absolutely believable. And that is exactly why so many people felt so betrayed when they discovered he was lying through his carefully clenched teeth.

 

Rule No. 4: Apologize quickly, sincerely and fully.

The President’s address, when it finally came after months of silence on Aug. 17, fell far short of the humble plea for forgiveness that many Americans said they had expected. Instead of apologizing for lying to the American public, instead of showing through his voice and face and words that he was truly sorry, Clinton used calculated, lawyerly language and a flat delivery.

 

He missed a major opportunity for redemption. People looking for catharsis and candor received only “I misled people? I deeply regret that.” While admitting that he “did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate,” the President spent much of his address attacking Kenneth Starr and asserting his own right to privacy &#8212; both popular themes, according to the polls.

 

His performance ranged from stiff to slightly sullen. In an editorial, The New York Times said Clinton “went for the time-tested blend of minimal confession and contained tantrum that got him elected twice.” Michael Kelly of The Washington Post wrote, “This speech wasn’t a mea culpa. It was an everybody else culpa.” Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, expressed outrage on the major television networks. And, after the address, the polls showed that even though 60 percent of Americans still approved of Clinton’s job as President, a whopping 73 percent didn’t believe he is honest and trustworthy.

 

The effect of that credibility gap became apparent just three days later, after the President ordered assaults on suspected terrorist operations in Afghanistan and Sudan. Clinton went on television twice on Aug. 20 to discuss the attack. Flanked by flags and appealing to patriotism, the man who for months had been the country’s chief sex joke once again shifted his image to that of the decisive, patriotic, forceful Commander-in-Chief.

 

But that’s just the problem. Because of the lies, because of the loss of trust in the human being who sits in the Oval Office, some people wondered whether the assaults were aimed at distracting attention from domestic difficulties.

 

For the first time in modern journalistic memory, both reporters and elected officials publicly questioned whether the timing of government military action was politically motivated. “There is a cloud over the Presidency,” said ABC’s Cokie Roberts, adding that people believe Clinton’s “credibility is so seriously damaged that it is very difficult to believe anything that he does or says. Anything he does right now is suspect.”

 

The shame is that this could have been easily avoided. First, of course, by not indulging in the troublesome behavior at all. But even if Clinton had been unable to avoid his “critical lapse in judgment” with Lewinsky, he could have come clean in January and spared both the country and himself a lot of agony. At the very least, he could have said &#8212; and meant &#8212; that he was sorry in August.

 

According to the polls, while the public may not approve of the President’s tendency to indulge his roving sexual appetite, most people believe that it is none of their business. What really sticks in their collective craw is the lying, the sense that they’re being manipulated, the feeling that they cannot trust their top elected official. It is an object lesson for corporate executives as well as politicians.

 

Aviva Diamond is president of BLUE STREAK, INC., a Los Angeles-based firm specializing in media and speaker training. She is an Emmy Award-winning former reporter for ABC News and The Miami Herald.