Like water to oil? PR professionals and lawyers. Uh, sorry that would be “no comment”
Posted by Sandra on August 31st, 2006
Right off the bat I have to say that I have many good friends who are lawyers and I love them. And I also know many lawyers (including some of the friends) who really don’t fit the stereotype I’m talking about here, so apologies to them – this is not for you.
Have you ever noticed how often lawyers think of themselves as the PR professionals? Why? Well maybe they are right because one of the most ubiquitous phrases in the lawyerly PR lexicon (aside from “Objection”) may just be “no comment”. And somehow people have come to think – even people who aren’t lawyers – that this is the right and only thing to say when times are bad. Sure, spout off a phrase that really means “I actually do know something you don’t but I’m just going to walk rudely away now.”
Did the CEO of Johnson & Johnson say “No comment” when some crazy person poisoned samples of the company’s leading over-the-counter pain medication. No. And the Tylenol tampering issue has become an legend for good communications and PR in a crisis. What about the head guy from Air France? When one of his big jets slid off the runway in Toronto did he say “no comment”? No. He acknowledged the trauma that it caused to those on the plane (all of whom had miraculously survived), their families even those who were driving by the scene. You insert your own favourite examples here…
I understand the need for caution when something bad has happened and information is scarce. There is a reality of assuming responsibility for something – and the liability for fixing it – before all the facts are known. Could we just use two of the best PR tools first: sensitivity and common sense? As professionals it’s our job to make sure the reputation of our organization or client is maintained in the short and long term and using “no comment” as a tool just won’t cut it. Let “no comment” stay in the domain of comics and sitcom writers, please. Anyone have a favourite “no comment” experience to share?
Posted to Pot Stirring ;)
September 1st, 2006 » 4:38 pm
Actually there is research to show that attorneys understand PR more than PRs understand them. See my post on it at http://teachingpr.blogspot.com/2006/08/brush-with-pr-law.html
I point out this out to my students as an inducement to get them to study their chapter on PR law.
September 6th, 2006 » 7:36 pm
Thanks Karen. I think everyone should understand the legal issues in the work we do. However my personal experience on both the client and consulting side is that lawyers tend not to be able to predict the actual response from the public however they certainly can predict how a public relations professional is likely to respond. The good ones will expect to receive insight and guidance from other professionals but not all.
This goes two ways though as I also believe that we have a responsibility to provide thoughtful advise on issues that have legal implications and I often suggest clients check key points with the lawyer before we get into the thick of a project, rather than at the end.
September 8th, 2006 » 1:33 pm
There’s also another ever-present aspect in the enduring tension between PR people and lawyers - one which I’ve encountered many, many times.
Lawyers are, almost by definition, generally well-educated, literate people. For many of them, this leads to a firmly-held conviction that they know how to write. Well, yes - most half-decent lawyers are capable of stringing together reasonably coherent sentences (once you pin them down and surgically remove their “aforementioneds” and “hereinunders”). But I’m yet to work with an attorney - even at the top tiers of the profession - who fully understands the difference between good English and great communication.
Anyone who has ventured into the curious PR netherworld of Investor Relations will be familiar with this struggle. The cyclical negotiations around the emphasis in a single sentence can spin on through 12 revisions of a news release - or even more.
“Positioning” and “disclosure” are not concepts that need to exist in conflict with one another, but it’s often the case that crisp, consistent message handling falls victim to the grey occlusion of lawyer-ized reductio ad absurdem.
My worst personal experience of this was when I was brought in to re-write the IPO prospectus for an early stage software firm. The original material provided as source content for the law firm drafting team had become so nuance-stripped, sanitized, and just crushingly dull, that the investment bankers and management team realised they had not a hope in hell of actually selling the stock.
The most senior lawyer on the IPO team commented that he found it hard to trust communications people, as they “never let the facts get in the way of a good story”. I responded that, on the contrary - the facts ARE the story, but like any worthwhile subject, they benefit immensely from the appropriate lighting.
As we waded through many rounds of editing and adverb negotiation, what I so often felt like saying (but refrained) was: “Just because you can write, sir, doesn’t mean you can communicate.”