Demanding more information
By Jerry Brown, APR
www.pr-impact.com
Reporters will always demand more information when they’re working on a story about how you screwed up. That doesn’t mean you have to give it to them.
The deciding factor that determines how much information you need to share? Consequences to the public, not the visibility of the story.
For example, it’s hard to imagine a more visible story than Tiger Woods’ public apology last week. There was grumbling from the media because the apology was scripted and he didn’t take questions. But Woods was right on target with the approach he took. The public’s interested in the Tiger Woods story because of his celebrity — not because what he did affects the rest of us. More information would have satisfied our curiosity. But it wouldn’t have told us anything we need to know for our own well-being.
We all drew our own conclusions and made our own judgments of Woods based on how we feel about the sincerity of the apology. But providing more information to the public wouldn’t have done anything positive for Woods or anyone else — except reporters looking for juicier stories.
Meanwhile, Toyota Motor Corp. President Akio Toyoda will be in Washington this week to appear before a congressional committee. He faces a much different situation.
He won’t be able to get away with the same kind of performance as Woods. Why are the situations so different? Because Woods’ transgressions were private. Toyota’s problems could kill any of us, even if we don’t own one of their cars.
That’s my two cents’ worth. What’s yours?