 |
|||||
 |
|||||
|
The
International Newsletter of PR Measurement from
| Contents | Subscribe
| MeasuresOfSuccess.com
| |
|||||
June 25th, 2003 Can this reputation be saved?
The short answer: Yes. Before we begin, I have to reveal, in the interest of full disclosure, that I have a bit of bias on the topic of the Times. When I was a senior in high school in Manhattan, my school teamed up with a bunch of other high schools to arrange “career days,” in which we visited various businesses in New York. Artie (now known as Arthur) Sulzberger Jr. was a senior at one of the other schools that was participating, and so he gave us a personal tour of his family’s business. I was instantly hooked—and have been a journalism junkie ever since. That being said, in my opinion, the New York Times' self-investigation of the Jayson Blair fiasco was unprecedented in the history of crisis communications. We might expect our newspaper of record to show us how it ought to be done—and, sure enough, we weren't let down. At some $100,000 per page, the Times devoted four full Sunday pages to the story. If you have read it all, which I did, you might reasonably think that there was “too much information.” But at least you know their investigation was thorough. A particularly compelling touch was the plea for anyone else who knows of inaccuracies to come forward. Even though the scandal has sparked far more controversy among the media than would the average corporate crisis (okay, maybe not more than Enron and WorldCom), fast action on the part of Times management helped mitigate the damage. But just because they broke the story, doesn’t mean the crisis went away any faster. The prominence of the two editors that left helped fuel more controversy, and delaying those firings prolonged the crisis; if heads were going to roll, they should have rolled immediately. Even so, thanks to their openess and accuracy, we can say with confidence that the paper’s reputation will be restored, at least as long as there are no more damning revelations. (We must note also that the paper’s financial health has been very good of late. Earnings were up 45 percent in the last quarter of 2002 and up 26 percent in the first quarter of 2003. Second quarter earnings are expected to fall short of previous estimates, but not by much.) Reputation-wise, the most troubling aspect of this crisis was expressed in a column shortly after it broke: How soon will it be before some branch of the government uses the Blair fiasco to throw doubt on a Times investigation of wrong-doing on the part of a government official? The media’s response to that sort of accusation will be the real test of how well the Times has handled the current crisis. Speaking of wrong-doing... it’s time for an update of our savaged-rather-than-saved reputation from a year ago… that of Martha Stewart. About a dozen issues ago, we declared that Martha’s reputation was in fact salvageable based on the loyalty of her fans. What we didn’t account for was the length of time that the crisis has continued:
Had she come clean in the beginning, the issue would have dissipated by now. Unfortunately for her, and fortunately for the media that is out there trying to sell magazines through her misfortune, we’ve now had some 18 months of Martha Madness. At this point, her salvageability depends mostly on whether she can still be an effective arbiter of taste while spending most of her days talking to lawyers. My hunch is no. It takes a truly exceptional manager to ensure that your staff can carry on when you’re gone, and from all reports, Martha’s management style leaves something to be desired. The real question we want to ask is, “Why is this such a big deal?” When Enron and its ilk bilk shareholders out of billions, when revenues for a federally guaranteed loan program can’t be verified, and when political cronies are getting billions in lucrative contracts, why all the fuss over a five- or six-figure insider trading windfall? It would
be easy to blame it on gender, just as the race issue was barely under
the surface at the New York Times. But the answer is more complicated
than that. It has to do with hubris, and the American tradition of rooting
for the underdog. We love entrepreneurial success more than any other
nation on earth, but we also have a love-hate relationship with entrepreneurs.
As long as they’re struggling and an underdog, they can do no
wrong. But the moment they exhibit hubris or arrogance, the media pack
pounces. And Martha’s defiant stand, exhibiting confidence as
well as arrogance, is proving to be just so much red meat for the media
vultures. |
||||
New
articles Articles with red arrows require a subscription:
Articles with black arrows do not require a subscription:
|
Contest!
Contest! Contest! Send us your Biggest Measurement Mistake—and what you learned from it. We’ve all made mistakes, so let’s hear what you learned from yours. This month’s contest winner will receive a rare and collectible Measurement Standard mug. |
|||
| Sign
up now for your free monthly One-Minute Benchmarking
Bulletin and stay up to date on PR and marketing measurement around
the world. Just type your email address below and click on the Sign
Up button:
|
||||
|
Three Reasons Why You Should Subscribe to The Measurement Standard: 1. You’ll learn how to use hard numbers to prove the results of your PR efforts. 2. You’ll learn which are the right vendors for your measurement projects. 3. You’ll learn how to design your program right from the start to be easily measureable. Click
here to |
||||
| Stock
your reference library at the Measurement
Mall, where you'll find books, Buyer’s Guides, Complete Handbooks
and a selection of white papers. |
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
||||
Martha
Madness Continues
Struggling
to set up your measurement system?|
51 Durham Point Road, Durham, NH 03824 |
|||
