If you haven't seen, WikiLeaks is back in the news. I was blown away by how many comments were left on the CBC story - over 750 (the most I've ever seen on a story). You can view the leaked government documents yourself at WikiLeaks.org
From a PR perspective this continues to emphasize just how important reputation management is.
Realistically, there is no 'damage control' you can put on something like this. At best, and I suspect this is what will happen, the government can admonish those who leaked the communications and try to make the story less about what was in the communications and more about the need for increased security and limitations on internet media.
When you can't control a situation though (as is the case here) the only armor you have to protect yourself with is your reputation.
We've seen a variety of situations wherein negative publicity impacts the organization or person differently based on their existing reputation.
BP (oil spill)... a disaster
Goldman Sachs (financial crisis)... a disaster
David Letterman (affair and subsequent blackmail)... escaped pretty much unharmed
Michael Jackson (child molestation charges).... battered and bruised, but survived
Bill Clinton (affair and lying under oath)... escaped unharmed
Colin Powell (anthrax scare fiasco)... still held in high regard
George Bush (too long to list).... relegated to conservative right fan base, disaster.
We could go on forever. But the point is your reputation at the time of a crisis has a drastic impact on how the public processes that crisis and ultimately either forgives or condemns you.
It's clear that as we move forward into the future that confidential information of all types will become more and more public. Which means the reputations organizations have built will become more and more essential to their ability to manage an information-leak should it arise.
In this particular case for the Obama administration, their inability to deliver on his campaign message of 'Yes We Can' - and subsequently the erosion of his brand and reputation - will have a drastic impact on how these WikiLeaks are viewed by the public.
If one can imagine an alternate reality where unemployment were down at five per cent (clearly supporting the Yes We Can theme), or Washington special interest groups had been cleaned up, or one in which Obama had re-framed his administration in some other light that appealed to the public, then these WikiLeak leaks would simply be a big story versus what it is threatening to become, which is an on-going front page story whose reoccurring theme will be "Can we trust our government?"
We know for years that trust in institutions has been eroding among the public and unfortunately such institutions have not taken seriously the importance of reputation management. Obama did during his campaign, but has since put reputation management on the back burner.
It is absolutely essential that the public have a very clear understanding of what an organization stands for and belief that such positions are part of the fundamental DNA of the organization. Messaging strategies have to reinforce that brand equity in the market and earn the public's trust in the long run. Through a salient and trusted brand just about any crisis can be survived.
I continue to use Google as the shinning example of how you build true brand equity. While Apple, Microsoft, IBM all have 'BIG' brands, they are all just a major crisis away from losing that brand equity (and yes, I currently include Apple in that category). Whereas Google could get caught in the most compromising of situations and the public would remain open to hearing their side of the story before their belief in the Google brand began to erode.
Reputation management is everything and the only way to have a strong reputation is through public relations.
The US government's currently poor reputation with the American public is going to drastically impact how the citizenry reacts to these secret documents that will be released in batches over the coming months - I suspect it's not going to be pretty and we can expect a lot of hyperbole as a result.
From a PR perspective this continues to emphasize just how important reputation management is.
Realistically, there is no 'damage control' you can put on something like this. At best, and I suspect this is what will happen, the government can admonish those who leaked the communications and try to make the story less about what was in the communications and more about the need for increased security and limitations on internet media.
When you can't control a situation though (as is the case here) the only armor you have to protect yourself with is your reputation.
We've seen a variety of situations wherein negative publicity impacts the organization or person differently based on their existing reputation.
BP (oil spill)... a disaster
Goldman Sachs (financial crisis)... a disaster
David Letterman (affair and subsequent blackmail)... escaped pretty much unharmed
Michael Jackson (child molestation charges).... battered and bruised, but survived
Bill Clinton (affair and lying under oath)... escaped unharmed
Colin Powell (anthrax scare fiasco)... still held in high regard
George Bush (too long to list).... relegated to conservative right fan base, disaster.
We could go on forever. But the point is your reputation at the time of a crisis has a drastic impact on how the public processes that crisis and ultimately either forgives or condemns you.
It's clear that as we move forward into the future that confidential information of all types will become more and more public. Which means the reputations organizations have built will become more and more essential to their ability to manage an information-leak should it arise.
In this particular case for the Obama administration, their inability to deliver on his campaign message of 'Yes We Can' - and subsequently the erosion of his brand and reputation - will have a drastic impact on how these WikiLeaks are viewed by the public.
If one can imagine an alternate reality where unemployment were down at five per cent (clearly supporting the Yes We Can theme), or Washington special interest groups had been cleaned up, or one in which Obama had re-framed his administration in some other light that appealed to the public, then these WikiLeak leaks would simply be a big story versus what it is threatening to become, which is an on-going front page story whose reoccurring theme will be "Can we trust our government?"
We know for years that trust in institutions has been eroding among the public and unfortunately such institutions have not taken seriously the importance of reputation management. Obama did during his campaign, but has since put reputation management on the back burner.
It is absolutely essential that the public have a very clear understanding of what an organization stands for and belief that such positions are part of the fundamental DNA of the organization. Messaging strategies have to reinforce that brand equity in the market and earn the public's trust in the long run. Through a salient and trusted brand just about any crisis can be survived.
Reputation management is everything and the only way to have a strong reputation is through public relations.
The US government's currently poor reputation with the American public is going to drastically impact how the citizenry reacts to these secret documents that will be released in batches over the coming months - I suspect it's not going to be pretty and we can expect a lot of hyperbole as a result.
Comments
Post a Comment