PR's Siege Mentality and the Vulnerable Corporation

A thought (well a series of thoughts) just occurred to me, which might explain why the issue of control (and its loss via participatory communications) is such a big one to PR professionals and their companies. 

First, as many a PR practitioner will tell you, every time something negative is said in the press, they get an irate call from the CEO or other high-level executive ranting and raving about useless they are and asking how they are going to "fix" the situation.  No matter if the negative comment was correct or not.  It is the PR's job to manage the image and prevent any serious criticisms to occur.  No wonder PR people have a siege mentality when it comes to communications (keep out the masses!) - their reputations (and jobs) are at stake.  (I am not going to comment on how much of this is self-fulfilling, as some PRs have preached some wishful thinking about controlling the message to senior executives for awhile now.)

I ask this, however.  Is the organization's brand, its reputation, so vulnerable, that a negative comment will seriously damage it?  Even a series of negative comments? 

Do corporate executives secretly believe that because corps have treated people so badly for so long (represented in a precipitous decline in trust in institutions over the past decades) that the slightest fissure in the monolithic brand will rapidly fracture into a chasm in the dike, destroying the company?  Are our companies so weak?

The specter of consumer uprising is real.  We see examples of it every day.  However, let's be sure we temper this fear with the understanding that we are seeing some of the "master's mentality" here as well -- the constant fear of a slave uprising, whether it is imminent or not.

In general, I think that people are pretty reasonable.  If a company responds to a complaint, they're open to changing their mind.  After all, we are well aware we need companies to be successful to provide us with goods, services, jobs.  Consumers aren't all out there to "get you".  Rather, they are usually seeking response to legitimate questions and concerns.  The more a company can address those, vs. hiding behind the barricades, the more it will stave off an uprising.

It is dangerous to fall into an "us vs. them" attitude.  This isn't a master-slave debate.  Consumers are rarely held entirely "captive" to a brand choice.  Rather we must use persuasion (rational debate and offering of reasons to make a choice, including emotional ones) vs. dogmatic preaching.  And that requires engaging in conversations vs. controlling the message.

Comments

[Serge Cornelus]

True words, indeed. Maybe the fear of CEOs has something to do with the fact that most satisfied customers aren't heard or seen. Only the complainers get attention. A bit like in the media: good news is no news. On the other hand: that's probably where a (social media) opportunity for companies lies? If, of course, done with credibility. And that's probably what companies are looking for today. And what they are still in doubt about. If you (or other experts in the field) could shed some light on that, there would be a lot of happy people out there.

[John Cass]

rats I cannot remember the study, but I seem to recall one about how a vendor's quick responsiveness will reduce complaints and increase retention.

[Michael Sommermeyer]

Funny thing negative news: if you allow individuals to express their concerns, listen to their views, and engage them in dialogue, the organization benefits.

This worked for me last week. We admitted a problem, indicated we were looking for solutions, and invited people to offer their input. In the long run, we may actually increase trust and improve our reputation.

[Serge Cornelus]

Sounds like good old basic PR to me, Michael. Funny how we sometimes forget this actually works ;-).