Hospital’s Unhealthy PR Response to Lawsuit

HUGUETTE CLARK 150x150 Hospitals Unhealthy PR Response to Lawsuit

PR VERDICT: “F” (Full Fiasco) to Beth Israel Hospital. (Pictured: heiress and patient Huguette Clark.)

The story of copper heiress Huguette Clark (left) has all the makings of a soon-to-be optioned movie. Clark was a Manhattan heiress with an estimated $300 million fortune and no direct heirs of her own, who lived in seclusion on Fifth Avenue. In 1991 she was admitted to Beth Israel, a leading New York hospital, and continued to live there until her death in 2011 at the age of 104. During her stay she gave the hospital some $4 million in donations, not counting the $1,200 a day she paid daily in out-of-pocket expenses.

Beth Israel is now on the receiving end of a legal suit launched on behalf of the heiress’s distant relatives. Their accusation? That the vulnerable heiress was subjected to a relentless fundraising campaign that included showering her with trivial gifts and  exercising undue influence to encourage the donation of cash and highly valuable art. The case will be heard in September.

So far, Beth Israel has declined comment, referring the media to its publicly available legal filings. “Having provided lifesaving and compassionate care to a person of Ms. Clark’s wealth, it would have been surprising if Beth Israel had not approached her for donations . . . the amount of money she gave to Beth Israel was not very large, considering her vast wealth,” the filings state matter-of-factly. Hardly a face-saving PR strategy, for one of New York’s major hospitals.

THE PR VERDICT: “F” (Full Fiasco) to Beth Israel for a truly disastrous response.

THE PR TAKEAWAY: Separate PR from legal. Relying on filed defenses for a PR response is only tempting the fates. While wise to decline to comment on the specifics, why not reaffirm that Clark was a beloved and admired patient at the hospital during her twenty-year stay? Express regret that the distant relatives have decided to launch civil proceedings over donations that have been put to good use (and then mention what $4 million has bought). Above all, avoid saying it wasn’t very much anyway. Huguette Clark is unlikely to have agreed with Beth Israel’s assessment – $4 million, even in her book, was presumably not chump change.

To read more, click here.

The PRV Report Card: This Week’s Winners and Losers

Screen Shot 2013 05 23 at 5.15.34 PM 150x150 The PRV Report Card: This Week’s Winners and LosersPR Winner: “A” (PR Perfect) to Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, who was asked to testify on Capital Hill following a recent report that excoriated Apple as a tax dodger, parking profits offshore and not owning up to its domestic tax obligations. Tim Cook was just humble and conciliatory enough while pressing the larger point that the present tax code needs urgent reform to wipe out gaping loopholes. This was bait and switch at its best. Before anyone could reboot his or her iPad he had the Senate’s Permanent Committee on Investigation eating out of his hand. “I love Apple,” exclaimed one enthusiastic member as the hearing wore on. Tim Cook and Apple’s senior management presumably slept soundly that night.

Screen Shot 2013 05 22 at 8.03.19 AM The PRV Report Card: This Week’s Winners and LosersPR Loser: “F” (Full Fiasco) to Lois Lerner who pleaded the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination at the recent hearing on the ongoing IRS fracas. Leading the IRS’s division on tax- exempt organizations she arrived for what was always going to be a hostile and partisan hearing.  Lerner began by protesting her innocence saying she had “done nothing wrong,”  (fair enough) but then after delivering what seemed like an opening statement pleaded the Fifth Amendment and refrained from further comment. Is it really okay for a paid government employee to refuse to answer questions from Congress? It’s muddy water certainly, but making your case and then pleading the Fifth sounds rather like having your cake and eating it. Bon Apetit.


Screen Shot 2013 05 23 at 5.20.36 PM 150x150 The PRV Report Card: This Week’s Winners and LosersTHE PRV “THERE’S NO ‘THERE’ THERE” AWARD TO:
 Kim Kardashian and the ongoing coverage of her problematic relationship with singer Kanye West. This week In Touch featured heavily pregnant Kim on its cover claiming she is humiliated by rumors that her baby’s father has a secret boyfriend in Paris (with supporting photograph). Is Kanye West gay asked the article? This is apparently Kim’s “greatest fear.”  In Touch had a picture of the rumored French boyfriend while OK Magazine went 180 degrees and broke news in the opposite direction. Describing itself as the only magazine “with the real story,” it insisted in breathless detail that Kim and Kanye are “happier then ever” and plan to elope to Paris. No doubt about it, claims OK Magazine. At this point either Kim or Kanye’s PR should set the record straight.

 

The IRS Scandal: A Nixonian Approach?

Screen Shot 2013 05 22 at 8.03.19 AM The IRS Scandal: A Nixonian Approach? The Obama administration continues to do itself no favors in the controversy involving the Internal Revenue Service. The scandal has already prompted the resignation of Acting IRS Chief Steven Miller and spawned both Congressional hearings and a Justice Department criminal inquiry.

In this week’s installment, administration officials offered contradictory information about when they found out the IRS was targeting politically conservative groups for additional scrutiny. On Sunday, a White House representative told the Sunday talk shows the issue hit the presidential radar the previous week.  A day later, however, White House spokesman Jay Carney revealed that several senior aides, including President Obama’s chief of staff and a senior White House attorney, knew about the matter more than a month ago, but chose not to tell the president.  Certain senior U.S. Treasury officials knew about IRS activities last year. IRS official Lois Lerner shed no additional light in her testimony before Congress: she pleaded the Fifth Amendment, invoking her right against self-incrimination.

Fair or not, the progression of events has begun to draw comparisons to another political era: that of Richard “Tricky Dick” Nixon. Prior to the Watergate scandal that ultimately swamped his presidency, Nixon wielded the IRS as a bludgeon against those on his “enemies list”. It was also during the congressional inquiry into Watergate that Senator Howard Baker, a Tennessee Republican, posed the now famous political question: What did the President know, and when did he know it? When it comes to the current scandal, the answer to that question seems far from clear.

THE PR VERDICT:  “F” (Full Fiasco) for the Obama administration. At best, the administration looks confused and inept; at worst, bullying and devious.

THE PR TAKEAWAY:  The buck always stops at the top. A school of thought exists wherein keeping bad news from senior management is believed to provide protection from fallout. That’s the wrong approach. Whether president or CEO, an organization’s leader is always held accountable for its behavior. When things go awry, the best plan is to move quickly to apprise leadership, sort out the facts, take remedial action if necessary and be prepared to speak knowledgeably about the matter if needed. Anything less is asking for trouble.

How to Take On A Media Giant

 How to Take On A Media Giant A golden rule of corporate PR? Threatening to sue a newspaper or media outlet is a waste of time. Even trying to intimidate through an endless volley of legal letters usually backfires. Unless you can call out a media outlet on its polices and procedures, complaining about perceived unfairness usually falls on deaf and everlastingly hostile ears. Which is why Bloomberg’s recent misstep with Goldman Sachs makes interesting reading.

Bloomberg, a robust news organization, prides itself on high standards and journalist integrity, but is now wiping egg from its face following the admission and subsequent apology that its journalists had access to certain client information from its terminals ubiquitous on every trading floor. This included user’s login information and other general details including help desk inquiries. Bloomberg issued a quick apology and swiftly announced changes in procedure. It has since stressed that at no time did reporters have access to trading and monitoring systems or to clients’ messages to one another (the stuff that really matters).

When Goldman Sachs, routinely held accountable in the public eye, discovered that its employees were being monitored by Bloomberg journalists with access to private data, a formal complaint was made. This must have the been the gotcha moment. No news organization likes to be accused of an ethical breach and this was one case where Goldman could flex its own muscle and claim the moral high ground.

The PR Verdict:  “A” for Goldman Sachs for scoring a public and ethical win.

The PR Takeaway:  Integrity is the Achilles’ heel. No doubt Goldman Sachs has previously had its fair share of battles with Bloomberg but complaining to news organizations about bias and unfairness rarely works. This time it was different. A bruised eye for a leading news organization and a PR point for Goldman Sachs for starting a news cycle debate about journalist integrity.  When there is a breach of procedure any PR is on firm ground to go ahead and complain. Choose your battles wisely.

 

The PRV Report Card: This Week’s Winners and Losers

 The PRV Report Card: This Weeks Winners and LosersPR WINNER OF THE WEEK: “A” (PR Perfect) to French authorities for pursuing criminal charges against those responsible for last year’s topless photos of Kate Middleton. The photos, which not only infuriated the Royals but also privacy advocates, were taken from afar, then published in French magazine Closer, owned by Mondadori, and eventually in several other European publications. If convicted, Mondadori CEO Ernesto Mauri and the as-yet-unnamed photographer could spend up to a year in jail, be forced to cease business for five years, and/or face a fine of 45,000 euros. Yes, this may be a little over the top, but given the long term abuses of the tabloids (as seen in the hacking scandals in the UK), the charges send an unmistakable message: Invasions of privacy will not be tolerated ici.

 The PRV Report Card: This Weeks Winners and LosersPR LOSER OF THE WEEK: “F” (FULL FIASCO) to KPMG Chairman Michael Andrew, who told the Financial Times that a recent insider-trading scandal involving a former partner was a ”one-day wonder” that generated coverage only because it was a “slow news week.” We love keeping calm and carrying on, but in cases like this, too much sang-froid just looks downright careless. If JP Morgan regrets CEO Jamie Dimon’s comments about a “tempest in a teacup” regarding the $6 billion London Whale trading loss, then Andrew’s equally cavalier comments may end up haunting him. In the new age of corporate contrition, this was a misstep. Both clients and staff must have been wondering: What was he thinking?

 The PRV Report Card: This Weeks Winners and LosersTHE PRV “THERE’S NO ‘THERE’ THERE” AWARD TO the George W. Bush Library dedication ceremony. Timing is everything, and whether this was a good week or a bad one to dedicate the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum was debatable. The event was a patriotic photo op for sure, with all five living presidents – Bush father and son, Carter, Clinton, and Obama – there to open the center. But the same event was candy for detractors, who pondered whether the Bush legacy of war and financial foundation for the recession was grounds for commemoration, and if a library was really the most apt choice for Dubya. Considering the past two weeks of North Korean missiles at the ready, ricin-laced letters to politicians, and a terrorist attack in Boston, this celebratory move seemed somewhat oddly timed.

 

 

SAC May Be Too Calm As It Carries On

 SAC May Be Too Calm As It Carries On

THE PR VERDICT: “C” (Distinctly OK) for SAC capital and its business as usual PR tactic.

Keep calm and carry on. In the world of crisis PR, that British wartime slogan is the standard mantra, but Steve Cohen, founder of beleaguered hedge fund SAC Capital, seems to be taking it to heart. The hedge fund, center of a long-running investigation into insider-trading, was in the headlines again last week when one of Cohen’s key lieutenants was arrested. The news capped a week of astonishing headlines.

As arrests mount and a $600 million penalty to settle some civil claims is in the works, founder Cohen’s PR response has been to carry on as normal. But what is normal for one of the world’s largest and most successful hedge funds? A spending spree to change the mood.

Three items made the news: the purchases of a Picasso painting for a cool $155 million, and of oceanfront property in East Hampton for $60 Million. Then throw in the sale of a Manhattan condo for $115 million and it’s clear that at SAC, the recent headlines are not putting the firm into crisis. They’re distracting, yes, but apparently, the show must go on.

THE PR VERDICT: “C” (Distinctly OK) for SAC capital and its business-as-usual PR tactic.

THE PR TAKEAWAY: Chutzpah has its merits – until it strays into willful arrogance. There is some wisdom in brazenly continuing with a business-as-usual approach while others might describe the sky as falling. Keeping calm and carrying on reassures investors, clients, and above all employees that this too will pass. In this case, however, SAC’s actions seem akin to thumbing their proverbial nose at authority. In a fight over potentially criminal allegations, SAC has less leverage than it thinks. This might be the moment to lay a little lower and not inflame prosecutors wanting their day in the sun.

More Trouble for Martha Stewart: Not a “Good Thing”

 More Trouble for Martha Stewart: Not a Good Thing

The PR Verdict: “D” (PR Problematic) for Martha Stewart and J.C. Penney.

Martha Stewart has had more than her share of embarrassing public moments lately. Two of her offshoot magazines had to be co-opted into her regular publication, Martha Stewart Living, due to poor newsstand sales. And yesterday, the head of Macy’s department stores, Terry Lundgren said that Martha made him “sick.”

The cause of Macy’s CEO upset wasn’t Martha’s recipe for dinner, but rather her recipe for success. Stewart allegedly phoned Lungdren in December 2011 to tell the CEO that she’d inked a merchandising deal with rival retailer J.C. Penney. This took Macy’s by surprise. Lundgren thought their deal, struck in 2007, to sell Martha Stewart cookware, bedding, and other products was exclusive. “I was completely shocked and blown away,” Lundgren testified at a court hearing this week,  ”I was literally sick to my stomach.” He further testified that Stewart claimed in their phone call that the deal with JC Penney would be good for Macy’s. At that point Lundgren hung up on Stewart.

JC Penney claims the deal was vital to their rebranding and vital to Martha, who also sold them 17 percent of her company. But the legal question and PR problem is how did Martha think she might get away with the deal to sell her home products through a department store, when she already had a deal to do just that.

THE PR VERDICT: “D” (PR Problematic) for Martha Stewart, and for J.C. Penney; Macy’s has now won a court injunction to temporarily block Penney’s from selling Martha Stewart products.

THE PR TAKEAWAY: Business is cutthroat, but reputations can be preserved by being above board. Sure, everyone loves a dramatic under-the-table deal – in the movies. But in real life the dealmaker comes off as untrustworthy and from the PR standpoint, desperate. Stewart already had publicly-known problems with her corporation; JC Penney’s flagging sales have led to a massive and risky revamp of their stores. Each party needed the other, and each had to know that Macy’s wouldn’t take this lying down, not even on 400 thread-count percale sheets in Blossom Yellow. The repercussions will illustrate yet again that there is such a thing as bad publicity.

SAC Capital and the Art of Halting an Investor Stampede

 SAC Capital and the Art of Halting an Investor Stampede

The PR Verdict: “A” (PR Perfect) for SAC Capital. (Pictured: Steven Cohen)

The clock is ticking for SAC Capital Advisors, the hedge fund run by Steven Cohen, now linked to an insider trading case that the government is touting as one the largest of its kind. As regulators are said to be “closing in” on the fund, SAC clients, whose money is managed by the firm, now have 90 days to decide if they’ve had enough and want their money back. Should they redeem, or keep their money there?

SAC, which manages over $14 billion, recently confirmed to investors that the firm might face civil charges over the alleged insider trading scheme that has already led to the arrest of a former employee. Normally, news like this would have investors rushing for the exits, provoking a disastrous run on the fund. But if the firm intends to emerge from its latest legal worries with an ongoing business, reassuring investors while being transparent about its legal woes is the immediate PR challenge.

Not all investors are happy; some have indicated they want to redeem. One French bank has reportedly cashed in its chips already. But other large investors are on the record as saying they will reserve judgment and keep their money with SAC, reiterating their faith in the firm and its management. To SAC investors wavering about what to do, public confirmation from co-investors that their money is staying put is just the sort of signal they’re looking for. At the moment, some clever PR is calming a situation that could otherwise become very risky.

The PR Verdict: “A” (PR Perfect) for SAC Capital. Endorsement from others is always better than tooting your own horn.

The PR Takeaway: If you want the message about you to be heard, let your friends say it. SAC ‘s recent coverage contains a surprising number of reputable and well-known investors confirming that they are sticking with the firm – at least, for the moment. For SAC management seeking to reassure investors, it’s the best sort of message, and one that it couldn’t deliver itself.

To read more, click here.

 

 

 

The PRV Report Card: This Week’s PR Winners & Losers

fiscal cliff 150x150 The PRV Report Card: This Weeks PR Winners & LosersPR WINNER OF THE WEEK:  ”A” (GOLD STAR!) TO: The Fiscal Cliff. Where was this now-infamous, much-ballyhooed, utterly dreaded fiscal cliff over the interminable electioneering months? The term vanished from the public lexicon then but is now rekindling waves of panic in financial markets and cable news. Before the election this had at best medium celebrity value, but ten days later the media hasn’t stopped talking about going over the cliff and new catastrophic lows for the economy. The “cliff” is the perfect PR package: terror, fear, and and the unwanted leap into the unknown. No wonder both sides of the political debate won’t let this metaphor go. Creating urgency around this means someone has to blink first. Artful PR.

 The PRV Report Card: This Weeks PR Winners & LosersPR LOSER OF THE WEEK: “F” (FULL FIASCO) TO: Guy Fieri, Food Network star and owner of Guy’s American Kitchen & Bar. This week, Fieri’s new Times Square establishment got national media attention – for receiving what may be the most scathing restaurant review The New York Times has ever published. Highlights: “Hey, did you try that blue drink, the one that glows like nuclear waste? The watermelon margarita? Any idea why it tastes like some combination of radiator fluid and formaldehyde?” Fieri hit back immediately – ensuring that even more people read the review. Yet one wonders: What did the reviewer really expect from a 500-seat eatery in Times Square, and will the quality of food really matter to visitors trapped in a touristic culinary wasteland?

JILLKELLEY 150x150 The PRV Report Card: This Weeks PR Winners & LosersPR BLUNDER OF THE WEEK TO: Jill Kelley’s brother David Khawam. He hit the airwaves hoping to move the dial on the national fascination with his socialite sister Jill Kelley, who is intimately involved in the Petraeus scandal. Springing to her defense, he claims it is ‘ludicrous” to think his sister had an affair with Petraeus. “She has three kids and is a dedicated wife,” he protested. A well-intentioned but awkward PR move. Besides being an unconvincing defense, the question of Kelly having an affair with Petraeus had not been seriously raised before. Was this a case of team Kelley shooting itself in the foot?

An Affair to Remember – Or Sue Over

Queen Sofia 120x150 An Affair to Remember   Or Sue Over

The PR Verdict: “B”(Good Show) for Queen Sofia.

Life is short; have an affair! So says the tagline for dating website Ashley Madison. The site that links members seeking extramarital affairs now finds itself in the headlines. While Ashley Madison thinks infidelity provides endless fun, the Queen of Spain does not agree – she is suing the website for “damage to her honor and dignity.”

The site is known for its provocative advertisements. The latest featured a doctored photo of the Spanish monarch with her royal arms draped around a semi-naked man, with the promise “Now you no longer have to spend the night alone.” The ad, widely believed to be cashing in on rumors of King Juan Carlos’s philandering, led Queen Sofia to promptly file suit.

The news comes in the same week that a Spanish waiter and a Belgian housewife lost legal bids to prove they are the illegitimate children of the 74-year-old king. Ashley Madison previously ran a similar ad using a Photoshopped picture of the King flanked by two models with the tagline, “The best place to ‘hunt’ for an adventure.” At the time, King Juan turned the other cheek and took no legal action. The ball is now in Sofia’s court, and she’s throwing it back hard.

The PR Verdict: “B” (Good Show) for Queen Sofia. As a warning shot, this sends the signal she intended.

The PR Takeway: It’s okay not to go “all the way”; sometimes starting a legal action is enough in itself, even if you don’t intend to finish what you started. The Queen has some measure of public sympathy on her side with no whiff of scandal, unlike her husband. As unlikely as this case is to go to court, she has fired a warning shot that she will defend her reputation. In so doing, she has also taken the attention away from her husband’s recent travails in court. Her actions might be the game and conversation changer both King and Queen were seeking.

To read more, click here.