The PR Verdict: “F” (Full Fiasco) for the BBC. (Pictured: Former BBC Director General George Entwistle.)
Much hand-wringing at the BBC these days. The venerable news organization continues to flounder following the broadcast of a news segment concerning allegations of child abuse. The most high-profile casualty so far is none other than the BBC’s Director General, George Entwistle, who resigned on Saturday.
For a while, it looked like Entwistle was going to make it. Following the crisis management rulebook, he was saying and doing the right things: taking responsibility, calling for answers, and promising reform. Ultimately, though, that didn’t save him. He was taken down by an astonishing interview given on BBC radio. The fifteen-minute segment is now widely credited as being Entwistle’s undoing, and interviewer John Humphry has been praised for it. His BBC colleagues might want to re-examine those kudos.
In the incendiary interview, Humphry dispenses altogether with the notion of allowing listeners to decide. Basically telling his boss he should have known better, he does a lot of telling and not much asking. Entwistle does his best to stay on message and answer questions, but Humphry becomes belligerent, hopelessly drunk with the power of the chair he is sitting in. The interview sounds like an exercise in personal and organizational retribution. If the BBC is worried about its PR (and trust) with the public, this didn’t help. The BBC can claim scalps in its interviews, but in so doing makes it entirely clear how the current issues came about in the first place.
The PR Verdict: “F” (Full Fiasco) to the BBC, which demonstrated the thinking that got its news department into hot water.
The PR Takeaway: Fair and balanced is the media motto. While Fox News is routinely derided for being aggressively opinionated, Humphry’s “news” interview would sit perfectly on a Fox talk show. If the PR problems of the BBC relate to the inadequate editorial checks and balances in its news department, then this interview serves its critics well. Instead of celebrating the “gotcha” moment, a stronger commitment to facts, not opinions; more asking, less telling – might be the change that starts the BBC’s PR turnaround.
To listen to the interview, click here.
When “No Comment” Says Too Much
The PR Verdict: “C” (Distinctly OK) for Ina Drew and her PR.
What happens to your PR profile when you are held publicly responsible for a headline trading loss of over $6 billion? That must have been the question Ina Drew asked herself as she read her cover story profile in this weekend’s edition of The New York Times Magazine. The former Chief Investment Officer of JP Morgan Chase, who lost the eye-popping number on a sour trade called the “London Whale,” was amusingly headlined “Swallowed by the London Whale.”
The lengthy profile was what one might have expected. The first half was dedicated to tracing Ina’s stellar rise: She was tough, driven, analytical, and well-versed not only in the markets but also internal politics and turf warfare. The second half of the story details how it all unraveled as the losses mounted.
While Drew didn’t comment, plenty of others did. Those more closely connected to the disastrous trade stayed in the background, identifying themselves only as “sources close to the bank.” But Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, went public after the dust started to settle, acknowledging Drew’s “incredible contributions “ to the firm. At this point, couldn’t Drew have said a word or two?
The PR Verdict: “C” (Distinctly OK) for Ina Drew and her PR strategy. Just one on-the-record quote might have changed the article’s tone.
The PR Takeaway: Silence is not always golden. This profile has it all: money, success, and a colossal fall from grace by the tough trader who, moments prior to resigning, was walking the halls of JP Morgan, pale, gaunt, and with smudged mascara. Despite ongoing and innumerable legal complications, Ina Drew might have served her own PR well by reiterating that while regulators continue to review the matter, she is prohibited from commenting and that she resigned because it was the appropriate thing to do. If your CEO is publicly positive about your contribution, far better to put yourself in the driver’s seat and acknowledge that you are assisting with inquires and exited with grace, rather than give the impression you have slunk off into the sunset with your tail between your legs.
Was Ina Drew’s silence golden or damning? Give us your PR Verdict!
To read the article click here.