It’s one of the calls most PR people can’t stand getting: a consumer watchdog reporter with a customer complaint about your company’s product or service.

Typically it is a run of the mill complaint: a product doesn’t work, a service didn’t meet expectations, an agreement was violated.  But what is most frustrating is that often the issue stems from the trappings of bureaucracy –the complaint got passed off one too many times and the customer eventually got  mad enough to go to the media (when it could have easily been handled to the customer’s satisfaction internally).  And if you’re extra lucky, the customer is so mad they get the reporter to agree that a story about their complaint is warranted.

So what do you do?  You lord over your customer service department (or other applicable team) until they appropriately (if not generously) fix the situation, communicate the fix and apology to the customer and reporter, and pray this stays a one day story.  Remember, the customer is always right – especially if they go to the media.

Or if you’re like this company, maybe you’ll take a different approach.

The Cliff Notes background: tourist goes snorkeling; tour boat leaves without him; tourist spots another boat, swims to safety; tourist relived to no longer be shark bait but is pretty ticked about the situation; tourist demanded an apology; the apology (and accompanying restaurant gift card) wasn’t found to be acceptable; somewhere down the line, the aggrieved went to the media.

The company response?  The full link to a blog post detailing the situation is here, but I’ll call out this gem for readers here as well:

“The fact that this guy [Ian Cole] talked about this shows that he’s just seeking self-exposure, and wants to be portrayed as a hero, you know, a survivor,” Col Mckenzie said. “There’s no lesson to be learnt from this. He is just making a mountain out of a molehill, and trying to maximize his own self-exposure. It’s just bullshit. He was never in any danger. It was just like being left behind on a beach.

“I mean, his demands were unreasonable. He wanted a written apology. I think his requests were morally reprehensible,” Col Mckenzie said

Alrighty then…

Now we all can admit, from time to time we’ve all dealt with complaints/issues against our company or clients that were bunk.  But to actually go on record, tell the world a guy who was left in the middle of the Great Barrier Reef is “making a mountain out of a molehill” and demanding a written apology was “morally reprehensible?”  Now that is worthy of some kind of award for being perhaps the most tone deaf response ever on record.

At the end of the day, companies are often judged more on their response to adversity than to the actual issue itself. Even if the tourist has ulterior motives, the company just played right into an attorney’s hands (the response fits the description of a company with lax standards, in my opinion).  Moreover, you have to believe this will have a lasting effect on future bookings.  Ever see “Open Water?”  Not exactly the brand image you hope to promulgate via media outlets around the world when you’re in the snorkeling business.

Everybody in crisis PR knows the best day to announce bad news is a Friday or a holiday.  Or is it? The rationale used to be that newspaper readership on Saturdays or holidays was typically the lowest of the week – with readers instead focused on the pressing matters of the weekend (kids, gardening, sports, parties, etc).

Yet with the preponderance of today’s news fed through sources other than newspapers, has this strategy lost its usefulness?  For the most part, I think the answer is “yes.”

Take yesterday’s announcement that Jim Tressel was resigning as head coach of the Ohio State Buckeyes football team.  Announced on a holiday in a not-so-subtle attempt at limiting the discussion (and trying to affect reactions to a pending Sports Illustrated exposé), the airwaves and cyber channels lit up almost instantaneously.  It was topic number one during my husband’s golf outing yesterday morning (they found out just moments after it was announced, thanks to PDAs that never turn off), was thoroughly dissected at the family barbeque later that afternoon and was the lead discussion point among the much-too-loud gossips on today’s morning train commute.

So did the holiday announcement strategy pay off?  Not a bit if you use my mini-focus groups (and the lead stories on nearly every website for the past 24 hours) as evidence.  And that’s not surprising.  Today’s 24/7 news cycle and consumer preferences for mobile media ensures that any major news will reach the masses no matter the day of the week.  In fact, I’d even argue that the timing had the unintended consequence of both driving more interest to the pending SI story (due to drop any day now) and making OSU look worse by trying to hide behind a day reserved for memorializing the men and women who have died for our country.

That being said, there still are times when a Friday announcement may make sense.  For example, a publicly traded company has news that may negatively impact trading once disclosed (e.g., loss of a major customer, delay in a product launch). Assuming you don’t take on a lengthy delay (a harbinger for unwanted leaks), a Friday post-market announcement may allow for potential knee-jerk reactions to be tempered and cooler heads to prevail when trading begins that following Monday.

But simply put, the system can’t be gamed.  Despite it being dismissed again and again (yesterday’s news being the latest case in point), the best strategy is to simply disclose what you know, when you know it (or close to it), own up to the consequences, and get back to the business of moving your company or organization beyond the crisis.

“That was more exhausting than I expected,” said a client of mine, a 30 year financial industry veteran, who despite having a storied career, had never done any meaningful media interview.

I had to laugh. Countless times I’ve been in the middle of a media training session when I see my CEO client begin to impatiently tap his toes or twiddle her thumbs. You know what they’re thinking: “Seriously? I’m wasting my time on this?”

Yep, you are. And for good reason. Dealing with the media IS exhausting, if you’re doing it right. That means you’re focused on delivering your messages, anticipating the questioning, and ensuring you don’t inadvertently step right into a landmine. When done correctly, a purposeful media interview can go a long way towards driving understanding and ultimately buy-in for your company’s strategy, leadership and investment merits.

Of course, the opposite is equally true.

When Tony Hayward infamously said “I would like my life back,” that quip – and so many other undisciplined moments – paint a vivid case for what can go wrong when you wing your conversations with reporters. All CEOs and company spokespeople will be wise to remember that while most reporters are fine people and professionals, they are never your friend.

So the next time you engage with a reporter, remember that winging it is a terrible idea. Be prepared. Know your messages. Anticipate challenging questions. And stay in control.

Those of us in issues/crisis management know all too well the challenges associated with aligning communications strategy with legal strategy.  That little thing called “attorney client privilege” at times impedes, in some way, our ability to have open, honest discussions with both counsel and client.  The result is that instead of having fully informed professionals guiding the communications so vital to a company’s ability to withstand a crisis, less enlightened attorneys and their clients instead default to a reactive, say little communications approach.

Given what I do for a living, you won’t be surprised that I find that this dynamic needs to change.  While I understand that case law on this subject is murky, you don’t need to look further than Toyota or BP to understand why a strong communications strategy that is hand-in-glove with legal strategy is vital.  Like it or not, media and public perception are critical influencers on legal and business outcomes, and an ill-managed, reactive response quite often contributes directly to a negative result.

Recently, I worked on two very different client challenges.  In each case, counsel was heavily involved.  But the experience working with one attorney to the next was as different as night and day.  The mere sight of my name on an email  put one attorney into a tailspin (and I assure you, I had seen information much more sensitive than what was in this email); while the other proactively brought us on board and insisted in fully incorporating us into key decisions.  The result was as expected.

The good news is that more frequently the attorneys we work with are embracing communication advisors like RP as a critical part of their team.  They wisely recognize that while the legal strategy can be lock solid, the case can be lost and the client can face ongoing (perhaps irreparable) damage if the court of public opinion rules unfavorably.  Moreover, there is growing precedent for privilege being extended to relevant non-legal consultants (e.g., public relations, accounting, HR specialists), especially when hired directly by the law firm.  Here’s hoping for greater clarity and certainty about extending attorney client privilege to communication consultants in the near future.