Where PR can work or fail

I can just imagine what a PR nightmare it must have been for an airline to see images of one of its planes, nose on the ground at the end of a runway, splashed on TV and on the front pages of newspapers for two days straight.

You do not even have to know the details. One look at the images and you know exactly what happened. And what happened was something all airlines dread happening. But the sad truth is that accidents do happen.

That accidents happen is the great equalizer among all airlines. They are in the same can together. What eventually sets airlines apart is the way they handle things. This is where PR comes in.

I had a very brief stint in PR with a large corporation. But I stayed only for two months. I probably wasn't cut out for PR so I went back to journalism and writing. I am thus a person with almost no expertise to judge the PR aspect of the aircraft incident fairly.

From a journalist's perspective, however, I have come across real gems in the practice of PR that, on hindsight, I can now say without fear of contradiction, separates the professionals from the rest of the field.

The demands on journalism sometimes make for tricky situations where they overlap with the practice of PR. But professionals from both sides can find commonality if they are able to understand, and respect, the functions of the other.

It is along this line that I greatly admire the corporate PR philosophies of certain companies. One company for instance, which I will not name for obvious reasons, chooses to meet situations head-on instead of just doing PR, if you know what I mean.

The corporate PR philosophy of this company seems to be that, by not doing PR, it is actually doing great PR. And it helps the company that it normally takes in former journalists to head its PR department instead of someone dyed in the wool in PR work.

Here is what usually happens when a situation crops up — in almost no time at all, an official statement is released admitting what can be admitted regarding an incident, disclosing what is being done at the moment, and promising what can be done under the circumstances.

This early official response helps the company get the record straight, avoid speculation that can be more damaging than the truth, and helps journalists piece their story more clearly for the benefit of everybody.

These companies have apparently come to the conclusion that it is always better to deal with journalists professionally than leave everything to speculation outside the field of journalism.

They apparently see that a story always leaks out, if not in media, then by word of mouth. And while adverse media publicity can be damaging, it is usually more devastating by word of mouth, where speculation and embellishment can reach greater audiences than any circulation.

The great thing about coming out up front is that you get to exercise some control over a breaking story. A prompt official statement prevents media from going beyond what was admitted. Media cannot speculate as speculation is ruinous to the profession.

Those companies that do not like to beat media to the gun compensate by either making themselves accessible for interviews or, at a much later time, presumably spent gathering data, call for a press conference.

Great PR work in crisis is like firefighting. You do not just try to douse the fire, you try to contain it and prevent it from spreading. But that's just me, an outsider, speaking as a journalist. True PR professionals can smell a fire before it ignites. To them my salute.