Protecting Your Brand or Industry Image in the Media – Part 2
Protecting Your Brand or Industry Image in the Media, Part 2 More Lessons Learned Last time we discussed some important questions about being ready to join a media conversation when your brand or your industry is under attack or scrutiny. Sometimes that scrutiny is warranted, even if it’s unwelcome. Sometimes it is based on a false assumption but still captures enough media attention to require a response. If the situation arises, then, are you prepared to make your case in a court of public opinion? Note: In the previous article I discussed that while this particular experience is instructive across industries and topics, it does involve some issues of faith and religion. As before, I remind you that my point in sharing this adventure isn’t to proselytize, but rather to share lessons learned that you might be able to apply to your own media involvements. In my first post on this topic, I shared links to the video that sparked another author to write the article that led to my response. [spacer size=”60″] More Tips for Protecting Your Brand Image in the Media After both of our articles appeared online – along with a reporter’s article on the subject – I received a phone call from the producer of the Alan Colmes Radio Show on Fox News Radio asking if I’d come on the air to talk about it. I agreed, making it clear as before that I was more interested in response and conversation than I was in argument or debate. Being familiar with news and talk radio shows and personalities (including Mr. Colmes), I wanted to make sure that we were not going to be pitted against each other. I was not interested in decimating or insulting the other writer, despite the fact that I thought he was completely mistaken. So from the original conversation with the producer, I made it clear that whether we were on together or separately, I was interested in a conversation, not a shouting match. Nevertheless, I took the risk of going on live national radio to make my case with a host whom I knew would be interested in at least some degree of conflict. I discovered in the preliminary talk with the producer that the other interviewee didn’t want to be on at the same time with me. This wasn’t congruent with my original hope of having a “conversation,” but it did avoid the possibility of any unpleasant “debate,” which may have been what he feared. (I was also given the advantage of going second, as my comments were a response to his original column.) It is worth noting, however, that his decision not to participate in a three-way discussion gave me the opportunity to publicly mention my willingness to have appeared together. By positioning myself that way, I was able to establish my point of view as being more open to discussion, and willing to listen to him as an equal. It’s important to stake out the high ground of being obviously fair, open, and reasonable whenever possible. If you listen to the interview, you’ll hear me return to my points often. I’ll start by answering the question in a brief way, but pivot with “But to the point I was making before…” and emphasize my key idea. Even when given the opportunity to plug myself, I took advantage of the moment but immediately pivoted with “Thanks for the opportunity to plug, but that’s not my purpose here…” and went back to my content. I listened to the other person’s interview while I waited on hold. As I did, I made notes about ways that we agreed. He emphasized the idea that we would agree on many things, and I took my opportunities to demonstrate that. I also made notes of words and phrases he used so that I could use them myself but apply them to my own point. As I listened, I also heard his tone change from the original article to the discussion on the radio. It was softened and not as accusatory. I made it clear that I noticed and that I thought that was a good idea. It did not serve whatever common faith-oriented goals we share for me to simply argue or disrespect him, or to cause him to lose face. It also didn’t serve my professional credibility or industry needs to let misconceptions go unanswered. Finding ways to credit the other side on areas of agreement or on areas where there has been a correct shift in position allows us to go for a win/win situation. It strengthens my credibility on the points where we disagree if I am able to point out legitimate areas of agreement. Any appearance on national media, web or broadcast, is worth leveraging. In addition to my social-media sharing as the issue unfolded, there is a lasting value in mining the experience for lessons that can be shared. As business strategist Marna Friedman advised, the lessons learned from going through this not only have interest to other people strictly as a media opportunity, but they contained insights related to the topics on which I speak and write. As a result, I have two blog articles and you have 8 practical tips that you can apply to your own media opportunities in the future. Let me know how your experiences work out! Relevant Links The original article is here. My response is here. Here’s a reporter’s news article. Here’s the original author’s follow-up article. Here’s the Fox News Radio interview: [media url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4THh71LWCs” width=”360″ height=”300″ jwplayer=”controlbar=bottom”]
Protecting Your Brand or Industry Image in the Media – Part 1
Protecting Your Brand or Industry Image in the Media, Part 1 A Brief Case Study, Plus Some Lessons Learned Several weeks ago an online video of a magician doing a levitation stunt in London went viral. After a brief flurry of activity, an opinion piece appeared on a targeted-audience news site in which one of their columnists cast some pretty serious accusations and aspersions on not just that performer, but all magical performers. I wrote an article in response, and somehow we both ended up on national radio. Are you ready to engage in a public conversation that may involve accusations or misconceptions about you, your brand, or your industry? If the national media calls, are you prepared to make your case in a court of public opinion? In this post and the next, I’ll share and discuss the original piece that started the discussion, my response, our subsequent radio interviews, and some of the brand management lessons I learned along the way. One quick note: While this example involves some issues of faith and religion, there are important ideas here for brand management in any arena. I rarely insert my personal beliefs into my writing or speaking, but in this case I think the events are instructive beyond that specific content. So please don’t let your agreement, disagreement or disinterest in the topic dissuade you from the value of this experience. Likewise, let’s keep any comments on this post focused on brand and media management concerns rather than any religious content. Thanks in advance. [spacer size=”60″] Tips for Protecting Your Brand Image in the Media I saw the original video of the levitation. Then, due to maintaining social media connections with a wide range of people in my industry, I saw the critical and misinformed op-ed being shared and discussed. This discussion was, as you would imagine, extremely negative. Comments on the original site became progressively more heated against my industry, while discussion among my industry colleagues became heated against many people of faith whether they agreed with the article or not. A good bit of anger and lack of understanding resulted from the original article, causing unnecessary heartache among people sympathetic to both groups. It also resulted in an exacerbated credibility gap, as the demonstrably false accusations came from a point of view that is already considered largely ignorant by a significant percentage of the industry under attack. As the discussion within my industry continued, I was contacted by a fellow performer who had a connection to the original publication. He felt that I’d be an ideal person to write a rebuttal and contacted me to ask if I’d do it. I said I’d be willing to write a response, but I’d prefer not to frame it as a “rebuttal.” He recommended me to the publication. Even when that publication called and asked me to write the piece, I declined to call it a rebuttal, preferring to eliminate or at least minimize any antagonistic connotations of the word. Instead, I looked for ways to frame my piece as simply “a contribution to the conversation.” Despite that intent, though, my first draft still had some pretty pointed criticism. After submitting the article, the editor of the publication and his staff talked with me by phone. I was asked to consider eliminating part of the article that went very directly at the credibility the publication and of the original author. I was convinced by their argument that I had made my case sufficiently without it, and that their willingness to publish my piece was a testament to their credible intent to present multiple viewpoints. They had and wanted to maintain a long-term relationship with the other writer, and frankly they wanted to protect him to some degree. If I had chosen to be obstinate or to resent input from the editors, my final piece would have had an angrier tone than I really intended. Even though the advice to cut some of it came from a source who was protecting a person whose work I was critiquing, the suggestion was correct. Legitimate, informed criticism – even from a source you don’t necessarily respect – deserves consideration. My response article was improved by my decision to take good advice. What About You? What about you? Have you had media experiences that caught you by surprise because you weren’t paying attention? Have you charged in, guns blazing, with a rebuttal instead of a response? Have you ignored good advice based on its source, and lived to regret it? What did you learn in that situation? Have you put that lesson into action since then? If so, how? In the next post I’ll continue with another 5 lessons I learned in this recent adventure, and I’ll share the audio from the interview. Stay tuned!
