Comments on: Tip: When Your PR Guy Leaves on Bad Terms, the Media Will Know About It

By: SB

SB — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 00:33:00 +0000

Andrews has been replaced. All parties have been mum on the circumstances, but a little bird has given me the scoop. Unfortunately, I’ve been sworn to secrecy.

By: Natalie

Natalie — Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:57:00 +0000

Any news on this? I think it’s one of CW’s modes of operation to make staff decisions and hope no one notices. Like how they laid off frontline staff last winter in a public “so, sorry, budget cuts” announcement but then had to rehire people for those positions in the spring because they were busy again. After forcing those laid off to work through the busy holiday season.
These people need their PR (and top heavy administrators) to be more in touch in a major way.

By: SB

SB — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 20:27:00 +0000

Here’s the response from Chris:

“Like many sizable organizations, CW has a large p.r. staff. I was trying to show that the top p.r. person is gone, the president isn’t around to answer questions and the one person who is authorized to answer questions is unavailable. So subordinate p.r. person Jim Bradley was there to say they couldn’t comment on the replacement either, and it would have dishonest for me to put something in along the lines of no comment was available on the replacement either… Andrews was the top spokesman and almost always the one who was quoted, but plenty of others were quoted too. So the point wasn’t that the only voice of the institution was gone, but by far the most-heard voice and gatekeeper of the other voices was gone. This was one of those weird situations where a whole gaggle of p.r. people are there to answer my questions – they just weren’t authorized to answer. So I can understand the confusion…”

By: SB

SB — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 20:15:00 +0000

From an e-mail that Chris sent me earlier today, I infer that someone in the PR department told him a news release would be coming out, but no one within the company was willing to be interviewed on the record — to talk about the spokesperson’s departure and the reasons for it. I’ve e-mailed Chris to see if he would mind providing further clarification.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:03:00 +0000

the weird thing about this story (and maybe i misread it) is the reporter goes out of his way to cite 3 CW people who didn’t return calls, including the star of the piece, former spokesman tim andrews. but then the reporter quotes a “CW spokesman” saying CW would announce a replacement for andrews shortly. wait, i thought the point of the story was that CW was without a spokesman. and i thought the reporter couldn’t get anyone from CW to return his calls…. “the spokesman has left, the spokesman speaks, the spokesman is coming!”