Tip: When Your PR Guy Leaves on Bad Terms, the Media Will Know About It
The senior internal PR person is one of the most important leaders within an organization -- not just because of his impact on company strategy, but because of his relationships and frequent contact with the news media.
The media uses your company's spokesperson as a gauge for how things are going for you. Is the spokesperson happy? Then maybe X Corp. is a fun place to work. Is your spokesperson passionate? Then maybe X Corp. is driven to achieve its operational objectives. Most reporters don't spend a lot of time poring over your balance sheet; they often start with their right brain -- their intuition -- to sniff out problems at a company.
That's why it's never a good idea to part with your PR exec on bad terms, as the tri-cornered hats at the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation obviously have, based on this report in The Daily Press of Newport News, Va.
Reporter Chris Flores apparently tried to reach Tim Andrews, the erstwhile PR chief for Colonial Williamsburg, on the phone, then discovered his contact info was missing from the organization's Web site. He even tried to find Andrews by going to his home, to no avail. Making matters worse, no one else at Colonial Williamsburg would return his calls, either.
Well, it's too late now, but if you're curious -- here's what I would do if I were wearing the tri-cornered hat:
1. Give Andrews a nice severance package to make him happy -- even if the departure was voluntary. The severance agreement would contain the terms of a smooth transition.
2. These terms might include, for example, friendly calls from Andrews to his key media contacts to inform them of the change, followed by a press release that hails Andrews' contributions as it introduces his successor.
That would have worked a little better than having Chris Flores at your ex-PR man's front door. Now everyone looks silly, and if I were Flores, my next question would be, "I wonder what other funny stuff is going at Colonial Williamsburg?"
posted by Scott Baradell at
7:21 AM
6 Comments:
Somebody just shot themselves in the foot with a musket...
By
Anonymous, at 8/24/2005
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!"
By
Anonymous, at 8/24/2005
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
SB, at 8/24/2005
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, at 8/24/2005
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
Natalie, at 9/07/2005
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
SB, at 9/07/2005
Post a Comment
<< Home