I received a call late in the afternoon. A network newscast broadcasted an investigative report, which placed several companies in a bad light. The business owner who called us for help has a contract with one of those companies, and he worried the investigative report would also negatively impact him.
The news story did not name company names. One of the companies supplied the reporter with a statement. The reporter included portions of the statement in the story and the full statement online. The statement online included the company’s name.
My client received two angry phone calls. The callers made a connection between his business and a company seen in the story. He tried returning the angry phone calls but no one answered.
I’ve aired many investigative stories similar to the one in question. I’m a big proponent of responding to a reporter’s request for comment. In fact, I’m a huge proponent of granting the reporter an interview, not simply giving a statement. In most cases, a company or its spokesperson should be able to handle a tough interview rather than only issue a statement. Plus, providing an interview is a strategic way to get a reporter to tell more of your side of the story.
But this case was different. The news network was not asking my client for comment. The story never named on-air the companies in question. The reporter did not question my client’s actions. My client simply had a contract with the company in question and this national newscast only led two people to make the behind-the-scenes business connection. The angry callers blamed my client for behavior he had nothing to do with. And the angry callers were not key business relationships. When I worked as an investigative reporter at the Fox station in Phoenix, members of the public often scolded me for reasons related to Fox News Channel. I didn’t work for Fox News Channel. But some people focused on the fact the Fox station in Phoenix and Fox News Channel belonged to the same family of businesses and I was an easy target.
My client’s initial emotional reaction was to release a statement and explain himself. But releasing a statement would draw unnecessary attention to his business. No one accused him of anything. In fact, almost no one knew about his contract with the company in the news story. Ultimately, we provided him with tools to handle any future calls. We also helped him communicate to other companies under contract the nature of the news story and the importance of providing excellent service. Finally, we agreed to monitor the situation in case circumstances changed.
Responding to negative reports is important both in traditional and social media. But don’t feel obligated to open the verbal floodgates just because your brother got in trouble and no one is pointing a finger at you. Responding quickly is important, but responding too quickly without thinking matters through can make the case unnecessarily complicated.