Filed under: Crisis Communications
Say what you will about Tiger Woods. In fact, don’t. We’ve said it all over the past three months, and it’s not my desire to condone or condemn the man. I’d rather assess something closer to my heart: communication. More specifically, how he has chosen to communicate with the public (or not) since the now infamous moment in which he fled his home in his SUV.
I was prepared to be annoyed or dismayed by this morning’s press conference, in which Woods addressed the public for the first time since the November 2009 incident. I didn’t even watch his press conference this morning, but I’ve seen the clips and I read the transcript word for word. Go figure, but I find myself amazed. In awe. Fascinated. By his behavior? No. By his control. And when I speak of control, I’m talking about every aspect of his personal crisis management. Let’s assess his media relations actions and apply them to situations closer to home:
- Control of timing: Woods chose to avoid public communication for three entire months. In crisis management, each scenario must be considered individually. In the case of Toyota, media interviews and press conferences had to occur much sooner, and in most corporate crisis situations should occur as quickly as possible. With a celebrity, perhaps not so much. I felt he should have spoken immediately, but now I think he was right to wait; to let things calm down a bit, to allow the initial shock of his fans to settle, and so on. The message here is not about waiting a long time before communicating, but about determining when is the right time for yourself, or your company, to address the public.
- Control of environment. Although reporters and golf fans alike sniffed at Woods’ very selective group of onlookers for this morning’s media address, he clearly made his choice based on who he trusted. Corporations do not have the luxury of picking and choosing media during an incident like a pipeline eruption or workplace violence, but they do have the right to determine when and where they will speak. By selecting a location away from dramatic backdrops like fires or angry crowds, a spokesperson can focus on the message and avoid unnecessarily negative footage on the 6 p.m. news.
- Control of message. Tiger Woods knows, and pretty much stated, that there are many questions people have about more personal aspects of his situation, such as when he cheated, and with whom. He declared that this information belongs between him, and his wife, and that is where it will stay. He instead focused on his humiliation at having let down family, friends, business partners, and children who have benefitted from his foundation. Similarly, when an organization comes before the media to describe an incident or a developing situation, not all information must be shared. You can select the content you will communicate; it doesn’t need to be based only on what the media is asking. On the other hand, keep in mind that if your goal is to build community trust where you have a facility, you may not get there by being tight-lipped about a fire at your plant site.
Mr. Woods, despite his human weaknesses, may be much more in control than I’d ever have imagined. At least when it comes to communication and media relations! What are your thoughts? Weigh in by leaving a comment below.
4 Comments so far
Leave a comment
IMHO, he controlled only the environment of this one event — not the message or the outcome. As for the timing and environment, waiting this long and reemerging as he did bought him nothing, except to wave a red cape at the tabloids while shunning the professional sportswriters who could’ve really helped in rehabilitating his image.
I found it a sniveling, craven “performance.” Sponsors and some “fans” will return when he starts winning tournaments again. If and when he really changes, it will show in his behavior and comportment, not his words.
It was a real Mark Sanford kind of faux confession, faux apology IMHO.
E
Comment by Elaine W Krause February 20, 2010 @ 3:21 amTiger himself said in his comments that his words this morning matter less than his actions going forward. He has really made a fool of himself, and his brand may never fully recover. However, if he ‘performs’ at a high level again, i.e. he patches up his marriage AND wins tournaments, it’s very possible he can regain many of his customers. Companies can do the same, but it takes time, commitment and consistent high performance. Nice analysis, MaryJane!
Comment by Steve Reiher February 20, 2010 @ 4:12 amControlled, yes. Effective, no. First rule of crisis communications for individuals or for corporations is to tell the truth and be genuine. A Stanford graduate should have been able to memorize his message points and deliver them without a written script. Just talk! Don’t come off like Charlie McCarthy mouthing the carefully crafted words of his PR Edgar Bergens.
Comment by Bill Church February 20, 2010 @ 3:05 pmWhat I’m seeing is the execution of an appropriate strategy that matches the needs of the public. They need their superhero and are usually willing to accept apologies; even more so in his case. Hide out for a while to ramp up the demand and tease about your return. What’s less predictable is Elin. I suspect she’ll give him another chance for humanitarian ( and monetary) reasons.
Comment by Ron Natale February 21, 2010 @ 1:29 am