By Don Goldberg
Conventional political wisdom says get out in front of any negative story, state your case forcefully, give the press all of the details (preferably on a Friday after deadline), and put it behind you. This was certainly the strategy that many of us on the Clinton White House damage control team advocated. Failing to put it quickly behind you just means dragging the story out as long as your adversaries can manipulate it. You don't have to look much past John Kerry's failure to do so last August during the swift boat debate to see the consequences of not fighting back as quickly as possible.
But the conventional wisdom may not always be the right move for candidates who have yet to establish their identity and gain name recognition with their target voters. Sometimes, holding your fire is the better course of action.
Political candidates, like corporations, can sometimes find themselves facing public relations crises when opposition research kicks in and adversaries discover a whiff of controversy from the past or present. In the corporate world, dealing with these types of communications issues poses its own set of challenges. The brand must be protected, customers convinced, shaky investors calmed, and employees assured. But for candidates attempting to establish their position with voters—creating their own brand in the political arena—the challenges of a potential scandal can be much more difficult. There are many risks for a candidate who is trying to introduce him or herself to the electorate in deciding when and how to fight back.
This is especially tricky in this era of Internet bloggers, e-mail campaigns, and the 24/7 news cycle. Negative news stories now may circulate widely on the web before breaking through to the mainstream media. Throw in an intensely partisan and divided electorate, and candidates who wait until negative stories are published in hard copy to respond are gambling their careers on last decade's technology.
The case of Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley, a Democrat who is married with children and is positioning himself for a run for Maryland governor in 2006, is a timely example of those difficult public relations choices. After becoming the focus of e-mail allegations this winter that he had been engaged in extramarital liaisons, O'Malley had to weigh a couple of tricky options before deciding on how to respond to what it turns out were rumors being circulated by an aide to the incumbent Republican governor O'Malley accused agents of Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s administration of spreading false rumors that he had an extramarital affair. A Democrat considering a bid for governor in 2006, O'Malley said he believes that the widespread and persistent rumors were part of a "concerted and orchestrated and sustained" effort and called on the Republican governor to apologize to his wife and children. Gov. Ehrlich denied any personal involvement in spreading the rumor. He then asked for and received the resignation of Joseph Steffen, a longtime aide working in state government. Editor's note.
He could ignore the e-mail accusations and hope they eventually went away, essentially taking the proverbial political high road of not giving credibility to the rumors. Or he could publicly protest the allegations—and risk elevating them to a national news story that would guarantee that every voter in the state would be aware of the them.
That might sound good in theory, and while it's easy to apply to companies and products—and to well-known politicians in some cases—for candidates, it is not so simple. Campaigns are run on emotion and passion, not profit margins and return on investment calculations. Candidates are individuals with histories and reputations who cannot cut and run from the identities they are trying to project. Real life politics do not resemble television dramas, and candidate run hard, at least until the money dries up.
In O'Malley's case, he decided to hold a press conference to defend his brand before it was truly defined, at least with statewide voters. With his wife at his side, he forcefully denied the allegations that had been circulating, decried what he deemed were smear tactics, and demanded that they end. In my opinion, O'Malley took a huge gamble, and it remains to be seen whether it will pay off. Trying to prove a negative—that you have not been unfaithful to your wife—is always a tough sell, and it simply dares the media to intensify its scrutiny in the hopes of catching you in a lie. Remember President hopeful Gary Hart, a Democratic Senator from Colorado who during the 1988 primary challenged reporters to follow him if they thought he was fooling around? They did, and he was caught red-handed with Donna Rice (not his wife), to the everlasting detriment of his political ambitions.
Let's give O'Malley the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has been faithful to his family. My guess is that a substantial percentage of voters statewide who most likely had either never heard of O'Malley or else had no opinion of him now have the allegations of infidelity seared into their memories. Whether or not they are aware of his forceful denial may not be important. Their first image of O'Malley is one of controversy and suggested impropriety, and he will have to work much harder to overcome that perception.
My golden rule for crisis management, whether for corporate clients, candidates, or established politicians, is first, do no harm. The presumption is always against taking any public action that might bring attention to the allegations if they would otherwise not be made public. Proactively embroiling yourself in a controversy when trying to establish your brand should always be the choice of last resort. The unfortunate truth that goes equally for candidates and consumer products is that the first thing voters hear about you will color their perceptions regardless of the veracity of the allegations. Rightly or wrongly, people tend to believe that where there is smoke, there must be fire, especially in the political arena.
Candidates need to create first impressions that convey their key campaign messages. That is the brand image that they need to convey to voters. O'Malley's tactical decision means that he will now have to define himself to Maryland residents outside of Baltimore whose first introduction to him may well have been in the context of the allegations of infidelity. That may prove to be a tough hurdle to overcome.
There are a number of factors that go into how well an individual or a company survives a communications crisis. These include how forceful the response is, how forthcoming with facts it is, and in the case of individuals and corporations guilty of mistakes, whether the response is delivered with compassion and contrition. But just as important in surviving a communications crisis is having a well-established brand in place before that crisis hits. That is why it is so important for candidates, like products, to define themselves before they are defined by bad news or political adversaries.
How would I have counseled O'Malley? From my safe distance, I am sure that I do not know all of the facts, and it is hard to know what other factors O'Malley had to consider before deciding on going public. If he was confident that the rumors were going to hit the mainstream press with or without his defense, then holding that press conference was a smart move. But more likely, the mainstream media would not have written stories about alleged infidelity unless there was a lawsuit from an embittered former lover or some other official excuse to bring an issue so private into the public arena. There decisions are difficult, but I think it will make his gubernatorial that much more of a challenge.
Don Goldberg, Managing Director for Crisis Communications at
Qorvis, has been advising Members of Congress,
corporations, and Presidents on difficult communications
challenges for more than 20 years. He can be reached
at Click here to contact this Author.
