Tiger Woods just issued his first public appearance and public apology since the truth about his infidelity and affinity for porn-stars exploded via media.

Read the transcript of his public apology here.




A few points from Crisis/Reputation Management 101 that Woods seems to have been coached on:
1. If everyone knows you're at fault, say you're sorry.
Woods' first item of business today was to clearly say "I'm sorry." He addresses his primary publics (his wife, his kids, his family, his fans, his business partners, etc.) and issues a clear apology for how his actions impacted them.

2. Acknowledge you are like everyone else.
Woods admits that he doesn't "get to play by different rules." In effect, he is like everyone else. I.E. He has made mistakes like everyone else and he has to pay for them like everyone else. This is a good tactic in that it makes the rest of us imperfect souls consider our mistakes and realize that Tiger Woods, after all, is only human. He has to play by the same 'rules' as we do but at the same time, he is as imperfect as the rest of us.

3. Assurance that improvements have begun.
Tiger talks about his 45 days of inpatient therapy. This assures his publics that he's already taken steps to fix the problems he has caused. He alludes to intentions for ongoing improvements. "I have a long way to go. But I have taken my first steps in the right direction.

4. Rumor control.
Woods does address rumor in a relatively ambiguous manner. "Some people have made things up that never happened." Then he goes on to refer to the rumor of performance-enhancing drugs, but doesn't allude to any of the outlandish stories of infidelity. It's good that he doesn't elaborate on this point, but instead leaves the issue hanging in peoples' minds as to which stories were rumors and which were truths. It's doubtful this will stifle media speculation, but that may not matter.

So, what are your thoughts/feelings/reactions from Tiger Woods' public apology?

Was it enough? A good step in the right direction? Were his actions simply unforgivable? Was he practicing good PR in doing this press conference? Anyone know who his publicist or PR agent is?

We have our own individual opinions here at Drake Cooper. But we'd really love to know yours.

Labels: crisis communication, Public Relations, Tiger Woods

Whether you drive a Toyota Prius or have just been following the media waylay Toyota has received over the issue of the Prius's faulty breaks, it's been fascinating to see media and even D.C. politicos inform the extent of this crisis and Toyota's response - lacking or not.

Academic approaches to crisis communications (read - great scholars like Coombs, Holladay, & Ulmer) often look at the extent to which media actually inform and manifest a crisis.

For Toyota and the case of the faulty breaks and sticky gas pedals, staunch media coverage and the whole "stop driving your Toyota's" misstatement from transportation secretary LaHood, definitely seem to be manifesting a crisis that never actually happened.

I say the crisis "never actually happened" because, well, it's not like millions of Prius drivers' breaks all suddenly failed at once and a bunch of people perished. (For a more appropriate definition of a crisis, see Haiti).

Now - should faulty break and sticky gas pedal malfunctions have been addressed? Absolutely? Should Toyota have responded with recalls sooner? Probably. But the recalls are out - to the tune of 8.5 million cars and trucks, globally.

Toyota has produced (quite quickly, I might add) some television spots like this one, which practice crisis management 101: remind audience of long-established, trusted history; softly acknowledge faults; point out efforts to fix errors; talk about bright and promising future.




I actually think the messaging in this video is solid - straightforward - and affective. Granted, I don't drive a Toyota. So for those that do, are Toyota's actions sufficient in easing consumers' fears?

Or do additional media reports about an inaccessible brand and closed company culture carry more weight and implications than a 15-second TV spot with reassuring messaging can fix?

Ironically, companies with closed cultures and their ability to survive crises is also an oft-studied topic when it comes to crisis communication.

And the basic premise of many theories resulting from these studies?
If you have a tight-lipped, inaccessible corporate culture and you or your product encounters risk or an actual crisis, media are going to attack you corporate practices right along with the risk/crisis.

Which is to say, media-generated crisis or not, it's still a crisis.
And I believe it takes a lot more (read corporate culture overhaul) than a creative commercial spot to make the crisis subside.

Labels: crisis communication, crisis response, Media, Public Relations, Toyota