Communication Tools

Crisis management often hinges on a single strategic decision – do we or do we not fight back and, if so, how aggressively?

 

It’s a decision that’s particularly germane when companies grapple with the public dimension of regulatory entanglements. On one hand, the company must protect its reputation. On the other, every press release, media interview, and blog post in the company’s self-defense can alienate regulators at a point in time when it might still be possible to minimize the fallout from their investigations.

 

An offense communicates strength and confidence in your position. It may even convince regulators that their own political and personal goals will be disserved by pursuing an inquiry that the public perceives to be unfair, bureaucratic, and arbitrary. That public influences the legislators who, in turn, oversee and fund the regulators.

 

But the risks of going on offense are considerable. Not only might you infuriate the regulators and intensify their zeal, an offense can generate unwanted public attention that would not otherwise have been aroused.

 

A defense buys time, allowing you to cooperate with regulators and perhaps earn their trust. The risk is that you cede control of the story to your potential adversary. You may, by your docility, encourage the public’s assumption that you are indeed at fault to one degree or another.

 

That said, the abiding benefit of a defensive strategy is that it need not be permanent. If the situation deteriorates to a point where regulators seem uncompromisingly hostile, you can launch an offense at that point. By contrast, the decision to go on offense is usually irreversible. It’s awfully hard to mend fences once you question the agency’s decisions in public.

 

What factors should drive such a choice?

 

First, a crisis team must do risk/benefit analyses at every juncture, all the more because the decision to stay on defense or go on offense determines every subsequent tactical action. Should you talk to the newswires? You will reach the broadest possible audience, but you won’t be able to control what they write. Should you limit your offense to your own blog and thereby maintain control? You will, indeed, stay in control, but you may be perceived as proportionately less credible for doing so.

 

Second, it’s not just a question of the fact patterns underlying your particular situation. To make the decision for defense or for offense, you also need to understand who the regulators are and what they really want to accomplish. Understand that the professionals who staff these agencies are as talented as anyone in the private sector. As lawyers, they’re probably equal to your own legal counselors. The regulators also believe in what they’re doing. They believe they are helping the public, which can make them all the more resolute.

 

To that end, regulators often choose targets that allow them to send a deterring message – but they can only do that if the message is publicized. As such, media savvy is part to the regulators’ job description. Whether you opt for defense or offense, you will need to counter their media skills with savvy of your own.