What we can learn from Plummer..
Entrepreneurs and journalists were the subject when I commented on the Plummer case in October 2010. I particularly wanted to talk about PR and considering what you told the press.
Entrepreneurs and journalists had different concerns
I knew journalists I thought were decent, honest people. At the same time, I felt that as a business owner, you needed to remember that a journalist was working on a story.
I was sceptical about relying on information being held back simply because you wanted it to be. That was my very blunt view in 2010.
I’d experienced difficult timing myself
I talked about a situation where we were about to sell off part of our company. We wanted to tell the employees properly before they read about it in the press. Also read Min vej som leder about my experiences of responsibility and people in leadership.
After a conversation with a journalist, the news broke sooner than I’d wanted. We therefore had to gather the employees and explain the situation in a hurry.
That’s my recollection of what happened. It didn’t allow me to establish everyone’s motives or turn the experience into a description of all journalists.
Think about the information before the conversation
My point was that I couldn’t fully control information once I’d passed it on. So I would think about both what I shared and the people who might be affected.
The video’s assessments of specific people and cases belong to my commentary from 2010. This article is about my PR experiences, not a current legal assessment of confidentiality or the work of the press.
Also read about thinking before you write.
And thanks to OnMedia for the T-shirt and other things.
The first free T-shirt
It’s pouring with rain as I record this video. Before I get to PR, I show my first free T-shirt from OnMedia. I’ve said you can send a T-shirt or a cap and, if you’re lucky, I’ll wear it on Thorborgs Talkshow. I don’t take money for it. It’s just messing around.
The Plummer case from my seat in the US
What I want to talk about is Kenneth Plummer, who, in my view, has really put his foot in it. I live in the US and haven’t followed everything, but I’ve read a little about the case. I don’t know all the details and will focus on PR rather than trying to settle the moral and other questions.
As I understood the story in October 2010, a journalist was working on a book and wanted to use some private material that Plummer didn’t want published. My understanding was that he tried to trade confidential information for the journalist staying away from his private life. That’s my account of the case at the time, not something I knew about first-hand.
Purely from a PR perspective, I think the mistake was trusting that such an agreement would hold. In the video, I say very bluntly that you should never trust a journalist. At the same time, I know lots of decent, honest journalists you can trust, and others I don’t trust.
My blunt message to an entrepreneur who doesn’t know the journalists is still: Don’t assume an agreement about information will necessarily hold. Think about what you’re giving away.
A different subject can sometimes change the story
It can make sense to try to negotiate a trade, provided it’s moral and legal. Imagine a journalist knows you have to lay off employees or has another negative story about you.
Sometimes you can appeal to their conscience and explain that publishing it could hurt other people. You can also try offering another interesting story that the journalist might prefer to write.
A combination of explaining who could be hurt and offering something else has actually worked for me sometimes. But that’s different from giving background information and thinking the words "you mustn’t write that" put you in control.
I’ve said that to journalists myself to build a good relationship. I’ve just never trusted that the information couldn’t be used.
How much is your relationship worth?
My theory in the video is that a journalist with a really good story may weigh the value of that story against the cost of losing you as a source. If it’s published, you might get angry and never speak to them again. But the story may be worth more than the relationship.
That’s how I interpreted the Plummer case. I imagined the author could turn Denmark upside down and sell lots of books, while Plummer ended up with a shitty life. That’s my forceful assessment of a possible calculation, not evidence of the journalist’s thinking.
When we had to sell part of Cybernet
I remember another episode involving the journalist Dorte Toft. I’m not mentioning her to make her representative of all journalists. I also found her pleasant, but this situation shows what you can encounter.
We had Cybernet, with 36 employees, and were going bust. So we had to sell off part of the company. 24 employees would move to another company, and 12 would stay with us.
We’d agreed with the buyer to tell the employees that evening. They knew we were going out for a meal and a nice time. The idea was to calmly explain how the company was being split and introduce the new people the 24 would be working with.
We wanted to do it in a pleasant, undramatic way so people wouldn’t get upset. At the same time, I’d signed an agreement saying we couldn’t disclose the sale price or terms.
I couldn’t give the confidential details
Then Dorte called and said she knew we’d sold part of the company and wanted the details. As far as I remember, she was working at Computerworld at the time.
I explained that I couldn’t give her the sale price or terms because I’d signed an agreement. I was happy to tell her lots of other things, but I couldn’t give her that particular information without breaching the contract.
As I remember the conversation, she replied that she’d have to publish the story on the website immediately. I said I’d be very upset about that because the employees didn’t know yet.
I wanted the chance to tell them that evening before they read it in the press. I explained we’d planned to do it properly and asked her to hold the story until the evening.
In my recollection, the choice was presented like this: Either I gave her the information she wanted, or the story would be published immediately. I repeated that I was bound by the agreement and couldn’t give the confidential information.
We had to gather the employees in a hurry
We hung up, and about an hour later, Computerworld’s front page said we’d sold. When I saw it, my partner and I hurried to gather the employees.
We just managed to call them together before most had read it. I think some had already seen the news. We rushed through what was going to happen, and it became chaotic. It was nothing like what we’d planned.
The evening was partly ruined. We’d prepared how it would happen, and in many ways we felt like a family. It made me angry and sad that the employees had to get the news that way.
In the video, I call it a dirty trick. That’s my blunt reaction and recollection of what happened. My point is that appealing to a journalist’s better nature doesn’t always work, and information can be used in a way that leaves you deeply upset.
You can’t control information you’ve passed on
I describe Plummer’s trade as a pact with the devil that gave him a proper kicking. That’s my polemical wording from back then.
My lesson is to remember the value of the story, however well you know the journalist. I end with the sharp line that you’re worth no more than the story the journalist has on you.
Good relationships with the press do exist, and I’ve had them myself. But I wouldn’t base my company’s or my employees’ situation on being able to control something after I’d said it.
Best wishes, Martin
Heej martin. Super fedt show..
Sender du ikke en t-shirt med mig så skal jeg nok lave lidt reklame for dig 🙂