Minimizing Fall-Out

In the world of professional communication, there is a constant flow of emphasis placed on the importance of being proactive. "Let's get out ahead of the story," a pubic relations professional might tell their client. Another will say, "We need to control the message." Those statements and ones like them sound great. They are forceful, dynamic and even carry with them a sense of expertise. Truth-be-told, they are also things that I, myself, have said over the years to folks I have represented. Another truth is that the practicality of these statements often does not match or live up to how they sound.

Getting out ahead of a story usually speaks to a way of handling the anticipated fall-out of a negative story about to be made public. For instance, a candidate is arrested for drunken driving.  Rather than wait for the press to release the information to the public, the candidate's team initiates the announcement as a way of helping shape the coverage it will inevitably generate. Doing so betters their ability to control the information being reported on the public as well as supports the perception they are being upfront and transparent. Without question, such strategies speak to the concept of openness and that, generally, is a good thing.

But does that strategy prevent negative consequences? In the case of a political candidate, does it prevent people from withdrawing their support? The answer to both questions is "no." The ultimate goal of getting ahead of a story and/or controlling a message is to minimize the fall-out. Damage control. Make no mistake, public figures especially will be punished on some level if they mess-up. So, too, will us "regular folk." But by being honest about a misstep, one helps minimize potential negative consequences. That is never a small thing. It is important to remember, however, that those communication strategies cannot and do not completely erase the memory of a foul deed from the public's mind.