The Washington NFL team’s name, and how this looming crisis can be avoided

Amidst real fears about No Such Agency reading all our emails, rampant and unrepentant military sexual assaults and the momentous decisions coming with the end of the U.S. Supreme Court’s session, another Washington crisis is brewing.

The opportunity for public airing and open anticipation of a crisis is rare. They more usually break in secret and then bloom in public when it’s already too late to suggest how to avoid them.

But the Washington pro football team and the NFL face this crisis about the team’s nickname and in the early going, they’re only making it worse. There is no more reviled word to Indians than this.

The way out is change. Change, as Dave Zirin writes on Grantland today, is coming. You can get ahead of it — owner Dan Snyder and Commissioner Roger Goodell — or it can roll over you like you are a southern governor in 1965.

No one would put up with a team named the Washington N-Word, or K-Word, or C-Word or any other vile, racist term from our distant past, or at least what should be our distant past.

People and corporations seem to have an affinity for making a small crisis worse just when some smarts could instead end it. Congressional leaders asked for a name change. Responded Snyder:

“We’ll never change the name. It’s that simple. NEVER — you can use caps.”

My parents told me to never say never.

For his part, Goodell grew up with the achievement and inspiration of his courageous U.S. senator father, Charles, who was one of the first American leaders to oppose the war in Vietnam and paid dearly for that leadership.

Roger Goodell grew up in Jamestown, NY in a region once owned and sanctified by the Haudenosaunee, the Six Nations, with the Seneca Nation of Indians watching his backyard, its ”Western Door.” Goodell knows better in his heart than to defend, as he did in a disingenuous letter back to Congress, this racist nickname. He should instead follow Tim Graham’s lead from The Buffalo News this week.

Would this picture of Snyder, left, and Goodell, right, with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, ever have been possible if the team were the Washington Blackskins, or worse?

Does Snyder really want to be the NFL’s Gov. George Wallace of Alabama, standing at the schoolhouse door 50 years ago Tuesday trying to stop black students from ending segregation? Shouldn’t Goodell be a modern Medgar Evers, or a James Meredith, who integrated the University of Mississippi?

This is the same fight — because sports today sets societal tones and directions more so than ever. [Thank you Jackie Robinson]. But this is also clearly an avoidable crisis. Don’t block the schoolhouse door. Step aside for what’s right.

Yes, people will holler — many of them white, some black, but very few native. If Snyder and Goodell don’t listen to those native leaders and act now to stop this crisis, it will consume the team and damage the league. Lawsuits will be filed. Protests will be mounted. Boycotts will ensue.

The team has a racist legacy. Its first owner was a segregationist. One of the most poignant and brilliant lines a sports columnist ever wrote was on the topic of the Washington NFL team being the last to employ black players. Shirley Povich of the Washington Post had an ongoing feud with owner George Preston Marshall. From Povich’s sports journalism center’s bio:

But of all his crusades against racial inequities, his campaign against Marshall was the most satisfying. By the late 1950s, every NFL franchise but Washington had at least one black player. Marshall’s resistance stemmed in part from the white southern fans to whom he marketed the team, and Povich missed no opportunity to rap him for this cynicism. After the Cleveland Browns trounced Washington, he uncorked one of the most famous lines a sports page has ever printed:

“Jim Brown, born ineligible to play for the Red-skins, integrated their end zone three times yesterday.”

As a proud graduate of Dartmouth College, a school with a long tradition of educating Indians, I know first hand the anger and reaction that took place after the college’s 1974 decision to change its teams’ unofficial mascot from the Indian to the Big Green.

But I also received an eye-opening education there, and learned much from a course on the history of the American West, taught by a professor who went on to be president of Dartmouth. History is clear about how Europeans treated native Americans. That vestiges of this remain today in the NFL is more than an embarrassment, it’s wrong. Dartmouth banned the name nearly 40 years ago. Why is the NFL failing?

Today, this crisis is small — a letter from Congress, answers back, and determined chatter on social media and by leading sports journalists and Indian leaders. The only way to contain it, however, is to face it head on, admit the name is wrong and racist and start a contest to rename the team.

Goodell must be the leader his father was. This is the son’s test. Think back to your time in Jamestown. Would you ever allow a Seneca to be described this way?

This crisis can end, now.

The content of this blog is about crisis management and mismanagement in a digital age. It originates with Steve Bell, who spent 30 years as a journalist for the Associated Press and in four top editor positions at The Buffalo News. He is now Partner/Director of Public Affairs at Eric Mower + Associates, one of the nation’s largest independent advertising, integrated marketing and public relations agencies, with seven offices in the Northeast and Southeast. Learn more about EMA at http://www.mower.com. Steve’s blog is based on his own opinions and does not represent the views or positions of Eric Mower + Associates.

Abercrombie continues to not get it, prolonging crisis and calling more negative attention to the company

Lululemon, the anti-Abercrombie, has been in the news lately for handling its sheer pants crisis transparently and successfully. Then there is Abercrombie.

When last we looked, the high-times retailer was taking renewed hits from a 2006 interview in Salon by CEO Mike Jefferies. In it he basically said the company caters to the cool, the elite, and ignores plus size people. In recent months, consumers ranted on social media about this attitude.

In response, Abercrombie did ask for forgiveness, but it refused to introduce a new line of larger clothes. If it had, it might have also asked a prominent large person — could Shaq be enticed? — to conduct sensitivity training for its CEO and store managers.

What it did do reeks of bribery and payoff. This is often an ill-conceived strategy venture by people or companies who underestimate the seriousness of their crisis and the dedication of its opponents. It’s like a polluter offering a town bottled water, or an airline giving away $100 vouchers for your next flight after you sat on a tarmac for four hours. It’s too little, too late and it insults rather than heals.

The company announced Tuesday it will offer a college scholarship to high school students who persevere academically in the face of bullying. Starting next year, the scholarships will be administered through the National Society of High School Scholars Foundation and will also go to students who lead anti-bullying efforts, Huffington Post reported.

Reactions were predictably negative. Public relations “ploys” give everyone a headache and leave a bad taste in your mouth. They are sleight of hand, hocus pocus and rarely work. Like if BP sponsored a cash prize fishing tournament in the Gulf as oil spewed into it, or if the NSA held a public rally in support of the First Amendment. They ring false.

Some of the apparel brand’s critics, like 18-year-old Benjamin O’Keefe, said the anti-bullying campaign shows the company is “becoming the epitome of hypocrisy.”

“It doesn’t make sense that a company that is still bullying itself is now working on an anti-bullying campaign,” O’Keefe told HuffPost. He’s gathered 75,000 signatures in an online petition against the company after he spotted Jefferies 2006 comments on the business news website Business Insider.

O’Keefe said it will take more than just an anti-bullying campaign to change his mind about the company; he’d like to see a public commitment from Abercrombie to stock larger sizes for women as well as to include plus-sized models in its advertising as some of its competitors do.

“It’s not enough, it’s not sincere, it’s just a way to try to avoid the bigger issue,” O’Keefe noted.

Abercrombie would do better to fix this with full measures, not halfways. Lululemon apparently asked its CEO to step down, which may or may not have been smart. Abercrombie must act swiftly to fill the hole it’s been slowly and steadily digging itself deeper into. Admit what Jeffries said was ill-considered and stupid — which is what most people think anyway — apologize again and open your doors to all.

Discrimination is not a marketing strategy, it’s discrimination.

Not everyone can buy what Tiffany, Ferrari, Rolex and Rolls Royce sell, but they’re more than welcome at all those places to shop and free to buy.

Abercrombie would do well to stop its self-proclaimed elitism. Fine if you want to cater to an elite clientele, but you don’t have to brag about it or exclude others.

The content of this blog is about crisis management and mismanagement in a digital age. It originates with Steve Bell, who spent 30 years as a journalist for the Associated Press and in four top editor positions at The Buffalo News. He is now Partner/Director of Public Affairs at Eric Mower + Associates, one of the nation’s largest independent advertising, integrated marketing and public relations agencies, with seven offices in the Northeast and Southeast. Learn more about EMA at http://www.mower.com. Steve’s blog is based on his own opinions and does not represent the views or positions of Eric Mower + Associates.

Lululemon follows key crisis-management strategy, reverses sheer pants problems

Lululemon has such a dedicated and affectionate following, its customers felt betrayed and almost jilted in March when the Vancouver-based yoga clothing company produced pants whose sheerness showed too much.

Company stock sunk to near lows, consumers blasted the manufacturer on Twitter, Facebook and in endless emails and photos and the brand — previously impregnable — seemed to founder.

But with so much at stake, it’s instructive to see how Lululemon turned around the crisis and may emerge from it stronger than before, its image and brand restored and is leadership strength reinforced.

The crisis management strategy is well-tested: Act quickly; stay transparent and proactive in discussing the problem; admit the mistake [C+ on this part as it initially tried to blame the Taiwanese fabric maker]; apologize; fix the problem; and resume normal business activity with an enhanced ability to avoid making the same mistake twice.

The company posted an apology letter on Facebook and announced reorganization of its product structure. It communicated well and often through blog and video posts.

Lulu now tests its products more thoroughly and hired a person to respond to and help the company benefit from customer input — a major need for a retailer in today’s interactive marketplace, where brand affection is so crucial.

The company’s stock hit a record high last week, proof that at least investors think Lulu weathered the storm and emerged on top. The proof will come in long-term purchasing by yoga practitioners and others who appreciate Lulu’s athletic wear, and guerilla retailing practices.

What was particularly smart in the meantime, however, is how the company handled this crisis.

And, finally, from the no good deed goes unpunished file, Lulu’s board apparently held CEO Christine Day responsible and yesterday she said she was leaving. High stakes these crises.

The content of this blog is about crisis management and mismanagement in a digital age. It originates with Steve Bell, who spent 30 years as a journalist for the Associated Press and in four top editor positions at The Buffalo News. He is now Partner/Director of Public Affairs at Eric Mower + Associates, one of the nation’s largest independent advertising, integrated marketing and public relations agencies, with seven offices in the Northeast and Southeast. Learn more about EMA at http://www.mower.com. Steve’s blog is based on his own opinions and does not represent the views or positions of Eric Mower + Associates.

Joint Chiefs, for all their power, come up clueless against senators

An impressive array of somber and sober men in uniform faced a brace of angry U.S. senators Tuesday on Capital Hill and for all their power, the generals and admirals had no defense. The military’s sexual abuse crisis only deepened.

Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY and Claire C. McCaskill, D-MO, were incredulous about the military’s poor handling of sexual abuse attacks in the services — 26,000 in 2012 alone.

McCaskill, a former prosecutor, was particularly incensed about the case of USAF Lt. Col. James Wilkerson, who was accused of assaulting a house guest. He was convicted, but his commanding officer, as is his right under military guidelines, dismissed the decision.

“It was astoundingly ignorant,” McCaskill admonished the lineup of men in medals. “He opened it [his reversal decision] that ‘she didn’t get a ride home when she had the chance.’ Are ya’ frickin’ kidding me?”

Clearly, the men in green and blue were shaken by the senators’ anger. They fight with guns and bombs and drones and are not used to listening to anyone rip into their job performance and have to “take it.”

To handle a crisis effectively, it helps to realize and accept that you’re in one. You can’t win a battle until you understand its nature and the strategy and tactics needed to fight and win. Unfortunately, most of the Joint Chiefs seemed to be in denial, wishing they could all just mount up in their black Escalades and go back to the Pentagon. Thus will the crisis continue.

Admitted Joint Chiefs Chairman, Gen. Martin Dempsey about the military’s lax handling of this crisis:

“I’ll speak for myself, I took my eye off the ball on that.”

The hearing was on a bill Gillibrand proposed that would place sexual assault cases in the hands of military attorneys, circumventing the “chain of command.” Several other senators did not think that is a good idea.

Gillibrand argued that victims are presently afraid to come forward, fearing retaliation and professional standing. She told the Joint Chiefs they’ve lost the trust of their charges.

Reported The New York Times:

Senators from both parties pressed the leaders, at times using strong language, about why, decades after the full integration of women into the military, the problem seems to have worsened. Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, recalled meeting with a woman whose daughter was considering entering the military if Mr. McCain, a former naval aviator, could offer his “unqualified support” of the choice. “I could not,” he said.

The dissatisfaction with the Joint Chiefs — who, despite their title, seldom all gather in one room publicly – crossed party lines, demonstrating the depth of the senators’ ire, as the Times noted:

Senator Roy Blunt sat silently for nearly an hour as his colleagues on the Armed Services Committee questioned one military leader after another on Tuesday about what they were doing to address the problem of sexual assault in the military, and then assessed their responses: “Stunningly bad.”

In particular, Mr. Blunt chided Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert, the chief of naval operations, for displaying scant knowledge of how military allies of the United States had dealt with sexual assault in their ranks, and for thanking Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire, for “the tip” that other countries had grappled with the issue.

“Has anybody who works for you been asking this?” Mr. Blunt, Republican of Missouri, asked with clear exasperation.

The content of this blog is about crisis management and mismanagement in a digital age. It originates with Steve Bell, who spent 30 years as a journalist for the Associated Press and in four top editor positions at The Buffalo News. He is now Partner/Director of Public Affairs at Eric Mower + Associates, one of the nation’s largest independent advertising, integrated marketing and public relations agencies, with seven offices in the Northeast and Southeast. Learn more about EMA at http://www.mower.com. Steve’s blog is based on his own opinions and does not represent the views or positions of Eric Mower + Associates.

Is the Taco Bell licking an already forgotten prank, or a social media crisis?

Social media, presumably still in its childhood or early adolescent years, continues to play smashmouth with companies and those they hire to protect their images.

Two useful stories and an excellent comment crossed under my nose and passed the sniff test, thanks to EMA partner and PR Director Mary Beth Popp.

Here’s the first, from, or at least related to, Taco Bell [no relation]. After all the ewwwwws, what’s it mean, long-term? Was the food served? What does it say about the company? Will customers flee?

Which brings us to the second story, by Melissa Agnes, about how to react to social media-induced and promoted injury. The [presumably] bi-lingual crisis pro from Montreal runs Melissa Agnes Crisis Management and offered four smart rules for engagement or avoidance of social media.

First things first: Try to get it  removed.

Your online reputation should go  further than review sites.

Encourage happy customers to leave  you positive reviews.

Be aware [Monitor social media closely and track what's said].

In all this discussion emerged a comment on the Taco Bell story from Las Vegas-based PR pro @gregwbrooks:

The best part of this whole kerfuffle is all the wannabe social media gurus running around saying “See!?! This is a CRISIS! This is why you have to have active management of your reputation online!!!!” (/dead faint from the drama) Look, you *should* actively manage your reputation online — but what’s Taco Bell going to do? They issued a statement, they probably fired the guy and you know what? Sales next quarter are not going to take a hit from any of this. Of all the annoyances of social media, its tendency to make flacks everywhere think Something Must Be Done Right Now is probably the most tiresome.

Great discussion. No clear, blanket answers.

The content of this blog is about crisis management and mismanagement in a digital age. It originates with Steve Bell, who spent 30 years as a journalist for the Associated Press and in four top editor positions at The Buffalo News. He is now Partner/Director of Public Affairs at Eric Mower + Associates, one of the nation’s largest independent advertising, integrated marketing and public relations agencies, with seven offices in the Northeast and Southeast. Learn more about EMA at http://www.mower.com. Steve’s blog is based on his own opinions and does not represent the views or positions of Eric Mower + Associates.

IRS crisis renewed with fresh director in the hot seat — how’d he do?

Those folks at the Internal Revenue Service certainly know how to make the most hated agency in the U.S. Government live up to its name.

They used a lot of revenue for internal service: $11,000 for “be happy at work meetings;” $60,000 for a training video with IRS executives in Star Trek roles; and $1,600 for a video of people line dancing.

I’m sure they were all worth the money; the reports were just taken out of context by angry Republicans. But $49 million spent on 220 conferences over two years? Whoa. That’s a crisis.

When a government agency with 106,000 employees spends almost $500 per employee on “training” — which of course only a tiny percentage of them ever accessed – that’s a big black eye. It’s tax collectors abusing taxpayers.

Don’t you wonder if the IRS managers who enjoyed $1,500-a-night presidential suites at conferences were able to write off the cost as a business expense? And if so, did the IRS audit their expense accounts?

Reuters reported that Acting IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel, appearing before Congress Monday for the first time since moving into the top job 18 days ago, promised to restore the agency’s tattered image with a public accounting of the practices that have led to multiple investigations and a political firestorm.

How’d he do?

To some extent there was nowhere to go but up. Watching the hearings on TV, I thought he came across as more nervous than determined. But he stuck to the script and said the appropriate — and needed — words.

He promised to restore trust, apply tax laws fairly and clean up the backlog — some extending 29 months — of tax-exempt approvals for conservative groups. He said he found targeting those groups inappropriate and alarming.

He added that the best way to fix the problems and clear up the crisis was to be transparent and return to testify before Congressional committees. Bravo. Given how clearly uncomfortable he was in the hearing room Monday that was a major commitment.

Those who would dismiss this crisis as partisanship and attempts to embarrass President Obama miss the significance. This is a crisis because the IRS already has a reputation for excess, for chasing down every nickel like the nation’s defense depended on its collection. Abuse of that power, targeting any group unfairly, and spending money like the tax cheats they’re supposed to catch, goes to hypocrisy. It’s like priests abusing children, company executives demanding sex from people who depend on the executives for their jobs, or soldiers killing the civilians they’re supposed to protect.

This crisis will remain and simmer until Werfel is able to convince Congress and the American people that he and his agency are on the new path he described Monday.

The content of this blog is about crisis management and mismanagement in a digital age. It originates with Steve Bell, who spent 30 years as a journalist for the Associated Press and in four top editor positions at The Buffalo News. He is now Partner/Director of Public Affairs at Eric Mower + Associates, one of the nation’s largest independent advertising, integrated marketing and public relations agencies, with seven offices in the Northeast and Southeast. Learn more about EMA at http://www.mower.com. Steve’s blog is based on his own opinions and does not represent the views or positions of Eric Mower + Associates.

People in high places live in glass houses and must not throw stones

Ohio State President E. Gordon Gee, no stranger to odd remarks he ends up apologizing for, is again caught in a controversy and crisis of his own making.

This time he made some off-color comments in early December about Catholics, Notre Dame and the Southeast Conference. Hasty apologies went out and were mostly accepted. The comments were inappropriate in any setting, but especially as “jokes” in a public setting.

The rule is simple. If you don’t want to see it on the 6 o’clock news or read it in the paper or see it on Facebook, YouTube or Gawker, don’t say it. Nothing is off the record. Nothing will be held in confidence. Short of a signed “do not disclose” agreement, trust no one.

Mitt Romney found out nothing is private and the 47 percenters comments probably cost him the presidency. Gee and other high-level presidents, CEOs, Congressmen, governors, mayors, etc. must learn that as well.

As the Columbus Dispatch reported Friday, cited by my EMA colleague Peter Osborne:

Gee apologized for the remarks he made at the Dec. 5 meeting of the university’s Athletic Council. He’s now on a “remediation plan,” university officials said, but an OSU spokeswoman said she couldn’t provide details.

Gee attended the meeting to talk about the expansion of the Big Ten Conference, which had just announced that it would be adding the University of Maryland and Rutgers. But he quickly swerved to Notre Dame. Notre Dame was never invited to the Big Ten because “they’re not very good partners,” he said.

“The fathers are holy on Sunday and they’re holy hell on the rest of the week,” he said in an audio recording provided by OSU. “You just can’t trust those damn Catholics on a Thursday or Friday so, literally, I can say that very truthfully.”

Gee has a history of loose lips sinking his own ship.

In November 2010, he boasted that Ohio State’s football schedule didn’t include teams on par with the “Little Sisters of the Poor.” He later sent a personal check to the real Little Sisters of the Poor in northwestern Ohio and followed up with a visit to the nuns months later.

Last year, Gee apologized for comparing the problem of coordinating the school’s many divisions to the Polish army, an off-the-cuff remark that a Polish-American group called a “slanderous”display of bigotry and ignorance.

Since his most recent slip-up, Gee also has apologized to Notre Dame’s president, the Rev. John I. Jenkins, who accepted the apology, said Notre Dame spokesman Dennis Brown. Brown called Gee’s remarks in the speech “most regrettable.”

Honestly, the smartest and best treatment of the topic came in the response from the U.S. Conference of Bishops, a group that has had a lot of practice in recent years devising smart responses in crisis.

“President Gee had the graciousness to apologize. The Catholic Church believes in forgiveness. Case closed,” said Sister Mary Ann Walsh.

That is a classic A+1, as we call it in our media and crisis training. Answer the question, but then immediately add an element to the comment that furthers your argument, brand or good work.

Maybe someone actually benefitted from this crisis.

The content of this blog is about crisis management and mismanagement in a digital age. It originates with Steve Bell, who spent 30 years as a journalist for the Associated Press and in four top editor positions at The Buffalo News. He is now Partner/Director of Public Affairs at Eric Mower + Associates, one of the nation’s largest independent advertising, integrated marketing and public relations agencies, with seven offices in the Northeast and Southeast. Learn more about EMA at http://www.mower.com. Steve’s blog is based on his own opinions and does not represent the views or positions of Eric Mower + Associates.