Our Blog: where do you stand?
Next Entry | Previous Entry | All Blog Entries | Subscribe to Feed
David Letterman: A Crisis Communications Case Study
By: Julie Steininger | 10/02/2009
David Letterman's audience didn't witness a typical late night comedy show on Thursday. Rather than his Top 10 List, the show host shared that he had sexual relationships with female members of his staff and was the target of a related extortion plot.
Besides being fodder for Mr. Letterman's competition, the event is an interesting case study in crisis communications.
Mr. Letterman obeyed Crisis Communications Rule No. 1 - Tell your own bad news first. He chose to tell his own tale before someone else did it for him. By embarking on a proactive communications strategy, he may have been able to somewhat minimize the impact. For example, Mr. Letterman may have contained the situation to a several-day story versus a several-month story and avoided recurring headlines such as "Another Letterman Indiscretion Revealed."
Even if you are not a celebrity, a few guiding principles for solid crisis communications will serve you well - telling the truth and doing what is right. Organizations (and individuals) that fare best during crises share some similarities, including accepting responsibility for problems and making whatever amends are possible.
If all celebrities handled their gaffes like David Letterman, I wonder what every other talk show, entertainment magazine and tabloid would cover?
Posted in Issues and Crisis Management
comments
Marijean Jaggers says:
Mon, October 05, 2009 at 12:12:pm
Dan, I don’t think David Letterman needs to apologize on his show, or in public for his behavior. We don’t know that he hasn’t apologized to his staff and certainly to those with whom he had inappropriate relationships. I think whether there was a public apology or not, it is the nature of the public to analyze the actions of celebrities regardless.
Dan Keeney, APR says:
Fri, October 02, 2009 at 2:49:pm
Julie - I found it interesting that although Mr. Letterman acknowledged that his behavior was “creepy,” he never apologized. Some might say that if it was consensual, he has nothing to apologize for, but that would be incorrect. Any supervisor who has a sexual relationship with someone who works for him/her is by definition guilty of sexual harassment. In failing to apologize, he leaves the door open for continued analysis of his actions and causes undue hardships on those who work for him.