The Lululemon Fiasco, or Why Transparency Won Out

It was certainly one of the more bizarre crises that we have seen in recent times. With front page articles online and in the press highlighting the common issues for large companies, product recalls, oil spills, layoffs, etc., famed yoga pants-makers Lululemon found themselves in the press's crosshairs after they recalled their trademark athletic pants because they were see through. One could not help but chuckle at the issue given the run of crisis issues we have seen over the past few years.

There was one group of people who were certainly not laughing over the issue of see-through yoga pants (and, no, it was not the father's of daughters who wear them): shareholders of the company. As a publicly traded company, Lulu Lemon has to answer to their shareholders at the end of the day and when they have to pull a product that is 17% of their product line, that is not such a laughing matter for those who own part of the company.

But much of the way that Lululemon handled the issue alleviated any of the potential pitfalls. The first, and perhaps most important, step they took was owning responsibility to the issue. They came right out and said they were recalling the pants and explained exactly why. By doing this, they helped control all the details around the recall and what the next steps were. Whenever companies face a major recall, it is generally a reactive response to an event or series of events that has led to negative attention. The Firestone recall issues are a textbook case in what not to do in a recall and the company was forced to dig themselves out of a massive hole as a result.

Lululemon was not dealing with an issue of the same severity as the deaths of drivers due to poorly made tires, but the fact that they were the ones who broke the news before any public outrage surfaced helped squash some of the negative publicity. They admitted outright to what the issue was and promised to fix the problem as quickly as possible. While all companies do this in time of crisis, Lululemon's devout customer base trusted them to correct the issue because the brand had already built such strong loyalty with them. This is no small point in times of crisis and helped the brand keep control of the situation.

Standing in front of the issue allowed them to set the tone of the conversation. The storyline did not become "Will Lululemon recover from this debacle?" Instead, the tone was more of "When will the pants return for their customers?" As Lululemon owned the problem, they were able to report exactly how long it would take before their product would return and they could pinpoint exactly what they needed to do to prevent the same issue from occurring. This prevented any false story-lines from appearing and helped limit their negative exposure.

Finally, true to their word, the pants returned to stores not too long after the crisis was originally announced. By sticking to their promise of producing an improved pant in a short period of time, Lululemon walked away from the issue relatively unscathed. Their stock price actually exceeded its price pre-crisis and their loyal customers continue to trust the brand. The company is a perfect example of how to handle a crisis and should certainly be seen as a role model for how to tackle problems head on before they spiral out of your control.

When facing a crisis, always remember:

• Honesty at all times is critical. If you don't have an answer at that time, that is better than making one up.
• Always be proactive. Crises can pop up at the most unexpected times and places. But being able to own the problem and the tone is critical to minimize repercussions.
• Don't make promises you can't keep. If you promise to fix a particular issue, you need to be 100% confident that the problem is solved before the public sees the product again.
• Have a plan in place. In the case of a product recall, know exactly what circumstances warrant a recall. Every department should be ready to act quickly and squash the problem before it gets out of control.

PRISM and the Tech Giants' Responses

The US government isn't the only institution that is having a bad week when it comes to public perception. The PRISM scandal has pulled in a group of elite technology companies, whether they wanted to participate in this mess or not. Google, Facebook, and Yahoo are just three of the companies cited directly in a presentation from the NSA that Edward Snowden leaked to the British newspaper, The Guardian.

The details around how these companies were/are involved are certainly not flattering. They were originally accused of, essentially, turning over their servers to the FBI and NSA to pour over in search of clues for potential terrorist attacks. This includes search terms, emails, online conversations, bank statements, and everything in between. It became so in-depth at one point that analysts were claiming that the US government could see exactly what you were typing at any given time, meaning that I would certainly have raised a red flag or two for this post.

In the days since the news first broke, details around just how involved the Googles of the world are involved are unclear. But it didn't take long after The Guardian's original implication for the CEOs of those companies to immediately come forward and deny any knowledge of the program. This is important to remember moving forward: they denied even knowing of the program at all, let alone the extent to which they are allegedly involved.

From a communications perspective, these companies had to act fast. Google, Yahoo and Facebook were all swift in their denials, with Sergey Bin, Marissa Mayer, and Mark Zuckerberg quickly making public appearances to personally assure their users that their data is safe. On the surface this is the obvious choice to make. Certainly none of these companies want to be painted with the scarlet "C" (for conspirator), so a denial makes sense.

But as I mentioned above, details around this are murky at best. The companies were named directly in a report from the NSA. I think that it is highly unlikely that the NSA would have this report that states that these companies have given them access to individuals' data. The NSA has its reasons for withholding the truth; but I am suspect that they would outright lie in this regard.

For some reason or another, these companies that we trust on a daily basis with our most personal information were named in the report. A great deal of context is missing and there are more questions than answers right now. But it begs the question: if all of these companies were named in the report and they claim to know nothing of it, just what were they doing there then?

Now this brings us back to the original denial that these CEOs made when the news first broke. They all claimed to never have heard of it, have no role in it and tried to build a wall between them and the US government. If you believe that they were in the presentation for a reason, then this denial could prove problematic. We don't know what the extent of their involvement is, but it sounds like that they aren't actually just handing over their servers to the NSA and FBI. But that certainly doesn't mean that they have completely clean hands either.

Perhaps they don't know what PRISM is and have not heard of that project name. But they might know of it as another project name. The risk here is that if it comes out that they knew this is what the government was doing at any point, then they lied to their entire customer base at a time when that base needed to trust them most.

The danger of crisis communications, as in this case, is that if not handled quickly and properly then the issue can come back and bite you. As of right now, these companies seemed to have dodged a bullet with their denial and questionable details. Combined with the surprising unveiling of the whistleblower,  the spotlight left them. For the time being.

But if further down the road the public finds out that they played some part in PRISM, whether they knew it or not, that's going to seriously damage their brand. And if it turns out that their hands aren't covered in blood, their communications team deserves a beer or two for acting fast and squashing the problem before it exploded into a full-blown crisis.

We're watching a potentially great case study on crisis communications unfold before us. I hope that for the sake of those comms teams they get it right.

PR: Unique Coverage vs. Press Release

A client of mine recently issued a press release on an update to a product. The news was not expected to garner a great deal of media coverage, just a few of the friendly publications that we generally work with that expect to be kept in the loop on this type of news. News like this is generally meant as an FYI; if the reporter wants to cover it, great. If not, no worries, harder news will be available in the future.

Later that afternoon, after the pitches had been sent out and the release crossed the wire hours before, an email came in with the following subject line:

We Made It Into The Wall Street Journal!!!

Now, imagine my surprise here. This wasn't hard hitting news, as I mentioned. Just general updates, while important to those people who use the product and a select individuals, aren't expected to land in any major publications, especially the Mecca of news websites: The Wall Street Journal.

After opening the email, the confusion of what happened quickly became apparent. When a release crosses the wire, it is sent out to hundreds of publications who subscribe to wire services. They are the only way they that newspapers and websites can keep track of the tsunami of news that comes their way each day. Whether or not a release is posted to website is up to the editors. Simply a yes or no can ultimately determine if the release is posted on the website or not with no input from the editors to the actual content.

When I clicked on the hyperlink included in the email, I was, in fact, taken to the Wall Street Journal's website. The opening line of the article in question, however, started: (PR Newswire). For those not familiar with PR, this is the only sign that a PR professional needs to see to know that this is a press release reposting.

In my mind, this is not an original piece of coverage. I do not fault the individual who sent the email congratulating the team on a WSJ piece because they did not know any better. If someone sees the piece of news on a website like that and isn't familiar with wire services, then why should a PR person expect them to tell the difference? But when I look at that link, I don't take any pride in that.

Sure, my team wrote the press release and pushed it through approvals. The client approved putting it over the wire, so why shouldn't we be excited that the WSJ decided to post that release? Because when your release is featured next to one describing the new flavors of yogurt from a food distributor and your client is in technology, it just doesn't feel as special.

Editors just have to decide which companies' news they will post from the wire. The release is just a dime a dozen. But when news is sent directly to an editor, they express interest and ultimately write a story on the news or a briefing with an executive, that is when it becomes an accomplishment. That is news that the editor felt was significant enough that it warranted a separate write-up from the press release.

We received a few nibbles of interest from the friendly publications that I mentioned earlier. We held a couple of briefings and saw some positive stories, albeit short ones. Those stories, the ones on news websites that don't receive 1/100th of the monthly visitors that the WSJ does, mean more to me than a press release pickup.

A great release can certainly result in positive news coverage. But simply having the words of the release copy and pasted directly from the wire is not the same as a journalist selecting to learn more about the story and it just shouldn't count the same in the minds of PR professionals.

We didn't bother to make the distinction for the client as congratulations was passed around throughout the team. In rare situations, it is okay for the client to see the world of media through rose-colored glasses and this is one.

Just think about how satisfying it would be, though, to get an email back from a WSJ reporter saying, "I am interested in learning more about the news today. Can you connect me with an executive?"

A well-written press release is nothing to deemphasize. I just hope that the first time I send an email saying, "We Made It Into The Wall Street Journal!!!" it is because an editor chose to get back to me. Then it will be time to pat ourselves on the back, because our job as PR professionals will be complete.

The Legacy of a Kidd

The New York Knicks' Jason Kidd announced that he is retiring after 19 seasons in the league. The man has played with Phoenix, Dallas, New Jersey, and New York, racking up triple-doubles at an impressive rate. Standing at only 6' 3", Kidd was always one of the toughest players on the court, rarely missing games and banging bodies with big men to grab rebounds and seal those triple-doubles. He's been a leader on every team he's played on, leading Dallas, New Jersey, and New York to conference finals and an NBA Championship in Dallas in 2011.

He's amassed an impressive collection of awards throughout his career. Co-rookie of the year in 94-95. Five First Team All-NBA selections. Nine First Team All-Defense. Second all-time in assists and steals. Strong and heady, Kidd has used his size, durability, and court intelligence to develop an incredibly impressive resume. It has earned him a spot in the conversation for best point guards in the last couple of decades.

We definitely haven't seen the last of Jason Kidd in the NBA. Guards, in particular, have a tendency to make their way to the bench as coaches due to an acute knowledge of managing the whole team on the floor. Kidd is a general on the floor and always has been one. There is little doubt that he will continue to extend his legacy as an individual who understands the game of basketball on a level that most cannot even fathom.

But what bothers me about Jason Kidd and the celebration of his career is how his past is mired in anger issues and domestic violence. In 2001, as most know but seem to conveniently forget, Kidd was arrested for domestic abuse of his now ex-wife. The two were able to reconcile their differences for the time being and Kidd made a (tacky) public acknowledgement of his love for his wife every time he shot a free throw by blowing a kiss to the basket. Anger management classes and this display of affection and all is forgotten in the eyes of basketball fans.

Several years later the two filed for divorce, each with claims of violence from the other. Clearly, violence of some kind was at the heart of their issues. Kidd stopped blowing the kisses, the media didn't pay attention anymore and that was the end of it. Kidd went on to win a championship with Dallas in 2011 and finished off his career with an appearance in the Eastern Conference Semifinals with New York this year.

As it happens so frequently, the issues in professional athletes' personal lives are forgotten, shadows of the successes in their more public identities. And that is why I won't be celebrating Kidd's retirement. And it is why I am not rooting for him moving forward.

Everyone is entitled to some amount of privacy in their personal lives. You and I are afforded a certain amount more than professional athletes, one of the sacrifices they make when they select this public life.  But one thing that will become public, whether athlete or regular Joe, is if you are arrested for abusing your wife. Jason Kidd did just that and that should be his legacy.

Far too frequently we allow the accomplishments on the court, field, pitch, or rink to be our primary image of a player. The way they carry themselves in games can be exonerated simply by adding digits to the wins column. We, as sports fans, must hold ourselves accountable for how we judge players, in turn holding athletes accountable for their actions.

In addition to the list of his accomplishments on the court, Jason Kidd was named the NBA's Sportsman of the Year twice. It's just too bad he couldn't extend that to his personal life.