Advanced Media Training Tip: One Is One Too Many
During the worst of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, British Petroleum CEO Tony Hayward thought it would be a good idea to place the awful spill into a larger context.
Sure, the spill was bad—but was it really that bad? Hayward didn’t seem to think so, saying:
“The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean. The amount of volume of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total water volume.”
Hayward may have been technically right. But the fact that he sought to downplay the horrific effects of the worst marine oil spill in history was rightly criticized and widely mocked.
Many companies, nonprofits, and government agencies occasionally encounter similar situations—no, not oil spills, but moments when they think it might be a good idea to place a specific fact into a larger context. For example:
A hospital spokesperson might be tempted to say: “This woman’s death was extremely unusual. We’ve performed more than 14,000 of these types of surgeries, and this is the first time a patient ever died from it.”
A spokesperson from a government agency might be tempted to say: “Although there was massive fraud involved in this case, we’d like to point out that every other project we’ve completed this year has come in under budget.”
A spokesperson from a trucking company might be tempted to say: “This is the first time in our 42-year history that one of our drivers has ever caused a death while intoxicated. We have had 8,200 drivers in that time, almost all of whom have done their jobs responsibly.
But those statements all sound defensive. And there’s one thing missing from all of them: An acknowledgement that even one massive oil spill, case of fraud, or death, is one too many. See how different the above statements read simply by adding that sentiment. As an example:
“We’ve performed more than 14,000 of these types of surgeries, and this is the first time a patient ever died from it. But that gives none of even the slightest bit of comfort. One death is one too many—and we are going to do everything possible to prevent this from ever happening again.”
If you enjoyed this article, would you please help me reach a larger audience by sharing it with your social networks? Share buttons are below. Thank you!
What this post reminds me of, Brad, is the notion of logical vs. emotional appeals. In situations where there is loss of life or extreme damage of some kind, people react viscerally. They don’t want to be told that, statistically speaking, the incident was really not a big deal at all. They’re “thinking” with their hearts, not their heads, and they need to be communicated to with that in mind. The numbers might in fact be correct. However, it’s not logic that they are interested in. They want an emotional response. Unfortunately, the lawyers that help craft responses in the wake of crises are thinking instead of feeling. Something to keep in mind.
You said in one sentence what took me an entire article to say – don’t you hate when that happens? 🙂
You’re exactly right. This is all about connecting personally with the audience, not just being a cold dispenser of facts and unfeeling context. Too often, spokespersons confuse being “right” with effective communications – and as we know, those two things aren’t always the same.
Thanks for the comment.