Five PR Lessons from the Lively/Baldoni Dispute
Image courtesy of The News International
It’s been said that “the best defense is a good offense,” and nowhere is that more true than the arena of public relations. Since the dawn of the profession, PR strategists have devised methods for getting out in front of bad situations to minimize or even eliminate negative impacts.
But what is a good offense? Does going on the attack, employing any means necessary to achieve a positive outcome, constitute sound PR practice?
The recent Hollywood dispute between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni shines a stark light on this sometimes unseemly side of our profession, providing useful benchmarks for PR pros and those they serve to consider going forward.
To summarize, Baldoni and his PR team launched an aggressive campaign to control the narrative around the filming of “It Ends with Us,” during which his co-star Lively raised concerns about sexual harassment and other uncomfortable situations. Text messages obtained by subpoena show the Baldoni camp’s goal was to “bury” Lively by damaging her reputation and credibility through negative news coverage and social media posts.
While proactive story placement to mitigate the effects of a crisis isn’t new, the methods used in this instance call into question whether ethical – and perhaps legal – lines were crossed. And the situation offers some valuable lessons for communicators who may be tempted to employ similar approaches in the future.
First, of course, is the core issue of putting out inflammatory information about the “other” party when a dispute arises. This comes down to factual accuracy, and crossing the line has come to be known as “astroturfing” – which Merriam-Webster defines as an organized activity intended to create a false impression of a widespread, grassroots movement in support of or in opposition of something.
According to the Public Relations Society of America’s Code of Ethics, PR professionals have an obligation to “adhere to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in advancing the interests of those we represent and in communicating with the public.” Truth is in the name of this consultancy – it’s a core tenet of what we do and how we do it, as it should be for all practitioners.
The Code of Ethics also urges transparency, including disclosing the individual(s) or organization(s) on whose behalf a PR campaign is waged. While it’s unclear whether Baldoni’s team withheld or misrepresented this information in its social and traditional media efforts, it’s a useful reminder that, if you’re not willing to be accountable for it, you probably shouldn’t be putting it out there.
There’s an old adage that says if you don’t want to see it in tomorrow’s paper, you shouldn’t say it out loud. That may be extreme, but in the digital age the equivalent is that if you don’t want to see it in the news – or be subpoenaed in a lawsuit – don’t put it in a text or email. Baldoni’s team was reckless communicating sensitive information on accessible platforms, which can even include encrypted tools like WhatsApp and the like. Simply stated, limit the exchange of highly confidential information to verbal conversations only.
Finally, a useful safeguard to protect confidential communication between PR pros and their clients is to facilitate engagement through a third-party law firm. Doing so may protect most – but not all – communication as privileged and not subject sensitive information to public disclosure..