Why PR people release stupid statements they know are bad

What really separates a PR expert from the rest of the field isn’t whether they can craft a great public statement. It’s whether they have the credibility and persuasive power to get top execs to actually issue that statement.

I gotta believe the PR team inside CrowdStrike knew their CEO’s first public message after last week’s massive fail wasn’t on point.

Most observers panned it for avoiding accountability and not empathizing with those affected. I saw more than one person online say, “It sounds like you think we should be apologizing to you.”

But that’s not what was most telling about this incident. Here’s a recommended rewrite, posted a mere four hours later, from corporate communications expert Lulu Cheng Meservey. It hits all the right notes.

What’s crazy to me is the passion of people in the thread who disagree. To be clear, these were in the minority, but still, pay attention to their rationale:

“Honestly, I much prefer his update, he’s keeping it real rather than resorting to fake HR speak.”

“I like the original better, yours feels unrealistic and throws your teams under the bus . . .”

“I thought his response was clear, direct, and filled with useful information. Incident response doesn’t have room for apologies, hyperbole, and PR fluff. Those come later.”

See what I mean? PR pros in crisis situation rooms have to fight against the perception that giving a sincere statement that acknowledges others’ problems is “PR fluff” or “HR speak.” When that’s the case, they’ve already lost the battle and likely the war.

To avoid that fate when your next crisis happens, you need to have already earned the trust of top leaders to push back with a strong case like Meservey does: “(1) the lawsuits will happen anyway, (2) the forensic evidence will supersede an apology in assessing culpability, (3) the cost of a lawsuit is often less than the cost of torching trust.”

Indeed, four hours after Meservey’s suggested rewrite, Crowdstrike posted this apology on their blog.

I’m not suggesting they copied – or even saw – Meservey’s post. I’m saying that if they had followed the principles she applied in the first place, they would be better off. Still up a creek, but slightly better off.