Too Little, Too Late for Big Mac?

Judging by this blog, there certainly doesn't seem to be any shortage of PR crises in the world of sports. But today's news that home-run slugger Mark McGwire finally admitted to using steroids may be particularly noteworthy in determining the statute of limitations for other disgraced champions.

Traditional crisis communications theory calls for managing the court of public opinion as diligently as the court of law. For years McGwire ignored this tenet, particularly in 2005 when he refused to discuss any possible steroid use during sworn testimony before a Congressional subcommittee.

While refusing to implicate himself allowed McGwire to steer clear of perjury charges -- unlike Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, who are widely believed to have lied to government officials in denying steroid use -- Big Mac's public image (and Hall of Fame prospects) were hopelessly tainted by his skirting of the issue.

Now, on the eve of his return to baseball as hitting instructor for the team with which he accomplished his amazing feats, the St. Louis Cardinals, McGwire has finally come clean. The question is, will it be too late to salvage his reputation?

I always wondered why baseball players of McGwire's era didn't simply own up to their actions. Steroid use was not illegal, nor was it in violation of the sport's own code of conduct at the time. Those who have fessed up have largely been forgiven by both the public and the pundits.

Conventional wisdom in crisis management consists of three imperatives: Tell it, tell it all, and tell it fast. McGwire's 2-for-3 performance equates to a .667 batting average . . . Hall of Fame numbers to be sure.

Waiting for Tiger

As a golf enthusiast and PR pro, I'm doubly eager to see how the Tiger Woods saga will unfold over the next few months. While the PGA Tour won't be the same without everyone gunning for arguably the greatest golfer to ever play the game, I'm more curious to see how the fallen hero will seek to repair his image off the golf course.

I applaud Tiger for making it his top priority to repair the damage in his family . . . if that's even possible. But his choice to go into hiding instead of confronting his situation in a more complete and forthright manner is troubling evidence of the "above-it-all" arrogance that helped land him in hot water in the first place.

My question is, why aren't Tiger's advisers providing him with more effective counsel during this tragic episode? His painstakingly crafted mea culpas, placed in the secure domain of his personal Website, fall far short of the honest acknowledgment his sponsors and supporters deserve.

Let's face it: Tiger's star power is such that he could command any public forum, under the most favorable terms, for his "come clean" interview. A guest spot on Oprah would go a long way toward restoring his integrity, with little threat of the kind of questioning a more cutthroat interviewer might employ.

Instead, Tiger continues to exhibit the stubborn behavior personified by Kevin Costner's Roy McAvoy in the movie "Tin Cup." Struggling on the fringes of golf for over a decade, McAvoy amazingly needs only to par the final hole to win the U.S. Open and the woman of his dreams. Instead of playing safe by laying up on the long par 5, he goes for the green in two, putting five shots in the water before miraculously holing out for a scorecard-bloating 12.

My advice to Tiger: put the 3 wood back in the bag, lay up, and get on with the business of winning golf tournaments.

Transparency (Finally) Comes to the Blogosphere

Kudos to the Federal Trade Commission for updating its guidelines on endorsements and testimonials in advertising for the first time since 1980. In a clear sign of the times, an FTC panel unanimously voted to require bloggers to clearly disclose any "material connection" to an advertiser, including payments for an endorsement or free product.

Rather than have a chilling effect on marketers seeking this type of third-party endorsement, I believe such visibility will now have increased credibility and value. In fact, I suspect communicators to become even more engaged with these "non-traditional media" as more mainstream outlets shut their doors. How ironic, then, that on the day the FTC announced its new guidelines, Conde Nast folded several of its top magazine titles.

Don't Pick Fights with Those Who Buy Ink by the Barrel

Here's an interesting crisis communications strategy you won't find in any textbook: file a lawsuit against the newspaper that shed light on your alleged misconduct.

That's exactly what generic drug maker Mylan Inc. did today, demanding the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette immediately return “internal confidential and proprietary documents” the company claims were “improperly obtained without Mylan’s knowledge or consent.”

In Mylan's defense, the FDA investigated the allegations of production irregularities at Mylan's Morgantown, W.Va., plant and found no problems. But Mylan's stock took a major hit as a result of the newspaper's coverage, so it's understandable the company would be upset.

The paper says it stands by its newsgathering and reporting. Of course, the Fourth Estate has Constitutional protections from surrendering sources, so unless it can be proven that the confidential information was obtained illegally -- which Mylan has not alleged -- I can't imagine the courts forcing them to return the material.

That said, the company is also seeking compensatory damages for the impact the paper's actions had on the company, which is a whole different ballgame. A court may well determine the paper acted improperly in printing the information, whether as a result of misinterpretation or sheer recklessness. It'll be interesting to see how this story plays out.

S.C. Press Secretary Gives Lesson in Integrity

As a former resident of the fine state of South Carolina, I've been more than a little embarrassed by the recent shenanigans of Gov. Mark Sanford. But I'm encouraged by the news that Sanford press secretary Joel Sawyer announced he's stepping down in a few weeks.

There can only be a handful of reasons for Sawyer to part ways with the governor he's served since his first term in office. He could be leaving for a better opportunity in the private sector or to spend more time with his family. But why now?

I'd like to believe it's because Sawyer was fed up with being lied to -- or, worse, being asked to lie for -- the man he so faithfully served. But we may never know, for Sawyer is taking the high road despite being put in a position no PR person ever wants to be in: telling falsehoods to the media.

PR Should Embrace Mommy Blogger Blackout

I know I should feel insulted by the call to arms on website MomDot for Mommy Bloggers to reject all overtures from PR people the week of Aug. 10-16.

Instead I'm actually thankful, because the move will call more attention to the unseemly practice of pay-for-play in blogs of all shapes and sizes. Nowhere is the practice more abused than with the mom blogs, whose authors are usually well-intentioned but typically unfamiliar with the principle of editorial objectivity.

I suspect an unintended consequence of this "Flak-out" will be a deeper appreciation among some bloggers of the value good PR people provide in helping them share useful information with their readers. We all have our roles to play, and recognizing that we can't do our jobs without each other is an important step toward a harmonious existence.

PRSA's "Pay for Play" Measures Not Good Enough

Kudos to the Public Relations Society of America for updating its Code of Ethics to require greater transparency with regard to "pay for play," the exchange of products, services or any inducement that encourages a journalist to provide editorial coverage.

Notably absent, though, in PRSA's new guidelines is any mention of the thousands upon thousands of quasi-journalists -- bloggers and other online influentials -- who hold sway over an increasing percentage of the opinion-seeking population.

The vast majority of bloggers have no Code of Ethics . . . they're just highly engaged, mostly well-intentioned individuals whose interest or passion for a particular subject has led them to a position of influence most never sought or envisioned. They don't know it's wrong to accept freebies, even if there's no quid pro quo requested or implied.

PR professionals should know better. In fact, most do. But to protect the profession from a handful of rotten apples, PRSA should put more teeth in its Code to address to address the potential abuse of the continually evolving digital landscape.