Company wrong to blame spokesperson after train tragedy

Sometimes, leading an agency through a public relations crisis is like being chased by a pack of wolves while sprinting through a mine field. You don’t dare slow down, but you’d better watch your step.

After more than 15 years as a PR practitioner dancing in mine fields, I can tell you it’s difficult. While I’ve always somehow managed to come out on top (so far!), I’ve seen too many cases where the public relations professional is made a scapegoat of the crisis itself.

Such was the case last week, when a spokesperson for a Metrolink passenger train involved in a fatal crash unfairly lost her job as a result of the crisis.

You may recall that a Metrolink train recently slammed into a Union Pacific freight train in California, killing 25 people. The Metrolink spokesperson, Denise Tyrrell, stated immediately after the crash that a preliminary investigation showed an engineer on the Metrolink train ran a red light before plowing into the freight train. The information was bound to come out eventually. Tyrrell believed making the statement quickly was important to rebuild public trust in her company after such a tragic event. This is a basic premise of good crisis communications. 

According to the Los Angeles CBS-TV affiliate (CBS 2), Tyrrell made this statement: “At this moment we must acknowledge that it was a Metrolink engineer that made the error that caused yesterday’s accident.” Separately, the Los Angeles Times reported that Tyrrell said, “It is your worst fear that this could happen, that the ability for human error to occur could come into the scenario.”

Although she had asked and received permission from the Metrolink CEO before making a statement, some Metrolink board members were subsequently miffed, calling it “premature.” The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigates crashes and issues findings about their cause. These investigations often take months or longer. (My guess is that, upon hearing Tyrrell’s public admission, some Metrolink lawyer threw a hissy fit for the CEO or Metrolink board, helping to prompt the backlash.)

Shortly after the company criticized Tyrrell’s public statements, she resigned.
 
In my opinion, Tyrrell did nothing wrong. She had the public’s (and her company’s) best interest in mind in making the initial statement, and most importantly, she had permission from the company CEO to do so. Moreover, the NTSB said quickly that it did appear that the Metrolink train did not stop at a red signal. The issue appears to be whether this was the engineer’s fault or a problem with the signal – and Tyrrell’s
statement could be interpreted as an indictment of the engineer.
 
The company’s initial focus, of course, should be on those dead and injured in this crash, not on its public image. But PR practitioners can take several lessons from this tragedy.

First, while I applaud Tyrrell’s candor, her statement could have been qualified to stress that the information was preliminary. For example: “Our initial review shows a Metrolink train ran a red light, but the cause of this error and its role in the crash will be determined by the NTSB, which has responsibility for this investigation. Speculation until then is premature.” Of course, it’s always easy to write these statements on a calm day after the fact.

Second, the company CEO should have informed the board chairman of the pending statement, just as a “heads up” courtesy. I’ve dealt with a lot of board chairs, and they tend to be an egotistical bunch, by their own admission. There’s a good chance the chairman was as irked about not being informed up front as he was about the statement itself.

Third, the CEO should have defended his spokesperson, not backpedaled in high gear after his board got antsy. He gave her permission to make the statement. If in hindsight he thought it was premature or wrong, he needed to accept responsibility. Failing to do so is an indictment of his leadership. I wouldn’t work for him, either.

Tyrrell’s wording may not have been perfect, but she had to make a statement quickly under pressure, and she said nothing that warranted her resignation. She had her company’s interest at heart. A better outcome would have been for the board and CEO to allow a little time to pass, then review the company’s entire reaction to the tragedy – including the public relations strategy – and learn lessons from it. Now they just look like bad guys. 
 
Companies everywhere would be wise to learn from Metrolink’s many mistakes in handling this tragedy.

Sportsmanship Lacking at End of Florida-Miami Game

Last Saturday, a mini brouhaha erupted in the world of college sports when University of Florida football team head coach Urban Meyer decided to score late in the game against the University of Miami with his team ahead 23-3. The next day, Miami head coach Randy Shannon complained about Florida’s decision to kick the field goal with only two minutes left, suggesting that Meyer was trying to run up the score – a sign of poor sportsmanship.

 

I don’t have a rooting interest in either school, but the Miami coach is correct, in my opinion. The game was won, and there was no need to tack on points.

 

Meyer claims the field goal was his way to give Florida’s young kicker some experience before playing a tough road game. But if that’s the case, why did he call for a pass into the end zone – which fell incomplete – shortly before kicking the field goal? A completed pass would have robbed the kicker of his field goal attempt. And if Meyer’s goal was to give less experienced players game exposure, why did Meyer keep his star quarterback in the game so late, risking him to injury in lieu of playing his little-used back up? All signs point to the desire to score as many points as possible.

 

Was there another reason?

 

The reality is that the betting line on this game was that Florida would win by 21 points, and Florida was only up by 20. Kicking the 3-point field goal allowed Florida to cover the spread, making Florida boosters and others who bet on the game happy. Was this behind the field goal? Makes you wonder.

 

Also, Meyer may have been thinking that he needed the largest win margin possible to impress coaches and media members who vote in college football polls for the nation’s best teams, as these rankings at season’s end determines who plays in the best bowl games, including who plays for the national championship. I guess to some people the final score of 26-3 looks appreciably better than 23-3.

 

I don’t think kicking the field goal makes Meyer a bad guy. (A former Miami player, Warren Sapp, called Meyer ”a classless dirtbag” for kicking the field goal. I think that’s going too far.) But attempting a touchdown pass and then kicking the field goal were not classy moves. And I question whether we’ve gotten a straight answer from Florida about the motivation.

 

By any measure, sportsmanship was not top of mind at the end of this game, and college football wasn’t best served by its absence.