Tiger's 13 minutes of contrition won't be enough to buy him peace

Last Friday's statement of contrition by Tiger Woods is too bizarre to pass up. So please permit me a few observations and then I will declare this blog a Tiger-Free zone for at least a couple of months. Promise.

Tiger likely did his public image some good in his 13 minutes of contrition. But I couldn't help wondering what might have been had he owned up and apologized within a couple of days of when his ordeal began. He probably would have saved himself, his family, his sponsors and all of us a lot of grief.

The Tiger Woods affair(s) will likely be used for many years as a case study of what not to do in crisis communications. In contrast, David Letterman's up-front handling of a similarly sordid mea culpa will be remembered as an outstanding example of crisis communications and damage control.

This is because Letterman positioned himself in front of the story and therefore retained maximum control over what could have been a ruinous tale of sex and blackmail.

The Letterman story only lasted a few news cycles and it was soon business as usual on his late-night show.

Even though Wood finally came clean, he still managed to screw up a couple of things. He showed anger for a brief instance at the media for speculating on what happened. The media may have its faults but Tiger is hardly in a position to criticize.

Media, like nature, abhor a vacuum. This is why it is better to fill in the details quickly rather than goading the media into hunting for them.

But Woods doesn't appear to have learned this. Media weren't allowed to ask questions after he gave his statement. This is why the golf writers association boycotted his so-called press conference, and quite rightly.

Woods could have cleared up some lingering questions such as when he will be playing competitive golf again by taking a few questions from the media. The media will continue to pursue the Tiger Woods story.

--------------------------------------

If the Harper government iws counting on the Olympics for a bounce upward in the polls, it may be disappointed.

Media coverage of these Olympics, both internationally and domestically, has been less than flattering. Voters whose patriotic pride has been hurt tend to take out their frustrations on the government of the day.

This has been an accident and gaff-prone Olympics. Canada's rallying slogan of Own The Podium likely belongs in the hall of fame of dumb marketing slogans.

Own The Podium was the slogan for a program that plowed $117 million -- $65 million of it from you and me -- into athletes' training with the aim of winning more medals than any other country in the 2010 Olympics.

Those who drafted this initiative's mission statement likely wish they had left themselves some wiggle room. When Chris Rudge, CEO of the Canadian Olympic Committee, announced Monday what everybody already knew -- that Canada would not own the podium at these Olympics -- the media was quick to frame Canada's athletic program as a failure.

In reality, Canada's showing in this Olympics so far is quite respectable and may yet be among our best ever despite being branded as a colossal failure.

What would have been wrong with simply qualifying Own The Podium with a time frame of say eight years instead of just one Olympiad? We would have been making progress.

Managing expectations is a big part of the communications process. Sadly, many of our athletes likely would have done better if it hadn't been for a program with a boastful name and foolish mandate.

Letterman's on-air apology shows contrition good tactic

Nothing speaks louder in television than a bump in the ratings, and the success David Letterman has had in navigating his way out of scandal should settle an argument about public relations once and for all: contrition works.

But it won't. That's because it is human nature to evade, make excuses, dissemble, play the blame game and lie. Far too many companies and governments will continue to resort to these tactics to control damage in the public eye.

It is because of such behaviour, that expressions of remorse, full disclosure and other elements of contrition work so well in public relations.

The public is so used to cover up and blame shifting, that simply telling the truth and accepting responsibility are seen as refreshing and therefore creditable. PR consultants will always tell their clients to tell the truth because it makes tactical sense.

Consider a couple of recent cases in Canada.

In 2008, 22 people died from eating cold cuts processed by Maple Leaf Foods. To his credit, Michael McCain, the Maple Leaf CEO, owned up to the fact that the meats were contaminated with listeria at his company's plant in North York.

Maple Leaf took full responsibility and began taking immediate steps to ensure such a tragedy never happens again. Maple Leaf also moved to expedite settlement of lawsuits and actually supported increased regulation of the meat processing industry.

No excuses. No evasion. No shifting of blame. With the exception of a Maple Leaf vice-president who told a tasteless joke in public about listeria last August, the company's conduct has been exemplary. Now the company's most important asset, its reputation, is on the mend.

Let's contrast this approach with how Ottawa handled the case of Canadian citizen Suaad Hagi Mohamud.

This is the Toronto woman who found herself stranded in Kenya for three months because she didn't resemble her passport photo in the opinion of an airline employee and subsequently, a Canadian diplomatic official.

After months of stonewalling, Ottawa was forced by the Federal Court to conduct a DNA test. That DNA established once and for all that she was not an imposter, as Ottawa had been claiming, and the single mother was finally cleared and reunited with her son.

When this case first became public, the feds could have simply announced they were investigating and arranging emergency travel documents so that woman could return to Canada for interviews and a DNA test. Instead Ottawa went on the offensive and did everything it could to discredit Mohamud in the media and in court.

All the while, Ottawa maintained it labeled this single mother an imposter after a thorough investigation. Yet the government's own written evidence shows that wasn't thecase.

Mohamud flunked a civics quiz in an interview with a Canadian embassy official, according to federal court filings. That prompted suspicion in the mind of a Canadian embassy official.

The suspicion may have been justified. But rather than establish the truth with DNA, Canadian officials handed the woman over to Kenyan authorities who imprisoned her before allowing her to stay in Nairobi on bail.

That's right. A Canadian citizen was charged and imprisoned by a foreign government because Canadian officials were unwilling to order a DNA test and then tried to lie their way out of the controversy.

As the controversy continues -- the woman has filed a lawsuit -- Ottawa continues to dig itself in deeper. This ugly controversy is far from over and most Canadians are wondering to themselves if the case would have been different had Mohamud come from a different racial background.

In this case, an honest mistake may have been originally made. But Ottawa's tactics will always be remembered as an ugly example of what not to do in reputation management.

As always, I am eager to receive your comments.