Injunction, the new embargo
Historically the PR industry relied on a gentleman’s code of ethics including ‘off the record’, sealed with a nod and a hand shake over lunch and the ‘embargo’, which guaranteed not a word would be breathed until the allotted hour. Today, off the record is a strict no-no and embargoes are never relied upon for protecting breaking news.
No longer able to rely upon journalist relationships, built on respect and trust, the power of the courts to enforce injunctions and super injunctions is the new embargo.
But what does this mean for the freedom of the press? Some ingenious journalists have proved the power of innuendo can overcome a super injunction – an extraordinary piece of journalism, laced with double-entendre, by Ian Gallagher, Mail Online (10th May), illustrates how journalists have had fun leapfrogging the law. Last weekend, over 30,000 people broke the latest news injunction on Twitter, in what The Times reported as the biggest act of ‘civil disobedience’, and David Cameron said that Twitter makes privacy law’ unsustainable’.
Whether or not we agree with the imposing of injunctions to protect the identity of those involved in personal disputes, there is still a grey area of where to draw the line. Is it right for the law to protect one person’s reputation and not another’s? Imogen Thomas and her supporters certainly think not.
Last month another football star’s on-air foul-mouthed rant was broadcast far and wide with serious consequences, losing him £600,000 worth of sponsorship from Coca Cola.
Under the principals of the imposing of injunctions, with millions of children watching at home, should reporting of Wayne Rooney’s behaviour have been classified as ‘in the public interest’? The consensus in Wayne’s case appeared to be that if you’re in the public eye and you behave badly you pay the price. So why does this apply to the bad language of football players on the field and not their bad behaviour in the hotel bedroom?
From a sponsorship and marketing perspective I guess there’s now a serious question of whether to put your money behind a sportsperson who exposes your brand to the risk of ‘talking dirty’ or of ‘playing away’. If one can be gagged, and the other not, the decision is simple but, with the risk of a double whammy (dirty talk and behaviour), which could be a real risk if an injunction for dirty behaviour is lifted (!), it may be best to stick to solid marketing sense:
- ensure clear rules of engagement at the outset – follow Coca Cola’s example and back out immediately if the brand’s reputation is in danger
- have a robust reputation management and crisis plan in place which is reviewed and updated regularly
- develop and nurture solid relationships with the media, based on mutual respect for honesty and professionalism… just like the good old days