Caught in the Middle: Expert Commentary Strategies When You Have Clients on Both (or All) Sides of an Issue
When looking for media placements for a subject-matter expert, it helps to think about how reporters and editors view the world. A good place to start is to think about what motivates a journalist to devote time to a topic.
A critical piece of what makes a story compelling to journalists is some form of conflict. Journalists are trained to look for conflict in their reporting because people gravitate to interpersonal conflict: Just look at the success of reality TV. Conflict strengthens a story’s narrative and enhances its emotional impact.
Business reporters look for situations with conflict, too. Some of these conflicts are a natural clash of interests, like labor vs. management or hospital vs. insurer (more on these situations later). Some of these conflicts are very specific to a handful of competitors – think of the battles for industry supremacy that Business Wars does such a great job of chronicling.
Businesses also can be in conflict over their differing visions for the future of their industry. Or companies may be sharply divided on whether to deploy a new tactic that is having a major impact. As different companies make these strategic or tactical choices, some distinct camps form in the industry, and that can fuel conflict as well.
Subject-matter experts are wary of commenting on these differences for fear of offending a client or prospect. While some caution is warranted, don’t let your expert miss out on excellent opportunities to showcase the original thinking that makes them thought leaders.
How can a media relations professional help experts evaluate interview opportunities in these contentious situations?
Start with the idea that you won’t be able to convince them all the time. The fear of offending is legitimate: A few of my clients have received negative feedback from their clients for speaking even handedly about a subject their client considered sensitive.
Weigh the value of the opportunity with these risks when discussing the situation with your subject-matter experts. Here are three questions to consider to make that evaluation, using an example scenario:
A reporter for a healthcare trade magazine is working on a story about a Medicare reimbursement strategy that a congressional committee is scrutinizing. The strategy is not being questioned on legal grounds – it’s within the law – but as a matter of policy – should it be within the law.
The first consideration is: What drives the decisions my clients make on whether they pursue this reimbursement strategy? If factors that are out of their control, such as a state law or long-standing practice among physicians in their market, make this reimbursement strategy more attractive in their state or market, the risk is lower. If your expert’s clients have a lot of control over this choice, the risk is higher. The more clearly the expert can define the circumstances and factors to consider in making this choice, the more clearly you can evaluate the risks.
The second consideration is: How evenly balanced are the different camps on this question in the industry? The closer it is to even, the more it lends itself to a “on the one hand, on the other hand” approach for any expert answering the reporter’s questions. That reduces the risk that the reporter will take an imbalanced approach to this issue.
The third consideration is: What groups, if any, are negatively impacted based on these choices? To our answer, we apply a cardinal rule of crisis management: Are our expert’s clients more or less sympathetic than the groups that may be negatively impacted? Hospitals are roughly on par with other major players in the industry (insurers, drug and device makers, distributors) with the exception of physicians, at least in most cases. If patients are negatively affected, it’s a flashing red light to proceed with caution.
Commenting on issues that are usually zero-sum situations – such as billing or contracting disputes between hospitals and insurers – require other considerations. Does your firm always choose one side of these disputes? If yes, that may allow your expert to comment – unless your firm also works for the other side in different capacities. For example, a consulting firm that advises hospitals in these disputes also may advise insurers on data security.
As contentious situations pop up regularly in the news, investigate ongoing issues to evaluate whether your firm can comment on them as part of your media relations planning. Regularly revisit these situations – you may find the calculation changes as your firm evolves. Opportunities that carry more risk can still be worth pursuing, but to do so, make sure the expert has time to think through the implications and confer with colleagues to gain a fuller picture of how this topic affects the firm’s other clients. And of course, ensure the expert has prepared for the interview -- even if it's just a few key points outlined to stay on track.
Contentious topics provide a clear opportunity to subject-matter experts to shine. Commenting on these high-profile situations show the expert’s breadth of knowledge and experience – in short, their expertise. An expert who can clearly articulate the factors at play and how differences on those factors lead to different choices demonstrates that she doesn’t take a cookie-cutter approach to her clients’ problems.
The key for a media relations professional is to help the expert think through the risks and consult widely in the firm before commenting on contentious topics.
Have you faced situations where your experts were leery of offending clients by doing an interview? Share your experiences in the comments.
Image by skeeze on Pixabay