The verdict is out. On June 22, 2012, Jerry Sandusky was found guilty on 45 of 48 charges of sexual abuse to children. He faces a sentence of potentially hundreds of years in prison. But what about Penn State? How – or will – they ever be able to repair their once good name and begin to pick themselves off the ground?
This is a big question. One that will depend on Penn State’s actions from here on out.
Looking back, Penn State made so many irresponsible and unwise decisions since the unfolding of the scandal – as many companies and organizations do in a crisis – that, had they responded differently, could have potentially separated the University from the scandal entirely. The Penn State Crisis could have been titled the “Paterno Scandal” or “The Curley and Schultz coverup”, rather than the “Penn State Crisis” or the “Penn State Scandal”.
Looking at it from a social media standpoint (being a social media crisis manager and all!), there are so many actions and strategies Penn State could have – and should have – put into place that would have helped to cushion their fall.
Looking back on Penn State’s Social Media Crisis Fails
First and foremost, Penn State chose to never once address the entire – or even a portion of – the crisis via social media. With social media endlessly buzzing about it for months on end, and with the public curious to know the University’s position, this decision to do nothing and to stay silent was the worst thing that Penn State could have chosen to do.
Although they allowed comments and remarks to be posted as comments to their own posts (and boy were comments posted!), they did not allow for comments to be directly posted to their timeline. At this point, thousands of comments have been posted to their channels, both supporting and attacking the University. And although their audience was screaming their want for open and two-way communication, Penn State stayed silent.
How else can you further implicate yourself or your brand in a scandal? It’s as though their silence begged for their implication, and as a result, the University has many long hours, days, weeks and potentially years of damage control ahead of them.
With their core audience screaming their want for open communication, the University would have been wise to open up that portal. To develop a core and consistent message, as well as a strategy and guidelines for responding, would have helped them position their brand as caring, responsive, open and, most importantly, separate from the scandal. The actions of a few individuals should not put the entire organization at risk, though they allowed it to have these kinds of repercussions. It was the public who named the scandal the “Penn State Crisis”, and this was a product of poor crisis communications.
What Penn State should have done differently on social media in response to the crisis
Address the situation
Penn State should have immediately addressed the situation the second it went public. Real-time communication is both key and appreciated in a crisis – especially one of this magnitude. They should have been open and honest about the charges and developed a consistent message that separated the University and the Football program as a whole, from the scandal and individuals being accused.
Put a social media crisis team in place
With all the comments and questions flooding their social media channels, Penn State would have been wise to develop a team of social media monitors and communicators. This team would have been responsible for actively monitoring the online discussions and communicating and responding to comments and questions, 24/7.
Develop a clear and consistent message
They had no message other than silence – and silence is a very loud message. Penn State should have immediately developed a clear, honest and consistent message, as well as a strategy for communicating it efficiently across their many social platforms.
Choose a spokesperson
A spokesperson should have been titled for their crisis communications, period. And this spokesperson’s message should have been communicated and uploaded across their active social media networks on a regular basis.
Empower social media personnel
Penn State instructed their staff to stay silent on social media. They were not permitted to post anything in direct relation with the scandal. Instead, their staff – who had proven to do so well on social media for the University in the past – should have been empowered and instructed on how, when and where to respond and post about the scandal.
They had all the tools and advantages at their disposal
Penn State had loyal fans and active communities. They had people interacting with them who wanted to believe in them. They were surrounded with brand advocates who would have helped and come to their defense in a heart beat. These are all powerful tools that Penn State could have and should have used to their advantage. But they didn’t and look at where they are today. Paying hundreds of thousands of dollars a month to repair the damage caused by their inaction.
What’s your opinion?
Having watched the scandal unfold, and perhaps having been a Penn State supporter, what do you think of the way the University handled their crisis communications, and do you think they will be able to redeem themselves? Share your comments with me below!
* Click here to read Penn State’s official statement, released after the verdict on June 22nd 2012.
Author of Crisis Ready: Building an Invincible Brand in an Uncertain World, Melissa Agnes is a leading authority on crisis preparedness, reputation management, and brand protection. Agnes is a coveted keynote speaker, commentator, and advisor to some of today’s leading organizations faced with the greatest risks. Learn more about Melissa and her work here.
Here's the problem with this analysis: It IS a Penn State scandal. That wasn't a named assigned by people on social media – that's what the scandal is. The university and it's football-driven culture are at its very core. The school could have followed this advice to the letter and it wouldn't have made one degree of difference. Penn State could do nothing to preserve its image, nor should it want to. An image and culture that allows these crimes to be committed is not one worth protecting.
Hi Kevin,
I agree with you, to some extent. However, Penn State as a whole did not commit these crimes. Some key and very powerful and influential people within their faculty did. The point of this post is to look at what Penn State, as a whole, could have done differently, and had they taken the right actions from the very first day – the very first moment – I do believe that they could have potentially salvaged their name and reputation – again, as a whole.
They have such a strong community, both online and off, that had they taken the right course of action, they would have potentially had a chance to change the outcome.
Thanks for stopping by and leaving your comment! Always great to hear different opinions!
Penn State will now be judged by what they DID NOT say. They missed their opportunity to separate themselves from the issue. Penn State's decision to be silent and not respond will come back to bite them. Time will tell what the real story is regarding their knowledge of the situation.
I completely agree, Lenny. And it IS coming back to bite them. Needing to spend 100K + a month on crisis management is a big bite, and even at that, I still haven't seen the right course of actions being taken.
It will be very interesting to keep a close watch on what's yet to unfold!
Thanks for taking the time to leave your thoughts!
Litigation exposure is a critical issue in a crisis/scandal like Penn State. Occasionally, in the rush to say something, comments can be made that become the subject of depositions and other legal inquiries. Speed is important, but so is accuracy and consistency.
Absolutely. But to be consistently silent for months on-end… A consistent message should have been developed, along with strict guidelines and proper training for their staff and media representatives.
There are two courts at hand, both of high importance and impact: the court of law and the court of public opinion. Both need to be taken into account.
Penn State needs to hire you. 🙂
Lol! Thanks, Morgan 😉
They hired a huge firm actually – it'll be interesting to see where they go from here!
Hi Melissa…what about the news media? Was the university also non-responsive to the news media?
Hi Dan,
To my knowledge, the University's response, or lack-there-of, has been consistent across all media channels.
Crimes against children are the most heinous crime there are, nobody can stay indifferent and all of us have an emotional reaction to an event like this. It´s just humanity and compassion. So we expected a similar response by the institution, the opposite could be perceived as a total lack of empathy or even worse as complicity in these crimes.
In socialmedia, one of the biggest mistakes that can be made in a crisis is to remain silent and ignore the social communication, as people will be talking about you anyway and your reputation will be damaged increasingly without being able to defend.
As you have well said Melissa, they had all the tools and advantages at their disposal, they had a very committed community that had been prepared to help if they had an active communication with the community in order to help separate their name from the scandal, they could have taken initiatives to help victims and families, many things could have been done, but nothing was done and that was the worst decision they could make.
It's tricky. That loyal base may have been in complete denial or rushing to the program's defense when no defense should have been mounted. The work here would have been to ID the loyalists who condemned the culture but stood by the academic environment, and give them voice and platform (mainstream media found some of these). But I also disagree that better response would have separated Penn State's name from the crisis — I think that would have been dangerous to hold out to them as a goal. What they do to visibly correct in the next 6-12 months will have the real impact on their brand. Agree, Kevin — something here needed to go down in flames. Also agree there was a way to stay in the discussion, even with Legal oversight.
There was a diverse loyal base, that's for sure. But as you say, there should have been a strategy put into place here, and if they managed to do some good on main stream media, that's a start, but social media is where A LOT of the conversation and debates took place, as well as where it will go down in searchable history (online). They missed the ball by a long shot on this one.
Having it a realistic goal to separate their name from the scandal, maybe not. Having it as a point of focus and potential end goal under which a communications strategy could have, and should have, been developed and executed – absolutely.
As I keep saying, it will be interesting to see where they go from here.
Thanks for the great comment, Bruce!
According to a recent NY Times article, applications and donors to Penn State are on the increase since the scandal broke… (though applications to the Penn State law school have declined):
“Despite the relentless stream of bad publicity, applications to Penn State rose more than 1 percent to a record 116,595 this year. The number of donors to the university will also increase: Penn State projects that by the end of the month, it will have had a total of 190,000 donors within the last year, up more than 6,000 from the same period the previous year. (The financial totals from this year’s donations are not yet known.) The number of applicants to the Penn State law school did fall nearly 30 percent, to 3,458 from 4,848, outpacing the national downturn in law school applications.”
For more, see: http://bit.ly/NlaNLS
So they’ve not seem to have suffered terribly from the bad press. Kind of gross, though.
The lesson from the Penn State fiasco is that no organization can be without a crisis communications plan, which must be developed ahead of time. Clearly, the University didn't do that.
It's clear and it's unfortunate – but we can hope that they've learned their lesson, and furthermore, we hope that other Universities have learned Penn State's lesson too.
Thanks for stopping by, reading and taking the time to leave your thoughts, Jane!