PR Crisis – Module 11

While I hate to bring up the same case repeatedly, in this case, it helps me to demonstrate a great example.

When GMI announced its support of same-sex marriage in Minnesota, it was taking a major PR risk. 

When a Fortune 500 company like GMI takes a stance on such a politically charged issue, they open themselves up to alienation, and potential damage to their reputation.

At the time, I can recall watching our VP of Corporate Communications speak on the matter, stating:

While the company does not normally take positions on ballot measures, [we] felt this issue was important enough to speak out on. We have long worked to create an inclusive culture that welcomes and values the contributions of all. We believe it is important for Minnesota to be viewed as inclusive and welcoming as well. We do not believe the proposed amendment is in the best interest of our state, our business or our employees — and as a Minnesota-based company we oppose it.

I can remember the day of the announcement – we had a few groups of protesters, as well as the famous “flaming Cheerios box” guy I’ve cited before. It was a brave stance for the company to take, realizing that a slight tarnish might come to the company and our brands because of it.

GMI also realized, however, that opposing same-sex marriage could be bad for the company as well. 

As a company that believes in inclusion and diversity, as well as being a company that makes products for every age, gender, race, and creed, we cannot afford to be exclusionary without compromising our mission, and values as a company and workforce.

To ensure that the situation was managed properly, I would imagine our communications team had a plan in place (as they were dealing with various media outlets from the HQ for several days – face to face.) Additionally, our CEO (Ken Powell) went on local news stations expressing our support of equal rights, and the reasoning behind it. In my view, the actions taken by the company helped to express our view as a modern, inclusive enterprise, and ensured that we embodied the values we support. At the same time, those same actions worked to help build consensus with those that might oppose our view by helping them to see things from a different prospective.

To measure the effectiveness of these actions, the company could look for things like positive media coverage supporting our stance, support from the people across social media outlets, etc. We could also look at sales data after the announcement, and see if it slumped, increased, or stayed the same.

In the end, I feel like GMI took all of the right actions by having a plan (seemingly anyways) at the ready, reaching out to those that may have opposed the position, and building a stance around our core values as a company – personally I’m proud to work for a company that stands by its values – and by doing so – sets an example for the rest of corporate America to follow. 

References:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/17/same-sex-marriage-corporations-ballot-measures-nom_n_1600718.html