Multiple PR Comments in a High-Profile or Crisis Situation Don’t Fly Before You or Your Client Comments, Make Sure You Have the Facts Andrew Blum, Principal, AJB Communications When four companies recently caught up in the revelation that they had each paid thousands of dollars to President Trump’s long-time attorney Michael Cohen, they forgot a key rule of PR: if you don’t have all the facts, wait before commenting. The companies were Korea Aerospace Industries, AT&T, Novartis and a corporation affiliated with a Russian oligarch. In total, they paid Cohen several million dollars reportedly for help in dealing with the Trump administration. Their paying of Cohen was first alleged by Michael Avenatti, the PR-savvy attorney for porn star Stormy Daniels, who is fighting Trump over a non-disclosure agreement and her right to speak about their alleged affair. Cohen paid her $130,000 through a shell company he formed, Essential Consultants. Unfortunately for the companies who hired Cohen, he had them pay him through the same shell company. Avenatti uncovered it and several media organizations confirmed the payments. The companies’ mistake was giving media comments that weren’t complete or clear and then making several other comments. Next to asking a reporter to make a correction about information you send them, there perhaps can be nothing worse than providing too many statements that only continue the story and make the media skeptical. Take Rachel Maddow, for example. On her MSNBC show earlier this month, she said after summarizing the companies PR responses: “Whoever is doing their public relations on this matter has been having an off day.” And that was one of her milder comments. What the Companies Said and What they did Wrong in PR Terms Korea Aerospace Industries – sent a $150,000 check to Cohen. They first had no comment (smart under the circumstances) then confirmed the payment but said it was unaware of Cohen’s company having a Trump connection. The company said it paid Cohen “to inform reorganization of our internal accounting system.” It tried again, saying, it received legal advice on the cost accounting standards regulation from Essential Consultants through a contracted deal. But then it said it had no direct contact with Cohen at the time of the contract – and the deal was done by someone else. AT&T — Avenatti said AT&T paid $200,000 to Cohen in four monthly installments of $50,000 each, ending in January 2018. But AT&T confirmed it paid Cohen triple that. It said it paid him $50,000 a month for a year, a total of $600,000. AT&T first said it paid Cohen for expertise on the issues of regulatory reform at the FCC, corporate tax reform, and antitrust enforcement. Then it said it paid Cohen, “for an understanding of the inner workings of Trump.” Its final comment said it had been contacted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, had cooperated and a few weeks later, its contract with Cohen expired. Novartis – first blamed its involvement with Cohen on the former CEO, saying any agreements were entered into before its current CEO took over. Next up: “In February 2017, Novartis entered into a one-year agreement with Essential Consultants shortly after the election of President Trump focused on health care policy matters.” Like AT&T, Novartis said it was contacted by the special counsel`s office. Its third statement said they essentially paid Cohen for nothing and didn’t just pay him $400,000, it was $1.2 million. Once they found out Cohen couldn’t help them, they were stuck with a contract and kept paying him, Novartis said. Later, in a fourth comment to health care site Statnews.com, it said, “This episode was clearly a mistake.” The Russian oligarch — One of the companies that paid Cohen is associated with Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg. He was sanctioned by the U.S. recently along with his holding company Renova. An investment firm linked to Renova appears to have paid Cohen $500,000 from January through August 2017. Vekselberg`s American cousin who runs the investment firm associated with Renova, reportedly paid Cohen. That company denied any connection between Vekselberg and payments to Cohen. However, the company confirmed it paid Cohen as a business consultant, “regarding potential sources of capital.” What the Companies Should have Done and What Your PR Approach Should Be Let’s say you or your client is asked for a comment on a high- profile issue, a company crisis or a controversial and negative story. What should you do? 1) Talk to your CEO or your client’s CEO or the executive who would know the facts. 2) Strategize on how to respond to the media. 3) Make sure you have the facts and the right facts. 4) Weigh the pros and cons of making a comment, especially if your gut tells you there may need to be at least one more comment that either contradicts the first statement or would make the press ask more questions. 5) If the story you are being asked to comment on is toxic and has players like Michael Cohen or issues like the Russia probe into the role of the Trump campaign, you may want to say no comment. That way, you don’t risk having to make multiple comments. No comment couldn’t be much worse than what these four companies ultimately ended up saying in their multiple statements. About the Author: Andrew Blum is a PR consultant and media trainer and principal of AJB Communications. He has directed PR for professional services and financial services firms, NGOs, agencies and other clients. As a PR executive, and formerly as a journalist, he has been involved on both sides of the media aisle in some of the most media intensive crises of the past 25 years. Contact him at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter: @ajbcomms .