David Leonhardt: Whacking Flacks with Their Own Words

New weapons seem to be developing in the never-ending skirmishes of business spin.

Wired editor Chris Anderson provoked furor among the flammers by not only blocking their e-mail addresses, but by publishing the offending addresses, as well.

That punishment tactic got lots of attention, but Jack Flack thinks another flack-whacking method is also emerging -- the "hang'em with their own words" approach.

While skilled reporters have always been good at allowing bad quotes to speak for themselves, NYT reporter David Leonhardt recently elevated the tactic to new level by actually sharing the full written responses that were given him in reaction to his questions about recent product recalls by toymaker RC2. Leonhardt first covered RC2 back in June, using a the recall of lead-painted Thomas the Train toys as example of the perils of off-shoring. In late October, he came back to RC2 when the news broke that the company had replaced the dangerous toys with, yes, another dangerous toy. (Yep, that's right.)

Obviously irritated by the lack of straight answers, Leonhardt also filed an on-line companion piece in which he ran verbatim responses from the two hired flacks representing RC2 -- Nancy Davies of Salmon Borre Group, and Joanne Tremulis of Burson-Marsteller's Chicago office. He also added the lone response from Philip Ranger, the senior flack at Hit Entertainment, which licenses the Thomas trademark to RC2.

Intrigued by the tactic, Jack Flack exchanged a few e-mails with Leonhardt.

JF: You usually write about economics. What caused you to focus on RC2 originally? What caused you to return to them?

DL: You're right -- it's more of a business topic than a strictly economic one. But one of the nice things about economics is that it's an excuse to write about almost anything. Back in June, after the first Thomas recall was announced, an editor here at The Times suggested I look at the economics of outsourcing. I ended up writing a column on Thomas and outsourcing then , and I've remained interested in the topic over the last few months. The more I looked into how RC2 has handled its lead problems, the more I thought there was another column to do.

JF: It looked like all the responses you got were written. Is that correct?

DL: Yes and no. I also spoke on the phone with RC2's outside p.r. rep's. But they wanted their substantive, on-the-record responses to be in writing.

JF: Have you found that to be a common tactic for companies in difficult situations? If so, why do they do it? Why did RC2 do it?

DL: It allows them to control the conversation. They can rehearse their answers before hand. And they don't have to deal with pesky follow-up questions, like "Why?" But there is a real downside: reporters have no chance to ask for clarification when they don't understand something or need more detail. If a company really cares about giving journalists an accurate picture -- so journalists can explain that picture to readers -- it needs to have actual, live conversations.

JF: What prompted you to publish the full statements they gave you?

DL: Since I said in the column that they had effectively refused to answer many of questions, I wanted to readers to be able to see the (non-)answers for themselves.

JF: Would you have been able to do that before the web became so much of a bigger part of the equation?

DL: Almost certainly not.

JF: Do you think this is something other reporters will do more frequently?

DL: The Web clearly allows newspaper and magazines to present background material and related information, so that readers who want more can find it. In this case, though, I think our readers -- and Thomas's customers -- would have better off if RC2 had simply answered the obvious questions that many people still have.

JF: You got responses from two different PR agency people? Did they change agencies, or are they using both?

DL: They appear to be using both.

JF: Do they have their own PR department or their own spokesperson?

DL: Not that is evident.

JF: HIT seemed pretty passive, especially compared with how Toys R Us and Disney dealt with Mattel in public? Do you sense that was a conscious strategy, or was it more of a deer-in-the-headlights reaction?

DL: Oh, I have no doubt it was conscious. Both RC2 and HIT chose not to talk back in June and have mostly kept quiet in the months since.

JF: In your original story back in June, you said you suggested to HIT's PR agency that their approach might not be the smartest. Do you ever get the urge shake to some sense into the people that you're interviewing?

DL: I generally assume executives know their company -- and their own interests -- better than I do. Maybe saying nothing in the wake of the problems did somehow benefit RC2, by minimizing publicity. But I think it was short-sighted on HIT's part. And I know it did nothing to help their customers.

For what it's worth, the RC2/HIT story has gone relatively cold, though you will likely see RC2 matched with Mattel in all the toy-trouble round-up stories that will inevitably be popping up as Christmas approaches. While some might be tempted to credit the bunker strategy as the reason the story has faded, the reality is that coverage has died down because RC2 hasn't announced any new recalls lately. If more come, look for the bunker to become an increasingly uncomfortable place to hang.