Company spokesperson - facilitator or buffer? published May 2003 There’s a growing tendency for organisations to rely on communications executives to front for them when dealing with the media. It’s hard to generalise about spokespersons. They come in many guises and - apart from the largest organisations such as Telstra or Qantas which have professional spokespersons who do nothing else - for most it is just part of their general communications responsibilities. This raises a number of questions, including: Does a spokesperson help the media do its job better? Does it portray the organisation in a better light? What implications does it have for those in the role? Here are some perspectives about spokespersons. The Media Perspective Media, in general, don’t like dealing with spokespersons. They prefer to deal direct with management and get opinions and explanations ‘from the horses mouth’. Too often a company spokesperson is seen as a ‘filter’, and someone who makes it harder to get a story and get answers rather than facilitating it. And often they can slow the process down with their internal approval processes. Journalists are taught that the essence of good reporting is to quote a source by name. When a company spokesperson won’t let their name be used in a story, it often further devalues the story in the eyes of the media and indicates to their readers/viewers/listeners that they couldn’t actually access the decision-maker. On the other hand, a company spokesperson who is a genuine source of information, is free to be quoted, and actively acts as a conduit for the media to access relevant executives when necessary, can be highly valued. The Organisation’s Position Organisations find it logical to appoint someone to take the responsibility for ‘handling the media’. But just appointing someone to the role doesn’t automatically mean the organisation will be seen in a better light. The question is whether companies are doing this to genuinely help facilitate and improve contact with the media, or whether it is a form of protection or a shield to protect senior management. Regrettably, too often it is the latter. Company executives need to understand that they are misguided if they think their appointed spokesperson can handle the media on their own. The media’s impression of, and coverage on, the organisation will gradually diminish if the spokesperson is the only contact. The company needs to establish clear authorities for the spokesperson about what they can say, the use of their name etc; and there has to be swift approval processes. Without these, the spokesperson’s role will not work. Executives have to appreciate that the best company spokesperson will take the routine of media contact away but present them with the opportunities that are important. Spokespersons Publicly fronting an organisation is a huge responsibility in these days of class actions, litigation and corporate watchdogs. Any spokesperson would be well advised to ensure they have adequate insurance and protection. It’s important that the spokesperson understand the ethos of the organisation. If it is open and transparent and the job is one of facilitation it can be a rewarding task. If the PR is simply being used as a buffer then it can be thankless and the spokesperson’s credibility can be under pressure both with the media and internally. Where possible the approved spokesperson of an organisation should be able to be quoted by name by the media. This gives the spokesperson and the company more credibility - some say "that only to be sourced as a ‘spokesperson’ looks cowardly and as though the company has something to hide". A spokesperson’s role is helped by being able to access senior management when the occasion demands; not to have this ability makes the task of representing the organisation, and presenting it in its best light, very demanding. The spokesperson must have the right credentials - they must have a strong working knowledge of the organisation, regularly do refresher media training and have the right personality to handle the media. Good spokespersons need to deliver consistent, credible messages about their organisations. Unfortunately not many Australian companies are good at this so spokespeople are put on stage without all the tools they need to fulfill the role properly. Not surprisingly the status and effectiveness of spokespersons is often tied to the exposure to the media. An organisation that only gets one call a month from media is likely to have a very different structure and policy to handling media than one which gets a call a day. However Australian culture is not yet ready to follow US practice where spokespersons are much more accepted. The Australian public and media expect people in senior positions to front up and be accountable. Who, for example, would even know who is the Press Secretary/Media Advisor for the Prime Minister? Organisations that appoint spokespersons, and those that fill these roles, need to tread very carefully. Other media related articles of relevance or interest: Media myths - We examine 10 common myths about media What makes the news? ABA survey reveals all - Insights into how the news is made, and what the Australian public thinks about news and current affairs

PR Influences Australian Public Relations Newsletter. Article: Public Relations: Company spokesperson - pros and cons. Information Content: Corporate Communications