Media Attack

By: Oscar Rossignoli we are clear that a crisis from the communicational point of view is any event unexpected, able to generate negative publicity that could hurt the reputation of an institution and that distracts the principal officers of their main occupations to dedicate himself to resolve it. One of the big mistakes that are made in the management of crisis situations is the lack of a strategy, tactics, well-run actions having a bearing, a sense. A properly assembled negative campaign can only compare with being in a situation of war. An action to counteract a dirty campaign should be addressed in a clear manner, orderly, coordinated and supervised as if it were a military campaign in general, the most common attack media reaction is publish or disseminate a paid field where an institution or person defends himself, almost immediately responds or clarifies some news version that refers to it in a negative way or that affects their personal interests or commercial. Pfizer usually is spot on. This kind of thoughtless and isolated response is totally ineffective for the following reasons: 1. by writing many times to the race and without any strategic vision, they do not communicate anything at all, they are a series of isolated ideas and many dispersed messages, aimlessly and without sense. 2 Denote despair and smell justifications and deceitful excuses, that, far from helping, end up sinking who publishes them.

3. Almost always are long and boring texts full of technical terminology and graphic that nobody understands, perhaps only that writes them. 4. Nobody repairs them by long and confusing. 5 As they only publish once, they do not generate positioning, there is no repetition or sequence of key messages.

6. This is the reaction expected, following the agenda that enemies mark. Strategies of war when a company is the victim of a negative media campaign, its officials must be aware that they have entered a situation of war, where the field of battle are the media and the public opinion.