I was once called away from a lunch with a former editor of this magazine by a very senior banker at Deutsche Bank, my employer at the time. The banker was furious. One of the newswires had published something he had said at a conference and he felt it was damaging a deal he was trying to complete.
I should flag that this banker had form. He was known to be tough and had once temporarily pulled all credit lines to another large German bank after it had tried to poach a member of his top team. He wasn’t to be trifled with.
So it was with some trepidation that I stepped into his office. He was behind his desk, slightly flushed of cheek and, as usual, smoking a cigarette.
“I want you to get them to take [the quote] down,” he barked. “This story is costing me.”
I found myself in a situation that rears its head often enough to remind me that most bankers don’t really understand how the media works.
It is partly our fault. We PRs take some pride in giving the impression we can influence journalists and editors. Occasionally, in some small way, we can. So bankers look to us to rectify stories they don’t like. They think a quick call to the editor will straighten it out, an offending quote will be removed, lines either side dethorned, etc.
If only.
We may have a chance if a journalist has reneged on an understanding, such as an off-the-record agreement during a one-on-one meeting. But if a comment is made in a public forum in front of an audience, then it is fair game.
Even if a banker has been misquoted, sometimes it is better on balance to roll with the punches rather than push back. It is not always worth drawing further attention to the matter.
Often a quote is said to have been “taken out of context”, but even then it might be better to leave it unchallenged. Journalists will instinctively resist re-editing, quite rightly requiring a clear explanation as to why they might even consider it. Describing the “true” context for which an allegedly misused quote was meant can be fraught with its own risk (including triggering another story). Plus, it is rare that a comment is fully taken out of context.
Frustrating
Sometimes a journalist will take a free-to-use comment about a particular topic and use it in a different story on a related subject. This can be frustrating. The context may have changed but not necessarily in a meaningful way. And there is no rule saying this can’t be done.
When asked, my angry banker colleague confirmed he had made the comments. They were reported accurately, they were used in context and they were said publicly.
I advised him, in so many words, to take a deep breath, roll with the story and let the moment pass. I said no, don’t push for an edit.
Seeking to change something that to the outside world seems relatively innocuous can send all the wrong signals, I explained. The wire journalist will suspect there may be more to investigate if we start asking for edits. With luck on their side, they might discover a deal was in the balance and they would definitely write about that. Which, of course, the banker didn’t want.
On top of this, as a PR I would be uncomfortable seeking to change something that was sourced openly and fairly. It wouldn’t reflect well on the bank, and certainly not on me. My job is to advise appropriately and, if required, challenge a banker who asks for something unreasonable, particularly after the fact. If really pushed, one way to close off this line of conversation is to offer to make a few calls, which buys a bit of time in which passions can cool off.
Was there nothing we could do, enquired my now-deflated banker. There is a lot that can be done, I said happily, relieved that my advice was being heeded and my head still attached to my neck. Not in this particular situation, I continued, but going forward.
Time to pounce
For PRs, these are moments in which to pounce – when a banker is feeling slightly vulnerable and thinks fate is against them. What you need, I said, is a meet-and-greet media plan. If you'd had a meaningful relationship with the wire journalist (which he hadn't), it is possible they would have called to discuss in more detail what you had said, perhaps giving you a chance to tweak your quote.
But this banker didn’t have many relationships with the media because he didn’t think he needed them. Now he was beginning to realise they could be helpful with his business. And I was able to get what I had been asking for for months – an agreement to introduce this very senior banker to journalists who had been chasing me for ages for a meeting.
It can be frustrating to have to let an uncomfortable story pass. It goes against the grain not to seek a change. But by doing so, a whole lot of pain down the road can be avoided. Experienced PRs will know this and it is their job to stand up to and mollify a disgruntled banker.
There is always a way to achieve this – usually in the form of flattery. Bankers can be a vain lot.
Hang on. Was that last comment published? Can you edit it out? What I meant was they are quick to recognise their self-worth.
No? OK. Maybe just leave it as is.
Jezz Farr has been a senior communications adviser to major international banks for more than 25 years.