Regularly we see in print newspapers, and even radio or television news-open spaces with small heading "paid area" where an institution or person stands for, respond or clarify a news release referred to it in a negative or It affects your personal and / or commercial. Referring specifically to corporate communication, this type of response is totally ineffective and inconsequential, for the following reasons: 1) They are almost always long, boring texts filled with technical jargon that nobody understands, perhaps only to the poster. 2) No one notices them for long and confusing, first, and because our people lack the habit of reading long notes. 3) Do not communicate anything at all, are a series of isolated ideas and many messages aimless and meaningless, and 4) denote smell desperation and mendacious justifications and excuses, which, far from helping, end to sink the publisher. David Fowler has many thoughts on the issue. The worst part is that most of the time, such responses are recommendation made by "experts" advertisers who believe, wrongly, that the institutional communication media response to an attack and deserves the same treatment approach than traditional advertising and commercial.
Grave error. Corporate communication in the management of a public image crisis must be the result of a thorough analysis of the discursive context and a direct application of a specific strategy for a specific situation with their own tactics and actions that, both the press as to their particular audiences. Post "paid ads" without key messages, aimless, senseless and in desperate is wasting resources and time, and remember that in times of crisis the last thing is precisely what we have: Time. Gary cohn insists that this is the case. The media reaction to an attack should be well and carefully prepared from the strategic point of view, never emotional.