△ MENU/TOP △

Holtz Communications + Technology

Shel Holtz
Communicating at the Intersection of Business and Technology
SearchClose Icon

Drug companies issue Moore alert

When a company hunkers down into siege mode, there’s one message you can count on the company delivering to its employees: “Please refer any calls from the media to Corporate Communications.”

That’s the instruction drugmakers are issuing to employees in the wake of reports that documentary filmmaker Michael Moore (“Roger and Me,” “Bowling for Columbine,” “Farenheit 911”) is turning his attention to the healthcare industry. His new targets reportedly include insurance companies, HMOs, the US Food and Drug Administration, and drug companies. At least six of those drug companies issued internal communications advising employees to watch out for Moore and, should he approach them, to refer him to Corporate Communications.

According to an item in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch,

“We ran a story in our online newspaper saying Moore is embarking on a documentary and if you see a scruffy guy in a baseball cap, you’ll know who it is,” said Stephen Lederer, a spokesman for Pfizer Global Research and Development.

Let’s hear it for the power and influence of those online internal newspapers.

But seriously. Does anybody really think these “call Corporate Communications” directives really work? Once three or four employees have dismissed Moore’s queries with the suggestion that he call CorpComm, will Moore heave a deep sigh and resign himself to a documentary with footage featuring only PR people?

There have always been disgruntled employees who will be more than happy to blow off the company’s “refer-all-queries” policy and dish as much dirt as they can. Since they’re the only ones talking—the good employees are dutifully referring calls to CorpComm—it makes it even easier for Moore to present an unbalanced view. In those rare cases when no employee will talk, reporters can easily turn to ex-employees for even more biased opinions. Information abhors a vacuum, and in the absence of the preferred source (employees), Moore will turn to secondary sources, then teriary sources. Corporate Communications isn’t in either of those groups.

Complicating matters these days is a greyer line between work and the rest of your life, as evidenced by blogs written by individuals on their own time that talk about work. It took me all of about 20 seconds to find a blog written by a Pfizer employee, appropriately subtitled, “Authoritarian rants in my spare time.”

The approach a company should take requires more work but produces better results. Distribute material to employees that help them answer any questions consistently and accurately. Provide and promote resources to help employees represent the company in the best light and protect its reputation. Of course, let employees know that they don’t have to talk to Moore; they’re welcome to refer him to Corporate Communications. But for those who are willing to go on the record, turning them into a public relations force is far more powerful than footage of cowed and frightened employees muttering that they’re not allowed to talk.

 

12/27/04 | 2 Comments | Drug companies issue Moore alert

Comments
  • 1.Great post, Shel. Agree enthusiastically with every last thing you say here and would add only that these companies' fate is partly sealed already, and not just because Moore will inevitably get what he's after, no matter what.

    This isn't a matter of getting five talking points into employees' in case Moore shows up. To a much greater extent, their answers will refelect what and how their employers have communicated to them over the last decade or so.

    If employees understand and believe in their companies' policies and practices, that's good news. If employees don't understand and/or agree with Moore, that's bad news.

    It's probably too late for the company to influence that opinion now, except to remind employees that anti-drug-company sentiment that Moore may whip up poses a threat to their livelihoods.

    A reminder they probably don't need anyway.

    David Murray | December 2004 | Chicago

  • 2.No question but that previous communication behaviors over the long term will color the way employees respond. But I still think it doesn't hurt to reinforce key messages pertinent to the current situation. A company can basically say, "Michael Moore is targeting our industry and it's not outside the realm of possibility that you'll personally get a call from him. Here's a summary of our positions that we've been communicating for years and a review of our actions as it relates to a few of the issues we think Moore might be interested in."

    Shel Holtz | December 2004 | Concord, CA

Comment Form

« Back