Tags

, , , , ,

For PR practitioners, this week has been like the build up to our own Super Bowl.  Lance Armstrong’s interview with Oprah airs tonight and what he says will either set him on the course to redemption or seal his reputation as the biggest liar in sports history.

Armstrong has been fighting off allegations of doping for years.  He has been consistent and adamant in his denials that he used performance-enhancing drugs.  When the United States Anti-Doping Agency released its report outlining all its evidence of elaborate cover-ups and deceit, Armstrong continued to insist he was innocent.  When he was stripped of his Tour de France titles, he declined comment then doubled down until deciding to confess to Oprah that he did use the drugs after all.

Unfortunately for Lance however, it is way too late to manage this crisis in any way that will save his reputation.  When it comes to crisis communications, there are clear rules about controlling and managing your story effectively.

Tell the Truth

This is the heart of all Lance Armstrong’s issues.  Telling the truth in any crisis is the number one way to salvage your reputation.  Armstrong apparently has lied; lied again and then lied some more.  He has certainly been consistent in his message, which is usually a good thing when it comes to PR, but the truth has a way of coming out eventually.  If you don’t admit to a wrong or tell the whole story from the beginning, all credibility is lost.  From then on anything you say will be looked on with skepticism.  Armstrong lost ownership of his story from the moment he doubled down on his lies.

Timing

It’s too late to tell the truth once everybody already knows you’ve been lying.  At this point any opportunity to control the story and its outcome is long gone.  By not responding or coming clean immediately Armstrong lost all chance of regaining any credibility.  He made the classic mistakes of ignoring the situation, denying what was happening and what he had done.

Armstrong’s decision to “confess” to Oprah now will not be seen as brave, and he won’t be given credit for finally being honest.  Instead the coverage will continue to focus on his motive for doing the interview now more than what he actually admits to having done.  His actions and motivations will be examined far more closely than anything he actually says.

Consistency

As I said above, being consistent with your story and responses is usually a positive when handling a PR crisis.  But that strategy only works when you’ve started off being honest and proactive with your information. People and the media will forgive you if the information given at the beginning of a crisis is what you know to be true based on the best data you have at the time.  As long as you are making a true effort to be forthcoming and transparent, those listening to you will continue to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Armstrong was adamant and arrogant in his denials up until this week when word came that he will be pivoting in the complete opposite direction with his admissions to Oprah.  This is not consistent.  It comes across as a desperate last attempt to salvage his reputation. By now everyone has formed their opinions based on the actions and statements of the agencies that sanctioned him and stripped him of his titles.

How Armstrong will be perceived in the future will depend on his future actions.  Will he be contrite and apologize to all his fans?  Will he be humble and take steps to show he understands that what he did was wrong?  If so, then he may have a chance to build a new future.  But if he does not accept or own his lies, and the impact they have had on his sport, he will continue to be reviled.