KOL 危机怎么破？图样图森破
危机无处不在 别有了才想到潮人谈 银河系从业指南：危机公关教材...
说到古典音乐界的危机，如果你第一反应是梁茂春，那你真的out了。这条推送比较长，因为过于专业和学术。
如果你只喜欢八卦，请翻阅昨天的推送。
危机有很多种，其中一类是性丑闻，就是不正当性关系被公布于众，包括“潜规则”“包小三”之类，那是梁茂春曾经面临的危机。对于当事人，就有了性丑闻危机。于是，就有一个专门处理危机出面灭火的行当，就像你在电影里看到的应急救灾、海豹突击队或者快速反应部队一样，那就是危机公关。
危机公关是公关界的最高段位。危机公关所做的就是化解危机，或者用通俗的话讲“漂白”。但其实危机公关并不是漂白，而是洗净。用什么洗呢？绝对不是谎言，也不是推卸责任，更不是聊聊数句官话，而是周密的事实依据，外加高超的遣词造句。所以，危机公关不是实习生可以做的，也不是外宣可以做的，而一定是文字高手+逻辑专家，就像律师一样。
我们的上一条KOL也就是“潮人谈乐团领导力”推送，初步讲了如何打造一张让人过目不忘的乐团大合影。在这则推送里，我们维持潮人谈过去很多条推送包含的知识点的传统，来初步讲讲，表演艺术界应该怎么做危机公关。
于是，大众的目光转向申请方。那我们来看一下，申请方是怎么做危机公关的？与上述职能部门一样，申请方也出具了一封声明，而且遣词造句和前述声明如出一辙，我们也不知道，究竟是谁在抄谁。
于是问题就来了。这两份声明，的确推卸了责任，但制造了更多的问题，比如：谁是合作方，对材料不验真吗，早干嘛去了，人民大会堂没有演出执照你怎么做的演出许可，一个说违规增加演出单位一个说共同作为举办单位大众到底听谁的？
所以，这两封声明本来想起到危机公关也就是灭火的作用，但实际上反倒酝酿了更大的危机，制造了更多的疑问。它们是危机公关的噩梦，是危机公关最差劲的做法。
那么你也许会问，典型的危机公关应该怎么做呢？就像最先提到的，如果危机公关是以声明形式体现的话，需要具备周密的事实依据，外加高超的遣词造句。所幸，前天就一个活生生的危机，供我们参考。请先点击橙色部分深度阅读，再往下继续。
潮人谈在刊发此推送后，第一时间与我们的老朋友，香港管弦乐团行政总裁麦高德（Michael MacLeod）取得联系。麦高德发给我们的声明如下。声明比较长，而且是英文，您可以选择跳过。我们只想说明两点：声明是为了解决问题，而不是制造更多问题。从这点出发，这份声明起到了作用，乐团确立了道德制高点（moral high ground）。我们的美国媒体合作伙伴在看到这份声明后，决定取消刊登乐团的经济“丑闻”，因为不存在值得报道的丑闻。至此，危机化解，危机公关基本成功了。
An anonymous letter dated 6 April 2016 was sent to various organisations in Hong Kong including the press. Because it was anonymous, everyone was ignoring it until one publication (Apple Daily) decided to write an article, opening the door for other papers to follow. Apple Daily’s article was full of inaccuracies; some publications are repeating the inaccuracies; others are checking in with the HK Phil to get the facts. I am asking for fair, balanced reporting.
The primary issue is why the anonymous letter was written in the first place. It was either to show that someone within the HK Phil administration had done something improper, or to attempt to portray someone as having done something improper, even though they hadn’t.
Apple Daily has stated that they received some internal HK Phil documents. Having investigated, I feel confident that no-one currently working for the HK Phil gave Apple Daily any information. The logical conclusion is that the person who gave the information to Apple Daily and who wrote the anonymous letter was someone whose recent employment was not extended by the HK Phil and who decided to “attack” the HK Phil out of spite and in a cowardly way by hiding behind the secretive veil of anonymity.
The false accusation is that Vennie’s daughter somehow benefitted from the HK Phil doing business with a production company called Mad Music that hired her on a part-time basis, and that the HK Phil engaged Mad Music without following approved procurement policies.
The facts:
- Mad Music has been employed on just four occasions: three times by fundraising event committees and once by the HK Phil administration.
- The HK Phil’s “Procurement Policies & Guidelines” were reviewed and approved by the Board through the Executive Committee on 29 October 2011, and further reviewed in September 2014. It states in Section 2.c that for procurements/contracts exceeding $50,000 but not exceeding $500,000, three written quotations are required. It also says in Section 5 that “This guideline applies to all purchases except for the following”, and listed in 5.f is “Procurement items made by a committee assigned to oversee a special project or event (e.g. fundraising concert)”.
- The first occasion that Mad Music was hired – chosen by the Fundraising Concert committee (that included a number of volunteers) - was for the Fundraising Concert on 22 February 2012 (two and a half years before Vennie’s daughter was employed by Mad Music). The total amount paid to them was $446,000.
- The second time was for the HK Phil’s 40th Anniversary Gala Fundraising Dinner on 14 June 2014 – again, chosen by a committee - and also before Vennie’s daughter was employed by Mad Music. The amount was $491,600.
- The third time was for the 2015/16 Season Opening on 4 September 2015. As this was not a fundraising event, three written quotations were obtained by the HK Phil administration. Company A quoted $215,000; Company B quoted $150,000; Mad Music quoted $124,500 – the lowest. It was a much simpler event than the fundraising ones, and the amount paid to them ended up being $131,500. Although Vennie’s daughter had started her employment with them (always part-time), Mad Music did not allocate her services to this event; she had no involvement.
- The fourth occasion when Mad Music was hired was for a Fundraising Dinner on 17 December 2015. The committee overseeing this event chose Mad Music, and the amount paid to Mad Music was $355,400 (please note: lower than the previous two fundraising events). On this occasion, Vennie’s daughter was asked to help. The HK Phil did not pay her anything, and her only remuneration was through her normal, monthly Mad Music part-time salary (with no extras or bonuses for this event). This is the only occasion that Vennie’s daughter has had an indirect link to an HK Phil event. With regard to any declaration of conflict of interest, the relevant committee was well aware of the relationship between Vennie and one of Mad Music’s part-time employees (her daughter). The HK Phil has never hired Vennie’s daughter for any occasion, whether fundraising or not.
- In case anyone thinks Mad Music does all or most of HK Phil’s events, they do not. Since their first job in February 2012, they have done fewer than 1/3 of the events that they might have. They were not involved in the annual Fundraising Concerts in 2013, 2014, 2015 or 2016; they were not involved in the Season Opening in 2012/13, 2013/14 or 2014/15. They were not involved in any other fundraising dinners. The HK Phil administration and the various fundraising event committees use a wide selection of production companies.
但，那些无法立即占领道德制高点的危机，就比如本文一开头提到的梁茂春般的性丑闻，怎么化解呢？所幸，也有一个新鲜出炉的例子，来自纽约。
4月14日，美国纽约的林肯中心闹地震。大都会歌剧院总监莱文和歌剧院所属的林肯中心主席杰德·伯恩斯坦双双辞职。莱文辞职的新闻明确提到健康原因。但杰德的新闻里提到“翻开人生的新篇章”显然难以服众，因为他才上任两年，这才刚翻开新的篇章，怎么又要翻页了呢？于是，大家纷纷开始猜测真实缘由。
林肯中心直到5月3日才发布声明，公布真实缘由，那就是杰德与林肯中心的女性员工发生了性关系，而且利用职权对她两次提拔。杰德辞职是因为违反了林肯中心人力资源对“不得隐瞒员工之间的性关系”的规定。请留意这里的用词“隐瞒”。没错，杰德是被匿名举报的。
那么从4月14日杰德辞职，到5月3日公布辞职内情的两个多星期内，林肯中心都在干嘛呢？至少他们没闲着，而是找了一家危机公关公司Rubenstein分析时局，起草声明。很遗憾我们还没有索取到这份声明，但通过《纽约时报》的报道，我们知道危机公关公司大致做了如下几件事。
1. 承认杰德因隐瞒与员工发生性关系违规而辞职，杰德对此事负全部责任。
2. 将性关系定性为“两厢情愿”（consensual），而且强调两人都是单身，洗净一。
3. 推迟两周公布结果是为了保护女性当事人的身份，博得同情，洗净二。
4. 由林肯中心证明提拔该女性并不违规，该女性表现的确出色，应当提拔，洗净三。
5. 强调杰德在接受调查时，已经中止了与该女性的关系，洗净四。
6. 赞扬林肯中心，提出与林肯中心共事取得的成就并祝好，占领道德制高点。
7. 说服《纽约时报》使用了一张杰德正面形象的照片，如下。结束。
看，这就是高超的危机公关。虽然危机公关并不能改变杰德辞职的命运，也不能改变他因为隐瞒和员工发生性关系而违规的现实，因为那都是事实。但危机公关在可以松动和运作的空间内，帮助杰德在不利的局面下，从承担全部责任起，逻辑清晰，层次分明地占据道德制高点，最后以他的功绩和一张在林肯中心前的照片（而不是梁茂春的桃花眼照片）平息了性丑闻。可以说，Rubenstein的危机公关，逻辑严密，因果考究，面面俱到，层层推进，步步为营，处理手法炉火纯青，堪为表演艺术界危机公关的典范案例。
所以，什么是危机公关？不是隐藏危机，而是化解危机；不是制造问题，而是回答问题；不是推卸责任，而是承担责任。
艺术家或者艺术机构，觉得危机离自己很遥远的话，我们要告诉你：危机无处不在，别等到有了才想到潮人谈。潮人谈是谁？点击这里了解更多。
关注 潮人谈
微信扫一扫关注公众号
