Did Claire’s Turn PR Debacle Response Over to Legal?

According to Ragan.com, affordable jewelry chain Claire’s is in some hot water over a pro-forma response to an explosive PR crisis. It stems from allegations that Claire’s pilfered an independent U.K. company’s designs:

The blog post came Wednesday. Tatty Devine, a handmade jewelry company in England, posted photos of its own designs next to designs sold at international affordable jewelry retailer Claire’s. The response was explosive. More than 200 people commented before Tatty Devine closed the comments, and more than 2,000 tweets linking the post went out.

It wasn’t until Friday that Claire’s said anything about the matter, when the company posted this to its Facebook page: “Claire’s Stores, Inc. is a responsible company that employs designers, product developers and buyers, and works with many suppliers to provide innovative collections that bring customers all the latest fashion trends. As such, we take any allegations of wrong doing seriously. We are looking into the matters raised.” A shortened version went up on Twitter as well.

The messages weren’t received well, and Jenni Maley, a blogger at The Social Penguin who has written about the Claire’s/Tatty Devine case, says she also wondered, “Is that it?”

“The response is a stiff corporate apology that appears to dismiss the concerns expressed by their consumers,” she says.

Other experts agreed that it probably won’t help Claire’s to salvage its bruised reputation.

Ragan continues citing several PR experts who believe that the Claire’s legal department is running the show on this one. We agree, and that’s a double-edged sword.

We’ve written often here at AlexanderG about the battle between PR and Legal departments when responding to a crisis.

Admittedly, it’s a tough call. Legal is trying to keep you out of court–or worse jail. P.R. is trying to save your credibility, and by extension your business. Based on my experience, I believe honesty is the best policy. Transparency is critical.

Of course, I also believe BP would have fired me on the spot, because I would’ve recommended we throw ourselves on the mercy of public opinion–ala Tylenol.

If there is no doubt mistakes were made–if you’re caught dead to rights–then your appeal to the Court of Public Opinion (not to be confused with The People’s Court, though a bailiff named Rusty is always cool) should go something like this:

Scenario: ABC Company has been accidentally dumping factory greywater into river tributaries that feed stock ponds. There’s no wiggle room–they’re busted on 60 Minutes.

Here’s the statement I would recommend:

“ABC Company admits and takes full responsibility for our mistake. We take our commitment to the environment very seriously. This event has not only been embarrassing but an inexcusable violation of the trust the public has bestowed upon us. Our usually reliable safeguards and policies were not followed and we are taking measures to discipline those who caused this failure. We will also work with the community to undertake reasonable measures to clean up the leaked water and make whole those damaged economically by this incident. It is my sincere hope that we can regain the trust of our community and strengthen that trust as we move forward. Thank you. My chief engineer and I will be happy to take questions about our next steps.”

I can hear some of you now: “Dude, that’s nuts! Never admit guilt!” True, you have to protect your company and its assets; this is a statement of last resort. However, plenty of people will disagree with our strategy of telling the truth even as a last resort.

To that we say this: if you’re caught by 60 Minutes, do you really want to be the guy sweating under the grueling geriatric grilling of Mike Wallace? You won’t win.

The situation with Claire’s is obviously not that black and white. Undoubtedly there are some legal issues that an earnest PR statement could damage. However, in the extremes of PR #fail, our advice is this:

Mistakes owned-up to quickly are a matter of forgiveness. Drag your feet, dissemble or lie and it becomes a matter of corruption, criminality or mistrust. Ducking or covering up and apologizing only after you have nowhere else to hide–or under court order–will effectively destroy your reputation and cost you in money, energy, time and brand equity.

It remains to be seen just what effect the Claire’s strategy will have on the brand. It probably won’t hurt them longterm, but perhaps it will be a wake-up call about how they handle PR crises.