CorpComms Magazine

England rugby fans would probably rather forget about Saturday's defeat against France. And one of England's star players, Mike Tindall, has extra good reason to want to put the New Zealand chapter behind him after The Daily Mail published images taken from CCTV cameras.

Many will be familiar with the tale. Tindall fought to brush off the publication of a slew of dubious-looking images of him appearing cosy with a 'mysterious blonde' (who has since been identified). When witnesses first claimed that Tindall and the woman had gone on to another nightclub together, Tindall assured England team managers and his public relations representatives that the claims were false leading to forceful rebuttals from the Rugby Football Union's law firm Farrer & Co and his own personal PR firm.

After The Daily Mail first published photos of the rugby player, Tindall's PR firm Juniper Sport issued a press release denying that he had gone onto another club with the woman. But after further probing by the newspaper, Tindall was forced into admitting he had lied about the night out in question. Juniper Sport issued a statement that it had been mislead.

The statement from Tindall's PR agency read: 'Mike Tindall gave his PR consultants and the Rugby Football Union his assurance that he had not attended the Cowboys bar, having left the Altitude bar.  In good faith, his PR consultants, the RFU and the RFU's solicitors relied upon that assurance when dealing with last week's story.

'However, Mike now accepts that his recollection was incorrect and he apologises unreservedly for this misjudgement.'

Having to do a U-turn is regretful and embarrassing but how much of a problem are client lies? James Thellusson, head of public affairs at Lexis PR, claims they are not common.

He says: 'My suspicion is that this kind of thing is much more prevalent in celebrity cases. They can be particularly pressurised because there is a high degree of speed required. The Daily Mail didn't give the PR firm long to respond to the allegations.

'This kind of thing happens more in the celebrity world because the nature of inquiry is more closely focused on the professional. You are there to defend the reputation of an individual who is under scrutiny.'

Jon McLeod, chairman of corporate communications and public affairs at Weber Shandwick, agrees. 'It's extremely unusual for a client to deliberately mislead an agency in the corporate world because it's such a highly regulated environment,' he says. 'In the event that an agency is misled by a client, agencies should be protected from liability if they act in good faith.'

But working with an individual could be different, McLeod notes. 'With individuals we are talking about personal PR and there is more scope for deceptions - an individual might not want to let on their personal transgressions.  That's where trust between agency and individual becomes very important.'

The PRCA code protects agencies on this issue where they say the 'client undertakes to notify the consultancy forthwith if the client considers that any statement made in any document submitted by the consultancy to the client for approval is incorrect or misleading in any way, or is likely to give rise to any claim or action against a consultancy,  whether for defamation or otherwise..,' Thellusson points out. 'And the standard agency contract should have a clause that outlines liabilities.'  He argues that this should be built into a contract between the two parties.

'In this situation Jupiter absolutely did the right thing. They corrected their position,' Thellusson adds. 'Contracts should protect agencies against deliberate or accidental misleading information.'

Thellusson describes the incident as 'fascinating'. 'Firstly it's a clear indication of how being dishonest is increasingly impossible with CCTV, Freedom of Information laws and YouTube and secondly, it is symptomatic of a sea change in consumer attitudes. This whole story was triggered by the ethics of a bouncer in a nightclub. We live in a gawker world and today's gossip is tomorrow's news. It also shows the increasing scope for social media to cause serious harm to a person's reputation.'

McLeod notes that the UK's common law jurisdiction makes it harder to pin the blame on the agency providing it is acting in good faith. 'If material harm arises because an agency takes instruction that leads to a defamation that could be different. Then the agency could be exposed.'

'On professional liability contracts emanating from the US would be hotter on liability,' McLeod says, before noting that the risk of defamation in the US is markedly reduced by first amendment protection of freedom of speech.

share me: del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Tweet