How many times do you watch or listen to a news report and find that the organisation at the centre of the coverage responds through a statement?
It may not be as damaging as an adversarial “did not provide a response”, but it is not a good way to manage a negative story.
Just ask Deliveroo.
At a time when the company was being valued at £8.8 billion ahead of its London stock market debut, and its CEO Will Shu is expected to make £500 million, it has been hit with more damaging coverage on the way it treats those who work for it.
A joint ITV News, Daily Mirror and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism investigation has reported that despite the company claiming its riders are paid more than £10 an hour on average, many are earning less.
Its analysis showed more than one in three riders (41 per cent) earn less than £8.72 per hour, the minimum wage for anyone aged 25 or over. And that one in 10 took home less than £6.45, the lowest legal minimum wage for an adult. The company does not have to pay minimum wage as its riders are classed as self-employed in the UK.
The Deliveroo riders who are earning less than minimum wage as company eyes up potential £8.8 billion stock market debut | @richpallotitv reportshttps://t.co/3V61w3SyMf
— ITV News (@itvnews) March 25, 2021
The findings have triggered quite a backlash. Footballer Marcus Rashford is reportedly set to have talks with the company - that sponsors the England team and backs his End Child Poverty campaign – at the “earliest opportunity”.
Following our story with @DailyMirror and @itvnews on many #Deliveroo riders earning less than the minimum wage, @MarcusRashford "will discuss the investigation with the Senior team at Deliveroo in detail at the earliest opportunity"https://t.co/cYNHi4hAEC
— The Bureau (@TBIJ) March 25, 2021
And several major investors, including Aberdeen Standard and Legal & General Investment Management, have distanced themselves from its float.
With this in mind, you may have thought Mr Shu, or someone else senior who has had some media training, would have been put forward for interviews and put Deliveroo’s side of the story across.
You would be mistaken. It responded to the stories through a statement.
Its statement said: “Riders have the complete freedom to choose when and where to work and can choose which deliveries to accept and which to reject.
“They are paid for each delivery they choose to complete and earn £13 per hour on average at our busiest times.
“We communicate with thousands of riders every week and satisfaction is currently at an all-time high.”
ITV viewers would be forgiven for believing that was all the company had to say on the issue.
But, if you read the Daily Mirror’s coverage of the story, you would see that this was part of a longer statement that also discussed the number of people who chose to work for it, the number of applications it receives and the flexibility of its work.
It also added that: “These unverifiable, misleading claims from a fringe organisation who claim to have spoken with 0.6% of Deliveroo riders should not be taken seriously.”
Whether it is a good look to criticise the source of the story, rather than focusing on your own practises, is another matter.
But this highlights one of the risks in responding to stories through statements – there is no guarantee the media will use everything you have to say. In fact, they rarely do use statements in their entirety or give them much air time.
Typically, statements are also only used right at the end of a story once everyone else has had their say, meaning you have no control over the narrative.
But the use of statements is also about optics.
When you see an organisation rely on a statement, how does it make you feel?
Do you think it shows it cares about the issues being raised? Or that it wants the news agenda to quickly move on?
Statements make organisations appear aloof, defensive, secretive and unwilling to open themselves to scrutiny.
It is worth pointing out that Deliveroo is not the only organisation to try to rely on statements recently when in the media spotlight.
Just last week, in this media training blog, we looked at how Croydon Council initially declined interviews requests and responded to a story about the living conditions in some of its flats through a statement.
I understand talking to the media can feel daunting and that writing down exactly what you want to say and sending it over email seems safer and easier.
But it is also usually the wrong option. A media interview, provided by someone who has had recent media training, provides far more scope to change the way a story is presented, ensure messages are heard and show compassion, reassurance and care for those at the centre of it.
Statements do, however, have their place.
They are crucial in the early stages of a crisis (as a holding statement), where they can enable you to respond almost immediately and show you are aware of the issue.
And they are the better option when you don’t have a spokesperson available who has had recent media training.
They can also work best when the story simply doesn’t merit an interview. This is more of a question of judgement, but if you think it poses no reputational risk and little in the way of a proactive opportunity, then a short statement should suffice.
But in the vast majority of cases, media interviews deliver a much more effective response than statements.
As Deliveroo has just found out, hiding from the media tends to serve up trouble.
Is your media interview preparation up to scratch? Our FREE media interview preparation eBook will guide you through everything you need to do to be best prepared for a media opportunity.
Media First are media and communications training specialists with over 30 years of experience. We have a team of trainers, each with decades of experience working as journalists, presenters, communications coaches and media trainers.
Click here to find out more about our journalist-led media training courses.
