Does going on the attack pay off?

Attacking the motives of a professional body or a whole section of the market can be an easy way to achieve press coverage, and is a tactic used by many in the insurance market. However, it can easily backfire especially when approached in a subjective or emotive manner, writes Kat Mitchell.

This week MacTavish released their ‘Broker Conflicts Report’ calling for the role played by brokers in negotiating between insurers and their customers to be reviewed and for transparency to be improved. By going on the attack with strong statements attacking a large section of the insurance industry they received quick and easy national press coverage.

The British Insurance Brokers’ Association has stated that it “wholeheartedly disputes” issues raised, thereby gaining both MacTavish and the association further airtime.

It would be easy to consider this as a big win for MacTavish, a relatively specialist insurance brand that doesn’t receive considerable consumer coverage as standard.

However, long term such an aggressive PR approach can backfire.

Unless you can be confident on considerable support from elsewhere in the market, you can end up looking like the angry child shouting from the corner of the room against the many voices of reason.

Before going on the attack, what should I consider?

Sometimes your brand may have an important message to share that is genuinely in the best interests of both the company and/or the market as a whole to share.

However, when you are part of the team putting this style of PR together it is important to take a step back and consider the wider possible ramifications and if it is genuinely the best path to take. In this situation I always ask myself and my clients the following questions:

1. What data and other facts do I have that back up what we are saying?
2. Is any data we are basing our opinions off exposed to accusations of bias?
3. In whose interest is this piece of PR? When negative styled PR is purely in the interest of the issuer is will often backfire, whereas if it can be argued as being for the wider market or public good you are less likely to be seen as that angry child
4. Is there anyone else who can back up what we are saying here to give it more impact? A collective effort will appear more reasonable
5. Is there anyone we should discuss this with before going to the press?
6. Could we be accused of any kind of political, cultural, or racial bias?
7. Are the individuals/spokespeople behind the PR beyond reproach themselves?
8. Could the timing or content be seen as insensitive or out of touch?

Unless all stakeholders are comfortable with the answers to all those questions it is better to kill the story, at least for now.

Sometimes it’s better to say nothing at all rather than saying something you may regret later.