Can Mel Gibson, Floyd Landis Resurrect Tarnished Images?

Reputation Doctor Mike Paul on the Actor’s DUI Tirade and Doping Scandal—Plus the Steps PR Must Take When Bad News Strikes

Bulldog Reporter's Daily Dog
August 7, 2006

This week’s profile: Mike Paul, a.k.a., “The Reputation Doctor,” MGP & Associates PR

What’s in an image? “Nothing,” says Mike Paul, who heads up MGP & Associates PR and authors the “Reputation Doctor“ blog. “It’s a four-letter word, even though it’s actually five. In Hollywood, the idea of an ‘image’ is fine, but the word connotes something that’s fake,” says Paul, whose analysis this past week on Mel Gibson’s recent debacle peppered the major networks.

“An image is something you see on a pond. It looks like the real thing, but you can put your hand through it and it goes away. A reputation, on the other hand, is built with bricks and lasts a lifetime,” Paul believes. “Those fundamental six bricks include: truth, honesty, transparency, accountability, humility and consistency. There is a big difference between the two.”

What does that mean for Gibson and Landis? “There’s no such a thing as a quick fix for serious issues like what’s facing them,” Paul says. “If all they want is a band-aid and spin, then sure—’image’ is the operative word. But again, that’s something fabricated. A reputation is something that you actually are. And it takes hard, diligent, long-term work to rebuild reputations,” he stresses. “If you’re in PR and you take it seriously, you should put an X through short-term solutions. Your goal should be to build, maintain and repair reputations—not clean up the headlines for the time-being. If you can’t commit to executing a real, sustained campaign for your client or company grounded in these ‘six bricks,’ then how can you work in this business?”

Strong words, but Paul has the credentials and experience to back them up. Read on for his insightful take on the long road ahead for Gibson and Landis—and for his counsel on how PR execs can best help clients, celebrities and companies caught in media spotlight . . . when that’s the last place they want to be:

Do you think Mel Gibson and Floyd Landis’ reputations are beyond repair?

I don’t think anybody’s reputation is beyond repair. Here’s why: Some people say Mel Gibson is done right now. I don’t think so. He has some big things to do from an ego perspective. He really has to humble himself. If Mel Gibson can get to the point he did in the “ABC Good Morning” interview where he was talking about his wife helping him with alcoholism—when he had tears in his eyes and said his wife was his best friend, and that he would be spending the rest of his life repaying her for standing by a “knucklehead like me”—then, he stands a chance. But it has to be real and heartfelt. It has to be internalized. It can’t just be a message point.

He needs to say to the Jewish community—one on one, and not in a single announcement—that he’s been a drunken fool. He needs to say, “I want you to know where my heart is and that I don’t believe those things.” More than that, because he’s started this process already, he needs to say, “I was fearful. I was thinking of myself and my image.” That’s tough, because he has to face the underlying reason for his outburst—which was fear.

Why fear and not outright anti-Semitism?

Fear is the catalyst to any outburst of anger. The underlying emotion Mel had when talking to the officer was not anger itself or even anti-Semitism. Psychologically, it was fear. In this case, the road ahead of him is going to involve real heart-work—not head-work. That involves facing who you are as a person and facing it directly, instead of avoiding it and covering up. He knew it was bad when he got pulled over. It was easier to cover up his raw emotion by getting angry and lashing out. That’s our first response because it hides what’s really going on. Anger is not a foundational emotion—it’s reactionary. For him, it might have come down to fear of being in a relationship with his wife where his drinking was being exposed.

That’s important for all of us. When somebody gets mad at you, ask yourself why they’re angry. Don’t focus on the anger. Don’t elevate the anger by reacting to it. Find out what’s underneath. You can’t make them soften—but you can ask them why they’re lashing out. That begins to get to the heart of the matter. But it’s hard to do when you’re on the spot on the side of the Pacific Coast Highway. These are lessons we learn in kindergarten and that we teach our family members below the age of seven. It comes down to things like taking a deep breath before you speak. When you’re feeling uncomfortable in your heart, speak to the “self” first before speaking out of your mouth. Of course, this is no excuse for anti-Semitic remarks. It just points to their source.

What about those anti-Semitic remarks—what did he say and why?

We don’t have those exact remarks. We don’t need them. The vacuum of not knowing them can be worse than knowing the exact sentences. When you hear “anti-Semitic”—that’s enough. It’s bad. It’d be like somebody saying to me that a person said something racially inappropriate—and then having that corroborated by the person apologizing, which Mel did. So the point is that I don’t need to hear the slurs. They were made and that’s enough. He fessed up. He offered an apology. We know he did it, regardless of what might have been redacted from the police report, which is another issue entirely.

Then what did you think about Mel Gibson’s apology—sufficient?

I think his apology was incomplete. I believe that the piece that’s missing is the “walk-the-talk” element. He’s in a Pinocchio/Boy Who Cried Wolf situation. For example, he’s said in the past that he was on the right track in coping with alcoholism. He said things were fine and thanked his wife and fans. Well, he fell off the wagon again. Mere words aren’t going to rectify that. Your history dictates your future, and we can’t make believe the past didn’t happen.

So now he has to prove it. My advice to Mel is that he needs to be consistent in this area for life. To Mel, I’d say, “We hear your words. Now we need to see evidence of change and a deep understanding of the Jewish people—forever. If you slip again, you’ll be worse than Pinocchio. You won’t get another chance.” If his advisors aren’t saying that, they’re not doing their jobs. They’re just pushing words. What’s in your heart dictates what’s in your mouth. That’s why I say this involves real heart-work, not spin. It’s going to be a twelve-step program for his reputation: long, in-depth, real and lived day-to-day.

How does that translate to crises that readers may face with clients?

Just that: If you’re called in to fix a damaged reputation, don’t skim the surface. Dig in and do the hard work. You have to get permission from the client to do this. You are an advisor—not a distributor of press releases. If you’re going to step into this space, that is the standard. You have to build, maintain and repair a public reputation for life. It can’t be just crafting messages. That’s how far you have to go with these bricks. You’ll need to be an ambassador of accountability. That means this person must put his life in your hands. The client has to give you permission to hold him accountable. The client might not be happy hearing your counsel. He might get angry. But you can’t be a “yes” person and practice PR at this level.

Doesn’t the Anti Defamation League’s response to Gibson’s apology seem to underscore what you’re saying about accountability?

I think their remarks were on target. They said, “Thank you for your apology to the Jewish people.” Then they went on to say something like, “We understand that you’re now going into recovery. Deal with that first. When you’re done, we’d like to help you take the next step by reaching out to us personally to form a new relationship with us by understanding the real tragedy of the Holocaust and even visiting some of those sites.” The point here is that the push is to get him to address the disease of bigotry next. That’s the right approach. I would have counseled the same thing. It’s about acknowledging the person is on the right track, holding the person accountable, and then asking for action by outlining more “heart-work” that needs to be done. The underscoring principle here is that they’re not letting him get away with alcoholism as an excuse for everything.

What about Landis—do you think he’ll be found guilty of doping?

The bottom line is that the stuff that came out this week is making Saturday look like a real problem. I won’t get into the specifics of his response, which was basically that “there are some males with naturally higher levels of testosterone than others.” But I will say that if you feel truly innocent in your heart, you would not have cancelled an appearance on the “Tonight Show” and other events. You would have used that as an opportunity to get your message out. He didn’t do that. He cancelled and got his team around him. He came up with what he thought was an appropriate answer and that didn’t work. The bottom line is that if the test results on Saturday show he was wrong—that makes him the Boy Who Cried Wolf. He will have lost all credibility.

What would your advice be to Landis if the results aren’t what he hopes for?

My advice would be that if on Saturday Landis knows he did it—he shouldn’t lean on his lawyers and make them say, “Prove it.” The best thing he can do is take the hit himself and say, “I was afraid. I did something wrong. I used steroids.” In other words, he has to beat the results to the punch. There’s a huge difference between the court of law and the court of reputation—or public opinion. The legal team’s goal is to keep you out of jail. But look at O.J. So you stay out of jail. What then? You can never work again because your reputation is mud.

What’s your take on how Lance Armstrong handled similar allegations?

To this day, I think Lance did do this. There is still a chance he will get caught. Someone on his staff will stand up and say it. I believe Lance Armstrong was involved in doping and it may yet come out. One of the things he said this week when asked if he thought Landis was guilty of doping was, “You have to fight for your reputation.” It was something like that. He didn’t say that Landis didn’t do it. He said, “Get in there and fight like heck.” That’s very interesting to me. He should have stood up and said, “Doping is bad for the sport.”

What role should legal play in “the art of the apology” and rebuilding reputations?

I’ve been across the table with attorneys discussing possibility of putting a client behind bars for six months to begin the process of rebuilding a reputation. The attorney always says, “No way.” That’s because doing so puts a loss on his record. But from a PR standpoint, a true apology starts with admitting to the self first, then admitting to the world. After that, you have to show action and accountability. Legal is about avoiding that. That’s no way to rebuild a reputation. You only rebuild credibility through admission and action.

What parting advice can you share for readers about mastering the “art of the apology”?

First is not to accept short-term solutions like those you’ll get from the legal team. Then it comes down to focusing on truth versus spin. Spin is a lie—and is not PR’s friend. Also, there are no ifs or buts in a true apology. For example, in the Janet Jackson debacle, both she and Justin’s people said, “We’re sorry if we offended…” That’s no apology. It’s a workaround. Finally, it boils down to accountability. To build, maintain and repair a reputation you have to truly apologize—and then live it by setting up an accountability structure. You can’t just apologize and move on.

What’s an accountability structure? It’s having an accountability person—your spouse, friend, pastor, therapist or even reputation counselor—in place to call you to the floor when you do wrong things or are considering questionable actions. Most people won’t go this far because it demands dedication and is deeply personal. But it’s the only way to rebuild reputations over the long haul.

Sadly, this message applies to CEOs and the C-suite. Unfortunately, not many PR people are in a position of counselor at top companies—so there’s a lot of work still to be done in this. Until people in business see us as strategic counselors in areas of behavior and what a company does—instead of just as messengers— there are going to be more stories of corporate malfeasance in the press. That’s why execs continue to face the same sort of reputation crises now facing celebrities and sports figures like Gibson, Landis and others.