Here we go again — another celebrity scandal.

This time David Letterman is defending himself from an alleged extortionist, who has been accused of using knowledge of Letterman’s sexual escapades to blackmail the comedian for $2 million.

Rather than trying to cover it up or deny it, Letterman is trying to be upfront about it, and he’s using textbook PR principles to go on the offensive.

Others should take note because Letterman has done everything right so far. He acted with immediacy, was straight forward, and owned up to his actions.

That’s not to say that everything will be roses for Letterman from now on.

Sure, some people are mad at him and some fans may even boycott his show for a few weeks, but it’s a good bet they’ll come back—if anyone even realizes they are gone. Odds are Letterman will attract even larger audiences because the post-scandal buzz will bring in viewers who don’t normally watch.

All-in-all, Letterman took a bad situation and made it better.

Here’s how he did it:

Letterman got the story out on his terms, rather than having scandalous details dragged out in the press.

By doing this, Letterman established himself as the one who will define the story. Neither the extortionist nor the cable news pundits got the first word—Letterman did.

Letterman’s strategy advanced the story beyond his liaisons with former staffers and instead shifted focus on the bad guy extortionist.

This is not to say that Letterman will get a free pass. History shows that past sex scandals tend to drag on as more details slip out.

However, by addressing it early, the 62-year-old comedian grabbed the reigns of the controversy.

It’s a good thing Letterman did not follow the advice of one of his recent guests—former President Bill Clinton.

Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky is the classic example of how not to handle a crisis.

If Clinton would have admitted to the affair, it still would have been a problem for him, but by trying to conceal it, he just made the situation worse and it turned into a media circus.

A slightly better, but still not great example is that of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. During his gubernatorial campaign, allegations of sexual misconduct were raised by several women against the movie star.

Schwarzenegger ended up confessing that he had behaved inappropriately in the past. It was vague, but the bottom line is he copped to it.

Unlike his predecessors in scandal making, Letterman had an advantage they didn’t have—a late night television talk show. Letterman had his own stage for coming out. He didn’t have to endure a press conference, or sit through hour long introspection on the Oprah show, or face off against Barbra Walters on a much-hyped interview.

Instead, he called the shots and appeared to be calm. He even came off as folksy by inviting the studio audience into his life by asking them if they would like to hear a story.

There was no better place to do this than on his show. He got to tell his side in front of an audience that consisted of his fans—people who were there because of the fact that they like David Letterman.

Letterman even played off the self-deprecating humor that has come to be associated with his personality throughout the years. During a very serious life problem, Letterman did what he does: make jokes. He kidded the audience, “I know what you’re saying,” he said. “I’ll be darned, Dave had sex.”

How Letterman handled the scandal is a blue print for anyone who works in crisis management. Be upfront and self deprecating if you can. Get your message out on your terms and take control of the story.

You don’t need a talk show either. With tools such as YouTube, you can do exactly what Letterman did and broadcast the message you want to convey. You can even gain a favorable audience like he did. How does posting a video for all of your Facebook friends to view sound?

For now, the hard part is over. The scandal is out and everyone knows about it. And for now, just like on his talk show, Letterman is in control.

Imagine it. America’s domestic goddess, a living representation of appropriate behavior and wholesomeness – is convicted of conspiracy, obstruction and making false statements. And then sent to prison. Not hard to imagine, is it? It’s the unsavory story of Martha Stewart.

In the blink of an eye, Stewart found her billion-dollar homemaking empire at risk because of a lapse in judgment. Beyond the financial costs of her mistake, she faced the cost of the public relations associated with a direct hit to her brand that was perhaps more than anything else, proper.

As with everything else, there are costs to building a brand. One of those costs is defending the brand when it takes a direct hit.

I spend a lot of time teaching effective communications strategies to businesses and non-profit groups. In my presentation, we always talk in detail about what it means to be “newsworthy.” And one of the characteristics of newsworthiness is prominence.

Prominence means that something routine and otherwise uneventful becomes newsworthy because of an external factor. The last time you fell off your bike, no news cameras came running. But we all remember when President Bush fell off his bike. People fall off their bicycles every day, but it becomes newsworthy when it’s the President of the United States. That’s prominence.

Similarly, regular people are convicted everyday for all types of crimes. But because Martha Stewart represented wholesomeness and “good things,” her story became prominent and thus, newsworthy.

Let look at another story straight from the headlines – Miley Cyrus’ (a.k.a child star Hannah Montana) recent publishing of a semi-nude photo in Vanity Fair magazine.

Consider the brand: Miley Cyrus has built a billion-dollar brand on family values. Her character Hannah Montana is 100 present pure Disney, another rated-G brand. In a recent article published in a Christian magazine aimed at parents of kids she was quoted as saying “I’m a Christ follower for sure. Live like Christ and he’ll live in you. And that’s what I want to do.”

Clearly, her brand is one of innocence and purity. And that brand has convinced millions of parents to invite Miley into their homes, through her hit TV show and bubble gum music.

It’s not hard to see why a story about her posing semi-nude would make the headlines – the juxtaposition between breaking her brand and the published photos lend prominence to a story that would otherwise receive little attention.

Miley Cyrus now faces a real public relations crisis. This story not only threatens her earning power as a wholesome, family-friendly act, but it has ramifications for the Disney brand as well.

Unfortunately, this is not uncharted territory. There seems to be an established expectation of child actors crashing and burning in this country. Disney-to-mainstream act Brittany Spears has made for regular tabloid fodder with her less-than-wholesome antics. Cable entertainment channels create entire documentaries that explore the sad stories of child-actors-gone-bad. But there’s no “child-star” curse here, just a record of bad decisions.

Miley Cyrus now has the opportunity to either make good decisions or she can make further bad decisions and descend down a path where she will cross the line from famous to notorious.

Here are three things Miley Cyrus needs to do now:

1. Prominence works both ways. She can use her platform to do good. She could produce a public service announcement aimed at young girls. She can make public statements at concerts and alert the media to not only directly respond to the situation, but also to earn goodwill toward future concerts.

2. She needs to quickly grasp and accept that what happens in Hollywood isn’t the norm in America’s Heartland. 15 year old celebs in skimpy clothes may fly in the Hollywood bubble, but it doesn’t work in the heartland. She’d do well to apply the W.W.O.D. test to future opportunities: What Would Omaha Do?

3. Despite what her agent might say, not all news coverage is good coverage. Sure, she might still get that invite to The Surreal Life or Celebrity Survivor, but the only path to a good, long-lasting career is to repair and maintain her brand as a family-friendly performer.

Branding is big business. A well planned branding campaign can help companies break into the public consciousness, but along with brand comes responsibility. Going against the brand, whether it’s the conviction of a homemaking icon or semi-nude photos of a wholesome personality has costs. There’s a right way and a wrong way to repair the damage. No one will argue that the once-virtuous Britney Spears has chosen the right path. Martha Stewart, on the other hand, has successfully rebuilt her brand. She resolved to embrace her experience. She played upon her strengths to generate positive – sometimes even humorous – news coverage while in prison and today continues to build her thriving business as a wildly successful domestic diva.

The game of major league baseball is facing multiple crises. There’s the acute crisis of steroid use and how the league should respond. Then there’s a more general crisis of identity – how the sport is portrayed by the American public. This is the more pressing issue and one that can’t be solved overnight but must be tackled immediately.

Both the players and leaders of the game have fouled out when comes to maintaining any credibility with fans based on its response to the steroid crisis. Records are tarnished. Awards are sullied by innuendo and accusations. Hall of Fame type players are now little more than suspects in a lineup.

I recently saw a doctored version of the Major League Baseball logo where the baseball had been replaced by an asterisk in recognition of the tainted records such as Barry Bonds’ home run record. Say it ain’t so.

It’s time for baseball to respond in a strong and straight-forward manner. No more hemming or hawing about the rules of the game. It comes down to a gut-check about what’s right and what’s wrong.

Baseball’s first task must be moving forward. The Mitchell Commission was a good first step – run by a respected independent investigator whose reputation couldn’t be besmirched. But now, Bud Selig and other baseball leaders must make strategic decisions to quickly rehabilitate the image of what was once the ultimate American game.

The first step is to acknowledge that there’s no real way to alter the record book. If you erase the home run record, you have to erase the runs in question from more than a decade of games. If you erase Cy Young Awards, you have to erase those inning pitched from the official record. It’s an impossible task and it will only prolong the media cycle and exacerbate the controversy.

Since history can’t be rewritten, Baseball must move forward with a clean slate so fans can once again trust the game.

As for a drug policy, only one will do — zero tolerance. Yes, it’s a worn-out phrase made for sound bites and press releases. But the important part is the action taken, not what it’s called or how it’s spun in the media.

Every player must submit to mandatory testing. Those who disagree can play elsewhere. Any player listed in the Mitchell Report findings should be tested more often. And the first time someone is caught cheating, baseball should punish loudly. I’m not necessarily suggesting expulsion for a first-time offender, but rather a swift, certain, and public action.

But bringing the drug policy up to current standard isn’t enough. That standard derives largely from the Olympics, which has faced credibility issues itself. No, restoring integrity to the game requires that the industry be a trailblazer, instituting the toughest policy in sports.

Will the players’ union agree? The will if they’re smart. This game is dependent on fans in an increasingly competitive environment for entertainment dollars. Players may not like the tough stance, but it will protect their collective future.

Case in point: Tylenol. In the wake of what could have been a brand-killing product-tampering scandal, Tylenol made one of the boldest – and smartest – decisions in commercial history. They pulled their product from the shelves. No marginal change, no compromise solution; just one quick decision.

But they didn’t stop there. They pioneered tamper-proof packaging. The maker of Tylenol opted to face the problem head-on, taking a significant blow to the near-term bottom line in order to restore long-term confidence in their product. And today they are going strong as the brand name market leader for acetaminophen.

So does baseball want to be known as the “sport of steroids” or “the hardest sport on steroid abusers?” If they want the game to prosper, the answer better be the latter.

Interestingly, the last time baseball faced a public relations challenge of this magnitude was after the strike of the mid-90s. Fans were brought back to the game when Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa chased each other and Roger Maris’ home run record.

Today, of course, we know that those players’ reputations have been drastically hurt by allegations of steroid use. Baseball can’t fix the current crisis by just hitting more home runs as happened ten years ago.

This time, baseball has to earn back its fans by giving them a better overall experience rather than on the backs of any one or two players.

Baseball is fast losing its status as America’s Pastime. The commissioner and players must act quickly and with purpose if they want to save the game for a new generation of fans.

Communications Counsel works with several university clients on issues ranging from marketing for recruitment to crisis communications. This month, we want to provide advice about crisis communications in an academic setting – an oft-overlooked but vital part of any university’s readiness.

As our nation knows all too well after the Virginia Tech shootings, a crisis can hit a university at any time. Whether the campus crisis is a fire, an outbreak of communicable disease, or an incidence of violence, there are a few basic guidelines that can ensure effective communications.

The first and most important rule to avoid a public relations catastrophe comes right from the Boy Scout handbook: be prepared. When crisis strikes, you must be able to execute a well-designed communications plan rather than scramble to hastily create a plan and react to crisis.

How to prepare? Before the crisis, draft a crisis communications plan that is general enough to fit several possible scenarios but specific enough to give overwhelmed staff clear guidance.

Whether you work for a university or some other organization, do you have such a plan? Do you know where it is? Too often these plans – usually the result of intensive meetings and training – become dusty and untouched on a cluttered bookcase in the corner of an administrative office. And many times, the people who may be called to respond to a crisis weren’t involved in the planning process. Find your plan today.

Rule number two: A static plan that would have worked well in 2003 probably won’t work well today. A good crisis communications plan ought to be a living document that is reviewed and updated according to changes in technology, staff structure, and other such dynamic factors.

Does your plan include a list of media to contact? If so, is it updated with e-mail addresses and cell numbers for text messaging? Crisis doesn’t always erupt during regular business hours – how about emergency contacts and after-hours phone numbers? And what about a new residence hall built where fire lanes once were? Does the current plan reflect that? Proper planning should prepare for any contingency.

Third, make sure the plan is easily accessible to essential employees and advisers who will be needed in a crisis. If the lone copy is locked in the president’s office and the president is visiting donors in D.C., it won’t help at all. The President, dean, chief of public safety, head of the residence halls, communications director and other appropriate individuals in your chain of command should all have their own copy in their office. It’s a good idea for everyone to keep a copy at home, too, should the need arise to respond after hours. To ensure accessibility, make copies available online or on the campus intranet in the form of a password-protected document.

Now, let’s consider the hierarchy of communications. In a catastrophe, everyone wants information, but not everyone needs it. It’s important to prioritize those needs. In the event of a problem on campus, students, professors and staff need information. CNN and MSNBC only want information.

But CNN and MSNBC (and your campus newspaper, which can be as tenacious as any national media outlet in a crisis) will only wait so long for information. While they may not be first in your communications hierarchy, you cannot and should not ignore them. The key is finding the balance between the absolute need to provide accurate information to your constituencies and feeding the 24-hour news cycle. Always err on the side of caution.

Your plan should also clearly outline who is responsible for delivering specific messages, and by what means the messages will be delivered. Empathetic and informed messengers are better choices than someone who will come off as brusque or out of the loop.

With a student population living on campus, it will be vital to communicate with them instantly. Any plan written for the 21st century should make allowances for communicating via the Internet (e-mails, instant messages) and cell phones (text messages). But let’s say the crisis causes the electricity to go out, or cellular service is interrupted. Your plan must also account for the old-fashioned but reliable method of knocking on doors and messages sent through student staff like resident advisors.

In a campus setting, information flows like water – it will find every possible method of escape. Students will call media outlets from their dorm rooms. Parents will call from 1,000 miles away. Neither population is prepared to speak on behalf of your institution.

You can, however, be prepared to put a student face on your message. Your communications plan should call for identifying articulate and responsible students whom the media can speak to in a crisis. Reporters will naturally want a student perspective. By being prepared to offer this, you can maintain a reasonable level of control over your message while still meeting the media’s needs.

Finally, any plan should identify specific people to handle specific responsibilities. Mixed messages are problematic during the normal ebb and flow of business, but they can be fatal public relations blunders during a crisis. This means finding one person to make the final decisions – typically the President, and one person to organize communications with the media – usually your media relations or public affairs officer.

Crisis can hit any campus – from a community college to a major state university. Imagine the number of crisis communications plans that were de-shelved and updated after the Virginia Tech shootings last year. Don’t wait for crisis to hit before creating or reviewing a crisis plan. This is one exam you don’t want to have to cram for.

This article includes a summary outline of some of the issues to consider when preparing a crisis communications plan. For a more detailed consultation or for help ensuring your organization is prepared for any crisis, contact us.