Friend,

Next time you have to issue a statement ASAP and with limited facts, try this…

1. Draw two columns on a whiteboard
2. In column 1, list “what we know”
3. In column 2, list “what everyone will assume”

Nearly every crisis I've worked on lived or died in the gap between lists.

Column 2 is the reputation you already have.

Two leaders had their first day this week. Neither had the luxury of choosing their Day 1 reputation.

Ben Carroll was sworn in as Victoria's 50th Premier on Tuesday and went straight at it: "I'm not Daniel Andrews, I'm not Jacinta Allan." New direction, royal commission, the lot. It was very much “I am not them”.

I kind of like this. It's risky, but brave and clear about what people already think. He can't erase the track in Victorians' heads about his party, so he's using it to push off, like a springboard.

By contrast, Origin had a similar bit of gear (and existing reputation) to use. Just in their hands and handling, it was more of a trapdoor.

Around 900,000 customers had their data accessed; CEO Frank Calabria apologised, but anger followed that wasn't just about the hack.

The context is that energy customers are hurting, feeling that big business (or the universe) has them in the squirrel grip, and are thus powerless.

The breach didn't create anger, but it did exacerbate it and give it an outlet.

Circuit breaker, or #fail?

Pushing off a bad reputation works if you can disown it or create a break with the past.

That’s why I think Carroll's gamble is interesting. He was Allan's deputy for years and is now trying to avoid the trapdoor of that reputation. If Victorians see him as a new broom, he’s okay. If not… political dustbin.

Origin didn’t have that option, so they got stuck with what already is.

So what?

Before you jump into crisis communication, try to understand what “people already think” about you. Distancing from something people already believe usually reads as untrustworthy.

What do we know, vs what will everyone assume?

What people will assume is often set up before your crisis but is the base case for how things will run.

The wasted window

One other lesson from Origin is about speed and listening. On 2 July, someone gave them a tip that the data was gone. They filed that as unconfirmed. The evidence turned up on the 22^nd and became public the next day. Their "first three hours" were actually three weeks (to get ready), but they may have missed that preparation window.

Sigh.

Best,

Carden | she/her (here’s why that matters @work)

PS I'm running exactly this “Rumour to response, the first three hours” live for GWPR Australia next Tuesday 4 August. Fictional scandal, very real dilemmas, free for members. Details here.

Send your up-and-comers, it's built for them. We have a surprising number of senior folk also, so hit reply if you'd like to know more.

And thank you for the month off (you didn’t notice?!). We’re back.

On our radar:

The other big stories this week

Origin Energy believes 900,000 customers' data accessed in breach

Get to know your journo

This week's market movers

Big plays, bold bets, and (occasional) unconfirmed speculation