The swift collapse of Global Counsel brings back memories of the demise of Bell Pottinger, and is a reminder (once again) of the risk of contagion, a crisis from which it is almost impossible to recover. As the old sage of Omaha Warren Buffet reportedly said, reputation takes 20 years to build yet can be destroyed in just five minutes.

Former employees of Bell Pottinger have been shocked and appalled, but apparently unsurprised, by almost 200 appearances – admittedly some repetitious – of former chief executive James Henderson in the Epstein Files.

Father of four Henderson was in ‘crisis mode’ in 2011, trying to prevent Ferguson’s gravy train from leaving the station, after the former Duchess of York gave an interview to the Evening Standard in which she admitted a ‘gigantic error of judgment’ in associating with Epstein, adding: ‘I abhor paedophilia and any s**ual abuse of children’.

The interview had enraged Epstein, who threatened to sue Ferguson for defamation. She immediately denied using the term ‘paedophile’ in connection with the American financier.

What follows is a toe-curling, sycophantic attempt at damage control – to satisfy the ego of a convicted criminal, who describes himself, without irony, in an email to his lawyer as ‘a long-time family friend… whose charitable work is extraordinary in both scope and size’.

Ferguson introduced Henderson to Epstein by email on 25 April 2011, describing him as ‘a friend’ who had been helping her ‘with my press since last years [sic] nightmare’ when she had been caught offering access to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor for cash. It is believed the work was pro bono.

Epstein, she explained to Henderson, would like a copy of the transcript of the interview, to understand ‘what happened that caused me to make a statement’. Apparently Henderson had been silently listening in on the call.

She added: ‘I would like to find a way, that the newspapers in the USA, and all over the world, that say I said something that I did not about Jeffrey, could be asked to apologise for misrepresenting Jeffrey and myself.’

On 27 April 2011, Ferguson emailed a heartfelt apology to Epstein saying: ‘I know you spoke to James. I of all people understand what it feels like to be castigated by the tabloids. I know how you feel… I know you and James are going to work on a solution.’

On reading this apology, Epstein’s lawyer Mike Sitrick, founder of the US-based Sitrick & Company, described as ‘an internationally recognised expert in the strategic use of communications’, said he was concerned that ‘unless we get something in writing that we can use, a statement, letter or something, that she will continue to be ‘tricked’ or ‘misquoted’ and the battering will continue.

‘If she is really sorry...if she was really misquoted...then she shouldn't have a problem either issuing a statement or giving us a letter we can distribute to the media.’

Henderson subsequently offered three ways ‘to rectify this situation’, including a public comment from Ferguson in upcoming US TV interviews as well as both a statement and letter from her. But he conceded concerns that ‘any comment live or on air might generate more negative than positive for you, in terms of follow on questions’.

Henderson’s preferred route was ‘a letter of clarification – as suggested by you… To this end could you be kind and let me know the exact wording that you would like to see in a letter.’

He also suggested that, if Ferguson was unable to stop questions about Epstein, she was to say:

‘As has been widely reported, Jeffrey Epstein helped me out financially by paying a part of a debt for me. I have known Jeffrey for many years and he has always sought to help me. Given Jeffrey’s conviction, I appreciate it was unwise for me to accept this money and I will be repaying it. Whilst Jeffrey has done wrong, and his behaviour cannot be condoned, this was exaggerated within the media, especially in the UK labelling him as a paedophile with no clarification or explanation.’

At Epstein’s request, this statement was reworded. He disliked the phrase ‘sought to help’, replacing it with ‘has always been there for me’. But his clarification also replaced the final sentence with:

‘He pleaded guilty many years ago to a prostitution crime, not a crime of paedophilia as has been the tabloids’ exaggeration. He has asked for forgiveness and paid his debt. I have nothing more to say.’

Henderson said: ‘Sarah will obviously try and say as little as possible on this issue so as not to generate a resurgence of interest….I will also share with all people involved in her upcoming media schedule’, adding: ‘Let me know if you would also like Sarah to write a letter on the issue through lawyers, as per our previous emails and conversations.’

In a bizarre interview with the Daily Telegraph last year, Henderson suggested he had only ever had one conversation with Epstein, describing him as ‘chilling’, delivering his threat with a ‘Hannibal Lecter-style’ menace.

Readers of a sensitive disposition might want to look away, because the suggested letter, rejecting proposed amendments from Henderson because Epstein wanted ‘an extremely firm denial’, read as follows:

‘I wanted you to know with certainty, that many things said in the press about you that were attributable to me were either a totally malicious fabrication or an outrageous exaggeration.

I am aware that many years ago you pleaded guilty to prostitution related charges. There was never a claim of paedophilia by the authorities, me or anyone else for that matter.

The fact that you would not have been guilty of a criminal offence in the UK should have served to keep your record in context as far as the UK tabloids were concerned.

You have been a loyal friend of my family for many years, and I am only too well aware of your extensive charitable and philanthropic work.

Although I do no in any way condone what you have done, the sensationalised characterisation of you in the press as a paedophile has been grossly unfair and unjustified.’

Initially, when asked about the ‘proposed use and distribution of the letter’ on 24 May, Epstein replied: ‘No distribution planned. I see only as an exhibit if needed many months from now.’

That same day, Henderson emailed Epstein to make him aware that ‘the Duchess has given several interviews and made the following comments as requested by you… He has always been there for me. He pleaded guilty many years ago to a prostitution crime, not a crime of paedophilia as has been the tabloids’ exaggeration. He has asked for forgiveness and paid his debt. I have nothing more to say.’

However, it seems from later emails that the letter became a sticking point between the two sides. Three days later, on 27 May, Epstein’s lawyer Paul Tweed, a senior partner at Johnsons, said the intent was ‘to furnish the letter to the Daily Telegraph and other in house legal departments with whom we have been corresponding’.

Henderson was resistant to this approach, suggesting publications approached him directly for ‘such a statement rather than have a letter sent out via a third party’.

Tweed responded: ‘Unfortunately this will not work, James. The DT is refusing to engage with us, primarily as a result of your client’s comments. We need to be able to follow up with the letter.’

On 7 June, Henderson wrote that, while Ferguson ‘at no time referred to Jeffrey Epstein as a paedophile and [is happy] to support your proceedings in this regards’, her advisers were ‘uncomfortable that any letter will be used by the media in a very high profile way. Could you please advise us on other alternatives open to us which are less high risk reputationally?’

Despite telling Epstein ‘we want to get the letter and then we can negotiate the terms of its release’, Tweed informed Henderson that, with ‘the comfort of the letter’, it would not be released without Ferguson’s ‘express authority’.

On 1 August, Henderson wrote that ‘the Duchess has concerns on ‘control’ in terms of signing a letter… but remained ‘happy to help Mr Epstein if she can. On a separate note, she is also keen to secure the rights back to the Mothers Army Domain names which Mr Epstein brought [sic] for her and it seems we need to conclude the first matter before we can discuss the second’. (Ironically, Mothers Army, in which Epstein was to hold a 51pc stake, apparently stood for ‘integrity, consciousness, morals’.  

Tweed wrote to Epstein that ‘the Duchess appears to be doing a bit of horse trading here!’ It is unclear from the email correspondence whether the letter ultimately saw the light of day.

CORPORATE AFFAIRS

Some predictions

Those friendly chaps and chapesses at advisory firm Gartner have collated five predictions to manage disruptions and opportunities faced by communication professionals in the next four years.

1. PR and earned media budgets will more than double as public LLMs are increasingly used in lieu of traditional search engines.
   Gartner argues that, as LLMs favour earned, shared and organic owned content over paid content, this reinforces the need for proactive earned media efforts. As organisations adjust to these new search behaviours, the priority will be to ensure ‘optimal AI search visibility’. The consultancy predicts organisations will reallocate paid budgets to PR and earned media.

2. By 2025, 78pc of employees will rely on chatbots to obtain relevant internal communications, rendering other traditional channels, such as newsletters or intranets, redundant. 
   Gartner finds that employees are already burdened by information overload. Indeed, those who feel overwhelmed by this constant flow are 52pc LESS likely to want to continue working there.
   Chatbots will improve information accessibility but also have the ability to offer ‘personalised, relevant communications’, such as personalised, curated answers to employee questions or customised push alerts to specific employee segments. It recommends shifting the information cascade away from managers and preparing employees for a more self-service approach to internal communications.

3. By 2029, 45pc of chief communication officers will adopt narrative intelligence technology to support reputation monitoring amid an intensifying disinformation landscape.

   Gartner finds that the legacy listening and monitoring tools relied by communications professionals to monitor mentions, key words and coverage miss early warning signs of damaging narratives. Traditional media monitoring, it argues, cannot ‘sense, map, and predict the velocity of emerging narratives that threaten their organisation’s reputation’.

   But adopting ‘actual narrative intelligence’ requires significant operational changes, such as unifying new monitoring data with existing insights. While this may lead some organisations to learn on external agency partners or managed services, many communication professionals will ‘conclude that enhanced reputation management should become a core competency of the function’.

4. By 2029, 75pc of communications teams will use analyses of employee digital footprints to design and deliver personalised communications.

   The vast majority of employees – 94pc – use at least one digital channel as part of their job, while 89pc do so at least once a week. Digital work leaves digital footprints that, if analysed in context, can provide chief communications officers with ‘valuable insight into when, where, about what, from whom and how employees will engage best with corporate communications on an individually personalised basis’.

5. By 2029, communications’ spending on data and analytics will double to six per cent of the function’s budget.
   Gartner finds that chief communications officers ‘underinvest in measurement and monitoring capabilities’, allocating, on average 2.9pc of their budgets against marketing’s whopping eight per cent.

   Yet nearly half (47pc) report difficult in demonstrating the impact of their function, while 34pc claim their teams are still viewed as cost centres rather than value drivers. Gartner claims this reinforces the urgency for robust, outcomes-focused measurement frameworks’.

   Among its recommendations in this area, is the suggestion that comms professionals engage key internal stakeholders, including the finance director and CEO, in a discussion about how enhanced data and analytics capabilities can drive better business decisions. Gartner recommends benchmarking current spending against other functions to highlight the gap and opportunity.

Public relations

Mea culpa

I may have lost the will to live while trawling through the PRCA’s new definition of public relations – you remember the one: it comes with a concise definition, an extended definition (for when a concise definition is not quite enough) and ten explanatory principles (for when a concise definition plus an extended definition are definitely not enough).

As a result, I neglected the caveat that clarifies this definition is solely for PRCA members. If you desperately want to use it, while personally I’d recommend lying down in a darkened room until that feeling passes, the PRCA actually grants permission as long as you blame attribute the trade organisation.

But if you’re one of the CIPR’s 11,000 members, you could simply carry on using its definition of PR as ‘the planned and sustained effort to establish and maintain goodwill and mutual understanding between an organisation and its publics’.

Or if you live in America, where the PRSA defines it as ‘a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organisations and their publics’, perhaps stick with that?

And for everybody else, you may decide that doing the actual job proves its value far more than any definition. Yes, you can simply ‘interpret complexity and manage volatility’ by ignoring the discussion. As you were…

Apologies
This column was meant to be the 17.00 departure on 20 February, but was delayed by leaves on the line. And that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.