1. Success Was…or Failure Was…?
A distinguished professional communicator from a previous affiliation shared an insightful “formula” for
planning and evaluating communications campaigns: “Success was… .”
“Success was…” is a prompt. It calls on us to actively envision the future and project the desired outcome of
communications initiatives in specific terms before they’re undertaken. It compels the use of informed
hindsight in advance to establish clear guideposts for projecting what will have been accomplished when all
is done.
As a way of crystallizing what we want to have achieved afterwards when we engage in a campaign,
“Success was…” is extremely valuable. For anyone focused on issues and crisis management, it also inspires
a useful adaptation of the concept, so that the statement (or question) becomes: “Failure was… .” By
definition, this articulates what we should avoid at all costs.
If “Failure was…” were applied conscientiously by those making strategic, marketing or management
decisions leading to public communications, adverse outcomes would be materially reduced.
Consider some relatively recent events that found their way into the public discourse, generating critical
accounts and negative feedback that reverberate through traditional, online and social media.
Before 2012 ended, the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investment (OBSI) found it necessary to
“name and shame” two companies to seek recommended redress for complainants. The organizations
involved had refused to make restitution after OBSI determined it was merited, leading to unfavourable
coverage and diminished reputations.
In another notable case, the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association (MRIA) issued a rare public
rebuke to one of its members that was picked up by mainstream media. MRIA’s independent Complaints
Panel imposed a “sanction of Censure” on the offending company for violating the Association’s Code of
Conduct and Good Practice in a poll supporting a political agenda.
Though it’s slipped from headlines, the infamous case of an Australian radio station’s prank call-gone-wrong
late last year ignited worldwide condemnation. What began with a fake inquiry into the health of the
pregnant Duchess of Cambridge ended with a tragic suicide. The outrage that followed was deafening; the
involved parties, contrite and tearful; the radio station, remorseful, and the regulator, investigating.
If the organizations subject to public scorn had applied “Failure was…” to the decision-making process that
led to their proposed actions, the aftermath would potentially have been very different in each case. The
process of anticipating an issue or crisis could not have predicted the actual conclusion. The first two
COPY
000-07-008
H2 Central
AGORA Blog – Success Was or
Failure Was?
VA – January 29, 2013
AM: M Dodick
Department: IRG
CONFIDENTIAL

2. 2COPY
outcomes could be envisaged; the specific tragedy in the third case would be beyond reasonable
contemplation, but an unfavourable response to a privacy trespass could be assumed.
“Failure was…” is shorthand for the more sophisticated process of scenario planning that should precede
any major communication. A prudent and thorough analysis of stakeholder/audience interests and
conceivable sensitivities should always be undertaken when an initiative has potential to produce a
contentious response. Preferably, this should be conducted with counsel from a trusted source free from
organizational biases or culture-induced blindness who can foresee “Failure was…” before it becomes
“Failure is… .”
####