A Crisis Communications Situation

In December 2007, a story circulated in the newspapers involving a man who was suing a Las Vegas Athletic Club for gender discrimination. The 45-year-old man filed a complaint with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission, alleging the health club was giving special discounts to women, which he claimed was illegal under state law. The story held larger ramifications across the state of Nevada. The complaint had the potential to end all “Ladies Nights” at bars and nightclubs that offered free drinks to women as a way of luring them into their bars.

The gym member made a decent argument when talking to reporters.

“Imagine a whites-only country club or whites-get-in-free deal or something like that,” the gym member said. “When things are based on race, we have kind of a knee-jerk reaction because we’ve had poor race relations in America for 400 years now. But when it comes to treating people the same based on sex, that’s much more recent in our memory.”

The gym member made a logical argument that most men would probably support. He simply wanted the same membership price that his wife paid. The gym should have quietly given him the price break, and the problem would have gone away. Instead, a manager at the health club refused the discount and resentment began to brew within the disgruntled customer. Now, the health club had to deal with national negative exposure that could potentially alter the pricing structure for all bars and nightclubs in Nevada. The owner of that gym made many enemies with just one refusal. And to think it all would have gone away with just one small discount.

The health club could have diffused the tension by saying they were trying a new marketing approach to get more women into their health club. Management could have said they were reviewing the policy to see if the pricing structure was equitable for men and women. The club could have said they were researching a similar discount that appealed just to men, like discounts on weight trainers. Instead, the health club took a combative approach and attacked the alleged victim in the press. This is the club’s statement as published in the New York Times.

“Our men are very, very happy with how we conduct our business,” the vice president of the company said. “This particular person is the only one who has had a problem with it. There are legitimate discrimination issues out there, and I wish he’d spend his time addressing those that really need addressing.”

How do you feel reading that statement? After reading how the health club tried to demonize the complainant, I want to side with the customer over the health club. I don’t want to pay more than women for a gym membership. Subconsciously, it’s a David versus Goliath battle. One man had the strength to take on a large company over principal, and most people will rally for the little guy in those types of situations. There was no reason to demonize this customer in the public domain. The statement practically forces you to choose sides, which is never a safe approach when your reputation is at stake. You don’t want to give people an opportunity to root against you.

For more tips on how to spin the news into your favor, go to www.BeatthePressBook.com