This week, LVMH made headlines. Long story short—you can explore the details in Financial Times article 'LVMH’s Bernard Arnault faces backlash over memo banning staff contact with select media outlets,' but the title alone gives you a sense of the controversy.
Let's delve into the more in-depth—let's say, professional—reasons behind such a ban. Considered the 'fourth estate,' the media holds the power to shape public perception of any given subject. Naturally, there's a huge temptation to gain control over this power. And if gaining full control is difficult, there's always a way to create the illusion of control—by banning communication with certain media outlets.
It may be a strategic decision aimed at:
1. Protecting brand image and reputation
• Preventing misrepresentation
Ban ensures that information about LVMH is presented accurately and respectfully, avoiding reporting that could harm the brand’s image
• Controlling the narrative
Allows to align all public statements w the brand’s values and long-term vision
• Cultivating aspirational appeal
A pristine and consistent brand image inspires consumers to aspire to own and associate with LVMH, enhancing desirability and market position
2. Ensuring consistent messaging
• Unified communication strategy
Centralizing media interactions delivers a cohesive message across global markets, preventing confusion and mixed messages that could dilute the brand’s identity
• Authorized spokespersons
Having designated spokespersons to handle certain media inquiries ensures that all communications are aligned with LVMH’s core values, reducing the risk of off-the-cuff remarks.
*When I was working in political party our media department assigned speakers for certain interviews and TV-shows, and trained them to answer certain questions.
3. Mitigating risks during crises
• Effective crisis management
Efficient management of information dissemination, swift responses to issues, and minimized reputational damage during controversies or crises
• Preventing info leaks
Reduces the risk of sensitive or strategic information being leaked, ensuring confidentiality until official disclosure.
Well, that didn’t work in this case.
***
All the potential impacts of such ban we can follow-up now—including perception of opacity and strained media relations. May I quote the memo with ban:
Any breach (and this will inevitably be known) will be considered a serious infraction, with the corresponding consequences attached to it.
After all, those who silently follow orders are never taken seriously—neither by those they write about nor by those who read.
My favorite and rare interview with Bernard Arnault was published by Financial Times . Why am I certain it wouldn’t have happened if this media outlet hadn't been strong enough to title their article on the current issue in such a straightforward way?
