Ryan Giggs and the super injunction: Crisis PR analysis
Crisis PR experts, including guru Max Clifford have weighed in with their thoughts as to whether Manchester United footballer made a mistake in attempting to silence the press and take on the might of Twitter.
Clifford, who is representing Thomas, told ITV’s morning programme Daybreak that the Manchester United midfielder highlighted the relationship by taking out the injunction to prevent people from knowing about it.
His identity has been spread through out Twitter since he took out the injunction to prevent the media from reporting his name in connection with the alleged affair as a result.
''That's the irony of it. If Ryan Giggs hadn't taken out a super-injunction, probably we wouldn't know what had been going on. It's only because of that, and of course the fact that, in that super-injunction that he got to protect his privacy and that of his family, he named Imogen, that the whole thing started down that trail that led to it coming out in Parliament yesterday,” said Clifford.
The footballer was named in the House of Commons by Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming who used parliamentary privilege in order to protect Twitter users who were under threat of being sued by Giggs.
Meanwhile, Paul Smith, crisis management specialist for Citypress said that Giggs should now be looking at his own PR management rather than any law suits he may have in mind.
“We are far more used to dealing with corporate crises than taking on the might of Max Clifford in the scandal arena but if Giggs asked for advice now I’d tell him to pay his lawyers what he owes, thank them through gritted teeth for successfully making him the Anti Cause and then set aside whatever cash he was planning on spending to try and sue 75,000 Twitter users to pay off Imogen Thomas and prevent her selling an exclusive,” advised Smith.
“He could then agree to his own exclusive with one big tabloid to talk about the whole legal battle, not the details of his affair, giving his fee to a suitable charity and trying to explain his thinking. This would hopefully give the media some kind of closure over the whole issue – which has become more about the super injunction than the alleged affair it concealed – and social media can move on to its next freedom of speech scalp while he tries to repair his marriage.”
Smith added that while he wasn’t interested in Gigg’s private life, he was intrigued as to what possess him to take on a legal battle that he was unlikely to win.
“Was he trying to protect his family from details? Doing it on principle? Driven by his legal team? The fact that it became a Parliamentary issue just shows how far beyond a simple ‘kiss and tell’ this has evolved and that’s largely his fault.”
Meanwhile, PR and communications expert Morris Grant also criticised the advisors of the player, saying it was ‘impossible’ for them to ‘keep a lid’ on the story.
“When the first 'whisper' emerged it should have been explained to Giggs that although things were going to be difficult they'd be a lot worse if he didn't grab 'the issue' by the scruff of the neck and manage his way through the debacle,” stated Grant.
“Why throw gallons of fuel on the fire by applying for a Court injunction? A full statement from Giggs should have been distributed to the media quickly...apologies to wife, family, friends, the club sponsors. "I've made a very serious error of judgement, I'm bitterly disappointed in myself, I've let my wife, family and many others down....." His 'image rights' will have taken a hellish 'hit',” Grant concluded.