PR lessons from Laura Kuenssberg’s email gaffe

We’ve all had email mishaps, some more embarrassing than others. And while Laura Kuenssberg’s embarrassing gaffe this week isn’t on crisis levels for either her or the BBC, it is a good reminder of a few good principles worth remembering when we are dealing with reputational issues.

The first is around the response. I’ll often reassure clients that it’s not the mishap that people remember, but the way you respond, and Kuenssberg responded well. On X, she said: “It’s very frustrating, and there’s no point pretending it’s anything other than embarrassing and disappointing, as there are plenty of important questions to be asked. But red faces aside, honesty is the best policy. See you on Sunday.”

It was quick, it was straightforward and it felt authentic, without a hint of trying to make excuses. My bad. Move on.

But the more important point is what it reminds us about how events like this can damage reputation – and what questions we as communicators need to ask ourselves when responding to issues.

Our reputations are formed through narratives – stories we tell about the people and brands we encounter. Those narratives are built through lots of interactions, selected and arranged in our minds to form a consistent story.

When faced with a reputational issue, you have to be aware of the narratives people tell about you. Hopefully these will be an accurate reflection of who you are and the values you aspire to present. But sometimes, they’re not.

Our brains, being prediction engines, are constantly looking for evidence that supports or challenges the narratives we hold. If we find something that supports that narrative, we seize on it and it strengthens the reputation. If it challenges that narrative, the reputation is weakened.

And we place more importance on the ones that support than challenge – hence why it takes more evidence to change an opinion than to start one anew.

So when an issue strikes, one of our first questions when setting a strategic objective must be how this event confirms or challenges our reputations.

In this case, it might have been tempting for the BBC to simply give the interview to another journalist.

But rightly or wrongly, Laura Kuenssberg has had a reputation among some sections of social media for being too close to Boris Johnson. And to them, hearing that she accidentally sent him an email supports that pre-held view.

Hearing that she had done that after the event, when the interview had been handed to someone else in an attempt to cover up the mistake, would have been far worse.

The best objective the BBC – and Kuenssberg individually – could have hoped for here was to limit damage.

Because there is consistency between the mistake and the narrative – albeit one that Kuennsberg and the BBC will argue is unfair anyway – that perception has now been strengthened. Dismantling that will take a long time, but by owning up quickly, she and the BBC have given themselves a fighting chance.

By Chris Marritt, Director and Crisis & Issues Lead at Citypress