Chapter 11 announced

[yknot]

31 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Not going to happen. A portion of this process is a court ordered (or a least encouraged, I forget which) mediation. There is precisely 0% chance BSA's lawyers are going to sign off on a PR campaign that targets the lawyers for the other side.

EDIT: One more point. BSA is in bankruptcy. All expenditures over a certain amount have to be approved by the court. A massive $$$ PR campaign the purpose of which is to trash opposing counsel will never, ever be approved by the court.

Not only would it possibly violate the mediation plan/agreement, it would absolutely poison any possibility of a settlement. What might make sense from a PR perspective is absolutely the wrong legal strategy.

I would suspect that the reason BSA has been utterly silent is because their lawyers are telling them the two cardinal rules of clients (for both criminal side and civil).

1) Shut up.

2) Keep shutting up.

Mosby did push a statement on February 1 A Look at Our History and Our Future.  But otherwise, he is not about to start a campaign against opposing counsel. Why? Because it isn't going to change the legal terrain one bit AND could make a settlement LESS likely.

It is also absolutely going to be spun as "BSA attacking victims."

As for the "big PR check" what was said last year and  was repeated recently in my Council was that the minute a bankruptcy plan was agreed to, there was going to be a "massive" "rebranding" campaign. But until that bankruptcy plan is done and BSA emerges from bankruptcy, nothing was going to happen.

 

 

32 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Not going to happen. A portion of this process is a court ordered (or a least encouraged, I forget which) mediation. There is precisely 0% chance BSA's lawyers are going to sign off on a PR campaign that targets the lawyers for the other side.

EDIT: One more point. BSA is in bankruptcy. All expenditures over a certain amount have to be approved by the court. A massive $$$ PR campaign the purpose of which is to trash opposing counsel will never, ever be approved by the court.

Not only would it possibly violate the mediation plan/agreement, it would absolutely poison any possibility of a settlement. What might make sense from a PR perspective is absolutely the wrong legal strategy.

I would suspect that the reason BSA has been utterly silent is because their lawyers are telling them the two cardinal rules of clients (for both criminal side and civil).

1) Shut up.

2) Keep shutting up.

Mosby did push a statement on February 1 A Look at Our History and Our Future.  But otherwise, he is not about to start a campaign against opposing counsel. Why? Because it isn't going to change the legal terrain one bit AND could make a settlement LESS likely.

It is also absolutely going to be spun as "BSA attacking victims."

As for the "big PR check" what was said last year and  was repeated recently in my Council was that the minute a bankruptcy plan was agreed to, there was going to be a "massive" "rebranding" campaign. But until that bankruptcy plan is done and BSA emerges from bankruptcy, nothing was going to happen.

 

I worked in PR as a consultant at the highest levels for Fortune 100 top executives for big pharma, big auto, big energy, big tech. This is not how it is played. You don't wait, you get out first. You control the message. You are not passive or silent. Any corporate level executive, any upper management at even a mid level business, would know this. It is inexplicable how passive and mute BSA has been. 

[Eagle1993]

17 minutes ago, yknot said:

 

I worked in PR as a consultant at the highest levels for Fortune 100 top executives for big pharma, big auto, big energy, big tech. This is not how it is played. You don't wait, you get out first. You control the message. You are not passive or silent. Any corporate level executive, any upper management at even a mid level business, would know this. It is inexplicable how passive and mute BSA has been. 
 

How many of those were accused of sexually abusing 95,000 of their youth customers and in currently in bankruptcy?  What is BSAs argument?  It wasn’t 95,000 it was only 55,000?  Penn State was nearly destroyed over 20 claims.  The Catholic Church has been roasted over 1,800.  I’d love to see the PR campaign on this one.

Our top funder at my council is the UnitedWay.  Do you think the UnitedWay or other big donors will back an organization who is fighting 10,000+ claims of sexual abuse over several years?   They are barely hanging in as it is now.

Also, FYI... BSA did spend a ton of $ on PR.  The PR campaign was extremely successful. It generated 95,000 claims.  Good luck getting the bankruptcy judge allowing a dollar more.  

BSA has two options.   Prepare for a very long bankruptcy fight (think on the order of 5-10 years) or surrender immediately just short of liquidation while protecting councils and COs.   BSA has been clear they cannot afford a long bankruptcy battle so their only choice is surrender and start the rebuild after.  
 

Perhaps that is just a bluff.  We will find out soon. 

[yknot]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

How many of those were accused of sexually abusing 95,000 of their youth customers and in currently in bankruptcy?  What is BSAs argument?  It wasn’t 95,000 it was only 55,000?  Penn State was nearly destroyed over 20 claims.  The Catholic Church has been roasted over 1,800.  I’d love to see the PR campaign on this one.

Our top funder at my council is the UnitedWay.  Do you think the UnitedWay or other big donors will back an organization who is fighting 10,000+ claims of sexual abuse over several years?   They are barely hanging in as it is now.

Also, FYI... BSA did spend a ton of $ on PR.  The PR campaign was extremely successful. It generated 95,000 claims.  Good luck getting the bankruptcy judge allowing a dollar more.  

BSA has two options.   Prepare for a very long bankruptcy fight (think on the order of 5-10 years) or surrender immediately just short of liquidation while protecting councils and COs.   BSA has been clear they cannot afford a long bankruptcy battle so their only choice is surrender and start the rebuild after.  
 

Perhaps that is just a bluff.  We will find out soon. 

Everybody makes mistakes. Pharma companies produce bad medicines. Car companies produce inferior products.  But companies with integrity own up to mistakes in an upfront way, communicate about them, and somehow convince the public that they are still better off with access to medicines or vehicles because of the overall good they do in their lives. That's what leaders do.  BSA has had no such advocate. I'm not defending anything wrong that was done. But if you believe along with the lawyers that the world is better off without scouting, then yes, accept the silence of our leadership and prepare for the end of scouting. 

[ParkMan]

1 hour ago, yknot said:

I worked in PR as a consultant at the highest levels for Fortune 100 top executives for big pharma, big auto, big energy, big tech. This is not how it is played. You don't wait, you get out first. You control the message. You are not passive or silent. Any corporate level executive, any upper management at even a mid level business, would know this. It is inexplicable how passive and mute BSA has been. 

Though I am not a PR professional, I have been around enough companies that are good at this to completely concur.  You see the same thing in successful politicians.

It is never about attacking the victims.  The BSA should never need to attack the victims.  It is all about controlling the narrative as @yknot said so eloquently. 

The BSA should be out there holding events, on new shows, wherever they can be having conversations about how important it is to develop youth in our complex, challenging world.  They should be the advocate for helping kids solve problems, be prepared for the future, for being leaders.   They should be leveraging the BSAs history to talk about how to keep kids safe in a scary world.  They should be driving initiatives pushing for national registries for adult volunteers.  They should be offering the BSA collateral to any youth organization that wants it.  

Today, when people hear Scouting - they think of the lawsuit and abuse.  But, instead the BSA should be driving a narrative so that when people hear Scouting, they think - champion for protecting youth, champion for developing youth, and champion for the outdoors.

Let's be honest - the BSA knows nothing about public relations at this level.  The executives and lawyers at the BSA are minnows swimming in a pool of sharks.  This is why the BSA needs a tier 1, blue ribbon public relations firm to drive this. 

[CynicalScouter]

5 hours ago, yknot said:

I worked in PR as a consultant at the highest levels for Fortune 100 top executives for big pharma, big auto, big energy, big tech. This is not how it is played.

Really, you would advise your client in the middle of a bankruptcy to openly attack the attorneys for the other side?

And you think the attorneys for that Fortune 100 company would sign off on any such attack campaign?

Or that the bankruptcy judge would approve any such expenditure?

[CynicalScouter]

3 hours ago, yknot said:

But if you believe along with the lawyers that the world is better off without scouting, then yes, accept the silence of our leadership and prepare for the end of scouting. 

No. What we are saying is that BSA's lawyers are no doubt telling BSA to keep their mouths shut and not go to "war" as you put it with the attorneys for the victims.

Can you not grasp this? That no attorney in his/her right mind is going to approve a PR plan that involves that?

Can you name a single company in bankruptcy that has ever launched a PR "war" on the attorneys for the creditors? Just name 1. I'll wait.

Edited February 25, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

5 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

 I’d love to see the PR campaign on this one.

Exactly. Especially a "war" PR campaign that focuses on attacking the attorneys for the victims.

Oh, I would just LOVE to see how @yknotand @ParkManthink a federal bankruptcy judge is going to approve expending big money on any such "war" campaign against the creditors' attorneys in general, and the attorneys for sexual abuse victims in particular.

Going to "war" against sexual abuse victims? I mean wow.

Where is you humanity here folks? I don't like what is happening to BSA either, but declaring "war" on abuse victims? Wanting "war" with their attorneys?

My goodness, where is your humanity?

Edited February 25, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[fred8033]

If a PR war happened, it should be about BSA having a structure to try to prevent re-entry of dangerous adults decades before the public, the teachers, the doctors and the politicians were recognizing the issue.  

Edited February 25, 2021 by fred8033

[Eagle1993]

7 hours ago, ParkMan said:

 

The BSA should be out there holding events, on new shows, wherever they can be having conversations about how important it is to develop youth in our complex, challenging world.  They should be the advocate for helping kids solve problems, be prepared for the future, for being leaders.   They should be leveraging the BSAs history to talk about how to keep kids safe in a scary world.  They should be driving initiatives pushing for national registries for adult volunteers.  They should be offering the BSA collateral to any youth organization that wants it.  

 

The BSA is doing much of this.  If you look, the councils are out there highlighting various activities to local media.  Food drives, Eagle Scout Projects, etc.... still hit local media.  Nationally, BSA did a big successful event for the first group of female Eagle Scouts.

Now ... what else?  Let's say a National BSA leader goes out to media to talk about the value of BSA?  You know the story will be about 95,000 victims, bankruptcy and Girl Scouts suing over the branding issue.  National BSA = bankrupt, Local BSA = Little Johnny's PWD car and Beth's Eagle Scout project.  I expect BSA knows this now.  Given this, BSA is keeping the positive messaging to advocates (such as local councils) which is what they should do.  I expect they have nearly $0 allocated for a national PR campaign (other than finding abuse victims).  

National BSA has already stated they are rebranding post bankruptcy.  Their #1 job is getting out of bankruptcy quickly so the CAN kick off the rebranding & resulting PR campaign.  Trying to spread a National positive message when we have 50 times the number of possible victims than all of the Catholic Church lawsuits is a fools errand.  

Finally, I do not disagree with you that BSA fails at PR.  I have doubts if BSA can really rebrand successfully.  We need much younger men/women, including people of color, to represent us nationally.  Trotting out our old white men (as good as they are) to sell scouting to youth will fail as it has failed over the last two decades.  How about our next representatives actually have active Twitter and Instagram accounts with more followers than mine?  Where is our Bear Grylls?

[CynicalScouter]

17 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

You know the story will be about 95,000 victims, bankruptcy and Girl Scouts suing over the branding issue.  National BSA = bankrupt, Local BSA = Little Johnny's PWD car and Beth's Eagle Scout project.

Yep. Exactly. Which is why I think if you look at the inaugural female Eagle reporting, I do not recall seeing a SINGLE person from the national level. This makes both legal sense (the less camera time you have, the less likely the sexual abuse questions will come up) and a PR sense (same reason).

It should not be a PR campaign about going to "War".

It should not target attorneys for the other side.

Edited February 25, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

14 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

National BSA has already stated they are rebranding post bankruptcy.  Their #1 job is getting out of bankruptcy quickly so the CAN kick off the rebranding & resulting PR campaign.  Trying to spread a National positive message when we have 50 times the number of possible victims than all of the Catholic Church lawsuits is a fools errand. 

This too, although I truly wonder what the rebrand would/could be outside of possibly an outright name change. I wonder, just wonder, if even the initials BSA or such is going to be too much. But, that's outside the scope of the this thread.

[InquisitiveScouter]

17 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Where is our Bear Grylls?

Mike Rowe?

[CynicalScouter]

12 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Mike Rowe?

He's already made it clear he does not like what BSA has become and has talked (Tucker Carlson) and written about the "Death of the Boy Scouts".

Quote

In my opinion, this kind of attrition can only explained by an increasing lack of relevance, or, the perception of irrelevance. Unfortunately, in situations like this, there’s no difference between perception and reality. And right now, there’s a perception that The Boy Scouts have gone soft. That’s the real tragedy, Sharon, because I can’t think of anything more needed in our country today, than a youth organization that offers kids the same experience I underwent in the basement of Kenwood Church. Why? Because our country’s current obsession with “safe spaces” is destroying character faster than the Boy Scouts of today can build it.

Obviously, we want our kids protected from the hazards of a dangerous world. And clearly, the world we live it is a dangerous place. But safety is not the purpose of our existence, and this whole idea that kids need to be protected from fear, distress, discomfort, and disappointment is far more dangerous to the future of our country than anything I ever encountered in Scouting. You can’t build character in a “safe space.” You can only build dependence and entitlement, and you don’t have to look very far to see the results. Pardon my rant, but the stakes are high.

And he sure as heck is NOT in favor of inclusion

Quote

If the Boy Scouts want to attract a new generation of members, they’ll need to stand for something more than inclusion. Because being inclusive doesn’t make you relevant. If I were calling the shots, I’d take a stand against the safe space movement and everything it embodies. And I’d do it in the most public way possible. But of course, that might also require a level of risk completely inconsistent with current orthodoxy.

Having Mike Rowe as a BSA spokesperson like Gryllis is would not end well, if it even happened at all, the first time the Guide to Safe Scouting came up. Rowe is part of a generation who want BSA to act as if it is 1974 again, while not fully understanding in this legal environment it simply cannot anymore. Although he comes closer to grasping it than many.

Quote

As we all know, in 1974, a chipped tooth or a black eye didn’t lead to lawsuit, and today, I’m pretty sure a boxing ring and a trip to the shooting range would make a lot of parents…uncomfortable. But that’s exactly the point. In a world that values safety above everything else, discomfort is never welcome. Neither is risk. And yet, discomfort and risk are precisely why my time in Scouting was so valuable, and why Troop 16 was the polar opposite of a safe space.

Finally this

Quote

It’s not enough to simply ignore bad ideas. The safe space movement needs to be confronted, and I’d love nothing more than to see Scouts of both genders lead the charge.

Which sounds great on paper. Until you realize that

a) BSA is never, ever going to self-insure which means

b) Absolutely skyrocketing insurance premiums which means

c) The lawyers and risk adjusters for the insurance companies who write Guide to Safe Scouting are in charge

Rowe can "confront" all he wants when he is prepared to foot (or demonstrate how to fund) $138 MILLION a year in insurance premiums.

Edited February 25, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

12 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

This is the problem. I truly think that there a lawyers who simply want to get as much money as they can from BSA without killing it.

I was a candidate for the TCC. When I interviewed with the US Trustee & Co., I told them I did not wish for the demise of the Scouts. He said, "That sentiment is pretty much universal among all the men we are interviewing." I thought you might find that interesting, though clients seldom drive cases of this type, which loops back to the motives and goals of certain attorneys.

[ThenNow]

11 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

I would suspect that the reason BSA has been utterly silent is because their lawyers are telling them the two cardinal rules of clients (for both criminal side and civil).

1) Shut up.

2) Keep shutting up.

On nearly my first day in practice, the partner who mentored me gave me a cardinal rule: "Say little. Write less. As to your clients, they refer all inquiries to you."