When I heard Julian Assange call himself the “lightning rod” of WikiLeaks earlier this year, my head spun. I had always observed the uniqueness of Assange’s relationship with his organization, and his statement seemed to hit the nail on the head. The phrase’s meanings and penetration could be interpreted on a number of different levels. It was resonant and concise. It was metaphorical. Most importantly, it screamed of brilliant PR.

“We always expect tremendous criticism. It is my role to be the lightning rod to attract the attacks against the organization for our work.”Watch the Interview

I came to realize that this neo-journalist had conceptualized a new and unique breed of reputation management — something I’d like to call the Lightning Rod Effect.

It’s probably not necessary, but I’ll digress for a moment. My focus on Assange’s PR and business strategy is completely independent of any analysis or punditry of WikiLeaks’ practices. That’s for a very different breed of blog.

A Sponge Of Crisis

As the CNN interviewer acknowledged, Assange’s personal brand had seemed to eclipse that of WikiLeaks as an organization. Consequentially, the media’s coverage followed suit. They framed their narratives around Assange at least as prominently as they did around WikiLeaks. They became critical not with the organization itself, but with the drama unfolding around Assange’s personal goals, life and legal battles.

The effect was one of defensive PR. He began to attract and absorb the criticisms of his organization, just like a lightning rod attracts bolts of lightning. If Assange’s personal brand weren’t there to soak up the turmoil surrounding it, there’s a good chance that WikiLeaks’ brand would be in shambles.

Assange’s Personal Brand

What seemed to make this possible was that Assange’s personal brand was a robust and enchanting one. He had strong stage presence (with a speaking style that’s reminded me of Prince Zeid bin Ra’ad, Jordanian ambassador to the U.S. and one of the most alluring speakers I’ve ever heard speak), and could maintain interest and poise while on camera. His unique appearance seemed to set him apart even more noticeably

His personal brand story was full and three-dimensional: he had a vivid history as an Australian hacker, a clear vision and values, a clear plan of action, and successful stories to validate his motivation.

Julian Assange was the perfect brand lightning rod. All of the right chords were pulled to draw the media and public’s critical spotlight towards Assange, allowing the him to take the criticisms for the work of the organization.

Essential Elements

What chords need to be pulled to ensure a strong brand lightning rod is in place? From what I’ve observed, there seem to be three essential elements:

1. Ability to take a punch: The sub-brand should have a personality that’s thick-skinned and capable of handling criticism and crisis. After all, its primary purpose is to do exactly that.
2. Comparable in strength to the main brand: It must be strong, powerful and resonant enough to divert attention away from the main brand.
3. Dispensable: The brand must be able to shed the sub-brand if needed, while still remaining intact.

For Those Without

What happens to those without representational lightning rods in times of crisis? In a recent interview over at Mark Schaefer’s {grow} Blog, Tennessee PR pro Amy Howell gleans a few lessons from BP’s handling of the oil spill crisis. Most relevant to my point is her idea that BP should have created a subsidiary organization to take charge of the crisis — her example being a separately-branded “BP Cleanup” entity.

I’m in complete agreement with her. Having a temporary (read: dispensable) sub-brand such as “BP Cleanup” would certainly focus the attention on that brand, and divert the accusations and criticisms toward the subsidiary organizational unit.

Other Lightning Rods

The Twitter handle @ComcastCares is a powerful brand lightning rod example. The handle stands subsidiary to Comcast’s brand, and puts its branding focus not on its Comcast roots but on the individual responding to the disgruntled users.

And each of the representatives behind @ComcastCares is dispensable, for lack of a better word. Frank Eliason, the original face behind the account, has since been replaced by the current and equally-successful representative Bill Gerth. While Eliason became well-known for his pioneering use of Twitter for Comcast’s benefit, the effort has been able to continue on with replacement handlers.

The idea is a simple one, but the possibilities are endless. If there is a product backlash or company crisis, would it hurt to create a Facebook page or website dedicated to addressing the crisis? Funnel the criticisms to one location? I would love to hear more ideas.

Just Getting Started

As with most fresh theories, my thoughts here are loosely-bound and in need of proper criticism and extension. At the very least, it’s another reason to have at least a spokesperson in place for your cause. At most, this could be a whole new tactic of approaching and structuring brand and reputation management strategies.

Do you agree or disagree? Leave your thoughts, ideas and insights in the comments below.

Linked In This Article

1. Julian Assange’s CNN interview on YouTube
2. Prince Zeid bin Ra’ad
3. Your Brand As Literature: Act I – By Eric Wittke – Flames On Fifth Avenue
4. {grow} Blog
5. Has BP learned NOTHING about PR<br />and communications? – Mark Schaefer’s interview with Amy Howell on {grow}
6. @ComcastCares on Twitter
7. ComcastCares Social Media Interview with Frank Eliason – By Lee Odden – TopRankBlog.com
8. Sun Tzu For Business Nine Key Components – By Allan Elder on SlideShare

About the Author: Eric Wittke

Eric Wittke is a public relations guy in Chicago who enjoys painting, sailing, reading and longboarding in his free time. He has a penchant for what makes us tick. Eric founded Flames On Fifth Avenue as a place to discuss and exchange ideas on how to push the limits of modern public relations.