{"id":28280,"date":"2013-06-08t08:38:22","date_gmt":"2013-06-08t12:38:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/48e130086c.nxcli.net\/?p=28280"},"modified":"2024-09-01t14:49:02","modified_gmt":"2024-09-01t18:49:02","slug":"theres-a-leak-in-my-firm","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/\/www.g005e.com\/2013\/06\/08\/theres-a-leak-in-my-firm\/","title":{"rendered":"there’s a leak in my firm"},"content":{"rendered":"

never mind who — why?<\/strong><\/p>\n

by bruce w. marcus<\/em>
\n professional services marketing 3.0<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

ok, somebody talked to the press, and leaked information that shouldn’t have been leaked. that’s three problems, not one.<\/p>\n

primary, of course, is how do we control the damage caused by the leak? then we worry about who did it.<\/p>\n

the second problem is that who did it is frequently not as important as why it was done. that may be the more urgent damage to control. the problem caused by the press leak will go away by itself, most often. it has to be treated like any bad story, and we’ve talked a lot about that in the marcus letter. but the reason for the leak can be more stubborn to deal with, as is the mechanics of preventing leaks.<\/p>\n

the mechanics of preventing leaks can be tricky, and that’s the third problem. if they’re mishandled, they can cause more damage to the firm than the leaks do.<\/p>\n

leak prevention, on the face of it, can be pretty obvious. for example…<\/p>\n