Search here, we might help you find what you are looking for

logo

© 2026 Copyright, Jennifer R. Farmer

The PR Whisperer

Author, Crisis Communications Expert, Strategic Communications Advisor

Author: Jennifer Farmer

Why The Arrest of Don Lemon, Georgia Fort and Others Should Concern You

Posted on

The arrest of Nekima Levy Armstrong by federal agents was shocking. The arrest of Don Lemon and Georgia Fort, both independent journalists and members of the National Association of Black Journalists, is mortifying.

I know Armstrong and have consistently marveled at her willingness to raise her voice in support of what is right. Although I do not know Fort, I have pitched Lemon when he worked for CNN. But familiarity isn’t a litmus test for concern. Even if I didn’t know Fort, Lemon or Armstrong, I would still have grave concerns over their arrest. You should too.

For their part, Lemon and Fort were covering the protest as journalists. I’m sure they weren’t the only reporters there, but if they were the only members of the fourth estate arrested, we have to ask why. We also have to ask and examine the toll this situation will have, not only on Lemon and Fort, but other journalists as well.

Come to Their Defense

It is imperative that advocacy organizations – such as the National Association of Black Journalists – come to their aid. I’m prayerful the rest of us will appreciate that Lemon, Fort and Armstrong may not be anomalies. They are likely canaries in the coal mine, foreshadowing what is to come.

If journalists, fearing arrest, opt against covering demonstrations, the message of the action may be muted. Again, perhaps this is the point. Rather than criminalizing protests, our elected leaders should be analyzing the underlying issues that spurred the protests. Demonstrations are mere symptoms of a larger problem.

You Should Be Concerned

It doesn’t matter who you are, this recent turn of events should frighten you. As Lenice C. Emanual, executive director of the Alabama Institute for Social Justice, shared with me: “When power operates without restraint, democracy is no longer secure. We are witnessing a moment where First Amendment rights are being openly tested and essential systems like child care are being deliberately destabilized at the same time. These are not separate issues — they are parallel threats. The goal is silence. But we will not be silenced.”

The question for the rest of us becomes, ‘how should we respond?’

When something of this nature happens, it can be comforting to think about things one can do to remain safe – wear visible markers or clothes that distinguish you from the crowd,’ ‘refrain from participating in an action without legal counsel,’ ‘disperse when an order to do so has been given,’ etc. – but this moment feels bigger than individual actions. This feels like yet another attempt to silence dissent, squelch demonstrations and instill fear in the populace.

Only you can decide if these tactics will work.

Jennifer R. Farmer is a crisis communications expert and founder Spotlight PR LLC. The firm helps clients build their platforms and protect their brands.

 

This is Bigger Than You: Focus on Systems and Less on Individuals

Posted on

When it comes to power, I’ve observed a pattern of the persons with the least amount of power being blamed for their struggles. In many instances, powerful systems and structures encourage the nation to focus on individual shortcomings rather than on systemic barriers. In this scenario, the powerful blame those with less power, thereby decreasing public sympathy and support for the working class.

Think about the climate crisis. The United States accounts for 4% of the world’s population, but contributes to 17% of the world’s energy use. Yet discourse around the climate crisis often centers on what individuals can and should do to ameliorate the problem. Don’t get me wrong. We each have a role to play in creating a sustainable future. However, too often what is missing from the debate are the ways in which large corporations, and their powerful lobby, advocate for reduced accountability for how they contribute to the climate crisis. Instead, the lot of the blame is placed on the individual.

In another example, think about the personal finance industry. When a person experiences financial challenges, there are a host of commentators at the ready with unsolicited advice on what the person did to contribute to their struggles. Finance gurus – as do courses on how to manage one’s money, how to invest, and how to grow rich – abound. There isn’t enough conversation around what happens when you don’t make enough money to get ahead.

It doesn’t matter that in the United States it is harder than ever for persons born in poverty to get ahead. It is not uncommon to see generation after generation born and dying in a cycle of poverty. This is more than an individual failure.

If generation after generation cannot pay their bills, cannot afford to pay for their children’s education and cannot move from one social class to another, shouldn’t we consider the systems that keep people stuck? Yes, it’s important to know how to balance a checkbook, but if the ends don’t meet, the ends don’t meet. Without jobs that pay a living wage, benefits that allow individuals to keep more of their salary while meeting their family’s needs, many people will continue to struggle. However, the nation benefits when all people have resources to spur the economy, invest in their local communities and care for themselves and their families. Indeed, crime may decrease when people are gainfully employed and have hope for the future.

What’s more, we cannot talk about personal finance without also talking about the insane amounts of money spent on advertising and marketing in the U.S. Americans may well be the most marketed to consumers in the world. How does one get ahead financially when one is constantly bombarded with ads advising on what one needs to be whole.

In yet another example, think about race and racial justice. People talk about racial justice as though it is something that can be achieved in of our lifetimes. But when we see policies that undermine the very possibility of advancement, we have to question how we’ll get to a place where all people can thrive, regardless of their skin color.

Even plummeting literacy rates should not surprise us at a time when manufacturers and developers push screens from the cradle to the grave. Additionally, in an era where parents and caregivers are working harder, and for less, we shouldn’t be surprised that the love for reading and the ability to comprehend what one has read, is waning. Addiction to technology, including smart phones, and social media is literally rotting our youngest minds, but also leading to a host of mental and emotional challenges. Against this backdrop, no one should be surprised that children and young people are struggling to read and retain what they’ve read.

In conclusion, I’ll end where I began. In the United States, there is often a tendency to blame the victim rather than focus on the systems that created the problems in the first place. By blaming the individual, powerful players can escape accountability, but also keep Americans divided.

As a nation, I hope we move beyond focusing on individual challenges, and spend more time attuned to the structures that undergird societal challenges.

Jennifer R. Farmer is a crisis communications expert and founder Spotlight PR LLC. The firm helps clients build their platforms and protect their brands.

 

Understand Who Shapes Your Beliefs & Why?

Posted on

If you live in the United States, your preferences and belief systems may not be original to you. You have likely been conditioned to appreciate some things and despise others. Your family of origin plays a role of course in influencing who you are and what you believe. And increasingly, popular culture, social media, traditional media, influencers and podcasters, also influence what and who you embrace and what and who you may consider rejecting.

When it comes to desires and preferences, keep in mind that Americans are heavily marketed. The average person in the United States is the target of between 4,000 and 10,000 ads per day. This doesn’t mean that the conscious mind is aware of and receiving all 4,000 to 10,000 ads. It does mean, however, that advertisers are intentionally trying to reach us, at almost all hours of the day.

More than Annoying

Excessive advertising and content creation is bigger than driving consumers to overspend or overconsume.

I fear it also conditions Americans to treat their neighbors with contempt. Most recently, we saw content creators using generative AI to feed harmful stereotypes about who receives Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.

Yahoo News reported that a YouTube account called Buffet Battle has an extensive feed of “AI-generated clips showing poor people, many of them Black, demanding tomahawk steaks, stealing food, or rioting in Walmart after their government benefits run out.” The posts on the account have racked up thousands of views. This confirms what some people believe, and influencers others to draw similar conclusions.

Dangerous Use of AI

Fox News was also caught using AI videos of Black SNAP recipients.

Further, many content creators and some established media outlets have aired reactions about the impact of SNAP delays from one demographic of people; Black people. This could suggest that only Black people receive SNAP benefits or that Black people are the largest recipients of SNAP. Neither is true.

Consider statistics about crime. Many people believe that crime is carried out by one profile of people. This profile is shaped, in large part, by what and who media outlets show when discussing crime. It’s also shaped by elected leaders seeking to influence one policy or another. For instance, years ago, I noticed that some elected leaders use the term “law and order” in the context of Black people. This could lead the broader community to believe that only Black people commit crime.

Harmful Messages About the Poor

Over the last decade or so, I’ve also witnessed a dangerous suggestion that persons in poverty have limited means because of a moral failing or a life of bad decisions. This is proffered to reduce concern and policy that would level the playing field to some extent. There is a suggestion that people are poor because of something they did or didn’t do. Seldom is there an acknowledgement of the systems and players that make it hard for some people to be upwardly mobile. There is rarely an acknowledgement about the impact of low wages and high costs, including the cost of health care and child care.

My point in sharing all of this is to remind readers that our views are often influenced by what we consume, who we listen to and to whom we engage. Before consuming content – or at the very least, as we’re consuming content – we need to consciously consider the source and the motivations of the source.

Jennifer R. Farmer is a crisis communications expert and founder Spotlight PR LLC. The firm helps clients build their platforms and protect their brands.

Is Bill Gates Reversing Course on the Climate Crisis?

Posted on

It is the height of irony for billionaire Bill Gates to note that climate change will not result in ‘humanity’s demise.’ Gates argues for more resources to be spent fighting poverty and hunger. Never mind that there is room for continued investment in addressing the climate crisis, as well as funding programs that alleviate hunger and poverty. We do not have to pick one at the exclusion of the other.

Further, if we do not address the underlying causes of the climate crisis, our inaction will fuel more hunger and more poverty.

Gates’ words are all the more curious given that we are in the tail end of the 2025 Atlantic hurricane season, which runs from June 1 through Nov. 30. Each hurricane season, the storms appear to not only come earlier (or later in the season), but they appear to increase in intensity and severity.

Moreover, as Hurricane Melissa churns, and people watch the decimation of their livelihoods and property, Gates’ words ring hollow. Imagine how his words must feel to persons fighting for their lives in Haiti, Cuba and Jamaica amid Hurricane Melissa’s battering. How does one maintain that money spent on addressing the underlying causes of these sorts of crises is ill-spent?

Additionally, where will people in these regions go once the storm subsides? With the United States’ crackdown on immigration, it is unreasonable to believe the Trump administration will roll out a welcome mat to displaced children and families.

We know that after a natural disaster, even with the best of intentions, it takes years to recover. Some communities never recover. They also face multiple storms. First there is the weather event; then there is the fallout from the storm – rebuilding, emergency support, PTSD, etc. All of this causes immense strain on local infrastructure and displaces vulnerable communities.

With extreme wealth, over 275,000 acres of farmland, and resources the average American lacks, Gates is insulated from the worst effects of the climate crisis. The rest of us aren’t so lucky. Women and children are more likely to be displaced following weather emergencies, more likely to suffer from gender-based violence during times of crisis, and more likely to have fewer resources to navigate displacement.

For instance, the United Nations’ Spotlight Initiative found that “Every 1°C rise in global temperature is associated with a 4.7 per cent increase in intimate partner violence (IPV), the study cites. In a 2°C warming scenario, 40 million more women and girls are likely to experience IPV each year by 2090. In a 3.5°C scenario, that number more than doubles.”

Additionally, although frontline communities are least responsible for the climate crisis, they suffer disproportionately because of it. Jamaica, and other parts of the Caribbean, have smaller carbon footprints but each hurricane season appears to bring storms worse than the year before. How many more storms can coastal communities navigate?

It’s important to remember that just because we don’t see the suffering doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. The fallout from Hurricane Melissa is in the news today. But long after the headlines of this storm subside, communities will continue to suffer.

Bill Gates has done a great deal of good in the word, but I believe he got this one wrong. Organizers for justice have long argued that the people closest to the pain of an issue should be the ones deciding how to address it. If one subscribes to this notion, you’ll understand why some might take issue with Gates’ seeming about-face.

It is not lost on me that Gates’ change of heart comes on the eve of the Conference of Parties, COP 30. Global leaders gather to discuss the climate crisis at these events. I hope other world leaders reject his premise and champion continued action in solving the climate crisis. Coastal and frontline communities deserve no less.

Jennifer R. Farmer is a crisis communications expert and founder Spotlight PR LLC. The firm helps clients build their platforms and protect their brands.

 

Marvin Winans: What Should be Televised at Church

Posted on

Pastor Marvin Winans recently went viral for appearing to shame a woman, Roberta McCoy, for contributing $1,200 when he asked for $2,000. The viral moment, occurred in front of his church community, even as the woman’s young son or grandson stood beside her. The bible is clear in 2 Corinthians 9:7 “Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” Moreover, $1200 is a lot of money. It should have been welcomed with glee. The moment struck me as wholly inappropriate and deeply disturbing.

Generally speaking, Black people can be very generous. We consistently give to our friends and family, to our churches and to institutions which we believe in. We give even when it hurts.

Data has consistently shown that despite the racial wealth gap, Black people give a greater share of the wealth than do counterparts. In a 2020 article for the Washington Post, personal finance columnist Michelle Singletary noted:

“Black donors don’t just give to the church. Their largesse generally falls into three categories: ‘Cornerstone’ (giving to higher education and the arts), ‘Kinship’ (donating to organizations serving the Black community) and ‘Sanctified’ (supporting Black churches).”

For this reason, pressure campaigns feel off. Black people will, especially to churches.

Next, the woman’s son was standing beside her? I’m curious what it felt like to the child to watch his pastor berate his mother in front of the congregation and the broader viewing audience?

To be clear, Marvin Winans has spoken out, offering an explanation of his intentions and purpose in raising the offering. McCoy, the woman in question, has similarly spoken out, noting she didn’t feel berated or humiliated. But how is the child? What did this moment, or the ensuing moments, feel like for him? And what message does this send to this child about how pastors interact with parishioners.

Finally, why was the offering broadcast in the first place? I always thought the purpose of broadcasting church was to share the gospel with the world. If this is true, the only portion that should be broadcasted is the sermon.

There is absolutely no need to showcase the offering call or even, the altar call. I’ve said before that those two components of church can be difficult. If you grew up in a church that was really heavy-handed or dogmatic, you could have a lot of fear around the altar call or appeals for money. In some places of worship, the altar call can be fear-based, leaving many to question where they stand with God. Similarly, the offering call can be rife with pressure campaigns and manipulation.

No one should have to put armor on to go to church. My prayer is that the Black church, including celebrity pastors, will be more sensitive to what these portions of service feel like for church-goers.

Regardless of the explanation Winans provided, people are going to watch that video and draw their own conclusions. We don’t know Winans’ intentions; and I think the church could avoid these kinds of things if they were more careful in how they raise offerings, and more selective in what is televised.

Jennifer R. Farmer is a crisis communications expert and founder Spotlight PR LLC. The firm helps clients build their platforms and protect their brands.

Unpacking the Taylor Swift PR Machine

Posted on

If you want a primer on what successful brand management entails, look no further than Taylor Swift. One of the biggest pop stars of the 21st century, Swift burst onto the scene in 2006. Originally a country music artist, Swift eventually switched to pop music. With a career spanning almost two decades, Swift has celebrated one chart-topping hit after another.

She’s not been without controversy, however. Cultural commentators and some fans recently slammed the icon for a needless dig at sportsbroadcaster Kayla Nicole – her finance’s ex-girlfriend – on the song, Opalite. While she definitely could have gone without doing so, Swift has still maintained a devoted following.

Her PR success is worth a case study. I have neither the time nor the bandwidth to do so at this moment, yet I’m still interested in briefly unpacking Swift’s PR machine.

Before doing so, let me provide a brief primer on public relations. Public relations is the management of one’s relationship with various publics. While it considers numerous components, most people are referring to media relations when they talk about PR, especially where celebrities are concerned. That’s the lens I’ll use for this post.

You may ask what makes Swift so unique or what her PR machine entails. There are at least four elements that contribute to Swift’s enduring appeal and worldwide stardom.

Appeals to multiple demographics.

I was stunned to learn a few years ago that Swift appealed to girls as young as 6. A handful of kids in our old neighborhood sold bracelets, hoping to raise enough money to attend a Taylor Swift concert. I quickly learned that Swift easily appealed to little girls, to tweens, Gen Z, millennials and Gen X fans. This vast age range of supporters means that her fanbase will never subside. Young girls may admire her look and style. They may not know her the lyrics to all her songs, nor should they. But by appealing to young girls, she gives herself a longer period of time to ingratiate herself to this audience. Millennials and Gen X may relate to Swift’s truth-telling around relationships. The fact that she appeals to so many different demographics gives her an opportunity to generate goodwill, over a lengthy period of time, among a broader array of people.

Longevity.

Most successful brands have longevity. They do not go away. The longer they are on the market the greater the exposure. Taylor Swift has been on the scene for almost twenty years. In addition to longevity, she’s earned multiple chart-topping hits. This alone gives the media multiple opportunities to cover her, which in terms increases her exposure and brand awareness. Accordingly, roughly half of Americans consider themselves to be Taylor Swift fans, according to a 2024 Harris Poll. This says nothing of the people who self-identify as Swifties and would drop between $5,000 to $14,000 to see her at a concert or festival.

Embodiment of the typical American woman.

When many people envision the typical American girl, they picture someone like Taylor Swift. That is, someone who is relatable, or someone who could easily be their daughter, sister, niece or friend. While the nation is incredibly diverse, given its history with slavery and racism, many people only see European when they think of what it means to be American. Swift benefits from this representation of America. America loves people who project the image that it has of itself. To be clear, I’m stating what is, not what I believe to be right.

Honesty around Heartbreak.

Most people will experience heartbreak at one point or another. While heartbreak is part of the life experience, not everyone is comfortable talking about love deferred on a large stage. When a romantic relationship ends, many celebrities paint a rosy picture of what happened, with some version of “I wish X or Y the best.” Not Swift. She has been known to use her relationships as the basis for large chunks of her music. “We are Never Getting Back Together,” “Dear John,” or “I Knew You Were Trouble,” were successful because they articulated sentiments shared by many. Swift has a whole catalog of songs about heartbreak and those songs have done very well. So not only is she singing about failed relationships, but she’s signaling to her fans that she is just like them, and that she’s not afraid to share her heart.

Unpacking Swift’s PR machine looks like examining each of these factors and more. This is because public relations isn’t just about what you say. It’s also about how you make people feel. To the extent that you can take people on a never-ending journey, affirming that you are just like them, is the extent to which your brand will skyrocket. If you commit yourself to never giving up, you can’t help but to find success.

Jennifer R. Farmer, aka The PR Whisperer®, is an author, lecturer and strategic communications expert. Check out our blog posts and subscribe for updates. 

Reality Stars: When the Image Doesn’t Match Reality

Posted on

Contrary to perception, reality stars experience many of the same things as everyone else.

I recently learned of allegations of insurance fraud involving Real Housewives of Potomac reality star Wendy Osefo, and her husband Edward. The couple were arrested and booked on 16 charges, including 7 felonies. Revelation of their arrest was shocking.

Osefo was previously a visiting assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University and a media commentator. Her husband, an attorney, runs a cannabis business called Happy Eddie. Suffice it to say, few were expecting the pair to face criminal proceedings.

Certainly, the couple should be considered innocent until proven guilty. As tragic as their predicament is, it is a reminder that being on a reality show, or on television, doesn’t mean a person is wealthy, or financially responsible.

Not Always Further Along

Too many times, the public can be lured into a reality of wealth that simply doesn’t exist. There is a perception that the people we see on television or on our social media feeds are so much further along than the rest of us. That’s not always the case.

Reality stars must manage their budgets like everyone else. While they may have more coming in than the average person, they still must make difficult financial choices. Few people – regardless of income – can spend whatever they want, when they want, without forethought and planning. Most people will never get to a place where they aren’t making choices about what they buy, when they buy it, and the opportunity cost for doing so.

In explaining her disbelief about the Osefo’s legal troubles, fellow Real Housewives of Potomac star Candice Dilliard Bassett said the pair had a ‘very successful marijuana business.’ I’ve heard others, in expressing their shock, note that ‘Eddie is an attorney.’ I want to break down why these labels have very little bearing on financial health.

What is a Successful Business

On the first point, having a business doesn’t make it successful. The only way to determine if a company is successful is to look at its financials, including profit and loss, retained earnings, and bank account statements. Additionally, some companies are so debt-laden that every sale is earmarked for servicing debt. The public – and even friends – have little way of knowing the status of a business, unless they see its financials.

Not All Lawyers Are Rich

There is also a misconception that all lawyers are rich. According to the American Bar Association, the average wage for a lawyer was $176,470 in 2023. If you make $60,000 per year, $176,470 per year may seem like a wonderful salary. While admirable, this salary is not what all lawyers command. Depending on one’s industry and experience, the average wage for a lawyer could be far lower. What is more, if a lawyer has tons of law school debt, a portion of whatever they earn must be directed to serving debt, reducing their discretionary income.

Additionally, a $176,000 salary, while nice, does not connote true wealth. A high-net-worth individual has between $1 million and $5 million in liquid assets, according to NerdWallet.

Same Economic Reality

In closing, many people must manage what they have – whether that is a $75,000 per year salary or a $750,000 annual income. If history has taught us anything it is that reality stars live with the same economic realities as the rest of us. In any industry, there are standouts, but most people are a few life circumstances away from financial ruin.

This matter presents a choice for the rest of us: we can live within our means, and question para-social relationships with reality stars and celebrities. Alternatively, we can try to keep up with the jones, even if doing so costs of us everything.

I pray we shun the temptation to live above our means or pursue ill-gotten gains.

Jennifer R. Farmer, aka The PR Whisperer®, is an author, lecturer and strategic communications expert. See her other blog posts and subscribe for updates. 

Three Unmistakable Traits of High Net Worth Individuals

Posted on

Over the course of my life, I have met a handful of high net worth individuals. These individuals were chain grocery store owners, housing developers, entrepreneurs, asset managers, etc. In some cases, it was not immediately apparent the individual was wealthy. Even in situations where I discerned the person had extreme wealth, I had to listen carefully to both what was articulated and what was unspoken.

I’ve discovered that truly wealthy individuals, or people with net worths over $2.2 million dollars, have a series of traits that testify to their financial security. Here are the traits that stand out most:

They value their time.

If a wealthy person loses their money, they can earn more money if they have the time to recoup loses, the right mindset, and networks. Wealthy people value their time, understanding they cannot redeem it. They prefer to spend their time on things that deliver the highest return on investment. Because time is so important, many wealthy people aren’t going to spend all of their time on social media – unless they run a social media business. If you want to know if a person is truly wealthy, watch how they value and spend their time.

They tend to be philanthropically inclined.

People with deep wealth tend to be philanthropically inclined. Many give quite generously to causes that matter to them. When I was in college, I was a part of a ‘Keidaean Honor Society.’ It was an exclusive, unique to the University of Rochester, honor society. When I graduated, I was invited to a reception of all prior Keidaeans. I put on my Sunday best and walked into the room, determined to make a lasting impression. Nothing could have prepared me for what I would experience.

The event was designed to spur donations for the University. Multiple people explained why they made multi-million-dollar donations to the university. One person announced a $4 million dollar gift; another, a $3 million dollar gift. I quickly discovered that I was the exception in that I could probably only give a few hundred dollars.  Nothing about the people who publicized their gifts communicated, ‘I’m loaded.’ In that moment, I learned an enduring lesson: real wealth is not always demonstrated in what a person wears but rather, in how they give.

They can be modest.

The next thing I’ve observed is that some wealthy people are modest. In some cases, modesty is a personal choice, and in other instances, it is a practical decision. Revealing the scope of one’s wealth can put a person in danger. Certainly, some high net worth people are flashier than others. Years ago, I met a man who owned a series of grocery stores in upstate New York and along the East Coast. When he walked into the room, it was clear that there was nothing average about him.

Other than this individual, most of the high net worth people I’ve met have been very modest. I only knew they had wealth after a series of conversations, or by observing their financial contributions to their local community. For these reasons, when I hear a person bragging about how much they have, it is an immediate red flag.

It’s quite possible that these observations stand out to me because I do not belong to the same socio-economic class as the individuals I referenced. High net worth individuals likely belong to networks of other high networth individuals. They likely experience life with people in their class-strata.

Social Media Democratizes Attention; Not Wealth

In closing, I wrote this blog because it’s tempting to look at people on TV and ascribe wealth to them that they may not have. It’s also easy to monitor social media feeds and compare oneself to the highlight reels of others. But please keep in mind that social media tends to democratize attention.

Anyone can develop a platform and reach thousands of people. Having a large platform isn’t an indication that a person is high net worth any more than seeing a person on television.

While there are lots of people with extreme wealth, many have very specific traits that characterize them. Look for the traits, not the outward appearance of wealth.

Jennifer R. Farmer, aka The PR Whisperer®, is an author, lecturer and strategic communications expert. See her other blog posts and subscribe for updates. 

Good Intentions Are Not a Defense

Posted on

When you hear about a scandal or controversy involving a prominent leader or celebrity, what is the first thing that comes to mind? After shock, maybe it’s disappointment. You may have looked up to the person and feel let down by their mistake. However, I hope at some point you settle in on an acknowledgement that anyone can make a mistake. To be clear, I am not referencing criminal wrongdoing that involves the victimization of others. I am talking about ethical challenges that can upend a person’s life and career.

This explains why the wise implement guardrails and safety nets that offer a degree of protection. Here are three reasons why guardrails are so important.

Good intentions are not a defense.

Most people don’t wake up and decide to throw their lives away. Instead they compromise, cut corners, and gradually lower their standards. Before a person realizes it, they’ve made a catastrophic mistake. If you ask some of the people who have made life-altering errors, about their mindset, many will tell you that they had the best of intentions. However, good intentions will not protect you. Systems can offer protection. This is key because we are not inherently virtuous. Even the best of us is subject to fail. When we do fail, we should quickly acknowledge and make amends for our shortcomings.

Each of us needs guardrails to protect ourselves and others.

If we operate from the premise that anyone can make a mistake, the question becomes, what guardrails can be implemented to protect yourself. Guardrails can be people, policies or practices. For instance, one guardrail might be ensuring there are people in your life who have the authority to hold you accountable. Other guardrails might include external review over major decisions. To implement guardrails, we must think carefully about areas in our life that must be carefully managed. Awareness is the first step; acting on what we know is the next. If we are honest about who we are, where we struggle, and what we need, we will be one step closer to protecting ourselves and others.

There is no such thing as a perfect leader.

At the end of the day, we are all human. Everyone is navigating one struggle or another; even those who appear polished, poised and perfect. If we view people as people and not gods, we will be less apt to bestow virtues on others which they have not earned. We may also protect ourselves from falling victim to the latest scam or scheme. In other words, we shouldn’t look for the perfect leader; that person doesn’t exist.

Jennifer R. Farmer, aka The PR Whisperer®, is an author, lecturer and strategic communications expert. Check out our blog posts and subscribe for updates. 

What Can the Uncle Nearest Farm Credit Lawsuit Teach Us?

Posted on

I have been completely captivated by Fawn Weaver and the Uncle Nearest brand, which Weaver and her husband Keith built from the ground up. For years, I was blown away by their meteoric rise, purported $1.1 billion valuation, and impact on the bourbon industry. I actually wanted to interview Mrs. Weaver on a podcast I host for women of faith.

As a public relations professional, I was also impressed with the seeming round the clock media coverage Fawn Weaver maintained. Trust me, that isn’t easy.

Perhaps this is why I was surprised to hear about the lawsuit brought by Farm Credit Mid-America against the Weavers, their company, Uncle Nearest Distillery and the Uncle Nearest whiskey brand. In its federal lawsuit, the lender alleged that the Weavers and related loan parties, defaulted on loans totaling $108 million. Now, the company has been placed under receivership and some are questioning if the business is solvent.

To be clear, receivership doesn’t mean the Weavers lose ownership of the company. To the contrary, it means that the court has appointed someone to help turn the company around and preserve the lender’s collateral. On August 22, we learned that Judge Charles Atchley has appointed Phillip G. Young, Jr. of Thompson Burton, PLLC as receiver of Uncle Nearest.

My immediate question upon reading about the Farm Credit lawsuit was how can a company valued at over $1 billion dollars struggle to pay its bills. I didn’t appreciate that a $1.1 billion valuation doesn’t translate to that amount of cash in the bank.

Still, the Farm Credit lawsuit runs counter to the narrative I had about the Weavers and the Uncle Nearest brand. As I’ve dived into this story, almost with cult-like devotion, there are several things that have caught my attention.

Here’s what stands out to me about this lawsuit.

At the same time, Fawn Weaver was on a media blitz promoting her book, “Love & Whiskey,” her company may have been facing serious financial headwinds. Over the past year alone, Weaver has been interviewed on prominent podcasts and featured in outlets such as The Grio, the New York Times, Forbes, Axios, Black Enterprise, NewsOne, etc. Is it a contradiction to highlight the success of your business while simultaneously navigating lawsuits from some vendors and creditors?

Weaver’s characterization of the Farm Credit Mid-America lawsuit is unsettling.

When news of the Farm Credit lawsuit broke, Weaver took to her Instagram account and noted, “the first to speak seems right until someone comes forward to cross examine.” If her company in fact owes this money, which her husband  acknowledges they do, why issue such a statement? Such public comments will only anger the court; I fear they will not help the legal case.

Setting this lawsuit aside, it appears that the Uncle Nearest Distillery and brand is in serious debt. To be clear, debt alone isn’t the issue for some creditors. Many businesses (mine included) carry some degree of debt. Being able to service the debt is where creditors place their focus.

The Farm Credit Mid-America lawsuit is not the only one facing the company.

Unfortunately, the Weavers appears to be staring down other lawsuits as well. For instance:

In addition to the lawsuits, at least some investors appear to be growing impatient. I’m curious; what is going on with this beloved company?

That Nathan ‘Nearest’ Green, a formerly enslaved master distiller, taught Jack Daniels how to make whiskey, and is finally being recognized for his prowess and ingenuity is admirable. But were we all enticed by a good story? Did we stop asking questions? As a culture, maybe we should be asking ourselves what this lawsuit teaches us about ourselves. Why were so many media outlets interviewing Weaver without scrutinizing the details of her business?

In fairness, I’m not sure how the average person could confirm the valuation of a company. It still baffles the mind that there was headline after headline about how Fawn Weaver built a billion-dollar brand. Yet I don’t recall many articles breaking down how the company reached that valuation and how some in the media confirmed the valuation. This matter is a reminder that the media reports a story, but we have to do our own research.

Saliency in media doesn’t mean a company is profitable

Fawn Weaver is an excellent marketer. In under a decade, she has gone from relatively unknown to a household name, at least for the whiskey lover and the aspiring entrepreneur. But media appearances prove a company or leader has a great story and a savvy PR team. That’s it. Media coverage doesn’t mean that a company is profitable or well-run.

As I end, I want to note that we can celebrate the Uncle Nearest story and brand, and still be curious about the Weavers’ apparent struggles. This doesn’t diminish Fawn and Keith Weaver’s accomplishments. They’ve achieved what many have yet to conceive. Perhaps that is why this is such a sad chapter in an otherwise compelling book.

 

Jennifer R. Farmer, aka The PR Whisperer®, is an author, lecturer and strategic communications expert. Check out our blog posts and subscribe for updates. 

Recent Articles

In the Media