Even when corporations spend millions of dollars to compensate victims and try to improve after a disaster or crisis, the expense has no public affairs value if corporation leaders can't learn to "apologize credibly," a crisis expert told those attending the Public Affairs Council's fall board meeting.

In fact, Dr. Peter Sandman told those at the two-day gathering in Phoenix, Ariz., that spending money this way "is much more expensive than admitting it, getting yelled at and saying you're sorry."

Sandman, who has consulted clients during oils spills, labor management disputes and other controversies that threatened company reputations, frequently used the recent BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to illustrate why public affairs professionals must first identify the precise "risk" or "crisis" their company faces before deciding how to act.

When people are frightened or angry about what a company believes to be a low risk - such as the chance of developing cancer by living near an emission-spewing factory - data, statistics, refutations and defensiveness will not placate people, warned Sandman, who calls this a situation in which the hazard is low, but outrage is high. In such circumstances, he says, company officials must first let people vent.

"Then an interesting thing happens," Sandman said. "The experience of watching you listen and not respond provokes in them a desire to know what you think." Company officials, he said, should start their conversation with a question, such as: "Let me first understand what you're telling me: A lot of people are angry that we did X; a lot of people think we should have done Y; and a lot of people believe they want us to do Z."

But when companies want to raise awareness about serious hazards that provoke little outrage, the task if different: They must use what Sandman calls "precaution advocacy." For example, if people are apathetic about the hazards associated with smoking, the job is to keep the message short, make it interesting and stay on message.

"Precaution advocacy and outrage management are two very different things," Sandman said. "You can be good at both, but you need two different toolkits."

Finally, when both hazard and outrage are high - such as after BP's oil spill - the company's task is to adopt what Sandman calls a "Catholic-like" doctrine of confession and penance: Admit your wrongdoing, let people vent, say you're sorry and make reparations.

"Apologies that come too soon don't count," Sandman said. "Venting is a prerequisite to hearing your apology."

And an effective apology, he added, expresses regret and sympathy for victims.

While BP did a good job of expressing regret after the recent spill, he said, "you never got much sense of sympathy." Moreover, during congressional hearings, company executives repeatedly told lawmakers it was "too soon to say" whether the company was responsible for the disaster.

Sandman contrasted those hearings with the behavior of BP executives two decades ago after a spill off California's Huntington and Newport beaches. While lawyers cautioned against admitting liability, BP communications experts warned that "outrage would metastasize" if the company deflected responsibility by saying the BP oil spilled from a contract tanker that BP didn't own.

The statement that everyone agreed upon, Sandman said, was this: "Our lawyers tell us that legally, it's not our fault, but we feel like it's our fault. And we're going to act like it's our fault."

The lesson, Sandman said, was this: "It's possible to take moral responsibility without taking legal responsibility."

Those attending the board meeting also heard from Stanford University Vice President of Public Affairs David Demarest and IBM Corp. Director of Corporate Citizenship and Public Affairs Ann Cramer, who discussed the concept of "stakeholders" and how to reach and influence them.

During a Thursday evening speech, former Rep. and SEC Chairman Christopher Cox warned participants that if federal spending continues at current levels, the nation would soon face a multi-trillion-dollar deficit that may be impossible to manage.