1. Martha kept pretty quiet within her initial response to the public. In my opinion I think she was trying to maintain what she had left of her reputation. If she had been very open about it, there’s the chance she could have ruined her reputation and may not have made a come back.
2. I think a key principle she violated was the fact that she didn’t communicate with the public. Communication is a key factor in public relations.
3. If I had been advising Martha in this case I would have told her how to influence the public’s opinion and keeping her reputation up. Also, that she needs to have some contact with the public. She was letting her lawyers speak for her, but I think that to help influence the public, she needed to say something before the jury made their verdict.
4. I’m not exactly sure how important it was for her to go to jail early. I think she just didn’t want to be done with everything that was going on. She had been in the news for over two years and if she hadn’t decided to put this behind her, the publicity would have continued longer than it did. I can understand that she just wanted to get this mess over with as soon as possible.
5. I think having her get right back into things is a smart move. Coming out of jail people are going to remember that she was sent to prison for obstruction of justice and lying to federal investigators, so I think her best move is to show the public she’s back and ready to kick off her career again. Showing she was coming out of prison a “new Martha Stewart” I think it was good for her to jump back into the spotlight and show the world this didn’t knock him down.
6. As of right now, I don’t think she needs to acknowledge her mistakes. This happened years ago and it’s out of the media now. If she did acknowledge the mistake then it’s going to cause the issue to resurface. As for when this actually happened, it probably would have been good for her to admit a mistake. She handled herself so well throughout the rest of the case, I don’t think it would have reflected negatively on her if she had.
Muffy Lavens 
These are good answers. My only question for you is this. How would admitting the crime ruin her career? Everyone news channel was reporting it, and it was the water cooler discussion of the year. Everyone had some idea of what was going on, so what not hear a little bit from her own mouth? Like you said, lack of communication is against the rules of PR. Also, I think an admission of illegal activity would help sooth the personal attitudes that people had for both Martha and her actions.
I think martha was embarrassed by everything that happend and she didnt want to be confronted by a bunch of people that is why she didnt say anything. I was always told if you had nothing good to say then dont say anything at all. She had no reason to go out and talk to the public/media. She messed up and everything but it doesnt mean she has to get hounded by the media too. I actually thought it was a smart idea for martha to stay quiet so she wouldnt say the wrong thing and make thigns worst and she also just wanted the whole thing to pass as quick as possiable. which is why she went to jail early. The sooner she went the sooner she gets out.
I agree completely with your answers in questions 1-3. I feel it would have been in Martha Stewart’s best interests to retain some form of communication with the public (share-holders in her company) instead of letting her lawyers deal with the press. I agree with your response to question 6 as well. I feel she doesn’t need to acknowledge the fact that she committed a crime. It is in the past. She served her time as her punishment and has moved on.
Muffy, Chris and Chris,
I’m ambivalent about whether Martha needed to admit to any mistakes or failures. Should she say she was wrong if she sincerely believes she wasn’t? In the long run, I don’t think any damage to her reputation was permanent because the ‘Martha brand’ is everywhere (Macy’s, K-Mart, Lowe’s, her magazine, her TV show, etc., etc.)!
Dr. Schultz