Posts Tagged ‘crisis management’

#Crisis or #Controversy: #PR Steps for Managing Protests

Monday, April 30th, 2012

By Mary Beth West, APR

In my early career, I worked in corporate communications for a highly successful company that managed private-sector prisons, jails and detention facilities for local, state and federal government agencies across the U.S. – and even some facilities internationally.

The experience provided my first front-line experience with seeing just how complicated controversies and crises could be.  

I remember one occasion in Florida where the company was seeking to site a county jail facility in a fairly rural area.  The local Chamber of Commerce decided to host a community forum for the public to discuss the issue with elected officials. 

Off I was sent to Florida to help represent the company, where I fully expected to hear diverse points of view.  In my naiveté at the time, I had no idea the level of raw emotion I would see thrown in the company’s face – or mine – from picket signs and near-tearful opposition testimonies to venom-eyed stare-downs by people I’d never met before.   I left the event that night with local law enforcement escorting me to my car and my hoping that no one followed my co-workers and me back to our hotel.

That was in the mid- to late-1990s.  Our company didn’t even use external e-mail at the time.  To that point, I certainly didn’t know what I didn’t know back then . . . that in terms of complicated, I’d seen nothing yet. 

Interestingly, though, in the area of staging protests, many of the same tactics of yesteryear remain firmly entrenched in the toolbox of people who wish to organize around a common cause and state their case in as big a way as possible.

When a company or organization is confronted with a protest movement of any sort, there are several rules of thumb:

  • Take it seriously, even if it’s small or seemingly disorganized.  Controversies can morph into crises quickly, and you never know how it might evolve and gain steam quickly. 
  • Get at the heart of the matter.  Establish a point of contact within the group’s leadership.  What is the protest about, and does it have legitimacy?  Identify all of the protestor messages that involve your organization, its performance, its policies, etc. . . . whatever the situation involves. 
  • Engage legal counsel.  While PR and legal experts sometimes disagree about certain aspects of responding to protest movements – particularly how communications should be handled to avoid liability issues – it’s still important to have all voices at the table for the full management team to make informed decisions. 
  • Determine if there are indeed issues that need to be addressed publicly.  If the protest organization is small, contained and/or seems to be operating with a logical mindset (which sometimes isn’t the case), it could be prudent to work with the group on a one-to-one basis to address their issues, which in rare instances can nip the whole issue in the bud without a public spectacle.  At the opposite end of the spectrum, however, “fringe” groups can pose risks completely apart from the apparent issue at hand.  Be aware if security or law enforcement needs to be contacted.
  • If the protest movement has little to no legitimacy with regard to the validity of its claims or otherwise includes protestors who behave unreasonably or erratically, be careful about interactions or communications that inadvertently lend credence to the protestors where none is deserved.
  • At the same time, maintain a consistent undertone of respect, restraint and control – particularly with media communications. 
  • Keep your message simple, direct and above all, honest.
  • Avoid public “forums” for discussing the issues at hand – harkening back to my Florida experience.  Generally, the only winners of those things are the protestors.  In areas of government, it’s often difficult or impossible to avoid these situations resulting from sunshine laws and governance requirements – in which case, the critical factors are detailed preparation, clear messaging and as much control over the venue as possible.

Above all – you need to remain proactive enough that you’re staying in control of your own organization’s actions and communications and not being manipulated by others.  By being responsive from the onset, these issues potentially can be contained and, hopefully, successfully concluded.

Schwinge: Being Prepared Makes or Breaks Companies during a #Crisis or Controversy

Thursday, April 26th, 2012

By Amy Schwinge, MAOM

In real estate, it’s location, location, location. 

During a crisis or controversy, it’s preparedness, preparedness, preparedness. 

Most people know in their specialized fields of work the majority of the possible crises or controversies that can occur. 

Have you or the leadership in your company ever sat down and listed all of the possible crises and controversies that you can think of possibly happening at your organization? 

If so, congratulations – you’ve completed the first step in creating a crisis communications plan. If not, start planning and getting prepared for a potential crisis by thinking through possible scenarios.

Whether it is a true crisis or a minor controversy, public relations plays a huge role.

In my career, I have participated on crisis preparedness teams for a couple of different corporations.  The role of the public relations professional was to communicate about the crisis to both internal and external audiences, which can be very tricky, especially in this day and age of social media and smart phones. 

You want to get your key message out internally and externally before someone else takes a photo or video from their smart phone and posts it on Facebook or YouTube, for example.

The key is being prepared with all of the possible scenarios, then plugging in the related information if and when a crisis or controversy occurs. So, your organization is as ready as it can be.

Check out this link for some case studies and tips for using technology during a crisis.

It is never too late to get prepared!

 

 

 

Bogardus: “#Crisis or #Controversy? Understand the Difference in #PR / Take 2″

Saturday, April 14th, 2012

By Joe Bogardus

Last week, Mary Beth West outlined in the first installment of “Crisis or Controversy? Understand the Difference in PR” a series of actions every public relations practitioner needs to take when confronted with a potential company crisis.

Those key points are worth repeating here: 

  • “Think through a Top 10 list of things that have happened or could happen to your company, along with their likelihood of happening in the future.  Don’t forget to look at competitors’ past crisis situations and resulting media coverage as well.
  • Evaluate each scenario by the laws of cause-and-effect.  If X happens, then who is impacted?  What are the stakeholder numbers, and how large are their spheres of influence? 
  • Which scenarios have the greatest possibility to damage reputation and brand – not just operations and infrastructure?  Good insurance can cover a factory fire in a matter of months; brand damage can last decades.”

A key element of executing the above actions is in making sure you have the facts. Often, this aspect is the greatest challenge of all in your analysis.

Whenever I was thrust into a company crisis situation, I recalled the words of a former journalism instructor: “The facts and nothing but the facts.” This same instructor was a stickler for preaching about making sure you had a second – and sometimes, even a third – corroborating source.

Gathering this information in the face of a burgeoning crisis adds to the stressfulness of the situation, but it is critical to guide you through the three steps Mary Beth recommends.

Without the proper information, a potential controversy could actually explode into a crisis.

#Crisis or #Controversy? Understand the Difference in #PR

Friday, April 6th, 2012

By Mary Beth West, APR

Ever work for a company that went into the whole Chicken Little routine whenever a minor incident or perceived criticism occurred?

At the opposite end of the spectrum, most public relations professionals’ worst nightmare is a real-deal crisis unfolding (or on the cusp of unfolding) and the decision-makers go into deer-in-the-headlights mode or “paralysis by analysis.” 

It served me well to learn early in my career the differences between a matter that was just an annoyance (a customer with unrealistic expectations complaining about my client’s company) and one that rose to the level of a true crisis (that same customer with a four-minute audio tape of the company’s call center rep lashing out with expletives over the phone in frustration). 

However, the realities of today often cancel out the crisis-assessment criteria of a decade ago.  Social media has magnified the panic that can unfold when something bad happens, largely because control over communications can become a wild card in a matter of seconds. 

How managers evaluate a situation and its impact – and then react accordingly – says a great deal about a company’s ability either to stay focused through the day-to-day or, to the latter point, survive a potentially chaotic and damaging scenario. 

Some quick tips:

  • Think through a Top 10 list of things that have happened or could happen to your company, along with their likelihood of happening in the future.  Don’t forget to look at competitors’ past crisis situations and resulting media coverage as well.
  • Evaluate each scenario by the laws of cause-and-effect.  If X happens, then who is impacted?  What are the stakeholder numbers, and how large are their spheres of influence? 
  • Which scenarios have the greatest possibility to damage reputation and brand – not just operations and infrastructure?  Good insurance can cover a factory fire in a matter of months; brand damage can last decades.

And most of all – if your company operates within any public realm that avails it to high crisis potential, consider engaging a qualified public relations expert to help your whole team undertake a meaningful planning process . . . one that remains “live” and visible within the company 365 days a year, so that when it’s most needed, it can be put into quick action.

Not every negative thing that happens is a true crisis.  In the event you’re hit with one, though, it’s critical to be prepared.

Susan G. Komen and the PR Profession’s Post-Mortem Race for a Clue

Tuesday, February 7th, 2012

By Mary Beth West, APR 

On some issues of heavy consequence in the public relations profession, it sometimes helps to take a step back and watch the dialogue unfold before formulating an opinion.  I had been doing just that on the Susan G. Komen / Planned Parenthood controversy – until today.  Now, it all seems crystal-clear.

Like everyone else, I saw the maelstrom unfold last week throughout the media.  The manner in which the story broke and how the Komen organization reacted with a policy about-face – followed by tough criticism (“they caved!”) – provides a public relations case study that will live in textbooks throughout the next decade. 

An interesting part about it to me, though, is that different public relations professionals are drawing diverse conclusions about who’s right, who’s wrong, and what the real lessons are relative to brand, reputation and effective organizational decision-making. 

One of my PRSA colleagues, Michael Cherenson, APR, Fellow PRSA, posted an entry on the Public Relations Society of America‘s national blog, “Who Really Owns the Komen Brand?”  In it, Mike makes some spot-on observations about the nature of brand advocacy.  He also poses a critical question in his title.  

I disagree, however, with the direction of his conclusion, in which he seems to indicate that Komen simply made a bad decision to no longer support Planned Parenthood, leaving a majority of former Komen supporters feeling betrayed and turning on the brand.  

To me, the answer of who owns the Komen brand – or at least who seized ownership of it last week – is quite simple:  Planned Parenthood.  

It’s Planned Parenthood’s own brand advocates, in my view, who mounted nothing short of a hostile takeover of the Komen brand in order to railroad their message – and their way – with absolute political genius . . . the notion of tying the breast cancer prevention issue intrinsically with women’s reproductive rights vis-à-vis Komen’s prior financial support of Planned Parenthood, with a deep inference that the two cannot be separated.  

In the face of Komen rescinding its funding, Planned Parenthood made an exceptionally swift, underlying case that Komen was turning its back on women.   And the media ate it up with a spoon, as Planned Parenthood well-knew they would.  The Komen folks didn’t know what hit them, with almost total deer-in-the-headlights confusion as to the messaging subterfuge overtaking their reputation. 

I have to ask the question, was it really Komen donors who were posting all those “Never will I give again!” messages on Facebook, or was it the Planned Parenthood Army?  We’ll see what the coming days of analysis into the Internet record bears out. 

Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal posted an editorial late last night that gives a far better reality-based assessment of Komen’s rationale for its original decision:

“Planned Parenthood has been and is under congressional and criminal investigation (by attorneys general, local prosecutors and various regulatory agencies in Arizona, Indiana, Alabama, Kansas and Texas) for allegations including failure to report criminal child sex abuse, misuse of health-care and family-planning funds, and failure to comply with parental-involvement laws regarding abortions. . . . It is easy to see why Komen might not wish to be associated with Planned Parenthood. Fighting breast cancer is something all Americans can and do agree on; promoting and performing abortions is something that divides us bitterly.” 

In short, there are two sides to this issue, and Komen’s side got completely hijacked. 

Another colleague of mine posted an essay yesterday that, to me, spoke with a great deal of clarity about the real issue at hand for Komen: lack of conviction. 

With characteristic aplomb, Susan Hart, APR, wrote, “Last week’s nightmare of ‘they fund us, they fund us not’ isn’t about funding at all. It’s about who the Susan G. Komen Foundation is. It’s about the organization’s values, priorities and purpose. It’s the up close and personal part of branding that decidedly determines who you are and what you stand for regardless of public sentiment.  And therein lies the multi-level problem for this pink-until-you-puke group.”

Love it. 

And she’s absolutely right. 

Executive Compensation: At What Price Reputation?

Friday, February 3rd, 2012

By Mary Beth West, APR

It’s not without a bit of odd coincidence that our company’s scheduled blog posts for the month of February are set to take on the theme “Demonstrating Value: Transparency and Accountability in Client Services”. . . when one of the biggest executive compensation flaps in recent Knoxville history is unfolding right now

At almost this very time two years ago (January 2010), I wrote a blog post, “The Reputational Fallout of Compensation Run Amok,” prompted at the time by a Barron’s article on the topic of out-of-control executive compensation on Wall Street and Washington’s reaction to it.

Whether an organization is public or private-sector, for-profit or non-profit, executive compensation disclosures can take a real toll on relationships with stakeholders, if compensation levels as well as policies aren’t within some reasonable range of public expectations, particularly given the scale of the organization and the context of its work performance.

Of course, you can’t please everyone on this topic.  Some folks misguidedly think anyone working in the non-profit sector shouldn’t make more than $50K a year.  Non-profits that seek to operate with the performance-driven approach of highly competitive companies generally have to pay quite well to attract commensurate talent in keeping with expectations.

As with practically everything else that can impact public attitudes and opinions, balance is the name of the game. 

Board decisions should be made with an underlying expectation that all information is subject to public disclosure and scrutiny and should let that knowledge serve as some form of guidance on executive compensation parameters.

Penn State’s Crisis and Cultures of Denial

Thursday, November 10th, 2011

By Mary Beth West, APR

Dominating the news since last weekend, the alleged Sandusky crimes and the deep implications for Penn State’s leadership are opening a lot of eyes at iconic institutions across the country: 

Could the same thing happen here? 

If confronted with the deepest and most disturbing allegations of criminal wrongdoing among one of our own – particularly when that “one” is a stalwart figurehead – is our leadership and our culture such that we would do the right thing morally and legally, regardless of the near-term ugliness and damage to the institutional brand?

Every organization should take some serious time well-spent and ask itself these questions.  

Looking at another institution’s misfortune, it’s easy to say, “How could they ever have let that happen?”  (It’s always “they,” right?)

In truth, however, there are many cultural nuances within large institutional settings – be they academic, governmental, corporate or otherwise – that place major obstacles to dealing with these kinds of crises in a timely and effective way. 

It’s certainly not a free pass for making bad decisions, but it’s purely a reality – and as such, it’s something that organizational leaderships must be in tune with and show appropriate judgment and character to manage appropriately, whenever circumstances demand. 

Human instinct almost always is to go through phases of disbelief, denial and hope against hope that if an ugly secret is ignored, it will go away.  As is well-documented, it never does.  Deflection of the truth is generally the next phase . . . “he didn’t see what he thought he saw,” “there is an underlying agenda driving the accusations,” “it’s all a big misunderstanding,” etc., etc. 

That human instinct-based reaction is allowed when it lasts about 30 minutes.  Months, years or decades is quite another matter entirely.  All organizations — collegiate institutions in particular, in light of this case — must fight like crazy the elements in their own cultures that allow these types of instincts to manifest themselves and do their untold damage. 

In particular, managing the additional layer of complication tied to legendary — even mythic — programs and individuals must be dealt with and overcome, and it takes true leaders who hold a real grasp of the risks at stake to make that happen.

Penn State’s board had better pull out all the stops to right the ship to whatever extent doing so is even possible at this juncture.  The president and head coach ousters are only starting points on a road that may take as many years to recovery as they took in the perpetration of Sandusky’s alleged crimes.

 

Remote and Off-Site Resources Critical in a Crisis

Thursday, April 28th, 2011

By Mary Beth West

This week’s flooding in the Midwest and tornados throughout the Southeast should remind organizations of all stripes to include in their crisis plans adequate off-site information and management resources. In some cases, that can mean WAY off-site.

When a company’s facilities are plowed over by a natural disaster that also impacts the larger geographic area, it can throw things into a tailspin that lasts for days or weeks.

Some recommendations:
• Provide employee contact information hard copies to the management team – and perhaps to all of the employee base – to keep at their personal home locations, in the event that employees cannot make it in to the office and need to contact their supervisors or team members. Hard copies help do the trick when power outages or electronic system interferences may render an electronic database inaccessible at one’s home.
• Consider setting up a Yammer account (www.yammer.com) or speak with your IT professional about proprietary capabilities that offer the same kind of social network communications that are closed to people outside the company.
• Scout out one or more off-site locations with office / meeting space and communications capabilities to set up temporary operations, as well as a command center and media center, as a situation might necessitate.
• Partner with your IT provider to make sure computer system back-ups take place daily, with data storage in more than one off-site / out-of-market location.

This list is only a partial set of considerations . . . there are many more. The best way to anticipate as many as may apply to your organization is to conduct a thorough review of potential circumstances and challenges that may be faced in a crisis, including a natural disaster, and get down to the nuts and bolts from there.

Another Look at the BP Oil Spill

Tuesday, April 19th, 2011

By Joe Bogardus

Unbelievably, it has been a year since the horrific BP Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico and the start of the largest oil spill ever experienced in the United States.

As the unfortunate drama unfolded, as a communication professional, I watched as BP mounted a response reflective of its mammoth proportions to address the crisis. After some initial floundering, as the company tried to get a handle on the scope of the accident, its communicators did yeoman’s work in deploying various vehicles in an attempt to tell BP’s side of the story.

They purchased hundreds of TV spots using Gulf natives working for BP espousing the company’s commitment to do the right thing. They assembled (and still have functioning) an impressive website detailing the company’s actions and ongoing commitment to restoring the Gulf. They earmarked billions (with a little arm-twisting from the President) to honor claims from affected residents.  They assembled an array of social media tools to deploy the company message. The CEO went to Congress and apologized as he should.

In the end, they spent millions and millions of dollars doing many of the things most professional communicators would suggest to their clients.

Personally, however, I do not think it was enough. It wasn’t the BP communicators who failed. In my mind, the event was so large and the radius of its impact was so great that any BP message was overwhelmed by the circumstances. Plus, on top of the unprecedented nature of this long-term incident, the former CEO and other management leaders of BP consistently gave detractors ammunition to shoot down the company’s best efforts with a host of impolitic remarks. 

Going forward, the solution for the brand must be to continue substantive efforts for the foreseeable future communicate about those efforts, avoid perceptions about placing profit over distribution of continued relief, and, hopefully, over time mitigate the negativity now associated with the BP brand.

The “Smoldering” Crisis: What to do when a crisis situation slowly unfolds

Monday, April 18th, 2011

By Mary Beth West, APR

Fires.  Explosions.  Crashes.  Natural disasters.  People dead or injured.  Business operations destroyed or seriously impaired. 

When most people think of a company crisis, visions of these types of immediate and overwhelming scenarios often run through their minds.

But what about crises that are slow-moving?  The ones that you can see coming from a mile away yet cannot stop or avert, and upon arrival seem to last an eternity, all the while continuously generating all the wrong headlines as well as all forms of negative attention?

In the profession, we often call these “smoldering crises” – ones that ignite a very slow and steady burn.  Examples include situations involving government regulatory actions, litigation, product recalls, investor or consumer activism, and the list goes on.

Companies and organizations should consider these types of possible scenarios as they formulate and regularly review their crisis management and communications plans.  Just as they should in sudden emergencies, management leaders should keep a proactive mindset when considering how they deal with these types of situations.

Some tips for managing a smoldering crisis:

  • Keep your head out of the sand, and deal with pending situations head-on.  When the possibility of the slow-moving crisis first starts appearing on the horizon, don’t treat it as an aberration that’s bound to amount to nothing.  Valuable planning and response time will be lost when that assumption is proven not to be the case.
  • Get a handle on the crisis scope and potential brand impact.  Understand the mindset of the stakeholders who will be most immediately impacted, taking into account the concentric spheres of influence that each stakeholder group also reaches through their own communities, traditional media, social media, etc.  Don’t be hesitant about using market research ahead of the game to start testing messages as well as public reactions to certain policy stances.
  • Develop the operational and the communications response.  Capture the probable sequence of events expected to unfold in a timeline, then process-map specific actions and messages that should follow accordingly.  Stay flexible and immediately responsive as circumstances change, perhaps unexpectedly. 
  • Make sure legal and communications teams work together effectively.  The CEO has to drive the train here and create an environment in which both areas of expertise are engaged, hold an equal seat at the table and can arrive at reasonable solutions that neither enflame liability risk nor destroy reputation through a policy of non-communication.

Smoldering crises have every bit as much the potential to inflict long-term reputational and financial damage as ones that happen in an instant.  Stay in tune with your organization’s risks for these events, and as always, don’t wait to do tomorrow what you can do today to prepare and respond.