Crisis Communications

1. Annual Conferences, key communication events or commercial craftiness?

   Published on Wednesday, February 10th, 2010

   Annual industry conferences are key communications events for most sectors. The opportunity to hear directly from people who have particular insight or influence in your sector is a particular draw-card for delegates and sector commentators alike.  With this in mind, a small story in The Press last Friday bears some reflection.

   Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee elected not to be the keynote speaker at the Power & Electricity World summit, an annual industry conference, albeit organised by a commercial conference operator.

   Brownlee said that with major reforms going through the select committee process, he did not want to be forming any positions. While there may be a sinter of truth in the Minister’s explanation, the parliamentary process hasn’t stopped the minister boxing Meridian’s ears several times over its comments on the proposed reform, including in his op-ed piece in yesterday’s edition of the Otago Daily Times.

   As if to bolster his reasons for not speaking at the conference, the Minister also complained of the registration cost and commercial nature of the conference to which he was invited, as well as claiming he was being used to promote it, as “part of their product”.

   Mixed messages, indeed, from our Minister of Energy.  A reluctance to engage in debate while the reforms are before the select committee is not unreasonable.  But why then take to Meridian via the media on the same reforms?  Ministers will often specify entirely valid no-go areas when speaking at events, but it does not preclude an appearance.

   While the Minister may now be reticent about involvement in “commercial” conferences, what was his disposition when National was seeking to extricate itself from the Opposition benches? As I recall, any forum was a good one for National MPs, commercially-based or otherwise. 

   The realities are: Ministers are expected to deliver speeches almost anytime-anywhere, and although we may bridle against them, commercial conference arrangements are a reality for most industry sectors, largely due to the organisational and associated costs such as venues, catering and speakers’ travel.

   Politicians use these forums when it suits them, and it is a bit rich to be railing against such conferences once comfortably seated in a ministerial chair.

   

2. Curious questions for a new decade

   Published on Monday, January 25th, 2010

   1. Where did the man on the street go?

   Web 2.0 where? We wondered if the exuberance around the democratising power of the all-access-internet we saw mid-decade hasn’t become a bit deflated in the past year or so. Could the man on the online street have been shouted out by the noisier and better resourced?

   With a host of new web tools and loads of corporates, newsmakers, brands, politicians and NGO’s joining in the discussions, there is real concern over authenticity of content.

   We need the man on the street to speak out to ensure the balance of power remains fair.  We need genuine two-way conversations, or this fantastic medium will become another advertising forum with one-sided conversations.  Certainly the economic downturn has redirected people’s focus, but we are predicting a comeback of the everyday opinionated. And what a comeback it will be!

   2. Will the media make it? 

   Of course they will, but in what form? They have copped it with both barrels and boy it shows.  Barrel one – technological change has seen news content migrate online without a viable commercial model. Second barrel – audiences largely want their news ‘without’ advertising at a time, place and in digital format of their choice. Add in the reduced effectiveness of traditional advertising, which bankrolls most media, and ouch.

   Some outfits will no doubt falter, but by the decades end we are likely to be paying for quality news one way or another, and we won’t mind or probably even notice. Check out the New York Times who are on the brink of making it pay and they need to, because let’s face it, delivering real news real well costs a packet.

   3. Why are we more interested in the fallen mighty than the mighty issues?
    
   Despite the scary state of the world (think world peace, climate change and economic upheavals), celebrity news will always win the day.  The value in seeing the private foibles of the mighty such as our media stars, politicians, business leaders and sports stars played out in public is immense.  We think it might have something to do with the fact that it makes people feel better about their own lives, knowing that even the rich and famous don’t get it right all of the time.

   To err is human and to recover is clearly seriously divine. Unfortunately the message to the impressionable is that professional success allows for serious personal failures – providing we apologise.  All it takes for those in the public eye who have been caught out is to make a heartfelt mea culpa, fall on their sword or better still, check in to rehab, and all is forgiven – eventually.  While it might take our mind off the real issues at hand, it prompts real concerns for the impact it might have on younger generations.  Do some media not have a responsibility to truly hold these people to account in the people’s court?

   4. Is there a journalist in the house?

   The principles of the 4th estate are to hold the powerful accountable, to scrutinise and to provide transparent information on behalf of the citizenship so we can all choose how to vote, work, or shop.  This scrutiny requires experienced, thoughtful people working in an environment free of hefty commercial imperatives.  That’s a big ask given an environment where newsrooms are stretched to their limit, and media owners are screaming for more efficiencies to drive profit they now can no longer raise from advertisers.

   But never fear, journalists are a nuggety lot, and while it will take some time, we predict the next decade will see the rise and rise of the individual journalist.  Once the true value of their content is understood, and we have a workable way to pay for it, the face of news is set to change for the good.  This new breed will be real life crusaders with massive spheres of influence standing clear of news organisations to become brands in their own right, and they will cover the gamut of political viewpoints, single handed.

   5. To Blog or not to Blog?

   Our final question is an easy one really and the answer is an emphatic yes! While we may be a tiny drop in the Blog Ocean of billions, we are determined to shine in our own way.  We hope you keep following us and using your people power to ask the questions and pose new issues.

   

3. Tiger Tiger burning bright…and crashing*

   Published on Friday, December 11th, 2009

   While the media still can’t get quite enough of the story, some quarters have gone quiet on Tiger Woods. 

   After his ho-hum apology, Tiger is giving the world the silent treatment in a strategy to deal with the ruckus over the snowballing allegations of multiple infidelities. Keeping Mum is not a bad idea, in truth, particularly while the appetite for scandal is still sky high, and anything he says will have news editor eager to keep him selling papers. 

   Bizarre indeed was the sight of the feckless cocktail waitress, one of his alleged partners in this concupiscence, publicly apologising to Tiger’s wife on global TV for her part in the dalliance.  Just what Mrs Woods wanted, I’m sure.

   But there is another quarter that appears to have quietly turned its back on the sport star – and these are his sponsors.

    According to a report in the LA Times data compiled by the Nielsen ratings company, no Woods ads have appeared on television since Nov. 29, two days after he crashed his Cadillac SUV outside his home in Florida.

   This has got to hurt. Forbes have his sponsorships worth $110 million.
   
   Across a range of big swinging brands like Nike, Gillette, PepsiCo Inc.’s, Gatorade and Tag Heur, the sponsors’ response plan appears to be to keep aspirational images of Tiger out of the public’s face until this blows over.  Given their substantial investments in this “property,” brand managers are holding their breath and hoping like mad that the worst is over for the golden boy of golf. Meanwhile golf viewers are switching off in droves – TV ratings for golf down 50% – affecting advertising revenues.

   Which reminds me, golf is what Tiger does exceptionally well.  Before he became the pin-up boy for multicultural morality and family values, perhaps we could all return to the real game, please?

   * apologies to poet William Blake

   

4. Why the media won’t get this particular Tiger by his tail

   Published on Thursday, December 3rd, 2009

   It’s been interesting to watch the sports media trying to take the Tiger Woods story to new levels – despite his almost complete silence on the matter, until this morning, that is, when he offered further comment. Until now, in the absence of any new information, the story had become one about him not talking to the media. 

   In fact, coverage had descended to a debate amongst various journalists around how he and his camp are handling the matter and if this might be the right or wrong approach. 

   It is a bit like a kiwi rugby fan watching an All Black game and offering what usually sounds to me like very useful advice on their performance.  Why don’t the real coaches do the same thing if it is so obvious? 

   Of course the Tiger coverage and AB commentary are symptoms of only seeing the situation from one perspective – from the outside looking in. Very few people know the full story, but even more importantly, only those on the inside know what the overall strategy is.  So what’s really the end-goal here? 

   In the case of issues being played out in the media – the response, or lack thereof, may have very little to do with that strategy, or it could be a key plank in the strategy. Likely we will never know.  Most important are the people directly affected, and the task of the issues manager is ensuring their needs are met. 

   In managing any issue, the needs of all of the stakeholders and key audiences need to be considered. Sure, media are critical, but they may be one of many.  Similarly corporate reputation is important, but not at the expense of others. (In Tiger Woods’ case, I suspect his wife could be slightly more important. But then again, I don’t really know.)

   As PR professionals we might enjoy exercising our grey matter by sharing our views on how an issue is being handled, but we must accept that if we are not directly involved, what we say is pure conjecture.

    As 2009 winds down and the “year in review” stories begin to roll out, there is sure to be plenty of “informed” comment on how different organisations and individuals have fared.  However, we should keep in mind that much of this is an individual person’s view, and most likely one that is not fully informed.

   

5. Do the hoki-toki

   Published on Tuesday, November 24th, 2009

   We’ve all heard plenty about the potential threat to the reputations of business and brands posed by new online tools.

   These networks, coupled with the ability of Google to draw a crowd on any topic, can spread bad news far and wide. It’s simple: pick an issue, mix in some influential commentary, and then watch the trending and traffic stream based around the keyword take off. Instant crisis.

   We were interested to note a new development which could help balance the communication ledger somewhat, and help turn a possible crisis into an opportunity to communicate.

   The fascinating new tactic has been termed ‘media accountability’ by its leading proponent, New York PR man Jim McCarthy.

   We’d been keen to hear your views on this. So follow the link:

   http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/11/new-public-relations-beating-back-bad-press-with-google-adwords/

   

6. When more than two or three is a crowd…or a circus

   Published on Tuesday, October 13th, 2009

   Industrial disputes always present communications challenges, regardless of what side you are on. This is an age-old tenet of industrial relations.

   Each party to the dispute seeks to win hearts and minds to their position, or at very least provide a context for their actions.  In the current bus strike, the union wants people to understand its reasons for a “work to rule”, and the bus company’s objective is having people understand the reasons for the lockout. Behind the scenes, the mediator is working feverishly (we hope) to achieve meaningful resolution.

   If non-daily bus commuters are not disqualified from a judgment on the current state of play, I’d proffer the view that the involvement of the ARC’s Mike Lee and now his “puppet state”, ARTA, are singularly unhelpful.  Their incantations over penalties and dire threats of loss of contract would make lesser folk wonder why we have the processes of employment law, including a special authority, court and mediation service.

   Lee is transparent in that he wants to return bus services to full public ownership – Lord forbid – and a role in the Super City.  ARTA will no doubt fall in behind.  Another to get into this circus ring has been Cameron Brewer, but his motivation is no doubt the interests of Newmarket retailers.

   As a contributor to the daily bus subsidy, I say let’s leave resolution to the parties involved and the employment disputes processes created to assist them.

   That is of course unless Lee and Brewer are suggesting their respective organisations are willing to chip in by making up what the bus company doesn’t want to pay.

   Disclosure: the writer is not a regular bus user.

   

7. Critics are emboldened in a crisis, so don’t fall for making excuses

   Published on Monday, September 21st, 2009

   The Sunday Star Times yesterday reported that Auckland’s new community laboratory company, Labtests (which won the contract from DML) believed that some of the complaints it was receiving about its service were the result of “propaganda”.

   Its chief medical officer, Dr Michael Coglin, said that some complaints were being encouraged by the company’s critics and were without merit. The suggestion was that people’s confidence in the service could be undermined by this “propaganda”.

   However heartfelt, this was an extraordinary statement.  No one expects Dr Coglin to be a media or crisis expert, but it is difficult to comprehend that his advisors have not shared with him the anatomy of an issue or crisis. What he is experiencing is as normal as it is real, and any organisation that handled an issue of this nature the way Labtests has was surely headed for a crisis.

   On changeover-day plus-one, they were virtually boasting that everything was running smoothly. The reality was different and got worse.

   It is a fact that in any crisis, critics are emboldened.  Remember the lab contract was competitive and contentious, so there were many with strong held views. In this type of situation, people who would normally say nothing speak out, thereby encouraging others. Extraneous matters suddenly assume some relevance, or at least appear to. But at times like this, it is not the company in crisis that adjudicates on what is relevant and what is not. That lies with its critics and the media.

   What can you do about it? Not a lot. Stay humble and avoid enflaming the situation with attacks on the critics. At a time like this you can’t do better than follow the C.A.P formula: show Concern for what is happening, constantly update people on your responsive Actions, and, if you get the chance, provide some Perspective. But here’s a warning, never leave your “perspective” floating out there alone, or it will be interpreted as an excuse. Dr Coglin’s comment looked much like an excuse.

   

8. A happy slip of the tongue

   Published on Thursday, September 17th, 2009

   Let me get one thing off my chest, whether it was on the record, off the record, a throwaway comment, a personal observation or an official declaration, fortunately for President Obama he was right on the money. Kayne West is a jackass.

   The golden boy rapper’s churlish treatment of country singer Taylor Swift at the MTV awards was pure-fool, and he may never live the moment down.

   In the aftermath, ABC News employees overheard a conversation between the President and CNBC’s John Harwood on the matter, where Obama called West a “jackass”.

   The comment was recorded, tweeted and lit up the internet.

   The television network has since apologised and said that it was wrong for its employees to tweet the comment, but they didn’t realise it was considered off the record.  But was it?

   Obama is the President of the United States, and his words, every one of them is newsworthy. He’s gained much of his popularity because he’s used online social networks with real savvy, and this time it’s no different, because unlike many nasty asides that have been recorded during on-mic mishaps, Obama got it so right.

   As one web commentator put it, “just when I thought I couldn’t love Barack anymore!”

   Another world leader making headlines is French president Nicolas Sarkozy. He’s said that gross domestic product, inflation, and unemployment are all old-fashioned, Anglo-Saxon indicators of national wellbeing, and from now on, the country’s economic progress will be measured in terms of happiness – bonheur.

   The French president has some heavyweights to help him back up this new measure, Nobel Prize-winning economists, the American Joseph Stiglitz, and India’s Amartya Sen, who have concluded that new indexes are needed to measure wellbeing and environmental sustainability.

   Surely he’s hit the nail on the head, as isn’t this what corporate social responsibility programmes should be all about, creating bonheur for all?

   

9. Consumers show their muscle and Cadbury fesses up to mistake

   Published on Wednesday, August 19th, 2009

   

   A few short months ago Readers Digest declared Cadbury the No 1 trusted New Zealand brand.  The coverage was extensive…accolades galore for the “iconic Kiwi brand”.

   Before the chocolate was set on that announcement, we learned that Cadbury had re-sized its chocolate blocks and substituted palm oil for cocoa butter. Apparently this was all for our own good, that is the continued affordability of Cadbury’s chocolate.

   The initial protests to these developments seemed quite muted and even confused, perhaps because a competitor attempted to stir the chocolate.  When that intervention was over, chocolate lovers really got to work via Facebook, Twitter and old-fashioned email.

   We’ve now seen the results, an apology from Cadbury NZ managing director: we got it wrong.

   You have to expect that a brand like Cadbury would have done a crisis assessment before embarking on its product changes, no matter how seemingly sensible.

   In the event, once on the back foot, its messages became too complex to articulate and consumers were not interested in listening.  Perhaps another factor in this issue has the determination of consumers to remind Cadbury exactly who determines brand leadership. Consumers create brands, companies are the guardians.

   This has been a hard-earned lesson for the chocolate maker, but one that every FMCG company should have ears for.

   

10. An orchestrated litany of fables

    Published on Tuesday, July 21st, 2009

    The teenager who sold raunchy photos of his mum on TradeMe after discovering them in the family garage caused something of a kafuffle this week.

    After his TradeMe inspired notoriety, Michael Chal appeared on Close Up last Wednesday to give an account of his TradeMe experience.

    Soon after this appearance, Close Up learned that despite Chal’s assurances to the contrary, it had been duped.  The programme’s producer, Mike Valintine, seemed more than a tad miffed about the deception, and was reported as saying Chal “lied through and through”.  This behaviour was described as “despicable”, and the Chal was called a “fool”.

    After this outburst, and the headlines labelling Chal an “internet liar”, it was surprising to see him, together with his co-conspirator, again on Close Up last night.  Here we learned that Chal had not lied, he’d merely presented a fable.  Just like 20-year-old French Rugby centre Mathieu Bastareaud!

    Chal and his mate proudly told us that they’d had job offers arising from their fables. So, the end does justify the means after all, and liars do prosper.  Social media is setting new standards, but let’s be careful where this takes us, as Michael Chal’s story was nothing but an orchestrated litany of fables.