Posts Tagged ‘Crisis Communications’

1. Good on you, Vector

   Published on Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011
   All the professionals I’ve spoken to agree that Vector, and particularly its chief, Simon Mackenzie, did an excellent job of communicating during the gas supply crisis. That is why it was surprising  to read that the organisation had been quick to “admit communication errors”, and was undertaking a formal review of its communication process.

   However, I was not an affected party, so had no actual experience of the supply problem suffered by so many businesses and organisations where it appears there were issues with communications.

   It is commendable that Vector is tackling this head on and so soon after the crisis, so that its customers can have objective answers.

   From the experience of the disruption to the gas supply in Hawke’s Bay in 2004, I know that businesses can never have enough information in these circumstances. On that occasion, East Coast gas supplies were cut by a major washout in the Manawatu. The frustration of not being able to process crops ripe for harvest was enormous. At the time NGC was the owner and operator of the pipe so there was a single point of contact.

   It seems clear that the recent crisis was exacerbated by the dichotomy of ownership and operation and the inability of Maui Developments to grasp the communications challenge. When Maui’s spokesperson did speak it was unhelpful and defensive. He likened the break in gas supply to a disruption to a highway, going on to say when such events happened no compensation was paid. He’d forgotten, it seems, that Maui derives revenue and profits from its “highway”. The fact that the owner was not up to it, was not the fault of Vector.

   Vector’s initiative in reviewing communication around the event points to the importance of all companies having a crisis plan as part of the business continuity plan, and from time to time testing it.

   What was your experience or view of this event?

2. A cardinal rule of crisis management lies in the dirt

   Published on Thursday, June 9th, 2011
   For the Spanish growers of organic cucumbers and the sprout-growing family of northern Germany – and, indeed EU vegetable growers generally – this advice came too late: It is crucial national authorities do not rush to give information on the source of infection (e-coli), which is not proven by bacteriological analysis.

   The advice came from EU health commissioner, John Dalli, but by then a cardinal rule of crisis management had been well and truly trampled into the dirt: Don’t speculate on the cause of the issue.

   Germany’s e-coli crisis quickly turned into Europe’s political issue, and the victims of this food crisis extended well beyond the dead and seriously ill.  Indeed, the dead and injured have almost become irrelevant in the cauldron of underlying intra-European hostilities.  All because the speculated cause of outbreak was wrongly or carelessly communicated!

   There can be no doubting the intense pressure on the German authorities to “name” the offending food, but now the results of their error in damaged incomes and reputations is plain for all to see: a now unmanageable crisis.

   I can’t help thinking that, when so much is made of food issues in China, will Kiwi consumers look askance at Europe as we have done China. Or would this offend our European sensitivities?

3. Does end of the global Swine Flu Pandemic mean we’re better prepared for next time?

   Published on Friday, August 13th, 2010
   The World Health Organization (WHO) earlier this week officially declared an end to the pandemic concerning the influenza H1N1 virus, popularly known as swine flu. 

   However WHO Director-General Margaret Chan recognised that here in New Zealand we’re still experiencing the effects of a second wave of H1N1.
   “In the post-pandemic period, localised outbreaks of different magnitude may show significant levels of H1N1 transmission. This is the situation we are observing right now in New Zealand,” Mrs Chan said.

   The outcome of this for some has been particularly tragic.  However, as recently reported in NZ Dr, this year’s weekly rate of flu consults is well down on last year.

   Communications before, during and after were to my mind a great example of how to get it right.  Unfortunately not everyone has seen it that way.  As the predicted apocalypse did not occur, many people say the whole thing was a money-making venture by pharmaceutical companies.  While these theories make for great headlines they also significantly diminish the genuine efforts of public health protection teams globally, who potentially saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

   We will never know how bad it could have been had the level of alarm not been raised.  After all only 450 people died in the UK compared to the predicted 65,000 which surely proves it all an unnecessary scaremongering exercise?  Shame on the health experts for saving some lives.  When dealing with statistics it is easy to forget that only one number matters to people – the one that affects them. 

   Closer to home our own public health protection specialists implemented a textbook case of how to effectively contain a highly contagious and potentially deadly disease.  You can read about it in the BMJ’s May 21st edition. 

   Dr Craig Thornley, Medical Officer of Health at Auckland Regional Public Health Service shared with us a brief overview (below) of the basics of the response in New Zealand which highlights the complexity behind some very simple messages.

   • The pandemic response in New Zealand had several partly-overlapping strategic phases, all of which had been previously laid out in the New Zealand Influenza Pandemic Action Plan.
   • The first phase was termed ‘keep it out’, and was about delaying introduction of the virus into New Zealand to give healthcare services time to mobilise their plans. This initially seemed critically important as reports were being received from Mexico that suggested that the illness had a high mortality.
   • We were concurrently running a ‘stamp it out’ phase: when people with swine flu were diagnosed in the community we launched a rapid response to “ring-fence” spread by distributing antivirals (mainly Tamiflu) to those they had been in contact with. Again, this strategy was also intended to try to delay spread.
   • We moved into the ‘manage it’ phase when it became clear that swine flu was widespread in the community. During this phase a range of groups mobilised to support those who were unwell to ensure that those with mild-to-moderate illness could be managed away from the hospitals; hospitals re-allocated capacity to deal with the increased workload, particularly in intensive care units (who experienced high demand with sick young people requiring very aggressive life support); public health units focused attention on outbreaks in residential institutions; and a variety of strategies were applied in primary care to help cope with the influx of swine flu patients.
   • Throughout each of these phases, there were intensive health education campaigns on ways to prevent flu spread, protective equipment was distributed to healthcare workers (the healthcare workforce being one of the most-exposed groups), and systems for testing and making treatment available were streamlined.
   • All of this was designed to “flatten the curve” to try to delay the peak of the outbreak, reduce the overall number of cases and spread the caseload across a period of time instead of having a massive early epidemic peak that could have jeopardised provision of healthcare and many other services. As the nature of the illness caused by swine flu became clearer, strategies were tailored around protecting those that were most vulnerable.

   Communicating risk so people take action to protect themselves appropriately is a tricky thing, and when people are protected from the risk it can be tempting for people to think the risk wasn’t there in the first place.  Unfortunately even one untimely death is one too many though. Best we not get complacent about the next infectious threat that comes our way.

4. How you respond is a measure of your mettle

   Published on Friday, July 30th, 2010
   He didn’t get it then, and he doesn’t get it now. “Then” was when he fronted up to the affected communities, the media, and politicians over the Gulf oil spill disaster; and “he” is former BP chief Tony Hayward.

   It is almost beyond comprehension that he would say, when exiting the top job, “Life isn’t fair”.

   How could a person with the experience and credentials to lead Britain’s biggest industrial company think such a thing, let alone say it!  It’s apparent he’s been insulated all his life from the world where most of us live…because we all know life’s not always fair. That’s a given; it’s how you respond that is a measure of your mettle. 

   Yes, he did admit making mistakes, and stated that it (managing the disaster) had not been a great PR success (if he was honest he would’ve have admitted it was a disaster).  But patently he learned nothing from the grueling experience of the past 101 days; and he has absolutely no empathy for those who lost their lives on the rig and their grieving families, for people whose lives and dreams have been shattered by the spill, for the havoc wreaked on the environment.

   A primary rule of managing the media is: know what you are going to say. Did he? It’s hard to believe.

   No, life is not fair when a person like Tony Hayward can walk away with a £1 million lump sum, and a pension of £600,000 a year!

   I expect you agree, life’s just not fair.

5. All associated with the BP oil spill are acting incomprehensibly

   Published on Friday, June 18th, 2010
   From a communication perspective, it’s impossible to make sense of what is taking place with the BP oil spill into the Gulf of Mexico.

   The BBC describes the issue as a ‘PR disaster’ for BP while international financial analysts talk about it undermining the competitive advantage of the world’s 5th largest company ‘into the foreseeable future’.

   It’s inconceivable that BP is not employing the best PR professionals in the business, so why on a daily basis are they staggering from one communications blunder to another? Why is there no belief BP has answers? Why the apparent indifference to its corporate reputation?

   For all his ‘tough talk’, President Obama is struggling. Political commentators from the left, middle and right are calling his performance inadequate and lacking leadership.

   Even American media is questioning why the American administration is not putting its national resources into working alongside BP to minimise the damage being done to people’s lives and the environment; why an administration that poured unlimited money into the American banking system during the financial meltdown is now insisting that it’s ‘BP’s problem to fix’.

   Perhaps it’s all about money. Remember, while Exxon was ordered to pay billions in compensation for the Exxon Valdez spill, American courts eventually capped the payout to $500,000 because ‘it was an accident’.

   Could it be that BP is gaming the US administration, with the lawyers running a strategy based around taking the heat on corporate reputation in the short term while preparing for the inevitable 15 to 20 years of litigation in the American courts as claimants try to get their hands on the $20 billion in the compensation fund.

   Given BP’s actions to date, it certainly hard to believe it’s the communications people that are in charge of strategy.
    
   As for President Obama, he may well be the ultimate loser if this adds to the belief that he is a talker rather than doer.

   Postscript. The Gulf of Mexico oil spill is not the world’s largest – not yet anyway. That dubious honour is vied for by the 1910 Lakeview Gusher (USA) and the 1991 Gulf War. To take the number one spot the BP spill needs to eclipse 9 to 11 billion barrels.