Posts Tagged ‘crisis management’

  1. 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.

  2. Polish authorities recover quickly from disaster to reaffirm control

    Published on Wednesday, April 14th, 2010

    The Polish administration has to be admired for getting its crisis management plan into action quickly following the tragic crash of the aeroplane carrying that country’s top political, civil and military leaders.

    It has reaffirmed steady hands remain on the tiller of State.

    The Acting President has appointed acting heads of institutions such as the National Bank, Chief of Security, and the heads of the air force, navy and land forces.

    It has moved to counter the ‘conspiracy theorists’ who are seeking to find the hand of Russian involvement in the tragedy by talking up the “emotional breakthrough” created by the “two nations grieving together”.

    And today it announced it was bringing forward the planned Presidential elections.

    News that Poland is to ‘review’ travel rules for senior officials is again a move by the administration to show it has matters ‘in hand’.
     
    However, for those of us who spend our lives in issues management planning the real question is: Why were so many travelling on the same aircraft in the first place?

    It is fundamental of disaster prevention to require people important to a country’s political and economic stability to be split into separate groups when travelling to the same event.

    What possessed Polish decision makers to ignore such a common sense requirement?

    Most large corporations have rules about senior executives travelling separately, and Coca-Cola has made the issue part of their corporate folk lore (you’ve heard the story, only a few executives know the secret formulae, and they are never allowed to travel on the same plane together).

    Human nature being what it is, there is often little enthusiasm for disaster planning. It often gets bumped to the back of the queue time after time while more pressing issues are dealt with.

    Perhaps the Polish tragedy will be a timely reminder to those in decision making roles that they need to ensure their disaster planning is on a firm footing.

  3. Curious questions for a new decade

    Published on Monday, January 25th, 2010

    Fitting the pieces together1. 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.

  4. 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

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

    Published on Wednesday, August 19th, 2009

    Stirring the pot of broken chocolate.

    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.

  6. Grumpy customers show the vulnerablity of businesses

    Published on Friday, July 24th, 2009

    MoneyIt is probable that there are very few of us who haven’t gotten grumpy with our bank at some time or other.

    But you have to be pretty darned grumpy to withdraw $190,000 in cash, stipulated in $20 bills.  Mapua artist Roger Griffiths quit his bank of 25 years and carried his cash down the road to the Nelson Building Society.

    We’re told Roger’s parting with his local Westpac branch was over its refusal to give him a mortgage.  In defense of its position, the bank says that it just needed to be confident that regular repayments could be made on the requested mortgage.

    After 25 years you’d expect that the bank would have some knowledge of its previously loyal customer, and would have realized that as an artist remuneration comes in dollop-form rather than a dribbling salary.

    It’s conceivable that this very public customer grievance has done more than $100,000 of damage to the bank’s reputation as, aside from the bad press, Roger’s action may surely embolden others to reflect on their own grievances and ponder action.

    When incidents as dramatic as this arise we are left to wonder how an individual within a major corporation can, in spite of all the policies, training and supervision, act in a way that fires customers up to the point where they terminate the relationship.

    It was another bank this week, BNZ, which reportedly left it to individual customers to sort out an error, and private information was disclosed. The aggrieved customer again went public because she just wants people to know about the “terrible” service she had received.

    How vulnerable we are to front line people, all businesses, but particularly banks.