Posts Tagged ‘issues management’

1. Government showing deft communication touch

   Published on Friday, February 12th, 2010

   The Government’s handling of the tax changes to be announced in the May budget show a masterly understanding of managing long term communications.

   Delegate the task of putting forward ideas to a third party (a commission) and then immediately reject the most controversial (phew, it’s not going to be as bad as it could be!); talk up some of the remaining unpalatable ideas, and then in the first formal statement of the year reject them too (saved again!).

   Now we have a pretty clear understanding of what will be in the budget some three months in advance, even if we don’t have the detail. By the time the announcements are made in May all the best emotional and rational condemnations from opponents will be out in the public domain, and Government can fine tune its final decisions to ease back on those that will upset us most.

   By the time the changes are finally introduced in October (10 months from raising the issue to their implementation) we will have mentally adjusted, and rather than outrage we will take them in our stride.

   It is good strategy, and the Government’s media managers are demonstrating a deft implementation touch.

   Cast your mind over some of the other contentious issues – mining in conservation reserves; fundamental economic reform to ‘catch up with Australia’ and even the national standards for primary schools have been on the agenda for months.

   When the going started to get tough over national standards, Key & Co showed their ability to up the game aggressively with a ministerial realignment, Key personally entering the confrontation, and outspoken challenges to the teacher’s union and boards of trustees.

   Labour will undoubtedly have the skills to win a few skirmishes as we move into the year, but they are going to need to be at the top of their game to outmanoeuvre National.

   

2. 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.

   

3. The first response is all that matters

   Published on Thursday, February 5th, 2009

   When it comes to consumer complaints about food quality it’s the initial response that defines the future. This was evidenced again just after Christmas when a Napier family found what looked like a carpet tack in a large lollipop.

   In reality the tack had done no damage because the youngster dropped the lollipop as soon as the tack was visible.  But the parents were concerned enough to contact the distributor, Universal Trading Limited.

   Concern turned to outrage when they detected a lack of sympathy and concern from the distributor.

   The next call was to One News which made a meal of the story during a very dry news time. The reporter contacted the store where the lollipop was purchased, Pak ‘N Save Napier, which immediately withdrew the confectionery sale, and through their co-operative Foodstuffs, initiated a nationwide withdrawal.  A call to their competitor Progressive resulted in the same for their stores.

   In the scale of food issues this was not a biggie, although the statement on TV news was that the family said only a “Christmas miracle” saved the toddle from injury.  In fact the toddler has dropped the lollipop of his own accord so the risk was small, if one at all.

   Why did this become an issue?  Because the distributor responded poorly to the initial call from the consumer! As a result they got unwanted national coverage. 

   The story was overblown – there was coverage two nights running on the major bulletin – but the lollipop’s distributors only had themselves to blame.  The first consumer contact is really critical.

   

4. Hanging by a thread

   Published on Tuesday, October 14th, 2008

   In issues management there is always a new experience to be had, and based on a recent episode online media will bring challenges aplenty for those of us involved in issues and reputation management.

   This new media is like talkback on steroids where those with a point of view or complaint can rage to their heart’s content, largely under the cover of anonymity. 

   Trade Me’s community message board is usually a forum where members, mainly active traders and, from what I have seen, women share advice and experiences.  On the message board there are segments of interest, such as computing, environment, parenting and farming.  Within this structure members are free to start up discussion topics, or threads. 

   A current example of a new thread in the “opinion” segment of the message board is: Does John Key have a wife and children….???  Yesterday this thread attracted 52 comments ranging from criticism of using his daughter in campaign material to comments about his wife. Another thread on the “parenting” segment is titled: Bleeding from the bladder.  Within three hours last evening there were 43 postings, many from the same people.

    All slightly odd – but probably harmless, you might think.  

   My experience was with a product issue – product satisfaction not safety – and a few individuals went beyond mere commentary to actual threats.  

   Unlike talkback, Trade Me’s message board has no anchor point or moderator, such as the radio host, through whom a balancing point of view might be represented.

   So how to you manage such issues?

   From my recent experience, the ABC of managing these situations goes like this:

   • Maintain a ‘clean’ membership of Trade Me – one that has never traded before – and hold it dormant.
   • Seek advice from the Trade Me’s administrators, and discipline yourself to follow it.
   • Respond only to the macro scene, not individual jibes and baiting.
   • Prepare from the outset for the issue to potentially graduate from the dark world of “online’ to traditional media.

   Some general observations:

   • The Trade Me community has its own leaders and followers, and there are members who also communicate and plan with each other offline.
   • If you have a real issue act sooner rather than later – decisively and clearly.
   • The medium is prone to the ill-informed leading the uninformed.
   • The moderate voices in the “community’ are often bullied into submission.
   • The more extreme postings/commentary seem to be made late at night.

    How do you view online media, and is this a medium that you currently monitor?