Insignia Talks

…about the power of communication to create, manage and protect reputations

An interview with national radio provides a wonderful opportunity to enhance the reputation of your business, especially when you have good news to tell.  So, when Subway’s President and co-founder Fred DeLuca was invited for an interview on BBC Radio Five Live’s breakfast show following positive financial results and the creation of new jobs, he  should  have been rubbing his hands with glee.

Had he remembered his media training – assuming he had indeed invested in media training – he would have known that the key to success is preparation.  Without proper preparation, a media  interview is a high risk scenario as Mr DeLuca found out to his cost.  (Listen here from 2 hours 51 minutes onwards)

Listen to how he begins to fumble around, giving hesitant and unconvincing answers, refusing to comment and failing to properly address questions about pricing, health and animal welfare.

Avoiding this fate comes down to spending time beforehand developing a plan for your media interview.

Here are three areas to focus on as essential preparation for any media spokesperson:

1) What are the best and worst case scenarios for this interview?

Knowing the best case scenario for your interview (imagining the perfect headline is a useful way of encapsulating this) is an important way of setting the agenda during your media encounter.  It is only by understanding your objective that you can shape and steer the discussion.  Equally, it is only by assessing the worst case scenario – the lines you want to avoid – that you can be prepared to bridge away from those areas and back on to safer ground.

2) What are the questions I would least like to answer?

One of my mottos for crisis communication is “plan for the worst and hope for the best”; unfortunately, too many spokespeople simply hope for the best.  Taking time to predict the toughest questions and preparing strong answers for them means that you approach a media interview with confidence based on the knowledge that you can handle whatever the journalist throws at you.  And do have key facts and figures at your fingertips (the fact that Mr DeLuca was unable to confirm the prices of his sandwiches undermined his credibility)

3) Rehearse

Too many spokespeople simply “wing it”, conducting interviews without any practice.  It may be a risk worth taking for a low key interview with an obscure trade title, but not when you are broadcasting to the nation.  Take time to practice with a colleague or trusted third party: it helps you to finesse your messaging rather than testing it for the first time in a live interview.  For maximum value, take feedback from a third party who not only understands communication and the media, but who is also prepared to give you honest and constructive feedback.

Media interviews are indeed opportunities, and too few spokespeople view them as such. However, they should not be approached without proper preparation and media training or else the opportunity may evaporate and turn into something far more unpleasant instead.

Jonathan Hemus

www.insigniacomms.com

I attended a conference earlier this week at which the head of corporate communications from a UK police force described the overwhelming media interest in a high profile murder investigation.  In particular, she  explained how the names and personal details (not necessarily accurate) of two people were communicated by the media within hours of their arrest and then widely circulated by social media.  This happened despite the fact that the names were not revealed by the police (and that one of them was never charged with any offence). 

The speaker explained how this experience has led to an increased understanding within the Force of the importance of involving communication professionals before an arrest is made in high profile cases.  It struck me that this has broader implications for crisis communications at all organisations.

It’s already well understood by PR people that social media has increased the pace and spread of bad news and that this imposes new standards for effective crisis communication.  But to what extent has this been recognised by our operational colleagues?  Scrambling to react to operational decisions with a communication dustpan and brush was never a very good idea.  Today it is an almost impossible task.

The only viable option is  for communication people to be involved in the planning of major announcements and to have a real influence over how and when they happen.  This is the only approach which offers the opportunity to properly shape how a story plays out and its impact on organisational reputation.  Organisations which fail to embrace this reality and continue to view communication as a purely tactical activity are more likely than ever to suffer serious reputational damage. 

Jonathan Hemus

www.insigniacomms

Kraft took another battering from MPs this week as the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee said that it had “significant concerns” over its takeover of Cadbury in January 2010.  Rumblings from employees and unions continue, whilst the media delights in giving Kraft a hard time (the Mail on Sunday in particular has ensured that Kraft CEO  Irene Rosenfeld remains in the headlines for the wrong reasons month after month after month).

Kraft’s frustration at this continued criticism is obvious.  Quoted in the Financial Times, Rosenfeld said: “We have clearly shown ourselves to be good stewards of the brands, and yet the continuing assault has been somewhat surprising”. 

So why is Kraft still generating negative headlines almost 18 months after the takeover and how can other businesses develop and implement change communication to avoid the same fate?  It seems to me that there are three key reasons behind Kraft’s change communication challenge:

1) Inadaequate understanding of the communication context

2) One expedient message eroded trust

3) A reticence to fully engage with stakeholders

Let’s take a look at these, one by one:

1) Context

Cadburys is an iconic British brand.  It has connotations of warmth, family and wholesomeness.  It has a corporate history of philanthropy, community and inclusiveness.  It is a symbol of the once great Midlands manufacturing base.  All of these factors mean that it is dear to the heart of many Brits.

As a consequence, a takeover by a global US corporation was bound to be met with concern, resistance and fear.  Understanding the perspective of affected stakeholders is essential to shape any change communication programme, but Kraft seemed to be unaware of these views or at the very least misunderstand their significance.  You won’t please all of the people all of the time, especially at a time of change.  But understanding their views and a plan to avoid turning sceptics into sworn enemies is the least you should aim for.

2) Trust

Saying what people want to hear makes communication so much easier.  But only if it’s true.  So when Kraft initially promised to keep Cadbury’s Bristol factory owner and then announced that it was unable to do so after the takeover, it made its change communication task inordinately tougher.  This perceived duplicity reinforced negative pre-conceptions and meant that future commitments were viewed with cynicism.  Recent evidence seems to suggest that Kraft is making good on its post-takeover promises; but the trust that it lost early on with that one inaccurate statement is almost impossible to regain.  The lesson?  Never jeopardise long term trust and credibility with a popular promise that you may not be able to keep.

3) Stakeholder engagement

A perception has grown that Kraft is stand-offish, or even evasive.  Irene Rosenfeld in particular has been criticised for her unwillingness to face parliamentary committees or engage with the UK media.  In many ways, this problem has been created and amplified by the first two issues.  Nevertheless, a greater willingness to listen and talk with stakeholders would  position Kraft more sympathetically and help to ensure that its messages are properly heard.  For other organisations facing similar challenges, remember that communication is an essential part of effecting successful corporate change.   And research shows that typically businesses under-communicate by a factor of ten during change management programmes.

Since its takeover of Cadbury, Kraft seems to have made good on its commitments: most importantly for chocolate -lovers, Dairy Milk remains on supermarket shelves, its original recipe preserved.  Its problems were created in the very early stages of this story when it failed to fully appreciate the landscape in which the takeover occurred, and reinforced negative perceptions with a promise it couldn’t keep. 

The bottom line for other businesses enegaged in change management is clear: get your change communication right from the very start, or gear up for a challenging issues management programme in the months and years that follow.

Jonathan Hemus

www.insigniacomms.com 

Transformational corporate change is notoriously hard to achieve.  Comfort with the status quo, denial of issues holding the business back and an in-built fear of change mean that staff often resist a new direction, or at the very least fail to engage with it.

As a consequence many change programmes fail, primarily due to inadequate communication.  So, overcoming resistance and securing the commitment of employees to embrace and support the change is essential.  The starting point for creating momentum is strong dissatisfaction with the status quo, and recognition that it is not sustainable.  Once this is established, a programme of change communication which reveals and secures buy in for the new direction can follow.

So, once Nokia’s recently appointed chief executive Stephen Elop completed his initial review of the under-performing company, he knew that the first communication with his people would be crucial.  It needed to shake them out of any complacency or comfort zone, make them face the reality of Nokia’s challenges, reject “business and usual” and build an appetite for change.  In the face of this, he drafted his “burning platforms” memo, swiftly followed by the announcement of a partnership with Microsoft.

Read through the “burning platforms” memo: it’s a well conceived and beautifully written piece of communication.  It embraces many of the techniques that are essential for engaging communication: it tells stories to bring messages to life (the man on the North Sea Platform), it uses evidence and examples to substantiate key points (making it much harder to question the validity of his argument) and it’s personal and authentic.  Above all else, it’s clear and direct (no meaningless management-speak here).  It is a hugely powerful example of change communication.

When the message found its way outside of Nokia and into the mainstream media, many felt that for Nokia, change communication had morphed into crisis communication.  A message intended only for internal audiences was suddenly visible to journalists, investors and competitors.  There is of course a lesson here.  Whereas traditionally, internal communication could remain exactly that, nowadays the use of emails, intranets and social media for employee communication mean that it’s much easier for internal communication to go external.  In fact, the best policy is to expect that this is exactly what will happen.  Based on this assumption, the safest approach is never to say anything in an internal memo that you wouldn’t be happy seeing on the front page of the Financial Times. 

I have a hunch that Stephen Elop understands this very well, and that the “unplanned” leak of his message to staff may in fact have been his intention all along.  What better way of shaking the company out of its torpor than the very public revelation of its challenges to the outside world? 

Some commentators have seen Stephen Elop’s communication as high risk and ill-conceived.  I disagree.  Mr Elop’s frank communication gives his business an opportunity to change and therefore a chance of future success.  High risk?  Maybe.  But not as high risk as saying and doing nothing.  

Jonathan Hemus

www.insigniacomms.com

Jeremy Paxman’s rant about the demise of the daily Newsnight email underlines the danger of being driven by the act of sending information rather than focusing on the effectiveness of communication. 

Communication planning begins by understanding the audience and their communication needs: what they want to know must be the focus, not what we want to tell them. 

Only then can the next element, content, be properly considered.  Paxo is less than complimentary about the content of some of the BBC’s missives, but his own email was a textbook lesson in clear communication: many media spokespeople could learn from the clarity and directness with which Paxman gets his point across.

Finally, the third element of communication planning, the medium.  The march of digital media means that it can sometimes be selected as the prime communication channel without due consideration:  “we need a Facebook page”; “let’s add a section to the intranet”; “put an announcement out by email”. If we remember that the communication planning process begins with the audience, it’s essential to consider whether electronic communication is indeed the best means of reaching them.  And do be sensitive: text messaging is not the best way to inform employees that they have lost their jobs.

So, audience, content and medium are the three key elements of communication planning.  Unfortunately for Newsnight, there’s one final hurdle, and they failed to clear it: timing.  Ensuring that the audience receives information in a timely manner is essential if you want them to act on it (it’s a little ironic that a communication medium designed to increase the pace of information sharing was so slow that it rendered Newsnight’s communication worthless).

Effective communication is an art, not a science: it’s the alchemy of audience, message and medium that creates resonance with those on the receiving end.  Delivering the message before its sell-by date is rather important too…

Jonathan Hemus

www.insigniacomms.com

The resignation of Andy Coulson as David Cameron’s Director of Communications does little for the reputation of public relations.

It remains a painful irony that a profession focused on managing reputation has such a poor one itself.  Effective communication is about building relationships and trust.  For one of the UK’s highest profile communicators to have his name linked with underhand (allegedly criminal) tactics does nothing to help this.  Indeed, it only serves to reinforce the more negative stereotypes of the manipulative spin doctor.

The role of any head of communications is to be the architect of the message, not the story itself.  Whenever this line is crossed, the PR person’s usefulness is diminished.

The final irony is the way in which the announcement of Andy Coulson’s departure was managed.  Planning this to coincide with Tony Blair’s appearance before the Iraq enquiry appears to be an attempt at “burying bad news”.  Even that media manipulation has backfired with the focus moving away from potentially negative news about Labour’s role in the Gulf War and on to the judgement of David Cameron.

This grubby episode is certainly not the best advertisement for public relations.

Jonathan Hemus

www.insigniatalks.com

Christmas 2010 will be a tough time for anyone who lost their job in the aftermath of the global recession.  The fallout from the credit crunch means that many organisations had to implement cutbacks, redundancies and closures in 2010.  And, unfortunately, there’ll be more to come in 2011. So this is a time when effective change communication is essential, firstly to ensure that those affected receive timely and appropriate information, but also to preserve corporate reputation.

Here are four principles that should guide communication of difficult company news:

1) Always put your employees first

Employees must be your top priority: brief them first and show respect and dignity throughout the process.  Hearing that you may lose your job is bad enough: even worse is feeling that one’s employer doesn’t care enough to share the news personally, transparently and at the earliest opportunity.  It’s the time when the cliché “our people are our most important asset” is put to the test.  Tales of job losses communicated by text message reveal the real attitude of management in the worst cases.

2) Consistency in messaging between stakeholders is crucial

Whilst employees are the priority, a meticulous plan for communication with other stakeholders must also be developed.  It’s important for your credibility that customers, suppliers, investors and other stakeholders hear the news from you, not a third party.  Equally important is consistency of message.  Whilst you need to tailor messages according to the stakeholder group, contradictions or clear inconsistencies can turn issues management into a crisis.

3) Plan for media interest

If you are a significant business making sizeable cuts, it’s very likely that news will reach the media whatever you do.  As a consequence it probably makes sense to communicate pro-actively so that you control timing and content of the message.  If you are lower profile or your cutbacks are less severe, a reactive statement designed for use in response to media enquiries can be sufficient.  Always ensure that anything your media spokesperson says to the press is aligned with messages to staff and other stakeholders.

4) Ensure that actions match words

Communication will only be successful if you do what you say you will: stakeholders will be watching out for any inconsistencies. Kraft’s takeover of Cadbury is a case in point.  When the US company announced the closure of Cadbury’s Bristol site having previously indicated that it would remain open, its reputation suffered as a result.

Communicating bad news is tough and often unpleasant.  But doing so professionally is the only option, not only to protect your corporate reputation, but also in the best interests of those affected by the announcement.

Jonathan Hemus

www.insigniatalks.com

As Christmas draws ever closer and Santa receives letters (and now emails) from expectant children, the UK’s most famous toy store, Hamleys, finds itself in issues management mode.

Its decision to promote the store with events featuring live reindeer and penguins has resulted in negative press coverage and its reputation under online attack.  There are learnings in this issue for any organisation that wants to protect its reputation:

1)      The importance of reputational risk assessments

A reputational risk assessment should underpin an organisation’s overall crisis management plan.  But it is also enormously valuable when applied to any major announcement.  Identifying potential downsides and making plans to manage them reduces the potential for an unexpected crisis.

2)      Beware behaviour that conflicts with the essence of the brand

Behaviour that seems to run contrary with what people understand or associate with a brand is often the most damaging to reputation.  A key part of the Hamleys brand is about bringing magic, happiness and joy into children’s lives.  Any insinuation that it is engaged in heartless or even cruel activity towards animals presents a very unhelpful contrast.

3)      Listen to what is being said about you

Criticism of Hamleys’ plans was growing on Twitter last week.  One of them said “Hamleys: are you reading these tweets?  If so, please change your mind about using live animals”.  Make sure that you are indeed monitoring what is being said about you on and offline.  It gives you an insight into how stakeholders are feeling and provides an early warning of potential problems, rather than being plunged into crisis management when the issue explodes.

4)      Engage in discussion

When Hamleys added a statement to its Facebook page explaining its position, scores of critical comments were posted in response.  If you decide to use your Facebook page for crisis communication and leave it open for feedback, play a part in the subsequent discussion so that the page is not entirely dominated by critical comments.

5)      Reputation management goes beyond meeting legal requirements

A key element of Hamleys response to this issue is that its use of animals is entirely legal and that they will be cared for in the appropriate way.  Effective reputation management means going beyond what is required by law or regulations, and behaving in a way that meets your stakeholders’ expectations.  Doing so will reduce the likelihood of having to manage a crisis and will certainly be in the best interests of your long term reputation.

The issue facing Hamleys once again reinforces the increased vulnerability of organisations to online campaigns.  Issues can turn into crises much quicker and spread much further fuelled by social media.  Recognising this and acting accordingly, is essential for reputation protection.

Jonathan Hemus

www.insigniacomms.com

Sport, travel and oil – very different businesses, but linked today by the fact that an organisation in each is managing a crisis or issue.  It just goes to show that even on a Sunday businesses need to be ready to act quickly to protect their reputation whether from newspaper investigations, pressure group protests or simply poor customer service. 

FIFA: sport; corruption allegations

STA: travel/financial services; serious customer service issues

Petroplus: oil; blockade of oil refinery

Jonathan Hemus

www.insigniacomms.com

Some crises begin with a catastrophic event: a natural disaster, an accident, a fire.  Many more begin when a known issue ignites and escalates.  In these tough economic times, closures and redundancies are being announced on a daily basis.  The way in which communication of these announcements is planned and executed will influence the extent to which reputations are damaged.   

Today, we feature three organisations making significant changes to their structures and workforce as they plan for the future.  In two cases at least, the way in which they communicated turned a difficult announcement into a bigger issues management challenge:

Everything Everywhere (Orange/T-Mobile): mobile telecoms; criticism over redundancy communication based on “traffic light” system

Kraft: food manufacturer; continued uncertainty over the future of UK sites formerly owned by Cadbury

Sanofi: pharmaceuticals; announcement of 1,700 US job losses

Many organisations have been forced to make tough decisions over the last couple of years, and many more will do so over the next twelve months.  Getting the communication right when announcing these decisions is essential to avoid turning a difficult day into a medium term issues management problem.

Jonathan Hemus

www.insigniacomms.com