Insignia Talks

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

According to a BBC news story Buddhist monks have been engaged to rid a Chinese factory of evil spirits following the death of worker, the tenth employee to fall from a building at the factory.  Rumours are spreading of a suicide cluster caused by unreasonable workplace pressure, an allegation denied by the company’s  founder.  The story hit the UK media not just because of its innate newsworthiness, but also because the company in question supplies its products to the likes of Apple, Hewlett Packard and Sony.

This story emphasises the fact that a big brand, whether corporate or consumer, must not plan crisis management in isolation, but rather integrate its suppliers into the process of reputation protection.  It’s a lesson being learned all too painfully and all too publicly by BP whilst it grapples with its crisis: the fact that the Gulf of Mexico oil leak may have been the fault of its partner Transocean cannot protect it from reputational damage.  And whether or not its suppliers provided faulty components, when it embarked on its global recall, Toyota was the only company that the media focused on.

Fair or unfair, like it or not, it’s a fact of reputation management that the big name will always attract greatest attention in a crisis. Protecting an organisation’s reputation begins with accepting this fact and acting accordingly: the following pointers should help to create a robust reputation management infrastructure with this context in mind:

1)      Select your suppliers carefully

Given that your reputation is only be as strong as your weakest supplier, choose them with great care.  Does it really make commercial sense to save a few thousand dollars on a supplier who may have a less than perfect track record in safety or labour abuse?  Focus on the value of your reputation and the enormous damage that could be caused by an errant supplier and you will make the right decisions.

2)      Set and enforce high standards

Being blind-sided by a media investigation or NGO campaign which reveals previously unknown problems at one of your suppliers leaves an organisation on the back foot, reacting to a crisis rather than managing it.  Aim to avoid this by being clear with your suppliers about your expectations.  Having done this, set high standards, monitor compliance and take action if there are problems.  Explain to your suppliers that you expect honesty and transparency about any emerging issues: no surprises should be the rule.

3)      Consider suppliers in your reputational risk assessment

A reputational risk assessment that focuses only on your organisation will overlook the risk landscape to which you are exposed as a result of the activities of your suppliers. Avoid this trap by always considering supplier-related vulnerabilities.

4)      Share your crisis management plans with your suppliers

Given that a crisis may well involve your suppliers (directly or indirectly) it makes sense to share your crisis management plans with them, and ask them to reciprocate.  Doing so will help to ensure that you work harmoniously in the event of a crisis with potential conflicts, gaps or inconsistencies identified and resolved ahead of time.

5)      Involve your suppliers in your crisis management training

A combined media training session can help to ensure consistency of message, whilst a joint crisis exercise will undoubtedly improve the performance of your teams in a real crisis.  The alternative is to wait and see how it works under the pressure of a real incident: an approach that may appeal most to the adrenaline junkies!

Responsible businesses implement thorough crisis management planning and preparation and invest in regular training focused on their own business.  The really enlightened ones go beyond this and integrate their suppliers into the process too.  And when you consider that a supplier error can threaten your global reputation, it’s easy to understand why.

Jonathan Hemus

www.insigniacomms.com

Lord Condon, chairman of the International Cricket Council’s anti-corruption unit, will shortly pass responsibility for leadership of the Unit to Sir Ronnie Flanagan who takes over in June.  Hearing this news reminded me of the days when I worked with Lord Condon and other executives of the ICC as it first grappled with match-fixing almost ten years ago. 

A sport which had fair play at its very core had to fight to protect its reputation in the face of hugely damaging allegations.  Since then, similar allegations have surfaced in horse racing, tennis, football and, most recently, snooker. 

Before match-fixing erupted in cricket, it’s fair to say that the ICC’s approach to reputation management fell short of best practice.  But with its subsequent deeds and words, it successfully managed the crisis on its doorstep.  In doing so, it fulfilled some of the key criteria of issues management:

1)      Acknowledge that there is a problem

An ostrich approach is the worst possible response to an issue: recognising the match-fixing problem allowed it to be dealt with, and at the same time preserved the ICC’s credibility.

2)      Engage trusted third parties

The appointment of Lord Condon and the creation of the anti-corruption unit was an inspired move by the ICC: the arrival of an impartial and respected third party to investigate the allegations was much more powerful than any internal enquiry by the ICC.  His independent and expert view meant that his words carried greater weight.

3)      Take action

Lord Condon was given the remit to seek out corruption wherever it existed and implement whatever steps might be necessary to minimise it.  The subsequent introduction of a programme of education and enforcement demonstrated that the ICC was serious in its intent to manage this issue.

4)      Communicate more, not less

Historically, the ICC had maintained an arm’s length relationship with the media, communicating as little as possible.  As a consequence, it lacked strong relationships with journalists, failed to communicate its messages effectively and was seen by some as aloof and out of touch.  By implementing a new policy of openness, engagement and relationship building, this situation was transformed.  Stakeholder research six months into the new pro-active communication strategy revealed a dramatically higher level of understanding, support and respect for the ICC.

I have great respect for the way that cricket got to grips with match-fixing – and I applaud Barry Hearn for the similar way that he responded decisively to allegations against John Higgins.  Both episodes reveal an approach to issues management that could be effectively adopted by any organisation finding its reputation under serious threat.

Jonathan Hemus

 www.insigniacomms.com

Great communicators speak with emotion, authenticity and passion.  These rare qualities enable them to engage people at a deep level and inspire them to act differently as a result.  These were the attributes against which I judged the leaders’ performances.   

David Cameron desperately needs to inspire people to act differently, in this case to vote Tory.  In my view, for the second week in a row, he failed to deliver against this.  He repeated the “change” word throughout, and he adopted the Clegg technique of talking directly to the camera (and therefore the watching audience at home) rather than always to the studio audience.  But it was only when he attacked Gordon Brown about Labour party literature saying  “those letters and leaflets from Labour are pure lies” that he became truly animated.  Indeed we saw evidence of real anger when he said under pressure from Brown, “we’ll keep free eye tests – will you withdraw the leaflets?”  For me it was his best moment of the debate, but why leave it so late?  

Nick Clegg kept himself in the game, but failed to make further significant gains.  Once again, he positioned himself as the man for change, reiterating that his opponents represented the “old parties”.  But he failed to deal with Adam Boulton’s comment about his appearance on the front page of the Telegraph with regard to party donations.  In my view, rather than ignore it, he should have dealt with it head on with a longer and more robust answer.

The debate was nearly thirty minutes old when Cameron and Brown delivered their first tag team wrestling blow on Clegg.  The topic was Trident: Gordon struck first. “I have to deal with these decisions every day – Nick I say to you, get real”.  David pinned him to the canvas with the unique words: “I agree with Gordon”.  The tag team took on an interesting twist when the participants quickly changed sides, with Brown and Clegg ganging up on Cameron over Europe: Big Daddy and Giant Haystacks would have been proud of this turn of events.

Gordon Brown’s strategy was to play the statesman role to the full and emphasise the risks associated with both Clegg (“security”) and Cameron (“the economy”).  Whilst never as slick as either of his opponents, he seemed more credible, more substantial and possessing greater gravitas.  Whilst Clegg and Cameron tried to win the broadcast, Brown’s aim was to position himself as above the bickering, at one point saying that his opponents “remind me of my two young sons squabbling at bathtime”.  He reminded us throughout of his frontline experience, dealing with affairs of state to create a clear contrast with his novice opponents.  It was the politician’s equivalent of “never getting fired for buying IBM”.  For his part, David Cameron used the phrase “if I were your prime minister” on several occasions, without fully convincing us that he ever would be.

In my view, Gordon Brown was the clear winner: the question is now whether his strong performance on one night will be enough to recover the ground lost over the previous two years.

Jonathan Hemus

www.insigniacomms.com

The first televised leadership debate caused such a seismic shift in the course of this election campaign that the stakes in round two are even higher.  It’s a safe bet that each party will have analysed the performance of their man frame by frame and invested in yet more communication coaching to help him emerge victorious from the second encounter.

So what will be the key factors in shaping perceptions of the leaders in round two?  Last year research conducted by Insignia into risk communication identified five factors that seem to determine the effectiveness with which a spokesperson communicates their message. 

1)      Credibility

The research found that a spokesperson’s right to speak and to be listened to was initially conferred by having the appropriate status or expertise.  Without this foundation, the speaker has to work much harder to secure the attention and trust of the audience.  In the context of the leadership debate, all three politicians have a baseline of credibility bestowed by their positions as party leaders.  However, Gordon Brown’s tarnished reputation reduces his credibility and therefore the willingness of people to listen to what he actually says with an objective ear.   Both Brown and Cameron will surely use round two to undermine Nick Clegg’s credibility, an attribute that is yet to be fully tested.

2)      Content

Our research showed that when serious issues are being communicated, the public really does listen closely to the detail of what is being said: when communication really matters, it must go beyond superficial spin.  That’s probably one of the key reasons why David Cameron’s slick, but slightly vacuous performance failed to advance the Conservative cause following the first broadcast.  The challenge for Nick Clegg in round two will be to deliver hard and engaging content to build on the positive impression that he created in round one.

3)      Body language

Much was made of Nick Clegg’s body language in the first debate:  his casual hand in the pocket which made him seem more natural and down to earth, his dismissive sweep of the arm as he said “these two parties will tell you…” and his direct eye contact were all very effective.  Our research showed that strong body language is incredibly powerful in getting a message across:  to connect with the electorate watching at home, Brown and Cameron need to match the standard that Clegg has set in this regard.

4)      Environment

Our research showed that the setting for a media encounter communicates strong subliminal messages: put a doctor in a hospital setting and their credibility is enhanced; picture a politician at a school and they are seen to be interested in young people.  The leadership debate format filmed against the blank canvas of the studio neutralises this factor.

5)      Personal style

Insignia’s report showed that the ultimate clincher in engaging the public is personal style:  this is an almost intangible alchemy of passion, personality and energy that turns a proficient communicator into one that can inspire behaviour change.  To my mind, the first debate lacked this element – though Clegg came closest to success – and so this is the biggest opportunity for all three leaders.  If any one of them manages to communicate real passion and emotion, then they have the opportunity not just to win the TV debate, but also emerge as a clear leader in this three horse race.

Jonathan Hemus

www.insigniacomms.com

Last week I was tasked with drafting an important question and answer document to help prepare executives for a sensitive company announcement due to be made in April.  I was somewhat frustrated to be asked to remove one of the questions because “we’re not ready to answer that yet”.  This week, PR Week reported the departure of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations’ Director-General including the line “The CIPR would not reveal whether the decision for Farrington to leave lies with the body or with Farrington himself”.

On both occasions, my eyes lifted skywards, my head began to shake and I let out a sigh of exasperation. 

Effective issues management requires communication strategies designed to deliver the best case scenario, but also capable of dealing with the worst case.  One of the foundations for this is a thorough question and answer document.  Here are my tips to develop a really comprehensive Q&A document capable of playing an important part in reputation protection:

1)      Cover off the obvious questions first

Brainstorm the most likely questions as your starting point: these are often the facts and figures of the situation.  Use the journalist’s friends – who, what, where, when and why – as a checklist to flush out these most obvious questions.  Providing accurate and consistent answers to the basic questions is essential:  if you can’t get the basic facts right than your credibility is already in jeopardy.

2)      Put yourself in their shoes

If you only think about questions from your own perspective, you will create an incomplete Q&A document.  You must consider the receivers of this message – your stakeholders – and work out what they will want to know. How are they affected by this development?  What would you ask if you were them?  Consider all stakeholders and make sure that all of their concerns are reflected in the Q&A document.

3)      Be tough on yourself

The point of an effective Q&A document is to help executives answer the really difficult questions, not the easy ones.  So, consider the questions that you would least like to answer and include them in your document.  If the thought of including a question makes you feel uncomfortable, it’s a strong indicator that you should.

4)      Develop strong, clear answers

The best answers are as direct and clear as possible: if you can give a straight answer, then do so.  Where confidentiality or sensitivities prevent this, give the fullest answer possible and certainly avoid meaningless management-speak.  Do take the opportunity to link your answers back to the key messages embedded within the main announcement – the Q&A document can help to further reinforce these.

5)      Test your answers

Ask a colleague to sense test your answers: a fresh pair of eyes can help to assess whether they will work effectively with your stakeholders.  If they are used as part of a verbal briefing it’s also essential to say them out loud: sometimes an answer which looks fine on paper is not quite so compelling when expressed out loud.

Following these five steps provides a strong foundation for a robust and effective question and answer document as part of your issues management plan.  It also means that when the tough question comes, you’re geared up to answer it well, rather than bluffing it, mumbling “no comment” or – if all else fails – planting your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and proclaiming “la, la, la, la, la….”

Jonathan Hemus

www.insigniacomms.com

Throughout the Toyota recall crisis I have supported many of the communication tactics employed by its PR people around the world.  It has made effective use of social and online media with regular Tweets, created an informative blog and provided other useful online information.  It has been present in the media (albeit belatedly) and it has been pro-active in communicating with its owners.

Last week I was passed a copy of a direct mail piece sent to Toyota owners entitled “Recall Bulletin”.  Its very existence is evidence of a company seeking to engage with its key stakeholders, to drive the communication agenda and retain the trust of its owners.  Many of its articles are well targeted in terms of messaging: “The numbers” underlines the speed and scope of Toyota’s efforts to implement the recall, a message further underlined by an article headed “Moving fast, thinking fast” which illustrates the timeline of the recall.

The piece “Insurance: covered with Toyota” offers reassurance for any owners concerned about this topic.  And the “Let’s get technical” article not only provides clear details of the recall process, but also shows Toyota’s determination to exceed expectations with the line “the work takes 30 minutes, however, if you can allow an hour the Centre will also valet your car”.

As a consequence the company is ticking the boxes of filling the information void, engaging with stakeholders and taking actions which go beyond what might be expected in this situation.

So why do I remain concerned about the organisation’s overall crisis management strategy and the speed and scale of its recovery?  It’s because this crisis is not really about communication, it is about organisational culture.  The culture that allowed the crisis to happen in the first place, and the culture that is necessary to repair the damage and prevent a repeat incident in future.  In this area the “Recall Bulletin” displays worrying signs.

The front page headline is “Pressing ahead”.  Whilst there’s a danger of reading too much into a headline, “pressing ahead” is the last thing that Toyota should be doing.  When an organisation suffers a crisis created by organisational and cultural flaws, the most important thing it can do is identify the failings in the system and make changes that eradicate them.  “Pressing ahead” could mean that the flaws remain dormant in the organisation, ready to cause a future crisis.

The second worrying element is the defensive – almost wounded – tone of voice apparent in the two front page articles.  The lead story showcases some of the more positive media comment about Toyota’s recall and includes the phrase “some of the more well-informed parts of the UK press have been showing a very balanced view of the situation”.  The second front page story reveals that Toyota comes seventh in the automotive recall league table – in other words, six manufacturers have conducted more recalls than Toyota.

Crises have the ability to create a siege mentality: at its extreme it verges on paranoia.  Often, media coverage feels unfair, and the characterisation of the company may be different from the one recognised by those working for it.  In these circumstances it is appropriate to provide context and to address blatant inaccuracies.  However, my concern is that having the front page of a customer newsletter devoted to these messages rather than information targeted directly at the concerns of customers indicates that Toyota has its priorities wrong.  The key to avoiding this is taking an outside-in approach when crafting messages and putting professional hurt to one side in order to get the priorities right.

I do sympathise with Toyota’s PR folk: it’s not their fault that the company finds itself in this situation.  But turning its fire on the media or communicating the message “ we’re no worse than anyone else” is devoting time, energy and focus to the wrong activity.  And failing to fully identify and address the underlying cause of the crisis would be an even bigger mistake.  If Toyota is to recover as quickly and as fully as possible – and protect itself from future crises – this is where all of its energies should be focused right now.

Jonathan Hemus
www.insigniacomms.com

A complaint to the City takeover committee alleging that Kraft made misleading comments during its battle to acquire Cadbury is the latest twist in a tale of a corporate conflict won by Kraft, but at a cost to its UK reputation.  The complaint relates to Kraft’s comments about Cadbury’s Somerdale plant during the takeover process when it told the BBC that it “would be in a position to keep the Somerdale plant operating and we are sincere about that.”  Shortly after the deal was concluded, Kraft announced that the factory would shut.

Closures and job losses are often inevitable as part of the merger and acquisition process, but Kraft’s approach to communication seems to have jeopardised its reputation and created business challenges for itself.  So, what are some of the key learnings to emerge from this episode and how can they be applied more broadly to corporate re-structuring and change communication?

1) Understand your audience, understand the context for communication

British manufacturing is a pale shadow of its former self: the latest recession put the final few nails in the coffin of what was once a thriving industrial nation.  Cadbury was one of the last remaining British manufacturers of which the country could be proud: more than this, the company played an important role in the communities in which it operated.  Beyond simply providing employment, the company had historically invested in housing, sports facilities and other philanthropic acts which meant that it held a symbolic significance beyond that of many other companies.  Maybe Kraft under-estimated Cadbury’s cultural significance and its communication failed to resonate as a consequence.

In any situation of corporate change, it’s essential to view the situation from the perspective of the stakeholder in order to fully understand their needs, concerns and motivations.  By appreciating the context, messages can be created and communicated in a way more likely to win stakeholder support, or at least respect.  It is only by engaging in communication planning that begins from the outside in, that an organisation can hope to meet its communication objectives.

2) Set the communication agenda

Cadbury’s spiritual home is the Birmingham district of Bournville, the location not just of a major manufacturing facility, but also Cadbury World.  When the bid for Cadbury was announced, Birmingham people tuned their radios to BBC Radio WM as one of the key sources of authoritative news on the story.  But Kraft refused to be interviewed, possibly feeling that national media was more important.  For the people of Birmingham, Kraft’s silence was viewed as arrogant and indicative of a company which might have something to hide.

When uncertainty exists, rumour and speculation always multiply.  In this environment it makes sense for companies to fill the void with information and facts to ensure that key stakeholders understand the corporate position.  Sometimes companies cannot provide total reassurance or all the facts, but by communicating, the company establishes itself as a credible voice and negates the wilder speculation.  And it’s part of reputation management for the longer term

3) Be clear about how you want to be perceived

What you say, how you say it and to whom will speak volumes about the kind of company that you are, and your priorities.  Speak only to the investment community and the business media, and you will be seen as an organisation for whom the profit-motive is the only objective.  Be aware of the reputation that you are creating when you make these decisions.

4) Don’t mislead

No organisation should ever make a public statement that misleads the public or any other stakeholder.  Whilst it may buy short term popularity or avoid the company having to answer difficult questions at the time, it can be ruinous for long term reputation.  Re-building credibility once trust has been lost is a long, arduous and sometimes forlorn task.

5) Be wary of winning the battle and losing the war

Kraft was successful in winning its takeover battle for Cadbury.  But its communication (and sometimes non-communication) have created challenges for the future of the new business.  Any company that can make avowed chocaholics consider a Cadbury boycott should be concerned about its ability to secure full value from its new acquisition.

Change communication is a difficult process to get right: change inevitably leads to disgruntled and disadvantaged stakeholders, some of whom will never be satisfied, whatever you say.  However, effective communication can engage supporters, win grudging respect from the sceptics and reduce the number of critics.  And your long term reputation will be all the better for it.

Jonathan Hemus
www.insigniacomms.com

In an earlier blog posting, I suggested that an interviewee on BBC Breakfast would have benefited from media training.  Apart from his uneasy body language, he talked in unpenetrable management-speak and failed to answer a single question.  It was an uncomfortable experience, both for him and for viewers.  Another blogger read my comments and suggested that far from needing media training, his performance was as a result of too much media training.  His perception of media training was an experience designed to programme businesspeople to prevaricate, ignore the question and avoid saying anything of interest at all costs.

Having watched the performance of a number of Conservative party spokespeople over the last few weeks, it seems that they have all booked in for training courses of the kind described above.  Everyone knows that politicians are the epitome of the slippery spokesperson: a straight answer appears about as often as Halley’s comment.  But the Tories have taken this on to a whole new level as the election campaign begins in earnest.  And their approach provides learnings for organisational spokespeople who want to connect more effectively with their stakeholders.

Firstly, there’s the issue of key messages.  These are the themes that people want to communicate in an interview: they form a spokesperson’s agenda.  Key messages are essential to deliver a successful interview performance:  without them, an interview is a random encounter from which the interviewee will only derive benefit by chance.  But key messages must have substance, and this means providing facts, evidence, examples or stories that make the messages real and compelling.  The Conservative version of a key message is to simply repeat the word “change” twenty times in every interview, but without tangible evidence or facts to explain what “change” means, or exactly what it would look and feel like.  As a consequence, it is at best only partially successful in communication terms.

The second issue is the choice of language.  When I am leading a communication coaching course, one of my top priorities is to help businesspeople communicate with clarity.  This means using simple, clear, down to earth language that the average person would understand.  It means talking about real, tangible things, and telling stories that relate to the everyday lives of the people receiving the message.  Instead, the Conservatives talk in abstract terms such as “enterprise”, “responsibility” and, of course, “change”.   It’s very hard to understand what these ideas mean in practice, which is another reason why they will fail to fully connect with the general public.  It’s important for businesspeople to ensure that their words are meaningful to the people with whom they are communicating, whether they are staff members, customers, investors or the media.

I believe passionately that communication can unlock organisational success by inspiring employees, persuading customers to buy products or services and giving investors the confidence to buy shares.  I also believe that many successful businesspeople would benefit from communication training to help them fully realise these opportunities.  But not the kind of training that has created the political non-communicators who threaten to fill our screens for the next couple of months.

Jonathan Hemus
www.insigniacomms.com

Following “conventional wisdom” is safe and easy, whereas challenging the prevailing view is far more exciting, and guaranteed to attract more attention.  It’s certainly true that no significant breakthrough in any field occurred without looking at the status quo with a sceptical eye.  So I was interested to read Bob Conrad’s posting “Brand crisis: 10 crisis response myths”.

Mr Conrad’s first “myth” is that “it’s best to get ahead of the issue” and he quotes the botched crisis communication surrounding the Sago coal mine disaster of 2006 to substantiate this.  I disagree on both counts.  The worst thing that an organisation can do when dealing with a crisis is simply to react to events: you end up out of control, on the defensive and allowing the crisis to manage you, rather than vice versa.  The fiasco at Sago was primarily due to flaws in internal communication and a failure to check the facts.  There were plenty of other things that the company could have done and said to “get ahead of the issue” without falling into this trap.

Moving on to myth 2, “under fire, organisations should respond quickly”, Mr Conrad highlights the danger of responding too quickly without adequate information.  But my experience shows that organisations should indeed respond quickly in the event of a crisis – if they fail to do so, others fill the information vacuum.  Just as damagingly, silence can be taken to indicate a lack of control, a company gripped by organisational paralysis or simply one that doesn’t care.  I’m not for a moment suggesting that the swift response should take risks with unverified information: but even in the very early stages of crisis management there are safe and useful messages that can be communicated to establish the organisation as the most important source of credible information.

And in my experience the principle that “saying “no comment” is one of the worst things you can do” is no myth either!  The very words “no comment” have now taken on meaning way beyond their literal interpretation.  They are perceived as the words of the guilty, the culprits who are “bang to rights” but too arrogant or scared to admit it.  Even if the full facts are not yet clear, there are still things media spokespeople can say – “we’re looking into the situation” or “we’ve sent a team to investigate the incident” – which avoid the dreaded “no comment” words passing their lips.

I could go on, “myth” by “myth”, but instead let’s move directly to number 10 – “Poorly managed crises negatively impact brand images”.  Rather than “brand images”, I would use the word “reputation” and express the view that whilst a crisis in itself has no power to damage a reputation, the way in which it is managed certainly does.  That’s not to say that a brand will necessarily be destroyed by poor crisis management, but it will undoubtedly be damaged.  The only questions are how much and for how long.  The Tiger Woods brand is currently damaged because of poor crisis management.  The McLaren buggy brand is currently damaged because of poor crisis management.  The Ratners brand was destroyed by poor crisis management.  And even if the brand makes a full recovery over time, the pain and cost associated with the recovery are reasons enough to follow the principles of effective crisis communication in the first place.

Mr Conrad makes some interesting points, and I share his view that no two crises are the same.  I also wholeheartedly endorse the implication that judgement and decision-making based on the specific circumstances are essential.  Ultimately though, I have to conclude that decision-making based on crisis management best practice has more to commend it than the “off-piste” approach advocated by Mr Conrad.

Jonathan Hemus
www.insigniacomms.com

On Friday, UK bank FirstDirect found itself dealing with a self-inflicted crisis caused by the perils of social media and a careless choice of words.  The bank – along with many others – was the victim of a Twitter hacking attack when one of its team clicked on a link within a direct message, supposedly from one of its followers.  Instead it allowed its Twitter account to be hacked and spam messages were sent to its followers.

Worse was to follow.

In response to the problem, the FirstDirect team issued the following Tweet:

Hi all, I’m sure you can tell, but we were hacked last night – please disregard any inappropriate tweets that purport to come from us!

Followed seven minutes later by

Re. previous Tweet I just want to clarify that only our Twitter account has been hacked!!! We’ve changed our password so all should be well.

And then – clearly fearing that customers could still misunderstand the attack to be on their bank accounts rather than the Twitter feed:

Just to clarify – no password issues, it was a link in a DM. No customer / personal data has been compromised. Sorry for any offense caused.

By the end of the day, the company posted a full apology to its website, both for the initial problem and its response to it.

This highlights the double-edged sword associated with the lightning speed of social media.  It’s very immediacy encourages people to write and click, sometimes without pause for consideration.  Even in this age of now, now , now, I would always advise anyone to read communication destined for the public domain once, twice, and then a third time.  And if the communication is of a potentially sensitive nature, get someone else to read it too.

A second observation coming from this incident is the constraints of Twitter, in particular its 140 character limit on postings which requires a shorthand style.  Sometimes a complex message cannot be communicated effectively in 140 characters – nuance or detail has to be left out which can be dangerous if clarity is essential.

And finally, the incident highlights the enormous power of emotive words when placed in a certain context.  The word “hack” when used in the context of a bank is likely to be received with alarm and concern by its customers.  An awareness of the effect of such incendiary language is essential to avoid unnecessary customer panic and to preserve the organisation’s online reputation.

Jonathan Hemus
www.insigniacomms.com