A series of YouTube videos by an American Airlines employee have added to the issues management challenges of a company already facing an uncertain business future.
The humorous videos by a flight attendant parody the firm’s management and reveal the content of an internal memo sent to staff. A discussion is developing on ragan.com as to the appropriateness of American Airlines response to the issue and whether it has the right to “censor” its employees.
Crisis management is always more challenging when an issue is internally generated rather than caused by an external event. To reduce the likelihood of such an incident and therefore minimise reputational harm, a strategy of prevention must be prioritised. The critical first step in this is the introduction and internal communication of a social media policy. Although many businesses already have such a policy in place, a significant minority do not.
Whilst a policy cannot entirely prevent an internally generated social media crisis, it does ensure that expectations are clear so that staff understand the ground rules for their use of social media. Take a look at this site for examples of social media policies from some of the world’s biggest organisations. American Airlines may well be taking an urgent look at it right now.
The first few weeks of 2012 have seen a succession of businesses in crisis management mode as they fought to protect their reputations in the face of challenging events and issues.
Whilst the Costa Concordia disaster filled the news for weeks and required concerted crisis communication, RBS faced an issues management challenge over executive pay, LA Fitness grappled with a social media fuelled crisis and the issue of faulty breast implants tested the communication skills of clinicians, governments and scientists across Europe. And these events are just the tip of the iceberg.
A crisis is by definition a critical even for an organisation, but research by Oxford Metrica shows that it is not the fact of suffering a crisis that damages a business – in reality no business can eliminate the possibility of a problem- rather, what really counts is how the organisation is seen to manage the crisis: take control quickly, respond professionally, and communicate well and the organisation is likely to prosper. Federal Express, for example, have been commended for the way in which it responded to a YouTube video which threatened reputational harm.
Conversely, dither, hide or appear to be uncaring, and tough – even terminal – challenges may lie ahead.
As a result, thorough crisis preparedness is essential so that the organisation can be off the starting blocks like an Olympic sprinter. And – just like athletics – what used to be speedy enough to win a gold medal is now far from world class. They used to say that the first 24 hours of a crisis were crucial. The speed and spread of crises today – largely driven by the immediacy and reach of on-line media – makes a mockery of this golden rule. Being prepared before the crisis breaks, and being able to respond almost instantaneously allows organisations to retain control over their destiny. HSBC demonstrated the value of this preparation when its online banking and ATMs crashed late last year: it reacted quickly with a textbook crisis communication response.
An online world has not changed key principles of reputation protection: indeed, the old lessons of crisis preparedness still apply (but more so):
Understand your areas of vulnerability
Develop and implement crisis management plans and processes
Rehearse the plan and enhance it
Train your people, especially those required to act as a spokesperson in a crisis
Monitor the landscape
Engage in pro-active reputation management
But the power of social media to both create and destroy reputations presents a new and potentially scary dynamic. And many organisations are still grappling with how to harness online media in the face of this potentially business-critical challenge. It’s one of the reasons why Blackberry was so slow to respond with effective crisis communication to its network outage late last year.
Failing to prepare properly leaves an organisation frighteningly vulnerable in today’s world. If a crisis is gestating online then the organisation must have the capability to also manage it online. Sticking to traditional media has the potential for at least three negative results. Firstly, you may fail to reach those people most affected and concerned by the crisis – the people talking about it online. Secondly, you lose the opportunity to engage with the online community which has the power to spread positive messages about what the organisation is doing to deal with the situation. And finally, you may further escalate the situation by communicating bad news to people who were previously unaware that there was a problem.
The key to success is a combination of traditional reputation management insights and expertise, and the application of the latest on-line reputation management tools to get the message through.
As the start point for online reputation management, companies should take the following five steps:
Develop crisis management “dark sites” or other online hubs to respond quickly, clearly and effectively to emerging issues and incidents
Ensure that it has identified and set up the infrastructure and resource to communicate via social media such as Twitter and Facebook
Implement online media monitoring to track what is being said about them in cyberspace
Develop the capability to quickly create content – latest information, briefing papers, podcasts, blogs – for online media
Build skills and confidence by running a realistic social media exercise
The internet has the power to spark and spread a crisis: but used effectively, digital tools have enormous potential to help organisations prevent and manage them too. Having online resources in place beforehand leaves an organisation better placed to manage any crises that the rest of 2012 throws at us.
When LA Fitness threatened to enforce its contract with a heavily pregnant woman who had fallen on hard times, it may have had the letter of the law on its side. But once the story became public, it was found guilty in the court of public opinion.
LA Fitness is just the latest business to find out that protecting reputation means doing the right thing in the eyes of the outside world, not simply complying with regulations or the law.
Ten years ago, LA Fitness’s dispute with a customer over whether her gym contract could be enforced would have been a private customer service issue in which the company held the balance of power. Today it requires crisis management skills, is conducted in public and public opinion has far greater influence.
This transparency needs to be understood by businesses and factored into their behaviour, decision-making and communication. The imperative to act in a way that matches the expectations of external stakeholders is largely driven by the power of social media. In the old days, customer complaints could be dealt with in private and media criticism dismissed as tomorrow’s fish and chip paper. Today, because of Twitter, Tripadvisor, Google et al, customer service – and crisis management – has become a spectator sport. Worse, the spectators actually influence the game. Whether businesses like it or not, this is the reality.
This transparency has raised the bar in terms of ethical and acceptable corporate behaviour – it’s much harder to do bad things and simply get away with it (which, of course, is a good thing). It also means that the need for thorough crisis management planning is more pressing than ever: reputational risk assessment, social media monitoring, scenario planning and realistic social media simulations should all form part of this. A slow or inappropriate response to a crisis will be punished with damage to reputation.
LA Fitness appeared to be forced into a u-turn, and this never looks good. Ultimately, the key for businesses is to control the crisis rather than let the crisis control them. Being able to perceive a crisis from the outside in and acting quickly and appropriately when company behaviour clashes with public expectations is essential to preserve corporate reputation.
Blackberry looks set to once again prove the crisis communication adage that it’s not really the crisis which damages reputation, it’s the way in which you respond to it.
On this basis, Blackberry is set to suffer major harm to its reputation (and its business fortunes) based on a tight-lipped approach to communication and a failure to use social media to communicate its response to the current problems. Gordon MacMillan’s blog posting on The Wall sums it up perfectly for me – it’s well worth a read: I’ll simply say that I endorse every word and would also add the following.
Swift crisis communication
Any organisation which wants to protect its reputation in a crisis must be geared up to communicate quickly and expansively in the event of an incident. For most organisations that must include social media: it’s where the crisis plays out, it’s where customers go to seek information and vent their spleen, it’s where the media turns for information. And it’s where businesses can quickly exert influence over the communication agenda, and listen and respond to the concerns of its stakeholders.
Social media in crisis communication
In today’s online world, I would contend that even an organisation without a consumer face should have the ability to utilise social media in the event of a crisis. But if you’re a consumer brand (which Blackberry has chosen to become) you certainly should have this capability. Moreover, if you’re a consumer brand in the telecoms space whose devices facilitate communication by social media, I find it truly staggering that you would ignore these channels when your reputation is on the line.
Not only does it go against the guiding principles of effective crisis communication, but it also calls into question whether the Blackberry brand really is at the heart of social media (and therefore the consumer landscape), or not.
Crisis management training
Organisations at the leading edge of reputation protection have already integrated social media into their crisis communication planning and are running realistic crisis exercises with social media as a core element. All businesses need to embrace this approach – and quickly – or else risk being overwhelmed by the kind of crisis communication challenge currently facing Blackberry.
Update: 15.20 13 October
Blackberry has now begun the social media fightback with a YouTube video apology from CEO Mike Laziridis in which he admits “we’ve let you down” and commits to more pro-active communication. Its content, tone and messages are spot on. But at least 48 hours too late.
One of the main sub-stories of the August riots was the use of social media in inciting and organising rioters as they took to the streets. Some commentators even called for social media to be “turned off”.
Now, whilst it’s clear that social media can indeed contribute to the escalation and spread of a crisis situation, it’s even more powerful as a crisis communication solution. That’s why I was so heartened to read a blog posting from Superintendent Mark Payne of West Midlands Police with his views on the subject. I’d recommend you read his entire posting, but for now, consider these excerpts:
One thing that we have seen over and over again during emergency situations is that where there is no information coming from the authorities, the gap will be plugged by speculation
The very clear message is that people were reassured by following my feed, and believed it rather than all of the rumours that were flying about on the day
If you use social media on a day to day basis, people start to trust your voice, and they are much more likely to turn to you for information in a crisis
It seems clear to me that these are crisis communication lessons not just for the police force, but for corporate communicators too. Anyone in the business of reputation protection should be paying full attention to the impact of social media, and planning for its use in crisis management. Applying the principles suggested by Superintendant Payne would be a very good start.
If you heard that your regular painkiller could have been replaced with antipsychotic drugs instead, you might be a little concerned. So concerned that you might want a little more information to put your mind at rest.
That is the scenario facing purchasers of Nurofen Plus following anannouncement from the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) that some packs contain not the expected Ibuprofen, but Seroquel XL, an antipsychotic drug used to treat conditions such as schizophrenia.
Go to the Nurofen website and there appears to be no information about the incident. Move on to Nurofen’s Facebook pageand there’s a great quiz, but no information about the product contamination. Turn to the website of Reckitt Benckiser and still you won’t find any advice from Nurofen or its parent company.
Businesses which want to reassure their customers and retain their loyalty during and after a crisis need to communicate with them. That means being geared up to communicate via company websites and social media. It means having the capability to man your customer helpline 24/7 if necessary. Failing to do this leaves customers in the dark, potentially fearful and with your reputation in the hands of the commentators who are prepared to provide information. It’s a high risk crisis communicationstrategy.
Update
Twelve hours later and a terse statement is now available on the Nurofen website, but it contains little information or reassurance. At 8.06am the customer helpline is still closed and people are beginning to post to the Nurofen Facebook page, for example “Never mind the competitions , what about informing the public of the anti-depressants found in your packs?”. No information about the problem can be found on Nurofen’s Facebook page. People are also making their views known on Twitter. More expansive crisis communication would surely be in Nurofen’s best interests?
Update 2 (26 Aug)
Nurofen has now announced a recall of all stock in retail outlets: a more expansive communication approach is now surely essential.
When the BBC’s Panorama programme apparently showed Primark’s use of child labour in Bangalore, the retailer’s reputation took a serious hit. With the recent BBC Trust reportconcluding that footage of boys checking stitching on Primark products was “more likely than not” “not genuine”, it is now the BBC whose reputation is under the microscope. Indeed this is especially challenging for the BBC whose brand is associated with trust, integrity and high editorial standards. As we have seen in previous incidents, when a crisis strikes at the heart of an organisation’s brand essence, it has the power to do more damage than would otherwise be the case.
Primark meanwhile has taken the opportunity to seize the communication agenda and lead the post-report debate (in contrast to the policy of non-engagement advocated by a recent Economist article). Central to this is its microsite “Primark and Panorama; the true story” . It includes:
YouTube footage created in a reportage style which seeks to reveal the alleged falsehoods in Panorama’s original programme
a detailed statement in response to the BBC Trust’s ruling (and a link to the full report)
a timeline of events
an ethical trade factsheet
the opportunity for people to post comments to the site
a “contact us” section for bloggers, the media, NGOs and other interested parties
The site serves as a template for other businesses wanting to pro-actively manage issues, rather than simply react to them. Primark clearly made a decision to treat the publication of the report as an opportunity to surround stakeholders with materials and messages supportive of its position. Using an online platform to host these materials and messages means that anyone interested in the Primark perspective can use it as a “one stop shop”. Note also how Primark has made good use of search engine marketing to guarantee prominence for its point of view: search for “primark panorama” with Google and at the top of page one is a sponsored link to the microsite. Without this core resource, Primark would still have been represented in the post-report discussion, but in a less prominent way.
I applaud Primark for the way in which it has exerted control of the communication agenda, but would also sound a word of warning to other businesses before replicating its response in totality. In communication there are grey areas between influencing, spinning and manipulating. By failing to allow comments to be posted to its YouTube footage and by claiming that the BBC Trust had found that the footage was “fabricated” when the actual ruling fell short of stating this, Primark could be accused of over-stepping the mark.
It’s also worth noting that the company’s robust and strident response carries an element of risk as it means that any future transgressions will be an even bigger story than would otherwise be the case. With this in mind, Primark needs to plan both operationally and reputationally for the fact that it is a highly visible media target.
Finally, I would observe that an organisation’s crisis communicationresponse needs to be in keeping with its usual tone of voice. That’s why Ryanair can be bullish in response to a problem whereas Virgin Atlantic would tend to be more empathetic. The way in which Primark has communicated following the Panorama programme mirrors its positioning as a down to earth, straight forward brand, underlining the fact that for crisis communication to be truly effective, it must be authentic.
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.
A year ago I bought an HTC Desire phone. It’s been fantastic – I’ve recommended it to many friends and business associates. A couple of months ago, it began to overheat and shut down during long calls. I contacted HTC who agreed to repair it under warranty and said that I should expect it to be returned in five working days: UPS picked it up for repair on Monday 11 April. Thirty-eight days later and HTC still have not returned my phone, provided a replacement or any form of compensation despite many, many phone calls and emails from me to them. It appears that many other HTC customers are suffering similar problems.
Given that this is a blog about communication, it is HTC’s approach to communication and its lessons for other businesses engaging in crisis management that I will focus on here (though the temptation simply to rant is very strong!).
Throughout the episode, HTC’s contact centre has been unfailingly polite, empathetic and professional in their conversations with me. As a consequence, they ticked the first box of crisis communication- empathise with the impact of your problem on those affected by it.
But the process has stalled at this first stage: HTC has failed to take action to address the situation and communicate these steps to its stakeholders. It remains mired in apology and empathy mode: this is a good start but without tangible evidence of action, stakeholders remain frustrated and begin to doubt whether the business really cares about the effect it is having on its customers. Words are important; action is essential.
Contradictory messages and unfulfilled promises further threaten the reputation of organisations engaged in crisis communication. So, when a couple of weeks ago HTC told me that my phone was being repaired and promised to return it by the following Tuesday, it further diminished my trust when this failed to happen and I was subsequently told that the necessary spare parts had still not arrrived at the repair centre.
The bottom line is this: effective and empathetic crisis communication is essential if businesses are to protect their reputations. But soothing words are not enough. Swift actions, well communicated are necessary if the organisation is to emerge unscathed. Companies that fail to do this are likely to lose business and suffer from negative word of mouth.
I’ve just taken delivery of an iphone and I have very much enjoyed drafting this blog posting.
Communication professionals like myself have long fought to establish PR as the equal of advertising. This has led to countless debates about effectiveness, return on investment and evaluation.
Now that the battle is won (I think), have we actually shot ourselves in the foot? I ask this question as a result of talking to a regional newspaper editor recently. His view is that PR people have so comprehensively won the argument, that when the economy contracted, businesses were confident that advertising budgets could be slashed and PR relied upon instead.
So far so good for the PR profession. But the effect is that the very publications, TV and radio stations that PR people are trying to reach are being starved of advertising revenue and forced to cut their frequency, pagination…or go out of business altogether.
The ultimate scenario could be thousands of PR professionals hugely skilled in reputation management and businesses totally convinced of the power of PR…but nowhere for their stories to appear. Of course, there are new and direct channels available, in particular online reputation management, and these are undoubtedly powerful means of commmunicating a corporate reputation.
But perhaps we do need to be a little wary of pushing the PR message to the extreme: we might be better served in the long term by suggesting to colleagues and clients that they spend a little more on advertising. I can’t believe I just wrote that.
Jonathan Hemus is the founder of Insignia Communications, a reputation management consultancy specialising in corporate communications, crisis and issues management, communication training and coaching and change communication.
Jonathan is passionate about the power of communication to help achieve personal and organisational success, and is a keen observer of good – and bad – practice in this area. Insignia Talks shares these views with the aim of helping organisations to successfully create, manage and protect their reputations.
