Insignia Talks

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

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.

Jonathan Hemus

www.insigniacomms.com

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.

Jonathan Hemus

www.insigniacomms.com

Concerns and coverage about potentially faulty breast implants produced by French company Poly Implant Prothese (PIP) continue more than two weeks after the story first broke.  This is a long time for a crisis to be in the media spotlight and indicates that crisis communication has been sub-optimal at best.

Indeed, a statement from the Independent Healthcare Advisory Services, the trade body which represents private clinics, accuses the government of communicating in a way which leaves people “feeling more confused and anxious now than before”.  It’s another reminder that effective crisis communication is essential when people are concerned for their health.

Women have been bombarded with mixed messages, which only increase their worries. While the UK authorities assert that there is no need to remove implants, countries such as France, Venezuela, Germany and Czech Republic have suggested that women have their implants removed as precautionary measures. According to the Lancet Medical Journal, it is ‘quite literally incredible’ for UK health officials to expect women not to worry.

The communication problem has been further exacerbated by the many and varied media spokespeople who have appeared on our televisions and radios over the last few weeks.  Everyone from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) through to individual cosmetic surgeons, trade associations, agony aunts, celebrities, government and patients have had their say.

So what makes for an effective media spokesperson during a health scare? We investigated this subject a couple of years back when, together with the University of Wolverhampton, we conducted research into swine flu communication. We looked at a range of spokespeople and used focus groups to assess their effectiveness and the reasons for their success – or lack of it.

The research clearly showed that high profile spokespeople have enormous power to reassure and inform the public in the event of a health scare.  Equally, they have the ability to cause unnecessary confusion, distress and concern if they fail to communicate effectively.  They need to recognise that this position of power also brings with it responsibility

We also identified the personal ingredients which defined a successful spokesperson at the time of a health scare.  Expressed as an equation, they are:

CS + SA + PA + AA = Reassurance (where CS is Credible Spokesperson, SA is Serious Appearance, PA is Personable Approach and AA is Actionable Advice)

Equally, credible spokespeople – doctors, scientists, academics – who provide worrying insights without clear and actionable advice can cause significant public anxiety. Given the impact that this communication has on the public, there’s a strong case for saying that people who are unable to match up to this set of criteria should not be put in front of the media during a major health scare.

Media training can help to identify whether a spokesperson is up the job or not, but also requires the potential commentator to be honest with themselves about their capabilities – or have a colleague who’s sufficiently honest and courageous to tell them the truth.

Having the ability to communicate effectively with the media is important at all times, but when your communication skills can affect the decisions someone makes about their health, I’d suggest it’s essential.

Jonathan Hemus

www.insigniacomms.com

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 an announcement 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 page and 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. 

So, instead, you pick up the phone and call the consumer helpline listed on the Nurofen website. Unfortunately, news of  the incident hit the BBC around 6pm and the helpline shut at 5pm.

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 communication strategy.

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.

Jonathan Hemus

www.insigniacomms.com

News International has applied many of the right crisis communication tactics to preserve its reputation.  So why is it still suffering criticism and damage?

The first reason is of course the sheer magnitude of the issue, the alleged cover up and the time it was allowed to fester without resolution.  But the timing and sequencing of News International’s crisis management response is also partly to blame.  Let’s take a look at three golden rules of successful crisis communication, how News international applied them and why they failed to prevent reputational damage.

1) Take decisive action to address the problem

News International’s announcement of the closure of the News of  the World on 7 July was the epitome of a decisive move and could have marked a significant turning point in this drama.  It failed to do so because the decision left Rebekah Brooks in post, one of the few current employees who was working for the News of the World at the time the hacking took place.  As a consequence, the decision was seen as expedient, and current News of  the World journalists were perceived more as victims than villains.  More than this though, News International’s action in closing the paper and the words that accompanied it, still indicated an organisation in denial of the scale of its problem.

2) Say sorry

In a crisis, lawyers advise never to say sorry; communicators recommend that it should be the first step.  When News International said sorry via full page advertisements in the national press on 15 July, it started to get its tone of voice right for the very first time.  Even more powerfully, when Rupert Murdoch met with Milly Dowler’s parents to express his regret, even Mark Lewis, the Dowler’s lawyer, commented on his sincerity.  But the apology was way too late to have the  impact that News International desired: it was the right message at the wrong time.

3)  Communicate pro-actively

As a media organisation some have found it surprising that News International’s crisis communication has been so lacking: I see it as a very high profile example of “cobbler’s children”.  It was interesting to note that when Murdochs senior and junior spoke to the Commons Select Committee, News International’s share price went up.  By communicating willingly and pro-actively, organisations begin to exert control over a situation and their reputation.  But it doesn’t help when you appear to have been cajoled, kicking and screaming, to that point.

News International’s crisis really began with a culture which allowed – maybe implicitly encouraged – phone hacking and an inability or unwillingness to confront the problem.   When it exploded, its use of all of the right crisis communication tactics, but not necessarily in the right order, meant that recovery was all the harder.

Jonathan Hemus

www.insigniacomms.com

Yesterday we considered the crisis communication lessons that businesses could learn from the News of the World hacking scandal.  Today, guest blogger Nick Woods, head of Publicis Consultants, considers how the paper might recover from its current crisis management challenges.

If you believe Rousseau, man is essentially good. He, or she, has flaws but the start point is that they are born good.

Your view on how this applies to Rupert Murdoch, Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson, Glenn Mulcaire or the coppers that sold stories is yours to ponder but it raises an interesting point about brands.

Very few brands are ‘born good’, rather they are created with the express purpose of making money for their owner.  But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t do good, as the NotW is proving – doing good isn’t just a useful pillar when things begin to go wrong it also provides a new potential strategic direction.

The News of the World has, undoubtedly, behaved appallingly and it seems likely we’ll see inquiries, new laws and hefty punishments for those who thought they were above the law.

But, as Colin Myler said in his letter to staff yesterday, the paper has also done some very good things:

“We are the paper that campaigned to enshrine the Military Covenant in law, fought for ten years to establish Sarah’s Law into legislation, the paper of Children’s Champions, the paper that has fought tirelessly against bullying and so much more.”

On top of these they have been one of Help for Heroes’ leading champions; the irony of last night’s reports that they also hacked into the phones of dead servicemen is lost on no-one.

This ‘good’ work could form a part of the brand’s recovery (and recover it surely shall – I predict a circulation spank this Sunday and then a full recovery over subsequent weeks with advertisers quietly returning).

The paper will undoubtedly have to be contrite, apologise and maybe wear some sack cloth, cover its head with ashes and do a fair amount of public wailing but it will also, eventually, need to move on and one possible route is an even more campaigning future.

This is a paper which is read by around 7 million people every Sunday, not just an impressive figure but a powerful one. This is a paper courted by politicians of every hue because of its influence over so many. This is a brand with an enormous opportunity to re-define its entire brand story, to put its shady and seemingly illegal past firmly behind it by finding a new narrative to follow, a narrative that is entirely positive.

If you look across British life there are lots of areas we could improve and if you begin to break it down even simplistically into political, environmental, social, technological, legal and economic, you can probably come up with a few yourself. Now imagine the most widely read newspaper in Britain running multi-platform campaigns in some of these areas.

I know some are talking about the ‘end of the News of the World’ but they’re kidding themselves. Some people there have behaved abominably and will, rightly, suffer the consequences. But like all crises this one represents an enormous opportunity and maybe it’s the NotW’s opportunity to redefine itself as a brand ‘for good’ in both senses.

As we observe News International’s phone hacking crisis lurch from bad to truly horrendous, it’s tempting to feel a little smug, safe in the knowledge that nothing quite this awful could ever affect our business.  But whilst the alleged behaviour of the newspaper and its private investigators sinks below the behaviour of the vast majority of corporations, there are nevertheless lessons in crisis management that businesses would do well to heed.

1) Your corporate culture has the power to create or prevent crisis

Reports from ex-News of the World journalists and other sources indicate that reporters were under enormous pressure to come up with the next scoop, whatever it took.  This would likely lead to an atmosphere where the end result is all that matters: this is exactly the culture in which crises can flourish.

In a corporate environment, similar issues can arise.  A blinkered focus on the bottom line – “I don’t care how you do it, just hit the number” – or an unwillingness to hear about problems which may hint at broader failings - “just sort it out” – are examples of this.

The best crisis management is crisis prevention: this requires leaders to set and exemplify the right culture.

2) Denial is your greatest enemy (part one)

The News of the World appears to be suffering from denial in both senses of the word.  Its initial response was to deny that widespread hacking had taken place. That early denial has been thoroughly undermined by subsequent developments. The effect is that the credibility of the newspaper’s subsequent statements are diminished.  Worse, the paper is seen as either incompetent or disingenuous in making the initial claim.

Businesses must heed this important crisis communication lesson: never make a public statement unless you are 100% certain of its truth. Ignore this, and serious reputational damage will inevitably follow.

3) Denial is your greatest enemy (part two)

Denial that there was a problem may be one of the key reasons why the News of the World has been unable to get to grips with its reputational challenge.  Businesses can suffer the same fate.  When a negative situation faces a corporation there’s a temptation to dis-believe or ignore it: leaders can find it almost impossible to comprehend that such a thing could afflict their business.  The problem is that until you recognise and acknowledge a problem, you cannot deal with it.  Beware corporate denial at all costs.

4) Pay special attention to the internally generated crisis

The News of the World is facing a crisis of its own making, created by the behaviours of its own employees.  This makes its crisis communication challenge so much harder.  The same applies to other businesses: accidents, natural disasters, even terrorist attacks all constitute crises and require professional management.  But the fact that the organisation in question is also a victim of the event gives them a degree of sympathy and understanding in responding to it. Don’t abuse this position: many businesses have suffered sgnificant reputational damage not because of the crisis itself, but because of the way in which they have mis-managed their response to it.

Far more challenging though is the self-inflcted crisis, where no one is at fault but the organisation itself.  Exacerbating this is the fact that many businesses fail to plan thoroughly for the internally generated crisis (it’s much more uncomfortable to contemplate management fraud or sexual harassment than it is to plan for a fire).

Businesses must avoid being blind-sided by internally generated crises by properly considering them as part of their reputational risk assessments, and testing their ability to respond via a well-conceived programme of crisis communication training.

Manage the crisis – don’t let it manage you

The News of the World has failed to apply effective crisis management to the phone hacking saga: the crisis seems to have managed it rather than the other way round.  And that really is the final learning for all businesses: effective crisis communication is about recognising a problem quickly; taking decisive action to address it; and communicating pro-actively to stakeholders to protect relationships and reputation.  News International appears to have failed on all counts.

Jonathan Hemus

www.insigniacomms.com

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 report concluding 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 communication response 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.

Jonathan Hemus

www.insigniacomms.com

News that FIFA President Sepp Blatter is under investigation regarding alleged corruption further plunges football’s governing body into crisis communication mode. 

It’s not the first sporting body to face challenges of this kind.  Indeed, it’s a sad fact of modern sport that all governing bodies will have to deal with corruption issues from time to time: cricket, tennis, snooker and horse racing are just four of the high profile sports that have grappled with corruption allegations in recent years.  But FIFA’s challenge is even greater for one important reason: the alleged corruption is not amongst its players, but within the organisation itself.  As a consequence, time is running out for the organisation to seize the initiative and commit to the changes necessary for it to restore trust.

As someone who advised the International Cricket Council when it first grappled with match-fixing allegations, I know that it’s possible for organisations to recover their reputations, but it requires commitment, courage and communication.  Commitment to rid the sport of corruption.  Courage to take difficult short term decisions in the interest of long term reputation protection.  Communication to give stakeholders confidence that the organisation is genuinely honest, transparent and open.

More than anything, successful crisis communication requires leadership.  And when the current leadership is itself at the heart of the crisis, it often requires a new chief to lead the change. 

As FIFA faces the biggest reputational threat in its history, football fans around the world must hope that this crisis turns out to be the catalyst for a more credible organisation in future.

Jonathan Hemus

www.insigniacomms.com

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