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

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

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 

When Genesis drummer Phil Collins issued a statement confirming his retirement from music, I took both a personal and professional interest.  Those who know me well, are already aware of my unhealthy obsession with Phil.  This includes featuring his song titles as the centrepiece of my wedding speech and two “encounters” with the great man which almost certainly fall into the category of stalking.

Putting that to one side (please!), the media trainer in me was struck by his apparent hurt at the way in which the media had positioned his retirement.  Listing the “mis-reporting” of the reasons behind his retirement – including dodgy reviews, feeling unloved and not fitting in any more – Phil then states:

“Some of the things mentioned above have been said by me in various interviews, but said as asides with a smile on my face and in passing.  They were not meant to be “headlines”, they were small parts of a conversation”

In that paragraph lie crucial lessons for anyone taking part in a press or pre-recorded broadcast interview, lessons that should be taught as part of any spokesperson’s media training:

1)      Plan what you will say beforehand

You must always develop your key messages ahead of any media encounter.  Not to do so when making a major media announcement like this is unforgiveable.

2)      Know what you won’t say

Deciding which areas are out of bounds and therefore about which you will not comment helps to avoid off the cuff decisions during the interview.  Knowing what you won’t talk about is almost as important as knowing what you do want to say.

3)      Stick to the script

Let’s be clear: the journalist is talking to you because they want a story.  Part of your preparation should be about identifying key messages which are not only beneficial to you, but also genuinely interesting and relevant to the reporter (and their readers or viewers).  That way, you both leave the interview happy.  But if you choose to abandon your key messages – even if only for a minute or two – and replace them with “asides” that are more interesting, controversial or newsworthy, guess what will appear in the media?  Even if you say them “in passing” or with “a smile on [your] face”.

4)      Everything is on the record

Reporters sometimes get their best quotes when the tape recorder has been turned off and the interviewee relaxes and goes “off the record”.  Beware this trap and work on the assumption that everything you say could end up on the front page.  As Phil found out to his cost.

Very few of us will spend as much time with the media as a rock star.  But the lessons of Phil Collins’ unhappy experience apply to corporate spokespeople too.

The silver lining for me is the fact that Mr Collins clearly needs some media training – maybe even crisis communication advice – and I know just the man to deliver it…

Jonathan Hemus

www.insigniacomms.com

We received a letter from Marks and Spencer yesterday.  It turns out that pet insurance for Jenny, our Labrador/Boxer cross-breed, is due to expire in a fortnight and M&S had failed to remind us of this fact.  They apologised, acknowledged the impact on us, allowed us an extra couple of weeks to make up our mind, offered the first month free and enclosed £25 of store vouchers as a gesture of goodwill. 

We’ll be renewing at the first opportunity.

This experience reminded me of the parallels between great customer service and effective crisis communication.

1)    Take control

Marks and Spencer didn’t wait for us to spot their mistake: they seized the initiative and pro-actively communicated their error to us.  In doing so, they took control of the situation.  In a crisis, businesses are well advised to take the same approach: control the timing and content of communication and your destiny remains in your own hands.

2)    Say sorry

Whilst company lawyers may sometimes bristle at the idea of a business saying sorry, it can be a very disarming tactic in customer service and crisis management .  Crises feed on conflict: if you reduce the tension by acknowledging that a mistake has been made and apologising for it, a lot of the heat is removed from the situation.

3)    Exceed expectations in putting the situation right

Saying sorry is the first step to redemption: resolving the problem comes next.  In our case, M&S proposed an appropriate solution that caused us no inconvenience or disadvantage; then they sweetened it with store vouchers which was more than I expected. 

Taking action which clearly addresses the issue is essential if stakeholders are to feel reassured that the company really cares.  Going beyond what any customer (or other stakeholder) could reasonably expect in rectifying the problem can result in satisfied customers turning into brand ambassadors.  And it’s the magic ingredient which can sometimes mean that a crisis enhances rather than damages reputation.

4)    Be true to your brand

Marks and Spencer has a strong reputation for customer care, and its approach to this situation reinforces that reputation.  It’s the same in a crisis.  So, when push comes to shove, people expect businesses to behave in accordance with their values .  Indeed, most damage is done to reputation when a company adopts a crisis communication approach which runs counter to their corporate values.  If a value is deeply engrained, it is apparent in the actions a business takes in a crisis, not just in the words of a corporate brochure.

Customer care and effective crisis management have a lot in common.  Executed professionally they both provide an opportunity to win brand ambassadors who will talk positively about their experience to anyone willing to listen. 

So, if your pet insurance is due for renewal, give M&S a chance to quote.  They really care about their customers.

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

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

Train operators are often fall guys on a quiet news day, but London Midlands’ crisis communications response to recent weekend cancellations meant it was ensnared in this trap.  The Times said that London Midland “claimed not to know the reason for the crisis” and so gave the impression of an organisation being controlled by the crisis, rather than the other way round.

It failed to fill the information vacuum: a short statement was insufficient when more expansive communication could have set the agenda and conveyed control.  MPs and rail user groups were quick to express their views: perhaps London Midland could have briefed key commentators before they spoke to the media.

The final irony is the contrast between the weekend’s events and the website page “Holding our hands up”, outlining previous problems and how London Midland is “working hard to change them and put them right”.  On last weekend’s evidence, there’s still a way to go on that particular journey.

Jonathan Hemus
www.insigniacomms.com