The Crisis in Crisis Communications Part 2/Crisis Management

While I don't like to revisit old topics, I do find that crisis communications is one that deserves a review due to upcoming events. As I write this from the east coast of the US we sit waiting to see if Hurricane Earl is going to be a major event, a major pain in the butt or fizzle out all together. Sadly, events like this often do far more damage to emergency plans than helping.

First off, when a major natural event, assuming it can be forecast, is announced, we are treated to the 24 hour media cycle in full wrath of God type mode. This will be a disaster of biblical proportions etc. etc. Of course 9 out of 10 times the event can not live up to the hype and people feel almost cheated. Public officials of course will meet in a comfortable locations with lots of bottled water and ample fresh food and calmly go through their preparedness forms as if all events will simply roll out slowly and smoothly.

If there is one lesson that can be learned from Hurricane Katrina and the spill in the Gulf of Mexico, it is that there is no crisis plan that can simply be opened and followed. I find it humorous that people think that by sitting in a conference room and thumbing through a 3-ring binder they are prepared for an emergency situation. In fact the best thing to do is gather all of those binders, put them in a nice pile, strap on some explosives and blow them up. I use this metaphor because that is essentially what will happen in a true crisis.

All too often management believes that crisis are about containment and "staying on top of the situation." Trying to stay on top of a crisis is much like trying to stay on top of a bucking bronco without benefit of a bridle. The worst thing and, quite possible, the most dangerous, is that managers believe that by conducting drills or having a plan means they are ready for a crisis. This would be laughable were it not so tragic.

One year before Hurricane Katrina, city, state and Federal leaders in the Gulf region did an emergency drill of a fictional Hurricane Pam. The fictional hurricane followed Katrina's path almost to within 25 miles and its wind speeds were only 10 miles per hour stronger. The levee breeches and the failure to evacuate New Orleans were all anticipated and predicted. Yet when the storm became more than an exercise the following year, all agencies were completely unprepared. They froze, panicked and when one element of their plan fell apart they tossed the entire plan out the window and became totally reactive.

The other great example is NASA. The space agency had a great legacy of running disaster scenarios that tried to anticipate everything from a rocket disaster to men being stranded on the moon. Amazingly they predicted both the Challenger and Columbia disasters. But at some point senior management decided that it was bad for morale at NASA to think bad things and killed the project. So rather than have a check list of things to look for and avoid, NASA went blindly into each project and had multiple failures, each of which could have been avoided had some crisis review been conducted.

So then what do we do? How do we prevent the next crisis from becoming a disaster? Well the first step still works so stick with it. That is to plan, as best that we can, for an upcoming event. Granted we can not see it all, nor can we anticipate every possible outcome. But we shouldn't try too. We should also plan on how will we manage the event. In this case we need to practice keeping our cool, keeping open the channels of communication. We need to think both long term, AND short term. Ideally they will not oppose each other but we must be prepared for the eventuality they do. Lastly, we need to take action. This can be anything from a prepared statement stating an intention to investigate, (always a sensible and reasonable action item) to a full blown media offensive designed to get our message to key stakeholders and audiences.

Crisis are almost always survivable and in some cases may work out for the best. But the require planning, calm and most importantly leadership for everything to work.

Putting the cart before the horse, tech wise!

I have mentioned previously how fascinating I find organizations who wish to jump on the social media bandwagon and want to hire "experts" in the field. Given that we're talking about a technology that is probably 3 years old at best, that would be similar to finding a preschool age child who can type or do math. What we are dealing with now is people who have some theories as to what will work best and really it is the person who can sell the best dream that will win the race, not necessarily the person who has the best qualifications.

I was speaking to a senior communications person recently who asked me for my ideas on how to use social media tools such as Facebook, Twitter, You Tube and Wikipedia to enhance their communications programs. I gave my own thoughts on the matter and we had a discussion regarding these thoughts on the issue. When it came time for me to ask questions, I asked this person, "How do you see social media working with your marketing programs and how will you quantify success regarding social media?" Well, going by the flow of blood and skin tone out of this person's face you would have thought I asked them to calculate Pi to the 800th number.

The sad fact is that there is a mad scramble to jump on the social media band wagon but there is very little thought given as to why or what advantage might be reaped for the least investment. Now lets be clear, I am NOT advocating that social media has no place in a business environment. Quite the opposite, done properly I believe social media can greatly enhance the brand, but we need to pick the technology innovation because it enhances the brand, not because we think it is cool and fun. World of Warcraft is still the biggest online community last time I checked, yet I don't see businesses rushing to set up avatars on WOW.

So the goal here is that before we all decide to jump onto the social media bandwagon, we need to decide how we can use it to grow brand recognition and ultimately sales. We shouldn't jump in out of fear that we are missing the boat. A measured and concentrated advance into social media, like we would approach any new media, would seem the obvious outcome. But it falls to all of us communications professionals to not only provide the necessary guidance as we head into this new communications arena, but also to provide a braking mechanism if necessary. Proceed with both caution and purpose and you will most likely succeed.

Most times the greatest threat to a brand comes from within!

Keeping a brand going is no easy task. Well that will win the award for the most obvious statement of the year! But the scary part of the task is that there are so many ways that companies injure themselves when they communicate their brands that sometimes external factors are only a part of the problem. Sometimes, what goes in within the organization is as great a threat to the brand as any external threat.

The recent BP fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico is seen, among other things, as a PR fiasco. I for one don't agree with that sentiment. Certainly the public relations team didn't tell BP management to cut corners on the well, nor did they encourage the CEO and other senior management to make sure foolish and uncaring statements. Of course they do share the blame for allowing these statements to go out as well as for so much incorrect and unclear information to be released.

This is an egregious example of how internal elements pose threats to the brand but there are many more. One of the worst, and BP can be seen as an example of it, is the desire of senior managers to see quarter-to-quarter and lose all focus on the larger picture. The worst example of this is the formula we see with larger companies who wish to manage to earnings and in doing so do fail to nurture the brand and we see no organic growth. The focus is on pleasing shareholders and not driving brand development so we are choosing a diet of candy and soda pop over good healthy food.

There are so many great brands who have died by the side of the road because of the right combination of lack of lack of foresight, complacency, arrogance and downright laziness. Let's keep in mind that brands are not restricted to what you may buy at the local grocery or department store. If you're a small agency or startup, you need to have a brand that sets you apart from the competition. Reputation matters tremendously and the worst part is that while it may take years for a good brand to be built, it can be destroyed in seconds!

Another enemy of brands is senior management. The worst challenge they represent is that they often think in the immediate term and as such do not have the patience to wait for the seeds of a well built marketing plan to fully take root. More often then not, they are pushing the panic button and are worried because they are not seeing immediate changes which they believe should be happening. It often does not matter that we marketing and communications professionals counseled patience, they do not see what they wanted to now they are panicking and want change for changes sake.

So what can be done? Well for one thing, we as marketing and communications people can continue to offer the best counsel that can be done. We can be the firm advocates of protecting the brand and ensuring its natural and organic growth. We can recommend that the brakes be applied when necessary or that we change into another lane when that is called for. Basically our continued expertise and ability to be persuasive will result in a stronger brand. The success or failure of this effort will result from the determination of the marketing and communications people to pursue the course of action that will strengthen the brand.

Sadly, too many of our professional colleagues are willing to do what is popular and what they think the bosses want as opposed to what's right. If we do what's right both for the brand and organization, we will emerge stronger, more successful and ultimately more respect both within and outside the organization.

The failure or communications to think and act long term

I was having drinks with a friend the other night and she mentioned something at work that made her both angry as heck and sick to her stomach. "The names have been changed to protect the wishy washy." She was faced with a looming problem where a product was due to be issued and no one on the product team would commit to having the product ready but still insisted that the product be ready to go public by a certain date to meet quarterly goals. Well the date came closer and closer and it still wasn't ready.

At some point, the point of no return was reached and analysts had to be briefed as did long lead publications. My friend made the recommendation to her bosses that they hold off briefing anyone until the product was ready. The answer was no and that they will be ready there was no need to wait. So as instructed there were some initial briefings and they all went rather coolly since it was obvious that the product was not quite ready. This lead to a strong back lash and discord with in the organization since the product people felt that they were not told there would be such negative backlash and they wished to know why they were lead down the wrong road.

Now I am sure everyone who has worked in communications for more than a day can feel the anger and dissatisfaction of being blamed for doing what you're told. We all know this happens all the time. But I told my friend that a lot of the blame really belonged to her, and the rest of her team involved in this. I did not intend for this to be as harsh as it may sound but it is something that I truly believe.

The greatest error committed here was that the product team was given control over the timetable of communications. There is a need for communications people to maintain control over the communications process in order for the product to properly be delivered to the market. Granted, this is not something that needs to be arbitrary or exclusionary, but it does need to be driven and ultimately controlled by the communications team.

The fundamental problem here as I saw it was that the communications team did not seek to develop a program which benefited the organization and brand above all else. Nor did it think about the aforementioned brand in anything but the short term. Rather, only the immediate and short term was given any thought and any long term vision was subverted. Needless to say the result was chaos. Also, the communications team did not make their expertise a deciding factor in the debate. They allowed external parties to control the entire situation and their unwillingness to stand up for what they believed to be right caused the problem in question.

So what should communications people do? It seems quite simple, they need to do what they are getting paid to do. That is not to make people happy per se, it is to see that the brand is being supported by a clear and consistent communications program. The path of least resistance is one which will always lead to headache and misfortune. There will be times when we communications people will have to assume a strong position and say what we think. We may not come out on top in each discussion, but the point is that we make our best effort and help those who do not know or understand communications properly make the most properly informed decision.

Why do crisis always happen when you don't want them too?

Well back from vacation one whole day officially and WHAM, hit with a crisis! Of course no crisis ever comes at a good time and let's be honest, how much of a crisis would it be if it happened when we wanted it to happen and when it was most convenient. But like any crisis, there is also an opportunity. There was an old legend that in Chinese or Japanese the characters which represent crisis can also spell opportunity. I don't know if linguistically that is true but from the standpoint of sentiment it is very true.

The first rule of thumb in a crisis is to maintain a level head. A crisis is obviously a serious matter and can lead to serious if not fatal damage to the brand if not handled properly. Some short term damage may be unavoidable, but the short term damage may result in longer term prosperity like the floods which provide for rich farm land. After calm has been restored, the next step is to get as realistic measurement of the scope of the matter. What happened, who was responsible, how far down the path have we gone? These are some of the questions that should be asked immediately.

At the crisis table should sit the CEO. Sorry folks, the CEO needs to be in front of this. A good CEO will see this as part of his or her job. If you're there for the good, you must be there for the bad. Second to the CEO should be the senior corp comm person. This person should be responsible for handling the day-to-day issues regarding the crisis. The formulation of the strategy, developing the message, ensuring that key stakeholders are all informed should fall to the head of corporate communications. Also at the table for informative purposes should be people like a corporate counsel, perhaps the CFO or maybe a brand manager, or the person who has day-to-day management regarding the issue.

Generally while I am loath to give the lawyers any say in standard corporate communications operations, this is the exception to the rule since there will most likely be identifiable legal ramifications, not only to the event which triggered the original crisis but also to subsequent events. Crisis management is the time when corporate communications assumes control of the ship and drives the organization clear of any harm.

One of the first and most important issues for the Corporate Communications team to do is to ensure that all communications to stakeholders are clear and in line with overall corporate objectives. The potential for distraction and confusion is high. There will be a great number of parties who will need to be communicated too and the more end points there are, the greater the potential for mixed messages and mixed messages can lead to the appearance of a cover up or cloud the facts.

A crisis will never happen when you are ready for it, when it is a good time for you or for what ever reason, when you want it too. The beauty of the crisis is that it is the one, singular opportunity for Corporate Communications to demonstrate its role in the organization and why it should be at the leadership table. Lets also not forget that a crisis often serves to bolster the role of communications by demonstrating that it should be a strategic program, planned in advance and consulted by senior management on an ongoing basis, and not just an afterthought. In this regard, a crisis can be a mixed blessing.

Any organization who values Corporate Communications, values its stakeholders and customers and brand should not only survive, but also emerge stronger than before. A company which sees communications as a task and chore, something to drive stock prices or as an ego platform for senior management will most likely receive a sharp rebuke from the market and learn a painful lesson a la BP.

Protecting the Brand: Communications Number One Role

Brand Management is something which a great deal of ink has been spilled over. Most of these pieces are easily forgettable academic tomes, never to see the outside of a classroom. What is interesting though is that while nearly everyone can agree that a brand is important and that marketing should have some control over it, very few can agree on how to best manage and protect a brand.

I think it best to try and figure out first of all, who should not be responsible for managing the brand on a regular basis. I would start off by saying keep the CEO away from the day-to-day management of the brand. Yes, it is true that the CEO has organizational responsibilities that span the entire company and as a result there is the necessity for him or her to have a degree of involvement in brand management. What I would advocate is keep the CEO from micro-managing the brand and thus causing it to ebb and flow with their whims. Let's ignore the fact that micro-managing has been demonstrated to be counterproductive to organizational growth, the fact is that the CEO will be focused on too many things to give the brand the time it needs and, in many cases, the chief will lack the exact expertise to manage the brand and may, in fact, do more harm than good.

The other group who should be kept miles away from brand management is the group who are indecisive or who wish to make decisions they believe will please higher ups and please management. There will be times when hard decisions will be required about the brand and this group tends to either descend into anarchy or flee like rats from a sinking ship. One most also think of the mind set of this group. They tend to think in terms of what is best for them in the near term and have no concept of anything happening five years down the road. A good brand should be built to last for generations not just a few years.

The third group who should be kept away from the brand is people who do not have a background in one of the marketing disciplines. I say this because they first and foremost don't understand the evolutionary process that is both marketing and communications. What happens today was preceded by a historical event. Nothing happens in a vacuum and what happens tomorrow or next week will be the result of things planned and/or executed this week. Sorry to apply the broad brush here but sales people, accountants, engineers what have you just do not think in these terms. Marketing people are best equipped to deal with this type of thought process.

So we come to who should be responsible for protecting the brand. By now I am sure it is no surprise that I say it is the marketing team and specifically it is the communications group within marketing who should manage it. Why do I say this? Basically because communications people are the one group in most organizations who have to be both strategic geniuses and tactical wizards. We have to be both creative and analytical. We have to be able to deal with a CEO one minute, a vendor the next and then someone who maybe just out of school the third.

In addition, communications people are equipped with the necessary tools to think ahead several quarters and are the few groups in the organization who are truly planning for what will transpire. We are the best trained and best equipped members of the organization to deal with crisis situations and we know not only how to react to them but also to prevent them from taking place. Lastly, we are the best equipped members of the organization to work with different groups as we need to be able to speak the languages of finance, tech, health care or what ever group you might have so we are able to offer a concise and accurate statement regarding the brand in virtually any situation.

Protecting the brand is no small feat. It is the organization's most valuable asset but sadly many executives fail to see just how valuable it is, until it is damaged by a crisis they could have prevented. If protection of the brand is left to competent marketing and communications professionals and they are allowed to develop a coherent and far reaching strategy then the organization will thrive. The greatest brands on the market now have one thing in common, strong and exceptional marketing departments. As the old saying goes if your neighbor is digging holes in the ground and finding gold each time he digs then its time you start to dig in your yard.

Are Communications People Tough Enough?

There was a very interesting scene in the season premier of MadMen. Be prepared for a spoiler you haven't seen it yet! During a meeting with a client who was trying to market a two-piece bathing suit for modest people, Don Draper had enough and threw the potential clients out of the office. A lot of my fellow PR and Corp Com friends admitted to enjoying what Don did and wishing they could have done it themselves.

I bring this up because it focuses on the concept of toughness and doing what's right in Corporate Communications. I will also stick my neck out and say hurray for Don Draper. He went to his clients with an intelligent and well-thought marketing campaign. He obviously knew the market better than they did and when they balked at his proposals and he saw they were being stubborn for no reason than to be stubborn and closed minded, so he ended the relationship. Granted, it was for the sake of television he threw them out of the office, but ultimately, he did these people a favor by pointing out how deeply flawed their brand premise was. We can only wonder if they got the message or just went to another agency who was happy to smile, cash their checks and do what they want regardless of how wrong it is.

Now of course standing up to a client, be it internal or external is always worrisome and dangerous. Many people think that by giving us a check we surrender all intelligence and basically become some type of puppet for them to manipulate. Others, think that since they have hired a communications professional or a team of pros, they need not worry anymore about the issue of communications.

Sadly, there are a great number of communications professionals who tend towards being more reptilian than mammal. They will also do what is solely in their best interests and will tell the client what they want to hear and will focus on personal advancement to the exclusion of all else that makes for an effective and dynamic team. For some reason, the communications community focuses on people who make us feel good and tell us what we want to hear than the ones who tell us what we need to know.

Put it into a different perspective, if you're 30 pounds overweight, smoke and eat the wrong things, do you want a doctor who will keep telling you all is well and that you look great. Of course not. Now doctors HAVE to tell you the truth but communications people SHOULD do so. It is interesting when communications are direct and honest because there are two initial reactions generally speaking. The first is that the executive or client jumps back like they have received an electric shock and the look on their face is like they've been given a dose of some terrible medicine. The second reaction is that usually within 24 hours one of the snakes in the grass will offer reassuring words that all is well and try to endear themselves to the client.

We all need to understand and agree that pleasing a client is not the same as servicing their needs. Just as we need to say no to a child to help their growth we sometimes need to say no to a client to help them grow. The stock answer by the appeasers is that clients can always find someone else to do the job if you're too harsh, mean etc. That is true, but if they can find a communications pro who is willing to be bold enough and offer them the honest opinion which will make the brand stronger than the organization will be the better for it.

The question we need to ask as communications professionals is are we willing to do what is right or what is expedient? Are we going to be a profession bound by some type of ethics and guidelines or are we simply going to collect a check and do a job that requires the minimum amount of both risk and morals. These are tough questions we need to think about in our profession because the past ten years have been so brutal that survival skills have trumped good management skills. The next ten years should either be really interesting or quite scary.