How to Handle Crisis Communications

Tweet

By Julie Wright, President

If you’re at the center of a crisis when one hits, like it did April 15 when two bombs killed and maimed spectators and participants at the Boston Marathon, make this your mantra:

Communicate early. Communicate often. And communicate accurately.

Communicating early, when facts are still coming in and very little can be confirmed or validated, means at least letting stakeholders know that:

1. You’re on it.
2. You care.

Social media might be among the first places you let people know that your organization is working to fact find and planning to release more information as it becomes available and verified. If you’ve pre-planned your crisis communications, you will have some prepared responses to many potential crisis scenarios so that your posts are a keystroke away and do not need vetting or wordsmithing under high stress. If you have an important message that you need to get out, use social media and ask people to share your message. Many people will be glad to help.

It’s important to show people as early as possible that you are the best and most reliable source of information about your crisis and that you care. Do not assume that they realize you’re as upset, saddened, shocked or dismayed as they are. Tell them so. And if your attorneys tell you not to comment at all, just keep in mind that their primary goal is winning in the courtroom or negotiating table. They might win there, but if you don’t communicate early and empathetically, you lose in the court of public opinion that may cost you more dearly than any court-mandated settlement. (Just sayin’. If the lawyers start driving the communications strategy, it’s game over. Think of BP in the Gulf of Mexico or Toyota with its faulty brakes.)

 

If people were harmed, you care deeply and are empathetic. If people have been inconvenienced, you’re sympathetic and are working furiously to ensure that everything is returned to business as usual.

The lawyers want to be sure that you’re not excessively admitting to responsibility for their inconvenience or injuries. This is valid, but it is a terrible and irreparable mistake to withhold any response and, as a result, project an image of callousness. You cannot be too compassionate. And compassion does not mean taking responsibility.

Think about this: What if the CEO of Carnival Cruises had gotten himself airlifted to the ship adrift and suffered alongside his customers? I would feel entirely differently about the problems Carnival and its passengers have suffered through if I knew its executives shared in the discomfort. And the headline would not be: “Boss of Carnival Adds Insult to Misery By Going to Basketball Game as 4,000 Suffer Aboard ‘Stinking Stricken Ship’…”.

Communicating often is essential because media coverage can be around the clock. If it’s an evolving situation, plan to hold media briefings every few hours. Listen closely on social media so you can correct misinformation that is getting passed around as it happens. Use your social media channels to release details in between media briefings. Establish a hashtag for your crisis communications on Twitter so that people can more closely follow the ‘official’ information source.

The frequency of your communications are a way of showing that you care about your stakeholders and are serving their needs and not just your own. Today, people make judgments based on your organization’s behavior and not just a carefully crafted message labored over by your attorneys, senior executives and others.

Inaccurate information can un-do all of your tremendous communications. To increase the likelihood that accurate information is presented on a timely basis, your crisis plan should have designated spokespeople, chains of command and reporting structures so that people in the field, on the scene or troubleshooting the issue know the protocol for providing updates. They should have the names and contact information of the crisis team, there should be a clear method of capturing and reporting out the information to the crisis team, and everyone in the field should know not to speak to but instead properly redirect the media and to limit internal speculation.

Stress degrades decision making, so successful communications in a crisis are typically based on a pre-existing communication plan that reasonably anticipates various crisis situations and develops responses so that they’re at the ready when a crisis hits.

Whether you have a plan or are planning on the fly, just repeat after me: communicate early, communicate often and communicate accurately.

Lance Armstrong’s Race to Redefine His Legacy

Tweet

By Julie Wright, President

How will you remember Lance Armstrong? As one of the most celebrated athletes in the world? As a cancer survivor who has inspired and helped millions of people around the world? Or as a fallen sports idol and fraud?

Say what you will about the doping case being built against him, but Armstrong’s Aug. 23 announcement that he would neither fight the charges nor arbitrate with the U.S. Anti Doping Agency (USADA) may  just be the first time in his storied personal and professional life that he has ever given up on something.

He can beat cancer and win seven Tour de France titles, but he doesn’t have the will to contest these charges and fight to clear his name? At a net worth of $125 million, he certainly has the scratch to lawyer up and arbitrate or take it to court. But he doesn’t think he can win this case – either because it’s unwinnable, as he alleges, or because he is guilty, as the USADA alleges.

So, Armstrong is, instead, seeking to win the PR battle. If he can hang on to his reputation and convince fans to give him the benefit of the doubt, he will continue to have value as a product pitchman and cancer spokesman. By staying out of arbitration, he can continue to say that he has never tested positive, and, thus, the allegations will always be only allegations. In addition, Armstrong has been depositing a lot of credits in the goodwill account for many years through his Livestrong activities. This goodwill is a major asset during this crisis.

Ultimately, what do people want to believe? There is an emotional and rational component to this controversy. His innocence is a better story and outcome for sports fans and cancer sufferers than his guilt.

The USADA filed charges against him on June 12. On Aug. 23, Armstrong answered those charges by announcing he would stop fighting them. He was banned from the sport for life. His statement on the Livestrong website said “I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999. The toll this has taken on my family and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today -- finished with this nonsense.”

Had he persevered and fought the charges, a hearing may have been held in December with witnesses for and against.

This is a defining crisis for the Lance Armstrong brand and by not choosing his legal right to clear his name, he will forever be under a dark cloud of suspicion. But what can be learned from Armstrong’s public relations activities to counter this crisis and spare enough goodwill to maintain the credibility of his Livestrong efforts and his legacy to cancer if not to cycling?

First, bad news is bad news. You can choose to hide from it and let a bad situation define you or your brand. Or, you can step up and attempt to fill the vacuum with your own message. Armstrong chose the latter by announcing he wouldn’t fight the charges, unequivocally stating his innocence, casting doubt on the fairness of the process and reminding fans that he would rather spend his time supporting his foundation and the cause of cancer patients.

He also lined up a slew of communications and endorsements to reach fans with these messages. His Livestrong blog shared a message Aug. 23 from the Foundation’s founding chair Jeffery C. Garvey: “Faced with a biased process whose outcome seems predetermined, Lance chose to put his family and his foundation first and we support his decision. Lance’s legacy in the cancer community is unparalleled. Lance could have left cancer behind him and never looked back. Instead, before ever winning the Tour de France, he established a foundation that today has served 2.5 million cancer survivors with its free patient navigation services.”

The Lance Armstrong Foundation would clearly like to ensure his legacy is one of helping the cancer patient community.

Also lining up to throw their support behind Armstrong in this post were John R. Seffrin, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society and Matthew L. Myers, President, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

But Armstrong and his supporters are just getting started.

Attorney and former San Diego Chargers spokesman Mark Fabiani is representing Armstrong and getting the message out through the media now that the USADA has released its report. The details contained in the report might be exactly what Armstrong was hoping to keep out of the public eye by avoiding arbitration as the USADA-released report concludes that the U.S. Postal Service Team was engaged in a doping conspiracy that “was professionally designed to groom and pressure athletes to use dangerous drugs, to evade detection, to ensure its secrecy and ultimately gain an unfair competitive advantage through superior doping practices.”

On the same day that the USADA report came out, Oct. 10, Armstrong Tweeted “What am I doing tonight? Hanging with my family, unaffected, and thinking about this. http://bit.ly/Po6mXT  #onward”.

The Tweet links to a press release issued by his foundation on that same day announcing its 15-year anniversary celebrations in Austin from Oct. 18-21. The highlight is the Fri., Oct. 19 fundraising gala that includes Norah Jones, Stephen Marley, Sean Penn, Ben Stiller, Robin Williams and, of course, Armstrong himself. With throngs of supporters at rallies, sporting events and the gala later this week, it might be difficult for people to see Armstrong as a bad guy.

By hammering on the work for cancer and success his foundation has achieved, the public might ask whether Armstrong hasn’t done more good for people in serious trouble than he has done harm to a sport and its competitors and fans?

Clearly that is the drumbeat to which Armstrong and his closest supporters are marching.

In a survey of more than 800 people that was conducted before the USADA’s findings were publicized, it would appear that the public was reluctant to turn on Armstrong. Sixty-seven percent said they still saw him in a positive light including 29 percent who said they were disappointed but respected what he has accomplished and 24 percent who believed Armstrong that he had never doped. Fourteen percent said he is still a champion while 8 percent said he is a cheater.

It will be interesting to see what the weekend’s celebrations produce to counter the negative coverage since Oct. 10, but with serious allegations about Armstrong that go beyond doping to bullying team members, paying $1 million to an Italian physician also accused of helping athletes dope and gifting $100,000 to the International Cycling Union and a drug-testing laboratory, fighting this crisis may be the one challenge his will alone won’t be enough to surmount.


Image credit: John Kershner / 123RF Stock Photo

Your Crisis Plan Needs a Web 2.0 Upgrade

Tweet

Ten years ago, I developed a crisis communications plan and training workshop for executives of a regional pizza chain.

As part of the planning process, I had to present feasible crisis scenarios that this company might face--a food poisoning outbreak, workplace violence, fatal collision, employee theft, fire, earthquake, high profile lawsuit, etc.

By anticipating these scenarios, I could help the organization's executives prepare and be ready to hit the ground running in a crisis.

If I were working on that project today, I would definitely be incorporating social media into the scenarios both as a threat and an opportunity.

Domino's Pizza showed last week exactly how social media can be both the problem and the solution. In case you missed it, two dimwitted Domino's employees made a YouTube video of themselves tampering with the food they were preparing and acting in ways sure to get them fired if not criminally charged. They uploaded the video April 13 and it got noticed--quickly!

Domino's shut down and sanitized the store, fired the employees (who've also been charged by the local D.A.'s office with a felony), posted a response on YouTube from the company's U.S. president, and launched a Twitter feed from its corporate headquarters to engage directly with customers and commentators.

This example should serve as a wake-up call to any organization that hasn't upgraded its crisis communications plan to include both social media as a communications tool but also social media as a crisis accelerant!

Social Media as Crisis

Social media backlashes now constitute a crisis of their own. Therefore, if you haven't done this already, it's high time your organization thought about and prepared for the possibility of a social media crisis.

Take the Motrin mom backlash on Twitter over the release of a tongue-in-cheek Motrin campaign targeting baby-wearing mothers as an example. The entire crisis was initially confined to the 3.4 million unique visitors on Twitter in November 2008 and a vocal sub-set of those who were offended by the campaign. Ultimately, their complaints and discussions became the number one trending topic on Twitter, which attracted the attention of traditional media like USA Today as well as the Motrin makers. The campaign was pulled and apologies made.

In March 2009, Twitter was visited by 14 million people. This growth in just four months is staggering, particularly now that it exceeds the combined print circulation of the top five daily newspapers in America.

While in terms of website traffic (a fairer comparison), CNN.com had over 30 million unique visitors last month--or double Twitter--Facebook.com drew in 91 million. (See the stats via Compete.com.) Based on their numbers and reach alone, these social media sites definitely matter to anyone charged with managing communications for their organization.

Think of each 'user' of a social media site as a potential 'contributor' with the ability to shape opinion or break news themselves. Then you then get the full idea of how quickly a social media backlash can spread on a site like Twitter and why having a crisis plan ready to trigger in response is so essential.

Social Media as Solution

While the bad news is that social media can wreak havoc, the good news is that you can also harness its power in response to any type of crisis--and, in fact, you should.

In your crisis communications plan, your social media section should set out who is in charge of content for the organization's Twitter feed, blog, YouTube channel, and Facebook updates--to name a few. Login information should be at the ready so that the organization is not inadvertently locked out at the precise moment when these communications tools are needed.

The social media or community manager must be at the table along with the organization's media spokesperson and decision-makers. In a crisis, the social media message must be consistent with all other message points. And because of the immediacy of social media -- which makes it even quicker than a press release -- under no circumstances should social media communications be left to someone without first-hand knowledge of the situation and direct access to the organization's leadership.

Credibility is key in a crisis. And for your organization's communications to hold the high ground in social media circles, they need to be timely, accurate and authentic.

If you're not timely, other commentators will fill the vacuum with opinion, speculation, and innuendo. If you're not accurate, your mistakes will be outed immediately and contribute to the crisis. And if you're not authentic, you'll be ignored or, worse, ridiculed.

With live streaming video possible from a cell phone or laptop, and so many channels for sharing information with stakeholders and the public, social media used correctly during a crisis should be an opportunity for a smart and prepared organization to build its relationships with stakeholders and enhance its image and reputation.

So if your organization has no crisis communications plan or hasn't reviewed and updated its plan in several years, dust it off and upgrade it for compatibility with Web 2.0!