Social Media Crisis Continues, Unabated
DH | Jan 28, 2009 | Comments 14
The Ketchum Public Relations/FedEx “Twitter issue” continues to spread on the Internet through blogs and online social media sites, like wildfire.
My initial posting on the story – which I believe is the first example of crisis communications in the social media environment – is now appearing in numerous member blogs of the IABC (International Association of Business Communicators). Countless other bloggers are writing about the issue.
Yet, Ketchum PR and FedEx have remained silent, aside from initial written statements, both of which blamed the account executive, James Andrews, which I believe was unfortunate. Ketchum PR is sending the signal, in my opinion, that the public relations agency does not know how to manage a crisis, online or otherwise. I just think they, like many other large PR agencies owned by conglomerates, are still novices to the Web 2.0 environment.
Really, what makes this example distinctive is that the social media image crisis has happened to a major PR firm at a time when many major PR firms are late coming to the online world, even though they are selling such services to unsuspecting clients.
My purpose for this posting today is that the IABC blog and others have only carried one of my three postings on the Ketchum/FedEx controversy, and I believe it’s important to read all three for context:
- How not to be a key online influencer – posted January 21, 2009
- The Ketchum-FedEx-Twitter saga continues – posted January 22, 2009
- The take-away – posted January 23, 2009
Hundreds of readers have left comments on this blog, pro and con. Some have stated that it is a freedom of speech issue, and that Ketchum’s James Andrews had the right to post anything he wished to a public audience on Twitter. This is clearly not a freedom of speech issue, in my opinion.
Others, with solid professional credentials, have posted thoughtful perspective, such as Lisa-Marie Cashman:
You certainly have incited robust discourse from thoughtful, intelligent and talented practitioners and other guests not in the field. The mere fact that there are so many varying opinions speaks to the many generations and an era of social changes that has taken place over the past 10-20 years.
Bottom line: it is our responsibility as practitioners to raise the bar on civility, respect and courtesy. We broke loose and perhaps strayed from these principles at the beginning of the dot.com boom. As we have come to round B of the wild-wild Internet, lessons can be learned from the “Aha and oops” moments. Everyone has had them, including yourself I am sure. And there are plenty of cases as one of your guests cited in an earlier reply.
Now is the time to ask ourselves how to instill the change that the world (not just the President) hungers for in the way we conduct ourselves on any front. Change needs to occur now or we have failed ourselves as Americans. There is no need to run to censorship, rather a need to change the way we achieve results. As “key influencers” we have the resources to achieve this change.
What are the best practices we all can offer as takeaways from this situation? I bet Andrews and Ketchum might have some of the best ones…given they have had plenty of time to sit with the consequences and have learned a great deal from this mistake. In addition, what are the best practice takeaways Fed Ex can learn from this experience?
As you so eloquently point out in so many words…it’s time to move on and get down to action. Who will stand up and be accountable? Maybe there is still time for Ketchum to catch up on this one.
Ms. Cashman adds:
If I learned anything from leaders including Frank Mankiewicz, Tom Hoog, Jackson Bain and many others in the crisis communications field, David, it is that we all have responsibility for our actions.
Four key principles to good crisis communications:
Admit
Acknowledge
Apologize
Act
Certainly these are the pillars of crisis communications that Ketchum PR, no stranger to being involved in crisis, seems to have missed, in my view.
Filed Under: Featured • Personal notes • Reputation management
[...] several follow-up posts on his blog, David Henderson continues to address the FedEx-Ketchum PR story. Or, more accurately, the [...]
Maybe they’re not commenting because both have dealt with it and that’s all that matters? In all honesty, we can discuss as much as we want, but if the two companies involved are satisfied with reasons and outcome, it’s time we moved on to.
With regards being the first crisis communications in social media, there have been a few before your story. Motrin is a key example, last year, and the Ford with their taking on a website that was selling unauthorized goods bearing Ford logo.
As Danny writes, it seems to me (and I just learned this story tonight) that both parties already responded to the world so anything else is between them.
The world’s watching, and I’m sure both FedEx and especially Ketchum realize this.
Ari and Danny,
Yes, the world has been watching and sharing and discussing. And, each day, that circle of awareness grows wider, and you and I watch. What makes this example distinctive is that the social media image crisis has happened to a major PR firm at a time when many major PR firms are, as I wrote, novices in the online world, even though they are selling such services to unsuspecting clients. What is important to remember is that major, conglomerate-owned PR firms, are not as much about service in today’s world that selling billable hours. In such an environment, they, themselves, have not invested in learning what its all about.
David
Dave
I hate to dampen discussion, but I think this issue has run its course and you should move on to other things, perhaps another example of a written or spoken faux pas in cyberspace that led to the kind of problems in this instance that I know you want to help fix in the interest of all concerned. Having read everything you’ve written about what took place, and most of the responses, I have come to the conclusion that the essentials of the “case” did not and do not constitute a crisis. A guy (not Ketchum, that’s indisputable) makes a snide comment and he gets rapped on the knuckles by his client, albeit in public (not smart), and the parties to the dispute decide to go silent in order to let matters rest, a decision that I agree with for one simple reason — What could they say, what could they do, to satisfy you and me and everyone else who has tuned in without adding more fuel to the fire and more than likely encouraging, indeed abetting, more criticism? Taking a cue from Ms. Cashman’s note above (“we all have responsibility for our actions”), I’m going to heed my own advice and go silent, too. But not only because I think what occurred merits little or no further comment but because a lot of the commentaries and blogs have gone far beyond whatever truth lies at the heart of the story, casting aspersions on the person who made the original gaff, his agency and his client that are totally unjustified by the facts and that smack of pettiness, innuendo, personal pique, competitive dissembling, and a host of other distasteful behaviors. It’s been fun, though, listening in. Now I’ll zip my lips. I hope others will do the same. There are much bigger things happening in the world right now that deserve our collective attention and they have little to do with public relations squabbles but oh boy are they important to what we do as communicators. Peace.
Don,
Easy to move on but the comments to this blog continue, and what’s striking is how polarized they are. Forget Ketchum and FedEx, it’s an issue for which most organizations neither understand nor are prepared to cope with. And, that merits discussion, not sweeping it under the rug and pulling up the covers over our eyes. Sorry, but I believe that is the hard reality. In this case, however, it is most revealing about Ketchum, that a major PR agency is such a newcomer to the online world.
For diversion, check my posting today on Brandeis.
David
[...] Ketchum/FedEx issue on Twitter is being discussed online quite extensively. In my opinion, blogger David [...]
[re-edit] Of course, Ketchum PR and FedEx remain silent. Once they say something, the cat is out of the bag—we lose interest and it all ends. What do you mean, “that the public relations agency does not know how to manage a crisis, online or otherwise?” It’s all going exactly as planned.
You see, Mr. Andrews is a genius. I heard from some fairly unreliable sources that he called FedEx the day before and told them,
“Look, you can use social media to garner tons of free publicity that will not only make FedEx look good, but will help to build your brand as a company that is concerned with community values and social conditions. Really, with 25 words I can give you free advertising that will reach throughout the web. If you want, I’ll show you how.”
The FedEx guys were naturally a bit suspicious, “OK, show us how.”
So Mr. Andrews laid out the plan,
“OK, I’m going to send a little tweet that pokes a little fun at your town…”
And so it went. He understands that when people feel that things are spiraling out of control, they turn to escapism and feast on the mundane, yet controversial stories. We are addicted to “fake” reality shows, and plan our parties and purchases around a game where team dress up in silly costumes while trying to move an irregular shaped ball up and down a field. As society is falling apart, we look to unremarkable and uninteresting forms of news and entertainment. So as the economy tanks while we are fighting two wars, we can’t get enough of the news that Tyson made some dolls that share the same names as the Obama kids. “No way, really? Oh my God, I can’t believe it”
And so it goes. Arizona Cardinals by three.
[...] James Andrews, of Ketchum Public Relations, failed to realize his tossed-off, snarky, one-liner on Twitter, the micro-blogging platform used by business people world-wide, would likely be seen by clients. He forgot about his audience, including those who might hear the message in social media echoes. Andrews pushed the gaffe to a trending topic du jour on Twitter when he failed to engage in the subsequent conversations in social media, and retreated to old-media proclamations on his blog and news. Lack of audience awareness combined with lack of authenticity caused a silly throw away comment to snowball into a full-blown communications crises. You will find a very thoughtful analysis of the actions, reactions and responses of the players involved on David Henderson’s blog post, “Social Media Crises Continues, Unabated.” [...]
The idea that Ketchum engineered this as a PR stunt is not beyond the realm of possibility. The truly unfortunate idea, if this is a hoax, is the fact that the real value of Web 2.0 and social media is transparency not stunts or staged untruths.
For those out there who think it is brilliant to lie about something as a method to move a message forward, that tactic is your business. I prefer looking for methods to remain genuine, authentic, and transparent.
Thanks for acknowledging my comment in your last post on this topic David but would you care to answer my point that your posting of James’s direct message communication with you via twitter was a violation of his privacy and a violation of social media etiquette?
As for the first incident of social media crises communication I couldn’t say with authority which was the first but it certainly wasn’t this one.
Take this debacle from Oct 2006 for example:
http://tinyurl.com/5o4pxs
Both companies have since repaired their brands and made amends in the social media community and if you ask me that was far worse than Mr. Andrews’ faux pas.
Rick,
You need to clear up something for me – you allege that I violated Andrews’ privacy. Has he said that? I don’t believe so. It was rather an interview, using Twitter’s direct mail. Violation of social media etiquette? Please cite your sources.
Regarding the 2006 Wal-mart/Edelman blog, I have written about that in my new book, The Media Savvy Leader, and know the details in full. In that case, Edelman responded promptly and openly, saying it had made a mistake. The Ketchum-Andrews-FedEx situation is quite a bit different. I would invite you to read my four blog postings on the issue.
Thanks,
David
David,
No he hasn’t said that. I am speaking for myself alone. Did he agree to a DM interview on twitter?
Because the conversation you posted looks like a private conversation of him telling you to leave him alone not an interview.
My source would be me. I have asked folks on twitter what they think. Here are the first few replies (notice these are @replies not DM’s):
@blogworld I think it’s against etiquette, the user chose a DM versus an @ reply
@blogworld Off with their heads!@blogworld unless there is a disclaimer somewhere …I would think it would be understood anything conversed via DM is not really private
@blogworld It’s been my experience “etiquette” or ethics is almost non-existent in the real virtual world.
@blogworld To me, that is like posting an email exchange. You DM because you don’t want it publicly posted. Otherwise you would just tweet.
@blogworld I vote yes. DM’s carry an implication of privacy.
@blogworld I would think so! Aren’t DMs private, off the record conversations?
@blogworld would you post a transcript of a phone call?
@blogworld of course. DM equals email. if it was supposed to be public it would be a tweet.
@blogworld – It’s best to get permission to republish a private DM or email.
I would certainly never post a private DM conversation without someones permission just as I wouldn’t post an email or other private communication and I am willing to wager most of the social media community agrees with me.
I have read two of your four posts, don’t really have time for the rest and am not trying to bash any of the aforementioned companies or you Just making an observation.
Rick,
The answer to your question is, yes. Beyond that, you are second-guessing, incorrectly, having not read the full story, as you confirm. For a guy in your position, I’d think you might wish to read the whole story.
dh