Nobody Ever Kicked in the Door
Back when I was an on-air correspondent for CBS News, I witnessed how many organizations reacted in crisis. It was usually a fumbling manner that fell into into one of three different yet predictable styles:
- Pull down the shades, turn out the lights, say nothing, pretend it will go away, and discuss changing the name of the company.
- Have a spokesperson or, even worse, lawyer read a prepared statement admitting no guilt or involvement, passing the blame and pledging to cooperate with unspecified authorities to the fullest extent while really having no intention to do so.
- Have the CEO stand up in front of a battery of microphones, and blame the press for intruding on the crisis situation, a behavior usually reserved for CEOs of mining companies during underground disasters.
Things haven’t changed much over the years, by the way, for many organizations that have problems. Such conduct sends a message that an organization has not bothered to invest in advance crisis preparedness, is not interested in openness or transparency, and suggests guilt because we have all seen it too often before.
Times have changed. Even though we still occasionally see defensiveness by an organization with a problem, it has become not only ineffective but counter-productive and possibly injurious to an organization’s image and brand reputation.
We are all living in a new era of openness, timeliness, responsiveness and … truthfulness. We want to see a leader in front of the cameras, expressing genuine sincerity and compassion. We want to hear them talking to us even if they don’t know the full story but are doing everything possible to make things right, and will keep us updated. And we expect a tone of compassion in their voices that we believe.
While the need is always there for an organization to put together a common sense plan for the eventuality of a crisis, Web 2.0 has changed crisis response in the world of public relations from “announcements” or talking at audiences to “conversations” and listening.
Forget the old days of Mike Wallace kicking in the door with his camera crew behind him. That never really happened, anyway, even though it has become folklore in the corporate world where many CEOs still fear and detest the media, often for reasons of lack of credibility that they personally created.
Today, an organization is more likely to get scalded and damaged by bloggers and adverse buzz on social media sites and far more quickly than by what’s left of the traditional, mainstream news media. Many newspapers are operating on half the staff they had a year ago. Network and cable television news are utilizing interns to cut costs. So when a crisis happens, chances are a mainstream news reporter will hear about it first from a blogger or an online social media site, like Twitter.
The new mandate in crisis communications is openness, transparency, timeliness and engaging stakeholders, customers, employees, the media, and, especially, bloggers and the online media who cover an industry, in an open conversation. There is not longer such a thing as a “secret.” At the same time, a “no comment” may drive a dagger through the heart of an organization’s reputation.
Category: Featured, Reputation management
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
And yet companies are still slow to recognize the damager bloggers and tweeters can do; always keeps crisis management specialists busy.
It really all comes down to common principles of honesty, openness, and transparency. It’s not really rocket science! It is interesting how we instantly feel that we are under attack when a crisis hits, rather than seeing it as an opportunity to communicate honestly and efficiently with our various stakeholders. Share the crisis with them and elicit their input and support.
“Today, an organization is more likely to get scalded and damaged by bloggers and adverse buzz on social media sites” I think that’s an acute comment. These are also sources that don’t share in any of the spoken, or unspoken contracts between journalists and business/government to “manage” the news, or be fair and objective about it, let alone accurate.