Twenty: Telling Brand Stories
During times of crisis, when public attention is focused on a brand in a negative way, executives are very attentive to the stories they tell. They wish to position their brand in a positive light, to convince people that they are honest and credible, and to present their brand as being honorable and earnest. Brands that operate in this manner as a matter of course find it easy to weather a crisis; those that only do so under extreme conditions find it difficult to persevere.
Traditionally, most corporations garnered very little public attention outside of times of crisis and could operate with little regard to public opinion. But in the present day of the Internet and social media, they are under constant scrutiny - yet many continue to ignore the public and operate as if no-one is watching until a crisis arises. And as a result, crises are more and more commonplace. Media feeding frenzies are no longer a rare occurrence - with 25/7 news coverage, they are constant.
Corporate PR departments are largely dismissive of social media. Those who blog and post remarks are regarded as attention-seekers and wannabes who are largely ignored by the public. And for the most part, this holds true. However, even the mainstream media has become sensational, and "the news" has become more of an entertainment venue where dramatic headlines lead poorly researched stories, with apologies and retractions buried in low-visibility locations a few days later.
The only way to guard against such attacks is to maintain a sterling reputation with consumers and the public - such that any outrageous claim will be received with disbelief and the ravings of tabloid
journalists fall on deaf ears. Doing so means establishing and maintaining creditworthiness and respect, long before a crisis arises.
Opportunities and Threats (Nothing Else Matters)
Physiologically and psychologically, the human brain is tuned to give attention to things that are dangerous, or that seem to have the potential to be harmful. Correspondingly, the human brain is tuned to take attention away from things that are not dangerous or harmful - calling attention to one thing means taking it away from anything else.
The problem of attentiveness is evident in speeches in which the audience's attention is immediately "grabbed" by a dramatic statement, but the anticipated information is withheld while the speaker drones on about background information, boilerplate, and other details unrelated to the statement that was made.
It is generally believed that the anticipation of something interesting will cause the audience to suffer through the boring information, and this does bear out, but if there is too much uninteresting information, the speaker will lose the audience's attention because they become impatient, then annoyed, and then offended that what they had been led to expect is not delivered.
Neurologically, the brain activity that results from an intense emotion fades very quickly - within a few seconds - and interest goes with it. This is the basis of the myth of the seven-second attention span: if the interest of the audience is not sustained, their attention will be lost very quickly. However, the cause of the problem is not the audience but the speaker: it is his responsibility to sustain the interest of his audience by maintaining their mental engagement. Many poor speakers do so, and blame the audience for it.
Television commercial studies bear this out: over half the audience is "lost" during the first fifteen seconds. 20% of them drop out within the first ten, and 33% more drop out in the next five. But at the same time, people are capable of being fully engrossed, to the point of being mesmerized, to a two-hour movie. The difference is not the person, but the message.
The author then speaks about some of the parts of the brain involved in attention and understanding:
- Wernicke's Area - In the posterior temporal area of the left hemisphere, this part of the brain is responsible for the comprehension of speech. (EN: Specifically the understanding of words and their relation to concepts.)
- Broca's Area - In the left hemisphere of right-handed people (and the right of left-handed), slightly forward of Wernicke's area, this area is also involved in comprehension (EN: specifically, the understanding of grammar and syntax)
- Posterior Cingulate Cortex - A central node beneath the rear of the cerebellum, this area of the brain is highly active when emotion is correlated to memories.
- Amygdala - A part of the limbic system connected to the posterior cingulate that is active when emotion and memory elicit a behavioral reaction (such as a fear response)
(EN: Here, the author breaks off, as if this anatomy lesson were self-evident. What is missing is evidence of causation - that the emotional aspect of an experience causes the speech-comprehension parts of the brain to be activated. I expect that's implied, but that neuroscience doesn't have the tools to prove this connection and can presently only recognize that these areas are active at roughly the same time when a person is being attentive.)
Convincing is Not Compelling
Most brand messages follow a specific pattern: they help the prospect recognize that there is a threat or opportunity, they show the way in which the brand can be helpful in dealing with the threat or achieving the opportunity, and they give the prospect instructions on how to engage. Various firms have experimented with different formats (such as "image" advertising), but this has not been fruitful: customers recognize and look for the pattern, and anything else is confusing to them.
The story must be convincing: the prospect must believe that the brand can be helpful in the way that it claims. However, that is table stakes - the customer may not see the problem as relevant to them, or feel that it is serious enough to act upon, or believe that the brand's solution is the only way to go about solving the problem.
And in a competitive environment, customers are likely aware (or can easily become aware) of dozens of solutions to a given problem. The author suggests that the differentiating factor when choosing among alternatives is not price, but values. Customers look from a firm whose values match their own.
Beyond that, the customer must be instilled with a sense of urgency. They may be convinced that they have a problem, convinced that a product can solve it, and convinced that a given brand is right for them - which leads them to the conclusion that they should engage with the brand ... eventually.
(EN: And here, there's another abandonment. There is no information that follows on how to create this sense of urgency.)
Crisis Readiness
The author switches to the topic of crisis preparations, stressing that in the modern age, the traditional and social media are ever vigilant and ready to spin up quickly if a brand appears to be in distress - and often, companies are caught flat-footed and unable to respond.
He mentions working with clients to develop "red sites," which are web pages that are like fire extinguishers, built and maintained in advance of a crisis in order to be ready to launch quickly should a problem arise.
In general, a company should be well aware of the kinds of stories the media likes to tell when things go wrong with a firm in their industry, and can prepare a site with the boilerplate information necessary to tell its side of the story. When something happens, it can quickly fill in the details specific to the incident and launch its countermeasure quickly.
He follows with a case study of a small airline he worked with to prepare a red site for use in the event of a crash. Looking at historical broadcasts about similar incidents, it's clear that the media spins up as soon as the wreckage hits the ground and, without knowing anything at all, is quick to blame the company. This establishes the baseline and frames the public conversation in a way that puts the company on the defensive - and its defensiveness makes it seem all the more guilty.
In his story, the company had a red site at the ready, as well as business plans to take action, and everything worked out just fine. The company weathered the crisis relatively well and sales returned to their pre-crash levels very shortly after the story faded from the headlines.
He also asserts that the reason the media follows such a predictable pattern is that journalists have nothing to say. They do not have the facts, but feel the need to rush the story to the presses so that their outlet is not left behind, and ideally is the first to break the story even when there is no story to tell. A red site gives them something to say that isn't the standard negative speculation. And this helps to spin the story in a positive direction, or at least a neutral one in which the company will be given fair treatment.
There is the belief that the facts will eventually come out, and that once the truth is known a brand will be exonerated - but this is not entirely true. The crisis and all the surrounding accusations are front-page news. The truth is published weeks later, if at all, and is usually buried as the media attention is on the next crisis - so the lasting public perception is one of negativity.