4: Game Changer 1: Take Responsibility
Taking responsibility for a problem is not the same as admitting guilt for having caused it. While traditional media, and to some degree even social media, likes to tell dramatic stories in which they cast firms in the role of the villain, the public is generally more sophisticated than they once were, and are not so easily led: you can trust in them to sort out fact from fiction, and to support you if you are committed to finding solutions.
Nobody Likes a Crybaby
Simply stated, people admire strength, and especially so when strength is shown in conditions of adversity. They may sympathize with a victim of circumstance, but this is a form of pity that borders on disgust, which does not bolster long-term confidence in a company, organization, or individual who wishes to be admired for their competence.
And in general, customers, employees, partners, and the general public all expect large and well-known brands to be strong; the larger the firm and the more high-profile the brand, the greater the expectations that it will be able to weather and recover quickly from setbacks. They don't expect brands to be invulnerable and infallible, but capable.
The traditional media still play an important role, though their influence is diminishing as the public becomes more informed by a wider array of sources that have been shown to be more reliable. However, the traditional, media are often the loudest and first voice when bad news breaks, and can set the tone for discussion until other voices chime in with more definite and trustworthy information ... provided those other voices are heard at all.
The author considers the Tylenol Scare of 1982, when traditional media were still the primary source of information. At this time, seven people were killed by cyanide-tainted capsules, and the news spread through the media, with numerous reports associating the brand with words such as "poison" and "murder," and sales plummeted: it lost 87% of customers, virtually overnight.
Within a week, J&J recalled over 30 million bottles of Tylenol and was publicly applauded for decisive action. Shortly thereafter, the firm re-issued its product in tamper-proof containers, then distributed millions of coupons to encourage sales of the new safety-packaged pills. The firm regained 67% of the customers it had lost and, within a year, had made a complete recovery.
(EN: This incident is a textbook case study for crisis management, and the actions the company took are more extensive than the author explains here. I also recall reading that the firm actually gained more market share in the wake of the incident, as other firms that had not been affected were still using the old packaging, and people felt safer about Tylenol because it was vigilant - though I haven't seen any hard numbers, it seems reasonable such a thing might happen.)
Time Is of the Essence
Years ago, before the internet and 24/7 news channels, companies had time to plan and execute a response to crisis, simply because of the slower news cycle: an incident one afternoon would not make the newspapers for a day or two, or television until the next night's broadcast. Today, news travels fast, and the media (particularly social media) may break a story before the corporate office is even aware that an incident occurred.
The traditional media revel in this speed: because little is known, they are free to speculate, making entirely false claims to attract the attention of a public that is impatient to know what really happened. To make matters worse, the false reports are not "yesterday's news" because they are archived online indefinitely rather than thrown out with the paper - and in any case, the media proclaims bad news with great fanfare and sensation, and does its best to retract and apologize in a discreet and less noticeable manner.
Most of the public has come to view traditional media with distrust, but still revel in drama based on real life and enjoy talking about sensational events online, which creates a greater sense that the issue is important and creates a greater store of data in which a company name is negatively associated with facts that may exaggerate or misrepresent reality.
And unlike the traditional media, which can be silenced, muted, or shamed into being accurate by promising to purchase advertising or threatening a libel suit, the social media is an unstoppable voice.
The author mentions "Dell Hell," an incident in which a single blogger posted his experience with Dell when buying a laptop and getting shabby treatment from the company - other people who had less than stellar encounters chimed in, and the media had a field day with it. Two specific points are raised: First, the customer in this case is the underdog - it's David versus Goliath, and no-one cheers for Goliath. Second, Dell was compelled to deal with problems to restore their brand quickly and in the public eye; had it addressed these issues before a stink was raised, it could have done so discreetly and privately.
It's also likely the crisis could have been averted if this single customer were handled in a more gentle manner, but a pattern of curt and dismissive responses made them seem callus to the consumer, making customers less disposed to be sympathetic toward the firm.
Conceded, that the real causes of the problem take time to address - policies must be changed, people must be trained, etc. But in the meantime, a company would do well to be less brusque and more opaque, and demonstrate that it acknowledges and is working on the problem, and ameliorate with customers in the interim, in order to maintain public sympathy.
Think Before You Speak
While it is important to move quickly, making a statement without knowing the facts can be disastrous, as your errors will be exposed and you will have a more difficult time being taken as credible. As an example, the underestimation of the amount of oil spilled during BP's "deepwater horizon" incident was based on a premature estimate, and when it was later found to be grossly underestimated, BP had a much harder time defending claims that it was downplaying facts in an attempt to cover the truth.
As such, you need to think before your speak, and where facts are in question, either state as much or at the very least lay ground for revising your estimates. Of particular importance is focusing on your goals, especially considering what you want the market to think of your brand after the crisis has passed.
The author presents a case study of luxury pen manufacturer Montblanc. Its misstep was during the introduction of a limited-edition pen called the "Mahatma Gandhi" to increase its profile in India. While the firm created a high quality instrument and obtained formal permission from the estate, it caused a massive protest in India, given that Gandhi's own philosophy was one of austerity and the cost of one pen was more than many Indians earn in a decade. "Gandhi would have been ashamed," was the general sentiment.
The firm recovered by apologizing profusely for its cultural insensitivity and making significant charitable donations. It also rushed to release a series of pens of other "legendary achievers" so that this wouldn't be seen as a decision to use Gandhi specifically, but an attempt to include him in a larger group of people being so honored. It also ceased promotional campaigns to call attention to the product, but continued to carry it in the line.
Select a Venue to Best Tell Your Story
There are many channels through which a firm can choose to launch its response - and it doesn't necessarily need to use the same channels with which it is being assaulted: in fact, there are instances where it is less possible or less productive to do so.
That is, if your detractors are using one channel (television or newspapers) to spread their story, you can make an effective response via a completely different channel (web site and social media). It often makes sense to do so, as traditional media editors "choose sides" early and are reluctant to reverse their position on an issue. An invitation to have an interview to explain your side of the story often results in a hostile conversation with a reporter whose sole intent is to make you look foolish.
The Internet is likely the best friend of a brand under attack: your blog or Web site is the only medium where your message will get out exactly as you intended it (not re-interpreted or suppressed by those who control the channel) - and while people in social media will form and express contrary opinions, you and your defenders will have a "link" to your side of the story.
The author presents the case of Taco Bell, which in 2011 was subject of a class-action lawsuit claiming the "beef" filling was actually only 35% real beef. The firm made a swift response, in a full-page ad in newspapers that explained their filling is actually 88% beef. The company also posted YouTube videos, and a micro-site to consider its beefiness, and fans in social media rallied to the brand's support. The lawsuit was dropped by the plaintiff, and TB continued with defensive ads, demanding an apology.
The silver lining is that Taco Bell's beef actually contains more beef than competitors, a fact that might have seemed vicious or petty to point out in advertising, or at least imitative of Wendy's famous advertisements from a few decades ago. The lawsuit gave them an opportunity to brag about their strength, and at least one of their retorts began with the headline, "Thank you for suing us."
(EN: No-one has yet suggested this, but it would be ironic if it turned out that this was a planned media stunt, the way that horror movies sued to stage fake incidents of people having heart attacks to make their product more appealing to dare-devils. Chances are it wasn't, and the firm might be embarrassed if there was any suggestion it were so, but I don't think it's beyond the realm of the possible/plausible for a firm to stage a lawsuit against itself to get media attention.)
Other aspects of the response that the author calls attention to is that the company took a firm and confident stand on its position, used multiple channels, placed the CEO firmly behind the message, and even used a bit of smirky humor in handling criticism (which is easier to do when you're in the right).
Never Play the Blame Game
The author is distressed about the number of media relations people whose response seems to be entirely emotional: they whine or throw a tantrum instead of communicating with poise.
Recent history provides a plethora of examples of corporations, politicians, and celebrities who seek to escape blame by indignantly pointing the finger at others, who cry about the media invasion into their lives, who ramble tearful apologies or insane tirades. The public has largely become jaded to this behavior.
While their intention may have been to distract attention from themselves, win sympathy for their anger and pain, or otherwise distract from the facts of the situation, this ultimately does more harm than good. The media feeds on emotions, and will use them to further damage the reputation of those that throw public tantrums - and even when the facts have come out and you are seen as innocent, or accepted guilt and made amends, the very fact that you lost control will undermine long-term confidence.
While a brand that is under fire tends to take a defensive position, we live in a forgiving culture: simply apologizing and immediately stopping offensive behavior earns a great deal of forgiveness, and in some cases may be enough (if no real damage has been done) - provided the apology is sincere and the behavior doesn't resume as soon as the public attention is turned elsewhere. When there's a second offense, it leaves a scar on the brand that can last a very long time.
There are occasions when you may benefit by apologizing, even when it's not your fault. One example is JetBlue's handling of an ice storm that jammed up air traffic in many parts of the nation. Certainly, the weather was not their fault, but they did make a bad decision (keeping customers waiting on the tarmac rather than cancelling flights because they hoped the storm would break). The CEO responded promptly: explained the situation, apologized for not handling it more gracefully, and offering compensation to passengers; then drafting a "passenger bill of rights" and making operational and policy changes to ensure future crises were handled more smoothly. "Most world agree" the company's reputation recovered quickly.
Select the Most Effective Voice for the Brand
When the brand is a celebrated individual, there is only one possible spokesperson - which seems obvious, until you consider those who have hidden behind official spokesmen, press secretaries, or attorneys to make official statements on their behalf. This is never a good idea. (EN: My sense is that when legal issues are involved, the lawyers are concerned about winning the case and not the long-term loss to their client. Arguably, if the short-term consequences of a slip of the tongue may be dire, it may be worth the long-term damage to reputation.)
When the brand is an organization of many, a spokesperson should be designated to be "the voice of the brand" that provides a single focal point to represent the firm. It's a difficult position, that requires working under pressure and speaking without the benefit of all the information and facts - and at all times to seem confident, competent, and compassionate.
It's also important to consider the way in which a spokesperson will be received by the audience. For example, British Petroleum used a spokesman who seemed arrogant, effete, and condescending to those impacted by a disaster in the gulf states - a few years later, he was replaced by Robert "Bob" Dudley, a Mississippian, to handle crises in that region - and who was perceived as more compassionate and capable.
The author refers to Mehrabian's research, indicating that people decide whether they like a person based more upon their physical appearance (55%) and tone of voice (38%) rather than the content of their message (7%). (EN: And it's worth mentioning that this is one of the few authors who's accurately represented that research: 55/38/7 is not about what they take from the message, but how they form their initial "liking" of a speaker.)
Another tip is to keep the message positive, especially avoiding repeating negative statements that can be taken out of context by media sources. Utter the phrase "I do not believe I have committed a crime" and journalists will report that you said "I have committed a crime." Even for quotes that are harder to edit or take out of context, claiming that something is not true means to some that there is reason to think that it is: Nixon's famous quote "I am not a crook" made people think exactly the opposite of him, and curious as to why others would say that he was. In both regards, "I have been honest" is a better statement than "I have not been dishonest."
Know When to Fold
The author also mentions the option to simply pull out of the fight and remove your presence from the public radar screen, let some time pass and plan a return.
The example he provides here is Eliot Spitzer, who rose to political fame by going after white-collar crime and eventually became Governor of New York. After being caught in a prostitution scandal, he resigned almost immediately. Many agreed this was the honorable thing to do, as to remain in office would taint his image further and he'd be constantly distracted by reminders from a hostile media, decreasing his effectiveness.
A few years later, Spitzer returned to public life as a news commentator on CNN, and his supporters are reassembling to suggest he run for public office again - though he's dismissive of the rumors of his intention to re-enter politics, the fact that some people would support him if he did so is a sign that the image crisis was well-handled.
Looking specifically at Spitzer's handling of the crisis: he apologized publicly, admitted his bad judgment and poor behavior, took prompt action in resigning, maintained his composure and calm, and laid low for a few years. It's unlikely that the situation could have been handled much better.
Twenty-five Ways to "Meet the Press"
A list of random tips for dealing with the press:
- Always be prepared - have talking points planned and facts at the ready, and do a dry run with peers before facing the press.
- Maintain control. A media interview is not a calm situation, and is often meant to fluster people into saying the wrong thing.
- Manage attacks by "bridging" out of uncomfortable topics.
- Know the Enemy. If it's a one-on-one interview, gather intelligence on the reporter and their publication to know what they will be looking for.
- Be helpful. Share resources, data, and connections to help reporters get the information they need.
- State important things first. Reporters will pay attention to your first sentence, and lose attention as you continue to speak.
- Be concise. The more verbose your response, the less of it will be remembered. Of importance is to consider giving people "sound bites" they can use.
- Be plain. Avoid technical jargon or acronyms.
- Never repeat negatives. Consider how your quote will sound if the reporter "accidently" leaves out words such as "not" and "no."
- Emphasize positives. See through the negative situation to the outcome you intend to achieve.
- Don't just react, but be proactive in vetting your message out.
- Project confidence, but support what you say with evidence that demonstrates your expertise.
- Use examples and anecdotes to make your message more clear.
- Avoid stating personal opinions in brand-related communications: the spokesman speaks for the company, not himself
- Anything you say to a journalist will be reported, especially if they ask a question "off the record" or "just between us"
- When you don't know something, say so, and indicate when you will find out. Never bluff.
- Send a thank-you note to a reporter when he provides good coverage.
- Citing actual people is more persuasive than blind sourcing. A generic claim that an idea is supported by "industry experts" or "researchers" seems to have authority, but people will check up.
- Don't speculate: it opens a can of worms and invites others to speculate as well.
- Consider what is in the best interest of the public, not merely your firm. Reporters will tell a story that matters to their readers, not their subjects.
- Lose your temper, lose your credibility.
- Be honest. The truth will be uncovered, and any attempt to disguise it will only make you and the brand look worse.
- Maintain a positive working relationship with the media.
- Dress the part. Appearance enhances credibility.
- Make sure even small details are on-brand and on-message.