How not to do crisis management–LCEC takes on Fox 4

Media trainers and crisis managers alike take note: some of the best ways to learn is to watch others mess up. Lee County Electric Cooperative provides some pretty painful lessons–and they do it on video.

I’m usually pretty sympathetic to large companies and organizations being attacked by sensationalist media stories. And I’ve advocated from time to time that sometimes you just have to take the media rascals head on. LCEC demonstrates how not to do it and what the consequences can be when you try and fail. As someone once told me, never get in an argument with someone who buys ink by the barrel. Of course, ink is not the worry these days.

It is interesting that this mainstream media news story (video) began with a Facebook page called LCEC Sucks with under 10 fans. That was enough for Fox 4 to do a news story on the people who hate LCEC. Of course, all of my readers would know that the right way for LCEC to respond to this story would be:

1) Directly contact the 10, including the guy who launched the Facebook page, hear them out and see if they could resolve their gripes.

2) Get their own Facebook page and communicate clearly what they were doing to address each customers concerns and state their side of the story where appropriate.

3) Thank the TV reporters for bringing this to their attention, communicate that keeping customers happy was a top priority and tell them what they were doing to address any concerns.

They didn’t do that of course and went from snooty to snarky in a hurry. If you wait until about 4 minutes into the interview you will see the smiling PR person for LCEC make the case that having to deal with this issue and annoying reporters is making customer’s rates go up. Oh boy. I wonder what more important thing the head of PR is supposed to be doing than trying to put out a major reputation fire?

Then it gets worse because the organization decides to take the matter up the chain, to the station manager and threaten to go the station owner. Of course, Fox 4 was thrilled with this and make public to everyone the not so veiled threats if they didn’t improve their coverage.

If you are looking for some good video to show in your next media training session, unfortunately, LCEC provided some pretty good material. If you’re looking for a good case study for discussion about how to deal with negative media reports, this provides some good material.

Oh, not to be piling on, but one other big mistake. Since today this story got major play in the PR industry via Ragan’s PR Daily where I picked it up, I was quite certain the organization would be taking full advantage of their website to tell their side of the story. Sadly, it is very clear on their site how I can pay a bill, but absolutely nothing, nada, zero about this now national story.

Blog comments–a good thing or bad thing?

When blogs first came out–say about 10 years ago–the ability to comment and enter into a conversation was one of their strongest suits. Now, the internet is dominated by this kind of conversation and interpersonal interaction–but as this Mashable comment points out, comments on blogs may be more controversial than ever.

Personally, the biggest problem I have on crisisblogger is from spam comments. While WordPress does a pretty darn good job of catching most spam, the nasty spammers keep finding ways around it. In the last few weeks, I’ve seen this kind of activity greatly increase with spammers using normal sounding names and nice and complimentary comments. While the spam catchers can’t catch the nuances, the comments are so silly and stupid and vapid that the spammers stand out pretty clearly. I delete them as quickly as I can.

But that is not the real problem with comments on blogs. If you engage in online conversation at all you soon discover what I call Toxic Talk. That apparently is why Engadget is suspending blog comments. Frankly it is incredibly tiresome. I go to my local newspaper The Bellingham Herald and it seems that the majority of people who take the time to comment on stories are mean, nasty, cranky, politically extreme and snarky. It seems the younger the group, the more politically-oriented the blog, and the more the subject lends itself to strong feelings (global warming, Apple computer, religion) the more heated and ugly the discussion is.

What to do about it? First, resist the temptation to get down there with these kind of people. As I learned a long time ago, when you wrestle in the mud with a pig, you both get dirty but the pig enjoys it. Second, monitor and police your comments. Hey, your site (blog, social media or interactive website for crisis or daily use) is your site, its your home, your castle, your turf. You can make the rules and you can enforce them. In the four years or so since I’ve had this blog I’ve only booted a couple people off for violating one of my strict rules–treat everyone with respect. No personal attacks and everyone has a right to be heard and responded to respectfully. Violate that and you’ll be treated like a spammer. Third, understand that there still is value in the interaction. I think Engadget is wrong. Yes, it is tiresome and annoying. Make rules, stick with them, but don’t discount the value of the conversation.

This is especially true in today’s crisis communication. Your stakeholders and publics need a multitude of ways to communicate with you and let you know how they are feeling. New social media such as Twitter and Facebook facilitate that to a greater degree than ever. But don’t let the noisy, uncouth toxic talkers allow you to plug up your ears from those who have something valuable to say, and don’t let them put you in a corner of someone who isn’t interested in diverse opinions.

Others are waking up to the US gov conflict of interest re Toyota

The US has big stake in GM. Toyota is GM’s big rival. Toyota has a product problem. The US government is the safety regulator and watchdog. The US government piles on Toyota–makes big news, sales crash and GM profits. Everyone’s happy. Not me. I complained about this stinky mess–an unintended consequence of Obama’s decision to bailout the company–in my last post. I have been stunned, absolutely stunned that there is no media coverage of this very clear and potential credibility busting conflict. But, now it appears that is starting to come.

Here’s one example. Note that this article starts putting the Toyota problems in context–something the headline crazed media refuse to do and can’t be expected to do. But the more the US government piles on Toyota, against this context, the more unfair it will be and appear and the more backlash there will be on the US ownership of GM. My advice to President Obama: decide what is a better and more appropriate role for the US government–watchdog and protector of the citizens or owner of a company in a highly competitive market. You can’t be both!

Toyota faces government scrutiny–from its competitor!

I try to avoid politics as much as possible, but I have to admit to being very squeamish about the government taking a controlling interest in GM, now known in some circles as Government Motors. So many reasons for concern–like choosing factories to close on political grounds rather than business rationale, but now here is a big one. The government is now going to “investigate” Toyota for its safety problems. And there is talk about civil penalties and maybe all kinds of other punishments. Maybe the government should eliminate Toyota from the US marketplace–they have the right to do that. Already the concern about Toyota (overhyped or not, I’m not sure, but I lean toward the over-hyped view) has resulted in a double-digit dip in their sales. Who has to gain from this? Why the government, of course! Or, maybe I should say taxpayers. So US taxpayers have to gain from Toyota’s problems. What impact does this have on media coverage? Aren’t reporters taxpayers too? Conversely, what would the reporters interest be if the same safety issue faced Government Motors (maybe should be changed to Taxpayer’s Motors)? Would reporters and editors be as tough?

The more I think about this morass, the more disgusted I get. But, if I was on Toyota’s side of this issue, I would see government involvement in GM as a potential huge benefit in dealing with the reputation issues involved. They need to find a way to ask the question of whether or not they can expect fair treatment from Congressional hearings when the members they are looking at are not just representing the public’s interest, but GM’s interest as well. Oh, wait, representing GM’s interest is representing the public’s interest. What a stinking mess.

The biggest loser in this may not be Toyota–it may very well be the credibility of our government. As if they have any more room for loss in public trust. But will we trust them to treat Toyota fairly when they have much at stake in making it look like they made a brilliant decision in supporting GM? They now face the same problem that corporations have in defending their reputation against government attack–the profit motive. Young people in particular have the view that if there is a profit motive, it trumps everything and anyone with any money at stake cannot be trusted to do anything other than protect their investment or ability to profit. Now our government is in that position. What a stinking mess.

Social media saving lives in Haiti–but what does this mean for responders?

No doubt Haiti will be studied for years for all aspects of emergency response, including public information. There are so many ways that the country was ill-prepared for this disaster. And one of them was public communication. There already have been a number of stories how social media has stood in the gap for those able to use it, but this story from a Coast Guard public affairs officer about social media saving lives is very interesting.

I commented on this on emergencymgmt.com earlier today because this issue is of strong interest not just to us in crisis communication, but anyone in response agencies including fire, police, emergency management, etc. Why? Because responders have to be increasingly concerned about the growing use of social media as a means of calling for help. This is a huge issue. Liability? What happens when someone calls for help but no one in the fire department is listening on Twitter–or whatever channel the victim chooses? What if they are listening, but don’t respond? Will lives be lost as a transition is made? How many legal actions regarding liability will ensue? And how will the media treat this–certainly the story at some point will be, a responder knew but didn’t respond because the call didn’t come through 9-1-1.

I believe that the use of the internet as a near universal means of connecting and communicating is almost inevitable, and that means an internet version of 9-1-1 is inevitable. But, adopting this will not be easy and many questions raised in the meantime. This will be an interesting change to watch.

What should Toyota do? Advice from the Ford-Firestone experience.

We were very fortunate to spend an hour and a half on a webinar this morning with Jon Harmon, author of the book Feeding Frenzy, and the crisis communicator in the middle of the Ford-Firestone crisis (for you young folks, this occurred in 2000). Jon’s phone was ringing away with reporters calling to ask him what he thought about Toyota’s problems with the huge recall and shut down of production–no doubt the biggest reputation challenge in the auto industry since the Ford-Firestone problems ten years ago (barring the meltdown of course). Jon will be interviewed on CNBC shortly, but you can get the scoop here.

I asked Jon during the Q&A session on this webinar what he would say to the CEO if he had a seat at the table of executives as he did at Ford. He said, “I would ask them first if they are doing enough? Are they doing all they can to protect the public? What about Lexus–they are keeping that out, but should they be looking at that too?” Then he said, “they should ask the question ‘what are people most worried about?’ and ask how we are addressing their concerns. We need to be clear about how we are addressing them.”

What struck me about Jon’s comments, clearly coming from the voice of experience, is how they well they mesh with the basic message about trust that we talk about all the time. Trust, we say, depends on two things: doing the right things, then communicating about them well. Jon is very right in advising that they first be concerned about the realities of protecting the public. No amount of posturing or spinning will compensate for decisions that don’t go to the fullest extent possible in addressing real safety concerns. But, if they are doing all those things, they need to be very aggressive and very clear about the actions they are taking. Jon talked about all the Twitter chatter and social media activity around Toyota and no doubt most of it is pretty ugly. I was interviewed by CNN Money a few days ago for my thoughts on Toyota’s reputation and I haven’t seen any of my comments showing up. They probably won’t because I did not quite see this as the blow to Toyota’s reputation that the current media hype is making it.  I related their reputation problems to a bigger issue of becoming the world’s largest and dominating auto manufacturer–an achievement that puts a huge target on them and certainly for the media as well as those who hate all things big and powerful. That is a more challenging issue long term for Toyota. However, the current spate of safety issues, recalls, accusations and negative reporting don’t help in that overall battle one bit.

I’ve asked Jon to contribute a guest post on crisisblogger and hopefully he’ll have time to do that. In the meantime, go out and get a copy of Feeding Frenzy.

Apple hype and why it matters to you

I know, you’re into crisis communication, reputation management, emergency response and all that stuff. So what does watching Apple computer have to do with you? Quite a bit actually, and for several reasons.

1. Apple is the leading technology innovator–particularly in mobile computing. Yesterday the company announced a stunning 40+% increase in profits. And Steve Jobs has promised, scarily it seems, even better in the future based on new products coming out. Apples innovation with laptop computers spurred lots of competition, but its innovation with the iphone has been even more disruptive. Certainly there are some very good non-Apple options out there, but ever notice how much they try to look, feel and quack like the iphone?

2. Apple is blending work with fun. Nothing new here in many ways because so many other industries are doing the same. Wars are being waged with joysticks just like Nintendo of old. The news media like news magazines and primetime programming are looking more and more like entertainment TV (what after all is reality TV?)–with a more or less complete blending of information and entertainment. But, was exactly is an iphone, or a tricked out MacBook Pro after all? Is it a game machine, a communication device or a serious work computing machine. All three, all at once. That has very significant implications for those who provide information to the masses. Masses which I’ve noticed along with the expanding forehead, are getting increasingly young. What form will public warnings and emergency information take in the future? Today I advise news websites and crisis websites to be structured like the major online news sites. And they are very good at blending compelling information with all kinds of entertainment and commercial messages.

3. Apple is trying to save content providers. Someone I know and respect and knows a heck of a lot more about this stuff than I ever will told me this morning that all the hype about the big Apple announcement tomorrow was really about Apple saving the world. The world of content providers. How quickly we forget that until Apple made iTunes a fabulous success and the biggest seller of music and digital content, the big issue was that musicians, filmmakers, tv folks and everyone who provided entertainment was going to disappear into the internet world of everything free. Now, it seems, we happily pay 99 cents for all kinds of things including billions of things we load on our iphones called apps. What the heck was an app before this? A half-eaten apple? Every rock group and audio book producer should get on their knees three times a day and thank Daddy Jobs. Now, my Apple and pop culture guru is telling me that what Apple did for entertainment, he may just do for more news and info content (I know, false distinction between that and entertainment, but you know what I mean). If Daddy Jobs got with Rupert and the fine folks at NYT to solve the dilemma how to get paid for putting all that good content online, he will be having lots of people bow to him three times a day. The tablet computer, which we will know much more about tomorrow, just may combine the Kindle, the iphone, the laptop plus maybe the workout capabilities of the Wii into a single, lightweight device that we will all find irreplaceable. Or it may just be another wildly successful profit making technology disrupter. We’ll soon see.

In case I lost any crisis communicators in this technology meandering, here’s are the points: 1) mobility will drive our lives and that means how we do crisis communication. If you can’t do everything you need to do with that little device in your pocket real soon, you will be as out of date as the mouse. 2) news and where we get it will change. It already has, but most in crisis communication seem to not realize it. Something tells me, tomorrow it will change a lot more. 3) those of us like me (unlike my much smarter guru) who didn’t buy Apple stock when the market crashed and it was under $100 bucks are going to be even sadder than we already are.

THIS JUST IN: My guru confirms the hints about tablet relating to content (also suspicion of link between table and iphone operating systems) McGraw Hill CEO gets the jump on Apple.

You’re Invited–Listen to the inside story of the Ford Firestone crisis

I’d like to personally invite all crisisblogger readers to a webinar with Jon Harmon this Thursday. Jon was the lead public relations person for Ford during this crisis, the first big crisis of the new century in 2000, and one of the biggest business and reputation crises of all time. He had a front row seat to this devastating crisis which set Ford on its heels, ended an over 100 year business relationship, and permanently ended one of the most revered brands in tires. Jon has written an outstanding book on this called Feeding Frenzy and this Thursday you’ll have the chance to listen to Jon tell his story. There will be time for some questions and interaction.

By the way, Dave Fleet took my advice and got the book. Here is his review–I couldn’t have said it better myself!

Webinar: Feeding Frenzy with Jon Harmon

Sponsored by PIER Systems

Time: 2:pm ET, Noon CT, 11 a.m. PT

We will send you an invitation to join the webinar. To register click here.

How news is done today–press releases or social media?

I find this juxtaposition very interesting. It sounds contradictory but look deeper and I don’t think it is. One report shows that the vast majority of journalists today use social media to prepare their stories. The other says that the press release is far from dead but may be more important than ever.

First, journalists and social media. This report says that the vast majority of reporters today use a variety of social media tools to prepare their stories: 89% use blogs (remember blogs, used to be we all talked about them), 65% use social networking sites like Facebook and Linkedin, 61% use wikipedia and 52% use Twitter or other microblogging tools.

Then there is this fascinating study from Pew Research looking at how news is generated and covered today, with an indepth look at the Baltimore market. It seems to counter much conventional wisdom regarding the decline of traditional media and particularly the oft-repeated (including by myself) statement that the press release is dead. It shows that most stories originate in traditional media, that despite the significant growth in news outlets most stories (83%) are repetitive, and that traditional media are embracing multiple forms of new media.

The report stated:

As the economic model that has subsidized professional journalism collapses, the number of people gathering news in traditional television, print and radio organizations is shrinking markedly. What, if anything, is taking up that slack?

The answers are a moving target; even trying to figure out how to answer them is a challenge. But a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, which takes a close look at the news ecosystem of one city suggests that while the news landscape has rapidly expanded, most of what the public learns is still overwhelmingly driven by traditional media—particularly newspapers.

One analyst of this report suggested that the decline of reporters and the urgency of immediacy in coverage means that the traditional press release is perhaps more important than ever as strapped reporters and editors are more likely to take prepared releases, images, B roll, etc.  I think there is real truth to that but my take from the combination of these reports is that the best media relations strategy is to use short bursts of immediate information to alert reporters, then detailed fact sheets accessible via web link. Writing those in a form and format useable by your target media is a good idea in addition to a bulleted fact sheet.

There is much to learn from both of these reports. One thing is certain, how the news media collects and reports the news has changed dramatically and that means the methods use to provide them the information to report needs to change as well.

The future of Twitter–two different takes

David Carr of the New York Times wrote on January 1 an article titled “Why Twitter Will Endure.” Then, today, came this report showing a steady and probably accelerating decline of Twitter usage.

So, is Twitter here to stay or has it reached its peak and already is on the decline?

For the record, I stated here a number of months ago (to loud guffaws from some) that I thought Twitter would disappear, but that what Twitter brought to the world would never disappear but prove a permanent change. What Twitter brought was the integration of various forms of instant communication including micro-blogging, text messaging, seamless distribution via web, email, text, etc. It has proven to be a highly effective means of instant communication with groups of people with whom you wish to communicate, or to audiences who have an intense desire to know what you have to say or track your every move (ala Ashton Kutcher). But, as I predicted, that functionality of exceptionally easy and fast distribution of messages to “friends” or people who connect via a network is rapidly be adopted in a variety of ways. One of the fastest growing in the emergency communication field is Nixle. I recently talked with a PIO from a large metropolitan police agency who said she would never use Twitter because of security and reliability issues but is happy with Nixle. The platform we provide (PIER) has provided Twitter functionality for a long time, but fully integrated with other modes of communication.

So I believe one of the reasons not indicated in the Mashable article is the fact that other applications and not just Twitter add-on apps, are incorporating instant communication capability–and some of these are more specifically designed for the user’s intentions. Remember that Twitter was intended to help friends share the kind of sandwiches they are eating and Twitter has pretty well stuck to that model despite obvious need to provide some security and verified accounts. One obvious reason for the design is after getting 150 tweets from somebody you pretty well know what kind of sandwiches they like and the particular form of latte they prefer, so it gets boring.

But I believe that what Carr says is also right: Like many newbies on Twitter, I vastly overestimated the importance of broadcasting on Twitter and after a while, I realized that I was not Moses and neither Twitter nor its users were wondering what I thought. Nearly a year in, I’ve come to understand that the real value of the service is listening to a wired collective voice.

Without question the greatest value for many of Twitter is the ability to listen in on conversations (brief ones for sure) that otherwise would not be accessible to them. That can be extremely valuable and if the conversations appear on multiple different platforms and channels, and many of them more private than Twitter, this ability to listen in will be limited. And that would be a shame.

I still think Twitter will if not disappear, further diminish. In part because as far as I know they haven’t figured out any reliable funding model and once their meteoric growth slows (as it already has) then the investment dollars run and hide real fast. But, when/if it is replaced by multiple other tools that do similar or better things, we still will have lost something. Specifically, the ease of listening in.