Don't blame the media in a crisis

Presidents, Prime Ministers and CEO's are given to blaming the media during a crisis.  It doesn't work because crises are news and there are hundreds of leading journalists, commentators and broadcasters who must get the facts to satisfy the ever-increasing public demand.

Don't blame the media.  They are doing their job and if you are not involved in a crisis, you would expect them to give you the news. All too often journalists are blamed for being too intrusive.  But, if they don’t give us the facts, we soon ask why.

Of course the media is interested and if they can’t get it immediately, they will go somewhere else.   They must have a spokesperson to lead their story.

The prospect of taking the high ground and doing the interview or press conference may strike terror into the heart of most corporate leaders, however it must be one of their early priorities.   There seems to be a mind-set in some management circles that by providing the media with facts early on, they are going to be accused of mayhem.  It is just the opposite.  Every fact that is provided in the early stages will release the pressure from both the spokesperson and all the internal stakeholders. 

In the case of one therapeutic products company during an escalating product recall, the leading network “warrior” interviewer demanded he spoke to the Chief Executive so he could get the news “right from the horse’s mouth”.  He shouted down the phone that there would be hell to pay if the company didn’t come good and give the network the story.  “I will stand outside your plant with the company name in the background,” he shouted, “and tell the story as I see it until you submit”.  

The CEO was experienced in media interviews and took on the task of meeting the “warrior”.  His organisation’s image and, to a degree, his reputation, was on the line.  Certainly there was going to be some difficulty in getting the message across and there will be traps and perhaps his words will be twisted, but he must tell the story. 

The CEO met the “warrior” and turned the setback into a springboard.  Questions were asked about the quality of the product and its future in the market place.  The CEO positioned the product as essential and vital to saving lives and identified the problem in the product recall as being controllable and the company as being in control of that problem.  He offered cool, clear and instant advice to the public about how to get advice or information on the situation and by the end of the interview, he had total clarity on the company’s confident approach to managing the situation.   He retained the initiative throughout and was never outmanoeuvred.  The sad end to this story of investigative dynamics was that the interview was never used.  Was it too good to be true or too true to be good?        

For the uninitiated, a period of media attack can be disastrous.  A barrage of cameras, microphones and tape recorders coming at you from every angle.  How do you avoid being ambushed by the early questions and how do you contain the situation without looking like you are on the defensive?   You understand what the media will want well before an incident occurs.  You plan, prepare and practice.

The Radio and Television News Directors’ Association in the US was surveyed on media expectations of an organisation during a crisis or disaster.  They wanted to find out how television stations covered an incident.  They  also interviewed people from the public relations industry who had been involved in a crisis.  The most important responses were to the question of “when a crisis occurs, how often does your organisation want updated information?” The most frequent answers were “constantly”, “immediately” and “as soon as possible”.  Respondents to the research also wrote “as soon as new developments warrant the public being informed”.  

Don't blame the media.  Have a plan to respond when they come and communicate your core message from the start of any critical incident. Move to the high ground with your spokesperson and be seen as the centre of information. Work with the media to win and hold the high ground.

Crisis apology from CBA - from CAN'T to CAN.

At last, under the threat of a Royal Commission, the Commonwealth Bank's Chief Executive has apologised unreservedly for its multi-million dollar financial planning scandal. In such high-profile corporate crises, "no comment" is no win. It is only a few days ago when a spokesperson for the Bank said "the CBA does not comment on rumour and speculation".

The Bank's highly-promoted brand slogan, "Can", categorically became "Can't" in their initial response to this critical and escalating disaster. When a strong brand and reputation need the protection of an early executive response, it is essential that the top management come out fast, loud and clear. And in this case, the Australian Treasurer, Joe Hockey, says the Bank did not act quickly enough to address the problem. And he should know. His own mother-in-law was affected by the scandal.

Public outrage must be managed fast, particularly in this age of social media igniting rumour and innuendo. Malaysia Airlines. Costa Concordia. BP oil spill. All criticised for early failure of a corporate message strategy to key stakeholders.

Corporate crisis communications pre-planning is central to the management of how an organisation delivers information to others during a critical event. This process should identify:

• who are the stakeholders who will be seriously affected by the event and must receive information immediately?
• what is the message strategy (not the media strategy but the central message strategy for all stakeholders)?
• how will the messages be delivered with pace and priority?
• who is the most appropriate spokesperson at the top of the organisation? If it's a major negative event, it has to be the CEO.  There is no hiding place.

Communicating with employees, customers, shareholders, government, media or regulators is an essential part of deescalating a crisis situation. This requires strategic pre-planning, constant monitoring and feedback. As the crisis develops, it is vital that communication is analysed and that the receipt of central messages to key audiences is confirmed.  This is now more important than ever with social media driving messages further and faster from the hub of the incident through the organisation nationally and internationally.

In a round of recent executive exercises with 10 sites in Asia, one common factor kept feeding back to our facilitator in the hot debrief - "our communication of key messages to stakeholders was too slow - we needed faster approval of corporate messages and clearer pathways to our key audiences".

Without doubt, "no comment" is no win. Early communication allows those who are affected to know what is happening and that it is being managed effectively.

Catastrophes and best practice crisis management

Regarding the recent terrible flooding crisis in the UK, I have just returned from that country and seen first hand the devastating flooding as torrential rain has caused the worst weather in UK’s history, with much of the Somerset area that I saw looking more like an inland sea.

As The Guardian newspaper quoted then - “public anger has risen as inexorably as the filthy waters in thousands of homes.”  The Prime Minister, David Cameron, took a while to get there which presented the question in the court of public opinion of “why has he taken so long”?  Once there, he seems to have been very community active but he could have learnt a lot from the early leadership stance of then Premier, Anna Bligh, to the floods in Queensland, Australia. She walked and talked to the community from the start. Leadership spokespeople in crises must arrive early and say and make things happen.

2014 will see the timely launch of a new British Standard for Crisis Management for both business and government organisations and most applicable for strategic response to major events such as floods, fires, riots, explosions, critical accidents and major product disasters. 

The new Standard will be aimed very much at executive management and those with strategic responsibilities in developing crisis management capability within their organisation. To quote the British Cabinet Office Public Available Specification facilitated in advance of the new Standard, "crises present organisations with complex and difficult challenges that may have profound and far-reaching consequences, sometimes irrespective of how successfully they are seen to be managed.  These consequences can be very damaging, especially where it is perceived that the organisation failed to prepare for, manage or recover from a crisis."

This is very relevant as countries and organisations around the world develop their crisis management capability at a more high-level context to respond to catastrophes. Malaysia Airlines and the Malaysian Government are experiencing this level of executive response under the microscope regarding their missing 777 aircraft where airline officials and government leaders are presenting information with very mixed and misleading messages.

Crisis agenda control - your organisation must be heard

Do you want the head of a SWAT team, a fire chief, or a corporate watchdog from a government agency speaking publicly on behalf of your company? Very often, many different outside service organisations and government departments can be involved in a crisis response.

 These groups can dominate your organisation’s location and, if not effectively managed, can become the face of your company, at the same time as dictating the mainstream of messages coming out of the event.  It is important to ensure that an organisation’s crisis plans incorporate ways and means of dealing with outside support groups working in the same response.    

In the response of TWA Flight 800 that was bound for Paris and literally crashed into the sea near Long Island, more than 50 disaster and emergency services operations and government agencies came together to initially deal with the disaster.  At least 20 agencies went on to investigate the event, deal with the pollution caused on the coastline, counsel friends and relatives, and work towards recovery.

The mayor of New York became intensely involved in advising next of kin, problems of environmental pollution and getting the message out to the US and international public.  The Coastguard was involved in underwater salvage.  Other Federal officers from a number of agencies were involved in the complex range of investigations.

This disaster became a major news item across the US for several months as many families and members of the public believed the handling of the whole situation was a crisis in itself.  Many of the post-incident evaluation sessions emphasised the need for greater collaboration between emergency services and government authorities.  All these organisations have their separate response plans which eventually need one common planning and communication thread.

Eric Jacoby Jr., Director of the New York State Emergency Management Office,  indicated there will be a number of changes in local government crisis management procedures following the response to the TWA Flight 800 crash.  He is working towards a greater linking of disaster and emergency policies for future crisis planning.

Reading the reports from the Contingency Planning Exchange Incorporated, it identified what TWA had to face was far more than an emergency. 

It was:

·        dealing with distraught families

·        managing an emotional public

·        coping with a huge press response

·        managing rumour and innuendo

·       coping with a large number of government enquiries

·       management of collecting evidence and finding the cause

Agendas run high in crises.  Political agendas, personal agendas, corporate agendas, emergency agendas, legal agendas.  In TWA’s case:

• New York’s Mayor, Rudolph Guiliani, was concerned about notifying victims’ families, the environmental damage and telling the public.
• The Coast Guard was concerned about recovering evidence from the water and dealing with retrieval of bodies and managing the area of water where the wreckage was located.
• The New York Police Department were concerned about the huge security problems at JFK.  In addition to the normal airport traffic, there were literally hundreds of other people making enquiries.
•  The FBI was concerned about the federal and international implications of terrorism.   
•  Lawyers from around the United States wanted to represent the families and the businesses affected.

There were in fact 21 agencies involved in the investigation, cleaning up the beaches, security of the airport, investigations at the airport, counselling grief-stricken families.  Twenty one agencies who were dealing with the crisis management team at TWA.  Something like 2,000 people.  Five hundred media representatives set up operations at the airport and coastguard stations. 

The importance of crisis planning and communication was emphasised in all the post-incident evaluations. 

Planning and communication - two areas in which TWA was - quote “woefully inadequate” - said Mayor Guiliani on US television.  

TWA received criticism from many fronts.  As a result of much of the criticism and the Gore Commission for the US Congress, changes have been made to future crisis management strategies.

Pre-empt the worst case scenario for your organisation. Take control of the agenda in a crisis and make sure you are heard early and continually throughout the crisis response.