Beuerman Miller Fitzgerald

Anatomy of a Crisis

2012-01-17T14:23:00.000-08:00

This quick blog will take a look at how most crises occur and the 9 phases by which they tend to play themselves out.

Malcolm Gladwell’s heralded 2008 book, Outliers, explains that in almost every major airline accident at least seven different precursors or signals are sent, completely ignored, or considered and dismissed prior to the catastrophe actually taking place.

On the surface however, most crises are declared to be a “surprise” that catches us completely off guard whether or not we’ve seen and ignored or misinterpreted the signals.

That “surprise” then generates a certain amount of panic or at a minimum, anxiety, that upsets our daily business routines and forces us to refocus our priorities and assume roles we are not always accustomed to performing. This panic goes beyond the company itself and permeates those stakeholders who are concerned about how they may be impacted by your problem: rank and file employees, near neighbors, customers, investors, vendors and government agencies and others.

This panic phase results in a rapid turn of events that can often resemble chaos where many things such as people’s reactions, environmental impacts, impacts on health and safety, traffic and routine operations seem to be out of our control. This chaos is only exacerbated by poor planning and poor training to manage situations that are unforeseen.

Inherent in these early phases is a lack of clear information and the inability to process or share important information in a timely manner. Still, this poor flow of internal information does nothing to stem media (and the stakeholder) demand to know four critical things: 1)what happened, 2) why, 3) how does it impact me, and 4) what are you doing about it?

The next logical phase is often the initial scrutiny and involvement of public and governmental agencies which are assuming their own roles as protectors of the public’s interests. Good crisis planning will take into account the need to work with and communicate with these agencies so that they can be allies and not adversaries in your response.

Phase 6 involves the real impacts of the crisis on your stakeholders rather than the feared impacts of phase two. These can include impacts on health, displacement from homes and places of business, safety, environmental pollution, loss of business continuity and more.

Phase 7 typically takes the form of intense media scrutiny and a thorough public examination of all your company’s past transgressions: other incidents, fines and penalties, past complaints from near neighbors or governmental agencies or environmental groups. During this phase you may expect the rehash of these past incidents and allegations to begin to color how media covers your current crisis.

Unless dealt with head-on, this intense scrutiny can have a debilitating effect on employee morale and customer loyalty, forcing those persons managing the crisis into a siege mentality that puts you in a weak, defensive posture.

Phase 8 involves aggressive damage control and the process of putting the crisis into a proper perspective (something the media often fails to do). Reaching out to key stakeholders and confronting misconceptions and misrepresentations head-on is central to turning the corner and moving your crisis from page 1 to page none.

Finally, phase 9 takes the form of a self-analysis: What went wrong and why? What signals were sent and ignored or misinterpreted? How can we improve our crisis training, planning and readiness? How deep is the reputational damage? And how can we begin the process of repairing our reputation and relationships with key stakeholders and the public?

This final phase may be among the most important of all since reputations are really built on performance and not just PR. Really learning your lessons and looking at the crisis from both the inside out and the outside in (from both your stakeholders’ points of view as well as your own) is key to making sure you’re better prepared and that the element of surprise (phase 1) result in a cascade of other phases which can cripple your operations and damage your business and professional reputations.

Making Risk Communication A Priority

2011-11-22T11:36:00.000-08:00

At BMF, we spend a great deal of time helping our clients in the energy, manufacturing and shipping sectors prepare for, train for and respond to crisis: spills, pipeline leaks, ugly mergers and acquisitions, labor actions, industrial accidents and shipping incidents that can have multiple negative internal and external impacts and levels of liability.

But as important as effective and open communication in crisis may be, it is only one side of the communications coin. The other side-- equally as important but too often ignored—involves communicating effectively about risk—long before something bad actually happens.

In this document we’ll explore effective risk communication: engaging people openly and honestly about the risks of what your company does or makes, in ways that sincerely address their concerns or fears by giving them the information they need to draw educated conclusions that could ultimately make for a better relationship between you and your neighbors.

Simply defined, effective risk communication seeks to provide a proper context for the dangers posed to the public, calm fears and explain risks in honest, clear and reassuring terms that go far beyond made-for-media sound bites.

To be clear, risk communication is not the same thing as community relations and philanthropic giving. While these things may put a “human face” on your company and help make some people feel better about your company, they do little to mitigate lingering concerns about the health and safety risks of living and working next door to you.

At BMF we believe that effective risk communication is as much about listening as it is about talking. Experience has taught us at least one thing: concerned or angry neighbors and stakeholders are more than smart enough to know the difference between talking and listening.

Only by listening and really hearing what your neighbors and critics say about their fears regarding what you and how you do it can you truly find common ground beyond the fence line.

This process begins by accepting that people are very unlikely to: -
- accept things they don’t understand
- accept things or situations that are beyond their control
- accept things they believe are unfair
- accept things they derive no perceived benefit from
- accept situations they believe are forced upon them
- accept without anger or hostility things that are man-made instead of acts of God or nature

Effective risk communication is not achieved in one step or through limited on-again, off-again engagement. It is a process that takes real commitment and on-going outreach and accessibility. It takes thick skin and a willingness to hear things said in the kind of way you’re not accustomed to hearing from people who start from a fundamentally different perspective from you. And it takes the willingness to accept incremental change in your relationships with your stakeholders and neighbors over an extended period of time rather than the kind of sea change in attitudes all of us would like to see happen.

Good risk communication involves inviting those stakeholders who matter most to you inside your organization to meet your people and learn about your processes and your value to the community from the ground up. This learning process doesn’t just happen overnight but over a great deal of time.

Effective risk communication also entails being open minded to at least some of the changes your most important stakeholders want you to make. After all, it is totally unreasonable for you to expect to change their minds if you’re not open to changing yours.

We’ll flesh this concept out in more detail over the next few weeks. In the meantime, if you’re interested in exploring this subject in more detail, be sure to contact me at gbeuerman@e-bmf.com

Sad Times in Happy Valley

2011-11-15T08:12:00.000-08:00

My original intent was to write at least three blogs about this unseemly and unfortunate issue, but as Monday passed to Tuesday and Tuesday to Wednesday (and so on), things happened so quickly that what I started the day before was no longer relevant.

In reality, that’s good news for Penn State and for a university that’s looking to put this mess behind them. The goal after all, for an institution in crisis is to seize control and move from page one to page none as fast as possible. And while the enormity of the scandal is still unfolding and will continue to for weeks to come, Penn State’s Board actions to fire President Graham Spanier and usher legendary coach Joe Paterno out the door, are a huge step in the right direction in restoring student, faculty, donor and media confidence in an educational institution that was on the verge of failing the ultimate test.

Malcolm Gladwell’s 2008 book, The Outliers, relates that in nearly every major airline accident approximately seven different signals are sent that trouble is on the horizon, nearly all of which are missed, dismissed or considered and ignored, resulting ultimately in a catastrophe.

The same can be said for the events at Penn State. How the university, its President, Athletic Director, legendary coach Joe (Joe Pa) Paterno and others responded to and handled rumors, reports and allegations all the way back to 2002, is shocking and disturbing and deserves to be considered here in real time.

Let’s take the key players one at a time.

Paterno

As a life-long Penn State and Joe Pa fan I’ve come full circle on Joe’s dismissal, from trying to make excuses for way Paterno failed to take decisive action based on what he learned nine years ago (instead of passing the buck and doing the absolute minimum), to the realization that he was dead weight on the school’s storied football program and needed to exit now, no matter how gracelessly such an exit might be.

As a professional communicator who helps corporate executives, politicians and others through their own tough times I analyzed Paterno’s November 8th statement announcing his resignation (effective at the end of the football season) and was struck by two important sentences: First, that the Board should not waste a single moment considering his fate—that he had made that decision for them and that they had more important things to do. While that statement could be read at least 2 different ways--that he was sincere in wanting to relieve them of that burden on the one hand, or that he alone was worthy of controlling his own destiny on the other. Sadly, I’ve concluded that an arrogance that is clearly typical of the university itself could only mean the latter.

The other statement in his announcement that gave me pause was his acknowledgement that in hindsight he should have done more. Clearly, Paterno knew more that he cared to and opted to shut his eyes to a sad, cold reality he’s rather never have known. In acknowledging that he “should have done more”, Paterno is clearly opening himself up to a lifetime of legal liability and lawsuits that will include endless depositions and even more public scrutiny. Still, he’s done the right and the only thing left to do by making such an admission.

But while Joe Pa certainly earned the right to call his own plays over 61 years of coaching, in his failure to follow up on such a heinous accusation as came to his attention years before, Paterno forfeited the right to determine his own destiny.

Last Tuesday afternoon’s, almost comical made for TV octogenarian auto chase scene featuring Joe Pa, slumped in the front seat of his Toyota Camry while his wife Sue weaved her way through crowds of reporters--starting, stopping, speeding up to avoid the media on their way to Paterno’s office at the stadium, put a bold exclamation mark on the entire craziness that came to epitomize Joe’s last days at Penn State. That imagery alone should have been more than enough to convince even the staunchest Penn Stater that the gig was up for Joe Pa.

Graham Spanier

While it is still possible, if not only natural to feel some degree of sympathy for Paterno, no such thing can be said for PSU President Graham Spanier who fostered and encouraged the all-pervasive air of power and arrogance that has come to define Penn State’s administration and athletic department.

Spanier’s almost immediate declaration of his unconditional support for Athletic Director Tim Curley and university Vice President Gary Schultz, who had just been charged with perjury and covering up the allegations against former defensive coordinator Sandusky, was the ultimate in stupidity, tinged with more than a hint of the invincibility the powers that be had created in Happy Valley.

Spanier got what he deserved. There’s a pretty good chance there’s more to come.

The University Board of Trustees

After getting a slow start out of the gate, paralyzed no doubt by too many sips of the university’s own Kool-Aid, the Board found the strength to take decisive action, ordering its own investigation into the scandal and sacking, in one fell swoop Spanier and Paterno, thereby giving the university and the unhappy denizens of Happy Valley at least a fighting chance to turn the corner and begin the process of rebuilding the university’s reputation and self-esteem.

The Board’s task now is to stay the course, undertake an exhaustive self-study and clean house from floor to ceiling of any and all who knew anything they failed to report or act on.

Make no mistake: this scandal isn’t about football or even about Joe Pa. It’s about sexual abuse of children, violating the law in the most egregious of ways, and institutional arrogance and absolute power that corrupts absolutely and cowers everyone who gets in the way or dares to question those in charge. It’s about cover-ups that many people seem to have engaged in for nearly a decade, blind or oblivious to the distinct fact that the truth never dies.

Clearly, Jerry Sandusky is sick. But so is Penn State at the highest levels of the administration and athletic department. Such overwhelming power as the university has amassed can’t help but breed arrogance, and with that arrogance comes a false believe in invincibility. Still, the mighty have begun to fall and they will continue to do so until the university faces reality. Lip service, blue and white anti-child abuse ribbons at football games and half-hearted actions simply won’t cut it when trying to repair the immense reputational damage done to Penn State or to the lives of dozens of scarred young men who have suffered emotionally for years while the Nittany Lions played on.

Joe Pa was and is a legend. Over 61 years as a coach he’s rightly earned a reputation as a teacher and molder of young men. Now’s the time for Joe Paterno to dig deep and with great humility and sincerity teach the ultimate lesson: That actions—and inactions-- have consequences. That real men accept responsibility for what they’ve done and haven’t done. And that no one is above the law or too important or legendary to be held accountable for their deeds or lapses of judgment.

Joe Pa still has some teaching to do. And some tough life lessons to teach himself in the process.

2011-11-04T08:45:00.000-07:00

This is more of a rant than a blog-something I swore I'd never do.

But as a voter, and as a media professional, I can't help but be disappointed and angry about the campaign conduct of most of the recent candidates for the various judicial seats in the City of New Orleans. Campaigning for offices such as Civil District Court without an ounce of civility is the absolute height of hypocrisy. Sitting judges as cartoon characters? Seriously? Unseemly, untrue and totally contrived allegations about failure to pay child support (that are so far off base that a local court orders them pulled off the air in record time)? Really? And you want to be a judge?

While the political consultants can be somewhat excused for slinging such mud (taht's what they after all) there is no excuse for someone seeking a judgeship to stoop so low. What could possibly qualify someone with no sense of propriety or dignity to feel even remotely qualified to judge anyone else?

Surely being a judge is more about you than about your opponent. After all, once you win, the only thing relevant is your behavior and demeanor, not your former opponent's.

If there's ever an argument in favor of an appointed judiciary, those candidates who spent millions of dollars to tear each other (and their families) apart have become the new poster children for a comprehensive change in how we put people on the bench. Such behavior is a sad commentary on the integrity of far too many of the great legal minds who seek to judge the rest of us in court.

Business continuity planning: the ultimate business and reputational insurance policy

2011-09-13T09:26:00.000-07:00

The recent and extensive business interruptions caused by Hurricane Irene up and down the US East Coast, and the upcoming anniversary of the tragic attacks on New York’s Twin Towers should be all the reminder anyone requires that every business needs some form of business continuity and disaster recovery planning.

While not every business has the same level of exposure or the same risks to its operations or profitability, every business owner owes it to him / herself and their employees, investors, bankers, customers and vendors to conduct a comprehensive analysis of those risks and to plan accordingly for the unexpected.

That’s where a credible, culturally adapted business continuity plan comes in, coupled with a disaster recovery plan for putting the pieces back together after the storm has passed.

To be sure, a business continuity plan (BCP) isn’t the same thing as a crisis communications plan, although communicating during and after a crisis is a central element of a good BCP. A good BCP is comprised of several other key elements including:

- A candid assessment of operations, health, safety and financial risks
- A review of your organization’s communications culture, structure and capabilities
- A prioritization of who is most important to engage and mobilize first, both inside and outside your company (employees, vendors, bankers, investors, suppliers, etc)
- A complete and up-to-date inventory of your workforce including after-hours contact information, home addresses and home and cellular telephone numbers, personal email addresses, family contact information, etc)
- An up-to-date listing of employee evacuation locations to and how they could be reached in the event of an emergency which forced them from home quickly
- A pre-established communications portal such as a “dark” website or toll free telephone line staffed 24-hours a day after activation which can be used by employees to report through and to get important messages from the company
- Off-site servers and data storage capabilities
- Multiple pre-established out-of-town sites (with very specific detail) where key company personal can muster and meet to evaluate risk, damage and loss and communicate quickly and seamlessly with their key internal and external stakeholders
- Laminated wallet sized cards containing this key information to be kept by each employee in their cars and homes should they have to quickly seek refuge elsewhere
- Up-to-date 24-hour contact information for key suppliers, brokers, customers, legal counsel, insurers, bankers, and vendors (most third-parties such as these will be well pleased and surprised that your company is giving this kind of attention and detail to business continuity planning. You may especially earn points with your insurer and bankers)
- Pre-approved written messages for communicating with your key stakeholders as a crisis or forced evacuation is approaching or throughout and after the crisis passes
- A “coming home” or “cascade” protocol that mobilizes key personnel first after the incident or business interruption has passed in order to evaluate damage and chart a realistic course of action for the company
- A pre-determination (to be conducted with your labor lawyers and benefits advisors) of what you’ll be able / willing to offer your displaced employees under a variety of crisis circumstances. (Employers in crisis often find that uncertainty regarding payroll and benefits issues are the single most vexing and problematic issues and sources of discontent for their employees and can lead to lingering employee morale, legal and retention challenges)
- Options for reducing overhead should the crisis or business interruption linger longer than expected

Clearly, these aren’t things you can scribble on the back of a napkin as the storm clouds are rolling in.

Developing a functional, reality-based BCP can best be done through a cooperative effort of key internal personnel and an outside consultant who can look at your organization, your operations, risks and corporate culture with a clear, objective eye. Between the insider’s view and the more objective and experienced outside perspective business owners are far more likely to get a workable plan than taking just one course of action or another.

Over and above giving you as a business owner or manager the peace of mind you need to face any business interruption with the least amount of stress and economic risk, developing a business continuity plan gives your employees and other key stakeholders the signal that you’re looking out for their best interests as well. That fact alone sets you apart from other prospective employers or competitors who may seek to take advantage of your bad fortune.

Recent crisis response efforts demonstrate value of social media as real-time communications tools

2011-08-22T08:27:00.000-07:00

For more than a year BMF has been preaching to our clients that social media has a meaningful place in their crisis communications tool chests. While some clients have taken the hint and allowed us to insert a social media component into their crisis comms plans and protocols (Twitter and Facebook), others have proven resistant to the idea or slower off the mark.

Three recent but very different crisis response efforts have served to prove our point and demonstrate the potential value of these social media tools as a forum for quick, real-time communication of key facts in the aftermath of an incident.

During July, ExxonMobil effectively used Twitter to reach reporters, environmentalists, property owners, regulators and others with the latest facts regarding their Yellowstone, Montana pipeline oil spill. While social media isn't enough by itself to soothe the savage beast that is an angry public, it can go a long way toward mitigating what is always the biggest complaint among stakeholders: "They won't tell me anything!"

ExxonMobil issued frequent fact-based Tweets to announce press conferences, deployment of resources and spill clean-up milestones and more. Hats off to them for stepping out and using social media to do more than peddle a product or post job openings.

Likewise, Shell gets credit for using Twitter to provide basic information and milestones in their response to a recent small spill in the North Sea.

The early August Indiana State Fair tragedy that killed 7 fair-goers and injured dozens more also served to demonstrate how social media can be effectively used and help skirt the traditional gridlock caused by endless rounds of rangling with attorneys over how to word even the most simple of media statements.

Two local hospitals quickly activated Facebook and Twitter communications plans to provide family members, well-wishers and the media with details regarding the incident and to help refute rumors that were spiraling out of control. Sample posts and Tweets included instructions on how to check in at the Red Cross Safe and Well website, how to donate blood or find missing loved ones, how to show support and appreciation for the medical teams that were quickly overwhelmed with injured parties and their worried family members, and how grieving persons could access free counseling services.

Fair organizers even went one better, setting up a YouTube channel to post all press conferences and media interviews to provide the most comprehensive of communications platforms.

Ginning up this kind of social media program doesn't just happen in the blink of an eye. To be launched and used effectively it has to be part of an organization's crisis communications plan and protocol and must be more than just an afterthought.

The way we get our news is changing (just ask the Pakistani neighbor who Tweeted the world about the raid on bin Laden's compound hours before the media knew it). The future of timely and effective crisis communications is here now as the demand for real time information in our era of 24-hour news cycles and TV talking heads raises the stakes. Ready or not, it's time to get in the game.

BMF's New Rules for Protecting Corporate Reputations

2011-08-09T14:19:00.000-07:00

Here are BMF's "new rules for protecting corporate reputations." We'd love to know yours.

1. Corporate reputations are destroyed far more quickly than they are built. Rebuilding a badly damaged corporate reputation takes twice as much time as it took to build it the first time around.

2. Ultimately, reputation is rooted in performance, not PR. The best PR in the world can't make shoddy performance look good.

3. 90% of all crises don't just happen. There are warning signs and precursors that are too often ignored or glossed over.

4. More crises are the result of something someone didn't do, than the result of something someone did.

5. Aggressive people don't care what you say until you listen to them first. They're smart enough to know the difference between being "talked to" and being "talked with."

6. There's a huge difference between saying "I'm sorry" and saying "I did it."

7. People look beyond your actions to the values and motivations behind those actions.

8. No one wins the blame game.

9. Tell the whole story as quickly as possible. Don't prolong the story by rolling it out chapter by chapter.

10. Out of town companies have no rights. The deck is stacked in favor of media and locals who feel they have been harmed or impacted.

11. There are no secrets. Eventually, lawyers and the media will know all and tell all.

12. It doesn't have to be your fault to be your problem!

Thirty Years, Three Faces: A Look at MTV

2011-08-08T13:58:00.000-07:00

Thirty years after premiering its network with the one-hit-wonder, “Video Killed the Radio Star” by The Buggles, Music Television (MTV) is celebrating its 30th birthday. With its innovative, edgy ideas, MTV plowed through the 80s, conquered the 90s, and transformed the television industry in the 2000s. MTV has seen America’s newest, working generation crawl, walk, graduate, and have children. So, let’s take a look at how MTV has shaped American culture thus far.

On the 1st of August, 1981, MTV aired as the nation’s first all-music TV channel. Critics of the entertainment industry believed that a solo music network would never succeed, but today, MTV is among the most profitable and influential TV networks. The station began transforming the industry by putting radio ideas on screen, mirroring the movement from journalism to radio in the 1920s. MTV introduced video jockeys (VJs) instead that would relate to their target audience, young Americans. The jockeys have always been style symbols of their generation. Being a jockey meant more than announcing the upcoming song. Many famous people go their start as VJs including: Alexa Chung, Carson Daly, Carmen Electra, Daisy Fuentes, Colin Quinn, Pauly Shore and Tyrese. MTV has been able to maintain its “cool” image by evolving with the times, and every decade has shown a new face for the network.

MTV’s first face was that of the Rebel. In the 1980s, MTV began its controversial reputation by changing the way people viewed music. Two years after it’s first video aired, MTV debuted Michael Jackson’s fourteen-minute-long music video “Thriller,” and exposed Americans to the concept of the music video as a storyboard. In 1984, the company had its first annual Video Music Awards (VMAs) and shocked viewers again with international sex symbol, Madonna’s performance of “Like a Virgin” in a wedding dress. Vh1, a sister network to MTV, was created in 1984 to appeal to an older, more musically focused crowd. It was also in the 80s that MTV began its infamous MTV Spring Break which had parents keeping their kids under lock-and-key during their week off from school. By 1989, MTV began to transform itself from a “shock-and-awe” program network to a behind-the-scenes musical experience with shows like Rockumentary, a musical documentary.

Face number two is that of the “rockumentarian.” In the 1990s, MTV was known for its ability to connect the artist directly to their fans. MTV began its Unplugged section which featured artist without all the glitz and glamour of a concert arena, and placed them in an intimate setting with just the their fans and music. Bands featured on “Unplugged” include: Nirvana, Eric Clapton, Squeeze, Mariah Carey, and Sting. The network launched the American obsession with reality TV in 1992 with the creation of The Real World. A year later, MTV dipped into the cartoon world with its creation of Beevis and Butthead, a show that whimsically explored the mind of the American teenager. By 1996, thirty-minute shows weren’t enough to satiate the company’s hunger for programming and MTV’s first film, Joe’s Apartment aired. That same year, the company had expanded greatly and its sister company, MTV2, was launched hooking audiences with its commercial free music videos. Borrowing from radio, in 1998, MTV created its first interactive program TRL:Total Reqest Live, which allowed viewers to call in and vote for their favorite videos.

By the 2000s, MTV had transformed from music television, to musicians on TV with its reality TV shows like The Osbournes, Making the Band, and Run’s House. These shows and their comrades created MTV’s third face: reality TV network. The first program that took MTV from music to amusement was 2000’s Jackass. The show’s concept is summed up by its title, a bunch of dudes, running around both making rears of themselves and getting the same part kicked. The Osbournes gave MTV’s audience a peek at how rock families deal with one parents success, which proved to be a lucrative look for the network. By 2004, the network had a baby of its own in mtvU, a network that incorporated online trends with programming. MTV’s impact on media and its viewers set the stage for MTV’s 2008 Rock-the-Vote election campaign, in which the network encouraged young people to exercise their right to vote for President. While the social impact of MTV in the 2000s is evident, nothing has impacted American society quite like the network’s golden child of 2009, Jersey Shore. The show which showcased Jersey Shore regulars with an appetite for alcohol and a penchant for trouble wrapped in a guido shell, sky-rocketed to the top of Twitter and every other social media outlet, once again making MTV the talk of the town. The frontrunner in the reality TV boom, MTV also produced successful, yet controversial shows like Teen Mom, Engaged and Underage, and 16 and Pregnant. So many people were talking about MTV’s ability to produce hit reality TV shows that the company in February of 2008, dropped “Music Television” from its logo.

Whether you’ve been watching MTV for thirty years or thirty minutes, it’s obvious that the network is here to stay. MTV’s ability to change with the times and generate new viewers because of its ingenious programming has solidified the company’s spot in American media. While you may not like the network or its shows, you have to admit no network knows how to change its face for its evolving public quite like MTV.

White House Press Office Shoots Blanks

2011-05-13T15:00:00.000-07:00

The success of last week’s killing of terrorist Osama Bin Laden cannot be overstated. It was a heroic effort, well planned and well executed with well-deserved praise for all involved. It’s just too bad the way the administration communicated the details of Bin Laden’s death hasn’t done justice to the occasion. As a result, this case study provides some sharp lessons for professional communicators and our clients in the corporate world. While this commentary is in no way meant to detract from the significant victory the President, US military and intelligence agencies have given the world, it is only fair to dissect what went wrong in sharing that good news with the public.

While it’s understandable that the White House would move quickly to tell the world of Bin Laden’s death by controlling the timing and release of information, it would have been more than appropriate for administration executives to all be singing off the same song sheet before “meeting the press”. The number of inconsistencies in administration comments, and remarks from elected officials and policy makers who received top secret briefings about what actually transpired is mind-numbing, leaving us to wonder how a 45-minute military action could spur so many different versions of how it played out.

“A protracted firefight…no, wait. Only one man had a weapon. Three men killed…no wait, four. A woman used as a human shield…no wait, she really wasn’t. It was his wife and she was killed…I mean shot in the leg. Bin Laden went down fighting…but he was unarmed. There were weapons nearby. He resisted…but he didn’t. We watched the entire thing play out remotely in the White House…but for 20 minutes we had no idea what was happening”. Things got so bad in the delivery of multiple messages by multiple “informed” sources that on Wednesday, White House spokesperson Jay Carney, was reduced to reading a multi-page statement verbatim, head down like a school boy who’d never seen the material before. On Wednesday, even Senator Barbara Boxer, who received a thorough White House briefing on the events in Pakistan, felt compelled to pepper her media comments with statements like “as I understand it” and “as I was told”, clearly leaving room for future equivocation.

Former G.W. Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleischer (who certainly knows a thing or two about poor communication) had it right when he described the administration’s handling of the news as “sloppy messaging”.

Ironically, through a combination of mistakes often made by corporate America in responding to crisis and evolving circumstances, the people around The Great Communicator 2.0 have let their boss down and tarnished a bit the brightest moment of the Obama administration. The reality is that if a corporation in crisis had sent the mixed signals communicated by the White House, that entity would be flayed in the media with an immediate and near irreversible loss of credibility as their crisis played itself out before the world.

Let’s take a quick look at some of the basic mistakes made and put them in the context of a corporate communications response.

First, while the need for speed and controlling the flow of information is critical, in and of itself it is not the end game. Facts need to be gathered and validated before being presented as such. And, as we know from communicating about oil spills, plant explosions and other fluid incidents, there’s nothing wrong with honestly admitting that “we don’t yet have all the answers” or “some details are still emerging”. The media and public are far more understanding of a staggered approach to communicating good or bad news than they are of misinformation and the distribution of speculations and half-truths.

Try this instead: “Here’s what we do know. And here’s what we don’t. We’ll fill in the blanks when all the facts are in.”

Second, the use of so many official spokespersons to distribute what should essentially be the same fixed message has its own pitfalls. Even word choices and simple misunderstandings and mistranslations of the facts can and do feed on themselves in a way that spins out of control. In reality, there was no need for the administration to put so many different people before the media in such short order. Corporations in crisis that make this same mistake will pay an even steeper price in the court of public opinion.

Third, it is more than a bit disappointing that unnamed sources in the administration are even now doling out juicy facts regarding a high level national security incident in a way that more resembles leaks than a full public disclosure of the whole story. Whether inside the Presidential administration or inside a corporate board room, people in the know have no business leaking privileged information to the media. In either eventuality it is a dangerous precedent that jeopardizes the credibility of the official spokespersons and risks the flow of inaccurate information and speculation that can result when hordes of journalists compete for “the inside scoop”.

In summary, the same characteristics that were hallmarks of the compound raid itself should have been applied to communicating about it: thorough planning, patience, and coordination.

Messaging Louisiana: Deepwater Horizon Spill at Day 365

2011-04-18T11:54:00.001-07:00

As we approach the one year anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon spill the media spotlight will once again shine its hot, bright light on Louisiana. Soon enough, Governor Jindal and others will be tasked with explaining where Louisiana is now, 365-days after the spill, as well as what lessons we’ve learned since April 20, 2010.

Here’s my message for the outside world if anyone cares enough to ask.

1. First and foremost, we’re the toughest people you’ll ever know. Battered, bruised, scarred and abused. We’ve taken the worst of what Mother Nature and our fellow man can throw at us and we’re still standing. We’ve been through far worse and we’ve come out stronger for it.

2. Despite the constant drum beat of gloom and doom from many on the outside (who were exceedingly quick—almost eager in some quarters- to prophesy the worst), there are no signs that our Gulf eco-systems or seafood have been destroyed. Clearly, the jury is still out on the future and in some cases the first harvests may have been smaller than in the past but available signs in the here and now point to a hopeful scenario for the future (Like our people, our marine life and eco-systems are far stronger than others think possible). The message: the seafood is great—healthy and plentiful. Grab a fork.

3. This wasn’t another Katrina or Rita. It didn’t cripple our state or permanently wreck our economy. And we don’t have our hands out and we don’t want your sympathy or a government bail- out. Don’t visit New Orleans and Cajun Country because we need you or because you feel sorry for us. Come because we’re America’s most interesting state and you can do and see things here you can’t find anywhere else. And because we have “go” cups.

4. We understand that there are risks that go with carrying such a large burden of the nation’s energy production. We know that’s a blessing and a curse and that we can’t take one without the other. However, we’ve also come to understand and in fact, insist that the companies that operate in our backyard have to play by the rules.

5. Don’t penalize our state or America’s domestic energy supply by slapping the oil and gas industry with moratoriums on drilling new wells. Try better oversight of relevant federal agencies instead and punish those who won’t follow the rules. Everyone reading this blog is doing so because the Gulf of Mexico is a critical asset. We all suffer under an unnecessary moratorium. Until alternative sources of energy are more viable and plentiful, this is your reality and ours.

6. Finally, a message for those of us who live here. Stop whining. Stop acting like victims hit with one insult after another. We don’t need America’s sympathy and we should stop acting like we’re expecting it. Work hard. Work smart. Create. Improvise and cut your own path like we’ve always done. If you need bucking up, see point one above.

Messaging the nuclear industry in the aftermath of the Japan tragedy

2011-03-30T14:46:00.000-07:00

The enormity of the tragic events in Japan have vast human consequences that cannot be overlooked. Those of us in New Orleans and other places that have been ravished by natural disasters can certainly feel the pain and anguish the people of Japan are now living with day to day.

And while attending to the needs of those thousands who have suffered in Japan, it may be instructive as public relations professionals to turn our attention to the nuclear power industry itself which now faces its own crisis - one that may in fact leave the industry fighting for survival. The most immediate challenge for the industry is how to message what happened in Japan and how to regain that confidence the nuclear energy industry struggled to achieve over the past twenty-five incident free years.

Here's my advice to the industry...not that anyone asked:

1. Speak and show compassion first, foremost and always. Today's debate is not about cheap energy or the world's increasing demand for access to affordable power in light of dwindling supplies of oil and gas and the slow progress of solar and wind generated power. It's about a natural disaster of epic proportions and the human impact that disaster has had on an entire nation. Any attempt to fast forward the discussion into an intellectual one about economics and energy supplies at this early point would be both unwise and insensitive.

2. Recognize that growing concern about the safety of nuclear power is both logical and understandable in light of this incident, and that safety should always have a place in the debate about nuclear power. treat those who disagree your position with respect, rather than seek to portray them as alarmists.

3. Put what happened in Japan into proper context: This was a natural disaster, not a man-made one. Stress the safety record of the plants in Japan and out that record into terms people can understand...X million hours of safe operations, etc. This is an extreme aberration, not business as usual. Context is important. Critics of nuclear power will be quick to focus on "what could have happened" - worst case scenarios, etc. Keep the focus on what DID happen and the positives of a government and private sector response that worked with a high degree of success to protect the public and the environment.

4. Demonstrate that the industry takes what happened in Japan very seriously and that the industry as a whole is committed to learning lessons that will even further improve the safety performance of nuclear plants around the world. Every major disaster - natural or man-made has spurred policy makers and industry to take a good look at what happened and why, and to adopt positive steps to minimize risk in the future. The tsunami in Japan should be no different.

5. Monitor the media - mainstream and social and stay well attuned to what's being said by both your harshest critics and the more neutral sources. But don't over-respond, particularly to those who have always been against nuclear power. They're not your audience and you'll never win their confidence. Stay focused on the people and groups that really matter and do your level best to address their questions and concerns in a prompt and meaningful way.

6. Be proactive in discussing health and safety in every community where nuclear plants operate and everywhere they are being considered for construction. Engage, inform and above all, listen to legitimate questions and concerns.

7. This isn't about image. It's about performance. Resist the temptation to message the important discussion ahead through slick TV ads a la BP following the April 2010 Gulf spill. In these most challenging of circumstances the nuclear power industry must learn to do what most industries have failed to do even when times are good: engage and inform on a personal, human level without the filter of a television screen.

8. Just as this issues is not about image, at this point in time it's also not about costs and access to affordable energy. You can't convince people who are scared for their lives and health that having access to cheap power is a fair exchange for what they perceive to be immense risks - especially in the wake of a tragedy like the one facing Japan. Keep the focus on safety for the foreseeable future. There will be plenty of time to talk about costs and access later on.

9. Finally, in the long term, this issue isn't about popularity or public opinion. It's about public policy, and the reality is that they aren't always the same thing. The debate about the future of nuclear power will be won through intellectual discussion and clear, approachable presentation of the facts. It's a debate that's to be won over the long haul at a point in time where very real and raw emotions over the tragedy in Japan can, in most quarters, be overcome by recognizing that while there are risks associated with nuclear power, nuclear energy can be delivered safely through the combined diligence of the industry, government and even the detractors who have as much of a stake in the safe delivery of nuclear power as the rest of us.

2011-02-08T07:28:00.000-08:00

I ran across an article from the Nashville Tennessean this weekend: "Governor's announcement timed to skirt the press." While I don't routinely condone hiding things from the media, in this era of 24-hour news cycles the headline left me wondering how that was even possible. While it could well be that Tennessee's new Governor was hoping to make an announcement below the radar and with a minimum amount of fanfare, the fact that it was an "announcement" at all seems to contradict that he was really serious about hiding anything.

It also reminds me and I'm sure other in the professional PR world, that some reporters often employee similar tactics, one that even first year journalism majors are told reek of Junior League journalism. I'm referring to the tactic of waiting until just before deadline or often waiting until normal corporate office hours are wrapping up to seek comment from a company or individual they don't particularly like or don't want to treat fairly. "Could not be reached for comment" or "Did not respond to requests for comment" are no substitute for an honest effort to make contact and get both sides of the story.

To be sure, many reporters--the vast majority--don't engage in those kinds of games. But some do--even big names who should know better.

Neither reporters nor PR people should expect anything less than honest and fair engagement. It's the height of hypocrisy for both sides to demand open access without being willing to give it.

Lessons Shared: Dr. Peter Sandman

2010-08-11T14:23:00.000-07:00

I recently had the good fortune to spend two days working with Dr. Peter Sandman, the world's guru of "risk and hazard communication". Peter coined these phrases and concepts in the 1980's and has spent much of the last two decades consulting with large corporations and government bodies regarding how to talk with hostile audiences, near neighbors, environmental groups and others who have developed a strong sense of anxiety and anger around issues and fears they deem to be important and "real". Peter's approach to helping manage these situations and relationships is quite unconventional and very much worth considering.

As such, I've listed below a few of the better take-aways from my time with Peter which may be of interest to you.

1. Coroporate reputations are rooted in performance not just PR. Simply telling the public you're a good corporate citizen won't get it done.

2. Everyone (communities who deem themselves to be at risk) has been lied to before--by government, regulators, corporations, etc.; they often have good reasons to be cynical and angry. Don't take it personally, but do take it seriously.

3. People don't care what you have to say until you demonstrate a willingness to listen to them first.

4. In times of crisis--oil spills, plant explosions, chemical releases, etc., the biggest difference between corporations and the public is that corporations have no "rights". Rights are reserved strictly for the public.

5. When it comes to resolving differences of opinion, rehashing years of history--pollution, health problems, etc. won't get it done. Seek to change the conversation and refocus it toward the future and how to make needed changes in communication and priorities going forward.

6. There's often a big difference between the "public" and your "stakeholders". Stakeholders have a real stake in the game; the public merely has a passing interest that fades with the next
news cycle. Understand who your audience really is.

7. Stakeholders always start from a different place than corporate managers, HR staff and corporate spokespeople. Accept and understand that fact and acknowledge that difference in all your communications.

8. There's a big difference between solving the problem and making the problem manageable. Make sure your goal is rooted in what is actually realistic.

9. All communication should be driven by guiding principles which, in turn, set the strategy. Strategy should not set the guiding principles.

10. Today's institutional investors are paying a lot more attention to corporate "values" and not just corporate "value".

11. Show real empathy. There's a big difference between saying you're sorry and saying you did something wrong.

12. The biggest mistake corporations make in managing a crisis is to not tell the truth. The second biggest mistake is to unrealistically raise expectations for a fast and full resolution and short selling the potential for real harm.

13. Isolate fanatics and find activists you can really talk with even if you don't like what they have to say.

2010-04-29T11:16:00.000-07:00

One of our stellar interns, Andrew Tew , found an interesting study of media coverage--what is news?, who makes it news worthy-- which he further researched and edited for my consideration. It's great work and worthy of further distribution so I'm proud to thank Andrew publicly and post it on our site.

Where does news come from?
Who generates it? Who makes news “news”?

The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism recently conducted a study to help answer these questions (which are often posed to us by clients). While the Pew study was limited to one major American media market, it may be representative of most other major American markets as well. Researchers traced and followed six different storylines with the hope of answering questions pertaining to news production and publication.

• Where do news stories originate from?
• How has the Internet affected the way individuals receive their news?
• What trends in the news have emerged and/ or declined due to technology?

The study came to the following conclusions:

The majority of today’s news can be viewed simply as repetitive bundles. Although there are more outlets for getting the news (i.e Twitter, blogs, etc.), the stories which are being displayed often hold no original reporting. In other words, each story is not being written by an individual reporter, but rather being taken from another reporting source. Eight of the ten stories studied were either republished from another source or taken directly from it. In the sample narratives under analysis, “83% of stories were essentially repetitive, conveying no new information.” Writers’ works were taken from one publication and simply cut and pasted to another without any credit given. “Official press releases often appear word for word in first accounts of events, though are not often noted as such.” In other words, news seems only to be recycled with nothing “new” being produced.

The next logical question is, okay, with all of these outlets reporting the same stuff, what is the source of it all? The answer is largely, newspapers. From the sample, nearly 50% of original reporting came from printed newspapers. Local television stations followed in second with just under 30%. Overall, 95% of all new news was from a traditional media outlet (including reading their daily newspapers on-line).

While newspapers are still king of original reporting, the Internet has nonetheless made accessing news, whether original or repeated, only a click away. Researchers found that sites like Twitter and Facebook along with other blogs served more as news alerts rather than main outlets. “Almost half of the newspapers’ stories studied were online rather than in print”. Although it contains mostly regurgitated stories, the Internet is the fastest outlet for receiving one’s news.

So, how do the actual stories themselves originate? Over 60% of the stories were sparked by government officials; the police were the primary initiators. Just less than 15% was generated by the press, and the remaining percentage came from various interest groups and their publicists. Over half of news was generated by a nod from the government rather than the press finding it themselves. (I find this the most interesting aspect of the report.)

Pew drew several conclusions.
- As the Internet opens up more outlets for receiving one’s news, original reporting appears to be waning
- Outlets simply repeat what has already been reported
- Newspaper still stands as the main source for original reporting
- Local television lags behind at a distant second
- Government officials, primarily police, initiate the majority of the news at just over 60%.

2010-03-25T09:51:00.001-07:00

Tiger Two

Forget for a moment what Tiger said in his March 16 media interview announcing his return to golf. While the words he used are certainly important to resurrecting his badly damaged reputation, they're not nearly as noteworthy as the lessons he seemed to have learned from the absolutely miserable job he did managing his mess the first time around.

Specifically, from a crisis manager's perspective, Woods deserves high marks for how and where he made his recent announcement, and, by virtue of that decision, for controlling the interview and focusing the conversation on his terms.

Using the little watched Golf Channel and ESPN as his launching pad was a master stroke (get it?) of genius, after all, he greatly limited the potential for interviewer hostility and for questions that might lead him places he'd rather not have gone. In his chosen format, Tiger was able, to the largest possible extent, to control the discussion and constantly return to the subject of golf and his professional career rather than his poorly chosen "hobby". It's tough to visualize Fox News or CNN or the NYT giving him such a pass. In doing things the way he did, Tiger can now justifiably tell other media outlets who want air time with him that he's been there and done that; that what happened in the past has been publicly addressed and analyzed ad infinitum, and that he's moving on.

I must confess to watching Tiger's March 16 announcement with a bit of melancholy, remembering very similar but unused advice I once gave a well known and powerful politician suffering significant reputational damage over "hobbies" of his own. By the way, he's no longer an elected official. But on a brighter note, he's gotten plenty of time to work on his golf game.

Judging Tiger: How'd he do?

2009-12-09T09:53:00.000-08:00

Corporations, the military, public agencies and educational institutions that find themselves under the media microscope during crisis are often judged harshly by the media and the public. We—the public, and the media, tend to hold them to high standards for what they say, what they do and how quickly and decisively they act to answer our questions, dispel rumors, set the record straight and solve the problems they seem to have created.

So, based on the criteria that we at BMF use to judge successful crisis communications, how did one of the world’s most widely recognized and most popular public figures…a man who is paid millions of dollars to rent his solid gold image to boost the images (and sales) of an endless array of brands and products...do in managing his own crisis and protecting his own reputation?

Using several of BMF’s 10 fundamentals of successful crisis communications and not withstanding the fact that Tiger’s private life is really none of our business, here’s our version of Tiger’s scorecard:

Prompt/Timely:

There’s no way around this one. Tiger basically botched this hole by waiting way too long, not only to issue a formal public statement but also in canceling meetings with local law enforcement. The combination of the two, left the imagining public and news media not only to draw our own conclusions but also to dig deeper into the story behind the story.

Score: quadruple bogey

Decisive:

Tiger, like a lot of corporate executives under the gun, made the fatal mistake of thinking that with the passage of time, we’d all stop caring, that somehow we’d all suddenly lose interest and move on to gawk at someone else. Time alone does not always heal all wounds. Sometimes it needs a good swift kick in the pants and some decisive, credible action and public statement to help it down the path to yesterday’s news.

Tiger seems legitimately stunned by the public’s interest and the intense media scrutiny he’s faced. In reality, how could the world’s first billion dollar athlete expect anything less?

Score: triple bogey

Honesty:

This one’s strictly a guess as no one really knows whether he told the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Media accounts have documented several more alleged relationships with other women, some of whom have stepped forward for their 15-minutes of fame and media spotlight. Since Tiger has not really addressed lingering questions regarding these alleged relationships, he’s basically telling us only half of the story, forcing us to draw our own conclusions which probably don’t work in his favor.

Score: bogey

Compassion:

In issuing (finally) a public statement on the accident and the issues surrounding the entire affair, Tiger does a good job of standing up for his wife, urging privacy for the family’s sake and in acknowledging his personal failings. There can be little doubt that he is genuinely sorry. Whether he’s sorry for something other than hitting a fire hydrant (or is just sorry he got caught) remains to be seen.

To a very large extent, in fact, Tiger seemed more intent on blaming the media and the viewing public for their high level of interest in his travails. He lashed out at the media, somehow
forgetting the love fest he’s enjoyed with them since entering the public eye. Instead, he comes across as arrogant and seems to view himself as the victim. This is not the way to win friends and influence people.

Score: double bogey

Solution driven:

The number one thing crisis planners strive for is for the issue at hand to be resolved and for the issue to “go away”. As stated above however, many times it is up to those under the spotlight
to do what’s necessary for that to happen. It’s all about taking control and setting the tone. In reality, Tiger’s actions were too little too late to salvage the situation and to preserve his reputation as Mr. Clean.

Score: triple bogey

To his credit, Tiger has done an outstanding job of building his PR “good will bank” and his account is far from empty despite these tawdry allegations and semi-admissions. The jury of public opinion is still out on this one and with the passage of time things seem likely to get worse than better. Lost endorsement contracts are poised to pile up. Lost prestige and a badly tarnished image demand immediate attention and far more from Tiger than he’s been willing to give us thus far.

Jean Lafitte: One Helluva PR Wiz!

2009-11-02T12:51:00.000-08:00

This isn’t so much a blog as it is a history lesson. I’m frequently intrigued by events of the past and how they came to impact today’s public consciousness and become the stuff of legend. For most of my life I pretty much assumed that history just happens, that historians and academics research and write, and the rest of us simply read and interpret, drawing our own conclusions and thereby making history “history”.

I recently came across an amazing example which proves the old adage that history is written by the winners, often to prove a point or gain leverage in ways that go well beyond the facts of the event and “spin” history in the most self-serving manner. Consider now such an example: The legend of Jean Lafitte.

Every child in Louisiana learns the story of the Battle of New Orleans (1815), the (anti) climatic ending to the War of 1812 (which actually took place after the war ended) and Andrew Jackson’s springboard to national fame and the American presidency. From grade school on, we’re told of the heroics of Jackson and notably, the pirate Jean Lafitte, who emerged from “the swamps of Barataria to save the day”.

While elements of the Jean Lafitte legend are undoubtedly true, the image most of us have of Lafitte manning a cannon, dodging bullets and rallying his fellow pirates at the front line are as far from reality as Jean Lafitte was from the battle itself. The truth is that while Lafitte did in fact serve the US against the British foe, Jean was dispatched back to his home base near Grand Isle, Louisiana, more than fifty miles from any fighting at all.

In truth, it was Jean’s palsey-ridden brother Pierre, who was closest to the fighting, yet he too was at some distance from the action being posted miles away where Bayou St. John intersects with Lake Pontchartrain. At least from there he might have occasionally heard the sound of a cannon, unlike his more famous brother who spent more time dodging mosquitoes than dodging bullets!

While there were certainly pirates and privateers who stood shoulder to shoulder with the American troops, they only made up an estimated 2% of the military manpower, although those who did fight appear to have served with great distinction and valor.

Still, the legend of the Lafittes gives them top billing along with Jackson, shunting those who did the real fighting and had the wounds to show for it to the brackish back waters of history.

Part of the reason for the Lafittes’ ascendancy at the expense of their piratical colleagues lies in the fact that they had a history of ad hoc leadership among their Baratarian brethren (where no man was ever really “in charge”). Another reason lies in the confusing cultural mix of the city itself in those days where native Frenchmen, Spaniards and their Caribbean island neighbors objected strongly to US governance and were quick to take sides with any non-Americans such as the Lafittes who proudly thumbed their noses at American laws and law enforcers.

But perhaps the most compelling factor in the Lafittes’ national rise to fame was the fact that they literally helped write the books and newspaper articles that defined the events of those dramatic days. Jean, in particular, cultivated newspaper editors, columnists and the equivalent media bloggers of his day and wrote an endless series of anonymous letters to the editor telling the Lafitte side of the story, going so far as to review and edit relevant portions of the first book of national significance on the battle of New Orleans.

Eager to build his public reputation (and his greatly diminished pocketbook) as a way to fend off creditors, and to solidify the guarantee of a presidential pardon, Jean Lafitte took a temporary leave of absence as a pirate to become a PR machine, employing many of his well-placed friends and business associates in the service of enhancing his importance to the outcome of the battle, and consequently, to the preservation of the young American republic.

Like the proverbial tree falling in the woods, maybe history isn’t really history until someone writes (or blogs) about it.

Notably, the part of the story Lafitte never mentioned in any of his writings or letters to the editor, was his longstanding service as a double agent for both the Americans and their Spanish rivals seeking to gain an upper hand along the Gulf of Mexico and Lafitte’s numerous efforts to market his privateering and soldiering prowess to the hated British in the weeks leading up to the historic Battle of New Orleans. How very different Louisiana’s school children might be taught of Jean Lafitte if he had actually succeeded?

While Jean Lafitte may have been a highly successful pioneer in the as-of-then undefined field of American PR, he was a rank amateur compared to another better known and better loved one-of-a-kind public figure.

More on David Crockett, the man, the myth and the myth-maker in an upcoming blog.

Crisis Communications Made Simple (Sort of)

2009-09-01T14:28:00.000-07:00

As crisis communications practitioners working with a wide variety of corporations and agencies to plan for, train for and respond to crises, we sometimes find ourselves nearly bogged down in inertia and cultural obstacles, often making communication with key stakeholders more of a challenge than it needs to be.

Between the legal approvals, internal sign-offs and other important considerations communicators run the risk of slowing or diluting the process to a point of near ineffectiveness. Clearly, of course, approvals are necessary, especially approvals from legal counsel in the earliest hours of an incident when information is hard to come by and words should be chosen very carefully. We would never think of running out into media “traffic” without obtaining needed sign-off’s to protect both us and our clients.

In the past 60 days we have helped handle the widest variety of client crises and reputational dilemmas:

- oil spills
- vessel piracy act in the Gulf of Aden
- vessel sinking off Texas
- vessel incident near Singapore
- US Food and Drug Administration raid
- allegations of wrong doing against a prominent doctor
- allegations of environmental wrong doing by a large construction company
- litigation against one of the world’s largest technology companies
- media reports on litigation regarding defective Chinese drywall

Successfully communicating, and being prepared to communicate about each of these incidents has roots in what we call the Fundamentals of Good Crisis Communication, basic goals and objectives that define successful communication in a way that stakeholders—the media, public, employees, investors, environmental groups, etc can appreciate and applaud.

Those fundamentals are listed below for consideration and comment.

- Timely / prompt
- Cooperative
- Honest
- Confident
- Authoritative
- Fact based
- Action oriented
- Credible
- Compassionate / understanding

In summary, the best of planning and preparation go all for naught if what you’re saying and when and how you say it fails to meet many of the criteria above and if the words you speak don’t bring maximum value to shaping or reshaping stakeholder opinion.

New Orleans' Good News

2009-07-06T09:38:00.000-07:00

Despite the challenges that come with living and working in any urban environment and those which are exacerbated by a poor national economy, good things are happening in New Orleans which bear mentioning and promoting far and wide.

The next time you’re asked what the good news is in the Crescent City, try a few of these out on your out-of-town friends. Here’s a first installment with other signs of progess to follow in the next blog. (Special thanks to my business partner Virginia Miller, for bringing this impressive list to my attention).

SCHOOLS: New Orleans is taking advantage of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to revamp the nation’s second worst school system. The community has come together across many demographic lines to support a whole new approach, and one that is likely to serve as a catalyst other places as well. The crux of this approach is charter schools, but charters that feature open enrollment, so every parent can choose the right school for their child. The bar is high for achievement and success. New Schools for New Orleans is the fulcrum contact for this phenomenon.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: The Horizon Initiative has led a successful effort to implement a new economic model for New Orleans. This model, a Public Private Partnership that has the unanimous backing of the City Council, follows the best practices of the International Economic Development Council (IEDC), and puts City Hall in partnership with New Orleans’ business community. This advance not only ensures a 40 year plan for economic development (rather than the 4 year plans offered by each new mayor) but brings the business community together across demographic lines: Horizon created a coalition of the Chamber, the Black Chamber, the Hispanic Chamber, the Asian Chamber, the Business Council and the Board of Trade to get this done. New Orleans now joins Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Charlotte, Miami and many other cities in implementing this successful model.

-New Orleans has just successfully won its proposal for the 2013 Superbowl, and the financial impact is anticipated to be close to $300,000,000.

-Mardi Gras is a great example of an event that bridges the gap between New Orleans culture and economic development, bringing out local devotees and national and international visitors to commune together in one of America’s oldest local traditions. (Happy to elaborate here)

HOUSING: New building methods and a focus on all areas of the City have been a good thing on the past 5 years. New Orleans will have some of the largest Green (LEEDS Platinum) neighborhoods in the country and is definitely on the leading edge in terms of green building and water management techniques.

Good things really are happening in New Orleans…feel free to add some of your own and to share the good news with anyone who will listen.

2009-06-15T07:13:00.000-07:00

While there are many good signals coming from the Obama administration, the President’s infatuation with taxing employee health insurance benefits paid by their employers isn’t one of them. Regardless of one’s political philosophy, it’s a tax employees don’t need, effectively reducing their overall income at a time when employees can ill afford a pay cut.

What’s more, it won’t do a thing to help improve access to health care or the cost of that care.

It is also an insult to the many employers who pay all or much of their employee health costs in an effort to attract and keep good people. From where I sit, the President’s not-yet-submitted but much anticipated plan is a backhanded attempt to drive employees into a publicly funded healthcare plan, that will in all likelihood offer fewer benefits and fewer options than the one they already have.

On a very different front, hats off to Air France for their adroit handling of communication with families of victims and the news media in the aftermath of the recent Atlantic Ocean airline tragedy.

As a crisis communicator who makes it a point to armchair quarterback events of these sorts, Air France did nearly all the things we counsel our clients to do in situations that result in a loss of life or severe injuries, namely act quickly, demonstrate leadership and assume responsibility for getting answers, demonstrate compassion and concern AND really mean it, avoid speculating, show cooperation with relevant agencies, and stick to your most important messages.

While it is nearly impossible to make something good come out of a tragedy like this one, Air France deserves high marks for their efforts and for dealing with this catastrophe head on.

Initial Ramblings: The state of the city

2009-06-01T14:23:00.000-07:00

It is only appropriate that this initial blog focuses on the state of the city of New Orleans and the many good things happening around town.

At the risk of sounding like the chamber of commerce: the city's long awaited public / private partnership for economic development has cleared most of the challenges that come with changing a system long overdue for change. Hats off to my business partner, Virginia Miller, Pam Senatore (a BMF alum in her own right), and Horizon Initiative board members Hal Brown George Wentz, Cathy Harris, Billy Marshal, Bruce Thompson, Jeanne Nathan, and so many others who led the effort from the private sector side as well as many at city hall who saw and understood this important vision for our city. It is clear that we can expect a lot from this long overdue concept and all of us who live and work here look forward to a new day for efficient, focused economic development outreach in the not too distant future.

Hats off also to our valued client, Shell Exploration and Production, for all this company does to boost our local economy and quality of life. Kudos are especially due with another successful Jazz Fest behind us! Shell once again stepped up to the plate with a huge corporate and volunteer commitment to Jazz Fest as it has every year since Katrina, and all music lovers and local businesses benefiting from thousands of out-of-town visitors were grateful.

The local economy, just now hitting its stride with an influx of federal dollars aimed at the city's recovery from Katrina, continues to out-perform the rest of the nation, a credit to the resilience of our people and the special place New Orleans holds in the hearts of many Americans who have committed their time, talents and money toward the rebuild. Through organizations such as Habitat for Humanity, Build Now New Orleans and our own client, Brad Pitt’s Make It Right, and Project Home Again, the city continues its recovery and to defy the long odds placed on that possibility by many both in and out of town.

One final note in this initial blog: Lots of debate about our so-called traveling Governor who is catching heat from some quarters for his frequent out of town trips and speaking engagements. For those of us with longer memories, it is refreshing to recall that we are a long way from the days when no one outside the state wanted to see, hear or pay tribute to our Governor (Edwin Edwards) or from the days when our Governor essentially refused to leave the state at all (Mike Foster), forfeiting Louisiana's seat at the table on far too many major plant expansions and economic development projects.

Regardless of politics, as Baton Rouge publisher Rolfe McCollister has pointed out, Governor Jindal has proven he has the energy, vision and focus to get the job done in Baton Rouge and be a great advocate for Louisiana to the outside world. it seems to me that it's time to cut the Gov some slack.

What's your opinion?