View From The Bridge

Is Carnival's CEO MIA?

2012-01-23T23:26:00.000-07:00

It’s been more than a week since the cruise ship Costa Concordia ran agroundoff the Italian coast. Costa Crociere SpA’s CEO Pier Luigi Foschi has issuedstatements and held press conferences. Notably missing from the response is Mickey Arison, CEO of Costa’s parent company, Carnival Corp.

A Wall Street Journal article on the subject notesArison is known for a hands-off management style and he gives hisleaders wide latitude in running each of the ten cruise lines that Carnivalowns.

Based on the where the crisis is right now this is the rightcall.

Costa's CEO is Italian, the cruise line is basedin Italy and the accident happened a few hundred meters off the Italian coast.He speaks the language. His press conferences and statements havebeen in Italian. This is a global story certainly, but one based in Italy.

Reflect back to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010. BPCEO Tony Hayward was barbequed in the US press because of his “foreign” accent(Disclosure: BP is a Signal Bridgeclient). Hayward and the company were criticized for being tone deaf to theneeds of the residents along the Gulf Coast who were suffering. A richEnglishman couldn’t possibly understand the concerns and needs of the shrimperfrom Plaquemines Parish. It was an unfair criticism, but it stuck. Arison would be considered a foreigner if he went to Italy.

Former Exxon CEO Lawrence Rawl
Bitter Much?

If you go back to the Exxon Valdez (1989), the CEO wasroundly criticized for doing only three interviews in the first six weeks ofthe disaster. Apply the same logic to the Deepwater Horizon spill and you canunderstand why the company put Hayward nearly every where after the spill.Hayward and the company paid dearly for that decision as he made a number ofmemorable gaffs during interviews about the response and was photographedaboard his yacht as the company struggled to plug the runaway well.

Can Arison add anything to the response in Italy? He hasTweeted his sympathy to victims of the accident and in a company news release.There appears to be no lack of resources in the response run outof Italy, although there have been some PR mis-steps.

There are two key questions that PR types should be asking right now: What can Arison add to the response? And is it worth the risk that he might make a mistake that comes to overshadowthe response?

Unless there is a compelling case that the victims of thedisaster benefit from his presence, Micky Arison should stay in Miami.

Bill Salvin

The Predictable Demise of the Costa Concordia

2012-01-20T18:05:00.000-07:00

You know you have a big crisis when it can be seen from outer space.

While the images of the Costa Concordia lying on its side are unbelievable, the crisis was quite predictable, just like most crises. When crises strike, there are common elements that play out in a fairly predictable way. If you know them, you can be better prepared for a crisis at your company.

The first element common to most crises is surprise. I tell my clients that they better plan for that which they think impossible. I have heard "that will never happen" or "there's no way that could happen" from many people who've then had to deal with exactly the kind of crisis they said would never happen. History is filled with this type of arrogance (see Titanic, circa 1912). The passage below was written by Theresa Norton Masek who writes the Travel Pulse blog.

I first saw the photo of the Costa Concordia on its side half-submerged on my iPhone as I was preparing to disembark the Wind Surf in St. Maarten. Up until that sickening moment, I would have confidently assured anyone that such a disaster was impossible in this day and age.

Because people don't think things are possible, they often don't prepare to respond to the crisis. That leads to panic. Stories of the panicked, disorganized evacuation abound. There are even video clips taken from people's mobile phones that show first hand what it was like aboard the stricken ship. A certain amount of panic is expected when more than 4,000 people are involved, but the better prepared you are, the less panic there is.
Denial is the third common element in a crisis. Just off the coast of a picturesque Italian island there were no radio calls to the Italian Coast Guard from Concordia's bridge. In fact, the Coast Guard found out about a problem aboard the ship when passengers called relatives who then called police. The police notified the Coast Guard. Here is a timeline from The Telegraph in the UK.

10.06pm Coastguard calls Capt Schettino and asks him what is going on. He tells them “It’s all OK, it’s just a blackout, we’re taking care of the situation.”

10.16pm Coastguard calls him again and he admits water is coming into the hull but says there is no emergency.

10.30pm Under pressure from the coastguard, the captain agrees to send a Mayday signal – 50 minutes after the collision. The ship is by now listing at 20 degrees.

10.50pm Again under pressure from the coastguard, the captain orders the ship to be abandoned – 70 minutes after the vessel smashed into the rock.

In every crisis, there is intense media scrutiny. I grabbed a quick screen shot from Google Thursday morning using "Costa Concordia" as the search term.

Nearly eighteen thousand stories since last Friday evening. That's about 3,000 stories a day (it's more than 21,000 stories now). One of the rules of crisis communications used to be that you want to be part of every story done about your company. That is simply not possible in today's information environment.

There other elements common to a crisis and I'll write about those in a future post. The sad part of all of this is that it didn't have to happen.

Most crises don't.

Bill Salvin

Transparency Faux Pas: Disclosure Matters

2012-01-19T05:15:00.000-07:00

I spend a good bit of time in this space critiquing theperformance of others. It seems only fair that when I make a boneheaded movethat I share it.

The other day, New York Times Columnist Joe Nocera wrote acolumn titled “BP Makes Amends” about the company’s actions since the disastrousGulf of Mexico oil spill in 2010.

I posted the link to my Facebook page and you can see below what I wrote. What I didn’t do wasdisclose that BP is one of my clients. In fact, I spent mostof the spring and summer of 2010 in the Gulf working for the company as itresponded to the spill. I did interviews on behalf of BP and workedvery closely advising several senior company execs. (Disclosure: not that one)

I post a lot of links to stories I find interesting. Very few of those do I have any connection with other than I liked the story. I thought in this case that most of my Facebook friends know me and know I worked the spill. Peter King is a top flight reporter for CBS News. I've worked with him over the years through my work in the Space Shuttle program and work for BP duringthe spill.

I know better and Peter was right to point that out.

Personal and professional lives are intertwined these days. There's rarely any harm that comes from transparency. Good reporters (like Peter) usetheir social networks like most of us do: to do their jobs.

I'm proud that I was a very small part of the most comprehensive oil spill response in history. That's why I wanted to share the story.

Disclosure doesn't have to be arduous or overwrought, it just needs to be clear like: (Disclosure: BP is a client).

When it comes to transparency always remember that what you leave out can obscure what you want people to see.

Thanks for the reminder, Peter.

Bill Salvin

Shipwrecked Captain Thrown Under Bus

2012-01-16T08:59:00.000-07:00

That didn't take long.

Carnival Corporation's Costa Crociere CEO today blamed the captain of the Concordia's captain for grounding the vessel late last week off the coast of Italy. As of this writing, six people have died in the tragedy and 16 people remain missing. This accident has turned to a crisis for the largest company in the cruise industry and the industry itself.

The ship's captain was detained by Italian authorities shortly after the accident. He was charged with manslaughter and abandoning ship before everyone was off the vessel. Multiple newspaper accounts include statements from passengers and Italian Coast Guard authorities about the captain leaving the ship. According to one AP report, members of the Coast Guard even tried to persuade the captain to return to the ship to oversee the evacuation. The captain refused.

Was it the right thing to do to blame the captain? Is this crisis such an existential threat to the company that decisive action was required? Is there no benefit to waiting for an investigation, which at this point has yet to begin?

From a crisis response perspective, I'm interested in your thoughts about the company's actions. What do you think?

Teachable Tragedy: Dan Wheldon Didn't "Pass Away"

2011-10-25T16:42:00.000-07:00

Leaders often have a difficult time talking about about the death of an employee or member of their team. There are few things more important to get right in crisis communications than discussing the human toll of an event.

The world saw a sad example of a death announcement recently when Indy Car CEO Randy Bernard announced the death of driver Dan Wheldon at the season finale of the Indy Car season at Las Vegas Motor Speedway. The statement he delivered was 32 seconds long. The first sentence was:

"Indy Car is sad to announce that Dan Wheldon has passed away from unsurvivable injury (sic)."

Dan Wheldon didn't pass away. He died. He died from injuries suffered in a crash during the race.

This is important.

Strong and successful leaders must to be able to deliver bad news, even when its heartbreaking. Saying that Wheldon "passed away" is weak and makes it sound as though the horror of what hundreds of thousands of people watched live was something other than horrific.

I'm not advocating a heartless, cold or clinical description of this type of incident. I'm advocating reality. Here's how Tom Brokaw announced the death of his friend and colleague Tim Russert:

Brokaw was direct, to-the-point and factual. We understood the magnitude of the tragedy from the simple clarity of his language.

Dan Wheldon's nickname on the racing circuit was "Lionheart." Wheldon earned that nickname from other drivers who said he raced with his heart, and not his head. The least the CEO of Indy Car could do when he stepped behind the mic is announce Dan's death with the same amount of heart as Dan used behind the wheel.

Bill Salvin

Reno Air Tragedy & The Discipline of Disaster Response

2011-09-19T12:50:00.001-07:00

In one horrific, brutal instant this year's Reno Air Races turned from awe-inspiring, heart-pounding excitement to tragedy as a P-51 Mustang nose-dived into the crowd. The stories of shock, horror and heroism have filtered out over the last few days as investigators seek to find the cause of the crash.

The Today Show posted new video of the crash this morning. If you have the stomach to watch it you will understand what I mean when I say "horrific, brutal instant." Most disasters unfold this way.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The emergency response to this incident was heroic. Consider this: Within 62 minutes of the crash, EMS workers transported 56 injured patients, many critically injured, to two area hospitals.

That heroic response didn't just happen. It was practiced.

In July, the Reno Air Races held an emergency drill where they simulated a plane crash into the grandstand with mass casualties. Local EMS, Fire and Police took part in that exercise
The morning of the crash, EMS officials walked through procedures for a mass casualty event
The NTSB had a team at the race in case of a crash
News updates were issued by nearly every agency involved across multiple platforms; social media, news releases, blogs, impromptu press conferences and interviews

I've said before that great crisis communications starts with a great imagination. It's ok to be diabolical in a drill and it's ok if the staff fails during an exercise. That's how they will learn and be better in the real world.

Success in emergency response and crisis communications starts with an honest assessment of what the worst-case scenario could be and training to be ready for the worst-case response. It takes discipline and courage to spend money, time and resources on something that most of the time will never happen.

Pull out your crisis plan this week. Talk through a worst-case scenario with your staff. The worst-case is probably not going to happen.

If it does, realize that there will be people whose lives depend on how willing you were to be ready.

Bill Salvin

Troubled Water: The Wrong Way to Better News Coverage

2011-09-16T08:42:00.000-07:00

Every PR person wants positive news coverage of their organization. It's sort of what we do for a living. There are more ways than ever to get your stories out into the world. Some of those methods are good. Some are sleazy. The LA Times ran a story this week about the rather disreputable way the Central Basin Municipal Water District has gone about generating positive "news" stories about its organization. And it is a cautionary tale for communicators.

The Central Basin Municipal Water District serves about two million people in California near Los Angeles. It's having a tough go of things. The District exists in the second largest media market in the country and there is huge competition for limited space in traditional media outlets. The District is also involved in a nasty lawsuit against the Southern California Water Replenishment District. The Replenishment District has a blog site that tends to post negative stories about Central Basin. It makes sense that the Central Basin Municipal folks want to get into the game and counter the bad news.

So, the board of Central Basin Municipal hired a consulting firm to write fluffy stories disguised as legitimate news. The firm used a website called News Hawks Review to post the stories. Google listed the site as a legitimate news site, which the consulting firm mentioned prominently in its pitch. The site is operated by a person connected to the consulting firm. There is no transparency of any of these connections.

And therein lies the problem. The Central Basin folks have every right to pay a consulting firm to write these stories and even put up a site to host them. They can use whatever key words and search engine optimization techniques to move the stories higher in searches. Just be clear about who you are and the origin of the stories.

Google felt the same way. Less than 24 hours after the first story ran in the Times, the search engine giant removed the News Hawks Review from its list of legitimate news sites.

Why is this man smiling?

Tony Marino, the executive editor of News Hawks Review posted an open email on the site lamenting how the LA Times is picking on his "fly speck" "dinky little online nickel and dime news channel." If true, Mr. Marino needs work on his pitching skills.

Marino sounds upset that he got his hand caught in the unethical cookie jar. He's a bit hyperbolic, too. He claims the juggernaut that is the LA Times went after his site "with a biblical vengeance not seen since "Shock n Awe."

Dude, it was two stories. The Times ran more stories on the new Kardashian clothing line.

The folks at Central Basin Municipal Water made a bad call. Whether their motivation was to counter negative press, get good coverage or influence a future jury pool it backfired. They appear thin-skinned, inept and unethical. If they want to pay someone to write about their lawsuit against the other water people, they can knock themselves out. Hire whomever you'd like to get that done. Better yet, they could make good use of their own Facebook page. It's currently pathetic.

Remember that transparency is the coin of the realm in PR today. There are no shortcuts to a happy ending. Just ask LeBron James. Whenever and wherever the story posts, you better respect your audience enough to tell them who's paying the bills.

Bill Salvin

Note: The Central Basin Municipal Water District sent a letter to the LA Times asking for a retraction of the articles. Even this is disingenuous. The letter claims they've only paid $70,000 to the consulting firm not $200,000 as claimed in the Times. The paper gets it right because documents show the Water District has approved expenditures up to $189,750. That is roundable up to $200,000 as long as my third grade math teacher taught me how to round up properly.

Sorry, Kid. Space is Closed

2011-09-12T20:40:00.000-07:00

The SpaceTrader Store, Sept 1, 2011

I was flying home through Houston on September 1. It was the middle of the day at the world's 16th busiest airport in the city home to NASA's Johnson Space Center. The space souvenir store was closed. It's a perfect metaphor for America's human spaceflight program: dark, disappointing and uninspiring.

At a time when Americans are desperate for actions not words, NASA boasts one of the best public affairs operations in government while the Space Shuttles are headed for museums.

The agency still launches rockets like last week's GRAIL mission. But robotic missions to space lack the inspirational potential of human beings going to space. NASA doesn't have a PR problem. It has a leadership problem. If the agency had a good mission, great destination and a capable spacecraft does anyone think the NASA PR team couldn't tell that story?

What can communicators take away from NASA's current plight? Two things come to mind.

Mission matters. Leaders need to provide a clear mission and the resources to make it happen before the communicators start their work. If the mission's viability or the ability to succeed is in doubt, communicators can't help.

Boldness counts. The first woman on the moon will be as inspirational as the first man. Just because the destination is the same doesn't mean the mission is unworthy.

Space Age Lodge, Gila Bend, AZ.
September 11, 2011

The saddest part of all of this is that our leaders have willingly given up first place in human spaceflight. Who gives up being number one? What kid will aspire to be an astronaut when the chance that they will fly in space is nearly nonexistent? Will we train astronauts by flying them somewhere on Southwest but only let them board in the "B" group?

Read any public opinion poll. People love the space program. They love what it's done for our country and the world.

Too bad our leaders have reduced it's value to that of roadside attraction.

Bill Salvin

PG&E San Bruno Disaster: A Simple Lesson in Poor Emergency Response

2011-09-01T05:15:00.000-07:00

Non-natural disasters aren't random events. When investigators trace an incident back to root causes and fundamental flaws, they paint a picture of a disaster-in-waiting that is as clear as a high-definition video. On September 9, 2010, a natural gas line operated by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and running through San Bruno, California, exploded. Eight people were killed and 58 others were injured. More than 100 homes were destroyed or damaged.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) released its report on the explosion and it is hard to fathom the depth of inadequacy PG&E demonstrated in its response to this accident.

The section of pipeline that ruptured was installed in 1956. The NTSB report states that the section of pipe that blew was fabricated at un undetermined facility to no known specification.

The report also states that the pipeline as installed in 1956 would not have met the standards in effect at the time. So not only was it a crappy pipeline in 2010, but crappy when it was installed. The gas pipeline equivalent of the Ford Pinto.

From an emergency response perspective, the company fails again. According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, "The company had no written emergency response plan,' said NTSB investigator Matthew Nicholson." It took PG&E more than 90 minutes to shut off the gas, a fact the NTSB determined "contributed to the extent and severity of property damage and increased the life-threatening risks to the residents and emergency responders."

NTSB investigators found that PG&E's gas emergency plan was ineffective (probably because it wasn't written down) and that "many people self-dispatched" to the accident. So, whomever decided to show up, got to play disaster man.

History may be made by those who show up, but it's a lousy way to run your emergency response.

The simple lesson here is that emergency response plans have to be tested. To do that, they must first be written down.

PG&E issued a fairly comprehensive list of actions it has taken and lessons learned in the aftermath of the San Bruno disaster.

It's too bad the company had to level a neighborhood to learn them.

Bill Salvin

3 Keys to Crisis Comms in the Digital Age - Honesty, Speed and Images

2011-07-28T11:30:00.002-07:00

I've been thinking about these three words a lot when it comes to crisis communications. I can't take credit for them as that belongs to U.S. Navy Captain Jeff Breslau, Pubic Affairs Officer for U.S. Pacific Fleet and my boss when I deployed to Japan earlier this year after the earthquake and tsunami. (In addition to my work as a PR guy, I'm a Navy Reserve PAO).

Crisis comms in the digital age poses some special challenges for communicators, and these three words can serve as nice waypoints as you navigate your organization through major or minor crises.

Honesty
This seems basic and easy. Which means it is deceptively so. The stress of a crisis makes people do dumb things. Like lie. People also have a natural tendency to want to focus on good news or to try and create happy endings.

("49 of 50 plants didn't blow up today!")

To achieve the "good news," people are likely to minimize facts or omit critical pieces of information that an audience (your key stakeholders) needs to fairly assess the severity of the crisis and accurately judge your organization's performance. Let everyone on your team know that your integrity is the most valuable commodity you have in a crisis and it must not be compromised. Good or bad, facts are what they are. Teach your people to communicate facts clearly and play it straight. You positively influence your audience with your response to the facts.

Speed
Crisis communications in the digital age means that your crisis can be beamed around the world before your company's notification procedures get word to you that there's a problem. Since being first with the news is largely impossible because of technology, you should consider speed in a different way than just getting your first release out in an hour.

There are two keys to speed: identification and reaction. Have your team tuned into the pulse of what's happening outside the company. Your team needs real-time monitoring and the savvy to understand that a company crisis doesn't happen in a vacuum. The dynamics of a crisis can change based on external events. Once identified, empower your team to make the tactical decisions required to communicate events as they unfold. This is important. Empowered to deal with events as they unfold, not as the CEO or VP of Comms wish them to be.

Images
People believe what they see over what they hear. You can have great talking points and a great spokesperson destroyed because the words are out of sync with the images coming from the scene. Another great reason for an external focus during a crisis is that the first images of a crisis will likely not come from inside the organization.

I encourage people I counsel to approach images two ways. First, allow traditional media access as broadly as possible. Second, use internal resources to get images that you can publish to your own social media feeds and websites. These images can do a world of good when the crisis occurs in remote locations or they can supplement external media coverage.

Three words: honesty, speed and images can focus your entire crisis communications effort, but it's just one way to organize your response. James Donnelly of Ketchum PR tells his clients to keep "credibility, focus and imagination" top of mind during a crisis.

"Remove credibility, you have a spin doctor. Remove imagination, you're fighting fires you could have prevented. Remove focus, you have great ideas but nothing gets done," he said.

Most importantly, do what works for you, your team and your company.

What are your crisis communications mantras?

Bill Salvin

Thrive Live: 5 Tips to Crush a Live Interview

2011-04-22T12:05:00.000-07:00

Few things inspire panic like the prospect of a live interview. I love them. There is no interaction with a journalist that offers the opportunity that comes with going live.

What a journalist offers with a live interview is unedited time between you and your audience. This is something that is very hard to pass up. If the opportunity to do a live interview comes your way, say “yes” and follow the five tips below to help you thrive live.

Use focus phrases to lead the audience

Focus phrases help direct the audience’s attention to a key point. For example, a focus phrase like “The most important thing I can say is...” or “Our primary concern is...” or “We are committed to...” can do wonders for making you a memorable guest. Those phrases can also help you focus on delivering the right message at the right time. Planning your focus phrases means you also have to plan your messages. Preparation is key to success.

Give complete answers

Many interviewers ask yes or no questions. While you can respond that way if you choose, a better way to go is to answer on your terms. For example, you’re doing a quarterly earnings interview and you are asked, “Are you pleased with these results?” You could simply answer yes or no, but there’s not much in that for your audience, you or the interviewer. Some options to consider are: “What we’re pleased with is…” or “Yes, particularly in our tablet sales for the quarter…” or “We need to improve our performance to deliver better results and how we’re going to do that is…”

Answer or respond to every question

People assume that media training means teaching someone to dodge questions. Good trainers teach the exact opposite. Answer or respond to every question because that’s what you agreed to when you said “yes” to doing the interview. You do get to answer or respond to the questions on your terms. Even interviews on controversial topics go better if you are respectful enough to the interviewer to be responsive to their questions.

Don’t repeat the negative words

People instinctively "mirror" back words during conversation to signal their understanding of what has been asked. In a live interview, this natural instinct works against you. For example, an interviewer asks, “How dangerous is your chemical plant?” It’s instinctive to respond, “Our plant is not dangerous…” as you begin your answer. A negative word uttered by a reporter and mirrored back by you becomes your word. A better way to respond to the same question would be: “Our plant is safe…”

Use your time wisely

A typical live interview will last roughly two to five minutes. Keep your responses concise; about 30 to 45 seconds long. Responses that drone on will lose the audience and force the host to interrupt. This takes practice. Remember to prepare.

Follow these tips and when the red light blinks to life, you have a much higher chance of connecting with the audiences that are important to you and your organization.

Bill Salvin

Networking for Crisis Communicators

2011-04-13T04:00:00.005-07:00

“When a crisis or misunderstanding occurs, it is too late to build a relationship. It must be cultivated beforehand over time, one conversation and one friendship at a time.”

-Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

When the 9.0 earthquake and tsunami slammed Japan on March 11, the US and more than 100 other countries jumped in to help. The US military was in a particularly good position to offer assistance. About 87,000 US Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines are based in Japan. Within hours, the military was in action responding to the crisis.

That response was more effective because of more than 60 years of relationship building between the Japan Self-Defense Forces and the US military. We knew them and they knew us. (Disclosure: I'm a Navy Reserve PAO and I spent the last 30 days on the Crisis Action Team for the Joint Support Force that led US military efforts during the disaster.) Everyday networking paid off big in Japan.

Another example from last year was a gunman at the headquarters of the Discovery Channel. One of the lessons learned according to Discovery's Senior VP of Corporate Affairs and Communications Michelle Russo was to consult with other businesses in your community on your crisis plan. Discovery employees evacuated the building rapidly and left things like car keys, briefcases and purses in their offices. One nearby organization assigned two people to help get Discovery employees home. Seems simple, but knowing your neighbors helped Discovery ensure its people were taken care of. (Big hat tip to PR pro Aimee Stern. Check out her post on the Discovery Gunman, it's worth the read.)

Why not invite your police department to participate in a drill on a Discovery Channel style scenario at one of your sites? Or, invite one of your competitors to sit in on a crisis exercise where you may need some of their resources to get through the day. Or, sit down with the spokesperson for the Mayor and find out how they will respond if there is a crisis at your facility. All it will cost you is some time and maybe the price of a cup of coffee, and you'll be better prepared.

If you're not great at networking, read Peter Shankman's blog. It's got plenty of tips for how to get connected with people and stay connected with them.

All crises involve people. Take Admiral Mullen's advice and start building the relationships with people you'll need one conversation at a time.

Bill Salvin

10 Things You Should Never Say to a Reporter

2011-04-07T18:30:00.002-07:00

I spent about a decade as a journalist. As much as social media allows for companies to tell their story their way, news media are still a powerful and credible pathway to get your story out to a broad audience. There are a lot of lists that tell people what to say to a reporter. I thought I would add my list of ten things you should never say to a reporter.

10) “This really isn’t newsworthy.” Not your call. Do you want a reporter telling you how to run your business? I'm guessing no. Offer context so the reporter understands the story. Do it well and the reporter might decide that there is no story. But the decision regarding newsworthiness is the reporter’s, not yours.

9) “That last part was off the record.” People usually say this when they make a mistake or reveal too much during an interview. Off the record works only if both source and reporter agree ahead of time that a topic is off the record.

8) “Can you call me tomorrow?” Calling back tomorrow is usually not an option. Reporters are expected to report a story today. Add the speed at which business moves these days, and what’s to say tomorrow will be any more convenient than today? Plus, reporters may feel like you are blowing them off when you say that. What happens when a reporter agrees to call you tomorrow? They call someone else today and do the story. You're just not a part of it.

7) “You’re not going to interview me on camera, are you?” Most people ask this question because they uncomfortable on camera and fear they will look bad. A bit of advanced media training ahead can do wonders for people’s confidence. Get some.

6) “Why are you covering this story?” A derivative of number 10, this always piqued my curiosity when I was reporting. Why was the source trying to dissuade me from covering the story? You have a simple decision: to be part of the story or not. If the answer is yes, then plan what you want to say.

5) “That’s a dumb question.” To a reporter, there is no such a thing. There are dumb answers. Take every question as a chance to deliver your message and you will do better with the reporter and more importantly, your audience.

4) “I just told you that.” Reporters will often ask the same question several times in a number of ways. They are doing this to see if the answer changes. Make sure your answer the last time you answer a repetitive question is the same as it was the first time.

3) “Are you going to use my name?” Probably. Unnamed sources, while common in political stories, are less so in business stories. Reporters talk to you because they need your expertise and information. Why would you talk to a reporter if you don't want your name used? Reporters need a very compelling reason to use your information, but not your name.

2) “I don’t really watch your station (or read your paper).” That may be the case, but do your customers read the paper or watch the station? I never understood why anyone would say that to me. I never much cared if someone watched my station. I had a job to do and by telling me this you just told me that you're going to make my job harder. Whether you watch, read or listen should be irrelevant to your decision to engage with media.

1) “No comment.” Sadly, decades after "no comment" became interchageable with "guilty as charged" people still say it. If you can't answer the question, tell the reporter why.

Bill Salvin

Transparency and Technology: Are you ready to live-stream your crisis?

2011-04-06T12:03:00.001-07:00

Courtesy Vanityfair.com

Transparency is a key tenet of crisis communications. Crisis PR experts advise companies to tell as much as possible as soon as possible in order to maintain credibility during bad times. Technology drives expectations. The public expects to be able to log in and see what’s happening in real time. In the last year we’ve had an epic example of the public’s demand to see a crisis as it unfolds: The BP Oil Spill.

At the height of the spill, BP had 16 remote-operated vehicles (ROVs) working 5,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico to stop the leak. Thanks to some neat work by the oil field service company Oceaneering, all 16 cameras were able to stream live on BP’s public website. The function of the cameras was to give the ROV operators and engineers eyes on the well so they could stop the flow of oil. The communications/PR value was that the world could watch those efforts live. And watch they did.

This technology created challenges for the BP PR team (of which I was a member). The team was called upon to explain what people were seeing. BP’s press office in Houston and London took many phone calls from people wanting to know what a specific ROV was showing at a specific time. It is safe to say that the public watched those ROV feeds closer than the BP PR team. (This isn’t a slight; there were a thousand things to do every day during that crisis and BP’s communicators worked their tails off.)

NASA Mission commentator
Rob Navias at the console

There were even suggestions to have live commentary similar to what NASA provides during Space Shuttle launches. This isn’t something many corporate PR teams are capable of pulling off (we all can’t be Rob Navias).

You could even make a case for (get ready to use the defibrillator on the lawyer …) having a communicator live blog during a crisis from the company crisis center (… CLEAR!).

Twitter and Facebook have already brought a lot of crisis communications into the realm of real-time. Most of this real-time coverage is being done by others instead of the companies involved. One of my mentors in this business says, “The story is always better with you than without you.”

I’m interested in your thoughts about how to pull this off. Let me know if you think this is a capability companies need to develop and how you think it can be done.

Unless companies figure a way to adapt to and anticipate these changes, real-time crisis communications will leave businesses without a voice when they need it most.

Bill Salvin

Review your Crisis Plan. Do it Now

2011-03-31T06:26:00.000-07:00

The crisis at a nuclear plant in Japan is a sober reminder that crisis plans need to be reviewed, tested and updated regularly. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, Tokyo Electric Power’s (TEPCO) Fukushima Nuclear Plant had a disaster plan that was last updated in 2002. The plan downplayed the potential for damage from external events like earthquakes and tsunamis. The plan directed most emergency communications to be done via fax.

Via fax.

I’ve seen crisis plans that still have pager numbers listed for key executives. Perfect if they have to be notified of a crisis in 1982. (Hat tip to the writers of “30 Rock”)

Here’s what the Fukushima plant’s disaster plan said about the possibility of a worst-case-scenario disaster:
"The possibility of a severe accident occurring is so small that from an engineering standpoint, it is practically unthinkable."
There are so many things wrong with that statement I barely know where to start. First, when I hear something is unthinkable, I hear someone choosing inaction because it's is either too hard or too overwhelming to consider. What’s unthinkable to me is the abdication of responsibility that TEPCO captured so perfectly with that sentence.

Here are three things you can do today that can make your crisis plan better:

Check your notification procedures: Look at the list of people to be notified in an adverse event. Is there anyone on the list that no longer works there? (I’ve never reviewed a notification procedure list that didn't include a former employee) Does the list include cell phone numbers and non-work email addresses? Call a few numbers on the list and see if they are accurate.

Check scenario assumptions: Does the plan focus only on operational events unique to the facility or plant? Let your imagination run wild and test the plan’s assumptions against the most horrific scenario you can imagine. What can happen externally; something over which you have no control that can impact your operation? Start planning for that event. Better yet, plan a drill.

Confirm integration with external agencies: You will rarely respond solo to a major crisis. Are the right external agencies included in your plan? Do you know how they will respond to a crisis involving your organization? Have they seen your plan? Have you seen their plan?

We all have great faith in technology and engineering. Both make our lives better and in normal times keep us safe. But technology can fail and engineering has limitations.

Remember, your crisis plan is fundamentally flawed if it fails to account for the two things that never, ever operate from an engineering standpoint: Human beings and Mother Nature.

Bill Salvin

Crisis Communications Lessons from the Japanese Disaster

2011-03-24T06:59:00.000-07:00

It's been nearly two weeks since Japan's devastating earthquake and tsunami. Large crises are good labs for lessons and this one is no exception. Despite a far different culture than the US, there are some factors common to all large organizational crises that are worth taking note of.

People want transparency even when the news is bad. The company that owns the nuclear power plants, Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO) has been accused of withholding information and downplaying the severity of crisis. It got so bad, a senior government official asked a TEPCO leader, "What in the world is going on?" The government then effectively put TEPCO under its control late last week. Now the government is faced with the same challenges (but doing much better at communicating than TEPCO).

Best advice: Play it straight. Don't judge facts bad or good. Deliver facts in context quickly and completely. Then tell people your plan of action to address the challenges you (and in some cases they) face. When people don't believe you are telling them everything, they don't trust
anything you say.

Demand for information in a crisis always exceeds supply. Solid information is always hard to come by in a crisis, even for those working it. People always think those at the center of a crisis know more than they usually do. This feeds a public perception that those involved are withholding critical news and people default to thinking the worst.

Best advice: Be ready to explain why you don't have certain information and keep working to fill the information gaps. Also, have a thick skin. Realize that people's desire for information is human nature. Don't turn the need for more information into anger by ignoring people's legitimate desires to know as much as possible.

In a crisis response, the public believes more people and material is better (even when it’s not going to solve the problem). The US Pacific Fleet Facebook page received a question about why the Navy hasn't yet sent its West Coast-based hospital ship USNS Mercy to Japan to provide medical care. The simple answer was that the Government of Japan has not requested the Mercy and the US Navy has nearly 20 ships off Japan's coast with ample medical facilities. Plus, Japan is very well developed and well equipped to provide medical care to its citizens. That wasn't good enough for the questioner. He got testier and testier with the Pacific Fleet folks demanding to know why the Navy hasn't moved the ship to Hawaii so it can be closer “just in case.”

Best advice: Acknowledge the concern reflected in the question, in this case a concern for people's health and safety, and talk about how your actions address those concerns. Talk about what capabilities you are using instead of the capabilities you are not using. Be prepared to tell that story again and again. The Pacific Fleet staffer answered all the questions respectfully and explained as best he or she could.

Media will cover your crisis live if they can. NHK-TV had a helicopter in the air and they broadcast live pictures of the wiping out cities and villages. Other news outlets picked up the
NHK feed and the world witnessed the disaster as it happened.

Best advice: Streamline bureaucracy and empower your people to communicate fast. If you have a crisis plan that provides for a one- or two-hour deadline for a first news release, revise your plan because one-hour is too long. Give your people the training they need to communicate in real time.

Crises may be unpredictable, but people's reactions to them remain fairly constant. Don't let the crisis get the better of you because you focus on the event instead of the people hurting because of it.

Bill Salvin

Crisis Communications and Trust

2011-01-25T14:40:00.012-07:00

Edelman Public Relations released its annual Trust Barometer this week. It reinforces some crisis communications fundamentals and highlights some opportunities to do better in protecting your company in a crisis. (Disclosure: I have done media training for Edelman, but not in the last few years.) It's worth your time to take a look what this survey says.

prisonplanet.com

My biggest take away is that companies looking to be better prepared for a crisis should strengthen their social media presence in order to build and reinforce trust in their organizations. According to the study, trust in media is very low. In the US, only 27% of those surveyed trust the media. It's even lower in the UK at 22%.

Companies that plan to rely on outdated crisis communications plans that focus on press releases and traditional media relations are placing their reputations in the hands of what many believe to be an untrustworthy source. The opportunity here is in developing your company's social media presence so that you can connect directly with the audiences you need to reach. The cool part is the news media also uses and monitors social media, so you can check that box, too.

If you've got a boss that is a tough sell and needs convincing on social media, read Peter Shankman's great post "Social Media for Paranoid Bosses." Take a look at Facebook and see what companies are doing on the site. BP America has a superb Facebook page that it uses to tell the story of how it's restoring the Gulf of Mexico after last year's tragic oil spill. (Disclosure: BP is a client.)

The biggest reinforcement I saw in the Edelman survey is that people believe the people they trust.

Source: Edelman Public Relations 2011 Trust Barometer

This graphic tells me that you've got a better shot at protecting and maintaining your reputation if people trust you. Seems simple, but that doesn't mean it's easy to achieve. Another thing the survey revealed is that the two groups rated most credible as spokespeople are outside academics/experts followed by experts within the company.

When was the last time you met with the stakeholders you will work with in a crisis? Met with agency staff or regulators recently? What about the police or fire chief? Have you trained your company's subject matter experts on how to talk with reporters? In normal times, these types of things pay slow, steady dividends to your company. In a crisis, they could be your lifeline.

It's ok to depend on the kindness of others in a crisis. Just don't bank your reputation on the kindness of strangers.

Bill Salvin

Breaking News: There's No Penalty for Being Wrong

2011-01-08T21:28:00.004-07:00

(Editor's note: This post was updated Sunday morning 1.9.11. Hat tip to Andy Carvin for pointing out two errors in the post. I have posted his tweet in the comment section. Thanks, Andy!)

The news coverage during the chaotic aftermath of the horrific shooting in Tucson that killed five people and wounded more than a dozen others including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) tells us a lot about the absence of responsibility in the media today.

Journalists used to live by a creed: "Get it first, but first get it right." That would mean not reporting as fact something that hadn't been confirmed by at least two sources. Now, it's "Get it first." As long as you say where you heard something, you can send it to the world.

Nationally, NPR seems to be the original sinner in this case, although the attribution seems to have come from a reporter at KJZZ, the NPR member station in Phoenix. That reporter cited sources in the Pima County Sheriff's office and a Congressmen's office. Fox News and CNN also cited officials in the Sheriff's office.

No one seems to have bothered to check with the emergency room where the Congresswoman was taken. This is lazy reporting of the first order. Yes, the Sheriff's office and Giffords's congressional office are credible sources, but the deputy, dispatcher or staffer who "confirmed" it was clearly not with the Congresswoman on the way to the hospital, thus a second hand source.

Other media pounced on those reports and issued their own breaking news reports, citing the other media outlets as sources. Twitter bristled with thousands of re-tweets of those breaking news alerts. A great look at how the story unfolded is on Andy Carvin's Storify blog.

This isn't the first time (nor will it be the last) that media has reported a death only to be proven wrong by the victim's survival. Craig Silverman wrote an entire book about media errors and has a nice website called Regret the Error.

NPR did apologize for getting the story wrong, although by that time damage had been done and the incorrect information circled the globe multiple times. In the most ironic post of the day, one of NPR's bloggers, Ken Rudin wrote a post about how, in the absence of information, speculation does no one any good. Really? How would you know? Where were you when your colleagues were getting it wrong?

I suppose it's too much to ask to have editors and producers insist on first-hand information. There's too much money at stake in page views, re-tweets and advertising. It seems the only way to keep things in perspective is to realize that today, journalists are telling us what they heard, not what's true.

Bill Salvin

What the BP Spill tells us about the Future of Crisis Communications

2011-01-06T21:30:00.002-07:00

Editor's Note: This is guest post from my good friend and crisis comms pro Neil Chapman. Neil and I spent a good bit of time together (along with scores of other communicators) working the BP oil spill. These are his thoughts about what we can all learn from this unprecedented crisis.)

Goodbye 2010. Last year saw different crises – the horrific Haiti earthquake, the ash cloud air chaos and snow muddle, both in the UK and US. Along with scores of communications professionals, I was caught up in the BP oil spill for too much of 2010.

Both a human and environmental disaster, the event was complex and extremely expensive in its emotional and economic toll. Any organization facing an emergency or crisis would be wise to learn lessons from the incident, without the costs that befell BP.

Reports and inquiry testimony are readily available to study. BP has produced its own investigation report and a technical lessons learned document with accompanying DVD.

Many pundits have shared opinions about where BP went wrong and what it should have done. Here are some observations, that can point to where organizations might start to look for lessons relevant to them:

Readiness - an every-day investment

In a crisis, time is precious, priorities key. Whatever the world thinks, BP was more prepared than many companies. Meetings need a purpose, priorities must be established, decisions need to come quickly, communications must be clear and concise. These are all good skills and habits worth cultivating for every day business, but it takes training and practice.

Know the system

If outside agencies, especially emergency services, respond to a corporation’s incident, it will likely be managed using an established response system with tried and tested procedures and protocols. Corporate responders – including senior management – need to be familiar with the system.

It’s an online world

BP America's Facebook Page

Most conversations and coverage about a crisis now occur online. Corporate communicators who believe they should focus solely on traditional, mainstream media during a crisis will miss most of what is being said about them by default.

Social media smart

A crisis is not the time to learn the challenges and opportunities of social media such as You Tube, Twitter and Facebook. These channels can hurt and help at the same time. Corporate communicators need to be social media savvy, knowing when and how they can use these channels in a crisis. And tomorrow there will be a new one to learn about.

A mobile world

As well as being online, the world carries the internet on its hip or in a purse. To reach key audiences on the go, corporate communicators cannot be hidebound by the technology they are permitted or know how to use.

Information discipline

To provide timely, accurate, on-message information to the outside world and across an organisation requires discipline to ensure it is shared effectively inside too. Information discipline gets harder over time, as people shift in and out or they are spread over geography and time zones. Has your organization got a system other than email?

Plan for help

Chances are a corporate communications department will need extra people to cope with the tremendous information demand during a crisis. To bring them on-board takes time and effort, just when you need both for other priorities. Learn how to integrate extra resources quickly and coordinate with other agencies.

Communications processes

A corporate communications manual provides clear "how to" instructions that save time and help integrate the "new hands" an organization needs. Have you got one?

Leaders – be hard, be soft

A crisis tests any leader’s people skills. Responders need honest feedback, positive and negative. If something or someone isn’t working, the problem has to be fixed quickly to keep the response on track. But at the same time, people need to be "nurtured" when the going gets tough for them.

Beware of the toll

Crises wear people down. The strain can show up at work or at home. Relationships may break. Any corporation that sees its people as an important asset needs to provide effective employee support in a crisis. The first step is to make sure they are trained.

Think strategic

It’s hard to see the writing on the wall with your back to it! It’s too easy to get trapped into focusing on an immediate challenge – and not look far enough ahead. A team needs to be thinking long term from the outset.

Don’t make it worse

Until the world thinks the crisis is fixed, there’s a lot an organization can say to make things worse for itself. Stay on message and talk "actions, actions, actions".

BP’s crisis was the first energy industry disaster of the social media age. The result was that information – good and bad - travelled at an exceptionally fast rate, was dominated by digital and saw demand for it go through the roof. But some of the most effective communication took place face-to-face.

The communications landscape is now much, broader than it was. Organizations – and particularly corporate communicators – should take note and learn because 2011 will bring its own crop of crises.

Neil Chapman worked as a communicator for BP until last year. He has 25+ years of experience dealing with crises and difficult public affairs issues around the globe. He founded Alpha Voice Communications consultancy to focus on crisis communications readiness, presentation training and issues management. Go to: www.alphavoicecommunications.com to find out more.

Three Holiday Wishes from Signal Bridge Communications

2010-12-22T13:00:00.000-07:00

May your responses be nimble.
May your crises be small.
May your messages be crisp.

All the best for a warm holiday season and great communications in 2011.

Bill Salvin

Communicating Like a Mediocre Middle Manager and Missing the Real Audience

2010-12-07T22:20:00.002-07:00

I'm loathe to offer critique on the President. After all he rarely critiques my speaking engagements. But there's a good lesson for middle managers in the remarks and Q&A the President gave Tuesday at the White House on the tax cut deal he made with Republicans. (Editor's Note: This is not a political post, but rather a communications post.)

Middle managers have the toughest communication job in any company. They have to represent unpopular and often controversial positions to the rank and file. They also have to represent the rank and file to senior leaders. That requires a delicate balance especially after a deal has been made.

Like it or not, a middle manager has to own the decision that has been made. Certain audiences may find parts of the deal distasteful, but a deal is a deal and when it is time to sell it, there needs to be strength. The President communicated like a mediocre middle manager, unhappy that the new boss is making him do something he doesn't like. For example:

"Because of this agreement, 2 million Americans who lost their jobs and are looking for work will be able to pay their rent and put food on their table. And in exchange for a temporary extension of the high-income tax breaks -- not a permanent but a temporary extension -- a policy that I opposed but that Republicans are unwilling to budge on, this agreement preserves additional tax cuts for the middle class that I fought for and that Republicans opposed two years ago." (bold emphasis mine)

The man had a good deal to announce. People think government doesn't work any more and this is an example of representative government working. Nobody got everything they wanted, but everyone got something. It is how it is supposed to work. I learned that in 8th grade in Mr. Gloudemans's civics class.

Listening to the President I had the image of former line employee who, after being promoted to management, had to explain management's plans to his old co-workers. In this case, the old co-workers are Democrats who are quite unhappy with the President.

I understand the President has to communicate the hows and whys of his compromise to Democrats, but the White House Briefing Room seems ill-suited for that. It doesn't get much more powerful as a speaking platform. It's a great place to celebrate the victory (and this is a victory). Connect with the Democrats in a different forum; maybe go talk to them directly.

Here are four takeaways for middle managers:

Once a decision has been made, you own the deal; even the parts you don't like
Make sure the messages match the forum for maximum impact
Negativity rarely persuades people; focus on positive outcomes
Acknowledge opposition but offer context for the decision and ask for support

The bottom line goes to my friend (and mentor) Jerry Krone with whom I used to work. He said "You're going to be held responsible for what you say, you may as well say it like you mean it."

Bill Salvin

TSA's Original Sin: Deciding Not to Communicate

2010-11-24T04:00:00.026-07:00

Bad leaders tend to be bad communicators. A decision made with the best of intentions can fail if it's not communicated well to key stakeholders. Lost in the rage about new TSA security pat-downs and body scans is that TSA is not an agency that is being led well. John Pistole is head of the TSA and he's both a bad leader and bad communicator.

Pistole admitted that it was his decision not to inform the public about the new security procedures. He called it a "risk-based" decision that kept terrorists from knowing what the TSA was doing, where they were doing it and to whom they were doing it. Pistole even admits he ignored advice to communicate.

The terrorists who wish us ill are adaptable and clever. They seek to exploit weaknesses. It seems an easy solution to limit public information so that weaknesses can go unexploited. Keeping terrorists off-balance by not telling the public basic information probably sounded like a great plan in the meeting room in DC. It stood little chance of success.

Since there's this thing called the internet and people use it to communicate in real time, Pistole was able to keep the new pat-down procedures quiet right up to the time that TSA began to implement them on real human beings. Unless his goal was to prevent a terrorist attack the first two weeks in November, his plan had no chance of succeeding except in pissing off a substantial part of the flying public.

Pistole also told reporters that he planned on educating the public after most of the rollout of the new procedures was complete. Except you can't educate people when they are furious with you. One of the best blogs about flying is Flying with Fish. Author Steven Frischling has a complete breakdown of where the full body scanners are and how likely people are to be subject to the new scans. Great context to be sure, but this is the kind of thing TSA should have posted on its website before it rolled out this program.

TSA could have been communicating these important changes to the public and kept the appropriate amount of operational vagueness to keep bad guys off balance. In fact, I bet TSA has dozens of communicators that advised doing just that. Why not let them do their jobs? The decision not to communicate has created a huge distraction for the frontline screeners. Now, they gird themselves every day for verbal assaults from the people they are trying to protect. One can argue that probably makes them less effective at their job.

With one decision Pistole failed twice. He alienated a substantial portion of the public and made it less likely his frontline people will succeed in their primary mission.

Communicating this change effectively may not have prevented the backlash. Not communicating until it was a crisis made everything worse.

Why exactly does he still have his job?

Bill Salvin

TSA's Image(ing) Problem

2010-11-18T09:30:00.002-07:00

The controversy over TSA's Advanced Imaging Technology (aka Naked Body Scanners) and Enhanced Pat-Downs (aka Government-sponsored sexual assault) is seemingly getting worse by the hour. Every day we are treated to new horror stories from people who believe the new security measures are too invasive and offer little enhancement to security. Newspaper columnist and humorist Dave Barry endured a fondling from one TSA agent while another agent stood by and told Barry what a huge fan he was of his work. Surreal security Kabuki at its finest.

From a communicators point of view, the TSA has done a poor job of selling the cost/benefit case to the American public. The public has judged this to be a bad deal. Here's the public's perception of TSA's offer: TSA's chance of catching a terrorist is so low and the price in shame, humiliation and privacy invasion so high that it's not worth it. TSA should figure out a way to tell us more. Give us better context. Or, come up with an option that allows them to assess the risk I pose to air safety without touching me or taking a naked image of me.

People understand that terrorists target airplanes. But people also understand that the chance of terrorists being on their plane is extremely low. In effect, the public is telling the TSA that they would rather a terrorist attempt to take down an airliner than suffer the indignity of the new procedures. The public tells us this is okay with them because they'll beat the snot out of anyone who tries to hijack a plane that they're on. I fly a lot. I know I'd step up.

TSA is in a tough spot. The explosive PETN, which was used in the Christmas Day Underwear Bombing attempt and in the recent UPS/FED EX cagro bomb plot is not detected by metal detectors or conventional pat downs. Terrorists have also implanted bombs in suicide bombers body cavities which is undetectable even with the new imaging that's so controversial. Plus, a successful terrorist attack would bring a world of hurt down on the agency in the form of Congressional investigations, cable news vivisection and various other public shamings.

What I don't hear from anyone at TSA is any sensitivity regarding how unnerving it can be to have a stranger place their hands on their private parts. No understanding that, as a father, it is criminal to allow someone to touch my daughter or son in that way while I stand by watching. No sense of common decency that seems to give any of the screeners pause before they diddle a nun.

The public doesn't think this is fair because TSA has given them only two choices: have a naked scan done of your body or get felt up. TSA head John Pistole told CNN this week that, "Security is a shared responsibility." That's clearly not the case since TSA decides what the rules are and they apply until they don't. They don't give a passenger the choice to opt out of screening. There is no appeal. Submit or don't fly. That's not the definition of "shared" I learned in kindergarten.

There is something fundamentally anti-American about it. TSA has claimed in the past that many of their successes can't be told. That's fine, but the lack of factual, objective information about threats leaves the public with one choice: trust the government. We don't right now. The reason no one believes the TSA when it says the images won't be stored is that another federal agency stored 35,000 images. Plus, we know that one of these images could be good evidence in court, so there has to be a way to save them. When TSA says otherwise, we think they are lying.

The public wants TSA to stop terrorists from attacking airplanes but we're skeptical of TSA's ability to do that. Skeptical because all of the measures put in place were taken defensively. One guy tried to blow up his shoes so now everyone has to take off their shoes. Some people in England were going to make liquid bombs so no one can carry liquids any more.

We may be a skeptical public when it comes to TSA, but we do want the agency to succeed. We just think they should protect us from the next threat instead of the last.

Bill Salvin

Talking Safety in the Shadow of Death

2010-04-19T12:00:00.001-07:00

One of the most difficult challenges in crisis communications is talking about your company's safety record in the aftermath of an accident.

Here is how it plays out: Your company has an accident and employees lose their lives. Reporters will show up and start asking questions about the accident. These questions are uncomfortable; no one likes talking about these things. At some point, usually later in the interview, a reporter asks you about your safety record.

I've seen this question cause great relief for spokespeople for two reasons. First, it's a question that has nothing to do with the accident, and second it gives them a chance to talk about something positive.

Except it never really works out that way. Public relations is not a zero sum game. Your safety record cannot be separated from the accident and no matter how good your safety record is, it doesn't matter to the families of the people who died.

The massive blast that killed 29 people at Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch Coal Mine was the worst coal mine disaster in the US in 40 years. As the rescue and recovery operations unfolded on live television, Massey leadership talked a lot about the safety record at the Upper Big Branch (UBB) Mine.

Here are some of the company's quotes:

Since January 2009, UBB has had less than one violation per day of inspection by MSHA, a rate consistent with national averages. Most of the citations issued by MSHA to UBB in the last year were resolved on the same day they were issued. (Massey Energy Statement, Apr 9, 2010)

Massey continues to invest in the development of safety innovations that exceed industry and regulatory standards. Our lost-time incident rate has been better than the industry average for 17 of the past 19 years and has been improving significantly. These improvements have been achieved through concerted effort and significant investment. (Massey Energy Statement, Apr 9, 2010)

The company boasts on its Web site that it has a good safety record compared with the rest of the industry. "In 2009, Massey recorded an all-time best NFDL incident rate (a measure of lost-time accidents) of 1.67," the site says. "This is an improvement over last year's rate of 1.93, our previous best result. By comparison, the bituminous coal mining industry average NFDL rate was 2.95 in 2008. 2009 marked the 6th consecutive year and the 17th year out of the past 20 years in which Massey's safety performance was stronger than the industry average." (The Washington Post, April 6, 2010)

I have two problems with these kinds of statistics. First there are always others that have their own statistics. They are happy to share them with reporters and most likely they don't own a business where more than two dozen people got killed. Second, talking about your safety record diverts you from your prime obligation during a crisis of this kind: to take care of the families of those that lost their lives.

Let's say your safety record is pristine (unlike the record at the Upper Big Branch Mine). Even then, the bad news isn't cancelled out by that good news. The people are still dead.

So what can you do?

1) Defer talking about your safety record to another time. "Our safety record is a matter of public record and we'll talk about it at a more appropriate time. Our primary concern now is for the families of those injured and killed and for all of our workers involved in this terrible accident."

2) Tell reporters you aren't comfortable talking about your safety record when people are grieving. "I know you are all interested in our safety record and we'll provide that data to you. Our safety record is of little consolation to those that have been impacted by this accident. What we are focusing on now is caring for those injured and providing support to those who are grieving after this terrible tragedy."

3) Focus reporters on your actions. We recognize our safety record will be an important part of the investigation into this accident. The most important thing we can do right now is take care of the people who are grieving, and ensure the best possible care for those injured. To that end, we are...

Is this a fool-proof method? Not even close. But, since all journalism is about how events impact people it aligns the company with the stories that will be written and broadcast and it does so in a less impersonal way than simply rattling off a bunch of numbers.

I know companies have to defend themselves, but there are better ways to do that than most do now.

I worked at one company where accidents killed five workers over 18 months. An investigative reporter interviewed the head of the company's safety program and kept asking him about the facility's safety stats. The safety guy refused to answer and tried to steer the journalist to other safety- related topics. .

The reporter asked why the safety guy wouldn't talk about the company's safety record. A three-word response ended the interview.

"Statistics don't bleed."

Bill Salvin

The Secret Skill of Great Crisis Communicators

2010-03-09T18:30:00.000-07:00

I've spent the last few weeks on the road conducting crisis communications workshops (and battling a nasty bout of food poisoning that laid me low in Chicago for a week). It got me thinking about crisis communications and the difference between unpredictable crises and unthinkable crises. The big difference is planning. You can plan for an unpredictable crisis. Workplace violence, for example, is a crisis that you can plan for but not predict. An unthinkable crisis, on the other hand, can't be planned for. If you can't conceive of something happening then you can't plan for it.

So What is the Secret Skill?
Imagination.

I'm talking about the kind of imagination that makes your co-workers wonder about you, but not the kind of imagination that it prompts a visit from the good folks at Homeland Security.

I'm talking thinking of your worst-case scenario. The US Environmental Protection Agency requires facilities that have large amounts of certain chemicals on their sites (think chemical plants, refineries, etc.) to model worst-case scenarios and to tell people outside the fence line what that scenario is. The great part about that program is once people know what you can do to them, they want to know what you're doing to prevent it from happening. It is a useful exercise that gets companies thinking about prevention and risk reduction.

Communicators should put themselves through the exact same exercise.

Lack of imagination is what gets companies into trouble. It's the kind of thinking that leads people to say "The big disaster will never happen today." Until it does. (See Titanic, unsinkable)

I encourage my clients to put together a list of things they think they might face. Most good communicators I know do the same thing. Where they can improve their efforts is in planning for the second- and third-order effects once the crisis hits. I did an exercise for the Wisconsin Healthcare Public Relations & Marketing Society a while back and I'll share it as an example.

This is an exercise, Development One

Time: This morning

You are the Director of Marketing for a healthcare system based in Madison, Wisconsin. Your system includes hospitals in four cities including Madison, Milwaukee, LaCrosse and Green Bay. In addition to the hospitals, the system employs 360 physicians, 2,500 employees and operates a network of 32 primary care and specialty clinics throughout the state.

You were awakened at 6:30 this morning by a call from your Chief Operating Officer. She told you that one of your clinics was burglarized overnight. Windows were smashed and the burglars made off with some medical equipment and drug samples. Authorities also believe that at least three computers and an undetermined number of patient records were stolen. The computers contain data on hundreds of patients and have security software protocols installed that allows access to the data network for your entire health care system. The system CIO is in Montana on a hunting trip and unreachable for the next week. She suggests strongly that you get your team together right away because, “It’s going to be a long day.”

We did a round of interviews and talked through this first development. It's a pretty basic scenario. Someone broke into the clinic. Patient privacy is at risk. Everyone did pretty well. Then we gave them the second development.

This is an Exercise, Development Two

Noon Today

You receive a call from your chief operating officer. She tells you that she got a call from the wife of the system’s Chief Information Officer who relayed the following story:

The hunting lodge where the CIO was supposed to be on his hunting trip called to report that he had yet to arrive. He is two days overdue. Further, the wife says that her husband had been acting strangely in the weeks leading up to the hunting trip. Most disturbing of all, the CIO didn’t take his hunting rifle when he left, but he did take his work computer and a handgun. She told the COO that she has no idea where her husband is. She has filed a missing persons report with the police department. The officer that took the report told her that this would probably be a low priority case in that the CIO appears to have left voluntarily and that it doesn’t appear that any crime has been committed.

This is the kind of development that can derail a crisis response if it's not planned for. Now, will you be able to predict every detail of every potential crisis? No. What you can do is realize that crises will take unexpected twists and turns and you can practice and plan for those.

Use your imagination so that your team and the executives you support are better equipped to deal with the craziness the real world will send your way in a crisis.

When someone says "There's no way this could ever happen" it means you're doing it right.

Bill Salvin

Obama to NASA: Mediocrity is an Option

2010-02-06T14:45:00.007-07:00

The Obama administrations decision this week to scrap NASA’s plans and programs to return to the moon by 2020 is visionless, wastes money and squanders US leadership in space. In place of a program that has both a destination and a timeline, the government will redirect funds to private companies to develop cutting-edge space technologies. Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag, calls this a "bold new initiative."

Apparently, giving billions of dollars to private companies who've never put a single human in space is what passes for boldness today.

Orszag is, for some reason, all the rage in Washington, DC. He's 41 years old, and entered the world eight days before Apollo 8 entered lunar orbit in 1968. He knows numbers and has two doctoral degrees, but his knowledge of space is limited. Yet, reporters are agog at Orszag's ability to respond to a question with an actual fact.

"If you look actually at the bottom of Table S-4, at the very bottom, on page 152, it says 'memorandum of funding for appropriated programs, non-security,' and you see the $447 billion in 2010, and we actually are below that in 2011 at $441 billion."

Peter Orszag, quoted by Dana Milbank, The Washington Post, February 2, 2010

Wow. He did all that under the crushing pressure of a press conference? Let me sit down next to an aroma therapy candle.

If these reporters want to get all misty at nerds in command of data, go to a Space Shuttle launch and watch the flight controllers work. They're just as nerdy and have way cooler jobs.

If you want bold, look at the challenge given to NASA in the early 60s: Get a man to the moon and get him home safely. Do it by the end of the decade. It was inspiring. It's what leaders do.

Apollo 8 is particularly instructive when it comes to judging boldness. The mission had a desitination (lunar orbit) and a timeline (December 1968). The 400,000 people of the Apollo program had about five months to invent the software, simulations, training protocols, mission rules and contingency plans for that mission. That's how you stimulate the private sector.

I understand the argument the administration is trying to make with its space budget. They're banking on sparking innovation by funding an entreprenurial space industry. But, they are funding these entreprenuers to perform to current requirements like flying astronauts and cargo to the International Space Station. We're already doing that. That's not bold, that's outsourcing.

The weird part about all of this is that NASA's budget is actually increasing. It's a bizarre "do less with more" plan that gives NASA no timeline nor destination. Although, if you have no place to go, who really cares how long it takes you to get there?

Bill Salvin

Why Your Website is Still Important & Three Ways to Keep it That Way

2010-02-04T11:30:00.001-07:00

The Social Media world buzzed last week with results of a survey of print and Web journalists done by the media relations software firm Cision and Don Bates of George Washington University. What got people's attention was the finding that 89% of journalists use blogs for their online research. Nearly 75% of those surveyed say they use social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter in researching stories.

Social Media is important. Got it. Everyone is joining the party. Don't be afraid to get your Tweet on.

But blogs were the second most popular resource for journalists researching stories. What was first? Corporate Websites.

Ninety-six percent (96%) of journalists will go to your Website when doing online research for a story about your company. This is very good news.

It's good news because it means you still can have a big impact on the impression journalists get about your company. How do you take maximum advantage of this?

1. Make sure your site is current
Journalists assume that the information on your site is accurate and will quote from it without asking you if it's current. A crisis is the wrong time to realize that you should have updated your Website. Many companies do a lot of buying and selling of assets. The plant your company sold in Asia last year might still be yours on the Web.

2. Include clear connections to your company's Social Media accounts
We know that journalists monitor Social Media like it's a police scanner, and they can pick up even a small hint of a story. If they see you use Social Media, they are likely to follow or monitor activity there. They'll get information from your Website to be sure; and the links to Social Media accounts can help them get greater perspective and context on a story from sources inside and outside of the company. Yes, this means they might find opposing views on your Social Media sites. But, they'll find that information anyway, and you get points for openness and transparency.

3. Have as much high-quality imagery about your company as possible

Technology has made people hungry for all kinds of images about the stories they see. Media trainers will tell their students to paint a picture with their words. If those words can be supported with great pictures and video, that's a powerful combination. These days of shrinking budgets for journalists and news organizations mean that if you don't provide imagery, the journalists won't come and get it.

A company that does a good job of providing imagery is BP (disclosure: BP is a client, although I don't advise them on their company Website). They have a whole section of their Website for images and graphics. This is important since many of BP's projects are located in inaccessible places. Without these images, journalists would have a harder time telling the story.

Social Media sites like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and others can bring real value to your company. But while you explore what value they can bring, don't ignore the proven value and power of your company's online home.

Bill Salvin

Three Ways to Get Social Media into Your Crisis Comms Plan

2010-02-02T09:00:00.001-07:00

Social Media is here to stay and that means it needs to be part of your crisis communications plans. Lately, I've been spending a lot of time working with clients to help them do just that. I thought I would share three Social Media techniques/ideas that I think will become standard issue during a crisis.

Pre-approved Tweets
Many companies use pre-approved initial releases in crisis communications plan. This works because it allows for quick action that requires very little thinking. Applying the concept to Social Media is a good idea. Not only can it cut response time, but it lets your bosses know the space in which you will operate during a crisis. Here's a version of a pre-approved Tweet:

We know that Twitter has become the first stop for people to get information on breaking news. So that's where your company needs to be in a crisis. A Tweet like this will get you into the information flow early. To stay in the information flow, you should send this Tweet out multiple times. How fast should you do this? Your goal for a first Tweet should be within five minutes of the incident (or notification of the incident). You should send it out every five minutes until you get more information.

Put Your Twitter Feed on Your Home Page

I've seen this on a lot of blogger's sites (mine included), but I've not seen a lot of mainline companies put it to use. In many cases you have to look pretty hard to find a company's Twitter feed. If people have to look hard for information on your site, they'll go somewhere else. We know that journalists monitor social media. A study by George Washington University and the media relations software company Cision shows that 96% of journalists will go to your company's Website when they write a story about you. By having your Twitter feed front and center not only gets you on the reporter's Social Media radar, but gives them a reason to come back to your Website for reliable information.

Another option would be to put a crawl on the top of your Website (much like the cable news sites and many local news stations do). This, again, gets you into the information flow early; it can be automated and is easier to implement than a full dark site. I know there are some companies that will resist the idea of making the crisis front and center on their Website, but in a crisis people are coming because it is front and center. People perceive lack of information as a lack of caring.

Get the Boss on Video, Post it on YouTube
It used to be that you wanted the initial release of the event on the streets in an hour and that included a quote from the CEO or appropriate executive. Now people want to see the CEO or appropriate executive engaged in the crisis. One guideline I saw, but lost the link but it said you need to get the boss on video posted to the Web within three hours of the incident. As with most things in a crisis, the timing will vary. Sooner is better. Toyota is so pathetically late to its sudden acceleration crisis the video is more about damage control than taking charge.

To do the "boss video" well in a crisis, you have to write it into your crisis plan and practice it during a crisis exercise. That means really putting the boss on video and showing him how it looks. That will allow you to work out the logistics. Do you need a crew on-call? Or do you need a Flip Camera? It's your choice, but choose before the crisis hits.

Bottom Line
Social Media is not a fad and it's not just for marketing. Social Media is a collection of new communications tools and platforms that are already in wide use. More than a billion people worldwide use Social Media regularly.

You can have the best crisis comms plan in the world, but if it lacks a Social Media component the world will get its information about your crisis from someone else.

Bill Salvin

Social Media: Fight the Hype; Find the Focus

2010-01-24T05:16:00.002-07:00

Listening to the hype about Social Media is a bit like listening to a politician right before election day. There isn't anything Social Media can't do for you and, just like a politician, no promise is too outlandish to make. Social Media will help you lose weight, make $87 an hour, get your dream job and meet hot local singles who've been looking for you.

So, I understand the skeptics who are reluctant to jump into the pool just because all the cool kids are hanging out there. And many postings about Social Media do more to foster skepticism than counter it.

Consider this posting:

56 Social Media Sites Every Business Needs To Be On is exactly my point. No one needs to be on 56 Social Media sites. If you think you do, your business lacks focus.

I run a small PR firm in the US. Do I really need to be on SEEK, Australia's #1 Recruitment, Career and Employment site? The list has sites I've never heard of and sites that would do nothing except rob me of time to serve my clients. The guy who wrote this post gets points for a title that grabs attention. Not sure he considered the type of attention inspired by the title.

Let's get some perspective here. My clients really don't care what social networks I'm on. What they care about is that I deliver what I say I'm going to deliver in the manner in which they expect. If I miss a deadline, I can hear them say, "You've got time to blog, but you couldn't get my Strategic Communications Plan done?"

So, when you read that you'll be missing out if you don't sign up RIGHT NOW, I recommend taking a big, deep breath. Figure out what you want to accomplish with your communications. Then, talk to colleagues in your industry and see what is working for them. Talk to your clients, customers and vendors.

Pay attention to subtle changes in the way people communicate. For example, is it just me or is no one leaving voice mails anymore? I have a lot of missed calls and very few messages. I'm secretly thrilled because I don't like voice mail.

Pay attention to the hype, but don't get swept up in it. Make Social Media work for you, not the other way around. Use Social Media to serve your company's business strategy.

And, If those crazy Social Media pitches become irresistible? Give me a call and I'll talk you down. Just don't leave a voice mail.

Bill Salvin

PR Memo to Royal Caribbean: It's Not About You

2010-01-19T04:11:00.000-07:00

To help Haiti, text HAITI to 90999 and a donation of $10 will go to the Red Cross. Nearly $20 million has been raised so far.

The world is focused on the devastation in Haiti, and major corporations are rightly highlighting their efforts on the Web, through social networks and through advertising. It's great to see Corporate Social Responsibility as more than a tag line.

And then there's Royal Caribbean. Here's the image and copy from Royal Caribbean's Website on its Haiti relief efforts.

It's nice, but the impression it creates is fake. Thanks to maritime lawyer Jim Walker's Cruise Law News Blog, we learn a few things about this combination of words and images. The picture is former President Bill Clinton in Haiti with Royal Caribbean's two top executives, Chairman Richard Fain and President Adam Goldstein, in October 2009. Two months before the quake.

Not only is the photo misleading, it is highly unethical. With the picture and the headline, Royal Caribbean would have us believe that all Haiti lacks right now is the attention of two cruise ship executives. Wow, thank goodness these guys are on the job. This is the kind of thing that gives PR a bad name. And what is infuriating is that it is unnecessary.

According to Royal Caribbean's President and CEO's blog, he (along with others) met with President Clinton in New York on Thursday, January 14 to discuss Haitian relief. Good for them, the company is doing something positive. But one lousy photo choice makes all their words and actions seem like a PR stunt or designed to make the boss feel good. There are any number of pictures Royal Caribbean could have chosen for its Website. It chose poorly.

This is a time for understatement and subtlety.

Let me give Messrs. Fain and Goldstein the advice their PR counsel should have given them:

No one cares who you walked with down the pier.

People are dying in the streets.

Bill Salvin

Hat Tip to Jim Walker from Cruise Law News Blog for his brilliant post on this issue and for helping bring the larger issue of Royal Caribbean's record in Haiti to light. Nice job, Jim!

The Haiti Quake, Titanic's Sinking and the "Fad" of Social Media

2010-01-16T09:15:00.002-07:00

It's been an interesting week on the Social Media front. Those who doubt the power of Social Media (and there are still many who do) can't refute the power Twitter and Facebook to connect victims of the quake with their loved ones around the world or how new media allowed us to help. As of this writing, the Red Cross has raised more than $11 million in donations via text message. I also finished reading a book on the Titanic sinking that provided some insight into the basic human needs satisfied by Social Media.

Let's start with Haiti. I've never been there and the first headlines of the quake didn't strike me much more than just another tragedy in a distant place. Then I saw that one of my Navy shipmates (and former Chief of Information) Frank Thorpe, IV updated his with this:

I sent a note of support joining dozens and dozens of his family, friends and colleagues who offered prayers and concerns for Frank's son and daughter-in-law. Not only did Facebook show how deep his personal well of support was, but it also allowed us to stay in the loop without bugging the family. Think if everyone who weighed in on Facebook called instead of posted. How would Frank's son have gotten through to let his Dad know they were all right? (Frank Thrope, Jr. and his wife Jillian made it back to the U.S. Thursday)

Now, let's take the Way Back Machine to April 1912 when thousands of people waited for word about survivors from the ill-fated RMS Titanic. The book Titanic's Last Secrets vividly tells the story of the Marconi Wireless operators who were communicating with ships at sea desperately trying to get any word about who lived, who died and what had happened to the ship. It was real-time communication and it took people's breath away.

The telegraph operators listened to the noise and chatter of Morse Code hoping they could snatch something of value from the scratchy dots and dashes that filled the airwaves. In Social Media parlance, they were monitoring just as we do now, but with much clumsier tools.

Newspapers got information from the telegraph operators and posted updates on the street outside their offices. The newspapers were listening and then "Retweeting" the information they found relevant to their audience.

Social Media sites such as Twitter and Facebook succeed not because they are new and shiny, but because they fulfill simple human needs and desires. The need to connect with those we love and the desire to help those in distress.

If you think Social Media is a fad, that's fine. That thinking though, ignores human nature and human nature doesn't change. Just the technology.

Bill Salvin

Structuring Your PR Team for Crisis Engagement

2010-01-13T13:15:00.006-07:00

In my last post, I wrote about the evolution of crisis communications into crisis engagement. The evolution of Social Media provides new avenues for companies to connect with key stakeholders during an adverse event. Social Media also changes the communications dynamics of a crisis. "Rapid" doesn't begin to describe how quickly word of your crisis will start to spread.

For example, US Airways had a well-rehearsed crisis communications plan ready to go when Flight 1549 ditched into the Hudson River. They executed that plan exactly as designed. But, Social Media served as a quicker source of initial information than the company. You know things have to change if the plan is good and people respond according to plan and yet the company is still behind.

So how should a PR team be structured for optimal crisis engagement? While it will depend on the company, ideally a PR team should be organized so that there is very little difference between how it operates day-to-day and how it operates in a crisis. A company that has one structure for day-to-day PR functions and a separate one for crisis engagement is more likely to fail.

Here's one structure I proposed for a client:

What I like about this structure is that the way the team works day-to-day is how they will work in a crisis. Let me tell you a little about the thinking that went into this structure.

Chief Communicator

This role is pretty self-explanatory. In my thinking, the Chief Communicator will work across all the teams and serve as the link between the PR team and senior management. A good Chief Communicator will provide leadership. A great Chief Communicator will run interference and keep the good idea ferries from interfering with team once it hits its stride.

Response Team
This team will be the front lines of the response. They will communicate with external and internal audiences so that messages are consistent to multiple groups. A good response team gets into a rhythm during a crisis, and develops relationships with reporters and others. That puts the response team in a good position to also monitor traditional and social media. While outside resources could perform the monitoring function, the response team is immersed in the crisis and can perform this more deftly than an outside firm. If you have a small staff, an outside firm can provide extra arms and legs for the response team and is worth considering.

Strategic Messaging Team
One of the hardest things in a crisis is getting time to think. Separating the responders from the folks who develop the messages helps provide the time for the Strategic Messaging Team to stand up and begin creating the messages the response team will need. This is the big picture team that sorts out whether ads need to be pulled or special ads developed. This team will also focus, to the extent possible, on longer term issues, campaigns and messages.

Stakeholder Outreach Team
Relationships with customers, potential customers, vendors and the government require special attention and that's why I have a separate team for communicating with these critical stakeholders. These are stakeholders who believe they have a special relationship with a company and because of that, they deserve special attention.

Admin/Functional Support
This is one of the areas that often gets overlooked in crisis communications. You need an exceptional administrative assistant to keep non-communication challenges away from the people who need to spend every minute possible communicating. Ideally, the IT support is embedded with the PR team so that any issues with the company Website can be handled quickly. Given that a major crisis will probably overwhelm most companies Website, you need an IT superstar on your team. You don't want to be calling the Help Desk while the building is burning.

This structure works for my client, but I'm sure there are dozens of variations possible to make it work for other companies.

The goal here is to have people realize the crisis comms game has changed. You don't want to be ready for your last crisis. You want to be ready for the next crisis.

Bill Salvin

Hat tip to Jeff Carr and Kari Fluegel of United Space Alliance for the many discussions we had that helped shape my thinking. Thanks, guys!

Crisis Communications Evolves into Crisis Engagement

2010-01-06T08:15:00.002-07:00

It’s clear that Social Media has and will continue to change the way organizations communicate in a crisis. What’s also clear is that most companies are ill-structured to use Social Media to its best advantage during a crisis.

Social Media changes the standards of response to crises because crises are human events, and Social Media connects humans in powerful ways. Crisis communications is morphing into something much more comprehensive that I'm calling crisis engagement.

For example, most companies try to follow standard response protocols during a crisis.

One of the most common is that a company's initial release on an adverse event should be on the streets within an hour. That standard came about because that’s about how long it used to take live television to get to the scene of a major crisis. If you were "TV-ready", you could also cover radio and newspapers. Plus, people's expectations were different then.

In the past, we wanted as many basic facts as we could get, fed to us in a story form with an ending "to be continued". Now, we want (and get) crisis information fact by fact. We don't wait for someone else to put a story together, we begin immediately piecing together our own narrative of what's happened. By the time a company’s "initial" release comes out, the story is well underway.

There's no longer a grace period for companies. They might get a breather after the first wave of news recedes, but event that respite won't last long.

In my next post I will provide an example of what a crisis-ready PR team looks like in Age of Social Media. This is important stuff, and now is as good a time as any to get started.

If you think putting it off is a good idea or you have too much on your schedule, see the Eurostar Crisis. Despite the recommendation of its Social Media agency, Eurostar pushed back into 2010 getting its own name for Twitter. The "Eurostar" handle is registered out of Singapore and the "Eurostar_UK" handle was taken, but unused for some reason.

Shortly before Christmas, five Eurostar trains ended up trapped in the tunnel under the English Channel stranding thousands of passengers for more than 16 hours.

Remember, crises rarely take into account your busy schedule.

Bill Salvin

What the Underwear Bomber can Teach TSA Communicators

2010-01-04T05:00:00.004-07:00

When the Underwear Bomber tried to blow up Northwest Flight 253 Christmas Day, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) scrambled to put new security measures in place to protect the flying public. TSA issued a security directive to airlines within hours of the bombing, but there was intense confusion because TSA didn't communicate anything of substance publicly following the incident.

TSA has a great blog, but the agency didn't use the site to get meaningful information to passengers quickly. The only substantive action TSA took regarding its security directive was to threaten two bloggers with jail time for publishing it on their respective blogs.

A blog post on The TSA Blog December 26 is identical to a post on the main TSA Website December 27.

Why is this called "Guidance for Passengers"? It is so vague and devoid of helpful information, it is essentially useless.

TSA needs to understand how people think in times like these. We need to know what we can do, what we can expect and what actions people at TSA are doing to make us safer. Instead we got a lot of government officials telling us how fabulous other government officials were during the crisis. But, it's not about them, it's about us.

Here's Bob Schieffer's brilliant take on the whole communications fiasco:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

What TSA should have done is virtually deploy a team of communicators to answer questions from flyers in real-time across multiple social media sites. TSA could have offered rationale for some of the restrictions they had put in place. Post answers to the TSA Blog, post them to Twitter, post to wherever there's an audience. If the same question gets asked again, answer it. TSA needs to understand that how it communicates is as important as how many of us get patted down.

TSA's communicators are public servants. It would be nice if they provided some actual public service.

Bill Salvin

Five Social Media Crisis Communications Tips

2009-12-28T07:04:00.003-07:00

I've spent a lot of the year helping companies incorporate Social Media into their existing crisis communications plans. As with other aspects of Social Media, there is a lot of trial and error. The impact of these new tools on crisis communications is evolving and will continue to evolve into 2010. The New Year no doubt will bring new lessons, but heeding the five tips below will help you be better prepared in 2010.

Build Your Presence Before a Crisis
When I speak to groups about Social Media and Crisis Communications, I tell people that you can't set up your Twitter account when the building's on fire. Passenger train operator Eurostar learned this lesson the hard way this week. Eurostar put off claiming its name on Twitter 2009, opting instead for other Social Media initiatives under the Twitter handle "Little_Break".

Great plan until five Eurostar trains got trapped in the tunnel that runs under the English Channel. More than 2,000 passengers were trapped for the better part of a day. Thousands more had their travel disrupted. The company had to rely on a Twitter account set up for a marketing promotion. That slowed the response and allowed anger to build.

You Won't be First, But You Can be Most Accurate
When USAirways 1549 ditched into the Hudson River, pictures taken by mobile phones were going around the Internet before US Airways knew it had a plane down. The Age of Social Media means you most likely won't be first with information. Your advantage is that you have access to more credible information than the average Tweep on the Street. It is only an advantage, however, if you get that information out.

Employees Need Guidance
During the awful shootings at Fort Hood this year, a soldier sent out dozens of Tweets that contained inaccurate information, and even took a picture of a wounded soldier with her cellphone and posted posted it on TwitPic. As worldwide newsmedia started to follow her on Twitter she became a prime source of misinformation coming from the locked-down base. She gained hundreds of followers that afternoon. And then sent a note out to them to "stop following" her. She said her "Tweets are for (her) friends." She had no idea the whole world could see what she was saying. Make sure your organization's Social Media policy lets employees know what's expected of them. Don't have a Social Media policy? Social Media Governance has an archive of more than 100 company's policies.

You Can't Respond if You Aren't Listening
Monitoring what is being said about your company during a crisis is critical to defend and maintain your reputation. There are plenty of monitoring tools that can help you find out in real-time what is being said about your company. Successful crisis communications in the Social Media age requires 24/7 real-time monitoring. A search for "social media monitoring" on Google will give you all the info you need for monitoring tools, many of which are free.

Don't Forget the Basics
All of the basic crisis communications fundamentals still apply. You have to understand who your audience is; you need to respond rapidly with clear, concise messages demonstrating compassion and competence. Social media is an additional tool for you to use to connect with the people important to you during a crisis, it doesn't change the fundamentals required for success.

What would you add to the list?
These five tips aren't all inclusive, nor will doing all of them guarantee success in a crisis. There are a lot of variables that make for a successful response. What would you add to the list? What's worked for you? What didn't?

The more we all learn from each other, the fewer painful lessons we will have to learn on our own.

Bill Salvin

Happy Holidays from Signal Bridge Communications

2009-12-25T11:01:00.002-07:00

May your messages be clear.
May your media be friendly.
May your Tweets be ReTweeted.
May your crisis be small.

Enjoy the Season!

Merry Christmas, We Threw Away All Your Stuff: A Crisis Comms Holiday Fail Tale

2009-12-24T09:00:00.003-07:00

Companies sometimes do dumb things. The smart ones realize that they have made a mistake and then try to make amends.

And then there is builder, developer and property manager JC Hart.

In late October, Brian Hafer died. That's him with his family in the photo. He lived in an apartment with his wife Krystal Ventro Hafer and the couple's 16-month old daughter. The apartment is in Miamisburg, Ohio (near Dayton) in a community called Austin Springs. Austin Springs is owned by JC Hart.

On December 15, JC Hart had its maintenance people throw away everything left in Ms. Hafer's apartment including pictures of her husband and other irreplaceable things. The apartment had been vacant for more than 45 days and apparently JC Hart had had enough, even though they told Ms. Hafer she could "take all the time she needed."

Krystal took her story where lots of people take their stories these days, to Facebook. It was a way to get support from her friends and friends of friends (I came across this story from my friend, journalist David Waters, who is a friend of Krystal). As Christmas approached, the story began to gather the attention of local television stations. In addition to responding to local media requests, JC Hart posted its statement on Krystal's Facebook page.

Ponder that for a moment. JC Hart posted its statement on the Facebook page of its victim.

The company has its own Facebook Page. The statement is not posted there. The company's homepage is hosted on a Blogspot domain. They didn't post it to their blog. Something like that doesn't happen by accident.

I understand that companies want to defend their actions; I encourage clients to get their message out. But, posting the statement on Ms. Hafer's Facebook page is simply vindictive. JC Hart seems pissed that it's getting negative attention so they lashed out at a widow. Lashed out after they threw out all her stuff because she didn't move out fast enough.

Anyone wondering the appropriate length of time to grieve the loss of a spouse need only consult with the JC Hart version of Schneider from One Day at a Time.

The statement is an amateur's delight. There's the poor attempt at compassion ("We apologize for the distress this has caused anyone"). Anyone? They don't need to apologize to anyone, they need to apologize to Ms. Hafer.

How about the lame statement of focus (JC Hart is focused on treating all residents with respect). Of course they are, right up until they toss all their stuff in the dumpster.

Finally, the useless boilerplate ("...and takes pride in providing a premier rental community in the Dayton area"). That's great, because I wouldn't want just any landlord to throw away my priceless things. I want the folks at Dayton's premier rental community to do that.

This is the most breathtakingly stupid thing I have ever seen a company do.

JC Hart says they "stand behind our actions." Whatever.

Maybe that will be of some comfort when Ms. Hafer has to explain to her daughter why there are so few pictures of her father.

Bill Salvin

Eurostar Crisis: Why You Need to Claim Your Name

2009-12-21T08:30:00.002-07:00

A great lesson unfolded over the weekend deep under the English Channel where five Eurostar trains were trapped because of some form of malfunction. More than 2,000 people were trapped for as much as 16 hours. Many of those trapped had no food, water or light.

While Eurostar has a Twitter account, its handle is little_break, which is linked to a marketing promotion for the company. According to the Brand Republic Blog, the Twitter handles eurostar and eurostar_uk are not related to the company. The eurostar handle is based out of Shanghai and the eurostar_uk handle doesn't exist according to Twitter.

People looking for updates on the crisis who weren't familiar with the promotion would have been mystified searching for Eurostar and discovering that it doesn't "exist."

Eurostar's Social Media agency is London-based We Are Social, which has a detailed explanation of the hows and whys of this crisis. I like the openness of their post. It is exactly what an organization should do when they find themselves in a crisis. This post will matter for perspective clients and current clients in case they would doubt the agency's competence since their involvement with Eurostar is widely known.

We Are Social claims they urged Eurostar to claim its name, but that was pushed onto the 2010 to-do list. I can hear a client saying that. Clients always tend to move cautiously; with Social Media even more so.

So what's the takeaway here?

Claim your name!

Do it right now.

Bill Salvin

The Dawn of the Microcast: Journalism's Future Takes Shape

2009-12-19T11:30:00.005-07:00

Editor's Note: You can watch This Week in Space at spaceflightnow.com. The first show is set to debut Sunday, Dec. 20.

Despite all the doom and gloom that surrounds journalism today there is a bright future and a big part of it could be something I'm calling the "Microcast."

For background, the big three networks brought us broadcasting (think general interest shows like "60 Minutes", The Cosby Show and Lost). Cable brought us narrowcasting (think Bravo's "Inside the Actor's Studio", "Animal Planet" and CNN.)

Now the Web is bringing us microcasting. A show that delivers specific content to an extremely precise audience.

The show I'm talking about is called This Week in Space hosted by veteran journalist Miles O'Brien. O'Brien. The show is supported by the same crew that turned Space Shuttle launch coverage from obligatory cable news live shots that lasted a few minutes to interesting, in-depth, interactive conversations with space experts and spaceflight fans worldwide that lasts for hours.

The audiences for all of the launch casts are small, totaling about 750,000 people over six launches. But during the last launch cast, more than 200,000 people tuned in from 181 countries. By comparison, the lowest-rated evening newscasts from the big three networks (CBS Evening News with Katie Couric) gets about five million viewers a night. But none of those viewers gets to send Katie a message and ask her a question about a story during the show.

This is an exciting and unsettled time in spaceflight... there are only five missions left for the Space Shuttle, a budget-driven decision that effectively grounds the world's most versatile and successful spacecraft. Commercial entrepreneurs seem on the cusp of both space tourism and cargo delivery service to low earth orbit (LEO).

This Week in Space is different than a company putting up a video on its Website or posting a Podcast. These are top-flight independent journalists doing a show on a topic about which they are passionate. O'Brien has decades of coverage under his belt, including a long stint as CNN's space correspondent, Former CNN Senior Science Producer Kate Tobin is the executive producer here. Veteran journalist David Waters serves as producer, correspondent and post-production manager and SpaceflightNow.com's managing editor Steven Young rounds out the team.

The same team that brought us innovative launch coverage is further serving the needs of the audience they've cultivated over the last year or so.

Here's why I think this is going to be both successful and important to the future of journalism. Advertisers crave a reliable, predictable audience. The more precise your target audience is, the better able you are to rely on advertising to keep the program streaming across cyberspace. Our human spaceflight program has always brought amazing benefits. Wouldn't it be awesome if coverage of the final frontier creates a new frontier for journalism?

With all the talk about a government bail out of journalism, this is as refreshing as it was predictable. If you stay out of people's way, they generally create something of value.

And, in the case of This Week in Space, something pretty cool to watch.

Bill Salvin

If you want to contact the This Week in Space team, you can email them at TWIS@spaceflightnow.com. You can also follow them on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/thisweekinspace

Tiger's PR Crisis: What He Got Right

2009-12-05T20:40:00.002-07:00

My last post, "The Problem With Tiger's Statement" picked on golf's biggest star for his non-statement which, if you read closely enough is actually a lie.

Although I understand there is curiosity, the many false, unfounded and malicious rumors that are currently circulating about my family and me are irresponsible. Tiger Woods, November 29, 2009

The stories circulating weren't so much irresponsible as they were TRUE.

Tiger was trying to use his reputation or "Tigerness" to shame people so that they would feel bad and prevent embarrassing news from coming out. It worked about as well for Tiger as it would for anyone else. As I said in my first post about his problems, the truth will come out.

I understand the strategy of not saying anything. I'm a Navy guy, I understand what it means to batten down the hatches. But there is a huge difference between securing for heavy seas and hiding below deck to let the sea take you whichever way the winds blow. Navigating in a storm takes active engagement. My friends who have stood a bridge watch in heavy seas will enjoy the understatement.

So what did Tiger do right? He (or his people) maintained the comment function on Tiger's Website. As I write this, there are 19,602 comments on the site; many positive, some fiercely negative. This is important because in our participatory age, we all want to be part of a big story; especially one about a celebrity. Tiger gave that opportunity to people. After eight days of horrible PR mistakes, this is one thing Tiger got right.

Besides the fact that the truth will come out, I said that there were two factors that would keep this story alive. People will talk. And, lord have they ever. The Web is alive with the tales Tiger's mistresses. Whether they actually were one of Tiger's mistresses we don't really know. The last thing is that the media will not stop covering this until everything comes out. The problem with Tiger’s strategy is that the people talking now have more credibility than he does. After all, he’s already been caught in a lie.

Tiger's PR crisis is as ordinary as his sin. Those that don't get out in front of the story find themselves at the mercy of the people who do.

Bill Salvin

Photo Credit: U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Jeff McDowell/Released

The Problem with Tiger's Statement

2009-11-29T15:15:00.002-07:00

Tiger Woods has weighed in on his accident. He issued a statement to his website late Sunday afternoon. It's really a non-statement in that it answers no questions that people have about the accident. One sentence in particular stands out:

"This is a private matter and I want to keep it that way."

We all want many things.

Not to be a pessimist, but that's not going to happen. In my first post about Tiger's Troubles I wrote that all that Tiger had to do was to tell the truth. Nothing in his statement appears to be untruthful, it is simply 180 words that contain nothing of any substance.

The same reasons Tiger wants privacy are the same reasons that he needs to answer people's questions. The people Tiger wants to continue to buy the $90 polo shirts and $25 ball caps feel like Tiger is hiding something. Fame can be so inconvenient! This isn't about protecting Tiger's personal privacy, but to protect the corporate image of Tiger Woods.

In that way, Tiger is no different than any large organization under siege. He is in denial, hoping against all available indications that this will go away quietly. There were three things that I said were certainties in my first post:

The truth will come out
People will talk
The media (including new media) will be relentless until the story is finished

Tiger's statement has done nothing to stop any of the three. In fact, his statement will most likely aggravate the situation. The police report and 911 tapes will get more attention now than if Tiger had simply told us what happened.

Most irritating to me is that many of the people who are big Tiger Woods fans are people who run big companies that will find themselves in crisis. And when people like me come to consult with them, they're going to want to be just like Tiger... just like they do when they are on the golf course.

Then I will have to waste time explaining to them that there are two things Tiger does that they can't do.

Tiger said in his statement that he is human and not perfect. He's asking us to have a little faith in him. Tiger should have more faith in his fans. The people that love him when he hits a bunker off the fairway won't love him less because he hit a fire hydrant and tree at the end of his driveway.

Bill Salvin

The Most Important Thing Tiger Woods Can Do Right Now

2009-11-29T11:00:00.007-07:00

Tell the truth.

No matter how embarrassing, that is his only salvation.

To recap, Mr. Woods was involved in a one-car accident about 2:30 am Friday. According the the authorities in Florida, Tiger's wife smashed the back window of Tiger's Cadillac Escalade with a golf club and Tiger was found laying on the street, bloodied and unconscious. The authorities report the truck hit a fire hydrant and a tree less than 100 feet from the couple's driveway. Tiger's wife Elin Nordegren (above), doesn't seem like she has the physique to drag the 6'1" Woods from the front seat of his SUV...into the middle seat and over that and then out the back window. So, did she crawl through the broken window to unlock the doors? Now the Daily Mail in the UK reports that two passenger side windows were also smashed. Smashing one window seems plausible. Smashing three seems angry or desperate.

Many publications have pointed out that there have been rumors of Tiger having an affair with a model and that perhaps Mrs. Woods was miffed and the pair got into a scuffle.

The key to successfully communicating in a crisis is to be honest, transparent and clear. Whether the news is embarrassing shouldn't enter into the equation. Although, it always does.

There are three things that are certain to play out over the next few days and weeks:

1) The truth will come out
Whatever the real story is, it will come out regardless of the wishes of Tiger, his wife or any of their handlers. A car accident is one thing. Domestic disputes, if that's what happened, are quite another.

2) People will talk
People connected to the story will talk. People who have nothing to do with the story will talk. Ultimately, the only person we want to hear from is Tiger. Until we hear from him, anyone will do. Truth has little to do with the story these people will tell. People want fame. (See: Reality Television; Balloon Boy)

3) The news media (including new media) will be relentless until the story is finished
Journalists are tired of doing the holiday shopping story and this is a lot more interesting that blogging about the ten hot new trends for Social Media in 2010. (Although, I am still working on a piece on personal branding)

The sad part about all of this is that none of us knows what happened. The window of goodwill that is currently open to Tiger will close very soon.

And it will take a lot more than a golf club to open it again.

Bill Salvin

Update: Tiger Woods issued a statement. Take a look at it here, but it will do nothing to stop this story. Good luck at your Tuesday press conference, Tiger.

No One Hurt in No Plane Crash-A Social Media-Crisis Comms Case Study

2009-11-25T04:25:00.004-07:00

One of the huge perceived risks of Social Media is that anyone can say anything about your organization, and rumors or false allegations can spread like wildfire. It is a risk, but not an unmanageable one.

Last week, I had the opportunity to speak about Social Media and Crisis Communications with a group of public affairs officers from the U.S. Air Force in Washington, DC. They shared a great case study with me of how they used Social Media last March to crush false stories about a crash of a C-17 cargo plane. There was no plane crash. It's an understatement to say that the crash of an aircraft is a huge deal for the Air Force.

Here's the timeline from last March 23:

1:35 pm (EST) CNN reports a C-17 plane has crashed near Olney, Texas. The story cited "callers to police" as the source of information about the crash.
1:36 pm (one minute later) The story of the crash moves to Twitter. You can see that this Tweep has already checked the Air Force's official Website to confirm the information and didn't like that there was nothing posted about the "crash." That tells you a lot about people's expectations of organizations in the Age of Social Media.

1:45 pm (nine minutes later) Message boards pick up the story. Note that the CNN story now attributes word of the crash to a spokesman at Shepherd Air Force Base.
1:53 pm (17 minutes after the first report on CNN) The Air Force posts to its main Twitter feed that there is no crash. The PAOs at the Air Force's National Press Desk also reach out to CNN and other key media by phone and email. What this tells us is that traditional media relations skills and tactics will still be important even as we add Social Media tools to our response kit.

2:31 pm (55 minutes after the initial report) CNN posts a story that the search has been called off because the report of the crash was false.

Every crisis is different (even crises sparked by things that don't happen) and every company needs to incorporate Social Media into its crisis plan in a way that enhances and quickens the response cycle. I believe there are three key things we can learn from the Air Force in this case:

People expect your organization to be present in the Social Media space. Your presence in social media will be a key channel for getting information out in a crisis. Establish your presence now so people know where to find you when a crisis strikes.
Traditional means of getting out information during a crisis are still important. The Air Force didn't abandon its traditional means of getting to reporters. PAOs picked up the phone and called their contacts to get the word out that there was no crash. Traditional media are still important and relevant for crisis communications.
The risk of misinformation is manageable. As the Air Force's experience here shows, organizations that are engaged with their stakeholders and present in the Social Media space stand a much better chance of getting their message out successfully in a crisis.

Note: A huge tip of the hat to USAF Capt. Christina Sukach, (@csukach), Chief of Emerging Technology at the Air Force Public Affairs Agency for sharing this case study and Chris Isleib, (@cisleib), the Deputy Director for Media Operations for Air Force Public Affairs for inviting me to speak.

Bill Salvin

The Last Person on Earth who Should Own a Social Media Policy

2009-11-23T02:09:00.002-07:00

I read a blog post by "CIO in Training" Anjuan Simmons that tries to make the case for the CIO to own the corporate social media policy. It's been a while since I have so vehemently disagreed with something I read online. All I can hear in my head is John McEnroe screaming "You can't possibly be serious!"

Simmons makes his case with three arguments:

The CIO Holds the Keys to the Kingdom
The CIO is the Best Monitor
The CIO can play Angel's Advocate

Let's take a look at each of those and why I think the CIO is the wrong owner of the social media policy.

The CIO Holds the Keys to the Kingdom

This is the same argument we used as kids. Why do I get to make the rules during the neighborhood game of football? Because it's my ball, that's why. Simmons argues thusly:

If an employee accidently unleashes a virus onto the corporate network by using Facebook at work, who do you think will be contacted to resolve the problem? It won't be PR or marketing.

If the virus impacts systems that touch customers or the public does Simmons really think that the CIO will be doing the press conference? Or writing talking points for managers? Or responding to calls from reporters? The CEO won't be asking the CIO what the key message should be. With this logic, imagine all the company's janitor will be in charge of since he unclogs the toilet.

Let's remember, it was the IT geniuses at Amazon who created a system for the company's Kindle product that allowed anyone to photocopy a book, upload it and sell it to people. When the owners of George Orwell's copyrights for 1984 objected to a blatant infringement on their rights, Amazon deleted the offending books from people's Kindle devices without notifying them. Funny, but I didn't see the CIO anywhere near that crisis.

The CIO is the Best Monitor
This is really a derivative of Simmons "my toys, my rules" argument. He writes:

Since most of that content is done on corporate networks, CIOs have access to tools (many of which are probably already in place) to track social media behavior.

Personal use of social media while at work is one part of a social media policy. How the company will use social media to listen to, talk with, connect to, collaborate with and energize employees, customers, stakeholders, investors are critical parts of the policy about which Simmons is silent.

Again, just because you have the tools, doesn't mean you get to make the rules.

The CIO can Play Angel's Advocate
What Simmons argues here is that the CIO can be the grand arbiter of the binary choice of outright ban on social media use or social media free-for-all.

Instead of knee jerk reactions, CIOs can come up with structured yet flexible policy guidelines that allow employees to enjoy the fun of social meda while protecting the company's strategic assets.

So, the computer geeks (or head computer geek, in this case) get to determine how much "fun" I can have at work with social media? This is nowhere NEAR the point of a social media policy. The point of a corporate social media policy is to set the strategy that aligns social media use so that the company can reach its goals. Goals like sell more stuff or deliver better service.

So, who should own the corporate social media policy? My vote is for the head of the PR or Communications function. Great social media use comes from great content and communicators are content creators. The CIO may the Lord of the Hardware, but great content comes not from hardware, but from people.

If the CIO doesn't like that, they can pack up their TCP/IP and go home.

Bill Salvin

Pot, Breasts, Sex and Disaster

2009-11-18T08:00:00.004-07:00

Watching the news Tuesday seemed very strange, surreal and jarring. A veritable cornucopia of chaos assaulting my news junkie senses.

Medical marijuana seems like a big story. There are votes scheduled in Los Angeles and several other states to legalize pot for medicinal purposes.
This story ran next to the controversial recommendation from the US Preventive Services Task Force that women under 50 do not need routine mammograms and that breast self-exams are mostly ineffective.

At least if a woman gets breast cancer and lives in the right place, she'll be able to blaze up a doobie to ease the pain.

The Fort Hood shooter is still in the news. Today's stories focused on internal probes being undertaken by the Army and the Department of Defense to figure out how the shooter, a Islamic extremist and Army Psychiatrist "slipped through the cracks." This came on the same day the Army reported that suicides for the year will break last year's terribly sad record.

Note to TV people: Just because both stories have the word "Army" in them doesn't make them linked. Even if they do make your show "flow."

Note to Army and Air Force people: Pull your help wanted ads for psychiatrists for for a while. I'm nowhere near Fort Hood. How tasteless must they appear to those close to that tragedy?

Plenty of Sarah Palin today. She willingly walks into television studios to bathe in the media spotlight while bashing said media for coverage that she claims is unfair, sexist and mean.

She is like the relative who comes over for Thanksgiving and does nothing but bitch about the food you serve. It didn't look like Oprah held a gun to her head.

She chose to do this. She could stop.

My favorite story of the day was that the NFL fined the 84-year old owner of the Tennessee Titans $250K for flipping off the crowd at the Titans game versus the Buffalo Bills. Of course, it was captured on mobile video.

If he owns the team, clearly the family has enough money to keep gramps on his meds. What does he do when he gets bad pudding at the home? What I don't get is that both teams are 3-6 this year. Why was Bud flipping off the Buffalo fans? That the team they root for is as mediocre as the team he owns?

So what does all this mean? All these disparate stories bombarding all of us, all day every day?

I'm not sure, but I would love to hear what people think. How do you set your personal filter for all these crazy stories?

After absorbing all of this, I now understand the romance of thinking the world will end in 2012.

Fake disasters are much easier to deal with than the real ones.

Bill Salvin

No Time to Wait

2009-11-13T18:00:00.000-07:00

In life and work, there is often a disconnect between what we should be doing and what we actually do. The signs we see along the way can be conflicting and confusing.

When it comes to communications, moving forward with Social Media policies, plans and strategies is the most important work PR pros need to be doing right now. I saw some statistics the other day that highlight what people are actually doing: moving too slowly into the Social Media world.

I'm not sure they realize the reputational risk they take by waiting.

Here are the numbers that caught my eye during a Communications Executive Council Webinar on Managing Reputation in Online Conversations.

57% of companies have no Social Media policy
71% of companies have no Social Media strategy
79% of companies have no instructions for responding to Social Media posts made by outside parties

A lot of people trumpet the virtues of Social Media from the standpoint of the opportunity it offers and opportunity abounds, to be sure. Those numbers from the CEC show that companies are not only missing the opportunity presented by Social Media, they aren't even doing the minimum work needed to protect their company from the risks inherent in the new environment.

A lot of folks I know describe their companies as risk-averse. Yet, many of those companies have no Social Media policy, strategy or guidelines. How is that averting a risk?

In 2008, people spent 20.5 billion minutes on Facebook. Now, people spend 8 billion minutes on Facebook every day. What took a year in 2008 takes 2.5 days now. That number is staggering.

Both of the CEC panelists (Alex Dudley, VP Public Relations at Time Warner Cable and Nick Caplan, Corporate PR Manager for Sony Computer Entertainment Europe) urged people to just get started. Paraphrasing Dudley's take on things... Everyone is finding their way in this new environment, you can't wait until the path is well-worn before getting started.

Need a Social Media policy? There are plenty of examples online. Social Media Governance has an online database of policies. Need Social Media monitoring software? "In" Seattle News has a list of 12 free Social Media monitoring tools.

Need advice from people who are already engaged in Social Media? Ask. Most likely people will be happy to help.

Uncertainty loves company.

Bill Salvin

Fort Hood, Social Media and the Scary Speed of Today's Crisis Comms

2009-11-10T17:45:00.000-07:00

Trying to sort out communications lessons from the tragic shootings at Fort Hood this past Thursday is a challenge. The enormity of the tragedy hasn't fully taken hold.

How does it come to pass that a medical doctor who had pledged to "first do no harm" kills the very men and women who would have willingly given their lives to protect him in combat?

All crises are human events and all journalism is about how events impact people. Despite the terabytes of information that we've been exposed to about the shootings, Journalists still have much to write about the Fort Hood Massacre. Making sense of what was happening through all the noise of early reporting was nearly impossible, but not necessarily all bad.

Salon's Glenn Greenwald blogged about the media orgy of rumors and just plain bad information that came out in the first hours of this story. I'm not sure that there was any more or less bad information during this breaking news than any other story. It's just that social media connected us to it faster and more broadly than in the past.

The clearest lesson came from watching traditional media embrace social media to "improve" breaking news coverage. Yes, Social Media did simply add to the noise at times, but this is how breaking news will work from now on. Communicators have to be ready.

From local media in Killeen, Tex. to International outlets like the New York Times, we had access to so much information that live television seemed slow and one dimensional. I would see something on Twitter and wonder how long it would take CNN to get to the "latest" info. Twitter lists allowed me to follow the story from dozens of sources in one place in real-time.

(If you want a nice primer on Twitter Lists, GHack sums it up for you.)

So what does this mean for communicators who finds themselves in a similar situation? I have a couple of thoughts.

1. Monitor Social Media sites and Twitter Lists
The time is now to put processes or procedures in place for monitoring Social Media sites during a crisis. You don't want to be learning how to search for Tweets or what a trending topic is when chaos is all around. Kevin Duggan at the Strategic Communications Blog has an excellent post on how news organizations and Twitter lists were used in connection to the Fort Hood Shootings. Finding people now that will Tweet about your company, industry or organization will save you time when time is one of your most precious commodities. No need to reinvent the wheel, you can add and expand already established Twitter Lists. Here's a good resource list of tools from Take Me To Your Leader.

2. Know and engage your advocates on Social Media
The key differentiator between the professional communicator and the average Tweep on the street is accuracy. Use your Social networks to your advantage. One bit of accurate info re-Tweeted can go a long way in countering the types of misinformation common to large crises. The Social Media Net will work, but you've got to be ready to use it. The time to establish these networks and begin to engage is now, not when the crisis strikes. (Hat tip to Kari Fluegel of United Space Alliance for helping my thinking on this one.)

3. Be clear with your leadership about their expectations of you and yours of them in a crisis
Your bosses need to know now what you will be doing when the crisis moves everyone to warp speed. You need to know how your bosses will react. Schedule a table-top exercise to walk through process and procedures. Review your crisis communications plans and make adjustments for Social Media's impact on your plans.

4. Set expectations/policies for your employees
Expect your employees to be part of the Social Media mix during a crisis... for good or ill. Heard of Tearah Moore? She is a Fort Hoot Soldier who was Tweeting from the scene. Ms. Moore even snapped a picture of a wounded solider at the hospital, sent it to Twitpic and let the world know the soldier had been "shot in the balls." I captured the screen shot below of her Twitter page during the chaos of Thursday afternoon, right after they announced that an Army Major was the shooter.

Mainstream media found her quickly during the tragedy and started quoting her Tweets. I started to follow her as did hundreds of others. (Her Twitter account is now protected.) She sent a Tweet out late Thursday telling people to stop following her because her Tweets were for her friends. Except she told one of her friends to pass on her phone number to the media. My sense is that she had no idea the tornado she jumped into, or how far or fast it would carry her 140 character missives. Sad. (Paul Carr of Tech Crunch has some sobering perspective on this in his great post.)

There are other lessons to be learned, and I'll write more about them in the coming days and weeks. In the meantime, please feel free to weigh in with your thoughts.

This is an important one for all communicators to get right. While we still have time.

Bill Salvin

Do Actions Really Speak Louder than Words?

2009-11-05T04:00:00.000-07:00

I keep hearing communicators pass this on as sage advice when companies or people deal with a crisis. This irks me because it's only half the story. As a communicator, think about this: if actions DO speak louder than words, then why do you have a job?

This has been rolling around in my head for a while now. I started thinking about it after reading an article on strategic communication that Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen wrote for Joint Force Quarterly. It's a good read, and America's senior military leader gets a lot right about how communications can be better. For example, he advocates knowing the context in which your actions will be seen and your messages heard. Bingo! He urges people to listen more so that you understand the population. Exactly. "A message isn't something that you launch downrange." Finally!

A sentence at the end, though makes me think that he misses a key point when it comes to using communications to achieve a mission objective (or a business goal). This is what he writes...

"...what we are after in the end—or should be after—are actions that speak for themselves, that speak for us."

Here's the problem: In the case of Afghanistan, there is a relentless enemy that takes U.S. actions and twists, fabricates and lies to the population about what happened, what it means to them and what the U.S. "really" intends. The Taliban and al Qaeda have a communications arm that puts their messages out to the audiences they want to reach.

It's hard to win a war if you're not on the battlefield, communications or otherwise.

To carry out a business strategy (or mission objective), your operations AND communications have to be aligned to reach the goal. Actions almost never speak for themselves, especially now when media (traditional and social) bombard us with thousands of messages and images daily. (Full disclosure: Besides being a PR/Crisis Guy, I am a Navy Reserve PAO. I have not worked with Admiral Mullen nor had a part in the Joint Force Quarterly article. The views here are my own, not the military's)

So how do actions and communications work together? Think of it as a virtuous circle with each part reinforcing the other.

In a crisis, this circle of actions and communications working together is critical for a successful response.

Meaningful Actions + Lousy Communications = FAIL

Lousy Actions + Meaningful Communications = FAIL

Meaningful Actions + Meaningful Communications = Success

I know Admiral Mullen believes communications matter and that effective communications can take many forms. He has a Facebook page and a Twitter account and posts to both regularly.

So the question for communicators isn't, "Do actions really speak louder than words?" Rather, "Are your organization's actions worthy enough for your communications to make any difference?" You need to answer that question.

There is no better feeling for a PR pro than working with an organization that gets actions and communications right.

We communicators love the smell of key messages in the morning.

Bill Salvin

A Thin Defense of the Wrong Thing

2009-10-30T11:20:00.001-07:00

You can learn a lot about a company when you look at what they defend when a crisis strikes. Ralph Lauren ran into some trouble with the one of the most horrific photoshop disasters in recent memory. The photo at left is of model Filippa Hamilton after being photoshopped into non-human proportions. (Shout out to the good-humored folks at photoshop disasters)

A lot of people complained that pictures like this create unrealistic expectations for young women. A blogger for BoingBoing pointed out, "Dude, her head is wider than her pelvis."

That pretty much qualifies as unrealistic in my book.

Here is the statement released by Polo Ralph Lauren:

"For over 42 years we have built a brand based on quality and integrity. After further investigation, we have learned that we are responsible for the poor imaging and retouching that resulted in a very distorted image of a woman's body. We have addressed the problem and going forward will take every precaution to ensure that the caliber of our artwork represents our brand appropriately."

So, Ralph & Co. are defending the "brand." It's as though the word must be spoken in hushed tones as we genuflect before his holiness.

No one was upset about the photo because it reflected poorly on Ralph's brand. As a consumer, I don't give a rip about Ralph Lauren's brand. I care about my teenage daughter who sees ads like this and wonders how she will ever measure up. Photoshop always trumps genetics.

The company gets points for taking responsibility, but fails because its statement is as devoid of humanity as the idiotic ad.

Polo Ralph Lauren also fails because it threatened to sue BoingBoing for an "infringing use" of a Ralph Lauren ad. Hint for Ralph and the team: the bloggers weren't using the ad... they were MOCKING it.

As fails go, this one wasn't epic until the company started responding. They could have issued a nice statement about their Photoshop error and mentioned something about healthy lifestyles or some such thing. Instead, the company threatened the bloggers with legal action and issued a lame statement focused inward instead of focused on real people.

And for those who think models are simply vapid and vain, the model, Fillipa Hamilton, hit things dead on when she told the New York Post:

"I think they owe American women an apology, a big apology. I'm very proud of what I look like, and I think a role model should look healthy."

Hamilton said Polo Ralph Lauren fired her because she was overweight and couldn't fit in their clothes anymore. By the way, Hamilton is 5'10" and tips the scales at 120 lbs.

How hideous.

Bill Salvin

Death & the Guru

2009-10-26T03:30:00.002-07:00

Our parents told us (at least mine told me) that actions speak louder than words. Except that in today's world I'm not sure it's true anymore. If you talk enough and flood the zone with enough crap, people never get to judge you based on your actions because you can obscure them with words.

What got me thinking about this is how spiritual guru James Arthur Ray and his publicist are conducting themselves in the wake of three deaths at an expensive New Age Retreat sponsored by the author in Sedona, Arizona. With so much media and so many places to get information it seems people in crisis think they can say anything with impunity.

Here's what happened. Around 60 people paid about ten grand for a five-day "Spiritual Warrior" retreat sponsored by Ray, the supposed "spiritual guru" and co-author of the popular book The Secret.

The final part of the seminar (after a 36-hour fast) was sweat-lodge ceremony in which all 60 or so folks were crammed into a 450 square foot, pitch-black, tent-like structure. For those who don't know, a sweat lodge is Native American spiritual cleansing ritual that takes place in a sauna-like space. The sweat-lodge experience ended badly.

Three people died and 19 people were hospitalized after the ceremony due to multiple organ failure and other causes.

The Arizona Republic and the Associated Press have been doing outstanding reporting on the incident. The photo at the left is what remained of the sweat-lodge after people tore it apart in order to get people out. Here is one AP story of a survivor's account of what it was like during the ceremony.

As for our guru? The deaths are being investigated as a homicide. A fact that Ray's publicist, Howard Bragman doesn't like.

"There were no additional facts presented today; there were implications. I find words like 'homicide' -- when they don't have all the facts -- inflammatory and inappropriate at this time, and I think they're purposely inflammatory. ... Let's show as much zeal with the investigation and getting to the facts as they have in trying to tar my client."

Ray's Words:

My team and I are working with the appropriate authorities and have even hired our own investigators to find out the truth.

Ray's Actions:

Left Arizona without making a statement to investigators
Continues to make appearances around the country
Hired a Los Angeles publicist who issues statements attacking the investigators with whom Ray is supposedly cooperating
Deleted all of his Tweets posted during the retreat, many of which referenced death

By the way, thanks to the Beyond Growth Blog, you can read all the deleted Tweets. People never learn.

Ray has not been charged with any crime and he has every right to not speak to investigators, but if that's his choice, why is he trying to sell this bill of goods to the public? If he hasn't done anything wrong, why delete the Tweets?

If Ray isn't speaking to the Yavapai County Sheriff's Department, he isn't working with the appropriate authorities.

It appears to me that Ray wants to convince the public that the only way for him to cope with this tragedy is to do the same things he was doing before the tragedy. His actions, words and the words of his spokesman tell me a different story. It shows me that what Ray really cares about is saving his potentially incarcerated ass.

Ray can protect his backside if he wants, I just wish he'd be honest about it.

Race car driver Helio Castroneves proclaimed his innocence when he was accused of tax fraud. He then left racing and the public eye and focused on fighting the charges. Three days after his acquittal, he won the Indianapolis 500. His reputation was made whole by the acquittal and enhanced by the dramatic victory in the greatest auto race on the planet.

If I were putting things in priority order, defending myself against potential charges of negligent homicide would rank higher than making my next gig.

Does Ray really think he'll have trouble rebuilding his business if he's done nothing wrong? Is there suddenly a shortage of people anxious to have a "guru" hook them up with the twin aphrodisiacs of wealth and personal spirituality? I don't think so.

I do have a small bit of advice for Ray (and his publicist), not that either has asked. The whole "hired our own investigators to find out the truth" is a losing message.

Just ask OJ.

Bill Salvin

Sigg's Bottle Full of Troubled Water Pt. 4

2009-09-30T03:09:00.001-07:00

The final phase of a crisis is Resolution. It will be hard to talk about the resolution for Sigg's water bottle crisis since resolution for the company is a long way off.

I've written about the other three phases of a crisis and you can read parts 1-3 of the series if you want to learn about the Warning Phase, Acute Phase and Chronic Phase.

The most important part about resolution is that Sigg doesn't get to determine when the crisis is resolved. Its customers will. That's because a company's reputation is owned by its customers. My good friend and crisis communicator Bob Roemer makes that point in his book, When the Balloon Goes Up. He's exactly right on this point.

Think of Exxon and the Valdez oil spill. That spill happened more than 20 years ago. The most recent news story about the spill I could find was from September 24, 2009... less than a week ago as of this writing. It was a story in the Alaska Journal of Commerce about workers filing claims for medical injuries suffered while they cleaned up the spill.

There's even a new play about the spill that opened in Anchorage last week. In October, it will go on the road and play in Valdez. The author of the play told KTUU Television that he was surprised by how deeply people in Alaska felt about the spill:

"I didn't realize 20 years after that I would have audiences in Anchorage for whom the spill was still a very raw wound."
-Dick Reichman, author "The Big One"

There are times you know when the crisis will be resolved. I was on the team of communicators who worked the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. The accident on re-entry claimed the lives of seven astronauts and put the future of the entire US human spaceflight program in jeopardy.

About a month into the crisis, I had a conversation with an executive United Space Alliance (United Space Alliance is the Shuttle's prime contractor and a client). No one was sleeping more than a few hours a night and people were desperate for normalcy. The executive said that he felt that things were "getting back to normal." I told him that things wouldn't get back to normal for a long time. People may work shorter days (12-16 hrs vs 16-20 hrs) but in the public's mind, the Columbia accident would only be resolved when the next Shuttle landed safely.

When you get to the Resolution Phase, how can you succeed in moving beyond the crisis?

1) Remember the past
The way to get past a crisis is not to forget it happened, but to remember what happened and what you've learned. Your customers or the public will allow you to move on, but only when they know you aren't trying to rewrite history.

2) Honor your people
All crises are human events, and it is important to honor the people impacted by it and those who have helped the organization recover. There were thousands of people working to get the Space Shuttle flying again. Everyone I worked with understood that Return to Flight was as much about flying again as it was honoring Rick, Willie, David, KC, Michael, Laurel and Ilan. In fact, the crew patch for the Return to Flight mission included a silhouette of the shuttle and seven stars to remember the fallen astronauts.

3) Demonstrate humility
People understand that humans are fallible. Your customers will forgive you, but not if you're arrogant or in denial. The ability to be in business depends on your customer's or the public's willingness to let that happen.

The resolution of the Columbia Disaster happened more than two-and-a-half-years after the accident when the Space Shuttle Discovery landed after its Return to Flight mission. We were lucky, because few crises resolve themselves so precisely or with so few words. In this case, four.

"Houston, Discovery. Wheels stop."

It's hard to say when Sigg will reach resolution in this crisis. But I'm pretty sure it will be measured in years, not words.

Bill Salvin

Sigg's Bottle Full of Troubled Water Pt. 3

2009-09-28T03:36:00.001-07:00

We looked at the warnings Sigg ignored and examined how they performed during the Acute Phase of their crisis. Now, let's look at the stage in which Sigg currently finds itself, the Chronic Phase. It is just as it sounds. The crisis continues for an indeterminate length, weighs down a company's reputation and clouds people's view of the company's actions and products.

To review: Sigg announced that prior to August 2008, liners used in their pricey water bottles contained the controversial chemical BPA (Bisphenol A), which some people believe is harmful to human health.

Sigg made its liner announcement in late August 2009, three years after it knew the old liners contained the chemical. Sigg marketed heavily to the eco-friendly crowd, including moms who didn't want their children exposed to BPA.

Sigg has mostly gone quiet since the Acute Phase of the crisis ended. Their marketing tactics are now the subject of a class-action lawsuit and one of the major retailers of Sigg Water bottles has cut its ties to the company. Patagonia feels strongly that Sigg lied about BPA in its water bottles.

"We very clearly asked SIGG if there was BPA in their bottles and their liners, and they clearly said there was not." Rick Ridgeway, Patagonia’s VP of environmental initiatives

Elaine Shannon, Editor-in-Chief of the Enviornmental Working Group asked the essential question from a crisis communications point of view in her column on Huffington Post:

For many consumers, the question has transcended the issue of BPA. It's, can you trust this company?

You know a crisis has gone chronic when the debate shifts from the specific event to questions that go to the core of a company's soul. It's important to point out that the science regarding BPA is not settled. Some people think BPA is dangerous to humans, some don't. But the issue with Sigg has nothing to do with science, it has to do with emotion. People feel duped.

Sigg initially posted the ingredients of its new liner on its Website, it has since taken the page down. Below is a screen shot of what they have now.

I don't have a screen capture of the the liner ingredients page (lesson learned), but the description was vague. I doubt environmentalists or moms will take Sigg's word for it when it comes to the mineral fillers, flow additives and pigments added to the Griltex high performance polyester that make up the new liner.

What is Griltex, anyway? There are 47 different versions of Griltex listed in the material property data base MatWeb. How does a mom know if all Griltex high tech polyesters are BPA-free? Who makes the Griltex that Sigg uses, which version do they use and who certified it BPA-free?

People want to know because they no longer believe what Sigg says.

Sigg's competitors have seized on the crisis (as competitors always do). The owners of Klean Kanteen have posted a letter on their Website that takes direct aim at Sigg, even though they don't name the company.

If someone isn't familiar with the crisis, Klean Kanteen is happy to help. It dedicates a page to the anatomy of its bottles and helpful links to blog posts harmful to Sigg.

Sigg ceded the high ground. Now, competitors are seizing market share from a position of strength.

I think there are three key things that Sigg can do now to get through the Chronic Phase of this crisis:

1) Keep communicating
Now is not the time to pull back, even though it probably feels like it. Continuing to communicate will be the only way Sigg can talk about its new BPA-free liner and demonstrate that it has learned from its mistake. If Sigg stays silent customers may never realize that the new liner makes Sigg bottles a choice for them.

2) Pay for shipping for people to exchange their old bottle
Sigg's president said he didn't want to do that because he was afraid people who didn't care about BPA would send in their "three-year-old bottles just because they were dented." What does he care? The three-year-old bottles have BPA in the liner, regardless of the customer's motive. Paying for shipping would help re-establish trust between Sigg and its customers.

3) Get the ingredient list for the new liner up ASAP
People are going to know that the ingredients were posted; I'm not the first blogger to write about it. With the "coming soon" page Sigg is reinforcing people's perception that it has something to hide. Note to Steve Wasik on transparency: You are doing it wrong.

The Chronic Phase of a crisis is where companies often learn the most painful lessons. In this case, Sigg is finding out that it was faster and cheaper to take BPA out of its bottles than it will be to restore trust to its brand.

Bill Salvin

Sigg's Bottle Full of Troubled Water Pt. 2

2009-09-23T03:29:00.001-07:00

Working our way through the four phases of a crisis, I wrote last about the Warning Phase and the multiple warnings ignored by reusable water bottle maker Sigg regarding the chemical BPA (Bisphenol A) in the liner of its pricey water bottles. In this post, I will look at the Acute Phase of the crisis.

The Acute Phase is when the fire is burning or the story breaks about an issue. Sigg set off the Acute Phase with a letter from its CEO on its Website announcing that Sigg reusable water bottles manufactured before August 2008 were made with a liner containing BPA. The announcement came three years after Sigg knew of BPA in its liner, and after years of reassuring customers that its product was "100% safe". Sigg never said their liners were BPA free, but they never corrected the perception many customers had that "eco-friendly" meant BPA free.

All news is about how an event or issue impacts people. The headlines from traditional news sites and blogs let you know exactly how people felt about Sigg's admission.

Sigg gets points for making the announcement, but not many. They had known for more than three years about BPA in their liner but told no one until they were ready to roll out their new BPA-free liner. Sigg offered to exchange the old bottles for new ones, but only if customers paid for shipping. Here's what Sigg's CEO told Simran Sethi from the Huffington Post.

"We don't believe this is a recall but we know there are some consumers out there that are concerned. If we pay for this we'll get people who aren't concerned - which is about 9 out of 10 people - sending back bottles they bought three years ago that have dents in them." -Steve Wasik, CEO, Sigg

So the company that many people feel duped them into buying its product can't spring for shipping because it is afraid of being taken advantage of.

That's what we writers like to call irony.

I guess when you've been taking advantage of people for years you expect people will take advantage of you.

The only thing that could be worse would be if Sigg replaced the returned bottles with one that included an image of Wasik flipping his customers the bird.

The torrent of customer anger led to another apology letter from Sigg CEO Steve Wasik.

"After reading and responding to hundreds of emails and viewing nearly as many blog & Twitter posts, I realize that my first letter may have missed the mark. What I should have said simply and loudly to all of our loyal SIGG fans is: I am sorry that we did not make our communications on the original SIGG liner more clear from the very beginning."

It took the crisis to get to the Acute Phase for Sigg to have an acute attack of the obvious.

Two key points to get through the Acute Phase of a crisis with as much of your reputation in tact as possible:

1) Make sure your actions match your words.
Sigg made its money playing to people's eco-fears. It is not surprising people get hostile when they feel duped.

2) Never lose your temper.
This screen capture of the former Sigg Facebook Page (since taken down) highlights the contempt some people at Sigg had for people making "all the fuss"
The "we-suck-just-as-much-as-other-people" tactic really doesn't work here.

I will focus on the Chronic Phase of this crisis in my next post. But before leaving the Acute Phase, I want to give a hat tip to the consumer advocacy blog Z Recommends. They put it perfectly when they posted:

Transparency is a value, not a strategy.

Bill Salvin

Sigg's Bottle Full of Troubled Water Pt. 1

2009-09-21T03:00:00.001-07:00

The Swiss company Sigg, maker of trendy and expensive reusable water bottles, is in a heap of trouble. The reusable water bottles they marketed as eco-friendly included a liner that contained small amounts of a controversial chemical that many believe harmful to human health.

The revelation sent Mommy-bloggers into a rage. They felt betrayed and blasted the company for misleading them. Sigg has a huge crisis trying to convince customers that they weren't deceived.

There are four phases to a crisis: Warning, Acute, Chronic and Resolution. Sigg has fumbled the first two phases, is smack in the middle of the chronic stage and is hoping resolution comes quickly.

I'm going to put Sigg's words and actions into each phase, chart how things unfolded and give you some info you can use to prevent or manage a crisis in your organization.

Warning Phase
Most crises have warnings. Sigg's warning came from numerous stories and studies questioning the use of the chemical BPA (Bisphenol A) and the potential for it to leach into liquids. In 2006, Sigg learned that the liner it used (manufactured by a third party) contained small amounts of BPA, although none of the chemical leached out in multiple independent tests.

The company began designing a new BPA-free liner in 2006. Here's what Sigg CEO posted in a letter to customers on the company website a few weeks ago:

"Despite the fact that these bottles were manufactured well within strict international regulations and posed no health risk, my team and I initiated a project in June 2006 to develop a new liner which would be both BPA free and produced in a more environmentally friendly manner. We recognized early that there were questions surrounding BPA and we wanted to be sure that we had a bottle liner that you, our customers, could have absolute confidence in."

Steve Wasik, CEO Sigg

Sigg knew three critical facts in 2006:

1) People were concerned about the presence of BPA in products

2) People bought Sigg water bottles based on its "green" merits and many customers equated "green" with "BPA-free"

3) Their product contained BPA

Sigg delayed more than three years before disclosing its liner contained BPA.

In 2007, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) included Sigg's liners on a list of products that contain BPA. A claim known by Sigg to be true. Yet, Sigg sent a letter to the EWG demanding to be removed from the list. Below are excerpts from Wasik's letter to EWG from the Legal Planet Blog and the Eco Childs Play Blog:

"I can assure you that SIGG bottles are absolutely not made with a plastic liner and are in fact lined with a proprietary non-toxic, water-based resin which has been refined over decades of study and is extremely safe & stable."
***
"We understand the controversy and concern surrounding BPA leaching from plastic water bottles and can assure you that SIGG bottles are leach-free and 100% safe. We are upset about the misinformation which has circulated and are working feverishly to clear the good name of SIGG."

Wasik wrote the Sigg bottles are absolutely not made with a plastic liner... true statement, but not the point. He also writes that Sigg bottles are leach-free. Also true, and also not the point. The letter was precisely crafted to dodge the issue.

Sigg bullied EWG into removing it from its list. And it worked. It worked for two more years. During that time, Sigg bottles were featured in eco-friendly stories in dozens of publications and they even made the Today Show twice.

Sigg's slow-burn warning of its impending crisis has three important points that stand out to me as a crisis communicator:

1) Denial is a powerful force.
When your market strategy is successful, it is hard to consider telling your customers information that will likely lead to decreased sales. Force yourself to confront difficult reality. Write the story you don't want to see and figure out what you can say, maintain your integrity and still be successful.

2) There is no such thing as selective transparency.
Sigg had some facts on its side, but not the most important one. Either you are transparent or opaque. Sigg was deliberately opaque in its communications. Great brands are built on trust. Sigg earned trust with its customers with incomplete information. It's not hard to predict what will happen when your customers find out you lied.

3) Never underestimate your audience.
Sigg underestimated the power and fury of moms who felt they had been mislead into a purchase that could harm their children. If Sigg had put itself in the position of the mothers who bought its products, perhaps they would have come clean sooner.

In my next post, I'll write about what happened during the Acute Phase of this crisis.

That's when the BPA really hit the fan.

Bill Salvin

Technology Changes. Wisdom Doesn't.

2009-09-16T15:11:00.001-07:00

CNN has a story about being careful what you Tweet after someone from ABC News Tweeted that the President of the United States called Kanye West a jackass. I know that many companies are wrestling with Social Media policies and how to incorporate the new technology into the workplace; I'm helping some of my clients write those policies.

But this isn't a Twitter or Social Media problem, this is a Media Training 101 mistake. Seriously, the President knows better. I advise my media training clients that if you don't want something printed or broadcast, DON'T SAY IT. That advice hasn't changed since I started media training in the early 90s.

Plus, the President told people that his remark was off the record AFTER he made it. Sorry, Mr. President, it doesn't work that way. I wrote a piece called 10 Things You Should Never Say to a Reporter. One of them is: "That last part was off the record."

The debate about whether the ABC News employee should have sent out the Tweet is a subject for another post. But, I hope everyone understands it wasn't the Tweet that made the President less "presidential."

As for wisdom? My grandfather used to tell me (a lot), "Never miss a golden opportunity to keep your mouth closed."

Bill Salvin

A Good Social Media Policy Beats a Social Media Ban

2009-08-26T13:55:00.001-07:00

Several high profile organizations have moved to ban employee use of social media sites from official computers. While blanket bans are usually a bad idea, there are things organizations can do to properly structure the use of Social Media on "company time." But first, let's take a look at the bans of the last few weeks.

Most notably, the U.S. Marines put a ban in place earlier this month. The official order ostensibly protects the Marines unclassified computer network from the bad people who lurk on these sites.

"THESE INTERNET SITES IN GENERAL ARE A PROVEN HAVEN FOR MALICIOUS ACTORS"

So what? So is Afghanistan! Instead of a ban, improve network security. By putting the ban in place the Marines have confirmed the vulnerability of their computer systems for "malicious actors." At least the policy has an expiration date.

The ESPN "ban" on social media is a different story. They are a journalistic enterprise. The internal memos from the network specify that there is an approval process for posting on Social Media. Imagine the intern privy to an exclusive that ESPN has spent months working on. That is not something you want Tweeted or posted on a Facebook page ahead of ESPN breaking the story. ESPN didn't "ban" Social Media per se. The network put restrictions in place designed to protect its product... content. ESPN's guidelines seem to make sense to me.

The NFL is working on its Twitter policy. According to the Washington Post, there is an existing rule "barring the use of cellphones, computers, PDAs and other electronic devices by players, coaches and other team personnel during games on the sidelines, in the locker rooms and in the coaches' booths in press boxes."

I would expect the NFL to extend that rule to Tweeting during a game. NFL Football is America's most popular sport and protecting the NFL "brand" means protecting the integrity of the game. Again, I think this is reasonable.

Where it gets unreasonable is when the teams put their own policies in place to limit what players say. The San Diego Chargers, for example, fined cornerback Antonio Cromartie $2,500 for Tweeting that the food at training camp was nasty. That feels a little heavy-handed. Maybe the food was nasty.

So, what needs to be in the company Social Media policy? There are four critical components that have to be included:

Accountability
Employees need to know that they are responsible for what they say on social networks. The policy must answer the question every employee will ask: "Can I be fired fired for saying something on social media?" I would tell them yes, just as employees can be fired for other misconduct.

Transparency
Employees should not hide behind pseudonyms on social networks. Pretending to be someone else to either bash the competition or pimp your own product will always backfire.

Productivity
The policy needs to enhance productivity not detract from it. This is a tough one as some old-line managers I have talked to equate Social Media use with wasting time. Most companies allow a personal phone call during the work day so a few minutes of personal time on Social Media won't waste the day. Better yet, encouraging your employees to interact with your customers or clients with Social Media can make them more efficient, responsive and successful.

Safety
Critical jobs require critical focus. Police officers, truck drivers, Space Shuttle flight controllers and others for whom a lack of attention could prove fatal need to focus on their jobs. You don't want to be the cop parked in front of a bank Tweeting while bad guys clear out the vault.

Finally, remember that technology doesn't change human nature. Would you rather your employees spend time working with a common sense Social Media policy or working around an indiscriminate ban?

Stop Irrational Fear of the "Twitter Lawsuit"

2009-08-02T21:30:00.001-07:00

In my last post, I wrote that the Twitter Lawsuit filed by Horizon Realty Group against its former tenant would make PR pros' job harder as we work to bring our clients into the world of Social Media. I want to expand on the two reasons I think that, and offer some suggestions for PR pros to deal with it.

Reason 1
Senior Management allows legal considerations to trump all others.

I've been in meetings where lawyers simply provide a laundry list of potential lawsuits rather than ways to proceed AND avoid legal action. In the face of all the potential negatives, management caves.

I bet it won't be a month before someone uses the Twitter Lawsuit as an example of why Social Media may be more trouble than it's worth.

So what can you do?

Push back and highlight that Social Media didn't bring this lawsuit; lawyers did. This isn't a Social Media lawsuit, it's a frivolous one.

Horizon's lawyers discovered the offending tweet while preparing a defense to the lawsuit filed by the former tenant. The defamation suit is a defensive tactic. Defensive tactics rarely protect your reputation.

Reason 2
Key Audiences get lost in legal disputes.

Companies build and protect their reputations with good operations and effective communications. Great messages acknowledge the concerns and feelings of key audiences (stakeholders) and, in the best cases, ease them.

Let's break this down.

The key audiences for Horizon are current and future tenants. The lawsuit reinforces two critical fears for these stakeholders. First, that the landlord will ignore their problems. Second, that they may be powerless in their own home.

The Twitter Lawsuit actually validates those fears instead of easing them, while making future tenants less likely to rent from them.

PR pros can keep the focus on the audience by pointing out that Social Media engages key audiences and is a two-way communication. If you are engaged in conversation with someone, you will be able to identify problems and hopefully resolve them long before anyone thinks about going to court.

In the event you do have to go to court (Horizon is being sued, too) you can use Social Media to reach the huge majority of key stakeholders that you won't see in court.

I know I'm just a PR guy, but fear of a lawsuit is a dumb reason not to communicate. People can sue you for any reason, even stupid ones.

A good lawyer will remind you that they are there to protect your reputation in court. A good PR pro will remind you that using Social Media can protect your reputation with the public. You know the public, right? The place where juries come from.

Bill Salvin

Twitter Lawsuit: PRs Job Just Got Harder

2009-07-29T06:39:00.002-07:00

The best crisis communications case studies have several layers. And by several layers I mean they are gifts that keep on giving. Let's go to Chicago, where Horizon Realty Group is suing former tenant Amanda Bonnen for a tweet she posted in May. Here's the tweet:

Seems like a big company with a thin skin picking on a defenseless tenant. A classic David & Goliath story. Read the Twitter Lawsuit. (pdf)

It gets better. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Jeffrey Michael, whose family runs Horizon, said the company never asked Bonnen to take down the tweet:

"We're a 'sue first, ask questions later' kind of an organization."

Clearly, Mr. Michael didn't get the "Humor rarely works in media interviews" memo.

In response to the shitstorm unleashed by their lawsuit and off-handed remark, Horizon issued a statement (clearly not drafted by but attributed to Mr. Michael) that clarified the remarks:

"I would first like to take this opportunity to apologize for tongue in cheek comments that were made previously regarding our approach to litigation. This statement is not in line with our philosophy towards property management and was taken out of context."

Out of context how? Everyone who misspeaks says they were taken out of context. Please.

If you keep reading the statement, you learn that Ms. Bonnen had sued Horizon (before the tweet) for violating Chicago's Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance.

So it's not just a big company with a thin skin suing a defenseless tenant for saying something bad about them. It's a big company using fancy lawyer tricks to intimidate a litigant. Perfect.

Did Horizon get communications advice from the Governor of South Carolina? Someone needs to tell Mr. Michael and his lawyers to STOP SPEAKING. Why do they seem stunned that people are judging them based on how they communicate (both in statements to the press and in their court filings)?

I've never heard of Horizon before and I used to live in Chicago. Based on everything I've read (and I've read everything except Ms. Bonnen's lawsuit), my sense is that this probably how they manage their properties. Are they going to sue me now?

It's true that Horizon has every right to pursue its claims in court. It's also true that just because Horizon can sue the lady doesn't mean they should.

Now I have to find a way to explain to my to my Social Media clients that this won't happen to them. So I would like to send a big shout out Horizon and their lawyers:

Thanks for your useless lawsuit; you've just made my job harder.

Bill Salvin

Hat Tip to Marian Wang who covered this story for the Chicago Bar-Tender Blog

Let's Do Social Media!

2009-07-27T01:00:00.001-07:00

The image below (Done by Matt Hamm for the Kyan Blog) captures perfectly the mood of the PR community right now. (To the extent that the "community" can be grouped by mood). Everyone wants to get involved with Social Media. "Let's do Social Media!" is the modern equivalent of "Let's do Lunch!" Hopefully, communicators plan their Social Media participation better than all those lunches we never scheduled. Do communicators understand that Social Media isn't a shortcut?

Communications plans still have to be strategic and tied to business goals. The Social Media tools you choose will end up as part of a mix of mediums you use to connect with the audiences you need to reach.

There's a lot of money to be made right now in social media. PR consultancies are racing to get their experts into the fray so that they can benefit from the Social Media clear cutting. Peter Shankman and Sarah Evans have a great take on social media "experts" and "gurus". The Econsultancy blog has another good take on social media snake oil salesmen.

The more some people push Social Media, though, the less likely I am to buy. The more I hear people urging others to get on the Social Media bandwagon, the more it feels like I'm listening to a used car salesman. "What do I have to do to get you onto Twitter today?"

Here are the five essential questions you should ask:

1) What is the business goal we're trying to accomplish?

2) Who is the audience we need to reach?

3) What do we want the audience to do?

4) What platforms or forums allow us to get that done?

5) How will we know if we're successful?

If Social Media fits into the communications mix, great! Go do it. But if it doesn't, you shouldn't try and force it.

Bottom line? If you don't have a strategic communications strategy first, a Social Media strategy probably won't help much.

Bill Salvin

Happy 40th Anniversary Apollo 11

2009-07-20T03:55:00.001-07:00

I was three years old when Apollo 11 landed on the Moon. I'm one of the lucky ones who can say they were alive when man first walked on the moon. Fewer than half of Americans can say that. According the Census Bureau, the median age of Americans is about 37 years old. Humans are relational creatures and it is hard to relate to something you weren't part of.

That is the hidden treasure of exploration... We were all part of it. Exploration is such a part of the human soul that we all took that one small step with Neil Armstrong when he put his footprint onto the lunar surface. Even if our "memories" of the event were imprinted later.

Everyone knows Neil Armstrong. He is a former Naval Aviator. He flew fighter jets during the Korean War. For NASA, he flew the X-15, Gemini 8 and, of course, Apollo 11. Armstrong became the first man to walk on the moon at age 39.

Anyone know who Chris Cassidy is? He's also 39, a former Naval Aviator and an astronaut. He is the 500th human to make it to space. He got that honor when Space Shuttle Endeavour launched last week for a mission to the International Space Station.

I'm a huge fan of space exploration. It's what great nations do. The cool thing about the Apollo program is that it was dangerous, difficult and expensive. And we did it anyway. Now, we're struggling to find our way in space and all the difficulties of exploring are still there and we have earthly troubles to which people can relate to more immediately. The folks at the Coalition for Space Exploration released this great video commemorating the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11. It's definitely worth a look.

Some of my best friends work for the space program. I do a lot of really fun work with companies that are part of it and I've even done a few projects for NASA.

The fact that Astronaut Cassidy isn't a household name doesn't make his work less important. The fact that Shuttle Endeavour's mission isn't as breathtaking as the first lunar landing doesn't mean it's not a worthy mission.

Not every baseball game is a World Series Game 7.

You still have to play them all.

Let's keep America in Space.

Bill Salvin

Social Media: It's All About the Tools

2009-07-16T04:19:00.001-07:00

I got really irritated in the early hours of the bridge collapse on I-75 near Detroit on Wednesday evening. Twitter has proved useful during breaking news in trying to zero in on the sources with the best info. I have a few friends in the area and I was concerned. Going to Twitter, for me, is like wading into a stream and seeing if anything useful floats by. This was the first breaking news story where I got more crap than real information.

I found links to all sorts of sites for watching current movies online and people just trying to get people to follow them by using a trending hashtag. Here are some examples of the stupidity out there:

Later, the Tweets I saw did provide helpful info, including the fact that no one died. And the pics sent to Twitpic were awesome. This was submitted by Frank Carline and picked up by the Detroit Free Press.

What concerns me as someone who encourages businesses to engage their audiences by using social media is that this will be a big turn off for some of them. The way business works, they may not have the patience to wade through the flotsam in order to see the true value of social media engagement. Especially in a crisis. I know there are probably work-arounds for this. I haven't found them yet, but I have faith in the social media community. If a fix isn't already available, someone will develop one.

That's the nature of social media. It is self-correcting just as it is self-corrupting.

Many of the people I follow who know way more about social media than I say that social media is just one tool people and companies can employ to reach their goals. I agree with them. And not just because it's easy just to agree with everything Peter Shankman says.

What bugs me the most is that some of the biggest tools using social media sit behind the keyboard.

Bill Salvin

The Ultimate Crisis Communications Principle: Do the Right Thing

2009-07-08T14:40:00.000-07:00

The recent music video posted on YouTube by musician Dave Carroll chronicling (hilariously) the destruction of his guitar by United Airlines got me thinking about how companies act in crisis.

Why does it continue to be so difficult for companies to do the right thing? In this case, United had to be shamed into taking care of one its customers. Although as of this writing, United hasn't officially said it will replace Carroll's $3,500 guitar a spokeswoman has been widely quoted saying "We are in conversation with one another to make what happened right."

"This struck a chord with us. We are in conversation with one another to make what happened right."
-Robin Urbanski, United Airlines spokeswoman

What does that mean? "They are in conversation...to make what happened right?" This isn't an arms control negotiation. Why can't they say "we're going to fix the guitar?" How many people at United are now focused on making right what happened? How much does their time cost? How much is the negative publicity worth from the 725,000 views of the video (as of this writing) on YouTube?

There's a lot more going on here than a PR problem. The song is new, but this issue has dragged on for more than a year. This company has designed a system that prevents resolutions to customers' problems and alienates the people who pay its bills.

Is this how the maintenance department is run? The safety department? What about crew training? Based on Carroll's story, United violated point #4, #11 and #12 of it's 12-point Customer Commitment. What other labyrinthine stupidity is lurking around the hallways, terminals and tarmacs at United?

When I was first hired at Amoco Corporation in the late 90s, my boss, Bob Roemer told me that at some point I would be dispatched to a crisis on behalf of the company (people who work at oil companies are acutely aware that everything they do is designed to burn or explode). He told me my duty was to do the right thing and that it didn't matter if I had to spend the company's money to take care of people and solve problems. (Check out Bob's great book on Crisis Communications here.)

Over the years working with Amoco (which became BP in 1999) I have responded to a number of accidents and incidents for the company and that principle underpins every response I've been a part of. (Full Disclosure: BP is one of my clients).

Recently, I had a meeting with a potential partner on some crisis work and he said that the hospitality chain he was working with boiled its crisis management down to "do the right thing." It was instantly as though we were speaking the same language. I hope we work a lot together.

As long as I don't have to fly United.

Bill Salvin

Tell Me Again, What is so Dangerous About Social Media?

2009-07-06T08:47:00.001-07:00

Ah, the good old days of "old journalism". I've been thinking a lot about the nostalgic view of traditional media and how good it was recently. And, no, this has nothing to do with Michael Jackson, Farrah or the Governor of South Carolina.

One of my clients, United Space Alliance (the Space Shuttle's Prime Contractor) found itself responding after a local television reporter from Orlando claimed NASA was investigating sabotage by Shuttle workers as the cause for recent Shuttle launch delays caused by hydrogen leaks.

The story claimed that since the Shuttle is being retired in 2010 and Shuttle workers will lose their jobs at the end of the program, that workers might be doing things to delay launches so that they can keep their jobs longer.

It was the kind of story for which my broadcast journalism professor would have given me an "F." And, it was done by a mainline television reporter for a network affiliate station with about two decades of experience covering the Space Program. No bloggers, Facebookers, Tweeps or citizen-journalists were involved.

Seriously, it takes a “real” journalist to do a story this dumb.

There were facts in the story. Yes, there is this thing called the Space Shuttle and yes, several recent launch attempts were scrubbed because of a hydrogen leak. That's about it.

NASA immediately knocked the story down with a statement, as did United Space Alliance. Not only did no one suspect sabotage, there was no investigation of anything close to it. What NASA and USA were doing was trying to find the cause of the hydrogen leak and take standard precautions to prevent harm to the vehicle on the pad.

The reporter did a follow-up piece about their story "hitting a nerve with people on the Space Coast."

"Hitting a nerve" is reporter-speak for "covering my ass."

Miles O'Brien (Former CNN Space reporter/anchor and the best in the business) wrote a killer piece examining the story and just how absurd was the suggestion of sabotage. The comments section of the TV station's Website got so many negative comments from the first story that they turned off the comments for the follow-up story. A cowardly response in my view. Journalism is all about speaking truth to power. Unfortunately, many journalists and their organizations don't like it when people want to speak truth to them.

By the way, NASA figured out that a misaligned part caused the leak (I'm as shocked as you are that it wasn't sabotage!) and rescheduled the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavor for July 11th at 7:39 EDT. You can watch, listen and participate in the experience of the STS-127 the launch with Miles O'Brien and the team at Spaceflightnow.com.

Or you can get half the story (or less) from traditional media.

I know where I'll be.

For the record, the Shuttle workers I know would give THEIR LIVES to protect the SHUTTLE and its crews. So who came to the rescue? Who defended the Shuttle workers (besides NASA and USA)? It was citizen-journalists. The Bloggers, Facebookers and Tweeps.

You know, all those people that make Social Media so dangerous.

Bill Salvin

Photo Credits: NASA Photos/Jack Pfaller (first two pics)

Is Social Media Really that Risky?

2009-06-10T17:28:00.001-07:00

I spent the last few days with many of my Navy Public Affairs friends at our community's annual symposium (for those that don't know it, I'm a Navy Reserve PAO). Social Media was the hot topic and with that comes discussion of risk. Chief of Information, Rear Admiral Frank Thorpe (aka: my boss) encouraged all of us to take the risk and push deep into the frontier that is Social Media.

Social Media carries its own risks, to be sure. But I'm not sure that convincing the boss to simply take on more risk is going to be a winning argument for communicators. I'm also not convinced Social Media is as risky as it feels.

Why? Big companies and the military are risk averse. That's how they survive. Risk is eliminated or reduced to the point where the good from the mission outweighs the bad of the attempt. In a dynamic environment (combat, business, communications, etc.) control reduces risk. The conventional wisdom is that you have to accept reduced control over communications in order to be really good in Social Media spaces.

My earlier post Making the Case for Corporate Social Media I suggested that you get more control with social media than you get with traditional media relations. Take a look:

One of my clients announced it was closing one of five production lines at a plant in Maryland. One of my tasks was monitoring the chatter on Social Media networks. A reporter tweeted that the entire plant was closing and people started to re-tweet that information. Because we were engaged in that environment, we were able to get to that reporter in nearly real-time and correct the message. The reporter sent out a corrected tweet and asked people to re-tweet it. And they did. He also corrected his online story within a few minutes.

We could have just as easily connected directly with anyone and gave them the correct information. Engagement gave us control.

The persuasive argument for Social Media engagement is, "Boss, I have a way to give us better control over our message and our connection to the people who matter to us!"

But, I will admit that there is some romance in the "accept more risk" argument. After all, sailors are intrepid souls by nature. So, if the "control" argument doesn't work this quote may help:

"The sea is dangerous and its storms terrible. But these obstacles have never been sufficient reason to remain ashore." Ferdinand Magellan

See you on the water.

Bill Salvin

Scared of Social Media? Time to Graduate from "Old School"

2009-05-22T13:14:00.001-07:00

As a professional communicator, I’ve done work in a government setting (US Navy Public Affairs Officer) and I’ve done corporate gigs (Amoco Corporation and others). As a reserve officer, I would often be in the position to tell my active duty friends about all the wonderful things going on in the corporate world that they were slow to adopt. With Social Media, it’s now just the opposite. Government is embracing Social Media in a huge way and my corporate friends are well behind the curve.

The Houston Chronicle ran a story May 22 about oil companies that were planning on using Twitter to share updates on the 2009 hurricane season. The storms often shutdown production in the Gulf of Mexico, and platforms that normally operate 24/7 are shut in and personnel evacuated. It would seem Twitter would be an ideal venue for updates of that nature.

Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron plan to include hurricane updates using their Twitter accounts and Websites. (Full Disclosure: I have done media training for Chevron since 2001, but didn’t have a role in either this article or decision.) The Chevron and Shell decisions didn’t surprise me, but some of the comments by other companies did. The Chronicle checked in with Valero Energy to see if the company would be using Twitter.

Valero is the largest US refiner and its plants along the Gulf Coast are routinely shut down when storms threaten. Spokesman Bill Day is quoted, “No, we’re pretty old school.”

Old school in this context is a really nice way of saying “We’re trapped in the 20th century. And we like it!” Perhaps the quote was written on parchment and delivered to the Chronicle by Messenger Pigeon.

Contrast that with NASA. They have an entire page on their Website that lets people know how they can collaborate with the agency. NASA is on Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, MySpace. Even the word collaborate tells you a lot about how the agency is communicating. NASA is reaching out to the audience wherever that audience may be. (Full Disclosure: I have done media training and messaging workshops for the Space Agency). NASA has even won multiple Webby Awards for various agency Websites, including 2009 awards for its main site and the site for the Cassini Mission.

And it’s not just NASA; a friend of mine was the director of new media for the Department of Defense before she was recalled to Afghanistan. Local governments are getting into the act, too. Check out the Los Angeles Fire Department’s use of Social Media during recent wild fires.

One of my media training partners always tells our students that it is the communicator’s job to reach the audience not the other way around. In fact, the first thing my tenth grade speech teacher taught me was to identify the audience.

Technology is merely the delivery system. Ignoring new ways to reach the audiences on which you depend isn’t old school, it's lazy.

The only thing you guarantee by not using Social Media is that your audience will get information about you someplace else.