Monthly Archives: February 2011

"Three Tough Q's" Interview Series

Three Tough Q’s: Drew Levinson

2 Comments

This blog was only six months old when I was contacted by Drew Levinson, who asked if I would help him learn more about the profession of crisis management.  Drew was certainly no stranger to crises.  As a broadcast correspondent for CBS News, Drew covered terrorist attacks in New York City, Hurricane Katrina, the crash of the Concorde, the Columbine tragedy, and the U.S. Airways “Miracle on the Hudson.”  Drew wanted to take that experience “over the fence” to become a crisis communications consultant.  We made a gentlemen’s agreement to continue talking.  A short time later, we’ve partnered on a few crisis-focused media coaching assignments. 

Drew’s a terrific guy with an insatiable inquisitive spirit – great qualities for journalists and crisis managers alike.   I decided it was time to turn the tables on Drew – to put the microphone and spotlight on him by asking these Three Tough Q’s:

 

Q1:  Based on your experiences and opinion, how common is “thesis journalism,” where more than 50% of a story is written before a company spokesperson is interviewed about a crisis situation?

It’s extremely common.  Most crisis situations are sudden and ongoing breaking news stories.  Therefore the correspondent’s job is to get information to the public as quickly as possible.  That means getting visuals and getting someone to talk.

Continue reading Three Tough Q’s: Drew Levinson →

opinion and insights

Toyota recall aftermath: many protagonists fail inspection

2 Comments

Last August, I wrote a blog post that compared the Toyota recall frenzy of 2010 to the Audi 5000 frenzy of 1986.  At that time, there were reports that investigators were having trouble finding any “sudden acceleration” problems tied to the Toyota electronics.

Four months later, I followed up with a post that covered the sensational media reporting of ABC News’ Brian Ross.  The February broadcast — in the thick of the media frenzy — featured dramatic footage of driver tests that pointed to software/electronic problems with Toyota vehicles.  The report leaned heavily on findings of a professor of automotive technology, whose work was commissioned by a paid advocate for trial lawyers (not disclosed in the original ABC News broadcast).  Tsk, tsk.

Earlier this week, federal investigators confirmed that there is no evidence of electronic failures that led to Toyota sudden acceleration incidents.  Thus, the circle is complete – the Toyota 2010 situation is the doppelganger of the Audi 1986 situation.  Both situations point to “pedal misapplication” as a likely cause in most of the reported accidents.  Both situations end with calls to move the brake and accelerator pedals a little further apart to avoid such confusion.

Summarizing this situation now is difficult, but this is a good callout from Jeffrey Liker’s post on Harvard Business Review blog:

So who won in this debacle? Journalists who wrote speculative and poorly researched sensational articles got a lot of internet hits. NHTSA got a lot of attention, a larger budget, and a reputation for toughness. It remains to be seen whether the lawyers suing Toyota will get anything. American drivers got a paranoid auto industry that will recall vehicles at the drop of a hat. There will be some positive safety policies relating to how runaway cars are shut off in an emergency, and we all may get “black boxes” that record our recent driving actions. And Toyota got a crisis that drove it to reflect intensively and to make dramatic changes to improve its responsiveness to customer concerns, so likely will emerge stronger — but lost billions of dollars of value in the process.

Other implications?     Continue reading Toyota recall aftermath: many protagonists fail inspection →

opinion and insights, planning and prevention

Inoculate the sponsorship of your socially-networked star

Leave a comment

Starlight, star…bright?

Many contemporary superstars – celebrities, artists, athletes, etc. – are embracing social networking to enjoy direct, authentic dialogue with the public.  Today’s icons let thoughts flow through their fingertips, without the primping and protection of publicists or PR handlers.  This is a good idea for the thoughtful, who share information that is complimentary to their image.  However, this is a detrimental idea for those who expose a naiveté, bias or thoughts inconsistent with their image. 

For professionals who manage sponsorships with these stars, social networking creates accelerated risks.  From an issues and crisis perspective, I’ve long recommended “inoculation actions” for sponsorships.  Here are those actions,  applied to a sponsored star who is active on social networks:    

  • Reconnaissance.  When organizations enter sponsorship agreements, they typically take great pains to find iconic figures that embody its values.  The rise of social networking helps potential sponsors know more about these stars than ever before, before inking a deal.  When stars are already active social networkers, they provide great indicators on the benefits/risk of a sponsor’s investment, rather than relying on an agent’s good word.  If the star is not online networking, there’s still a steady “digi-logue river” that can be tapped, through hashtag or fan-page post searches.  Continue reading Inoculate the sponsorship of your socially-networked star →