This is one of the axioms that crisis management hawks, magpies, peacocks and parrots typically offer when capitalizing on the latest crisis du jour.   Often, these pundits flock to broadcast media to provide requisite talking-head “expert opinion” that helps to legitimize a common media storyline – that a company [...]]]> “First, admit you’ve made a mistake.”

This is one of the axioms that crisis management hawks, magpies, peacocks and parrots typically offer when capitalizing on the latest crisis du jour.   Often, these pundits flock to broadcast media to provide requisite talking-head “expert opinion” that helps to legitimize a common media storyline – that a company is bungling its crisis management response by resisting a public apology and acknowledging a mistake.

The irony here is thick, because much of broadcast media itself does not live up to that axiom.

Check out this excellent article in The New York Times, where David Carr deftly draws a distinction between correction approaches of print vs. broadcast media that distort or misreport a story.  Although print media does a slightly better job of correcting the record, his report acknowledges significantly heavier headwinds when broadcast media misrepresents the facts during a crisis situation.   Why?  Here’s a key callout:

…Lowell Bergman, who works for PBS and has done work for The New York Times, spent many years at ABC and then at “60 Minutes.” He said that part of the problem with corrective reporting on TV is that it pulls back the blankets on the apparatus. The omniscient anchor, the dashing correspondent — most of them are just the spigot for a news product manufactured by many others.

“Television is an industrial process,” Mr. Bergman said, pointing to the fact that there are many hands on each story even as only one tells it. “It is built on a fiction, and they don’t want to get into the business of deconstructing how news comes together.”

Correcting a broadcast news report presents other challenges. Any correction would have to come out of the mouths of personalities whom networks lavishly promote as trusted sources of information. At newspapers like this one, corrections are usually not placed in highly visible news space, but they are consistent in where they appear, and readers can go there or not as they wish.

On television, everything is equal. There is no, “By the way, …” — there are only precious seconds of airtime. It makes for a very high bar when it comes to setting the record straight.

“Unless it is more embarrassing to keep it off the air than to put it on, they will draw the wagons and hope it goes away,” said Aaron Brown, a professor of journalism at Arizona State University and a former anchor on CNN.

Companies should often admit mistakes when they occur.  When they don’t, there are plenty willing to amplify that error.   Media should be held to the same standard.

Unfortunately, the playing field will likely remain unbalanced for as long as all media maintains the fantasy that it is omniscient and that reports are about “facts” vs. drama.

I’m a loyal Forbes subscriber, but I’m disappointed with the direction here.  I believe [...]]]>

A Ketchum colleague recently shared this post from the Chief Product Officer of Forbes Media.  In it, she describes the Forbes new model of “Entrepreneurial Journalism,” where freelance writers are paid by the size of the audience they attract.

I’m a loyal Forbes subscriber, but I’m disappointed with the direction here.  I believe this will have negative implications for crisis management.

Why?  Several reasons:

• Demand-based journalism encourages sensationalism.  By tying compensation to the size of the loyal audience, it could incentivize these writers to write eye-catching headlines and have fairly dramatic POVs.  Sometimes, this will be with a disregard for some of the deeper business analysis and fair reporting expected from Forbes.
• Demand-based journalism encourages populism.  Writers may be additionally encouraged to focus on topics that are already generating high search traffic results.  This could add to a “pile-on” mentality when companies face a crisis and have not yet had a chance to respond thoroughly and credibly (which often requires due diligence).
• Define “knowledgeable experts.”  A news publication’s editorial process has a common denominator – everyone in the room is typically schooled in journalism.  This approach attracts “experts” from all walks of life – who may be the loudest voices and best writers on a topic, but may not have journalistic integrity or an appropriate amount of subject-matter credential.  Who knows if a self-titled “retail expert” is nothing more than a former industry analyst with a bone to pick about a certain company?

At a time when journalism is still recovering from some trust issues (according to a 2009 study by the Pew Research Center), this move by Forbes may to be in the wrong direction.

For crisis managers, it could add even more sensationalist and opportunistic reporting than we’ve already seen since the introduction of 24/7 news networks with time to fill and when social networks have forced newsrooms to put speed above accuracy.

There is a growing industry of “prize-riggers” (my term) who band together to manipulate the results of online contests, giveaways and sweepstakes.

In this blog post on PRSAY, the official blog of The Public Relations Society of America, I categorize different types of prize-riggers and offer tips for PR pros to consider.

Go [...]]]>

There is a growing industry of “prize-riggers” (my term) who band together to manipulate the results of online contests, giveaways and sweepstakes.

In this blog post on PRSAY, the official blog of The Public Relations Society of America, I categorize different types of prize-riggers and offer tips for PR pros to consider.

Go to the link and check it out.  And if you have comments, you can share them there or below.

As unions embrace technology, so [...]]]> There was an interesting post in The New York Times today about labor unions’ use of social media to better inform members on negotiations, solicit ideas and also to rebut rumors.  To be sure, unions are also using Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and other digital connections to build momentum for organizing attempts as well.

As unions embrace technology, so must employers.  Here are several initial thoughts to consider:

Better monitoring.  As unions conduct more digitial dialogue , the ability for companies to monitor those discussions becomes easier.  Comprehensive online monitoring systems will probably be a better indicator of a union’s demands than the “watercooler talk” checks of the past.  This should eliminate some surprises if there is a rift with the union.

More accountability?  Employees who are considering collective representation may not be aware that union campaign promises are considered to be unenforceable “pre-election propaganda” by most courts.  Which means that unions can make many promises in order to unionize a workforce, but they don’t have to honor any of those promises once successful.  (Companies cannot play by the same rules.)  Since campaign promises — and negotiation particulars – are  migrating from leaflets to digital networks there will remain an ongoing, searchable digital record of those promises.  This means that the union rank-and-file can seek greater accountability of union leadership and employers can begin to better highlight when / if there are descrepancies.

More opportunity.  Whether a workforce is unionized or not, employers will have an advantage if they are able to collect, analzye and take actions based on direct employee feedback through social media.  These companies will likely enjoy a healthier relationship with unionized employees (perhaps heading into a negotiation/contract period), or avoid unionization altogether if that is the goal. 

 Thoughts?  Share them below, please.

Here are excerpts from each key:

Honesty:  Let everyone on your team know that your integrity is the most valuable commodity you have in a crisis and [...]]]> Fellow blogger and crisis manager, Bill Salvin, recently posted on three keys for crisis communications in the digital age.  The keys he shares are honesty, speed and images.

Here are excerpts from each key:

Honesty:  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.

Speed:  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.

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.

As his post suggests, I (and other Ketchum colleagues) also believe in three keys:  credibility, focus and imagination.  We typically talk of these keys as the necessary mindset characteristics to manage a crisis effectively.

There’s nice symmetry in comparing the two sets of three keys.  Honesty and credibility are essentially the same.  To respond with speed, you need a capability (plan, team, system, approach) with high focus.   And providing images is one of the subsets of our points about applying imagination to your communications, in order to creatively cut through the clutter of a crisis and get your message across.

Check the comments section of Bill’s post – I also like his take on “truth” vs. “honesty.”