Are there particular industries or companies that attract a larger portion of “social media risk” than others?
A colleague of mine recently asked that question and I thought I would share a version of my response.
Rather than focus on vertical industries or specific brands/companies, it might be more instructive to look at three different categories of the types of anger or scrutiny that can snowball when pushed downhill by digitally networked communities. Here are three that I see regularly:
If you’ve been through a communications coaching or media training session, it’s likely you’ve heard the importance of this formula when asked a difficult question:
During coaching sessions I’ve conducted, I’ll often get asked “Is this what politicians do?” My stock answer: “Some adopt this formula. Many do not answer the questions, however. They simply bridge to their messages regardless of the questions. And you shouldn’t do that.”
This week, Rep. Anthony Weiner provides a vivid example of why “bridging from nowhere” is not recommended:
The public is tiresome of these shenanigans. It’s spin. I suspect most news outlets will only take a representative seven-second clip from this. Kudos for ABC News for showing the entire interview. In doing so, the public can see how Weiner tries several times to completely avoid the questions, often using the same (weak) bridges.
Last November, Qantas was thrust into the spotlight for an emergency landing seemingly caused by one of its Rolls-Royce engines. Recently, the airline has faced a few more incidents involving Rolls-Royce engines.
Once again, I reached out to Australian blogger and crisis management expert Tony Jaques for more perspectives on the situation. Following is a summary of our dialogue:
J.D.: What is the media/public sentiment in Australia right now — any scrutiny pointed at the airline or the engine manufacturer? Any notable public anger or fear of flying?
Continue reading More Qantas/Rolls-Royce problems; more Jaques’ perspectives
Although penned more than a year and a half ago, I recently stumbled upon a thought-provoking cartoon by Stuart McMillen and based on text by Neil Postman. I’ve posted two key panels to the left, but clicking there will take you to the entire cartoon.
In full, it concludes that Huxley’s fears have become more prevalent than Orwell’s, and that the public has an “almost infinite appetite for distractions.” Information and entertainment overload are thought to be contributing factors. We are hyperlinked, super networked and gadget consumed. (For example, how many travelers do you see toggling through email, Twitter, AP news and Angry Birds apps when in an airport? How many of you are those travelers? I’m partially guilty.)
If the Huxley fears are accurate, it raises an interesting question for crisis/reputation managers.
Does a crisis today have more impact or less impact than, say, a decade ago when bad news came from fewer focal points?
By example, I’d venture to guess that the public was more informed about the Toyota recall or the Qantas’ emergency landing (caused by a faulty Rolls-Royce engine) than a decade ago. But is the impact the same as a decade ago?
Continue reading Poll: Impact of crises today – deep or shallow?
Earlier this week, I stumbled upon another tasty infographic from David McCandless. Click here or on the image to see the interactive graphic on his website:
Titled “Mountains Out of Molehills: A timeline of global media scare stories,” McCandless illustrates some media coverage imbalance on threats that did not materialize into high fatalities.
From this, you could conclude that this is bad hype – in the interest of higher ratings, the media stokes public fears and sensationalizes uncertainty. You may be right.
Alternatively, you could conclude that this is good hype.
