It is all too convenient to comment in hindsight about how businesses handle crisis events. A characteristic of crises, for those who have experienced them firsthand, is that they are unplanned and therefore much of the response is enacted quickly, assuming organizational paralysis is not occurring.

Because of the inherent urgency of a crisis, analysis of responses will naturally reveal imperfections in how a crisis is managed. As researcher Brooke Liu of the University of Maryland correctly notes in the March 2010 issue of Public Relations Review, crises are frequently judged by the amount of negative publicity created from the event.

When Domino’s responded to a viral YouTube video of employees spitting on pizzas, among other acts, the company’s response was criticized for being too slow. ReadWriteWeb even entitled a post, “Domino’s: How One YouTube Video Can Ruin a Brand.” Read the rest of this at Bulldog Reporter.

"In January 1969, as the Nixon administration took office, oil leaking from a well on a Federal Outer Continental Shelf lease in the Santa Barbara Channel off California blackened nearby beaches and threatened marine life. Studies by a task force including Survey geologists and engineers led to new and more stringent operating regulations to prevent or control such incidents in the future. The Santa Barbara oil spill was a catalyst in the passage of the National Environmental Protection Act in January 1970." -- USGS (http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1050/age.htm)

At the risk of creating confusion — as I did with the Brand Crisis post, in which my more steadfast critics seemed to confuse observation about crisis response rules with prescriptions for how to respond — times necessitate discussion about brand crises being played out in the media. Most notable of course is the environmental catastrophe in the Gulf.

By most indications, BP is taking complete responsibility, so it is prejudicial to fault, at this point, the handling of the crisis by BP, despite some misstatements by its CEO and other personnel. What we should be concerned about, though, is what led to the devastation we’re seeing.

Like many crises, this one was unforeseen despite warning signs that such an event could occur. We saw this with 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, the housing bust of 2007 and the severe economic recession of recent years. Hints that something was to come, or something major could happen, were not sufficiently acted upon until it was too late. What actions occurred seemed inadequate in comparison with the consequences of the crises.

Public response to the BP oil spill is somewhat predictable. Understandable outrage and sadness have ignited passion to the point that reason is being thrown out the window in many instances. If, say, a dramatic boycott of BP were to occur, it would only negatively impact the company’s ability to mitigate the natural resource damage. Already officials are on record saying that BP’s resources are necessary to work to solve the problem; BP, to its credit, has said it will clean up every last drop of oil.

But the situation should have never occurred in the first place. And the reason why it did should cause certain unease among the rational-minded. If we honestly assess what led to the oil spill, we must consider global and historical contexts. After-action reports about this crisis will most certainly fault BP, government agencies and other powers that be for allowing such a technology to be created that had no readily functioning off switch.

But societal pressures, which support corporate productivity and expansion, contribute to these human-influenced disasters. Anthropologists have long cited the size of human systems — the main ones being based around bands and tribes, numbering about 40 to 150 people, for the bulk of human existence — as determinants for societal functioning. The larger the human culture, the more complex it is, which enhances the potential for more devastating problems. Human civilization, what we perceive as a normal fact of life, is an aberrant human system, one with roots only about 10,000 years old as opposed to about a 400 to 250 thousand years of human history.

Spurned by the gradual but widespread conversion of human cultures from tribal organizations to agriculturally based societies has led to remarkable technological advancement, increased food production, fast population growth, the industrial age and, now, technological revolutions.

What’s both fascinating and scary is that human systems are now so large and complex that they are beyond the control of the individual. We can not wish-away the BP crisis, nor can we honestly lay sole blame on the company or federal regulators.

What led to this situation was a rapid evolution of the human condition in relatively recent modern times. Collectively we have consented to our cultural growth beyond the point of easy remedy when problems arise because of the need for that growth, and each of us is a contributor to this process, as each of us is a member of this global, experimental culture — even the most adamant of protesters and critics.

While I do not have a simple remedy, honestly acknowledging how we came to be in the position is perhaps a first step when looking at massive crises. Until then, critiques and suggested solutions will forever be cast in the here-and-now, ignoring the ultimate forces of change that led to the disasters in the first place.

—
Like this post? Buy the book. Available in paperback or as an eBook. Or download the Kindle version.

I wrestled in my 20s with the idea of giving away money to assist those in need. On occasion I would empty my pockets of spare change to give to those begging on sidewalks, not because I was feeling especially altruistic but more because I was unsure of what response, if any, to take in situations where the plight of others was more obvious than my own.

I’ve ultimately decided contributing factors to sidewalk desperation are far beyond me and my minor interventions. I took the uneasy position that assisting a problem of need in that way actually helped to enable the need, despite my desire for the situation to be otherwise. I refrain from giving money to spare-changers anymore.

This is why I love what Kiva.org does. Rather than give money away, you lend it to people who can benefit from a micro loan and who have put forth the initiative to establish payback plans. It’s a mutually beneficial arrangement. Although lenders do not receive interest, for some of us the notion that their money is being used and will be paid back is enough.

Deb and I for a few years now have gradually increased our loan amounts as each person or group has paid back their loans. It’s not a huge sum of money to us, but it is to the receiver who puts the loan to use to build economic opportunity frequently in areas where such opportunities are limited.

Kiva lenders have the option to add an amount to support Kiva’s administration, a feature unlike many charities that have historically used donations to grow administrative overhead sometimes before actual aid is doled out. (Read Michael Maren’s The Road to Hell for more on that.)

Kiva to me represents a next-best solution for imperfect economic conditions. I can’t recommend it enough. The video below tells more. Enjoy.

A Fistful Of Dollars: The Story of a Kiva.org Loan from Kieran Ball on Vimeo.

Despite the snake oil pedaled by social media evangelists, it is extremely difficult even in the best of times for small businesses to succeed in the long term. With that in mind, before launching a stellar enterprise, here are six points to consider before jumping into the fray of small-business independence:

1. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. One small music shop in a relatively small town gets most of its income in lessons and lesson room rentals, an income base that is more stable than just retail sales. Diversify your income stream with more than one business, part-time work or even full-time work.
2. Focus on your relevant audiences diligently; pay less attention to ‘the general public.’
3. Think out of the box for promotions and beware the time drain of social media; while cheap monetarily, time is money and S.M. will suck the life out of you time-wise. Word-of-mouth is effective but achieving — and sustaining — good W.O.M. is another matter entirely.
4. Design your own identity and collateral at your own risk; just because you have M.S. Publisher, or Photoshop, doesn’t mean your ideas will translate effectively. I teach, work full time and consult on these topics for a living and I still hire out design work and strategically outsource many other services I could do myself.
5. Have a good CRM system in place. Most small businesses fail in doing this, if they even know what it is.
6. Set boundaries with customers; if you don’t, it will come back to haunt you and cost you money, time and perhaps worst of all, reputation.

Personally, in this economy, unless you have a solid business plan, tremendous market potential, little up-front investment, significant enough profit margins for your living standards, and solid contingency plans, I would proceed with caution.

Consider the time and money investment versus working an 8-5 job. Which, in your heart, feels most realistic and settling? THAT one is your answer to whether you should start a small business.

Good luck.

Along with this, partisan news outlets have gained in popularity in the past 15 years, which has only increased misinformation and ire among an otherwise civil populace. This video, albeit selectively edited and slanted in its own right, is a painful consequence of such domineering partisanship. Make no mistake: A left-oriented rally could easily yield a similar production.

One solution some of us in Reno have offered up is to create a news portal that is uninhibited in what it allows to be posted in terms of newsworthiness. As communications professionals and bloggers with political, and other, slants of our own, we saw a need for quality information regardless of where it originates and that is unfiltered by gatekeepers.

Simply, we maintain the odd notion that organizations do a fine job of telling their own stories. Where we falter is that we store this information on our sites and send it to the news media as a means to communicate to a broader audience. What happens is that this information gets distilled, transformed and even completely misrepresented by news gatekeepers.

If incorrect or distorted by the news media, the best we can do is put our version of the news on our own Web sites and hope that another media outlet covers the information more fairly and accurately. In other words, we consent, oddly, to the unstated decree that we are somehow lesser qualified to tell our stories simply because we don’t have the same reach the more mainstream traditional news does.

This is changing. Social media has upturned the dynamic of how news is broken and given to us more of an ability to communicate directly with those we want to reach.

Locally, one way we have done this is to develop an online ‘news’ outlet called This Is Reno, which centralizes the news from other organizations that we can also contribute to free of the often uninformed or agenda-setting gatekeeper filtration.

A headline that misconstrues what the article actually says. Posted on the Reno Gazette-Journal Web site on September 16, 2009.

Here is why this is important. If you visit this news release posted two days ago, which is only slightly edited (the extensive list of names wasn’t included), and then the one that made the news, you’ll note the gatekeeper version has a title that is incorrect, and could have even been rewritten to make the effort sound slightly dumber and inconsequential. This is the nature of journalism and what we as PR pros have come to expect, and, sadly, live with.

The reality is that organizations have always been able to adequately speak for themselves. With a collectively run news site, we can let readers be the ones to determine whether or not our news is important. By allowing readers to comment – we don’t allow anonymous attacks on the site – and by posting the most popular posts in order, audiences determine newsworthiness. And they have the opportunity to tell us if they think we’re full of shit. (We also don’t accept advertising of any sort. The banner ads to date have been voluntary and they link back to community events put on by non-profit organizations.)

While creating your own community news site is a noted departure from what has traditionally been considered news, it is really not too much different from what PR pros do in their day jobs. The only difference is that we are collectively posting news from our colleagues rather than just on our own Web sites.

The results have been surprising. In just over a month of launching, the site’s stats remain consistently growing, we have nearly 300 fans on Facebook and more and more news is being fed to us each day. This is all by word of mouth. Anecdotal comments have been mostly positive, and the public relations folks who send us their news basically think it’s a great idea.

I encourage public relations professionals to do something similar within their own communities. With a site such as This Is Reno, you and your colleagues can envision the news and opinion in a new way, one that can be sustained and archived according to your liking.

I’ve been thinking recently about the generational gap, real or perceived, in social media use. I’m not sure it’s generational. I think it’s more accurate to say that being savvy with social media falls better into paradigm of literacy, such as public relations literacy, computer literacy and now, social media literacy. Age isn’t the gap-maker, but interest, time and personality perhaps are what separates those fluent in social use and the willingness to learn from those who are not.

I’ve written many times before about how social media breaks down barriers between us and our publics, which means we have to be better, more open and more genuine communicators, and by this I mean we have to be more transparent, which ironically seems to be a challenge and a risk for many PR pros. It also reduces the power of the news media –something PR pros also seem uncomfortable with at times — which public relations has relied on for far too long to communicate its messages.

With this in mind, I’ve created a bit of a comparison for how public relations professionals manage reputations within the paradigm of being social media savvy. I’ve chosen the terms “old” and “new” not to signify age but the changing mindset of how things used to be done versus what’s occurring with social media.

These ideas are just a starting point. I welcome your thoughts and contributions in the comments.

Old Minds: Rely on third-parties to communicate
New Minds: Establish new channels of communicating directly with constituents

Old Minds: Rely on traditional channels for message delivery
New Minds: Offer multiple channels for conversations

Old Minds: Try to control conversations
New Minds: Participate in conversations and/or take the lead in starting them

Old Minds: Go to the very parties who muddle messages for redress
New Minds: Go directly to important audiences to set the record straight

Old Minds: Seek dialog offline
New Minds: Take risks with online, public dialog

Old Minds: Demand organizational transparency
New Minds: Demand holistic transparency — for both organizations and publics

Your thoughts?

This is not a rhetorical question: Why is it that seemingly every time the Public Relations Society of America attempts to defend itself, it ends up leaving an even worse impression of the public relations profession?

One rule of reputation or crisis management is that if you’re in a hole, you really should stop digging it deeper. PRSA doesn’t go that far, but it certainly wields a nice shovel.

I took some heat in my ever forth-coming book for this section, posted here, where I took PRSA to task for what I considered to be responding to a non-issue, doing so poorly and thereby potentially creating a larger problem. Nevertheless, I kept the section in the book (to be released this fall, thanks for asking). I’m glad I did.

I majorly respect that PRSA is taking a stand against attacks against the profession. Major kudos. It registered for me last year, and has been a constant under its current president, Michael Cherenson. He correctly makes the point that defending the profession is indeed advocating for the profession:

“Public relations professionals are obligated to strengthen the public’s trust in what we do as a profession.”

My problem is the tact the responses take. This example is basically on a good track until the end when Cherenson concludes:

“As for Mr. Brown’s use of ‘Hitler, Goebbels, and the Nazi propaganda machine’ as a metaphor for the public relations industry, I would hasten to add that Hitler was a book author, as well.”

And the point of this statement is… what, exactly? As I interpret it — hopefully incorrectly — Cherenson is saying the PR comparison to Hitler is unfair but since Hitler is a book author and the book being reviewed in the USA Today about PR is also written by a book author that perhaps Hitler and the book’s author therefore have something in common? Or maybe he means that because Hitler was a book author and so too is the author of the book about the PR industry, perhaps book writing is inherently an exercise in propaganda? Or maybe he means that anybody can be a book author? Or maybe all book authors are Nazis?

In any case, the statement is ill-considered.

Cherenson chimes in again recently, this time in a blog post about the APR process and an unnamed

“head of a well-respected New York firm (that) delivered a blistering critique of the Accredited in Public Relations (APR) credential on his blog. Somewhat curiously, a similar outburst appeared on his partner’s blog a day later.”

What’s curious is that PRSA sent official notice to its members last year saying that it would no longer interact with this individual, presumably one Jack O’Dwyer, a long-term thorn in the side of PRSA, who PRSA claims is bullying and harassing toward members.

Cherenson’s response is strange and strays again into non-issues. The topic at hand is the APR process, accrediting public relations professionals as a mark of continued education and dedication to ethical practice. The title of Cherenson’s post: “APR Critics: Down With Education!”

I can’t find a single instance – in O’Dwyer’s post or in this post – where people have discouraged further education. O’Dwyer criticizes the APR process, contrasts it with the Canadian APR process, which is called “far superior” and points out inconsistencies in the APR process.

To be fair, O’Dwyer comes off as wild-eyed and conspiracy-oriented at times (he claims “APR is a political party,” a major WTF?), and if what PRSA says about his behavior is true, bullying should not be tolerated.

The problem is when he makes an important claim or criticism and PRSA tosses out red herrings in defense, such as:

“We find it fascinating that the heads of a single big-city agency presume that their views are somehow defining for others.”

(Again) WTF?

Granted, Cherenson acknowledges problems in the profession but mocks critics and defends the profession with non-related points, such as:

“Thousands of APRs across America proudly display the APR mark — as they do their other qualifications — because it is one of their many accomplishments.”

This is self-serving hyperbole that is unrelated to the levied criticisms.

For the record, I had no formal training in PR when I received my APR. The APR process was important to me but not because I could add three more initials behind my name. The multiple choice test is of dubious validity, but the direct feedback from colleagues and other professionals when I presented by portfolio was immensely valuable. I recommend PR folks go through the APR process if for no other reason than to hone their skills, re-think what it is they are doing (and why) and gain important feedback.

That doesn’t inherently mean that APRs are somehow more accomplished, smarter, more ethical or better PR people. As the APR discussion was fleshed on Twitter yesterday, I received this response. The individual claims that PR is but a “biz strategy.” She’s an APR.

The point in all of this is that PRSA comes across as ill-equipped to handle its own reputation management. Rule number one in crisis management is that if you have done wrong, admit it, vow to improve and communicate that to affected publics. While what PRSA has done and is doing isn’t exactly wrong, it clearly violates many of the basic tenets of the profession, which O’Dwyer regularly likes to point out, such as being transparent and engaging in two-way communication.

Is PRSA improving? Undoubtedly, yes (check out PRSAY, as one example). At the same time, PRSA should also begin looking within and holding the profession and its professionals accountable for misdeeds too numerous to mention. Admitting that misdeeds occur in the first place might be a good place to start. Going off topic in defense just gives the offense more ammunition and fails to address the myriad problems that brought rise to the debate in the first place.

EDIT 08-03-09: I received information that PRSA’s Cherenson was actually referring in his post to Steve Cody of the agency Peppercorn, who originally posted about the APR topic. A subsequent post alluded to as “curious” by Cherenson was posted on the same blog by Ed Moed. I regret the assumption that PRSA’s Cherenson was referring to Jack O’Dwyer (who also had something to say on the matter recently); although, to be fair, in addition to PRSA’s struggle in responding appropriately to efforts in becoming transparent, we can also add into the mix the difficulty with something as simple as link-backs.

I’ve heard PR people take issue with organizational objectives simply because it violated a personal belief. When that is the case, the PR person should find another job; conversely, if I were the CEO of an organization where a PR person had difficulty with the organization’s mission and suggested policy changes, I would be tempted to ask for their resignation on the spot.

When I worked at the University, some of our more controversial areas of research involved genetic modification of plants and research of various sorts (feeding trials, xenotransplantation, mammal reproduction, nutritional interventions, cattle grazing, etc.) on animals, some of which involved ultimately killing animals for the sake of better enhancing medical science to benefit humans.

At first I didn’t know how to come to grips with my own cognitive dissonance about the research. As I became educated about the science – the scientific community takes little issue with genetic modification, for example, while journalists and lay publics continue to display ignorance of biotechnology – I was better able to educate publics as to rationales for the research efforts and to point toward potential benefits and drawbacks.

I was then, and I remain, fairly neutral about the research, but at the least I could eventually demonstrate a knowledgeable history into the whys and wherefores of such science. (The same goes for all of the research being conducted there, which included everything from water quality work and natural resource and environmental studies to environmental policy analyses and nutritional outreach.)

I also quickly became educated on just how cavalierly critics of such research would spread outright hatred and misinformation just to get their names in the news and attempt to create ire among various groups. Perhaps more than the issue of the research, the strategies of hostile agitators were a bigger PR lesson.

The point is that had I taken issue with what it was that we as an organization was doing, I should have found employment elsewhere. Jim Lukaszewski is clear to say that PR is a staff function. I would argue that PR resides somewhere between a staff and management function.

The role of public relations is as an objective (internal) consultant. On one hand, public relations should be at the table with senior leaders of an organization, but the reality of public relations is that we should be there to offer input about the communications and public relations ramifications of organizational decisions, especially when unethical or illegal. From there, it is our job to champion the communications functions for organizational objectives, not to make policy decisions – especially in areas where we have no expertise.

If you are not aggressively monitoring your own and your organization’s online presence, you are not only missing big-time opportunities, you are also potentially enabling damage toward reputations that might otherwise be avoided.

Here’s why: What is said about you online is more critical now than ever before because with social media it is far easier for anyone to attack you anonymously and even impersonate you without your consent. Anonymous attacks are commonplace on news sites because news media outlets take laissez faire approaches to anonymous reader comments in order to gain more online advertising revenue.

Impersonations are happening all over the Internet and on Twitter in particular to the point that one led to a high-profile lawsuit recently and the emergence of a new feature on Twitter: verified accounts. Examples of fake Twitter accounts: here, here and here. See what happened to U.S. Representative Dean Heller (R-Nev.) this past week. A Reno blogger for months was tweeting as if he were Heller and few knew it was occurring. The fake Heller garnered more than 500 followers. Heller’s communications personnel should have been all over this from the beginning.

Prior to social media, online mock sites were common but far more intensive to execute. A Twitter account takes seconds to create and followers will arrive within moments.

This is why it is important for people, especially those in the public eye, to monitor online content. I add strategic, relevant keywords to Google Alerts and the alerts are sent to me daily. I also use my RSS feed in the same manner. I know within moments or hours when certain terms show up in Twitter, on various websites and I even receive updates written by certain contributors to news sites and blogs.

When something libelous or illegal appears — for the record, criticism or harsh opinions are neither, and if something is true, it is not defamation and therefore perfectly appropriate to be published — or somebody takes your work and uses it for their own purposes without appropriate attribution, you have an option to take action.

This is where take-down notices come in. These are often sent by legal personnel and have a threatening tone, which is why such notices should be vetted by public relations personnel rather than the other way around. I know of a number of experiences where people requested take-downs or sent cease and desist letters that did so with such antagonism, it only exacerbated their problems unnecessarily.

Here is a simple, and to me an obvious, way to avoid escalating the situation – and paying attorney fees.

Last week one of my blog’s posts was swiped and republished on what appeared to be a spam blog, a subaccount of a larger series of blogs under one domain. I quickly did a database search for the site’s owner and sent him the following email. I have added my comments as to why I wrote it the way I did. His response and the outcome are outlined below.

Dear (name of site owner):

I respectfully request that these two posts either be removed from this site or proper credit and link-backs be given to the original source: my blog (http://thegoodthebadthespin.com/2009/06/18/sotomayor-and-sexism-npr-gets-it-right/).

[Two links to the plagiarised content were inserted here.]

Note two points: one, I presented options for a resolution, but I kept them to a minimum. Also, I outlined the problem and the resolution in just one sentence.

It is clear that the writing was taken directly off of my site with only minor (and perhaps automated) rewrites. It clearly states that the material on my site is copyrighted, just like [your own sites] are. While I am happy to have my material appear elsewhere, common etiquette suggests that at the least a link and credit be given to the original source.

I point here to the fact that both of our sites have appropriate copyright information as well as imply the obvious: 1. It’s not that big of a deal to me that my material appears elsewhere, but that 2. I am asking for credit and a link.

[Your site] appears to be an incredibly valuable resource, one that I would be happy to promote in any other instance.

This is one of the most important parts of the email – genuinely validating the site owner’s own work. This appeals, hopefully, to a mutual sense of purpose in what we both do.

I appreciate in advance your immediate attention to this matter.

Nothing gets to me more than messages that ask for something but do not put into the request a time element. Also, this statement is written in an active voice, is firm but does not come across as too demanding.

Respectfully,

Bob Conrad
(775) 636.7959
www.conradcommunications.com

An important point with this notice is not what’s here but what’s not. Nowhere do I make a threat, nowhere do I have an antagonistic or even boastful tone, nor do I attempt to force the person to do anything. My language is generally neutral instead of negative. Instead, I (hopefully) calmly outline the problem and offer choices for solutions.

Now, had I been ignored, or treated poorly in return, there’s plenty of other options to entertain, including playing hardball. That wasn’t necessary because here was the result: The site owner replied within hours (he’s across the globe), acknowledged the site was a spam subaccount and wrote this:

Thanks for being more polite than many!

Contrast this situation to what Tim Ferriss faced with his book, The Four Hour Work Week, and a message sent by, you guessed it, an attorney.

Strategic reputation management requires two things: 1. technical know-how (being on the cutting edge of technology to know where problems can arise), and 2. strategic messaging. Tone, style and choice of words can make a problem better or worse. Too often people without either of these skills enter into zones where they ignorantly act on impulse and with knee jerk reactions.  Such approaches, absent experienced council, almost certainly lead to more trouble.

As the New York Times navigates rough terrain with its employees – which include reporters for both the Times and the Boston Globe – a nice nugget appeared today on NPR’s Marketplace. Reporters, it seems, have become the story as they vote on negotiated pay cuts.

The story itself is worth a listen.

The reporter, Tess Vigeland, however, did a smart thing: She asked the story’s subject, Boston Globe reporter Scott Allen, what it’s like to become the story rather than reporting on it.

His response should be mandatory reading for all journalists who interact with PR personnel:

“I have a great deal more respect for public relation officials, than I did two or three months ago. It’s not a position that I want to be in. I’d like to get back to the business of writing down notes, and running the tape recorder myself instead of answering these questions. But it’s a really important story; it’s about not just the Boston Globe, but it’s about how are we in American are going to get our news and information, and it’s changing very rapidly. And right now a major American paper is on the brink, and it’s an important story. And I’m happy to play the role of source instead of reporter, even if it makes me uncomfortable (source).

Image: Scott Allen of the Boston Globe, retrieved from Marketplace.org.