filter by tag: crisis

The Penn State child sex abuse scandal has dominated everything from mainstream news headlines, to sports talk shows, to even everyday conversation. The focus of this dialogue has largely been on how much the university has and may continue to suffer as a result of the scandal. But is it possible this crisis could be a potential opportunity for the Penn State brand to emerge better and stronger because of it?

To answer that question, check out "The Business of College Sports" blog for my thoughts on three reputation-management strategies for Penn State to successfully emerge from this crisis.

The Penn State Scandal: Crisis as Opportunity

--Jamie Singer, Senior Account Executive

By now, you've no doubt heard about the questionable practices PR firm Burson-Marsteller engaged in on behalf of Facebook to "raise awareness of" and "focus attention" on Google's Social Search functionality. Certainly, the actions of B-M do not conform to any reasonable definition of public relations ethics and only serve to perpetuate negative perceptions of our industry as a whole.

The real losers in the battle: everyone.

For those not aware of the background, Google now shows searchers information on how people within their online social graph have interacted with pages that are returned as a part of search results, including tweets, Facebook interactions and various other socially enabled actions. All of this information is being pulled from publicly available data that Google crawls by following links in a user's Google Profile. This is all perfectly legal and in the name of providing a better and more relevant web experience.

If that all sounds pretty familiar, it should. Through Facebook's Open Graph, you are probably used to seeing how your friends are interacting with the websites they visit – including stories they "liked" or "recommended" and commented on. You may even know they like a brand in general, despite never even having visited that brand's website. This is Facebook's way of showing you – wait for it – a better and more relevant web experience.

Both companies have taken some lumps for the liberal use of consumer information without proactively informing users that they are doing so. This is despite the fact that most would argue, in the end, both techniques actually do provide a better web experience, facilitating better information exchange and deepening both interpersonal connections and brand-to-consumer connections.

What's sad about this entire kerfuffle is that it's not really about shoddy data privacy or better web experiences. In the end, it's all about advertising revenue and gaining a competitive edge to attract more eyeballs and ad dollars. Both products are great and have improved the world we live in considerably. But, by slinging mud and focusing on the supposed weaknesses of their competitors instead of their own strengths, they have effectively weakened consumer confidence in the industry and given consumers another reason to doubt that online communications even serve their interests.

For those keeping score: doubt - 1; progress - 0.

--Mike Hollywood, Director of New Media, @mikehollywood

Some lawyers have a beef with Taco Bell’s beef…and – here’s a surprise – the fast food chain has thanked them for causing trouble.

A class-action suit filed by Montgomery, Ala., law firm Beasley Allen accuses the fast-food giant of false advertising, claiming several of its products are made with “seasoned ground beef” that doesn’t meet the USDA definition of meat. According to the suit, which the Los Angeles Times made public on January 24, Taco Bell’s “taco meat filling” only contains 35 percent meat – that’s less than the 40 percent the USDA requires – with the other 65 percent composed of spices, extenders, water and other add-ins in far greater amount than the USDA allows for ground beef.

Taco Bell’s Response

Rather than shy away from further controversy, Taco Bell went on offense, arguing its beef is better than plain ground beef, which it thinks tastes too boring to be served by a company committed to “thinking outside the bun.” Taco Bell insists its seasoned ground beef consists of 88 percent meat and 12 percent “not-so-secret recipe” – which it provides to consumers.

On January 25, the company took the first of several steps to communicate this message to its consumers. Taco Bell’s Twitter account pushed out a statement from Taco Bell President and Chief Concept Officer Greg Creed, explaining the “facts” presented in the lawsuit were “absolutely wrong.” The same went for Taco Bell’s Facebook page, and the online statement to which consumers were directed was updated with additional details on January 26. The company also announced it would place full-page ads “to share the truth about our seasoned beef” in national publications, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and USA Today, as well as execute an outreach campaign to target its Hispanic consumers. The consumer outreach concluded on January 27 when Greg Creed posted a message on Taco Bell’s YouTube channel offering his side of the story.

Why the Response Worked

• Taco Bell utilized a psychologically effective message – “Thank you for suing us” – to counteract the allegations.
• Rather than defending its products from allegations, Taco Bell’s messaging went on the offensive by insisting its seasoned ground beef is actually better than plain ground beef. The company also promised to take legal action against those making false claims against the seasoned beef. This strategy transformed a perceived crisis into an opportunity.
• Taco Bell responded quickly. The company’s point-of-view was included in the Los Angeles Times’ initial report and became increasingly present as details of the controversy developed.
• Taco Bell’s messaging was consistent across platforms – including traditional media, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.
• And finally, Taco Bell responded creatively and in good humor.

Close, But No Chalupa

Taco Bell fell short in one aspect of its response campaign: effective use of social media to engage its consumer audience. Although the company responded via its Twitter and Facebook channels only one day after news broke, the response did not resonate with social media audiences; following news of the lawsuit, social media posts regarding Taco Bell’s beef spiked to more than 16,000, but following the launch of the ad campaign response, posts only reached about 6,000. This most likely is a result of social media’s inherent nature, concerned more with providing a shock-factor than setting the record straight. By the time Taco Bell responded to its followers, the story was no longer relevant. Although its message could have remained the same, the company needed a flashier response – by social media standards – for the Twittersphere to once again cry, “Yo Quiero Taco Bell!”

--Emilee Ellison, Assistant Account Executive

By day, I’m a reputation management practitioner at Cone, and on college game day Saturdays, I’m a Wolverine. But after witnessing the events surrounding last week’s dismissal of the University of Michigan’s former head football coach Rich Rodriguez, I found myself caught in the middle of these colliding worlds.

In a world where perception matters more than reality, the growing perception has been that the Michigan “brand” is in a state of crisis – a crisis marked by three seasons of on- and off-the-field struggles for the winningest program in college football history, the football program’s first NCAA violations in its history and this most recent, tumultuous coaching transition. Since the university’s public break-up with Rodriguez, Michigan seemed a sad and lonely teenager without a date to the prom. After the university encountered what appeared to be a series of rejections from potential new head coaching candidates – including fan favorite Jim Harbaugh, Big Ten conference peer Pat Fitzgerald and “Michigan man” Les Miles – it ultimately closed one chapter of this transition with this week’s hiring of Brady Hoke.

But Michigan now must turn its attention to repairing the reputational damage created by the mismanagement of the Michigan brand from the outset of this transition process. The athletic department can begin to do this by applying a few best practices in brand management.

Control the story: Michigan must come off the sidelines to serve as the primary storyteller. Last week, Fox TV in Detroit prematurely – and, thus, inaccurately – reported Rodriguez’s termination, a story subsequently picked up by local media, blogs and even ESPN. Michigan’s voice was notably absent in the initial hours following this report, leaving a communications void to be filled with speculation, misinformation and panicked chatter from media, blogs and social network users. It wasn’t until several hours later that the university finally broke its silence to label the report as “media speculation.” That is, until the following morning, when Athletic Director David Brandon made official Rodriguez’s firing. But by not controlling the story from the outset, the Michigan brand became consumed by a toxic media environment marked by critical headlines like “Dave Brandon Fumbles Rich Rod Firing.” Looking ahead to the period following the Hoke announcement, Michigan must more effectively lead the conversation with a clear, consistent and forward-looking message.

Speed is critical: The athletic department must better meet the demands of the digital playing field. In this age of social media, we evaluate organizations on their abilities to address issues publicly in the “critical first minutes,” as opposed to the “critical first hours” suitable in years past. Michigan’s several-hours-delayed response to the report of Rodriguez’s dismissal suggests a lack of appreciation for the speed required to keep up in a world dominated by real-time tweets and status updates. Moving forward, Michigan must do a better job responding in real time to incorrect and rampant rumors and using its own social networking tools (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) to actively engage with stakeholders on their social media “home turf.”

Brand management is a full-time job: And Michigan’s newest brand “ambassador” must embrace this role. In a recent press conference, Brandon acknowledged, “I believe that Michigan Athletics is the front door to the University of Michigan in terms of the shaping of the brand and the image of the brand.” So, Hoke now faces the daunting task of not only serving as the new face of an embattled football program but also of a beleaguered brand. All eyes will be on Hoke to influence and, ultimately, change the current perceptions that this is a program out of control. Hoke’s introductory press conference was certainly a promising first step in embracing his new role as brand champion and beginning to rebuild the brand trust that this coaching transition eroded. Hoke’s fanaticism for Michigan was obvious during his remarks, and he made it clear that this new job is not about him, it’s about the team. But Hoke must extend this formula one step further – above all, it’s about the brand. Like Hoke so aptly put it, “This is Michigan for god’s sake.”

--Jamie Josephson, Senior Account Executive

When a student fired shots from an AK-47 rifle as he walked across the University of Texas at Austin campus on Tuesday, it highlighted the new reality that employers – both for-profit and nonprofit – can learn plenty from universities when it comes to crisis preparedness.

How many employers would be able to send text alerts to employees’ personal cell phones within seven minutes and start Facebook and Twitter information feeds minutes later? And how many would be communicating with a workforce that had already been taught how to act (“shelter in place”) during an emergency? Thanks to UT Austin, students quickly accessed information, could debunk rumors and connect with parents who had their own sources of updated information via the university’s website.

Universities have seen too much violence and death over the past several years. But, the “ivory tower world” has learned its communications lessons and ACTED. Technology is in place and crisis planning, training and drills are built-in. Unfortunately, we can’t say the same of employers in the “real world.”

On average, more than one employee per day is murdered in an American workplace and another 2 million Americans a year are victims of some kind of workplace violence. If that wasn’t motivation enough for employers to take preparedness seriously, you’d think the now constant threat of terrorist attacks would do it. However in 2005, with the 9/11 attacks burned into our memory, more than 70 percent of American workplaces still had no workplace violence plan in place, and more than a third of companies had no crisis plan at all.

That’s just shocking. Aside from the legal obligation any employer has to provide a safe work environment, on a moral level there is no excuse to continue to back-burner crisis planning when it comes time for budgeting any organization’s priorities. A good crisis plan will identify and prioritize risks, confirm a process and responsibilities for emergency decision-making, put rapid communication tools in place, train key personnel and create ties to vendors that can provide critically needed support when a crisis strikes.

Traditional crisis plans have often focused on external communications to news media. But an organization’s own employees have always been a key audience. That’s truer today more than ever. Your employees will be sending out photos and videos of the crisis unfolding in real-time and tweeting what they think is happening. Their perceptions will define the story and how your organization’s reputation is affected. Without crisis preparedness, you won’t keep up.

So take a moment now, and ask yourself a question. Does your organization have a plan in place that fits this need? If the answer is no, or if you’re not sure, forward this internally or raise the question yourself. Be proactive while you still have the chance.

Mike Lawrence is Executive Vice President and Chief Reputation Officer of Cone LLC, which works with companies and nonprofits on strategy and communication programs including crisis preparedness.

Toyotas and aspirin and lettuce! Oh my! These days, everywhere you look something else is being recalled. What is a company in crisis to do?

First, take a deep breath. Second, be glad you have a crisis preparedness plan in place.

You do have one, don’t you? You should. Mid-calamity is not the time to start developing one. Take advantage of today’s peace and quiet to prepare for tomorrow’s potential disaster.

And, be sure to consider the following when developing your company’s plan:

• Act quickly and take responsibility to “contain” the crisis.
• Your organizations will be on trial during the early stages of a crisis. If you wait for every last fact before taking action, you will be convicted in the “court of public opinion.” 
• Ensure your actions are consistent with your mission and values, and don’t forget to show empathy for what has happened.
• Organizations in crisis too often focus their communications on the minutiae of the crisis, event timelines, etc. and forget to share feelings (regret, sadness) about what has happened to critical audiences as a result of the crisis.
• Review your organization’s history to find prior damaging occurrences (similar past events, active litigation, etc.) that could be dredged up or leveraged for greater impact during the current crisis.
• Agree on how you’re going to address questions about this history, the impact it has on the current event or what it may suggest (i.e., the company did not sufficiently address a past problem).
• Use the media – traditional and new media – as information resources and communication vehicles.
• Both media and online resources can help organizations reach critical audiences quickly with a message about the crisis or can help correct damaging misinformation before it has any significant impact.
• Make time for media and online monitoring as well as monitoring for feedback from audiences with which you are communicating.
• Listen to what’s being said about your organization’s response to and communications about the crisis – this information may prompt valuable adjustments to communications strategy and messaging.

--Jenn Sheehy Everett, Vice President

As any 21^st century PR practitioner will tell you, social media communications has taken on a role of greater importance when developing a comprehensive communications plan for your organization. But remember, establishing a social media presence means opening yourself up to potential attacks, warranted or not, from consumers who want their voices to be heard. To prepare yourself for this eventuality, you must develop a sound social media strategy comprising a careful mix of fact finding, message creation and strategic communication.

The new reality of an always-online, hyper-connected world is that there has been a major shift in how we help companies communicate with consumers. Blogger engagement and Facebook and Twitter strategies are no longer “nice to haves.” They’re absolutes! Three years ago, our proactive efforts primarily involved developing comprehensive communications programs that helped clients demonstrate their business actions to a core group of loyal consumers. We were able to create focused programs and engagement tactics that could be shared with stakeholders and media by following a planned schedule. Although that process still underlies the foundation of any solid communications platform, today it is critical to supplement it with a strategic and deliberate social media communications plan with a broader consumer focus.

It is important to take your time when crafting your online and social media plan. The best communications plans are structured to be implemented in a moment’s notice. And when done poorly, they can seriously damage your reputation almost overnight. Years of solid thinking and reams of messaging can easily be overtaken by scrambled, reactive efforts - often against attacks waged by just a few individuals with limited knowledge on the topic they’re vilifying.

So, what to do, and what not to do? There are a few critical things that must happen, especially when dealing with a consumer crisis:

Do:

• Monitor, monitor, monitor. It’s not enough just to be there. You must know what’s happening in your social media space.
• Respond, respond, respond - and quickly. The vast majority of online attackers can be easily educated and quickly appeased, and in some cases, might even become surprising allies. Ignoring commentary is the quickest way to start a firestorm, and responding fast can literally stop it in its tracks.
• Have a few clear key messages to reference. Keep messages factual and as objective as possible. Engaging in an online attack is not the time to “market” to the attacker.
  

Don’t:

• Ignore the comments. You don’t have to respond to everything, but when you see an opportunity to set the record straight, do so, and fast.
• Respond with the same message over and over again. Online communication should be authentic and come from a personalized “voice.”
• Patronize or antagonize. Be polite and respectful, but remain strong and confident.
• Shut down your Facebook page or Twitter handle. That will move the conversation into forums you can’t easily control.
  

Online engagement is an exciting opportunity to have a person-to-person dialogue in real time. With a solid online and social media communications strategy in place, you will be prepared for anything that comes your way, and more often than not, will come out on top.

--Lisen Syp, Senior Account Supervisor

Anyone living in the Northeast during the last month knows it was a month of non-stop rain reaching unprecedented proportions. Two storms brought record amounts of rain and flooding within weeks of each other, dumping water that not only flooded basements but brought heart-breaking destruction to New England.

So how does this natural disaster bring to mind a public/private community relations case study? In my opinion, it does in the form of an unlikely community relations hero – The Boston Duck Tours Company.

The best public/private community relations efforts are exemplified when a company creatively uses its resources to help those around it versus solely throwing money at a particular situation. During the last two storms, the Boston Duck Tours Company did exactly that.

Iconic to Boston since they were introduced in 1994, the amphibious boats (first used in World War II) have long shuttled tourists and Bostonians through the historic streets of the city only to then plunge into the waters of the Charles River. They have become so synonymous with the city that even the Celtics rode the boats during their 2008 victory parade down Boylston Street.

So how did Duck Boats become the community hero during the storm of the century? As the waters were rising around homes, and the desperate request for help came from trapped area residents during both storms, the Boston Duck Tours Company answered the call-to-action and used its vehicles to reach and rescue trapped residents.

The simplicity and purity of this action by Boston Duck Tours Company is the gold standard of what the true meaning of “community relations” is all about. Making this action even more powerful, this small company did this for the right reason – to help the community that supports its business.

Spring is here, the weather is getting better and tourists are coming back to the city. Maybe it’s time to say thank you by taking a ride on the Boston Duck Tour!

--Mark Malinowski, Vice President

Hanes’ decision to end its advertising campaign featuring Charlie Sheen, following the actor’s domestic violence charges, comes right on the heels of a flurry of other terminated celebrity partnerships stemming from the Tiger Woods scandal.

Given the recent spate of high-profile celebrity partnerships turned sour, many brand marketers are scrambling as they rethink their celebrity engagement strategies for 2010. But, before you hit the panic button, be sure to take a step back and carefully weigh the benefits and risks of celebrity engagement.

Celebrity spokespeople can be a powerful addition to a marketing communications strategy. Celebrities have strong influence with consumers and drive valuable media coverage and exposure for a brand. But there can be some risk involved. Keep in mind that celebrities are human beings – meaning they have plenty of flaws and are apt to make mistakes. While most celebrity partnerships go off without a hitch, those that don’t often end up splashed across news headlines, creating problems (and headaches) for brand marketers.

So what’s the best approach for maximizing value from a celebrity partnership while minimizing your risks?

• Do your homework – In addition to the basics of ensuring a celebrity partner is a good fit for your brand and your target audience, conduct a thorough background check to uncover any “skeletons” that may be hiding in his or her closet. If a celebrity has been tied to scandals in the past or has had previous run-ins with the law, be aware of the risk you are taking.
• Set clear parameters – When developing a contract with a celebrity, clearly outline your expectations and behaviors that will result in termination of the contract. Be sure to structure your contract in a way that gives you an out if the celebrity should engage in behavior that is not in keeping with your brand.
• Be prepared – Tiger Woods is a prime example that even celebrities with a squeaky clean image can be a risk, so prepare for the worst. Have a clearly defined action plan for handling a crisis involving your celebrity spokesperson. Determine in advance what key factors you will use in deciding your course of action. Be sure to identify the key decision makers and map out how you will communicate your decision. This will allow you to take swift action if the need should arise.
• Act quickly and decisively – In the hours following a scandal involving your celebrity partner, what you do – and don’t – say can have a significant impact on your brand. Hanes’ quick decision to pull its ad campaign sent a very clear message to consumers about its brand values to ensure the Hanes brand image stayed intact.

-- Amy Russ, Director

Few stories over the past months have gotten as much attention as the Tiger Woods saga. And as marketing and public relations professionals, it is worth taking a look at the way this story has spiraled from a one-car fender bender to worldwide scandal that will be measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

This story, more than most in recent memory, has precipitated a flurry of opinions and advice from public relations professionals on how things “should” have been done as the scandal began to take shape. Some say it would have been best for him to speak publicly and put the rumors to rest – the David Letterman approach. Others argue his silence has been valuable. Still, some say the media are infringing on a hurting family’s privacy and should only be interested in Tiger Woods as a golfer, not as a family man. But for those of us whose business isn’t what is happening in Tiger’s personal life, it is worthwhile to look at the impact this scandal has on Tiger Woods the brand.

Image Credit: Examiner

Tiger Woods isn’t “just a golfer.” For many, he’s essentially the public face of golf. And he certainly is the public face of many companies who have paid millions to see Tiger don their watches, consume their products or speak to the superiority of a company, with the expectation that both deliver high standards and superior performance. His sponsorships may be based on his athleticism, but they go beyond that. And at this point, his personal brand has been turned upside down, and ultimately, the financial impact of this scandal is a real one. Some say what he does on his own time is his own business, but it is a hard argument to make when his actions could do financial harm to those that have invested hundreds of millions in his image.

As sponsors continue to “evaluate” their sponsorship deals, it will be interesting to watch how much of an impact the personal side of an athlete who was celebrated for his sports’ achievements and not for his personal life will have. Recently, AT&T announced it, too, would drop Tiger Woods as a sponsor, following in the footsteps of Accenture, Tag Heuer and Gillette, who have ended or scaled back relations with Tiger.

In today’s content-obsessed media environment few things are secret – or sacred – and it is extremely difficult for a brand (whether a person or company) to control its reputation. Reputation and credibility can be stripped away in a matter of minutes not only because of a scandal, but also because of poor communication and management during the crisis. And many would argue this Tiger Woods story is a classic way not to handle a crisis.

Cone’s EVP of Crisis Prevention & Management, Mike Lawrence, recently had the privilege of speaking at the 2009 Bulldog Media Relations Summit in New York, NY. His presentation, entitled “Lightning Response: Surviving the First 24 Hours of Crisis” can be viewed below.

Thank you to everyone who attended!

As yesterday’s New York Times reported, Chevron hired former CNN reporter Gene Randall to create an Internet video in response to a “60 Minutes” investigation about the company’s oil pollution in the Amazon region of Ecuador and the resulting $27 billion lawsuit.

Chevron’s video lays out the oil company’s side of the debate, downplaying its responsibility for the oil waste in Ecuador’s waterways. The segment signs off with, “This is Gene Randall reporting.”

While this type of advocacy isn’t new to the arsenal of PR professionals, the reach and level of engagement is greater today with the democratization of mass communication and the proliferation of social media tools.

With corporate reputation crucial in a struggling economy, Chevron’s approach underscores the importance of transparency and maintaining stakeholder trust when developing counter-crisis strategies.

-- Jennifer George, Account Supervisor

Cone's Chief Reputation Officer Mike Lawrence also commented on Chevron's crisis response in a recent Ad Age article.

Oprah is the holy grail of celebrity endorsements, so it shouldn’t have come as such a shock to KFC when its local franchises were inundated with customers eager to collect on a promise of a free two-piece grilled chicken meal.

To help launch its new grilled chicken line as a healthier alternative to fried chicken, KFC brought in Oprah, who is very publicly struggling with weight management, to promote the grilled chicken on her show. As part of the deal, Oprah viewers could visit her Web site and download a coupon for a free two-piece grilled chicken meal. Unprepared for the hoards of Oprah fans, KFC franchises were overwhelmed by the traffic. Customers complained of long lines, stores refusing the coupons, and Internet rumors surfaced about an alleged riot at a Manhattan KFC, which the chain is denying.

Marketing execs at KFC hit a home run when they signed Oprah, but could have better prepared franchisees for the increased demand that comes with an Oprah endorsement. The following are some simple tips for communicating nationwide promotions to local franchises.

• Communicate promotions as far in advance as possible: Give franchisees the opportunity to prepare their stores for crowds by ordering extra product or scheduling additional staff.
• Provide promotion activation guides or tool kits: Ensure franchisees are communicating the right messages to customers by supplying message guides and background information on the promotion, and give them tips for marketing the promotion locally.
• Set expectations: Provide traffic data from past promotions, or proxy data, so franchisees won’t be caught off-guard during the campaign.
• Measure ROI: Use this as an opportunity to gauge consumers’ attitudes about the company and the promotion. This will help not only in determining the success of the promotion in changing customers’ opinions, but guiding decision-making about future promotions.