Category Archives: Crisis Communicator

Honda receives record fine, but the real story is truly frightening

The big news is that Honda paid a record fine to the federal government. The stories link this $70 million fine to failure to report “more than 1700 deaths and injuries” in its vehicles. Are you kidding me? This car  company killed or injured 1700 people and no one knew about it? You would think this would be the story of the decade.

The truth is, this is not at all the truth. And underlying this little reported story is the real story: a story of huge new crisis risk facing companies doing business in the United States. The risk is the unwarranted criminalization of business for the purpose of raising government revenue.

If you are a business owner or executive of almost any size, please look carefully at this chart developed from information provided by the Economist:

Economist chart fed fines.001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That hockey stick growth is the rise in government fines against US companies. The cover of the August 30 edition of the Economist featured “the criminalization of American business.”

It so happened that at about the same time I was working with a client on exactly one of these crises. I can’t reveal details because of the threats made by federal officials against my client. But believe me when I tell you that they paid a huge fine for doing absolutely nothing wrong–a claim supported by other government officials involved in the case. Then the agency fining them aggressively promoted a press release claiming the fine proved their guilt when the settlement was negotiated under threat. If the company didn’t agree to the settlement they would face a court case that if they lost would have destroyed them. When the company tried to set the record straight in the media, explaining it was a settlement done for business reasons, the agency official threatened them with possible jail time.

The Economist article points out the billions in fines against banks like BNP Paribas, Credit Suisse, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and others.

Add to this the $1.2 billion fine against Toyota related to the safety recall. You may remember that the federal government (while a major investor in GM) famously said the only place you should drive your Toyota was to the repair shop. This was after a series of highly publicized accidents where the media accused the company of faulty electronic systems and slow recall. After NASA investigators got involved, all the accidents were shown to be driver error or faulty installation of mats–none related to the supposed Toyota problems. But, still, the federal government extorted $1.2 billion from the company. What for? Well, like almost all agreement as the Economist points out, the reasons were kept confidential as part of the settlement.

Why? Why is this happening?

If the dramatic increase cannot reasonably be attributed to a sharp increase in corporate misbehavior, then what? The head of the Department of Justice, Eric Holder, announced that the agency’s efforts resulted in over $8 billion in revenue for the US government against a cost of operating the agency of just $2.8 billion. That excellent return on investment was for 2013 and will be dwarfed by the much larger number for 2014. The Economist reports that the return on the False Claims Act enforcement net the Department a twenty to one return. State and local agencies who participated in settlements, such as Google’s settlement of $500 million for allowing internet users to advertise prescription drugs from Canada, have gone on spending sprees. It’s not surprising that Mark Rosekind says the Department of Transportation will seek to increase the maximum fine for violations or extortion such as this to $300 million. He needs to keep up with the massive amounts of money flowing into agencies like the Department of Justice and he can’t do that on paltry $70 million fines.

Is it any wonder that the Economist, which has endorsed President Obama in each of his presidential elections, called this administration the most anti-business in memory.

If you think this new risk of your own government turning against you unfairly and without justification, you should consider the “hot goods” case involving berry farmers.

In late July 2012 the Department of Labor investigated three blueberry farms in Oregon. Using a formula they established they decided the farmers were in violation of the fair labor law. Their formula showed the farm’s pickers picked more than the formula said they should so therefore they concluded the farm hired “ghost workers.” They had no proof other than the formula. To enforce the law, the Department invoked the “hot goods” provision and notified wholesalers that the fresh blueberries could not be processed. “Hot goods” allows the government to hold the product until the issue is resolved, but of course, when the product is highly perishable you could win the argument and lose the farm.  The Department offered a way out: agree they had violated the law, sign an order saying they would not contest the findings even if it proved they were innocent, and pay back wages and a large fine. Two farms ended up paying out more than $240,000 to get their blueberries back in time to avoid ruin.

But, despite the fact that the agreement said they could not fight it or appeal, the farmers did, and they won. The courts agreed that they were coerced into a settlement and agreement of wrongdoing by the Department of Labor and ordered the government to pay the money back. As of this writing, the government is still fighting the courts and refusing to pay. And as in the other cases, may be looking for ways to punish the farmers who had the temerity to challenge this extortion.

For complete details on this sad situation, read this.

Bad behavior by business owners and leaders needs to be punished. Laws and regulations need full compliance. Enforcement is a very important part of the accountability in our system. But, these actions by our government agencies cannot be included in justified enforcement. This is what happens when the government, feeling justified by a backlash against big government, resorts to bullying and extortion to raise funds and generate left wing applause. It represents one of the most significant, frustrating and frightening new crisis risks facing business in a long time.

Are reputation crises as bad as we think they are?

A question has been nagging at the back of my head for some time. Are crises really bad for companies? Seems a dumb question, doesn’t it. We have a whole industry (including me) which seems to exist to first scare the crud out of leaders about the devastating impacts of reputation crises, then offer solutions to minimize the damage.

But, is there a connection between bad PR, big-time reputation crises and company or organization success? The question was raised by PRNewser in their review of the biggest PR losers for 2014. Here are a few examples that raise legit questions:
-the NFL–certainly had a bad year for PR, yet ratings for NFL games were higher this year than last
-GM — Congressional hearings, more recalls, reactions to exec salaries–but the company the best November in sales since 2001
- Sony cyber security–Sony was hacked and demonstrated a pattern of lack of data security. Despite most theater chains refusing to show the Interview, the film has already brought in $15 million in digital only channels
- Uber had about as bad a year PR-wise as can be imagined. But it looks like it isn’t having too much of an impact on its fundraising efforts which are valuing the company at about double its value since June.
-
 Microsoft–New CEO Satya Nadella made a huge politically incorrect booboo when he suggested women should rely on good karma for raises. At the end of November, Seattle Times reported Microsoft stock was at a 14 year high, nearly double since start of 2013.
- Congress–11% approval ratings, 95% re-election rates (explain that one!)

Beyond these headline grabbing examples, there have to be hundreds if not thousands of smaller crises affecting businesses and organizations large and small that don’t get the attention or traction of these major stories. In many, if not most of them, while intensely scary at the time, most of the organizations that I am aware of recover quite nicely and quickly once the furor and attention have died down.

However, and there is a very big however, things do not end so happily in all cases.

- Here are a few clear cases and some questionable where bad PR is causing serious harm:

- Police–already two NYPD officers have died in retribution. The well publicized examples of questionable (at best) killings of African-American young men is causing a serious problem for law enforcement–problems of trust and confidence that may affect community relations, recruitment and police safety for years.

- Cosby–I agree with the assessment, sadly, that one of America’s favorite dads is and should be gone from the public scene, and perhaps from the public streets.

-CIA specifically, federal spying generally–from Snowden, to the NSA’s late recognition of likely illegal behavior, to the global discussion about prosecution of American officials for torture, American spies–once the guardians of freedom–are quickly becoming the focal point of moral outrage and distrust around the world. Hard to say what it will take to recover from this.

This review creates a bit of a dilemma. Can it be that crises, at least some crises, are really not so bad for the company and bottom line? Why is it that some crises can be absolutely devastating while others seem to flit by the radar screens at ever accelerating rates?

I need to think on this some more, but a few initial thoughts:

- Crises are not such big news anymore–many of them anyway, partly because there are so many they are almost routine, and that in part is because of hyper-sensitivity. It’s hard to say much of anything these days without offending some person or group. Outrage (like most emotion) is viral fodder. The desperate need of the media for the headline not of the day but the hour, drives them to jump on the least offense and magnify it so that other hyper-sensitive types can jump on board and the two of them can declare a reputation crisis.

- Only big violations of common values really hurt. The Satya Nadella story is a case in point. His comments were clearly communicated out of context. The reality of equal treatment of women was made clear and Microsoft looked good in that respect. If his offense had been a clear and documented case of bias against women, Microsoft in general and Nadella specifically would have paid a much higher price. Cosby on the other hand, assuming of course the accusations hold, has violated on numerous occasions commonly held values. We will not tolerate people in high power who use their power to abuse others.  Nor will most of us tolerate the idea that torture is ever justified, or illegal spying by our own government against ordinary citizens. And clearly, unwarranted killing of anyone–regardless of color–can never be allowed. These are significant violations of not just law, but of deeply and commonly held values.

This conclusion needs much more testing and I offer very tentatively here. But, if it proves correct, it is important in responding to crises. The number one rule of crisis management is don’t make a bad situation worse. That often means don’t bring to attention what otherwise would not be an issue. But that has to be balanced with the need for transparency, honesty and being the first to tell bad news about yourself. An over-reaction to a perceived serious reputation crisis can fit into the category of making it worse. An under-reaction, or more commonly a too-late reaction–can also cause serious harm.

There is great judgment needed in deciding if a crisis is going to blow over quickly and leave little damage in its wake, or if it is going to fester, balloon and overwhelm an organization. How does one get that judgment? It seems it is more important than ever to understand at a very significant level the public perception and communication environment. I guess that means, there is still a need for those experts who can help provide that guidance.

Whew, I’ll breathe a little easier as we go into 2015 now.

 

 

 

Is news now conversation?

I had an interesting conversation/interview with David Bain of Digital Marketing Radio–the podcast available here.  As you learn in media training, you are never sure the “sound bite” the interviewer will use. You can talk for an hour, but find one comment gets highlighted.

In this case, I have no complaints. I was uneasy talking about digital marketing as I am far from an expert on all things SEO, social media for promotion, so-called “content marketing” and all that. Folks will laugh when I say my favorite digital marketing tool is a blog–I’m so 2005.

However, giving credit where credit is due, the thought of news as conversation came from son Geoff, busy developing a “conversation management” tool. It wasn’t the first I heard of this concept, but maybe first time I really pondered it.

It’s true I think. We live in a global water cooler. Someone with something interesting to say, or some first hand view of a high interest topic (such as plane crash or police victim) starts the conversation, sharing what they know or simply their thoughts. (Amazing how often their thoughts consist of little more than four letters, starting with an f.) That is just the start. Folks around the water cooler start to chatter. They get loud, that draws more folks. Everyone’s got an opinion, even if it is just to twitter on about what someone else has said. Someone listening in has a loudspeaker. They get on that and soon a much bigger crowd has gathered. The noise is deafening. Some of it good and important stuff, mostly just chatter, repeats, or more f words. And so it goes…

The conversation goes on until people tire of it (quickly it seems) or there is another conversation of higher interest on a nearby water cooler. We hear a loudspeaker going off next to another water cooler and get drawn there. We look around and there are all kinds of water coolers many of them filled with noisy people.

So, sometimes you just want to shut it off, go find a quiet corner in Starbucks and have a grande. But, no, that’s another water cooler.

 

The biggest crisis comm obstacle: high level ignorance

There are a great many challenges to overcome to prepare a sizable organization for crises, emergencies or reputation disasters. But one seems nearly intractable: the ignorance of those in high places. The very ones who will make the big decisions when push comes to shove. The lawyers, the CEOs, the regional execs, the Incident Commanders, the chiefs, the directors, the presidents.

If the ones who call the shots during a response do not understand the water they are swimming in, the effort is doomed–despite all the preparation that communication and public relations leaders may put in place.

A week or so ago I had the privilege of presenting to the Washington State Sheriffs and Police Chief’s association training meeting. Chief Bill Boyd and I were to give a four hour presentation to these law enforcement leaders. Bill did the bulk of the work on the presentation, but had a medical emergency and couldn’t present with me. One item he had gathered for this really hit me–and those present. The Boston Police radio message from the Incident Commander on the scene just after the bombing occurred included the calm but clearly adrenalin-filled IC’s details on what actions the police on the scene were taking. Then he said, “And I need someone to get on social media and tell everyone what we are doing.” That’s correct. One of the top priorities of this Commander was to inform the public of police actions and the way to do that he knew was through the agencies social media channels.

The fact that this is a police agency who gets it at the highest level was made clear by the incredibly effective use of Twitter Boston Police made during the subsequent manhunt. The video I prepared called NanoNews presents their success and the surprising reason behind it.

Despite an understandable reluctance to dive headfirst into digital communications, I was very pleased to see the effective use of these tools by many law enforcement agencies in Washington State. And was thrilled that about five or six chiefs signed up for Twitter during the training and several came up and said, proudly, “I just did my first tweet!”

The last couple of days I’ve had the opportunity to present virtually to a number of communication leaders around the globe. I was struck again by the savvy of these communication leaders about the challenges they face, a savviness these seems far too often missing from those above them. Global communicators face many or most of the same problem as those in North America, but the good old USA seems to have an extra burden: lawyers. I was pleased to learn that lawyers in at least some other countries seem to have a far better understanding of the need for communicators to get information out fast and consequently willingness to allow some freedom and trust. In the US, this seems to be far less likely.

The issue of gaining senior leadership’s understanding of the need for speed, for freedom to use the channels that today’s media and audiences are demanding, was brought to light in one discussion. A major event that happened in one country demonstrated to the lawyers, Incident Commanders and senior leaders what happens when communication is not allowed to flow. Social media became filled with a narrative negative to the responders. That story was never challenged by those responding. The senior leaders asked: why are they allowing this happen?

Bingo. Lights went on.

There are many who will disagree with me on this one, but I deeply believe the great tragedy in this country called Ferguson is above all the tragic consequence of a failure to communicate. And that is no doubt because of the ignorance of the senior police leaders in Ferguson. An ignorance of the news environment they live in, an ignorance of their own community and the sensitivities and need for information. The narrative of the shooting of the young African-American man was seized by those who witnessed it and saw what they saw. Others, who testified in the grand jury, saw things quite differently. But it was only one story that was told, one story that was believed, one story that drove the community to take action.

I don’t presume to know the truth, the full story. But I do know that when untruths are repeated often enough, retweeted enough, network-effected enough, they become the truth. Failure to counter at least to indicate that things are not always what they seem, can be disastrous.

Would the world we live in today be a little different if the Ferguson police leaders understood the world we live in today? I think so.

 

Uber’s “God View” shows more power means more responsibility

In case you haven’t seen, Uber, the controversial (for taxi companies anyway) new contract ride service, is in trouble. Seems they have a way of knowing where everyone who uses their service goes. It’s available to those inside the company. It’s called “God View.”

Obviously there is considerable power in having such a God view. As Lord Acton reminded us, there is a corrupting power related to power. All it would take would be for someone not using their head to use it for bad reasons. Buzzfeed broke a story about the New York executive for Uber using the God View to track the movements of a reporter and others. One other executive said that Uber might use the tracking information to smear reporters who wrote critically of the company. He, of course, apologized and admitted saying that was “wrong.”

Yesterday I had the privilege of speaking to a group of almost 200 Sheriff’s and police chiefs. Big data is getting to be big news, big opportunities, with big concern. There is no question that big data which is now being made available to law enforcement to provide “threat scores” including any questionable or threatening social media post, will be an important enhancement to law enforcement. But, given revelations like the NSA activity and the increasing awareness of the loss of anonymity, a backlash against big data and its use is already evident. No doubt, it will grow.

Companies like Apple, Google–even Uber–are amassing personal data of amazing detail and complexity. We need companies and executives who commit to “do no evil” as Google famously has done. More than that, we need leaders who don’t just say it, but do it.

There will be legislation–as so many seem to think rules fix all problems. Legislation alone won’t. We need people and leaders to understand the corrupting nature of power and have the moral strength to resist. When they don’t, as with these Uber folks, the public reaction should be swift and decisive.

I’m thinking that Uber’s reaction of now publishing its privacy policy is far too little and too late. It should have revealed the existence of God View earlier. It should severely limit the people who have access to it rather than making so widely available in the company. It should have a strict policy for when God View would be used and publicly disclose that. It should have an outside, respected panel responsible for approving any use of it. Overkill? Maybe, but if not the result may be market kill. Any more such revelation of abuse of God View may seriously damage rider’s willingness to use Uber. Suddenly, taking a taxi for many looks like a safer bet.

BuyPartisan app and the risk for reputation damage

It’s getting more common for businesses and organizations to get in hot water with consumers by taking positions on hot political-social issues.  Komen Foundation stumbled on funding for Planned Parenthood related to abortion, Chick-fil-A for comments made by its CEO against gay marriage. More recently Panera, Target and Chipotle made news by asking customers not to take guns into their stores, thereby jumping somewhat into the Second Amendment debate.

Most companies and organizations have attempted to tread lightly on controversial political and social issues because of the natural desire to sell products or services rather than sell a position. If they have been involved in political activity it is as quietly and discreetly as they can. Now BuyPartisan is making that almost impossible.

The app is simple: scan the barcode of a product you are considering and the app will tell you who owns it and the political inclinations of the makers based on their political contributions. Starbucks (no surprise to us who live in or near liberal Seattle) gives over 80% of its contributions to Dems. As Stephen Colbert demonstrated on his show General Mills leans Republican (understandable he says since its run by a General), and Kelloggs is balanced.

Transparency is a great thing and I’ve been and continue to be an optimist about the longterm value that increased transparency is bringing to our lives. But transparency combined with the excessive partisanship, toxic talk, abusive disrespect and lack of willingness to even listen to the other side represents a worry to me. Boycotts against companies or organizations can operate with unprecedented speed and power due to the internet and social media. Often these are based on completely false bases as one boycott I have been somewhat involved in demonstrates.

I point out the BuyPartisan app as a sign of our times and a new risk of reputation problems to companies. If your organization contributes to political candidates or causes or has owners, senior managers who do, I would urge you to add a backlash against such contributions to your risk analysis. It’s something else to prepare for.

The real consequence of this will not be more reputation crises. It will be the decline of willingness of companies and leaders to participate in our nation’s leadership through political activity. If I was a comms director for a company right now, I would hope the record of the company and its leaders is one of giving equally to both sides. The pressure will be on to give with an eye to what the crazies on either side will do with the information. Here is where transparency, due to hyperpartisanship, is hurting us.

And that’s too bad. Transparency isn’t the problem. The hatred, disrespect and animosity to those with whom we disagree is.

 

Fake spokespersons find it easy to prank the media

As if crisis and emergency communicators don’t have enough to worry about. In today’s instant news world, without the care journalists once showed to get it right, it’s becoming increasingly common for fake spokespersons to prank the media.

Imagine the nightmare–your organization is in the middle of a major news crisis. While you are working hard to get your authorized spokesperson prepared to go live on national or regional TV, your TV monitor shows a live report going on with someone posing as a spokesperson for your organization.

Think it won’t happen?

1. Asiana Airlines accident: A “trusted source” provided Fox affiliate  KTVU a list of names of pilots on the plane which crashed short of San Francisco’s airport. The names included Captain Sum Ting Wong, and Wi Tu Lo–among others. The names were read on the air by the news anchor.

2. LADWP water main break near UCLA. A fake spokesperson for the LA City water department carefully explained to the LA ABC News affiliate that the huge break was caused by someone throwing a cherry bomb into the toilet, or taking a really big dump. The live anchors were somehow not alerted by the name of the spokesperson: Louis SlungPue.

3. Napa earthquake. Blog reader Larissa sent this link to a CNN Anchor getting pranked by a fake police department PIO by the name of Adam Sure. His explanation for the cause of the quake related to Howard Stern’s backside tipped them off.

The Gawker article references other times that live news reporters got pranked by calls including posing as eye witnesses to the Malaysia Airlines crash.

This trend may have been sparked by the outrageous success of the fake BP PR twitter account that became a big hit during the 2010 oil spill. Here’s a list of the funniest lines from this fake account.

And that’s the good news. Folks like “Adam Sure” and “Louis Slung Pue” are pranking the media for the fun of it and to see if it can be done. Their intention is the challenge and the humor of it. Once they deliver their punch lines and reveal themselves, the game is up.

But, what if someone posed as an authorized spokesperson for the police or emergency management or your company with the intention of doing harm to you or the public? What if they provided plausible advice that would be dangerous? What if someone posing as a power utility spokesperson said under the circumstances given the wide-spread outage and extreme cold it is advisable for people to use their barbecues inside for heating? What if someone posing as a spokesperson for a manufacturing company with product safety concerns in the news announces incorrectly a global recall of all 10 million products and consumers should return them to their stores?

The above examples should provide enough indication that given the lack of care and editorial caution demonstrated by the media, plus their obvious gullibility, that such scenarios are not beyond the realm of possibility.

What can you do?

1. Make sure your local news outlets know you well and have a list of your authorized spokespersons. Send them this blog or the examples I provided and let them know, that while you trust they would show more caution than these examples illustrate, you want to help make sure that they don’t end up on YouTube as the next victim.

2. Include fake spokespersons and fake Twitter or Facebook pages in your list of crisis scenarios. They are secondary crisis–an often ignored category of crisis events that pile on the initial crisis. Know what you will do in advance. What will your organization do if confronted with a BPGlobalPR twitter account? Sue? Threaten legal action? Ignore? Plead with them to stop? Think it through and establish a policy and strategy so you don’t have to be chewing up precious time in the middle of a crisis trying to figure out this one. Same with fake spokespersons. Have a statement in hand ready to put on your website alerting folks to the fake announcement.

3. Add a Fact Check section on your news website–now. Don’t wait for false reports. Best practice today, I’m convinced, is to be quick to accurately correct the record when the news channels, blogs, social media or others get the facts wrong–by error or intention. However, be very careful! Don’t do like this police agency and wrongly attribute the social media report of an offensive bumper sticker on a patrol car to the person sending out the picture. Make sure you get your facts right the first time when correcting someone else’s mistake!

 

What are you doing to train staff and employees of your crisis plan?

A client asked for help in training their construction company employees of their crisis management plan. There were several reasons:
1. To let them know and assure them that the leadership of the company was preparing for all eventualities
2. To help them understand what is needed to protect the company’s future in a crisis so they can understand and support the effort if they are not actively involved.
3. To serve as introductory training for those who may be asked to be trained for specific roles such as in operations, planning, information gathering, distribution, etc.

To assist them with this I created a ten minute video which details the crisis management organization structure, the kind of training key managers were getting to fill their roles, and the priorities of the company in responding: taking the right actions and communicating them well.  At the end of the video the employees are asked to take an online test which will verify that they have indeed watched it and understood the content. Taking this test will be required.

Going through this process got me thinking about the ways companies and organizations are going about training both those who will participate and the employees in general.  I know that training is a big issue for a lot of companies, and I am deep into a video training series for a global oil company that provides details on every role in the crisis communication structure. It is designed for a global audience and should help reduce significantly the costs associated with regular training involving travel, classroom time. I’ve come to be strong believer in the future of video and online training and have learned a lot in the process. For example, keep the videos short (4-6 minutes) and follow up each video with a short online test to solidify the content. Interaction with others going through the content is also important which is why I fully support some level of group training even if using online methods.

I’m very interested in hearing from any of you about what you are doing to bring your team and your organization’s employees up to speed on crisis plans. And if you would like to have a look at any of these training videos being done for clients, with their permission, I’ll share a bit of that with you. Just email me at gerald.baron@agincourt.us and we’ll set up a time to review.

 

Advice to CEOs: Don’t turn your PR over to lawyers

In most crisis situations it is absolutely essential for attorneys and PR experts to work well together. Indeed, in working on plans for organizations I always ask about who their attorney is, whether or not he/she will review releases, and if they are participating in any drills or exercises. In the majority of events I have been involved in I have worked with some outstanding attorneys who understood and appreciated the nature of the partnership and the reality of the court of law versus the court of public opinion.

But there are two situations where I was involved that stand out in my mind where the CEO deferred all PR judgment to attorneys. That was a big mistake. One was because the company involved was a small subsidiary of a much larger company and the CEO of the subsidiary running the crisis believed that his future was more secure if he deferred to the attorneys (corporate attorneys from the head office). That was understandable, if mistaken. (The subsidiary company went bankrupt.)

The other was because the attorney demanded it. Again, there are reasons from the legal perspective. What is said publicly often impacts court action. The legal challenges may very well affect the viability of the business. However, an attorney who demands full control over PR should be a major warning sign and give any organization leader pause.

The issue always is what is in the best interest of the business or organization. Sometimes, no doubt, the legal challenges take precedence. Sometimes, as was the case with Arthur Andersen, you could win the legal battle but lose the company before you even have a chance to go to court. Only the CEO can determine what is in the best long and short term interest of the business.

Our court system is based on the idea that truth will emerge with aggressive representation of both the plaintiff and defendant. Two different views of events are needed and ideally are presented with equal skill. That is the ideal situation in a crisis that involves legal issues–there should be a strong voice advocating for what is best to win in the court of law, and one that advocates with equal ability for winning in the court of public opinion.

To place an attorney whose job it is to represent you in court in the role of deciding what is in the best interest of the company puts that attorney in a conflict situation. Any attorney who demands it should be released. Any CEO who so defers has signaled that he/she does not have the capability of determining the best interest of the company.

The risks of one spokesperson

Tony Jacques, an Australian crisis communication expert, makes some good points in this post about smaller companies facing crises.

I certainly have seen that mid to smaller size companies typically lag in preparation. I think there is a sense that because they are not large they tend to be immune. Only big crises kill big companies, but of course that is not true. While the death of a brand to a reputation crisis may not be big news if it is a small company, to those involved, death is death.

I want to draw attention though to one important point of his blog: the missing spokesperson. Just recently I was in a message planning session with a client and a question came up about what do we say about such and such a situation. The answer from the head came back quickly: you say nothing, refer every question like that to me.

It may seem the safest approach, but often it is not. For a number of reasons, but I’ll focus on the obvious one highlighted by Jacques’ post. What do you do when your one and only authorized spokesperson is out of town, on an airplane, or worse in an airplane that has hit the ground with devastating impact.

In best practice planning, every major leadership position in a response plan has at least three and sometimes four people capable of filling the role. That gets harder with smaller companies, but it remains essential. A company with a dominant leader who has difficulty delegating authority is especially vulnerable in a crisis.

The company Tony refers to may very well have crafted a wonderful statement in response to the negative publicity. Doesn’t matter if when the media calls there is no one authorized to deliver it.