According to the rules of the National Football League, if a coach believes that a referee has erred in making a ruling on a play, the coach may throw a red handkerchief on the ground, signaling his desire to exercise his right for an instant replay.

Perhaps the U.S. Food and Drug Administration should consider handing out red handkerchiefs.

The recent media frenzy over the salmonella scare (allegedly) associated with tomatoes got me to start thinking about a conversation I had with a senior executive of a major consumer products company.  Some of the points we discussed then -- the growing power of the internet, consumer uncertainty about the concepts of safety and risk, the hyper-sensitive nature of regulators, the uncertainty of science, the hovering presence of trial lawyers, etc. -- all seem to be at play here. 

And even for communications managers whose companies are not in the business of selling fruits and vegetables, this is a cautionary tale for anybody involved in the messy business of managing communication and reputation.

As everyone in the Western Hemisphere surely knows by now, an outbreak of salmonella in the U.S. prompted food safety experts (including the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control) to issue a warning in June to consumers about eating certain types of tomatoes.  The issue quickly became a national news story.

Saturday's (July 5) Wall Street Journal caught my attention.  "Jalapenos Probed in Outbreak --- Tomatoes No Longer Seen as Prime Suspect for Salmonella," said the headline of the top story, above the fold, on page 1.

After reading this report, I went back to the transcript of the joint FDA/CDC conference call with media on July 1, when the agencies conceded that the source may not be tomatoes at all.  Specifically the comments of Dr. Robert Tauxe, CDC's Deputy Director, Division of Foodborne, Bacterial and Mycotic Diseases:

I'd like to say that the process of investigation is complex and often difficult and when CDC and the states conduct a foodborne outbreak investigation, it's like a - a detective trying to solve a case. We often have to rely on peoples' memory about things that are not very memorable such as what they ate last week or the week before or the week before that. People may remember many things but they may not remember everything they ate and they may not realize or remember that many of the things that they ate have many different ingredients. So our information is gathered through interviews with people who got sick as well as other people who did not get sick. It might be family members or neighbors or other people that are in the area. And then we compare that information....

Hardly what one would consider a sound scientific investigation.  Now contrast that to what the FDA said in its June 7 news release (emphasis added):

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expanding its warning to consumers nationwide that a salmonellosis outbreak has been linked to consumption of certain raw red plum, raw red Roma, raw red round tomatoes, and products containing these tomatoes.

Certainly no sense of uncertainty in this declaration.

If there is one thing crystal clear as I write this blog entry, is that there is absolutely no clarity as to the source of the salmonella outbreak.  Yet almost a month ago the FDA and CDC were speaking as if they had every confidence that the source of the salmonella was tomatoes.  The response provided by Dr. David Acheson, the FDA's Associate Commissioner for Foods to a question from CNN's Amy Burkholder during the June 16 FDA/CDC media conference call is telling, particularly in light of the new revelations about a possible alternative source of the outbreak:

Amy Burkholder: We had one other quick question. We are getting a lot of questions about salsa. Can you help us give the proper message regarding fresh salsa or even jarred salsa?

David Acheson: I think with regarding the question to ask is what kind of tomatoes was the salsa made from and where did they come from? And if the place that's selling the salsa can - has information to say that they come from one of the areas where we don't have concern, then fine. If they - if they're from an area where we still have concern, then that's not fine and it shouldn't be consumed. The salsa shouldn't be consumed.  If the salsa obviously made with grape, cherry, or tomatoes that are still on the vine, which is probably unlikely, then that's okay too. But it's the usual message that if a consumer is in doubt, it's better to play on the side of safety and not eat the salsa. I - but that's one of the reasons why we're emphasizing to retailers and restaurateurs -- know where your tomatoes are coming from and tell your consumers. Tell your customers, because you're' right -- it's about an information flow and how's a customer going to know.

Dr. Acheson's response focused solely on the tomatoes in the salsa.  Never once was there discussion about the potential that other ingredients may be the culprit.

In fact, in a review of the FDA's special website (which includes the title, "Salmonella Saintpaul Outbreak" over a photo of tomatoes) I was hard pressed to find any discussion of alternatives to tomatoes as a possible or likely source of the contamination.  Bottom line:  If one were to solely rely on the FDA website, one would draw the conclusion that tomatoes were the definitive culprit.

So, in light of the growing uncertainty and confusion, one has to wonder...

• Were the regulators acting solely based on scientific evidence and investigation, or did the politics of fear (including the fear of Congressional and media criticism) creep into their decision process?
• Did the FDA move too fast without solid conclusions because it feared criticism that it was moving too slow?
• Did the media know enough to ask the right questions, or were they willing (if not enthusiastic) participants in the hype?
• Was the speed and breadth of the internet a force for good or not?
• How does industry expect to keep the conversation focused around reason and facts in the face of this strong headwind?

I excerpt two passages from a NY Times article from April 25 that tell us a lot about the mood of the consumer and the dogma of NGOs and consumer activists.  While these individuals were speaking specifically on the bisphenol-A controversy, these comments have equal relevance to the tomato commotion, or any similar episodes of market reaction (or overreaction):

"...There is a an extraordinary fear level right now, whether or not it is justified on the scientific side," said Carol Schreitmueller, director of research and development for Pacific Market International, the maker of Aladdin food containers and water bottles, based in Seattle. "It is going to change what happens to materials. We have to decide if people will trust this material anymore."

"...This may be a completely safe product, but we don't have the information we need to make that assessment," said Aaron Freeman, the policy director at Environmental Defense..."

In short, fear trumps reason, and industry is guilty until proven innocent. 

A July 6 column from the Tulsa World points to a Deloitte study which captures the potential consequence of such fear:

"After more than 300 food recalls last year is it any wonder that a recent survey by the consultancy arm of Deloitte showed that three-quarters of those polled were more concerned about the food they eat than five years ago, and 57 percent said they had stopped eating certain foods following a food scare. Fear creates harm in the marketplace. Consumers avoiding certain foods can put producers out of business and that can affect state economies."

Perhaps when all is said and done, scientists and regulators will conclude that tomatoes were the source of the salmonella outbreak.  But for the time being, confusion reigns supreme, and the reputation of both industry and regulators suffers.

Where are those red handkerchiefs?

#   #   #

I took a call last week from a Newsweek reporter who was doing a piece on the opening of the "Newseum," the new Washington, D.C.-based museum dedicated to promoting the high points of journalism, of which there are many.

His question to me was essentially, “Do you think this will help rehabilitate the reputation of journalism, which has taken a severe beating over the past decade?"

I guess I wasn't clever enough in my response, since my comments never made it into the article which was published in this week's issue.

But here's what I said:

Not a chance.

To think a museum will turn around the reputation of journalism is as likely as the idea that a museum on the history of oil will improve the reputation of that tortured industry.

First of all, very few Americans will actually visit the museum (particularly at the ridiculous admission fees being charged).

But more important, this museum is but a drop in the ocean compared to the current of negative attitudes about journalism caused, for the most part, by the journalism industry itself.

Who can blame Americans' diminished view of the news media when everyday we are bombarded with journalists' obsession with the trivial (as we saw in last week's Democratic candidates debate hosted by ABC News), the inane (as evidenced by the 24/7 coverage of Britney, Paris and Lindsay), and the downright mean (as we hear and see every day and night on Air America, Fox News and countless syndicated talk radio programs).

And the cherry on top is the very real bias exhibited by too many media organizations.

Journalism used to be a noble profession.  No more.  Why should it be, when journalists themselves diminish its credibility by promoting "citizen journalism" where anyone with a cell phone camera or e-mail address can get equal billing alongside seasoned journalists who have honed their craft through years of experience and gobs of education and intellect?

Just as I say to any other corporate client who asks for help in turning around a bad reputation, I would tell the titans of journalism, if you want to improve your reputation, then you need to first address the performance issues that precipitated that reputation.

That means, stop dumbing it down, and start to "smart it up."

I probably will take my children to the Newseum at some point.  But not to encourage them to pursue journalism careers.  No, I will take them to the Newseum for the same reason I will take them to the. Museum of American History... So they can learn "how it used to be."

There is great virtue in the American way, which expects CEOs to perform on a quarterly basis, presidents and Congresses to reinvent politics in 100 days, generals to wipe out opponents in 100 hours without taking significant casualties, doctors to save life and limb every time, search engines to yield a million results in less than a second, and so on. There is also great virtue in the belief that what is bad can be made good, and that what is good can be made great, and that what is fractionally less than great is downright awful.

But these virtues can spawn vices. One is impatience. Another is a culture of chronic complaint. A third is the belief that every problem has a solution, that trial is possible without error, that risks must always be zero, that every inconvenience is an outrage, every setback a disaster and every mishap a plausible basis for a lawsuit.

I am moved to comment on an op-ed I read in the October 11 issue of PR Week.  The piece, entitled, “Put public's interest first in a crisis,” looked at the Tylenol product tampering incident and drew the following profound lesson:

In an ideal world organizations would know exactly how to respond to any given crisis on any given day. That isn’t realistic. But if its decision-making is rooted in sound, agreed upon principles that emphasize putting the public’s interests first, not only will making critical decisions under the pressure of a crisis happen more efficiently, the company’s interests will ultimately be served.

To be sure, J&J DOES deserve credit for the manner it which it handled this crisis.

But the application of such banalities as "putting the public's interest first" really does little to help today’s executives to better manage crises.  Although such statements do serve to remind us why crisis communications counselors are not held to the same level of esteem as rocket scientists and brain surgeons.

Not only does the author not distinguish the difference between the dynamics that caused the underlying crisis and the way in which a company handles a crisis, but he also fails to recognize that crisis situations are complex -- far more complex than they might appear solely from news coverage.

With the greatest of respect to J&J, the Tylenol product tampering incident was a simple crisis challenge compared to some of those we have seen in more recent years.  The current controversy involving children’s cold medicine – in which J&J is centrally involved – is a more relevant case study of the challenges of crisis management.

“The public interest” is not always so clear.  And who’s role is it to define “the public interest?”

Historically, acting in the public’s interest meant abiding by the law, and providing the goods and services the public wanted, at a price the public was willing to pay.

Not any more.

Now we have NGOs, media pundits and bloggers attempting to define “acceptable” corporate behavior.  But who granted them such authority?  How are they accountable?

Let’s take a look at some of the higher profile crises over the past several years, and see if we can apply the “public’s interest” test to them:

1.       Merck/Vioxx (withdrawal of prescription drug) -- Well, they did act in the public's interest. They withdrew the product voluntarily, and did not violate any laws.  But look at the outcome.  While they are prevailing in most of the lawsuits, their reputation is tarnished, shareholders lost a bundle, management was turned over, and the entire regulatory model for the sector is suspect.

2.       Dubai Port World (contract to own/operate ports) – One could argue that the efficient operation of the nation’s ports IS in the public interest.  And there was no evidence that DPW could do anything other than operate the ports efficiently.  But look at the outcome.  While selfish and self-destructive political interests might have been served, there’s a real question as to whether the public’s interest was.

3.       JetBlue (operations meltdown during winter storm) – The airline won points for the manner in which it communicated following the crisis, but let’s keep in mind here that their crisis was really self-inflicted:  a combination of growing too fast and on the cheap, and some very bad operating decisions at the front end of a winter storm.

4.       HP (pretexting scandal)  – Did the public even have an “interest” here??

5.       Guidant (recall of implantable cardiac defibrillator ICD) -- While Guidant's behavior in this crisis will never find its way into a best practices textbook, it may be the media itself that was acting contrary to the public’s interest.  In a December 6, 2006 report in the Wall Street Journal, “Slowdown in Heart-Device Market May Harm Patients, Doctors Fear ,” Dr. Eric Prystowsky of St Vincent Hospital in Indianapolis, commented on the media coverage in the wake of the Guidant recall:  "Undoubtedly there are people who have died as a consequence of this climate of fear."  The Journal reported that Dr. Prystowsky knew of at least two people who died suddenly after choosing not to have ICDs implanted in their hearts.

6.       Bausch & Lomb (withdrawal of contact lens solution) -- The bottom line here was that the company had to withdraw a product because its users were unwilling to use the product properly.  But still the company bore the brunt of the criticism.

7.       Spiking Energy Prices – A case could be made that everyone (politicians, oil companies, environmental activists, etc.) are acting in their own interests, and that the “public’s interest” is simply the outcome of this messy political pitched battle.  But based on the old rule, described above, the oil companies ARE acting in the public’s interest by following the law and attempting to provide a product that the public demands, at a price the public is willing to pay.  It’s the behavior of politicians and NGOs that should really be brought into question.

8.       TJX (criminal theft of credit and debit card information from company computers) -- FBI and Secret Service encouraged the company NOT to disclose the criminal breach because it would compromise the investigation, therefore creating greater risk for cardholders.  But because information was leaked to the media it was TJX that took the brunt of criticism supposedly for acting contrary to the public's interest, even the company made every reasonable effort to communicate to and help consumers.

These are just a small handful of the many crises that have dominated the headlines in recent years.  But you can see just from these that “putting the public’s interest first” simply doesn’t cut it here.

If only crisis management were so easy.