Hill+Knowlton Strategies

Much is being written about Twitter’s coming of age, particularly as it relates to information sharing during times of crisis; the horrific terrorist attacks in Mumbai being the most recent example (see trend chart here). It is, without question, a powerful and highly immediate vehicle for broadcasting and sharing news as it breaks. Although, as CNN so succinctly states: “as is the case with such widespread dissemination of information, a vast number of the posts on Twitter amounted to unsubstantiated rumors and wild inaccuracies.”

From my perspective, and as one who works closely with clients in adapting their crisis plans to this new world order of twitter, blogs and citizen journalism, the ensuing argument around what is ’news’ or not, is moot. It is simply the new reality in which organizations must be prepared to communicate.

It is indeed fascinating to watch as these thousands of new voices sweep across the media landscape, amplifying, contradicting, and enhancing traditional media reports with their own eyewitness accounts and points of view. At the same time, it is also frustrating to witness the ease by which rumours and speculation spread during the acute stage of any emergency or crisis.

It has simply made our job, and that of any communicator in a time of crisis, that much harder. It means we must start now to adapt our processes to reflect this new reality, and focus even more aggressively on the principles that guide effective crisis and emergency communications. Quite simply, it speaks to what I and others in the crisis space are already espousing:

• the need to accelerate the processes by which an organization creates, approves and distributes content, yet avoiding adding to the speculation and rumour-mongering, to ensure that it remains a credible source of information
• the importance of an organization’s own web property to communicate information and messages beyond traditional (1.0) mechanisms – but to consider integrating their own Twitter feeds, RSS, video and audio, real-time information updates, and efficient cross-platform sharing of content.
• the importance of direct stakeholder communication (via all channels – not just web) to ensure your message is received and understood, not simply delivered.
• the importance of robust internal communications supported by meaningful guidelines around what employees can or should communicate via their own networks – digital or otherwise.
• the importance of clear rules of engagement when it comes to engaging with external voices and influencers – understanding when it is right and appropriate, and under what circumstances, and when it may result in only further damaging an organization’s reputation and ability to communicate through an emergency.

More so now than ever, no organization can attempt to “control’ the information environment around any significant crisis. They can and must, however, ensure that their communication acknowledges this new environment, without compromising privacy, confidentiality, ethical principles or simply attempting to fill an information void with soundbites and messages that lack substance, credibility, context and concern for those affected.

Are “tweets” news? Who cares? It’s a meaningless debate. What it means and what impact it may have(if any) are the questions we should all be asking as we watch it, and all forms of social media, transform crisis communications forever.

It’s been a busy week in the reputation management space, what with Motrin Moms, the Big Three and their personal jets, and more recently, Sarah Palin down on the farm. The question that I, and others, have asked, however, is whether some or all of it has been much ado about nothing.

The Motrin debacle is a clear example of an organization knee-capped by an increasingly vocal and visible (and some might say, militant) constituency. No matter if you considered the ad offensive or not, it highlighted the challenges facing organizations in the era of social media, and the importance of both listening and having in place the mechanisms to support rapid response.

Given the current hubbub, one might imagine that Motrin’s reputation had been irreparably damaged. I would posit, however, that this is simply another example of the echo-chamber effect, and an issue blown out of reasonable proportion in a world increasingly bereft of context. Arguably, the ad was poorly-conceived and showed that the company had not fully considered its target audience. Did the company act responsibly by removing the ad and apologizing? Absolutely. It was the right thing to do. And yet, in reading a number of posts from various experts in the social media space, you would think the brand, despite all the steps taken to correct the issue, was now permanently tainted.

Add some perspective, however, and it would seem otherwise. Unlike the Kryptonite lock issue or “Dell Hell” or more recent product and food recalls, the product itself was not at issue (nor, as in the case of Dell, the ’services’ around it). Nor was the ad deceptive or unethical. People were not dying or falling ill because of it, or losing money or their jobs (other than perhaps at the ad firm), or being swindled or misled. It was an advertisement to which a group of individuals (albeit not everyone within that group, it should be added) took offense.

Which then begs the question: When perspective is added, what response is appropriate and reasonable? Does it make sense, as some have suggested, to try to respond to the hundreds, if not thousands of individuals, who blogged or tweeted their outrage?& On the other hand, by removing the ad, could it be said that the company perhaps over-reacted to what might be viewed as a vocal albeit highly inter-connected minority (personally, I don’t think so)? If not, what more might they reasonably do other than replace the ad with an apology and move on? Or did the act of removing the ad sufficiently demonstrate their acknowledgment of their mistake and their determination to correct it?

Could the same be said of the automakers and their corporate jets? With thousands of jobs at risk, the “ill-timed display of corporate excess” according to the Washington Post, could be viewed as a potentially greater threat to corporate reputation than that facing the makers of Motrin. Optically, the contradiction between right and wrong is that much more acute. It reinforced a growing media portrayal of an industry that only has itself to blame for its current woes. And, unlike Motrin, the consequences could be significant and long-lasting.

Ultimately, I don’t see the Motrin brand suffering permanent or long-term damage as a result of this brief firestorm. I do see the company realizing the importance of listening to the social media space and having mechanisms in place to respond in a timely manner. Most importantly, I hope that the company does not use this incident as an excuse to walk away from social media.

In the arena of social media, there are many who claim to do monitoring and measurement equally well. Much has been written, and various tools and methodologies have been flogged to the masses.  I would argue, however, that few have yet proven themselves to deliver the right blend of high-quality (read spam-free) data and relevant metrics that enable meaningful measurement based on a framework that is flexible to the needs of individual clients and their campaigns.

So let’s throw down the gauntlet, shall we? On November 26, two of Canada’s more high profile firms who specialize in social media monitoring (among other things) will be in Ottawa for the latest rev of Third Tuesday – all details to be found here.

Ripped directly from the Third Tuesday Meetup page: Chris Johnson, President of dna13, Craig Comeau from Radian6 and Parker Mason from CNW Group will lead a discussion on the convergence of new media with the old stuff, and the value of a proper measurement program in tough times. Using examples drawn from well known companies and organizations in multiple sectors, learn about the secret sauce when it comes to making the case for new social media and PR software tools so as to link your communications programs to the achievement of your organization’s objectives.

Sadly, I will be travelling back to Ottawa that evening. As such, I will be looking to my colleagues and others to provide a play-by-play of the night’s commentary. 

It’s a mad, mad world out there, what with the historic events that have recently transpired (U.S. elections) or continue to transpire even as I write (financial meltdowns). But a few things are deserving of mention, if only because they’ve raised my eyebrows, or because they’re something in which we’ve been involved, including:

• No rest for the weary. Not even a month after one election is done, and the 2008 federal election predictor put to bed for another year at least, than we’re back with a fully-loaded, francophone-only version for the provincial election campaign now underway in Quebec. Packed with all the usual predictor-y goodness, you don’t need to speak french to give it a whirl – so have at, and congratulations to our HKDP brethren in Quebec for supporting the predictor for another round.
• If the media can’t be trusted to root out the big deceptions, who can? Bloggers? But can you even trust them anymore? As Dan Mirvish, one of a pair of filmmakers behind an internet hoax that fooled even the most august media outlets, articulates so appropriately about the current state of the media during hot issues or crises: “With the 24-hour news cycle they rush into anything they can find.”

  The problem being that virtually anyone can set up a similar hoax during the heat of a crisis or campaign. Consider the ingredients, as set forth by the Times: “Martin Eisenstadt doesn’t exist. His blog does, but it’s a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow — the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy — is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.”

  Not only did the hoax fool the folks at MSNBC, who were quick to acknowledge their mistake, the hoax also took in The New Republic, Fox and The Los Angeles Times. Of course, bloggers, who are meant to be the new media watchdogs, also did not emerge unscathed: “…most of Eisenstadt’s victims have been bloggers, a reflection of the sloppy speed at which any tidbit, no matter how specious, can bounce around the Internet. And they fell for the fake material despite ample warnings online about Eisenstadt, including the work of one blogger who spent months chasing the illusion around cyberspace, trying to debunk it.”

• In the words of Pete Seeger, when will they ever learn… when will they ever learn? Hard to say who’s to blame here or here… Is it the employees for not considering the implications of their actions, or the airlines for not educating their staff (many who are of the digitally native vintage) or providing appropriate guidelines for social media usage.

  Andy Lark, who notes that it was “Virgin that sponsored the Delta Airlines blogger that was fired for inappropriate behavior”, makes an interesting point over at his blog, suggesting that with the right coaching, the issues raised by employees could still be raised but under circumstances that would be more beneficial to all involved – passengers included. What that requires, however, is a much clearer understanding across a variety of fronts – HR, legal, communications, and executive management – of the risks and opportunities posed by social media both inside and outside the enterprise.