From outer space to inner ranks, crisis was in the air last month. Most crises occur because the media "discovers" them. But the worst nightmare is when we alert the media and essentially say "watch this," only to have disaster strike. Which is exactly what happened at NASA. While the world held its collective breath, the Mars Polar Lander apparently reached its destination and then vanished without a trace. After a week of attempts to contact it yielded nothing but silence, fingers started pointing. The biggest target seemed to be Daniel Goldin, NASA administrator and his policy of "better, faster, cheaper." But Goldin's candor and willingness to admit mistakes - coupled with a bit of deft deflection - shifted a lot of the attention to Congress.
NASA
Budget (1999): $13.67 billion
Employees: 18,500
HQ: Washington, DC
Criteria: Extent of coverage
Grade: A-
Comments: NASA has done an excellent job keeping space exploration in the public eye, making the exposure of their failure pretty much worldwide.
Advice: The good news is that when the world watches you fail, they also witness your openness and honesty in assessing the problem and supporting your own team.
Criteria: Effectiveness of spokespeople
Grade: A
Comments: Goldin is clearly good with the media and in engendering support among those experts the media loves to quote. Despite NASA's public failures, he was portrayed as caring, concerned and zealous in his defense of his "better, faster, cheaper" policy.
Advice: Americans admire anyone who sticks to his guns. Goldin benefited from this. The difference between Goldin and less effective spokespeople is that he clearly believes in what he says. If you don't believe the "official message" it shows.
Criteria: Communication of key messages
Grade: A
Comments: Remarkably, almost all the post-mortems endorsed NASA's policies and emphasized that "better, faster, cheaper" is still the way to go. Most articles mentioned Goldin's opinion that this was a "setback" rather than the end of the program.
Advice: By getting the scientific community behind its message, NASA essentially won the sympathy, if not the admiration, of the media.
Criteria: Management of negative messages
Grade: C
Comments: Most articles at least speculated on the notion that the failure might be due to "cutting corners." But the spotlight later moved onto penny-pinchers in Congress. Some cited budget cutbacks as a reason for overworked staff and under-resourced projects.
Advice: NASA neutralized what could have been a very negative portrayal by lining up authorities on its side - and by using some very effective congressional space exploration advocates to deflect the criticism.
Criteria: Impact on voters
Grade: A
Comments: By shifting some of the blame to congressional budgets, NASA probably elicited a flurry of messages to legislators to boost space spending.
Advice: It's always good to remember who the ultimate influencers are. The more voter support NASA gets, the more likely its budgets will be approved. In the long run, the drama of the event and extent of coverage probably didn't do them much harm.
Criteria: Impact on legislators
Grade: B
Comments: At first, most legislators were probably ready to ax Goldin and cut funding for NASA altogether, but the strength of Goldin's resolve and the support from the scientific community deflected much of that criticism.
Advice: Legislators were no doubt the primary audience, since they make the ultimate budget decisions. So ensuring that this audience is kept in the loop is critical.
Criteria: Impact on employees
Grade: B
Comments: Goldin's resolve and unflinching support for his team were critical to the success of the communications efforts. The deep disappointment of the staff leant a tremendously human element to the story, and also helped readers empathize rather than criticize.
Advice: Never be afraid to show the human side of a crisis. Media portrayals of disappointment among NASA staff left the reader feeling far more sympathetic than outraged at the "waste" of their taxpayer dollars.
Criteria: Overall score
Grade: A
Comments: Good communication managed well saved the day - and probably the agency.
Advice: In situations like this, the best you can hope for is to have the opposing point of view appear farther down in a story, not the lead. But NASA's tactics essentially turned it into a media win.
Exxon Mobil was not as lucky. The merging companies found themselves on the front page of most business sections defending their policy against giving benefits to partners of gay employees. They were ambushed by Human Rights Campaign (the largest gay-rights group in the nation) after disgruntled Mobil employees alerted activists to the change, which came about as a result of Exxon's acquisition. Activists noted the fact that Exxon Mobil's action reversed a growing trend among corporations to extend benefits to same-sex partners. Meanwhile, the crisis shed light on some of the all-too-frequent communications breakdowns that occur when two organizations are uniting. Several articles underscored the difference in cultures (Exxon has always been tightlipped, while Mobil has always boasted better relationships with reporters). The lesson is that nothing is truly internal anymore. When you make policy decisions, always be prepared to see them on the front page.
In terms of fallout, NASA cited budget cuts as having stretched its staff too thin, and in doing so, deflected some the blame onto Congress. But Exxon, with its huge staff and resources, couldn't stave off the bad press. Chances are the merging companies' PR teams were so overworked with external merger issues that the internal communications implications of a policy decision were overlooked.
Katharine Delahaye Paine is president of Delahaye Medialink. Image Patrol is based on a subjective content analysis of major news sources covering a crisis. Comments are not intended to criticize the work of the company in crisis, but rather to illustrate the role the media plays in shaping the perceptions of various stakeholder groups. Katharine Delahaye Paine is president of Delahaye Medialink. Image Patrol is based on a subjective content analysis of major news sources covering a crisis. Comments are not intended to criticize the work of the company in crisis, but rather to illustrate the role the media plays in shaping the perceptions of various stakeholder groups.
Exxon Mobil
Joint Assets: $138 billion
Employees: 120,000
Merger price tag: $81 billion
HQ: Irving, TX
Criteria: Extent of coverage
Grade: F
Comments: Exxon spokespeople said they "didn't understand the fuss" and were amazed at the coverage the issue received. What planet were they on? Hadn't they been reading the papers in which same-sex benefits issues, lawsuits and legislation were all the rage?
Advice: Any time you take away a benefit - whether in union negotiation or mergers - expect an outcry. No one gives up benefits quietly. In making such decisions, senior managers need to evaluate the potential damage to a company's reputation as a good place to work.
Criteria: Effectiveness of spokespeople
Grade: C
Comments: Exxon spokespeople sounded like typical corporate spokespeople, taking cover behind a corporate line that sounded like it came right out of the legal department. David Smith, spokesperson for Human Rights Campaign (HRC), was infinitely more effective in his opposing comments.
Advice: Shakespeare wrote, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Better to think of them as employment insurance. As long as communications decisions are dictated by lawyers, corporations will always need good PR people to clean up the mess. If you talk to the media, be careful not to sound like a lawyer. They hate them more than you do.
Criteria: Communication of key messages
Grade: D
Comments: The major message that came across was that of the HRC. Exxon got its basic sound bite out, but in many of the articles it was buried at the end.
Advice: Solid message communication is contingent on long-standing relationships cultivated over time. Sound bites rarely work on their own, and especially not if they're written by committee.
Criteria: Containment of negative messages
Grade: F
Comments: David Smith did a masterful job of portraying Exxon as backward and uncaring. He also effectively insinuated that Exxon is not a place where gays and lesbians are welcome.
Advice: A reputation as the "employer of choice" is critical in these days of low unemployment. If you can't attract and keep talent, you are in serious trouble. The last thing you want to do is alienate a whole segment of talent. Be very sensitive to the ears of potential employees.
Criteria: Impact on customers
Grade: B
Comments: I'm sure a few activist customers will avoid buying Exxon or Mobil as a result of the policy, but chances are the fallout will be minimal.
Advice: Exxon should be thankful that publicity is all the HRC sought. Similar situations have resulted in boycotts. Corporations need to balance the long-term impact on reputation with the short-term cash savings of policy changes.
Criteria: Impact on investors
Grade: B-
Comments: If I were an investor, I'd be nervous about Exxon Mobil's ability to attract and keep talent in the wake of the negative publicity. But until it affects the stock price, most personal investors probably won't care.
Advice: Because of the labor shortage and the impact of consumer attitudes on customer loyalty, investors are increasingly paying attention to corporate reputation and employee relations.
Criteria: Impact on employees
Grade: F
Comments: The worst message was that employees were so disgruntled they took the message to Human Rights Campaign in the first place. Clearly there is an employee communications problem.
Advice: Any time morale issues bubble to the surface in the media it's a problem. This is never more likely to occur than during the first year after a merger. Beware of a domino effect. Given the success of the HRC's campaign, other disgruntled employee groups may copy the technique in other merger situations.
Criteria: Overall
Grade: D+
Comments: The score stands at HRC:1, Exxon Mobil: 0. HRC took a hot issue and used it to its advantage. Exxon took a bad policy decision and turned it into a communications nightmare.
Advice: This was a crisis that could easily have been avoided with better internal communications strategy and improved relationships with the media.