By Katie Paine
I had a musician friend who used to say that when he was playing at this one bar, "You could tell how soon the fight was going to break out by the tone of the footsteps coming
up the stairs." I think we in PR can tell how soon a crisis is going to break out by the tone of the relationship between a CEO and his/her PR advisors.
International Coal Group (ICG) hired the PR firm Dix & Eaton on January 5, three days after their coal mine exploded, killing 12 miners - obviously too late
to stem the PR crisis that ICG found itself in. In what is widely seen as an enormous communications blunder, media crews were initially informed that all the miners were alive,
when in fact all but one had perished. Then reporters were quick to jump on the fact that ICG had a history of violations of mine safety codes. ICG's attempts to improve its
reputation by starting a fund for the victims' families were widely seen as inadequate (one reporter called it "cheap" to the CEO's face and pointed out that it was smaller than
the amount CEO Wilbur Ross recently spent on his wedding.)
Ross made himself an easy target when he appeared on ABC's "Prime Time Live," and he only furthered his company's reputation as an uncaring and irresponsible mine owner.
One always wonders in scenarios like these if anyone bothered to compare the cost of some good long-term PR strategy vs. the damage to the company's reputation and the
corresponding drop in its stock price.
Google, on the other hand, mastered the art of good public relations faster than you can say "search engine." They have always understood that actions speak louder than
words, and they have always acted in ways that are consistent to their core philosophies. So it should strike no one as particularly surprising that they would refuse to acquiesce
to the US Governments' request that they turn over search data to the Department of Justice. They felt, as did most of their target audience, that the request was
"overreaching" and violated fundamental privacy rights. The move was widely lauded among the blogosphere and others in the tech community.
Even more to the point, Google managed to score huge competitive points, since Yahoo and Microsoft had already complied with the request. In fact, Google handled
the crisis so well, the next days' announcement that it would censor search results in compliance with the wishes of the Chinese government was downplayed in many media outlets.
Contact: Katie Paine, 603.868.1550, [email protected]
| International Coal Group | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Criteria | Grade | Comments | Advice |
| Extent of coverage | F | The crisis and the communications glitch was top of the news for the week, and then made it back into the headlines when a fire broke out in a
Canadian coal mine. |
One has to wonder how often their crisis communications plan was rehearsed. Remember, crisis plans aren't meant to just sit on shelves. They need
to be taken out, dusted off, refreshed and practiced on a regular basis. |
| Effectiveness of spokespeople | F | Both Ross and CEO Bennett Hatfield were quoted extensively, and their quotes were widely disseminated. However, whether their words were believed
was open to speculation in part because of the revelations of code violations and the size of the victims' fund. |
In a crisis, the challenge is not to get your CEO quoted, but to make sure that his message is credible and believed. Worry less about the words
and concentrate on the deeds. |
| Communication of key messages | D | They did get their messages out and Ross did convey sympathy with his statement saying that he had lost his own father as a youth. | Words aren't nearly as powerful as actions, and while Ross and Hatfield's words were good, they needed to take stronger actions to back them
up. |
| Management of negative messages | F | The victims and the Union both had better relationships with the media and were better able to get their messages across. | Remember that for every statement you make in a crisis, the "opposition" - whether it be a union, employees, environmentalists or in this case
victim's families - probably has at least as much clout and influence with the media as do you. |
| Impact on consumers | C | Chances are most consumers of coal won't change their buying habits as a result. However, in cases where a crisis is followed by investigations,
don't ignore the voters. Politicians are currently swarming all over the industry trying to capitalize on the call of greater mine safety. |
Step 1 before any crisis hits; identify the constituencies that can help you the most, those that can hurt you the most, and those who, by their
ignorance might have a long term impact. |
| Impact on shareholders | D | The revelation of code violations combined with the disaster itself sent the stock price plummeting. While it has since recovered, it is still down
substantially from last fall. |
Once again, the cost of some good PR advice is far less than the cost implications to their stock price. |
| Impact on employees | D | I'm not sure what message the $2 million fund sends, but it basically says that you're worth about $160K to the company. My guess is that they'd
probably trade it for safer working conditions. |
Be careful when you throw out actual $$ numbers in any crisis. It's amazing how many different ways people can interpret them. |
| Overall score | D- | This is a classic example of a company that didn't have great rapport with the media ahead of time, running into a crisis and calling for help when
it was too late for even the best PR to do much good. It will take years to fix their damaged image. |
CEOs, listen up. Pay attention to the PR people early and often, long before you really need them. |
| Criteria | Grade | Comments | Advice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extent of coverage | A | Their refusal to cooperate with the Bush administration's request for data was widely covered in all forms of media, but particularly in the online
environment, which of course is Google's main target audience. |
This is a case when a company played a crisis entirely to its advantage. They knew their target audience, clearly anticipated how it would react,
and acted appropriately. |
| Effectiveness of spokespeople | A | Interestingly, this is one case where lawyers did the best job as spokespeople. Because of the complexity of the arguments, Google relied on its
legal counsel to respond to questions, which meant that for the most part, the media got it right. |
Normally, I'm adamant about not letting lawyers do your talking for you, but when it's all about a lawsuit, you have to yield to the experts. Just
make sure they know your key messages. |
| Communication of key messages | B | There are some that would say never let the details get in the way of a good story, and this was one of those times. Essentially, the press said
things that Google couldn't. Google is actually defending its stand based on the need to protect trade secrets, not individual privacy. Much of the media missed that point, which was fine with its customers who rallied quickly to its defense and praised the company for its defense of their privacy. |
If the media is taking a tack that is not necessarily on message, but still promotes your agenda, the best thing is to just sit back and let it
happen. Remember that most humans, including reporters, can only keep one or two story lines straight at the same time. |
| Management of negative messages | B | The only negative message to come across was that Google might be refusing to cooperate with the Justice Department as a PR ploy, but the vast
majority of readers only saw Google as a defender of their rights of privacy. |
If the most negative thing that is said about you is that you are too clever, again, sit back and let it happen. |
| Impact on consumers | A | The customers LOVED Google's response to the subpoena, and if possible the entire episode only enhanced customer loyalty to the Google brand while
diminishing the brand reputation of its largest competitors. |
From day one Google and its management team have had an uncanny (or well researched) handle on what the searching public wants from it, so it
shouldn't be surprising that in a crisis it has a good understanding of what needs to be done to ensure customer loyalty. It's what happens when you have good data on which to base decisions. |
| Impact on employees | A | When polling data was released shortly after Google said it would fight the subpoena showing that the vast majority of Americans endorsed Google's
stand, it could only improve morale and internal loyalty. |
If the average customer was thrilled with Google's stand, the average employee must be even more thrilled. |
| Overall score | A | A deftly handled (orchestrated?) crisis | If you understand your constituencies, base your decisions on good data, and your CEO has faith in his/her PR team, there isn't a crisis you can't
weather. |