The changing communications landscape brought about by social media and mobile technologies are reshaping our lives. We not only want to inter-act with each other differently, but also with organisations, especially when they have information we want or are impacting our lives.
In 2012, corporate communicators will continue to grapple with the impact of social media – especially in the realm of crisis communications. How can they tailor and adapt plans to take into account a rapidly changing world that expects them to provide information almost instantly?
In 2011 that was brought home to me dramatically as the parent of a student caught up in the Japanese earthquakes and tsunami. How vital good information is for those impacted by such terrible events, not only those caught up directly, but also for those with a direct (or perceived) interest –‘stakeholders’ in PR-speak.
Having myself responded to attention-grabbing events over a 25-year communications career, after Friday March 11, 2011 I found myself on the outside desperately seeking information. My reactions reinforced some thoughts I was still reflecting on, having responded on-site in New Orleans a short time before to the highly complex BP oil spill.
During 2011 I shared crisis communications lessons learned about the spill with many corporate communicators trying to understand how to address the changing demands from both new and old media as well as other stakeholders, who appear to have insatiable information appetites in light of new technologies. However, corporate communicators are all too aware of the limited resources they have to hand in a crisis. Here are some of the questions they asked:
Should corporate communicators rethink their role in a crisis?
Yes. Reputation protection used to require dampening, or trying to soften, headlines as much as possible. That might have kept the CEO happy in the past. But with the capability to communicate directly to people in a way they want to receive information, communicators have to coach their organisations to adopt a more appropriate reputation philosophy – more on the lines of ensuring accurate information reaches people who need it most as quickly as possible. Media may be an important audience, but probably not THE most important in this scenario. Keeping faith with key audiences during a dramatic eventcan enhance an organisation’s reputation in the long-term, even when something bad happens. Cost-effective technologies exist to do just that – Ushahidi, PIER Systems, YouTube, Twitter, email etc. – yet too many are choosing not to use them. Crisis communicators today should be familiar with, and know the value of, different information channels and plan for the two-way flow of information rather than just one-way broadcasting.
How ‘demanding’ are different audiences in a crisis?
Very – and they won’t wait for you to get your act together. Dealing with hundreds if not thousands of emails, tweets, on-line comments and phones ringing off the hook makes it impossible to plan what to do. Meanwhile web traffic will test an organisation’s IT infrastructure, sometimes to collapse. Just one (of a number) of the websites launched to provide information on the BP oil spill received 150 million hits alone. Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) now offers good web information about its Fukushima nuclear power station. For weeks after the tsunami it didn’t. I turned to Ushahidi – an open-source software that collects and displays information on inter-active maps – and other sources for the information I sought to help my son decide whether it was safe to continue his studies in light of the Fukushima nuclear fallout. Any organisation needs to plan and prepare for the digital information demand onslaught; otherwise audiences will drift away, along with their trust.
How do we monitor what people are saying about us and what should we do?
Not easy. It takes a lot of monitoring because no single system – whether Google alerts or Hootsuite – can do it all. Besides, monitoring should be part of an overall reputational tracking strategy. It’s better to ask: ‘How should we respond when we find our name being used or abused?’ The Social Media Monitoring tool by SMI is a simple tool to help communicators think through actions when an organisation finds itself in the digital firing line (see graph).
What’s happening to the media these days?
They are being squeezed and reinvented. Traditional media – including the broadcast networks, wire services, and major dailies – still exert powerful influence with the attentive public and opinion leaders. Big name media outlets will cover a crisis and you need to be ready to manage the demands this will place on your communications team and executives. However, new and old media feed off each other. And corporate communicators should provide information to both and not think of ‘the traditional media’ as the only information channel to use. Communicators should be in the publishing business themselves, using different distribution channels to get their message out - Twitter, blogs, websites, emails, phones, Facebook. The key is integrating and managing the distribution process, which often takes coordination across corporate communications, marketing and IT departments.
How can we ensure our message is listened to in all the noise?
Reliable, accurate information is what’s needed during a crisis. People will gravitate to it wherever it is. Take Twitter hashtags, for example (the # symbol used to mark keywords or topics in a Tweet or posting to Twitter). The new challenge for communicators is: ‘Should your crisis plans include launching or using a hashtag around your incident/emergency? It’s almost certain one will be created, so why leave it to someone else?’ Timeliness, transparency and accuracy are what the world expects of organisations. Anything less results in loss of trust. Despite the pressures, communicators must champion openness and immediacy when an organisation’s crisis management team is debating what to share and when.
Do we have to tell the world everything about our business during a crisis?
Our organisation is transparent, but we have certain constraints – legal, regulatory, corporate culture – is a common concern. Transparency carries risks, but it is a real issue during a crisis. BP found itself live broadcasting gushing oil into the Gulf of Mexico with the now famous “spill-cam.” Just a few weeks later the world watched miners being rescued live on TV. One was deep under the sea, the other deep underground. My fears went skyward when I saw a live webcam show one of the Fukushima units explode.
Organisations have to deal with the fact that millions carry around high definition cameras with them (in their phone). So the world has very different expectations about being a witness to incidents, and internal organisational constraints to sharing or showing information sound like hollow excuses... so the boundaries of what the world expects to see or hear about a business’ response to a crisis have been extended.
I’m a communicator, I deal in words – how do I keep up with all the changing technologies?
It’s tough, so you likely need outside help. When I started working in this field I needed to know typographical measurements such as points and picas. This is no longer relevant. Now SEO (search engine optimization), videography, geo-location, and mobile technologies are more relevant. Learning and training isn’t an option, but a must do – participating in industry conferences, attending training programmes, reading crisis blogs, sharing best practices, and seeking learning from other industries.
What stays the same?
The power and importance of effective, two-way communications with key stakeholders remains as relevant and essential today as it did at the start of the new information age. Organisations must embrace the need to equip its supporters (employees, contractors, annuitants/retired employees, shareholders, suppliers and other potential advocates) with the tools and skills to help protect and advance an organisation’s reputation.
Corporate crisis plans, processes and procedures need to incorporate the opportunities social and digital media channels offer. The communications landscape will continue to evolve, but the fundamentals of good communications remain the same. It’s about trust; it’s about relationships.
Neil Chapman is a European-based senior associate with Wixted Pope Nora Thompson & Associates, L.P., which provides its clients around the world with business communications training – including crisis communications – and strategic counsel needed to help successful leaders become better communicators.