If you heard that your regular painkiller could have been replaced with antipsychotic drugs, you might be a little concerned. So concerned that you might want a little more information to put your mind at rest.
That is the scenario facing purchasers of Nurofen Plus following an announcement from the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) that some packs contain not the expected Ibuprofen, but Seroquel XL, an antipsychotic drug used to treat conditions such as schizophrenia.
Go to the Nurofen website and there appears to be no information about the incident. Move on to Nurofen’s Facebook page and there’s a great quiz, but no information about the product contamination. Turn to the website of Reckitt Benckiser and still you won’t find any advice from Nurofen or its parent company.
So, instead, you pick up the phone and call the consumer helpline listed on the Nurofen website. Unfortunately, news of the incident hit the BBC around 6pm and the helpline shut at 5pm.
Businesses which want to reassure their customers and retain their loyalty during and after a crisis need to communicate with them. That means being geared up to communicate via company websites and social media. It means having the capability to man your customer helpline 24/7 if necessary. Failing to do this leaves customers in the dark, potentially fearful and with your reputation in the hands of the commentators who are prepared to provide information. It’s a high risk crisis communication strategy.
Update
Twelve hours later and a terse statement is now available on the Nurofen website, but it contains little information or reassurance. At 8.06am the customer helpline is still closed and people are beginning to post to the Nurofen Facebook page, for example “Never mind the competitions , what about informing the public of the anti-depressants found in your packs?”. No information about the problem can be found on Nurofen’s Facebook page. People are also making their views known on Twitter. More expansive crisis communication would surely be in Nurofen’s best interests?
Update 2 (26 Aug)
Nurofen has now announced a recall of all stock in retail outlets: a more expansive communication approach is now surely essential. It has been a good war for Neal Patel, head of corporate comms at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, who has been the main communicator throughout this episode. But where has Nurofen or Reckitt Benckiser been?
Jonathan Hemus
Friday 26 August 2011
Thursday 25 August 2011
How Seychelles’ spokesman got his crisis communication so wrong
For a country whose economy relies on tourism, there’s no bigger crisis communication challenge than dealing with a fatal shark attack. So it’s little wonder that the Seychelles’ crisis media spokesperson, tourism chief Alain St Ange, sounded under pressure when conducting media interviews about the death of British tourist Ian Redmond.
What is surprising though is that he should have made so many fundamental and damaging mistakes in the way he handled his media interviews. A thorough reputational risk assessment should identify the crisis scenarios capable of seriously damaging a reputation so that thorough crisis communication training and planning can take place ahead of a possible crisis event. Either a shark attack had not been identified as a potential risk (a serious oversight) or insufficient crisis media training had taken place to identify and prepare a spokesperson to deal with such an event.
So where exactly did Mr St Ange go wrong? Listen to this early BBC interview (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14557165) which illustrates the following errors:
1) Inappropriate balance between messages about the victim versus messages about the Seychelles
Whilst Mr St Ange expresses sympathy for the victim and his family, this is out-weighed by messages focused inwardly on the Seychelles. This smacks of self-interest and self-justification. He twice describes the country as being “innocent” as though apportioning (or avoiding) blame is the priority at this stage. More than this, his attempt to position the attacker as a “foreign shark” and by inference not the responsibility of the Seychelles, stretches credulity. The impression created – rightly or wrongly – is that the spokesperson cares more about the impact on business in the Seychelles than the human tragedy. In other words, the exact opposite of what he should be communicating.
2) Inappropriate tone of voice
It’s not just what you say, it’s how you say it. Mr St Ange fails to convincingly communicate compassion in his tone of voice. Instead, he sounds business-like, matter of fact and slightly brusque. The impression is of someone slightly irritated that he is having to deal with a problem (and the media), rather than someone who cares deeply about what has happened. Some may argue that the fact he is not a native English speaker is a key factor in his vocal delivery. I say that’s not good enough: when your reputation is on the line, you cannot afford to field a spokesperson who is unable to create the right perceptions among viewers and listeners. Crisis communication training is essential to identify and enhance the skills of your crisis spokespeople
In this later clip (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14603649), again featuring Alain St Ange, a further problem arises:
3) Poor preparation leads to unwanted headlines
Mr St Ange continues to defend the actions taken by the Seychelles to protect tourists, but in an apparently throw away remark – again communicated in a casual tone of voice - he concedes “we did try, but maybe not enough”. Guess what the headlines were after this interview? Almost universally, along the lines of “Seychelles tourism chief admits we could have done more”. My criticism is not so much the message itself – acknowledging mistakes and committing to address them can be a very powerful and engaging message – more that it appeared to emerge in an unplanned way. More than this, it seemed to conflict with earlier messages which sought to distance the Seychelles from blame. To be successful, crisis spokespeople must know exactly want they want to communicate in a media interview and be pro-active in getting those messages across. Consistency of message is crucial: media interest in crises can be sustained much longer in the event of mixed or conflicting messages.
The role of spokesperson in a crisis carries significant responsibility. In addition to successfully communicating important information to stakeholders, the impression they create will influence longer term perceptions of the affected organisation. Choosing the right person for this task, training them properly and providing them with the right messages can make the difference between preserving reputation, and seeing it severely damaged.
Jonathan Hemus
What is surprising though is that he should have made so many fundamental and damaging mistakes in the way he handled his media interviews. A thorough reputational risk assessment should identify the crisis scenarios capable of seriously damaging a reputation so that thorough crisis communication training and planning can take place ahead of a possible crisis event. Either a shark attack had not been identified as a potential risk (a serious oversight) or insufficient crisis media training had taken place to identify and prepare a spokesperson to deal with such an event.
So where exactly did Mr St Ange go wrong? Listen to this early BBC interview (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14557165) which illustrates the following errors:
1) Inappropriate balance between messages about the victim versus messages about the Seychelles
Whilst Mr St Ange expresses sympathy for the victim and his family, this is out-weighed by messages focused inwardly on the Seychelles. This smacks of self-interest and self-justification. He twice describes the country as being “innocent” as though apportioning (or avoiding) blame is the priority at this stage. More than this, his attempt to position the attacker as a “foreign shark” and by inference not the responsibility of the Seychelles, stretches credulity. The impression created – rightly or wrongly – is that the spokesperson cares more about the impact on business in the Seychelles than the human tragedy. In other words, the exact opposite of what he should be communicating.
2) Inappropriate tone of voice
It’s not just what you say, it’s how you say it. Mr St Ange fails to convincingly communicate compassion in his tone of voice. Instead, he sounds business-like, matter of fact and slightly brusque. The impression is of someone slightly irritated that he is having to deal with a problem (and the media), rather than someone who cares deeply about what has happened. Some may argue that the fact he is not a native English speaker is a key factor in his vocal delivery. I say that’s not good enough: when your reputation is on the line, you cannot afford to field a spokesperson who is unable to create the right perceptions among viewers and listeners. Crisis communication training is essential to identify and enhance the skills of your crisis spokespeople
In this later clip (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14603649), again featuring Alain St Ange, a further problem arises:
3) Poor preparation leads to unwanted headlines
Mr St Ange continues to defend the actions taken by the Seychelles to protect tourists, but in an apparently throw away remark – again communicated in a casual tone of voice - he concedes “we did try, but maybe not enough”. Guess what the headlines were after this interview? Almost universally, along the lines of “Seychelles tourism chief admits we could have done more”. My criticism is not so much the message itself – acknowledging mistakes and committing to address them can be a very powerful and engaging message – more that it appeared to emerge in an unplanned way. More than this, it seemed to conflict with earlier messages which sought to distance the Seychelles from blame. To be successful, crisis spokespeople must know exactly want they want to communicate in a media interview and be pro-active in getting those messages across. Consistency of message is crucial: media interest in crises can be sustained much longer in the event of mixed or conflicting messages.
The role of spokesperson in a crisis carries significant responsibility. In addition to successfully communicating important information to stakeholders, the impression they create will influence longer term perceptions of the affected organisation. Choosing the right person for this task, training them properly and providing them with the right messages can make the difference between preserving reputation, and seeing it severely damaged.
Jonathan Hemus
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)