Has the fat lady sung?

Crises are easier for organisations to handle if they are clearly the 'victim' of someone else's malicious actions. They tend to get a sympathy vote and the benefit of the doubt from the media and the public.

Product recalls due to sabotage (as in the case of Tylenol in 1982 - look at the Electric Airwaves Resources page for a case study on how Johnson & Johnson handled this), aircraft hijackings and the like come into this category.

But this does not mean that effected management and communicators can be complacent. The media tends to cover crises through three stages of questioning: What has happened and why? What action is being taken to resolve it or ensure it cannot happen again? Who is to blame? Sometimes these phases follow rapidly on from one another. Sometimes they are more drawn out.

In the case last month of Nurofen Plus, the company may well have been a victim of sabotage. Nobody has suffered from taking any incorrect pills (unlike the Tylenol scare where seven died). Reckitt Benckiser has not yet been blamed for any human health consequences although it has been criticised for slow and scant public information in an age of social media immediacy.

But at some point it will probably be revealed how the tampering occurred. Then the media will start to ask questions about the security of the pharmaceutical supply chain. What internal processes existed to prevent this happening? Was management alerted in the past to this being a threat and what actions did it take? Might there be management culpability after all?

Nurofen communicators will surely be preparing to get ahead of the curve; taking action now to reinforce brand narratives and messages with key stakeholders. It might not come but there is no harm in readying themselves for a potential second round to this affair.

The game may not be over yet.


Andrew Caesar-Gordon

Cautious crisis communication by Nurofen Plus is risky strategy

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

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

Watching The Murdochs

When asked what coaching they had received before the hearing, James Murdoch said that they had been advised - correctly - to be “truthful and transparent”. Hopefully they were also told to come across as likeable and to remember they need to appeal to the audience beyond the committee room (we can assume that doesn’t include setting up a physical attack on you to generate sympathy).

James clearly listened to the briefing but was his father asleep (as indeed he sometimes appeared to be during the hearing)? Select Committee hearings are not a forum for being argumentative or flamboyant or offering soundbites and spin (these are the preserve of the questioning politicians). But that was Rupert. You should be robust but respectful, honest and helpful. That was James.

James recovered well from being denied the opportunity to read out a pre-prepared statement. Mainly by using the first question to make it anyway. He set his tone right at the start – a fulsome apology, an outline of his actions to resolve matters and an attempt to offer some perspective. He’d clearly listened to his PR advice and so avoided ‘doing a Tony Hayward’. He was assured, measured and focused over the three hours. He made clear what he knew about and of what he did not – frequently - have ‘direct knowledge’. But most of all he was respectful.

Rupert on the other hand made me cringe with his artlessly delivered, pre-prepared, ‘Americanised’ soundbite that “this is the most humble day of my life”.

Expertly dissected by Tom Watson MP, he was reduced to long pauses (which made what he then said sound insincere), monosyllabic answers and appealing for his son to help him. But this is what select committees can do with their passive ‘grilling’. Just ask the ex-banking executives. Thereafter, he looked confused and irrelevant to the proceedings. Until the foam pie assault which seemed to wake him up.

"I just did what I was told," said Rupert when asked why he came in through the back door at Number 10. That may just be the millstone quote around his neck.

Egg on his face? Or humble pie?

Being A Likeable And Credible Interviewee

Likeability and credibility are key attributes for a successful interviewee.

For a masterclass in how to destroy both in 30 seconds, look no further than Paul McMullan,Deputy Features Editor of the News of the World 1994-2001, on Friday night's Newsnight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUjrIn6OzJA).

Debating with Greg Dyke and comedian Steve Coogan who's phone had been hacked, McMullan's answer to the first question was a corker "... what better source of getting the truth is there than to listen to someone's messages". Not just totally out of keeping with the nation's moral compass but what has he missed in this story that he thinks the audience will be sympathetic to that as an opening gambit?

McMullan then went on to break another cardinal rule of interviewees, of unnecessarily introducing a negative about yourself that will stick in the audience's minds by going on to volunteer that "several celebrities have called us evil and scum" at which point he was interrupted by Greg Dyke with the pertinent question "What right do have you to listen to their messages?". None. Which is Why News International is paying out huge compensation.

Steve Coogan then stated that McMullan was "a walking PR disaster for the tabloids because you don't come across in a sympathetic way". Spot on.

And with McMullan sitting there in a crumpled suit with papers stuffed in his jacket's left pocket and a tie half way round his navel, he had made himself into a caricature of what the public believe tabloid journalists to be like. And they didn't like it.

Andrew Caesar-Gordon

News of the World phone hacking: crisis management lessons for all businesses

As we observe News International’s phone hacking crisis lurch from bad to truly horrendous, it’s tempting to feel a little smug, safe in the knowledge that nothing quite this awful could ever affect our business. But whilst the alleged behaviour of the newspaper and its private investigators sinks below the behaviour of the vast majority of corporations, there are nevertheless lessons in crisis management that businesses would do well to heed.

1) Your corporate culture has the power to create or prevent crisis

Reports from ex-News of the World journalists and other sources indicate that reporters were under enormous pressure to come up with the next scoop, whatever it took. This would likely lead to an atmosphere where the end result is all that matters: this is exactly the culture in which crises can flourish.

In a corporate environment, similar issues can arise. A blinkered focus on the bottom line – “I don’t care how you do it, just hit the number” – or an unwillingness to hear about problems which may hint at broader failings - “just sort it out” – are examples of this.

The best crisis management is crisis prevention: this requires leaders to set and exemplify the right culture.

2) Denial is your greatest enemy (part one)

The News of the World appears to be suffering from denial in both senses of the word. Its initial response was to deny that widespread hacking had taken place. That early denial has been thoroughly undermined by subsequent developments. The effect is that the credibility of the newspaper’s subsequent statements are diminished. Worse, the paper is seen as either incompetent or disingenuous in making the initial claim.

Businesses must heed this important crisis communication lesson: never make a public statement unless you are 100% certain of its truth. Ignore this, and serious reputational damage will inevitably follow.

3) Denial is your greatest enemy (part two)

Denial that there was a problem may be one of the key reasons why the News of the World has been unable to get to grips with its reputational challenge. Businesses can suffer the same fate. When a negative situation faces a corporation there’s a temptation to dis-believe or ignore it: leaders can find it almost impossible to comprehend that such a thing could afflict their business. The problem is that until you recognise and acknowledge a problem, you cannot deal with it. Beware corporate denial at all costs.

4) Pay special attention to the internally generated crisis

The News of the World is facing a crisis of its own making, created by the behaviours of its own employees. This makes its crisis communication challenge so much harder. The same applies to other businesses: accidents, natural disasters, even terrorist attacks all constitute crises and require professional management. But the fact that the organisation in question is also a victim of the event gives them a degree of sympathy and understanding in responding to it. Don’t abuse this position: many businesses have suffered sgnificant reputational damage not because of the crisis itself, but because of the way in which they have mis-managed their response to it.

Far more challenging though is the self-inflicted crisis, where no one is at fault but the organisation itself. Exacerbating this is the fact that many businesses fail to plan thoroughly for the internally generated crisis (it’s much more uncomfortable to contemplate management fraud or sexual harassment than it is to plan for a fire).

Businesses must avoid being blind-sided by internally generated crises by properly considering them as part of their reputational risk assessments, and testing their ability to respond via a well-conceived programme of crisis communication training.

Manage the crisis – don’t let it manage you

The News of the World has failed to apply effective crisis management to the phone hacking saga: the crisis seems to have managed it rather than the other way round. And that really is the final learning for all businesses: effective crisis communication is about recognising a problem quickly; taking decisive action to address it; and communicating pro-actively to stakeholders to protect relationships and reputation. News International appears to have failed on all counts.

Jonathan Hemus

The Miliband Loop

Electric Airwaves' expertise was sought again by The Independent and published on 2nd July:

It has become known as the "Miliband Loop", the robotic interview technique adopted by the Labour leader on television news when attempting to communicate his disapproval of Thursday's mass walkout of public sector workers. Like a waxwork in Madame Tussauds that has been fitted with a voicebox, Ed Miliband replayed the same words to each question he was asked by ITV journalist Damon Green, over and over again.

"These strikes are wrong... the Government has acted in a reckless and provocative manner... both sides should put away the rhetoric and get around the negotiating table," he trotted out, irrespective of what he was asked.

The performance horrified media training experts ..... Andrew Caesar-Gordon, owner of Electric Airwaves, the company which prepared Nick Clegg ahead of his well-received, pre-election televised debates, said Mr Miliband would have made a greater impression if he had developed a narrative from a speech he gave on the day of the interview.

"He had a line that the Labour Party I lead will always be the party of the mums and dads who know the value of a day's education. For anybody watching the BBC who is a parent, and that's a lot of people, that would have struck a chord with them. But his automaton response made it look like he can't trust himself to talk about the issue genuinely without having his automatic paragraph generator to guide him."

Miliband was trying to ensure that the broadcasters used his pre-prepared soundbite when they edited this pre-recorded interview. Such repetition might seem therefore to be a legitimate strategy. But you need to fineness and refresh your key message to each question. How?

If you are focused on 'bridging back' to a key message you sound insincere if you end up robotically repeating a key message that all too often has little resonance with the audience, and especially if you repeat it word-for-word in answer to every question. Bridging back instead to a narrative allows for greater flexibility.

In every interview that he undertakes, Miliband should be trying to tell us what kind of Labour Party he is looking to create and lead. Which is why the line from his speech the previous day to the LGA that "the Labour Party I lead will always be the party of the mums and dads who know the value of a day's education" was so much more powerful.

He can make his point about the strikes and the government being wrong but contextualise it in an emotionally compelling way that drives to the heart of his political project. And then he can use other examples (e.g. lead a party that knows the importance of job centres being open at a time of economic hardship; courts dispensing justice to the perpetrators of crime etc) in answer to each question that makes the same point.

Andrew Caesar-Gordon