2009 Research by Burson Marsteller (a PR company) into European companies’ level of crisis-preparedness revealed that while 60% of companies polled had encountered some sort of crisis, 53% didn’t have a plan in place to deal with a crisis when it happens to them. Just so the full horror of this has time to sink in – I’ll repeat it in slightly different terms.

Over half of European companies, it would seem, are wholly unprepared for the ‘phone call at 3.00am that tells you your factory’s on fire, or one of your planes just came down. The Monday morning call from the Department of Health to say that hospitals up and down the country are stuffed to the gunwales with patients, poisoned by your range of ready meals. The sight of two of your workforce plummeting past the window, having been issued with badly-maintained harnesses. Your CEO shooting himself in the foot, describing your product range as ‘off the record, real shit, know what I mean’, or your CEO simply shooting himself, having realised that the whole fraud game is up.

Do I need to go on? Everyone knows that a good crisis – or sometimes just a minor issue – can destroy a company, brand, organisation, or person’s reputation overnight if it’s not handled in the right way. Think of the examples. Hoover and the flights debacle, Ratners, Nestle and the baby milk, Coke and Dasani, Thierry Henry, Goldman Sachs, Britney Spears, Enron, Exxon Mobil – the list is, quite literally, endless.

And still, over half of European companies do not have a crisis plan in place. Without labouring the point, a crisis can happen at any time, and it’s one of those strange serendipity things that at any time is exactly when crises do happen. There’s no warning and it will be the middle of the night – that much is guaranteed. It is tantamount to malpractice for any communicator daring to describe himself or herself as professional to ply their trade in, or on behalf of, a company that doesn’t have a plan in place. Think about that for a moment.

Of course, it’s easier said than done. If you’ve not created a plan before it might, understandably, seem a bit daunting – and it’s not made any easier by the fact that there are a million conflicting opinions on what a plan should look like and what it should contain.

It’s also all to easy to put off, or ignore. Hey – your company, or your client’s company has never had a crisis – why’s it going to start now? Anyway, how difficult can it be? And just think of the cost, time and effort involved in putting a plan together! All perfectly good arguments – until such time as you are bitch-slapped by the big, wet, metaphorical haddock of crisis. At which point you are going to be really, really, abjectly sorry. Trust me.

In a perfect world, one would expect the industry bodies, or the industry’s ‘bible’ (copyright PRWeek 2009), to provide a handy cut-and-out-keep guide for the benefit of their members and readers – something to get you started. But it’s not a perfect world, and they don’t. In fact, as far as I can see, during the lazy and brief trawl of t’internet I conducted earlier today, there’s not much out there that doesn’t have a price attached to it.

So, for the good of mankind, I’m going to do a partwork here, just for you, my faithful blog snorkellers. Over the next few days – could be weeks, depends how deeply I dive into my subject – I shall, I hope, give you enough information on the key aspects of crisis management for you to develop your own skeleton plan. I shall deal with what constitutes a crisis, when issues become crises, who is responsible for the various facets of a crisis, preparing for a crisis, communicating during a crisis, business continuity and getting back to normal after a crisis. And, most likely, one or two spin-off topics.

So – tomorrow, in Creating A Plan 2, I’ll deal with What Is A Crisis.

Thursday proved emotional before we even got to the first day of the two-day forum at the Guam Legislature. The morning experiences set the stage for what we would hear at the “The 2009 Island Conference on Public Administration, The Military Buildup and Beyond: Hanasson Taotao Guahan (The Guam Perspective).”

We were drinking coffee at Dad’s “Jeff’s Pirates Cove” restaurant when employees started running and shouting about a car accident. Dad shot out of his office,  jumped in a cart, pulled me and the flip camera with him and went out to the road for the estimated thirtieth or so incident in a year’s time. Dad has a string of fishing floats along the road in front of his business to prevent such accidents, and has advocated for decades for safety on this stretch. The driver and the passenger were stunned, but fine. The car was tangled in the floats. It was pretty obvious where the car would have ended up. Earlier this year Dad worked to have a phone pole moved so it would not be yet another hazard. (Another pole nearby has been part of some pretty gruesome accidents.) This is an example of the kind of infrastructure gaps Guam grapples with in the face of a population boom that will increase numbers by 27%.

On the way to the forum I dropped off my friend for a short visit with an ailing relative in the village of Yona. Meanwhile, I visited the elementary school I attended in the 1970s: M.U. Lujan School. At the front of the campus, a flood of memories washed over me—lining up for immunizations in the cafeteria, rotating among teachers in our pod-classrooms, a bus with only five kids to-and-from school with a sweet driver, Ben. Ben became my personal bodyguard as the bus became more crowded and I found myself  subject to a few bullying incidents. I was one of two white kids who signed up for a bilingual instruction pilot program at M.U. Lujan, so teachers called in their colleagues to witness my speaking Chamorro, Guam’s native language.  (Back then, I was blonde enough to be called a tow head;  my parents confirm that my public speaking in Chamorro was quite the sight.)

Unfortunately, my village (Ipan) was redistricted after third grade and I became embarrassed to speak the language among my new school friends. On a few occasions I would let on that I knew what was being said, and it helped my survival as I migrated further and further south for my public school education, becoming more and more of a minority along the way. Later in life, as I found new languages fun and somewhat easy, I would learn that’s it’s proven bilingual education wires your brain for new languages. There are a number of immersion programs in Guam now. People talk about how grandparents are able to converse with their grandkids, but there’s a language gap in a lot of families between these generations.

As you leave the south for the capital of Guam (Hagatna) which is central, you can see that Pago Bay is being carved out for a housing development. While there are many empty executive homes on the island, this development is said to be sold by a third. Detractors are concerned that developments like these are not needed and are driving up home prices for the general population. There is also some protest surrounding evidence that the site was an ancient settlement. Just under 100 homes are planned for the community. I take  this in while I remember how near to the ocean I lived as a child. By Guam standards, we were  lucky to spend our childhood in Ipan, a small village that isn’t noted on most maps. It’s a tiny coastal community with houses mostly across the street from the ocean on hills that offer an enviable view. We lived there because that’s where our family business, Jeff’s Pirates Cove is located (next to Ipan Public Beach).

Clip from Pago Bay:

Thursday was the first day of the “other” conference related to the build up; the first was in Tumon and organized by the University of Guam. Two Guam Senators organized the free two-day event held at the Guam Legislature (I Liheslaturan Guahan). There was another conference the previous week. This one was billed as a forum for “all the voices” to be heard.

U.S. Marine Corp. leadership filled most of two and a half rows of seats at the front of the forum. I give them a lot of credit for committing to the two full days of feedback from government officials, community leaders and some clearly anti-buildup activists. Below are a few clips from the conference featuring Sen. Judith P. Guthertz (my Mom’s classmate from Academy of Our Lady of Guam) who discusses the concept of “One Guam” versus two; one inside the bases and one outside the bases. The third clip is a woman representing the Committee on Natural Resources, Civilian-Military Task Force, who warns against turning Guam into Hawaii. The last clip is an interesting segment from a longtime farmer who now runs the Farmers Co-op in Guam.

Sen. Guthertz wrap up on first day of forum:

From the Natural Resources panel (note reference to Hawaii’s lack of affordable housing):

On Agriculture (Bernard Watson, Vice President, Farmers Co-operative Association of Guam):

This is a repeat of the clip from “The 671 on Guam: Day 2″

–BAP

We stayed in Tumon yesterday. Meetings were back-to-back, so we didn’t get to enjoy it as much as we’d have liked. Tumon is the stretch of hotels I call the Waikiki of Guam. A friend doing consulting work related to the buildup finds Tumon an important center. He reminds me of the insane traffic that snakes along Marine Drive, the main vein that connects the financial district with the visitor center. Below is a quiet, early morning clip I captured of Tumon Bay.

I visited Pacific Daily News (PDN) publisher Rindraty Limtiaco; the Gannett affiliate is diversifying into serious custom publishing. I did an internship with the PDN in 1989, and 20 years later there’s much that’s the same about the building. The Honolulu Advertiser’s current publisher, Lee Webber, was my boss in those days. Rindraty worked for Lee before advancing to the publisher’s desk.

PDN is geographically targeting major areas with inserts. Rindraty says that people still want to know what’s going on in all areas, and come in to pick up the inserts. People on Guam are focused on their local, community news. Another executive of a locally owned media group believes there’s no separate market for business news. He says that locals like all their news delivered together, and consider business news to be mainstream news.

We had breakfast with former radio talk show host Jon Anderson. Jon’s popular morning radio show on K57 was an institution on Guam. Ray Gibson, who was the leading music deejay while we were growing up, is now in this role. You can see Ray behind the mic on one of the TV stations as well as catch him on the radio. K57 also streams live on the internet.

At the Guam Chamber of Commerce annual luncheon we took note of the number of our childhood friends starting businesses or climbing executive ranks. It is exciting to see them doing well, filled with optimism about the future Guam holds for their children. We sat with the armed forces committee chair and several military members. There were also a number of Hawaii bankers at our table. During general introductions, we discovered a number of Hawaii firms represented.

Below are video clips of David Leddy, the Chamber President, and Frank Campillo, outgoing chair.

– BAP

It is November so it is time for US conservative groups and pundits to bring up the “War on Christmas.”  Companies that have employees greet customers with “happy holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas” and/or use the term “holidays” in advertising rather than “Christmas” are put on the naughty list.  Yes, the American Family Association (AFA) calls it the “Naughty or Nice List” as it rates retailers on their use of Christmas.  Here is a description of the list:

“Criteria – AFA reviewed up to four areas to determine if a company was ‘Christmas-friendly’ in their advertising: print media (newspaper inserts), broadcast media (radio/television), website and/or personal visits to the store. If a company’s ad has references to items associated with Christmas (trees, wreaths, lights, etc.), it was considered as an attempt to reach “Christmas” shoppers.

If a company has items associated with Christmas, but did not use the word ‘Christmas,’ then the company is considered as censoring “Christmas.”

Color Code:

Company uses the term “Christmas” on a regular basis, we consider that company Christmas-friendly.

Company refers to Christmas infrequently, or in a single advertising medium, but not in others.

Company may use ‘Christmas’ sparingly in a single or unique product description, but as a company, does not recognize it.” http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147486887

The conclusion is that if retailers do not use the word Christmas they are anti-Christmas and, therefore, anti-Christian.  AFA has every right to create their list and use public relations to share it with their members and supporters.  Retailers counter that the US market is diverse and “happy holidays” is more inclusive of a phrase.  So the choice is about inclusion and sensitivity to others for retailers rather than exclusion.  It seems odd that the old concern over exploiting Christmas for commercial gain has lost its appeal.  Retailers are now criticized for not exploiting Christmas.  It can get confusing.

In 2009, Gap became the initial target for the AFA.  They had an announcement about the Gap boycott on the web site and had their interactive site ready.  Go to http://action.afa.net/takeaction/gap/ and there is form to help spread the word about the boycott and a place to sign a boycott pledge.  There is also an explanation of the boycott at the site posted Nov. 11:

“AFA is calling for a limited two-month boycott of Gap, Old Navy and Banana Republic, the three stores owned by San Francisco-based Gap Inc., over the company’s censorship of the word ‘Christmas.’

The boycott is part of our ongoing campaign to encourage businesses, communities and individuals to put Christ back in Christmas. The boycott runs from November 1 through Christmas Day.

For years, Gap has refused to use the word Christmas in its television commercials, newspaper ads and in-store promotions, despite tens of thousands of consumer requests to recognize Christmas and in spite of repeated requests from AFA to do the same.

Last year, Gap issued this politically-correct statement to Christmas shoppers: ‘Gap recognizes that many traditions are celebrated throughout this season and we feel it is important to display holiday signage that is inclusive to everyone.’” http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147489466

People visiting the site had mixed reactions to the boycott.  Here is a sample of the responses left on the page:

11/13/2009 7:43:29 PM
I also support the boycott.” http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147489466

But a funny thing happened along the way, Gap advertising did include Christmas along with a number of other holidays.  The television ad is complemented by a web site, www.cheerfactory.com, where people can send customized video singing greeting that includes one with Christmas (and the other holidays) in the message.  http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-neil17-2009nov17,0,2040716.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fbusiness+%28L.A.+Times+-+Business%29

The AFA used this opportunity to declare victory over the Gap and express continued distaste with the Gap:

As a result of your actions, Gap has produced a television commercial that uses the word “Christmas.” Here are the words to the commercial:

“Two, Four, Six, Eight, now’s the time to liberate
Go Christmas, Go Hanukkah, Go Kwanza, Go Solstice.
Go classic tree, go plastic tree, go plant a tree, go add a tree,
You 86 the rules, you do what feels just right.
Happy do whatever you wanukkah, and to all a cheery night.

Go Christmas, Go Hanukkah, go whatever holiday you wanukkah.

AFA believes this ad to be completely dismissive and disrespectful to those who celebrate the meaning and spirit of Christmas. AFA asked Gap for a meeting to discuss the ad, but Gap has not responded.

If this is Gap’s answer to recognizing Christmas, we are deeply disappointed.” http://action.afa.net/takeaction/gap/  

Questions to Consider

1.  Is it ethical for AFA to claim their actions changed Gap advertising when then ads would have been created long before the boycott started on November 11?
2. What advice would you provide Gap management about responding to the AFA boycott and what is the reasoning behind that advice?
3. How would you evaluate the reputational threat posed by the AFA boycott?
4. How could issues management have helped the Gap anticipate and to prepare for 2009 AFA boycott?
5. The Los Angeles Times article linked in the entry notes that the AFA boycotts have no financial effect.  What other effects are possible with a boycott?
6. How does this US-based case reflect concerns associated with public relations going international?
7. Are retailers hypocritical in exploiting Christmas without recognizing Christmas?

Being a day ahead has advantages. Monday on Guam is Sunday in Hawaii, so I had a day to deal with my communication challenges. AT&T’s International Roaming plan… yikes. I’m using land lines as much as possible, and text messaging when I can’t find one. Folks who come here regularly for business find major communication issues need to be worked around.

We met with David Leddy, new president of the Guam Chamber of Commerce, yesterday. Leddy says the armed forces committee is active, and others agree that the Chamber is an important nexus.

The other meeting I had yesterday was with a group focused on publications. (The group is split into two departments, the other being an ad agency.) In the late 1980s I did an internship with Guam Business News, a monthly publication at the time. Steven Nygard was  publisher and Joe Couch, the owner back then. There’s since been an ownership change. The operation publishes three titles regularly, the most interesting being the Marianas Business Journal. Imagine Pacific Business News for the Marianas. The Journal is among the healthier print media outlets I’ve seen so far. The publisher is Maureen Maratita who writes an interesting “Plain English” column. The Journal gets out every other week.

I cooked for my Dad, Jeff Pleadwell (Jeff’s Pirates Cove) last night. I was pleased to see really healthy produce at Island Fresh in Chalan Pago. (When I was a kid on Guam, we ate lots of canned vegetables for lack of fresh.) The prices weren’t as crazy as I remember. We sat on the lanai and ate wahoo caught by fishermen right in front of the Cove. The fishermen give my Dad two fish for all the ice they need to keep their catch fresh.

There’s very little light polution in the South, so the night sky is spectacular.

Clip from the VP of the Guam Farmers Co-op (relates to my observation about the healthy produce selection at the grocery store):

BAP

“I’m not feeling this trip,” said the Marine next to me on the plane to Guam. He’d never been and he’s tasked with recon involving the buildup. A perfect neighbor for the nearly eight-hour flight from Honolulu, he talked about the issues arising from the fast-forward federal build-up in the works for this U.S. Territory. I told him the sensitive history of military presence in Guam, how it’s shifted depending on the U.S. military’s international standing and the economic situation in the Marianas.

I moved from Guam in 1988 to go to school at Chaminade University in Honolulu. I’ve been in Hawaii since. It’s a typical coming of age for island kids.  The small, Catholic school environment is familiar and Hawaii is still island living. I’ve visited Guam many times over the past two decades. This is my first business trip. With 8,000 Marines being relocated to Guam over the next several years, a number of clients and colleagues have asked about the region. The opportunity for businesses in the Pacific is pretty big. With a build-up this size, there are issues that require careful navigation. Hawaii doesn’t have the best reputation for being business-friendly; the challenges for an island economy in far-flung Guam are even steeper.

Two childhood friends picked me up from the airport. We went to Notre Dame High School together, and grew up in what’s considered “The South.” (Because Guam is long and skinny, North and South are the dominant geographic descriptors.) One of my girlfriends was flying to Saipan the next day for a conference to help businesses get information about contracts with the federal government. About 200 people are registered for the Saipan forum.

From the airport, I went to our family’s business, Jeff’s Pirates Cove, for a party on the beach.

Some initial notes:

1) I got the litmus test on how residents feel about the build-up.

2) Infrastructure is at the front of the issue. The Pacific Daily News articles relate many utility problems, capacity gaps.

3) Guam is slow. October was a particularly difficult time for island businesses.

4) Real estate is a mixed bag of a few exciting new developments and empty executive residences.

5) People are talking about starting businesses, not all directly related to the military build-up.

6) Crime, of course, is impacted by circumstances.

Today, I’ll connect with my friend and colleague who arrived last week. Also from Honolulu and originally from Guam, she’s reconnecting with friends, politicians and business leaders. As a native of Guam who’s worked in D.C. on policy, her perspective and insights will be enlightening.

–BAP

So, that’s it then? The Government has committed itself to supporting a new generation of nuclear power stations, told the industry where it should build these plants and has even streamlined the UK’s notoriously slow planning system to ensure speedy delivery.  All that is left is for the likes of EDF, E.ON and Scottish & Southern to get a quote from the builders?

It’s true that political and public support for nuclear energy has risen in recent years, driven largely by growing concern about climate change and energy security.  Broadly reflecting public opinion, both Labour and the Conservatives now back nuclear energy, with only the Liberal Democrats opposing the policy on principle.

But support for ‘going nuclear’ is shallow.  This is an issue because to maintain its licence to operate, the industry needs to maintain the confidence of the political majority, which ultimately means maintaining the confidence of ‘ordinary’ voters.  If the industry fails to maintain general support – or, at the very least, if it fails to maintain a decent level of acquiescence – then life could become very difficult indeed.

What should the nuclear sector be doing about it?  Above all else, it should be staying engaged.  It needs to be seen to be open and trustworthy, listening to concerns and gently continuing to make the case on a national level for why the next generation of nuclear power stations is so important.

Secondly, operators and their development teams need to handle individual applications with care.  The key will be to engage the local communities in a way that would be seen to be reasonable to the reasonable outsider.  The crass handling of objectors is likely to backfire not only on individual planning applications, but also on the industry as a whole.

The nuclear industry has come a long way in just a few years, but it is certainly not “mission accomplished”.  The hard work continues.

This post was written by Regester Larkin director, Andrew Fairburn. Andrew was a panelist at the Westminster Energy, Environment & Transport Forum’s keynote seminar: Nuclear new build and the National Policy Statement on 12 November.

Jhilam Nandi, Head of India Sales and Marketing, informs a curious visitor at the booth about the various tools offered.

Dear Kovair Friends,

I’m posting this blog from the Kovair Kolkata office where I am spending the week with our Product Development group. The content of this blog, however, focuses on my visit to Bangalore last week where Kovair participated in the SPM-ICON event from October 29-30, focusing on IT Project Management. Kovair participated as the Gold sponsor of the event along with Microsoft as the Platinum sponsor and IBM as the Event sponsor.  As you can see by the names, we were in very good company and received great reception and recognition! This was the 5th annual event and we participated for the first time. This was also our first major marketing event in India where we started focusing on since Spring 2009.

Kovair CEO and Chairman Bipin Shah (myself, right) gives one of three cash prizes to an ecstatic winner.

The first day of the event primarily comprised of tutorial sessions where we networked and conducted a quiz on ALM and ITSM and gave out cash prizes to three winners. On Day 2, we had some very interesting sessions with a keynote address by Bob Hoekstra, former CEO of Phillips and a well-known face in Bangalore based on his past there. The day’s sessions were managed by individuals from some major IT companies in Bangalore such as Program and Project Management from Wipro, Challenges of Managing Projects to Improve Efficiency by HCL, Managing Software Product Portfolio with Real Insights & Real Metrics by IBM Rational and Managing Changes by Infosys. Kovair was provided with a vendor speaking slot where we presented the “Kovair Value Proposition for IT Projects and Service Management.”

Colonel Ravindranath shares his experience at the conference.

For those who wanted to hear something about project management from a non-IT perspective, there was an excellent and somewhat emotionally charged presentation by Colonel Ravindranath from the Indian army where he described the Project Management aspects of recapturing the Tololing peak by his battalion during the Kargil war between India and Pakistan a few years ago at an elevation of over 16,000 feet! The project included many details of planning, communicating, training, rehearsing and logistical planning, including the manual lifting of ammunition at night by couple of hundred soldiers and support personnel for over a week without the enemy realizing what was happening in the darkness of the night! While it was interesting from a planning and execution perspective, it was very sad to hear about the casualties of such an undertaking and realizing the tragic part of any war and how it affects the people and their families who get sacrificed in any such conflict!

Our booth drew several people and it was interesting for this writer to see the Bangalore IT crowd in action with attendees from the “who is who” of IT companies in India such as IBM (yes, you can also call it an Indian IT company with an employee count of 50,000 in India), Infosys, Wipro, Cognizant, HCL, Mindtree and many others!

For further details and to view presentations and/or download the Kovair presentation, please visit http://www.qsitglobal.com/spm-icon-2009/.

On another note, I would like to mention that Kovair is in the process of signing up two VARs in the Bangalore area — Vedasoft and GenXT so that we can better serve our customers in the India market – particularly in the Bangalore area with it’s large presence of both Indian and Global IT and Technology companies.

Thanks for reading this and I hope you will visit the Kovair website at www.kovair.com for other information and updates!

Sincerely,

Bipin Shah
CEO and Chairman

This morning I received a tip-off on an interesting development from a company who had been the target of an aggressive, and very public, lobbying campaign by Greenpeace.

This case study, and another one, My Green Apple, have in my opinion displayed the opportunities that a well mitigated crisis communications plan can provide. Instead of running and hiding, which a lot of companies do when faced with a public witch hunt, these two companies listened and responded in a positive and mature corporate way. Let’s look at them.

Timberland stands up to criticism, and ends up looking the hero

Faced with an assault of more than 65,000 template letters from green activists, consumers and members of a genuinely concerned community, Timberland had two options. Run and hide, and don’t respond to the increasingly ferocious lobbying of perhaps the world’s biggest and most trusted green group, Greenpeace, or stand up and listen to the concerns and action them in a mutually beneficial and mature manner. Timberland took the latter option and in turn has proven that a crisis can be a PR dream.

Now, the criticism and resulting public lobbying from Greenpeace was a result of an investigation in which Timberland were implicated as being unwitting contributors to the destruction of the Amazon for cattle farming. Timberland were buying 7 per cent of their leather for their products, from cows who were destroying the world’s most vulnerable forest through grazing.

As a result, Timberland got on the radar of Greenpeace, along with other companies such as Adidas/Reebok and Nike to name a few. This was secondary to the main villains, being the actual cattle farmers Bertin, JBS and Marfrig (interestingly, part-owned by the Brazilian Government).

Taking the road less travelled

It would have been easy for Timberland to play dumb, to cry foul and essentially ignore the brand assault enveloping their operations. Afterall, the PR ’spin’ would have been easy. Can’t you imagine them issuing a media release pleading ignorance and pushing back to their supplier, Bertin, in terms of laying the blame?

Then, behind closed doors, you can picture the discussions with Bertin. “Mate, you have to take this heat. It’s your cows, your farming, your operation. We just buy your leather.”

But Timberland have taken the road less travelled, faced up to the crisis, and in turn, have looked a hero. Why?

Turning the crisis into an opportunity

Timberland have done two things right. They have acknowledged the concerns of the lobbyists and their customers, and have addressed them. Check out their CEO, Jeff Swartz, responding in his blog here.

Not only has Timberland engaged with their supplier, Bertin, to develop a plan that would answer the challenge, but they have managed to respond to the public criticism with a mature corporate tone which places them as the hero. They are using their small leveraging currency to engage with Bertin and other organisations such as Nike, to look at their business operations in the Amazon.  In fact, Bertin have just announced they are no longer sourcing cattle from protected areas of the Amazon.

Confronting the crisis head-on

What interests me is the fact they have confronted the crisis head-on. They have facilitated a major organisation to look at the issue, they have facilitated face-to-face meetings with the villain (Bertin) and the agitator (Greenpeace) and they have put the issue on a major stakeholder’s agenda (the Leather Working Group).

In addition, Timberland have created a positive public relations opportunity out of this action. The CEO blog announcing this action, the covering letter distributed to all 65,000 consumers who wrote to Timberland, and the prominent placement in their CSR website, are all big wins.

The tone in the CEO blog is also interesting. A couple of paragraphs I think are spot on include:

So when 65,000 new friends introduce themselves to your e-mailbox in a week, endlessly resending a form letter written by Greenpeace accusing your company of being part of the deforestation of the precious ecosystem called the Amazon rainforest, what would you do?

To understand Greenpeace’s assertion that our business practice directly leads to deforestation in the Amazon, you’ve first got to know that it is cattle ranching that is causing the deforestation — ranchers cutting down the forest in order to allow livestock to graze. That livestock is raised primarily for tailgate hotdogs or your mom’s meatloaf recipe — not for leather.

So in other words, wow you guys are persistent and we’re listening. Oh, and it’s not our fault.

No more leather from Brazil, no more issues with tracing hides which may have come from cows grazing in deforested areas of the Amazon rainforest.  We’re only talking about 7% of our production — so cut and run, right?

Tempting, but not the right thing to do. Disengaging would have solved OUR problem — no more headaches or emails from angry activists — but would do nothing to solve the problem of deforestation.  Even as we fumed at the way Greenpeace had approached this issue we asked ourselves, what is the responsible thing to do?  Do we walk away and let the beef processors sort this out with Greenpeace, or do we risk further ire, by staying in the conversation and engaging the leather tanner and the beef processor to solve the real environmental challenge?  What would you choose to do?

Or, look we are a really small client of Bertin and you have placed us in an untenable position, but…

We decided to stay engaged.  We pressed our Brazilian leather supplier, Bertin, for a plan that would answer the challenge posed — demonstrate that the cattle grazing in the field were not contributing to deforestation.  Find a way to ensure trace-ability back into the value chain — now.

For its part, Greenpeace has done an outstanding job gathering data, creating a complete and compelling case for the issue, and mobilizing its tens of thousands of supporters to call for action from brands like ours on an issue they care about.  Their effort has driven change into the system.  We applaud their activism, even as we wish next time—and there will be a next time, in the complex global value chain — they would seek to engage brands like ours before they pull the “let’s confront ‘em” lever.

We’re the hero, and we’re impressed that Greenpeace had the balls to push us.  And, finally..

Business can be a force for positive environmental change … collaboration yields more powerful outcomes than the effort of one … learnings reinforced by our experience to date on the Amazon deforestation issue.  We’re not closing the book on this topic yet – we’ll continue to monitor progress through regular reports from Bertin and through our work with the LWG and HWG, and we’ll continue to share milestones and challenges with you here on Earthkeepers.

CEO thanks Greenpeace for full frontal email assault?  Next thing you know, world leaders will actually come up with a meaningful global agreement at Copenhagen…

So, what are the key insights into this case study?

• Timberland have managed to salvage their business relationship with Bertin, by engaging with them, showing them how they can also evoke change in a positive manner, and then credit Bertin in their communications
• The CEO, and Timberland as an organisation, have leveraged the crisis as an opportunity to display good corporate citizenship without actually losing any income or business
• Timberland have approached the PR crisis with a mature corporate voice, and have responded publicly in a tone which mitigates Greenpeace’s concerns. They have put a human face to the response (CEO) and have managed to communicate some pretty convincing business messages
• Instead of an attack on Greenpeace, Timberland have managed to engage with them, and in a side-ways slap, highlighted how  they thought it was unfair that Greenpeace targeted them, via the CEO blog
• The CEO responded to each and every one of the 65,000 agitators via the same mechanism they lobbied to Timberland – through a personalised email
• Greenpeace have commended Timberland’s response and actions, providing a PR win-win. Timberland looks good, and Greenpeace look like a victor.

So, what do you think? Would your company have the balls to confront the PR crisis head-on and come out looking like the hero? And, are you prepared for an assault of this size, by the likes of Greenpeace?

Torod B. Neptune

The recent headlines in the media about Toyota’s problematic floor mats and uncontrollable acceleration may have some people wondering if they are seeing déjà vu.

Federal investigations? Failing vehicle parts? Prior knowledge of safety deficiencies?

Is Toyota having a flashback to Firestone’s crisis in the 1990s?

Firestone Tires made headlines after their disastrous handling of reports that Ford SUVs were rolling over because of defective tires. Instead of taking blame for their deficient tires, Firestone chose to deflect criticism to Ford for making unsafe vehicles and even to consumers for not following proper maintenance and tire inflation procedures. Although Firestone eventually ordered a recall and apologized, the brand had already taken enormous damage from Firestone’s inability to choose a consistent crisis strategy. Firestone did not take responsibility for the problem and take reactive measures when it had the chance early in the development of the crisis. Had it acted earlier, Firestone could have escaped much of the criticism and notoriety that later ensued.

Today, Toyota has the benefit of being able to learn from Firestone and Ford’s crisis communication strategies and blunders. From the early going, Toyota has done well to control the message of the developing story by acknowledging the problem, not denying or deflecting it. Last week, Toyota announced it was working with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to correct the issue and that it would spend nearly $440 million in recalling 3.8 million Toyota and Lexus vehicles.

By reacting to the crisis in the early stages of the news cycle, Toyota has been able to control the media coverage of the issue on its own terms. So far, Toyota has been able to emphasize its massive recall and the work it’s doing with the government and Toyota engineers to address the problem. If Toyota can keep the media, government, its employees, and Toyota owners informed of the steps it’s taking to correct the situation, Toyota will surely emerge from this pending media storm unscathed.

The window of opportunity to react to a media crisis can be short, but taking advantage of this moment is vital to protecting an individual or organizations reputation or brand. Without a contingency plan in place, reacting to a story before it spirals out of control becomes exponentially more difficult. We might learn from the mistakes and misfortunes of others, but the fact remains that clear, early, and direct communication is essential in any crisis communications plan.

In June, I commented on this blog how momentum is slowly building behind the second-coming of genetically modified (GM) crops in the UK, almost 20 years after they were rejected in a passionate public debate.

Since then, the movement for their reintroduction has gained significant momentum with three high profile developments: the Royal Society called for funding into developing GM crops; the government’s chief scientific adviser reiterated that GM crops have a ‘major contribution’ to make in global food security; and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) plans a 12-month consultation exercise to gauge public opinion on the issue.

For GM enthusiasts, the opportunity is here: this is your chance to create a benign public environment where consumers choose to buy GM food products.  Such an environment will only be created if those who have the most to gain (and lose) employ a sophisticated, well-resourced and bullish communications strategy.  Central to this will be selling GM as a solution to global problems, not a problem in the making.

This may be going on behind the scenes, but it will need to be communicated confidently in open political debate.  And it’s not solely a task for Monsanto, Syngenta or the Agricultural Biotechnology Council.  It requires consistent, tenacious and positive leadership from across the industry, building a coalition of stakeholders including academics and research institutions, whose expertise and voice in the debate have been marginalised – in part by sophisticated and persistent campaigns from activists.

The biotechnology industry needs to maintain and build the momentum provided by the Royal Society and Professor Beddington.  2010 is likely to be a defining year for GM crops – industry and the developing world can’t afford to wait another two decades for a third attempt.

This post was written by Regester Larkin consultant, Jonathan Howie.

Hastings & Pleadwell is launching a national campaign using social media—YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, and even Twitter to get out our client’s message. We’re excited about this cross-country outreach and we’d love to get your help!

Our client, National Cyber Security Alliance, advances public education year-round promoting cyber security as “our shared responsibility.” We’ve been tasked with getting this message out to college-age adults.

We got Hawai‘i filmmaker, Brett Wagner, to create a web video titled: Don’t be a Billy. “Billy” is a humorous take on a 1940s classroom etiquette film showing what not to do online. Would you check out the video and share it with your friends and networks, especially those connected to higher education (university and college campuses)? The link:

We’d also like to ask you to connect with us on Facebook, MySpace and Twitter. Hopefully you will learn how to increase your own cyber security in the process.

Thank you in advance for your help and sharing this with your online community. Hawai‘i has a great track record of boosting local talent through online voting, so we’re hoping for a boost from our home state as we attempt to reach every state in the nation with our cybersecurity message for young adults.

Social media links to support our campaign:

Twitter:  http://twitter.com/DontbeBilly
Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/pages/National-Cyber-Security-Alliance/38764369217
YouTube:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPR131wMKEo
MySpace:  http://www.myspace.com/staysafeonline

What to do:

YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPR131wMKEo
• View videos. Rate them using the 5-star rating system.
• Click “subscribe” and sign up to receive updates on new videos on StaySafeOnline1’s channel.
• Comment on videos.
• Add to your “favorites” by clicking “favorite” beneath the video screen.
• Share the video with others by sending the link in an email or posting it on Facebook, MySpace or Twitter.

Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/pages/National-Cyber-Security-Alliance/38764369217 or search “national cyber security alliance”
• Become a fan – navigate to NCSA’s fan page (http://www.facebook.com/pages/National-Cyber-Security-Alliance/38764369217) and click “become a fan”
• Respond to posts by clicking:
o “Like” – this gives a thumbs up to the post on NCSA’s page and appears on your own profile that you “like” the post.
o “Share” – by clicking on share, you can add the post to your own profile with a comment, which will be shared with your friends/networks.
o “Comment” – add your comment about the post to NCSA’s page.

MySpace
http://www.myspace.com/staysafeonline
• Become a friend – navigate to NCSA’s page.(http://www.myspace.com/staysafeonline) and click “add to friends”
• Add a comment – click on link on right-hand side of the page.

Twitter
http://twitter.com/DontbeBilly
• Follow @DontbeBilly – Click the links to our Twitter accounts and choose “follow.”
• RT (retweet) our posts and others who are tweeting about NCSAM or related topics.
• Tweet about CyberSecurity issues and use hashtags: #NCSAM, #Cybersecurity #cybertips.
• Note – with Twitter, it’s almost like radio in that tweeting the same tweet multiple times and at different times of the day is fine. It helps reach some twitterers who may not be “listening” at the time we are tweeting.

Have fun! Thank you for your help.

Barbara Hastings
Barbra Pleadwell

I have to thank Professor Chris Hawkey for giving me an opportunity to update my last post on this site.

In it I argued that the drinks industry faced a slippery slope to more burdensome regulation if it didn’t better engage with policy makers to come up with sensible policy.

Writing in yesterday’s Guardian, Professor Hawkey, President of the British Society of Gastroenterology perfectly illustrates the point. He argues that, like tobacco, alcohol should be subjected to a ban on advertising (as well as minimum unit pricing and restrictions on sponsorship and opening hours).  He argues that this is justified because the effects of alcohol are even worse than cigarettes. And because the tobacco advertising ban led to a reduction in smoking and smoking related illness, the same would follow for alcohol.

This is a great example of how campaigners and campaign groups seek to build momentum behind an idea while businesses wait to see how far things go before defending themselves and their industry. Putting your head above the parapet can be daunting (especially if you’re up there alone) but letting others lead the debate is inherently risky.

The Guardian’s headline says it all…”We acted on tobacco, now we must act on alcohol”. If the tide is not stemmed what will they act on next?
Now is the time for industry to put forward an alternative vision.

This post was written by Regester Larkin consultant, Mark Hamilton.

Dear Friends,

There are two items that I would like to communicate to all of you in this blog.

The first one is that Kovair has recently completed a complete integration with the Eclipse Development Platform for all of you developers who love to work in the Eclipse environment.  This bi-directional integration allows you to connect with other tools in your development environment such as Test tools or SCM tools through the Kovair integration without leaving your Eclipse environment.  The Eclipse Plug in adapter is available from Kovair by contacting our Sales@Kovair.com   We would love to answer your questions.  A brief article on the subject written by Kovair VP of Engineering was contained in the Kovair October Newsletter that may be accessed from our website home page at www.kovair.com.

The second is to request you to look into attending our upcoming  webinar on the topic “Why Implement ITIL based IT Service Management?”  The webinar presentation by Mr. Bob Aiello a well known IT Consultant and a member of the IEEE Committee on ITIL Standards and Sky Basu, CTO of Kovair may be of interest to many of you who may be considering the ITIL Standards for your IT Service Management approach or for tools considerations.  It is free and you can register by going to the Kovair website homepage at www.kovair.com.

Thanks for your time in reading this update and hope to communicate to you at a regular frequency!

Sincerely,
Bipin Shah
CEO & Chairman
Kovair Software
www.kovair.com

DineEquity Inc. is the company that owns the restaurant chains IHOP and Applebee’s.  Both chains are popular with families in the US.  But would people still eat there if these restaurants were known to be cruel to chickens?  Well not the restaurants themselves but their egg suppliers.  It seems that Michael Foods Inc., one supplier for IHOP, has a serious problem at one of its facilities in Le Sueur, Minnesota.  The Humane Society has released footage document mistreatment at the facility including living and dead hens stuck in fences and decaying hen bodies in cages.  These are not the kind of image that are conducive to dining.  The Humane Society is using publicity to create awareness among customers of IHOP’s “wrong” behavior.

The IHOP initiative is part of a larger campaign to end the use of producing eggs in “battery cages.”  Such cages are very small and chickens live their lives in space the size of a piece of paper.  The Humane Society wants restaurants to not use suppliers who use battery cages and instead buy from cage free suppliers.  This is not the pursuit of a vegetarian agenda, the action is based on the humane treatment of animals.  Burger King, Hardee’s, Quizno’s, Carl’s Jr. and Denny’s have all agreed to buy at least 5% of their eggs from cage free sources.  IHOP is a target because it has over 1,400 restaurants whose menu includes heavy egg use, eggs are a key ingredient in pancakes.  IHOP would be a great addition to the list for the Humane Society.

However, DineEquity is resisting the call.  The company does not believe the alternatives to battery cages are any more humane.  Interesting, McDonald’s is funding research to help answer the question what is the most humane way to raise hens for laying eggs.  Here is the response provided in the news media:

“’Mortality is going to be part of the process,’ said Patrick Lenow, DineEquity’s spokesman.

He said the restaurant company investigated production at Michael Foods and came away confident that the video “was not representative” of conditions at the supplier.

Michael Foods said the video ‘is not an accurate depiction of the laying facilities.’ The company confirmed the video was shot at its plant but said some scenes “were staged for effect.’ Michael Foods said it ‘does not contend that it is perfect or that its employees never make mistakes.’ But the company said the video was designed to promote vegetarian eating and was “unbalanced.’” http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-eggs15-2009oct15,0,2070513.story?track=rss

So DineEquity is taking a stand to defend its supplier and stand in opposition to the Humane Society.  Their position is that there is no need to change and that the supplier is being misrepresented with the online video.  (You can follow the LA Times link because it has an embedded link to the video). 

Here is how DineEquity Inc. describes itself in relation to the treatment of animals:

“Cruelty Free Food

It’s important to state clearly that we are against the cruel treatment of any animal used in the production of food for our restaurants. Our supplier standards go beyond what is required by law to promote the humane treatment of animals used to produce the food we serve. If we find that a supplier is not meeting our standards, we work with that supplier to improve. If there is no improvement, we will find a supplier who does meet our standards.

We support efforts in our industry that enforce and improve standards for the humane treatment of animals. We also rely on experts in the field such as Dr. Jeffery Armstrong of the University of Michigan College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, to provide research and guidance on animal welfare.

As big as we are, we account for only a small fraction of the animal-based products purchased each year in the U.S. Our ability to impact industry wide practices is somewhat limited, but we will continue to communicate and enforce our standards and look for ways to improve the treatment of farm animals.

• Adherence to Standards of Humane Treatment
• Audit Suppliers for Compliance to Standards
• Work with Suppliers to Improve
• Identify Alternative Suppliers if Necessary

http://dineequity.com/socialresponsibility_environment.html

Be careful what policies are in print for public consumption.  The Humane Society sent out news releases with the following information:

“The Humane Society of the United States filed complaints with the Securities and Exchange Commission and Federal Trade Commission regarding false and misleading statements IHOP, and its parent company DineEquity, Inc. (DineEquity), are making on IHOP’s and DineEquity’s Web sites regarding animal cruelty in IHOP’s supply chain.” http://www.chainleader.com/article/ca6701959.html

For additional information  about the IHOP concerns you can visit http://www.hsus.org/farm/news/ournews/ihops_animal_cruelty_091609.html .

The page has the headline:  “Take a Bite out of IHOP’s Animal Cruelty” with images of abused chickens.

Questions to Consider

1.  What public rationale would you provide from IHOP siding with its supplier?
2. What is the argument for IHOP working with the Humane Society and any downside to the strategy?
3. How harmful is it to use DineEquity’s own animal cruelty policies/statements against it?
4. Video and still images of abuse animals are powerful.  How might groups “abuse” those images for gains? 
5. What should the ethical guidelines be for using such disturbing images?
6. How would you evaluate DineEquity’s statement as an effort to manage their reputation?
7. How will the restaurant industry as a whole be affected by the battery cage issue in the future?
8. What recommendations would you make for addressing the battery cage issue?
9. How might this situation create doubt about DineEquity’s CSR?

Dear Friends of Kovair,

Here’s a whitepaper that I recently wrote in response to a potential customer query about the value of Omnibus Integration Solutions from Kovair.  It provides a brief summary of the reasons why customers should consider the value of integrations of best of breed tools from multiple vendors using the Kovair Omnibus Integration Bus and Platform. Your ALM and ITSM solutions will be greatly enhanced as a result of these integrations. 

I hope you enjoy reading it and look into it further if you think it will be of interest to your company or organization. As always, your comments are keenly sought and appreciated!

Click to get your free whitepaper now! Value Propositions for Tool Integrations Whitepaper

Best,

Bipin Shah
CEO & Chairman
Kovair Software
www.Kovair.com

There was yet another example in the news yesterday of the state attempting to use simple legislative tools to try and tackle complex social problems. This time it’s the turn of the Scottish National Party, which according to the FT, “appears to have decided that setting a minimum price for alcohol is a popular answer to the problem of soaring levels of alcohol abuse.”

Popular to who? Diageo claim in the article that minimum pricing for alcohol “would target the poorest in society, whether they had a problem with alcohol or not.” The Scotch Whisky Association make the valid claim that jobs in the industry would be at risk if consumers switch from “cheaper Scotch brands to other drinks.”

The ‘blanket ban’ is the bluntest of tools available for policy makers to adopt, yet it is being used more and more. I have worked on issues for clients where local authorities have talked of introducing bans on new takeaway restaurants (to reduce obesity in children) and new housing developments (to protect a particular species of wildlife).

And only last week it was reported in The Daily Telegraph that Nottingham City Council wants to ban drinking in all public spaces. Kiss goodbye to that glass of wine or Pimms next time you have a picnic in the park then!

So what to do? Companies shouldn’t give up on trying to make policy makers see that these blunt, one size fits all policies may secure news coverage, but they don’t solve the problem. In fact, companies need to step up their game in this respect. But this is a long-term solution.

In the short term, companies need to provide local authorities with better solutions. They need to work together to draw up proposals that help tackle the particular problem at hand. This may require compromise on the industry’s part, but at the same time it gives companies the opportunity to make it clear what the red line issues are i.e. this is something we just won’t accept.

Complex social problems will never be solved with blunt policy instruments. However politicians need to be seen to act. It is up to companies therefore to provide some intelligent thinking and options for policy makers to adopt.

This post was written by Regester Larkin consultant, Mark Hamilton.

Last night’s confession by funny man David Letterman was a classic comeback in a tough spot.

While I can’t say much for the course of action that put him in a bind, a tip of my hat is due Letterman’s on-air bomb disposal.

 Opening with a light-hearted monologue as usual, he took a seat behind the desk to disclose the extortion attempt that would expose his own misconduct. He could easily have said, you might want to sit down for this; I do.

Letterman and his advisors, people accustomed to the spotlight, wisely chose to pick the time, place and means by which his conduct would come to light. Thus Letterman had the first word and gets the credit due people with the courage to admit their mistakes.

Credit is due. Ask anyone who has done this. The admission of misconduct–the proverbial pound of cure–leaves an indelible mark. The pain of confession becomes the greatest consequence of misdeeds, especially when the admission is made in person. It is a potent form of aversion therapy.

Letterman might have left the public announcement to a lawyer or publicist. Instead we heard it from him.

To err is human, to confess so extraordinary that it can dominate international, 24-hour news cycles. Expect coverage of Letterman’s mea culpas to be positive on balance, proving again that confession and apology are not just good for the soul. They are the most effective strategies for limiting the damage of mistakes.

You know by now, Kraft’s Vegemite stablemate, the softer-cheesy-combined-not-really-vegemite product has a new name care of a naming competition. isnack 2.0

Yup. isnack 2.0

Now, personal opinions about the choice of name aside, Kraft had more than 16,000 unique names to choose from. Yup, 16,000. They received a total of more than 48,000 submissions, which for a user generated competition, is pretty darn good. Those 48,000 submissions represent 35,000 people who felt compelled enough to enter the naming competition.

So, from a brand management and a public relations perspective, this is a windfall. Kraft had generated a large database of engaged consumers all vying for the kudos of naming the new product.

With the announcement on Saturday of the new product’s name during the AFL Grand Final, which mUmBRELLA reports as having a whopping Melbourne audience share of 95.6 per cent, this was a PR dream. Millions of Australians witnessed the announcement, and Kraft had a captured audience.

Until the name was actually announced that is.

Now I’m not going to dissect the name. Or the reactions. Plenty of people and online publications have done this already. From Ruth Brown over at Crikey, to mUmBRELLA, to a poll running on news.com.au there are a lot of online opinions on how and where the name went wrong. And, what the extent of the reactions has been from a Twitter hashtag created through to Facebook groups and even a blog.

But what I’m particularly interested in, is how Kraft react to this public relations issue which is unfolding to become a crisis.

Recently, it emerged that 25 per cent of consumers will boycott a product after a negative social media comment. So, to put it simply, people trust what they read in social networks. Perhaps even as much as what we traditionally see as the ‘trust’ factor with editorial in heritage media.

Here are the statistics quoted in the article:

• One in four Australians are boycotting a product after reading negative comments on social networking sites
• 60% of consumers say they want a response from the corporate in social media.

Another quote which Kraft need to listen to is:

Social media was emerging as an important space where companies could be as effective in repairing relationships with consumers as angry customers were in dismantling them.

Some 60 per cent of Australians said if they posted a negative comment about an organisation on a social networking site they would welcome contact from that organisation to try and resolve the issue.

Companies should look for clusters of similar complaints rather than handling grievances on a one-to-one basis.

Now this equates to a major public relations issue for Kraft. Just a simple Google search shows roughly 10,000 conversations about how crap the name isnack 2.0 is.

Coupled with the audience reach of the Grand Final TV announcement, full page newspaper ads and now an integrated marketing campaign, Kraft are promoting this name like it is on steroids.

What is interesting is that they haven’t responded to the negative backlash. mUmBRELLA hasn’t got a comment, Crikey hasn’t got a comment, Twitter is quiet and Kraft are deafeningly silent. First rule of public relations? Don’t ignore an issue. In fact, I posted here some learnings from an online crisis.

And no people. Not all publicity is good publicity.

If Kraft are going to stick by their name, they need to respond and mitigate this negative PR immediately. They need to come out via the channels that are quickly undermining their brand, and communicate the reasoning behind the decision.

They need to appear empathetic to their loyal customers who are threatening to boycott the new product. Even if only 25 per cent of these threats are actually carried out, this still represents a large amount of income lost.

Fingers crossed Kraft don’t wait until tomorrow to issue a press release in response, hoping for heritage media to pick up their messages. Hopefully their public relations team are listening to the online banter, and are in the midst of responding… today.

What do you think? What does Kraft need to do to mitigate this PR disaster? Can they?

Update: Kraft obviously didn’t anticipate the breadth of negative response online. Nor did they have the foresight to reserve the Twitter handle @isnack20. Check out the account here. More negative PR in the making?

My colleague Andrew Griffin has co-authored, together with the Reputation Risk Manager of HSBC, an article for management magazine Critical Eye.  It provides helpful ‘top tips’ to integrate reputation management into the day-to-day running of a company, plus Andrew’s thoughts on how many corporations need to radically alter their ’stakeholder map’.  You can read their article here: http://www.regesterlarkin.com/latest/getting_reputation_management_into_the_heart_of_business.pdf

Kudos to Fairfax for emailing me just now regarding my post late last night about the spammy bots of Fairfax.

Here’s their response:

fairfax response

What’s good about their response?

It took them less than 24 hours and in their email (above – click to enlarge) they resolve to fix it through investigating and unsubscribing me. I still feel it is an issue not being able to unsubscribe from their email form, but kudos to Blair at Fairfax for responding and checking my details. This is one email from Fairfax I was happy to receive.

Bud Grebey

Welcome to the first posting on the Waggener Edstrom Worldwide  Crisis and Issues Management Blog. Through this forum, we hope to foster communications on the differences between an issue and a crisis, as well as strategies and tactics to anticipate and manage these situations. We will also explore the paradigm shift under way in the global marketplace —— the evolution of social and mainstream media, shifting consumer behaviors, new regulatory and corporate governance requirements, and the emergence of powerful and sophisticated interest coalitions —— and the opportunities and challenges this creates for communicators and others tasked with crisis and issues management responsibilities.

To many, these shifts are the prime ingredients in a recipe for disaster. To others, it creates an opportunity to seize control of an issue and advance their organization’s goals. No matter which view you espouse, it should be clear to everyone that there are many variables that affect how rapidly issues and crises are recognized and spread.

The underlying theme of E.M. Forster’s novel “Howards End” is the phrase “Only connect.” I believe that this premise has always defined, and will always define, the most basic tenet in issues and crisis management. Yes, the environment in which a crisis unfolds has changed dramatically in recent years, but no matter what the landscape, organizations that successfully handle these situations have done so because they have made investments to anticipate what might happen, identify influencers on all sides, and forge connections with these stakeholders.

I am writing this post aboard a flight home, so I offer an example that is top of mind.I can think of no more stark a contrast between connecting in the modern world and old-school thinking than the airline industry.

Granted, all airlines have protocol in place to deal with an “aircraft incident” —— a true crisis such as a plane crash. There are however, true catastrophic crises, and then there are issues that, if not managed via connecting with stakeholders, can rapidly boil into a crisis of another kind – brand crisis.  So it amazes me that some of the world’s largest carriers are facing a reputational crisis because they refuse to adopt (or are even repulsed by) new ways to connect with their customers. If you have a complaint about United or American Airlines, don’t bother to call or send them an e-mail. You need to send them a letter or a fax. I don’t even know how much a stamp costs these days.

This adherence to an old-school stance is mind-boggling at a time when airlines are slashing services and charging fees for everything from checked baggage to bottled water. It is even more ludicrous in an era when social media and the Internet offer frustrated travelers a global forum to post complaints (and compliments) instantaneously.

Juxtapose this disconnect of these dinosaur carriers with the progressive upstarts such as Jet Blue, Virgin, Southwest, and Alaska. These companies have taken the time to figure out new ways to have an open and immediate dialogue with their customers via e-mail, Twitter, Facebook, You Tube, and the like. Of course, these airlines can still subject us to canceled flights and poor service —— but when this does happen, we feel like there is someone listening and responding to our concerns. The result is customer loyalty and advocacy. From the carriers’ standpoint, it is turning inevitable travel issues into a competitive advantage.

Only connect.