April 3: Coombs Chapter 7

In Coombs’ Chapter 7 “Crisis Containment and Recovery,” there are actually four key points to consider:

1): An organization’s initial response to a crisis

2): Reputational management concerns

3): Enactment of a contingency and business resumption plan

4): Follow-up communication

To summarize:

1): Responding quickly to a crisis sets the tone for the remainder of the public aspect of the crisis. The initial statement serves to prevent the spread of misinformation and helps to build credibility for the organization. When media reports are based on misinformation, potential damage from the crisis intensifies for the organization. The crisis team needs to disseminate accurate crisis information as quickly as possible, even if it means reporting only the scant information that might be know at that point in the crisis. The mere act of response is symbolic in that it indicates the organization is in control. Coupled with public concern for victims—an important component in any crisis—quick response can facilitate the crisis management process by making stakeholders more receptive to later messages. Silence from an organization reflects uncertainty and allows others to control the situation and define the crisis for stakeholders.

2): Reputational damage is a danger during any crisis. A concern for crisis managers is protecting the organization’s reputation during a crisis. Here are Coombs’ recommendations for crisis communication strategy selection, arranged along a continuum:

Full apology – used when the crisis is a result of an organizational misdeed

Corrective action – used when the crisis is an organizational misdeed; also recommended for accidents. Accidents involving an organization with a history of crises should use corrective action along with other strategies.

Ingratiation – used only if the organization has a strong reputation, a history of good works. Appropriate for any type of crisis.

Excuse – used when an organization has little or no responsibility for the crisis. Appropriate for accidents, malevolence, natural disasters. Unwise to employ when crisis damage is severe; can make the organization look petty – especially for accidents.

Denial – used when there is evidence that no crisis exists or that the organization is not responsible for the crisis. Appropriate for rumors.

Attack the accuser – used when there is an identifiable and refutable attacker. Appropriate for rumors.

3): The contingency plan outlines what the organization will do to maintain operations and restore business as usual. The crisis management plan should specify arrangements for identifying relevant stakeholders in a crisis and for communicating with them during all phases of the crisis. Operating during a crisis calls for interim operating procedures, and all relevant stakeholders must be given instructions as part of the communication strategy. Crisis managers must communicate to relevant stakeholders how the contingency plan affects their interaction with the organization.

4): Crisis communication should continue throughout the lifecycle of the crisis. Although the initial response has a mass media emphasis, follow-up communication can be better targeted to individual stakeholders. Every inquiry merits a response, and follow-up communication involves delivering promised information and updating stakeholders about new developments. If accurate information was not available at the onset of the crisis and the crisis team indicated it would pass information along as it became available, it is essential that the team fulfill this promise, even if information was never found. The crisis team must report to the stakeholders.

In applying theory:

One case presented in this chapter offers a point for discussion:

You are on the crisis management team of a large chain of bookstores. A conservative organization claiming a membership of 500,000 condemns your chain for being one of the largest pornography distributors in the country, and threatens to boycott your chain and picket select stores if your company does not stop selling, among others, Penthouse, Playboy, and fine photography books that exhibit nude models. This organization was successful in convincing a large convenience store chain to stop selling these type publications. The media are interested in this story. Which of Coombs’ crisis response strategies (#2 above) do you think is(are) appropriate here?

Which strategy is being used by Menu Foods, the pet food maker at the center of the current pet poisoning controversy?

How is the Red Cross doing in its follow-up communication amid the controversy surrounding the organization’s internal problems that came to light after Katrina?

mic brookshire

Chapter 4 -Crisis Prevention

Chapter 4 of the Coombs text discusses Crisis Prevention. The chapter kicks off with the main point that 1) “an organization avoids crises by taking action on crisis warning signs and reducing its risk factors.” This seems like a no-brainer, but as communicators we know that this task can only be accomplished by trained and educated communication professionals, ones who have diligently been doing environmental scanning and keeping in close contact with stakeholder publics in times of non-crisis.

With that said, not all risks can be avoided or completely eliminated…and I add to that “foreseen.” However, in the case of the Ford Pinto, internal documents prove that Ford knew they could explode in rear-end collisions. A cost-benefit analysis of the corrective action was performed and it was determined that the recall/corrections would cost more than the potential litigation. Ford made a terrible mistake in placing its customers at risk of injury. The point here is that 2) “ignoring risk can be a more costly move than anticipated.”

The text talks about the benefits of credibility. We all know the importance of this, but the text puts it in almost scientific terms. 3) “A reputation is the sum of the credibility transactions between an organization and a stakeholder. Positive credibility transactions lead to favorable reputations.” The text goes on to mention that “organizational reputation is like a bank account; favorable reputation builds up the account, whereas crisis subtracts from the account.” However, depending on how stakeholders perceive the organization to be trustworthy and credible, the stakeholders may listen to the bad news but ignore it…basing their opinions instead on the reputation and credibility an organization has put forth in their relationship.

Credibility is built through action and must be sustained and maintained regularly. Communicators and organizations must constantly “identify expectations and check promise fulfillment.” Here, “matching words to deeds” is key. Stakeholders that already hold a favorable opinion of an organization still needs to be constantly affirmed that the organization is acting in the stakeholder’s best interest. “Organizations must know where the relationship stands, why it is in that sate and how it might be improved.”

Questions:

1.

When contemplating a new procedure or policy, can you assume that change is best?

2.

McDonald’s illustrated the point of the importance of listening to stakeholders when making changes in the elimination of polystyrene clamshell burger boxes. Can you think of other examples of an organization testing consumers and making changes based on their response?

3.

On the other hand, Nike didn’t listen to the Arabic community’s negative reactions about a new design and it had to do a costly recall and suffered reputation damage. Can you think of other organizations that didn’t listen to its publics and suffered the consequences?

4.

Why are all kinds of credibility – initial, derived and terminal – all important in the long run?

Help my thesis questionnaire

I am investigating people’s perception of corporate blogs for my thesis. Hope you can help me fill out the questionnaire. If you already took it, just skip this message. :)

First, please read the following link about the blog post.

http://cbradshow.blogspot.com

Then, please click the following link to take the online survey.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=991153365039

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me through the email,

beryl167@ufl.edu
Thanks a lot!

April 3 readings - all class

In addition to your assigned blog comment below, you will need to prepare for the in-class discussions on Tuesday, April 3. The team 6 readings on HPV are on WebCT. Also in that folder are the 2 journal articles and the power point presentation (Week 11 - hurricanes) from our guest lecturers for that day.

Your task: comment to my post regarding these four readings with 3 key points from the articles and 4 questions that you raise for discussion or consideration by your peers. Length: only as long as it takes to fulfill this requirement.

US&S 3 & 4 – Lessons on Effective Crisis Communication & Leadership

Wes Jamison, Tolu Odubela, Ronnie Lovler & Jennifer Warmington (see below)

These readings from Effective Crisis Communication provide insights and best practices for effective communication and leadership during a crisis. The task: You will provide a 500 word comment that summarizes three key points that you don’t want your peers to miss in the chapter and raises at least three questions or discussion points for consideration by the class. Doc students: remember that you, especially, should be looking for theoretical points and not just application.

Coombs 7 – Crisis Containment and Recovery

Mic Brookshire, Nadya Vera, Meredith Woods & Gisele de la Moriniere

This reading from Ongoing Crisis Communication will focus on the intial crisis response, reputation management during the crisis and follow-up communication. The task: You will provide a 500 word comment that summarizes three key points that you don’t want your peers to miss in the chapter and raises at least three questions or discussion points for consideration by the class. Doc students: remember that you, especially, should be looking for theoretical points and not just application.

Coombs 6 – Crisis Recognition

Katie Chodil, Paul Jonas & Sooyeon Kim

This reading from Ongoing Crisis Communication will focus on information and communication needs associated with a recognized crisis. The task: You will provide a 500 word comment that summarizes three key points that you don’t want your peers to miss in the chapter and raises at least three questions or discussion points for consideration by the class. Doc students: remember that you, especially, should be looking for theoretical points and not just application.

Coombs 5 - Crisis Preparation

Minji Kim, Ramon Looby & Emel Ozdora

This reading from Ongoing Crisis Communication will review for you the process of establishing a crisis management plan as well as identifying organizational vulnerabilities and crisis types appropriate for the organization. The task: You will provide a 500 word comment that summarizes three key points that you don’t want your peers to miss in the chapter and raises at least three questions or discussion points for consideration by the class. Doc students: remember that you, especially, should be looking for theoretical points and not just application.

Coombs 4 – Crisis Prevention

Lauren Hames, Courtney Meyers & Jiun-Yi Tsai

This reading from Ongoing Crisis Communication will introduce you to the issues management process once a potential crisis has been identified, and that includes risk management and relationship building skills. The task: You will provide a 500 word comment that summarizes three key points that you don’t want your peers to miss in the chapter and raises at least three questions or discussion points for consideration by the class. Doc students: remember that you, especially, should be looking for theoretical points and not just application.

Coombs 3 - Signal Detection

Hyunmin Lee & O.T. Thakadu

This reading from Ongoing Crisis Communication will introduce you to the crisis scanning phase where communicators/managers will evaluate the internal and external environment for potential crises. The task: You will provide a 500 word comment that summarizes three key points that you don’t want your peers to miss in the chapter and raises at least three questions or discussion points for consideration by the class. Doc students: remember that you, especially, should be looking for theoretical points and not just application.

Evluating Crisis Communications: Jet Blue's Way -- RL

The chapter on evaluating risk communication efforts seems a bit like stating the obvious. But sometimes the obvious is just what it needs and it can be helpful to have a checklist of steps to follow and a guideline to which once can refer. However, like anything else in the communications profession – time and often money is of the essence, so I think it is important to be precise about exactly what one chooses to evaluate.

It was a no-brainer for Jet Blue to figure out what it needed to do to abate ill-will toward the company after the recent spate of flight delays that left passengers stranded on planes for as long as eight hours. Not many happy campers there, and in fact one unhappy customer started a blog: http://jetbluehostage.blogspot.com/ It’s still getting hits. But Jet Blue evaluated the effectiveness (or lack of effectiveness) of its communication plan early on in this crisis and took immediate action by proposing its own passenger bill of rights and sending no other than its CEO David Neeleman to speak for the company on all the top network talks shows. And Jet Blue has kept Neeleman in the fore, letting passengers know that the situation is being followed and monitored from the top. In other words, Jet blue opted for instant evaluation and instant action – something that was called for in this case and which may save the company’s reputation.

The latest posting on Jet Blue’s website:

March 20, 2007 - CEO David Neeleman updates customers on what actions JetBlue has taken since Feb. 20, and how the airline performed over the March 16 winter storm weekend.

There’s a video that goes along with this as well.

Why do I bring this up here as a commentary on a chapter that has to do with risk crisis evaluation? To stress the point – in my view – that it is not always necessary or even wise to sit around too long to ponder and pontificate on the next course of action or inaction. Jet Blue’s evaluation was clearly based around their correctly perceived analysis that the need was to act quickly – but wisely in a consumer friendly way.

This they did, and did quite well. Look at the first few words, again taken from their website introducing their customer Bill of Rights:

Above all else, JetBlue Airways is dedicated to bringing humanity back to air travel. We strive to make every part of your experience as simple and as pleasant as possible. Unfortunately, there are times when things do not go as planned. If you’re inconvenienced as a result, we think it is important that you know exactly what you can expect from us. That’s why we created our Customer Bill of Rights. …

Simple, direct and conveys to me as the consumer that if I do have a (future) unpleasant experience with JetBlue, it will be handled differently than in the past. How effective this plan has been will likely be the subject of further evaluation by JetBlue in the months ahead – but my point here is they did not get so bogged down in trying to figure out what to do about what went wrong that they failed to do anything. And inaction in the face of uncertainty can be one of the downsides of (over) evaluation and measurement.

There’s been a great deal of emphasis these days on measurement and evaluation as part of the effort by the public relations profession in general to prove and demonstrate its worth. So much so, that it has spawned a whole new branch of research in the field – both professionally and academically. I am aware that the public relations profession is engaged in a great battle to demonstrate the worth of the profession to those in the executive suite and measurement and evaluation can help the case along. However, in my view this is sometimes overdone with more resources given over to the measurement and evaluation process than the actual event or endeavor which itself is the subject of scrutiny. This is not to say that I don’t think evaluation and measurement has a value – but to an extent. Sometimes what is obvious can be treated as the obvious without going into a whole procedure to demonstrate that what is obviously so is indeed obviously so.

Blog L&M Chpt 20 Risk Communications Before, During and After Emergencies

This chapter had many points that overlapped with chapter 4. A lot of crisis communications comes down to being prepared with a plan that has been rehearsed, know your audience(s), know how your company wants to respond, know who should be the communicator and know what behavior is appropriate for the communicator to use.

Today’s society want s to see genuine concern and a show of some emotion reinforces that they care about the situation and those affected by the incident. The communicator needs to establish credibility and trust as soon as possible. Research shows the following factors affect trust: caring and empathy, dedication and commitment, competence and expertise and honesty and openness (Slovic 1999).

The communications dept. should remember that even when a plan is in place the crisis will inevitably be something that has not been previously prepared for or rehearsed. Be flexible, resources and calm until the dept. can prepare a response. Remember that waiting too long can back fire and the organization could end up losing trust and credibility.

While preparing the organization be sure that each of the players knows their role and the roles the others have. This will aid in maintaining some semblance of control, get through the crisis and move on with as little negative effect on the whole organization as possible.
Early preparation within the organization is important but knowing the roles of each person on the communication team as well as how those roles work with other organizations is also important. If the roles are established early than attitudes and egos may not interfere with moving through the event.

Not only is communication important with the public and the audiences affected by the crisis but the organization needs to have a different point person for the employees of the organization to contact for information and up-dates. Determining methods of communication is important what will be most effective, should it be telecommunications, websites and/or mass media or any combination. Be prepared to go low tech if power is out and could be for a long time.

There is a great list of FAQ’s that every emergency communicator should expect to be asked. Copies should be made and put in an emergency plan file. Be transparent throughout the process. Emergency operation centers are a great tool and can be efficient in getting out a consistent message to the audiences. In cases of casualties there is a different set of questions that need to be addressed as well as other services that need to be provided for those families that might be or are dealing with casualties.

Be emotionally prepared for “Murphy’s Law” because even the best prepared crisis team will have to deal with the unexpected somewhere along the road to recovery.
Thanks, Liz

How to Lead During a Crisis

Chapter four of Effective Crisis Communication had some good points about how leaders should act during and after a crisis. Many leaders want to stay out of the public eye and work things out without giving the public a lot of information. While this may be the easiest way to figure out what happened and how to fix it, the public gets quite angry. To me, it seemed that the book continued to stress that information should be given out to the public freely. This may seem like the best thing to do to avoid public outrage, but I think that public relations practitioners also need to be careful about how much information they give out.

Sometimes a crisis is the result of someone not doing their job or the result of the organization doing something terrible. If the organization knows about these issues and knows they are at fault, then they should come out and apologize and give the public information about what happened. Other times, the organization does not know why a crisis erupted, so given the public some information too soon may cause problems when information that may show the organization at fault comes to light. Therefore, my main concern about being totally open and honest with the public is that bad information about the organization may get out to the public before the organization can determine whether or not the information is credible and true. Once an organization has put out information which shows they may be at fault, they have to fight an uphill battle to convince the public the information is false.

I did like the examples the book gave of leaders who responded well and not so well during a crisis. These examples really illustrated what is at steak during a crisis. For example, Ford and Firestone ended a 95-year relationship over a public fight about who was to blame for cars rolling over. If one or both of the CEOs had taken the high ground and refused to fight publicly about who was to blame, they would have maintained their long relationship and the support of the public. As it was after the fact, the public lost some respect for both companies and took their business elsewhere.

The discussion of leadership styles was appropriate because sometimes people believe there is only one type of leadership style that is effective. While the authoritarian style of leadership may seem harsh when there is not a crisis, it is quite useful in the event of a crisis. When a crisis erupts, someone needs to be in charge and tell people what to do otherwise people will run around giving orders when they want and doing what they want and as a result, nothing will get done and nothing will get resolved. Different types of leadership may be effective during different types of crisis, but I think the authoritarian style of leadership works best during a crisis.

Chapter four brought up some interesting points about leaders and leadership styles during crises. It is a good chapter for all practitioner to read so that when they have to handle a crisis, they know who to pick to be a spokesperson and a leader for the public.