The influence of Social Media in Crisis Management: Where does the practitioner sit?

We all appreciate the magnitude social media has blended with our everyday lives. People are spending their energies feeding the social media wheel with all sorts of emotions. I recently came across a sign in an office space which read ‘In case of fire, please rush to the emergency assembly point, before posting a picture of the incident on social media’. It was a glaring reminder of how much social media can push people into taking certain actions even when their life is under threat. It also drew me to reflect on how social media can quickly break news as it unfolds.

The reign of Social Media

Social media has literally taken over the control of information flow. It has literally empowered the public to create news and shape information. It has also made the job for public relations and crisis management practitioners both exciting as well as a little more challenging. Practitioners have lost a substantial amount of control over message dissemination - there is more public control on the type of information they want to engage with, and its sharing. Social media has changed the pace at which news breaks. Coupled with a 24/7 news cycle, it is now a different ballgame for practitioners, altogether.

In the event of a crisis unfolding, organizations are more exposed and vulnerable to the power and influence of social media than ever before. With social media, people can amplify a crisis within minutes whilst you are scaling the walls of bureaucracy to issue a statement. It can only take a tweet from a crisis victim or a bystander, and within minutes the incident is transmitted ten thousand times across the globe.

Where does the practitioner sit?

The manipulative influence of public messaging and the associated interpretation of a crisis event underline the need for practitioners to get on their feet as quickly as possible and take hold of the messages as the crisis escalates. The worst mistake is to think and hope that the social media frenzy will die down on its own – yes, it will eventually die down, but what about the reputational damage caused whilst you are wishing, hoping and procrastinating? The battered reputation will stay with your organization and may have irreparable damage to its corporate profile, business operations, and profitability. The way you handle a crisis will sway your public's opinion, either in favour or against your organisation. So hoping and wishing has never been a strategy.

Leveraging your Social Media

Social media has, on the other hand, accorded practitioners an opportunity for a two way by-the-second communication to engage with the organisation’s public during events of crisis in nature. It is an opportunity to feed the social media wheel with information that will shape public interpretation of the crisis and their perception of the organisation during turbulent times such as crisis moments. As soon as social media platforms gets busy with your crisis, responsible persons have to immediately activate their organisation’s crisis response arsenals. A quick content analysis of what the conversation on social media is all about should help shape your responses and communication content.

As practitioners, it is necessary to clearly spell out roles and responsibilities for people in your crisis management team. Whatever roles assigned, never forget the role for monitoring social media and sense-making of its content. By any means, avoid contradicting statements from leading persons in those roles. At least have a line of thought to derive statements from – this can best be mapped from the organisation’s response contained in the press release.

Apparently, having the courtesy to continuously engage your public with information on new developments around the crisis situation, goes well with your crisis response. Building an effective flow of information is an essential ingredient in cultivating confidence and trust with your public, as well as helping them achieve sense-making of the crisis itself. It also reflects the organisation’s sense of care for both its reputation and its stakeholder’s emotions and safety. Additionally, caution should be taken in the choice of words and the tone when sharing your information to avoid inflaming the crisis situation or infuriate crisis victims. Most importantly, get your facts correct.

Energise your team, and match your words with action

Managing and putting together a crisis response action, in general, can quickly sap the energy from the crisis management team. Apart from the organisational spokesperson, it may be wise to engage top level management in crisis communication activities - someone the public holds high, and is in a position of influence. Further, any promises made in your statements must be relevant and match your deeds. AirAsia Flight QZ8501 crisis presents a very successful picture of this approach. When the crisis occurred, the Chief Executive Officer, Tony Fernandes was present throughout the crisis, answering questions alongside Government officials and constantly engaging stakeholders on digital platforms. His presence matched the promise he made that he was ‘..not going anywhere’.

When your organisation perceives that it is time to press the crisis panic button (i.e organizational issues are blowing up into a crisis), it is very necessary for practitioners to inform the organisation's employees as quickly as possible - as opposed to letting them get the surprise from social media. That can have ramifications on the organisational culture and its dynamics.

Public relations and crisis management practitioners should understand that with social media, information is no longer for the privileged few. Practitioners ignoring social media around an unfolding crisis would be doing their organization a huge disservice.

#CrisisManagement #SocialMedia #PublicRelations #PJElwyns #ReputationManagement #BrandReputation

Strategising Crisis Response based on Crisis source: How effective is it?

Crisis responses are unique to each crisis situation, and a response can only be useful if its use generates the much needed organisational and stakeholder’s relief from a crisis situation. However, the goal for any crisis intervention remains the same – to wade through difficult times and retain a positive and strong organisational reputation, after the crisis.

A number of factors prevailing at the material time affect how a crisis response is designed. In certain cases, crisis responses can be planned based on the cause or source of that particular crisis.

Crises can result from a situation that we absolutely have control over, but for some reason - be it negligence, inefficiency, or corruption - a crisis eventually occurs. Such crises can range from sexual harassment in the rank and file of an organisation, generating a huge staff and public outcry, condemnation, and lawsuits; to a breakdown in the provision of essential public services by Government agencies, resulting in people’s lives being in danger.

A good and more recent example of crisis resulting from a controllable situation is the one in which the city of Flint in Michigan, USA, started collecting water from the corrosive Flint River as a drinking water supply source, switching from its usual treated source in Detroit. The city, however, failed to properly treat the water, exposing people to lead ingestion, since April 2014. A cost cutting move (presumably preceded by lack of judgement) resulted in the population of Flint potentially getting lead poisoning, and exposing at least 12,000 children to danger (as children are more vulnerable to lead poisoning than adults). A few deaths have already been connected to the lead contamination. Residents and groups have raised their voices, demonstrated, and put forward remedial demands for the authorities to follow – escalating the crisis further. President Obama declared a federal state of emergency in Flint on January 16, and the Governor for Michigan also issued an apology and promised to fix the problem. Consequently, the public placed the crisis responsibility on the city authorities, and specifically on certain individuals. Several lawsuits have been filed by people and groups, against individuals, and investigations have further been instituted by authorities.

Crises can also emanate from situations that we have no control over (unforeseeable natural disasters), such as the displacement of settlements by the earthquake in Nepal or the devastating water flooding in Malawi – natural events that breed crisis situations. In such crises, and where there is no human negligence to warning, stakeholders and crisis victims are preoccupied with how responsible agencies responds to reduction of the severity of the crisis, and protecting the lives of victims from further danger. Essentially, authorities and relief agencies (government or any other organisation) are under operational and reputational scrutiny.

The source-based crisis response validates the importance of understanding why and how the public apportions crisis responsibility, and also how the public perceive an organisation during a crisis. In a situation where a crisis is as a result of human error or system inefficiencies, the organisational level of responsibility for the crisis is expected to rise, as opposed to a crisis in which an organisation has little control over the source or cause.

In general, attacking and responding to a crisis situation based on the cause or source of a crisis has the audacity to allow for a quick identification of a crisis resolution roadmap for both the crisis victim and the organisation. This is primarily because by zeroing-in on the cause, organisations subtly look for a way to distance itself (to a certain degree) from the crisis and place blame on the causative agent. Equally, the crisis victims are looking for a ways that will help them get relief from the crisis situation much quicker than the processes an organisation responsible for the crisis may envisage. However, the latent for an organisation to be seen as not being in sync with the emotions of its public is considered high when blame is pushed on. Why? By deflecting attention off its corporate self and trading blame off, an organisation is somehow perceived as not being ardent to accept responsibility of the crisis situation. In this instance, an organisation is distancing itself from the crisis spotlight and may be perceived as not empathising enough with the crisis victims – its primary stakeholders.

This approach, however, should be seen as resultant from a crisis situation analysis, and must not be an isolated activity - it should rather provide a point of departure to weigh out options and for placing a finger on what comprehensive crisis response the organisation need to engage.

Nevertheless, a crisis response can only be useful if its use generates the much needed organisational and stakeholder relief from a crisis situation, as well as an opportunity for improving.

#CrisisManagement #CorporateCulture #StrategicPlanning #PJElwyns #ReputationManagement

Your brand reputation and the corporate culture has the potential to minimize the impact of a crisis

A brand that is worth its reputation can play out well for corporations undergoing a crisis, and prove to be the difference between retaining, and losing customer loyalty. Positive brand reputation is one of the most valuable assets that corporations intensively invest in. Corporations spend fortunes building brands, and put together good public relations around them so they remain favorable, and ahead of competition.

Let us have a perspective on this view by turning back the hands of time to four years back, when the world top brand, Apple, announced the introduction of iOS 6, an operating system with an Apple self-designed mapping system (a move that would see Apple detach its reliance on Google maps).

In June 2012, Apple announced that the new mapping system will provide ground breaking real time traffic experience, and a turn-by-turn navigation function. The innovation received a warm and outpouring support by car makers including Toyota, Mercedes, Honda, Audi and BMW.

Apple eventually released its iOS 6 on its iPhone and iPod in September 2012, allowing users with older devices to upgrade to the new system, whilst new gadgets were pre-loaded with the new map. The Apple map, however, turned out malfunctioning. It misplaced landmarks, miscalculated distances, named features incorrectly, and made some features nonexistent, escalating the issue into a crisis. With over 2 million purchases of iPhone 5 within 24 hours of launch, the map malfunction was an instant crisis with potential to dent Apple’s 'midas touch' reputation. In a specific case, the Australian police advised motorist against using it, describing it as life threatening because a motorist was misdirected into a national park, whilst others drove themselves into potential accidents.

Apple received criticism from both the media and consumers. The Dutch satellite navigation company TomTom, which was responsible for the map data distanced itself, placing the crisis focus on Apple. The crisis also took a toll on Apple, as stock hit a slump of more than 20% to $US547.06 in November 2012 from above $US700 in September 2012.

Realising the level of damage the brand reputation would suffer (and apart from the vice president leaving the corporation), the Chief Executive Officer, Tim Cook made a public apology (even though other options were plausible), and admitted they had fallen short on their promise. Further, Apple offered its users adjusting information on alternative maps, with a promise to improve on their product. The apology alone had the potential to moderate the crisis as stakeholders associated the action with Apple’s acceptance of responsibility. The apology was given on the back of the investment that Apple had already made on its brand reputation. Not only did the apology reduce the impact of the crisis on Apple and its consumers, but it also gave assurance for continued innovation and quality of its products. Apple's persistence on its history on quality and innovative products (as the salient message in its communication), also influenced the direction of discussion, generating sympathy and inducing user’s continued appreciation and identification with the brand. Further, by offering information on alternative maps, Apple helped to reduce psychological, physically, emotionally, and financially stress on users. Apple positioned itself as a caring and listening brand as reputation threats increased.

Apart from redirecting its map users to competitors as a recovery strategy, Apple invested in developing a map application with Google, underlining the importance of building rapport within an industry, and their commitment to a promise. Apple’s reputation played out well for the brand as, despite the crisis, consumers were sure the brand would eventually deliver a quality map product, and they did by December 2012. The iPhone 5 launch hype and the media focus on the launch generated before the crisis also played out well for the brand as the map was just one problem on a quality product with other functions working.

Taking into consideration the reputation of the company, it is compelling to suggest that investing in quality of brands, and achieving successes with the brand reputation cannot just win you loyal customers, but also protect you by retaining your customer base and your brand’s public reputation when a crisis occurs. Apple reputation of providing world-class products continue to create a market reputation in which its products are seen favorably as before.

Crises involving well reputed organisations may have less negative impact than for the lesser reputed organisations. What is your brand or corporate reputation?

#CrisisManagement #CorporateCulture #BrandReputation #PJElwyns #ReputationManagement