Author: Jonathan & Erik Bernstein

Don’t wait until you’re forced to do the right thing

Volkswagon is the latest organization to be pushed into action by an investigation from China’s state-run TV broadcaster, China Central Television.

While reports indicate that Chinese investigators have been looking into issues with gearboxes from several German automakers since around this time last year, VW announced a massive recall just days after a damning report aired on CCTV.

The following quote, from a Wall Street Journal article, has more details:

The recall follows allegations against Volkswagen by China’s national state-run television broadcaster, China Central Television. In a program held late Friday in honor of World Consumer Rights Day, CCTV accused Volkswagen of selling cars with substandard direct-shift gearbox systems, causing acceleration problems and car accidents for an unspecified number of consumers.

While it’s always a good thing when an organization recalls product in order to enhance consumer safety, it doesn’t look nearly so positive, reputation-wise, when its hand is forced by anyone, be it media, government, or consumers themselves.

If you want to avoid the reputation damage that inevitably comes along with widespread recalls and exposes like the one CCTV ran on VW, then do the right thing when you spot a problem.

Er, what’s that again?

It’s simple, fix it, BEFORE someone makes you! Would you want to drive a car that might suddenly fail? Of course not. So why would you expect consumers to be just fine with it?

We say this all the time because it really does apply that well to just about every aspect of crisis management – treat others the way you would like to be treated, and watch your reputation climb.

Of course, you can always choose to treat your stakeholders like they’re wallets with legs, but don’t complain when they walk their money elsewhere.

——————————-
For more resources, see the Free Management Library topic: Crisis Management
——————————-

[Jonathan Bernstein is president of Bernstein Crisis Management, Inc., an international crisis management consultancy, author of Manager’s Guide to Crisis Management and Keeping the Wolves at Bay – Media Training. Erik Bernstein is Social Media Manager for the firm, and also editor of its newsletter, Crisis Manager]

Issues with three more ships raise serious crisis management concerns

Just as Carnival escaped its position at the top of the news cycle following the drama surrounding the lengthy Triumph tow, another of its ships, Elation, reported steering issues and was escorted back to a nearby port by tugs.

At that point, Carnival execs had to be, for lack of a better term, freaking out. Unfortunately for them, that wasn’t the end of it. The Carnival Dream was also forced to return to port as a result of generator problems, and (yes, there’s more) just yesterday the Carnival Legend experienced technical issues affecting sailing speed, forcing a change in schedule that skips the planned last leg of its journey in order to head straight home.

What the heck is going on, Carnival??

After the debacle that was Triumph, we would have done a full audit of all fleet vessels from top to bottom in order to reassure not only ourselves, but our paying customers, that every step had been taken to prevent a similar crisis from happening again.

Well, either Carnival needs to hire new mechanics, or this simply wasn’t done. We do understand that sometimes bad things happen, regardless of the prevention effort put in, but systems on three different ships failing at nearly the same time is a bit too much to chalk up under coincidence.

It does appear the company has learned one thing from Triumph, it immediately arranged to fly passengers of Dream home from St. Maarten, where it was stalled at port and flew singer Jon Secada out to perform for stranded passengers in the meantime.

If Carnival was risking becoming synonymous with risky trips before, now that potential is off the charts. Just look at this sampling of comments from an LA Times article regarding the situation:

What Carnival sorely needs is an actual crisis management strategy. Not just “pay off the passengers and play ostrich ’til the story blows over,” but a comprehensive plan to not only ensure that ALL of its ships are actually seaworthy, but also to communicate to stakeholders, travelers and the media exactly how this has been ensured, and why they should give the cruise line another chance.

At this point Carnival itself is a sinking ship, and it’s going to take a lot more than buckets to bail the company out. Until company leadership commits to making things right, the embarrassment will continue.

——————————-
For more resources, see the Free Management Library topic: Crisis Management
——————————-

[Jonathan Bernstein is president of Bernstein Crisis Management, Inc., an international crisis management consultancy, author of Manager’s Guide to Crisis Management and Keeping the Wolves at Bay – Media Training. Erik Bernstein is Social Media Manager for the firm, and also editor of its newsletter, Crisis Manager]

Shady investigative practices land Harvard in need of crisis management

Digital privacy is certainly a hot-button topic these days, as Harvard administrators quickly found out after its search through archived emails of 16 resident deans not only without permission, but without any notification, raised a ruckus, creating a need for crisis management.

Harvard did issue a meandering, 800+ word statement, a mere 27 of which, by our count, had anything to do with apologizing, while the rest attempted, in a roundabout fashion, to explain the logic behind school administration’s decision.

Interviewed by Ragan.com’s Matt Wilson, BCM president Jonathan Bernstein offered up the following thoughts on the situation:

Jonathan Bernstein, of Bernstein Crisis Management, says Harvard’s apology statement only gets a score of three on a scale of 10.

“I suspect that Harvard’s PR staff were not consulted, or were ignored, before the administration engaged in the secret search,” he says.

Employers could conceivably have lots of legal, moral and ethical reasons to search employee emails, Bernstein says, but Harvard didn’t make much of an effort to communicate what it was doing.

Compounding the crisis is the fact that the affected deans were not informed of the search even after it was complete, instead having to hear the news from media outlets and peers.

When dealing with the muddy legal waters that surround all things digital, from email and text messages to Facebook and Twitter, it is absolutely critical to set a clear policy, and communicate that policy with those to whom it applies.

This entire situation was originally part of an investigation into the leak of confidential files, but by choosing to take a shady route themselves and hiding the email search, even from those whose personal files were being breached, Harvard administration is left with no moral high ground to stand on.

——————————-
For more resources, see the Free Management Library topic: Crisis Management
——————————-

[Jonathan Bernstein is president of Bernstein Crisis Management, Inc., an international crisis management consultancy, author of Manager’s Guide to Crisis Management and Keeping the Wolves at Bay – Media Training. Erik Bernstein is Social Media Manager for the firm, and also editor of its newsletter, Crisis Manager]

Reputation management is a cornerstone of business, regardless of how big you get

Google will pay a $7 million fine to settle a multistate investigation into a snoopy software program that enabled the Internet search leader to intercept emails, passwords and other sensitive information sent several years ago over unprotected wireless networks in neighborhoods across the world.

The agreement announced Tuesday covers 38 states and the District of Columbia, part of the area where households and local merchants unwittingly had some of their communications on Wi-Fi networks snatched by Google Inc. from early 2008 until the spring 0f 2010.

This quote, from an AP News article by Michael Liedtke, hosted on, ironically, Google News, is yet another in a string of rulings against Google for bold, widespread invasions of privacy.

We’ll leave the legal particulars to the judges and lawyers, what we’re interested in is the effect these findings are having on Google’s reputation. Already, the label of “serial privacy violator” is being used by critics, just take a look at this quote from the same AP article:

The penalty won’t be enough to prevent Google from continuing to be a “serial privacy violator,” according to John Simpson, privacy project director for Consumer Watchdog, a frequent critic of the company. “It’s clear the Internet giant sees fines like this as just the cost of doing business and not a very big cost at that.”

Is Google choosing the same path that many pharmaceutical companies seem to be taking, i.e. factoring fines into the cost of doing business, and reputation be damned?

If so, it’s certainly a risky strategy. It is true that when you dominate your market to the degree that Google does you gain a certain amount of wiggle room in terms of reputation, basically because no one mistake is going to create enough of a dip in users, customers, etc. to knock you off of your pedestal.

So what’s the big deal?

The danger for organizations like Google, Apple, Microsoft, and their ilk is in the slow buildup of negatives. At some point, especially in a society that is increasingly conscious of the practices and philosophies of the organizations they give their money to, unchecked negative sentiment will reach a level where it spills over and creates a crippling enough loss of reputation that a competitor is able to step in and take the lead.

The takeaway here? Even if you’re on top and the competition’s so far behind it’s not even in the rear-view mirror, your reputation counts. It almost brings to mind the image of a modern tortoise and the hare. The hare, knowing it’s a dominant leader, stops putting in the daily care and effort that’s required to stay on top. Meanwhile, the tortoise is creeping along, throwing its every effort behind building its reputation and waiting for that golden opportunity.

Google is certainly looking like the hare in this situation, and the tech world is no stranger to sudden upheavals of opinion that results in the replacement of a formerly dominant force.

Your reputation is, without a doubt, your most valuable asset. Protect it.

——————————-
For more resources, see the Free Management Library topic: Crisis Management
——————————-

[Jonathan Bernstein is president of Bernstein Crisis Management, Inc., an international crisis management consultancy, author of Manager’s Guide to Crisis Management and Keeping the Wolves at Bay – Media Training. Erik Bernstein is Social Media Manager for the firm, and also editor of its newsletter, Crisis Manager]

Strong communication is an essential ingredient for crisis management

Merrie Spaeth’s BIMBO Awards nominations never fail to provide perfect examples of what NOT to do when speaking to the media. In fact, it certainly looks like foot-in-mouth disease is making the rounds again, because this month brings us quite a few displays of poor communication, including this one from a typically strong communicator, New York’s Mayor Bloomberg:

“We’re not banning everything,” New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg told a caller on his radio show who complained that the city was “on a track to ban everything.” (This is an example of how we pick up words. The caller used the phrase “banning everything,” and the mayor repeated it back as a denial – and then put it on steroids, saying “You can still buy cigarettes, we haven’t banned that!” This is also as an example of how deadlines are a thing of the past. After the original story posted, a reader pointed out that a few years ago, when it was noted that it is illegal to ride Segways on New York City streets and sidewalk, the Mayor said, “I think we banned them. We ban everything.” Note that the denial became the headline.)

Politicker, “Mayor Bloomberg: ‘We’re Not Banning Everything,’” Feb. 15, 2013

When defending yourself, or your organization, it’s never a good idea to use the negative terms you’re combating. Repeating negative terms gives them even more power, as well as more page space and, as the example shows, often a spot in the headline.

It’s been proven many times that, while the full headline may read, “Mayor Bloomberg: ‘We’re Not Banning Everything,'” what will most often stick in reader’s minds is “Mayor Bloomberg, Banning Everything.”

Remember this when planning your crisis management messaging. Instead of repeating, and thereby further enforcing, negative terms in your denial, create a list of positive terms that can be used in discussion.

Of course, it’s not enough to simply make the list. Without practice, you’re bound to fall into old habits, and for most of us that will mean automatically using the negative term.

Handling the media well is often tricky, and can be treacherous for the unprepared. If you truly want to be ready to communicate in crisis, you have to put in some serious practice, especially in front of hostile audiences. Simulating this with peers or employees is fine, but make sure the “hostile” crowd isn’t afraid to be harsh. After all, the public, and media, certainly won’t be pulling any punches.

——————————-
For more resources, see the Free Management Library topic: Crisis Management
——————————-

[Jonathan Bernstein is president of Bernstein Crisis Management, Inc., an international crisis management consultancy, author of Manager’s Guide to Crisis Management and Keeping the Wolves at Bay – Media Training. Erik Bernstein is Social Media Manager for the firm, and also editor of its newsletter, Crisis Manager]

[Editor’s note: In this guest post, Don Martin, president of Don Martin Public Affairs, outlines the dangers that arise when legal and PR don’t work together, as well as the benefits to be reaped when they cooperate.]

In most corporate situations or crisis the inevitable question arises about which role is paramount — the legal team, the PR/Crisis Manager, or a combination of the two — and who trumps who, when and why.

In a corporate crisis, there is often a battle between attorneys and the PR/Crisis Manager but a decision about which path to follow must be made by corporate leadership. Usually the attorney’s job is to point out every conceivable reason NOT to do something. And occasionally legal wins. After all, their role is to protect the corporation. But often that strategy wins the battle but loses the war.

Many times there is a pressing need for the corporate President to step up to the microphone, admit mistakes, apologize, and to say that every effort will be made to correct the situation.

Over the years I’ve found many attorneys who are willing and able to work hand in hand with PR with the common goal of what’s best for the organization. My best clients recognize and practice this. We have generic statements ready to go in advance. Sometimes PR wins, sometimes the attorney wins, but 90% of the time it is a joint win/win. A lot depends on attitude and direction from the top boss.

The right course of action is most often a balancing act with what is the best action relating to public perception being the number one goal.

Example: When the glass started falling out of balconies at a new Class A hotel in Austin that had just opened, the President and CEO of the hotel owner immediately held a news conference in front of the hotel, stating that the reason regarding the falling glass was as yet unknown, but that he was taking responsibility and their number one goal was safety and they would do whatever was necessary to protect the public. You can bet that some of his lawyers advised against taking responsibility when contractors, subcontractors or suppliers were ultimately at fault. But it was the right thing to do, calmed fears, created empathy for the company, and won his company praise and public support.

While it is easy to develop all the reasons NOT to do something, it is the PR/Crisis Manager’s role to point out the dangers of inaction. Doing nothing is often the worst thing to do. Avoiding the press and a “no comment” about a breaking crisis might win a momentary reprieve for a few hours, but could end up damaging the company’s reputation for months if not years to come. Calm, confident action eases public concerns, employee concerns and often protects stock values

(PS “no comment” almost always connotes “I’m guilty” in the minds both reporters and the public. There are a hundred better phrases if needed. “No comment” should never be used.)

—————————————————————————-

The attorney says: I’ve been in crisis situations when the attorney’s advice is that we shouldn’t do anything publicly. We shouldn’t issue any statements. We’ll probably be hit with hundreds of lawsuits. Don’t say anything. Whatever we say will come back to haunt us….

The crisis manager says: That’s certainly possible, but if we don’t say anything we look and act guilty. We have to speak to our employees, shareholders, and the public for the good of the company. We’ll use tactics that will show compassion and action while protecting the corporation. And the sooner we do it the better chance we have of limiting damage and shortening the life of the story.

It’s a tough call. But more often that not being open and transparent is usually the right course of action. Attorneys can and should help craft the message, but not to the point of burdening the message with legalese, caveats or equivocations.

—————————————————————————

When in doubt, give us a call. We specialize in crisis communications. (512) 328-2900

Don Martin
Don Martin Public Affairs

This article was originally published in The Don Martin Public Affairs quarterly newsletter.

Dishonesty is a major crisis management no-no

Last Friday, after the sudden resignation of its CEO, the chairman of local news website network Daily Voice sent all employees an email promising good news and big changes.

However, upon arrival Monday morning, many of the excited employees were devastated to discover that the “good news” included the fact that they were being laid off, and would be receiving no severance pay to boot.

In an interview with Ragan.com’s Matt Wilson, discussing the Daily Voice situation, Jonathan Bernstein shared his opinion regarding dishonest internal communication:

Jonathan Bernstein of Bernstein Crisis Management says the company flat-out lied to employees.

“There is no universe in which lying to your employees is acceptable,” he says. “It only makes a bad situation worse.”

By lying, Daily Voice further angered a group of people who were already rather upset due to losing their jobs. Instead of regretfully packing up and moving on to look for new work, ex-employees went to the press to share their story, surely taking some satisfaction in knowing that their former employer’s reputation was going to take a beating as a result.

Do you think the next time Daily Voice is looking for some new talent there’s going to be a line of top prospects eager to apply? How about when it comes time to drum up extra funding from investors?

Certainly not if this mess is topping the Google search results.

There are four ways to lie:

• Dishonesty by commission — literally saying black is white.
• Dishonesty by omission — leaving important information out of your communications.
• Dishonesty by understatement for the purpose of obfuscating the truth.
• Dishonesty by overstatement for the purpose of obfuscating the truth.

Crisis Management 101 dictates that all communications MUST be honest. If they’re not, you will eventually be found out, and your reputation, along with any credibility you may have held, will land straight in the gutter.

——————————-
For more resources, see the Free Management Library topic: Crisis Management
——————————-

[Jonathan Bernstein is president of Bernstein Crisis Management, Inc., an international crisis management consultancy, author of Manager’s Guide to Crisis Management and Keeping the Wolves at Bay – Media Training. Erik Bernstein is Social Media Manager for the firm, and also editor of its newsletter, Crisis Manager]

How to avoid a crisis of ownership

Several legal spats have recently drawn attention to arguments between prominent social media users and their former employers in which both argue that they have rights to the followers and contacts gained via said accounts.

On one hand, the accounts of employees are their own, where they connect with friends, family and associates. On the other hand, the personal accounts of many businesspeople today also become marketing engines where company content is regularly promoted, and may interact with customers, clients and vendors more than the official @CompanyName twitter account ever does.

The experts say…

In a recent article, InfoWorld’s Zach Miners spoke with experts on the topic, and offered up some crucial advice:

Determining what makes an account personal versus professional is tricky in an age of near-constant social networking, said Archie of Latham & Watkins.

“People’s professional work often bleeds over into their personal time thanks to the interconnectedness of mobile devices, and that’s only one way ownership disputes can arise,” Archie said.

Facebook and LinkedIn each said via email that their official stance is that users own their accounts. Twitter’s terms of service say its users own all the content they post to its site.

Because the dividing line between personal and professional is so blurry and varies with the job, the best way for employers to avoid legal disputes is to craft clear policies about how employees should use social media, and what happens to an account when an employee leaves the company.

Because social media is still very much growing and evolving, there really is no established set of standards, and that’s why setting these policies is absolutely critical to avoiding trouble.

Preventing problems

As part of your ongoing crisis management efforts, prepare specific policies for all aspects of social media, from ownership and promotional use, to whether they can make personal posts from work, to exactly what topics are OK to discuss online, as well as which are totally off-limits.

This isn’t a “set it and forget it” policy either. The ways we use social media are changing by the day, and we’d suggest taking a regular look back at the rulebook and considering what changes or additions are required.

As with any sort of policy, it’s not going to do any good if it’s just one more sheet in the stack of new hire paperwork. Enforce mandatory training when its introduced, and take the steps necessary to impress its importance on anyone joining the organization.

Legal leanings may change, but if you have clear policy agreements and can prove everyone has been trained accordingly then both employer and employee will know what to expect and, if desired, can change their social media use accordingly.

——————————-
For more resources, see the Free Management Library topic: Crisis Management
——————————-

[Jonathan Bernstein is president of Bernstein Crisis Management, Inc., an international crisis management consultancy, author of Manager’s Guide to Crisis Management and Keeping the Wolves at Bay – Media Training. Erik Bernstein is Social Media Manager for the firm, and also editor of its newsletter, Crisis Manager]

No satire in social media crisis management from the kings of fake news

The Onion is well known across the ‘net for lampooning, well, everything. Headlines on its front page right now include, “Republicans Reach Out To Women With New ‘No Punch Pretty Lady’ Bill” and “Bob Dylan Lays Off 2,000 Workers From Songwriting Factory.”

On Oscar night, however, the most famous fake news outlet in the world went too far with the joking. In a tasteless, even by Onion standards, attempt at humor, someone posted to the @TheOnion Twitter feed sarcastically referring to nine-year-old actress Quvenzhane Wallis using a four-letter word that starts with C.

Suddenly, the social media-verse was alight with furious tweets from concerned parents, longtime Onion fans, and just about everyone in between. In other words, it was very, very clear that people weren’t just upset or offended, but completely irate over the tweet.

Within the hour the tweet was deleted, but the virtual downpour continued through the night and Onion staffers must have awoken to inboxes absolutely bursting with rage. On Monday morning, the day after the Oscars, The Onion CEO Steve Hannah engaged in crisis management, publishing the following on Facebook, and later The Onion’s site:

For the CEO of a paper that fills its (virtual) pages with some pretty vicious humor, Hannah issued a solid, human apology. Not only did he announce how his company would avoid making such a mistake again and express his own shock at the joke, but he also profusely apologized and gave his acclaim to the young Ms. Wallis.

The one thing that could have made it a home-run as far as crisis communications go? Well, he acknowledged Wallis and the Academy, but how about a little compassion for all of the other parties who were offended or disappointed?

All in all, surprisingly strong crisis management from an organization that most wouldn’t expect to apologize for anything at all. It looks like they’re taking the mistake as a learning experience, and that’s a good thing. Keep being funny Onion, but watch your step when it comes to bashing little kids.

——————————-
For more resources, see the Free Management Library topic: Crisis Management
——————————-

[Jonathan Bernstein is president of Bernstein Crisis Management, Inc., an international crisis management consultancy, author of Manager’s Guide to Crisis Management and Keeping the Wolves at Bay – Media Training. Erik Bernstein is Social Media Manager for the firm, and also editor of its newsletter, Crisis Manager]

Second outbreak in as many months from Cardinal Meat Specialists

As if the beef industry wasn’t in enough trouble with the entire horsemeat debacle, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has confirmed that two people have contracted food poisoning, caused by E. coli, after eating frozen beef burgers.

The company responsible for manufacturing the burgers, Cardinal Meat Specialists, has recalled all products that were on the line that day, and according to reports is cooperating fully with authorities. Normally a single recall is not a major problem for manufacturers, provided they handle things well, but this is Cardinal’s second E. coli scare since December and that complicates things a bit.

A sleeping watchdog?

Now, it is possible for microorganisms to sneak their way into raw product, even with proper safety and handling procedures in place, but the fact that two batches of tainted meat went out within as many months is bound to put a negative tint on public perception of not only the producer, but also the organization that is supposed to be overseeing them, namely the CFIA.

The watchdog agency was criticized heavily for not demanding a recall until several people had fallen ill in the December Cardinal E. coli crisis, and another tainted batch of burgers coming out of the same facility so soon leads the public to believe, whether it’s true or not, that the CFIA isn’t doing its job. If the CFIA wants to avoid taking heavy, long-term reputation damage in the court of public opinion, then it has to put in the effort required to absolutely guarantee Cardinal is clear to produce safe product.

No comment

At the time of this writing the recall has grabbed quite a bit of news coverage, but looking through the Cardinal website we can’t find a single mention of the current situation. Their news section proudly touts the results of the December investigation (no fault found), and has an article on new plants, as well as plans to expand into the U.S., so why no word on the latest issue?

There is really no excuse to not be THE primary source of information on any crisis that centers around your organization. A bit of brainstorming, some careful construction of messaging, and 30 minutes of work from a webmaster is all it takes to publish an informative statement with easily-findable link right there on your existing website.

Frankly, not doing this is fast going the way of saying “no comment,” ie. it is far more detrimental to your reputation than getting out there and spilling the facts.

One of our favorite sayings is, “in the absence of communication, rumor and innuendo will fill the gap,” and that damaging rumor and innuendo finds a hole faster than ever given the incredible speed and volume of ‘net communication today.

When it’s clearly crisis management time, step up and start communicating. There’s no excuse not to.

——————————-
For more resources, see the Free Management Library topic: Crisis Management
——————————-

[Jonathan Bernstein is president of Bernstein Crisis Management, Inc., an international crisis management consultancy, author of Manager’s Guide to Crisis Management and Keeping the Wolves at Bay – Media Training. Erik Bernstein is Social Media Manager for the firm, and also editor of its newsletter, Crisis Manager]