Tag: crisis management

PR Disaster Averted: 7 Cases of Good Crisis Management

Posted on by Dorothy Crenshaw

PR agency pundits and brand watchers love to create “best and worst” lists around marketing and communications developments.  The emphasis usually falls on the “worsts” – like the most badly handled crisis situations, mangled cover-ups, or PR stunts that backfired.

It’s easy to criticize, but what about giving credit for crises averted or PR battles won?  That list is shorter and far less obvious, but here are my nominations.

JC Penney. Penney’s reputation has been worn down in the past year. First, it was outed by The New York Times for “black hat” SEO practices last January. Then, it suffered a visual identity crisis leading up to the announcement of a bold new pricing strategy. Just as it built positive momentum for the “new” JCP, advocacy group One Million Moms threatened a store boycott over its choice of spokesperson Ellen DeGeneres. Rather than try to appease critics, the company stood by Ellen….and, in a brilliant move, it escaped the Lowe’s trap by letting her do most of the talking. Penney’s was betting that Ellen was far more popular than One Million Moms, and it was right. Ellen’s explanation of her “traditional values” is a PR home run. The boycott ended faster than a flash sale.

Planned Parenthood (PP). Most of the coverage of the Susan G. Komen/Planned Parenthood debacle focused on Komen’s lack of preparedness for the public reaction after it dropped PP from its grants program. But Planned Parenthood mounted a first-class response to the potential crisis. After offering an exclusive interview to the AP, it let loose a barrage of news releases and launched a social media campaign to mobilize fans.  Its core strategy was simple; as spokesperson Tait Sye explained, “We gave people things to do.” PP circulated online petitions, shared tweets, posted comments, and launched a no-holds-barred media tour by telegenic CEO Cecile Richards. The public pressure forced SGK to backpedal within the week.

Taco Bell. A year ago, the fast-food chain was the target of a customer lawsuit that served up a potential PR disaster for its brand. A California woman smacked Taco Bell with deceptive marketing claims, saying its tacos have far less beef than advertised. Taco Bell wasted no time in firing back.  The chain went on the offense, big time. It filed a countersuit, posted a video statement from the CEO, and dished out a saucy media campaign featuring the headline “Thank You for Suing Us!” The customer’s beef, and her lawsuit, were quietly dropped, ensuring Taco Bell a place in the annals of crisis management. Well done.

The Red Cross. It was only a rogue tweet, so the risk faced by The American Red Cross last year may not rise to the level of reputation crisis. But its handling of a staffer’s Twitter post about a beer party was a nice example of a measured response. After realizing the employee confused a personal account with a corporate one and shared plans for “gettingslizzerd” on @RedCross, the tweet was quickly deleted. Yet, importantly, it wasn’t ignored. The Red Cross used a light touch, noting, “We’ve deleted the rogue tweet but rest assured the Red Cross is sober and we’ve confiscated the keys.” Best of all, @DogfishBeer joined the fun by encouraging donations, and appropriate replenishment.

Justin Bieber. Oh, baby, what a mess this could have been. When the teen pop star was hit with a paternity suit from a fan who claimed Justin fathered her child, he recognized the risk to his popstar image.  Guided by PR rep Matthew Hiltzik, Bieber delivered an unequivocal denial on The Today Show. Team Bieber then went one better by filing a countersuit and taking a paternity test to prove he was no baby daddy. His comment?  “I know that I’m going to be a target, but I’m never going to be a victim,” hit the right notes. Well played.

o.b. Talk about facing the music. The J & J tampon brand was threatened with a “girlcott” by angry users after it discontinued its popular Ultra item. The customer backlash threatened to take over its reputation, until o.b. defused the situation with a unique response. Its apology PR campaign included a hilarious video that used personalization technology to woo back customers. “Triple Sorry” was a sublime send-up of an uber-schmaltzy music video, complete with rainbows and rose petals and a vow to bring back the product. It was a pitch-perfect response to a potential crisis with double credit to Canada for a downloadable product coupon.

Newt Gingrich. He’s known for flying by the seat of his pants, but the Speaker showed real PR savvy when he needed it most, just before the high-stakes South Carolina primary. His ex-wife’s ABC interview where she claimed he asked her for an “open marriage” could have dealt his campaign a death blow. But when CNN’s John King raised it at the start of the live debate, Gingrich was ready. He denied the story, but not before exploding in indignation and casting the media as the true guilty party. It may not be enough to save his candidacy, but it was a sound strategy that let Gingrich rally his base against that classic GOP enemy – the media.

This is an updated version of a post that originally appeared on MENGBlend.

Isn’t It Ironic? Lowe’s Apology Triggers PR Damage

Posted on by Dorothy Crenshaw

The backlash came in a flood, like a burst pipe. The move by Lowe’s to drop its ad support for the TLC show “All-American Muslim” after pressure from a conservative Christian group may leave its reputation in serious need of repair.

But, to me, it reads like an O. Henry story where good intentions go awry, and no one wins.

Certainly Lowe’s has its hands full. Muslim community leaders have spoken out against the move, as have boldfaced names in entertainment. Lowe’s Facebook page is rapidly filling with comments – over 10,000 at last count – from supporters to those crying bigotry.

There are so many ironies here.

Irony #1 – “All-American Muslim,” which depicts the everyday lives of  five Muslim families in Dearborn, Michigan, was presumably created to show that Muslim Americans are just like everybody else. Instead, the show has been the catalyst for a firestorm of controversy where ugly names are exchanged on all sides.

Irony #2 – Lowe’s axed the ads after the Florida Family Association sent letters of protest. The company posted a Facebook statement that apologizes for making so many people “unhappy” and explains its intent to “respectfully defer to communities, individuals and groups to discuss and consider such issues of importance.” (Huh?) But, in reversing itself to make one group happy, Lowe’s apparently failed to realize that others would then be unhappy. Such is the law of unintended consequences. Now, the company is stuck.

Irony #3 – Lowe’s was singled out for criticism because it tried to explain its decision. (Other companies, including archrival Home Depot, also dropped their support for the show, but more quietly.) That’s laudable, even though the language was a bit legalistic and ultimately inadequate. More importantly, the decision to give in to pressure in the first place was shortsighted. (see Irony #2)

Irony #4 –  “All-American Muslim” has garnered more PR than TLC could have ever dreamed, which just might boost ratings, leaving it more attractive to advertisers…..yet, they’ll need to be intrepid enough to wade into a PR mess.

Herman Cain’s PR Problem

Posted on by Dorothy Crenshaw

Until recently, Herman Cain had shown himself to be a pretty savvy communicator. The plainspoken ex-pizza prez showed he understands the value of a simple idea, well packaged and often repeated, with his “9-9-9” tax proposal. (No one understood it, he couldn’t really explain it, but everyone knew about it. Can you say that about any other candidate’s tax plan?)

Even Cain’s campaign ad – which looked like a 1970s commercial for the tobacco industry – racked up over a million views on YouTube, and another million on the Cain website, in part because it was so unorthodox. Quirky? Yes. Off-putting? Maybe. But the spot was pretty smokin’ on the Web; it blew away the competition and dominated the news cycle for a couple of days without costing a dime.

But Cain’s latest PR crisis is more serious, and this time, snappy sound bites won’t be enough. A report of sexual harassment allegations against Cain when he served as head of the National Restaurant Association during the 90s left the candidate and his campaign looking flat-footed, defensive, and decidedly indecisive. These things can’t always be managed by the handbook, but there were some glaring rules that were broken or ignored.

Vetting and preparation. Politico sat on the harassment story for a good ten days while waiting for the Cain campaign to respond. That’s an eternity in crisis response time, and it makes Cain’s charges of media bias look lame. Any candidate for public office knows that they must be aware of all potential skeletons and have a plan to deal with their inevitable disclosure. Better yet, have a plan to disclose them yourself. (Remember Obama’s casual mention of his occasional cocaine use as a student in his biography? Masterful.)

Candor. Cain’s flip-flops when confronted with the harassment allegations were inexcusable given the timeframe, and weak even under the best of circumstances. When asked about the story, he denied the accusation, and also denied that any settlement had been made – a nonsense answer given the easy verifiability of the settlement in question. Cain might have had a false sense of confidence because the complainant signed a confidentiality agreement with the NRA, but he and his people had to know it would come out. And chalking up his response to semantics (“agreement” versus “settlement”) made him look like he was hiding something.

Consistency. Cain’s first response was a weaselly sounding denial, followed by hostility. Then, he backpedaled, pleading faulty memory. Following that, he became conciliatory and even jocular before again attacking the press for bias. He’s tried so many responses and behaviors that he’s got Condoleezza Rice warning him not to play “the race card.” In crisis PR, consistency, coupled with message control and transparency, is usually the best course.

Counterattack. It’s common for candidates to chalk up stories like this one to political opposition research, and it’s usually true. Of course the harassment story was leaked by an opponent. But good PR practice (and common sense) dictates you need to respond truthfully to the accusation first, then hit back. The way Cain responded made him look defensive and deceptive.

Activation of allies. Four days after the story’s publication, some close Cain friends and advocates have been quoted about his character, maintaining that the Herman they know would never engage in inappropriate behavior. This has been too little, and maybe even too late. And his most important ally, his wife of 43 years, had yet to be heard from. Her chance will come Friday when she’s interviewed on Fox News by Greta Van Sustern. Stay tuned.

"Thanks For Suing Us!" Taco Bell Takes On "Beef-Gate"

Posted on by Dorothy Crenshaw

A California woman’s beef with Taco Bell over the ingredients in her taco served up an interesting crisis management case study last week. The food fight has turned into a class-action lawsuit alleging false advertising by the chain. The suit claims its tacos are only 36 percent beef, which, if true, means they wouldn’t even qualify as beef under USDA regulations.

As usual, social media helped turn the suit into a blogosphere feeding frenzy. A supremely unappetizing photo of something called “taco meat filling” spiced up some of the negative posts, and online commentary was heated. Stephen Colbert launched a frankly hilarious mock defense of the chain that called its key ingredient “beef adjacent.”

(Best PR hijack may be from PETA, which put out a tongue-in-cheek statement congratulating Taco Bell on moving away from meat, and urging it to go “100 percent cruelty-free.”)

The news made for juicy copy, but the risk is more serious than a reputation ding. According to MediaPost, in the week since the beef suit was filed, the chain’s BrandIndex perception score among adult fast-food customers has fallen from 25.2 to 11.7. That’s a hefty drop.

But the chain mobilized fairly quickly to bite back. It launched into a drill that’s unfortunately become a standard recipe for QSR crisis response. But this feedback had real attitude. Full-page newspaper ads signed by president and “chief concept officer” Greg Creed denied the tacos are mostly filler. “Thank you for suing us,” sneered the giant headline. Saucy! The chain also threatened a countersuit and put Creed on the hot seat in a series of major media interviews.

Social media was also on the crisis management menu. Taco Bell’s Facebook wall features frequent postings about the situation, including the (arguably) unflattering Colbert parody and some very mixed commentary by fans. Creed took his case to YouTube with a folksy, but impassioned, video statement. He looked friendly and at ease explaining that its tacos are actually 88 percent beef, and that the remaining 12 percent is water, seasonings, and a longish list of other ingredients like silicon dioxide and “isolated oat product.”

But, when asked about “isolated oat product” by ABC News, Creed admitted he didn’t know what it is, but assured us that “it’s there for a purpose.” I’d argue that the guy in charge should be able to answer that question, and even be able to whip up a taco on-air to show how it’s done. (This is the “Undercover Boss” era, after all.) In the ideal world, the company would be able to produce a “Chief Yum Officer” who could credibly speak to its recipe, while leaving out technical jargon.

But I think the chain knows its core customers, and its response was cooked up for them. Hence, the cheeky tone of the ads, and the CEO’s casual admission that he’s not a food scientist. If it loses the suit, it will lose credibility, of course. But, despite quibbles on tactics, the tone of its communications seemed to hit the spot… not unlike a 99-cent taco.

Crisis Management: Lessons From The Chilean Mine Rescue

Posted on by Dorothy Crenshaw

As the world watched, the government of Chile showed not only leadership, but remarkable PR and communications savvy as it sought to free 33 miners trapped underground for over two months. Its handling of the ordeal was like a mirror image of the BP disaster. Here are some crisis management learnings we can unearth from the management of the rescue.

Take responsibility

In stepping up to take over the rescue operation, Chile’s Sebastian Pinera took an enormous calculated risk. The decision could have been influenced by earlier criticism of his government’s slow response to an earthquake near Concepcion. Whatever the reasons, government action contrasted sharply with what we in the U.S. saw post-Hurricane Katrina, and after the BP disaster, where the government chose to leave BP in charge. For Pinera, it clearly paid off.

Manage expectations

Remember the initial estimates that the miners might be out by Christmas? Whether simple caution, or communications strategy, this was a masterstroke. It took some of the pressure off, enabled the government to succeed beyond all hopes, and made it look very proficient in the process.

Have a plan

Early on, the Chilean government communicated a Plan A and a Plan B for rescue in a clear, methodical way. It looked organized and in control. Compare their performance with that of BP, which lurched from one solution to the next, even crowdsourcing ideas for stopping the spill in a way that suggested uncertainty and incompetence.

Accept help, but maintain control

A fascinating aspect of the rescue has been the technical help and advice the government sought from private companies and experts at NASA and elsewhere. The authorities made it clear that no effort would be spared to ensure a safe resolution to the crisis. Yet, they kept tight control over communications, ensuring that the government was the chief source of updates. This is the first rule of crisis PR.

Sweat the small stuff

One of the biggest stories around the rescue operation has been the focus on the smallest details of the plan, from the construction of the tube, to the monitoring of each miner’s health. The government’s meticulousness conveyed not only competence, but caring.

Be transparent

The Chilean PR machine was proactive, consistent, and transparent in providing updates to the media. They never seemed to be obscuring facts or delaying disclosure, which often happens when the pressure’s on.

Be social

The government also used social media to support its communications, setting up a Flickr page of photos that documented every dramatic moment as the miners began to emerge into the light.

Be visible

Chile’s Minister of Mining was at the site virtually around the clock, and President Pinera appeared frequently as operations shifted into high gear. Sure, the head guy can get updates from his office, but when lives are at stake, optics really matter. Sometimes you just have to be there.

What PR People Can Learn From BP

Posted on by Dorothy Crenshaw

Let’s get one thing straight. The Gulf Oil spill isn’t a PR problem. It’s an environmental disaster that no PR team, no matter how skilled, could clean up. The public relations crisis comes with BP’s lack of preparedness for the gusher, and with the communications in its wake. But, all calamities offer learnings. What lessons can we extract from BP’s mishandling of the crisis?

Stick to the script. Actually, have a script. It’s bad enough that BP can’t stem the flow of oil. But it should be able to stop the hemorrhage of insensitive comments from senior management. In my experience, some executives just aren’t good off the cuff, or under extreme stress. Others are simply tone deaf. But, even oratorically gifted officers shouldn’t speak in front of cameras without rigorous preparation. Hayward should be given 4-5 key points to make with the press, with no deviation.

Vet all messages. Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg ‘s reference to the “small people” of the Gulf didn’t strike me as an accident of translation. His comment came during prepared remarks delivered at the White House Rose Garden, not an ad-hoc interview. Both Svanberg’s robotic speech, which the Wall Street Journal likened to Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime, and his choice of words, were evidence of not just a clueless crisis response, but a lack of message review. That’s hard to excuse two months after the accident.

Have a go-to guy. For a disaster of the spill’s magnitude, CEO involvement is critical. But, where there’s latitude, CEOs should be used sparingly. It’s also advisable to show executive and technical bench strength. At first, BP actually succeeded on this front by giving Doug Suttles, who’s in charge of exploration and production, a prominent role in interviews on the containment efforts at the accident site. Suttles came across as credible and competent when he stuck to technical progress updates. He didn’t do as well with questions on spill preparation.

Don’t crowsource solutions. Some will argue with me, but I don’t think it was a wise strategic move to open up the problem to suggestions from the public on the BP website. Though the outpouring of ideas provided comic relief  (duct tape, anyone?), the whole thing raised questions about BP’s competence at exactly the wrong time.

Focus on people. University of Kentucky’s Timothy Sellnow points out that, like Exxon before it, BP may have placed too much emphasis on the engineering challenge of containment rather than the human impact. Though the focus was natural, the story became the “solution of the week,” which BP could not control. An equal emphasis on helping the, um, “small people,” would have been better, since that’s something the company can actually do.

Don’t call the game until it’s over. BP has repeatedly predicted success for its efforts to stop the gusher, and it loses credibility with each attempt. Expectations management applies here. Even President Obama’s pledge that the Gulf will be “in better shape than it was” before the spill sounds quixotic right now.

Don’t try to minimize the damage. No one wants to reinforce the negative, but there are ways of expressing remorse and resolve that don’t rub salt in the wound. Reminding us that “it’s a big ocean” isn’t one of them. And, as a rule, where lives – and livelihoods – are lost, it’s impossible to overestimate the pain.

Back up your words with actions. BP seemed to turn a corner when the $20-billion-dollar victims compensation fund was announced. Reparations can be slow and difficult where legal liability is an issue, but an expedited commitment is nearly always in the best interests of everyone involved.

Be part of the solution. If it survives the crisis intact, BP will have a huge opportunity to set new standards for cleanup and recovery. A classic lemons-to-lemonade crisis response is to create best practices to prevent future tragedies, like Tylenol’s packaging initiatives. But that requires leadership, which has been in short supply as the oil, and the missteps, seem to keep on spreading.

When Fans Attack: How To Defend A Brand’s Reputation Online

Posted on by Dorothy Crenshaw

A social media presence can morph from PR asset to liability in the time it takes to say “brandjacking.” The recent takeover of Nestle’s Facebook page by Greenpeace activists has many brand marketers dusting off their crisis programs.  But the world has changed. How do you defend your brand if, despite good business and communications practices, you become a target? What can you do if your brand is attacked on its own turf, or in a public online forum?

First, anticipate. If your crisis plan was last updated in 1993, or even two years ago, it’s not relevant. Have an online listening post, focus on the most likely criticisms and complaint scenarios, and make sure your messages are current.

Ramp up customer service. Would you put an intern on the phone to handle a client complaint? Don’t do it online either. Make sure your communications team is trained in customer relations, and vice versa. Not every company is ready to jump into Social CRM, but the line between communications and customer service is getting blurrier every day.

Stay calm. When the heat is on, sarcasm and anger are not your friend. Don’t be funny or flippant either. Use of humor is a classic apology PR tactic for an individual under fire, but a corporation should take legitimate customer criticism very, very seriously.

Be transparent. In most attack situations, it’s not worth closing off comments or trying to astroturf your way out of trouble. It rarely works and is often exposed.

Be timely. Nothing pours kerosene on a customer complaint fire like silence. A timely answer, even if not the desired response, is better than the void.

Take it offline. When complaints cascade anonymously, it’s often impossible to deal with them offline. But, on Facebook and other sites where comments are transparent, offline resolutions may be possible, and the complaint chain may be interrupted.

Apologize. If the situation warrants. Though the public apology is being rapidly commoditized, a sincere, factual, and personalized apology beats silence, defensiveness, or apathy.

Use the media. Be ready to produce a response commensurate with the attack – through online commentary, video, and social media news releases.

Look for – and leverage – the opportunity. A negative situation doesn’t always spell lasting damage. In fact, it can be an opportunity to tout positive change, clear up a misimpression, and build customer engagement. No one is more loyal than a grateful customer. If the problem can’t be fixed, a fair hearing can still go a long way.

The Future of Celebrity Endorsement, Post-Tiger

Posted on by Dorothy Crenshaw

Last night I had the pleasure of speaking at a symposium sponsored by The Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal. The topic was “The Tiger Woods Effect” on celebrity endorsement, contract negotiation, morals clauses, and a host of other legal, marketing and PR issues. Here’s my take on the discussion, from a strictly brand marketing perspective.

Brands will still get in bed with celebrities. So to speak. Yes, some point to a decline in athletic endorsements, and they blame the Tiger Woods effect. But my feeling is that the economy’s had a great deal more impact on sports deals than the scandal. Happily, the recent McDonald’s signing of LeBron James is an indicator that athletes are still very much in the endorsement game.

But, brand endorsements will be more limited. Though celebrity deals will remain valuable and attractive for marketers, it’ll be a long while before we see another Accenture-style campaign in which a non-sports company bases its entire brand positioning on a single personality, no matter how iconic. A year ago it seemed smart and even strategic to tie your brand to a breakout athlete in a metaphor for consistently high performance. Today, not so much. Look for companies to fall back on the “Taste great, less filling”-style product endorsement. It’s more cost-effective and far less risky.

For celebrities, privacy is over. If you’re pulling down millions in endorsements based on your professional performance and public image, you simply can’t have secrets. The 24/7  nature of media, ubiquity of social platforms, and tabloid culture make it impossible.

Contracts will be shorter and more flexible, with clear exit strategies. A ten-year deal suddenly looks a lot less attractive than a three-year one. Terminations and how they may be communicated will be carefully negotiated to protect the reputations of both parties.

Morals clauses will be tighter. An interesting aspect of last night’s discussion was the mention of “reverse morals clauses” for endorsers. So, presumably, if a top athlete or celebrity signs with…oh, I don’t know, let’s say a Japanese automotive company, he might negotiate for compensation in the event of reputation damage resulting from something like a massive product recall. Sports law expert Michael McCann says “it’s bound to happen.”

Deals will be formed with full-blown risk and crisis management plans. Marketers have given lip service to preparedness in the past, but as IEG’s Jim Andrews points out in a recent AdAge piece, sponsors need to have a plan for quickly changing creative materials and be ready to communicate its position effectively in the event of negative fallout.

Social media is a flashpoint. Lawyers hate Twitter, because they feel it’s particularly risky for those celebrities who are already prone to entitled and outrageous behavior – top athletes, hip-hop artists, and even reality TV stars. Though my feeling is that the problem lies with the endorser, not the media platform, it’s very possible that social media behavior could be restricted or prohibited in endorsement agreements. You can thank Gilbert Arenas for that one.

Top celebrity agents will be humbler and nicer. Actually that’s a joke. I’ll save that one for my “cold day in hell” blog post.