Later on in those workshops, I cautioned people that, when
developing their major or “must air” messages that they want people to understand and believe, they had to limit themselves to three. The reason? Because usually if you ask people to remember ten things, they won’t be able to recall them all and, instead, forget most of them. If, on the other hand, you focus on having them remember just three items, they may well be able to do that.

Earlier this month, I spoke with one of my best clients who had me conduct media training workshops for six of their regions around the country in 2008-2009. In keeping with my recommendation that organizations refresh such training every three years, they wanted to know if I could conduct some half-day refresher training sessions for their folks in May. We decided that I should present a brief review of the most important points to help them prepare before we move into role-plays of crisis scenarios.

As I began to think about what material to focus on to help insure that the designated spokespersons would have the best chance for success, I naturally gravitated toward “The 10 C’s.” I played with the idea of putting them through a pop quiz to see how many the participants could write down. Asking them to remember ten items we had talked about three years ago did not seem fair (except that I told them ahead of time to read the new edition of book, which the company had purchased for them).

THEN I REMEMBERED JIM McKAY

Many of you may remember this long-time sportscaster who used to be one of the most recognized commentators for the Olympic Games. He may well be remembered most for his reporting during the tragedy in 1972 when eleven Israeli athletes were murdered at the Olympic Games in Munich. He was highly respected for the way he reported that terrible story. One commentator noted that his three main characteristics were that he was Calm, Compassionate, and Capable.

As I looked at my “10 C’s,” it quickly became apparent that all of them could fit into one of these three categories, which would be easier for people to remember and internalize.

CALM

There’s the old saying, “If you can keep your head when — all around you — others are losing theirs, you don’t fully understand the situation.” This quote may cause a chuckle, but you really must strive to act as calm as possible. This doesn’t mean that you have to BE calm. Your stomach may be jumping and you will likely feel nervous. But you need to convey calmness if you hope to have people listen to you and not panic unnecessarily. Calmness will come if you are as well prepared for the situation as possible. That presupposes you’ve thought about the possibility of this particular incident happening and taken steps ahead of time to allow you to react quickly and correctly. It also speaks to the need to be cooperative with the media and the public who are looking for answers. You don’t want them leaping to a conclusion that you are covering something up. Very importantly, it certainly requires that you never — not once — lose your temper in public.

COMPASSIONATE

You MUST put yourself (and your organization) in the shoes of those who feel they have been victimized or endangered by the incident. Whether it has to do with physical harm, emotional distress, or possible negative financial impact, people who feel they are victims are going to be upset. You need to empathize with their feelings. It does not mean that you have to immediately state that your organization is at fault, thus crying out “Sue us!” But you do need to show caring and concern about their situation. Offering to help them in their time of trouble does not automatically signal liability. It can, in fact, deflect some of the anger that could lead to lawsuits if you tried to stonewall. (Hospitals and doctors are finding this out in meaningful and measurable ways through an organization called SorryWorks.net.)

CAPABLE

A lot goes into conveying capability. It accounts for seven of the ten C’s.

— CONTROL means thinking through ahead of time how you would organize to handle the onslaught of media attention. Where do you stage the satellite trucks and hold briefings? Where will the Crisis Management Team meet?

— COMPETENCE refers to the ability to quickly and accurately convey the substantiated facts of the situation in a way that addresses the concerns of those affected. Take a few minutes before meeting the media to familiarize yourself with the most important information - the Who, What, When, Where, and possibly Why and How. Remember to thank those who are helping you bring the situation under control.

— CREDIBLE requires that you never lie,whether a little white one or a whopper. It also means you should never speculate; if you don’t know something for sure, don’t guess.

— CONSISTENT addresses making sure the organization speaks with one voice. It must be clear, and known throughout the organization, who your spokesperson is. And if that role changes — because the crisis is long-term or the speaking role has to be handed up to someone higher in the chain of command because of the seriousness of the situation - all parties involved have to know what’s been said previously.

— CLEAR refers to the need for simple language. There is no room for industry- or company-specific jargon. This is no time to try to impress people with fancy words if you want people to truly understand what is happening.

— CONCISE means communicating without extra words if you don’t want to be edited, thereby running the risk of having your message changed or lost. Developing succinct “sound bites” will go a long way toward making your messages memorable — which should be a major goal.

— CURRENT speaks to continuing to be the source for the latest reliable information. This is vastly preferable to relinquishing that role to those who are upset with you.

In summary, if an incident occurs, before you go out to meet the media, keep repeating to yourself this mantra — CALM,COMPASSIONATE, AND CAPABLE. Having these three principles guide you as you make your statement and answer questions will give you the best possible chance of indicating to the public (through the media) that you are doing the most you can to bring the situation under control and get back to normal.

# # #

Hoping your spring has sprung as beautifully as it has here in North Carolina!

Until next month…KEEP COOL!

The final chapter of the August 2011 edition of my book is devoted to this subject. Speaking quickly, clearly, honestly, and with compassion for any victims are still the hallmarks of good media relations and public responses to a crisis. These things have not changed.

What HAS Changed?

Mainly three things:

(1) The speed with which you must respond has been reduced from several hours (prior to a media deadline) to mere minutes. People who have been alerted via the social networks to an event — complete with video of the leaping flames, SWAT teams converging on a building, or sickened/injured people flooding into hospitals — demand answers right away.

(2) A limited number of traditional journalists have been augmented by countless “citizen journalists” — anyone who owns a mobile phone or Flip camera and knows how to upload the video to the Internet. In addition, there are many influential “citizen journalists” who have established highly respected blogs and who can comment on anything of interest to them or concentrate on a particular area of expertise.

(3) Communication channels have exploded into a vast array of things that didn’t exist a few years ago. Now we have to be very familiar not only with Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, but also with Digg, Flickr, RSS feeds, Klout, etc.

But You Can’t Just Give Up!

Apparently many organization leaders have done just that. They feel understandably overwhelmed at how fast the world of technology is changing. (I’m right there with you! I just celebrated my 67th birthday last week and it all makes my head hurt. But then again, I am not running an organization that still has to be able to deal with these things. You, my readers, may be. So read on…)

If you don’t feel prepared to deal with all of this, you are not alone. A recent study of senior management, marketing, and human resources executives conducted by Russell Herder and Ethos Business Law reported some interesting statistics. Specifically, (a) 49% know that social media could damage company reputation; (b) 81% know that effective use of social media could enhance relationships with customers; and (c) 72% of them actually visit social media sites weekly to see what their customers say about them. BUT ONLY 13% OF THEM HAVE INCLUDED SOCIAL MEDIA IN THEIR ORGANIZATION’S CRISIS COMMUNICATIONS PLANS!

Why is this? A majority of them admit to simply not knowing enough about how social media works.

Luckily, There Are Answers to This Quandry

Many bright people and some top-notch organizations are making good careers and businesses because they do understand all of this. Kids who grew up in the computer age have now graduated from schools where they have studied and personally used these sites and techniques. You can employ these folks yourself, or you can contract with organizations which specialize in understanding how to use them for your advantage.

Now there is an excellent new book which should – in my opinion – be read by every organization leader who needs a basic understanding of this new world of social media. It is called “The Four Stages of Highly Effective Crisis Management: How to Manage the Media in the Digital Age” written by Jane Jordan-Meier and published by CRC Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group. In the early parts of the book, Ms. Jordan-Meier reinforces basic media relations principles and emphasizes how important they are for putting together the messages that will be communicated through both traditional and social media channels. She covers the topics of who should be spokespersons, how to frame answers to communicate positive messages, how to deal with difficult questions, and the value of having your staff professionally media-trained.

One of the most valuable parts of this book is the way she describes the four basic stages of any crisis: (1) Fact-Finding (2) The Unfolding Drama (3) Finger-Pointing = Blame Game and (4) Resolution and Fallout. For each stage, she succinctly describes its essential characteristics, predicts how the media will act, and then provides advice on how organizations should respond.

The material related to social media in Chapters 29 and 30 and the many useful appendices are what make this book essential if you want to know how to communicate with the most influential people in your organization’s life. The days of one-way communication (we tell people what we want them to know through a press release) are over. We now must be skilled at myriad ways to conduct dialogues and share information. She does not provide the technical “how-to’s.” We’ll leave that to the technically proficient employees or sub-contractors. But organization leaders must be on board this ship and have a basic understanding of how the various social media tools work. This book provides this beautifully.

One more thing senior leaders must provide is guidelines on the authorized use of social media within the company. A major reason why many organizations have not adopted the use of social media as a crisis communications tool is that they are concerned about opening Pandora’s box. They fear that (1) proprietary company information may be revealed, (2) employees may not use good judgment in what they post, and (3) it will lead to a massive loss of productivity if employees can use social networks during work hours. An especially useful Appendix F lists resources where organizations can find sample social media policy templates (one of which can even get you started by using a free 12-question yes or no answer quiz ).

In Conclusion – A Quote From My Book

My expertise, gained in 17 years in industry and another 17 years in my crisis consulting business, is in WHAT you say and HOW you say it when you are faced with a crisis. You surely still need to know that. But nowadays you need to be knowledgeable about WHERE to say it. Inasmuch as the general public — as well as traditional journalists — look to the social media networks to find out information they want and need to know, you must be knowledgeable about this too. And, as I said in the last page of my book…

“You must start all of this work NOW. You have to have a presence established in social media channels before a crisis hits or you will have absolutely zero credibility in the conversation. And remember: do as I say – but don’t call me to ask me how to actually do it!”

The Crisis: A Very Disturbing Revelation of Animal Cruelty

I don’t have to say these were “allegations” because there is graphic video footage to substantiate the claims. An animal activist organization, Mercy for Animals, managed to have one of its members hired by a local breeding facility of Butterball LLC, the country’s largest processor of turkeys. During the months of November and December, the undercover agent managed to videotape numerous examples of workers badly mistreating the turkeys. They were seen kicking and stomping the birds, and throwing them violently into cages with obvious disregard for the injuries inflicted and the pain caused. The images were graphic and therefore easily imprinted on viewers’ brains when ABC News broadcast them on December 29th. Soon thereafter, that video appeared (and still appears) on many different websites if you type in “Butterball Animal Cruelty” or “Butterball Animal Abuse.”

Note: The company actually received a break in this regard. If you type just “Butterball” into the search engine, you are led to their corporate website. There you can find recipes for their various products, the phone number for their holiday hotline, and their general corporate PR statements. (Not all organizations are so lucky. When you typed into a search engine the name of a private school with which I am familiar, the first entry to appear was a graphic video of the injuries sustained by a student in a hazing incident –possibly a paid-for placement obtained by the lawyer representing that young man.

A Little Background

Butterball has had an excellent reputation in our area. Earlier, local and state governments had publicized how thrilled they were to have such a large company establish their headquarters and employ so many citizens here. They are known for their numerous positive community outreach activities, like providing thousands of turkeys to needy families during the holidays

When this shocking news story broke, the company published a press release that said many of the right things. It stated unequivocally that the company’s “number one priority is to provide for the health and well being of our birds in order to produce safe and nutritious produce for consumers.” They also said, “Butterball has a zero tolerance policy for any mistreatment of our birds or the failure to immediately report mistreatment…by any associates” and that they have animal welfare programs that “cover all aspects of growing, loading, transporting and processing birds” and that all associates are trained as to the proper handling and care” of the turkeys.

Some of these points made it into the news report. However, the words were simply printed on the TV screen and read quickly by the reporter.

A Review of their Website

For those people who did not happen to see the initial report but became aware of the terrible story through word of mouth or subsequent news mentions, they did not have the benefit of this official statement. They would likely, then, go to the Internet to see what the company had to say. Reporters, too, would go to the company website expecting to see the company position clearly stated.

On December 30th, I searched for “Butterball” to see how they were handling the crisis. Given the company’s solid reputation in the area, I was hopeful that they would be proactive in their approach and ready and able to use this communications tool effectively in this reputation damaging crisis.

I was sadly disappointed. On the first site to come up, I found only information about how to use their products. More searching made me realize I had to go to“Butterballcorp.com” or “Butterball LLC” to get to the corporate website. There I had hoped to find that they would have an obvious link from their home page to the company statement about the animal abuse story. I must admit I wasn’t totally surprised to find it wasn’t there. I could easily imagine the discussions around the conference room table as top management made the decision not to call that much attention to this story. They were obviously hoping that it would fade away quickly. I did think, however, that it wouldn’t take me long to navigate my way to a statement to the effect that what had been brought to light through the Mercy for Animals investigation was an aberration. It would include, I thought, a strong statement that the misguided actions of a few rogue employees in no way revealed the policies and values of the corporation toward their turkeys.

I searched more thoroughly, looking carefully through the section on “Corporate Information.” There I found the company’s history, facts about their operations, their vision and mission statements, and their policies on food safety, plant and employee safety, and corporate social responsibility. Only in one place, buried within the section on plant/employee safety, was there a brief mention of “numerous processes to ensure the health of flocks.” There were definitely no policy statements emphasizing that the humane treatment of animals was one of their core principles.

Determined to find something, I clicked on every navigation button I could find. Finally, under the “Media” button, I found the December 29th press release. As I said previously, in my opinion, the statement itself was a good one,.

In a Battle of Words vs. Pictures, Pictures Always Win

But these words – especially buried as they are on their website – pale in comparison to the graphic video burned into the memories of the TV and Internet audiences. No activist organization that goes to the trouble of embedding a worker with a hidden video camera is going to be satisfied with brief showings at 6 and 11 p.m. news programs on one day.

And the Story Got Worse

While the company was obviously hoping the story would fade away, another bombshell hit the local news on January 11th. It came to light that a regulatory agency official, a veterinarian who is the Director of Animal Health Programs with the NC Department of Agriculture, had alerted Butterball a few days before the Sheriff’s Department raided the breeding facility. This story included the same graphic video clips of the mistreatment of the turkeys. While this story concentrated on how inappropriate it was to have the organization charged with overseeing an industry leaking information about a proposed raid, the replaying of the video further reinforced negative images related to the company. (Note: As much as the head of the NC Department of Agriculture and the veterinarian herself claim that she did this in order to curb any mistreatment of animals as quickly as possible, the perception of a regulatory agency in bed with the industry they are supposed to regulate has been strong. The sound bite that Mercy for Animals used is predictable: “The fox is guarding the henhouse.”)

Now, a full month after the first story appeared, there has been no further statement published on the company’s website. Whether or not the company has issued an additional statement somewhere else I cannot say. Perhaps the company’s thinking is that they cannot be held responsible for the actions of a regulatory agency representative, so they wouldn’t comment. However, when they were contacted by members of the media, it would have been a perfect opportunity to describe concrete actions they have taken in the past few weeks. They could have described their program to re-train all employees on their policy of zero tolerance for mistreatment of animals and the strengthening of their procedures to implement that policy. Unbelievably, there have been no changes made to the general corporate information on the website to include clear statements of their commitment to animal welfare.

How Disastrous Is This Incident?

It remains to be seen. Up until December 29th, the company’s reputation was strong. Luckily for them, when the story broke, the big holiday turkey buying seasons were past. It would have been revealing to see if Butterball’s corporate profits took a big hit as people opted to purchase a different brand. The company may have time to let the horrific images fade from their minds before the 2012 holidays come around again.

For people like me – and maybe you, my readers — who spend a lot of time focusing on crisis communications, there were enough missteps in this saga to teach us some important lessons. The main point here is that, if you have a website, you better be prepared to use it effectively when your organization comes under fire. Failure to do so makes it likely that your reputation will be tarnished if not severely damaged.

To be honest, most people I know are glad to have media interviews conclude. Very few executives enjoy the experience of being grilled by a reporter, especially when the reason for the interview has been some sort of a negative event, if not an actual crisis. They have been thinking the whole time about how to stay out of trouble, avoiding saying something that will be trumpeted in headlines that will embarrass themselves or their organization. So when the reporter says something like, “Well, that’s all the questions I have. Thank you for your time,” the tendency is to help them pack up and show them to the door.

Conclusions Are Often Most Remembered

Professional speakers are taught that audience members who have been fading in and out of attention during a 20-30 minute speech often perk up when the speaker says, “And in conclusion…” because they think they may be able to obtain a nice,neat summary of the whole thing or at least the major points. And I’ve been told that many reporters, especially if they are on a tight deadline, will pay more attention when putting their story together to the notes they jotted down at the very beginning and the very end of an interview. So you should take advantage of this opportunity.

Things to Consider Including in Your Conclusion

Anyone who has been through media training knows that, before you go into an interview, you should have ingrained in your mind 2-3 major (or “must air”) messages that you have taken the time to word properly and positively. It is entirely possible that, during the interview, you did not get to “bridge” to one of these. Here, then, is a perfect opportunity. You can say something like, “Before we conclude, I just want to make sure your readers understand _________________(major message).”

Or, if you’ve been successful in verbalizing your major messages, you can use this opportunity to reiterate one of the most important by saying, “I just think it is vitally important in this situation that people realize ________________ (major message).
You can even use this time to summarize a few of the important points that you made, or wanted to make, during the interview.

Following Up After the Interview is Over

Be sure to exchange contact information with the reporter. The reporter should be told that you are open to having him or her call you if they need clarification on anything as they are writing the story. You’d much rather answer another question than have an error appear in the news story. This is particularly true when the story involves a lot of technical information that isn’t in the reporter’s general knowledge base. Perhaps, after the reporter has left your office, you’ll think of something you wish you had said or – in debriefing with your colleagues – you may come up with a better way to explain something, whether it is a clearer description, a graph or a chart. It is not a bad idea to contact the reporter to provide that information; they might choose to use it to improve the story and thereby provide a more positive impression of your organization.

In conclusion…(there, are you paying more attention?) Since people tend to remember the first and last things they hear or read, do whatever you can to make the ending of an interview a positive one that portrays your organization in the best possible light.

What I want to point out is how Syracuse University is currently handling similar accusations against one of the members of their athletic staff. When the first news reports surfaced alleging sexual molestation many years ago by Assistant Basketball Coach Bernie Fine, Syracuse University officials acted quickly. Our younger daughter, who graduated from SU in 1995, sent us a copy of an e-mail she received from the Chancellor the very next day. If SU had called me for advice on how to respond when this news broke, I would have advised them to do exactly what they did – take the actions described in the e-mail and get the message distributed as quickly as possible to their various stakeholders, emphasizing each of the points covered in this letter.

Dear Syracuse University Alumni,

Last night, we were contacted by an ESPN television reporter regarding allegations dating back to the 1980’s and 1990’s that Associate Head Men’s Basketball Coach Bernie Fine had engaged in inappropriate behavior with a minor, now 39. Following the terrible news that came out of Penn State in the last several weeks, this is clearly distressing to all of us in the Syracuse University community. The news is already being covered widely by the media.

I want to tell you what we know and what we are doing about it.
First, as has been announced, Bernie Fine has been placed on administrative leave pending a new investigation by the Syracuse Police Department. He has vehemently denied the allegations and should be accorded a fair opportunity to defend himself against these accusations.

As we have communicated publicly in response to media inquiries, in 2005, Syracuse University was contacted by an adult male who asserted that he had reported allegations in 2005 of abuse in the 1980’s and 1990’s to the police. That same individual told us that the Syracuse City Police had declined to pursue the matter because the statute of limitations had expired.

On hearing of the allegations, the University immediately launched its own comprehensive investigation through its legal counsel. The nearly four-month long investigation included a number of interviews with people the individual said would support his claims. All of those identified by him denied any knowledge of wrongful conduct by the associate coach. At the end of the investigation, as we were unable to find any corroboration of the allegations, the case was closed. Had any evidence or corroboration of earlier allegations surfaced —even if the Police had declined to pursue the matter —we would have acted.

As of last night, we became aware that the Syracuse Police have determined to open an investigation, and we will cooperate to the fullest extent with their review of the matter.
Let me be clear. We know that many question whether or not a university in today’s world can shine a harsh light on its athletics programs. We are aware that many wonder if university administrations are willing to turn a blind eye to wrongdoing that may disrupt a successful sports program. I can assure you I am not, and my fellow administrators are not. We hold everyone in our community to high standards and we don’t tolerate illegal, abusive or unethical behavior —no matter who you are.

As you know, this week, I affirmed Syracuse University’s steadfast belief that all of us have the responsibility, individually and collectively, to ensure that Syracuse University remains a safe place for every campus community member and everyone with whom we interact on a daily basis on campus or in the community as part of our learning, scholarship, or work. We do not tolerate abuse.

The dilemma in any situation like this, of course, is that—without corroborating facts, witnesses or confessions —one must avoid an unfair rush to judgment. We have all seen terrible injustices done to the innocent accused of heinous crimes. And we’ve all seen situations where the guilty avoid justice.

At this time, all we really know is that a terrible tragedy is unfolding for both the accuser and the accused. I want you to know that we will do everything in our power to find the truth, and —if and when we do find it—to let you know what we have found.

Sincerely,

Nancy Cantor

Masterfully done, in my opinion. The letter was factual, providing details of what the University did years ago and what they were doing. It stated that they were not rushing to judgment on either the accuser or the accused, but were working with the proper authorities and conducting their own investigation to find out the truth. The Chancellor forcefully affirmed their values – “We don’t tolerate illegal, abusive or unethical behavior.” She committed to communicate what they find out.

The only misstep I saw came from Head Basketball Coach Jim Boeheim. Contacted for his comment on the allegations, he fired back that the accuser is “a liar.” The coach was understandably emotional about such accusations being made against his colleague of many years, allegations he obviously did not want to believe. His comments were dramatic (therefore quotable), but until all the facts become known, it was dangerous to go out on a limb like that. He would have been better off adhering to the official organization position as expressed in the letter (above) and repeated in the official press statement. That’s what “speaking with one voice” is all about.

As events continued to unfold last weekend, you could see the wisdom of the University’s initial position. When new facts came to light (e.g., the legally taped conversation of the initial accuser and Mr. Fine’s wife that seemed to corroborate the victim’s story), the University moved to terminate his employment. Again, a letter was issued quickly by the Chancellor to the Syracuse community announcing his firing and expressing their extreme dismay. The Chancellor went on to say that she was requiring that a full investigation of the University’s procedures be undertaken to see if there were things they could do to improve their response to such a situation. She did not have to retract anything said in the initial communication.

Whatever happens in this particular case, I would advise you to make a copy of this initial letter to the alumni. Keep it as a template of how to handle things when a story first breaks, putting your organization’s reputation on the line because an employee is accused of doing something illegal or immoral.

# # #

WHAT IS A SOCO?

Think long and hard about the ONE thing you want your audience to understand and remember after you have finished communicating with them. This is your SOCO. Work hard to word it with the four C’s so that it is:

CLEAR – Use simple words that are easy to understand and that are not
full of unexplained acronyms or technical jargon.

CONCISE – People’s memories are not long and everyone is in a hurry; if you say too much, you’ll bury your message.

CONSISTENT – Your message must not run counter to your actions and must not conflict with messages to various audiences.

COMPELLING – You must find a way to convey it in an interesting way
which hits home and rings sincere.

THEN DEVELOP YOUR “MUST AIR” MESSAGES

Once you have settled on your SOCO, you can use this as the focus for writing down your three (no more!) major messages that must see air time when you are quoted after the communication is complete. In the case of a crisis response, these messages should convey needed information that will interpret the events and express empathy for people negatively affected.

Drawing from my own background as Manager of Public Affairs for a chemical manufacturing company that made one of the smelliest chemicals known to man, I offer here an example that I hope will clarify this. In my 16 years as the company spokesperson, I was often called upon to comment on an odorous release that had escaped the plant facility and made its way into the local neighborhood. (I should tell you it smelled like rotten fish and was noticeable to the human nose at around 21 parts per billion!) After an instance like this, the SOCO would be “The odorous release noticeable in the community has been controlled.” The three “must air” messages would be: (1) the company sincerely apologizes for the incident; (2) it was a nuisance odor, not a health threat; and (3) the company has undertaken an investigation to determine the cause of the operational upset so that we can attempt to prevent a recurrence.

EMBELLISH WITH A FEW MEMORABLE DETAILS

If you have an opportunity to elaborate – if your speech or presentation is scheduled to be 20 minutes, not a 30-second “sound bite” for a media interview – you should use that time to expound on your “must air” messages which are based on the SOCO. Provide interesting examples to which your audience can relate. Tell human stories that illustrate a point. Describe personal insights. Highlight some statistics if they are powerful (but not boring, leading to the MEGO response – My Eyes Glaze Over). Most people can remember these types of things rather than straight statements of facts.

Just don’t get carried away with too much detail. As professional speakers are often told, “Try to finish talking before your audience has finished listening.”

RETURN TO YOUR SOCO AT THE END

At the conclusion of your statement or presentation, close with another reference to your Single Overriding Communications Objective. Say it in slightly different words so you don’t sound like a broken record, but try to make sure it is the last thing people read or hear.

Your ability to successfully communicate in various high pressure situations is directly related to (1) your ability to develop a SOCO that is clear, concise, consistent, and compelling and (2) how well you practice so that you can effectively stay on message in order to persuade or convince your audience.

# # #

Because of how strongly I feel about this topic, it resonated with me deeply when I read perspectives on this issue in a new book, “Beat the Press: Your Guide to Managing the Media.”  The author is Mark Macias. For many years, Mark was an investigative producer for programs on major television networks. He oversaw and managed consumer, medical and investigative units for WNBC.  He was also a Senior Producer of Special Projects for WCBS, tasked with coming up with original story ideas to increase ratings which led him to go after a former US Congressman, public corporations, restaurant chains, governmental bodies, and small business owners.  You’ve all seen consumer advocacy shows, whether it’s called “Channel ___ On Your Side,” “Help Me Howard” or some other name.  Because of these experiences, Mark is uniquely qualified to provide advice on how to deal with these types of reporters and producers if they should decide to come after you and your organization.

In this e-zine, I want to condense a small portion of the book as it has applications not only to those times when a consumer advocate sets his sights on you, but also to those times when there has been a newsworthy incident that a regular reporter has been assigned to cover.  The following is taken from Chapter 6, with Mark’s permission.

“DEFENSIVE DECREE #10: DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WANT DONE UNTO YOU

You never get a second chance to make a first impression, and when it comes to crisis management, this is one of the most important items to remember when dealing with a reporter or producer. There were many times in my career when a business owner or accused person came across over the phone as haughty, arrogant, defensive, pompous, or even above the law. In almost every case, it only pushed me to project the same attitude back. This type of behavior will never help your dealings with the media, and in the initial stages of a story, any form of hostility will almost always hurt you and your case.
Worse, if a relationship between you and the media gets off to a bad start, it will probably remain on that trajectory….The story can continue on without your cooperation. In many cases, the story is easier for the reporter if you choose not to work with him because he has one less person to deal with. He only has to research one side, and he can simply end his story by saying he gave you the opportunity to talk but you refused to comment….
You also don’t want a reporter to harbor any grudges against you. This could make him work harder to uncover evidence against you or your business. Reporters and producers are human, and if you make them angry, you could very well be pushing them into enemy territory. In crisis management, keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
It’s natural for you to become protective or even defensive over the phone when a producer or reporter calls with accusations against you. However, you must resist this natural tendency to become combative. Instead, put your best face forward to appear affable and genuine. You can’t underestimate the nice-guy factor when it comes to working with the media. A kind disposition from the onset can disarm journalists faster than new evidence supporting your case.
Many reporters believe they have a strong gut instinct or intuition, and I’ve seen it at work myself. If a reporter’s initial gut tells him that you are a jerk, it will only support the allegation someone else is making against you. So do unto others as you’d like done onto you.”

Particularly if you see yourself as a possible target for an unhappy customer or an individual trying to advance a personal agenda against your business or industry, you would be well served to pick up a copy of this book.  Mark provides a great deal of sound advice on how to convince the reporter/producer that there is no legitimate story worthy of their coverage or, possibly, that they might be opening themselves up to a lawsuit if they are determined to pursue it.

Thanks, Mark, for letting me share this solid information. Remember, you really never do get a second chance to make a first impression.

There was a pretty amazing piece of TV footage captured this past month.  Whether you saw it when it happened on Piers Morgan’s talk show, caught one of the numerous replays of the incident, or just heard about it, it will likely be remembered for a long time. I’m referring to the interview Piers conducted with Christine O’Donnell, who had agreed to conduct a remote interview to talk about her new book.

Ms. O’Donnell has been talked about a great deal in the past year or so as one of the rising stars of the Tea Party movement.  Earlier, she ran into some tough times, admitting on another talk show that she had once – in her youth — belonged to a coven. The media, of course, had a field day with that revelation and it was part of what derailed her run for a Delaware Senate seat in 2010.  But she still had a devoted following. Her hope was that her new book would provide further support for the principles she believes in.

A RECAP OF WHAT HAPPENED ON THE SHOW

Piers Morgan reviewed her rise to a very public position within her Party—both the positive and the negative things.  In her answers, Ms. O’Donnell often said, “As I say in my book…” Then came the trouble.  Piers indicated that he wanted to talk to her about her position on gay marriage. Ms. O’Donnell became visibly flustered, called Piers “rude,”  and told him that was not what she came on his show to discuss.  She even said, “Don’t you think, as a host, that if I say that’s what I want to talk about, that’s what we should address?” Piers replied, as would any reporter I know, “Not really, no.”

He was genuinely surprised, he indicated, because he was merely asking her about something she had written in the book that she was so actively promoting on his show.  At this point, her eyes obviously shifted off stage as she began looking for her staff members stationed off camera. One of them positioned himself between her and the camera so all you could see was his back while she was taking off the microphone and getting ready to walk off the set.

DON’T BE NAÏVE IF YOU ARE BEING INTERVIEWED

I find it difficult to believe that Ms. O’Donnell really thought she could control the questions she would be asked by a talk show host.  The same can be said for any reporter to whom you have granted an interview.  When you step in front of the camera, you are open to any and all questions.  Some people could possibly be blindsided by a question based on a long-past incident. But that was not the case in this instance. This was especially amazing, because the question Piers asked is one that is part of the current political debate and  something she had written about in the book Piers was holding in his hand!

Never forget: You do not have the ability to control the questions you will be asked.  You can only control your answers.  Therefore, in preparation for an interview of any sort, you should have thought through all of the probable questions you could be asked. You should carefully word and rehearse your answers, seeking to bridge from the questions asked to one or more of the key messages you want to have the listening public understand, believe, and remember about your positions.

THE NEGATIVE IMPRESSION OF BAILING OUT

Without a doubt, whatever answer Ms. O’Donnell would have given to Piers’ question about her position on gay marriage might have given rise to some controversial media coverage.  On such a divisive issue, she surely would have displeased some segment of the electorate, no matter what she said.  But whatever fallout might have occurred paled in comparison to the coverage she received after walking off the set in a huff.  She looked inexperienced and unable to defend her beliefs. The clip was shown over and over not only on YouTube, but also when Piers Morgan made a point of re-airing the entire segment and soliciting the opinions of various experts as to whether or not he had been out of line. (Ms. O’Donnell had gone so far as to characterize his treatment of her as sexual harassment, which was clearly not evidenced by the way he asked her questions. The accusations only made her look more foolish.)

I have no idea what Ms. O’Donnell’s future in politics will be.  This type of incident, however, is one that will go in every media outlet’s archives to be pulled out and shown again whenever her name comes up, especially if she should choose to pursue public office.  Let her experience be a lesson for you.  Recognize that media interviewers can and will ask you anything that they believe is relevant for the public to know. Plan your answers ahead of time so that you can remain calm and controlled when you deliver them.  The impression you leave will be much more positive than a damaging clip played for days on end on YouTube and traditional media!

If you have had some good media training, you probably already know that before you meet your interviewer, you need to commit to memory three key messages that will convey a positive impression to your audiences.  These are the things that you want them to know, understand, believe, and remember about the news story in question.  You should brainstorm these key messages with your Crisis Management Team to make sure that they are, indeed, the most important messages.  Then you need to work hard to word them clearly and effectively.  Try to incorporate memorable sound bites.  And develop two or three ways of saying the same thing so you don’t sound like a broken record.

Right there I have described a lot of work – hard work. Nowadays you have to do this work fast because, in our 24/7 news cycle world, someone will be banging on you for answers before you know it.  This is where the preparation that I’ve been preaching for all these years will pay off.  If, at times of no crisis, you’ve developed stand-by statements for the most likely types of incidents to occur in your organization, you will have the luxury of a lot more time to think through the three you want to communicate in the heat of the moment.  You could even have passed them around to the appropriate corporate and legal staff to obtain their blessing before you file them away in a readily accessible place.

BUT HAVING YOUR KEY MESSAGES ISN’T ENOUGH

You could have the best possible key messages prepared.  You could know them cold and be ready to expound on them at any time.  But instead of giving you a chance to speak, the reporter asks you a lot of questions, which you try your best to answer.  Before you know it, the camera is turned off or the reporter flips closed his notebook and heads out the door.  You didn’t have a chance to deliver those key messages.

It is not the reporter’s job to draw those key messages out of you.  It’s YOUR job to find a way to insert them into the interview.  It’s not easy and it takes some skill and practice to do it in ways that are effective and not blatantly obvious.  It is called, in media training parlance, “bridging.”  A bridge is a verbal way to get from the question asked to one of your major messages.

WHAT DO GOOD BRIDGES SOUND LIKE?

We know what they DON’T sound like.  Lots of politicians use them.  Prior to a press conference, they have been prepared by their staff with major “talking points” or key messages.  They memorized them and feel certain they can convey them well.  But in the press conference, a reporter asks a question that the politician was not prepared for.  He/she says something like, “I appreciate that question on what we are doing about gun control legislation; let me tell you more about our plan to put people back to work.”
NOT a good bridge.  People figure out right away that you are trying to totally evade the question and resent the clumsy effort to avoid a difficult subject.

You have to make a sincere effort to answer the question asked.  Be concise; don’t draw it out and get involved in details.  Then, without even taking much of a breath, use a bridge to shift people’s attention to what you want to spend your time talking about.  Make sure it is valuable information, beneficial to the audience – not merely self-serving statements about what a good organization you are.  Tell them what you are doing to bring a difficult situation under control and protect their interests.

Good bridges are statements like:

    Don’t forget that the REAL issue here is….
    What concerns us even more is…
    I would describe it differently…
    There is an even tougher issue that we need to address…
    While I understand your concerns about … we can’t forget that …
    Our real focus in dealing with this issue is…
    Even more to the point is the fact that…
    What I think people need to understand is…

DON’T BE AFRAID TO REPEAT YOURSELF

If your key messages are truly what you want people to know, understand, believe and remember about the situation at hand, do not hesitate to use several of these bridges to get a chance to communicate them.  In your statements that will be transmitted on TV or another digital format, the media will likely edit your remarks so that all of your repetition won’t be played. Yet you will have been able to get at least one of your major messages across to your audiences.  When speaking in a live interview or in front of an actual audience, remember that people need to hear something 6-7 times before they can recall it, so repetition is a good thing.

If a news story about your organization doesn’t achieve your goals, one question you should ask yourself is whether you did a good job of bridging to your major messages often enough.  If not, do some more of that role-playing I always advocate and practice this valuable skill.  It will come in handy the next time!

# # #

PRE-PUBLICATION SPECIAL:  The 2011 version of my book, “Keeping Cool on the Hot Seat: Dealing Effectively with the Media in Times of Crisis – 5th Edition” is off to the printer.  Besides updating references throughout, I’ve added new material on (1) the need to use social media as a tool in crisis response and (2) looking at lessons learned from some of the biggest news stories of 2008-2011 (the BP oil spill, the implosion of Tiger Woods, the Johnson & Johnson recall debacle, the Japanese tsunami/nuclear facility crisis, and the messaging surrounding the killing of bin Laden).  This plus the two previous editions that added material have increased the size of the book considerably over the original 2001 version, so I have finally decided to raise the price to $24.95.  But if you, a valued e-zine subscriber, want a copy of the new edition, please e-mail me and tell me you want the pre-publication special price of $15.95 plus $2.55 for shipping. Give me your mailing address and I’ll get it off to you as soon as I get them (likely late August).

CLEARANCE SALE:  And since I still have one carton (30 copies) of the 2008 version left in the garage, I will sell those at 75% off the original price ($6.00) plus $2.55 for shipping.  Again, e-mail me that this is what you want and send me your mailing address. I can get it off to you immediately.

Until next month…KEEP COOL! (easier said than done THIS summer…)

Judy Hoffman
jchent@earthlink.net
www.judyhoffman.com
1-800-848-3907 PIN 2145

“COULD IT HAPPEN HERE?”

As soon as journalists were done transmitting video, photographs and written reports of the horrific earthquake and tsunami overwhelming the coast of northern Japan, reports started surfacing of the troubles of the Fukushima Nuclear Plant in that area. I predicted what would come next. I will wager that the most alert people on the staffs of nuclear facilities around the world figured it out as well.  With the public watching the explosion that occurred at that facility and listening to reports of radioactive fallout raining down on the surrounding area, we knew that it would not take long for reporters from coast to coast in the U.S. — and the rest of the world — to start questioning, “Could it happen here?”

IT’S A NATURAL QUESTION FOR REPORTERS AND THE PUBLIC TO ASK

And it’s certainly not limited to the nuclear industry.  Any time a tragic accident occurs in any industry, people jump almost immediately to wondering if it could happen where they or a loved one live/work.  When an operational upset causes environmental damage to air, land, or water anywhere, people begin speculating about how likely it is that it could happen in their neck of the woods.  (We saw that dramatically when the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig owned by BP exploded and caught on fire and sank in the Gulf of Mexico a year ago. The government’s quick response was to shut down deep water oil exploration for some time.)  When an epidemic outbreak of a contagious disease occurs at a hospital, current and prospective patients and their families in the surrounding area are frightened.  I’m sure you all can imagine troubling situations related to your type of business.

There is a nuclear facility in my area - Raleigh, North Carolina — so I was able to watch the local TV news coverage of a nuclear plant spokesperson being put on the spot.  He was peppered with questions about their plant’s safety programs and the engineering standards used when it was constructed and what upgrades have been implemented in the intervening years.  Most of the time, the spokesperson looked very uncomfortable.  He tried to be reassuring about how unlikely it was that an earthquake would be strong enough to create the kinds of problems that were occurring in Japan. I’m quite sure this news story which was local for me played out in numerous media markets around the world wherever other nuclear facilities are located.   Maybe all of we viewers heard the various spokespersons saying something like the words found in the Fukushima plant’s disaster plan: “The possibility of a severe accident occurring is so small that, from an engineering standpoint, it is practically unthinkable.”  But the TV coverage would inevitably revert to the video clip of the explosion at the Fukushima facility and reports of radioactivity levels so high that workers could not respond as effectively as they would like.  So the words of the spokespeople anywhere probably did little to reassure a nervous public, whichever facility they live close to.

IT’S CALLED ISSUES MANAGEMENT

For some larger organizations, there may be a whole department called “Issues Management.”  In smaller organizations, one person usually wears a lot of hats, including this one.  For the sole proprietor running his or her own enterprise, he/she has to wear all of the hats!  All of these people have to be aware of what is going on in the world outside their own doors.  When they see a situation developing - or exploding — on the scene and realize that a lot of people are going to be upset by it, one of the first things they need to do is objectively assess “Could it happen here?”

NO OSTRICHES PLEASE!

When you see a serious issue developing in your industry or in your community, you should not adopt the ostrich position - with your head buried in the sand - and just hope it will somehow pass you by.  Be proactive. Start immediately to prepare yourself and your colleagues with well developed talking points, backed up by as many solid facts as you can gather, so that you can answer that very reasonable question from a local reporter. Work with a couple of people in your organization to word your statements well.  Pass the talking points by Legal.  Then communicate them widely in the organization because - even though only a few designated people will talk to the media - all employees must be confident they have the right information to answer that question when posed by their friends or neighbors.

It is a wise organization that spends some quality time — right when something dramatic happens — developing their answers and preparing for that reporter or blogger or concerned neighbor who contacts them.  It is an even wiser organization that has thought of these potential problems way in advance, has developed its major talking points and gotten them approved, done whatever is possible to reduce the likelihood that this situation could actually occur, and held role-playing exercises that simulate the exact potential crisis.  In this way, they can practice delivering their public statements and get feedback — from their own employees and other trusted individuals — on how those messages are likely to be received.

# # #

Special Note:  Thanks to all of you who checked in to make sure we were all right down here in the Raleigh, NC area after the tornadoes of April 16th.  Our family here was all safe, but NC residents to the east and west of us were not so fortunate.  And yesterday even more deadly tornadoes and floods came through neighboring states.  Over 300 people were killed. Thankfully many were spared, at least in part because they had done advanced planning and knew the safest places to go when a disaster was predicted to come to their area.  There are obvious parallels to crisis planning. For those of us not personally impacted, let’s say a prayer for those who were and lend a helping hand or send a donation to those organizations who are working so hard to help.

Until next month…

KEEP COOL!

Judy Hoffman
www.judyhoffman.com
jchent@earthlink.net
Author of “Keeping Cool on the Hot Seat: Dealing
Effectively with the Media in Times of Crisis”