These posts are written to encourage thoughtful consideration of the entire range of communication strategy, plans and effectiveness. They’re based on my experiences in actual responses, as well as drills, exercises, tabletops and crisis communication plan reviews.

Feel free to share,  comment or contact me directly.  I value your input!

Just the Facts, Ma’am?

Late night callIt’s 2:00 AM, and the event you’ve feared has occurred. Something went bump in the night. The monster under the bed moved. Chains rattled in the hallway. You got ‘the call’. Something terrible has happened, and now you have to brush the cobwebs off your crisis communication plan and begin to communicate with your stakeholders.  In your just-awakened stupor, you scribble the facts you hear on the phone:

  • An accident at the __ facility
  • Some fire, not sure how big.
  • Might be injuries, still checking
  • Not sure about what has been released
  • Regulatory notifications have been made
  • Responders are on-site. Not sure what they’re doing.

That’s it. That’s what you have.  Some facts, some not.

So you leave the bedroom, go downstairs and open up your laptop. You find your crisis communication plan, scroll to the Templates section, and open up your ‘initial statement template’….

..and you stop. You have 3 facts. The statement has 7 blank spaces.

You do know an accident has occurred, that notifications have been made and responders are…responding.

  • You don’t know when this happened.
  • You don’t know exactly what part of the facility has been damaged
  • You don’t know if injuries or fatalities have been reported
  • You don’t know what caused the incident
  • You don’t know what is leaking, or spilled or on fire…
  • You don’t know who is responding

What do you do? More important, what do you say?

It’s not as bad as you think.

You actually have more resources than just your initial notification call. First, let’s discuss the information flow you have with responders, and the information flow you can expect from responders. Then we’ll talk about our other resources (hint: keep a mirror handy)

Singing Pigs

All the ‘hard facts’ we will ever receive will come from the response activity, and they’ll ultimately come from responders themselves. Remember that responders are NOT communicators! Don’t expect them to be communicators. Responders are responders, so their capabilities match the disciplines needed for effective response.

  • They live with facts; they are trained to gather facts and develop the best actions to respond to the facts. They determine response actions based on the facts at hand.
  • They’ve learned to measure quickly, act decisively and always be flexible. They like plans and will follow them, yet they’re adept in leaving plans behind when the facts no longer support them.
  • They are analytical, resourceful and adaptable.
  • They are your friends, and their information is gold.

But they don’t live in our world. They value facts that help them respond. They look for information that is concrete, verified (or verifiable) and actionable. They don’t care about external events. They don’t care about rumors. They aren’t interested in speculating. For them, these things get in the way of decisions and actions.

They have their own information flow. They know what information they need to make decisions and they prioritize it, they hold specific verification requirements because every action they set in place incurs costs. They base decisions on data and they don’t like the data to change because it makes them look wrong. All this has impact on both amount and the timing of information we will receive from them.

We will receive information from responders:

  • When it is verified
  • When actions are completed
  • When events are finalized
  • If it matches their grid of ‘needed information’

We will NOT receive information from them when we need it; we will get it when they have it. These are usually two very different times. It doesn’t do us any good to ask them for more information. They are already tracking every bit of data they need to do their jobs, and that is all the data they’re tracking. Remember the old adage; ‘Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig’. Trying to get responders to hunt down additional information for our use is likely to simultaneously  waste our time and annoy them. Accept what they can provide, and accept that we’ll get it when they’ve got it.

One more step we can take: Ask permission from Command to use any response facts we need, based on the latest reporting on ICS forms. Study an ICS 201 form and an ICS 209 form. Note that there are different versions of forms depending on the type of incident; ask your responders for ‘their’ versions. The topics listed on those forms reflect the facts you can expect from responders. Only the ones listed, and only when your responders actually have the information.

Facts about Timelines and Timeliness

There’s one more issue we will face throughout the response; Our information timeline will always be different from responders’ information timelines. Physical responses grow at a pace dictated by movement of things or people. It takes time to get to the location. It takes time to order response assets. It takes time to mobilize resources. Responders work within this steady, often escalating pace. But they can’t speed it up.

There’s a saying used in web development about mobilizing additional assets. According to Brook’s Law, “It takes 1 woman 9 months to make a baby. But 9 women can’t make a baby in 1 month.” This is as true for incident response as it is for software development. Responses take time, and more resources don’t necessarily mean more speed. Both response results and response facts will flow at their own stately pace.

This doesn’t help us as communicators, because public interest isn’t linear and it isn’t hindered by time and space. It may take 24 hours to bring scores of responders to an incident scene, but it takes only moments for thousands of stakeholders to become concerned about the incident. While the response moves at a given pace, we don’t have the same luxury. Our stakeholders’ interests and concerns will spike instantly, grow steadily and persist indefinitely. How are we going to feed this rapacious beast?

It’s a Bird, it’s a Plane…

Fortunately, we have an ally, our own personal super hero to help us in our time of need. And that person is….us.

  • As trained professionals, we have an amazing capacity that is absolutely critical at such a time as this; you know your stakeholders (right?).
  • Beyond the facts we are able to gather, we have the capability to do what physical responders will never do; we can forecast what people will be concerned about. We know what our stakeholders will want to know. We know what will most upset them, and what would most assure them. And we have much of this information already available to us (right?).
  • Effective stakeholder information includes both facts and purpose; the what and the why. We may not have a lot of facts, but we have enough to know what our stakeholders will think of them. And we know what to say about our stakeholders’ concerns (right?).

As an example: In this mythical incident, we know there is a fire, at a facility, and that responders are… responding. These are the reported facts. We also know the following:

  • Our organization considers safety to be a top priority and takes any accidents very seriously
  • Our organization is committed to investigating any accident to become even safer
  • Our organization is committed to environmental stewardship and will respond aggressively to prevent environmental damage.
  • Our organization is committed to open and timely information sharing
  • Our organization will respond to injuries or fatalities in a very specific way, and information about these is always shared in a very specific way.
  • Our organization has the will and the resources to aggressively respond to any incident
  • Our organization always cooperates fully with response organizations, regulatory agencies and emergency authorities.

These are all examples of the information always available to us. This is because we are experts in evaluating facts to determine underlying stakeholder concerns, then finding/using/developing key statements to address each concern. We know this information now, and we can use it now.

We are the responders able to discern, interpret and address stakeholders’ concerns. We are the responders who can rank one stakeholder concern in relation to all the other stakeholders’ concerns, and we can craft answers to these concerns, along with the facts we do have, into communication products. In many respects, if we have access to ANY facts, we can begin effective stakeholder communication and engagement.

We need to be ready to support the facts we have.

Have you developed the following content that allows you to add information to the facts you have?:

  • A list of stakeholder groups and their concerns?  Do you know what your employees will be most concerned about? How about fence line neighbors? Activist groups? Chambers of Commerce?
  • A list of accreted stakeholder concerns? Concerns from each group combined with all other concerns to develop a full list of important issues
  • A list of key messages to address stakeholder concerns? Statements matched to each concern, customized for specific stakeholder groups if necessary
  • A list of messages for proscribed concerns? Injuries, fatalities, shelter-in-place, evacuations, claims, employment and suggestions are stakeholder concerns that are always dealt with in the same way.  You should have standard messages for these that are ‘evergreen’.
  • A list of external resources available to further ameliorate stakeholder concerns? Sustainability reports, marketing materials, government relations documents, umbrella organizations are all potential resources

This is all work we’ve have been trained to do, and work we’re good at. Every public release we draft in a response will be a mixture of facts and statements of purpose. Responders will give us the facts. The rest is up to us – and we can do it!

Comments?  Leave them here.

Interested in more information?  Contact me!

The Peril in Preparation

Time to prepare is precious.

Coffee Break photo of coffee cup on tableWhile time to prepare is precious and should be used wisely, there are actually some dangers to be conscious of in preparation. The time that is our friend – the very time to think, strategize and perfect your communication products – can work against us. The problem with preparing crisis communication strategy when we have time is… we have time. Plans become ornate, releases become verbose, ‘needed’ information becomes encumbering, and we don’t notice it.

The peril when we prepare in peacetime

Consider the coffee break, the perfect time to set aside our daily work and imagine an incident. We can sit back with a good cup of coffee, reflect on a possible incident that could happen, identify affected stakeholders and associated business risks, and devise our initial statement. All good, except that, inspired by the possibility of extending our coffee break by a few minutes (it is darn good coffee), we decide to massage our message.

We include a few additional facts, and we conjure up another stakeholder group. We suddenly realize it would be good to include ‘them’ in our initial statement distribution, so we edit the content a bit more to meet the new sensitivities.

Then, quite responsibly, we remember to add their contacts to our contact list to be sure we’re able to reach them. We remember that we just revised our marketing message so we decide to include some of that text in the draft release. Next we add our legal disclaimer to the bottom of the release. Then we add a nice, caring quote from our current Operations Manager. Finally satisfied, we tuck it in to our response folder and return to our ‘day job’ happy that we’ve increased our response capability while enjoying a good cup of coffee.

What have we actually accomplished?

  • We’ve created the monster template. We have too many blanks to fill in. We’ve added a quote that will cause approval hurdles even if the person quoted is still in their position. We added a corporate disclaimer that sounds like we’re dodging responsibility for the truth, let alone the incident. This statement will take too much time to fill out, too much time to approve, too much time to revise – too much time to be effective at all.
  • We’ve institutionalized bad contact lists. By writing for several different audiences we’ve created the necessity of having their contact information updated and ready at all times. Here is a general rule for your contact lists: they are always out of date. The only way you can be sure you can use a contact list is to be sure you alone are responsible for its updates, or that you have immediate access to a contact list someone else is actually keeping updated.
  • We’ve guaranteed revisions and delays. Any content beyond facts will be treated subjectively, because it is subjective. Subjective content is always debated, revised, enhanced or excised; usually at the worst possible time.
  • We missed the approval process. Content is worthless unless it is reviewed and approved for use when it is needed and for the purpose it was created. Always route your templates for approval and be sure the approvers know when and why it will be used. Do not depend on unapproved templates. In the magnified tension of a crisis, they will not be approved.

Our relaxing writing experience results in a statement that is too long, won’t be approved, will be constantly revised and if approved will be sent to a bad list of contacts. We should have just enjoyed our coffee!

How do we prevent this?

We don’t carry an umbrella in the sunshine, we carry one when it’s raining. In crisis preparation, we need to be thinking about really foul weather. While we’re enjoying our relaxing coffee break and our comfortable pace of preparation, remember that when we use crisis content, we will be rushed, stressed, under-resourced, remote, worried, half-awake, in our car, at a restaurant, or suffering multiple other distractions or impediments to careful thought.

We don’t like to imagine trauma, but we need to do so for good preparation. It helps to personalize the risks we’re writing against. Imagine being rushed, remote, worried, and even fearful. Imagine that the stakes are even higher; imagine fatalities, massive damage, or a huge release that is our organization’s fault! Remember what smoke smells like, and what fire looks like.

Put yourself in a crisis mindset; adopt your lizard brain.

Prevent the preparedness trap

Keep blanks or options to a minimum.

Restrict the amount of content. Consider that blanks in a statement are multipliers of time needed to publish. Two blanks double the time needed over one blank. Three triple it. Remember that no matter how fast you are, you are already too late: The event has already occurred and people already know about it.

Eliminate as many options for content as possible. Every bullet point that needs to be selected or deleted causes additional delay. Optional paragraphs are either not deleted, or are revised or removed in error. Contact information is outdated or revised. Even the ‘a/an’ and ‘and/or’ bits are ignored or incorrectly selected.

Prepare to KISS everybody

In a crisis, we’re not the only person under stress. The people approving our release draft are stressed too, and they may miss key points in a sea of detail. Even more critically, our impacted stakeholders are under as much or more stress as we are; they too have just been wakened, were called at a restaurant, are away from their family at home, behind schedule or stressed in a hundred other ways. Under this stress level, their own lizard brains are kicking in, and they just can’t read or absorb too much. Make the statement as short as possible.

Your initial statement could be as short as: “We are responding to a report of (briefly describe what happened) at (location). Authorities have been notified and we are responding. We will provide regular updates.”

This statement can be brief, a total of 150 or so characters. Say the rest later. No statements of environmental concern, no response details, no list of responders, no corporate ‘DS’ (doublespeak); just the facts, ma’am.

Gain pre-approval.

Test your templates with the people who will have to approve it in actual use. Run it by your legal team, with a full explanation of when it would be used, who you would send it to, where you would post it, why it is important and what you would be drafting next.

Provide as many specifics as you can, but only if you know you can live (and communicate well) within them. Be careful though, your ‘specifics’ can easily come back to you as ‘constraints’. As an example, if you tell an approver that you’ll use your draft statement to confirm an injury to an employee, they may not let you use if it a non-employee was injured. A statement to about arrival of response equipment ‘in a fire’ may not be allowed to use for other purposes.

Prepare to keep talking!

Response communication isn’t only about the first release. We still have much to say. Don’t disappear from society after your first release! In the early stages of a response facts are harder to come by, so be prepared to share them as quickly as you can confirm them. Follow the same pattern of frequent, short releases rather than infrequent, long releases.

Practice this. Prepare past the initial statement on your coffee break; analyze the incident you’re ‘responding’ to, map multiple releases and prepare each one:

  • Your first statement facts will be what/where and a promise of more information
  • Second statement facts can outline agencies responding (they’ve been notified!)
  • Third statement could expand on actual developments
  • Additional statements include the latest response updates

Remember that stress affects everybody’s ability to absorb information, so stakeholders will appreciate receiving information in easily digestible bites. As response efforts unfold you will have more information (and more time) to share.

Prepare, then share what else is important!

If we prepare well, this is when we have more than bare facts to share. This is the time to send short updates expressing our organization’s commitment to known stakeholder concerns: safety, the environment, wildlife.  This is when we mobilize any of our prepared ‘holding statements’ that are applicable. This is information that can be staged and pre-approved. Use of this information isn’t contingent on response facts, but on our expertise in crisis communication.

If we’ve prepared well during our coffee breaks, we’ve already determined affected stakeholders concerns in any anticipated incident, and we’ve already built concise statements of commitment to address each of their concerns. Share these now, in a dance with new facts. Here’s what the above list of typical initial communications can look like if we’ve got the holding statements identified, written and pre-approved:

  • Your first statement will be what/where and a promise to provide more information – not much change to this one – it needs to get out the door!
  • Second statement could outline agencies responding and your commitment to respond with them
  • Third statement could expand on actual developments and share your commitment to safety of employees and the public
  • Additional statements include the latest response updates and key holding statements to match.
    • Injuries? Include your pre-approved explanation of how they are reported and who shares information.
    • Environmental impact? Include your pre-approved statement of commitment to protect and restore.
    • Wildlife impact? Include your pre-approved statement of commitment to protect, rescue and restore.
    • Property damage outside the fence? Include your pre-approved statement about a claims process.

It’s good to prepare…

…even better to prepare in context. Step into the crisis in your mind, then prepare your initial and update statements, contact lists and approvers. Practice like you’ll have to play to ensure agility under stress.

Comments?  Leave them here.

Interested in more information?  Contact me!

Them, That or Those – Who is a Stakeholder?

Who are we trying to engage with anyway?

Pull out the objectives for the last exercise you attended. Dimes to dollars that JIC capability was measured by holding a press conference. Now review the differences between Liaison and Joint Information Center in the NRT manual, your Area Contingency Plan or your own organization’s crisis response manual. Each document clearly identifies a select group of people important to your organization; the elusive, magical stakeholder.

It’s not surprising who is listed in these documents; it is surprising who is not.

People We Are Interested In

Plans and policies you already have access to reveal a classic definition of a stakeholder: They are People We Are Interested In.

For decades, a core objective of the Joint Information Center has been to conduct Press Conferences or Media Briefings, to provide information we want the media to have. These objectives define media as perhaps the primary stakeholder. How can I be sure? Because our actions determine our priorities, and every exercise expects the action of a Press Conference, so media must be a priority.

In the same way, Liaison’s effectiveness is often measured by an Elected Officials’ Briefing, or a Community Meeting, thereby identifying two more stakeholder groups of People We Are Interested In.

So our classic stakeholder list thus consists of: Media, Elected Officials and Community. Your plans may have more but, since we seldom actually have a full listing of stakeholder groups, we end up missing important people. Not because they don’t exist, but because we’re not looking for them. They are not People We Are Interested In.

Big mistake!

The capability of any individual to broadcast information via their cellphone, combined with the accompanying ability of any person to access countless media sources, means the classical definition of a stakeholder is obsolete. Our traditional stakeholder groups have important functions, but relying on them to share our message is an exercise doomed to failure. We must broaden our definition of a stakeholder.

People Who Are Interested in Us

Today’s communication environment multiplies any message across myriad platforms, places and people groups. Any person from any location can participate in our response, instantly sharing any concern or comments about our actions with like-minded people across the globe.

This reality forces us to accept this new stakeholder definition: People Who Are Interested in Us. They may be media, they may be elected officials; they might be business owners, parents, activists, any group of people who are interested in our actions, or the consequences of our actions.

These new stakeholders don’t replace our traditional stakeholders, but they amplify them, which in turn allows communicators to amplify the response message. In a world where everyone is Media (Media = every person who can multiply your message), every targeted stakeholder group becomes more valuable for sharing your story. As communicators, we need to expand our stakeholder horizon to include all this new group of People Who Are Interested in Us.

The bad news

We don’t find these people easily. Traditional stakeholder mining can’t identify our new stakeholders, because they aren’t traditional groups. We can subscribe to media list builders or elected official list builders. We can use local resources to find Chamber of Commerce or Service Club members. We can use our procurement people to give us local businesses contacts. But how do we get lists of activists? Even if we have names, can we determine their interest? How can we tell who is concerned about specific topics? How do we find people concerned about fish, or jobs, or local sponsorships?

This is the challenge we face. Identifying these new People Who Are Interested in Us is a challenging process that seems to require more resources than we have.

The good news

The good news is that we don’t have to find these people; these people find us. While their names aren’t listed in the yellow pages under categories and their resumes don’t list their interests or concerns, these people hold deep and long-term interests or concerns for specific issues. They are affiliated with groups that support their causes. They go to the same events and they give to the same organizations. Their concerns are active and enduring. People Who Are Interested in Us are always interested in what they are interested in.

What we need to do is help them self-identify with us. For response planning, this means that we make sure we have a ‘capture’ tool – an intake process. It could be our social media accounts that allow people to follow our posts. It could be a proper inquiry management tool that lets people submit their concerns for our response. It could even be the old low-tech registration form or comment sheet we use at community meetings or presentations. It can even be our own careful notes from meetings we have attended.

Just make sure the intake process allows people to indicate their concerns as well as their contact information. Then use this resource on a daily basis; we don’t have to wait until a crisis to share key information with interested stakeholders. Get in the habit of responding to individuals’ questions and concerns on a regular basis, and we’ll have more finely honed messaging in place for use in response communications, supported by a more finely tuned group of stakeholders.

There seems to be a latent fear of engagement with stakeholders in a crisis. Communicators concerned about being overwhelmed with questions or comments sometimes resist the opportunity to capture them. We’re afraid that we won’t have time, messaging or resources to respond to every one. The truth is, capturing concerned stakeholders allows ongoing communication with each one, now and in the future. Even if it takes time to respond, it is better to respond when we can rather than rebuff their attempts to communicate.

A great investment

Remember too that we pay for mailing lists, but People Who Are Interested in Us come to us for free. We don’t have to pay to capture their interest; we already have it. Plus they’re motivated; they actually want information from us. And they share it, multiplying our message to their own followers and friends.

This activist dynamic is the opposite of traditional list-building, where we spend money on contact information, then spend time and money developing a message which we send to potential stakeholders, in hopes of developing a dialogue with some of them. This new stakeholder group of People Who Are Interested in Us starts with their own dialog, and they are already interested and engaged. This is the most cost-effective stakeholder group we can build!

The silver lining

Crises are challenging experiences to be avoided whenever possible, and no organization wants to be embroiled in an issue. Both crises and issues entail an expenditure of large amounts of time and money, often a squandering of reputation and resources. We can’t avoid expending time, money, reputation or resources but at least we can capture and communicate with key stakeholders.

People Who Are Interested in Us are a group of powerful stakeholders who will either help or hurt our reputation, and we have unhindered access to them. They are waiting to hear from us. With proactive communication strategy and tactics, we can emerge from a crisis or issue response with more interested and involved stakeholders than we had before. With long-term commitment to ongoing response communication, we have an opportunity wrapped up in a crisis: People with influence, accompanied by a greater understanding and appreciation of our organization, potentially more supportive of our ongoing activities.

What do we do?

  • Look for People Who Are Interested in Us. Remember that the person we talk to in the grocery line may have more followers than our local newspaper has subscribers.
  • Engage with as many stakeholders as we can. Set up routing procedures at our workplace so we get all the calls and emails. Answer them!
  • Always offer opportunities for interested people to register for more information. Invite them to do so, and thank them when they do.
  • Look outward to new stakeholders, invite them in. Reach past traditional media and groups and engage with individuals.
  • Answer people’s concerns, and continue each conversation. ‘Interview 101’: Repeat the question or concern. Provide information you can. Thank them for asking. Pivot to a key message that supports their concern. Ask if they have another question.
  • Develop a dialogue, not a sales pitch. Don’t sell, engage.  You’re not selling a product; you’re offering understanding.
  • Be a follower! Join in stakeholder in conversations on their own turf! ‘Friend’ people, use LinkedIn, attend interest group meetings, hit the turf of our community.
  • Offer more.  Always offer additional material, information and opportunities to share.
  • Ask our own questions. Use the conversation as an opportunity to learn about them, their interests and affiliations.

How about you?

What tactics have you used to capture People Who Are Interested in You? Share them here!

Interested in more information?  Contact me!

Sea Change

Every so often, a sea change occurs in our communication world.

Sometimes without us realizing it.  We tend to notice major sea change, when its impact makes recognition and understanding unavoidable. But some changes sneak up on us and change our world without us realizing it.

In the FX television series “The People vs. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story”, the prosecuting attorney’s office was portrayed as confident of their capability to win the case. They had the evidence, the chain of custody, the motive and the method. Yet the series portrays how, through a series of missteps, they lost the case badly.

As I watched the series (binge-watched – all 10 episodes over a single weekend!), I was struck at the lesson for communicators: If we don’t remain aware of the world changing around us we won’t even know the peril we’re in. Instead of watching and learning, we will try to address new issues with the same old strategies and tactics. We’ll end up losing before we even start.

In the show, the prosecution team failed to realize that the defense was launching an unforeseen strategy.  The defense team contested neither facts, timeline or evidence. Instead they challenged the veracity of the witnesses and used outside events to cast doubt in the jury’s minds. The prosecution didn’t lose because O.J. was innocent, they lost because they gave away the confidence of the jury. The prosecutors failed to establish a narrative leading to O.J’s guilt for the jury, instead they depended on the facts. The defense did provide a narrative regardless of the facts, and their narrative led the jury to doubt the prosecution’s case.

As expressed in the LA Times review of the series: “The explanation for the phenomenon was addressed in the “Conspiracy Theories” episode when Alan Dershowitz (Evan Handler) instructs his Harvard law class that, “You need to provide a narrative, not just in the courtroom; in the world” before saying, “Look at what the culture is becoming. The media, they want narrative too. But they want it to be entertainment.” It’s a meta moment in a television series filled with them.”

As proof of point, consider that O.J. lost the subsequent civil trial with the same evidence, where a judge, not a jury, rendered the verdict.

Dealing with Sea Change

New tactics that weren’t foreseen by the prosecution decided the ‘trial of the century’. The prosecution didn’t recognize the sea change, to a world where opinions and innuendo could neutralize facts.  In the same way, if we don’t adapt to emerging communication realities we will lose our effectiveness. If we don’t recognize the sea changes that impact communication strategy, we’ll expend scarce resources on the wrong actions and lose resources for the right actions.  Sea change leads to new strategies and tactics – old ones need to be discarded as relics of another time.  We need to recognize our relics – the old ways of doing business we keep using – and address them.

What are today’s response communication relics?

In today’s world some of ‘what we’ve always done’ is fruitless at best and wasteful of scarce resources at worst. Much traditional response communication strategy won’t help us succeed at effective stakeholder communication when we need it the most. Yet response structures tend to enforce and rely on the following relics:

1) The Press Release: Developed in the day when we depended on the Press to multiply our message, the press release gave members of the media key information and statements they could use to write their stories. It’s an anachronism today. The news cycle doesn’t follow media publication schedules, nor do progressive media use content of press releases to generate news stories. Today’s instant demand for the latest information forces media outlets to find and publish instant news. Media will publish or air longer stories when they can, but first they need a flow of information that helps them keep their viewers.

Crafting a press release for distribution wastes time and resources that could be used to disseminate facts and justification of response activities. Better for you to establish a flow of facts, as short as single statements. Give your stakeholders the ‘what’ first; then provide regular releases explaining why Command decisions are made with subsequent actions taken. The media you depend on to multiply your information will be happier and more cooperative if you are giving them the fact-flow they need for relevance.

2) The media packet: Today’s media packet is easily defined as ‘everything they can find online about you’. Response communicators must ensure an online presence of pertinent information, immediately posted for global use:

  • What spilled? Post the product MSDS and other safety information or fact sheets.
  • Are you using dispersants? Post the dispersant MSDS and any pertinent fact sheets about dispersant use.
  • Are you mobilizing SCAT (Shoreline Cleanup and Assessment Technique) Teams? Publish local Ecology agencies’ SCAT fact sheets.
  • Do you have equipment deployed? Are you cleaning a specific beach? Post images of it.
  • Is Command making critical decisions about sensitive issues? Provide information that supports an understanding of these decisions.
  • Questions about your financial capability? Make sure your latest Annual Report is available.
  • Questions about your commitment? Post your latest Sustainability Report

3) The Press Conference:  Who is going to wait for a scheduled Press Conference to gather information or ask questions? Media don’t have the luxury of waiting for you to tell them what is happening. They need information now. Reporting resources are ever more scarce in the news business; the media outlets most affected by your incident may not even be able to expend news staff time and travel funds to attend your press conference.

Where will you hold the press conference? At Unified Command? Why would any media come to the Command center? Every response plan includes identification of a location for Press Conferences, usually close to Command but not in Command. Planners seem equally concerned with allowing media to get close, yet keeping them away. But nothing ever happens at Unified Command.

The action is all ‘out there’. If you invite media anywhere, they should be invited to visit any location where command activities are underway.  The only restriction of media access should be for safety reasons.

Think of responding to an incident that impacts shorelines: Why would media want to come to the command center?  The action is on the shore. Instead of Press Conferences, hold Press Briefings, where they’re needed, on a scheduled basis. Use the Press Briefing entirely for the ‘why’. Expect media to have the latest facts, and use the time with them to provide and explain Command perspective.

4) Prime time or drive time interviews: Countless exercise injects include provision of interviews at selected times. There is value in providing sound bites or video footage for media use, but there is no value in providing it only at specific times. Media can’t wait for a quote or image – they need it NOW.

You need to provide a constant source of quotes, images and video. This is one function of the Command location; Open a Media Center at Command facility where media can visit with subject matter experts, assigned information officers or command staff. Keep this center staffed with one or more spokespersons for an extended time, and for heaven’s sakes serve coffee and meals. Treat it as a drop-in center for wayward media. Welcome them with food and conversation – and it is all on-the-record conversation.

5) ‘Off the record’: Off the record doesn’t exist at any level. Remember this with community meetings, agency briefings or elected official briefings (Liaison). Anything you say can and will be used against you. Period. This does NOT mean you don’t talk. It just means you never consider any discussion to be ‘off the record’.

6) The photo pool: The Internet killed the photo pool, and cell phones and drones drove the nails into its coffin. Response communication today must include provision of high quality imagery and video, not by selected media but by trained response personnel. Communication plans and resourcing must include this capacity. YOU are the photo pool!

Don’t yield to sea change and give up the battle for imagery; providing high quality imagery from within the response is a powerful communication advantage. Media will use any images they can get, but they will replace them with better quality and better perspective images, that only response personnel can provide. There is no better source of high quality, in-demand images than a trained photographer can provide from locations only accessible to responders. They will be used, and they will replace the ubiquitous and impersonal distance shots.

7) The flight restriction: Drones. Enough said. The flight restriction may keep piloted aircraft and news helicopters out of a safety zone, but you can’t control drone images and video. This is another major sea change when every study shows the massive impact of video on stakeholder understanding and acceptance.

All the more reason to provide quality imagery and video.

And don’t accede to any suggestion to announce Command’s intention to disable or down drones to neutralize their intrusion. This ‘reasonable’ command impulse is death to Command reputation. Flight restrictions do apply to drones, as well as numerous other regulations for safe flying.  But not all drone pilots follow them.  Let law enforcement deal with this, and do not comment on it. Do you really want to be known as the people who shot down drones?  Or arrested people for flying them?

8) “No comment”: Many organizations coach line staff to defer media questions to an ‘authorized spokesperson’. This is common in responses as well, when Command instructs all physical responders to defer any media questions ‘to Command’ or ‘to the PIO’. The problem with this fourfold:

  • The media is on-location. Media want to be where the people are and the action is. They’re not going to leave the people and action to ask someone else, somewhere else, their questions. They will either keep asking until someone talks, or they will report ‘a spokesperson was not available for comment’ – allowing themselves full reign to determine your reputation. If you want response personnel to defer to a spokesperson, the spokesperson needs to be where they are.
  • It sounds evasive. Why don’t you want response personnel to talk? Are you trying to hide something? Any deferral requires careful coaching, and it won’t stop additional questions. Better to empower personnel to share specific comments and give them suggestions for how to defer if they really don’t want to talk.
  • Someone else will talk. There is always someone who will talk. If not response staff, a bystander will always be willing to become the ‘instant expert’. Instructing people who know something about what is happening to refuse to talk simply ensures that a less knowledgeable and less qualified person can become the voice of the response.
  • ‘Your people’ still talk.  Even if ‘your people’ don’t talk to the media on location, they still talk. They talk on Twitter, Facebook, across the fence, at dinner, out for drinks. This may be the greatest sea change;  every person is now the media, multiplying your message on multiple platforms.  You simply are not going to staunch the flow if information, and it will inevitably end up as public comment.  Far better to include all responders in the response information flow so they know the big picture of what’s going on, and to provide solid guidance in what to say in response to media inquiries.

How about you?

What response communication relics caused by sea change do you know of? What tactics have you used to be effective in today’s communication world? Share them here!

Interested in more information?  Contact me!

We Are All Sausages

Trauma exposes the real us: We may look sleek and shiny on the outside, but the truth is that there are always messes inside. When trauma slices across our lives, it exposes our secret side even as it impacts our prepared public face. In every personal crisis, all our internal stresses and strains come to light. The messy truth of our lives emerges and we have to deal with it. It’s part of counseling, part of social work, part of all our lives.

The same thing happens with organizations: No individual and no organization is completely transparent. If for no other reason, there simply isn’t time or interest in reporting every peccadillo or stumble. So we continue our everyday practice of being or looking ‘good enough’. We work to deflect attention from mistakes or misdeeds.

Then a crisis occurs, and suddenly everything is fair game. Past indiscretions don’t remain in the past. They’re always there, under the surface and waiting to bubble up when we least want them to. Past issues well-dealt with still emerge, and issues never resolved emerge anew alongside the latest outrage:

A refinery suffered a major accident resulting in injuries and fatalities. This refinery had endured decades of bad relations with employee unions and the local community. Guess what information emerged during the response: The old antagonisms between the company, the union and the community again rose to the surface.

Rumblings about poor corporate safety culture were reinforced with release of previous confidential internal memos outlining safety concerns. Community complaints and grievances were aired publicly. On top of the current accident and tragedy, all the old baggage came out on display.

There were practical impacts to this feud:

  • The refinery owner didn’t allow photographs of the response efforts to be taken, due to fear that the communities’ prevailing animosity would use the images as ammunition against claims of poor safety record (“If we post pictures of responders in protective gear, the family will want to know why their dad didn’t have any”).
  • Without effective imagery of people responding, the response was never ‘humanized’, defined instead by aerial photographs of the facility damage and spilled product.
  • The discussion quickly shifted from incident response to the stewing debate about neglected safety and poor community involvement.
  • In the poisoned atmosphere, the resulting bunker mentality merely ensured that the public dialogue ignored response efforts while focusing on decades-old issues.

You don’t get do-overs in crisis response. You can’t correct old wrongs. You have to play the messy hand you’re dealt. This will always happen. Every person, every family, every community and every organization has skeletons in the closet. They will be exposed, one by one, as a crisis unfolds. The glare of the public eye will find your every mishap or misdeed and broadcast it for all to see.

You need to be ready for this. It is inevitable. So what can you do?

Know your flaws

Don’t ignore your organization’s history. Research past incidents and issues that have impacted your community’s perceptions of your organization. Determine what has been done in the past to rectify or resolve them. Don’t be caught by surprise!

Accept your flaws yourself

Know that dirty laundry will be pulled out of the hamper, skeletons will rattle out of closets and dirt will be drug out from under the rug. Don’t waste time, emotions and energy in despairing or reacting. There’s nothing you can do to prevent it. You need your energy and emotions for proper response communication.

Verify, verify, verify

Confirm the charges. It they are real, they are real. Acknowledge past issues and incidents. Express your commitment to prompt and accurate reporting. Assure stakeholders that you take all charges seriously, examine them carefully and own what is true.

Acknowledge reality

Don’t attempt to deny or deflect: Don’t throw red meat to a critical audience. If the charges are true, acknowledge them If they are new, say so. If they were previously received and addressed say so. If they are your’s, own them. Remember that facts tell us what, not why. Acknowledge the ‘what’.

Never deny the truth

Today’s pervasively connected world has foisted a level of transparency on all our actions. It is not possible to keep secrets any more. So here’s a radical thought: Tell the truth. Telling the truth may be painful and may expose your organization to a harsher light than you may wish, but it is also economical. Tell the truth, apologize and make amends, and the issue is done. If it comes up again, refer to the original acknowledgment and move on. Lies require constant repetition or reinforcement. Truth is truth. Save time and effort.

Promise action

Accept new allegations as valuable in your organization’s efforts towards safe and responsible operations. Express a commitment to include them in any investigation or discovery process. Promise to deal with them seriously, and to report back. Share why this action is important; it reflects your values, and your values define your reputation.

Pivot to the current response

Remind your stakeholders that you’re committed to an effective response for the current situation. Indicate that your organization is committed to resolving the current issue with all diligence. Express your commitment to transparency and sharing.

Move on

Receive, verify, acknowledge, promise and pivot. Then leave it behind. If the same charge comes up again, refer to the original statement. Turn the conversation back to current response information. If a new charge comes up, wash rinse and repeat.

Interested in more information?  Contact me!