It took less than an hour for a driver to die. And five days for a hospital to destroy its reputation.

Did hospital personnel refuse to help police administer CPR to a man who crashed his car in their parking lot due to a heart attack? Did it insist, instead, on dispatching an emergency medical response unit while untrained officers attempted to perform CPR?

The hospital’s meandering and argumentative approach within its immediate and subsequent communications never provided clear answers. Among its missteps:

•  a statement on its web site arguing key facts;
• a quarter-page newspaper ad attempting its own defense;
• a press conference to share video that exonerated the hospital; and finally
• yet another statement on its Web site attempting to address the confusion that prevailed.

Yet even after its position was substantiated, an online news poll showed a majority felt the hospital hadn’t explained itself satisfactorily.

In the aftermath, and despite the volume of communications from the hospital, few things are clear:

• The hospital failed to clearly articulate its policy;
• It didn’t outline the steps it was taking to investigate the situation itself; and
• It didn’t offer consistent updates on the status of the investigation, heightening media interest – and criticism.

Here’s what the hospital could have done better…

• Engaged all disciplines for its immediate response. The hospital’s initial communications focused too heavily on arguing factual discrepancies. That can be helpful in court, but not in shaping public opinion. The best initial responses are consistent across all audiences and factor in counsel from executive, communications, legal/regulatory, and relevant operational perspectives.
•  Previously thought through this scenario and prepared potential responses in advance. The more urgent the potential situation, the more important it is to think it through in advance, when calmer heads prevail. That’s the best environment to decide how the organization will respond, especially since factual ambiguity and probable litigation are the norm. A response that’s respectful, tells what you know to be true, shares next steps and acknowledges the unknowns can be a powerful aid at an urgent time.

“We extend our condolences to the family of the deceased.  We are actively gathering information about the circumstances surrounding this incident.  As we learn more, we will continue to communicate with those involved.  Our mission is to provide the best possible medical care to patients on our premises, and our policy is to send medical help where needed on our campus.  We are committed to making sure this type of situation is not repeated.”

Also helpful here: staging communications in advance. A plan to provide regular updates at predictable times in a central place can exert greater control and reinforce perceptions of a steady and consistent point of view (optimizing your Web site content for search engines is also helpful here). In the absence of any subsequent events, this can be a powerful strategy.

• Understood that in some situations, less is more. For organizations with high risk and liability exposure, delivering a simple message from a single voice is often best. And making sure that spokesperson is fully trained in handling agitated media is crucial.

• There was the company publication that announced a (fake) merger (it was the April Fool’s Day edition)
• The employee competition with a fancy gold watch as first prize – too bad it was a fake
• The executive who donned a coconut bikini on Halloween – the price for losing an inter-departmental sales competition
• The senior leader who announced his departure by Tweeting it
• The marching bands that paraded among cubes to announce a company milestone; and
• The company who brought a Tina Turner look-a-like to headline a company party – she was wearing tights, heels and little else.

To be fair, some of these stunts were warmly received. But many of them fell flat, doing more harm than good. Knowing that hindsight is 20/20, the trick is figuring out what’s going to work and what isn’t before it happens. And that’s where internal communication professionals come in.

Employee engagement is a vital element of successful organizations. Yes, it can be fun. Yes, it can be whimsical. It also has to be approached as strategically as communications with customers, partners and even government regulators. After all, employees are the most impactful audience an organization has – and an employee population energized by unintended negatives will ultimately do more harm than good.

Here are three things you can do to make sure your company or organization avoids unintended negatives:

Make sure your internal communication channels break through the clutter. We can all sympathize with the sales managers who wanted to break through the information overload. Educate your department leads now on the internal communications channels available to them – and which ones to use in which circumstances. This will go miles toward heading off misguided attempts to get attention – something everyone wants to avoid. Teach managers how to work their network; make the CEO available for fun, appropriate stunts; collaborate on ways to de-clutter your current communication channels or invest in new ones.

Get out of your comfort zone. Strange as it may sound, being overly conservative can actually get you in this type of mess. Internal communicators who focus on managing the message and eliminating risk become known as the (pardon me) soul-sucking, straightjacket-lacing, bad cop. It’s assumed they will naysay any idea that is remotely “out there,” so they are left out of the decision-making loop. From time to time, go out on a limb. Good internal communicators know how to get employees’ attention. Because they are highly attuned to the culture, values and brand, they know how to get creative, pushing the envelope on tactics. I’m not suggesting you forget good judgment, but let’s try something other than “we’ll put it in tiny font on the intranet that no one reads.”

Train managers to use good judgment as communicators. Although it’s in our title, we don’t own the corner market on internal communications. Managers are the primary voice for any company – the ones employees look to for real-time direction, guidance and vision. So help them help you. Work with HR to build communications into all leadership training. Don’t assume managers know the best way to communicate in a crisis or get employees’ attention for a major product launch. Conversely, make sure communication is a required skill – and a competency that goes on each leader’s performance review.

If something does go wrong, be quick to communicate, especially with employees. Highly visible mistakes demand highly visible leadership to speed recovery and find the lesson in the embarrassment. No matter how severe the situation, the most important thing to do for your organization is to recover your composure and act with integrity in the aftermath.

If you think you have real potential of being included in Wikileaks information, connect your communications and legal departments now. At a minimum, they should have a contact plan in case anything unfortunate happens this week.

Should you become a target, how you handle the first news cycle will make or break you. So the severity of your inclusion determines which options to choose. Here are a few things to know…

Resist the temptation to respond immediately. Even if the initial disclosures about your organization seem clear, the unpredictable nature of how this cache of documents is threatened to be disclosed means information will likely unfold over several hours. A holding statement acknowledging you are aware of the activity and reviewing the reported information will create time to triage the real risk and determine the most effective response. Something like the following would work well as a response to media, customer and employee inquiries:

                         Yes, we’re aware of the Wikileaks activity and are reviewing the document(s).
                         We may not have further comment today.

Triage the real risk. In collaboration with your communications counsel, your attorneys and executive leadership, assess the three most relevant questions for Wikileaks activity:

• What’s the veracity of the attack? … Are the documents legitimate or forged? Are the allegations accurate?
• What is the scope of threat to the business? … Is it really a threat to the business or more of a threat to an individual executive’s reputation?
• Is there an opportunity to stay in the background or must the company respond in some way? … Have other companies been implicated? Are other attacks more severe than those involving your organization? Is the best response strategy complete or limited?

If a proactive response is needed, identify a single media outlet to carry the company’s response initially. It’s key to work with a journalist with a fully-developed view of the company. Consider whether a discussion or written response is the best approach. In either case, other media can access the company’s response in writing. And think carefully about whether to engage social media… if your objective is to limit exposure, the viral and broad nature of digital communications may not be your best choice.

Avoid commenting on or criticizing the Wikileaks founder or organization directly. Although the founder’s personal situation continues to deteriorate, there is real admiration for the Wikileaks organization’s mission and its maverick role. Engaging in this level of comment will create an opportunity for media and other opinion leaders to pass a moral judgment on your company and its executives – creating unnecessary business risk.

However, if politics and money were off limits in Washington, D.C., there wouldn’t be much left for us to talk about.  We like to talk about politics — the people, the issues, the process and the tactics (including money) to gain influence over all of it.  On Dec. 14, Joe Farren and I will be talking a lot about some of those topics we were taught to avoid when Waggener Edstrom Worldwide (WE) sponsors the Women in Government Relations’ PACs, Politics & Grassroots Conference.  This is one of the leading conferences that trains public affairs professionals on running ethical, legal and effective political involvement and fundraising programs.

Certainly, this is one of those occasions where that old adage doesn’t apply. 

The November elections brought about some big changes in Washington, D.C., and, as a result, many corporations and associations are renovating their political programs in preparation for the 112th Congress.  The luncheon keynote address, sponsored by WE, is sure to be the highlight of the conference.  The speaker is Charlie Cook, publisher of The Cook Political Report, who is widely regarded as one of the nation’s leading authorities on U.S. elections and political trends.  Cook will share his thoughts about the 2010 election and offer some insight into the new Congress and the 2012 elections.

Conference attendees will also get the latest news from the Congressional Management Foundation about what actually influences members of Congress and their staff.   In addition, conference attendees will hear from leading industry experts on how to keep an eye on (almost) every aspect of the policy debate through social media, comply with federal election commission regulations, and generate successful political action committee and grassroots programming.  

Suzanne Zurn
VP, Digital Advocacy
WE Studio D™ – Washington, D.C., office

Suzanne serves on the Board of Directors of Women in Government Relations and is former co-chairwoman of the PACs, Politics & Grassroots Conference.

Several hundred eager policy enthusiasts crammed into the European Commission conference centre last Thursday for a daylong debate about “net neutrality.” Whether the attendees were rewarded with startling insights or new thoughts is not entirely clear, however.

Moderating the first session, Robert Madelin — the most senior civil servant under Commissioner Neelie Kroes, Commissioner for the Digital Agenda — tried manfully to coax panelists and speakers from the floor beyond their prepared positions and to engage in a debate. But by and large the conference felt like old news, a mere repetition of statements made a few years ago by various stakeholders within the telecoms value chain during the drafting process of the latest telecoms regulatory framework. Concepts from the first session were repeated throughout the day in later sessions: choice, competition, transparency, bundling, quality of service, and the suitability of the not yet enacted regulatory framework to deal with net neutrality issues.

There were moments of light relief though: In response to the assertion by a representative from BT that choice was the ultimate guarantor or consumer welfare, Madelin, clearly enjoying himself, expressed skepticism and asked exactly what BT’s minimum quality of service commitment would be. No reply. The representatives of various national consumer associations had Madelin’s ear. Not surprisingly consumers are frustrated not understanding what they are getting in terms of broadband services. One of the critical issues from the consumer perspective is the perceived difficulty in switching suppliers. Due to triple and even quadruple play service packages consumers often feel themselves caught in a “walled garden.”

And later, tiring of the reluctance of some stakeholders to back up their complaints on net neutrality with data, he called on the BBC and Skype to be good corporate citizens and share details of abuses with the European Commission, something they seemed reluctant (at least in public) to do. And, ever practical, he rebuffed the strangely idealistic appeals from the U.K. government representative to reflect first on the definition of “open Internet” before developing practical approaches.

There were some good presentations made by Cisco and AT&T, but the messages were again repetitive: focus on anticompetitive behaviour, difficult to hide bad practice due to openness of the Internet, traffic management is needed to provide “fit for purpose” networks and so on and so forth. Instead of spending the day at the conference one could have skipped the morning session and simply read the excellent overview produced by the Commission based on the net neutrality consultation.

Indeed, the whole day hinged on the concept of evidence and what can be done in practice: Chris Marsden, an academic, got the biggest laugh when he expressed skepticism at the idea of 600 people turning up to a conference to insist that there was no real problem. His comments were a direct challenge to the network providers’ insistence that companies have no incentive to restrict user access. But in the absence of clear abuses, and with the new laws not yet in place, the message from the day appeared to be “let’s wait and see how it all pans out.” Commissioner Kroes appeared at the end to add her soundbite to the proceedings: Consumers should realize their economic power and vote with their feet if not satisfied with their provider — for example in the case of blocking Skype services on certain mobile networks. She expects that the implementation of the 2009 telecoms regulatory framework by Member States provides sufficient safeguards for what is and isn’t permissible behaviour. In Kroes’ words “competition is the open Internet’s best friend,” while “Regulators … are our best insurance policy.”

Certainly the national regulators and BEREC will have their work cut out policing the new framework. On all the key principles — transparency, the distinction between managed services and best efforts, the criteria for imposing QoS — further guidance will be needed. ARCEP gave a detailed presentation of the criteria developed in France for managing net neutrality, ensuring that the debate will rumble on long after May 2011 when the new rules come into force.

Click here to view the embedded video.

“Ma’am, this is your bank calling to ask about some charges we think are fraudulent. Have you been in in or around Las Vegas recently?”

No, bank lady, I have not. The only traveling I’ve done of late is to visit my team in Washington, D.C., far away from the glimmer and gleam of the Strip. Apparently my debit card has been having quite the run there, however. One of the largest charges came from a $330 shopping spree at Target – how do you spend $330 in a store that prides itself on a department store (i.e., bargain) history?!

In any case, I was lucky in that my bank kindly agreed to reverse the charges and provide me with a new debit card. But I wonder: How did my card number get stolen in the first place? I never use my debit card in “sketchy” locations or places where I cannot see it get run through the machine. I rarely, if ever, use ATMs, and as previously mentioned, I have been nowhere near Nevada for almost a year. I thought I was doing everything right.

While the circumstances of my experience may forever remain a mystery, it leads to the broader notion that perhaps my Web-based, digital life may be to blame. Like many of you reading this, I use online banking almost daily. I make payments, transfer funds, order products. … You get the idea. And while there are many safeguards in place to ensure our valuable information remains protected, there are still many, many ways that we can be compromised.

October has been designated National Cybersecurity Awareness Month (NCSAM) precisely for this reason. Conducted every October since 2004, NCSAM is a national public awareness campaign designed to encourage everyone to protect their computers and our nation’s critical cyber-infrastructure.

The primary drivers of NCSAM are the National Cyber Security Alliance (NCSA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC). They work in concert to outline what home users, schools, businesses and governments need to do to protect their computers, children, and data from cyberattacks.

The NCSAM website maintains that:

Ultimately, our cyber infrastructure is only as strong as the weakest link. No individual, business, or government entity is solely responsible for securing the Internet. Everyone has a role to secure their part of cyberspace, including the computers, devices and networks they use. We all need to understand how our individual actions have a collective impact on cybersecurity and protecting the Internet. … However, if each of us does our part—whether it’s implementing stronger security practices in our day-to-day online activities, making sure the right tools are in place, raising awareness in the community, educating young people or training employees—together we will be more resistant and resilient, protecting ourselves, our neighbors and our country.

You may be wondering what the fuss is all about, but it’s true: Cyberattacks are on the rise, and unless we all do our part to combat them, there will be serious consequences. As many of us are heavily involved in the technology sector via our jobs, it is of utmost importance that we are aware of how to best protect ourselves, our families, and our clients from cyberattacks.

Let’s hope that between our renewed vigilance and self-education, more “dreaded calls,” or worse, will be prevented in the future.

At first blush, the six-year-old company was doing everything right: It framed its business as, in part, a benefit for consumers; it focused prospects and the industry on its innovative game plan; and it even advocated responsible use of the data it was collecting by calling for Federal regulation of the online advertising industry via the CEO’s personal blog. And things went very well for a long time, including a beneficial reference in a 2009 BusinessWeek issue on “The Future of Tech”.

But this week, the tide is turning. The company is increasingly described as the surreptitious bad guy in a collection of cautionary tales. From the Journal story:

Data gathered and sold by RapLeaf can be very specific. According to documents reviewed by the Journal, RapLeaf’s segments recently included a person’s household income range, age range, political leaning, and gender and age of children in the household, as well as interests in topics including religion, the Bible, gambling, tobacco, adult entertainment and “get rich quick” offers. In all, RapLeaf segmented people into more than 400 categories, the documents indicated.

There has also been cautionary coverage, building in recent weeks, from one of the most respected voices in the technology media – a media segment that was previously a stronghold of support for the company.

RapLeaf is not alone. Gartner analyst Andrew Frank identifies this group of companies as “data providers”, living deep inside what he terms “the digital display advertising ecosystem”. Yes, it’s ironic that RapLeaf is receiving this attention because of its extraordinary business success – its relationship with facebook brought the company to the attention of the Journal initially – but all companies driving innovation in this business segment risk the same level of scrutiny once successful.

Thriving under these circumstances demands three things…

1. Always factor your customer’s customer into your positioning. As RapLeaf evolved from user-generated ranking system, into “fraud protection” service, and ultimately into aggregated data source, consumers’ mood toward online privacy and targeted advertising shifted. And once the company began getting coverage in media like BusinessWeek, this entirely new (even if it was unintended) audience became aware of the company. At this moment, when readership moved from the tech-savvy, early-adopter, under-35 devotees of Fast Company, GigaOm and the like, to the older, more conservative, less technology-fluent mass readership of BusinessWeek and the Journal, the tone, messaging and focus of the company’s communications needed to broaden as well. And often in these cases, the first mover needs to accept the mantle of educator of these broader audiences. Consider the approach to its Web site taken by BlueKai, a rival service to RapLeaf. BlueKai showcases its consumer benefits with a dedicated landing page and strong advocacy messaging. The information collected by RapLeaf and BlueKai is largely the same, but BlueKai’s positioning of consumer control is much stronger.

2. Provocative trends demand a sober tone as you progress beyond the “safe zone” of technology-enthusiast and early-stage financial media. RapLeaf’s CEO participated in quite casual, even giddy, communications (see video at end of post), undercutting more business-oriented appearances at conferences and in media interviews. As data collection and digital privacy emerged as increasingly serious topics, all of the company’s communications should have reflected an understanding of that. [Update: The video at the end of the GigaOm post appears to have been deleted, but you can still see it here.]

3. Go all the way with your response. The perception of transparency is one of the most effective mechanisms to create trust. On the plus side, RapLeaf posted a well-crafted blog entry from the CEO in response to the Journal coverage – repositioning the story and highlighting the types of information they do not collect. However, the company declined to engage with the Journal (or other media) on topics about its business, beyond what was in the post. For a company advocating Federal regulation of online advertisers, such a contradiction can become stark.

Breaking new ground, and bringing true innovations to market, is always difficult. Making your communications work hard for you smooths the path considerably.

But what about the tried and true adage “silence is golden”? Can silence really work in public relations?

More often than not, remaining silent in the midst of a crisis situation can have disastrous implications (two words: Tiger Woods). Regardless of the situation or fault at hand, communicating transparently and honestly in the early stages of any crisis helps to control the dialogue and rhetoric around the crisis, in addition to minimizing reputational damage.

While glancing over POLITICO, I came across an article about Republican Congressman John Boehner’s recent news (or complete lack thereof…). Boehner, a frontrunner to become Speaker of the House should Republicans wrestle control of the House of Representatives from Democrats in two weeks, has completely disappeared from the media in the past weeks on advice from his communications team.

No national TV or network interviews, no campaign appearances, no news whatsoever.

Boehner is all but assured victory in his campaign for reelection, but Boehner’s status as “Speaker-in-waiting” and the current face of the Republican Party means much more to this election. In this current age of the never-ending political echo chamber, news sound bites and social media, Republicans know that one slip up from anyone as high profile as Boehner could cost them everything.

While it might seem ill-advised on the surface to self-impose a media blackout of sorts in the days leading up to a pivotal election, in reality it’s a calculated and well-advised political decision given the circumstances. From early on, Republicans have taken the spotlight off of their own ideas and successfully framed this election as a referendum on Democrats. While the media has been so focused on back-wheeling Democrats, why would Boehner jump in the middle of that conversation and risk a slip up?

From a political standpoint, Boehner’s silent treatment to the media is setting himself and Republicans up for a successful November, but what should communications professionals make of it? Clearly politics and public affairs are different arenas than those like consumer products or social innovation. While the silent treatment might work in one situation, it could easily have disastrous results in another.

The same company that reminds us it’s an expert in jeans that fit any body type is having a tough time aligning its social media strategy to its own hugely successful culture. Here’s what it can do to get back on track…

It all started with a blue box. Reaction to the company’s recent logo change was swift and brutal. Blogger protests, Twitter angst and facebook complaints led the company to announce it would retain its original logo within five days. But not before the company first firmly defended its decision on its social media feeds, thanking consumers for their interest and promising a “crowdsourced” future. The response? Far from calming consumers, it sparked anger that the company appeared to plan on using them for free consulting.

And now the negativism is bleeding over into historically successful business models. Over the weekend, consumers began criticizing the company’s to-date popular “casting call” model searches, where customers submit photos of their own children for consideration for upcoming ad campaigns. The company is moving the searches from stores to social media. Smart, right? Sure, until the consumers complaining about free brand consulting now feel like they’re being used as free modeling consultants. So as Monday wears on, concerns about potential cheating on social media voting by over-eager parents are starting to resemble the logo complaints … and some consumers are accusing the company of having staged the logo switch as a PR stunt and say the company is losing touch with its core consumers. It’s all eerily reminiscent of what the Coca-Cola Company faced after its introduction – and ultimate cancellation of – New Coke.

This social media strategy does not match Gap’s culture. What’s most interesting about all this: the missteps are in contrast to the training given every store associate. As a former Gap employee, I was trained to radiate the friendly, light-hearted Gap personality. We were taught to build personal relationships with customers, to quickly gain trust so the shopper will want to return to work with you again. Ironically, the Gap is built on a culture of direct communication that hasn’t been practiced via its early social media response.

Here’s what the company can do to get back on track.

1. Get transparent. The company has yet to say it made a mistake. Official statements edge up to the comment, but stop short. Not surprisingly, the company’s statements haven’t quelled consumers. To regain control, the company will need to trust consumers enough to admit error, explain their process, and highlight how it will change moving forward. And consumer opinion will have to be part of that mix. A company that’s this skilled in using consumer voting for decisions like model searches clearly has the knowledge to make this work.

2. Address the accusations. The company has a tremendous opportunity to engage more directly, especially with its facebook fans. For a brand built on customer feelings, the ultimate rumor control would acknowledge the parody Gap twitter account and recognize that both platforms are being used authentically by consumers disillusioned with the company.

3. Prevent the complaints from migrating into stores. Gap has a history of randomly selecting customers to receive special promotions if they complete online customer satisfaction surveys. It’s time to apply this long-successful strategy to quickly neutralize any customers mentioning the logo and model-search controversies within stores.

The quickest way to put this situation in the past is to reconnect with core customers and rebuild their trust.

By Katy Culver | October 18, 2010 | New York