The Communication Strategy Blog

In One Place: Lettuce Recall Resources, Reporting & Info

2010-05-13T09:38:00.001-05:00

As the outbreak of E. coli O145 continues to spread (23 confirmed cases in four states) and the recall of lettuce tied to Freshway Foods and Vaughn Foods expands into more states this week, I wanted to put together a few of the resources for staying on top of the situation. There has also been some truly fantastic reporting going on regarding the investigation into the source of the outbreak and about the ever-popular bug, E. coli:

Official Resources:

CDC's E. coli lettuce investigation page
FoodSafety.gov - A website run by CDC, USDA, FDA, HHS, the White House and the National Institutes of Health that provides information on recalls and helpful tips for keeping a safe food environment. Also, check out their blog.
FDARecalls on Twitter for a straight news feed
FoodSafetyGov on Twitter for more consumer-friendly food safety information

Reporting:

How did E. coli O145 contaminate lettuce? - Helena Bottemiller at FoodSafetyNews.com has a two-part series on potential causes of the outbreak on a farm in Yuma, Arizona - a place that has remained a relatively safe area for lettuce producers.
How this Widening Lettuce Recall is Different - NPR examines the differences between the usual suspect strain in E. coli investigations - E. coli O157:H7 and the current bug, E. coli O145
Health Blog Q&A: What to Do About E. coli - Katherine Hobson at the Wall Street Journal talks to an infectious disease expert about E. coli, vaccine research and whether organic beef can be considered safer than non-organic beef.

There are a just a few here, but these are the stories and resources that stick out in my mind as the best so far about this outbreak. What are you reading?

Posted via web from josh morton's posterous

Think Before You Jump: Messaging During a Crisis

2010-02-16T11:35:00.002-06:00

I had the pleasure and opportunity to present a workshop on crisis communications last Friday at the DePaul University "Get In the Loop" conference, hosted by the DePaul chapter of PRSSA. Everyone at DePaul was great and the students that came in from other chapters asked solid questions and were eager to learn about a career in PR. I would have loved to do a full-scale crisis simulation, but we only had 45 minutes. Instead, I decided to focus on something that is often not given enough focus during a crisis: messaging.
A common line you hear almost everywhere these days is that, with the new digital environment, corporations have lost control of their message. That may be mostly true when you think of what happens after messages are disseminated, but that doesn't excuse companies from not having good messaging in the first place. Companies still have complete control over what they say, how they say it and where they say it, and that ability can influence the dialogue about issues and situations. So, instead of focusing on how to utilize Twitter or video or a corporate Web site during a crisis, we talked about message mapping during an outbreak of E. coli. This seemed timely given the recent increase in the rates of foodborne illness. We discussed our target audiences, brainstormed questions from media, government and consumers, and then divided into groups to devise tailored messages to each stakeholder group.
In the end, we were able to have a more effective conversation about strategy, and then about the best channels to use to disseminate the messages to the right audience. I hope the students enjoyed it. Most of our discussion took place outside of the presentation slides themselves; however, I've posted them here in case they are useful to others.

Posted via web from josh morton's posterous

5 Social Media Trends for Food & Nutrition in 2010

2010-01-11T17:37:00.001-06:00

FoodMinds, the agency I work for, released a list of five social media trends we see as making a splash in food and nutrition in 2010. We put a lot of thought into looking back at 2008 and 2009 to see what worked and what didn't, and spent much time considering the future of the digital food and nutrition space as we move into the New Year. I'm happy to share it with you, below. You can also download a PDF of the piece, here.

1. Mobile and Local will be King

Of the more than 100,000 apps for the iPhone, over 7,000 of them are related to food. Food apps in 2009 focused on recipes, location-based services and weight loss. Phil Lempert pointed out recently that apps aren’t just a fad and FoodMinds says in 2010, foods apps for all mobile phones will be even more prevalent and become hyper-local – tailored to the individual. Look for apps focused on developing personal nutrition plans and finding personalized grocery deals and lists from stores near you. For example, ShopRite recently launched a weekly circular application that helps consumers create grocery lists based on the best deals right from their phones.

2. Consumers will Increase Scrutiny of Food Information and Demand Transparency

With the explosion of social media into the mainstream in 2009, consumers will be working hard in 2010 to find the most credible information about food and nutrition. Mintel said in its 2010 Global Consumer Trends report that consumer confidence took a hit in 2009: “We’ve become a society of doubters, skeptical of nutrition claims, the motives of ‘green’ companies, and the competitiveness of bank rates.” In 2010, look for consumers to demand credentials from those giving nutrition advice, and for them to expect even more transparency in all areas of brand interaction.

3. Food Safety will be Top-of-Mind

Consumers are more concerned than ever before about the safety of their food. New Web sites by consumer advocates (such as Food Safety News) and an increased involvement by government food safety agencies (such as the FDA and CDC) in the social media space gives consumers access to a massive amount of food safety information. In 2010, look for government agencies to refine their digital communications efforts on recalls, foodborne illnesses and on proactive tips to help consumers stay safe.

4. Food and Consumer Advocates will Mobilize Easier to Push for Change

In 2008, consumer advocates and food activists began to use social media to broadcast their message to a wider audience. In 2009, they honed their skills by experimenting with organizing events online to engage consumers and push them to action. In 2010, look for these groups to apply what they’ve learned and move to implement campaigns that more effectively mobilize large numbers of people to influence policy, legislation and public opinion. Not only will groups get better at mobilizing for national issues, they will also increase their efforts to organize for change at the local level – in schools, cities and states.

5. Listening to Online Conversation about Brands will be More Critical than Ever

A recent survey by the Grocery Manufacturers Association found 54% of CPG companies do not have a program in place to monitor and report on consumer conversations about their companies or brands. With tens of thousands of tweets per hour, more than 20 hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute and food issues ranking high in the public agenda, it will be essential for food and nutrition companies to pay attention to consumer conversation online. Look for food companies to increase their engagement with consumers, specifically about nutrition, and to put them in regular contact with dietitians, researchers and other health professionals.

Posted via web from josh morton's posterous

The Importance of Social Media Monitoring: During a Crisis and Beyond.

2009-12-23T14:20:00.001-06:00

Over at the Crisisblogger blog, Gerald Baron has a great review of Fineman PR's top "PR Blunders" of 2009 and some good insight from Michael Fineman's subsequent interview with Bulldog Reporter where he says that many of this year's missteps revolved around poor utilization and understanding of digital communications. Fineman says the biggest mistake of social media use during a crisis is slow response time. Baron posted the first half of Fineman's response about timeliness on his post. Here's the second half:

In the old days, you had to get on top of a crisis in the first 48 hours. Now, it's the first 48 minutes. In those minutes, you have a responsibility to contain the crisis and alert any audiences that may be in danger or are being impacted by the crisis. Your response must be instantaneous.

He's right. Organizations in crisis often do not have the luxury of waiting even one news cycle to respond. With tens of thousands of tweets per hour, and more than 20 hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute, it is essential to integrate social media monitoring into the daily intelligence gathering routine, and to ramp up appropriately the moment an issue escalates. A recent survey by the Grocery Manufacturers Association found 54% of CPG companies do not have a program in place to monitor and report on consumer conversations about their companies or brands. Here are a few tips for social media monitoring and for integrating it into a daily program:

Put them together - If your "social media monitoring guy (or girl)" and your "traditional media monitoring guy" aren't the same guy, put them in the same room during a crisis. What happens online affects what happens offline and vice versa. Allowing both parties to see what's happening outside of their bubble will lead to a faster, more strategic response. The two should also be talking on a daily basis about their analyses when there is no crisis.
Start from the beginning - If you are not already including social media monitoring in your daily routine, start today by setting up Google Alerts, searching Twitter, using BlogPulse and other free tools while you evaluate which paid service may be right for you. Waiting until a crisis arises to listen to online conversation will put you at a disadvantage - you won't know the influencers and how your brand is usually talked about nearly as well.
Integrate paid and free services - Don't stop using the free tools once you've signed on to a Radian6 or BuzzMetrics because you can sometimes find gems the big services may look over. Also, read this post by Jason Falls for some more direction.
Include "problem words" up front - You can't expect to catch every crisis before it starts or know every issue that may arise. However, as in good crisis preparedness, you can anticipate your most likely issues and include keywords for them in your daily searches. Issues with liability? Are there certain buzzwords people use when talking only about issues within your industry? Include the most likely terms in your monitoring program.
Keep revising, keep refining - Conversation and issues online are fluid. Even if you aren't in the midst of a crisis, the terminology used in online dialogue about your brand, service or industry will change over time. Update your keywords, watchlists and other tools often to keep up with the conversation. Change terms as you see the conversation change, but also schedule regular intervals (Quarterly? Monthly?) to check in on what you're seeing and make any necessary updates.

This is a brief list for now. If you have any suggestions or want to share things that have worked for you, please feel free to comment.

Posted via web from josh morton's posterous

Maker of Recalled Cribs Missing Opportunity to Use Social Media Tools It Already Has

2009-11-24T10:38:00.001-06:00

*Updated below.

The news of the largest crib recall in U.S. history, which broke last night and is still evolving this morning, shines a bright spotlight on the critical importance of having a crisis plan and integrating social media into crisis response - especially for a major manufacturer of child and baby products.

The company, Stork Craft, is recalling more than 2.1 million drop-side cribs in the U.S. and Canada and, thus far, its response has been troubling silence. Bloomberg, NBC, CBS and other news outlets reported Stork Craft has not returned any calls for comment, its Web site is overwhelmed with traffic and is down as of this blog post and the CBC reports many parents have been unable to get through the customer care phone lines. The company's response is even more bothersome because it just went through a similar situation earlier this year when it recalled more than 500,000 cribs. As worried parents continue to hit road blocks in their search for information, Stork Craft is ignoring two effective avenues of communication that are working that they could be using right now: its blog and Twitter handle, @StorkCraft.

Returning media phone calls is a whole other story; However, if its Web site is overwhelmed and its phone lines are jammed, Stork Craft can immediately begin to communicate with anxious consumers by posting a statement to its blog and tweeting important information and responding to concerns. Even if the two channels were not originally intended for crisis communication, Stork Craft's blog and Twitter handle are its only sure means of communication while the company works to get its site and phone lines back on track. If Stork Craft had a crisis plan to begin with (and it should have after its last round of recalls in January at the absolute latest) they could have integrated social media into their response. It's not rocket science, and by not using the digital tools already at their disposal, Stork Craft is missing an opportunity to protect its reputation and provide consumers with important information.

*Update: It looks like now, after an initial phase of silence, Stork Craft is responding to consumers on their blog and via Twitter while they work through their phone/Web issues. While not interacting with many customers on Twitter, they have engaged several people to give them information on ordering repair kits and are pushing people to their blog with a message from their e-marketing and social media manager that says:

We’re currently working through the initial surge of inquiries and requests at the moment. It is very busy here and we are doing our best to meet the demand...We are experiencing heavy traffic on our website. If you find that you are having difficulties getting through, please send this information to: parts@storkcraft.com

It's promising to see Stork Craft beginning to use the tools they have to reach consumers, even though it's late. Let's hope their use of social media translates into a more coordinated media/consumer response overall.

Sticking to Values, FedEx Balks at Pay for Play

2009-07-17T07:39:00.010-05:00

I wanted to write quickly about this issue since it's breaking right now. Mike Allen at Politico reported this morning that after the American Conservative Union (ACU) offered to take FedEx's side on a major labor issue for $2 million to $3 million, it quickly backed rival UPS when FedEx said it wouldn't pay. Allen writes:

"The ACU...took UPS’s side on Wednesday as part of a conservative consortium that accused FedEx of 'misleading the public and legislators'...Just two weeks earlier, ACU had offered its endorsement to FedEx, saying in a letter to the company: 'We stand with FedEx in opposition to this legislation.'"

This shines a serious spotlight on what Allen calls "black-and-white proof of the longtime Washington practice known as 'pay for play.'"

Pay for play is one of those well-suspected, but little-proven tactics in government, PR and marketing (and others) that can be very attractive for the parties involved, but runs completely counter to practicing business with integrity. I have no doubt FedEx would have enjoyed having ACU as a powerful ally in its efforts to persuade stakeholders and legislators to come to their side of the issue. They could have very easily paid ACU to mobilize and nobody would have ever known. Instead, FedEx stood by its values and risked an ACU switch - which they did - to attempt to reach their goal the right way. You can bet they didn't pay for George Will's support in Wednesday's Washington Post. You wonder, though, how much UPS ended up paying ACU for theirs.

Quelling "But They Could Say Anything" Syndrome

2009-03-31T21:40:00.008-05:00

As of late, it seems nearly everyone is diving head-first into social media and evolving their digital communications. Companies like Pepsi, Molson and Comcast have made big news engaging their stakeholders online and are setting the bar high as rules for social media continue to be written. Still, there are many organizations that haven't jumped into social media for a host of reasons - some because they don't know where to begin and others because they don't see an immediate or clear ROI. For some companies, however, the biggest barrier is that they are timid when it comes to finding out what people are saying about them online and talking with their stakeholders. I've heard the fear of the web expressed with phrases like, "It's just a bunch of people in their pajamas wanting to cause me loads of trouble," and, "They [the royal they] don't represent real consumers. They're just angry." However, the most common way this fear manifests itself is by proclaiming, "But they could say anything!"

Companies with "Say Anything Syndrome" see the web as completely separate from the real world, where people are out to spread rumors and tear them down. The reality is that the discussion of brands online really doesn't differ much from what happens every day in coffee shops, offices and bars (and they're the same people, too). The true difference is that companies can now actually hear the conversation they've been missing out on, and it's not all terrible. One of the biggest opportunities in social media is the first (and safest) step to joining the online community: listening.

Kat French has several great posts on the Social Media Explorer blog about getting started in social media monitoring (she actually just posted another today). If engaging your stakeholders online isn't right for you at this time, listening to what they're saying is an easy way to dip your toes in the water. In fact, the majority of the discussion may be just what you'd expect: some really positive, some really negative and most just neutral. Monitoring allows you to identify your fans and detractors and analyze trends in conversation. It also gives you the ability to spot false rumors and correct them. "They" can and do say "anything" - online and offline - sometimes even false things. However, you may be surprised to find that untrue things are often corrected by your fans. Similar to a cocktail party conversation, if someone hears something they think is false online, they raise skepticism about it. Other more believable rumors stay out on the web and don't get addressed. If you've decided to engage online, this is where you can confirm true facts and refute senseless gossip.

One of the best arguments for getting over "Say Anything Syndrome" was given by one of the members of the social media team at Molson during a BlogWell conference call a couple of weeks ago. I can't remember exactly who said it, but Molson's decision to engage in social media was essentially "opening the flood gates to what was already happening." If people don't have the facts about a situation, the company reaches out and provides them. They've received a lot of praise for their outreach efforts and have shown measurable growth in their reputation. If they weren't at least listening to the discussion of their brand online they would never even hear it and would never have the opportunity to proactively protect their brand on the web.

Accountability, Innovation and the PR Way

2008-12-11T20:59:00.004-06:00

I just read Richard Edelman's most recent post about PR's role in forming a new business environment through straight talk and direct counsel. He references Paul Seaman's Wall Street Journal column about our industry's complacency with the current major issues facing businesses today. He says:

"I predict that the public will be interested to hear from genuinely knowledgeable and thoughtful businesspeople of every stamp, from the bold to the cautious. There will be a premium on professionalism, competence, coherence. To those buzzwords, I'd add these: authenticity, frankness, seriousness. Business and PR are about to get real."

About to get real? Shouldn't we have been "real" this entire time? I agree with Seaman's conclusion that we need to offer blunt, authentic advice (and encourage our clients to speak that way), but that should be the standard operating procedure of a profession that wants to be trusted and heard in the board room and escape our ugly stereotypes.

Looking at the current communications landscape, Seaman says we've basically lost our edge in an effort to make nice with all of our clients' stakeholders. Seaman is right when he says, "Being loved by everyone isn't a successful business strategy." It is, however, successful business strategy to work with those stakeholders we can to move the needle forward as a conscience organization (even "greedy" capitalists). There is room for strategic Corporate Responsibility programs in the next chapter of business.

We get paid to advocate on behalf of our clients, big or small, and to inject their thoughtful, well-formed opinions into the public space. We are paid to "be real" and to bring fresh ideas to the table. It is also our job to bring those generally thoughtful businesspeople to the media and encourage our clients to exude professionalism and competence. If we are not doing these things, if we haven't been doing these things, we are not doing our jobs well. It shouldn't take the failure of our clients for us to realize our fundamentals may be off. And if they are, we certainly can't wait to fix them.

Media analysis 101: Metrics are everything

2008-10-30T21:49:00.002-05:00

The Culture and Media Institute today released a study of news coverage of vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin showing “character assassination” by the major broadcast news networks ABC, NBC and CBS. The report also concluded “the public cannot trust what they’re hearing from [the networks].” The research is getting some major attention in the blogosphere and on several major news outlets, so I thought I would comment on its methods, findings and conclusions considering I believe CMI seriously cherry-picked their data. I should note that I’m commenting on the full report the organization provides on their web site, which offers the most details about how they arrived at their conclusions.

First, their findings - CMI found three narratives about Sarah Palin:

1. Palin Is a Dunce, Lacking Qualifications and Intellect
2. Conservatives Are Rejecting the Dunce
3. Palin Is an Obama-Attacking Demon

While there are several inconsistencies in the way CMI coded the media coverage for positive, negative and neutral (more on that in a bit), the biggest issue I have with the report is the number of stories actually included in the study. CMI says there were 69 news segments that covered Sarah Palin over two weeks (Sept. 29 – Oct. 12) on ABC, NBC and CBS. If there really were only 69 stories on the networks, the average major network would have aired less than 2 stories per day that mentioned Palin. Perhaps this would be possible during a slow news week (or two), but certainly not during this campaign cycle or this specific time period, which included the run-up to the vice-presidential debate. The reality is that Palin was mentioned in more than 200 stories on major networks during those two weeks. CMI chose to include only the stories that fit their predetermined conclusion.

A solid media analysis is based in solid, objective coding of news coverage. CMI coded stories almost entirely on subjective points. They say, “Negative stories contained more unfavorable elements than favorable, or gave preferential treatment to Biden.” CMI doesn’t actually define what unfavorable is. Is a piece coded unfavorable because of certain buzzwords, the amount of speaking time allotted to campaign spokespeople or number of minutes devoted to one candidate over the other? CMI simply doesn’t give us these objective metrics. Furthermore, many of the items CMI coded negative, or what they claim proves the networks perpetuated an attack narrative, is actually spurred by Palin’s newsworthy comments that Barack Obama was “palling around with terrorists.” This soundbite was designed to get media attention, so the fact that it was picked up by the networks doesn’t mean the stories were “negative.” Again, it depends on what metrics we’re using, which CMI doesn’t clearly define.

In addition, CMI didn’t even bother to examine coverage of the Troopergate scandal, which should have been included in their analysis because the decision came down during the last week over coverage. I have no doubt that coverage of Palin was critical, but how much of it was “media bias” versus the factual reporting that she violated state ethics laws? We don’t know because CMI didn’t look at the stories and didn’t objectively define their coding method.

Lastly, if this were a serious media analysis, CMI could have gotten media attention by using words less alarmist than “dunce”, “demon” and “ridicule” considering those words didn’t even show up in the coverage they looked at. Their study was clearly designed to support a preset conclusion and their metrics were broad enough to fit a small selection of news coverage. There may actually be some unfair reporting of Sarah Palin (as is the case with each one of the candidates), but this particular study doesn’t make the cut and certainly doesn’t support the extreme conclusion that the networks cannot be trusted.

Today's Dueling Obama, McCain Media Strategies

2008-09-23T21:51:00.004-05:00

A lot has already been said today about the McCain/Palin press folks basically shutting out media from an extremely photo-rich opportunity at the UN this afternoon. After major protests, Palin's media handlers finally let some photographers in (for thirty seconds). Later in the day, McCain held a ten minute press conference, which didn't really satisfy the already upset press corps. The McCain campaign lost their (only?) opportunity to turn Palin's recent narrative around and better position her foreign policy credentials. Meanwhile, Barack Obama opened his campaign up to news media, held a lengthy press conference on the economy and won the day's media cycle.

This brings the McCain campaign far from the days when the senator invited the press corps to his house for a BBQ. It will be interesting to see what the strategy of non-access gets them while Obama's media team keeps a cool head and allows the press in. I won't get into the political debate about which campaign has received more negative press coverage (an excuse used sometimes to block reporter access to events). Both campaigns have taken their fair share of low media blows and sensational reporting. Despite how the McCain camp may feel, blocking the access of reporters to his VP nominee (and himself) at a major meeting will buy them no favors. As with all communications campaigns, transparency should be the rule, not the exception.

Comments are welcome, as usual; however, please keep them on the strategy, not the politics.

Going to BlogWorld!

2008-09-17T16:51:00.005-05:00

I'm heading to my first new media-specific conference at BlogWorld 2008 and I have to admit, I am completey geeked out about it. I fear, though, that once and for all I will feel pretty inadequate with my Motorola RAZR and want an iPhone.

If you are going and would like to meet up, DM me on Twitter - @theshua

Comcast goes into the digital deep

2008-07-24T21:05:00.006-05:00

Being one of the largest providers of a nearly essential service (gotta have my 'Deadliest Catch') opens you up to some fairly vocal criticism, especially when your customer service can be less than stellar.

Former TVNewser blogger Brian Stelter has an interesting story tonight on the New York Times web site about Comcast's new digital media engagement strategy. Spearheaded by Comcast's digital care manager, Frank Eliason, the company is opening a new front in communicating with its customers when things go wrong. Stelter writes:

From a sparse desk dominated by two computer screens in the new Comcast Center here, Mr. Eliason uses readily available online tools to monitor public comments on blogs, message boards and social networks for any mention of Comcast, the nation’s largest cable company. When he sees a complaint...he contacts the source to try to defuse the problem.

Monitoring the blogosphere and rapidly responding to customer concerns is one thing, but Comcast takes the online dialogue a step further by providing another dimension of corporate personality via Twitter. Eliason provides a name and face for the company's customer care services by "tweeting" with customers as their issues and questions occur. Did your service tech not show up for his appointment? Is this the third time in 2 days your internet stopped working? Eliason is on the case with a friendly tweet and quick action. Together with improving Comcast's customer care, Eliason rounds out an effort to improve service and humanize a massive corporation.

Developing corporate personality (an extension of your brand) is one of the biggest benefits Twitter can bring to a company. Of course, Twitter can't really do much on its own to bolster personality. However, when coupled with the right social media tools to fit an organization's communications goals (check out Red Cross for another example), Twitter can be a highly effective medium. What does Twitter do when it has its own service issues? They blog, naturally.

More tips for rumor response

2008-07-08T22:01:00.003-05:00

I've been reading a lot of Peter Sandman lately and am a huge fan of his Risk = Hazard + Outrage principle. I especially like the way he separates risk communication issues into logical, strategic categories: High Hazard/High Outrage (Crisis Communication), High Hazard/Low Outrage (Precaution Advocacy) and Low Hazard/High Outrage (Outrage Management). His theories can be applied effectively to many issues management programs and work particularly well in health-related crisis/risk communications. All of his columns are really worth a good, thorough read.

I was excited to see that Peter's April column addressed rumor management, both online and off. He notes that even the most fringe commentary can look reputable and reach a huge audience, which is something we have seen to be often overwhelming and frightening to clients just getting into the web space. An intensive audit of online conversation about your company and regular monitoring can help familiarize yourself with your most frequent critics/advocates and help you determine where the fringe commentary is. Peter also outlines six major components to dealing with rumors, which I've put below. I recommend reading the rest of his article for more great insight.

Peter Sandman's six tips for rumor response:

1. Repeat the rumor you're rebutting.
2. Be empathetic to those who believe the rumor.
3. Demonstrate that you have taken the rumor seriously.
4. Give evidence that the rumor is false.
5. Discuss any and all evidence that the rumor is true.
6. Promise to stay alert.

Obama cranks up the hoax-busting machine

2008-06-12T22:31:00.003-05:00

Taking their rapid rumor response and online communication strategy to the next level, the Obama campaign today launched FightTheSmears.com - their new myth and hoax-busting web site. One of the campaign's greatest hurdles has been constantly fighting false rumors perpetuated by blogs and chain e-mails. The campaign first largely passed over the rumors, not giving them any more credibility than they deserved. However, rumors continued to circulate and dog the campaign, so they launched the FactCheck microsite. Still, the myths persisted and chatter got louder, so today they came out in a big way to announce the new site.

FightTheSmears lists each popular rumor followed by a brief explanation of the truth and, in most cases, a link to a third-party web site to give it additional credibility. What's most important about this site is that it enables users to immediately send the truth to their network of friends. This makes critical use of a growing, highly effective, grassroots organization and helps quickly spread corrections.

TIME's web site today asked if the strategy would work. If Obama's grassroots organization continues to have opportunities to spread news quickly, and if they make it easy enough for on-the-fence folks to jump in, too, FightTheSmears.com will be a success. The rumors will never go away completely, but the web site will help slow their circulation. In addition, Thomas Goetz at Wired writes of the SEO strategy behind pushing the site out in a very public manner. If enough people begin linking to FightTheSmears.com and the site gets enough of the right web attention, it will drive down rumor mongering sites on search results pages, effectively putting the most credible information at the top. Sounds like a nice, extra SEO bump on top of a massive truth-spreading effort.

On a related note, a great example of a hoax-busting web site in the corporate space is Coca-Cola's Facts and Myths site. I'm not sure who helped them develop it (if anyone) but we've shown it as an example of a best practice.

Wal-Mart plays nice with activists

2008-06-05T18:23:00.003-05:00

There's a great article in the New York Times today about Wal-Mart making inroads with some of its most active, harsh critics by engaging them as partners. One of the things Richard Edelman has been talking about for years is that when fighting attacks from NGOs, companies can make progress by looking for places where the two sides can come together and actually make improvements. After all, activist groups exist for a reason - to remind you there is another side to every story, and while you can't always satisfy them (nor should you try) major improvements to company policy or culture can be made by working with them. For example, Wal-Mart has improved its labor relations and environmental programs, among other things, by a considerable amount.

No doubt, it took Wal-Mart many mishaps and missteps to get to the point where it is now and it will certainly make many more on its road to build its reputation. It is too early to tell, but the fact that the company is engaging activists on a problem-solving level (and that the activists are actually engaging back) could be the beginning of a solid case study in activist relations.

In Crisis...Dunkin' Donuts

2008-05-29T11:02:00.004-05:00

Last week, Dunkin’ Donuts pulled an ad featuring Rachael Ray after conservative pundits equated a scarf she was wearing to a keffiyeh, a (very common) traditional male Arab headdress, which Michelle Malkin so eloquently called "jihad chic." With a firestorm brewing in the blogosphere and the threat of a boycott, the company nixed the ad at near lightening speed. I'm not going to debate the merit of such a foolishly broad generalization, like calling everyone that wears a keffiyeh a terrorist. Instead, let's talk Dunkin' Donuts crisis communication strategy.

When it was first brought to their attention, the company tried to explain that the scarf wasn't a keffiyeh. Not long after, the online chatter got so loud, Dunkin' Donuts pulled it and released this statement:

In a recent online ad, Rachael Ray is wearing a black-and-white silk scarf with a paisley design. It was selected by her stylist for the advertising shoot. Absolutely no symbolism was intended. However, given the possibility of misperception, we are no longer using the commercial.

Were they that afraid a "boycott" would affect long-term sales and reputation? Did they think, as the Brand Man notes, that by pulling the ad they would avoid major negative publicity? Often times, when a company is under attack, it is easy to get caught up in all of the incoming stimuli (e-mails, calls into consumer care, etc.) and not step back from fray to look at the big picture. Of course, I don't know what tools Dunkin' Donuts has in place to monitor all of their stakeholders (and it is way easier to do an analysis of a crisis after the fact) but the company acted like it had only a limited picture of online discussion and public opinion.

In the end, the company received significantly more media attention after they took the ad off the air; some of it critical of the decision. Taking the temperature of the rest of the blogosphere (and TV punditry), they would have found the public overwhelmingly in their favor. Instead, they seemed to cave to a small but very loud constituency. They may have fared better addressing the information in the blogosphere first and then, when discussion turned mainstream, leveraging public annoyance about the accusations against the ones who started the issue in the first place.

Putting it on Paper: PR News' Crisis Management Guidebook

2008-05-14T21:51:00.011-05:00

We were very happy to receive word last month that an article I co-authored with my mentor, Erik Mueller (who just started a great new job in New York), made the cut into PR News' Crisis Management Guidebook. The book came out just this week and features articles written by some great crisis experts - people whose blogs/articles I try to read on a regular basis - like Richard Levick and Jim Lukaszewski. The Guidebook runs the gamut of crisis management, from crisis planning, to response and recovery. Crisisblogger has a great post today about the Guidebook.

Our article is titled "Hoax Busting: Managing Gossip and Rumors Online," and draws upon our group's experience counseling companies though some major issues on the web, including some pretty malicious e-mail hoaxes. Sometimes an e-mail hoax or online rumor can, at first, be easily passed over or fly under the radar; however, some can turn into serious accusations that can spread like wildfire and erode reputations. While it's important to treat each situation individually and not overreact, we developed a two-tiered system, leveraging internal, reactive response resources and proactive outreach. Here are four recommendations from the article:

Engage in a web-based response

This may seem like common sense, but a new media rumor needs to be addressed with new media techniques. Sending a press release or engaging traditional media may be necessary in some situations, but in general, make use of your own web page, increase your visibility by engaging in SEO/SMO
techniques, etc.

Enlist employees as advocates

Keep them informed and engaged. If it's a popular e-mail hoax, chances are they've probably been alert multiple times by their friends and family.

Create an integrated consumer response

Many consumers inquiring about a hoax (via phone, e-mail, etc.) will be loyal users of your product or service. Therefore it is critical to respond to every inquiry with consistent messaging that dispels the rumor and focuses on the facts. In some cases, you may want to consider asking consumers to help further debunk the hoax by having them send an e-mail clarifying the confusion to those who initially sent it to them.

Dispatch the "Truth Squad"

While every situation is different, it may be beneficial to engage some of the popular hoax-busting web sites, like Snopes or Truth or Fiction, to ensure the hoax is debunked in a credible, third-party place. If the rumor is prevalent enough online, having a company representative transparently debunk the rumor on important/influential blogs or forums (and directing readers to a posted credible explanation) may go a long way in setting the record straight.

Of course, extensive, ongoing monitoring of the blogosphere, customer service channels and other avenues is key to formulating a measured response. Not every negative thing said about a company online necessitates a response, so it's important to get a handle on how prevalent a hoax is before determining a full response plan. This monitoring can be easily incorporated into a regular issues program to make response and strategy a structured and effective process.

Twitter?

2008-03-25T17:34:00.002-05:00

Ok, after much deliberation and discussion, I'm trying Twitter in a grand experiment. My colleague Matt and I have signed up and right now he's my only "friend" (is that even proper Twitter-speak?). We'll see how this goes...If you want to follow me, my Twitter name is TheShua. No promises that what I have to say will be very entertaining, though.

The Online Rumor Mill

2008-03-08T13:56:00.005-06:00

My favorite political blogger, Ben Smith of Politico, writes of his own mini online crisis today on his blog. Ben covers the Democratic side of the 2008 presidential election. Someone who apparently thinks Ben favors Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama posted the false claim that he appeared on CNN Thursday night, billed as a "Hillary Supporter," and endorsed her. As is the speed of rumors online, the post sparked an immediate firestorm and angry readers called for a different reporter of Politico's Democratic Party coverage and some even called for his resignation, all without anyone actually seeing his supposed appearance on CNN. This is an unfortunate reality of rapidly spreading online rumors - people don't do their homework.

The truth is that Ben didn't appear on CNN and the person who posted the claim can't produce a shred of evidence that he was. Using some logical principles of crisis management, Ben rightly posted a measured response on his blog to diffuse the situation and has refuted claims of bias. This is an unfortunate example of how easily a simple post on a forum by one person can turn into an unnecessary headache.

For what it's worth, I haven't seen any overt bias in Ben's coverage of the candidates (and I am a steadfast Obama supporter). I am glued to his blog during the day because he has great sources and is often first with a lot of information. Sure, he posts negative things about Obama - especially when he had such a bad media week last week - but he also posts negative things about Hillary. For some reason, his posts about attacks from the Clinton camp are often picked up by the Drudge Report, but just because Drudge links to him sometimes doesn't make him pro-Hillary.

White House Jumps on the Blog Train

2008-01-09T20:23:00.000-06:00

The White House announced yesterday that it is entering into territory previously unknown in the bureaucratic, old-school world of Executive Branch communication strategy: the Blogosphere.

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino is posting thoughts and updates on President Bush's trip to Israel, the Palestinian territories, Kuwait, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt on the blog Trip Notes from the Middle East. An Associated Press story about the announcement says the new site is something they are experimenting with - Perino said it was "just a little bit of a blog." Other White House big wigs are to join Perino as co-authors in the coming days.

While the first post yesterday seemed to simply tout the company line and list the President's schedule, today's post showed readers a little more behind the scenes of what is involved in a trip like this. Still, they are going to have to open up a little more. If the White House wants to project more transparency (and eventually use the site to counter claims they believe they aren't getting a fair shake on), the authors should make a real effort to use the blog to present unique and exclusive information about the President's visit and all of the working pieces making his trip smooth and his communication of policy clean and clear. Eventually, they'll be able to use it as a strategic tool, but for now, a White House blog needs to make news to attract eyeballs. I'm looking forward to seeing upcoming posts and will write more thoughts about it next week.

On a separate note, we have our first on-call days this weekend for the Red Cross. It's been a busy week in the Midwest with unusually high temperatures leading to tornadoes, flooding and a lot of wind damage. Thankfully, things here in Illinois have calmed down. Here's hoping to a quiet, relieving weekend for our emergency workers.

Back from London.

2007-12-21T13:16:00.000-06:00

While I'm still getting over my sinus infection, it didn't stop me from having the most incredible time visiting Weber Shandwick's London office. The city of London is as beautiful and charming as everyone told me it would be. I was able to spend some valuable site-seeing time seeing Trafalgar Square, Parliament and Picadilly Circus, among others. I have to admit, though, that I could probably spend an entire week at the British Museum and not be tired of it.

My time spent in the office was productive and educational. It was interesting to learn that no one publication really sets the national agenda (as the New York Times sets the national news agenda and the Wall Street Journal sets the business agenda here in the U.S.). Nearly ten major newspapers compete for influence in the UK, which is both a blessing and a curse for us PR folks.

I got a taste of the London media environment while doing some work for MasterCard, wine and spirits maker Pernod Ricard and the Save Darfur Coalition. The Corporate and Public Affairs groups at Weber are immensly talented, and it's no wonder the office has the prestige it has earned over the years. I'm definitley looking forward to a return trip as soon I can.

Heading across the pond.

2007-12-06T22:23:00.000-06:00

Bags are finally packed and, if I can only get over my sinus infection, I'm ready to fly. I'm off to our office in the UK tomorrow in my first flight across the ocean. I'm doing a stint with our public affairs group and hopefully getting at glance at our corporate social responsibility practice. I'll try to write a post or two while I'm there to share my experience.

Monitoring is fun! (No, really…it is.)

2007-11-25T22:33:00.000-06:00

The Thanksgiving travel (Vegas for my brother’s birthday, my fiancé’s parents’ for Turkey Day), hustle and bustle is over. However, the rush of the holiday season is upon us and I’m looking forward to the end-of-the-year client wrap-ups, doing some well-needed file organization and – what I’m really looking forward to – an unexpected trip to our office in London. In advance of a class I’m putting together, I thought I would take a few minutes to share some notes about a subject us junior staffers know and love oh, so well: media monitoring.

I remember physically cutting stories out of the Chicago Tribune from the heaping pile of newspapers on my desk when I worked at the Ravinia Festival, gluing them to Legal-size pieces of paper, fuddling with the copier for hours and finally coming out with my weekly clip report, only to find that I had accidentally turned a page backwards and had to start over again. Now, it’s a different ballgame during a crisis and GoogleNews, Factiva and others make it easier to sift through thousands of pieces of information to find what is most vital to our clients. Below are some basic monitoring tips some fellow PR people may find helpful.

It’s painful, but it’s important
We may not like to do it, but in an issues management or crisis management program, monitoring can be one of the most important pieces of intelligence used to make decisions. A valuable monitoring report gives the client a snapshot of their communications environment: Are our messages being communicated effectively? What are our stakeholders saying about us? How has the situation changed in the last hour, day or even year?

Know your neighborhood
Every person, company or industry that needs monitoring intelligence has its own set of publications, web sites, blogs and forums that are critical to watch, aside from the client’s hometown newspaper or TV station. Know the most influential blogs in your industry and read them once (even twice) per day. Find the communications channels in their neighborhood and stick to them because those will be where news often originates.

Use your trash detectorThe more you search, especially in the web space, the more bogus items you will find. News aggregators, fake blogs and an endless supply of information on the web can make it extremely difficult to identify the most important information. The more time you spend getting to “know your neighborhood,” the quicker you’ll be able to pass over the less important sites. If it doesn’t look important at first glance, it probably isn’t.

Have an extensive toolkit
It seems that every day there is a new “innovative” way to collect and analyze information online. Research as many monitoring tools as possible and find the ones that are right for you and your clients. The tools may change from client to client, and that’s a good thing. Also, don’t be surprised if you need to go through a few tools before you find the right ones. For starters, try: GoogleNews, Google Blog Search, BlogPulse, Technorati or BlogDigger.

Analysis counts
No matter what they tell you, all the monitoring tools in the world can’t make up for human analysis. Use your tools as an information-gathering service and use your gut and your mind to write intelligent analysis. After all, clients pay us for our strategy and our insight, not just to get a report full of only articles and hyperlinks.

Increasing Transparency During Investigations

2007-11-08T22:02:00.000-06:00

PRWeek's blog The Cycle today noted the unusual decision by Siemens to publish an in-depth summary of its recent corruption investigations alongside reporting its first quarterly loss since 2001. Most of the time, a company's communications strategy in this situation would be to simply release the earnings report and make a statement available that says the company is "continuing to cooperate with authorities" and move the investigation forward. Siemens chose to take a good, transparent step beyond the typical response which I hope will resonate with other companies facing similar issues.

The move underscores the increased need for companies to communicate honestly and openly when faced with a major issue or crisis. Transparency is critical when responding to something as serious as an investigation. It also highlights the importance of decisive action when responding to crises. BusinessWeek reports that Siemens' new CEO, Peter Loescher, has made transparency and action a key business strategy since taking the reigns about five months ago. Nearly 500 employees have had to leave the company thus far due to the investigation. The magazine says:

"[Loescher] has moved to improve transparency at the company, helping oversee an internal investigation and cooperating with investigators from several countries, including the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
From now on, Loescher said, the company will report the number of workers who leave the company for disciplinary reasons every year. He also said that he and supervisory board Chairman Gerhard Cromme planned to meet with SEC officials in the coming weeks."

In an encouraging response, shares of Siemens closed up today 8.3%. Hopefully, as Loescher does even more to increase transparency and realign the company, investors will continue to reward Siemens with an increased share price. In addition, the rise in stock price today also may signal a well-needed move to focus more on long-term success (which includes a keen emphasis on corporate reputation efforts) rather than short-term profits.

When PR is the problem.

2007-10-29T21:03:00.000-05:00

I read with extreme disappointment over the weekend from Gerald Baron about FEMA's fake news conference last week, during which agency communications staffers posed as reporters during a press conference at which no reporters were in attendance. FEMA gave reporters 15 minutes notice before the conference began.

Tonight, CNN is reporting that Pat Philbin, about to become director of public affairs for FEMA, will not begin his new position. CNN cites an internal memo from FEMA chief David Paulison that lays into communications staff for going along with the plan and breaking most every rule of honest, transparent media relations.

Of course, not everyone on the FEMA PR staff is irresponsible. Their overall approach to communications during the California wildfires was spot on, and they've done a good job of taking incremental steps to win back trust. Unfortunately, a few people had to ruin the hard work of many to rebuild the agency's reputation with the public and the media.

The perception of public relations is bad enough and it's a shame our core issues come from within. How are we supposed to shed the stereotypes of our profession when those in the highest, most visible positions make conscious steps to reinforce them? We need to remember to be real people before we are influencers, marketers and communicators. And we need to stick to our core values - as Baron says - truth, honestly and building trust.