Off The Record

In 2004 Lenovo successfully acquired IBM’s PC division.  It was a landmark event.  It made Lenovo the third biggest PC manufacturer in the world; it seemed to mark Chinese corporations’ entrance as real players on the world stage.  However, as CNOOC and Haier’s failed acquisition attempts showed, Chinese companies had a long way to go before being accepted as equals abroad.

The recent decision by the US State Department to limit use of Lenovo made computers to non-classified areas, reported by the Associated Press, demonstrates how significant the obstacles are.  Many US Congressmen simply don’t trust a company that has any connections to the Chinese government.

This is despite the fact that Lenovo, a publicly-listed company, has its executive headquarters in North Carolina and is owned by investors from around the world, including IBM, which still holds 18.9%. Legend, which is controlled by the Chinese government, has only a 28% share.

So what’s a Chinese company to do?

On this blog the crisis of trust facing Chinese companies has been discussed.  In that post it was suggested Chinese companies need to distance themselves from “China Inc.” perceptions by internationalizing – by developing brands based on products and services rather than country of origin.

Lenovo is a company that seems to be taking some of the right steps – diversifying its interests, moving its headquarters to the US, continuing the IBM brand name post-acquisition. Clearly, however, more needs to be done.

Lenovo, and others, need to build trust.  Trust requires mutual understanding.  For this understanding to exist there must be continual and open two-way dialogue between a company, its stakeholders and its publics.  Lenovo needs to start such conversations with the congressmen that fear China and ensure that this dialogue continues.

Another step might be to encourage the Chinese government to divest itself of ownership in the company.  While no guarantee, this would go some way towards assuaging the concerns of the American congress and people.

The current edition of PR Magazine, a Chinese language bimonthly periodical for the PR industry, contains an article written by AC Capital’s Managing Director, Alistair Nicholas. 

The article is based on a piece that previously appeared on this blog and in AC Capital’s March newsletter titled “Sago Coal Mining Disaster - Lessons for Crisis Communications”. 

Discussing the tragic events surrounding the Sago Mine accident earlier this year, the article looks at the crucial role tight and well-controlled internal communications play in crisis management.

Read it here in full in Chinese

美国萨戈煤矿事故对危机沟通管理的启示

当全世界正迈入新年时，2006年1月2日美国西弗吉尼亚州的萨戈煤矿发生爆炸，13名矿工被困在矿井中。当救援人员奋力营救受困矿工时，全世界的目光都在关注着萨戈煤矿和邻近的阿普舒尔县，在这里那些矿工的家庭正殷切等待着来自他们亲人的消息。
CNN电视台不停地进行着现场报道。
萨戈煤矿所属的美国国际煤炭集团陷入了一个公众危机，管理层竭尽所能地妥善管理此次危机。大多数国际煤炭集团的领导都处理得当，一切都符合危机管理教科书中的方法论。
但好景不长，顷刻间，严重问题出现了，公司又面临了一个新的危机——信任危机。由于通讯沟通上的失误，新闻报道称13名被困矿工中有12名获救，然而事实上，12名矿工遇难，只有1名生还。可以想象国际煤炭集团领导层面临着一个多么可怕的困境。让他们如何去告诉之前还为大多矿工获救的消息兴奋不已的家庭，新闻报道是错误的，他们的儿子、丈夫或者父亲已经死了？
那么，是什么地方出了问题，公共关系从业者们能从这个可怕的事件中学到什么，并改进他们所在公司的危机沟通系统和处理方法呢？

矿难经过

2006年1月2日是萨戈煤矿新年假期结束后第一天开工。早晨6点，两辆运输车进入矿井。6点31分爆炸发生了，并引发了断电。一辆矿车未能返回地面，车上的13名矿工被困在距井口3.5公里、约78米深的矿井之下。警报声大作，救护车、救援队伍赶到。由于在爆炸之后矿井里充斥着一氧化碳，救援人员不得不在井外守候，花费了近12个小时才排出毒气，进入矿井进行救援。
1月3日星期二晚上9点30分一名矿工被发现并宣布死亡。救援人员继续寻找着其他12名矿工。晚上11点50分新闻报道称12名矿工都还活着，镇上教堂的钟声响起。聚集在教堂的矿工家属，终于松了口气，他们的笑容都被CNN和其他新闻电视台传送到全世界。人们击掌、拥抱、亲吻。
仅三小时后，星期三凌晨3点，国际煤炭集团总裁本·哈特菲尔德和其他领导层，前往家属们聚集的当地教堂，充满歉意地向正在为自己亲人脱险而庆祝的家属们表示，先前的消息是错误报道，只有1名矿工生还，其余12人已证实死亡。所有的笑容和庆祝戛然而止。
大家都想知道到底是哪里发生了问题，为什么能出现这么天差地异的报道错误。前一阶段还如教科书一样处理得当的危机，顷刻间，就将公司管理层陷入困境。

如教科书上典范般的危机管理

事故发生后的几小时内，国际煤炭集团迅速成立了新闻中心，定时向外界发布最新消息。CNN和其他媒体及时将这些消息传递至世界各地。为了让记者们更有效地获取信息，一条专门的媒体热线同时开通了。
高级管理层在公众面前回答着各种问题——重申，和危机管理教科书里教授的一样。
危机管理中经典的“关心、行动、观点”法则充分体现在这些公司领导们的行为中：他们表达了对事故中受困矿工的“关心”；详细介绍了为救援采取的“行动”，及时公布最新救援情况；也适时地表达了他们的“观点”，例如指出救援并不是由国际煤炭集团负责的，因此无法对救援行为的原因和方法进行评价。整个救援过程是由西弗吉尼亚州紧急救援中心来实施的。在回避一些尖锐问题时，公司发言人显得训练有素，在如此劣势下，面对媒体也能游刃有余。
能将危机沟通处理得如此得体的公关人员是为数不多的。人们理解事故是无法避免的，当目睹企业真的在竭尽全力处理问题、为他人的安危利益着想、更重要的是本着应有的谦卑态度时，公众便是非常宽容的。国际煤炭集团为救援受困矿工所做出的努力是被公众称道的。公司发言人的诚恳也在媒体及公众面前建立了信任。
而接下来，当公司发言人不得不更正这个错误传达的消息——不是一人罹难，而是只有一人生还时，之前成功建立的一切都坍塌了。

功亏一篑的危机管理

事故发生后的接下来几天，公司领导和调查人员对导致沟通信息错误的原因进行深入调查。调查结果表明，原因之一是，爆炸时矿井内的电话线系统被破坏，迫使救援人员不得不用对讲机进行通讯沟通。对讲机并不是理想的沟通方式——声音质量较差，极有可能因为收听不清晰而导致理解及传达的错误。
此外，信息从矿井中的领头救援队到地面上的危机处理中心需要传递多次。领头的救援队最先发现井中还有12名受困的矿工（1名早先已被发现并证明死亡），他们立刻告诉后面的救援队“十二个人，一个活着”。而当这句话被传达到地面上时，已成为“十二个人，全都活着”。更多救援人员冲进矿井，协助救援，却惊愕发现只有一名矿工还活着。
不幸的是，消息还未来得及被更正，便已传到在教堂里焦急等待的矿工家属那里。他们得知自己的亲人没有遇难，欢呼雀跃。电视新闻媒体各就各位，甚至一些报纸也开始撰写关于“煤矿里的奇迹”的故事，大家都在奋力报道着剩余的受困矿工全部死里逃生的新闻。然而，关键问题是没有一个媒体掌握的信息是来自危机管理中心的；矿工家属得到的消息也不是从官方渠道获得的。
在教堂里和矿工家属一起等候的新闻记者，是第一批得到错误信息的媒体，他们的信息正是来自这些矿工家属。
那么，这些家属是如何从非官方渠道获取这些信息的呢？
事情是这样的，当指挥中心的救援人员一获知12名矿工都生还，无法抑制的兴奋让他们拨通了自己的手机，讲这一喜讯立即传达给他们的家人朋友，他们的家人朋友再将这一消息告诉自己的家人和朋友。一传十，十传百，最终消息传到了教堂里受困矿工的家属耳中。在这里守候的新闻媒体也在第一时间捕捉到了矿工家属获得喜讯后的反应。这是个新闻二十四小时不停滚动、现代移动通讯技术发达的世界，新闻媒体早在记者向掌握第一手官方信息的危机管理中心证实消息的真实性之前，就将新闻传播至全世界了。
国际煤炭集团还未证实任何信息，美国东海岸的报纸头条已迅速改为“煤矿奇迹”，全世界都看到了这个令人振奋的报道。
马克吐温曾说过：“真相的裤子还没穿好，谎言就已经绕地球半圈了。”美国三十年来最惨重的这次煤矿灾难验证了他的这句话。
仅仅沉浸在喜悦中三个小时，希望就全被粉碎了。接下来，国际煤炭集团便面临了一个新的危机——信任危机，一个由沟通信息错误而引发的危机，一个本可以避免的危机。

重要启示

危机中的沟通必须是可靠的沟通。在移动通讯时代，这点显得尤为重要，因为当今的通讯技术能让谎言和失真的报道的传播达到惊人的速度。所以，能降低产生错误信息的风险的方法越多越好。
那么我们能做些什么呢？
首先非常重要的一点是，切断一切危机管理中心和外界之间的非官方沟通。危机管理中心的管理人员和救援人员都必须将手机等私人通讯工具关闭。只有官方的通讯设备才能被使用，并只可用于官方用途。
与这点相关的是，公司必须确保电子邮件系统也是官方的。互联网，特别是私人电子邮件都必须禁止使用，私人聊天软件、聊天室等就更不用说了。
信息流是成功的危机管理沟通的关键。一切能够保证信息流准确、可控的措施都是不可或缺的。唯有经过合理渠道证实批准的信息才能向媒体和公众发布。

看来要想让真相跑得足够快，唯一方法就是在起跑前确保皮带系紧了.

No, the market dip was not because of the US immigration rallies or international labor celebrations—those were anticipated.  The butterfly flap that set off the hurricane occurred two days earlier at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in Washington, DC.  But, it also had nothing to do with the US President’s dinner performance, where the Commander-in-Chief made fun of his own intellect—though one has to wonder how confidence-inspiring such self-deprecation from the leader of the free world could be for the markets.

Rather, the market dip was sparked by an unguarded moment when the still relatively new Federal Reserve Chairman engaged in a casual conversation at the media social event with no less than a battle-hardened CNBC reporter, Maria Bartiromo.  Bartiromo is a veteran financial news reporter who has built a reputation of breaking party-killing stories.  Apparently at the dinner, when asked, the still green Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke told the CNBC correspondent that the markets had misread his testimony to Congress; Bernanke said, basically, the Fed wasn’t necessarily done raising interest rates.  On 1 May, Bartiromo, reporting from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) during market hours, recounted the conversation with Bernanke on live television.  Her voice was soon drowned out by the ensuing commotion of frantic traders.  The commotion wasn’t limited to the CME, but reverberated across the nation; the six-year high of the Dow Jones Industrial Average vanished.  

Bernanke had let down his guard.  That such a high-placed figure could commit such a large gaffe serves as a reminder for all who might encounter the media, even in an apparently innocuous social setting:  there is no such thing as “off the record” to a  journalist, even if your comments are made at a seemingly casual social gathering.  Bartiromo, speaking after the incident on a CNBC show, stated that she was sure Bernanke knows “in his heart, that I did him a favor.”  Journalists will always find a justification for breaking a story.    What you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion!  Stay on message or stay quiet.  

Besides being respective capitals, Beijing and Washington DC have another common characteristic:  they both have incestuous and cannibalistic social scenes.  In each of these cities many correspondents, politicians and business executives mingle in close quarters.  For foreign correspondents and ex-pat managers in Beijing, the probability for possible foot-in-mouth blunders is even higher.  At any given social gathering there are probably two people that a manager doesn’t want overhearing the latest blunder that occurred at his or her worksite.  

This is life in the fishbowl and it behooves communications professionals to prepare newly arrived executives for it.

  * Ravi Garla, a former AC Capital consultant, is a US-based political advisor.

Prestigious investment bank Goldman Sachs has found that giving “investment advice” on the World Cup soccer has proved very good public relations for the company.  The PR impact of the bank’s foray into sports has paid off in spades if the media coverage obtained is a gauge of success.  For example, the leading world financial and business newspaper, The Financial Times, on Monday carried an above the fold page three story on how Goldman Sachs has added to Britain’s soccer woes by saying it had little chance of winning this year’s World Cup.

Goldman Sachs has traditionally produced a report on the World Cup’s economic impact that has proved very popular with its clients.  But this year it broke with tradition to state in the 50-page report that Britain’s team would not be a good “investment”.  The report gave three reasons why it believed Britain would not win the World Cup which will be held in Berlin in June and concluded that at 9-to-1 odds the team did not represent a good investment.
 

This is PR at its best.  Goldman Sachs used its expertise in a fun way outside of people’s normal experience of the company and investment banking to establish its credentials and culture as a down-to-earth, interesting and fun company in what is normally considered a very staid industry.  You couldn’t buy the type of coverage the company has achieved with this kind of chutzpah!  Other companies should learn from this approach to give the media and public interesting and entertaining stories.  Well done Goldman Sachs!