Off The Record

Reports of possible outbreaks of bird flu rise and fall with the seasons.  Some countries are more affected by it –
Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, for example.  But cases have been reported as far afield as Turkey and Iraq, Russia, and parts of Western Europe and Africa.  While efficient human-to-human infection is yet to develop, the scientific world sits on tenterhooks because history suggests the world is overdue for a flu pandemic.  The nightmare scenario that has been painted for the next flu pandemic is that somewhere between 20 million and 150 million people could perish.

With all the discussion in the media of a possible pandemic, who will be able to claim ignorance for not being prepared if/when it strikes?  Yet many companies remain woefully unprepared for such a crisis.

So what are the steps that companies can take to be better prepared, from a communications perspective, whatever crises may hit them?

Therefore it is essential that companies have in place the systems and tools to deal with all aspects of a crisis.  The time to prepare is before a crisis hits.

Speed is of the essence
Too often the first casualty in a crisis, as in war, is truth.  Mark Twain said, “A lie will get half-way around the world before you even get your pants on”, and that was in the days before the Internet and mobile phones.  Therefore a key to successful crisis communications management is fast response to the unraveling situation.  Failure to respond quickly can result in untold damage to a company’s reputation even if it had taken the right steps to deal with the crisis.  AC Capital Strategic Public Relations advises clients to respond within the first hour of a crisis by issuing a “holding statement” that outlines the company’s concern, immediate action being taken to address the crisis, and which puts the situation in perspective.  The longer a company delays communicating its side of the story the more opportunity there is for distortion of the facts.

Honesty still the best policy
Integrity is demonstrated when companies take responsibility for a crisis.  That means they demonstrate the action they are taking to deal with a negative situation.  Taking responsibility does not mean a company accepts blame for a crisis.  Failure to take responsibility or show empathy with victims and public opinion can be seen as arrogance.

Companies have a responsibility to disclose all relevant information provided that disclosure will not endanger anyone or compromise an investigation of the crisis.  It is important to provide all relevant stakeholders with accurate information on what has happened, how it is being dealt with, and what else they might expect to happen.  Failure to disclose relevant information can easily be construed as an attempt to cover up fault and could cause immense damage to the company’s reputation.

Do it often, with feeling…
It is important to communicate frequently so the media and other stakeholders know you are keeping them in the loop on developments.  Depending on the nature of the crisis it might be necessary to provide media briefings as frequently as daily or even twice per day.  By communicating frequently with stakeholders you can demonstrate your openness and reinforce your integrity.

Keep things straight
Never allow the wrong information to go unchallenged.  It is important to correct any factual inaccuracy swiftly, before they can obtain momentum and credibility.  Misinformation is usually the result of incomplete information and hearsay and can easily be addressed if a company corrects it quickly.

Only the designated spokespersons of the company should speak to the stakeholders, internal and external, about the crisis.  This will ensure consistency of the company’s messages during the crisis.  If possible, there should only be one spokesperson; if this is not possible, however, all spokespersons must be well trained and they must all speak from the same set of messages to avoid conflicting and contradictory statements.

Get your allies talking
It is essential that companies have a number of allies in their industry and in the community that they can call upon to act as third party advocates in times of crisis.  These might include industry associations, academics, consumer groups, government officials and other influential parties in the community who can be mobilized to validate the company’s practices and procedures during a crisis.  Given the importance of third party allies, a company should cultivate these relationships long before a crisis hits.

Even the media can be your friends
View the media as a useful tool to get your side of the story out.  Treat journalists as friends and allies and treat them with respect.  Too often companies in crises situations evade engagement with the media, which only gives credence to the view that the company is hiding the truth or important information.  By communicating openly and frequently with the media you will be able to publicize your side of the story.  Given the critical role that the media plays in a crisis, it is important to cultivate relationships with key journalists long before a crisis occurs so that you can call on those journalists with whom you have strong relationships to get your side of the story out.

Accept the inevitable
But even with good media relationships and open and frequent communications, you should accept that media reporting of an issue or crisis is going to be disproportionate to the actual event.  The reasons for this are that the media is a business based on “entertainment value” and bad news is entertaining to the news consuming public.  Secondly, there is going to be considerable misinformation and hearsay that is being put out and journalists, who are not experts in your industry, cannot afford to ignore anything that is being said.  The best that you can hope for in a crisis situation is balanced reporting.

Stay on Message
It is imperative that you have a well-defined set of messages and that your spokespersons stay on message, particularly in media interviews.  You should have a positioning statement, backgrounders and questions and answers, developed and agreed to by senior management for use in media interviews.  It is unacceptable to say the words “no comment” to a journalist.  This phrase only works in Hollywood films and would be taken as a sign of guilt in real life.  If you are unable to answer a question you should give a reason for it and provide a timeframe in which you will be able to answer.

 * This article originally appeared in the September 2003 issue of Off The Record, long before we entered the blogosphere.  Its lessons, which then were made with respect to the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) epidemic that had hit in Spring of 2003, remain pertinent to all crises.

 Xinhua estimated the “aggregated” loss of Chinese airlines in the first half of the year at RMB3 billion.

 In response, Chinese airlines are also expected to cut back on the amount of blankets, newspapers and magazines carried on board flights as all increase weight to the aircraft resulting in higher fuel consumption. 

China’s new no frills airlines will offer less frills than in the past.  “Preaze to enjoy fright with us.”

China’s tabloid press and blogosphere has been in the grip of a hot debate since the Party Secretary of the Shanghai International Studies University, Wu Youfu, recently proposed in an interview with the Guangming Daily that the dragon should be dropped as China’s national symbol.  More than 90 per cent of some 100,000 people who responded to a survey on sina.com voted the suggestion down.

Even the national English-language China Daily weighed in with not just one news report, but a follow-up Op-Ed on the matter.  We believe the question is of such national (even international) importance that we too are weighing in.

Professor Wu, who has since claimed he made no such recommendation, apparently made the suggestion because he believed many Westerners misunderstand China because Westerners see the dragon as an evil and fearsome beast.  Other experts also commented on the West’s misperception of dragons and how it impacts on their perception of China.

A number of professors and other “experts”, including a Professor Pang Jin who is the Director of the China Research Centre on Dragon and Phoenix Culture argued that the conception of the dragon in China is fundamentally different to the West’s view.  In Chinese culture dragons are always “good” and “non-aggressive”, according to the taxpayer-funded expert.

Some dragon experts even suggested that China takes some positive action to promote a better understanding of its conception of dragons.  Professor Yu Guomin of the Journalism School or Renmin (People’s) University said China could make some movies that portray the mythical creatures in a better light.  He drew a comparison with the film Shrek which he pointed out has helped to improve the image of ogres in the West. 

 To be sure, dragons have shared a bad rap along with ogres in Western culture.  Most of us were brought up on a steady diet of knights saving damsels from one or the other. But then, the misconception many have held of dragons has been challenged in the West in recent years by Hollywood itself, such as via the long-running children’s cartoon series Dragonland, or the bliss inducing dragon Falcor from the  “Neverending Story” which was screened in 1984  and the 1996 movie Dragonheart (which used the dulcet tones of Sean Connery for the voice of the last dragon, Draco).  These and other popular films have transformed dragons into nice and cuddly creatures. 

 Given this change does China really need to make movies to improve the poor rap dragons have in the West?  Is the real issue of China’s poor perception internationally linked to its national symbol or is there something more to it.

 As the Times of India editorialised on the debate: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet.  With apologies to Shakespeare, one could well ask what’s in a symbol?”  The point made by the Times is that even if China were to adopt another symbol, such as the panda, would it change foreign perceptions of the country’s business practices or its geopolitical ambitions. 

 Of course, it is not our role to take sides on that specific issue.  But on the broader issue of national reputation we have a point of view – a point we have made often and loud.  Countries, like organizations and even individuals, need to ensure that their actions match their rhetoric.  At the end of the day it doesn’t matter to people around the world what China chooses as its national symbol; the dragon is well appreciated because it is strong and the West does in fact have an understanding of its significance in Chinese culture.  We no more deplore the dragon than we do the British lion or the American eagle as national symbols. 

 Truth be told: We probably don’t pause very often to give a second thought about these symbols.  What matters more to most people are the actions of national governments and organizations.  The thievery committed by Enron’s executives, if it went unpunished, would have spoken far louder about the US’s culture than either the American eagle or the Statue of Liberty.  Those symbols remain strong because of a national ethos that brings crooks to book.

 In this context, China’s current debate about its national symbol is tantamount to medieval thelogians debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.  Does it really matter if China were to replace a mythical creature with a near extinct one as its national symbol?