John Larsen
President – Corpen Group

Much has been written on the topic of crisis communications and the related disciplines of issues and reputation management.  Theories and principles have been espoused, phases of action have been delineated and all types of message structures have been proposed.  These are all good things.  These are all important.  But, none of these are the true ingredients for success when it comes to critical communications.

The key to safeguarding your reputation in times of trouble – the single, overriding, ‘Caramilk secret’ of success is, simply, how you think about communications.

There it is, it’s that easy.  The right mindset during crisis will focus a company’s priorities, will motivate employees, will inspire stakeholders and will impress the media.

Nothin’ to it, right?  Not so fast, communications practitioner extraordinaire!

If, after the pedantic planning is complete, all we need in order to effect great crisis communications is a mindset that is predicated on honesty, responsibility and accountability, then why are those traits often so hard to find?  I’m glad you asked.  There are two main reasons, both of them unintended, maybe even unrealized.

The External Environment

When most organizations are propelled into crisis they instantly – and almost automatically – get defensive.  They think the world is out to ‘get them,’ to judge them.  But, actually, most of the judging comes later, usually after a perception has developed that an organization hasn’t reacted appropriately.  We need look no further than the relatively recent Enbridge spill or the earlier Maple Leaf Foods listeriosis outbreak to recognize that audiences can, and often do, give companies the benefit of the doubt.  In fact, with the right mindset, companies can actually manage a crisis and its related communications in a way that garners compliments, advocacy and support.  Assuming that the world is out to get you – a counterproductive state of mind – is also a cop out!  People are a lot more willing to forgive an accident, even a tragedy, than they are willing to forgive a company’s reluctance to be forthright about the incident and its effects.

The Internal Environment

It is a lot easier – especially in times of crisis when everything seems to be happening at warp speed – to do things the way they’ve always been done.  And let’s face it… those corporate processes won’t work when the pressure is on.  It’s easy to say that we need to wait for multi levels of approval, because “that’s the way we always do it.”  It’s easy to suggest that media advisories or news releases can’t be issued quickly because “we don’t have the resources.”  It’s easy to rationalise holding off on media engagement because “we’re waiting for that next piece of important information.”  This is when people need to adapt, to move beyond the status quo, and to embrace the art of the innovative.

So, what can be done to move beyond these restrictive mindsets in times of crisis?  To begin with, step back.  When trouble begins many people have a tendency to jump right into the middle of everything.  Reject that impulse.  Step back, get a firm sense of what is happening around you, and ask specific and measured questions to determine the core issues at play, the public value sentiments, and where the priorities lie internally.  Also, and this lies beyond the communicator, an effective crisis communications approach (one that sheds the trappings of defensiveness or abiding by cumbersome status quo approaches) needs strong leadership -  from the communications lead, to ask the tough questions; from the incident commander, to respect the reputational imperative; and from the CEO and executive team, to be honest and forthright in their external dealings.

Effective crisis communications is a mind game.  Get that right and you’ll be much closer to success.

In an interview with Canadian Insurance Top Broker, John Larsen discusses crisis communications fundamentals

In a special report by Canadian Insurance Top Broker,  John Larsen provides insight into some of crisis communication’s most fundamental tenents. In the article, author Alison MacAlpine uses the Maple Leafs Foods crisis in Canada to frame an exploration of crisis communication’s best practices.

“We can talk about a variety of things that are important to do in crisis communications, but sincerity is absolutely the number one thing,” says John Larsen, principal at Calgary-based Corpen Group Inc. In the case of Maple Leaf Foods, Larsen says, “Sincerity is what won the day.”

To read the full article, please Click here.

For more media articles written about us (or by us), please visit In The News.

Corpen Group would like to congratulate Mount Royal University student Jordan Fitzgerald who was awarded the Corpen Group Scholarship in Crisis Communication for 2011. The winner was nominated by the faculty due to his high academic achievement. At Corpen Group, we believe in the importance of investing in the future of the public relations profession and are proud to have the opportunity to do that through MRU’s Faculty of Communication Studies scholarship program.

Corpen Group’s team of communicators stands behind MRU’s public relations program; many of our consultants are MRU alumni and Corpen Group’s President, John Larsen, developed and teaches the University’s Issues Management and Crisis Communications courses. We want to wish Jordan Fitzgerald the best of luck in his academic and professional pursuits. As many communicators are aware – it is a small world in the communications field and we look forward to crossing paths with Jordan in the future!

By John Larsen, President

John Larsen, President, Corpen Group and Randy Pettipas, President, Global Public Affairs

Well, it’s official; as of today Corpen Group has merged our services with Global Public Affairs (www.globalpublic.com).  This is a big day in the growth of Corpen Group, and we’re all absolutely delighted!  Although I had been thinking for a long time about starting a consultancy that specialized in what I’d self-termed “critical communications” (meaning more than traditional crisis comms), it still seems like only yesterday that the notion became reality.  There were those early days working solo in the basement with contract support; then the move to a shared office and our first employee; then the leap to our very own place, and the hire of several fantastic consultants. 

Over the last couple of years, as we’d gather up in Banff for our annual strategy session, the talk of growing Corpen Group into a national firm was always at the forefront.  We had clients across the country, and some of our work even took us to international destinations.  And then began our relationship with Global, Canada’s foremost government relations company.  The fit was immediately apparent, especially from an issues management perspective.  Beyond the business case logic there was the even more important cultural connection.  I had built Corpen Group with a very intentional corporate culture, and this was fully reflected in how Global approached their work, deal with the clients and treated their people.  The rest, as they say, is history. 

In the months ahead, Corpen Group will be advancing opportunities in Toronto, Ottawa and BC, and we’ll of course work hand-in-glove with the Global client base.  For our existing clients, the transition will be seamless.  Corpen Group remains independent, our staff are all still here, and our commitment to quality, innovation and relationships remains steadfast. 

As Lou Reed once sang, “it’s the beginning of a great adventure.”

Click here to read the official news release

By Laurie Griffin

How early communications practices at RiM set the tone for their crisis response efforts.

RiM just can’t seem to catch a break. Just as the company worked out a compensation plan ($100 worth of free apps) for consumers impacted by the Blackberry outages that swept across several continents last week, Reuters has now reported that a New Mexico firm is threatening to take legal action against RiM for trademark infringement. This on top of the numerous consumer lawsuits being explored by law firms across North America. While RiM still hasn’t calculated the final price tag for last week’s debacle, some analysts are estimating the total of lost revenues to reach up to $100 million. While this figure represents a potential monetary cost, an analysis of the company’s response to the crisis offers some clues towards the greater reputational fallout – an equally important factor that determines companies’ ability to bounce back from crises. And, as we learn time and again in crisis communications, that reputational impact is often shaped by companies’ actions and communications practices prior to the crisis.

After a series of significant hits to RiM’s marketshare due to competition from Apple and Android (the company reported a nearly 60 per cent drop in profits for the second quarter back in September) the recent disruptions were a devastating blow to the smartphone company that once dominated the telecommunications ring. While many observers are noting the communications failures in RiM’s handling of the recent outages, one look at the company’s rise to supremacy – and the ensuing self-entitled tone within the company’s communications – will show that communications errors started in their earliest days of success. Importantly, it is those early days that are critical in building trust-capital while times are good. Such trust and public goodwill pays dividends during future crises, a wisdom RiM clearly thought it was above.

We start with the two current CEOs of RiM, Mike Lazaridis and Jim Balsillie, who pioneered the smartphone industry. RiM’s rise to fame and dominance, some observers are saying, may have been the very thing that has resulted in the downward slide of a company that, for many years, scoffed at traditional advertising or marketing tactics, opting to work instead with carriers and retailers to do their promotions for them. They likely thought their tech empire was too big to be toppled from its prominent position by competitors. For example, one tech blogger suggests that the company rested on its laurels, assuming that customer loyalty would win out over the need to innovate: “When they launched their first tablet, they did not put out a product that had either a feature or price advantage to Apple, but again felt they would succeed because Blackberry users would buy anything they tried to sell.”

While technological bravado is widely cited as the cause to RiMs decline in innovation, we can also see how that same over-confidence may have led to several communications-related pitfalls as well. One notable example is when a short video showcasing Mr. Lazaridis blatantly breaking several cardinal crisis communications rules went viral online. A hapless reporter had made the mistake of asking about BlackBerry network security in the midst of government interference in India and the Middle East. Instead of showing genuine care for stakeholder concerns and taking the opportunity to highlight RiM’s security measures, the indignant co-CEO collapsed into the victim-role, charging that his company was being singled out because of their success. He then abruptly cut the interview short, demanding the camera be turned off.

Unfortunately, past errors haven’t only occurred in the domain of external communications. Recently, in the midst of marketshare declines, internal reputation took a hit as well. One popular tech blog, Gigaom.com, reported back in June that RiM’s workforce was rife with concern and restlessness, especially after a tell-all letter from an unnamed senior executive was sent to mobile technology news website BGR. Described as “littered with doubt and fears” about the company’s future, the letter was followed by a bland response from RiM – a statement that refuted the letter’s claims but, according to Gigaom, didn’t address the major points raised by the letter and failed to boost company morale.
With the trust deficit increasing, both internally and externally, RiM was not in good footing to handle the most recent outage crisis, even if their response had been error-free. According to many observers, it was far from it. Their first mistake was failing to communicate to customers in the earliest crisis phases. With no formal communications from RiM for over a day, fuming customers were left to “talk amongst themselves”. And that they did, their frustration reverberating across every social media platform, trending on Twitter and featured on most tech blogs and mainstream media. RiM should have acknowledged the problem, even when they didn’t yet know any answers or facts. As the old adage goes: people want to know that you care, more than they care what you know.

It wasn’t until three days into the crisis that the company held a teleconference – the media invite for which was sent after the conference had already started. Serving as the spokesperson was David Yach, the chief technology officer, and a sort of sacrificial lamb, who could only repeat that the company was focused on fixing the problem when asked about compensation for customers and the company’s failure to communicate earlier. Both of the CEOs were nowhere to be seen or heard during a time when they were needed most. Expressions of concern and contrition should be seen coming from the top and subject matter experts like David Yach would have better served the crisis communications function by detailing the specific technicalities around fixing the problem and providing temporary solutions for inconvenienced customers.

In fact, an apology from Mr. Lazaridis wouldn’t come until four days into the crisis. One Wall Street Journal article described the delivery of Mr. Lazaridis’ apology as “a little flat” and that his choice of words “sounded like something from a press release.” Indeed, there are several components to a good, genuine corporate apology and while Lazaridis did follow some of the PR text book rules, key components – namely the emotion piece – were missing. Making matters worse, co-CEO Balsillie was later heard on a conference call dismissing criticisms and defending the CEOs’ decision to stay out of the public spotlight during the early crisis phases, arguing they had been focused on resolving the problem.

Although the apology came slightly before an announcement that service had been restored, the question still remains: did the apology, or any other ensuing communications effort, really make a difference? Several media outlets are suggesting that any attempt at crisis communications has come too late. “RIM has suffered a series of public relations setbacks this year, but the damage done to the company’s image by this most recent BlackBerry blackout – and the way officials handled the ensuring fallout – may be irreparable,” says one Financial Post article. With the Toronto Star calling it today’s “biggest crisis in corporate governance”, rumours abound that the company may be subject to a takeover – that trust can’t be restored without a leadership change. A major RiM shareholder spoke out on Wednesday, announcing that at least eight per cent of the company’s investors want to see a change in direction and leadership.

But regardless of who sits at the top, the best crisis response efforts are no substitute for sound day-to-day operational practices and, in the event those fail, meaningful reparation for damages inflicted. Many are wondering why the networks failed to begin with. The answer lies in RiM’s network architecture that left its entire network vulnerable due to a core switch failure which started in the company’s European headquarters in Slough England, resulting in a cascading failure across the world. Are there changes the company can make operationally and technologically to prevent this from happening again? What other risks could adversely impact customers in the future? Are there things the company could do today to prevent these risks from occurring?

There are several things RiM should be doing to save face at this stage. First, they need to make operational changes to reinforce the security of their networks and with that comes frequent communication around these efforts. After all, communications efforts are only as good as the operational commitments to change or improve. Mr. Lazaridis has indicated that the company will now be doing an audit on its technology infrastructure to develop backup solutions. Frequent communication will be key throughout that process. Second, they must be very clear about the next steps towards restitution for damages. They need to address any remaining concerns about compensation for damages. It’s true; Mr. Balsillie has been heard touting the value of Blackberry Apps, saying “”That’s a lot of value. It’s value to express appreciation. It’s as good of a way as we can think of.” But this quote (note the use of the word “appreciation” instead of “regret” or “apologies”) doesn’t mean communication around compensation gets knocked off the list, especially with rumours of lawsuit claims making headlines this week.

Finally, most observers would agree that RiM will need to step up its innovation game to get ahead – or at least on par with – the competition. Once operational innovations begin to progress, their communications will need to both foment and reflect a transition in its ability to not only inspire brand confidence externally, among customers and investors, but also to build a values-based culture of trust from the inside.

Perhaps, a first step in this direction would be a dose of reality, of respect and even some humility from the top.

By: Leanne Laverick

It’s becoming common practice for most organizations to have a crisis communications plan but it’s also common to see crisis communications plans collect dust on the shelf, never to be revisited unless a crisis breaks out. This is a refresher of some of the most common elements we see missing from crisis communications plans today and also a reminder to revisit your organization’s plan often to seek areas for improvement.

1) Ties to operations

Corporate emergency planning can take many forms and be championed by many departments. For example an organization’s emergency response plan is typically owned by HSE or a similar function, while the business continuity plan may lie in the departments of HR or IT.

Often, we see organizations create their crisis communication plans in a silo, not linking them directly to the existing emergency response structure or considering that different types of crises will activate different internal functions. We often see plans that don’t address how the information is going to be received, who will provide it, or who will factually approve the information that communications is creating.

Effective crisis communications relies on the communications to be timely, relevant and accurate.  In order to accomplish this objective your crisis communications plans must be weaved into operational emergency response plans and business continuity plans. This way, the flow of communication and pertinent information between operations and communications will happen naturally and that will lead to more accurate information that comes straight from the subject matter experts. 

Once the importance of communications – especially during a crisis – becomes inherent in the operations of an organization and is valued as a critical emergency response function, the flow of communication will create an atmosphere fit for the delivery of successful, accurate and timely information.

2) Proper spokesperson identification

During a crisis, the right spokesperson can make or break an organization’s reputation. Different spokespeople convey different messages and it’s important to be selective when choosing a spokesperson, keeping in mind their level of expertise and their ability to speak to different issues including safety, corporate apologies and reparation. 

In every crisis, the CEO of the organization plays a significant role but it’s important that they don’t become overused as a spokesperson. The role of the CEO during a crisis is to speak with emotion, responsibility and authority, while demonstrating the organization’s commitment to rectifying the situation. Subject matter experts should be used during a crisis to build credibility for the organization by speaking to their relevant expertise and experience in dealing with the situation at hand. Communications experts within the organization can also be used as spokespeople but only to keep the balls bouncing throughout a crisis by providing updates and media statements as new developments in the crisis occur.

It’s important every crisis communications plan considers what factors will dictate what type of spokespeople the organization will employ. From executives, to subject matter experts, to communications professionals, the plan must decide who should speak, at what time and in what format. Effective crisis response requires a spokesperson strategy to be thought through before a crisis occurs.

Effective spokespeople can help build (or rebuild) the credibility, authority and personality of an organization during a crisis. Proper spokesperson identification ensures an organization’s key messages have the best possible chance of being positively received.

3) Social media

These days, it’s not uncommon for a reputational crisis to first break out in social media and it’s becoming even more common for organizations to take some serious reputational hits online simply because they don’t have a proper social media strategy in place in the event of a crisis. Communicators need to ask themselves, how would we respond to negative criticism online? At what point do we engage with online stakeholders who are critical of our organization? Is social media the right place for us to be correcting misinformation?

Often, the answers to these questions will depend on the culture of the organization, but if the organization hasn’t put time into thinking through these questions and developing an appropriate social media strategy, then chances are, the crisis will erupt online and the organization will be left out of the conversation completely.

If your organization isn’t already on social media and you’re wondering to what degree social media should be included in your plan, consider, at the very least, building in social media monitoring before, during, and after a crisis. Social media monitoring is essential – it provides real-time intelligence that your organization can’t afford to ignore amidst a crisis. The intelligence you receive from social media can then be used to rework key messages and gauge how those messages are being received by stakeholders.

Do we really have to hit home the reason why organizations need to be prepared to face a crisis online? Every day, conversations are taking place online and corporate reputations need to be concerned with how their brand is being represented (or misrepresented) in social media.

4) Proper risk identification

There are two distinct types of crises that could impact a company – operational emergencies and reputational emergencies. Both types of crises may warrant a different communications response and could involve different levels of activation and communication. Often times, crisis communications plans fail to consider all of the potential risks – both operational and reputational – and how the organization would handle those various contexts. For example, the new threat of cyber security has taken a number of organizations by surprise and it’s unlikely this threat has been included in many crisis communications plan to date. Its important crisis communications plans are revisited frequently to ensure trending risks are being addressed.

The key here is to eliminate the surprises. The more potential risks an organization can identify ahead of time, the more likely they are to prepare crisis-specific, pre-approved messaging that will allow the organization to respond quicker and more effectively in the event of a crisis.

5) Pre-crisis identified messaging

Speaking of messaging… there is a common misconception out there that it’s impossible to create key messages in advance of a crisis because crises can never be expected. While it’s true companies can’t always pre-conceptualize the details of every emergency situation, companies should consider the most likely risks that could impact their operations and their reputation and build specific messaging around those risks. 

Quite often crisis communications plans fail to include the sources of information that don’t change and would be useful in the event of a crisis. Foundational messages, such as the company’s mission, vision and values, are fairly easy to pull together prior to a crisis, but the greater challenge is to gather more specific messaging that can be used in the event of a crisis. For example, a great crisis plan will include messages about the company’s health and safety commitments or environmental policies and could include detailed information about the company’s assets and operations.

Having a list of pre-approved messages ‘in the bag’, that are ready to be edited and adapted in the event that a crisis does occur, will help the organization respond quicker and more efficiently during a highly stressful period. Bottom line – if your organization hasn’t already thought of its opportunity messages before a crisis, chances are, when a real crisis takes place, those messages will come out much too late.

These are just a few of the missing elements that we often see in the crisis communications plans we review. We hope they get you thinking about what elements could enhance your crisis communications plan because you can never be too prepared. Feel free to contact Corpen Group at info@corpengroup.com for more information on how we can help you with crisis communications preparation and response.

By: Matthew John

With cyber-crime and hacktivism on the rise and with high-profile targets such as Sony and Honda who have experienced numerous, humiliating security breaches, corporations are quickly learning the reputational risks of lax cyber-security and the consequences of fumbling their communications response.
  
Personal privacy is increasingly becoming a concern for internet users and organizations - an issue that cannot be ignored in the digital information age.  Employing cyber-security best practices throughout your organization is one way of protecting your organization from cyber crime, but should those safe-guards fail, an organization’s communications response becomes equally important. For example, Sony was the victim of multiple malicious attacks by hackers that stole nearly 77 million PlayStation Network user’s account information, including their names, passwords and financial information. The attack itself was damaging for Sony’s reputation and subsequent claims from the hacker group that user data was unencrypted certainly made things worse. However, the biggest reputation issue quickly became Sony’s lack of meaningful communications.

Sony’s communications follies were many during their cyber-siege, including long gaps in any type of communication. Their official Twitter account asked people to follow for the latest updates on the PSN hack and then went silent for 15 hours – not a single tweet. A fundamental principle in crisis communications is to communicate quickly and frequently, and leaving people in the dark in any crisis is unacceptable, particularly when people are hungry for information that could directly affect their lives.  When an organization fails to communicate, people find other sources for information, and the company no longer has influence on the narrative, as rumour and speculation run rampant.

In Sony’s case the stakes were high. People’s personal information (including financial data) was compromised and the risks quickly escalated to serous global concerns of identity theft.  When people are at direct risk, the information expectations increase exponentially, and it is an organization’s responsibility to reach out to those potentially affected and provide them with information essential to protect them. Sony’s failure to communicate became a central theme of the story and, as a result, when Sony eventually did communicate via social media. their response was “slammed” by Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA): 

In Sony’s case, company officials first revealed information about the data breach on their blog. That’s right, a blog. I hate to pile on, but—in essence—Sony put the burden on consumers to “search” for information, instead of accepting the burden of notifying them. If I have anything to do with it, that kind of half-hearted, half-baked response is not going to fly in the future.

Sony could have addressed people’s concerns by providing a tiny window into what was happening behind closed doors. Instead, Sony left a gap which was quickly filled with rumours and other nasty bits of information that helped turned the tides of public opinion against Sony.

Sony continued to suffer reputation damage as it fumbled through the PSN crisis and according to recent Reputation Institute rankings, Sony dropped from second to sixth as a result of the hacks, with its deepest impacts being felt in the UK, Germany, Australia, Japan and the US.

Huffington Post Canada reports on the Honda hacks (May 27, 2011)

In Honda’s case they waited a full two months before disclosing anything to the public. According to an article in Canadian Business, Honda needed the time to” fully gauge the gravity of the situation and determine exactly what information had been stolen.” Alerts sent out by the company stated that “upon detection immediate action was taken to prevent further unauthorized access;” Unfortunately none of those actions involved informing the public. Honda’s data breach was certainly not as serious as Sony’s, in terms of personal data, but they made the same errors that Sony did.

For communicators, you don’t need to be able to perform an “SQL injection” or know how to read binary code to effectively navigate through cyber-communications. Securing the privacy of your organization’s operations, personal and customer data is an operational matter, but the reputational fallout from a breach rests heavily on a communicator’s shoulders.  It’s important to note that often in crisis communications we talk about the difference between a crisis in which the company is the perpetrator and a crisis in which the company is the victim (the culpability factor). In the case of hacktivism, companies are often the victims and should therefore suffer less public condemnation – in theory. The exception is when company negligence has left it open or vulnerable to hacking. The other exception, which is important from the communications point of view, such as in the case of Sony, is when companies fail to communicate what they are doing to “plug the holes” and where stakeholders can go for interim solutions. In other words, in the case of hacktivism, reputational recovery is “theirs to lose” so to speak, especially when you look at it through the lens of culpability.  As hacktivism and online “leaks” become an increasing threat to an organization and their operations, communicators globally - in all industries and sectors - must be prepared to swiftly respond.

Let’s be clear - Sony and other organizations  (Honda, Paypall, Research In Motion, etc.)  are victims of cyber-crime, their websites were attacked and information was illegally stolen.  Although it could be argues that their failure to ensure adequate cyber security is the biggest issue, we would suggest that their failure to communicate to stakeholders when it mattered most had the most significant reputational impacts.

Related Post: Sony, Security Threats and a Siren Call for Trouble 

CBC radio discusses the Sony Hack (Audio)
with comments from Corpen Group Principal John Larsen

www.youtube.com/watch?v=byKNhSah7wM

Four elements of a healthy corporate ecosystem

By Laurie Griffin

Your crisis communications plan is not a silver bullet solution for preparedness. It is also not a bullet proof vest, making your brand impervious to reputational damage. It is not an item on a shopping list, waiting to be checked off once purchased and then forgotten. Your crisis plan is not many things and, yet, when it comes to corporate reputation, preparedness and peace of mind, it is everything.

Crisis Communications & the Corporate Ecosystem

If there was an apt metaphor, today we’re comparing it to a plant – something that requires nurturing, support and active participation among a number of other critical elements needed for survival.

The reality is, so many corporations have invested in a crisis communications plan, only to let it languish in the confines of someone’s desk. You wouldn’t put your office plant in a drawer and then leave it there now would you? Hopefully not.

All too often we hear about companies in the news who either didn’t have a plan, or – like BP’s – had one that was way out of date. Sometimes the problem is the plan itself… and other times it’s the corporate environment in which it was developed.
Corpen Group’s Crisis Communications & the Corporate Ecosystem infographic illustrates the four critical components of a corporate ecosystem in which healthy crisis communications plans thrive.

By: Greg Vanier

Crisis communications is not business as usual. You and you organization may be everyday communications rock stars, but for most organizations, crisis communications is unchartered territory.  And the way we see it, you have two choices:

1. Cross your fingers, hold your breath and hope nothing bad ever happens
2. Get realistic and put some serious thought into the following questions.

1) WHO DOES WHAT?

It’s 4:30 p.m. on a Friday afternoon prior to a long weekend and a crisis strikes. Who do you call?

The cornerstone of successful crisis communications plan is a well-defined crisis communications team. Your plan should clearly outline the specific responsibilities of the key individuals required to execute the functions necessary to protect your reputation. These people should know what is expected of them (and what is not), who they report to, who they communicate with, how they are activated and how to do their job. Often crisis roles are much different than day-to-day roles and reporting lines shift. As a result, it is important that your crisis communications team is well trained and the plan is revisited often.

2) HOW DO WE DO IT?

Time is crucial and each second that passes is a missed opportunity to communicate. There are things that need to be done, but how do you do them?

An effective crisis communications plan not only provides strategic direction to communicate in various situations and crisis severity levels, but it will also provide the tools necessary to execute the plan.  It may sound simple to issue a press release, but do you know who has signing authority to approve the release, and do you know how to send that release to the wire?

For good measure your plan should make two assumptions: 1) that someone you have identified to fill a specific role will not be available (and therefore require a less-experienced substitute), and 2) that someone you have asked to fill a specific role will forget everything they know in the panic of a crisis. Your plan must not only serve as a strategic guidance tool, but must provide the tactical tools, templates, forms and instructions required to do everything from sending a tweet, to setting up phone lines to launching a dark site.

3) WHO SPEAKS ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY?

The media is literally beating down your doors. Do you “go turtle” and pretend you’re not home, or do you take control of the media narrative by putting the right person in front of the camera?

The person you put in front of the camera will immediately become the face of the organization. Your plan must consider who, in specific circumstances, will represent your organization best.  As we witnessed in the BP Oil Spill, choosing the wrong spokesperson can be a fatal mistake.  However, on the other hand, choosing the right spokesperson isn’t so simple.

There are occasions when a communicator may be the most effective option (to provide facts and background information).  There are other times when a subject matter expert would be required (to communicate technical data and “top-kill” specifics). In other cases your CEO is most appropriate (to exude empathy and concern, and to communicate key organizational decisions).  Whoever you chose must be carefully selected based on specific criteria and then properly prepared and coached; details that your crisis communications plan must capture.

4) WHAT DO WE SAY?

“In time of crisis people want to know that you care, more than they care what you know” – Will Rogers

Crisis communications is marked by increased stakeholder expectations of accountability mixed with a whole lot of uncertainty.  We see three distinct phases in every crisis; the breaking phase, the maintenance phase and the resolution phase.  The challenges of the breaking phase are to focus on speed while maintaining information accuracy, as well as demonstrating organizational accountability in controlling the hazards. In the maintenance phase the organization must contextualize risks, acknowledge and respond to feedback, and dispel rumours in a timely manner. The resolution phase requires an organization to honestly examine mishaps and commit openly to changes in policy or procedures.

There are always tonnes of great things that your organization can say in a crisis.  Your organization is likely committed to health, safety and environmental practices that plan for the worst case scenario and protect your employees, customers, the environment and the communities in which you operate. Having an arsenal of pre-approved key messages on hand that are ready to be adapted, edited and used in communications materials and by spokespeople should be a key consideration in your crisis communications plan.

Answering these four questions effectively will begin to build the foundation for a great crisis communications plan. However, there are many other questions that must be answered. For example; how does the crisis communication team link to the emergency response team, and how does your organize make decisions about proactively or reactively communicating in specific scenarios?

Although finding the answers to the questions is fairly standard and considered best practices, no two organizations will ever have the same results.

If you would like more information about crisis communications planning, please feel free to drop me a line at gregvanier@corpengroup.com or 1-855-274-7473.

What stays the same? What’s different?

By: Leanne Laverick 

Just over a month has passed since the forest fires in Northern Alberta consumed nearly one-third of the town of Slave Lake. When the smoke finally cleared, 372 homes were destroyed, leaving many residents with nowhere to go. Community mainstays including the town hall and the police station were destroyed and many of Slave Lake’s 7,000 residents are currently being housed in temporary housing in Athabasca, High Prairie and Edmonton.

A sign in Slave Lake, Alberta on Wednesday, June 15, 2011. One month after wildfires destroyed one third of the town, people are starting to move forward but there is still a lot of work to do. (Amber Bracken/Edmonton Sun)

The emergency situation in Slave Lake, Alberta, lead us at Corpen Group to discuss the differences between communicating in times of an emergency (such as the fires that have overtaken the community of Slave Lake or the recent earthquake and tsunami disaster in Japan) and communicating during a corporate crisis (such as the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico). The major differences lie in the public psyche and the emotions that drive our psyches during an emergency situation, relative to the emotional drivers during a corporate crisis.

When communicating in times of an emergency, the public psyche is different and in most cases, it’s much more sympathetic. During an emergency, causes are usually uncontrolled (e.g. not caused by human error or poor decision making) and therefore, the public are primarily concerned with the crisis at hand, focused on helping those affected by the disaster and less concerned with holding an individual or a company accountable.
 
During an emergency, the psyche of those immediately affected includes fear, avoidance and denial. Those who are not immediately affected are likely to have emotions of sympathy and compassion. Whereas in crisis communications situations, there is often a primary focus on the organization’s operational history, the damage caused by previous incidents and its track record as it relates to communicating during crisis situations. Also, in emergency situations, there is usually a greater understanding of the crisis because it doesn’t rely on industry knowledge or expertise, rather, it relies on the understanding of humanity and how natural disasters and emergency situations can threaten everyday life as we know it. There is still a need for education in emergencies, it usually just happens on a more basic, rudimentary level. Generally speaking, in emergency situations, there is less anger and instead, increased feelings of fear and helplessness.

This doesn’t mean the expectations of the receiver don’t still exist. In fact, many of the same crisis communications best practices are still vitally important when communicating during an emergency, including the need to instil a sense of urgency when addressing the emergency, to be transparent and provide timely updates (when new information becomes available) and to express sympathy for those who are most closely affected by the crisis.

It’s important, as communicators that we understand the drivers of the public psyche, especially during emergencies and crises, as those drivers will play a significant role in how our messages are received. Despite working in crisis communications, situations like what happened in Slave Lake are no less devastating to us at Corpen Group. We can only offer our condolences to those who have been affected by this disaster and hope they remain safe in the coming months of uncertainty.

Note: I am part of a volunteer committee for a worthwhile cause that will help support the relief efforts in the community of Slave Lake. On Wednesday, June 29, Calgarians are invited to attend YYC4SlaveLake, a fundraising event that will feature a night of live entertainment, a silent auction, door prizes and raffle draws in support of the relief efforts in Slave Lake taken on by the Canadian Red Cross Alberta Fires Response. The event begins at 6:00 p.m. at Melrose Café and Bar.

For more information, please visit www.yyc4slavelake.wordpress.com