Once celebrated as an oil and gas “game changer”, hydraulic fracturing has quickly become one of the industry’s most controversial and misunderstood practices.  Environmental concerns (including suspected groundwater contamination and seismic activity) have prompted environmental NGOs to declare war against the industry. In turn, governments around the world are examining the safety of hydraulic fracturing and, in some cases, considering tougher regulations or banning the process completely.

If the old communications adage “perception is reality” stands true, this report indicates bad news for business. Recent events in both Canada and the United States have proven that social media and traditional media narratives have the unprecedented ability to impact your organization’s social and legal license to operate. As a result, it is increasingly important that organizations are tracking and responding to issues that are identified in the public sphere.

Any organization that counts on hydraulic fracturing (or any other controversial operating practice) as a contributor to its bottom line needs clear, relevant and ‘actionable’ insight into the key issues and associated stakeholder sentiments. It is no longer sufficient that companies solely meet the demands of their regulators, but rather they must consider the demands of greater society. As we see more and more project proposals stalled as a result of public pressure and ground roots activism, comprehensive and insightful social and traditional media intelligence has become an essential component of an effective communications strategy.

Social and traditional media monitoring efforts should include more than simple computer-generated media clipping and targeted internal distribution. Our monitoring efforts must be used in a way that protects the reputation of the company and steers the strategic communications efforts of the organization; addressing the concerns, misperceptions, fears and angers of all stakeholders.

A tailored media monitoring program may take many forms, but the following information outlines three basic areas that must be covered in any strategic media intelligence program.

1. Find Key Influencers
Traditional and social media monitoring provides powerful intelligence about the individuals or organizations that will drive an issue. The internet provides unprecedented intelligence about the people who are passionate (on both sides of the fence) about a topic. Whether it be a special interest blog, a non-profit or NGO, an advocacy group, a politician, a professor or a soccer mom-turned-activist, it’s important to know who is talking about your organization and your projects. In most cases, key influencers will emerge in the social sphere long before they start to drive mainstream narratives.

2. Identify Emerging Narratives
It is important to understand what is being said about your organization and its operational practices. In particular, you should be watching for unique information (narratives that aren’t currently mainstream), rumours or speculation, misperceptions or misinformation, and trending narratives. Often, issues that are identified early in the social sphere will, within time, emerge in mainstream narratives. Understanding what public and key influencers are saying early on will help your organization formulate a more comprehensive and effective communications strategy that addresses the issues identified online.

3. Assess Effectiveness of Key Messages
People on the internet are often brutally honest, particularly when they are passionate about an issue. Effective media intelligence should provide insight into how people and organizations are accepting or rejecting your key messages. In some cases, detractors will use your key messages as a target in an effort to erode your organization’s credibility. In other cases, proponents may propagate your message and become third party champions. Either way, it is important to know how well your messages are being received, and how they may need to be revised.  It’s also about crafting new, more effective key messages based on the intelligence that online conversations provide. If they show anger, frustration, disbelief, appreciation, relief or any other emotion, regard these as clues about the tone, approach and content of your messages.

Identifying key influencers, what people are saying and how well messages are being received will provide communicators the opportunity to nip damaging misperceptions in the bud before they grow out of control.

A simple twitter search using the keyword “fracking” will provide some interesting insight into the level of concern and passion expressed on both sides of the debate. A little further digging and more time invested will reveal the key stakeholders actively working for and against the industry. In a world of instantaneous data, we, as communicators, must tap this reservoir of information. Our corporate reputations depend on it.

Title

SENIOR CONSULTANT, TORONTO

Role

You will be part of a dynamic and busy team providing senior level corporate communications capacity to a rapidly expanding national communications firm.  Specifically, you will focus on building communications capacity within the GTA for corporate and government clients and will have a broad range of expertise in critical and corporate communications.  Ideally, you have worked on sensitive issue files and coordinated high-level media relations.  You will work regularly on a wide range of issues management, corporate communications and crisis communications projects.  As a senior member of the team, you will also serve as a mentor for other great consultants in our group, and will be expected to work intimately with staff in our parent company, Global Public Affairs and with Corpen Group colleagues in Calgary.  You will have responsibility for, and be supported in, new business generation.

Qualifications

You are a communications professional with 8 or more years of progressively advanced experience.  You have a strong background in either corporate communications or within an agency.  You have a firm understanding of how communications is viewed from the executive suite, and you can lead or support media relations and training.   You are well rounded in corporate communications practices, specifically in the area of issues management, and have an appreciation for and interest in the dynamics of government relations.  Ideally, you have formal education in journalism or communications, and hold professional accreditation or similar credentials.  Familiarity with government relations practices is an asset.

Corpen Group

A division of Global Public Affairs (www.globalpublic.com), Corpen Group (www.corpengroup.com) is a national communications practice with offices in Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa and Victoria.  Corpen Group is predicated on the values of quality, relationships and innovation.  We work in a collaborative, respectful and energetic environment, where building success and having fun are both important.

Submission

Please submit your resumes to info@corpengroup.com

Closing date is March 30, 2012

Print Friendly Version

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.