I’m sure we’ve all seen the pictures of what a cruise ship looks like when it hits a rock off the coast of Tuscany…

At the time I’m writing this, the share price for Carnival Cruise Lines is down 17%.  That’s quite a tumble.

There are quite a bit of black and white reasons for such a kick in the face.  The loss of revenue from future cruises while this particular ship is recovered and restored will be significant, to be sure.  Heck, recovery costs alone could costs millions upon millions of dollars.

But there’s a different cost here, and it’s one that Costa, the cruise operator, is going to have to deal with for years and years.  The Captain, Francesco Schettino, has been charged with multiple counts of manslaughter and abandoning the ship before all the passengers were rescued.

Seriously?  Does that even happen?  It boggles me that someone could assume the responsibility for thousands of lives and then have the audacity to waltz off a still floating ship.

That cavalier attitude towards responsibility and stewardship is toxic to public opinion.  Toxic.  And it should be.

Bad things happen, to really good organizations, each and every day.  In fact, REALLY bad things can happen:

Compare the two stories – they’re essentially similar except for one crucial detail…

US: Experienced crew has an accident, crashes their vehicle.
Costa: Experienced crew has an accident, crashes their vehicle.

US: All survived, several minor injuries.
Costa: Most people survive, a handful of fatalities, but thousands of people on board.

US: Rescue crews had to forcibly remove the Captain from the plane after the crew risked their own lives to manage an evacuation.
Costa: Captain bails out, leaving a sloppy evacuation horror story in his wake.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it now, and I know I’m going to end up saying it again.  But there’s a reason for that: it’s because it’s worth repeating.  “Life is not about what happens, it’s how you react to those events.”

And now how we all know how Costa cruise ship captains react to those events,  we’ll see what it does for their long term credibility.

What do you think?  I’m really interested in knowing.  In fact, I’m running a poll on my facebook page: What’s worse for public trust – beaching an ocean liner, or having the Captain bail out?  Come on over and vote now.

Do what you tell others to do.  Sounds like simple advice.  You probably learned it in kindergarten.

It gets trickier for public services.  A police officer has to ticket a speeder one minute, yet speed to a crime scene the next.  At least that example is very visible and acute.  What do you do when it’s not so obvious?

Municipal utility leaders in Waterloo Region, Ontario, Canada are discovering the perils of mixed communication firsthand.  The Waterloo Region Record has a story about local residents who are upset about a pumping station that has been ‘wasting water’ for the last month.  (The water is being pumped out and then dumped right back into a nearby creek.)  The Region has responded by saying the purge is necessary for testing and evaluation purposes; the local residents are skeptical.

It’s a classic case of the need for transparency. If you nail the ‘hot button’ issues before you GET nailed on them, it’s easier for everyone.

Now, I’m not suggesting taking out TV ads explaining your testing criteria.  But for the sake of $1 worth of paper and two hours of a coop student’s time, create a simple paper handout.  It’s not difficult to explain WHY the local pumping station is going to be dumping water for the next month. Explain why water conservation is still important, and offer a phone number to call if there are questions.

Leave it on area porches for a 2 block radius.  Take extra copies and leave them nailed to the front door of the pump house shed.  Problem solved.

Or, you can have your credibility and competency assaulted in the media.  Your call.

“We got through this once before, we’ll do it again”

When it’s scared of being eaten, there’s a story that an ostrich will stick its head in the sand, convincing itself that it is invisible. We laugh at such frail logic, but many of us are guilty of doing exactly the same thing.

My most recent case study: I’m writing this post on a flight from Las Vegas, Nevada. I was speaking to the International Council of Air Shows on the importance of risk and crisis communication training, (especially since an accident in Reno, Nevada several months ago.)

While I was in Nevada, I visited the Hoover Dam, and saw several search and rescue helicopters. When I returned to the hotel later that evening, I got a series of frantic phone calls: “A sightseeing helicopter has gone down near Lake Mead. Five people are presumed dead, are you available to help?”

I assured my caller that I was, in fact, not only available, but conveniently, already in the area. I hung up the phone to await further instructions. The phone rang an hour later with “They think they’re going to be OK. They’ve been through this before.”

This particular helicopter company (and no, I won’t name names, that would be impolite) suffered a fatal accident in 2003. The accident was blamed on pilot error and unsafe procedures. The company managed to “skate by” then and feels they can do so again.

(I concede this may appear like sour grapes, but please understand – while I was happy to help, I was also more than happy to return home. I’m relieved not to miss my son’s fourth birthday.)

The microscope any company survives under has grown stronger in the last four years, much less the last nine. Thinking you can survive an accident by running away, like you did nine years ago, shows incredible naiveté.

Online communities like Yelp and Trip Advisor resurrect the bad with the good. In any hyper-competitive environment, if you’re not controlling bad news on your agenda, your enemies will be doing it for you.

Major business errors (like critical accidents) are like scabs. Over time they lose their sensitivity, but if the scab is ripped off, the wound becomes sensitive again. It is BECAUSE this particular company has a history that the newest accident will become a much larger crisis – if they choose to ignore it. Their old scabs will be ripped off and the wounds and errors will be on display.

This is a golden opportunity to seize control of the narrative. Visibly express profound grief and sadness at the loss of customers and the loss of an employee. (That’s not being manipulative, that’s simply being human.)

Over several days, as details come out, be open and honest with what went wrong, and address the hot buttons on your terms. Explain a) how sad you now, and were nine years ago, b) what policies you changed in response to that incident, c) how these two accidents are different, and d) what new changes you will be making in response.

In short, be a caring, responsive company that cares deeply about the safety of your passengers and employees. This incident is profoundly upsetting and you will stop at nothing to prevent it from happening again.

If you do this while being authentic, public sentiment turns from anger to empathetic grief. It’s a tough pill to swallow, but manageable.

What is NOT manageable are scores of scared future customers reading online reviews from every angry customer in your past. When you allow public sentiment to stay on ‘angry,’ you open the door for people to seek revenge on a cold-hearted company that clearly doesn’t care about safety.

I use a really simple metric about releasing bad news. Will people find out about this? And if they will, do I want them finding out about it from me, or from someone else?

It’s hard to communicate effectively if your head is covered with sand.

Dominos pizza has blown open the doors of food service accountability.

Dominos has created a “Pizza Tracker.” It’s a tool on their website which allows you to track, in real time, the status of your particular pizza. It also allows you to rate your final product, and include a comment for the employee who made your particular pizza.

Sure, that’s pretty cool (and unique enough that CNN profiled it at length). But what’s more impressive is the way Dominos chose to unveil the Pizza Tracker – by publicly posting pizza reviews, good AND bad.

The reviews, both positive and negative, are not just posted on a corner of their corporate website. No – in a move which takes the standards of public accountability, injects it with steroids and kicks it out the door – Dominos is posting reviews in New York’s Times Square, for all the world to see.

Even their TV ads show some of the negative reviews they’ve received.

For some, it’s a nifty website gadget. For others, it will be totally unnoticed. But for some, it’s a dramatic turnaround for a troubled pizza giant.

So why are they doing this? What’s the upside? Remember – this is Dominos. This is the same company that lost millions in sales after employees did disgusting things while working at the store and posting them to YouTube.

Obviously Dominos hopes that by being publicly accountable, you’re going to trust them with your order. Dominos isn’t being shy about it either – they’ve named it the “Raising the Bar” campaign.

But before you run off to implement such a bold move within your own organization, remember why it works. Two reasons:

a) They’re displaying both the good with the bad, thus proving that they have nothing to hide.
b) The bad isn’t life threatening or overly damaging – it’s a pizza. Worst case scenario, your pizza is free and Dominos is out $6.

This isn’t going to work if you’re not prepared to publicly open up and reveal your worst-case scenarios. If you’re a hospital that wants to discuss premature mortality statistics, this method may not be the most appropriate for you.

But for Dominos, it’s a fascinating move towards openness, accountability and honesty. And it works.

Have you ever actually stopped to listen at McDonalds or Starbucks? I mean it – just stop and listen. “I’ll have a number two.” “Yeah, I’ll take a large fries and a coke.” “Tall non-fat latte, no whip.”

You know what you don’t hear? “Please” and “Thank you very much.”

(It’s not like staff are better. Trust me – if it were possible to insert the sound of boredom and eyes rolling into written text, I’d put it right here.)

Hey – maybe I’m way off base here. I’ll admit if I’m wrong, because after all, I am NOT a customer service consultant. I’m a risk communications consultant. I help companies that need to build trust and credibility during episodes of high risk and low trust.

But here’s my point: If this is how you treat others when you WANT something, why on earth do you think you’ll be any better when you NEED something?

When times are good, you can ‘get away’ with sub-par communications. Your customers won’t be offended if the receptionist answers the phone with barely concealed boredom.

But when times turn, little things add up in a hurry. Mistakes are emphasized. Attitudes are hostile and looking for a fight. The great news is that you can avoid going into deficit by adding to your credibility bank now, when times are good.

Call it craziness, but try something different. Take a look around and figure out what ‘little things’ you can do to make deposits into your trust and credibility bank. If you can’t find any improvements, let me respectably suggest you’re probably the wrong person to go looking.

Improvements can be found everywhere. Because after all, you never know when the equally tired voice at the other end of the line may be an inspector with the Food and Drug Administration.

So is it crazy? Maybe. But if so – try something crazy. Next time you’re ordering coffee on a quiet afternoon, try something like “Hey, you look tired. Have you had a busy day?” Or heck – just try a simple… “Hi there! I would like a Grande mild coffee, please.” You may actually make a positive difference in someone’s day.

Don’t forget the really important part: smile like you actually mean it.

Consider it a good communications training exercise.

In many ways, it’s self-explanatory – ignoring your customers isn’t the best idea.  Yet it’s shocking how many organizations continue to charge down the hallways of business wearing a blindfold.

Many of you will be familiar with the infamous Domino’s Pizza debacle.  A number of employees posted youtube videos of rather disgusting behaviour, which became a viral Internet sensation.  It took three days before Domino’s smartened up, discovered what was happening, and was able to respond.   But give Domino’s credit – at least they chose to respond.

The newest case of ludicrous behaviour comes to us from NAS (North American Sports) – the owners of  “Ironman Canada.”  The Canadian Ironman race is typical of a big name triathlon– over 3,000 entrants who pay over $600 each to swim, bike and run through Penticton, British Columbia.

NAS outsources the registration of its races to a company which was unaware that the British Columbia Provincial Government has recently changed its taxation laws.  Somehow,  3,000 people signed up for an “Ironman” race without being charged the proper amount of sales tax.

When NAS recognized the error last weekend, they sent an email to all registrants, on the Friday of the US Thanksgiving weekend.  In the interest of accuracy, I’ve reproduced it here:

Dear Subaru Ironman Canada Entrant,

As many of you may be aware, effective July 1, 2010 British Columbia moved to a harmonized provincial and federal sales tax at a combined rate of 12%. This has been a controversial and confusing tax change but it is the law and therefore must be collected on all sale of goods and services. Unfortunately when your entry to the 2011 Subaru Ironman Canada was processed through Active, HST was not collected on the entry fee. This has recently been brought to our attention and we are obligated to collect that tax.

To that end, the credit card that you used to enter the race will be charged $69, the amount of the HST on the entry fee. We will begin processing the charges on Monday, November 29th and these will be complete by December 10th. Should you wish to have this charge applied to a different credit card or if the one you used to enter has expired, please contact our athlete services center at admin@nasports.com or 877-377-2373. We apologize for this error and any inconvenience it may cause.

And then hell broke loose. A number of online forums effectively exploded , while both the “Ironman” and “Ironman Canada” Facebook pages started receiving postings from upset customers.  Customers were furious that they weren’t consulted, that their credit cards were going to be charged without permission, and there was widespread confusion over how NAS came up with the $69 figure.

How did NAS respond?  They didn’t.

Because the customers were ignored, the fury continued unabated Saturday and Sunday.  By Monday, the online dialogue had changed.  It was no longer “How dare they do this?” but “Why won’t they talk to us?”

Even the irate triathletes were getting in on the action, suggesting ways NAS could have brokered the news.  Had NAS responded right away on Monday with a  “Folks, we hear you.  We are sorry.  Clearly, you are upset.  Please give us 24 hours to work this out?” chances are good all could be forgiven.

So, on Monday, how did NAS respond?  They didn’t.

No – the questions remained unanswered. And since they were being ignored, the online discussions turned to talk of class action lawsuits and mass protests.

At the end of day Tuesday, NAS finally sent out an email, but it, too, was woefully inadequate – ignoring a number of the very concerns being raised by racers.   Facing revolt, Ironman has announced that the $69 additional charge would be ‘voluntary.’  Not surprisingly, a large number of the ‘ignored’ athlete customers have announced they have no intention of paying the fee. This could leave NAS with a $210,000 shortfall.

Folks, the lesson here is crystal clear.  If NAS had come out initially with a message like this, it’s a different story:

“Hey, folks – we screwed up.  We screwed up big, and we feel awful about it.  Here’s what happened.  The Provincial Government has changed the rules regarding taxation.  As a result, we have determined that the race fee needs to go up by $69.   We don’t like it either but we’re forced to submit it.

We’re going to give you two choices – if you can pay the $69, great.  We appreciate it, and feel bad.  In fact, we’re going to give you a coupon for half-price Ironman Merchandise on race day.  If you don’t want to pay the $69, please let us know and we will happily refund your race fees.

Again, please accept our apologies.  Let us know what you want us to do, and please rest assured we are reviewing our procedures to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

Right away, half the fury evaporates. But even more importantly – if they had bothered to stick around and respond to concerns raised immediately after distributing bad news, the rest of the fury would have evaporated as well.  People may not have liked it, but they would be far more understanding and forgiving.

Now, NAS is paying out $210,000, and has managed to infuriate its customer base at the same time. And why?  Primarily, because they did not bother to respond to their customers.

And you know what is incredibly sad? As of right now, NAS has STILL not bothered to respond to any of the comments or questions posted on the Ironman Canada facebook page.

Pay attention to your stakeholders.  Find out where they talk to each other and meet them there.  It’s just common sense and smart business.

This is neither an endorsement or a recommendation, but I came across an interesting new web-based service today.

I get the complaint all the time: “The reporter got the facts wrong.”  Or “They didn’t even bother to ask us for our comment.”  If I were more cynical, I’d string together all the complaints I hear about media coverage and use them as titles for my new book.

My approach has always been simple – don’t use excuses as a crutch.  By monitoring what’s being said, and knowing how to respond in a way that actually WORKS, everyone wins.

But for those situations where it may be too late, www.newsbasis.com is trying to fix that.  They’re billing themself as a one-stop monitoring/correction agency of sorts.

There’s not much to see… I’ve signed up for the beta service but I’ll report back if I learn more.

PS – sorry for the LONG absence.  No excuses, but I was overseas and dealing with massive client projects.  I’ll try to do better. 

I was at an event yesterday and was asked an interesting question.  Paraphrased, it was essentially,  “What do you do when your enemies don’t like what you have to say?”  My answer was brief and immediate.  “Welcome it.”

Far too often, we get in trouble by attempting to be all things to all people.   And the reason we get into trouble is really quite simple – it never works.

A very wise man once gave me his theory of audience diversification.  Take any contentious issue, and you can split your universe into five “S’s.

• Supporters -   Your friends through thick and thin.  2% of the audience.
• Sympathizers.  Mostly supportive, but occasionally not impressed by you or your conduct.5  % of the audience.
• Straddlers.  Don’t know you, don’t care about you, don’t care about the issue.  End of story.  A whopping 86% of the audience.
• Skeptics – Don’t like you, but will, on rare occasion, back you up.  5% of the audience.
• Splenetics.  Dedicated to “venting their spleen on you.”  No matter what you say or do, they will hate you.  Approximately 2% of the audience.

We spend all our time with the two folks at the opposite ends of the spectrum – the supporters, because they’re comfortable.  And the splenetics, simply because they make the most noise.  And why are we wasting our time trying to win over the splenetics?  It’s because far too often, people confuse volume with importance.

Just because a television camera shows up at your door demanding an answer doesn’t mean you have to supply the answer they’re looking for.  Simply because an angry activist group stages a protest doesn’t mean you have to respond to the allegations in a way that satisfies them.  Your job is to satisfy the supporters (easy), the sympathizers (still easy), the straddlers (sort of easy, depending on whether they care), and the skeptics (much tougher – but far simpler than talking to a splenetic.)

In other words – respond THROUGH splenetics, don’t respond TO splenetics.

Case in point – a man in Britain claims religious discrimination because he is asked to remove his hood.  His claim – as a member of the Church of Jedi, he is required to wear a headcovering at all times.  You read that correctly – the Church of Jedi.  For those who are unfamiliar – Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader of Star Wars fame were both “Jedi Knights.”

Most people would assume (correctly, I may add) that becoming a member of the Church of Jedi is roughly equivalent to serving under GI-Joe, or legally changing your name to “Barbie.”  You can handle this in one of two ways.

• Example one:  A job centre issued a public apology to the ‘offended individual.’  They took a splenetic and tried to give him what he wanted.  Regardless, he announced he is still planning on suing them. Total communications victory points?  Zero.
• Example two:  Tesco Supermarkets spoke THROUGH an offended Jedi and publicly said “Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda and Luke Skywalker all appeared hoodless without ever going over to the Dark Side and we are only aware of the Emperor as one who never removed his hood.  If Jedi walk around our stores with their hoods on, they’ll miss lots of special offers.” Total communications victory points?  Lots.  Plus, come on now – it’s funny.  You and I are now discussing Tesco.  As a complete “straddler” on the Jedi issue, I’m now a Tesco Sympathizer.

A point to remember – ignoring your enemy by speaking through them is NOT the same thing as not responding.  One requires a deft touch, a thick skin, and the ability to withstand criticism.  But simply ignoring an issue requires a good liability lawyer or a bankruptcy specialist.

Obviously, not responding implies the problem will eventually ‘go away.’  A media vacuum isn’t going to simply ‘go away.’  After all, your enemy splenetics started this fight – they are more than happy to continue it.   Why let them continue to score free points at your expense?

It comes down to this – if people are going to be talking about you, you want them to be doing it on YOUR terms – not theirs.  Counter a splenetics point by talking through them.  Then hold on and get ready for the hair pulling and gnashing of teeth that will inevitably follow.

The news headline hit me a few days ago. Two words that make any ‘high risk communications’ consultant sit up and take notice.

See – there are certain words guaranteed to elicit emotional responses in people. Certain combinations and phrases just punch through the ether and slap you in the face.

Sometimes the slap is a good one. Smart companies recognize the power of a simple tag line like that and call it marketing.  Sometimes it sticks, sometimes it doesn’t.  But when it does stick, that’s where dynasties are made.  Coke is it, will always be it, and that’s just it.  Unless, of course, you appreciate a fine running shoe, in which case Nike will just DO it, rather than BE it.  But I digress.

Other phrases instantly elicit a powerful emotional reaction. Ask any Buffalo Bills fan what “Wide Right” means.  Everyone instantly knows what “9-11,” or “D-Day” means.  Closer to home, in the Chatterton household, whenever something powerful is about to happen, we’ve been known to call out “And now the 2-2,” which were the last words uttered in the television broadcast before Joe Carter hit the World-Series winning home run in 1993.

When it comes to high risk communications, there are certain catch phrases that do the same thing.  Some are bad: “Exxon Valdez.”  Some are great.  “Tylenol Recall” belongs to the High Risk Communications Hall of Fame.

For those who don’t remember, it was 1982.  Someone was tampering with Tylenol caplets by adding cyanide, and several people in the Chicago area had died.

Tylenol could have said “Look – we’re not responsible if some nutcase tampers with our product.”  They could have instigated a limited recall in the Chicago area.  They could have, in other words, kicked up a fairly legitimate fuss about being the victim, not the responsible party.

To their credit, they did not.  In fact, Tylenol pulled every product off the shelves.  Every single one.  Nationwide.  It cost over $100 million.  When they determined only capsules were tampered with, they offered to exchange all Tylenol capsules already purchased by the public with solid tablets.  The company won widespread praise for their handling of the voluntary recall, and despite taking a very significant short-term hit, rebounded to become the number one pain relief brand in North America.

The message to the public was clear – Tylenol can be trusted, even when bad things happen.  That was 1982.

“Tylenol Recall” is the poster child of risk communication case studies.  A shining beacon of why companies don’t have to be afraid of bad news – they simply need to be prepared for it, and prepared to ACT on it.  Running away from the issue would have saved Tylenol millions of dollars in 1982.  But I would argue that given their share of the analgesic pain relief market today, that $100 million was a fantastic investment.

Today, we fast forward 28 years and see Tylenol has been hit with another set of recalls. The circumstances are FAR less sinister – it appears that no ill effects can be caused by ingesting the contaminated pills, they just smell funny.  Regardless, I’ll be watching this one closely, simply because of the players involved.

You go, Tylenol!