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!

Why do I call them “hidden” ways? It’s simple – chances are good you’ve never thought about them.

I’m working with a client today that had their office broken into.  Despite being under lock and key, three laptops were stolen, and along with them, confidential information onover 8,000 customers.  It’s truly a case of “bad things happen to good companies.”

My client is a victim, yet they are now spending a lot of money to inform eight thousand people their identity is at risk.  Not only is this a huge financial hit short term, the long term consequences have yet to play out.  Will they lose customers?  Not if I can help it.  But needless to say, my client is not having a great day.

My role is to step in and stop the bleeding, and turn things around. We’re going to do it – at the end of the day, this will be a fantastic opportunity to reinforce customer trust and confidence.  But it’s a lot like a forest fire.  Sometimes, a forest fire is a good way to kickstart new growth.  Sometimes, despite the best intentions, you end up burning down entire communities by accident.  No one wants to see that happen.

Since a new year brings new challenges, I thought I’d compile a list of ways you can have a really bad public relations day that you probably haven’t thought of – yet.  Since it’s 2010, I’ll come up with ten (and only ten, as opposed to 2,010!)  Each are conceivable, real life situations that happen every day… and yes, each are easily solved if you’ve prepped for them in advance.  But have you?

10/ Watch your competitors burn with glee (aka ‘afflicted competitor syndrome)
When “Balloon-Boy” Falcon Heene was dominating the CNN feed one afternoon last fall, I received a phone call from one of the largest manufacturers of ballooning equipment in North America.  Obviously, this manufacturer had NOTHING to do with the Heene family… that contraption was entirely home-built.  Nevertheless, by the time I received a phone call, the company had received over fifty (!) media requests for interviews.

If your competitor does something dumb, don’t assume it reflects ONLY on them… especially if you share a territory, a technology or a customer base.  No matter how awful your competitor is, their bad day can quickly become yours as well.

9/ Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff
The Challenger blew up because of a bad o-ring.  Maple Leaf staged a multi-million dollar food recall because a knife wasn’t properly cleaned.  If you discover ‘little things’ going wrong, the easiest way for that little thing to become a full blown forest fire is to ignore it.

8/ Short-Sell Stupid
Look – if it’s dumb, chances are good you’ve done it.  I know I have.  And if you’re so clumsy in real life, why do you expect your employees to be better?

Who’s job was it to clean that knife at Maple Leaf – and does it really matter?  Did Domino’s plan for one of their employees to pick their nose, sell it with a pizza and capture it on Youtube?  Of course not.  Can you guarantee one of your customer service reps will never swear at a customer?  Of course you can’t.

People can be inherently stupid.  Planning for that isn’t insulting – it’s just good corporate practice.

7/ A rising tide can lift all boats.  An ebbing tide… well, don’t ask.
Imagine being in charge of a high-tech start up three months before the tech bubble burst in the early 2000’s.  Or how could you manage Investor Relations for ANY publicly traded company between October and March of last year?

Did you do anything wrong?  No, not really.  Does that matter to the investors who want to turn your annual report into toilet paper?  Not one little bit.

6/ Guilty by Association
Do you know where your raw materials come from?  Have you visited their warehouse?  Have you ever wondered WHY their quote was cheaper?  In an era of ’sustainability,’ accusations of sweatshop labour or environmental sins can have damning consequences.  The list of accused organizations reads like a Fortune 500 list – Apple Computer, Nike, Wal-Mart, even Kathie Lee Gifford.  It’s simply not enough to make sure only your own house is in order.

5/ The Golden Competition (aka the OPPOSITE of afflicted competitor syndrome)
I try to avoid partisan examples, but look at  the Republican National Committee.  In one year, their competition a) swept Congress b) won the Presidency, and c) won the Nobel Peace Prize.  If you’re in charge of communications at the RNC, that’s a solidly bad year.  What did the RNC do to deserve all of that?  It doesn’t matter if they deserve it or not – it’s happened.  And as a result, it’s a tarnished brand.

Obviously, time heals all wounds, especially in politics… but it’s not a huge leap to ask, “Has this happened to me or my brand in the past year as well?”

4/ Assume you’re Secure
Look at the example at the top of this page.  My client is spending a small mint to potentially infuriate 8,000 of their best customers – because it’s the right thing to do.  Those three laptops were behind two locked doors and chained to their desks.  It didn’t stop the criminals.  Whether it’s a hacker, a careless employee or downright negligence – how can you prepare for having your dirty laundry aired in public?

3/ Assume your People are Happy
I’m always cynical about claims, “our people wouldn’t do such a thing” or “we have the best employees in the world.”  Keep in mind – I’m self employed for a reason.  I have a simple prism… I am a good, honest and loyal person.  And if I don’t want to work for you, why would anyone else?

Why on earth do you think your employees are happy?  Have you asked them?  Have you asked them… lately?  Have you honestly asked them what you can be doing better?  Try a simple question:  “Would you leave this company tomorrow if you had a similar opportunity?”  You may be shocked at the results.

Companies that ignore their own people deserve what comes from ‘that.’  And typically, ‘that’ is never a good thing.  Damaging headlines… strike action… regulatory reviews… government inspections… Chances are good they were instigated by a disgruntled employee.

Which means, as the employer, you really have no excuse not to have seen that one coming.

2/ You Don’t Know what You Don’t Know
The stories are legendary… Chrysler had to rebadge the “Lacrosse” in Quebec because in French, it’s a synonym for masturbation.  In Spanish, the Chevy Nova translated to “Chevy doesn’t go.”   Tropicana pulled their packaging after forgetting to ask it’s customers if they liked the new design.

Whether it’s cultural sensitivities, regional disparities, religious differences or accidentally using the logo of the wrong local sports team, screw ups happen.  Sometimes you can’t prevent it – no one knows everything.  But how do you repair the damage after it occurs?

1/ Acts of God or Terrorism

Some mistakes you ought to have seen coming.  Not having a response is simply bad judgement.  But then – some mistakes are more than mistakes.  They’re called crises.  Fire, accidents, explosions, shootings… unfortunately, none of them are unrealistic.

Here is an inescapable truth:  The fact you were targeted by tragedy does very little to influence public opinion.  How you respond to that tragedy means just about everything.

How are you prepared?

I have really avoided commenting on the whole Tiger Woods fiasco. It’s just too ‘low hanging fruit’ for me.

In the interest of acknowledging it’s permanent place in crisis communications history, I offer the Top Ten ways Tiger can improve his image, compliments of David Letterman. My personal favourite is number 4.

Pop quiz – name the single deadliest political quote in the last fifty years.

Just stop for a minute and think about it – what one political quote proved the most damaging to any politician?  I bet you can remember.

(Bit of background: I have been conducting communications training sessions for seven years.  My clients have been in eleven US States and Canadian Provinces, and ranged from farming organizations, politicians, trade associations, manufacturers, charities and public sector organizations.

Every single one of those clients all slips up and creates the same message trap, time and time again.  It’s a message trap that’s brutally simple to slip up on.  I’ll admit it – I teach this stuff, and I find MYSELF making the same mistake time and time again.)

Back to the deadly political message – I bet you came up with one of three examples.

If you’re closer to 50 than 30, chances are good you’ve just thought of this, especially at the 30 second mark:

If you’re younger than 50, (or young at heart), you probably remembered this infamous sequence:

Those are, by far and away, the two most famous examples. There’s one more worth sharing:  When Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin was asked if the Liberal Party of Canada was corrupt, the Conservative Opposition made short work of his answer. (Listen carefully – Martin’s answer is used EIGHT times in only thirty seconds!)

So here’s the relevant question: What do all three quotes have in common? 

Every client I’ve ever had shares the same problem. This one message trap is so brutally easy to fall into, yet so brutally deadly, it’s almost not even fair.

Ready?  In essence, It’s the word “not.”

They all use a negative answer to deny a negative allegation.

Think about the question being asked:

• Mr President – are you a crook?  “I am not a crook.”
• Mr President – did you sleep with that woman? “I did not sleep with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
• Mr Prime Minister – is the Liberal Party corrupt? “The Liberal Party is not corrupt.”

It’s brutally simple to slip up on. Our brains are hard-wired to deny negatives.  What would your first reaction be if someone accused you with “You just drove into that ladies house.”  Of course, you’d quickly respond with, “No, I didn’t!”

Is it true?  Sure.  But here’s the problem.  Negatives sting.  Negatives are memorable.  They last forever. Positives are boring and go away.

Negatives ’stake a claim’ in the negative message. When you respond in the negative, you’re playing defense.  You can’t shake that real estate.

A positive answer tells them what you are. It may not be what a reporter is looking for, but it’s not your job to deliver a soundbite on a stick if it’s going to crucify you.

Even the simple act of denying a negative simply repeats that negative. Which is exactly the last thing you want to do.

Iimagine – how would history be different if the questions were answered like this?

• Mr President – are you a crook?  “I am an honest man, and I’ve done an honest job.”
• Mr President – did you sleep with that woman? “I have been faithful to my marriage, and to the office of the Presidency.”
• Mr Prime Minister – is the Liberal Party corrupt?  “The Liberal Party is full of honest, hardworking people.”

Boring, right?  Exactly.

An Ontario turkey grower, Hybrid Turkeys, has reported the first case of turkey-born H1N1 influenza in North America.

Releasing bad news always comes with a hearty case of the “Oh, Crud!’s” for the communicators.  As someone who’s had to face a hostile or alarmed media audience more than once, my heart goes out to the person responsible for breaking the news.

This is a classic case of a company which hasn’t done anything wrong, but is now instantly thrown into the spotlight.  Not only are their products being questioned, so are their practices, procedures and policies.  It gets even worse if you are one of the ‘afflicted competitors’ – your products get questioned despite the fact you clearly haven’t done anything.

There’s just no getting around it – people are having a few bad days in the turkey industry.  But what can the different players do differently, in order to keep their pain to a minimum?

—–

Ontario Turkey Farmers – Don’t ignore the problem
Given the timing of the announcement (just as we head into the seasonal ‘turkey rush), this is a great time for OTF to welcome the spotlight, and reassure customers that “turkeys are absolutely safe to eat.”  But unfortunately, 18 hours after the initial news release hit the media, their website is silent.  Ignoring aproblem isn’t going to make it go away.   If nothing else, even a link to the news releases prepared by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture or the grower, Hybrid Turkeys, would help, and is a quick, easy fix.

(UPDATE – as of 11am, TFO has updated their website.  And in a fantastic piece of messaging (see below for the alternative,) the key message is a great one: Turkey meat is safe.) Kudos to the Turkey Farmers of Canada.)

Ontario Government – Don’t deny a negative with a negative
The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) has a link on their main page to a news release.  And they come close to solving a critical consumer question – but they fail in delivery.  The easiest, deadliest trap for any communicator is denying a negative allegation with a negative answer.  (Remember “I am not a crook,” or “I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky?” )

What they said: “Food safety is not at risk. No birds or eggs from this facility have entered the food chain.”

What they should have said: “Eating turkeys continues to be safe.  The turkeys from this facility will remain on this farm, and out of the food chain, in order to guarantee consumer safety.”

Why are negatives so deadly?  Negatives confirm the original allegation in the mind of the questioner.  A negative statement is far more memorable than apositive – and that’s exactly what you don’t want when you’re dealing with a crisis of confidence.

Hybrid Turkeys – Playing too close to the chest
I understand why Hybrid doesn’t want the media poking around their barns.  But not disclosing the location of the barn in question does two things, and neither of them are particularly good… a) it gives the media something to ‘whack’ the company with, and b) it casts every facility in their operation under the same cloud.

Here’s a harsh reality:  Nothing upsets a reporter quicker than discovering a news source is withholding information.  Understandably, Hybrid doesn’t want ‘unclean’ tv crews poking around their facilities.

Rather than just not disclosing, Hybrid can create their own “B-Roll” footage – broadcast quality background material showing the facility in question.  Show rows of neat, orderly, happy turkeys.  Show some of the biosecurity measures in place.  A two minute video clip can be made available to reporters, along with the following caveat: “We understand you would like to show the facility in question.  Strict biosecurity measures are in place to protect both the health of the animals, as well as the health of ordinary people.  We respectfully request that non-authorized visitors refrain from visiting the operation in question.  In lieu of your visit, we are pleased to offer background footage of the facility, and are more than happy to answer any of your questions.

Being proactive like that gives the appearance of openness, without the hassle of unauthorized visitors.  It also lets Hybrid release information under THEIR control.

—–

All in all – not a bad job at all.  But implementing a few simple ideas improves a volatile situation, and makes the tough pill just a bit easier to swallow.

Tough situation here.

The Guelph Storm are a junior hockey team based in the midwestern Ontario, Canada community of Guelph.  For those who are unfamiliar with the various levels of hockey, think of it as a double A baseball team.  They attract several thousand fans per game.

They are easily the most popular team in this city of 100,000 people.  As a result, their season-ticket’s list reads like the Who’s Who of the Guelph business community.

So I imagine some of those businessmen are going to be awfully upset when they find out that their email address is now public information to every fellow season-ticket holder.

The Storm were promoting a charitable luncheon, and did so via email.  Unfortunately, in a classic mistake that happens to the just about anyone (Hillary Clinton’s campaign made the same mistake), the Storm did the unthinkable and publicly listed everyone’s address in the “To” field.  As a result, anyone who received the email can easily see every address.

This is NOT a good way to endear yourself to your most important customers – season’s ticket holders.

So how should they fix it?  To send out another email will run the risk of flagging that very weakness to those who hadn’t noticed it the first time.  In effect, it’s like saying “I’m sorry I have this security flaw in my website.  Please don’t take advantage of it.”

I suspect it may be a moot point.  It’s only going to take one upset person to tip off the local newspaper before the Guelph Storm Management are going to be dealing with a very public black eye – in which case, nothing more than an abject apology is going to suffice.  In the meantime, it’s time to think preemptively.

Perhaps a snail mailed apology, along with a voucher to bring a guest to a future Storm game for free?  Or perhaps a coupon for something as simple as a free hot-dog or snack?  Anyone who hadn’t noticed the original mistake may be happy to receive a freebie, while those who are upset are somewhat mollified.

What do YOU think?

Non-surprising fact: Michael Bryant cares what people think about him.  (After all, until ten days ago he was still the odds-on favourite to be the next Ontario Liberal Party Leader.)

Non-surprising fact: He’s hired a PR firm to help him navigate through the mess that inevitably happens after he killed a cyclist on a Toronto street.

Surprising Fact: They’re doing a horrible job of it.

Look – I have no problem with his PR team.  They’re good people and they do fantastic work.  It’s disingenuous to slam the work of what would be a “rival” PR outfit, and I don’t want to do that, because I mean it – they really do good work.

Which is why what they’re doing here is just so… odd.  I don’t know – maybe Michael Bryant isn’t paying them a lot of money?  Are they being neutered by an overly cautious legal team?  I don’t know, and I welcome the opportunity to hear from them.  But let’s take a look at the Twitter account “Bryant Facts.”

The good:

• recognizing the role that social media has to play in staying out in front of a particular story
• making at least a token effort at counteracting some of the ‘lies and mis-perceptions’ that are out there.

The bad?  Just about everything else…. for example:

• No icon (classic Twitter newbie mistake.)
• Lack of updates (at the time I’m writing this, the Twitter account hasn’t been updated in over 33 hours.  That’s two or three lifetimes.)
• Not engaging the public or engaging in real conversation
• Lack of third party, verifiable information.  If the role of the account is to respond to misinformation, at least point them to the correct information.  Merely saying “Um, no, you’re wrong” isn’t going to cut it.

At the time I write this, Bryant’s blog is actually faring even worse – rather than four updates, it has only three.   And it leaves no opportunity to provide a comment.

What Bryant’s team has done is taken the social right out of social media.  That’s not harnessing the power of social media;  that’s outright neutering it.

Unbelievably, it even brings attention to negative allegations which may not have been noticed before.  For example, one blog post begins with the words “The “narration” in this YouTube clip is one-sided opinion and contains multiple inaccurate assertions.”  (Thanks for pointing out the video.  I hadn’t seen it before.)

What is their version of the truth?  We may never know.  The author doesn’t tell us what the truth is.  There is no verifiable information provided to an information-hungry, albeit skeptical public.

In this very high profile case, hiring ’spin doctors’ carries a risk in and of itself.  Which is why this is just so perplexing… This ’strategy’ leaves the reader with more questions than answers, and sadly, does so in a way that may make the problem even worse.

—————–

(For those who are non-Canadian, or have been hiding under a rock, Michael Bryant is the former Liberal Attorney General and widely considered a rising star in Ontario Politics until he struck and killed a bicyclist in the city of Toronto, Canada last week.  He has been charged with criminal negligence causing death.)

For those of you who have been hiding under a rock for the past week (or aren’t from Ontario, Canada) former Liberal Attorney General Michael Bryant was involved in a fatal accident involving a cyclist in the City of Toronto this week.

Details aren’t crystal clear, but what appears to be clear is that a cyclist was hanging unto the driver’s side door of Bryant’s convertible, when Bryant wiped him off using a mailbox and a few street-signs.  The cyclist inevitably fell off, hit his head and died.

Bryant had a reputation as a ‘hothead’ prior to the incident, causing many people to instantly wonder if this tragedy was a result of a notorious temper.  In any event, the incident, while undeniably tragic for the cyclist, also appears to have done fatal damage to Bryant’s future political ambitions.

My friend, and crisis communications expert Jonathan Bernstein spoke to the Globe and Mail newspaper about reputation repair, and what steps Bryant needs to take in order to move forward from here.