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.

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 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.

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.

Sounds like good rules to live by, right?  In reality, it’s a lot harder to implement.  Take for example, a standard wedding processional.

For many people, it’s the happiest day of their life, or so they claim.  But how do they react on this happiest day?  By parading in a long, slow, processional, being careful not to go too fast or too slow… making sure everything is perfect and in place.

That’s not happiness!  Don’t you wish you could just throw it out the window and truly express how you feel?  But no – everyone expects you to do the ‘right thing’ so you proceed through a long, boring wedding ceremony.

Unless, of course, you are Jill and Kevin.  God Bless them.

Proof that sometimes, even the truth is unexpected… and it has AWESOME results.

(I want to meet these people in a decade and talk to their kids.)