When considering safety, one asset, company reputation, is not always treated so reverentially. What has been achieved at great expense, over a long period, can be destroyed in minutes by a failure to deal competently with the increasingly powerful media.

Society has a right to know about an incident; companies have a duty to respond. Those who fail to communicate may pay a very high price, even if they are not guilty of wrongdoing. Thorough planning is critical to mitigating the impact of an emergency, as is an understanding of the media, which allows the company to take advantage of its technology. The media cannot be ignored.

Excuses, penalties, rewards

Poor communication can exacerbate operational difficulties by imposing a major media-related problem that as a consequence produces adverse publicity. Having two simultaneous crises, one self-induced, can create serious problems. So why do so many companies fail to prepare?

Many small companies truly believe they could never have an emergency that would be of interest to the media, but on a slack news day, even a minor incident can become news.

Other organizations reject planning because they view it as “just a favor to the media.” This is nonsense. Even the largest multinational corporations cannot reach the myriad sectors they need to influence immediately. The media’s technology allows almost instant global communication, and this is important because what happens in one country can influence a group’s interests elsewhere.

Still other organizations argue that because no two emergencies are identical, it is a waste of resources to prepare for a unique event. In reality, all incidents have much in common, which means that companies can prepare sensibly. And part of that preparation includes anticipating questions.

Many senior executives oppose media-related planning because they have been misquoted by a journalist or because they believe that all journalists lie. This is irrelevant if the company’s future is at risk. And in fact, planning can help executives avoid saying things that can be misunderstood or misrepresented when taken out of context. Believing that it is feasible in an emergency to deal with the media without a plan is misguided. In practice, this is rarely possible. In the face of a crisis, stressed spokespeople sometimes cannot answer basic questions about their own organization. Such ignorance in a real incident suggests, albeit unfairly, a level of incompetence that could have been the cause of the accident.

Another excuse for not planning for emergencies is the expense in terms of time and money. When considered in perspective, the cost of preparation is minimal in the context of overall activities. The investment in preparing for calamity can be viewed in terms of making payments on an insurance policy. Do groups shun insurance because of the premium’s cost?

Yet another excuse for inaction is that in the case of emergency, all of the staff would be involved in either sustaining routine business or helping operationally. If internal resources are not available to address the media, a company can go outside for professional services. Specialist consultancies can provide teams to answer telephones, write press releases, give guidance on press conferences, and prepare senior executives for media interviews. But the groundwork for using such agencies must be laid well in advance. It is disadvantageous to economize by summoning help only when an accident occurs.

Consultants should be retained before an incident occurs so they can become knowledgeable about their clients. In the throes of an emergency, there is little time for a chat and a discussion on the division of labor. Meeting a stranger when disaster strikes, often in the middle of the night, is not the best of circumstances for acquainting the newcomer with details about the company and industry.

Arguments that companies lack competence or knowledge about the media can also be overcome by investing in a comprehensive modern management guide.

Good media relations cannot change polluted water into quality wine, but silence is not an option. In fact, when there is no cooperation from a company, it may stimulate the media to investigate to find out why there has been no comment. Silence or incompetent media relations suggest that a company is guilty of having caused the incident, even if the company is totally without fault.

There are positive advantages from good communication that go far beyond the objective of deterring adverse comment. Contact with the media allows organizations to deny inaccurate allegations. Often-repeated rumors that are not refuted can become accepted as truth. A company that comes forward and meets the media openly can establish itself as responsible and can control the flow of information to some extent. When a company addresses the media, that company can deter journalists from seeking out (often ignorant and thus dangerous) “experts” for commentary. Dealing directly with the media gives the company a chance to explain what actions are being taken to improve the situation, express regret that the emergency developed, and assure the audience that the company is doing everything possible to safeguard life and the environment.

What is needed

Planning, which is neither difficult nor costly in relation to the potential benefits, must begin with an assessment of what could go wrong. Companies must then determine how they would cope with the media. Planning must include the preparation of a fact file containing answers to all of the likely questions about the organization. The company also must identify in advance all of the individuals who will be assisting in responding to the media. This includes members of the telephone media response team, senior executives required to front press conferences or undertake media interviews, those dispatched to the incident, and members of the crisis management team. This group consists of senior personnel, but the precise composition of the team depends on the nature of the emergency. In every case, one member must be familiar with the media.

Companies must know who the media are, how they operate, what they want, and how a telephone media response team can be set up.

Additionally, groups must be able to write press releases and organize and participate successfully in a press conference. It is crucial that they know how to give successful press and broadcast interviews. Finally, it is very helpful if companies have some carefully crafted answers ready for some inevitable and predictable questions. This may sound daunting, but these and many other topics are covered in books like Your Problem, Our Story, a management guide to handling emergencies.

Having studied the basics, relevant personnel must be trained and tested in realistic exercises. Without testing, groups will not know how key individuals might perform in a real disaster. One important objective in an exercise is to assess the links between the crisis management team and other responders.

Training and testing are essential. For example, few executives can undertake a successful television interview without specialized training. Much is at stake. Nerves can make an interviewee seem pompous or callous, and even inexperienced journalists can make a senior executive appear stupid. A company’s operational efforts, good or bad, must neither be undermined nor reinforced by an inept performance with the media because of ignorance of the techniques required.

Philip Algar is the author of the book “Your Problem, Our Story, a management guide to handling emergencies.” The book is available from Matfield Books, www.matfieldbooks.com.

Comments