Posts Tagged ‘crisis communications’

Choose your words carefully, but it doesn’t always work

Friday, June 24th, 2011

Many may underestimate the powerful nuance of a word, and the profound effect it can have.  Choosing the wrong word can set the wrong tone, give the wrong meaning, or leave the wrong impression.  

In times of crisis choosing the right (or wrong) word can make a difference between keeping people calm or causing high anxiety.  Some may call this “spin”, or “managing the message”.  Whatever you call it, there is sheer power in the words we choose to use. 

I noticed this recently with the coverage of the extensive flooding in Manitoba.  When faced with the perceived need to do controlled flooding to a small area in order to manage the risk of worse damage to a much larger area, the language used was carefully chosen.  While the media (and general public) called it “controlled flooding”, the Government and other bodies involved were careful to choose their words and avoid the use of the word “flood”.  Instead, when quoted, they referred to “controlled spill”, “controlled flow”, “controlled release”, “intentional breach of the dike”, presumably all to manage the message, and hopefully the general public (especially those who were directly affected by the controlled whatever it was). 

Given the headlines I was reading, I don’t know that this worked, but it was interesting to see the stark contrast in language being used, depending on who was doing the talking!  

I’m sure the Government was given specific guidance from communications and PR experts, but in this case I don’t know that it made a difference, or had the desired impact of actually calming down the situation – simply because, to the general public (and particularly to those directly affected), this was a flood (whether controlled or not).  For them, there was no sugar-coating the situation with the nuances of language. 

I don’t know if others noticed this, but as a communications professional it sure caught my eye.  How about you, did you notice the attempt to manage the message with language that avoided the “F word” – flood?

Doing the right thing in reputation management

Friday, May 20th, 2011

This is going to be one of those “rant on a soapbox” blogs because, as a runner, this week’s topic is very close to my heart.  A recent finish line fiasco at the Mississauga Marathon struck me as a really bad case of “not getting it” when it comes to brand and reputation management – or simply doing the right thing. In an earlier post on this topic, entitled “Corporate mea culpa at its best“, I commented that companies and brands that take accountability and apologize for mistakes publicly earn the greatest respect from their customers and are most likely to have the happiest and most loyal customers.  In many ways, it’s also one of the basics in crisis management/communications, and there certainly is a crisis brewing around this based on what I’m hearing and seeing in the running community!

In a nutshell, what happened in the Mississauga Marathon is that the two lead runners – at least one of which was on track to break the course record – were led off-course by the lead cyclist (whose job is to know the course and guide the runners to stay on-course) and then subsequently disqualified, even though it wasn’t their fault. Some might argue that it’s the runner’s responsibility to know the course, but when you’re the lead runner(s) you’re focusing on the lead cyclist to guide you…correctly. Not only was “winning” at stake, but prize money associated with placing – and prize money for breaking the course record. (And of course the principle of the matter.) The easy fix?

  1. an admission of error and accountability on the part of the organizers (and the lead cyclist who led these runners astray)
  2. making things right by splitting the prize money pool amongst the “winners”, including those who were disqualified

The race organizers have been slow to react, if at all, which is even more surprising given all the controversy in Toronto over competing marathons which are cannibalizing each other and vying for participants (this year’s Mississauga Marathon saw its numbers down to 10,000 from 14,000 last year because it was run the same day as the GoodLife Fitness Toronto Marathon, which had moved from the Fall where it was competing with another Toronto marathon, the Scotiabank Waterfront Toronto Marathon). You’d think that given this scenario, the Mississauga Marathon organizers would be particularly keen to do the right thing and protect their brand – their reputation – and thereby attract participants (especially since it’s the newer of the two).

Interestingly, we’re not talking about huge sums of money because the prize pool was $1,750 for the top 3 finishers, with an additional $2,500 for breaking the record, totalling just over $4,000. The right thing to do, since it wasn’t the fault of the runners (but the race organizers), would be to take the total prize pool and divvy it up between the top 4 (or even 5) finishers so that everyone is happy – and many runners seem to agree. It’s the principle, if anything, and surely the race can afford it as there were over 10,000 racers. But the organizers just don’t seem to get it. Maybe they just have their principles wrong? But they also have a brand to protect…have they forgotten about that? Being very short-sighted (or stubborn), and focusing on the wrong principles could come back to haunt them. Where’s Mayor Hazel McCallion in all of this, as it’s her “Mississauga” brand we’re talking about?!?

Perhaps without a major named sponsor there was less pressure to protect the brand by doing the right thing?  It will certainly be interesting to see if the running community – which is quite vocal – will vote with their feet next year, and choose a marathon other than the Mississauga Marathon, meaning participant numbers will drop even further. One thing’s for sure, elite runners may think twice about which marathon they run – or don’t run – next year!

What do you think? Did race organizers do the right thing – by the runners and the race (the brand)? Will the Mississauga Marathon – and its brand – suffer in the long run?

Insanity – Airports, airlines and crisis planning

Friday, January 28th, 2011

Seeing all the media coverage over the holidays about airline travellers in Europe (particularly in the U.K., France and Germany), I was left wondering…hadn’t they learned their lesson about crisis planning in April?  Didn’t their lack of preparedness – and obvious lack of crisis management planning – when Iceland volcano erupted cause them to take stalk and do some serious crisis management planning?!?!?   If anything, the volcano incident should have revealed a weakness in – or perhaps absence of crisis management plans by the airlines and airports, and triggered quick action to focus on crisis management planning.

Granted, a volcano erupting is hard to plan for – and might generally not fall into one of the categories a company would plan for in developing a crisis management plan – but surely severe weather (especially with global warming at play) is a pretty basic scenario to plan for.  When will they learn?!?!   It’s insanity at play as they do the same thing over and over again (i.e. are unprepared), yet expect a different result.  

As someone whose travel plans were thwarted in April thanks to the mighty volcano, I was very happy not to have made travel plans to be in Europe for Christmas this year!  Once was enough for me, but I’m sure many passengers fell victim to both “crisis” scenarios.

Hopefully this second crisis will have been enough to get the airlines and airports planning a bit more, and a bit better – for all of our sake.  As they say, three strikes and you’re out!  Will there be a third crisis that breaks the camel’s back and totally shakes customer confidence and satisfaction?  As a regular air traveller, I sure hope not!