Posts Tagged ‘crisis management’

Determining priorities

Friday, July 1st, 2011

I often wonder how people determine their priorities, and then act on them.  Although I generally try not to blog about “things political”, I was particularly intrigued with (or maybe even confused by) how the Canadian Government reacted to the two recent strikes – by Air Canada and Canada Post.  It sure told me a lot about what they do and don’t prioritize! 

On the one hand, the Government acted within 24 hours of the Air Canada support workers’ strike and invoked back-to-work legislation – stating this strike could hurt an already fragile economy?!?!?  On the other hand, the Government waited weeks before it decided to intervene in the case of the Canada Post strike.  How they couldn’t think that a postal strike – rolling or otherwise – would not hurt the Canadian economy is beyond me.  Did the Government not think about the cost and inconvenience to small and medium businesses – which are the engine of our economy – and the impact this would have on our economy? 

I’m still scratching my head in wonder, but I guess we’ll never really know how one was prioritized over the other. 

What do you think?  Did the Government have its priorities right?  What would you have done?

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?