Social media is a double-edged sword for crisis communication. On the one hand, it allows issues to be identified, monitored and managed extremely quickly. It also allows for real-time interaction with stakeholders, providing a mechanism through which disinformation ‘spot fires’ can be put out before they turn into raging bushfires.

Potentially, and perhaps a bit extremely, a crisis – in tandem with social media – actually provides an opportunity for stakeholder engagement and relationship enhancement.

But that’s the good news! The flip side is that, as Laurel Papworth has observed, social media has a ripple effect. It allows for news to spread – yes, that burning metaphor again – like wildfire. And nothing sells quite like bad news. This goes for social as much as traditional media. There are a plethora of examples where social media mechanisms have facilitated, and accelerated, a reputational hammering for organisations.

These fiery themes were all-pervasive at the recent Frocomm crisis communication and social media summit I attended. Other key take-outs included:

• having social media guidelines in place before engaging fully through social media and, as per any crisis situation, being as prepared as possible
• knowing who the influencers on opinion are likely to be and proactively forming positive relationships with them (as they might assist in facilitating and optimising message clarity through the stress and disinformation of a crisis ‘bushfire’)
• not necessarily immediately jumping in to a situation that looks like a crisis: use social media tools to monitor and assess the situation’s genesis and then determine an appropriate response
• that the first six hours of the ‘situation’ are critical in determining what the best response will be
• CSR, as an organic, fully lived-in’ organisational characteristic, is an excellent way to proactively build reputation and provide ‘insurance’ in preparation for the inevitable crisis.

Further salient points that the range of articulate and well qualified speakers made included:

• Social media is a part of communication, not separate from it, so tactics such as traditional media and direct stakeholder communication need to be integrated with the social media dimension
• A crisis is no place to learn about social media; the implication being that if you aren’t prepared to engage in a social media context with your stakeholders before the crisis hits, forget about it as a communication mechanism during the crisis (though it will still have utility to monitor how stakeholders are responding to crisis-relevant messages and, therefore, could shape non-social media communication)
• The importance of discipline
  • Make sure team roles are determined and understood
  • Rehearsing crisis situations is a fundamental part of crisis preparedness
  • Have key messages for situations prepared and a process in place for producing them ‘on the run’ during a crisis, which includes the sign off process
  • Once content goes up on the web, it stays on the web. Issues can re-enter the online conversation years after the initial crisis has blown over (e.g. through the re-circulation or promotion of an incriminating video). Message: be prepared for this eventuality.

Leadership

Leadership was a sub-text of many aspects of the discussions and presentations held during the day, especially those by Cannings‘ Craig Badings and Rupert Hugh-Jones from Scaffidi Hugh-Jones.

It was apparent in the mere fact that a relatively recent (but now pretty much accepted part of the professional communication tool box) phenomena such as social media was being discussed as a vital part of such a sensitive process as crisis communication.

It was apparent in the assertion that engaging with stakeholders takes fortitude and strong leadership. It is the antithesis of a head-in-the-sand, hoping-it-will-blow-over and non-stakeholder engagement approach.

And it was apparent in the notion that by standing tall and taking responsibility for an organisation’s actions (and that includes failings and faults) takes leadership and vision, as a short-term crisis may in fact galvanise an organisation to transform itself into an entity more in line with stakeholder expectations. This, as I constantly reiterate, is likely to help an organisation and its stakeholders form more mutually beneficial, and hence sustainable, long term relationships.

Tactical elements

There were plenty of tactical, hands-on tips provided through presenters such as Ogilvy’s Brian Giesen, Edleman’s Amanda Little, Howorth’s Graham White, Rupert Hugh-Jones and others, many  of which I’ll expand upon in a future post and also in Frocomm’s PR Report. Some of these tips were:

• It is best to have a non-communication/public relations employee talking to bloggers
• ‘Dark’ websites featuring pre-prepared information are a useful tool  
• A webcast of organisational statements can be uploaded, making for a ‘media conference’
• Use keyword advertising
• Advertise on blog forums and communities discussing the issue
• Use a dashboard for issues monitoring (examples include Tweetdeck and Ogilvy’s The Daily Influence
• Use an ‘authentic’, human voice for social media interaction
• Video is a messaging tool of high utility
• Forums are particularly applicable to Australia
• Ensuring that an organisation determines and communicates a consistent crisis narrative and set of key messages
• Twitter is good at getting the message out.
Ogilvy PR 360 DI Twitter Webinar
View more documents from guestfd8f1.

I was a guest at the Frocomm summit but these observations on proceedings are my own. There will be further discussion on the summit on this blog and in Frocomm’s free PR Report (to subscribe visit its website). All comments on this post – including disagreeing ones! – are of course most welcome.

Tweet This Post