Managing Crisis: Silence vs. Social

"We are not eliminating any medical benefits," Rob Stillwell, spokesman for NV Energy, told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. "That's all I can say on the record."

There is a reason NV Energy cannot discuss its decision to place a cap on contributions to employees' retiree medical plans: textbook public relations. Regulated companies are almost always silent in the midst of union contract negotiations.

Unions are not.

Some 200 union workers rallied in the rain yesterday to protest planned reduced health care benefits for NV Energy retirees and cutbacks in the utility company's work force. But the traditional pickets are only one piece of the union's communication program. IBEW Local 1245 has launched a Web site and a Facebook page, aptly titled Shame On NV Energy.

Paid advertisements help drive traffic to the site. Banners were placed on the The New York Times several days ago. It seems the communication is aimed at would-be investors considering the company after it reported a profit, credited to a 6.1 percent increase in Southern Nevada's general rates. Even without the rate hike, NV Energy was already delivering the most expensive energy in the mountain states.

The union also seems especially irritated by the changes in retiree compensation plans because it was hopeful that NV Energy would be investing in a new transmission line and receiving $138 million in stimulus funds, which Senator Harry Reid claims as a feather in his cap. Instead, the union was surprised by a planned cut in retiree health benefits and the closure of offices in Las Vegas, Elko, Yerington and Carson City.

The cuts are likely a consequence of NV Energy's planned move into renewable energy. In its most recent Integrated Resource Plan approved by the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, NV Energy will be spending approximately $2 billion to purchase and invest in new renewable energy by 2015. The emphasis is on solar, wind, and geothermal.

Recent announcements in its moves toward renewable energy all but drown out the union protest. However, that does not mean the complaints are falling on deaf ears. Since Monday, the Facebook account has tripled as consumers, concerned about energy prices, join the retirees. Like many utilities, the answer is never to reduce rates but to reduce consumption, they say.

There is also speculation over the resignation of the company’s chief financial officer and treasurer just days before what would otherwise be good news. Speculation is commonplace, given the timing and lack of any specific reason.

The story raises several interesting questions about social media and the current state of media. One of the most pressing has less to do with message management and more to do with message control, which social media is often credited in rectifying. However, in this case study, it seems social media makes communication a crapshoot.

The success of IBEW communication relies on nothing more than drawing attention to the topic. The success of NV Energy communication seems much more to do with talking more about everything else, as there is no mention of cuts on its Web site or toe test on Twitter.

Moving Sideways: Toyota

"You're always hearing these very silly PR people when a crisis hits dive in front of the camera and dish out this ridiculous cliche that if you just fessed up, the problem would go away." — Eric Dezenhall, CEO of Dezenhall Resources.

Two days after investing $3 million on a Super Bowl recall advertisement that flatlined with viewers who were using an online dial testing system to determine their level of interest, Toyota announced the recall of 437,000 Prius and other hybrid vehicles worldwide. It is yet another bump in a series of what the company has called a lapse in safety standards.

High Points Of The Toyota Recall

Overall, Toyota has done a fine job managing most elements of its recall communication, including the development of a recall page on its Web site. One of the best elements includes videos that identify three problem areas that led to the recall and a detailed stopping procedure to minimize driver risk while they return their vehicles to the shop.

Another bright spot is the Toyota recall plan. Within days, Toyota introduced a recall plan to notify owners, schedule an appointment with some dealers offering extended hours of operation, and reinforcement that some trained technicians are making repairs.

The recall communication effectively focuses on what is important: identifying the problems, offering immediate solutions, outlining what owners need to do, stopping production until the problem is fixed, and providing updates on the repair status.

This had led Eric Dezenhall, CEO of Dezenhall Resources, to conclude that the situation is manageable, even if the company didn't start well out of the gate. The problem many companies face, in part, he says, is that they communicate too fast.

Low Points of Toyota Recall

In an effort to respond rapidly, Toyota catered to the American appetite for an apology, with Jim Lentz, president and chief operating officer, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. While there is nothing really wrong with an apology (despite being confusing in exactly what the apology is for), branding the recall a "sticky pedal situation" was probably not the best choice of words. (His appearances on news programs are smart.)

Another low point is the decision to cash in on the reputation of the company too early. Much like the Super Bowl ad, Toyota is delivering a message that claims for more than 50 years safety has been the highest priority. The advertisement then reveals that "in recent days" the company hasn't been living up to those standards.

This recall communication focuses on accepting responsibility, admitting guilt, and promising to never let it happen again. Unfortunately, Toyota had not yet identified the extent of its recall. So as these messages move forward, additional recalls seems to contradict the message. This is the third time in recent months that Toyota has contradicted itself.

This had led Gene Grabowski, chair of crisis and litigation practice at Levick Strategic Communications, to dub this recall as the worst handled in history because consumer anxiety persists and the messages have been mixed. The problem, in part, he says, is that Toyota was too slow in taking action.

Initial Outcomes Of The Recall

Like many recalls, the Toyota crisis plan has been a mixed bag. The truth is somewhere in between the assessments by Grabowski and Dezenhall. Dezenhall is right in that recalls are not all public relations. There are mechanical and operational considerations. Grabowski is right in that Toyota was too slow to take action with what is shaping up to be a slew of problems.

The real damage to Toyota is impossible to assess at the moment. The number of recalls, especially those unrelated to the original problem, further erodes the company's credibility. And with every new apology Toyota issues now, each subsequent apology means less and less.

In this situation, Toyota would have been better served confining its initial communication to the recall at hand before accepting what seemed to be an across-the-board lapse in safety on one issue. Had they delayed an initial apology that isolated the problem to a single flaw, the company may have discovered there were several more recalls ahead and used the initial recall as a catalyst for investigating every detail.

Specifically, Toyota could have used the "sticky pedal situation" as a catalyst for an investigation, and then breaking the news (as the result of that investigation) that safety standards were not being met across the board, including accelerator pedals, brake pedals, steering columns, and who knows what else.

Meanwhile, instead of producing commercials attempting to cash in on the company's credibility bank, the crisis communication team ought to have been investigating exactly who knew what when so new stories do not undermine current efforts. For instance, breaking today, State Farm says it warned Toyota about an accelerator defect in 2007.

We'll provide some crisis communication points as it pertains to this situation in days ahead, including on how this plan would differ from the introduction to crisis communication boiler plate. Otherwise, there seem to be only two factors saving Toyota at the moment.

First, the problems did not result in an epic number of fatalities. Second, all automakers generate some negativity nowadays.

How negative? Of all the manufacturers with ads that aired during the Super Bowl, only two vehicles weren't dialed down when the brand was first revealed in the commercial. Those two brands: Volkswagen and Kia. See for yourself.

Winning Ads: Why Some Super Bowl Ads Work

HCD Research released the results of a national study designed to determine which Super Bowl commercials had the highest sustained levels of interest. The survey included 110 commercials, which were also tested for breakthrough creative, emotion, memorability, and involvement.

You can find the advertisements on a dedicated Super Bowl Ad Test. Most of the commercials include direct responses about the advertisements. (Even advertisements that held interest or ranked high received some negative feedback.)

Top Five Super Bowl Ads For 2010

1. Budweiser "Bull," score 72.78 HCD | 4th by USA Today*
2. Snickers "Betty White," score 70.95 HCD | 1st by USA Today*
3. Denny's "Free Grand Slam," score 67.12 HCD | 27th by USA Today*
4. Doritos "Hands Off," score 66.82 HCD | 11th by USA Today*
5. FLO TV "Generation," score 66.03 HCD | 36th by USA Today*

*The USA Today ad comparison only included 63 as opposed to 110 commercials. Its ad meter is smaller.

Budweiser "Bridge Out," E*Trade "Baby in Airplane," Intel "Smart Computing," Google "Search On," and E*Trade "Wolf Style" rounded out the HCD top ten. The biggest losers of the evening, at up to $3 million per miss, included CBS, Go Daddy, U.S. Census Bureau, Boost Mobile, MetroPCS, Acur, Toyota, Chevy, and Sun Life Financial. Go Daddy missed twice. CBS missed three times.

Writing Effective Television Commercials

The biggest winner from the study, Budweiser "Bull," placed second in interest, first in emotion, and second in the likelihood it would be mentioned around the water cooler today. On the surface, one might ask what's not to love about any past Budweiser spots that paint an analogy using cute farm animals. Dig deeper, when combined with its other top ten Super Bowl counterparts, and you'll find something else.

1. Positive. All of the top advertisements, with the possible exception of Denny's, have positive messages. The lowest rated commercials evoked no emotion as push communication or produced negative emotions for the use of stereotypes, which sum up the MetroPCS and Go Daddy spots.

2. Pull Messages. All of the top advertisements pull the viewers into the spot by setting a scene that eventually ties into the product. The bottom rated commercials tend to push communication, positioning the brand too early in the spot or having exceptionally weak ties between the creative and product or service such as Boost Mobile.

3. Engagement. All of the top advertisements are inclusive, with the possible exception of Denny's, in their aim to create a bridge between the public and the product. The bottom rated ads make statements about themselves. The CBS Survivor advertisement, which was the lowest rated ad, epitomized the grossest display of self-indulgence. Hyundai wasn't far ahead.

4. Creative. All of the top advertisements are creative, but rely on cleverness to achieve a human connection. As creative relies more heavily on special effects, cool techniques, or creative that celebrates itself, they tend to drop off the radar much like the navel-gazing copywriter's monologue that doubled as a Chevy selling point.

5. Nostalgia. All of the top advertisements lean toward some element of nostalgia, which paints an interesting picture of where Americans are today. They want the America they used to know as opposed to the one painted by the current administration.

In fact, some Americans might also be wondering why the U.S. Census Bureau blew $3 million of their tax dollars on one of the least effective advertisements to air. The ad tries to make an American company look stupid, and the government smart. The advertisement, media buy, and messages prove only the opposite is true.

Or maybe, they are thinking about how everyone who says Toyota is doing a good job with its crisis communication was proven wrong by an ill-advised Super Bowl advertisement. More about that tomorrow.

Experimenting With Social: Fresh Content Project

Toward the end of last year, I became increasingly interested in the affect of popularity on the content people choose to read. Specifically, I began to wonder what would happen if popularity was removed from the equation.

Would it change our perspective?

So, I set up an experiment of sorts. I began building a capped Twitter list of 300 communication-related professionals (currently at 230) and then worked with our communication manager to establish a baseline of blogs either authored by or referred to by members of the list. Today, it consists of more than 100. More will be added. There may or may not be a cap.

From those blogs, we narrow all the "Fresh Content" to choosing a single standout every weekday (with weekend posts spilling into Monday). There is no algorithm. And our approach is objective, though some might feel it is subjective. Whatever.

The pick process is simple enough. If we could only refer one post a day, what would it be? And, over time, will our list match some of those supported by popularity-based algorithms? Or would we find the best content really is the primary driver?

Originally, we were considering building another blog to support the "Fresh Content Project," but settled on a simpler approach. New picks appear in the footer of this blog; old picks will be summed up in a weekend recap as they fall off. At some point, we'll do something with the data. Worse case, we only end up cataloging a few good ideas from great people.

Best Fresh Content In Review, January 24-31

• What PR Writers Really Need To Know About AP Style, Revisited.
Barbara Nixon makes a great case for public relations specialists to use the Associated Press Stylebook. She pinpointed five critical components that every student might start with before digging deeper into the one book most journalists and editors turn to when they have questions about writing.

• No More Websites. Only Publishers.
Some people might think that Mitch Joel is only stating the obvious when he wrote that Websites are not Websites anymore, but his presentation of the facts cuts through the clutter. Producing online content makes your company a publisher, and consumers are much more interested in reading content that engages and evolves rather than traditional sites designed to be not much more than online brochures.

• There's No Money In Content Creation.
The always insightful Valeria Maltoni wrote a post that provides insight on why great content matters. One of several gems that really stand out in the post is how she reminds writers that readers can tell when you aren't passionate about a post. She's right. More than that, she also shares how great content can help the writer as much as the audience they hope to reach.

• Why Customers Will Fan Your Facebook Page.
Jay Ehret pinpointed an observation (with data) that we have been kicking around the office for some time — online consumers do not represent a single public. For evidence, take a look at the research, which suggests different Facebook fans become fans for very different reasons. It begs the question: Are you delivering enough to meet all their needs?

• Social Media Boundaries.
The topic has been covered in posts and workshops before, but Gini Dietrich shared her personal approach to setting boundaries online, which serves as a great example for people who are new to social networks and might feel overwhelmed. I have boundaries too. Most people who are engaged do, for one reason or another. That is how we find more time.

• Scott Brown Tops Coakley in Massachusetts Election.
Larry Kim provides insight on why social media polling matters in the political arena. The post includes some compelling data that reveals Scott Brown was gaining as much momentum online as he was on the ground. For additional insight, the post breaks down search volume by each city using Google trends.

Writing For Public Relations: Introduction

As hard as it is for me to imagine, I've been teaching "Writing for Public Relations" at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), for ten years. And while I rarely teach the same class twice, this year's program has been significantly altered to keep pace with the increasing demands on public relations professionals to understand social media and social networks.

The presentation below is one of the changes. Along with some course content, I've changed the format so students can access and reference some course material online. The decks will be posted on the weekend following each class as available. Enjoy.

Introduction: Writing For Public Relations

View more presentations from Richard Becker.

I've also added the course overview handout. You can find it here.

Depressing Readers: Accuracy Matters

Dr. John Grohol, CEO of Psych Central, wrote a noteworthy post for communicators and journalists — accuracy can mean the difference between the Internet causing depression or the Internet attracting depressed people.

After Leeds University released a study that found people who spend a lot of time browsing the net are more likely to show depressive symptoms, Grohol wrote that mainstream media did surprisingly well in covering the story. Of seven publications cited, only three did not sensationalize the headline, leading people to believe that the Internet caused depression.

However, there is something remotely troubling in the statistical samplings. Rather than use randomized, controlled groups, the study was conducted using an online questionnaire. According to Grohol's analysis, only 18 of 1,319 self-selected people online meet the criteria for "Internet addiction," which was a key element in some conclusions drawn by the researchers.

The test only included one validation study and the researchers helped give the story life with subjective comments that suggest such a link could be negative. In his post, Grohol points out that subsequent studies could possibly reveal the Internet might even be good for depressed people in that it provides some outlet for social connections where no outlet might exist.

What conclusions can you draw from communication research?

How many surveys and polls do communicators, journalists, and educators rely on despite questionable data or subjective conclusions? What about your organization? Are you creating a perception bubble and preaching to the choir? Or is your organization catering too much to its squeaky wheels? How much do you really know about what you know?

One Dow Jones post recently took note of how different social networks might lead you to have very different impressions of Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code. Specifically, it suggests there is primarily praise from his 97,000 Facebook fans. There is more criticism from several groups of writers, who are unlikely to be avid Dan Brown readers (hat tip: Sara Springmeyer).

But what does that mean? And does it account for the cultures of these communities? Evidence suggests that when people comment using their own social media identities, they are concerned about two things: their own appearance and group acceptance. As a result, such influences do not always amount to reliable crowd-sourced data.

There are other examples too. David Fleet recently questioned a survey that suggested journalists prefer bulk emails. Tamara Lytle included the idea in an article that warns companies away from cliche crisis communication plans. American physicist Richard Feynman frequently spoke and wrote about the need to continually rethink scientific models of the past to ensure future theories were not built on flawed studies.

So what can a communicator do? The most obvious answer is to continually re-verify data. The less obvious answer is to approach research from an objective perspective as opposed to pursuing a hypothesis that leads to validation and not verification. After all, the difference between two words is as large as the Internet causing depression or attracting depressed people.