Crisis \kri-ses:\ An unstable or crucial time or state of affairs whose outcome will make a decisive difference for better or worse (Webster's New Collegiate dictionary).

There's a death or serious injury due to questionable circumstances. An employee is accused of impropriety. Your company is acquired by or is acquiring another. A natural disaster occurs. There's an investigation of your facility by a regulatory or law enforcement agency. By the definition given above, all of these are crisis scenarios such as those routinely faced by most organizations. In any field, there is no such thing as a business in which crises do not occur.

Unfortunately, not all organizations are aware of the difference between marketing in routine situations versus marketing in crisis situations, namely:

Marketing's routine function is to build the value of the business.

Marketing's crisis communications function is to preserve the value of the business.

Often, organizations are prepared to respond to the operational components of a crisis (e.g., for a fire: call the fire department, evacuate the building, etc.). However, there are many audiences potentially affected by any crisis, and each of these will want to know the facts as soon as possible; members of each audience will start to worry and/or react inappropriately in the absence of such facts.

Typical audiences include clients/patients/customers, the media, employees, investors, community leaders, and regulatory agencies. Each of them requires a specific type of communication (e.g. phone call, fax, mail), and has differing information needs. If an organization is prepared, in advance, to respond to those needs promptly, confusion and damage is minimized.

I am aware of a health care company which operated for over ten years without a significant crisis, and then experienced a half dozen crises over a two month period. Some of these situations, lacking proper response, could have resulted in significant damage to the firm's credibility and profitability.

Fortunately, and very atypically, the organization had recently commissioned a crisis communications plan which provided them with a system for coordinated, prompt, honest, informative and concerned response to crises. This plan consisted not only of a manual with scenarios and instructions, but also involved a comprehensive audit of the organization's vulnerabilities that resulted in numerous recommendations for operational/system changes which, unchanged, created a potential for crises.

For example, the audit and subsequent analysis (conducted over a six-week period) revealed a lack of standard procedure on how to route media calls and who should handle the calls. Yet, particularly during a crisis, all employees need to know to whom a reporter should be referred or else a number of "loose cannons" are likely to be quoted instead of trained, authorized spokespersons.

Additionally, there were no fixed policies on some controversial issues such as the interaction of HIV-positive employees with patients nor was there a standard procedure for responding to needle sticks by medical personnel. This lack of policy could have resulted in significant criticism or worse, and the recommendations made during the crisis planning process ensured that the crisis would not happen. In some cases, the board of directors or administrative staff were aware of system weaknesses but hadn't thought of the marketing communications/bottom-line impact of failure to quickly correct the problems.

Prevention, then, versus reaction, is the ultimate key to successful crisis communications. How many of my clients create a crisis plan BEFORE having a significant crisis? Less than five percent. That's because they look at the one-time cost (typically under $10,000 for a single small to mid-size firm) and choose to avoid impacting their budget now versus giving significant thought to the fiscal impact of a crisis. I am usually asked to do a plan AFTER a damaging crisis, during which we have to spend considerable time, at client expense, attempting to minimize damage "fire fighting" in the public relations sense that would have been unnecessary if a plan was in place. Yes, crisis communications counsel will be needed even if a plan has been created but far less of it.

In conclusion, if I may risk a medical analogy presuming that I am, to crisis communications, what a highly trained physician is to his or her specialty: crises will occur, and they can be VERY damaging to your organization's health. There is treatment available, now, which can eliminate many crises and minimize the impact of others. I recommend prevention, but you're the patient it's your choice.

Crisis: An unstable or crucial time or state of affairs whose outcome will make a decisive difference for better or worse (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary).

Your company is up for sale and under scrutiny by a variety of potential acquirers... there's a death "under questionable circumstances" at your retirement facility...an employee commits a crime...regulators are questioning your compliance...a market analyst recommends that stock be sold...investors and/or customers are confusing your successful firm with your unsuccessful competitors...

All companies which provide goods or services to seniors are, routinely, faced with minimizing the impact of such crisis scenarios on their ongoing marketing programs.

However, not all companies, unfortunately, are aware of the difference between marketing in routine versus crisis situations, namely:

Marketing's routine function is to build the value of the business.

Marketing's crisis communications function is to preserve the value of the business.

Preparation vs. Reaction

What are your chances of having to deal with such situations? Well, the bottom line is that there is no such thing as a business in which crises don't occur. Perception is as damaging as reality. If any of your external or internal audiences think or might think that there's a problem, then your communications program needs to address their concerns.

This leaves you with two choices: prepare for crises or just react to crises. The longer it takes to react effectively, the greater the potential for damage. This is increasingly true in our world of instant communication; a world where bad news is the favorite menu item of sensation-hungry media audiences. In fact, the most dangerous thing you can do is nothing, to go into paralysis. If anything, marketing and public relations becomes more important during a crisis.

Very few crises are total surprises. Usually, key executives are privy to information which suggests the possibility or probability of crisis and this is the absolute latest point at which contingency planning should start.

The Ten Steps of Crisis Communications:
1. Identify Your Crisis Communications Team

A small team of senior executives should be identified to serve as your company's crisis communications team. Ideally, the team will be led by the company CEO, with the firm's top public relations executive and legal counsel as his or her chief advisers. If your in-house PR executive does not have sufficient crisis communications expertise, he or she may choose to retain an agency or independent consultant with that specialty. Other team members should be the heads of major company divisions, to include finance, personnel and operations.

Let me say a word about legal counsel. Often, during a crisis, a natural conflict arises between the recommendations of the company's legal counsel on the one hand, and those of the public relations counsel on the other. While it may be legally prudent not to say anything, this kind of reaction can land the company in public relations "hot water," which is, potentially, as damaging or even more damaging than any financial or legal ramification. Fortunately, more and more legal advisors are becoming aware of this fact and are working in close cooperation with public relations counsel. The importance of this understanding cannot be underestimated.

2. Identify Spokespersons

Within each team, there should be individuals who are the only ones authorized to speak for the company in times of crisis. The CEO should be one of those spokespersons, but not necessarily the primary spokesperson. The fact is that some chief executives are brilliant business people but not very effective in-person communicators.

This doesn't matter for written communications and may not matter for some audiences (see discussion of audiences below). Often, however, image communicates as strongly as facts, as politicians know well. Hence, communications skills are one of the primary criteria in choosing a spokesperson.

3. Spokesperson Training

Two typical quotes from well-intentioned company executives summarize the reason why your spokespersons should receive professional training in how to speak to the media:

"I talked to that nice reporter for over an hour and he didn't report the most important news about my company."

"I've done a lot of public speaking. I won't have any trouble talking to the press."
Regarding the first example, there are a good number of Mike Wallace's "60 Minutes" victims who thought they knew how to talk to the press. In the second case, most executives being interviewed have not learned how to help ensure that "the most important news" gets across to the interviewer.

Also, analysts, institutional investors, individual stockholders and other key investment community audiences are just as capable of misunderstanding or misinterpreting information about your firm as the media and it's your responsibility to minimize the chance of that happening.

In one example of such confusion, a completely healthy, well-managed $2 billion company's stock price dropped almost 25 percent in one day because Dow Jones reported that a prominent securities firm had made a "sell" recommendation which it later denied ever making. The damage, of course, was already done.

Spokesperson training is the Boy Scouts of media and investment community contact. It teaches you to be prepared, to be ready to respond in a way that maximizes the chance of a story or analyst's evaluation coming out the way you want it to.

There are expert spokesperson trainers in most major metropolitan areas, either operating as independent consultants or as part of public relation agencies. Contact your local chapter of the Public Relations Society of America or International Association of Business Communicators if you need a referral.

4. Establish Communications Protocols

Initial crisis-related news can be received at any level of a company. A janitor may be the first to know there is a problem, or someone in personnel, or notification could be in the form of a midnight phone call from an out-of-town executive. Who should be notified, and where do you reach them?

An emergency communications "tree" should be established and distributed to all company employees, telling them precisely what to do and who to call if there appears to be a potential for or an actual crisis. In addition to appropriate supervisors, at least one member of the crisis communications team, plus an alternate member, should include their office and home phone numbers on the emergency contact list.

Some companies prefer not to use the term "crisis," thinking that this may cause panic. Frankly, using "potentially embarrassing situations" or similar phrases doesn't fool anyone. Particularly if you prepare in advance, your employees will learn that "crisis" doesn't even necessarily mean "bad news," but simply "very important to our company, act quickly."

5. Identify and Know Your Audiences

Who are the audiences that matter to your firm? Most firms care about the media, customers and prospects. Private investors may be involved. Publicly held companies have to comply with Securities and Exchange Commission and stock exchange information requirements. You may answer to local, state or federal regulatory agencies.

For each audience, you need to have in advance complete mailing, fax an phone number lists to accommodate rapid communication in time of crisis. And you need to know what type of information each audience is seeking.

6. Anticipate Crises

If you're being proactive and preparing for crises, gather your crisis communications team for long brainstorming sessions on all the potential crises which can occur at your organization. There are two immediate benefits to this exercise:

You may realize that some of the situations are preventable by simply modifying existing methods of operation; and you can begin to think about possible responses, about best case/worst case scenarios, etc. Better now than when under the pressure of an actual crisis.

In some cases, of course, you know that a crisis will occur because you're planning to create it e.g., to lay off employees, or to make a major acquisition. Then, you can proceed with steps 7-10 below, even before the crisis occurs.
7. Assess the Crisis Situation

Reacting without adequate information is a classic "shoot first and ask questions afterwards" situation you could be the primary victim. But if you've done all of the above first, it's a simple matter of having the crisis communications team on the receiving end of information coming in from your communications "tree," ensuring that the right type of information is being provided so that you can proceed in determining your reaction.

Assessing the crisis situation is, therefore, the first crisis communications step you can't take in advance. But if you haven't prepared in advance, your reaction will be delayed by the time it takes your in-house staff or quickly-hired consultants to run through steps 1 to 6. Furthermore, a hastily created crisis communications strategy and team are never as efficient as those planned and rehearsed in advance.

8. Identify Key Messages

You already know what type of information, categorically, your audiences are looking for. Now, what do you want them to know about this crisis situation? Keep it simple have no more than three main messages for all audiences and, perhaps, a few messages targeted at specialty audiences. In a hypothetical "death under suspicious circumstances" scenario, a retirement facility's key messages might include:

We deeply regret this tragic los of life, and we are cooperating fully with the police department and coroner's office to confirm the cause of death.

This organization has a superb safety record and meets all regulatory requirements for health and safety.

We will provide the media with updated information as soon as it is available.
9. Decide on Communications Methods

There are many different ways to communicate about a crisis situation, internally or externally. Employees, clients, prospects and investors can be briefed in person, or sent letters, newsletters or faxed messages.

The media can receive press releases and explanatory letters, or attend one-on-one briefings and press conferences. Each of these options and the many others available have a different type of impact and must be evaluated by a professional who thoroughly understands the pros and cons of these various methodologies as applied to each company's needs.

10. Riding Out the Storm

No matter what the nature of a crisis...no matter whether it's good news or bad...no matter how carefully you've prepared and responded...some of your audiences are not going to react the way you want them to. This can be immensely frustrating. What do you do?

Take a deep breath

Take an objective look at the reaction(s) in question. Is it your fault, or their unique interpretation?

Decide if another communication to that audience is likely to change that impression for the better.

Decide if another communication to that audience could make that impression worse.

Decide if making that additional communication is worth the effort.
"It Can't Happen To Me"
When a healthy, no-crisis firm's CEO or CFO looks at the cost of preparing a crisis communications plan either a heavy investment of in-house time or, typically, from $10,000 - $25,000 using outside experts there is a tendency to fantasize "it can't happen to me" or "if it happens to me, we can handle it relatively easily."

However, the delay-related damage caused by lack of planning can easily double or triple the time and cost of damage control. Delay can also result in irreparable harm. At the same time, it takes only a one-time plan, with minor updating, to serve as a template and operating basis for all future crises. In other words, a crisis communications plan is to most companies what a mammogram is to a woman a relatively low cost procedure today to preclude much higher costs later on.

And Finally...

So, now you know how to minimize the impact of crisis. And if you heed at least some of this advice, you'll be one of the rare exceptions to the "head in the sand" attitude which most companies have toward crisis communications.

A corporation named Exxon comes to mind...but maybe they thought Valdez couldn't happen to them.

Crisis: an unstable or crucial time or state of affairs whose outcome will make a decisive difference for better or worse (Webster's New Collegiate).

Employees thought to be performing impeccably are suddenly charged with a felony. A major lawsuit is filed against Company X and the Arizona Republic prints all the allegations verbatim. A client informs you that a federal agency is investigating its activities. The Attorney General announces plans to take action against a particular company, or industry. All of these are very common crises to which Arizona attorneys have to respond. And, sometimes, legal counsel is on the instigating end of what becomes a crisis for another entity - a subject to be addressed separately in the future.

This is the first in a series of columns written to help Arizona's legal professionals better understand the public relations component of crises, a PR specialty commonly called "crisis management" or "crisis communications."

The reality of today's sensationalist media and public environment is that, regardless of the legal merits of any crisis situation, perceptions generated from case onset through resolution can dramatically impact the reputation and economic welfare of your clients. Perceptions, which can be as helpful or damaging as "the provable facts," can also impact the attitude of prosecutors, regulators and other audiences important to the legal process. The role of public relations, therefore, is to help stabilize that environment by developing messages and public relations strategy which results in prompt, honest, informative and concerned communication with all important audiences - internal and external. Strategy which must always defer to legal considerations without causing a client to play ostrich - because when one's head is in the sand, other parts remain exposed.

In a criminal case, says Ed Novak, a partner at the law firm of Streich Lang whose practice includes white collar criminal defense matters, "PR is particularly important during the investigatory phase because you have a greater opportunity to influence how your client is viewed by the media. You want journalists to receive a positive first impression which hopefully will carry through the investigation. If you look like you're covering up or stonewalling, the negative impression created will be difficult to erase." But, Novak went on, PR also has distinct roles to play at time of charging, pre-trial and during a trial, to include an often-ignored component of working with a public relations professional.

"A crisis management expert can give me an objective layperson's view of what I plan to show to a jury or prosecutor, often providing valuable criticisms or suggestions," he said. Novak also noted that having a spokesperson other than legal counsel, one trained by a crisis PR professional, can prevent sometimes-overwhelmed attorneys from reacting inappropriately to eager reporters. For example, said Novak, "some people may view John Dowd's confrontations with the press as having reflected poorly on both Dowd and his client, former governor Symington. This is bad for business."

Crisis: an unstable or crucial time or state of affairs whose outcome will make a decisive difference for better or worse (Webster's New Collegiate).

You know the tenor of Arizona's daily media. It doesn't take all that much to make front page/prime time news. You can be there involuntarily or voluntarily, fighting the media or cooperating with them to the extent it doesn't compromise your legal strategy. And once you're there, almost every audience important to your client's business and your legal case (e.g., the jury pool) is going to be seeing the media's version of the alleged facts. That's "trial by media."

The outcome of that "trial" is dependent to an unfortunate extent on the quality of reporting, but if you are prepared to deliver your key messages, have been media trained, and can view the media as a gateway to important audiences (versus "the enemy"), you can optimize the results. Sometimes that just means being quoted accurately. Sometimes that means a story which looks very good for "your side."

To get from here to there, you have to overcome what I've termed "The Five Conundrums of Media Relations," which are as follows:

1.A reporter has the right to challenge anything you say or write, but will bristle when you try to do the same to them.

2.A reporter can put words in a naive source's mouth via leading questions ("Would you say that...? Do you agree that...? Do you feel that...?") and then swear by the authenticity of those quotes.

3.The media will report every charge filed in a criminal or civil case despite the fact that a civil case, in particular, can make all sorts of wild, unproven claims with coverage focusing far more on the allegations than on responses by a defendant.

4.The media usually carries a bigger stick than you through its ability to selectively report facts and characterize responses, and via the public perception that "if I saw it in/on the news, it must be true."

5."Off the record" often isn't and "no comment" means "I've done something wrong and don't want to talk about it."

Attorney Marc Budoff, a partner at Budoff and Ross whose practice emphasizes criminal defense, says that his worst "trial by media" experiences occur "when I am representing someone facing emotion-eliciting charges, such as vehicular manslaughter or breaching the public trust." In those situations, he notes, "the media tends to editorialize in the guise of reporting, pandering to the emotionalism of the public. There is no balance, and constitutional issues of due process and fair trial get pushed aside."

Attorneys with a weak case or a client that has limited financial resources have often engaged in deliberate "trial by media" tactics to force a settlement, with mixed results. It's always a risky tactic because no one can reliably manage the media; still, some regularly succeed in winning through embarrassment. However, warns Budoff, "you have to be thinking in the long-term about your strategy. If you think you might want to attack the prosecution for improper media disclosure at some later date, you're better off taking a lower profile at first."

Crisis: an unstable or crucial time or state of affairs whose outcome will make a decisive difference for better or worse (Webster's New Collegiate).

The CEO of Alpha Corporation* was beside himself.

"All we did was get permission to use a lower-cost manufacturing process that actually reduces emissions. Now we've got protestors at our gate, hundreds of letters being sent to our legislators, and state regulators breathing down our necks!" he exclaimed angrily.

Alpha Corporation had been in business for more than 40 years and had, by its industry's standards, an exemplary environmental record, one showing no more than minor administrative corrections and some small fines. It made a product used and wanted by all.

Unfortunately, immediately after acquiring temporary permission to modify its manufacturing process, two things happened: (1) it had a significant environmental event which did release hazardous -- not toxic -- wastes into the environment, and (2) a national group of environmental activists took a negative position on the new manufacturing process, claiming that it was, in fact, harmful to people and the environment. Both of these events prompted a small group of local activists -- a mix of a few true environmentalists and a majority of folks who simply didn't like living next to a manufacturing plant -- to initiate an aggressive protest campaign by mail, through in-person protests, and by manipulating some under-educated local media contacts. Their goal: effectively restrict the plant's operation severely by asking the state to insist on a full Environmental Risk Assessment prior to giving permanent, unrestricted permission for the new process.

One rule of crisis communications is that "in the absence of accurate information, rumor and innuendo fill the gap." Alpha, not used to having to respond rapidly on the public and community relations front, ended up at the wrong end of the public sigmoidoscope before it created and launched a communications plan which eventually turned the situation around. Highlights of that plan included:

Assessing the real damage. Alpha only assumed that media coverage and frantic legislator calls reflected true public opinion, but was that so? A privately contracted survey revealed that the vast majority of area residents didn't believe the protestors, thought Alpha was a good corporate citizen, and merely wanted more information to satisfy any concerns they had. These survey results, besides being used to guide further public relations activities, were shared with legislators and regulators by company-hired lawyers and lobbyists, showing them "look, the voting public isn't concerned -- the noise is being made by a very small group of busy form-letter writers and phone callers."

Community education. The company conducted a series of moderated "town hall" format meetings in various parts of the county as well as sending speakers to service clubs and organizations, all to answer questions and provide accurate data about the environmental incident (including proof that it had harmed no one) and the new manufacturing process. Activists at the meetings were managed by allowing anyone to speak -- but for a very limited time period. Those wanting to say or ask more were encouraged to do so by setting up one-on-one meetings with Alpha management, going on site tours, etc. -- much more manageable PR situations with no media value.

Media education. There were only a few media outlets in Alpha's geographic locale and one reporter with some degree of competency about environmental matters. Hence company management focused heavily on making sometimes-technical information as easy to understand as possible through briefings and written materials, often using everyday analogies to clarify a point (e.g., the difference between "hazardous" and "toxic" waste). Gradually, the coverage became more accurate and balanced.
It took the better part of a year for the public furor to completely die down and the legal/regulatory process took twice that long. The protestors pretty much gave up in the face of the support evinced by the majority of their fellow residents. There were a few challenges along the way -- such as Alpha's union members having to be restrained from physically attacking protestors, and another environmental incident in mid-PR campaign -- but eventually Alpha's "new, improved" process was officially approved.

*Alpha Corporation is a pseudonym. The organization's name and certain minor facts were modified to preserve confidentiality.

Crisis: an unstable or crucial time or state of affairs whose outcome will make a decisive difference for better or worse (Webster's New Collegiate).

How many public relations spokespersons does your company have?

The correct answer is, "as many employees as we have." Sure, any organization can and should have a policy whereby only certain individuals are "officially" authorized to speak for the record. If a reporter calls and you have a designated spokesperson policy, the call will be probably be routed correctly -- but that doesn't prevent your secretary, an intern or a junior executive from giving their version of the facts to family members, friends, PTA members, golfing buddies and anyone else they know.

Internal audiences are as, if not more, important than external audiences during a crisis, and yet those who aren't actually on the crisis response team often receive the least consideration when the stuff hits the fan. It is vital, during the crisis communications planning process, to formulate key messages not only for employees, but also for others who are close enough to the organization to be considered "internal" -- e.g., regular consultants and major vendors. They're the ones who are going to be asked first, by external audiences (including reporters, when they try to go around you), "what's going on?"

Here are some tips for preparing internal audiences to be an asset to crisis response:

Develop one to three key messages about the situation which are simple enough for everyone to understand, remember and use in their day-to-day affairs. In an extremely sensitive situation, messages might be nothing more than reassuring statements and "nice no comments" -- e.g., "our day-to-day business is completely unaffected by this," "we know this is going to come out well for us when all the facts are known," or "we're a damn good company and I'm proud to work here."

Brief all employees in person about what's happening and keep them informed on a regular basis. In-person briefings say "we care about you" in a manner which no memo or internal newsletter can accomplish, although sometimes written communications are the only option. And you don't want internal audiences to read facts, or alleged facts, in your local newspaper first!

Identify your best "unofficial spokespersons" and your "loose cannons." The former are employees who you know are loyal, know when to speak and when to keep their mouths shut, and who are admired by their peers; if they feel that they're receiving accurate information and are being cared for, they'll pass that feeling on to others along with the key messages you've shared. Loose cannons are those who just don't know when to shut up, whose feelings -- sometimes disloyal/disgruntled, sometimes zealously loyal -- lead them to communicate not only facts, but rumors and innuendo. During crises, loose cannons need to receive gentle, but firm extra counseling about appropriate communication and/or be particularly well isolated from sensitive information.

Create a rumor-control system. Provide means by which internal audiences can ask questions and get rapid responses. You can designate certain trusted individuals (white and blue-collar) as "rumor control reps" who will field questions and then obtain answers from someone on the official crisis response team. And it's important to also have an anonymous means of asking questions, such as a locked drop box combined with a bulletin board on which answers to anonymous questions are posted. All employees can be encouraged to use either communication method without fear of reprisal.
Successful implementation of an internal communications program will carry your key message better, longer and farther than most external communications, while a lack of internal communications can completely undermine even the best external strategy. The two can, and must, go hand-in-hand.

Crisis: an unstable or crucial time or state of affairs whose outcome will make a decisive difference for better or worse (Webster's New Collegiate).

"Playing with the media is a game you can't afford to lose. At worst, your reputation's at stake. At best, you forfeit a chance to build important relationships which can benefit you, your firm, and your clients. Reporters may make the rules, but media training helps you learn to play the game to your advantage."

So says Kathy Kerchner, a former television reporter and now president of InterSpeak, LLC, a company which specializes in training people to be successful with the news media.

Reporters come to any interview with an agenda based on the editorial demands of their employer and their own desire for high-level visibility. The newsroom is a very competitive place and if an interview with you can help propel the story to the front page or the lead of the 6 o'clock news, it's difficult for most journalists to retain complete objectivity.

Media training teaches you to let your agenda direct an interview in a manner which still gives a reporter what he or she is looking for -- newsworthy information -- while reducing the chances of inaccurate facts and quotes being used. I say reducing -- eliminating isn't possible. "You can eliminate inaccurate quotes by not giving the interview," I've been told. Bull. Then the reporter just gets quotes from someone else, facts from less-accurate sources, and directly or indirectly implies that you're hiding something.

The media training process typically includes education on how to prepare for an interview, what the "rules of the game" are, how to make sure your key messages get across no matter what's being asked, and very specific, personalized instruction on how you can be a better interview subject. The latter is accomplished by videotaping, replaying and critiquing a series of mock interviews during the course of the training session -- and then giving you the tape to take home and study again. Many people who thought they were great interview subjects pre-training have been shocked at the initial results when viewed on tape -- but then pleased with the positive changes evinced as training points are integrated into subsequent interviews.

"My clients have been able to use media training not merely for dealing with the press, but also for communicating better when speaking to almost any audience, particularly when explaining a difficult situation," says Paul Roshka, founding partner of Roshka, Heyman, & DeWulf, a Phoenix firm specializing in securities litigation and business disputes.

A final note -- media training is hard work, usually requiring at least six hours of time during which you shouldn't be interrupted by phone or pager. And it's even harder work if a crisis is already breaking; as with other elements of crisis communications, preparation before the stuff hits the fan is less stressful. Smart companies run their top execs through media training at least once every couple of years, with specially focused "brush up" sessions concurrent with an actual, breaking crisis.

A severely neglected aspect of crisis communications is crisis prevention. Prior to suffering their first major crisis, few organizations invest the time necessary to take a hard look at their own vulnerabilities except in the context of legally required risk management.

A vulnerability audit is a thorough self-inspection designed to identify potential crises before they occur and pave the way for creation of a crisis communications plan which will allow an organization to avoid, or at least minimize, the negative impact of such crises.

This is done by:

1.Collecting data from people in key information flow positions. Senior executives are not always aware of all of the circumstances which can lead to the birth of a crisis. Hence, interviews are conducted with both white- and blue-collar personnel at various echelons of the company, typically a minimum of 20 interviews. Multi-location businesses usually require interviews with remote location personnel who have insights specific to their area.

2.These interviews are conducted on an extremely confidential basis. Ideally, interviewees are told that the firm's senior management will not, under any circumstances, be told "who said what." Information gleaned during the interview process includes (1) potentially harmful trends (facts or perceptions reported by multiple sources); (2) significant inconsistencies between answers from different subjects; (3) non-verbal cues that there may be something amiss in certain areas, which then prompts further questioning; and, (4) consensus opinion regarding the probability of certain types of crises.

3.Looking for operational and communications weaknesses which could cause or contribute to a crisis. An employee who's a "loose cannon" is a more obvious potential source of problems, even if he/she is well-intentioned, but there are less obvious issues revealed through the vulnerability audit process. For example, one past client relied on a single fax machine for incoming and outgoing faxes from its headquarters offices during a crisis, which tremendously delayed communication with a number of important audiences. The simple addition of fax machines, creation of broadcast fax/email lists and similar tactics can often greatly improve crisis response.

4.Anticipating actual crisis scenarios. Every organization is vulnerable to certain types of crises inherent in the nature of its business, plus others inherent, perhaps, in the nature of its particular style of operating. Additionally, the vulnerability audit has been known to reveal "skeletons" of which senior management may not have been aware.

5.Reporting results. The conclusions from the vulnerability audit are then analyzed and presented both as a in-person briefing and in writing as follows:

Recommendations for systems revisions. If there are changes (such as the aforementioned addition of fax machines) which can optimize crisis prevention and response, they are recommended.

Discussion of scenarios most likely to affect the client company. The audit will lead to a list of "most likely" scenarios with which the client company may deal in the future. At the in-person presentation of audit results, that list is finalized (which often results in deletion or addition of some scenarios) and then the management team brainstorms both general and audience-specific key messages for each scenario.
The information collected during the vulnerability audit process is used as the basis for writing a manual which will guide the entire organization in the communications aspects of responding to crisis situations, to include clear delineation of individual responsibilities and draft responses which reflect the company's values while considering the public's sensitivities and need to know.

The bottom line results include:

Crises prevented before they happen

Response time for crisis response dramatically enhanced

Operational weaknesses corrected

Cost of crises reduced
One would think that, given those benefits, this would be an automatic part of the business planning process. Perhaps one day it will be but, for now, less than five percent of businesses I've encountered have undergone the crisis vulnerability audit and crisis plan creation process. More common is the purchase and adaptation of an "off the shelf" crisis plan. How good are they? Well, would you run your business on an off-the-shelf business plan?

Everyone expects journalists to be pushy, to report facts less-than-accurately at times and to insist on a level of access to information that makes both attorneys and PR professionals cringe. To a significant extent, that's their job and those of us who respond to the media "dance the dance" with them and hope for some balance in the resulting coverage.

Sometimes, however, reporters and/or the media outlet they serve go too far. They cross the line from aggressive to offensive. They insist on publishing facts which have already been corrected by reputable sources. And when they do, there is recourse other than just taking it in the teeth.

When Reporters Get Offensive

In an actual situation which occurred in 1999, a reporter for an Arizona newspaper, assigned to coverage of an ongoing business crisis situation, apparently got frustrated at his inability to obtain interviews with certain representatives of that business. The organization in crisis had decided, at that point, to communicate only by written statement. He called the administrative assistant to one of the business' outside attorneys and insisted on talking to the attorney. When she, appropriately, told him the "party line" that all media calls were to go the PR director of the business (where he'd already called without success), he threatened her. He said that he would publish HER name as the one responsible for information not being available to the public.

She contacted the business' crisis management consultant, who advised her boss, the attorney, that the reporter was in gross violation of journalistic ethics and advised him to write a letter explaining what had happened to legal counsel for the paper. He did and, after some communication back and forth, the paper not only apologized to the assistant in writing, but gave her a free subscription -- and the reporter became the subject of an internal investigation. His bullying tactics stopped.

When the Media Ignores the Facts

If a spokesperson for an organization in crisis has repeatedly communicated demonstrably accurate information to the media only to see it not used, or has made statements which are repeatedly misquoted, the same tactic of having legal counsel communicate with legal counsel can often make a positive difference.

If it doesn't -- and some media's editorial bias on certain subjects is so strong that they won't cooperate even if threatened with more formal legal action -- it is worth considering use of "advertorials." That is the process of buying advertising space -- print or air time -- and putting your own message in there, formatted to look or sound just like news coverage. Sure, it will have to have the words "advertising" somewhere in the piece, but studies have shown that the public reads advertorials as readily as they do regular news coverage. And you control the message.

In addition to, or instead of advertorials, consider whether the audiences important to you or your client are actually being negatively influenced by the media coverage? And is it their primary source of information on the subject? I have known of cases where, when asked, key audiences tell client companies that they don't believe the media coverage and think reporters are on a witch hunt. It could well be that, by simply increasing positive and accurate DIRECT communication with key audience members (more phone calls, letters, meetings, etc.) about a crisis situation that you will balance out the inaccurate negativity in the press.

People in every profession "break the rules." Reporters and editors are no different. And not only do we have ways to respond but, if we don't, we're tacitly encouraging the rule-breaking.

All businesses are vulnerable to crises. You can't serve any population without being subjected to situations involving lawsuits, accusations of impropriety, sudden changes in company ownership or management, and other volatile situations on which your audiences -- and the media which serves them -- often focus.

The cheapest way to turn experience into future profits is to learn from others' mistakes. With that in mind, I hope that the following examples of inappropriate crisis communications policies, culled from real-life situations, will provide a tongue-in-cheek guide about what NOT to do when your organization is faced with a crisis.

To ensure that your crisis will flourish and grow, you should:

1.Play Ostrich

Hope that no one learns about it. Cater to whomever is advising you to say nothing, do nothing. Assume you'll have time to react when and if necessary, with little or no preparation time. And while you're playing ostrich, with your head buried firmly in the sand, don't think about the part that's still hanging out.

2.Only Start Work on a Potential Crisis Situation after It's Public

This is closely related to item 1, of course. Even if you have decided you won't play ostrich, you can still foster your developing crisis by deciding not to do any advance preparation. Before the situation becomes public, you still have some proactive options available. You could, for example, thrash out and even test some planned key messages, but that would probably mean that you will communicate promptly and credibly when the crisis breaks publicly, and you don't want to do that, do you? So, in order to allow your crisis to gain a strong foothold in the public's mind, make sure you address all issues from a defensive posture -- something much easier to do when you don't plan ahead. Shoot from the hip, and give off the cuff, unrehearsed remarks.

3.Let Your Reputation Speak for You

"Doesn't anybody know how important we think we are?" you complain. You: big business Goliath. Me: member of public who doesn't trust big business. You lose.

4.Treat the Media Like the Enemy

By all means, tell a reporter that you think he/she has done such a bad job of reporting on you that you'll never talk to him/her again. Or badmouth him/her in a public forum. Send nasty faxes. Then sit back and have a good time while:

The reporter gets angry and directs that energy into REALLY going after your organization.

The reporter laughs at what he/she sees as validation that you're really up to no good in some way.
5.Get Stuck in Reaction Mode Versus Getting Proactive

A negative story suddenly breaks about your organization, quoting various sources. You respond with a statement. There's a follow-up story. You make another statement. Suddenly you have a public debate, a lose/lose situation. Good work! Instead of looking look at methods which could turn the situation into one where you initiate activity that precipitates news coverage, putting you in the driver's seat and letting others react to what you say, you continue to look as if you're the guilty party defending yourself.

6.Use Language Your Audience Doesn't Understand

Jargon and arcane acronyms are but two of the ways you can be sure to confuse your audiences, a surefire way to make most crises worse. Let's check out a few of these taken- from-real-situations gems:

The rate went up 10 basis points.

We're considering development of a SNFF or a CCRC.

We ask that you submit exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.

The material has less than 0.65 ppm benzene as measured by the TCLP.
To the average member of the public, and to most of the media who serve them other than specialists in a particular subject, the general reaction to such statements is "HUH?"

7.Assume That Truth Will Triumph over All

You have the facts on your side, by golly, and you know the American public will eventually come around and realize that. Disregard the proven concept that perception is as damaging as reality -- sometimes more so.

8.Address Only Issues and Ignore Feelings

The green goo which spilled on our property is absolutely harmless to humans.

Our development plans are all in accordance with appropriate regulations.

The lawsuit is totally without merit.
So what if people are scared? Angry? You're a businessman, not a psychologistright?

9.Make Only Written Statements

Face it, it's a lot easier to communicate via written statements only. No fear of looking or sounding foolish. Less chance of being misquoted. Sure, it's impersonal and some people think it means you're hiding and afraid, but you know they're wrong and that's what's important.

10.Use "Best Guess" Methods of Assessing Damage "Oh my God, we're the front page (negative) story, we're ruined!" Congratulations -- you may have just made a mountain out of a molehill....OK, maybe you only made a small building out of a molehill. Helpful hint: you can make the situation worse by refusing to spend a little time or money quietly surveying your most important audiences to see what THEY think and if it matches the perception created by the media.

11.Do the Same Thing over and over Again Expecting Different Results

The last time you had negative news coverage you just ignored media calls, perhaps at the advice of legal counsel or simply because you felt that no matter what you said, the media would get it wrong. The result was a lot of concern amongst all of your audiences, internal and external, and the aftermath took quite a while to fade away.

So, the next time you have a crisis, you're going to do the same thing, right? Because "stuff happens" and you can't improve the situation by attempting to improve communications can you?

Which of the following statements about a jury, civil or criminal, are true?

1.Prospective jury members never lie regarding their advance bias about a case. 2.Jury members are always truly "peers" of the defendant. 3.Jury members never talk about a case outside of jury deliberations, or read and watch TV about a case when sequestered, once directed not to do so by a judge.

If your answer is "none of the above," you begin to appreciate the potential value of crisis/issues management for the purpose of influencing a jury pool. Now, I am aware, though not an attorney, that members of the bar are not allowed to influence a jury. Ed Novak, a partner at the Phoenix-based law firm, Streich Lang, bridges the gap between my position as a public relations professional and his as legal counsel.

"While it is unethical to attempt to influence prospective jurors, there is nothing unethical or unprofessional about having an accurate picture of your client presented to the media and other audiences," said Novak.

A jury consultant is typically not called in until there is some high certainty that a case will, in fact, go to trial. By then, if the case in question has been highly visible in the press, it may well be too late to educate a jury pool "contaminated" by the media's interpretation of events.

Any honest reporter (yes, there are honest reporters who might even acknowledge there are honest attorneys) will admit that he or she brings a natural bias and an institutional editorial perspective to a story. Journalists will do their best, in that context, to report in a "balanced manner," with the exception of columnists, who are often free to say pretty much what they please and not worry about "balance." These media representatives are a gateway through which both plaintiff/prosecutor and defendant can communicate not only to the publics thought of most often - business contacts, community VIPs, etc. - but also to potential jury members. It is the responsibility of counsel, with expert assistance as necessary, to direct media relations which can shift the balance of coverage.

"If we say something to the media, we realize we may be talking to future jury members as well, and if we don't say something, we're telling those jury members 'we don't care enough about you to keep you informed.' When we get to court, they'll remember that," said Novak.

And, he notes, his firm has realized that the same analysis done by crisis management professionals to anticipate multi-audience response to various public relations tactics also helps them anticipate jury response.

"I've had a crisis consultant sit in on practice sessions for depositions, resulting in a change in the client's choice of words," he said. In that circumstance, the crisis consultant was actually hired as a jury consultant under the law firm's umbrella of confidentiality.

What tactics can be used for this public education process? They include, but are not limited to:

The use of spokespersons trained to deliver key messages to the media and other audiences.

Educating employees of defendant or plaintiff's companies about what to say or not to say about the situation at hand when they're back home, out in the community which will eventually be the source of jurors.

Advertorials -- buying print space or broadcast time in which one puts news-like stories about your client organization that are designed to help balance any misinformation which may already be in the public eye. This tactic is usually only employed if the media has consistently mis-reported the facts.
The battle for the hearts, minds and votes of jury members does not begin in the courtroom. In my experience, if smart, advance communication begins immediately after a legal situation hits the media, it can work together with legal tactics to (a) preclude a case ever going to trial (assuming that's a desired outcome for either side of the issue) or (b) affect public perception sufficiently to enhance either side's chance of a favorable outcome in court.