CRISIS COMMUNICATIONS
IT’S ALL ABOUT
THE PEOPLE
Communications in a crisis are fast, furious and the line
between truth and fiction can often become blurred,
says communications consultant Spiro Anastasiou.
Public opinion can be swayed by emotions
and people’s perceptions reinforced by
like-minded commenters online, rather than
by expert advice through traditional channels.
These perceptions are continually fed by digital
communications that have increasingly marginalised
the role of mainstream media as opinion leaders and
the main source of information. It has also turned
everyone with a smartphone into a journalist, editor
and publisher who can be rewarded with likes, shares
and comments. The airline industry has some recent
examples of responses that show how reputation
and brand can suffer when an organisation is too
slow to respond to issues. The case of the United
Airlines staff dragging a screaming elderly passenger
from his seat, and the British Airways computer
system meltdown that disrupted the travel of many
thousands both offer salutatory lessons.
Closer to home, the New Zealand food industry has
two of its own examples that have been very insightful
in shaping the thinking about responding in a
crisis. The Government inquiry into the whey protein
concentrate contamination incident should be compulsory
16 APRIL 2018
reading for anyone working in this area. One
of the most telling comments was: “The ill-prepared
inevitably pay a heavy price in a crisis. Fonterra was
not ready for a crisis of this magnitude. It lacked an
updated, well-rehearsed crisis plan to implement, as
well as a crisis management team that could spring
into action.” This is not about putting the boot into
Fonterra, because the reality is that the same could
– and would – have happened to many organisations
in the same position. What the response ignored
were the key rules about issue communications.
Take responsibility. Be sincere. Apologies. Be honest.
From the outside, it looked like the company
was managing its reputation rather than the fear of
parents, and people interpreted attempts to mitigate
and explain as avoidance of blame. About the same
time as the government inquiry was being released,
a second equally as serious situation also began to
unfold – the threat to contaminate infant formula with
the poison 1080. The situations were similar, not only
in seriousness, but in both cases the potential threat
was known well in advance of it being made public.
The difference was that the Ministry for Primary
Industries (MPI), which led the response, not only
acted appropriately – its communications were highly
effective. The objectives were clear, well planned
and well executed, and it’s a shame there won’t be
as much public analysis of that response because
it could become the playbook of how to do it right.
The big difference is that MPI used the time it had to
prepare, no doubt with the advantage of the lessons
from Fonterra. When the story did break, MPI and
the other agencies it was co-ordinating hit the ground
running and got in front of the issue. There was a
very comprehensive communications strategy with
clear objectives, appropriate resourcing and a very
proactive engagement plan across multiple channels.
It is fair to say that MPI had all the support it needed
and virtually a blank cheque, but that’s not why it was
effective. What differentiated the two responses
was the planning and preparation that recognised the
importance of communication and the right messaging.
We know senior business and public sector
leaders regard their reputations as more important
than ever before, while risks are growing and are
harder to manage. The worrying trend is that most
COVER STORY