3 Tips for Pitching Nonprofits/NGOs During a Crisis or Trendjacking for a Good Cause

When a crisis hits, NGOs and other nonprofits often seek to raise awareness of their missions and how they are helping people in need. The term for this is trendjacking or news-jacking, capitalizing a trending topic to bolster one's brand in the marketplace," according to an article, "Does Trendjacking Work: And Should You Be Doing It?" on the TweakYourBiz site.

Trendjacking can be a good way to leverage existing interest in a topic -- but it's not without risk. The main risk is for an organization to look like it is exploiting a trend or crisis -- and that can damage the organization's brand.

But there are times when a worthwhile organization should at least consider whether or not to leverage a trending topic. If you do decide to move forward, there are some logistical issues to address.

We have advised several terrific NGOs and charities, and here are five lessons we learned. 

1. It's not enough to have experts, you need to have spokespeople with specific expertise on the ground. A nonprofit that helps with adoption from Africa seemed one that reporters would want to speak to as they wrote about children who were orphaned by Ebola -- but the media wanted someone they could interview in an Ebola-infected community. The media all felt the organization was doing good work but the organization didn't have specific information about what was being done for Ebola orphans and had no one who could talk about specific adoptions that had taken place in which a child, whose parents had died of Ebola, had been placed with a family in the U.S.
2. Speed matters. It's amazing how fast network news can work to pull together stories. By the time you’ve read or watched an article about it, the producers will feel they’ve already told the story; there’s nothing more to pitch. To get the media's attention, you need to develop and implement your strategy, tactics and messages at the start of the crisis. You basically need someone on the ground or with direct expertise in the first few hours, especially someone who can do an interview over Skype. 
3. Bring something strikingly new to the game by uncovering what the media hasn’t covered. Make sure to differentiate the charity from what others are doing, and from what the media perceives the story to be. Otherwise, reporters’ basic response will be, "Good to know there’s another organization that can talk about conditions on the ground but we've had already covered that angle."

Unfortunately, to get the media's attention, it takes more than doing good work to help people in a crisis. The point of helping an NGO during a crisis is to help further NGO's mission, which can include offering tips for others facing the crisis or offering additional ways for people to help those caught up in the crisis. 

The above tips assume you are working with an above-board organization. It might be worthwhile to develop a trendjacking plan to help you move more quickly in the case of a situation in which your organization's spokespeople can provide useful information that can help those caught up in the crisis.

Three Social Media Lessons Not to Copy: Claire's disengages in face of charges that the retailer copied designs

Claire's Stores, a U.K./U.S. retailer with 3,000 outlets and revenue of $356 million in Q3 2011, has become embroiled in a social media scandal. An an independent U.K. designer, Tatty Devine has accused Claire's of ripping off its designs in this blog post. For more context, check out this ZDNet article, "Claire's Stores ignores Twitter criticism over copycat design claims."

When it comes U.S. intellectual property laws, designers cannot, apparently, copyright or trademark their designs. That's the crux of a current case between Christian Louboutin and Yves Saint Laurent. Current U.S. law apparently does not provide much protection against copies or knockoffs. (For that matter, U.S. law apparently does not protect the use of titles of books, movies and song.)   So the issue here is not whether or not a big retailer like Claire's copied designs from an independent designer; the issue is: how did Claire's address the issue via social media.  Claire's did not do a very good job. Here are some of the issues:

1.     On both Facebook and Twitter, Claire's provided generic statements that probably caused more confusion because the statements did not directly address the situation. On Facebook, Claire's stated that it is a "responsible company" that aims "to provide innovative collections that bring customers all the latest fashion trends. As such, we take any allegations of wrong doing seriously."  Some of the initial posts actually asked, "What happened?" A good initial statement needs to provide enough information so that it is clear  that the company understands the scope of the issue, even as it sets to investigate further. On Twitter, Claire's was limited to the 140-character limit, saying merely, " Claire's responsibly provides customers with the latest trends. We take claims of wrongdoing seriously and are reviewing the matters raised." That snippet perhaps left greater questions about what "the matters raised" is all about.

2.     On Facebook, the company deleted some users' feedback that was negative to Claire's, but did not otherwise engage with upset fans. The only interaction between someone at Claire's corporate seems to have been a post saying, "We do not tolerate the use of profanity on Claire's wall. Thank you." Just because you can delete posts written on your wall, doesn't mean you should.

3.     There was no follow-through on Twitter or Facebook. That one comment on Twitter at Feb. 24th at 12:46pm was the only statement the company posted -- even as it posted five other tweets. Same for Facebook. In fact, the only response from Claire's corporate was the Facebook comment about deleting a post due to profanity. Instead, the only one responding from the company was a manager from one of its U.S. stores; and after what she called a "lively debate," the store manager deleted her comments, instead, saying that she's "going to let my company handle it." That's good, except for one thing: the company has not responded.

In light of the fact that Claire's has a strong Facebook and Twitter presence, with more than one million likes on Facebook 15,500 followers and 2,100 tweets, you'd think the company would better understand how to engage with customers and potential customers via social media. Right now, the company has been stonewalling rather than engaging. They have not provided its one million Facebook fans with information to support the company's statement that it is responsible and that it is vital source for the latest fashion trends. The company basically disengaged, which is the antithesis of how you're supposed to approach social media.

Non-apologies and Non-answers Don't Help Non-profits

The well respected nonprofit Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation is now embroiled in a scandal of its own making. The reaction to the news that the foundation had decided to cut funding of $700,000 of grants to Planned Parenthood has generated a storm of front-page coverage, angry editorials, tweets and Facebook comments.

The organization, which has built up tremendous goodwill and strong brand recognition with its iconic pink ribbon, has a right to distribute its $93 million in grant money as it sees fit, consistent with its mission, fiduciary and legal responsibilities.  However, the foundation has clearly miscommunicated an apparent policy change with regard to Planned Parenthood.

Critics are claiming that the reason Komen cut grants to Planned Parenthood is due to politics -- specifically the desire to placate some anti-abortion donors who have been targeting Planned Parenthood, which provides breast-cancer screenings along with privately-funded services, which may include abortion.

In its attempt to explain the change in policy, the foundation issued a statement, followed up by a video by Komen founder and CEO Nancy G. Brinker, that it continually measures the impact and that  the organization "has the highest responsibility" to make sure "these donor dollars make the biggest impact possible." 

At the end of the video, Brinker invokes the promise she made her sister, Susan G. Komen, in explaining the foundation's mission. She does a good job in articulating the passion she feels for the organization, its goals and its impact.

Unfortunately, though the video is intended to provide background on the organization's policy changes, Brinker never actually mentions Planned Parenthood by name. Nor, in stating the organization revamped its guidelines and policies in terms of grant-giving, does Brinker explain what new criteria Planned Parenthood and others organizations now must meet in order to continue to receive grants from the Komen foundation.

Ultimately, her explanation is neither an apology -- Brinker's a bit to defensive here -- nor a direct response to the questions people have.

And because she doesn't provide a true answer about its decision that impacted Planned Parenthood, Brinker has actually flamed the fires, enabling people to assume that the decision was motivated by anti-abortion politics that has spent the past year targeting Planned Parenthood, investigating it for possible misuse of government funding (which is kept separate from any abortion services Planned Parenthood provides).

The lesson here is that goodwill takes years to build up but can be damaged in a heartbeat if communications are mishandled.  I don't know if the Komen foundation will see long-term negative impact on its programs and fundraising -- just as I don't know if Planned Parenthood will see a long-term positive impact to its fundraising and its support.

But I do know this damage is self-inflicted, even if unintentional. Policy changes don't have to be scandals. But it shows, yet again, that in the social media age, organizations need to be more sensitive than ever to the impact of its decisions and to the way those decisions are communicated and responded to.

UPDATE: After this article was posted, the foundation actually reversed its decision,and did a better job of explaining its new policy:

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation.  We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

This information was not communicated well before -- which meant that the conflicting information coming from inside the organization and from former employees was getting significant play as people were trying to make sense of things.

That said, the tone of part of the response is more defensive than it might have been: "We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood.  They were not."

At this point, the question remains: what long-term impact will this blunder have on this worthy organization. Let me know what you think.

Johnson & Johnson Misdiagnosis of its Crisis

Perhaps it depends on how you define "crisis," but there are more than 200 articles by the third day of the month about the concerns about Johnson & Johnson's baby shampoo as well as a movement to boycott J&J. (Not every call for a boycott is a crisis -- on Facebook, there's a list to boycott those who boycott Arizona, so you can have counter-boycott boycotts.)  In fact, this is a big crisis for a brand that last month ranked by Forbes as the most trusted brand in America. This is particularly true because of the concern that some ingredients put babies at risk.

Yet Johnson & Johnson doesn't seem like it's hoping the issue will go away, even as it has posted some information online and on a couple of its Twitter feeds.

For example, there didn't seem to be much activity on Facebook about it, including on the J&J page -- there's one post from the company, from Tues., a day after much of the coverage started hitting. Meanwhile, there are 45 posts on the J&J Facebook wall, most of them from people venting how upset they feel, how they feel the company betrayed them and put their kids in danger.  The lack of engagement is turning off some customers, so that they're feeling as if J&J is not listening to them.

I don't think that's the case, though. I'm sure J&J is listening, but is figuring the company doesn't get much benefit from engaging with angry customers. And there isn't much benefit to engaging if the company is not willing to make changes that address customers' concerns about the possibly carcinogenic ingredients.  The company says it has been reformulating and phasing out some ingredients, but two years have passed and there are still some ingredients that have yet to be replaced in the new formulation.

Meanwhile, J&J has posted a handful of Tweets pointing to the long statement.  Again, it doesn't seem like the company is going out of its way, and possibly for the same reason.  While the company has several Twitter feeds, you'd

have to know where to find them (@JNJStories, @JNJHistory and @JNJComm) to see the posts, which merely offer a link to the long statement. Even the blog post (called JNJ BTW) isn't effective.

Part of the problem is that there's a lack of emotion or a lack of conveying that the company understands the emotion that its customers are feeling. While the organization raising awareness about the ingredients has a Twitter ID (@nontoxicissexy, and while much of the coverage includes a photo of an adorable baby, J&J's "A Statement on Ingredients in the News" doesn't address the emotion and concern -- it doesn't even include a photo of an adorable baby.  Instead, the statement is a rather dry, stoic response, one that hides behind language like "The ingredients used in JOHNSON'S^® Baby products, including preservatives that are designed to release tiny amounts of formaldehyde to protect against harmful bacteria growth, are safe and approved by regulators in every country or region in which they are used, including U.S., EU, and China."

Really? J&J should have realized that citing the fact that some ingredients meet the standards set by China would not help its case.  After all, China has its own safety and quality control issues, since the country has repeatedly let toy companies export lead-paint-covered toys, among other harmful ingredients and products.

I would be surprised if J&J does not completely reformulate its products to take out formaldehyde and other preservatives. As it is, the company merely says, it takes reformulating its products require "extensive efforts, which require complex testing and significant clinical studies to insure that new formulations meet our high standards for safety, mildness and gentleness." But I don't know why J&J doesn't just announce that it responding to concerns, and that will finish that process within a set timetable. They would be in a better position if they did so. Right now, it seems like the company is taking a hit it doesn't need too -- because it will eliminate formaldehyde. The challenge for J&J is that when it does finally sell formaldehyde-free baby shampoo, the company can't really make a big deal of it. It has a teachable moment that it's not effectively using.

Fee, Fie, Foe -- 3 Lessons learned when companies mishandle how they communicate their new fees

In the wake of Netflix's mishandling its new pricing structure and sub-brand (Qwikster, in case you misspelled it), Bank of America recently also blundered in announcing a new charge for debit card customers (check out the Time Magazine about it here and a Financial Times article here).

With a US economy that continues to fluctuate wildly, and continued bad global economic news, it's probably a safe bet that more companies are going to look to raise prices and implement new charges to boost their embattled bottom lines. It's also a safe bet that as they do so, other companies (besides Netflix and BofA) will mishandle their communications around the price hikes.

You can check out Nine Lessons from Netflix and the 'Half Apology." 

Here are some thoughts about lessons from BofA:

1. Some companies may feel that their customers are captive and don't have much of an alternative, but even if that's true -- and I think it's more difficult to change banks than to switch TV channels -- companies need to realize there is a price to pay for mishandling communications. Beyond a company's reputation, publicly held companies have seen their stock prices fall as a result of negative consumer backlash.
2.  Companies need to provide context for restructuring their prices and fees. Blaming new government regulations, as BofA has done, will likely appeal to some customers, but when so many people think the government bailed out the banks while holding consumers accountable for bad mortgages will not generate much sympathy overall or provide enough of an explanation as to why BofA will soon start charging $60 a year for the privilege of using debit cards instead of checks or credit cards.  Especially right now, when there's a lot of anger towards Wall St., with in-person and online protests like #OccupyWallStreet. So for BofA and other banks like Chase, SunTrust, Wells Fargo, Regions, establishing new fees will likely be seen as another example of banks putting their interests ahead of their customers. 
3. Communicating solely by Twitter can be partially effective to get what amounts to a headline, but is not effective in providing detail. Our advice to BofA: Consider steps to take to mitigate the consumer backlash, especially since some reports attribute the drop in its share price to the negative consumer response to the new fees. If the only place BofA has addressed this issue is on its Twitter feed, @BofA_News, the bank should start communicating beyond Twitter.  First, because its 140-character limitation, Twitter is not the right means to communicate a complicated message. Second, fewer than 9,000 people currently follow @BofA_News so the bank can't be sure it's actually and effectively reaching its customer base. 

For example, the bank should prepare a detailed FAQ inserts to accompany its monthly statements and post that information on its website, about the new fee. The FAQ should explain the economics of the fee, should include a statement that explains the reluctance with which BofA realized it had to initiate the fee, and include information about ways that customers can avoid being charged the $5 per month fee -- for example, apparently using a debit card at an ATM won't trigger the fee but using a debit card at a retailer will. Meanwhile, explaining that Platinum customers will be exempt from the debit card fee, will not placate the majority of customers who will soon be charged the fee.

Other companies considering price increases or the implementation of new fees should learn a lesson from Netflix, which did an arguably poor job in communicating the context for its increase of fees. Even if you're in a position where you must pass along higher fees, it helps to explain the reasons for the increase. Otherwise the increase will seem like a slap in the face to its customers.  Again, I have no doubt that we'll see more companies considering raising prices and charging new fees in the near future -- and that there will be negative response if the increases are not communicated effectively.  What's also clear is that companies that mishandle their price increases may also pay a price -- in their stock price, as BofA and Netflix have seen.  With the right planning, companies can announce price changes that don't have to lead to crisis communications. 

11 Lessons from Weinergate

We knew it was a train wreck when Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) said he could not say "with certitude" whether or not that now infamous photo was of him.

Here are some lessons learned from the past two weeks.

1. Do not take a picture of your junk. If you feel compelled to do so anyway, do not take the photo with your cell phone and do not load it onto your computer -- it's too easy for something unpleasant to happen.  This might seem obvious, but clearly it's a lesson that Brett Favre and Anthony Weiner could have benefited from.
2. Do not share pictures of your junk. Nothing good can come from it. Doing so is unlikely to get you what you want. And, if you're a public figure, is more likely to make the day for your political enemies and late-night comedians. Even Jon Stewart, who on previous editions of the "Daily Show" has said he's good friends with the congressman, had to take Weiner to task.
3. Social media is a great way to connect and engage with people you've never met, but limit the nature of the conversations you have with people you don't know. Your parents told you not to talk to strangers for a reason. This is particularly true for the Internet, where no one know if you're a dog. (Apparently in more senses than one.)
4. If you feel you must respond when a woman says she thinks you're politics are "hot," focus on the politics, not the "hot." It may be flattering for someone to call you "hot," but it's never good for married politicians to respond to those compliments.
5. If you're not sure if a conversation you're contemplating or actually having is appropriate, it probably isn't. Before you post or hit send, ask yourself, if this is made public, how would TMZ respond? What will Andrew Breitbart do with this content? 
6. A little flirting may be okay, but persistent over-the-line conversations are not. Keep in mind that those online conversations that you think are sexy and fun will actually look especially sordid and creepy when other people can read them. Keep that in mind the next time you consider engaging in those sorts of conversations.
7. If a photo or conversation is made public, do not lie and say your account was hacked if, in fact, your account was not hacked. Eventually, the truth will come out, and now people will know, among other things, that you a liar. And a bad one at that. 
8. Remember: it's usually not the deed but the cover-up that causes problems. True, it would have been embarrassing for Weiner to admit at the start that the photo was his. But had he admitted the truth up front, he would have spared himself two weeks of humiliation. And he would have more credibility.
9. By not answering questions clearly and succinctly, you actually raise the distraction level. Weiner is an otherwise feisty, smart and astute politician, with a lot of media experience. He should have realized that providing fuzzy, contradictory answers only stoke the scandal's flames (and not in a way he wanted to via his online exchanges).
10. If you schedule a press conference to finally admit what we all know to be true, do not let anyone else -- especially a political enemy -- commandeer your podium before you get there. Instead, if you're going to be late, at least station a staffer to prevent anyone else from usurping your microphone and airtime.
11. If you hold a press conference to make a teary confession, do not take questions afterwords. Make your statement, explain that you're sorry you've hurt those closest to you, that you made and learned from your mistake, and then left the podium. There will be no sympathetic of softball questions from the media, like, "Congressman, now that this is behind you, are you glad to get back to focusing on the business your constituents elected you to do?

There's clearly a 12th lesson here that was once best illustrated by the Daily Show with a faux press conference but you'll have to search for the link on YouTube.

Check out Don't Be A Weiner for other lessons and a good post on Forbes.com, 5 Tips for Handling a PR Crisis like Weinergate. If you have other lessons from this recent crisis, let me know.

Chrysler & the F-Bomb

Last week, someone working for Chrysler's social media agency accidentally dropped the f-bomb in a tweet from Chrysler's Twitter account, @ChryslerAutos.

You can read about it in Matt Wilson's article in Ragan.com's PR Daily, "F-bomb appears in Chrysler’s official Twitter account."

In his follow-up article, Matt asked some worthwhile questions:

• Did Chrysler overreact to accidental f-bomb tweet?
• Should the automaker have fired the social media manager who sent an offensive tweet? 
• And could it have been spun into a positive? 

Matt points out that when something similar happened to the American Red Cross, "who turned a tweet about beer meant for a personal account into sympathy and blood donations."

But I don't think the situations are analogous.

For one thing, there's a big difference between what was posted on the Red Cross' Twitter feed and Chrysler's -- namely the latter used the F-bomb.  (You can read about the Red Cross' rogue tweet here.)

I think Chrysler couldn't just brush it aside and make a joke of it.

It's one thing for Melissa Leo at the Oscars or Steven Tyler on "American Idol" to let loose, but it's quite another for a company selling an expensive item to a mainstream population.

Plus, a brand has to earn the ability and the trust to joke with its constituents.

And while I enjoyed driving a Jeep for a long time, Chrysler's brand is not a jokey brand (as opposed to most domestic beers and alcohol brands, and, surprisingly, some insurance companies). Which is to say that we don't expect Chrysler to be making jokes -- so if they had tried to joke away the F-bomb, I think it would have fallen flat.

More than that, I doubt the internal culture at Chrysler is one that would feel like turning this gaffe into a joke.  This is not a judgment of Chrysler's culture.  Just some companies can't tell a joke.

What's interesting about social media, especially as illustrated by this situation, is that each organization operates a bit differently.  Everyone's learning and a lot of companies are making mistakes.  But each company's culture, resources, capabilities and relationships are different so that two companies in the same sector may operate and behave quite differently.

And that's ok.  It shows that an organization's focus and values truly are important and that when communicating your organization culture and personality, it's critical to truly understand that culture and personality.

Let me know what you think.

In the meantime, for some good steps for how to handle a mistweet, check out "It’s Okay to Mess Up" by Beck Johns.

Charlie Sheen Makes the Case for Strong PR Support. Inadvertently.

If you've been living on Mars, you may have overlooked the media blitz of your fellow Martian now living on Earth. Perhaps you've been focusing instead on news of lesser importance, like figuring the correct spelling of Libyan dictator Moammer or Muammar Gadhafi, Gaddafi, Qaddafi, Khadafy, or Khadafi; frankly, I prefer to call him Colonel Mo.)

For the rest of us, it's been hard to avoid the real-time train wreck that is Charlie Sheen.  (You've seen or read about them so I'm not going to include the ton of links here.)

I've been talking about the role of public relations in the age of social media quite a bit since a panel I moderated in Oct., including with a reporter and with students at a local university, where I guest lectured earlier this week. And the reason I broke the Charlie Sheen-free-zone I had tried to establish is because I
think Sheen's rants support the case that publicists still play an important role in the lives of their clients, whether an actor or an organization.

Here are three things that Sheen's meltdown can teach us:

1. You may not notice a publicist's behind-the-scenes work when things are going well, but you certainly can see the impact when there's no guidance from a PR professional. A strong publicist is important to provide objective counsel on the types of program on which to appear and the tenor and nature of the comments one should consider making during those appearances.  Clearly, that's not been happening here, leading to Sheen's publicist quitting, saying he was "unable to work effectively” with Sheen -- something of an understatement.  Lest you think it's only an issue with Sheen, remember what Tom Cruise's appearances were like after he replaced his publicist with his sister.
2. You can lose good will and reputation quickly.  For nearly a decade, Sheen has been the lead actor in TV's top-rated comedy, but in a matter of a week, Sheen has gone from delivering punch lines to being the punch line.
3. It can take a long time to repair your reputation.  Just ask Mel Gibson and Tom Cruise.  At this point, Cruise has taken steps to rebuild his reputation, but he had been the top box office star for years, but that changed after he performed his own stunts on Oprah's couch.  Meanwhile, as for Gibson, last night Letterman ran a segment that inter cut lines from Gibson's taped phone calls with Sheen's off-the-wall recent interviews.
4. You can never underestimate the public's interest in a celebrity meltdown. Sheen's story is ubiquitous; it takes more effort to avoid it than to read, see, hear, talk or tweet about it. You might not realize it but there's actually a lot of other news -- some of it actually important with significant implications for us as a country -- being crowded out by Sheen's meltdown. For example, the state of the Arab world and their push against dictators; just because Mubarak has stepped down doesn't mean story's over.  But it's now harder to find news about Egypt. There's the possible budget showdown that, not surprisingly, has been postponed, along with the protests in Wisconsin. But Sheen, followed today by the news of the firing of Dior designer John Galliano, seem to fascinate people. You can't ask why do people care; they just do.
5. You can't just wing it, you need a good story to tell, even if you've got a movie to plug. This lesson comes from an appearance last night of actress Amanda Seyfried on the Late Show with David Letterman.  Letterman's never been a great interviewer but last night, Seyfried's appearance came off as flat and unfunny. The lines she kept expecting to pay off with laughs never hit.  What's perhaps interesting is that she had previously appeared on the Late Show just a few weeks earlier, and had done a much better job.  (In searching for Seyfried & Letterman, her prior appearance showed up first; the brief segment, below, was the comic highlight but doesn't do much for her image.).  Last night, they didn't have much to talk about, not even her upcoming movie.  The lesson this teaches is that you always need a plan and key messages for what you want to say. Even stars need to think ahead for their goal for any media appearance, and shaping that story is something a good publicist should do.

I know that entertainment PR is a specialized niche, but the lessons of Sheen's meltdown are relevant to other parts of the PR world. And it helps make the case for getting good PR support ahead of time. Cleaning up after a disaster is always more complicated slogging than addressing issues before they turn into a crisis.

Three Things That #KennethColeTweets Teaches Us

Clothing designer shot himself in his well-clad foot yesterday with a tweet that was quickly deemed inappropriate:

Millions are in uproar in #Cairo. Rumor is they heard our new spring collection is now available online at http://bit.ly/KCairo -KCless than a minute ago via Twitter for BlackBerry®

He quickly got condemned for being insensitive. And then, in what appears to be a now-standard response on Twitter, someone establish a mock Twitter ID, KennethColePR, posting some amusing tweets the way BPGlobalPR did after the BP oil spill. Today, KennethColePR has more than six thousand followers.

Kenneth Cole later did apologize -- six hours later.

So here's the first lesson: if you have a crisis

1. Be prepared: Register account names that can be used as mock accounts. Yeah, they'll still be able to find an account to mock your corporate response, but you might as well make it more difficult for them.
2. Respond quickly. Companies need to monitor the response any edgy tweets quickly. Fifteen years ago, apologizing just six hours after the fact might have been fast enough to deflate a story. Not anymore. Twitter moves too fast, so that six hours turns out to be a too looong a time. Two hours might be too long to wait and defuse the situation.
   
3. Context matters. What works in advertising might not work on Twitter. Kenneth Cole has used edgy ads for years --"Regardless of the right to bear arms, we condemn the right to bare feet" and Women have the right to be pregnant, but not barefoot" or an AIDS-prevention ad featured a condom along with the tagline: "Shoes aren't the only thing we encourage you to wear." So his edgy comment on Twitter was not without precedent. What's interesting, though, is the gap between what's appropriate for an ad and what's appropriate on Twitter.

People expect ads to entertain, intrigue, persuade, annoy or bore them. Even targeted ads are a bit impersonal (which is not to say some ads don't offend -- as some Super Bowl ads demonstrate each year).

Twitter, however, is different. It seems more personal. We're using it for news and commentary. What might have worked in an ad clearly did not work on Twitter.

The question for Kenneth Cole is what affect this tweet will have on his sales. I tend to think it won't have leave much of a long-term impact on his core customers.

What do you think? Are there other lessons?

"Where's the Beef" Taco Bell? Five tips on managing this crisis

Two decades after Wendy's commercials featured Clara Peller asking, "Where's the beef," we may have a sort of answer: Not at Taco Bell, according to a lawsuit filed this week. There are a lot of articles about the it, but you can check out an LA Times article, "Taco Bell buzz on the 'beef' class-action lawsuit."

Here are some points to consider for Taco Bell.

1. Although its attorneys have clearly advised the company to limit its comments to a public statement, the company needs to go beyond that statement. Taco Bell may feel that by aggressively fighting the allegations through ads, public relations and social media, it risks raising awareness about those claims to people who might not have been aware in the first place. That's outdated thinking, circa 1997. You can no longer expect bad news to disappear in a news cycle -- you've got to expect that people on Facebook and Twitter will comment.
   
2. The initial statement made some good points by saying that it buys "beef from the same trusted brands you find in the supermarket, like Tyson Foods" and that its starts "with 100 percent USDA-inspected beef." But Taco Bell should also consider ways it could provide content that will help fans support the company on Facebook and Twitter. The fact is Taco Bell's statement doesn't provide enough -- um -- meat, for Taco Bell fans. Or, the right meat.
3. For example, audiences on Facebook and Twitter need different information. For example, on Taco Bell's Facebook page, 947 people indicated they liked the company's statement while 368 people posted comments about the allegations. While there were a lot of people whose comments indicated the allegations would not affect their loyalty, there were more comments than I expected for a fan page of people who were upset by the allegations. What's interesting is that a quick scan of the 374 comments, only three people said anything about USDA beef -- and only one of those was not negative ("You start with USDA beef... but what do you end with?" posted Nicholas Ensz.) And the only one to mention Tyson was a Tyson employee. Meanwhile, a quick scan of Twitter for Tyson and Taco Bell found that people did use that sentence from Taco Bell's statement. Unfortunately for Taco Bell and for Tyson, people added sarcastic comments, with a lot of LOLs. Searching for USDA and Taco Bell generated posts in which people claimed that "USDA says meat should consist of at least 40 percent meat." I'm not sure if that's true or not, but having started out in food PR, I know that the USDA definitions can be confusing for those outside the industry. For example, the USDA maintains different definitions for "American cheese" and "American cheese food." A quick scan of Twitter for Tyson and Taco Bell found that people did use that sentence from Taco Bell's statement. Unfortunately for Taco Bell and for Tyson, people added sarcastic comments, with a lot of LOLs. Searching for USDA and Taco Bell generated posts in which people claimed that "USDA says meat should consist of at least 40 percent meat." I'm not sure if that's true or not, but having started out in food PR, I know that the USDA definitions can be confusing for those outside the industry. For example, the USDA maintains different definitions for "American cheese" and "American cheese food."
4. Seems that the allegations against Taco Bell are also raising issues for Tyson and USDA. So another recommendation would be for Taco Bell to be in close contact with Tyson and the USDA -- and that if it tries to defend itself in the future, it should point out that it purchases beef from providers other than Tyson.
5. As a franchiser, Taco Bell needs to make sure it provides its franchisees with content they can use when asked by customers. The statement doesn't provide much about that, doesn't even make the point about its commitment to "conducting its business in an ethical, legal and socially responsible manner" or to providing quality food at a great price. There are a lot of Taco Bell accounts on Twitter, most of the ones set up by franchise groups do not seem to post on a regular basis. None of the ones I saw -- @TacoBellChicago, @TacoBellDetroit, @TacoBellTruck, @TacoBellWestMI, @TacoBellCanada, or @TacoBellCanada -- had posted anything since the lawsuit was filed. Corporate silence doesn't mean that people aren't talking about you.

What do you think? Are there other steps Taco Bell missed? How has Taco Bell responded well?

Carnival's Crisis Turns Into Social Media Case Study

There's a lot of potential for crises in the travel business than most outsiders realize, either from equipment problems like Qantas experienced and Carnival's Splendor fire to natural disasters like the Icelandic volcano that disrupted travel to and from Europe this spring and the Indonesian volcano that erupted this week.

The combination of smartphones and social media makes it very easy for stories to get out to a wider audience than would have been possible just five years ago. We can expect that these kinds of stories will continue to generate noise, and companies need to prepare for that eventuality -- as opposed to hoping that the public's interest and appetite for such news will wane.

This week's two crisis alone provide an incentive for travel companies (but not just travel companies) to update their crisis plans to make sure they address social media as a communications vehicles, something Qantas did not do. (See, Five Lessons on Twittering During a Crisis: Lessons from Qantas.)

Here are some lessons learned from Carnival's response:

1. Carnival did a good job using Facebook and Twitter. There were regular updates on Carnival's website, and links posted on Facebook and Twitter. Carnival might have posted more frequently than once or twice a day, but it did respond when someone said the link to the Splendor's status was not working. (When I clicked on it, the link worked.) And the company posted more frequently as the Splendor reached San Diego.
2. Carnival did a good job when it posted links to the on-board blog post written by Splendor's cruise director, John Heald. The post was positive but also acknowledged the reality, noting: "most important facts and those are that the ship is safe, the guests are safe and that nobody was injured in what was a very difficult situation. I also want to tell you that the guests have been magnificent and have risen to the obvious challenges and difficult conditions onboard."
3. Once Carnival started reporting on the Splendor, the company halted its regular promotional posts -- the ones highlighting locations, ships, even a regular weekly contest -- clearly recognizing that business as usual was not appropriate while a ship was stricken. That was a good move.

In terms of what's next: I think there's some concern about the conditions, and whether or not the ship really turned into "passenger hell," so a lot of the immediate coverage will focus on those conditions. The fact remains that the passengers and crew were safe -- that's important.

Carnival should continue to use social media to communicate any feedback the company gets from passengers -- and already there's a lot of positive feedback on its Facebook page. I think the company should report back on any lessons learned, perhaps something like, in the even a ship is similarly disabled in the future, Carnival will get non-perishable food other than Spam and will develop a process so that people don't have to wait two hours in line for Spam sandwiches.

It's been a busy week for travel crises and social media. There are certainly things that Carnival can improve -- what other lessons do you think are important, please let me know,

(In the interest of disclosure, I've had past connections to Carnival, but I do not and have not worked for the company. )

Five Lessons on Twittering During a Crisis: Lessons from Qantas

Twitter may still be a punchline for late night comics, but PR and communication functions can't treat it like a joke.

That's especially true during crises when information may be posted before traditional journalists can process the news. And I mean "process" in a good way -- checking out the information, confirming facts, etc. If journalism is history's first draft, then Twitter may be history's notes.

The Qantas incident is a case in point about Twitter. (Check out a good overview article here,
Qantas A380 incident: a lesson in social media and web PR.)

Apparently, at the same time Qantas responded to broadcast reports, the company ignored information on Twitter. Some bloggers correctly said that if Qantas was able to make statements to broadcast news outlets, it should have also posted the same response via Twitter.

I agree. But having worked with global companies, I think the problem with Qantas' response isn't that the company doesn't "get" Twitter.

I think some of the problem may have been structural. Here are some points global companies need to consider to effectively manage a crisis.

1. Positive news about a company may only appeal to a specific in-country geography, but a crisis crosses borders. For example, we had a client that launched retail technology in England for a US company -- and every US-based outlet said they could only cover it when the technology was available in the US. (Despite multiple stores using that technology in England, we finally got coverage when a single store in Cleveland started testing the technology.) But bad news, as Qantas found out, isn't limited to Singapore and Sydney -- it can become global. Companies need to think about a global response, not just one focused in-country.
   
2. Global companies need to make sure their communications functions are thinking globally. In this case, the communications team in Sydney may not have thought to respond on a Twitter account in the US because the accident occurred en route from Singapore to Sydney. Part of the problem, as we've seen with some global clients, is that communications functions are distributed by geography, with little interaction or coordination among teams. Instead, companies should consider a global response so that PR functions in different countries have the tools -- latest information, for example -- to respond to reporters and bloggers in their own countries, even if the crisis happened overseas.
   
3. Global companies need to make sure to prepare for and incorporate social media as part of their response to a crisis. But they also need to make sure in-country PR functions think globally during a crisis. After all, even if Quantas had thought about updating its US Twitter feed, it would not be unusual for the communications team in Sydney to not have the password for the US Twitter feed.
4. Companies need a better way to manage their social media assets, and a crisis is a bad time to find out that you're not prepared. We've seen a number of global companies that have different Facebook pages and Twitter IDs for each geography and language, which makes sense for day-to-day business. The problem is that key communications people in other geographies should be able to update social media sites in cases of emergencies. (If it's not an emergency, people outside the geography would have no need to update the site.) Instead, companies should develop a comprehensive list of all social media accounts, user names and passwords from all geographies, as well as the "owner's" names and contact info, in one document. For example, it's not enough for each geography to compile a list of all social media accounts, user names and passwords -- a step that I'm sure most companies do not take (but should). That way, if a crisis occurs in Sydney, there's someone in Sydney who can post information on the US Twitter account without having to wait several hours before being able to connect to someone in the US who can find the person with access to the Twitter account. With that comprehensive document, key people in different geographies can update accordingly and on a timely basis.
5. Global companies should consider maintaining a global corporate Twitter ID to address global issues.Apparently, Qantas only had two accounts, one for the US market and one for travel agents. Not enough -- because where do people in other locations turn to for information?

For more insight, check out Matt Wilson's article on Ragan.com, "Qantas’s big #fail in quelling tweeted rumors of a crash."

PR Lessons from BP, Toyota & Goldman Sachs, Part II

The Harvard Business Review or other business school magazine will be covering the 2010 crises for lessons learned, and someone will try to make money writing a book about these crises and how the companies should have avoided making them worse.

It's always easy with hindsight. That said, gathering lessons learned can help developing and executing your crisis plan. (Check out some lessons learned here: PR Lessons from BP, Toyota & Goldman Sachs.)

Without a plan -- and sometimes, even when you do have a plan -- a crisis can alter the perception of the organization, cloud their minds when it comes to objectively assessing the facts, the internal and external perceptions, the priorities, even the right move. Having a plan helps identify the priorities and action steps.

Of course, having a plan does not prevent the distortion, does not prevent the exhaustion that can cause more problems.

One thing that can get overlooked during a crisis is the need to communicate to your employees, customers, and partners.

For public companies, it's critical to communicate with your board of directors and major investors. Even if you handle the situation, you may lose the confidence of the board or shareholders if they feel you have not been honest with them. That's part of the reason H-P's board pushed out Mark Hurd, despite the fact he had turned around the company. Poor communications with his board after a poor response during an ice storm is part of the reason that JetBlue fired its founder David Neeleman. Good communications plans identify in advance who the crisis team needs to keep informed.