An interview with City University of New York Associate Professor Jeff Jarvis on National Public Radio last week actually made me pull my car over so I could listen carefully and take notes. He was talking about the French Prime Minister’s Nicholas Sarkozy’s suggestion that governments regulate the Net.

While I normally confine my blogs to marketing, public relations and social media, Jarvis reported on something that could affect all two billion Net users worldwide. So I felt I had to write about it. We all need to stand up, take notice, and in my opinion, oppose any effort by any government attempt to control the Web.

Jarvis is the university’s director of the Interactive Program and director of the Tow-Knight Center for Entrepreneurial Journalism. Among his many accomplishments, Jarvis is a national leader in the development of online news, blogging, and other forms of collaborative journalism, blogs at Buzzmachine.com and is the is author of the book, What Would Google Do?

In short the man is an Internet expert.

Prior to the regular G-8 meeting, Sarkozy held an “e-G8” meeting to which the German news site Der Spiegel said he invited three of the world’s most powerful Internet luminaries to a forum in Paris: Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google, the world’s largest search engine; Mark Zuckerberg, the founder and head of Facebook, the world’s largest social-networking site, with more than 650 million users; and Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, the world’s largest online retailer. Many other Netizans, including Jarvis, went to the event.

Incidentally, note that the power trio is all Americans.

The gist of Sarkozy wants to do is having governments control the Internet. In his view, governments have a legitimate right to regulate the Web as they are only representatives of a country’s cititzens. He argues that things such as child pornography and terrorism have to be dealt with by governments.

“More than three years ago, Sarkozy declared war on the Web,” Der Spiegel reported. “At the time, he referred to it as a “Wild West” and characterized it as an ‘extralegal zone.’ In the style of an Internet Napoleon, he announced his intention to ‘civilize the Internet.’ Since then, he has pursued regulation with nothing short of missionary zeal.”

Curiously, I saw no coverage of this in the U.S. media. I guess they were too busy eating canapés and hobnobbing with dignitaries to notice something this important.

Jarvis said he attended the meeting as an Internet citizen.

“The net is also a new society,” Jarvis wrote in a Huffington Post blog. “That idea is confounding to nations of laws because the net’s own sovereignty depends upon no one having sovereignty over it. That is how it was designed. That is its core principle.

“So it doesn’t behave like a new land that, in Sarkozy’s view, needs civilizing.”

Sarkozy’s argument about crime on the Internet is, in my view, a Trojan horse. Once government can regulate any part of the Net, it will try to regulate it all.

That’s why we has marketers should be worried. Many countries are particularly protectionist. Suppose you have a client based in Ireland that wants to market its products in Singapore. But for whatever reason, the government of Singapore decides it doesn’t want the Irish marketing in their country. If they can control the Net, they can block any attempt by that Irish company to market its wares. Do you want a government telling you how you can market?

Give a government official control of the Net and free access to information will end. Frankly, I think governments are worried that the Internet is causing them to lose control. If they cannot control the sources of information, they have less control over their people.

Think about the Arab Spring. It was pushed and helped by the Internet. Think about what China and other repressive countries would do if their efforts stifle free expression were granted legitimacy.

We all need to oppose what Sarkozy is doing. He says he is just trying to help.

I am not a big believer in anyone offering to help me if I don’t ask for it. As Henry David Thoreau said: “If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life.”

Here’s the first thing that we all should remember – social media doesn’t kill careers, people using social media kill careers. Oh and you can add companies into that also. Social media can also wound them pretty severely.

You must be a monk living in a Nepalese cave if you don’t know what Wiener did. According to ABC News Weiner admitted Monday he had “engaged in ‘several inappropriate’ electronic relationships with six women over three years, and that he publicly lied about a photo of himself sent over Twitter to a college student in Seattle over a week ago.”

The overall lesson in all of this is think before you do anything on the Internet. I am not sure why it is, but many people do not consider the consequences of their actions when posting on the web. I mean does anyone think a sitting US Representative would post a picture of his junk on his office wall? Of course not. Yet when people get on the Internet, they seem to think that the same rules don’t apply. They don’t ask that question I always urge clients to ask before doing anything – “what if … ?”

I don’t get it. Research indicates the average post initially reaches approximately 150 people. If each of those 150 people sends out the same post and it reaches another 150 people each, over 22,000 people will see it and so on. You see how fast something goes viral.

So why do Weiner and others do inappropriate things on the web? I think it is because they don’t understand the power of the Internet. A lot of people don’t get it. They think they are somehow anonymous when they post. Well, they aren’t.

Here’s the second lesson to be learned from this: “three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.” That is one of my favorite Ben Franklin quotes. I use it when I discuss crisis communications.

Weiner has been touted as one of the more Social Media savvy members of Congress. Yeah, and I am scheduled to perform brain surgery tomorrow. Did he honestly think that those pictures would stay private?

It is hard to believe that anyone doesn’t know that once you enter the Social Media realm, privacy is surrendered. Anything you put on the Internet is accessible to anyone who wants to see it. If it is something salacious or embarrassing that pretty much guarantees it will go viral. We humans seem to revel in spreading that around. We really like it when it happens to someone who we feel thinks they are smarter than us.

There is the third lesson to come out of this. This is one is about crisis communications. In today’s Internet-based world, you have about an hour or so to respond to a crisis. You cannot wait more than that to formulate a response to whatever happens. In fact, if you decide to do something stupid like tweet pictures of your body parts to college student females, you had better have your story all set to go before you tweet.

Seriously, companies today have about an hour today to put out the fire. That’s why I always urge clients to have a crisis communications plan in place. They need to be monitoring Social Media 24 hours a day, seven days a week to catch those small fires. Wait any longer than that and it’s too late.

If Weiner had come out right away and said, “yes, it’s me. It was a stupid thing to do and I am sorry I did it” the story would have flared and died. Instead, he waited way too long to respond.

As my father used to say: “there is no sense in being stupid unless you show people how stupid you are.” We Coles are sarcastic people. What the Internet has done is expand the opportunities to demonstrate that stupidity.

What the Brewers did and didn’t do is also a lesson for any marketer who has an idea that seems to be a surefire winner. I am willing to bet no one in planning the promotion that backfired asked “what if … goes wrong.” Until you think something through from every angle, you are asking for trouble. As the Chinese military thinker Sun Tzu said: “The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand.”

Here’s what happened to the Brewers. As a promotion, the team placed 1,400 statues of mascot Bernie Brewer across Wisconsin parks early Tuesday morning. Some of the statues had a prize attached, including ticket vouchers, player autographs, and merchandise.

The idea was Bernie would tweet clues to the location of each statue so fans could find them. Under the rules, the contest was to begin at 7 a.m. People were supposed to take only one of the statutes. It didn’t work out that way.

Instead, people were grabbing as many as possible. There were reports of people sleeping in their cars overnight near parks where the statutes were to be placed. One woman tweeted she had taken over three dozen. People were trying to sell the statutes on EBay and Craigslist. This caused a lot of angry comments from people who tried to follow the rules.

Clearly no one at the Brewers thought this thing through. This is a clear case I feel of “you know what would be cool?” No one in the meeting asked the “what if fans get greedy and take more than one” question.  It’s a cliché, but it’s true: “hope for the best, but plan for the worst.”

There are hundreds of comments on social media sites posted by angry fans. The story went viral. I read a lot of the comments. People are really angry or laughing at the Brewers. Neither is good. The fact that the Brewers insisted that promotion went mostly okay shows me they don’t understand the power of social media.

Where the Brewers failed was not taking human nature into account. You announce you are giving away for free something people want they are going to find ways to game the system. Once the idea of the giveaway was decided on, the next topic of discussion should have been how to prevent the hoarding.

Brewers spokesman said the promotion went well with the exception of “some isolated” incidents. Wrong. They should have apologized profusely. That’s crisis communications 101.

What should the Brewers have done, or more accurately what would I have done?

First, there would have been no actual tickets, merchandise or autographed items in the statues if I were running things. What there would have been were vouchers for those items. Stamped on each voucher would be the words “One Prize Per Address or Family.” No, it wouldn’t have completely stopped the hoarding. But it would have cut down on it.

Second, I would have implanted a locator chip in each Bernie statue. Once I saw that more than Bernie was in one location, I would have noted the IDs on the chips (yes, the technology exists.) Whoever brought any of those hoarded statues in for redemption would have been disqualified automatically.

Third, to prevent anyone from selling the statutes on EBay or Craigslist, I would make it very public that the statutes can be purchased from the Brewers for $48. That would kill that market.

Fourth, I would have made those statues a heck of lot harder to find. Scavenger hunts are not supposed to be easy.

Now it is true that the people who thought they would corner the Bernie Brewer statue market are not particularly ethical or honest. But that’s human nature.

The failure was with the Brewers and their planning. You have to think these things through. It is why the first thing JJC Communications LLC does with a new client is an analysis what could go right and what could wrong. If you only do one of those, you end up with a lot of angry fans and people laughing at you.

If you want to learn more about how to such an analysis, let me know.

However, if the complaint is dealt with correctly, the wronged party can quickly become an advocate. I always tell clients that’s why they want to hear the complaints. It gives their business an opportunity to shine. You need to empower all of your employees to be able to take positive action in the face of a crisis because they are usually the ones dealing with the complainer.

Waiting even a couple of hours to fix problem may be too late. The damage may be permanent. Then you are facing an angry customer who might be telling the world not to use your product or go to your business. Ask Groupon, United Airlines, Proctor & Gamble or a number of other businesses what happens when a customer complaint is ignored.

A restaurant I was at Saturday night faced that situation. I was the angry customer. I like to think I am savvy when it comes to Social Media. I was fully prepared to jump on-line and use my social media accounts to rip this place a new one. But the manager turned me from that angry customer into an advocate.

The restaurant in question is named Trocadero. It is one my wife’s and my favorite places. It is funky place that serves French influenced food. We have been going there for a long time. It was one of the early leaders in turning Milwaukee from a beer and brat city to the Foodie town it is today.

So here is the scenario. My wife and I were going to the theater with another couple. No, not a movie, an actual performance. Milwaukee also has a ton of live theater.

At any rate, the performance was to begin at 7:30 p.m. The four of us arrived at Trocadero at 5:45 p.m. and were seated immediately. We figured that we would be eating by 6:15 p.m. and leaving by 7 p.m. But it didn’t work out that way.

The restaurant was packed. Milwaukee has a pretty lively weekend scene. There was a lot going on Saturday night in the downtown area.

The waitress was busy, which didn’t bother us. She took our order at about 6 p.m. We told her we had theater tickets and needed to leave by 7 p.m. She was quick with everything she had control over, primarily our drink orders. So far, so good.

However, we didn’t get our food until around 6:50 p.m. Not good. We were about 15 minutes from the theater, plus we had to find parking once we got there. None of us were happy. The waitress knew that, but it wasn’t her fault, it was the kitchen’s.

Personal note, in high school and college my son worked in a number of restaurants. For a while he considered being a chef. So, I know how restaurants operate.

At this point, the manager walked by and asked how things were. I told her. Now, she could have said something to the effect that we are sorry about the slow order, but that’s just way things were. Then the tone of this blog would have been very different.

Instead, she knocked 20 percent off the bill and apologized. She explained that the kitchen was overwhelmed by the rush. She said she hoped this one experience hadn’t soured us on Trocadero.

She also took responsibility for the problem. Now, she doesn’t work in the kitchen. But she still said it was her fault. That’s a key leadership lesson. If you are the captain, you take the blame. You give the credit to the people working for you when things go well.

Because of this woman, I recommend if you are in Milwaukee, go to Trocadero. I think you will like it.

You see, what this person did was turn a negative into a positive. She saw a problem and she dealt with immediately. That’s how you build loyal customers.

The old model emphasized individuality, the star system. Company’s now know that to enhance creativity it is important to create a culture that fosters it. Companies that create an atmosphere of support, innovate and creativity will be the ones that lead their industries. It will also lead to happier employees, something I would think every company wants.

When people in companies and teams feel engaged, the benefits are significant. Towers Watson (formerly Towers Perrin), the global professional services firm, interviewed 90,000 employees in 18 countries, and found companies with high employee engagement had a 19 percent increase in operating income and almost a 28 percent growth in earnings per share. Conversely, companies with low levels of engagement saw operating income drop more than 32 percent and earnings per share decline over 11 percent.

The old idea was that as you went up the hierarchy, somehow you got smarter. Leadership was viewed as the ability to tell people what to do, not to listen employees. In every innovative company today, that idea has gone away. Now the mantra is “all of us are smarter than one of us.”

Companies such as Zappos Shoes, Starbucks Dunkin’ Donuts, Apple, Southwest Airlines and many others have found success comes from dialog, not lectures.

While it should be obvious why internal communication is so important, I often find company leaders don’t get it. Here’s why – a Harvard Business School study found that the less information a company provides its employees, the more likely they are to start and spread rumors. It’s simple, nature abhors a vacuum. If that vacuum is not filled with real information, someone is going to fill it with male bovine excrement.

Now, I am sure all of your companies work to put out the correct information. But there are obstacles: ensuring employees just don’t just delete the email, then ensuring that they open it, and that they read the entire message. If that all happens, you still have to hope employees take the time to think and understand the messages so they are able to respond appropriately.  That’s why there has to be a face-to-face component of communications either with individuals or in a group.

However, face-to-face meeting are not as always effective as companies would like to think. When I was a reporter I covered crime in Detroit and its suburbs. I learned something  then from police officers that still applies – there is nothing so unreliable as an eyewitness. People hear and interpret the same message in different ways.

Plus, logistics can get in the way of face-to-face meetings. I work with a multinational company that has offices in the U.S., China, India and England. How can a company like that hold face-to-face meetings with its employees?

Social media can solve those problems change. Instead of sending out that mass email or posting on the company Intranet in hopes people will take the time to read it, social media provides tools help employees actively participate in creating and sharing information. It is a much better way to get people to listen and understand what you are saying.

Of course, I know social media scares a lot of senior executives. They worry it will affect productivity. They are concerned about allowing employees to create content. The IT department often has a dozen reasons why employees should not be allowed to use social media.

Another fear I often hear is that my employees are going to use the new tools to complain about the company. Yeah, they are going to do that. That’s a good thing. Who you would rather have an employee complain to – someone in the company who can fix the problem – or their friends?

As I said before, all of us are smarter than one of us. From an employee’s complaint could come a solution to a long-standing problem. What this all means is that you can be internal ambassadors and facilitators for your company. Social media gives you the ability to do that. You can hear about and solve problems before they blow up.

Anticipating how to handle a crisis before it occurs should be a key part of any company’s business plan. The one thing social media has probably made more difficult is crisis communications. A company now usually has minutes, possibly no more than an hour, to prevent a small crisis from growing into a major disaster. A response has to be immediate – within those same minutes of the crisis.

There is no alternative, no other option.

Here in my city of Milwaukee is an example of what happens when the crisis is more nimble than the responders. A suburban mall found itself the victim of what was apparently a flash mob that wreaked havoc throughout the shopping center. Then mall management made things worse by the way it responded

Businesses need planning and practice to be ready for a practice. A business has to have a crisis communications plan in place long before the crisis happens. To ensure the plan works when needed, it has to be rehearsed constantly.

Think about it. Fire Departments, police departments, the military and a host of other agencies constantly train. They do it so when they have to go into action everyone knows what to do.

Here’s what happened to Mayfair Mall in Wauwatosa, WI. I should note that it is one of the top shopping destinations in the Milwaukee metro area and is almost always crowded. In this case, I think the flash mob organizers decided that the crowd of shoppers would be the perfect audience for their “performance.”

For those who have not heard the term flash mob, Wikipedia defines it as a “large group of people who assemble suddenly in a public place, perform an unusual and pointless act for a brief time, then quickly disperse. The term flash mob is generally applied only to gatherings organized via telecommunications, social media, or viral emails.”

At Mayfair a group of several dozen teenagers raced through the mall, knocking over displays, running up and down escalators, which scared customers and staff. Mall management said the event was too organized to have been a spontaneous occurrence. They suspect it was organized via Facebook, Twitter or any number of other sites. Adding to the commotion was an apparent attempted robbery in the mall parking lot. Authorities have not said if the robbery was related to the flash mob but a shot was fired, which caused even more panic among. Luckily no one was hurt.

Mall management said they monitor social media sites to ensure things like this don’t happen. They said they were able to stop a flash mob planned for two days before Christmas. In that one, a group of high school students was planning on dancing in the mall.

If mall management is monitoring social media, someone fell asleep at the switch on the disruptive flash mob. For something this large, there had to be multiple posts on Twitter and Facebook. That’s how the word gets spread, by constant repetition across the web. Someone should have caught this.

It is possible the word was spread via text message. Unless you work for the National Security Agency, or some other federal investigative agency concerned with terrorism, those messages cannot be tracked. In that case mall management would not have had advance warning.

Even if Mayfair management did not have advance warning, the ball was still dropped after the incident. The flash mob happened Jan. 2. Mall management waited until the afternoon of Jan. 3rd to respond which meant for 24 hours Mayfair Mall lost control of its brand. In social media years that’s a lifetime. The mall was being defined by the hundreds of comments most of them negative made on social media sites and to the local media

When Mall management finally did respond, they did it by issuing a press release. Kind of like using a carrier pigeon to get the message out. What management said was just as bad.

Most of the statement condemned the group who disrupted the mall. It wasn’t until almost the end of the statement that management said: “the safety and security of our guests are always our top priorities.  We will not tolerate any behavior that compromises that safety.  As a result of this incident, we anticipate that there will be operational changes as well as consequences for those involved.”

What the statement should have said was that security was being increased immediately and there would be an even stronger policy governing when teenagers could be in the mall. The mall later did announce that it was changing its policy regarding when teenagers would be allowed in the mall. But that happened after the initial flurry of reports on the incident, which didn’t have the effect it would have had if the mall had made the announcement on the same day as the incident.

Plus Mayfair competitor Bayshore Mall announced changes to its policy for teenager access at the same time. There have been no incidents at Bayshore so that mall looked proactive. Mayfair suffered by comparison.

In other words, management be nimble, management be quick, or the business is going to be burned by something a lot hotter than a candlestick.

Yet, it still amazes me that in this digital age of electronic sharing of everything people have not internalized that rule. It hey did, it would keep them of trouble of their own making. Not following that rule will always lead to public relations problems and a lot of collateral damage.

The latest person to fall victim to a failure to pay attention to Franklin’s aphorism is U.S. Navy Capt. Owen Honors. Honors’ career was derailed because of a series of videos he made when he was the executive officer of the U.S.S. Enterprise. According to the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot newspaper, “The videos were a series of profanity-laced comedy sketches that were broadcast on the USS Enterprise via closed-circuit television.” Some were described as homophobic.

Did Honors think no one was ever going to talk about this to an outsider? But as Ben said, secrets just cannot be kept. In Honors’ case, almost 6,000 men and women who crew the aircraft carrier saw these videos. The odds were better than even that someone was going to talk.

I not am going to talk about the content of the videos or Honors intent in producing them. I am not seen the videos. From everything I have read, Honors was a rising star in the Navy. He apparently was an excellent leader slated to become an admiral. Perhaps he one day would have become Chief of Naval Operations – the overall Navy commander. Not anymore.

This entire situation is about how the videos were perceived and the fallout from their release. There are numerous stories talking about how the videos show the sexist, homophobic culture that the writers claim permeate the military. Again, I have no idea if that’s an accurate picture of our fighting men and women. I would say not from own experiences dealing with our armed forces. I do pro bono work for groups that work with veterans. I married into a military family. I have a lot of experience with our military.

However, truth does not matter, only the perception. I tell this to clients all the time. Perception is reality as far as the outside world is concerned. That’s why you have to be careful because the odds are very good that what you view as an off-hand remark could come back to bite and bite hard.

Remember, this is the era of social media. What once might not have spread beyond a city block will now zip around the world in minutes. Once the problem is out of the box, there is nothing that can be done to put it back.

As Capt. Honors unfortunately found out, it is not just the individual who will get burned. It can be an entire organization.

HowHH

When I was a newspaper reporter, there was axiom that went “never get into fight with man who buys ink by the tank car load.” The meaning was that is was almost impossible to win a fight with a newspaper because the paper’s editors controlled the means of communication. For every punch the newspaper’s opponent might throw, the newspaper could throw a 100.

Social media is assuming that position of power.. A western Massachusetts magazine editor found that out. Now social media might be a more democratic means of fighting as it can involve literally thousands people. Their only connection is the cause for which they are united. But, it doesn’t mean the punches are any softer.

The latest example of social media’s power erupted when Judith Griggs, editor of the Sunderland, Mass.– based Cook’s Source magazine, emailed a blogger that anything published on the Internet is not subject to copyright protection. The subsequent reaction from the people who use the Internet to what Griggs did, and the changes Cooks Source has made because of this brouhaha, show the power of social media.

This started when someone at Cooks Source lifted and rewrote from a food blog an article called “A Tale of Two Tarts” and published it in the magazine’s October issue. The blogger, Monica Gaudio, saw the article and asked for an apology. She also asked that a $130 donation to the Columbia School of Journalism be made.

Griggs’ replied thusly: “I have been doing this for 3 decades…I do know about copyright laws. It was ‘my bad’ indeed, and, as the magazine is put together in long sessions, tired eyes and minds somethings forget to do these things.

“But honestly, Monica, the web is considered “public domain” and you should be happy we just didn’t “lift” your whole article and put someone else’s name on it! It happens a lot, clearly more than you are aware of, especially on college campuses, and the workplace. If you took offence and are unhappy, I am sorry, but you as a professional should know that the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally.

“Now it will work well for your portfolio. For that reason, I have a bit of a difficult time with your requests for monetary gain, albeit for such a fine (and very wealthy!) institution. We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me! I never charge young writers for advice or rewriting poorly written pieces, and have many who write for me… ALWAYS for free!”

That was a mistake on so many levels. One of primary mistake for Griggs is that Gaudio is very savvy social media user. She posted on the reply on LiveJournal. It went viral very quickly. The reaction was just as fast and it wasn’t kind.

Can you see the iceberg Griggs’ hit? Hundreds of comments were posted on the magazine’s Facebook page. They are still coming in – if you want to read them, go here.

This is how Cooks Source initially responded to the negative comments:

• “Apologies for the issues on the old page. Unfortunately there’s nothing we can do about hackers!” (My comment. This was not hacking. No one broke into the magazine’s site. This was simply people commenting on Facebook. That’s one of the central parts of social media.”
• “For those of you who wish to be negative. Please use our other group. For those who are here as readers welcome!”
• “There’s lots of people here that do not seem to understand a few basics yet they seem to all be experts in the print business.”
• “Any posts considered libelous will be removed. Thank you to Christian for his assistance on the page mechanics. We shall be temporarily adapting the wall. Apologies to our regular fans.”
• “I don’t know what some of you think you are going to achieve? We apologized, now go find a rabbit to catch or something”
• “Numerous derogatory posts have been removed and members banned and reported. Those people here to cause trouble are wasting their time. Don’t you think that jumping on a band wagon just makes you look lily-livered?”

Talk about not knowing anything about social media. Whoever wrote those posts poured gasoline on the fire. All those comments seem to have done is increase the number of anti-Cooks Source posts. As companies from United Airlines to Proctor & Gamble could tell the editors, you cannot win a fight with the Internet.

To their credit, Cooks Source now appears to be getting it. This was recently posted on their website:

“Last month an article, “American as Apple Pie — Isn’t,” was placed in error in Cooks Source, without the approval of the writer, Monica Gaudio. We sincerely wish to apologize to her for this error, it was an oversight of a small, overworked staff. We have made a donation at her request, to her chosen institution, the Columbia School of Journalism. In addition, a donation to the Western New England Food Bank, is being made in her name. It should be noted that Monica was given a clear credit for using her article within the publication, and has been paid in the way that she has requested to be paid.

“This issue has made certain changes here at Cooks Source. Starting with this month, we will now list all sources. Also we now request that all the articles and informational pieces will have been made with written consent of the writers, the book publishers and/or their agents or distributors, chefs and business owners. All submission authors and chefs and cooks will have emailed, and/or signed a release form for this material to Cooks Source and as such will have approved its final inclusion. Email submissions are considered consent, with a verbal/written follow-up.”

That’s a good apology. It shows that someone woke up to what was wrong and corrected the error. I would urge people to lay off Cooks Source now. They get it.

Of course, legally Griggs was way off base to begin with.

As Hollee Schwartz Temple, a faculty member at West Virginia University College of Law, wrote in her excellent blog: “It’s easy to copyright your work (applying a copyright symbol and date of first publication is a best practice), but if you want to sue for copyright infringement, you’ll need to register your work with the United States Copyright Office.

“It’s not OK to steal content, particularly without attribution! Images count, so be careful. (my emphasis)

“Works that have entered the “public domain” don’t qualify for copyright protection; most creative works enter the public domain because their copyrights expire.

“Not everything is subject to copyright. What’s not? Ideas, short phrases, and government works, for starters. There are also “fair use” exceptions.”

Of course, I have a feeling Griggs’ was not being malicious. She was just showing her ignorance of the law and of social media. Apparently the lesson has been learned.

At last a guy has taken the time to write this all down. Finally, the guys’ side of the story. We always hear “the rules” from the female side. Now here are the rules from the male side.

These are our rules! Please note these are all numbered “1″ ON PURPOSE!

1.   Men are NOT mind readers. FIRST & FOREMOST RULE

1. Learn to work the toilet seat. You’re a big girl. If it’s up, put it down. We need it up, you need it down. You don’t hear us complaining about you leaving it down.

1. Sunday sports, it’s like the full moon or the changing of the tides. Let it be.

1. Crying is blackmail.

1. Ask for what you want. Let us be clear on this one: Subtle hints do not work! Strong hints do not work! Obvious hints do not work! Just say it!

1. Yes and no are perfectly acceptable answers to almost every question.

1. Come to us with a problem only if you want help solving it. That’s what we do. Sympathy is what your girlfriends are for.

1. Anything we said six months ago is inadmissible in an argument. In fact, all comments become null and void after seven days.

1. If you think you’re fat, you probably are. Don’t ask us.

1. If something we said can be interpreted two ways and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, we meant the other one.

1. You can either ask us to do something or tell us how you want it done – not both. If you already know best how to do it, just do it yourself.

1. Whenever possible, please say whatever you have to say during commercials.

1. Christopher Columbus did NOT need directions and neither do we.

1. ALL men see in only 16 colors, like Windows’ default settings. Peach, for example, is a fruit, not A color. Pumpkin is also a fruit. We have no idea what mauve is.

1. If it itches, it will be scratched. We do that.

1. If we ask what is wrong and you say “nothing,” We will act like nothing’s wrong. We know you are lying, but it is just not worth the hassle.

1. If you ask a question you don’t want an answer to, expect an answer you don’t want to hear.

1. When we have to go somewhere, absolutely anything you wear is fine – really!

1. Don’t ask us what we’re thinking about unless you are prepared to discuss such topics as Football or Hockey.

1. You have enough clothes.

1. You have too many shoes.

1. I am in shape. Round IS a shape!

Thank you for reading this. Yes, I know, I have to sleep on the couch tonight; but did you know men really don’t mind that? It’s like camping.

Pass this to as many men as you can – to give them a laugh. Pass this to as many women as you can – to give them a bigger laugh.

I am not talking about a plant fire or an accident. There might be actually more time to respond to the media on one of those. Most people understand that the average executive doesn’t have time during the event to respond to questions. It is perfectly acceptable to say in such a case that the causes will be dealt with once the immediate crisis is over.

What I am talking about is an information crisis, which can often more damaging that a physical disaster. The fallout from a physical disaster can be mitigated. Unless it is dealt with right away, a consumer complaint or an even an unfounded can spread around the Internet is a matter of minutes.

Even though Mark Twain died 80 years before the rise of the Internet, he summed it up correctly when he said: “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” Actually, I think a lie can make it all the way around the world before truth gets out of bed.

Part of the problem is many companies still don’t pay attention. I am always amazed that any corporation will spend millions on advertising, but very little on reputation monitoring and management. To not keep track of company reputation is committing business suicide.

One of my firm rules of is that social media can kill you before you even know are bleeding. Someone needs to be watching 24/7. Remember that old saying that “the sun never sets on the British Empire.” That was because the English had colonies on almost every continent. Well, the Internet has a much a wider reach than the Empire ever did.

Facebook alone has over 500 million followers. Twitter is somewhere north of 100 million. If someone posts on Facebook an error your company made, and it goes viral, you could wake up in the morning to find your reputation trashed.

Look at the companies that have run into trouble because of their Internet ignorance: Proctor & Gamble’s Motrin, Comcast, United Airlines, Kryptonite Bike Locks, L’Oreal, Dell Computers, Wal-Mart, Jet Blue – the list goes on and on. (My thanks to SMI for its short history of social media screw-ups.)

Some of those companies learned their lesson and started paying attention to what as happening on the ‘Net. I am not sure others get it even after being punched around.

The only way to deal with is to be proactive. As I have also always preached, you have to be part of the conversation about your brand. It is essential. That’s why I always tell clients that they need to hear the bad comments more than the good. Good comments reinforce what you are already doing. It is valuable to know that so you can expand whatever worked.

Bad comments will tell you where you are making mistakes. That’s more important. Responding to a consumer complaint can build good will. Personally I find I like a place that is willing to own up to a mistake. It shows me they care.

Plus by doing that, a crisis is usually headed-off. If a company doesn’t respond to customer concerns and complaints, the whole thing can grow and get really ugly.

The take away from this is pay attention all time or be willing to pay the cost when you don’t.

I am not so happy to see the records BP is now setting in the Gulf of Mexico. We have seen a whole of series of dubious achievements since the explosion April 21^st explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil-drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico. Since I am public relations and social media person, I am going to focus on one area in particular. British Petroleum has perhaps done the worst job of crisis communications in the modern history of public relations. I cannot think of another incident that has been handled worse than the Gulf oil spill.

This should be a lesson to every company. A disaster can happen anywhere, anytime for any reason. It takes about five minutes to destroy a reputation and turn the public against you if it is not handled correctly.

“BP is going to be first and foremost in people’s minds when it comes to poor crisis planning and response,” said Timothy Sellnow, communication professor at University of Kentucky and author of several books on public relations in a crisis told the New York Times. “They’ve surpassed Exxon.”

You know that old saw that goes if you locked 100 monkeys in a room with laptops eventually one of them would come up with Macbeth. Well, I think one monkey could come up with a better way to handle BP’s crisis communications that the company’s leaders.

To talk about all of the public relations things BP has done wrong during this crisis would take more space than I allocate for this blog. Let me put it this way – I cannot think of one thing BP has done right since the explosion. Every time a BP executive or spokesperson opens their mouth they make things worse.

The New York Times reported that Public relations experts say it appears both BP failed to follow the first rule of crisis communications: having a plan in place to deal with a potential disaster, .

“BP never had a plan in place for the worst-case scenario or they would have put it in place,” Kathleen Fearn-Banks, communications professor at University of Washington and author of the book “Crisis Communication, A Casebook Approach” told the Times. “I don’t think it’s a question of money. … They absolutely don’t know what to do at all.”

This should be a lesson to every company whether it has five or 50,000 employees. I constantly hammer on this with clients. A company needs to have a crisis communications plan. It needs to update the plan to reflect changing environments.

Most importantly, it needs to rehearse the plan constantly. Part of that rehearsal means media training the company’s primary spokesman. BP CEO Tony Hayward is a classic example of what happens when that doesn’t happen. If I had been BP’s spokesman when Hayward said he “wanted his life back” I would have resigned on the spot.

Hayward suddenly became the poster child for every out-of-touch CEO on the planet. Whether he meant it or not, he told the people of the Gulf Coast that he was more important than they were. In one five second sound bite, he destroyed any goodwill the company had. Any good leader knows his needs always come last.

BP has done a host of other things wrong, such as trying to ban the media from public areas; not accepting help from the fishermen who know the area best; and making promises they just cannot keep.

It is amazing to me just how inept this multi-national company has been. Let that be an example to every company. Be prepared or you will go down the same road BP is traveling on.

So while you can consider this a rant, it is also a warning and a how-to. A rant about why organization and the people who run them don’t try to head off crises; don’t realize what will happen if there isn’t a crisis plan; and a how-to – perhaps avoid the problem.

There are three kinds of crises:

• Immediate crises: Most dreaded type. Happens quickly and unexpectedly. Little time for research and planning. Includes such things as earthquakes, fires, plane crashes, product tampering, workplace shootings, and death of a key officer
• Emerging crises: Allows more time for research and planning. May erupt after festering for long period. Includes such things as sexual harassment, substance abuse, overcharging on contracts. Key is to convince senior management to deal with the problem before it explodes.
• Sustained crises: Problems that smolder for long periods of time, despite best efforts to put out the fire. Rumors go viral, getting reported in the media, tweeted about, posted on Facebook, written about by bloggers and other social media sites. Examples include P & G being in league with Satan, that fluoridated water is dangerous or that some childhood vaccines lead to autism.

Obviously, there isn’t anyway to anticipate the sudden crisis. But that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a general plan – a framework – in place to deal with it and whatever happens. How many companies have you seen scramble in the first hours after a crisis happens? It doesn’t have to be that way.

Planning for a specific crisis is not possible. Planning on to handle crises is and should be done.

That’s why I am always amazed when I see a company like Toyota get in trouble. Here is one of the smartest marketers on the face of the planet. Yet, they create a crisis because they don’t listen to their customers’ complaints. Clearly they didn’t have a crisis communication plan in place. That’s just dumb. The list of companies that have done the same thing would fill two blogs.

What all those companies lacked was a scout, someone whose job it was to keep his or ear to the ground (and Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, YouTube, etc.). If you keep any eye on what’s going on out there, you can avoid a lot of problems. The idea is to identify the grass fire and put it out before it becomes a forest fire.

Sometimes crises happen despite an organization’s best efforts. That’s when the plan comes in. Knowing what to do is half the battle.

Remember, as Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower said: “The plan is nothing; planning is everything. There is a very great distinction because when you are planning for an emergency you must start with this one thing: the very definition of ‘emergency’ is that it is unexpected, therefore it is not going to happen the way you are planning.”

For the past few years, I have thought the press release was an outmoded way of getting the word out. From my own experience as a reporter, I know how little time reporters have to read all the stuff they get daily. However, the old fashioned released has morphed into a social media release. It is press release on performance enhancing drugs. I am starting to see how effective that kind of release can be.

When I was a reporter, press releases were a fact of my workday. Before the Internet, dozens arrived daily in the standard number 10 business envelope. As a young reporter, I dutifully read through each and every one of them. I thought it was the right thing to do. Who knew, maybe the key to next Pulitzer Prize was in the one of those envelopes.

Reporters get a lot of mail from every imaginable source. Not just press releases, but letters from convicts who feel they are wrongly accused, happy readers, angry readers, story ideas written on pencil on legal paper and a lot of other stuff. That avalanche of envelopes is what stopped from reading every press release. I just didn’t have time to weed through them every day. I would quickly sort through the pile, keeping only the ones with return addresses that told me the company might have to say.

The people I dealt with soon learned the best way to get my attention was to call me. We would discuss a potential story and if I was interested, I would request more information. Even then, I didn’t want a press release. What I wanted was background information that provided basic facts – things such as the size of company, number of employees, annual income, size of the project, that kind of stuff.

I don’t think I ever missed a story by not reading the press releases. My sources knew if they gave me a good story, I would fight like hell to get it into the paper. I was usually a pretty good salesman.

When I switched to public relations seven years ago, I brought the anti-press release attitude with me. Because I spent 26 years as a reporter, I have great contacts all over the U.S. and even some internationally. Reporters used to be professional nomads. We would continually switch jobs, always striving to get to a bigger paper with a larger circulation. You make a lot of friends doing that. So, if I had a client who needed a story placed, I could usually reach a person who could make that happen.

Even when I didn’t know somebody, I was pretty skilled at getting a story into a publication. I speak the language of reporters. I know what gets them excited. I know the first four words you say to any reporter when you call. I should make this a quiz, but I won’t – the first four words are: “are you on deadline?”

That’s all changing with the rise of social media and the shrinking of regular media. There are fewer reporters chasing more stories. They need stuff they know is accurate and can access quickly.

As I said at the start, enter the social media press release. What is it?

As I also said, it is press release on steroids. It is so much more than the old paper press release. When I set up one up for a client, I include pictures, background material, contact information, video, links to my client’s website, their Twitter feed, their Facebook fan page and the LinkedIn pages of key executives. It is so much more complete than the old ones.

And sites such at Pitch Engine allow you to send links to the information out to just about anybody to whom you want.

What I usually do is call the key contacts I want to receive the information to give them a heads up that it’s up. Then I email the link so they can access the data. I have found universal acceptance for this.

Reporters and bloggers seem to love it. At one of the click of the mouse, they get anything they need for their story. It makes their job easier, which makes them happy, which means they are more likely to a do a positive story. That in turn makes my client happy, which makes ultimately makes me happy.

So, you see, while the traditional press release is going, going…. , the social media release is on its way. Once again, social media takes a traditional method of doing something and improves it.

NBC demonstrated to me Sunday night that they are tone deaf when it comes to social media. Which means they are tone deaf when it comes to listening to their viewers. That’s dangerous. They should ask United Airlines or Proctor & Gamble what happens when you ignore people who use social media.

If you were watching the Olympics Sunday, you saw what I thought was a pretty good closing ceremony. If you lived anywhere other than the United States, you got to see the ceremony straight through without interruption. If you were unlucky enough to be watching the NBC television network, your Olympic viewing was interrupted by an insipid reality show called “The Marriage Ref,” and local news. In all, there was about an hour break in the viewing. For those living in the eastern time zone of the U.S., that meant they had to stay up until 1 a.m. to see the entire ceremony.

As one who closely monitors social media, I can tell you the Twittersphere was alive with complaints. I have no idea how many, but I can you there were thousands judging by how fast the hashtags #NBC and #NBCFail kept updating. And the anger wasn’t just over the decision to cut off the Olympics; it was also over the decision to bring Jay Leno back to the Tonight Show.

Here’s a sample of the tweets going out on #NBCFail:

• wtfgerard: RT @nNoela: NBC is continuing their Winter Olympics coverage with a new downhill event. The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. #imwithcoco #nbcfail I give this tweeter credit for combining his anger on two events into one tweet.
• disappointedme: BOYCOTT LENO and his Olympic killing network. #TeamCoco #imstillwithcoco #NBCFAIL #RIKSHAZ9LIRK #SuckitNBC As a note: the hashtags “I’mwithcoco (Conan O’Brien) was the third most popular topic on Twitter Monday. That’s quite an accomplishment considering there are an estimated 50 million tweets a day.
• MONTANAinAZ: RT @ColorMeRed: Just to thank NBC for their exceptional coverage (sarc) of the Winter Olympics, my TV will be reprogrammed to everything but NBC #NBCfail This was a particularly popular tweet. I saw it at least a dozen times.
• lvnTrey: RT @ChefMark: Although sad that the Olympics is over, I’m happy that NBC’s reign of tyranny on my set is over! #NBCFail. Oh, and #shutupCostas

You get the idea. There was a lot of anger. And a lot of calls for boycotting NBC. The anger went viral pretty quickly. As I write this on Tuesday, it is still going on. If anything, the flames are burning brighter.

What surprised me is that I never saw any response from NBC to all of this. They did apparently use an application called TwitterFeed to send out positive sounding tweets about “The Marriage Ref.” TwitterFeed is an app in which you enter a bunch of tweets at one time and then schedule them to be sent out over whatever time period you want. Judging by the tweets, I would say someone decided to send a tweet about every 10 minutes.  You can often tell someone has done this because the tweets tend to be phrased alike. They stopped when several people called NBC on it.

Doing that is a violation of one of my social media rules: don’t ever pretend to be something you are not. The social media universe hates lying. And, it destroys credibility.

Getting back to my main point, I am shocked frankly that the once proud Peacock Network did nothing to calm down angry viewers. NBC is in fourth place in a four-network race. They cannot afford to do something like this. This is not 15 years ago. Social media keeps things alive.

In NBC’s position, they cannot alienate their stakeholders. Those viewers have other choices. Fox, CBS, ABC and the hundreds of cable channels will all benefit from NBC’s decision not to engage with its viewers. It doesn’t appear NBC understands that. It’s sad.

NBC demonstrated to me Sunday night that they are tone deaf when it comes to social media. Which means they are tone deaf when it comes to listening to their viewers. That’s dangerous. They should ask United Airlines or Proctor & Gamble what happens when you ignore people who use social media.

If you were watching the Olympics Sunday, you saw what I thought was a pretty good closing ceremony. If you lived anywhere other than the United States, you got to see the ceremony straight through without interruption. If you were unlucky enough to be watching the NBC television network, your Olympic viewing was interrupted by an insipid reality show called “The Marriage Ref,” and local news. In all, there was about an hour break in the viewing. For those living in the eastern time zone of the U.S., that meant they had to stay up until 1 a.m. to see the entire ceremony.

As one who closely monitors social media, I can tell you the Twittersphere was alive with complaints. I have no idea how many, but I can you there were thousands judging by how fast the hashtags #NBC and #NBCFail kept updating. And the anger wasn’t just over the decision to cut off the Olympics; it was also over the decision to bring Jay Leno back to the Tonight Show.

Here’s a sample of the tweets going out on #NBCFail:

• wtfgerard: RT @nNoela: NBC is continuing their Winter Olympics coverage with a new downhill event. The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. #imwithcoco #nbcfail I give this tweeter credit for combining his anger on two events into one tweet.
• disappointedme: BOYCOTT LENO and his Olympic killing network. #TeamCoco #imstillwithcoco #NBCFAIL #RIKSHAZ9LIRK #SuckitNBC As a note: the hashtags “I’mwithcoco (Conan O’Brien) was the third most popular topic on Twitter Monday. That’s quite an accomplishment considering there are an estimated 50 million tweets a day.
• MONTANAinAZ: RT @ColorMeRed: Just to thank NBC for their exceptional coverage (sarc) of the Winter Olympics, my TV will be reprogrammed to everything but NBC #NBCfail This was a particularly popular tweet. I saw it at least a dozen times.
• lvnTrey: RT @ChefMark: Although sad that the Olympics is over, I’m happy that NBC’s reign of tyranny on my set is over! #NBCFail. Oh, and #shutupCostas

You get the idea. There was a lot of anger. And a lot of calls for boycotting NBC. The anger went viral pretty quickly. As I write this on Tuesday, it is still going on. If anything, the flames are burning brighter.

What surprised me is that I never saw any response from NBC to all of this. They did apparently use an application called TwitterFeed to send out positive sounding tweets about “The Marriage Ref.” TwitterFeed is an app in which you enter a bunch of tweets at one time and then schedule them to be sent out over whatever time period you want. Judging by the tweets, I would say someone decided to send a tweet about every 10 minutes.  You can often tell someone has done this because the tweets tend to be phrased alike. They stopped when several people called NBC on it.

Doing that is a violation of one of my social media rules: don’t ever pretend to be something you are not. The social media universe hates lying. And, it destroys credibility.

Getting back to my main point, I am shocked frankly that the once proud Peacock Network did nothing to calm down angry viewers. NBC is fourth place in a four-network race. They cannot afford to do something like this. This is not 15 years ago. Social media keeps things alive.

In NBC’s position, they cannot alienate their stakeholders. Those viewers have other choices. Fox, CBS, ABC and the hundreds of cable channels will all benefit from NBC’s decision not to engage with its viewers. It doesn’t appear NBC understands that. It’s sad.

Last Wednesday, I said Toyota was slow out of the blocks to respond to the various crises it has faced of late. I think I was blogger 10,143 to state the obvious. However, I also said the company is showing signs of regaining its equilibrium.

Note: I drive a 2000 Camry. Both my children drive Corollas.

The company is running ads in every print and broadcast outlet it can find – including a lot of radio. It has shown pictures of its idled factories to demonstrate how serious it is in identifying the accelerator and brake issues. It also has a very active presence on Facebook.

Still while this is a good start, I think the company could do more. I think they if they handled it as I suggest, they would turn a negative into a positive.

Do What Datsun Did

The first thing Toyota’s C-Suite executives should do is plan road trips to every dealer in every country where Toyota is sold. The road trippers should be Chairman Fujio Cho, Vice Chairmen of the Board Katsuaki Watanabe and Kazuo Okamo, President Akio Toyoda, and in North America, Jim Lentz, president and chief operating officer of Toyota Motor Sales, USA. If there are people who hold the same positions as Lenz in Europe, Asia, South America, the Middle East and Africa, they should also pack their bags.

They need to take a page from the handbook of retired Nissan executive Yutaka Katayama.  It was Katayama who made Datsun (which later returned to its original name of Nissan) into the first Japanese automobile success story in the United States, according to the late journalist and author David Halberstam. It was Halberstam who detailed Datsun’s success in “The Reckoning” – his account of the rise the Japanese auto industry.

Katayama lived in the United States. He traveled constantly around the U.S., meeting, customers, dealers, reporters and anyone else who talk to him. Halberstam explained that Katayama made Datsun a powerhouse because “he (Katayama) was a rare man. He brought a face to the Japanese mercantile presence; meeting him, Americans felt they knew, understood and liked the Japan that was behind his products.”

This is what Toyota’s executives should be doing. Going to every place in the world where there have been problems. Once there, they should personally apologize to their customers. They should be interviewed by the media in each city and repeat the apology. They should honestly answer the tough questions about what they knew and when they knew it. They should be speaking to every group that will listen. There should be town hall style meetings at dealerships for the customers and the general public to air grievances.

These public appearances will, in my opinion, do much to quell the anger and rebuild trust. Most people are willing to forgive a mistake, as long the one who makes the mistake sincerely apologizes.

Cut Prices

Second, a simple thing to do would to be slash prices on all models. Not a token five percent cut – a real one in the neighborhood of 25 percent. For those who have a car with a defective accelerator or brakes, give them a new car. I would throw into five years free maintenance for every car sold. Not just for oil changes and other minor things, but for all repairs from replacing a headlamp to replacing a transmission.

More Social Media

Third, I would make better use of social media than they are. Both Cho and Lenz should be blogging every week. Craig Newmark – the Craig of Craig’s List does, as does Jonathan Swartz, president and chief operating officer of Sun Microsystems and my personal favorite CEO blog, that of Southwest Airlines Gary Kelly. It has helped all three companies when they have hit rough patches. Explanations sound so much better when they come from the person in charge.

Finally, there are many, many people out there who are still strong Toyota supporters. Anecdotally, I know that because as Chester the Wonder Dog and I walk each day, I talk to Toyota owners. I have yet to find one who would get rid of their car.

I have also been on the Toyota Facebook page for U.S. owners. The level of support is amazing. Toyota needs to get those people more organized around company support. Most kind of companies would kill for that kind of support.

Put this all together and I think Toyota will be just fine.

When I first thought about writing this rant, I was considering ripping Toyota a new one. The way the automaker has handled the public relations for its various relations recalls was nothing short of abysmal. I think the White Star Line handled the initial P.R. dealing with the Titanic’s sinking better than Toyota did its accelerator problems.

But as the New Orleans Saints can attest, being behind in the first half doesn’t mean the game is lost.

Full disclosure: I drive a 2000 Toyota Camry. Both my children drive Corollas. However, I have never received compensation of any kind from Toyota. The closest I have come to anyone from the corporate side was Monday, Feb. 8^th when Jim Lentz, president and chief operating officer of Toyota Motor Sales, USA, was asked a question I had posted as part of a Digg Dialog.

At any rate, yes, Toyota was slow off the mark with its response to the accelerator issue. The initial statement in which the company said customer safety was “very important” to them made me cringe. They should have said that customer safety was the “most important” thing to the company. Saying “very” made me wonder what was more important.

Since then, however, the company has recovered its equilibrium. Frankly, I think doing all of the recalls at once is very a smart tactic. It’s the band-aid theory of action – some people take a band-aid off slowly. The pain might be less, but it is prolonged. Or, one can rip the band-off quickly and get it over with. It hurts more at first, but the pain goes away faster.

The apologies have come from the top down, which is a good start. The leadership has been willing to take the heat. Lenz has been everywhere, which is smart. He seems unflappable, he is well-spoken and he doesn’t shy away from tough questions. All good qualities in the crisis team leader.

That’s what Toyota is doing – they are taking their licks all at once. Yes, it is painful at first, but they will put it behind them.

It’s not like it is the only auto company to recall defective automobiles. Here, from Reuters News Service, is a list of recalls from 1971 on:

• 1971 – General Motors recalls 6.7 million vehicles due to engine mounts that separated from the vehicle and impacted the throttle.
• 1981 – GM recalls 5.8 million vehicles due to loose suspension bolts that affected steering.
• 1996 – Ford recalls more than eight million vehicles to replace defective ignition switches that could have led to electrical shorts and engine fires.
• July 1998 – GM recalls close to one million Cadillac, Pontiac and Chevrolet cars because of fears the air bags may have deployed by accident.
• Aug. 2000 – Japanese tire maker Bridgestone Corp recalls 14.4 million ATX, ATX II and Wilderness tires of certain sizes installed on Ford Motor Co.’s Explorer SUVs and sold separately in stores. The recall applied to all tires produced at the company’s Firestone U.S. division.
• 2004 – GM recalls nearly four million pickups because of corroding tailgate cables.
• April 2005 – GM recalls more than two million vehicles to fix a variety of potential safety defects, most of them on cars and trucks sold in the U.S., which includes 1.5 million full-size pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles from the 2003 to 2005 model years with second-row seat belts that GM says may be difficult to properly position across passengers’ hips.
• Oct. 2005 – Toyota recalls about 1.41 million cars globally, including the Corolla and 15 other models, due to trouble with their headlight switching systems.
• Dec. 2007 – Chrysler LLC recalls 575,417 vehicles as long-term wear on the gearshift assembly could cause them to shift out of park without the key in the ignition. The recall involved 2001 to 2002 model-year Dodge Dakota pickup trucks, Durango sports utility vehicles and Ram van models and 2002 model-year Ram pickup trucks.
• Aug. 2008 – GM recalls 857,735 vehicles equipped with a heated windshield-wiper fluid system in the United States after the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said a short-circuit in the system may cause other electrical features to malfunction, increasing the risk of a fire.

For the record, Toyota has recalled 3.8 million vehicles in the latest recall and 4.2 million since 1971. Since 1971, General Motors has recalled 20.4 million of its autos. Ford has recalled 8 million, while Chrysler brought the rear with 575,417.

If you remember, the other automakers often resisted recalls. The Bridgestone tire problems, for instance, came to light because of a 60 Minutes news report. At least Toyota admitted it had a problem and dealt with it.

The key now is how Toyota will handle the issue going forward. I have some ideas that I will discuss next week that I think could help.

I have been watching the debate over Royal Caribbean’s cruise lines decision to continue to cruise to its private beach. I have been thinking about what I would tell the company’s leaders if I was the company’s media and marketing maven. So, here it is:

From: Media and Marketing Maven Jeff Cole

To: The Royal Caribbean C-Suite

Re: Again cruising to our private beach at Labadee, Haiti

There has much internal debate about whether we should again take our cruise ships to Labadee. I have read the memos about going back. Frankly, there is not one argument that convinces me that this will not be an unmitigated public relations disaster.

My concern is that our thinking is too short term. We need to think how this decision will look five or 10 years from now. Yes, people will forget much about the incident in a few years. But, it is selective amnesia. What they are they liable to remember is that we cruised to Haiti during a disaster – not that we donated money and brought relief supplies.

So, let’s look at the current arguments for cruising to Haiti and my responses:

• The Haitian government has asked us to continue our cruises because we provide a valuable source of income to their country. First of all, I would question how much thought the government of Haiti gave to that invitation. They have much more important things to worry about. And even if they did, we have to consider how the people of Haiti will view a bunch pasty white tourists frolicking while they are burying hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens. Governments and attitudes change. The next government could use what they view as our callousness to kick out us and turn the Labadee over to a competitor. Do we really want to lose that access to for good?
• We employ several hundred Haitians at Labadee and support hundreds of others by allowing them to sell their wares to our passengers. We provide a valuable source of income for those people. So, why not pay these people to help in the relief effort? Continue their salaries, but allow them to go to Port Au Prince to help.
• Many of our cruisers are taking the cruise of a lifetime. They are honeymooners or elderly couples who have saved their pennies for years to make this trip. We would destroy their dreams. You mean to tell me we couldn’t simply reroute the ships to not stop at Haiti? We have other private beaches in the Caribbean.
• All those people who would be angry they didn’t get the trip they wanted will sue us. First, don’t we have insurance for that kind of thing? Second, I would urge if that happened that we post the name of every person who sues on our website. We send a press release to their hometown newspaper and television station announcing the lawsuit. We state in that release we decided helping Haiti was more important a vacation. Who looks callous then?
• We are a giving a $1 million to the relief effort. Ladies and gentlemen, I can hear Dr. Evil saying: “$1 million dollars” and the UN snickering. Our net profit in fiscal 2008 – our last complete year – was $573.72 million. Granted, it has been a tough five years. But, we could at least give say $5.73 million, which is only one percent of net.

Now, for some positive public relations idea:

• We have a deep-water port at Lababee that can handle our ships. I assume that means it could also handle relief ships. Why not turn Labadee over to the United Nations for say six months? Let them use it as a staging area. We could make it a condition that the UN hires the people we employ to aid in the relief effort. That’s another way to negate any loss of wages caused by the ships not coming.
• In addition, allow an organization such as “Doctors Without Borders” to set up a hospital at Labadee. As I understand it, Labadee has better infrastructure than 99 percent of the country. It is a perfect place for such a facility.
• If there is still insistence on going to Haiti, charge a $25 a head “relief fund surcharge.” Have the company match whatever is raised. With approximately 12,000 cruisers a week going there, we would be contributing $600,000 a week. Think about how much money we would raise in a year.
• Instead of carrying some relief supplies on each cruise ship, each week designate one ship as a relief ship. Pack it to the gunwales with everything and anything Haitians need.

These are my ideas ladies and gentlemen. I think you will agree we can turn into a winning situation for both Haiti and Royal Caribbean.

So, you get a call from a Fox News producer – Bill O’Reilly wants you to appear on his show. Or you pick up your phone to hear a print reporter ask why your company is dumping toxic waste into the Old Mill Stream. Finally, the worst situation of all, you are watching a television show or reading a magazine story or a blog when you discover your company is the middle of a crisis because some advocacy group painted every company in your industry with the same brush.

In my over two-decade career as a reporter, I made some of those calls. In my somewhat shorter career as a public relations and marketing professional, I have responded to situations where an entire industry was painted with the same brush. In the later case, I was part of a team of three that crafted the first response to the first outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, in a cow in the state of Washington. We successfully showed that our client, Smithfield Beef, was doing everything right to ensure no cow with BSE would ever enter its slaughterhouses.

Incidentally, I just demonstrated the first rule of responding to a hostile situation. Many people called BSE “mad cow.” We never, ever used that term – even during meetings in the office. “Mad cow” conjures up images of some Holstein frothing at the mouth, chasing Old McDonald around the fields. BSE is the scientific term and more accurate. We determined the terms of the battle before it was even joined.

The second rule we demonstrated was we responded within hours of getting the news about the BSE discovery. We didn’t wait to respond to someone else’s announcement. Now, we got one break. The news of the BSE-infected cow broke on the morning of Dec. 24, 2003. Because it was a holiday, most of those who would have attacked the meat producing industry were not in their offices. We essentially had the playing field to ourselves for about 48 hours – we were able to present the issue on our terms. Two news cycles passed before the Chicken Littles got revved up. By then, we had shaped the issue and the debate into what the meat industry was doing right.

Something to remember. An announcement like that of the cow infected with BSE is a neutral event. The government officials who usually release such news generally play it right down the middle. So, it is up to you to tell your side right away.

Another thing to remember – if you have genuinely made a mistake, admit it. Don’t try to spin it. In the case of the cattle and meat packing industries, the discovery of the infected cow showed what was being done right. The cow was found before it got into the system. It showed that the proper checks were in place. We didn’t need to spin anything. We just needed to get our story out before it got buried in the noise.

Trying to spin a mistake just gets you into more trouble. The media and bloggers will usually quickly pick up on your attempts. They will trumpet your efforts to hide what you did. You or your company will end up looking worse than if you had just said, “yeah, we were wrong. We are doing everything we can to correct the error.”

Now, being preemptive works very well when there is an event that could turn out bad. Handling a Sean Hannity or a Bill O’Reilly is done somewhat differently. Remember, you are playing by their rules. This isn’t neutral ground. What you are hoping for here is a draw. Not losing is the same as winning.

First, watch as many of the shows as possible before going on. Make sure you know what the topic is and do your research. These shows have a rhythm. They start out seemingly being neutral and then move into questions designed to do one thing – make the interview subject look bad. Objectivity is not their strong suit.

Here’s the key thing to remember when you find yourself the subject of one of those “interviews:” stay calm. Don’t lose your temper. They want you to get upset. It makes better television. Angry people don’t think and spew out the wrong kind of answer.

What you want to be is calm and boring. Boring makes lousy television. Answer the question, but don’t elaborate. If the interviewer tries to go off on tangent, don’t let it happen. Go back to the main subject and stay there. Give short declarative answers.  Keep it boring.

Finally, you find there is the situation where find your company being criticized in the media and the Internet – and you had no idea it was happening. In this case, the blame is internal. You should have known that you had enemies out there. Most companies monitor conventional news outlets. Where they fall down is monitoring social media outlets – blogs, videos, etc.

Think that’s it’s not important to monitor those sites? Ask United Airlines about the country group Sons of Maxwell and its lead singer Dave Carroll. United baggage handlers broke Carroll’s $3,000 Taylor Guitar. Frustrated that the airline would do nothing to remedy the situation, Carroll recorded and posted a video on YouTube about his experience. As of Sunday, Aug. 16, the video had been viewed just under five million times. Now United did eventually step up and pay for repairing the instrument. It also said it wants to use the video in its employee training.

Still, think about the notoriety United gained from that one video. How many people chose to fly a competitor after watching that video?

United is just one example. Comcast, Proctor & Gamble and several other companies have felt the wrath of angry bloggers.

As I tell clients all of the time: “there is a conversation going on right now about your brand. You should be a part of it and leading it. But no matter what you do, it is going to happen anyway.”

Now, if it does happen, what to do is get involved in the conversation, quickly. Engage with the bloggers, talk to them and find out what the beef is. Proctor & Gamble was initially blind-sided by the Motrin Moms. But within 48-hours, the company had dealt with the problem and ended the furor.

In all these cases, the key is engagement and preparation. Do those things and at least you will never be surprised. And being ready is the most important thing to do.

Note: Check out my company’s new and improved website at JJC Communications.

If there were ever a situation that cried for a proactive crisis communications strategy, this would be the one. Yet, I have yet to see any evidence that Craigslist has one. Rather, the company seems to be responding on an ad hoc basis. That’s not a good idea and in the long run, it could hurt the company.

As a note, I use Craigslist sometimes. It is a very handy site for finding all kinds of things. I like it.

That being said, the way Craigslist reacts to stories of people committing murders by placing ads on their site or scammers finding victims through the site, is in my opinion, just plain wrong. All it does is attract grand standing politicians who want to make a name for themselves. What it could do is eventually attract some bulldog of a trial lawyer who sees deep pockets. Yeah, that lawyer might eventually lose the case, but think of the negative publicity, and the money Craigslist will spend defending itself.

Now obviously any site that has over 50 million unique visitors each month is going to attract some strange people. No question about that. Remember, until 2008 pornographic sites dominated the Internet. It took social media usages to knock porn off of the mountaintop.

It’s not Craigslist’s fault these people show up at their doorstep. However, the San Francisco-based website could be a whole lot more proactive when that fringe element uses the website to pull off a crime.

‘What makes Craigslist susceptible to crime is the perceived anonymity of the site; Trench Reynolds told the North Carolina-based News & Observer. Reynolds runs CraigsCrimeList, a site dedicated to tracking crime believed to be spawned by Craigslist

Reynolds said the most common crime connected to Craigslist is fraud or scams, with robbery second. Rapes have been connected to Craigslist solicitations, he said.

Craigslist does cooperate with authorities when it is alerted that someone has used the service to commit a crime.

Craigslist is also just coming off a battle where were several state attorneys general forced the company the curtail its erotic ad section. I suspect it is feeling more than a little bruised and battered.

Still, I cringed when I read the following statement from Craigslist spokesperson Susan MacTavish Best in the Columbus Dispatch: “she questioned whether it is standard practice for reporters to call, for instance, General Motors every time someone is injured in connection with a GM vehicle.”

Well, yeah they do when it shown that some action by General Motors or another auto company contributed to the accident. Any company that manufactures a product can tell you that.

Making a statement like that is not the way to handle a crisis. For that’s what this is from Craigslist – a crisis. So, I think rather than react every time some idiot uses the service for criminal purposes, the service should come up with a plan to prevent such things from happening.

What would I do is:

• No anonymous ads, period. If you read this blog regularly, you know I worked for newspapers for over two decades. No one could ever place an anonymous ad in a newspaper. The paper might agree not to use a name, but it always knew everything about the person placing the ad: name, address, phone number, bank information, etc. True papers got fooled sometimes, but it was rare. All it takes right now to post on Craigslist and reply to ads is an e-mail address.
• No personals period. Leave those to the alternative press and the dating sites. It seems people placing personal ads commit a lot of the crimes. To me, Craigslist is on-line sales forum, not a lonely-hearts site.
• Develop someway to review the ads. According to Craigslist’s website, it has 28 employees. I cannot imagine another web company, say Google, running with only 28 employees. Yeah, I know the whole privacy argument and most times I agree with it. But, there has to be some way to screen for the wackos and the weirdoes. I cannot believe there isn’t a search algorithm that could flag potentially dangerous ads for review by a staff member.
• Have a much better response when something does happen. A flack such Best should never be making a comment about a company. And I say that as a flack myself. Good public relations should leave no fingerprints. Either CEO Jim Buckmaster or founder Craig Newmark should be doing the talking.
• As I wrote in an earlier blog about crisis communications, just saying “our heart goes out to the victim” isn’t enough. If I were Newmark or Buckmaster,  I would sent up a fund to pay for the bills of victim’s who were the victims of a criminal using Craigslist. I know Craiglist’s attorneys will argue that is essentially admitting liability. I don’t think it is, and besides, it protects the brand platform. Or make contributions to victim’s rights funds, or over rewards for catching people who use Craigslist to commit crimes. Do something to show some empathy.

Now, I want to know what you think. I struggled with this blog. I am usually a First Amendment absolutist. I think nothing should be censored. However, the marketplace doesn’t agree. Companies have gone out of business for less. So again, let me know what you think.

I post this blog every Monday. If you have questions you would like me to answer, please email me. I am always looking for topics and input. My email address is in the next paragraph.

If you want to subscribe to this blog, please use the RSS feed link in the upper right hand corner.

In addition, please join my community. In the upper right hand corner, there is a widget marked Google Friend Connect. Please join. This is an example of cutting edge social media.

My background: I worked as a reporter for 25 years in central Illinois, upstate New York, suburban Detroit and Milwaukee. I now help clients with marketing communications through my company – JJC Communications LLC. If you want to know more about my company, and myself, click the link. It’s a cliché, but it’s true for me: no job is too big, no job is too small. I have worked with companies on the Fortune 500 list and I have worked with companies that have one employee. The service I provide is the same for all.

Email me at jjcole54@gmail.com

To start, there are two kinds of self-inflicted wounds: the slow one, think the American auto industry not understanding why market share was shrinking; and the fast one, as is currently happening in the financial industry.

How should such crises be dealt with? Simple really, admit mistakes were made, correct those mistakes and ask for the public’s forgiveness. It’s the only course of action that works.

I will focus on a crisis that occurred close to my home – The Green Bay, Wis. headquartered-Associated Bank decision to take employees to Puerto Rico after receiving federal bailout money.

Full disclosure: I do not do business with Associated. I did pitch them for public relations business, but was unsuccessful. I worked for The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel until I left journalism in 2002. Journal Sentinel reporter Dan Bice, who broke the story and whom I will be quoting, is a friend. However I have not questioned Bice about the story. Everything I have written is based on media reports.

In November 2008 Associated accepted $525 million in federal bailout funds. In February, the company decided to take 100 employees to a Puerto Rican resort. The company said it was rewarding its top performers.

This is the time a public relations professional should have been consulted. The pr pro would have done a risk assessment and advised the bank what would be the consequences of those actions.

I also believe any company that takes the time to create and practice a crisis communications plan is more attuned to potential mistakes. It is more likely to avoid making them.

At any rate, the trip decision caused much negative publicity for Associated. The trip was eventually canceled, but only after a lot of public criticism.

Has that publicity hurt Associated in the long term – I don’t know. But, a harsh light was cast on the bank. It is not the kind of publicity any business should ever get.
Remember, crisis communications is like a battlefield. A badly handled crisis can severely wound, even kill a company. There are no do-overs – you have one chance to get it right. Get it wrong, and if you’re lucky, you might restore a reputation in a decade or so.

The crisis began when this headline ran on the front page of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Associated Bank plans its own fiesta after bailout party.

Associated became a target. The coverage led to a lot of things like this: a blog urging canceling accounts; instructions on how to cancel an Associated account; and a headline from a Milwaukee television station: “Just dumb or incredibly stupid.”

It also led to a reaction from far more powerful sources, Bice reported:
“This is another gang of people who just don’t get it,” said U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, a Madison Democrat. “If they want to take this trip, they should return the TARP funds and go on their own dime.”

She wasn’t the only politician to sound off.

By the time the day was done, several members of Wisconsin’s congressional delegation and U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl had lashed out at the state’s second largest bank.

“I am very disappointed,” Kohl told the Journal Sentinel. “I don’t think we can suggest they ought to return the funds or anything like that. There have been other violations, as you know, of companies that received funds or applied for funds, or did things not considered to be very smart or very proper. And I would put this in that category.”

The bank did two other things:
•    When Bice asked about the trip, Associated CEO Paul Beideman responded: “Should we ask you or anybody else each individual thing we do to see if it’s politically correct?” he asked. What he cares about, he said, is the opinion of his employees, and they overwhelmingly support the Puerto Rico trip: “I think it’s coming across very positively.” Bice noted in his story that it was Associated employees who tipped him.

•    And the bank did something I would advise against. I will let Bice explain it in a story he wrote: Here’s one bit of unsolicited advice for the person who lands the new job (as spokesman) with the Green Bay-based bank: Return calls from the media. Over the past two weeks, current spokeswoman Janet Ford hasn’t responded to any number of messages, leaving it to No Quarter to find other ways to chase down readers’ tips about a variety of other subjects.

The emphasis is mine. Never, ever, ever duck the media. It is up there with lying and saying no comment. By doing that, you forfeit the chance to tell your side of the story. The story will get done anyway. Here are some suggestions how I feel Associated could have dealt with the issue.

•    The bank could have announced that because of current economic conditions, the trip was being canceled. This would have had to have been done before Bice’s first story was published. Associated would have received valuable national publicity for the decision.
•    This is one of the hardest things for a CEO to do, but the bank’s leader should have admitted a mistake had been made as soon as the trip became public. The public likes humility,
•    Once the firestorm starts, apologize, cancel the trip and promise it will never happen again. It doesn’t matter if nothing wrong was done. It’s perception that counts.
My background: I worked as a reporter for 25 years in central Illinois, upstate New York, suburban Detroit and Milwaukee. I now help companies with marketing communications through my company – JJC Communications LLC. If you want to know more about my company, and myself, click the link.
I am available for speaking on media relations, or counseling your company on that or on your other public relations needs. I can be reached at 414-763-8310 or jjccomm@wi.twcbc.com.

What does this have to do with your company? How the people of the village, and all the various emergency personnel, dealt with the dozens of reporters and cameras that descended on their community is the best example of I have ever seen of crisis communications. Did they have a crisis communications plan? I am sure some of the emergency responders – the Red Cross, the Wisconsin National Guard, and other agencies did. I am just as sure that Barneveld’s residents – and the hundreds of their neighbors who rushed to help – did not. Yet, they did a masterful job.

By the way, it is still better to have a plan. It is even better to rehearse that plan at least once a quarter. The people of Barneveld were extraordinary under pressure. Don’t ever count on that. Be ready instead.

I speak from personal experience. I was one of the first reporters on the scene. I spent almost week there, doing story after story.

I learned a lot there about dealing with a crisis. The things I saw put into action apply to how your company should deal with a natural disaster or some other crisis caused by an outside agent. The people who dealt with us media types did a fantastic job under the worse of conditions. As a result, the story turned from a village destroyed to a village rebuilding. It went from a negative to a positive.

That’s the goal in a crisis. This is your chance to show how your company functions in extreme conditions. It’s simple really: anyone can function when things are easy. The real test comes when things are tough. That’s the true measure of a company.

A side note: when I was in Barneveld, I had no thought that one day I would be doing public relations and marketing. But, for some reason, I kept some of my notes from that story. There’s a lesson in that for all of us – you never know when a piece of knowledge will be useful.

Remember, crisis communications is like a battlefield. A badly handled crisis can severely wound, even kill a company. There are no do-overs – you have one chance to get it right. Get it wrong, and if you’re lucky, you might restore a reputation in a decade or so.

As I said last week, the overriding rule in any crisis is to immediately communicate your concern – for the stock price, the injured people, the effect on the environment, whatever. It is also important to communicate as fast and as accurately as possible.

I saw that those two rules put into action in Barneveld. A command post/media center was set up in one of the few buildings left standing – a farm implement dealer’s storage shed. The various agencies coordinated their press relations so they spoke as one. The information was always timely and accurate. Besides regular press briefings, there was always someone on hand to provide whatever information the press needed.

That is key. Make sure everyone is informed, especially your employees. If there’s an accident in a factory, make sure your employees have the full story. They should because they are most affected. Your employees should always be the first one told about what’s going to happen next. They are going to be understandably concerned about their injured friends and the company’s future. Make sure you do everything possible to quell their fears.

Also, it is inevitable the media will interview some of your employees. That cannot be prevented. So, it’s better they have the entire story.

A note about that: the media demands first person accounts of any disaster. Their viewers or readers expect it. It adds immediacy to the story. So, they are going to try and talk to employees. If the company has done its job in taking care of those employees, those interviewed will say so. That kind of third party endorsement of the company is the best kind of public relations.

Do not try to control an employee interview. If you feel the interview should be done in a controlled circumstance, such as the company’s offices, go ahead. If you want a public relations person in the room, that’s fine also. But, let the employee talk. The public relations person should be there as a resource, not a controller. The media is very suspicious of anyone who appears coached or appears not to be saying anything. It will look like you have something to hide.

As for empathy – every leader from the governor and a U.S. Senator down to Barneveld Village President did two things: walked around the village to talk and hear stories; and saw to it every kind of assistance needed was provided. All those leaders demonstrated something else: actions speak louder than words. Yes, it is a cliché, but it’s true. They were not there just for photo opportunities; they were there to offer genuine assistance. That made a big impression on those directly affected.

Here are other lessons I learned:

Be as open as possible with the media. Do not hold anything back. Of course, you do not want a victim’s family to find out from a news report that a family member is dead. But as soon as possible after the family has been informed, release the names. The media will find out eventually anyway.

Give the media has much access as possible. Provide updates as soon as you have new information. It is human nature to try and fill a vacuum. That’s how rumors start and spread. The media can be your ally. If they are reporting the facts, rumors will get quashed.
Next week, I will be discussing what happens when crisis is caused by something a company does. That’s the most difficult of all crisis communications.

My background: I worked as a reporter for 25 years in central Illinois, upstate New York, suburban Detroit and Milwaukee. I now help companies with marketing communications through my company – JJC Communications LLC. If you want to know more about my company, and myself, click the link.

I am available for speaking on media relations, or counseling your company on that or on your other public relations needs. I can be reached at 414-763-8310 or jjccomm@wi.twcbc.com.

An example I still use for how to manage a crisis happened about 25 years ago. It was so long ago that I cannot find the story stored anywhere on the Internet, so the details are somewhat hazy.
A small boy shoved his arm inside an unlocked box protecting high voltage lines. The utility chairman didn’t waste a minute. By the end of the day, the company was paying for the boy’s medical bills and a host of other things. The chairman took a negative and turned it into a positive enhancing his company’s reputation.
That should be always the goal. Don’t think about just containing the damage – think about turning the situation on its head. Your goal in a crisis situation is emerging from it with your reputation intact. Handled correctly, you can improve that reputation.
The key element in handling a crisis is to be ready. No, you cannot anticipate the exact shape a crisis will take anymore than a firefighter can anticipate how a fire will burn. How firefighters deal with that is to plan and practice. You and your company should be doing the same.
A lot of companies have crisis communications plans. However, it is usually tucked away in a dust-covered file. Often the people who wrote it, and the management who approved it, are gone If you’re lucky, somebody with an institutional memory will remember that the company has a plan. If you’re really lucky, they will remember where it is. And, if you go three-for-three, they will remember what it says.
I wouldn’t count on any of that actually happening.
Writing A Plan
Let’s start with creating a crisis communications plan. As I said, it is impossible to know the shape a crisis is going to take. So, the plan has to provide a framework for dealing with a crisis.
Here are the steps you should use to create a plan.
Develop and write the plan
A working group should be created to develop the plan. The group should be made of senior people familiar with all aspects of a company’s operations. The working group should meet with each department head to gather information on possible crises.
The plan should include:
•    The primary members of the crisis communications team. It can include: the CEO, the chief of public relations, outside public relations counsel corporate counsel, the safety and/or security officer, other employees who would be relevant to the situation.
•    A media point person and a spokesman: One team member, usually the public relations person, should be designated as the primary media contact. This person should be the conduit for all media inquiries. One team member, preferably the CEO or another high-ranking executive, should be the designated media spokesman. It is important to have as high a ranking person as possible as the spokesperson. The higher the rank, the more integrity in the eyes of the media and public.
•    A crisis communications team roster with each member’s contact information. This should include cell phone, home phone office phone and email addresses. Each team member should have a copy.
•    An initial contact. This is the person at headquarters who will get the call that there’s a problem. This can be done on a rotating, on call basis
•    A chain of command – who reports to who.
•    Who will be collecting information on what is happening. This should be a team. One of the team’s key roles will be dealing with rumors.
•    Who determines what resources are needed to deal with the issue.
•    The names and contact information for the spokespeople for area emergency personnel, or any other outsider who might be involved, should included on the list. If possible, at least one member of the crisis team should meet with the spokesperson for the emergency personnel to get acquainted.
•    A method for continual reassessment of how things are going and what additional resources are needed.
Once completed, the plan should disseminated to all department heads and their key people. They should review plan. Senior management should follow up with them to ensure they have done their homework. Each of those department heads should also have of the phone list. They should always know who is on call in the event of an emergency.
Practice
Those are the basics of a crisis communications plan. Writing it is only the first step. The next is to rehearse, rehearse, and rehearse. I always recommend practicing at least one a quarter, more if your company is in an industry where incidents occur often.
Set up a “practice” crisis and run through your plan. This will tell you what works and what doesn’t work. It will also ensure everyone knows their places when the real things happens. The plan should be second nature to everyone involved long before it has to be put into action.
As I said in the beginning, there is no point in having a plan if no one knows were it is, what it says, or how to execute it. It would be akin to not recharging your sprinkler system or checking your alarms.
Next week, I will discuss how to deal with an external crisis.

My background: I worked as a reporter for 25 years in central Illinois, upstate New York, suburban Detroit and Milwaukee. I now help companies with marketing communications through my company – JJC Communications LLC. If you want to know more about my company, and myself, click the link.

I am available for speaking on media relations, or counseling your company on that or on your other public relations needs. I can be reached at 414-763-8310 or jjccomm@wi.twcbc.com.