Way back during the Reagan years, when I was a Washington D.C. "spin doctor" working primarily on environmental issues, a new and extremely lucrative segment in the corporate communications industry was born: crisis management.
Crisis management professionals have always had to manage communications problems like executive indictments and airline crashes. But, with the proliferation of news media and the increased role played by communications professionals, a new set of strategies was born, which continues to be applied today by the more reputable practitioners. Among these strategies are:
- Control the message
- Focus any future coverage on facts
- Control the spin/manage the story's life cycle
As recently as six or seven years ago, adherence to these guidelines would have implied managing probably no more than a few dozen reporter relationships among the news organizations that published stories in broadcast, print, and on the web. Then, along came the web log and bloggers were born. Suddenly, instead of managing a few dozen relationships with reporters you could identify, if not reach, you had to build and manage perhaps 30 or so additional relationships with bloggers, including those who used pseudonyms or posted to sites anonymously.
Sometimes, I think that may have been the genesis of the expression "WTF?"
Despite the challenges represented by these new, and often unprepared, media "professionals", the means of dealing with each remain very much aligned with the expectations above. Yet, it can be difficult to determine how exactly to do that when the source of your pain is a blogger whose name you don't even know? But there is a way. Let's walk through each of the strategies above.
Control the message
Message control isn't just about having a tight Q&A/FAQ ready for spokespeople to disseminate. Establishing some measure of control over what other sources are saying about your company is even more important -- though it's far more difficult to achieve.
In the D.C. days, this was called stakeholder development, and "no surprise 35" became de rigueur. The expression implies that there are usually about three dozen people whom you need to prepare for advocacy on your issue -- to speak on the record about it, or play a triangulating role.
Triangulating isn't just a silly PR person term; it implies that you need to know who a reporter will call besides your spokespeople when they want information about your issue. You can prepare as many outside contacts among your clients and partners as you want -- and, of course, you should. But, staying close to your potential adversaries among advocates is the key here. Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" remains relevant after 1400 years for very simple reasons. Read it to better understand the benefit of keeping your friends close, and your enemies closer.
If a blogger has hurt you with some misinformation, what's the better foil: one new blog post from you responding to the problem, or 20 new blog posts -- from partner companies, independent advocates, and even your critics -- expressing their support?
Blogs are particularly relevant because they add SEO value, so suppress the bad message with as many good ones as possible, and don't be afraid to host other blogs beyond your own corporate domain to deflect the attention of the web spiders. I would never advocate doing so without disclosure; but, most of the blogs in our space -- including some of the most influential ones that we've all heard of -- will lie about individuals and companies and alter incoming posts while denying they are doing it. A lawyer's Cease and Desist letter is the last resort, and one you should never need if you've prepared and maintained your stakeholders with the right messaging, prepared in the right context so that it's useful for them as well as you.
Next page >>
