Offenbach in San Francisco and a TV Cook in trouble

In the opulent San Francisco Opera House last week, I looked around at my fellow patrons in a packed house for a cast which included the soprano Natalie Dessay, a name which guarantees a sell-out.  I pondered on the total worth of the audience in the theatre.  Certainly, billions of dollars.

After the matinee performance, they stepped out on to the streets around the Opera House, which is in a district close to one of the poorest areas of the city, the Tenderloin.   It's necessary to walk past a shocking number of psychotically ill people walking or lying in the streets to get to one's parked car, or the MUNI underground train.  It's unavoidable, as the streets are littered with the bodies of people whose faces are twisted with mental pain and torment and they struggle with the voices in their head tormenting them as they shout back at them.  Many pace up and down, unable to find relief.  I'm told quite a number of them are veterans who have struggled to come to terms with what they saw during service on behalf of the United States.   Their presence in the streets of US cities (I'm told by people here) followed a policy of President Reagan of closing the large mental hospitals in the US.  The problem is that there doesn't seem to be any care put in their place.  If there is, it isn't working, as a stroll along these streets would tell you.

There was another thing I noticed.  All of the people on the streets I saw were African American.  It's not that there are not others who are untreated and psychotic.  It's just that none of the people I saw were white. The picture of them in the street stayed in my mind and troubled me afterwards.  I couldn't see what hope they had of a better life, and I felt it was hard not to conclude that race did not play a part in the cards they were dealt.

I was reminded of my visit a few days later when I had half an ear on a bulletin on TV which reported a crisis involving a well-known celebrity cook and restaurant chain owner in the US, Paula Deen.  The report alleged she had used the "N" word (the most offensive of the racial slurs), and I, half listening, assumed it had slipped out on air.  I thought she must either be very stupid or very ignorant.

As I watched later bulletins more closely, it turned out that Mrs Deen was being sued by a former employee of her restaurant chain, who was making numerous allegations about her, including that she had used racist language.   In a deposition for the case, Mrs Deen accepted she had used in the "N" word in the past, although she did say "that's just not a word that we use as time has gone on".  There were other allegations that Mrs Deen had said she liked the idea of a Southern style wedding with only African American waiters dressed in white just like the old days (Mrs Deen is Southern).   The issue was leaked to an American magazine.  It took a while to take off, but take off it did, as general outrage ensued, stoked by the media and social media.   She was suspended from the Food Network and lucrative sponsorship deals fell one by one.

Mrs Deen appeared to make it worse with a video apology that wasn't an apology.  Then she was to appear on the Today show.  Then she cancelled it.  Then she appeared on it.  Her tearful sort-of apology was described by a commentator on CNN as the "worst mea culpa ever" and "sentiment towards Paula Deen was worse after the Today interview".  "I is what I is", she said, and what she is, isn't much liked apparently.

Mrs Deen was portraying the worst kind of crisis management.  Because she is a famous TV personality, she did not appear to have taken the right advice before appearing and her apology was at best late and equivocal, depending on an emotional performance, and appeared to be driven by her loss of sponsorship, not genuine regret at the hurt she had caused.

But I was less interested in Mrs Deen's gifts of media management than the apparent outrage at what she had done.  Let me be clear: racist language hurts deeply and causes damage.  It is not OK, and where it is used, we need to correct it and help those who use it understand the damage it causes.  When language like this is used, it is the moment for an unequivocal apology - and most of the public require to know that you understand fully why what you did was wrong.

But here was a situation where across America people and companies were outraged at the use of a racist slur against African Americans.  Well, except several hundred thousand Paula Deen fans who took to Facebook and queued up at Mrs Deen's restaurants to show their support.

What I couldn't understand was this.  Were some of the outraged the same people who stepped over untreated psychotically ill African American people outside the Opera?   Where was that same outrage at that point?

I asked a wise American friend about it.   He explained.  This story is not really about racism any longer, he said.  It's the usual.  It started with genuine anger that this word is still being used in America today, a country with an African American President.   But now, it's about money and the fall of a celebrity.  That is what is driving the news coverage and the crisis.   It's not that anyone is saying racist language isn't unacceptable.  It's just that they are more interested in the consequences.  And people are always more interested in money.

I felt muddled that a nation apparently outraged at the use of a word was not outraged that African Americans are lying on US streets in torment and if anyone cares, I didn't see it.  If that isn't racism I don't known what is.  And it's a far worse kind of racism than Mrs Deen, once seen as a wholesome woman, and now regarded as rather silly, appeared to exhibit.

It was a reminder to me that a crisis is not always at its core what is appears at first to be about.  Of course, the root cause (the use of racist language) must be addressed.   But once the consequences start to roll, you're in trouble, because you can't address consequences.

But what causes sudden and widespread offence sometimes surprises us.   Social media, frequently a vehicle for sudden and emotional expression, accentuates this sense of overwhelming offence.   In this case the offence was real and it needed to be recognised and accepted - and addressed directly.  But there's no rule of human behaviour that says that offence must be logical.

Mrs Deen will bounce back from this.  She's a popular woman who made a terrible mistake, and hopefully she's learned something.  I hope she realises why it was wrong, and that she will get some good advice on restoring her reputation, and she'll listen to it.  But when the public reacts strongly to something you do (and I understand in this case why they did), you have to address the emotion and hurt that they feel, whether you like it or not.

Here is my advice if you ever get into Mrs Deen's situation:

1.  When you are involved in litigation, scenario plan on all the negative aspects of the case, and try to pre-empt them.  Don't hand your pursuers a PR gift.

2.  React quickly and sincerely.  Don't assume because you work in the media that you know how to deal with a public relations emergency.  In my experience media people almost never do.

3.  Make sure your apology is sincere and is accompanied by action.  For example, Mrs Deen could have announced she was meeting with an organisation that fights racism so that she could better understand the issues.   It's my own view that emotion (including crying) during TV interviews isn't a good thing and tends to be viewed as insincere.  However, I accept that the American market is different.  I know you can be over composed but sobbing I think is treated with scepticism in Britain, particularly when it is from performers.  In Mrs Deen's case some viewers felt she was crying because she had lost all the deals and her business was falling apart.

I love the United States and I love Americans (well most of them), but as a British person, I still don't completely understand them.  Trust me, there are untreated psychotically ill people on the streets of London, but not in the quantity one sees in US cities. I wish American people would be as outraged about the people they step over as they leave the Opera as they are about a terrible word a TV cook said in her office.   Then something might be done.

In the meantime, Happy 4th July!



(Posted from San Francisco)

THE CRISIS LESSONS FROM A HIJACK ATTEMPT AT TIANJIN AIRLINES

Passengers fastened their seatbelts on an internal Tianjin Airlines flight at Hotan Airport in the far west of China at lunchtime on 29 June last year.  They had no idea they were minutes away from a mid-air drama with an attempted hijacking which would leave two hijackers mortally wounded and passengers and crew injured.

As the Embraer190 aircraft, with 101 passengers and crew on board, climbed to cruising altitude, six passengers - three at the rear of the cabin and three at the front - stood up and announced their intention to take control of the plane. The crutches brought on board by one of the men were split up to be used to try to break the cockpit door open.  One reportedly held a bottle in his hand with a fuse.

The hijackers didn’t expect the degree of resistance they met from an energetic crew, quick-thinking passengers and two policemen who were on board - the six were pinned to the floor, two of them sustaining injuries so serious that they died a short while later.

22 minutes after take-off, the Embraer landed safely back at Hotan, with police waiting to storm the plane - with little more to do than arrest the hijackers who were reported to be Uighurs, a Muslim Turkic ethnic minority in this area beset by racial tension.

Within minutes of landing what has become a familiar routine in the West hit the Chinese version of Twitter, Sina Weibo.  Pictures of the hijackers being restrained on board were posted to a potential 300 million users.  They had been taken by another passenger on a cellphone.

The authorities may have been caught by surprise, but news agencies such as Reuters reported that agencies such as the police were not even picking up the phone to respond to the media.  It was some time before the local authorities (this is a long way from Beijing) and the Chinese Civil Aviation Authority began to make statements.  Once Beijing became aware of the seriousness of what had happened, definitive statements followed.

This allowed speculation to develop, and in the absence of any official statements, agencies carried a statement from the German based World Uighur Congress, who said that the incident had not been a hijacking but a dispute on board about seating arrangements which got out of control, and that they suspected China would use it as an excuse for a “crackdown” in the region.  Given that the Congress spokesman at this stage could not possibly have known what had happened on board, this statement lacked credibility, but in the information vacuum was reported unquestioningly.

The Chinese authorities felt a sense of enormous relief that the attempt had been unsuccessful, perhaps fearing the global damage this could have done for the country’s reputation for safety in the economically important and expanding aviation market.

The authorities showered gifts of large amounts of cash, cars and even apartments on the crew, the police and the passengers who overpowered the hijackers.  This was followed by honours for the police and additional rewards from Tianjin Airlines.

This may have been well intentioned, but the generosity raised questions amongst Chinese people.  Some felt it left no room for a debate on whether the deaths on board were nothing more than the result of “frontier justice” (although there is little if any sympathy for the hijackers to be found) and may have been an attempt to deflect attention over whether the incident was the result of failures in the airport security process.   A premature statement from the national aviation authority in China saying no-one was to blame for letting the hijackers on board did nothing to inspire confidence in the investigation.

But most of all, commentators were critical of the message the lavish gifts and rewards for the passengers would send.   The incident could lead to passengers being quick to intervene in incidents best left to the crew, and could have unforeseen and dangerous consequences.

This very serious incident is a reminder of the importance of some of the basics of crisis communications - being prepared for the unimaginable, responding quickly with a carefully rehearsed plan, and communicating rapidly to build and maintain trust. 

It is not enough to manage an incident effectively.  Immediate and competent communication by staff dedicated to this task is critical.

It also demonstrates that no country is immune to the power of social media in an emergency.

When a crisis hits, if your company does not provide rapid information, your critics will.


First published in the magazine of Kenyon International Emergency Services

Donald Steel is an Associate Director, Crisis Communications, at Kenyon International Emergency Services and a regular guest lecturer and workshop leader at the China Media Centre of the University of Westminster, London.

The power of social media to destroy your reputation

At the start of Social Media Week, where events from London to New York and Hong Kong will focus on the latest trends, I've been reflecting with colleagues on the amazing benefits social media - and email - have brought.  But we've also been thinking about the many times social media and emails have been at the root of a reputational disaster.

In nearly every case there is one good reason behind this - lack of care in communicating, or being a hurry, leading to a lack of care in communicating. Oh, and being emotional, leading to a lack of care in communicating. That's really three good reasons, but boiled down to one, it's lack of care.

I grew up in a world without social media and email (I know what you're thinking, but I'm much older than I look).  If you wanted to communicate, you could either phone (and not everyone had a phone) or write a letter.  You had to have an envelope and then you had to get a stamp.  Plenty of time to consider your communication before posting.

In the social media world, you can get annoyed and communicate immediately with large numbers of people.  Or have a few cocktails and communicate immediately with large numbers of people.   Or have a great joke (that in truth is an offensive joke) and communicate with - and offend - large numbers of people.

The immediacy of social media and email is a great advantage but also a massive risk.

Who can forget poor Congressman Weiner who tweeted a highly indecent picture of himself to a young woman he had never met but forgot to type the letter "D" in the message, so the picture was seen by thousands of his startled followers. Think of the days of snail mail.  You would have to take the picture, get it developed, get a print, put it in an envelope, get a stamp, mail it....plenty of time to reflect, for the excitement to wear off,  and to think better of such a stupid thing for a public figure to do.

Men do stupid things, but social media and email allows the stupid things they do to be seen by lots more people.

The two employees at a Dominos Pizza franchise (one was a woman, the rare exception to the "men do stupid things" rule) who made a disgusting video at work and posted it on You Tube thought it was funny.  It cost them their jobs and their company millions of dollars.  They wouldn't have done it if they'd known what was going to happen. In the old days, making this prank video would have taken so long you would either have got bored or thought better of it.  Now digital and social media makes it easy to do crazy things.  Since the incident Dominos has led the way in recognising the need to engage your employees on the risks of social media as well as the benefits.  They make great pizzas, too.

Stupid emails get people into trouble every week.  Emails are not confidential. They get forwarded, sometimes maliciously.   One manager was baffled when a confidential business strategy leaked out. It had apparently only been sent to 7 people in highest confidence.  It had actually been forwarded to over 80.

People put extraordinarily private and personal things on email that find their way into the public domain, or in court papers under the document discovery process. The item of gossip you added as a "PS" may end up being read out in court. Best to save it for a drink after work.

None of these happened in the days of snail mail.

But before we cancel all our social media subscriptions and close our email accounts, stop!  We just need to manage these risks by using a few simple rules:

(1) Never post in haste.  Think about what you post.
(2) Never post when you are angry or upset.
(3) Be extremely careful about humour.
(4) Don't forget the law applies to social media. Watch out you don't defame someone, or comment on a case that is currently before the courts.
(5) Words can hurt.  Could your post hurt someone, even if that's not your intention? If so re-write it.

You can sum these up in two words: take care.


A few times recently, I've been reminded that email is a crude form of communication.  It's written quickly and easy to misunderstand.  Use email to communicate factual points but never feelings.  It's often better to call someone on the phone.  And write every email or social media post thinking the whole world might see it.  Because they might.

If you do post something you regret, follow it up as soon as you can with another post.  Something like: "That last post came out wrong. I'm sorry about it.  It might have offended people and I didn't mean to" is disarming and honest and in practice, unless your post is unlawful and grossly offensive, is likely to be accepted by users who've all done the same thing themselves at least once.

With all these precautions in mind and armed with our new iPhone5s, we're off to Social Media Week to hear about the positive power of social media.  I can't wait.

Ronald Reagan on Trust

President Ronald Reagan had a great trust phrase: "Trust, but verify".   Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, an admirer of Reagan, put it differently: "Don't trust.  Verify."

The foundation of every reputation is trust.  In a crisis, all communications actions should have one aim: to restore and build long term trust in the company or organisation.

How are reputations verified? The answer, of course, is not in what you or your company says.  It is in how you behave.

If you wish to be more trusted, you must behave, always, in ways that will cause you to be trusted.  You can never take a vacation from the business of building trust.    What you say is important, but how you behave is more important.

It's been the lesson of the financial crisis.  Many have not understood that the issue of bonuses, for example, is one on which reputations will be judged and trust verified - or not.

There's no sign that most banks and other financial institutions understand this.

We have a great example this weekend of someone who has spent a lifetime exhibiting the kind of consistent behaviour that causes high public trust.   The Queen's Diamond Jubilee is a moment for the public to express their admiration for one of a small number of public figures that are truly trusted today.


(Posted from Singapore)

Go straight to the top and work down

Writing in Newsweek magazine (May 21) former US Secretary of State and retired US General Colin Powell reveals an astonishing fact.  Senior officials at the Pentagon knew of the existence of highly damaging photographs of abuse, torture and humiliation of detainees by US soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad in 2003 - but didn't tell the White House.  As Powell writes: "A fuse was burning, but no one made the senior leadership aware that a bomb was about to go off".

The eventual publication of the pictures damaged the reputation of the United States across the world and hugely increased hostility in Iraq, especially amongst the public, who the US were trying to win over.  It was a PR disaster.

Powell reflects that after his deep shock at the photographs, he was astounded that the implications of the pictures becoming public did not set off alarm bells at the Pentagon and then the White House.  "Nearly four months on", he writes in Newsweek, "no-one had elevated the material up the chain to the Secretary or the President.  If that had happened, the problem would not have been magically solved, but the people at the top would have had time to decide how to deal with the disaster and get to the bottom of it.  The President was not told early."

And he gives a lesson that should be part of every crisis rehearsal: "Leaders should train their staffs that whenever the question reaches the surfaces of their mind - 'Umm, you think we should call someone?' - the answer is almost always, 'Yes and five minutes ago'. "

His golden rule for his staff is the same as I was taught at the BBC many years ago by a senior executive: "I don't like surprises.  Tell me everything.  Especially when you think I won't like it."  And I did.

It's an extremely wise CEO that adopts this approach.  I've never in my career been ticked off by a boss for ringing him or her to say I'm worried about something, even when it seems on the face of it minor.  Most frequently, you're thanked.   The reputation of the CEO depends on the company being well managed.  The PR teams are often the eyes and ears of the CEO.   It's our job to brief the CEO, even when we fear the reaction of giving him or her very bad news about a mistake in the company.

Don't even wait till the morning if you think it's urgent.  And in most companies, a daily call first thing in the morning between the CEO and the Director of Communications makes sure things don't slip through the net.

A crisis is always better managed when you know it's coming.    Colin Powell's Newsweek article is a must-read for PR practitioners.



(Posted from Jakarta)

Fly on the wall or spider waiting to eat you?

London Underground, the largest and oldest underground system in the world, recently invited television cameras from the BBC to film their operations, warts and all, for a new fly-on-the-wall series (to give it its posh title, an observational documentary) The Tube.

They did have some experience in this field.  They had done a similar series on ITV and some one-off programmes.

The BBC series was special in that it documents the story of the Tube as it prepares to welcome millions of visitors to London for the Olympics and the Jubilee of Her Majesty The Queen.   The system is already bursting at the seams, as any Londoner will tell you, and billions of pounds is being spent on modernising the creaking train system, track and signalling.

Consenting to a fly-on-the-wall series is a high risk strategy.  You have to accept that the cameras will see poor service as well as great service, and things that go wrong as well as things that do right.  In fact, the programme makers will seek out things that go wrong.  It inserts what’s called “jeopardy” into the programme that keeps viewers hooked in - will the track maintenance staff finish on time to start the service in the morning?  If they don’t, hundreds of thousands of commuters could be late for work.

This kind of programme was made famous by the BBC with series like  “Driving School” which made a star of the hapless but loveable Maureen Rees who had failed her driving test numerous times.  During the series, viewers could see why.

Another, “Airport”, ran for ten series and went behind the scenes of London’s Heathrow Airport.  It told the remarkable story of the airport, and the airlines and the passengers and staff who used it.  And most of all, the airport and airline staff.   It made a celebrity out of Jeremy Spake, the Aeroflot Station Manager at Heathrow.

Like The Tube, viewers were able to see the extraordinary lengths staff go to to try to do a good job under  pressure.  And the unbelievable abuse they suffer at the hands of a stressed out public.   And on the Tube, the lengths people go to to avoid paying the fare.  

There’s a brilliant line from an officer from the London Underground Fare Evasion team to a passenger caught dodging the barriers: “It’s a pay and go system, Sir.  You just went.”

The Royal Opera House in London fared rather less well when it invited the cameras in for a BBC-2 series called “The House”  The Opera House wanted to explain to the public why they needed public subsidy and how they spent it.    Far from being enthralled, the public viewed much of the behind the scenes rows and shenanigans as indulgence at their expense.  It damaged the House badly and it took a long time to recover.

There are a number of things you have to consider before taking part in such a series.

First of all, the programme makers will insist they retain editorial control.  This doesn’t mean you have no say (for example you may wish to exclude material for security reasons, and that is reasonable), but it will mean the public sees things that happen behind the scenes that are less than perfect.

Secondly, you must get widespread and informed consent before agreeing, including talking to your staff and trade unions.  People sign up to come to work, not to be on TV, and they must have the right to opt out.  Staff who do take part will need your help in thinking whether they are happy to filmed at work only.  Sometimes programme makers will want to talk about their home life and how it fits in and sometimes film them at home, leaving for work, etc.  You will also need to talk to all your contractors, suppliers and partner companies.  It’s a huge job, and this will take months.

You need to think about how filming will affect customers and how you can inform them it is happening.  They have the right to privacy too, and must be able to opt out, where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.  In large premises, you can place signs at entrances informing them.  What’s surprising is how many people seem happy to appear on TV even when they are seen screaming at staff.

The programme makers will want to discuss with you how they will deal with very sensitive issues.  These might include a death on your premises (in the case of The Tube there was an extremely moving and sensitive edition on the subject of suicide on the lines, which included interviews with drivers who were badly affected by it).

And remember in the age of multichannel TV, the programme will be shown over and over again for many years, in many countries.   Your branding may have changed, the staff may have moved on, but the programme still keeps playing.  And you can’t usually change that.  A long running and popular series on EasyJet, called “Airline”, is still playing every week on cable channels 13 years after it was made in 1999.

You will need to assign PR staff to work with the team full-time before, during and after filming, which may take place over many months.

What’s my verdict on The Tube?   It shows a staff who, on the whole, really care about the passengers and do an amazing job with the daily pressure of the stressed, the drunk and the aggressive on an overloaded system.   Not everything is perfect.  But viewers make judgements on what they see overall.   I certainly look at staff on the Underground in a different light now I’ve seen what they do.   I think the series was a triumph.

(Posted from Dubai, United Arab Emirates)

Achieving the Perfect Pitch

When the pressure is on to place a story, your heart sometimes sinks at the thought of cold calling a long list of journalists and programme makers.

Having experienced life on both sides of the fence, believe me, your heart sinks when you receive such a call.

It may be that we want to assure the client that we have pitched their story to the widest range of media, but if the story isn’t picked up or broadcast, we have neither achieved exposure or value for the client.

Over the years, I’ve observed that one of the most common errors we make - and its not just the junior team - is that we pitch to papers we don’t read and to programmes we don’t watch or listen to.   And then we are surprised when our calls are not taken with enormous enthusiasm.

Take the celebrated BBC Radio 4 programme, Woman’s Hour.  It’s a triumph of the first order to get your story on this diamond of a programme.  But the programme is so popular (and long running) because the team are rigorous about the material they select for the programme.  It has to be right for their listeners and it has to be relevant and extremely interesting.   There’s no plugging (indeed one of the presenters Dame Jenni Murray can be heard to tell guests “that’s enough plugs thanks!”   And the agenda of the programme regularly changes and moves on in time with, and sometimes ahead of, the audience.  You are only going to know what will interest the Woman’s Hour team if you listen to the programme regularly.

In an agency or in-house team, it’s a good idea to make a list of the programmes you might pitch to and allocate each team member to take a list of them and watch or listen to the shows on a regular basis.   Each team member could write a short report on each title, when it is published or on the air, who presents it, the kind of topics they are interested in. Then if a pitch is to be made to the programme, that team member’s up-to-date advice is sought, or even better that person always pitches to the programme. You won’t have time to listen every day, but with catch-up services online, it should be possible to listen once a week.

And make it a rule that you never pitch duff material to journalists or programmes, just to tick off a list.  Nothing will wreck you relationship with them more quickly than that.  

Once you have hit on a topic that is of interest, of course, there’s a lot you can do to make your pitch more attractive and creative.

There’s so much interest in this kind of skill in Singapore and surrounds that we’re holding a course on it on 1st June - Achieving the Perfect Pitch

You don’t have to be born with the ability to pitch a story.  You just need some skills.  And for all but the most gregarious, some help to build your confidence!

(That’s enough plugs thanks - Dame Jenni Murray)

(Posted from Dubai, United Arab Emirates)