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)

The Jazz Fans who got sex instead

When half a million listeners to the UK's Jazz FM station were relaxing last Saturday evening to the cool sounds the station normally produces, they were shocked to hear what appeared to be the soundtrack of a very explicit soundtrack to a gay pornographic film.  I did not personally hear the broadcast (and luckily for  the station, it appears not to have made it on to You Tube), but we can assume from the description of the incident that it went beyond comments like "Hey I love your sweater, is that this year's Ralph Lauren? Can I buy you a drink?"

There's a sense where this can seem funny.  It makes water cooler chat.   But as a former radio presenter, let me tell you that people do not like unexpected profanity on air.  And they don't like sex soundtracks on air at any time, especially on a jazz station with such a loyal following.  It's serious for the station.  It also puts their licence to broadcast under threat.  Broadcasting indecent material is a serious breach of the UK broadcasting regulator rules and could lead to the licence being revoked.

If faced with a crisis, don't panic.  Just do the right thing.  Jazz FM did exactly that.

Firstly, they apologised:  "Unfortunately, we had an unauthorised access to the live feed on Jazz FM on Saturday 18th February at 7.15pm which resulted in a highly regrettable incident.  Please accept our profound and sincere apologies for any offence that may have been caused and rest assured we have taken steps to ensure there will be no repeat of this incident."   The statement is signed by Mike Vitti, the station's head of programming.   It's good to personalise apologies, although the executive then puts himself in the firing line, so Mike was brave and took responsibility.   Consumers like that.  The statement was not hidden but put on the website in bold type. They also apologised on air. It felt like they meant it.


They also issued a media statement:  "There was some unauthorised activity and inappropriate behaviour in the studio on Saturday evening – activity we take extremely seriously. An investigation regarding this matter began immediately and should it be necessary, disciplinary action will be taken against the individual concerned."  They told the media the problem was caused by "unauthorised activity and inappropriate behaviour in the studio".  

The line in the statement that they have taken steps to ensure this never happens again suggests they already know how it happened.  If they don't it's a hostage to fortune.  But announcing an investigation is always the right thing to do (and incidentally, important in the UK to comply with fairness requirements of employment law should disciplinary action follow).


Clear, unequivocal statements, but not over the top.  And keep the emotion out, which the management will undoubtedly be feeling.


Jazz Fm's prompt actions have resulted in a serious issue being contained.  Issues not dealt with become crises.


When I was being trained as a presenter in commercial radio, Sandy Wilkie, then the head of Radio Tay in Scotland gave me the most important piece of advice.  "Never say or do anything in a room where there is a microphone or camera present that you would not want the world to hear.  Even if you think it isn't connected.  Because it might be.  Accidentally."   It's advice that every broadcaster and also guest should have inscribed in their brain.  If they did hundreds of mishaps every year would be prevented through this basic mistake.


There might be one more problem for Jazz FM.  If the company which produced the "material" which was inadvertently broadcast identifies it, they will sting the station for a copyright fee. Because the broadcast wasn't cleared it will be punitive.  It doesn't matter whether the broadcast was intended or not.  However, quite how they will tell it was their film is beyond my expertise.


Footnote on deaths in Syria:


The deaths of Marie Colvin and Remi Ochlick in Syria are a grim reminder of the cost journalists, photographers and those who support them face in supporting democracy round the world.  When the BBC opens its new News and Radio Centre in central London this year- the largest live news centre in the world - it has on its roof an art work by Jaume Plensa from which a laser beam will shine high into the sky each evening for two minutes (with the permission of the Civil Aviation Authority).  Inaugurated by the Secretary-General of the UN, it is a visual and moving memorial to all who have died (not just those from the BBC) in reporting news.  The risks journalists face is something that is one of the most underreported issues. It's the kind of journalism that has and will always really matter.




(Posted from Singapore)

Why some PR arguments can't be won

Few came forward in defence of Stephen Hester, the CEO of the Royal Bank of Scotland, when it was announced he was to be paid a one million pounds (USD 1.5m) bonus this year.   The bank is effectively in public ownership (83 per cent) after it was bailed out by the Government.   Mr Hester was hired to restructure the bank and manage it back to privatisation.

The Chairman of the Bank, Philip Hampton, publicly waived his £1.4m share bonus, either to deflect criticism (it hasn't) or to avoid public vilification.

Mr Hester didn't start with the public rooting for him.   Banks did not fare well in the latest Edelman Trust Barometer (banks and the financial sector remain the two least trusted industry sectors for a second year), and even less popular than banks are....bankers.  They're seen in Britain by most as the cause of the current financial crisis.

Labour blames the Tories, the Tories say they inherited the contract from Labour. The public are telling politicians to intervene - we own the bank - the Tories are effectively saying they don't like to, but they've told the bank how much they disapprove.

The arguments for Mr Hester's bonus go like this:

1.  He is being bonussed with shares which do not pay out till 2014, so it is a long term incentive plan.
2.  Mr Hester took a drop in conditions when he came from his previous employer to come to the public service.
3.  If Mr Hester is successful he makes money for the taxpayer when the bank is sold.
4.  Mr Hester is doing the job he was hired to do, doing it well and is entitled to a bonus under his contract, if we didn't want to pay him a bonus, we should have said so when we hired him.
5. You would have chaos in RBS if Mr Hester left, and that wouldn't benefit the taxpayer (Iain Duncan-Smith).
6.  Mr Hester's pay reflects progress in categories agreed with shareholders, and strongly geared to the recovery of RBS (RBS statements)


The argument against are:

1.  Mr Hester is a public servant, and no-one in the public service should be paid this kind of bonus (in fact no-one at all should be paid this kind of bonus).
2.  It's not fair.
3.  The bonus highlights inequality in society (SNP leader Alex Salmond)
4.  It's not fair.
5.  RBS has failed to lend enough to small businesses (Matthew Oakshott, Lib-Dem MP)
6.  It's not fair.

This is a classic no-win situation for RBS.  It's easy to see why in the arguments above.  The arguments for Mr Hester's bonus are rational and linked to agreements the Government signed.  The arguments against are emotionally driven.  Putting it simply, the public doesn't like it.  They are under severe financial pressure and are driven by a feeling of "unfairness".   Defining "fairness" is of course an almost totally subjective exercise, depending on how much you are benefitting from the alleged fairness.

For example, the decision to cap public welfare benefits in the UK is seen as "fair" by those members of the public in work (and therefore funding it) and "unfair" by those in receipt of benefit.  If there's any rational argument that will shift these positions, nobody's thought of it yet.  On this and the bonus issue, the strength of public feeling for the welfare cap and against Mr Hester's bonus is overwhelming.

To all of the pro-Mr Hester arguments, the answer is always the same: "that may be true, but it's still too much and I don't like it."

Rational arguments, at least in the short term, do not win over emotionally driven reactions to issues.  That does not mean you should not make the arguments, but it is very important, too, to acknowledge the feelings of those who are on the other side of the argument.  You can only stick it out and hope that emotions will calm, or that someone else comes along with an even bigger bonus than you to take your place.  Or you can give in, effectively conceding you were wrong.   Even if Mr Hester did this, he'll get little credit from an angry public.

You build trust by your behaviour, not your words.

This is an issue that will be faced over and over again as Europe slides towards recession and large remuneration packages are revealed.   I haven't met anyone in the last week who supports Mr Hester's position.  The phrase you hear most often is "they just don't get it" and "I thought we were all supposed to be in this together?"

Instead, RBS are left with little option now but to meet an emotional reaction with a rational argument - and it won't work.

The late and deeply popular Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was not only someone who "got it" but who was an expert in public relations before the term was even invented.    She was famous for visiting bombed areas, especially the East End of London and the Docklands with The King.  But when Buckingham Palace was itself bombed, she famously said "I'm glad we've been bombed.  It makes me feel I can look the East End in the face."   She was really saying, "you see, we're all in this together".


STOP PRESS:  Just as this blog was published, it was announced that Mr Hester would not be taking his bonus following the public outcry.

"An Unforgettable Holiday with Costa" - the crisis lessons begin

"As soon as you step onboard, you will realise what an unforgettable experience your holiday at sea with Costa will be", extolled the Costa Cruises website, nearly 24 hours after 3 people died (at the time) and 40 were still missing in a catastrophe for the Costa Concordia.

There are many lessons to be learned from the Costa Concordia accident, both in crisis communications, and in dealing with passengers involved in an emergency.

"Having a robust crisis plan is not optional" - The Hon Mary Jo Jacobi Jephson

But the overwhelming lesson is that your organisation must be prepared for the unthinkable.   "Where loss of human life or serious injury is a possibility, having a robust crisis plan is not optional", veteran comms doyenne and ex White House staffer Mary Jo Jacobi Jephson has said.  "And where loss of human life or serious injury is a possibility, rehearsing your crisis plan is not optional."

"There are echoes of the Titanic" - Simon Calder

The Simon Calder Travel Show on LBC Radio

As veteran UK travel journalist Simon Calder told BBC News: “It is unbelieveable.  A lot of people in the cruise industry are just astonished that this should happen to a 21st century ship when everything is designed with safety in mind. There must have been an extraordinary sequence of events....the ship was listing dangerously and people were jumping into the water, and I'm sorry to raise this, there are echoes of Titanic which happened a hundred years ago.’

Your crisis plan must work in situations you think will never happen.

For Costa Cruises and its parent company Carnival, it seemed that even the things that could be planned for hadn’t been enacted.  24 hours after the accident it still appeared possible to book a cruise on the Concordia on the Costa Cruises site, with a cruise the following week round the Balaeric Islands being offered at less than half price.  The  front page of the Carnival Cruises (Costa’ parent company) website was still extolling “Look what the carnival breeze blew in” a day later with a tiny link to a statement about the tragedy at the top left of the page.

The pages were changed later.

So, an easy lesson.  Make sure that your organisation's website can be suspended in the event of a tragedy.  Prepare "vanilla" pages that can quickly be populated with information about what is happening and are right in tone.  When a ship with 4,000 passengers falls over, it's time to show that your priority is those who are affected.

After any accident, of course, there must be business continuity in the rest of the business.  But care, compassion and taste come first - always.

But it does require you to have a robust plan.  Involve your web and social media teams in every rehearsal - no exceptions.

It also helps not to have a public row with the Captain of a lost ship about culpability in public.  It can sound like you're trying to say "it wasn't our fault".  At best, extremely unattractive.   But more of that another day.

(Posted from London)

Wake up to what your employees are doing on social media

News that school districts in the US are banning teachers from having contact with their pupils (and in some cases ex-pupils) on social media has caused a rumpus.   Some say it is a restriction on free speech, whilst others point to the fact that 80 teachers in Missouri alone lost their licences in the last four years through sexual misconduct with pupils, some of which began on social media.  One district in Cincinnati in making a policy tried to make themselves look as if they were ahead of the curve.  They said social media was "growing" and they wanted to set a "forward thinking policy setting some parameters".  The "parameters" turn out to be a total ban on teachers relating to students on social media or via instant messaging.

This may or may not be a necessary policy.  I'm not qualified to judge.   But social media isn't just "growing".  It's here.  It's ubiquitous.  And students have been using it for several years.  Who invented Facebook again?  Oh yes, a college student.   Several years ago.

The dear folks of Cincinnati may be trying to dress up their slowness in getting a social media policy as "forward thinking" but at least they've got one.

I'm amazed as I speak at events round the world and ask delegates how many people do not have a social media policy for employees, how many hands go up.

The incident in 2009 at Dominos Pizza in the US, where two low-rent employees made a disgusting video at work which was posted up on You Tube (and viewed a million times within days) was a wake-up call to organisations that they need to discuss with their staff the benefits and risks of social media.  Dominos used the opportunity to re-engage with their staff worldwide on this topic.  Employees need to understand why rules are needed.  Few employees start work each day wanting to do a bad job, or wanting to badly damage the company.

When designing a social media policy for your organisation, talk to your employees first and listen to them.  You don't have the monopoly on wisdom.

Your social media policy will vary depending on the kind of organisation you run.

If your company is concerned with the preparation or service of food, if you allow camera enabled cellphones in the workplace, you are risking your entire business.  Employees should surrender their cellphones before starting, and reasonable use of the house phone for urgent family members is easy to allow.

Although less about social media, there are similar considerations if your employees use computer screens at work that show potentially sensitive information, such as financial information, which could be captured.

You should also think about whether you want to allow employees to say where they work on social media.   If they do, their behaviour, much of which is their business, will become yours.

In some jobs, because the employee is prominent or front-of-house, it may be obvious the person is your employee and they need to take special care in what they write.

A number of years ago a broadcast journalist boasted on social media of the number of women he had slept with.  It was such a huge number, you marvelled that there had been any time to appear on air.  The broadcaster thought it brought discredit to them because everyone knew who this individual was.

It's not just the fact that your employee works for you that raises issues, it's whether they talk about their life at work.  It might be fine, for example, if you run a cool coffee shop, to see one of the baristas enthusing about his work and his customers.  But what if he talks disparagingly about an especially irritating customer?  Or a co-worker that gets on his nerves?  Not so good.

In some companies, by talking about their life at work, employees can inadvertently disclose security arrangements, or private company procedures, without realising what they are doing.

One dedicated but exhausted US teacher sounded off on Facebook about her pupils (she had had a very bad day) not realising the privacy settings had changed.  What she thought were private remarks were seen by everyone, including her pupils.  Despite a blameless long career, she was fired.  Best not to talk about work online.

The important thing about having a social media policy for employees is not to restrict them, it is to make them think about what they are doing.  Employees on the whole like knowing what's expected of them. They like being engaged on issues so they understand the risks and how to get it right.

One of the first organisations off the blocks in the UK was the BBC, who were concerned in the early days of social media that staff might express political views on social media and threaten their reputation as a strictly impartial broadcaster.  Their social media policy is used by many companies as a template.

Develop your own policy, but do it now!



(Posted from Changi Airport, Singapore)