We have moved.
Please continue to support us. Visit us as http://cwfong.blogspot.com/
Please continue to support us. Visit us as http://cwfong.blogspot.com/
Singapore. (24 August 2010. 1230 hrs).
http://www.ladyironchef.com/2010/08/24/truth/ Brad Lau has responded to the accusations against him by posting a point by point rebuttal, supported with screen-shots of emails and SMS text messages. In positioning his response, Brad adopted a non-confrontational approach and attributed the issue to a miscommunication between himself and the PR Manager of the restaurant. The "tone" adopted in his blog was also non-emotional and was directed at the public at large and not towards the restaurant. Public reaction to Brad's response has been negative with people being sceptical about his side of the story. This is because Brad made three key mistakes. Firstly, the timing and tone of his response is not congruent with a person who is the "victim" of a vicious attack on his integrity and character. Taking 2 full days to respond and then asking for the public to be objective hints at guilt. Secondly, while Brad chose to offer a point by point rebuttal, he missed responding to some allegations. This again is an indication of guilt. As mentioned in an earlier post, being on the information defensive puts the responder at a disadvantage. Thirdly, while Brad used screen-shots to substantiate his side of the story, considering the ground swell of bloggers criticising his actions, Brad failed to use third party endorsements to put other bloggers or restaurants he has reviewed on his side. A stakeholder analysis will reveal that Brad's character and integrity is the main issue at hand. Hence having one or two "supporters" who can substantiate his charcter and integrity would have helped strengthen his side of the story. What Brad did do right was to elevate the issue to one of a miscommunication. This, as highlighted in my earlier post on Handling Negative Feedback, is the correct move as it is difficult for the restaurant to dispute this. In summary, what we can learn from this incident are three things: (a) In responding to stakeholders' negative feedback, the timing and tone of the response must match the incident to be believable; (b) taking the information initiative is always the preferred course of action as it requires the respondents to answer all your allegations. Failing to respond adequately to any one allegation makes the responder look guilty; and (c) the importance of using third party endorsement to substantiate our claims. Singapore. (26 August 2010. 1600 hrs).
Yahoo! News Singapore today published a report by Agence France-Presse (AFP) on the arrest of a Singaporean for inciting violence via his Facebook postings. (http://sg.yfittopostblog.com/2010/08/26/singaporean-arrested-for-anti-govt-remarks-on-facebook/). The Singaporean, identified by local media as Abdul Malik Ghazali, was apparently arrested for his post on Facebook calling for Singaporeans to "burn" the sports minister and the PAP. Abdul Malik Ghazali has defended his actions by claiming that he did not mean "burn" in the literal sense and had used it as a metaphor. Singapore's cyber-space has been set ablazed since the report was first published and a quick count of the over 400+ comments show the majority of netizens criticising the police actions and denouncing it as another ploy by the government to suppress opposition to their rule. As I have written in my research paper, social networking websites like Friendster, FaceBook and Twitter have changed the information environment. Citizen Journalists can now reach out and influence as many individuals as professional run news organisations. Herein lies the danger. As unlike professional journalists who abide by a code of ethics, citizen journalists are unregulated and may be motivated by personal agendas. In addition, the homogeneity of these social communities, and sense of bond among “friends” with common interests, makes these communities susceptible to being easily manipulated. The Greek Riot in 2008 is a case in point where the death of a student, at the hands of the police, need not have degenerated into nation-wide violent protests. The incident could have remained contained pending investigations by the authorities. Unfortunately, irresponsible citizens began spreading unsubstantiated accusations of police brutality on social networking sites. This fanned anti-police sentiments which eventually spiralled out of control. Analysts are unanimous in their belief that social networking websites were the catalysts in the Greek riots of 2008. Hence, while I believe that netizens have the right to express their views, the expression of these views must be done responsibly. The inciting of violence is definitely not one freedom I support. In my opinion, the Police is right to investigate this case and if a crime has been committed, the appropriate actions taken. We have moved.
Please continue to support us. Visit us as http://cwfong.blogspot.com/ During a recent assignment, I had the pleasure of working with a team of dedicated interns and temp staff attached to my PR Team. A common gripe among them was that no one seems to appreciate the hard work and sacrifices of the PR Team and that people only remember the mistakes.
This reminded me of an assertion made by the author of the book The Black Swan. In the book, the author highlighted the flaw in our society where we reward those that let mistakes happen and then save the day, rather than reward those that are so good at their jobs in the first instance that mistakes don't happen. This is an unfortunate but sad fact of the PR Professionals' role in any company. The only consolation that I could offer my team was the knowledge that we were the silent professionals working behind the scene to ensure everything went smoothly. Hopefully, some day, company CEOs will remember us and give us our due rewards. Until that day, my advise to my team of PR Professionals was to seek personal satisfaction for a job well done. Today, an international celebrity who was scheduled to perform at a local event did not show-up. In a bid to "manage the crisis", the PR Team was called in to craft a News Release.
As with all Releases concerning multiple parties, the final draft was a collaborative process with the celebrity's management company proposing that the celebrity's absence be explained as "unavoidably delayed". Realising that the celebrity had likely broken a legal agreement, the PR Team decided to consult the company's lawyers on the suitability of this statement. Thankfully this was done and, on the advise of the lawyers, the word "unavoidably" was removed. This was to prevent any potential wiggle-room for the celebrity to avoid paying the company compensation. While the word "unavoidably" sounds like good PR Speak, it was designed to protect the interest of the celebrity. As I explained in an earlier blog about the working relationship between reporters and PR Professionals, as PR Professionals we must also remember who is our pay-master. This is no different even when we are dealing with other PR Professionals from other companies. It is common in the PR world for News Releases (especially speeches) to be embargoed. To add "weight" embargoes are usually accompanied by signed non-disclosure agreements (NDA).
While news organisations will generally abide by the embargoes, they are very often under pressure to "scoop" the story from under other news organisations. Herein lies the challenge. In a recent national level event, a few reporters were given "exclusive access" to information which was embargoed with a NDA. However, the reporter went on to do his own research and found embargoed information via open sources. He eventually used this information and ran the story. Upon analysis, it became clear that while the reporter was careful to stay within the NDA, his "exclusive access" to the bigger picture undoubtedly helped him piece the story together. Thus, while he abided with the "letter" of the embargo, he broke the "sprit" of it. To me, the lesson is clear. Embargoes are useful but are not foolproof PR tools. Embargoes should only be used as a last resort and, if used, organisations must be prepared to accept that they will be broken. One of the operating principles by which PR Professionals work is to develop good working relationships with reporters. To do this, the PR Professionals try to be friendly and "please" the reporters. The premise is simple. If the reporter "likes" the PR Professional, the better the chance that the reporter will cut the PR Professional and his client some slack.
Personally, I think nothing can be further from the truth. To me, reporters and PR Professionals need each other and the basis of the relationship should be based on professionalism. Friendship is a by-product and should not be the basis of the working relationship. This is because as professionals, our loyalty is always to our pay-masters. To do otherwise, compromises our professionalism. I have come across too many examples of PR Professionals who assume that they have developed a close friendship with the reporter. Based on this friendship, and a false sense of trust, the PR Professional divulge sensitive information to the reporter only to see it being used against his client. Thus, it is my opinion that PR Professionals should focus on developing a professional working relationship with the reporter and not developing friendships. Don't get me wrong, I have many good friends who are reporters, but whenever I hang out with them, I always remember that we are all professionals and that our loyalties lie with different pay-masters. During a crisis, the stream of negative news can often overwhelming. Besides trying to get the company's side of the story out to "frame" the crisis, I also believe that the company can do more to manage the situation.
An excellent example occurred during the Fort Hood Shooting I wrote about in my research paper. In that crisis, quite soon after the shooting, stories started to emerge about the bravery of the soldiers and police officers responding to the crisis. While I cannot confirm that PR Professionals were behind these stories, but Sgt. Kimberly Munley became the hero of the day. Once the media picked up on this new story angle, stories about Sgt Munley added some needed balance to the otherwise predominantly negative news about a crisis. In short, as a Crisis Communicator, we can do more and we must be on the look out for and, where available, push out positive stories during a crisis. This, I term, regaining the information initiative. Any company, no matter how professionally run, will from time to time have to deal with negative feedback from their stakeholders. Some of these feedback will come in the form of direct emails or, if the company is unlucky, on some social network website.
While not all feedback can be addressed via templated responses, there are two two principles which I believe are essential ingredients in an effective response. Firstly, the stakeholder's unhappiness must be acknowledged as genuine and the company's response must directly address his concerns. If the response is to be made on a social media website, it is often more effective for the company to address the response to the stakeholder. A common mistake made by companies is to provide a general response to the concern raised. By making a general response, the company "trivialises" the stakeholder's concerns and this is likely to instigate the stakeholder to continue his "attacks" against the company. Secondly, companies must avoid addressing the concern at the "tactical" level. The concern must be elevated and linked to universal principles like fairness, safety and corporal social responsibilities. Doing this will avoid a drawn out PR battle as it is very difficult for an unhappy stakeholder to argue against universally accepted principles. (I will write more about this in time to come) Hence, to address negative stakeholder feedback, a company must do two things - (a) acknowledge the stakeholder's concerns; and (b) elevate and link the concern to a "universal principle" before offering a solution. | DisclaimerThe purpose of my blog is not to criticise or assign blame on the organisation or individual that I blog about. I blog on crisis incidences as a reflection process to learn so that I (we) can become a better Crisis Communicator. ArchivesCategoriesAll |
RSS Feed