Saying Sorry: Netflix Actions Still Speak Louder

When the Netflix fiasco started in July, we pointed out that Netflix doesn't want to be in the DVD shopping and shipping business anymore. Back then, the price increases alone were enough to convince anyone. But we pointed out CEO Reed Hastings had said as much, several times over.

We also mentioned that Netflix wasn't done surprising customers. The company's long-term goals include moving streaming subscribers from household accounts to individual accounts, thereby doubling or tripling or quadrupling their rates when it "feels more natural."

But CEO Reed Hastings doesn't want to talk about that. He wants to talk about Qwikster. 

Qwikster is the new business that Netflix is spinning off to handle the DVD shopping and shipping business. The companies will not be integrated. Qwikster will have a new website. Qwikster will have new reviews. Qwikster will be billed separately on your charge card.

The real oddity, however, is how the entire announcement is framed up. Hastings nearly apologizes for not communicating one change, and then goes on to share all the changes they haven't communicated, again. Even the ending he wrote was off the reservation: "Actions speak louder than words. But words help people understand actions."

Sometimes that is true. But there is another line of logic left out of the equation. You can understand the actions, but it doesn't make the actions right. Most people learn that in kindergarten, such as the first time they play a prank on a classmate. Understand or not, a second black eye is hard to forget.

Communicating change is easy. Hastings chooses to makes it hard. 

Given that the first fiasco cost the company about one million of its 25 million subscribers, one would think that Hastings would have rolled the split, perhaps reducing the subscription rate of one of them.

Some customers might have seen him as a hero. It would have also carried a "we heard you" statement,  which would have helped the company sell the split. Ergo, we found a way to reduce rates and that requires us to offer both services under two different companies. The fallout might have been minor. But instead, their communication with customers looks a little bit more like this ...



At minimum, any other approach would not have overshadowed the upcoming Neflix-Facebook integration. And one would assume that it would be the communication Netflix wants people to see. Certainly it would have been better than the nightmare someone dreamed up.

Companies don't have to listen to customers. Sure, that's true. 

Bruce Temkin takes a very even-handed approach on the Netflix affair (hat tip: Geoff Livingston), even if he might be wrong that the move won't cost more customers. At minimum, it will prompt what Hastings wants many of them to do anyway — drop DVD all together and split households into individual accounts (something the new Facebook service can help them do). And then what?

It's hard to say. Streaming services are not like the original Netflix model. It's an increasingly crowded space that promises more competitors than the space that used to be the core service of the company. And without DVD shipping, Netflix doesn't just lose its value proposition. It leaves the doors open.

Still, for now, it is Hastings' call. Much like the recent changes to Facebook, company owners call the shots. Customers do not have to be part of the equation. All they can do is vote with their feet. And sometimes other companies will jump all over the opportunity to help them along, right out the door.

I understand what Hastings wants to do. I really do. He could probably accomplish it too, even if some of it feels a bit sleazy. But as it stands today, delivering excuses and calling them explanations is undermining the company's ability to accomplish anything it wants to do. It might even bury it faster.

Related Articles. 

• The Netflix Apology: Good Idea, Bad Execution  by Patricio Robles

• Parsing Netflix's Apology by David Pogue

• Netflix Says It's Sorry, Then Creates New Uproar by Michael Liedtke

Creating Controversy: Sometimes PR Makes Its Own

Like many public relations firms, Kentucky-based Guthrie/Mayes seemed to have sound advice. If your county board of education had suffered a soap operatic firing of a superintendent and less than stellar hiring of a new one, you might consider doing something to manage your public image.

Unfortunately, the public relations firm didn't anticipate that their hiring — at $215 an hour, or up to $20,000 for three months' work — would cause equal friction for the Jefferson County Board of Education, which already staffs communication and public relations professionals with a collective salary of almost $1 million per year, according to WLKY.

So far, the advice — speak with a singular message or not at all — isn't working. WLKY took exception to only one board member answering their call (only to say she wouldn't talk about the issue and hung up). The PIO for the board did try to answer the question. She claimed that the school district communication team has a conflict, working for the board and the district.

The chairman of the board, however, refuted the claim. They work together with the communication department all the time.

This time the public has a point. They needn't fund public relations for elected officials.

The Courier-Journal called it right. Elected board members are obligated to be responsive to the voters and are not entitled to public image makeovers simply to look better for re-election.

What they seem to need is more internal communication among each other, more honesty in the decisions they make, and more appreciation for the people who elect them without fear of "confusing them." At minimum, if they want to have a more unified voice, then they ought to be deferring calls to their chairman unless the issue has individual viewpoints. And if he's not up to the challenge, find someone who is.

In fact, that is what the public relations firm correctly advised. But where the public relations firm was wrong was in advising them to hush up over an issue that area residents seem impassioned about. And considering at least one board member or staff member is leaking the firm's advice to the media, it clearly seems they aren't improving relations as much as they are becoming fodder for controversy.

Some solutions for a fractured board, much more valuable than a muzzle.

Having done considerable work for various public entities as an outside consultant, there are times when overburdened combination staffs need assistance or advice on special projects or in specific situations. However, massaging the messages from the Jefferson County Board of Education doesn't seem to be one of them although the board members might seek independent coaching. As individuals, they obviously know how to undermine their own efforts.

Here's some free advice. Sit down and talk about the issues. When the board decisions are unanimous, let the media know and defer to the chairman. When they are not, meet both obligations by talking to the media about what the board has decided, and why (although in the minority) you felt differently without the rhetoric. Such action might not always result in a quiet and complacent public, but at least you'll be able to sleep at night, knowing that you're being honest.

This is probably the advice the district's communication team could have provided. But given the answer, it seems they could have used that advice themselves. Now, about how much that district ought to be spending on public relations ...

Playing Well: General Mills Pulls Yoplait Ad

If anyone is wondering (and some people are) why there won't be the same level of ridicule lobbed at General Mills over a Yoplait yogurt commercial as there was lobbed at Motrin over a back pain medicine commercial three years ago, it is because of precisely why the Motrin ad failed.

The Motrin ad made poked snarky fun at "baby-wearing" customers. General Mills simply understood dieters, maybe too well.

General Mills promptly pulled the commercial after some women and the National Eating Disorders Association said the spot promotes disordered thinking about food. So General Mills, with no defense (other than mentioning most people didn't see it that way) thought it best to take it down. The event was handled near perfectly, making it a non-event.

The commercial, which featured a woman attempting to justify her decision to have a piece of cheesecake, does almost flawlessly capture how some dieters consider food decisions (with one or two lines becoming a bit more playful). And then offers a solution — cheesecake flavored yogurt.


Overall, the advertisement is pretty harmless. And some people have questioned whether General Mills needed to pull the ad.

Technically, General Mills probably didn't need to pull it (unless we now fault commercials for capturing truisms), but it was smart that they did. The complaints were originally raised by people within a target audience. And that's the point, even if the complaint seems somewhat contrived.

What General Mills did right.

• It thoughtfully listened to the complaints, in particular the National Eating Disorders Association.

• It didn't elevate the issue by arguing the point, becoming overtly apologetic, or downplaying any concerns.

• It removed the commercial, being careful to note that it may take longer to pull the ad in some markets.

Unlike the Motrin ad three years ago, it seems much more plausible that General Mills would have never seen this one coming. It is patently clear they are not attempting to make fun of the woman who ultimately chooses yogurt as a solution. They also handled the potential crisis with a clear head, and the National Eating Disorders Association is now asking its members to write letters of appreciation. (They even have a sample letter.)

Since the ad was pulled, there has been some sliver of push back because some consumers feel it is ludicrous for companies to pull ads targeted by special interest groups. Specifically, some have said people need to take responsibility for their weight issues. While it's good these people appreciate that marketing is not to blame for eating problems, it's equally good that General Mills appreciates its customers. And that's what it is all about.

Nobody really wants to run a commercial that makes some of its customers uncomfortable, especially with a longstanding customer-conscious reputation like the one established by General Mills. It's an especially smart move by the company, given it just recently acquired a 51 percent controlling interest in Yoplait S.A.S. Original Yoplait, by the way, has two times the calcium of the leading yogurt and 50 percent of the daily value in every cup. Its cheesecake flavor has 170 calories, with 15 from fat.

Related reactions from around the Web.

• Does this commercial encourage eating disorders? by Lylah M. Alphonse.
• Concerns over ED triggers cause Yoplait to pull their latest ad by Bree.
•  Yoplait Pulls Ad Accused Of Promoting Eating Disorders by Margaret Hartmann.

Failing At Mitigation: Johnson & Johnson

Johnson & Johnson is embroiled in what may be the crisis communication dilemma of the year. You would never know it from their Website. Instead, you'll see a huge section that details how much they care about people.

At the same time, Johnson & Johnson has made a dramatic shift in its communication strategy since the days it delivered a best practice in crisis management for Tylenol in 1982. Instead of being at the forefront of product safety, it is patently less aggressive about product safety related to its other assets.

Specifically, although Johnson & Johnson lends its legal team to assist the court cases being lobbied at Motrin, its once stellar reputation for communication doesn't seem to cover McNeil Consumer Healthcare, which markets the Motrin brand. The Motrin brand is in a communication firestorm. Its Fort Washington plant was suspended in connection with the recall of infants’ and children’s liquid over-the-counter (OTC) products manufactured there. There are other problems with the Motrin brand.

Can a company wear a black and white hat in medicine?

Even more current, Johnson & Johnson is reveling in praise for new labeling on acetaminophen products while simultaneously poised to fight a settlement and labeling related to another tragic story mentioned last week.

The company's argument seems to be that the Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (SJS/Tens) experienced by several children in the last few years after taking Motrin doesn't warrant warnings let alone responsibility. They contend it is too isolated. Ironically, it also flies in the face of their 1982 best practice in crisis management.

Back then, Johnson & Johnson revised medication safety because of an isolated incident that affected nine people in Chicago. The company didn't even have any responsibility for that atrocity and it stepped up. But now, when it seems to be responsible, it is willing to invest considerable funds to fight.

Likewise, in the unrelated phantom recall of Motrin products two years ago, McNeil Consumer Healthcare apparently tried to cover up the recall by repurchasing product but not calling for a recall. The result could have led to dangerous products being left out in the marketplace. Johnson & Johnson is fighting that lawsuit too.

Crisis management in the world of multi-brands.

Johnson & Johnson is hardly alone in creating massive companies with multiple brands that most consumers miss on the surface. The question crisis management teams need to start asking themselves is, despite the various degrees of separation, can a corporate parent really afford to play two sides against the middle anymore?

Isn't this the same argument that BP attempted to make during the Gulf Coast oil spill with the incessant blame game? That the lead company was somehow exempt from responsibility if the contractors under its watch were about to make a historic environmental catastrophe.

Like it or not, consumers are connecting the dots with more and more frequency. Companies are held accountable for employee actions. Companies are held accountable for contractor actions. So doesn't it stand to reason that subsidiaries are also accountable?

Ergo, don't consumers deserve to hear better words from attorneys representing a Johnson & Johnson company that “McNeil complied with every federal regulation and that’s what the proof is.”

Mitigation is the single most important aspect of crisis communication.

Under normal circumstances, maybe not. But given Johnson & Johnson has invested billions of shareholder dollars to appear like it is the absolute leader in pharmaceutical customer safety, Johnson & Johnson is risking one of its greatest assets, a brand name that managed to escape increased scrutiny after the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics two years ago.

In considering the four basic tenets of disaster planning, Johnson & Johnson is continuing to fall short in the area where it was always the strongest. Mitigation focuses on long-term measures to reduce or eliminate risk. It considers more than whether a company "can" win a case. It considers what is lost when a company does win a case.

In this situation, when you add up the court cases, future court cases, immediate public relations damage, and long-term brand damage versus a few settlements, relabeling costs (for a product not even on the market right now), and a physician education campaign, it seems to me Johnson & Johnson is reacting instead of taking the kind of proactive safety measures it used to be known for at great cost. Much more than $10 million. Much more than $1 billion. Much more than $10 billion.

The inherent weakness in the decisions being made at Johnson & Johnson regarding Motrin may even reinforce why a toothless public relations division is not necessarily the best division to handle crisis management. They all too often focus on minimizing publicity damage instead of considering the big picture of brand position. Likewise, lawyers aren't always the best crisis management leaders either. Some of them are too busy framing up crisis management cases in terms of whether it is winnable or not.

To make it work, companies need balanced crisis management teams that can objectivity assess the problems before them. And, if public relations is placed in charge of more than a crisis communication team, then they need to be (at least) empowered and given equal consideration as the legal team. Of course, this also assumes the PR team has enough crisis training. Most of them do not.

At Johnson & Johnson, the growing crisis ought be to handled much like an employee incident. Johnson & Johnson needs to scrub McNeil Consumer Healthcare of executives who allow the worst to happen. And, if they cannot manage themselves as a division, the company might consider folding the Motrin brand into its Johnson & Johnson brand. Of course, all this assumes Johnson & Johnson wants to maintain its reputation as a leader in consumer safety, an asset it once spent billions to create.

One wonders what Robert Wood Johnson might think. He was the former chairman (1932-1963) who crafted the company's credo before anybody ever heard the terms corporate social responsibility and a moral compass. What happened?

Failing As The Fifth Estate: Public Relations

Two people sent me keen observations yesterday: one in a comment, another in an email. The observations are worth sharing. Maybe it will even wake up a few public relations and social media professionals who claim to cover their industry. More and more of them have all but fallen asleep at the wheel.

Motrin is currently embroiled in one of its most pressing public relations challenges and blowing it badly. And yet, nobody in the public relations or social media spheres seem to be covering it. Instead, public relations and social media pros are too busy writing about love me tools, mea culpas about failed panels, and (unbelievably) the 2008 Motrin ad campaign.

Perhaps worse, all the overwriting about the 2008 snarky ad campaign overshadows the current crisis on search engines (unless you are specific).

A Brief About Motrin's New Crisis Communication Battle.

If the snarky ad campaign didn't convince some people that Motrin can be insensitive to consumers, then perhaps the pair of new crisis communication scenarios will make them think twice. The first revolves around 3-year-old Brianna Maya, who was given Motrin in 2000.

ABC reports a "fine rash on her body and mild redness around her eyes morphed into something insidious." The reaction to the medicine, Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (SJS/Tens), is rare but extremely painful and potentially fatal.

For Maya, it burned and blistered her body inside and out, blinded her in one eye, required her to be sent to a burn unit, and left her reproductive organs destroyed. She also suffered partial brain damage during the acute phase of the reaction.

According to the new ruling, the SJS/Tens reaction was triggered by Children's Motrin, which is marketed by McNeil Consumer Products, a division of Johnson & Johnson. A jury recently ordered the drug manufacturer to pay $10 million for her injuries after they determined that McNeil Consumer Products, a division of Johnson & Johnson, was negligent in warning consumers about such a risk. Children's Motrin is currently unavailable on the Motrin website.

Its unavailability comes with the second crisis communication under covered by public relations and social media. It relates to a phantom recall conducted by the company in 2009. The most hideous example of all communication was included in the State of Oregon's complaint. Contractors were advised of the following by the company:

“Do not communicate to store personnel any information about this product. Just purchase all available product. If you are questioned by store personnel, simply advise that you have been asked to perform an audit.”

McNeil Consumer Products and Johnson & Johnson are defending themselves against the lawsuits.

According to The Consumerist, Johnson & Johnson maintains that the labeling was adequate and the condition is "extremely rare" in the Maya case. And other than initially disagreeing with the verdict, most media outlets report Johnson & Johnson is not responding to requests for comment.

As a crisis communication case study, this isn't a quick fix nor can it be cured with the five steps to crisis communication. I started outlining it earlier this week for next, but opted to provide some backgrounder notes after receiving two separate inquiries about PR taking a pass on this one. This fact also makes me amend my review of Welcome To The Fifth Estate from yesterday. It seems more people need to read the book than I initially said.

Rethinking The Fifth Estate With Shrink Wrap.

As mentioned, one of the primary components of Geoff Livingston's book is that communicators must become participants in a larger world to deliver effective communication. And while he doesn't necessarily say it verbatim, therein lies an interesting point for professionals to ponder...

As communicators who claim to be active participants looking out for the greater public, isn't there an unwritten obligation to cover the uncomfortable along with the slapstick sideshows? Or is something else causing PR to be silent about Motrin?

Is it that professional communicators have taken the advice of Shel Holtz to not be a PR ambulance chaser to heart? Is it that most public relations professionals aren't impressed with the numbers this story may or not draw compared to "three steps to develop a social strategy" or some such nonsense? Is it that public relations has moved so far up the 'expert' perception ladder that it has turned in its fluffy bubble for shrink wrap, tightening the plastic until nobody can see anything beyond their own antics?

After all, the two stories mentioned above, combined with the recent discovery that Johnson & Johnson knew its antibiotic Levaquin increased the risk of tendon damage and equally relevant Baby Shampoo debacle, could make Johnson & Johnson the public relations story of the year. And yet, even self-proclained communication leaders at Ragan are more interested in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's food plate.

It's a curious thing, this dramatic shift in content. Over the last year, a field that used to pile on crisis events ad nauseum is now too busy for them. Who knows? It may be that for all the empowerment that came with becoming The Fifth Estate so did the risk of becoming too important to be bothered with the rest of the world.

Johnson & Johnson case study ahead, sometime next week. Of course, I'm sure it won't be more fun than a balloon popping post.

Mixing Messages: Dov Charney, American Apparel

Some say American Apparel CEO and majority stockholder Dov Charney rarely grants interviews (it's really just the opposite). But still, in reading the latest interviews he granted to Counselor magazine, one of six B-to-B magazines published by the Advertising Specialty Institute, it's easy to understand why some people wish he wouldn't grant interviews.

"First of all, the announcement about us possibly seeking bankruptcy protection is something we did as an obligation to shareholders to explain that it's a possibility, however remote," said Charney, who founded American Apparel. "In reality, to say that the company is unstable is not accurate."

The company, which was recently embroiled in alleged sexual abuse, announced it may pursue bankruptcy after 2010 left it with a loss of $86 million. But then, in an amazing reversal, Charney told the trade publication the exact opposite.

“There’s no chance this industry has to worry about me, or American Apparel, leaving,” Charney told Counselor. “I’ve been producing and selling T-shirts in this industry for more than 20 years and I’m not going anywhere."

The article goes on to reveal a very real and unadulterated glimpse of what some people would call extreme egotism and others would call superior customer dedication. Primarily, Charney used the interview to excuse his purchase of inflated cotton prices in order to meet manufacturing demands. The company owes $121.5 million in debt to Lion Capital and Bank of America.

The company's rise to become a clothing manufacturing brand occurred in less than eight years. But for the last three years, the company has walked from one crisis into another and then another.

In 2008, there was the accusation that Charney instructed an employee to pad inventory numbers. In 2009, there was the lawsuit with Woody Allen. Also in 2009, Charney was forced to lay off 1,600 undocumented workers (about one-fifth of his L.A. employees). In 2010, he received a letter from the NYSE for failing to comply with the rules amidst other investigations. And, during much of this time, he continually turned up the heat in his advertising, making American Apparel the most pornographic in the business. (The ad shown is painfully tame compared to the hand-drawn nude girls removing underwear, bottomless models, and nip slips.)

In some cases, Charney documents his own controversies. He even shared his letter to the undocumented workers that he was forced to lay off. In much the same way, he is working to use all the controversy as an opportunity to launch a new line of denim.

But that is the way it is with Charney. Even New York Fashion, which did better than most, struggles to get ahead of all the spin associated with the CEO of American Apparel. It seems to be all spin with him, 24-7, 365.

A little bit charismatic and a whole lot controversial?

Any other company would have sacked months ago, but American Apparel keeps forging ahead. Ever wonder why? In creating a brand, he chooses horns over halos but denies the existence of horns much like he says sl*t is not a derogatory term as much as a badge of honor.

Translated, he says "I choose to win in ways that offend you, but refuse to accept it's offensive. Change your beliefs." Or, in other words, "This duck you see on my head really isn't a duck. And by the way, you ought to get one." Or in yet other words, "Just because we said we might file bankruptcy doesn't mean we seriously considered it. We say all sorts of things and you choose to listen to the wrong ones."

And there you have it. On the charismatic side, Charney is seen as one of the few manufacturers able to keep his footing as an American clothing manufacturer not afraid to embrace controversy. On the controversial side (aside from the issues he confronts), Charney represents someone who will exploit anyone, including himself, and anything to achieve his mission.

But sooner or later, exponentially raising the ante on controversial publicity reaches a carrying capacity. And when that happens, the whole thing explodes or, perhaps worse, people begin to tune it out. Publicity whore, who?

So while Charney says that bankruptcy isn't an option because the company makes $10 million per week, the company would still need 15 weeks with no expenses to meets its debt obligations. It seems unlikely even Charney can spin the four weeks that some banks have given him into 15 weeks let alone the 52 weeks of sunshine that he really needs.

In sum, the story reads like a modern day Heart of Darkness. Case study ahead. What do you think?

Gaming Apologies: Empty Without Empathy

Last year, Bob Conrad was one of a few communicators who stood in defense of Toyota while it was savaged in media coverage over recalls. This year, ample evidence has been released that demonstrates Toyota was essentially proven to not be at fault for the accidents.

I was less sympathetic, but only because Toyota made the decision to apologize too quickly. It had come before Toyota had even identified the problem.

Why? They assumed their own guilt because of a rushed and improper situation analysis. Once they apologized and accepted guilt, nobody was ready to believe them again, at least not right away.

Taco Bell isn't handing out apologies. They're handing out tacos.

In the wake of a lawsuit claiming that Taco Bell is misleading consumers into believing it serves "seasoned ground beef" as opposed to "taco meat filling," dozens were prompted to make jokes and try to turn allegations into opportunity at the expense of the chain.

Had the company employed the ten commandments of social media crisis management, they would have rushed in, taken their lumps, and said they were sorry. So why didn't they?


Personally, I'm not a fan of fast food but I have to give them props. They paused long enough to conduct a situation analysis and conclude they aren't guilty. Their taco filling contains considerably more beef (88 percent) than the plaintiffs want people to believe (35-36 percent). The courts will decide the rest, but the public crisis appears to have been abated.

Most apologies are meaningless anyway.

Perhaps worse than not offering an apology when it is warranted is offering one that doesn't sound like much of an apology. Ask Nir Rosen.

He had every reason to apologize after some of the mean-spirited remarks he made related to the Lara Logan atrocity. And he did apologize, sort of, maybe not.

"There's probably some larger lesson about social media to be drawn here, and how its immediacy can be great in its power to connect us," Rosen wrote. "But also a liability because something blurted out and not meant to be serious acquires a greater power."

Um, hardly. There is no larger lesson about the immediacy of social media to be learned from Rosen or how things might be taken out of context. There is, however, a lesson that can be drawn from his article. It appears to be the one quality he seems to lack.

Empathy is the most important aspect of an apology.

It's simple. Apologies are meant to be an expression of empathy from the guilty. And, when they are well meant, they might elicit forgiveness. But without empathy, they're empty words — a ploy concocted by public relations and propaganda.

Some public relations professionals advise that apologies are critical to protecting reputation, guilty or not. However, if they are delivered with a lack of empathy, it reveals something worse than no apology at all.

For Toyota, it showed how willing their executives were to trade strength of character for the illusion of reputation. And, for Rosen, it seem obvious that he is only ready to apologize for the damage he caused himself.

In fact, both of them might have fared better with non-apologetic empathy. For example, Toyota executives could have expressed their sympathy for any accident victims and their families while investigating the claims (perhaps offering to help even if they were not at fault). Or, perhaps Rosen could have reflected on how his words could have made sexual assault victims and women feel instead of intellectualizing his dilemma in an article.

And when no one was hurt? Taco Bell might have made the right play. Most people seem to be expressing empathy for them these days. That makes sense. Besides, their tacos only contain one-and-a-half ounces of seasoned beef anyway.

Amplifying: Social Media Is Not For Timid Executives

Shel Holtz, principal of Holtz Communication + Technology, recently wrote a thoughtful commentary about why he believes communication consultants (public relations professionals with blogs, for instance) ought to think twice before piling on companies that make mistakes. He alludes to the idea that it turns otherwise savvy professionals into PR ambulance chasers.

There is some truth to this idea. He says there are companies that have been frightened away from social media because of the put-downs and jibes they receive from a growing world of "experts." On that point, Holtz is very right. And yet, I have mixed feelings about the conclusion.

Intent is a powerful ally in the art and science of communication.

Holtz is right in that it is rather unbecoming to create a persona of someone sitting behind a computer screen salivating for companies to get into trouble and then piling on them with links to half a dozen equally verbose colleagues, all hoping to build a mountain of evidence out of cheap shots or colorful prose or campy satire. Do it too much, and it will hurt your business.

Writing about crisis communication to serve up a collection of lessons for students takes much more than a series of fleeting sentences. Even then, there is some risk.

"Did you ever wonder..." asked one of my students at lunch. "...if what you sometimes write about scares away people who might otherwise hire your company?"

I chuckled, telling her that I used to think about it every day. However, despite having the company brand on the banner above, I had to make a decision whether this blog was about attracting business or educating students and discussing concepts and constructs with colleagues. I chose the latter, even if this blog has helped win and lose a few clients (who I never write up).

But not everyone has the same educational intent. I think that is what Holtz is alluding to. If you're thinking about a communication blog, consider the intent. Even then, never leave your readers with a story that ends on some double negative snarky beat down — you have to be thoughtful and do your homework. At some point, you have to provide solutions to the problems. A little bit of empathy doesn't hurt either.

Social media is no place for a company with unmanageable blemishes.

So, why do I have mixed feelings about Holtz's post? Simply stated, I don't have much sympathy for companies that are "afraid" to enter social media. Executives who think every glimmer will be celebrated and every blemish overlooked have unrealistic expectations not only in social media, but life in general.

I had this conversation almost four years ago. And as I roughly wrote then, if companies seek "attention" then the executives and team leaders have to appreciate that they do not get to choose what others find newsworthy or interesting. And, once you invite bloggers and members of the media to take an interest in the company, you cannot "uninvite" them.

It's one of the lessons a group publisher tells my public relations classes every year. If you invite reporters to give their opinions on "X," they might not agree with you. Equally possible, they might decide to write about "Y," especially if "Y" seems more interesting.

It's the one thing that social media has in common with traditional media. Both communication channels have an equal propensity to amplify organizational vices and virtues. It has always been this way, and always will be this way. If you want your company to be something, you have to accept the risks. Or, if you prefer someone much wiser than me, consider what Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) said more than two thousand years ago.

“Criticism is something we can avoid easily by saying nothing, doing nothing, and being nothing.” — Aristotle

Playing At Public Relations: Rolls-Royce Asks Will It Pass?

People often misunderstand that there is a virtual chasm between public relations and media relations. Rolls-Royce might be one of them.

While the grounding of Qantas Airways Ltd.’s Airbus SAS A380 fleet after an engine explosion may cost as much as $204 million, the airline will likely recover financially even if it does take significantly more time to rebuild the brand. For the most part, Qantas has taken a traditional crisis communication approach, communicating to various publics through multiple channels. It was and still is highly engaged with the media after one of its flights suffered engine failure.

But what about Rolls-Royce? By most counts, Rolls-Royce was largely silent about the failure of its engine about a month ago. The intent seems to follow the forgetfulness of the public by remaining in the background of public discourse.

It's not an uncommon approach. It's the same approach Halliburton took during the BP oil spill crisis. For Halliburton, it seems to work.

Does Communicating Less Work?

For Rolls-Royce, it's not. While the company continues to perform with diversified products and services, it seems clear enough that the engine failure, repeatedly called a design flaw, is weighing heavily on the company. It's not enough to kill it, but it is enough to stall it for an indefinite amount of time.

While the public might be satisfied to hear from Qantas, shareholders and industry experts following Rolls-Royce were not. What did the company offer up to its publics?

“This event and the consequent actions will have an impact on the Group’s financial performance this year. However the scale of our order book, the breadth and mix of our portfolio, the global nature of our business and our strong balance sheet makes Rolls-Royce a resilient business, and we expect continued underlying profit growth in 2010,” Sir John Rose, chief executive officer said.

With that measure being pushed forward to investors, a different message is being put forth to potential customers. Since the interim report, Rolls-Royce has put out a steady stream of releases focusing on innovations and contract wins.

While it is no more or less than it did three months ago, what does seem different is a drop off in softer news. Rolls-Royce is communicating, much like it did to shareholders, that it is all business. And while it has expressed some regret over the incident, there isn't anything to account for in terms of an apology or empathy.

The most current pre-incident forecast by Rolls-Royce was that during the next 20 years, 141,000 engines, worth more than $820 billion, are predicted to be delivered, powering 65,000 commercial aircraft and business jets. Specific to the most popular engines, Rolls-Royce maintained a 50 percent market share. In the past, it contended that the market is pretty unforgiving.

To date, it seems more than the civil aviation market is unforgiving. Investors did not appreciate that the company considered the Trent incident to be "partially mitigated by better performance in the Marine and Defence businesses." Companies that fail to communicate to their publics' satisfaction take much longer to recover than those out front.

Companies Cannot Afford To Be Too Quiet During A Crisis.

The exception, Halliburton during the Gulf Coast oil spill, was only possible because BP public relations missteps had distracted the public. Sometimes that may help a behind-the-scenes company forego public scrutiny in the short term. However, once the bigger bungler is removed from the equation, the behind-the-scenes players step into the spotlight. Case in point, Halliburton no longer has someone in the foreground.

While this story is still developing, the early lesson is that even if a company can escape short-term consequences by not communicating, that does not absolve it from long-term consequences. But more specific to the original observation, Rolls-Royce might already be doing better had it communicated well to select publics (customers and investors) even if it chose to let Qantas handle the media. Case study in progress. (Hat tip: Recruiting Animal.)

Dumbing Down: TSA Policies Are Not A Privacy Issue

It may take some time, but the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Department Of Homeland Security will eventually lose the argument they have chosen, and their failed public relations program is only part of the reason. The real problem is they have chosen the wrong argument in what seems to be an attempt to dumb down complaints.

“We are constantly evaluating and adapting our security measures, and as we have said from the beginning, we are seeking to strike the right balance between privacy and security,” John Pistole said in a statement.

Except, it's not a privacy issue. It's a liberty issue.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." — The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV), United States Constitution

Currently, no matter how you frame it (even claiming that certain transportation methods are privileges, as if), TSA policies are a direct infringement on the fourth amendment. And, even the TSA argument, that 75 to 80 percent of the public supported these measures, we might remember the U.S. Constitution was not written to protect a democratic majority, but the minority.

Heck, I've seen polls over the years that suggest better than half of all Americans would vote to have their homes searched without warrants too (based on the pretense they have nothing to hide). And a certain percentage are in favor of installing videos everywhere to help quell their irrational fears. But that doesn't make it right, just, or even remotely American as Henry Blodget seems to pretend.

The most recent TSA policies, those that were inspired by timing (and despite a bill that barred their use as primary scanners) along with pat-downs, are a threat not to our privacy but to our liberty to travel freely in the United States. Unchecked, you could argue such tactics for anyplace where people congregate (don't laugh). And if that continues to happen, unless Americans speak out against early infringements, we may as well declare the very people we are protecting ourselves from the victors.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." — Benjamin Franklin

I ought to make it clear, I'm not necessarily a fan of TSA security officer bashing in general, especially after my recent experience with air travel. Not every airport is staffed by overzealous or authoritative agents. Most are decent, respectful people, with the difference between departing from Las Vegas and departing from Providence like night and day.

Granted, one airport is significantly busier than the other. However, the professionalism, demeanor, organization, and courtesy of the agents in Rhode Island was light years ahead of Las Vegas, where it is made abundantly clear that the security check points are to screen for terrorists with every citizen and visitor being a suspect. Management in Las Vegas ought to take note.

Our representatives might take note too. The hypocrisy is deafening. The laughter is disheartening, conjuring images of being subjects as opposed to citizens once again.

The brewing public relations nightmare is a point of contact problem.

In response to the backlash of a situation that the TSA created, Pistole has resorted to begging citizens against opting out of full image scanners and pat downs, especially during Thanksgiving. It wouldn't be fair, he argues, to make it a hassle for those trying to make it home during the holidays, as if the opt-outers are somehow responsible for the decisions the TSA made.

I'm sure many colonists were put off when their tea was tossed into the Boston Harbor too. That's the way it goes sometimes.

The only solution to fix the continued erosion of TSA's reputation is to reverse some invasive policies and, most importantly, understand that for the majority of air traveling Americans, the point of contact — security check points — IS the public relations program. Every TSA security officer IS also a public relations agent. No amount of communication can change this fact; even TSA's mission statement demands it.

The TSA is operating out of alignment with its mission.

"The Transportation Security Administration protects the Nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce." — TSA Mission Statement

While some people consider the horror stories related to pat-down searches, each infraction need not be excused away as accidental lapses in service. They are in direct violation of the agency's own code of conduct to "respect and care for others and protect the information we handle."

The point is that the administration is causing its own problems, which stems in part from Pistole operating off the TSA mission statement with his own, as provided for in his bio, to "grow as a risk-based, intelligence-driven counterterrorism agency dedicated to protecting our transportation systems."

His approach seems to have nothing to do with respect and care for others or to ensure freedom of movement for people. But, without meaning to disparage his otherwise respectable career, individual visions do not trump an agency's mission. If the TSA truly wants to be on the same side as the public, it will change its policies, adopt less invasive procedures that have resulted in better outcomes elsewhere in the world, and remind officers that their employers are the people in front of them.

Full body imaging is only the beginning, says the TSA website.

Don't expect it to happen soon. The TSA has outlined exactly how aggressive it will become in the near future. In developing what one of my colleagues calls the theater of checkpoint security, the TSA states it has deployed more than 900 X-ray systems and 450 imaging scanners, plans to add biometric identification systems (fingerprints and iris scans), and expand operations to include not only subways and other transportation, but "important facilities" as well. Think about that for a minute. Or two.

Then consider that these videos will become more frequent and the responses less defensive. According to the response, the father removed the shirt of his son to expedite a search, but what remains unclear is why removing the shirt might have expedited it.

All this, and it's still safer to board a plane (1:10.46 MILLION) than to drive a car (1:84). I'm slating the issue as a case study.

Neglecting Public Relations: How ACORN Fell

In comparison to other news coverage in the past two years, the declaration of bankruptcy by ACORN, which used to be the largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families, has been virtually inaudible. After 40 years as a grassroots advocacy organization, the board members voted to close its last chapter on Nov. 2.

The timing could not have been worse, unless it wanted to go out in a whimper. The release was sent out on Election Day.

According to an end of an era post by CEO Bertha Lewis, the reasons were the barrage of unmitigated accusations and extremists increasing their radicalism. I propose something else killed ACORN.

If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword.

Extreme publicity, the very assets that became the advocacy group's weapon of choice, was responsible for its undoing.

In its early beginnings, it could be argued that ACORN was needed as a counterbalance. And, for the decade it focused significant effort on investigating complaints against companies accused of predatory lending practices, it did some tremendous good by supporting the enactment of strict state laws against predatory practices, organizing against foreclosure rescue scams, and steering borrowers toward loan counseling.

Ten years or so ago, it even became a valuable resource for me when one bank attempted bait-and-switch practices, using 9-11 as an excuse to jack up interest rates just prior to closing a second mortgage. The information ACORN provided was critical in writing a brief to various members of Congress, providing early documentation and a case study on predatory refinance and second mortgage schemes. Since, the bank in question (but not all), has moved away from such practices.

However, as ACORN expanded its goals to become a much more far-reaching organization through aggressive demonstrations that aimed to draw negative publicity against issues as opposed to evidence, some of its activities became a hotbed of controversy. In 2003, it was criticized for union busting within its own organization. And in recent years, there were allegations of voter fraud, embezzlement, and unprofessional conduct.

In addition, it became more and more politicized in its support and increasingly walled in its approach to public relations, adopting a posture not unlike some of the more unjust companies it would rally against. Whereas the organization was effective in causing change with extreme publicity, its credibility continually eroded until the federal government had no choice but to distance itself and private donors could no longer support it.

The difference between publicity and public relations could not be more clear.

Crain's New York Business was one of the few publications to mention the bankruptcy as more than a mention. Had the organization invested as much time in crisis communication and public relations while keeping its own values in order, it may have survived some of the various controversies. Publicity does not enhance credibility.

Likewise, it could have remained an advocacy group as opposed to becoming an activist group. Perhaps the various ACORN spinoffs that are now being founded, leaving the debt-ridden organization behind, will do better to understand the difference. Any time an organization begins to focus on feeding the organization as opposed to its original mission to support a specific cause, it is time to close the doors.

Whitewashing Oil Spills: Control The Crisis Not The Communication

How much did the government whitewash the Gulf Coast oil spill? It almost doesn't matter. When trust relies on reputation, even little lies take their toll during a crisis and during the post-crisis analysis.

In this case, the administration seems poised to defend itself, regardless. After the presidential commission released its largely neutral preliminary report, the rebuttal by the administration has been to criticize any criticisms. The approach was exemplified by the initial response to the report.

"The federal government response was full force and immediate, and the response focused on state and local plans and evolved when needed. As directed by the President, the response was based on science, even when that pitted us against BP or state and local officials, and the response pushed BP every step of the way," — White House Office of Management and Budget

Three Most Critical Areas Where Communication Broke Down.

1. Inconsistent definitions of the relationship between the government and BP. The government attempted to make the case it was deferring to, in charge of, and a partner with BP. Clearly, the government could not be all three simultaneously.

In most circumstances, the definitions of a relationship will only change erratically when the organization is incompetent, or, more likely, is attempting to position the itself to grab any credit but push off any criticism. In this case, more emphasis seems to have been placed on attempting to control public perception instead of the oil spill.

2. Fear of negative public perception. Perhaps one of the most troubling aspects of the report was that it revealed how the White House was directly involved in controlling information (but not the operation) from the start. According to the Associated Press, the White House budget office even denied a request from NOAA to make public the worst-case scenario estimates.

In most circumstances, the most likely reason any organization would withhold such information, which in this case was actualized, would be because they believed that the denial of these facts would delay public outrage. Specific in this crisis, it seems clear the Unified Command also had worst-case estimates, but did not release them in a timely manner. Some Coast Guard responders are on record as saying that much of the initial effort was slow and unfocused.

3. Too many messengers with conflicting information. In an effort to show more "transparency" and that the government was in control of the crisis, numerous agency heads became involved in a public decision making process rather than deferring to qualified people in the field. This dramatically politicized the crisis.

In most circumstances, organizations that continually shift spokespeople or cater to dozens of spokespeople to make a show of involvement while minimizing accountability for the entire organization. Ergo, if any singular spokesperson misspeaks or if a statement is later proven false, the other spokespeople can refute or denounce what was said.

Crisis Communication Must Be Clear, Accurate, And Human.

Communication is the single most powerful tool in effective governance. However, it can also be the greatest liability unless communication it is clear, accurate, and human.

For this administration, there seems to have been too much emphasis on public perception damage and not enough on environmental damage. Specifically, the administration idealized what public perception it wanted to actualize: The administration was fully vested in minimizing the crisis despite everyone working against them for personal gain.

The reality was very different, enough so that no amount of spin could be believed. Imagine how differently this crisis might have played out if the focus remained on the crisis as opposed to the crisis communication.

Then, the administration would have invested full resources in the initial response and had one spokesperson deliver a consistently honest and accurate accounting of what was being done. Other agency heads could then reinforce the message and their confidence in the spokesperson as well as the decisions being made. In the best case scenario, the administration would have overcommitted and contained the spill. In the worst case scenario, the public would have accepted the damage.

There are only two possible explanations for the way the administration handled the crisis response. Either the administration was overconfident and therefore negligent and incompetent in its handling of the crisis on the front end. Or, it purposely attempted to manipulate public perception to downplay the severity of the crisis or their inability to deal with it.

If you are interested, we've chronicled a great deal of the communication as part of a living case study. Perhaps the most likely explanation can be found there. Or perhaps the better lesson is that effective communication follows action and not our preferred fantasies. Case study closed. Maybe.

Lingering Aftershocks: Hewlett-Packard

Hewlett-Packard (HP) is still learning the hard way. In the immediate aftermath of a crisis, every decision made is weighed against the crisis. Every decision, including the acquisition of 3PAR.

Three weeks of being unwilling to match Dell’s $18 per share offer for 3PAR, HP re-entered with a $24 per share bid. The switch has some people wondering whether the change of heart is tied to HP's apparent need to prove that it is "business as usual."

Without Closure, Every Decision Becomes A Comparative.

You can hear the rumbling in the background. Even if the acquisition of 3PAR is lucrative for HP, the unwritten questions remain. What would Hurd do? And, more telling, are the board of directors pushing for the acquisition for public relations?

These questions might not be asked as often had HP been more aggressive in closing out the crisis as opposed to attempting to operation it out of the picture. Worse, they've spun up several new allegations and stories, some of which don't add up (hat tip: Ben Tremblay) while leaving plenty of questions unanswered.

No one can blame HP for insisting that they want to "look forward and not back," which basically means they intend to shrug off transparency. It also reinforces the idea that the universe doesn't understand negatives. Every time those words are uttered, it means the opposite for everyone else.

The evidence is all over the 3PAR discussions. HP has put itself in a position where winning or losing looks equally questionable. (Note, I'm not saying the acquisition is vital for HP or not.) If they don't see it through to the end, people will wonder if the acquisition about-face was public relations driven. And if they do win, they might ask the same thing.

The primary question people ought to be asking is how much is too much to pay for 3PAR. But, with the scandal still lingering in the background, the merger (win or lose) won't clear HP from the crisis it picked. What will it take? A new CEO who delivers gains for two quarters ought to do it. Their crisis communication should have this benchmark built in.

Finding The End Of A Crisis Is Harder Than Managing A Crisis.

Most crisis communication plans never consider the situational challenges that occur long after the immediate crisis has ended. One might even say that this is the caveat missing from the Toyota concept that all is forgotten after 70 days. While there is some truth to that, crisis communication planners need to have a realistic view of when to start that 70-day ticker.

In this case, closure didn't occur with the resignation of Hurd. (You can see it in the stock valuation.) Had he not resigned, the company could have started the ticker on the date of the harassment settlement. More importantly, companies have to be careful in how they make bold movements while still suffering from crisis aftershocks.

As long as the motivation is only to deliver shareholder value, it's easy to back bold moves. But if decisions are being made because there is something else to prove, then they've done more than lose the HP way. They've lost any semblance of purpose.

Inviting A PR Disaster: Hewlett-Packard

If there is any doubt that Hewlett-Packard implemented the wrong crisis communication strategy, look no further than abundant speculation. Speculation doesn't happen by accident. It happens when the public doesn't have any semblance of clear, authentic communication.

Stanford scholar and longtime Hewlett-Packard watcher Chuck House has come out strong for HP. He says chief executive Mark V. Hurd's resignation is tied to red herrings. The real reason, he says, is Hurd, nicknamed Mark Turd by ex-HPites who worked directly for him, was a thug.

The Los Angeles Times has taken a different tact. It reports that the HP board of directors ought not to flash a high standard of ethics too liberally. They cite how employees and top brass are treated differently when it comes to compensation, including an unusual formula to calculate the lump sum value of pensions that increased John H. Hammergren's pension from $11 million to $85 million.

James B. Stewart, a columnist for SmartMoney magazine, takes yet another approach on The Wall Street Journal, claiming that the HP board of directors didn't disclose enough. He writes that "by withholding information, the HP board is only prolonging the agony and feeding the press a juicy mystery." Perhaps not on the front end, but certainly now, HP has bought a crisis communication plan that caused more pain than if it would have not reacted to the threat of scandalous publicity.

Bad Crisis Communication Plans Magnify, Multiply, And Amplify.

There are more than 10,000 HP speculation stories across the globe today. And by the looks of things, it's only the tip of the iceberg.

Even if we just look at these three stories, they are all bad, even the pro-HP piece penned by House. It makes you wonder how powerless the board of directors was, waiting for a misstep to bring the "evil" executive down. The Los Angeles Times makes it look like the board is engaged in selective ethics. And the Stewart write-up makes it look like they are holding back, perhaps even lying.

Any time the crisis flies in more than several hundred directions, you know it's botched. Now, business reporters (people who are always looking for exciting stories because the daily stories aren't always so exciting) are looking at every angle. They are making mountains everywhere and they are doing it well beyond the scope of the initial crisis, which was a mole hill by comparison.

Situation Analysis Is Always The First Step In A Crisis.

If there were any internal politics as some suggest, they do not belong on the boardroom table at a meeting to discuss disclosure in order to avoid a public relations disaster. Handling a crisis can only have one objective: minimize damage.

So, if we take the board of directors' word that there is nothing more than what they disclosed — that Hurd was engaged in a non-sexual close relationship but fudged expense reports to hide the relationship to avoid the perception of an affair — then there is no other conclusion than they botched the plan.

In this scenario, a better course of action would have been to clear the chief executive's name, make him pay the $20,000 back (which becomes a personnel matter), manage any crisis in the event it becomes a crisis, and move on. After all, in this case, there was no evidence that Hurd's transgression (which isn't even clear as a transgression) would have been as big of a blip on the media radar. Even if it was, it seems the intent — if it was to avoid a crisis — has backfired exponentially.

This leaves us with two possible outcomes. Either HP created a crisis out of nothing or there is much more to the story.

I'm not big on crisis communication rules other than treating them as situational. I look at the classic tenets of crisis communication and see guidelines that help us ask the right questions given the readily available information we have.

However, if you do want a rule to hang on your shingle, I might suggest this one: in for a pinch, in for a pound. And once you are in for a pound, you'd better hope your only motivation was to articulate the crisis as authentically as possible.

Evaluating A Living Crisis Communication Situation.

Almost every time we evaluate a living crisis communication case study, someone inevitably says that it is too soon to conclude anything. In general, I agree with that assessment. For example, I would be doing you a disservice if I said this will kill HP.

I don't think it will (operative word is "think"). I buy HP products because the hardware is good. The ink, on the other hand, is very pricey. But I suppose it's possible.

However, public relations professionals and crisis communication managers ought to know by know that they have to draft crisis communication plans based on readily available information (not all information) and build in dozens of contingencies if and when that information turns out to be inaccurate. It happens all the time.

Sometimes the people in the field make a mistake. Sometimes public perception turns bad regardless of the facts. And sometimes, clients aren't always forthcoming. They might not lie, but I have heard "Oh, I probably should have told you ..." enough times that charging clients one dollar per utterance would have meant my retirement.

Running Into Fire: Hewlett-Packard

Ask most public relations professionals what is the first thing to do during a crisis and the pat answer is "get ahead of the crisis." That was the advice given to Hewlett-Packard’s (HP) board of directors as it related to chief executive Mark V. Hurd.

And now everyone on the board is under fire, with an unlikely charge by Lawrence J. Ellison, the chief executive of Oracle. According to Ellison, he was familiar with the sexual harassment claim against Hurd. He was familiar with the debate that raged between the board of directors. And he was familiar with the fact that the board had investigated the claim and found it to be false.

So what happened? APCO, the public relations firm advising the directors, advised that the company would face a firestorm if the accusations of sexual harassment were made public, regardless of whether or not they were true. They went so far as to make mocked up newspapers to show what the damage would be like.

According to Ellison, the board was originally split 6-4 over disclosure. On Friday, board member Marc Andreessen said the decision was unanimous.* Andreessen joined the board last year. He is co-founder and general partner of Andreessen Horowitz and co-founder and chairman of Ning (another social network that has made questionable decisions recently). He reportedly played a key role in the ouster.

What Went Wrong With The Mark V. Hurd Public Relations Debacle?

Some public relations pros are still second guessing the backlash against HP. They stand by the principle to get ahead of the problem and disclose everything. They obviously don't understand media relations whatsoever.

While Hurd had allegedly been found padding expense reports to hide a questionable relationship (approximately $20,000), most members of the media would have found the sexual harassment charges a non-event if they were false. There might have been a firestorm or not, no matter how juicy the story might have been.

Michael Holston, HP's general counsel, told investors on the conference call Friday that Hurd "had a close personal relationship" but Allred's law firm clarified "there was no affair and no intimate sexual relationship between our client and Mr. Hurd."

Stated plainly, it seems like the board of directors created an illusion of a unanimous disclosure vote to show solidarity to disclose what amounts to a non-event. The tension this caused between the board and Hurd was insurmountable, ultimately leading to the resignation (despite the breach in conduct).

The fudged expense reports could have been a quiet personnel matter, easily resolved as Hurd paid them back. It was certainly a lapse in judgement to fudge them in order to hide a relationship. However, the $20,000 compared to the reported millions in severance. Some people are baffled by this settlement. Don't be. The amount is reflective of the mistake.

What One Quote Stands Out As Grossly Misguided?

It didn't come from Hurd. It was Andreessen who said "HP is not about any one person." But unfortunately, that is precisely what the new message seems to be. Andreessen has suddenly risen to become the face of the company. And, he is already named as one of the people deciding on a replacement.

That may smell funnier than anything Hurd did. But that aside, if politics and public relations pat answers weren't involved in the decision making process, this might be be a good time to ask how differently it might have played out. We'll explore this in a second post tomorrow or Thursday. In the interim, PR pros ought to consider that crisis communication is situational.

I often illustrate the point in classes by contrasting up real life crisis situations between a tiff between a homebuilder and a handicapped elderly woman and also a tiff between a homebuilder and a vandal. Students are frequently surprised at the outcomes. We handled the one that turned out right.

HP did it wrong, and now it will still face months (and maybe years) of unflattering media coverage. You know, the stuff they wanted to avoid. Worse, we suspect it may become uglier, depending on who they pick as a replacement and how well that person performs.

* Having served on many boards, directors often revote on issues to show solidarity, even if the minority has reservations. Ergo, they knuckle.

Telling Fibs: Why BP Photoshop Blunders Are Big News

With Tony Hayworth, CEO of BP, stepping down to be replaced by Robert Dudley in October, many people have the same question. Can Dudley turn BP around, clean up the Gulf, and restore the company's reputation? At the moment, the answer is maybe.

October is a long time away, which may give Dudley a cleaner start than if he took over today. But the real challenge for BP isn't a change in leadership but a change in company culture. As one of the world's largest energy companies, that won't be an easy task.

The smallest fibs, not the largest, can be the most telling.

BP's liberal and enthusiastic use of Photoshop, not once but twice, became one of the biggest stories because the fibs were so terribly small. And that might mean something beyond the Photoshop lessons some very creative folks have left sprinkled around the Web. (It's hard to pick a favorite.)

• The company's code of conduct is being ignored.
• The culture has accepted a standard of deceit.
• The smallest of details don't really matter at all.

Years ago, when I was working on one of my first political campaigns, we discovered that the primary opponent had lied. Not only did he not have a degree in the field stated on his literature, but the college he had attended never offered such a degree.

Upon discovering this, we began a much more rigorous investigation better known as opposition research. Of about twenty points made to convince people that he was the best candidate, about 14 of them were either made up or patently false.

One fib on its own might have been forgiven by the public. But anything more than a dozen fibs was a lofty number. It didn't matter how small some of them seemed to be. Tell enough half truths, spins, and misstatements and any brand or reputation will eventually collapse. There seems to be a mountain of them related to Deepwater Horizon and the Gulf Coast oil spill.

Have you ever read the BP Code of Conduct? It begins as "one of the world’s leading companies, we have a responsibility to set high standards: to be, and be seen to be, a business which is committed to integrity."

How do you feel about that statement today, knowing that the company culture seemed to have embraced a general rule that tiny lies, little breaches of protocol, and miniscule lapses in following safety standards were somehow acceptable. As long as the paperwork looked good and nobody was hurt, did it really matter? It mattered on April 20.

On some things, it's better not to give an inch. The poorly done Photoshop pictures weren't being sent out as cover shots for the annual report. They were being provided as part of a slew of shots meant to convince us that BP was on top of the problem.

Obviously they weren't. The problem is on the inside.

*The above commenter photo can be found on Gizmodo, posted on July 22 by Jeremy "Bobafett."

Warring Tribes: When Playground Fights Go Public

Ike Pigott had the best analysis of a recent online spat between two consultants. What's not to love about any post that resurrects Spike the Bulldog and Chester the Terrier?

I won't be so graceful. The brush-up between Kami Huyse and Peter Shankman is intriguing because it ends with two kids meeting up after school in the playground, encircled by their pre-pubescent friends, stomping their feet, clapping their hands, and chanting "fight, fight, fight!" It didn't start that way, mind you. Confrontation never does.

One tweet. One post. One response.

If you don't want to follow the links, it sums up in two or three graphs. Once upon a time, the most popular kid in school, Chris Brogan, bought shiny suspenders. So that made it fashionable for other kids to talk about their suspenders, belts, and fancy elastic bands too. Shankman included.

So, one day, Shankman shared the news about his shiny suspenders at PE class. After reflecting on this, Huyse went into the music room and said talking about what holds your pants up, on its face, is pretty silly. Then some kid, who probably doesn't have anything to hold his pants up, told Shankman that Huyse was talking smack about him. Shankman called her out and pushed her down. Dazed, Huyse said she wasn't talking about him, only suspenders (but what if she was, so what)?

Whack. Slap. Poke. Push.

And then, wow, everyone jumped in: Joe Ciarallo, Geoff Livingston, Aliza Sherman, Doug Haslam, Warren Whitlock, and a few others, not counting the comments, tweets, updates, and whatnot. It also doesn't count the dozen or so other posts that didn't make the first few pages of Google. It doesn't matter that Shankman later said he was being sarcastic.

That's how these spats are measured. Not in physical blows, but rather Google juice and search returns. The end result? Well, once Ciarallo threw in a third-party punch, all the positive ties between Shankman and Huyse (and there were a lot) shrank in importance. And that's why, these little spats, which on their face are pretty silly, were taken so seriously.

When Playground Fights Transcend Into Tribal Warfare.

Most playground spats never get all that much attention, but a few spiral out of control, including some that ended with the threat of legal litigation and the promise of physical violence (one of which we turned over to authorities). In such cases, perhaps the epic moniker might fit, with retellings of how Sparta dragged in the whole of Greece to defeat Troy.

The interesting thing about real tribal wars, however, is that most soldiers on the field don't know the circumstances. They simply raise their home banner and press forward with erroneous conjecture. And yet others jump in for any number of reasons much like Agamemnon did. He didn't care about the petty dispute as much as the excuse to gain more power.

If you are new to social media, you might as well know there is no way to avoid disagreement. Sooner or later, there will be a flare up. And with that in mind, here are a six friendly reminders that may help you keep playground antics in perspective.

1. Never write anything without the explicit understanding that you are inviting comment.
2. Never assume omitting a name will exempt you from a reaction by those who own the action.
3. Never respond to feedback when you are emotionally charged by the unexpected critique.
4. Always remember that the Internet isn't a private call. It's a party line and people take sides.
5. Always expect disagreements to eventually become a headline where you never imagined.
6. Always remember that, in time, most people regret what happened prior to the resolution.

Keep these tips in check and most discussions, even heated ones, will remain discussions. It's generally only the overreactions that attract the most attention to move friendly banter into something more akin to kennel noise or all-out tribal warfare.

Case in point, I can blame Brogan for everything that happened between Shankman and Huyse because it's funny to do so. I also know that Brogan can take a joke (if he even sees it). There won't be a flare up, let alone a tribal war. And even if he did comment (which is rare), it would probably be light.

Now, if only those who envy his suspenders would learn that lesson too. Then civility, even with debate, might be plausible. Yeah, right.