Re-Pinking Trust

By Helen Vollmer, President

Last week, one of the most credible, respected non-profits made a near fatal error. Susan G. Komen for the Cure, much beloved and credited for bringing the fight against breast cancer to the forefront, announced it was pulling funding from Planned Parenthood. Almost as quickly as Rick Perry could say, “oops!” Komen retracted its initial decision after much message fumbling and unanticipated public backlash that actually boosted donations to Planned Parenthood.

What’s up here? It’s the new dynamics that play in building trust.

According to Edelman’s 2012 Trust Barometer findings, societal attributes such as listening, ethics and addressing society’s needs are now more important in building trust than operational attributes such as consistent financial returns, innovation, and leadership. Certainly our findings show this is true in moving business from a license to operate to a license to lead. But in a time of high skepticism even NGOs, which continue to rank higher in trust than business, government and media, must be transparent with their constituents as to how they are impacting their communities and where they stand on issues that drive their missions forward.

And the new driver of trust? As evidenced by the court of public opinion in last week’s Komen blunders, it’s social media. While traditional media sources are still the most trusted channels of information, social media—networking sites, content sharing sites, blogs and microblogging sites—are fueling the conversation, rapidly engaging people in opinion, and now toppling governments (Egypt), forcing NGO decisions (Komen) and calling into question how businesses operate (News of the World). Pretty powerful stuff, huh?

What is the world coming to? At the end of the day, it’s really quite simple. Honesty and openness is the rule of the day. When combined with social good, we all win.

Trust, Truth and You

By Mike Gutierrez, Senior Account Supervisor

In January 2012, Edelman released the global findings from the 2012 Edelman Trust Barometer – the 12th year of the firm’s annual trust and credibility survey. As we heard, the 2012 Edelman Trust Barometer shows an overall decline in trust globally, with steep declines in the levels of trust in government and business. Government is now the least trusted institution–trailing business, media, and NGOs. Business experienced fewer and generally less severe declines in trust, but has its own hurdles to clear – notably that CEO credibility declined 38 percent, its biggest drop in Barometer history.

A 38 percent decline in CEO credibility is very interesting. It causes corporate communicators to rethink how they use their CEO’s. Often, CEO’s are saved for big announcements that positively impact a large portion of their customers. Crisis of varying degrees are generally handled by the communications staff working with operations. But with a 38 percent decline, the data suggests considering a technical expert to explain the facts to media about a given crisis. Erasing the effects of a 38 percent decline and moving the trust curve up will take consistency over time. How will that trust be regained? What can corporate communicators do during a crisis to influence tight-lipped executives to open up with the media? How should media conversations play out during a crisis to increase likelihood of a positive message making the story, effectively neutralizing an otherwise negative story?

Here are some suggestions:

1. Lead with the truth. Telling a reporter upfront on background exactly what has happened, and admitting fault buys immediate credibility. Usually, a reporter will sense the transparency. That transparency will pave the way for the rest of the conversation, which should focus on what the company is doing to fix the situation.
2. Focus on the customer. It’s all about the customer. Corporate communicators should realize that the customer experience is what keeps executives up at night. After the fact-finding process, if it’s determined the company is in the wrong, influencing operations executives to apologize publicly is challenging. Often, executives don’t immediately see the business value in apologizing. As communicators, we can’t expect them to intuitively “get it”. They’re not engineered like we are. They need to be led down a path whose end has a company’s most important stakeholder in mind (the customer) by plainly explaining to them that apologizing upfront publicly, telling the media what happened, and offering a solution, will help build trust with customers. When executives are influenced to view a crisis as an opportunity to communicate with customers, and that media are simply the vehicle to carry their message, the decks are stacked in your favor that they will approve moving forward with a statement.
3. Words matter. Once a company has approved moving forward with a statement, realize that words matter. They will live in the online space forever. Striking the balance between being factual, concise, sympathetic, when the pressure is on is hard. Avoid words like “apparently” “as we understand it” “to our knowledge”. Reporters want to know what you know, not what you think might have “apparently” happened. And, executives want facts too, so that the same situation won’t happen again operationally. Using words like “apparently” usually will not comfort detail-oriented executives. When armed with the truth, it really will set you free.

In the end, telling the truth, consistently over time, will place CEO’s on a positive curve back to Trust!

A Crisis or Just a Bad Hair Day?

  By Allen Caudle, Executive Vice President, Crisis & Issues Management

Twenty years ago when Tony Shelton and I opened the doors on the crisis and communication training practice here in the Southwest, identifying a crisis was easy. We would literally get calls from company CEOs asking, “Do I have to talk to the TV crew in the lobby or can I have security escort them off the property”.

Now in 2012, corporations have become much more aware of the need to communicate with their various stakeholders. Most corporations take the time to think through how a stakeholder group might react to facility closures or expansions, labor negotiations, embezzlement, sexual harassment, whistleblower accusations, product recalls, regulatory investigations in addition to the media favorite’s death or injury of an employee, neighbor or customer or the threat of environmental damage.

How can you ever anticipate which crisis to get prepared for, when the permutations of likely disasters seem endless?

The answer is twofold:

• First-identify your likely crisis in advance by simply asking yourself, what has the company experienced in the past and what do we think is most likely? I can’t tell you how many crisis trainees we’ve talked to after they’ve experienced a real crisis who thought we were soothsayers because the crisis scenario we trained them on was what actually happened. Employees know where the risks are-- we just have to ask them.
• Second-use this general definition of a crisis to understand if you are really having a crisis or just a bad hair day: a crisis is any non-routine situation that:
• Interferes with normal operations, such as a serious accident, or
• Has attracted, or has the potential to attract, unwanted attention from outsiders, or
• Could jeopardize the company’s reputation and profitability.

Gone is the news cycle that allowed time. Today, if you talk to a reporter over the phone they may be composing their online post as you speak. It will be a matter of minutes before you are breaking news on the media website.

What can you do?

Plan and practice.

Every company needs a crisis plan. But wait, you might say, I’m not a manufacturing company, I’m not going to blow anything up, I’m not going to have a product recall, I’m not going to cause an environmental disaster, nothing I do threatens anyone’s life, my company doesn’t do anything that will seriously impact others.

I’m sure the worst thing that any community bank president thought could happen to his bank was an armed robbery, until the collapse of the mortgage system. I’m sure Penn State Trustees never thought they’d be called to speak to the media, much less regarding an alleged pedophile.

You can never anticipate every crisis. You can put in place internal systems to respond. I promise your operations, HR and facilities people have given thought to how to keep your company in business given a variety of scenarios. The same thought should be given to communication.

• Who will speak,
• who will gather information,
• who do we need to speak to and when,
• what can we say, what should we say,
• who’s writing the messages,
• who must approve what we say,
• where would we gather to speak,
• who will monitor traditional and online media,
• who will be the online voice, the list goes on.

The key to success and ability to respond in a timely fashion is having thought it through before it happens.

CEOs are the fastest learners I’ve had the pleasure to train. They know their company, they know where they want to go, they have a plan for how they will get there and in today’s business, have had a chance to tell that story. Often, what they haven’t given time to are the negative questions that may come from outsiders. And frankly, out of respect for the person and the position, insiders will rarely ask a CEO a tough negative question.

Whether or not you have a plan in place, at a bare minimum, declare a spokesperson and give them a chance to practice in a non-threatening environment. The number one thing our stakeholders want from us in a time of crisis is to know that someone of authority is working to resolve the problem. That requires confidence. Confidence comes from practice and experience.

As the Boy Scouts say: Be Prepared.

Speaking Brand…in 140 Characters

By Devon Alter, Account Executive

“So basically, you tweet for a living?” This is something people often ask me when I tell them I work in social media. What is often misunderstood is that I do not tweet every day as @DevonAlter, I tweet on behalf of a brand... I’m a cheerleader, a friend, concierge, a cop and much more.

Below I have shared four simple steps to follow when tweeting for a brand:

• Become the Brand: Everything published on a brand’s Twitter page is seen by the public as an official message. The company’s social media brand guidelines must now become your bible. These guidelines are the framework for your content development. Remember you can show your personality, but you must align with the tone of the company. For example, @travelocity and @RoamingGnome use different “voices” to represent the same brand. The @Travelocity account promotes deals, travel news and provides support, while the @RoamingGnome account tweets as “himself” and shares @Travelocity information, as well as his own thoughts and musings about life and the world.
• @Travelocity: “Would you like to go to Bermuda? Well now's the time to book! From today until next Friday we're having a 50% sale.”
• @RoamingGnome: “You may not know this, but I become a complete limbo master once on a cruise. #waveseason”
• Keep it Simple: You only have 140 characters, including relevant links. Take key message points and create a couple of tweets around them. Include only one “call-to-action” (CTA) per post.
• “We have an exciting new product with brand new features for you to discover. Learn more about it at ”
• Follow Back: Following users that follow and engage with the brand is a simple way to create unique connections with users (which is often why they come to twitter in the first place). The goal is to have an even follower–to–following ratio so the brand appears engaged and conversational.
• Engage: In order to build an interactive community, users must engage with the brand. Be conversational by including posts that request an interaction relevant to the brand. This request would be your single CTA. Be sure to use hashtags to link common themes. This makes it easier for users to find more information about your brand and its products.

At the end of the day, it’s important to remember engaging on behalf of a brand online is a significant responsibility and a role you must take very seriously, while still having fun. Happy Tweeting!

Heart to Heart: Online Dating Scoop

By Amy Noesser, Account Executive

In today’s globally connected environment, technology continues to play an ever-increasing role in people’s lives. From ordering pizza to flowers online, it seems technology knows no limits. And now, it’s trying to take over our love lives.

Online Dating Magazine (yes, it’s a real publication) reports that the peak season for online dating is the day after Christmas until the day after Valentine’s Day, during which time online dating sites experience up to a 20 percent increase in traffic and usage.

So, if don’t have the ability to quit your job, work out incessantly for 8+ weeks, blow your life savings on a new designer wardrobe and go on The Bachelor/The Bachelorette to find love the “easy” way, here’s why you should embrace online dating….with trace amounts of caution.

A CNN story on the subject suggests that the site you choose for your online matching making is almost paramount to the people you choose to befriend once on the site. Long-term relationship sites, such as Match.com and eHarmony, tend to attract a more honest subset of online daters, while other sites like Zoosk.com attract a more flirtatious, less-serious and therefore less-truthful clientele. A quick visit to any of the online dating options and I think you’ll find it’s fairly easy to categorize almost any dating site just from the homepage.

Another unique point in the CNN study suggests that those who do choose to falsely represent themselves on online dating sites aren’t necessarily doing so with the intention of getting a date that is equally as thin, or as successful or as good-looking as they portray themselves to be. This action more directly relates to a person’s sense of self-awareness and his or her desire to please others. Essentially the story states that a person who would lie on an online dating profile would also tell the same lie in-person because he or she wants to be liked and to fit in. So, the ability to hide behind a computer screen doesn’t really encourage people to lie, as long as we are talking about the “long-term” relationship seeker.

Interestingly, men indicated that they were more likely than women to lie in every category except weight, accordingly to the story which was based on a study out of the University of Kansas.

All this to say, online dating shouldn’t be met with as much skepticism as a political debate, and can be a viable option for busy people who have exhausted their dating options in their current social circles. But just for giggles, check out the top list of things people lie about on online dating sites so you can bring a healthy and informed amount of skepticism to the online dating table. Happy browsing!

• Height: Online fibbers tend to add up to 2 inches to their real height.
• Income: Expect the more “short-term” relationship sites to have users who are actually about 20 percent poorer than they claim.
• Photos: Be on guard that “recent” can be quite subjective on online dating sites. A recent scan of OkCupid found the more attractive the photo, the more likely the photo was to be outdated.
• Sexual Orientation: Those online users who marked “bisexual” were more likely to message only one gender rather than both genders. Also interesting to note, the older the user, the less likely he/she is to mark bisexual when he/she really is only interested in one gender.