COMMENTS
You can't respond to comments unless you hear about it. That's precisely why monitoring blogs, microblogs, message boards, YouTube, etc. is critical.
Another thing to keep in mind is that all comments do not necessitate a response, especially negative comments.
Every company should have a strategy for online communications. Every strategy should contain a crisis communications plan. For better or worse, we now have a few to learn from.
I don't think that every company can to build a following online for a number of reasons (pharma, in particular, due to Adverse Events). Blogging and Twitter isn't for everyone either, but there is some platform or tool that every company should be leveraging.
Great post...
DW
For search engine optimization, we would have preferred that you link the phrase "feces-in-your-food" to our web site
feces-in-your-food
Your thoughts on social media are right on. And that is exactly why PR is poised to have great impact in social media. The same principles of public relations that are applied offline, are applicable for the online community. Public relations is not a one-time effort, it's an on-going engagement or dialogue with your community to build a bank account that consists of good credit. This goodwill or credit can come in handy when faced with negative circumstances.
Great post Pete. Monitoring the social media sphere on behalf of your company and listening to the conversation is the first step in crisis communications planning. You're absolutely correct in that if you don't understand the space and first build a following you will flounder when there is a crisis that needs responding to.
Jessica,
Sorry to disagree, but you do not need to build a following in the social media sphere in order to respond to a crisis adequately. You just need to respond quickly and well.
DW
Great piece. I'm working on developing a Crises plan for my company, and this gave much food for thought.
@ David Weiner -- maybe we can be charitable re what Jessica might have meant. Maybe something like:
Take one bad crisis
Multiply by earliness/lateness of your detection of the crisis
Subtract by amnt of goodwill toward company built up through SM and PR efforts
-----------
= Less bad crisis
Agree?
I love the formula, Rebekah.
Given that David works for a wire service, he might prefer it to be something like this, though:
-- Take one bad crisis
-- Multiply by earliness/lateness of your detection of the crisis
-- Subtract by amnt of goodwill toward company built up through SM and PR efforts
-- subtract by how much $ you spend distributing your news via the wire services
-----------
= Less bad crisis
And he might really prefer if you just skip the whole "engaging with real people" thing and just spent more money on wire services.
Ohhhhhh
SNAP!
David I hope you're subscribed to comments.
If he is, I hope he can take a joke.
Joke or slam aside, I'd love to hear some supporting arguments for David's original statement.
I bet he has some experiences that are relevant?
Ha! Yes, Peter, I can take a joke.
I certainly didn't mean to be 'uncharitable' to Jessica, I just happened to disagree. It is true that a company which engages with its consumers may have an easier time resolving a crisis or putting out a fire. That formula (the first one;-) is very interesting ... Here's a stab:
Right response + Speed of Response / Social Media Goodwill = Damage Control Quotient.
Crises can unfortunately happen to any brand. Every organization should have a strategy in place in order to react to any number of scenarios (positive or negative). Those strategies now must include social media.
While establishing a social media profile/following is great for a lot of companies, it is not possible or feasible for every company/organization.
There is no doubt that a quick response to a crisis is ideal. Unfortunately, not all organizations are built to be so nimble. That said, the only thing better than a quick response is the right response. What that ‘right response’ includes depends on the organization, vertical, clientele, etc.
Glad this conversation continues!!!
DW
Thanks for the response, David.
I certainly agree that every company is different.
Do you have any good examples where an organization shouldn't/can't be nimble?
Or examples where an organization would not be able to build a following amongst their customers/demographic/etc?
I don't know if there is an organization that 'shouldn't' be nimble, but there are probably thousands that aren't. I would guess that the largest companies could have the largest processes, steps and routes that need to be taken before any communication can take place. While some large corporations are doing a great job with instant communication, there are just as many, if not more, that aren't.
The organizations that would have the biggest problems in building a following, cultivating an audience or communicating with their customers would have to be in Healthcare/Pharma and probably governmental agencies/organizations.
With Pharma, many are not allowed to even monitor conversations online due to a reporting system called Adverse Events. If they can't monitor conversations, they certainly wouldn't be allowed to host or engage.
While there are no SEC regulations surrounding social networks yet (that I know of), publicly traded companies would obviously be prohibited from 'releasing' material news not made widely public previously.
Make sense? Agree? Disagree?
DW
That makes a lot of sense, David.
I deal less with Pharma/biotech/governmental orgs. And don't deal w/ F5000.
I understand why they would be bogged down with approval processes (internal and external), as well as regulations.
I have also run into many small finance/insurance/financial advice companies that can't publish content on the web.
There is obviously some bigger barriers to entry for these kinds of firms.
Regardless, they're stuck playing in the same sandbox with the same expectations from their customers, unfortunately for them.
Great point, Pete, and perhaps this is a point for an entire post. These organizations are stuck in the same sandbox and are unable to participate. The ones that find out how to navigate through these hurdles will 'win.'
I also want to clarify an earlier point. Pharma companies are allowed to participate, communicate, engage, etc. They choose not to because it opens them up to enormous negative possibilities/probabilities.
DW