By now everyone has heard about the Costa Concordia shipwreck off the coast of an Italian island, and it has not been good news. After nearly two weeks, the cruise line is still making national headlines. While I have little experience in crisis communications, I know there are plenty of public relations lessons to be learned from this particular crisis.

Get everything out in the open, no big secrets.
Once your company is in the news for a major crisis, people are going to dig for follow up stories. If you hide information, people are going to find out and it will do even more damage to the company’s reputation than if you had just shared the information from the get go. Also, if your company shares the information first, you can explain the situation and shed the most positive light on the situation. When companies withhold the details, people are naturally inclined to assume the worst. Again, not good.

Plan ahead.
In college, we did a case study on BP’s oil spill and the basic principles apply here as well. From my point of view, it looks like the Costa Concordia crew and Carnival Cruise Lines did not have an effective crisis communications plan in place. The company has not made their statements readily available and easy to find. After a quick search, this was the only press release I could find, which was dated six days after the incident.

Be proactive.
If you know that there are issues or controversies within your organization that could lead to a crisis, have a well thought out plan (that is understood by your internal team) and perhaps even suggest that the organization make changes to avoid a crisis all together.

I am interested to see how the rest of this crisis plays out. What kind of crisis communications advice do you give to clients, either before or after disaster has struck?

I’m sure you’ve seen all the ballyhoo around McDonald’s #McDStories campaign that has backlashed in a big way.   Designed to get followers sharing their favorite stories about the brand, people took to Twitter to share instead their disgust and distaste for the Big Mac of fast food.  There’s a public relations lesson here, and not just for one of the world’s biggest consumer brands.

From a PR perspective, it’s hard to blame McDonald’s for going out and trying to engage consumers in a way that would stir up nostalgia or charming anecdotes.  However, for a brand that has struggled with its brand perception and with America’s obesity rate higher than ever, it becomes easier to blame them for not being more thoughtful about the channel.  I’m not saying things wouldn’t have run amok if this was only done on Facebook – but I do think they would have had more control on their own page.  I find it hard to believe that no one brought up the possibility of a Twitter campaign going negative, fast.  And, if that’s the case and they thought it was worth the risk – well, then, they are probably realizing now the risk was far greater than the reward.

McDonald’s has had a ton of people piling on them for this – but I do see a bigger lesson here for brands on social media and their strategy for each channel.

It’s easy to say that every consumer brand should be on the biggies: Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google+.  But it’s not the “where” in social media that is the most important, it’s the “what” and “how” they engage on each channel that is critical.  Brands need to realize that every channel comes with its own risk and it’s important to weigh the pros and cons before embarking on a campaign aimed at engaging a large number of consumers.

On Twitter, the negative campaigns and social media missteps “go viral” in the blink of an eye.  People want to be in on the joke – so they pile on – even if they don’t necessarily have a negative perception of the brand.    With hindsight being what it is, I can confidently say it would have been far better for McDonald’s brand not to be on Twitter at all than to have this campaign go the way it has.

So, what should brands do? Research and identify the channels that make the most sense for your brand. Weigh the risk vs. the reward of running a campaign on each channel.  And, listen to skeptics who bring up the “what if” scenarios.

Chances are, if you have one skeptic on your team, you’ll find a million of them on Twitter.

Qantas Airlines has a lot going on these days – most notably, a recent employee strike that has caused many delays and inconveniences for its customers.  Let’s face it, a strike is always going to be a public relations nightmare, and this case was no different.

What IS different is that Qantas seemingly decided to operate “business as usual” on its Twitter handle.  So what did they do? They created an “innocuous” little contest encouraging followers to Tweet their dream in-flight experience, using the #qantasluxury hashtag, for a chance to win a pair of Qantas first-class PJs and a toiletries kit.

During any other time, this contest would have come and gone without much fanfare – especially given a pretty lame prize.  But, due to its terrible timing, it incited many customers who were impacted by the strike to use the #hashtag and vent those frustrations.  In fact, #qantasluxury quickly became a trending topic in Australia.  Sadly, Qantas decided to basically ignore the onslaught of criticisms with a (paraphrased) “Keep those creative entries comin” type tweet two hours into the contest.  Needless to say, the contest and the brand received a lot more attention for the incident – from both consumers and news outlets – than they bargained for.

So, what happened?  Did the Qantas public relations team think that this would be a good way to get back into the public’s good graces? Are Qantas’ public relations, crisis communications and social media team operating separately? Or was this just a horribly timed coincidence that wasn’t given much thought?

Whatever the cause, it’s a great reminder that timing can literally make or break a customer relationship, a brand’s perception or, yes, a “simple” campaign.   There are a lot of lessons to be learned on this one – what did you walk away with?

The devil is in the details.  That’s a phrase you hear thrown around quite a bit, particularly in PR.  There are so many details that you have to “get right” when you’re doing a PR campaign, launch, pitch, executive briefing book – that even the smallest mistake can have major repercussions.

Today, Netflix announced what some are calling an “abrupt” change in strategy.  And while it may seem abrupt to consumers, every communications professional knows that there were endless hours spent on the topic and corresponding items:  crafting CEO Reed Hasting’s letter to customers, writing and planning the blog post, messaging around the re-naming of the DVD-mailing service to Qwikster, planning for media inquiries, reserving the Qwikster.com domain, preparing to scan for the tone of coverage in the media and on social media platforms like Twitter, wait…Twitter? Was Twitter on the to-do check list? Did the team think about how they would use Twitter and the Qwikster name? Or did the communications team forget to address it?

Whatever conversations did (or didn’t) happen around Twitter don’t really matter at this point, because Qwikster is now getting almost as much attention for the person who owns the Twitter handle. And while the owner doesn’t have any bio information on his profile, it became very clear very qwikly that the person behind the @Qwikster handle is not from Netflix’s communications team – that is, unless Netflix is suddenly a big fan of Sesame Street and marijuana – which I’m guessing isn’t the case.   Ultimately, this oversight won’t hurt Netflix’s business and it will likely be quickly forgotten – but it doesn’t help the perception that Netflix made these strategic decisions hastily.   And, we all know, perception IS reality when it comes to PR.

When something like this happens, I always feel a pit in my stomach thinking about the PR person who is most likely responsible for *not* catching it.   Because that person is having a bad day.  That person is cursing the devil and his details.  And probably Elmo too.

As anyone who’s ever worked with me (or, frankly, met me) is aware – I take a lot of pride in my hometown of Syracuse, NY and try to keep close tabs on home by including the local newspaper, the Post Standard, as part of my online news-gathering routine.  Earlier this summer, I paused on a headline that involved two favorite subjects: my home neighborhood (Manlius, NY) and technology apps.  I ended up with another glimpse of how in the online world, two groups of readers can view the same story and yet come away with completely different messages.

The online article featured a woman whose family has lived next to mine for more than 20 years, Sally Hootnick.  It told the story of how Sally left her iPad on a vacation flight home and subsequently used the Apple proprietary technology, MobileMe, to locate the device.  She tracked the iPad as it journeyed from JFK to Long Island and then later as it made several airport-to-airport hops, leading her to the reasonable conclusion that the iPad was picked up and being used by an airline employee.  Unfortunately, the airline and the police were unwilling to track the lost item and, despite some clever uses of MobileMe (like annoying the thief by pinging the device with random sounds – nicely done, Ms. Hootnick!) she eventually gave up the effort and upgraded to an iPad 2.

While I usually don’t read the comments section attached to newspaper articles, this was a story involving a friend and neighbor.  Plus, depending on your vantage point, the story had something for everyone to sink their teeth into.  From a technology standpoint, it’s a perfect example of software being used exactly as it was intended, regardless of the discomfort that tracking technology presents many users.  From an ethical view, it raises the question of the obligation a person may have to locate a lost item’s owner (though the law is fairly clear in this case – the finder could have and should have returned the item).  And so I scrolled through the comments, fully expecting there to be comments from the members of the cult of Apple (to which I subscribe happily), and perhaps comments from lawyers clarifying the ownership debate.

It was therefore a bit of a surprise to read the storm of responses that the story generated over just two days on Syracuse.com.  The flames were personal, hurtful and misogynist, and reflected the kind of class and wealth divide that is clearly turning our political and cultural dialogue into something rather ugly.  The posts were anonymous, enabling (perhaps even encouraging) users to send some pretty vile, even vaguely threatening – if later banned – posts.

I’m a regular Web reader and hopefully understand the medium better than most. Still, I was struck that if a person can’t be the subject of what is, to me, an innocuous story about missing property and technology tools without opening themselves up to attack…why would any “normal person” ever want media publicity at any level?

Ms. Hootnick’s story underscores the uncertainty of the web as a publicity tool – it’s nearly impossible to know what direction a story will take – but it is the very openness of the web that makes it so invaluable. I tell Matter clients that if you have a story to tell, you need to be willing to take the sometimes senseless, but often thought-provoking feedback of the public.  The internet allows the “peanut gallery” a platform on which to vent opinions – ANY opinions, many of which may be irrelevant to the discussion on hand.  But it also creates a kind of collective narrative that can sway the course of everything from elections to consumer product design.   The openness of the Web is precisely what makes it ultimately more powerful and, perhaps, more trustworthy than other forms of mass media.  And if one is to swim in these waters, one needs to expect some sharks.

Thankfully, I am told Ms. Hootnick needed none of Matter’s PR advice in this situation.  Her MobileMe story was picked up on a national ABC feed and more follow-up on her case is in the works.  According to my parents, she shook off the comments that would have sent most people, at the very least, into a full-scale flame war that probably would have been more embarrassing than helpful.

My guess is that at some point in the coming weeks, I will have to address a situation in which a client wants, but unfortunately cannot have, guaranteed positive response to a web story.  Perhaps another will want to go toe-to-toe with the online masses.  When it happens, I’ll be able to say thank you to Ms. Hootnick for the media lesson.

Charlie Sheen. I don’t need to rehash why he’s been in the news these past few weeks, and I don’t plan to offer any theories on what’s really going on. But one aspect of the Sheen saga that definitely grabbed my attention last week was when his longtime publicist, Stan Rosenfield, quit. The announcement was short and sweet: “I have worked with Charlie Sheen for a long time and I care about him very much,” Rosenfield said. “However, at this time, I’m unable to work effectively as his publicist and have respectfully resigned.”

One could say that Rosenfield was making the only smart — and sane — choice, running as far away from a hugely epic celebrity meltdown as he possibly could, without saying anything negatively about his (now former) client. On the other hand, is he passing up an opportunity to intervene, help a longtime friend and client navigate the mess he finds himself in, and perhaps (eventually) be a part of a major star’s comeback? Is he leaving when his client needs him the most?

When dealing with things like substance abuse, mental illness, big egos, celebrity feuds, and multi-million dollar contracts falling apart, it’s a lot easier to observe from afar and say “this is what I would have done.” For some, sticking around would have jeopardized Sheen’s publicist’s credibility: how can he expect to accomplish any degree of damage control when his client is behaving like a loose cannon and becoming more outrageous to the public by the hour? For others, staying on board might have been seen as honorable or brave: what’s more loyal than attempting to guide a client through a full-blown crisis, especially if (as many suspect) that client needs real help, much deeper than PR guidance?

It’s an interesting dilemma, but I’m inclined to agree with Rosenfield’s instinct. I probably would have wished Charlie the best and then run from that scene as fast as humanly possible, hoping, praying, and crossing my fingers that he ends up okay in the end. 

As PR professionals, we’re prepared to handle tough situations; running away is not typically an option. But there are certain situations where we cannot, in good faith, grin and bear it. With any luck, these situations are very few and very far between…but every so often, they present themselves and the only reasonable thing to do is to deliver a difficult recommendation and part ways.

What about you? Would you have stuck around, or walked away?

As the world of social media heats up for PR pros and marketers, the inevitable question arises – what to do about errors posted to social networks?

The Poynter Institute’s live chat asking, “How should journalists handle incorrect tweets?” recently caught my eye. Among the suggestions offered by journalists for dealing with errors on social media, I applaud Kathryn Schulz, author of “Being Wrong,” who recommended that “everyone who’s involved in spreading news also needs to be involved in correcting it — and, right now, in helping to figure out how best to do so.” Schulz suggested Twitter perhaps offer a ‘correct’ function (like ‘reply’ and ‘retweet’) that would automatically send a correction to everyone who had retweeted something that contained an error.

Poynter also recently linked to a great working list posted this week on Zombie Journalism, “Accuracy and accountability checklist for social media.” PR reps should keep handy this list of questions to ask before posting (or reposting) on Twitter and Facebook. Among the gems, for Twitter, “Is the original tweet written clearly enough to be passed on from me?” and, for Facebook, “Is the post text and headline reflective of the content of the story?”

This topic sadly has been the subject of discussion in media circles during the past two weeks after several erroneous reports appeared of the death of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords following the shooting in Tucson on Jan. 8.  Columbia Journalism Review collected positions on the subject from several major outlets in the blog post, “To Delete or Not to Delete?” Many said they kept their original tweet or Facebook post live, error and all, to appear fully transparent to readers and followers. Others deleted the incorrect postings so the false news would not continue to spread online.

Of note, the CJR post was reported by Craig Silverman, the author behind Regret the Error, a site that both pokes fun at the media’s missteps and details how to handle serious errors with class.

This recent talk is a sober reminder that we, as public relations professionals, have a responsibility to think before we act on social networks, and to not trade speed for accuracy. But we, as fallible human beings, can at least handle errors on social media with grace and candor – hopefully, just as we would when speaking to someone face to face.

Working in PR, we’ve probably all struggled to explain exactly what we do to family and friends. Our chosen profession is not as easily understood when compared to careers like being a teacher, lawyer, doctor, even an ad exec. In part, I suspect it’s because most people have seen those other professions accurately represented on TV shows and in movies. Yet it’s rare that a show or movie presents a character who works in PR…and even rarer still that what he or she is shown actually doing at work matches what any of us do on a day to day basis. The closest I’ve come to seeing a realistic portrayal of PR on the silver screen was back when “The West Wing” was on the air, and Alison Janney played C.J. Cregg, White House press secretary. In some ways, it was that role that inspired me to enter the industry in the first place.

Recently though, PR has popped up on some other shows and it’s been really interesting to see how it’s depicted. I watched one episode total of Bravo’s “Kell on Earth,” and that was one too many. Katie Cassidy portrayed a pretty convincing PR practitioner on the short-lived reboot of “Melrose Place,” but writing press releases and counseling clients in real life is a little bit different than what was shown on that show. ABC aired a run of “Grey’s Anatomy” webisodes, showing the characters working with a marketing and PR consultant trying to help the hospital re-brand itself in the wake of a shooting. It was exciting to see some of my favorite characters, on one of the biggest hit shows, actually talking about crisis PR and touching briefly on the kinds of work we do with our clients though, admittedly and thankfully, that level of crisis is not exactly an everyday occurrence, either.

Despite these instances, I’ve still wondered why there aren’t more characters on TV that work in the communications and marketing industries. This is especially true given PR has grown so much over the past few years and has become so critical for public figures and celebrities, as well as companies of all sizes. Now, word is that ABC has greenlit a pilot from “Grey’s” creator Shonda Rhimes, about a public relations crisis expert and her staff as they try to help high-profile clients navigate various PR landmines. Sure, the show will probably focus on extreme cases and scenarios that most of us would be lucky to never have to encounter with our own clients, but I’m looking forward to it. It will be refreshing to see a TV show shine the spotlight on how PR can make or break the perception of a person or company (especially after a scandal). And who knows…maybe it will also help some of my friends and family get a better sense of what I do every day.

For all the negative publicity Carnival Cruise Lines has been receiving for its recent fire aboard Carnival Splendor, which left passengers stranded offshore for days without power, there are others pieces that are highly positive. Taking a look at the story from all sides, I’d say Carnival handled what some are a calling a “nightmare” in the best possible manner. Here’s how:

In a recent piece in PRWeek explaining how “social media emerged as a key channel for Carnival Cruise Lines in its crisis communications response,” it describes how John Heald, Carnival’s Senior Cruise Director, took to his blog while on the ship to offer updates and recounts of what was taking place. Updates were also communicated on Carnival’s various social media networks including Facebook, Twitter, and carnival-news.com. Using each of these methods not only kept family members of those on board posted on the progress of the ships return, but it provided Carnival the opportunity to accurately relay information to the public.

Traveling isn’t always smooth sailing (pun intended) but to see a crisis like the fire aboard the Splendor handled as it was, I commend Carnival and its PR team. Though not their intent, I imagine there are a few travelers that would perhaps chose them over other cruise lines now for the mere fact that they overcame a huge obstacle and still have happy customers. But of course, as Heald describes below, there will always be those who will be quick to share their less than positive experience. Let’s just hope they don’t drown out the ones who really should be heard.

“There will be those who will say this has been ‘the cruise from hell.’ However, when you see the local news reporter with the huge hair talking to Mr. Angry remember that there are many many many many more who will tell you what they have been telling me and the crew and that is that Carnival as a company have done everything they can and continue to do so to help them through this difficult situation.”

I recently spoke with a friend who used to be a client.  Neither of us is tied to the company through which we met, but we stay in touch.  That company (I’ll call it ThatCo to protect the innocent) was recently included in an exposé of its industry at the hands of the Wall Street Journal. It’s the kind of story CEOs dread.  The week-long series shed a light on the industry’s accepted, self-policed business practices, and painted those practices as something the world should be concerned about, complete with paranoia-inducing headlines.  The story has since been echoed on NPR and in other outlets.

I’m not writing to condemn the industry’s practices, nor to call the Wall Street Journal irresponsible.  The industry is not out to do anyone harm, and I imagine it’s hard to draw eyeballs to the Wall Street Journal in August.  The story is engaging, and it is better that the general public be aware of these issues.

Not only does the story make sense, but we knew it was coming.  About two years ago the PR team conducted a media training session with ThatCo and we set aside a significant amount of time to cover this issue.  They had the messages – fact-based, reasonable, clear and easy to deliver.  I can say them to myself now.  We also covered when to use them.  This is apparently where the breakdown occurred.

ThatCo’s executive provided the “golden quote” – the one that instantly put miles of distance between a cool, collected executive and an enraged public.  The former client’s words were the first quote in the first story of the series.  Even the industry blogs that have since come out in defense of the client have repeated this quote.  I believe I’ve heard these words come from this client before, verbatim.  I don’t doubt for a second he said them. It’s the context, however, that makes me imagine a giddy reporter (and a reporter not prone to giddiness) stifling a squeal to avoid tipping off the unaware interview subject.

Someone missed a sign.  They followed a path that seemingly led to a glowing review of their mastery in creating value for customers, and forgot to deliver the messages that connect that value to responsible use of their powerful product.

I understand I risk sounding like a spurned partner in saying that if the company still had a PR firm, the spokesperson may have had a briefing sheet in hand that told him this reporter had previously won a Pulitzer for exposing corporate misdeeds.  He might have read the recent article in which that reporter covered a company that knowingly withheld information from customers.  He might have had someone on the line that cued him to step back and provide appropriate context for the reporter’s audience.

That’s water under the bridge, and it doesn’t help the ThatCo now.  But there is a learning opportunity to be had from this experience.  Below are 10 steps companies can take to help them avoid being ThatCo. The one that industry colleagues now look at with equal measures of shame, pity and accusation.  The one that has to explain to family and friends how he isn’t in an evil line of work.  The one that might get the cold shoulder from partners and clients “until this whole thing cools off.”

Before the interview:

1)      Know who you’re talking to. Look up their previous stories. Read their bio. At the very least, if the reporter tells you he or she need to conduct the interview in the next five minutes or the world will end, Google him or her while you’re talking.

2)      Get the context.  If you are discussing something controversial or easily misunderstood, ask the reporter what section the story will run in and who the audience is.  If they say they don’t know, assume it will be the audience least likely to understand.

During the interview:

3)      Hear yourself talk.  Understand how each soundbyte will sound in public.

4)      Ask questions.  Who else is the reporter talking to?  What do they think of the industry? What else are they covering?  Two minutes of seemingly idle chit chat can provide a world of information.

Before the story runs:

5)      Don’t be afraid to follow up.  If you feel you missed the opportunity to strike the right balance, send a note with more information.

After the story runs:

6)      Know how this affects your business.  Do the people who pay your bills already understand this issue?  Are they exposed along with you?  Do you need to defend yourself or take the fall in order to keep business running smoothly?

7)      Deliver the untold story in public.  ThatCo has responded in a blog, but missed the source of the real concern, and further, has yet to deliver the messages that connect value to customers with responsible use of the product.  To its credit, it stepped in the line of fire and offered to respond to any concerned parties.  It would have been better if that response was also public.

8)      Tell the truth, quickly.  This axiom of crisis communications applies to PR crises as well.  Don’t play the victim or pull back from the media or the false perception will sink in further. Use your newfound (if unwelcome) attention to fill the information gap.

9)      Understand this is now public record.  Expect the questions to come up again.  Have your answers on hand.

10)   Sympathize with the outrage. In this case, the company already had ways to accommodate anyone who didn’t approve of the standard industry practices.  They made these accommodations widely available, but until the series ran, most people didn’t take advantage of them.  If your company is not as prepared to respond to an angry audience, open your communications channels.  The only way to battle distrust is with honesty.

My friend, the ex-client, said grimly, ThatCo “finally got its Wall Street Journal story.” It turns out ThatCo got half of its story in the Wall Street Journal.  By demanding — and providing — transparency, it might not happen to you.