Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Of leaders, language and crises

So your boss is from Europe ... relatively new in the job ... and bang ... you're in the middle of the largest environmental disaster in the history of the US.

The leader of the free world makes your company his favourite daily target ... the oil gushes on and bad press floods the airwaves ...

Oh ... and you try to "control" the message by having private security firms block reporters from accessing the people you're hiring to help you clean up?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100615/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2612

What's gone wrong?

The perception (see my response to this blog post by Gerald Baron
http://emcrisiscomm.blogspot.com/2010/06/why-journalistic-ignorance-of-nimsics.html) is that everything has gone wrong ... starting with the crisis communications response.

I'm usually a big proponent of bringing the top guy to the front when a crisis occurs. It shows leadership, responsiveness and very often helps to establish some sort of emotional connection. That's the theory at least.

However, you need to do that early in the game ... after it's gone on long enough ... it looks more like an emperor deigning to address his subjects ... and if you're going to do it ... and if he's going to do it ... ensure he stays on message and uses the wright words ... I know there might have been a language barrier issue with the BP Chair of the Board ... but the key PR people should have seen it coming ...

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/824564--bp-sets-up-20-billion-compensation-fund-for-oil-spill-victims

It would have been much better if, earlier in the game, they had identified a key BP leader, preferably from the affected area ... who could talk with some conviction and emotion about their response ... say: we're sorry and look like they mean it ...

Seems to me that the "small people" are those working at BP's PR shop ...

No comments:

Post a Comment