Jonathan Bernstein2013-05-19T09:28:49-04:00Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=jonathan-bernsteinCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Jonathan BernsteinGood old fashioned elbow grease.Mom Always Said I Should Be a Lawyertag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8107012011-01-18T19:24:51-05:002011-05-25T18:25:24-04:00Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-bernstein/Bernstein Crisis Management Launches Strategic Litigation Management Group
LOS ANGELES--(SATIREWIRE)-Bernstein Crisis Management, Inc. announced today that it plans to establish a strategic litigation management group to assist national and international businesses and their managements and boards.
With a number of law firms launching Crisis Management divisions, it made sense to me that we even the playing field a little by adding some quasi-legal clout to our activities," said Jonathan Bernstein, president of Bernstein Crisis Management, Inc. "And I'm confident that we'll be as good with legal matters as attorneys are at offering crisis management advice"
Senior members of the group include former Transportation Security Administration officer Patricia "Pat" Down, bail bond tycoon Guido Ransome, former World Wrestling Federation Commissioner Crater Mess; and Tom Foolery, former senior staff advisor to the House Ethics Committee.
"This team brings decades of experience advising clients on managing high profile governmental, transactional and investigative matters," said Bernstein. "More importantly for our clients, each of these five professionals has had considerable and sometimes painful experience with legal matters and has successfully helped those they served navigate through those issues."
A former stock broker, 7-11 clerk and waste hauler, Ms. Down will provide high-level strategic counsel to corporate and government clients on a broad range of matters including risk identification and prevention, preparedness, response and recovery.
"With every pat-down I've conducted, I've been aware of how a crisis could erupt at any moment," Down said. "I believe in transparency and full compliance with most laws."
Ransome has established a national network of bail bond businesses in a career spanning more than three decades, following his early years on the other side of the bail bond counter. "Hey, if youse in trouble, I'm your man."
After 17 years of serving as the commissioner of the WWF, Mr. Mess understands the importance and challenges of building and protecting a global brand.
"Your name is everything. In fact, your name may be the only thing real about you, so it has to be protected, legally and otherwise. Eventually, if you do that right, people won't even realize what's real and what's not!"
Tom Foolery recently retired from his 25 years of service to the House Ethics Committee, and categorically denies that his own behavior was under review at the time of his retirement.
"If there's a way to lie, cheat or steal, I know about it, and of course will do my utmost to protect our clients from such activity and from themselves."
In response to concerns that his firm might be accused of practicing law without a license," Bernstein commented, "I'd love to give you an appropriate crisis management response, but I have to say 'no comment' on the advice of my attorney."
Bernstein Crisis Management, a 17-year-old international consultancy, has less than 500 employees providing the full range of crisis management services. For actual information on the firm, go to www.bernsteincrisismanagement.com.]]>Bimbo of the Year Awardstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7998852010-12-22T11:02:36-05:002011-05-25T18:20:30-04:00Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-bernstein/
I am pleased to be the first HuffPost blogger to feature the winners (losers?) of Merrie's 2010 "Bimbo of the Year Awards."
[Virtual drum roll and fanfare]
BIMBO OF THE YEAR!
"It may be stupid, it may be negligent, but it's not corrupt," said longtime Rep. Charles Rangel explaining one of his 13 ethics violations where he sent hundreds of solicitations for contributions on Congressional stationary. (Rangel's explanation, that he just "grabbed the wrong stationary," will warm the hearts of disorganized fundraisers everywhere. The amazing thing to us is that he appears to truly believe this is all OK, and after he was censured by a 333 to 79 vote, he said, "I truly feel good."
[The Associated Press, "Rangel Vows Not To Resign," Aug. 10, 2010]
[The Wall Street Journal, "Rangel Censured for Ethics Violations," Dec. 3, 2010]
DISHONORABLE MENTIONS
"We are not covering up anything and we are not running away from anything," said Toyota Motor Corp. President Akio Toyoda when U.S. safety regulators began to investigate the timeliness of the 8.5 million car recall due to reports of sudden acceleration. (If you recall, the company did run away for quite some time, and as an internal memo revealed, the company was aggressively trying to limit what it needed to do to address complaints and safety concerns.)
[Detroit News, "Toyota president: 'We are not covering up anything,'" Feb. 17, 2010]
"I am not a witch," said Christine O'Donnell the then Delaware Republican Senate nominee in an ad destined to rank with the infamous 'I did not have sex with that woman,' comment. (This shows how much you can pay for truly bad advice. The ad, which featured O'Donnell in a dark suit against a dark background, made O'Donnell look, well, witchy.)
[ABC News, "Christine O'Donnell Ad: 'I am Not A Witch,'" Oct. 4, 2010]
"I did this for health purposes. There's no way I did this for any type of strength purposes," wailed Mark McGwire, finally telling us what we knew all along - that he used steroids when he broke home run records in the late '90s. (McGwire sounds whiney, defensive and just as insincere as his testimony in 2005 before a Congressional committee when he refused to answer questions, saying he was "not here to talk about the past.")
"New Jersey Doesn't Stink" was the state's campaign slogan to fight back against stereotypes set by MTV's popular "Jersey Shore." (The campaign spawned parodies, with one columnist suggesting the slogan, "New Jersey: We're FBI Friendly").
[The Washington Times, "New Jersey Doesn't Stink: State out to deodorize Garden State image," June 28, 2010]
"I am not a home wrecker," said Rielle Hunter, John Edwards' mistress and mother of his daughter. She told Oprah Winfrey that posing for GQ in panties and a man's shirt was a "mistake," but she said she has no regrets. Well, except for making a sex tape with Edwards, that they didn't use birth control, and that she knew that Edwards was married when she went to his room for the first night. (There is absolutely nothing Ms. Hunter could have said except abject apologies for her destructive and selfish behavior. We're in the business of helping clients find truthful explanations, not personality transplants.)
[ABC News, "Rielle Hunter: I'm not a home wrecker," April 29, 2010]
Merrie offers a lot more related commentary at her website, where you can also sign up for the monthly Bimbo Newsletter.
]]>WikiLeaks Déjà Vutag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7931462010-12-07T11:44:40-05:002011-05-25T18:15:22-04:00Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-bernstein/
In early 1973, while deployed as a young (22-year-old) military policeman in Stuttgart, Germany, a strange series of events led to my being co-opted to work undercover against a front group for the infamous Baader Meinhof Gang. That gang was believed to have been behind bombings at military bases and its front group was actively engaged in recruiting disaffected GI's to commit acts of treason against the military. They thought I was such a disaffected GI and, working with my handlers from the 66th Military Intelligence Group, I was quite successful in my mission -- until my cover was blown. It was blown by a military signals officer who, knowing only that there was a code-named American (me) regularly going from Stuttgart to the seemingly innocuous front group's offices in Heidelberg, thought that "oh, gosh, we're spying on a legitimate civilian organization and on GI's who just want to talk to them, that's wrong" and leaked the information to the front group. Since I was the only guy coming from Stuttgart, they knew who it was, and if my fast-acting handlers from the 66th MI hadn't intercepted me at the train station, I would have been heading into a trap. Even so, there were threats on my life. My wife and infant son were evacuated from Germany ahead of me, and I remained in an armed environment until my departure for formal military intelligence training.
Thereafter, while working for the US Army Intelligence Agency, I became aware of dozens of Iranian military officers killed after the overthrow of the Shah because they had agreed to be sources for the Agency -- and that information was leaked because the security officer at the US Embassy in Tehran hadn't destroyed secret documents when the Embassy was overthrown.
I also remember our frustration in MI when information we saw labeled as SECRET appeared on the front pages of the Washington Post so, transitioning to civilian life in 1977, one of the first articles I worked on for my boss, investigative reporter/columnist Jack Anderson, was about the systemic failure of my former employer to account for hundreds of secret documents in audit after audit. My goal in doing so was to urge a much higher level of security and accountability in military intelligence; apparently, more than 30 years later, that level still hasn't been achieved.
As a crisis management professional, I have helped many clients deal with information leaks by well-meaning whistleblowers, by vengeful ex-employees, and even by Internet extortionists. With the exception of whistleblowers that, at one time, had legitimate access to confidential information, the leaks occurred because of inadequate security. The amount of damage incurred depended both on the nature of the information and on the organization's ability to rapidly engage in damage control.
At this juncture, I remain disgusted by the irresponsibility of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, because I have little doubt that innocent people have died and more are yet to die as a result of his actions, simply because they were being helpful to the United States. Others will have their careers and/or lives ruined in different ways. Do I think that our government should engage in a higher level of transparency? Absolutely. But not ever at the expense of lives.
At the same time, I am also dismayed that it was possible for so many documents to be compromised. I am guessing that those responsible for internal security at the affected agencies will lose their jobs -- but their replacements will do no better if they don't get support, at the highest level, for security changes that will, no doubt, be expensive.
Finally, I am not surprised, but saddened, that so many organizations worldwide continue to underestimate their vulnerability to information leaks that can have massive negative impact on their reputation, bottom line and ability to carry out their mission. Leaks that typically occur for one of more of these reasons:
Failure to understand that information security is everyone's responsibility, not just an IT or HR matter, and should be practiced at the office, at home, at a restaurant, at an airport, etc. I have heard astoundingly confidential information being discussed at airports by executives using their Bluetooth device as if it surrounded them with a sound-deadening bubble.
Lack of budgetary support to implement effective information security practices -- ignoring the reality that the cost of not doing so will ultimately be far higher.
Lack of appropriate policies -- regarding computer use, use of mobile devices, use of storage devices, etc.
Lack of training for said policies. Any policy without training and refresher training is useless.
Lack of enforcement for said policies. If no one gets sanctioned for their violations, why should they comply?
Lack of an anonymous system by which employees can report suspicious behavior by their peers. Employees will use a system like this when afraid to "snitch" in a more public manner.
Lack of monitoring for leaks via all possible channels, online and offline. It's the 21st Century, folks, I can leak your information to YouTube, Facebook and Twitter -- from my Blackberry -- in seconds.
Déjà vu, for me. But if governmental and private organizations react appropriately, there doesn't have to be déjà vu all over again.
]]>Former Intelligence Operative Talks About the Implications of WikiLeakstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7931342010-12-07T11:29:48-05:002011-05-25T18:15:22-04:00Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-bernstein/
In early 1973, while deployed as a young (22-year-old) military policeman in Stuttgart, Germany, a strange series of events led to my being co-opted to work undercover against a front group for the infamous Baader Meinhof Gang. That gang was believed to have been behind bombings at military bases and its front group was actively engaged in recruiting disaffected GI's to commit acts of treason against the military. They thought I was such a disaffected GI and, working with my handlers from the 66th Military Intelligence Group, I was quite successful in my mission -- until my cover was blown. It was blown by a military signals officer who, knowing only that there was a code-named American (me) regularly going from Stuttgart to the seemingly innocuous front group's offices in Heidelberg, thought that "oh, gosh, we're spying on a legitimate civilian organization and on GI's who just want to talk to them, that's wrong" and leaked the information to the front group. Since I was the only guy coming from Stuttgart, they knew who it was, and if my fast-acting handlers from the 66th MI hadn't intercepted me at the train station, I would have been heading into a trap. Even so, there were threats on my life. My wife and infant son were evacuated from Germany ahead of me, and I remained in an armed environment until my departure for formal military intelligence training.
Thereafter, while working for the US Army Intelligence Agency, I became aware of dozens of Iranian military officers killed after the overthrow of the Shah because they had agreed to be sources for the Agency -- and that information was leaked because the security officer at the US Embassy in Tehran hadn't destroyed secret documents when the Embassy was overthrown.
I also remember our frustration in MI when information we saw labeled as SECRET appeared on the front pages of the The Washington Post so, transitioning to civilian life in 1977, one of the first articles I worked on for my boss, investigative reporter/columnist Jack Anderson, was about the systemic failure of my former employer to account for hundreds of secret documents in audit after audit. My goal in doing so was to urge a much higher level of security and accountability in military intelligence; apparently, more than 30 years later, that level still hasn't been achieved.
As a crisis management professional, I have helped many clients deal with information leaks by well-meaning whistleblowers, by vengeful ex-employees, and even by Internet extortionists. With the exception of whistleblowers that, at one time, had legitimate access to confidential information, the leaks occurred because of inadequate security. The amount of damage incurred depended both on the nature of the information and on the organization's ability to rapidly engage in damage control.
At this juncture, I remain disgusted by the irresponsibility of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, because I have little doubt that innocent people have died and more are yet to die as a result of his actions, simply because they were being helpful to the United States. Others will have their careers and/or lives ruined in different ways. Do I think that our government should engage in a higher level of transparency? Absolutely. But not ever at the expense of lives.
At the same time, I am also dismayed that it was possible for so many documents to be compromised. I am guessing that those responsible for internal security at the affected agencies will lose their jobs -- but their replacements will do no better if they don't get support, at the highest level, for security changes that will, no doubt, be expensive.
Finally, I am not surprised, but saddened, that so many organizations worldwide continue to underestimate their vulnerability to information leaks that can have massive negative impact on their reputation, bottom line and ability to carry out their mission. Leaks that typically occur for one of more of these reasons:
Failure to understand that information security is everyone's responsibility, not just an IT or HR matter, and should be practiced at the office, at home, at a restaurant, at an airport, etc. I have heard astoundingly confidential information being discussed at airports by executives using their Bluetooth device as if it surrounded them with a sound-deadening bubble.
Lack of budgetary support to implement effective information security practices -- ignoring the reality that the cost of not doing so will ultimately be far higher.
Lack of appropriate policies regarding computer use, use of mobile devices, use of storage devices, etc.
Lack of training for said policies. Any policy without training and refresher training is useless.
Lack of enforcement for said policies. If no one gets sanctioned for their violations, why should they comply?
Lack of an anonymous system by which employees can report suspicious behavior by their peers. Employees will use a system like this when afraid to "snitch" in a more public manner.
Lack of monitoring for leaks via all possible channels, online and offline. It's the 21st Century, folks, I can leak your information to YouTube, Facebook and Twitter -- from my Blackberry -- in seconds.
Déjà vu, for me. But if governmental and private organizations react appropriately, there doesn't have to be déjà vu all over again.
]]>A Tale of Two Erastag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7816172010-11-11T12:28:04-05:002011-05-25T18:10:25-04:00Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-bernstein/This Crisis Management History Lesson Remains Unlearned
Listen, children, while I tell you a story about a time long and long ago.
Back in 1982, when I first started using the Internet for business purposes (on an Atari 400), there were probably no more than 10,000 of us worldwide, most associated with one of the governmental entities that created the backbone of what ultimately became the World Wide Web (yes, that is where the "www" in URLs comes from) in the early 1990s. We exchanged information by email and virtual bulletin boards, using very slow dial-up modems. There were no Web browsers. Online research was possible by using a command system known as "DOS." The only portable devices we had played music. Period. If we wanted to contact someone quickly and we weren't in our home or office, we used these quaint devices called "pay phones."
When crises occurred, back in those ancient times, they were reported by local media if word even got to the media. Unless the crisis was truly immense in scope, in which case a national television network or wire service might start reporting on it. Then word-of-mouth would take over via something called "gossip." To some of you under 35 (unless you actually listened to your parents), this must sound really strange, eh?
At this moment, in late 2010, the International Telecommunication Union reports that two billion people -- a third of the world's population -- are Internet users. In the U.S., 77% of the population has Internet access. IMS Research reports that the number of Internet-connected devices is about to pass the five billion mark. But by 2013, says global technology leader Cisco Systems, Inc., the number of connected devices will grow to one trillion. That means there will be a two-hundredfold increase in connected devices in three years or less!
When crises occur now, someone is usually spewing the word globally via every available communications orifice -- Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. -- ad infinitum. Everyone's a reporter, with no editorial controls. All but the most stubborn technophobes and luddites have the skill to launch a blog or website in minutes.
But most organizations still aren't ready to engage in crisis response that quickly.
As a song even older than my tale of the early Internet goes, "When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?"
]]>Product Recalls -- Tips for Businesses, Media and Consumerstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7747152010-10-27T11:50:19-04:002011-05-25T18:10:25-04:00Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-bernstein/ Recalls.org.
Through my work in support of product recalls, both food and consumer products, I have identified trends in both well-done and poorly done recalls that prompted me to offer these ten tips to businesses that may have to go through this process -- and it's also a 10-point system by which consumers and the media can evaluate a business' performance during a recall.
Remember That Rapid Response To A Known Product Problem Minimizes Damage, so the time to examine the systems you have in place for recall is NOW, not when you already have a product needing recall.
Have A Product Recall Plan Ready To Use Anytime, one that covers the operational, legal and public relations (internal and external) components of making a recall. Hint: "We'll wing it when it happens" is not a product recall plan.
Have The Core Members Of A Product Recall Team Identified And Trained In Advance. It may be necessary to have one team at a corporate level to direct recall activities overall, and individual teams more focused on the operational aspects of product recall at the sales/marketing and/or manufacturing levels. And you'd be amazed at how some people you think will be cool in a crisis actually aren't, and vice versa - behavior that often is identified through training that includes simulating a recall.
Have Back-ups For Critical People And Recall Systems. Assume that some recall-related lead personnel will not be available when you need them. Assume that the computer system where you maintain your stakeholder contact lists has crashed. Assume other similar worst-case scenarios and make your back-up plans accordingly.
Have Contact Lists For All Stakeholders Set Up On Automated notification Systems. This is particularly important for end-users and distributors of your products. You can't rely on the media alone to reach them.
Consider The Use Of Virtual Incident Management. There are a number of Internet-centered systems that allow recall team members to exchange real-time information, access current communications documents, and keep team leaders updated even if the team is geographically scattered.
Make Recall-related Decisions That Are Based On Protecting Your Brand/reputation And Not Just On Your Legal Risks. The infamous Bridgestone-Firestone recall started far too late because the company's leadership was considering risks other than the most important one -- the risk of aggravating the court of public opinion.
Communicate Internally And Externally. Remember that every employee and, often, dedicated contractors are public relations representatives and crisis managers for your organization, whether you want them to be or not. You must empower them with reassuring messages about the recall suitable for use at their respective levels of the company, and you don't want them to learn of the recall from external sources before they hear about it from you.
Don't Wait For The CPSC, FDA, Or Other Regulatory Agencies To Protect Your Reputation. While each regulatory agency that can get involved in product recalls has its own process to follow, that process can often delay how much time passes before product consumers and distributors are notified -- a delay which, in worst-case scenarios, can cause injuries or deaths. In that event, the court of public opinion may react very negatively to both your organization and the regulator -- but you're the one whose revenue and reputation will be most impacted.
Focus Special Communications On Highly Disgruntled Customers And Distributors. In this Age of the Internet, and in a litigious society, a few angry people can make waves completely disproportionate to their numbers or even to the injury suffered (if any). The recall process should include an "Escalated Cases" team to focus on such complaints when they're received.
Businesses: in many industries, recalls are inevitable. But if you don't want your crisis to become a disaster, learn from the mistakes of others.
Reporters: don't let organizations get away with mediocre recall communications.
Consumers: have you been told what you need to know about a recall? If the list above says "no," then complain, loudly! That's the only way organizations will start to do it right.]]>Inside a Reporter's Mind -- A Scary Placetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7653472010-10-16T14:13:37-04:002011-05-25T18:05:23-04:00Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-bernstein/
Traditional journalists may, in fact, come into interviews with a bias -- personal, based on their own experiences and belief system, or "employer-based," reflecting their media outlet's political leanings, attitude towards certain types of organizations, etc.. However, with rare exception, they are not usually out to "get you." They're merely doing their job and trying to receive as much recognition for it as possible. Just like you, right?
Citizen reporters -- e.g., bloggers without editorial control -- are another story, for another time.
A reporter wants a story that's newsworthy, that appeals to his/her editor and audience. There is a journalistic code of ethics, but it allows for behaviors you may or may not deem acceptable while in pursuit of a story. And journalists probably don't review that code very often. Still, as I reported on HuffPost in the past, it can be a formidable weapon used to defend yourself against ethical abuses.
Your job is to tell your side of the story. You are in conversation; you have to know to whom you're speaking. The reporter is asking you questions he/she thinks the audience will want answered. That means you must speak to your stakeholders through the interviewer, giving your stakeholders what you want them to know in terms that will be meaningful to them.
By being media-trained, you will improve your ability to balance a story -- but remember that "balanced" does not equate to "the story came out the way it would have come out if you had written it." It means you got a fair shake, even if people who completely disagreed with you also were treated fairly. By definition, a totally balanced article is still only half "your side" of the story. And true balance is as rare as honest politicians.
You may find this surprising coming from the author of a media training manual, but as a crisis management professional I advise clients that the traditional media is not your most important stakeholder group, because it is the least reliable means of accurately communicating information. However, media outlets are an important stakeholder group and one gateway to those who matter most to you - typically your employees, customers, investors, community leaders, the general public, etc. In some specific situations, such as natural disasters, the traditional media can be a particularly important method of getting your messages out. And it's true that whether you cooperate or not, reporters will write their stories -- so why not do your best to optimize the results?
[The preceding was excerpted and adapted from Keeping the Wolves at Bay - Media Training]]]>Third World America -- How to Prevent our Crisis From Becoming a Disastertag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7601422010-10-13T11:49:52-04:002011-05-25T18:00:30-04:00Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-bernstein/Third World America demonstrates why, in the midst of fear-based criticism of immigration policy, we still need the objectivity and insights of immigrants like Arianna, who came to us from Greece by way of the UK. Decision makers who have been stuck too long in the mire of American politics and power brokering seemed to have a hard time stepping back and taking a big picture look at what's happening in America today.
The book is also an excellent analysis of a crisis in progress -- what I have frequently called a slow burn crisis, one whose warning signs are all present if you look for them -- and then it suggests some solutions which may be difficult for a spoiled upper class to accept, but which are almost certainly critically necessary to prevent the current crisis from becoming a disaster.
I was particularly fascinated by Arianna's mention of the Marshall Plan as a U.S. program that inspired her. The Marshall plan dragged Western European countries out of the mire remaining following World War II, and set them on the road to the prosperity they currently enjoy. The extension of the Marshall plan, what eventually became the U.S. Agency For International Development (USAID), has done the same thing for countries worldwide, taking them from Third World status to becoming global leaders, helping to raise up all economic classes for their mutual betterment.
The reason I find this so poignant is that I was born in France in 1951, the son of a young US government economist, Joel Bernstein, who was on assignment by the U.S. State Department to work on the Marshall plan. This was, in fact, his return to France, having been there just a handful of years earlier to participate in the liberation of Paris while serving as an artillery officer during World War II. He later became a high-ranking official in USAID, and I was raised in five foreign countries, so I got to see the effects of this type of intercession upfront and personal.
My father and I used to argue about the efficacy of U.S. foreign aid. I pointed out that the USAID approach to building or rebuilding a country didn't always work for some of the same reasons Arianna identifies in her book as potential obstacles to restoring strength to the US middle class. There are always greedy individuals who will use funds intended for good purposes for their own personal gain. Not everyone assigned to work on assistance programs is competent, and simple human error can undermine the efficacy of any crisis response. But my Dad pointed out that though matters sometimes evolved beyond America's control, when the programs did work they achieved amazing results, from the Marshall plan forward. Two countries in which I was raised - Nigeria and South Korea -- represent some of the worst and the finest, respectively, that can result from US government aid abroad.
So I would like to conclude what started, in my mind, as a book review, with a suggestion that our country need turn no further than to the experience of USAID. With a budget of under $2 billion, a pittance compared to the amounts being wasted as I write by our so-called economic recovery program, the agency today continues its vital mission overseas. A visit to USAID's website provides descriptions of programs which could easily be turned inwards to the benefit of American citizens. This is precisely the type of solution that I believe is called for in Third World America.
What this country needs, now, is a U.S. Agency for Internal Development.]]>How to Fail at Crisis Responsetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7411372010-10-08T12:09:49-04:002011-05-25T17:50:22-04:00Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-bernstein/ Blue Waters Global, LLC, about this phenomenon.
Jonathan Bernstein: In my experience, a lot of organizations create crisis response plans of various types, but then never test them. Why is that?
Robert Burton: It really varies from one industry to the next but generally an organization believes that if they have a plan they are prepared for a crisis and that the "box" has been checked. Where an industry is required to have a response plan (be it a crisis, emergency, business continuity, security or even disaster plan), it is easy for the entity to hire the consultant or write the plan internally and place it on the shelf to gather dust. Plans are never complete without testing them from a number of directions to ensure validity, and even then they should continue to evolve. Continual risk assessment and plan improvement is essential.
JB: If you have a multi-location business, how can you engage all the members of your crisis response teams in a simulation exercise without incurring a huge expense?
RB: To get buy-in and be successful for such exercises, you first need an interactive Internet tool that is secure, scalable and easy to use. Multiple locations may also mean testing partners and other vendors to ensure they are prepared to meet the needs during the time of a crisis. In our experience there are five components that a crisis management evaluation tool must have:
Communications and Collaboration -- During the exercise design, the delivery and after the exercise it is critical that teams can easily communicate and collaborate.
Situational Awareness Dashboard -- During an exercise it's important that the tool provides a synopsis of current exercise activities -- in our system we call that the Situational Awareness Dashboard. This should be easily accessible and provide a thousand foot view of what's happened and what the current state of play is.
Easy to use and easy to follow -- The tool has to be easy to use at the front end much like a simple web site or you will run the risk of losing your constituents before the exercise even starts.
Immediate Results -- The tool should enable an organization to get immediate feedback from the exercise. This can be done in a number of ways depending on the evaluation criteria and scoring methodology.
Training -- It's vital that teams are provided with the basic information regarding the plan and their roles during crises. Having access to training on a regular basis can only be done cost effectively in an eLearning format especially when it comes to organizations that are dispersed across a city, region or the world.
JB: I think a lot of C-suite executives are at least somewhat technophobic. Do you know any tricks for getting them over that hurdle and comfortable with using any of the Web-based tools for crisis management?
RB: We are seeing a shift due to easy-to-use social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter and also the fact that younger executives are now entering the C-suite. Easy- to-use is the key. Will an organization buy-in to a tool that is difficult to use? So easy-to-use and no technical training but with all the bells and whistles is what you want.
JB: How often does an organization need to run simulations in order to truly be ready for a breaking crisis?
RB: The general rule of thumb is that the plan should be tested when a procedure or other part of the plan changes, when personnel that might be impacted by the plan change, when new personnel join a team, when a regulatory body requires it, when an incident has occurred that may require changes and as often as its determined in the organization's policies and procedures. If an organization is continually responding to incidents then the plan will be indirectly tested, which may reduce the requirement to run regular simulations.
JB: What do you say to organizations that do horribly on their first simulation exercise?
RB: Testing a plan for the first time always has the potential for something going horribly wrong. However, what I will say is that if you have built up to the first simulation exercise with training personnel on their roles and run through a number of potential scenarios in meetings then you should be at least prepared to respond in a coordinated and efficient manner. Working through a problem for the first time with new plans and personnel will be a learning experience for all and ultimately lead to more successful exercises in the future. Organizations should focus on an exercise program where they have a goal to conduct a certain amount over a period of time to ensure any gaps are filled. ]]>How to Avoid Foot-in-Mouth Diseasetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.6992202010-09-22T13:55:39-04:002011-05-25T17:30:22-04:00Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-bernstein/ Bimbo Awards.
Now you'd think that people of that stature would have been media trained. The problem is, however, that many people simply don't know how to determine if their media trainer is qualified to prepare them properly. Retaining someone to provide a service about which you know little yourself can always be tricky, whether it be an auto mechanic, a lawyer, a plumber, a computer tech or -- the topic du jour -- a media trainer.
Below are a list of questions to ask any potential media trainer. The answers should help avoid foot-in-mouth disease when a reporter's microphone is in your face -- assuming, of course, that you listen to your trainer's advice!
Have you been a working journalist yourself?
If yes to #1, what type of journalist were you (e.g., anchor, investigative reporter)?
If no to #1, what is the basis for your understanding of the media?
Does your training include how to deal with non-traditional media, e.g., social media?
Do you teach us how we can maintain the skills we have learned from you? Be specific.
Does your training prepare us both for routine interviews and for crisis-level interviews?
How long have you been a media trainer?
Could you show me anything you've written about this topic, and/or articles in which you've been interviewed?
If the stuff hits the fan, can you also provide us with spot advice on what we can say?
Are you an experienced media interview subject yourself -- i.e. do you practice what you preach?
Shoes belong on your feet, not in your mouth, so use the above to make sure you get the best possible media training.
]]>The C-Factor: How Credibility Plays a Role in Crisis Managementtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7095142010-09-13T11:56:51-04:002011-05-25T17:35:19-04:00Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-bernstein/
becoming the target of a class action lawsuit alleging fraudulent marketing practices; or,
being accused of creating a hostile workplace environment; or,
learning, without advance notice, that it is the target of an investigation by a state attorney general.
Not a great worry yet, you say, because there are two sides to every story, right?
No. Issues don't have only two sides, and no matter how well crafted the message, the credibility of the messenger -- what I call the "C-Factor" -- is as or more important in terms of impacting your stakeholders. Let's look at some of the potential stakeholders for any of these situations:
Organization's executive team (and their families)
Other employees (and their families)
Shareholders
Board of directors
Customers/clients
Vendors
Municipalities that depend on revenue from and/or interact with your organization in some significant way
Residents of municipalities that depend on revenue from and/or interact with your organization in some significant way
Competitors (yes, they definitely have a stake in what happens to you, albeit a "reverse stake")
All of them have their own points of view on your crisis situation, and all of them are going to be expressing their points of view to everyone they know.
In the absence of issues-specific information from you, each of your stakeholder groups is likely to come up with its own conclusions and opinions about what is actually happening.
And each of them, as groups or as individuals, have their own "C(redibility) Factor." Like the famous "Q-Factor" associated with recognizable celebrities, I'm suggesting that everyone has a C-Factor -- the degree to which they are credible to others. When any stakeholder speaks about an issue, his/her/their C-Factor impacts the extent to which their messages are believed.
I will leave it to the research and statistic experts to quantify C-Factor, but I can offer some experiential and subjective observations about the importance of considering the C-Factor:
Matching the C-Factor to the audience. Who's going to be most believable speaking to employees? Is it the CEO? In some organizations it might be, in others it might be a lower-level manager. Who should speak to shareholders? The chairman of the board? The CFO? There must be a situation-specific analysis of their C-Factors.
In a consumer versus business complaint/issue, the consumer always starts with a higher C-Factor in the court of public opinion. In the wake of everything from Enron to Worldcomm, Toyota to Tiger Woods, even once-lauded Johnson & Johnson, and many others, suspicion of business motives and practices are high. If a consumer sounds credible, and is already starting with a higher default C-Factor, the business has to do a lot of work to balance perception. If the consumer sounds like he or she is ranting, they lower their own C-Factor. If the consumer hires a reputable law firm, his/her C-Factor goes up. If a law firm known to take "just about anything" on a contingency basis takes the case, the consumer's C-Factor may go down.
C-Factors can combine or be enhanced through association.. If an organization or individual with a high C-Factor endorses a business' honesty or products, the business' C-Factor is raised. On the other hand, if those opposed to the organization or individual have their complaint supported by a high C-Factor organization (e.g., Sierra Club, ACLU), then the opponents' C-Factor gets a bump up.
C-Factors are not necessarily based in reality. Some individuals, because of their personal charisma, have a high C-Factor, sometimes even after they have committed publicly known "sins." Witness Bill Clinton or Marion Barry. Ditto for some organizations, such as the Better Business Bureau, whose fact-checking is, in my extensive experience, woeful, and whose record-keeping is often inaccurate and dated. Yet if there are "BBB complaints" against your business, consumer reporters automatically think that you're in the wrong.
We, as crisis managers, must consider C-Factors when deciding "who should talk to whom" and whether certain strategies should be employed. Real or not, they play an important role.]]>
Egg Recall -- Don't Roll That Waytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.6878742010-08-20T13:47:04-04:002011-05-25T17:25:21-04:00Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-bernstein/
If you manufacture and/or sell any product that could be subject to recall:
Remember that rapid response to a known product problem minimizes damage. The time to examine the systems you have in place for recall is now, not when you already have a product needing recall.
Have a product recall plan ready to use anytime, one that covers the operational, legal and public relations (internal and external) components of making a recall. Hint: "We'll wing it" is not a product recall plan.
Have the core members of a product recall team identified and trained in advance. It may be necessary to have one team at a corporate level to direct recall activities overall, and individual teams more focused on the operational aspects of product recall at the sales/marketing and/or manufacturing levels. And you'd be amazed at how some people you think will be cool in a crisis actually aren't, and vice versa - behavior that often is identified through training that includes simulating a recall.
Have back-ups for critical people and recall systems. Assume that some recall-related lead personnel will not be available when you need them. Assume that the computer system where you maintain your stakeholder contact lists has crashed. Assume other similar worst-case scenarios and make your back-up plans accordingly.
Have contact lists for all stakeholders set up on automated notification systems. This is particularly important for end-users and distributors of your products. You can't rely on the media alone to reach them.
Consider the use of virtual incident management. There are a number of Internet-centered systems that allow recall team members to exchange real-time information, access current communications documents, and keep team leaders updated even if the team is geographically scattered.
Make recall-related decisions that are based on protecting your brand/reputation and not just on your legal risks. The infamous Bridgestone-Firestone recall started far too late because the company's leadership was considering risks other than the most important one -- the risk of aggravating the court of public opinion.
Communicate internally and externally. Remember that every employee and, often, dedicated contractors are public relations representatives and crisis managers for your organization, whether you want them to be or not. You must empower them with reassuring messages about the recall suitable for use at their respective levels of the company, and you don't want them to learn of the recall from external sources before they hear about it from you.
Don't wait for the CPSC, FDA, USDA or other regulatory agencies to protect your reputation. While each regulatory agency that can get involved in product recalls has its own process to follow, that process can often delay how much time passes before product consumers and distributors are notified -- a delay which, in worst-case scenarios, can cause injuries or deaths. In that event, the court of public opinion may react very negatively to both your organization and the regulator -- but you're the one whose revenue and reputation will be most impacted.
Focus special communications on highly disgruntled customers and distributors. In this Age of the Internet, and in a litigious society, a few angry people can make waves completely disproportionate to their numbers or even to the injury suffered (if any). The recall process should include an "Escalated Cases" team to focus on such complaints when they're received.
CEOs need to remember that the public expects them to do what's right, not just what's required.]]>Song Sung JetBluetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.6788102010-08-11T17:41:30-04:002011-05-25T17:20:22-04:00Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-bernstein/
I seriously doubt that JetBlue's crisis communications planning included a scenario entitled:
"Stressed-out flight attendant snaps, curses out a passenger, and exits airplane on emergency slide."
Nope, not on the "Top Crises Faced by Airlines" list at all.
Now a really GOOD crisis communications plan exists primarily to create a system for appropriate response to any crisis. I'm going to grade JetBlue's reaction based on the Five Tenets of Effective Crisis Communications*, JetBlue's response should have been:
PROMPT -- Grade: D. As far as I can tell, they had almost nothing to say for two days.
COMPASSIONATE -- Grade: F. No compassion for their abused employee or the affected passengers.
HONEST -- Grade: F. Dishonesty can be achieved by acts of commission, omission, exaggeration or understatement. Lots of omission and understatement here.
INFORMATIVE -- Grade: D. Clearly, lawyers are gagging the JetBlue PR people, who are probably -- judging by their one belated but humorous blog post, urging some humility and humor to make this thing go away.
INTERACTIVE -- Grade: F. They should have been encouraging and having a good affect about feedback via Twitter and other social media, versus getting snippy like they did in response to a Tweet by comedian Andy Borowitz.
So, the good news is that JetBlue didn't have to activate its "plane crash" crisis response. The bad news is that they still a PR crash.
*(Trick question: why are there five tenets? Answer: Because I made up the list.),
]]>Journalistic Ethics Code: How to Use it to Defend Yourselftag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.6762622010-08-09T17:50:53-04:002011-05-25T17:20:22-04:00Jonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-bernstein/
Globalization of news demand via the Internet, driving the need to compete for news audiences 24/7.
Fewer reporters (largely as a result of falling ad revenue), so they are spread thin in terms of copy length and ability to carefully research stories.
The growing popularity of sensationalism in the United States in particular, to the point where even the most staid media outlets look to entertain as much as they do to inform.
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.
Can you imagine any mainstream journalist daring to say that he or she does not support those principles, even if not a member of the SPJ? Other than Jon Stewart of The Daily Show, of course, who's been quoted as saying that he and his team "travel in fake ethics." Ironically, Stewart has pulled the covers on innumerable journalistic faux pas and is perceived as one of the most credible on-air figures in America.
But, if you understand the Code, you can go back to a reporter, an editor, a news director or an editorial board, and say, "Hey, this practice of yours is a violation of the SPJ's Code of Ethics. We sure you don't mean to do that -- do you?" All non-journalists involved with news development must become assertive endorsers and users of the Code to which journalists allegedly subscribe. If we don't do that, we're saying, "Go ahead, do me harm, I'll just whine about it." Or as Stewart might put it, "How far do you want me to bend over?"
Here, are some examples of how to use the code and, if you'd like a much longer, more detailed analysis, you can download the PDF.
The code says that journalists should:
➢ Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
Commentary: the guidance I was given by my first mentor in journalism, columnist Jack Anderson, was to use "multiple independent sources in a position to know" to test accuracy. That latter phrase can mean, literally, a source was a witness. But it can also mean the source is an expert (whose credentials have been verified, an easy thing for a reporter to mess up when in a hurry) or a document that in and of itself needs to be established as authentic (it's way too easy to forge documents with a computer!). Challenge journalists on this, ask them how they tested the accuracy of their information.
➢ Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
Commentary: The following are just a few examples of how this often isn't done:
Calling the main switchboard of an organization after hours and making no further attempt (e.g., going to the organization's website) to identify a media contact (if you don't put your media contact on your website, then it's your problem.
Contacting a source 30 minutes or less before deadline.
Intentionally avoiding an organization's or individual's known PR contact and then claiming that the desired spokesperson was unavailable for comment.
➢ Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
Commentary: You can really hoist a news organization on this petard. Headlines and news teases, in particular, are seldom written by the people who reported the story and are designed to draw your attention to the story, often at the damaging expense of one or more subjects of the article. I have seen articles that, when read in depth, seemed fairly innocuous, yet to read the headline you would believe that horrendous crimes have been committed - by you or your organization. Guess what the public remembers?
➢ Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
Commentary: To truly correct a mistake, the correction must have the same prominence as the mistake. If someone is damaged by mistaken information in a page 1 newspaper story, but the mistake is published on page 34, that is clearly not a true correction. It is merely technical compliance with this tenet and I'm sure is not what the SPJ had in mind.
If you perceive what you believe to be an ethical violation by a journalist reporting on you:
Write it down, noting what sections of the code were violated.
Appeal to the media outlet. To the reporter, his editor and or editorial board (use a PR pro for this).
Evaluate feedback. After your media appeal, do you still think there were violations? Did the media agree to make things right in a satisfactory manner? If so, congratulations, that's a "win." If not, see step 4.
Fight back in the court of public opinion. The traditional media no longer have the monopoly on communication with broad audiences. The Internet provides each of us with many ways to become our own publisher. Press releases are inexpensive or even free to distribute, depending on the service used. How many media outlets would like to see a news headline, prominent blog headline or Tweet with the message "The (name of city) Times refuses to comply with journalistic ethics code"? I'm sure your own PR consultants, working closely with legal counsel to keep them on the safe side of defamation laws, can come up with many effective tactics. Hint: One such tactic is to put all allegations into a civil lawsuit, if there's any basis for filing one. Then you (and other media outlets) can quote directly from the complaint and face little risk of defaming anyone.