Rome may or may not have been built in a day, but brands certainly can be built – or destroyed – that quickly, thanks to the Internet and social media. Rumors spread like wildfire and can ultimately make or break a brand as a result. That raises the question: how can companies wrangle and control their proverbial fires in today’s world of high-speed communication?
Let’s explore two case studies: TED and Beyonce.
TED
TED, a nonprofit that organizes highly respected global conferences about ideas, tackled a tremendous amount of negative backlash on one of its TEDx talks and as a result, temporarily lost control over its brand. As a recent Harvard Business Review article by author Nilofer Merchant explains, TED’s business model became more open, enabling people all over the world to create their own TEDx events without much content vetting by the folks at TED. On the positive side, this spawned an even larger, worldwide community of members, where there can be exponentially more “ideas worth spreading.” Conversely, it resulted in questionable content that angered its typically devoted community and ultimately put its brand in jeopardy.
Merchant underscores the importance of fostering an open dialog with a brand’s community in order to manage an unruly crowd. TED was able to do this and ultimately turned its descending brand image around by following some simple guidelines such as asking its community for feedback then “listening loudly,” which the author describes as “engaging in a dialog through a variety of public forums to understand what had gone wrong and to learn how to fix it,” and following through on people’s concerns. The article goes on to state:
By communicating publicly and person-to-person, TED achieved two things. One was to signal that it was paying attention to people’s concerns. But more strategically, TED learned about a systemic problem that demanded a broad solution.
I’ve always been a strong advocate for transparent PR practices as a foundation of a company’s crisis plan. The idea of transparency can seem scary at first, but this doesn’t mean relinquishing control and all of the company’s private matters to the media. As Merchant explains, companies can make parts of the company open while others remain closed.
During a crisis, constituents want to feel heard and to know the company has a solution (or is dedicated to finding a solution) to a problem. Think of consumer product recalls and software bugs. The companies that openly and swiftly communicate with their constituents regain the most control over the news and their brands. The companies that remain quiet, release impersonal statements, or those that are perceived as scrubbed or watered-down, become distrusted and brand value subsequently diminishes.
Beyoncé
These ideas – responding quickly, accurately and openly– are not new. However, they are the basic tenants of a good crisis plan and deserve repeated attention. In today’s world, where Twitter and other social media outlets abound, it might be hard to stay focused and true to your message when the critics are spreading negativity faster than you can respond. Just ask Beyoncé, who was bashed for lip-synching at the recent President Obama inauguration. An article in Inc. shares how she handled crisis communications and quashed her critics immediately by belting out a live rendition of the Star Spangled Banner in front of hundreds of reporters at a pre-Super Bowl press conference. The article goes on to describe how she basically took a page out of a standard crisis communications playbook:
- Respond quickly.
- Be authentic and genuine in your response.
- If you’ve done wrong, admit fault.
- If your credibility has been called into question, find ways to quickly re-establish it.
The thread that weaves through both of these case studies is both TED and Beyoncé capitalized on their unique voice (no pun intended, Beyoncé), or in other words, their authentic perspective, to help engage their communities and turn negative publicity into positive brand reinforcement.
How have you used authenticity and transparency in a PR crisis?