Tag Archives: Social Media Monitoring

Crisis Management Essentials for Social Media (Part 1)

If you ask marketing executives what keeps them up at night in the age of social media, one of the most common responses is fear of a PR debacle lighting a brush fire on the web. Every marketer knows there are a hundred things that could go wrong on any given day–from product failures to employee indiscretions–and the fear of being caught flat-footed while the news lights up the social universe is a very real fear. In fact, one of the biggest market drivers for my company SocialRep is the need for businesses to have an ear to the ground and a way to effectively manage engagement.

Surprisingly few companies, however, have protocols in place to manage social media disasters as they unfold–even those that have sophisticated crisis management protocols in place for non-social media issues.The good news is, it’s not that hard to create a plan. In fact, the most important things you need to know were modeled for you in kindergarten. Remember those fire drills? The simple but critical idea was that everyone should know exactly what to do and where to go when a crisis happens, and to practice it even when the possibility of an actual crisis seems remote. Same idea applies to social media.

Why is this important? Think of social media as a massive global amplifier. Events that you used to be able to ignore until they went away can now become an overblown incident with a permanent record on Google. A trivial customer complaint magnified through social media can become an international embarrassment overnight. If you need graphic examples of disaster, Jeremiah Owyang offers a chronicle on his blog.

So here’s a primer on how to build your own crisis plan for social media, whether the crisis is an overblown customer complaint, or a true business disaster affecting many customers.

These recommendations should dovetail with an established crisis management program. If you don’t have established crisis protocols, there’s a section at the end of Part 2 that will lay out the basics.

Be Prepared

We put a lot of resources into maintaining resources like flood control systems and fire roads. Why? Because the cost of eventual disaster vastly outweighs the cost of being ready to respond. Social media is the same way. Facing down a crisis is not the time to wish you’d developed the resources to respond.

Start getting engaged now. If you don’t already have people in your company building social relationships with your business communities, you won’t have the channels to deal with a crisis when it hits. When a crisis happens, you need to be able to communicate directly with your business communities through channels you’ve already established; you can’t borrow or buy them from your PR firm.
Build your team. If you don’t already have a social media A-Team, you should. Social media should not be relegated to the PR team or the young people in your organization. It should be a distributed practice that helps your company develop relationships on every operational front. Your engineers should be engaged with the engineering community. Your customer service reps should be engaged with customers. Your legal team should be engaged and up to speed with the legal community. You get the idea. Fortunately, building an A-team isn’t hard, and I’ve written a primer for that too.
Get your ears on. One of the big advantages of being socially connected is real-time intelligence. If you’re tracking social media–even using basic tools like Google alerts–you’re likely to get wind of a problem before it becomes a brush fire. The more sophisticated your tracking experience, the more you’ll be able to discern real threats from fire drills. This is something that should be distributed across your team, as explained in the A-team primer.
If you don’t already have a news section for your website with a feed for the latest news on your homepage, you should think about establishing one. When a crisis hits, traffic to your site will spike with people looking for information. Provide updates people can find quickly. If the crisis is a fast-moving or emerging problem, use your CMS system or a blog to give updates with an RSS feed your market can subscribe to.
If the crisis is substantial, create a dedicated response page, and do so quickly. This goes beyond providing information, and impacts search engine results. In time of a crisis, search engine requests for information about the crisis will grow, and you want to have a point of presence in the top organic results. If you have a blog, write posts that point to your news item and your dedicated page. If you have a Facebook group, and Twitter handles, do the same.
Some SEO experts recommend buying search terms, and even domains, with generic crisis terms to ensure search engine positioning when something goes down. Like [your company] and “failure”. Or “breach”. Choose words that relate to the kinds of crises you would plan for in your line of business. Create landing pages with neutral and generic language to optimize search traffic. When a crisis hits and someone Googles it, you’ll already be ready with a page in the top results.

Know the Tools

While standard crisis communication tools like press releases, press conferences, and video press releases are still important, social media has its own resources that can help you get the word out in a crisis. In most cases, you’ll use social media channels to point people back to your response page on your own web site or blog, where information about the crisis is provided.

Tracking. Staying on top of the daily stream of dialog is the best way to identify a crisis before it blows up. For basic tracking, set up Google alerts to track your corporate and product brands. You can use Twitter search to find discussions about your brand, and set up an RSS feed for monitoring. If you have more complex tracking needs, this is precisely what SocialRep does, but I don’t recommend jumping into technology adoption before you start with the basics laid out in the A-team primer. Your proven business processes should drive technology, not the other way around.
Twitter has emerged as probably the fastest conduit of news in the world today. It’s ubiquitous and immediate. People were tweeting news of the Mumbai attacks in real time, and even news networks were following the threads. If you have a crisis, getting the word out with a link to your own response page is critical, and Twitter is one of the best ways to do it. Having an active Twitter presence is a good idea aside from crisis management, but having an existing network in the event of a crisis will ensure you’re able to get the word out far more quickly.
FriendFeed is rapidly emerging as a channel for real-time threaded dialog, kind of like Twitter, but with more emphasis on dialog, as opposed to broadcast micro-posts. Like Twitter, there’s good reason to be engaged on FriendFeed aside from crisis preparedness, but having an active network will be invaluable when a crisis happens. In a crisis, post a one-sentence announcement with a link to your response page.
Facebook is a great tool for managing the ongoing dialog with your community after the crisis initially unfolds. An existing corporate Facebook group may be fine for managing minor crises, but if there’s a major crisis that gains substantial attention, you’ll want to establish a dedicated group, with a reference to the crisis in the title. Others will create groups to talk about it, so you want a presence in Facebook’s Group search results, not buried in your corporate group among discussions about your Christmas party. You can post links to your response page, video, and discussions group threads. Ideally, you’ll want to point any traffic for dealing directly with the crisis back to your own Web site rather than have crisis response distributed over the Web. But you can use discussion threads on Facebook to talk about the broader issues that impact your brand, such as how you’ve dealt with the crisis and the aftermath.
LinkedIn has far less utility for crisis management than the tools previously mentioned, but if you maintain links to professional or corporate groups relevant to your business, this could be a good channel of communication in a crisis. Especially to the extent that communications in this channel are managed primarily by email, so you may reach professionals who are not yet wired in to the other social networks.
YouTube and Seesmic are potentially good channels for posting a video message from your CEO in response to a social media crisis. In most cases, this will be most effective for wrap-up information and framing of the whole event, rather than real-time management of the crisis. Though I’m sure someone will do a YouTube press conference one of these days.

In Part 2, we’ll look at crisis management techniques for social media, basic crisis management planning, and do’s and don’t’s of dealing with a social media crisis.

If you have your own ideas, tips or criticisms, feel free to comment.

Go on to Part 2

Photo credit: kryst£n

The Bursting Media Bubble: Is this the death of Public Relations?

7 Replies

I wrote in my last post about an emerging trend we’re seeing at SocialRep: prospects are telling us they’re adjusting their marketing budgets by shifting money from Public Relations to Social Media Marketing. This is a touchy subject to discuss in public; the tension between PR and Social Media professionals has been percolating for a long time. Many of the same PR pros who dismissed the significance of social media now claim to be the natural heirs to corporate social media communications, while many social media pundits see PR as entirely antithetical to authentic market dialog. Unfortunately, client-side marketers are now getting caught in the cross-fire, not sure who to trust or what programs to explore.

Having been a PR executive before leaving the industry in 2005 to launch a social media venture, I see both sides of the argument. The PR industry bears enormous responsibility for the kind of mercenary marketing and message manipulation that consumers have embraced social media to defeat. Those PR practitioners who see social media as just another new vehicle to cynically drive market influence—even while embracing a veneer of authenticity—should be continually and publicly exposed. But PR practitioners who built their agencies on the belief that effective communications and advocacy are built on a foundation of meaningful relationships and market knowledge have a lot of expertise and value to offer. The trouble is, even for good PR agencies, their DNA is fundamentally mismatched to the reality of Social Media, and even the purest intentions can’t overcome that fact if the challenge isn’t understood.

The argument about why PR is so mismatched for social media is not a discussion about the ethics of PR or its practices, which I touched on in my last post, but a discussion about the nature of media and how it’s changed. To tell that story, I’ll poach a few slides from one of my SocialRep presentations.

The most important thing to understand about social media is that it isn’t new. The technology that enables it in our wired world is certainly new, but the dynamics of social media are as old as trade itself. If you look at the history of business over thousands of years, word-of-mouth has always been the dominant form of commercial influence. It’s Darwinian. If you’re about to spend your hard-earned money on a product and you don’t want to get cheated, who will you trust to tell you the true value of the product you want to buy: the person selling it, or someone else who’s already bought one? You gain a huge survival advantage as a consumer any time you can find a third party without a vested interest to validate the value of things you want to buy.

But as populations grew, as manufacturing and transportation capabilities exploded, businesses began to reach far beyond the host communities where they were known by their neighbors, and reputations were abstracted into brands. New technologies for communicating to ever larger audiences enabled businesses to tell their brand stories in print, in packaging, on radio and eventually television. But the mode of communication was overwhelmingly asymmetrical. Since the technology for communication was enormously expensive, control was highly centralized in the hands of a few power brokers—the owners of printing presses, publishing houses, radio stations and television networks. These technologies had the power to flood a market with highly choreographed messages, while word-of-mouth only traveled point-to-point within localized community networks of families and friends. This gave rise to what I call the Media Bubble—a temporary imbalance in the flow of communication arising from the early expense of emerging technology, placing control in the hands of those who could afford it.

The Media Bubble arose because the expense of early mass communications technology ensured it was controlled by the few that could afford it.

This media bubble has been our reality for generations. All of the institutions that govern our lives, particularly business institutions, have evolved to make optimal use of this bubble—to leverage the asymmetrical control of a message that can be directed to flood a market. Think about it. Advertising is not organized as a function for connecting with customers. Advertising is organized to maintain relationships with media owners to purchase space within the stream of media that has the subscribing audience we want to reach. Public relations is not organized as a function for connecting with customers either. Public relations is organized to maintain relationships with the reporters and analysts who develop the content that goes into the stream of media that has the subscribing audience we want to reach. In both cases, our business functions are not about connecting with customers directly, but about connecting with the power brokers that control the stream of media that reaches the customers. It’s efficient, as long as that paradigm holds.

But now the media bubble is bursting. And it’s not a mystery why.

Within the media bubble, the media message is a one-way broadcast of information that floods a market of media subscribers. Corporate functions like PR and Advertising evolved to insert their message into the stream of media, or to influence its content.

As we all know from experience, as technology evolves it tends to get cheaper. Companies find ways to innovate production in order to compete for customers on price. Companies also strive to grow markets for their products to expand volume and profits. In that way, industry has inevitably worked to make the expensive communications technologies available to a wider audience at ever decreasing prices—telephones in every home, then televisions, then computers, and internet access, and mobile phones. In what some may find a poetic irony, the very institutions that enjoyed the power of controlling media couldn’t help themselves but to follow the profit motive and sell the components of power to an ever larger market of consumers. The Internet was the tipping point, when consumers and a new wave of businesses that served them assembled the pieces of a massive platform that enabled the rebirth of word-of-mouth communications on a scale that could directly challenge the primacy of corporate-controlled media.

As mass communications technology has evolved, industry developed cheaper components that could be sold profitably to the masses, which eventually made possible the massive social communications platform that allows word-of-mouth media to challenge the primacy of corporate-controlled media.

This is the world we are seeing emerge. It’s not that social media is new, even though the technology that enables it is indeed new. It’s that a media bubble that arose from the expense of communications technology is finally being challenged by an equal and opposite force of democratized communication. Social media represents a return to a broader balance of media control, a world in which consumers challenge the neatly packaged messages of marketers by validating the professed value of products with other consumers before they buy. In this environment, consumers create content that challenges the supremacy of mainstream media—in the early stages by simply writing their own reviews of products on blogs or forums, but then organizing to create their own media properties to gain subscribers based on content more tightly tuned to special interests. As these new media properties emerge, they compete for audience and revenue, undermining the business models and revenue streams of established media companies, and the media market begins to fragment.

Of course, we’re already watching this play out. The effect is what I think of as a fundamental shift from what we used to think of as market segments, often defined by the media through which members of the segment self-reference, to networked customer communities, defined by their interests through which media emerges.

In a world of social media, corporate and media interests are no longer able to asymmetrically control the media and messages. Instead, media is more fragmented and specialized, forcing corporate interests to find a way to play a meaningful role within the customer communities they serve in order to be successful.

So what does this all have to do with PR? Remember how I said the problem for PR is that their DNA is fundamentally mismatched to social media? PR is organized for the old paradigm—to influence the power brokers that control media. Their fundamental DNA is about influencing the influencers, about cultivating relationships with power brokers, not about developing dialog with consumers. Even as many PR companies try to embrace social media, they still see it through the prism of influencing the influencers rather than connecting with consumers. The challenge is not that this is inherently wrong—if as a business you can influence the influencers, that’s an efficient way to advocate on your own behalf. The challenge is that consumers, even while socially wired to follow influencers, are drawn to social media precisely because of its power to defuse the influence of influencers—to continually look behind the veil of influence and expose any inconvenient truths. Influencers will still emerge, but counterveiling truths will also emerge, and rapidly, which means businesses that only focus on trying to develop and influence the influencers will miss the more sustainable advantage of connecting authentically with consumers and playing a valued role in customer communities.

What PR is missing in its DNA is a fundamental drive to connect with customers. To listen, to learn, to play a meaningful role within a customer community. And that’s the litmus test for client-side marketers looking for someone to help them understand social media. The question isn’t how is this partner going to help me drive my message into the market to attract customers, but how is this partner going to help me develop meaningful relationships, and a meaningful role, within the customer communities that define my market. That’s not impossible for a PR company to do, but for most that I see pushing themselves forward as social media experts today, it’s still a big stretch because they don’t see the fundamental shift in the media paradigm.

At this point, I’ll say quite clearly that I think there is tremendous value PR and corporate communications can offer to the emerging practice of social media marketing. But delivering that value will require a substantial shift in philosophy that defines most PR firms. I’ll save that for my next post.