Early on Memorial Day, a fire broke out on Royal Caribbean’s Grandeur of the Seas as it sailed near the Bahamas. Although the fire did not cause extensive damage or disable the ship, the incident could have been another in a growing list of bad press events for the cruise industry. Instead, a passenger email to the AP shortly after the fire had nothing but praise for the ship’s crew.

Mark Ormesher, on what was his first cruise, described the Grandeur of the Seas crew as keeping passengers calm and well-informed, distributing water bottles and even holding infants so their parents could use the restroom. But the company’s response went beyond managing the initial emergency situation competently. Royal Caribbean CEO Adam Goldstein flew to Freeport in the Bahamas, where the ship was diverted, and personally apologized to passengers. The company also arranged charter flights for passengers back to Baltimore, where the voyage originated, and arranged alternate transportation for those who did not wish to fly.  Updates were constant on the cruise line’s Twitter feed and Facebook page.

Closer to home, Papa John’s was also recently the subject of a potential PR scandal, for a racially-charged voicemail one of its delivery drivers inadvertently left for an African American customer to whom he had just delivered a pizza. Speaking to a coworker, the driver ridiculed the size of the tip the customer gave him (although it was more than 20 percent) while using the n-word several times.

Papa John’s response was swift and decisive: the driver and his coworker were both fired, and the company acknowledged and apologized for the incident on its Facebook page and Twitter. Papa John’s CEO John Schnatter also called the customer personally to apologize.

There are perhaps two lessons to be learned from these incidents and how they were handled. The first is that a swift and confident response goes a long way toward mitigating any potential fallout from a bad situation. It’s equally important to note that in both cases the company CEO was personally involved in the response – demonstrating that each company’s commitment to customer service extends all the way to the top.

Second, and perhaps more important, these incidents illustrate what we – and every competent PR practitioner – tell our clients all the time: it is not a matter of if you’ll be faced with a crisis, but when.

Both of these cases show that a crisis can occur any time, without warning, during the course of normal every day operations. Both could have turned into PR nightmares, doing lasting damage to the respective brands. Certainly, Royal Caribbean and Papa John’s may both take a black eye, but a black eye heals. Their swift response also helps ensure that competitors – who are always looking for an opening – will have a harder time exploiting these crises to gain a competitive advantage.

Now the question for you is, will you be ready when your company is faced with a crisis? And will your response help minimize the damage – or will it result in something much worse than a black eye?

And there was plenty of symbolism to be found in the pomp and circumstance that accompanied the public ceremony. Obama swore his oath on two Bibles, one that had belonged to Martin Luther King, Jr., himself, and the other was the famed Lincoln Bible - the latter upon which he took his first presidential oath in 2009. The invocation, another largely symbolic gesture in a country with no Constitutionally-endorsed religion, was given by Myrlie Evers-Williams, widow of slain civil rights activist Medgar Evers. In all, the symbols of freedom and equality – certainly two of our nation’s most cherished values – were hard to miss, and that was the point.

Philosopher and rhetorician Kenneth Burke keenly observed that humans are “the symbol-using animal.” Certainly we are aware of some of the more common symbols that surround us – such as those at the inauguration, the American flag, the cross at the local church, and the pink and yellow ribbons we stick to our cars to show support, respectively, for breast cancer research and our troops. As public relations practitioners, we work daily with symbols as well: every brand is a symbol of a promise, a product and an experience. We strive to ensure that the ideas behind brands are both positive and consistent.

But we humans also use symbols that are much less glamorous, and use them much less glamorously. After all, language is nothing more than a set of symbols that likewise represent ideas. Of course, some of the word symbols we use refer to concrete and discreet objects, such as chairs, dogs, cars, water and so forth. But others refer to abstract thoughts: imagination, friendship, civility, etc. Democracy is another of these abstract thoughts. We all know what it means, at least we think so, but it’s not an object, hence, the use of symbols – an oath, a public ceremony, the Color Guard – to remind and reinforce.

The fact is: symbols are important to us as humans, which is why we use them. The ability to use symbols easily in language has allowed us to advance as a species, while our ability to define symbols to represent our principles has allowed us to advance as a nation. The peaceful transition of power, even when it’s not a transition per se, is perhaps one of the most important symbols of America.

Look around and you’ll see symbols everywhere. It’s an interesting exercise that is sure to open your eyes and inspire some compelling observations.

Although a website has for some time been considered a necessity for any business – regardless of what it might sell and to whom – Facebook and Twitter are now considered almost as important venues for brand exposure. And so, increasingly, are LinkedIn, Google+ and Pinterest. But as many businesses have learned, while putting content on all these sites may be free, maintaining a comprehensive social media program is anything but (and this is before we even consider paid content and online advertising).

In the old days – that is, before the web became a ubiquitous place for branding – businesses devised advertising strategies built around those channels most likely to reach their customers. Depending on the type of business, this may have meant advertising in the local newspaper or TV station, but it also may have meant only advertising in a few key trade journals. Businesses assessed the cost-benefit of different advertising venues and selected those that were most effective. It was, and still is, impossible to reach every potential customer.

Similar tactics apply to new media, but the fact that social is available to almost anyone sometimes leads businesses and brands to believe they need to be everywhere. For large consumer brands that sell products around the world, that may be true, but there are also several businesses that are unlikely to reach their most important customers on Facebook. If your company sells highly-specialized data tracking software, a Twitter feed and company blog may be important ways to show thought leadership in your industry; Pinterest may not. However, a neighborhood organic bakery may find Pinterest the perfect venue for interacting with its customer community, but have little need for LinkedIn.

While many businesses worry that they aren’t doing enough social media, if you find yourself overwhelmed, it may be you’re trying to do too much. The fact is: a good social media strategy doesn’t mean that your business and brand are on every social networking site. Rather – like advertising – it means targeting those channels most likely to reach your potential customers, and with information that is relevant to them.

Does your business have a social media strategy? Have you refined your strategy to eliminate channels that were not effective for your business?

(Photo credit: kexino.com)

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, blogs and several other social media channels are a great way to reach customers and create buzz about your products and services. But when your credit card processor has been hacked and customers’ supposedly secure information is at risk, they are apt to respond in a less-than-positive way if your Twitter feed contains information about what’s on sale this weekend – rather than what you are doing to protect their data.

At Cookerly, we advise all our clients to have a crisis communications plan, and are often asked to help clients develop one. While many clients have crisis response and business continuity plans, too often the communications components of those plans focus only on procedure and process. Knowing who is supposed to do what is important of course, especially in the midst of a crisis. But having some idea of what is most likely to cause a crisis at your business, and what messages might be most appropriate in response to different circumstances, is critical.

Today, knowing how you will incorporate social media into your crisis communications is also critical. Will your Twitter feed provide information – or will you use Twitter to direct customers to your website to get information? Who will monitor your Facebook page, and how will you use Facebook to engage customers in the crisis response? Do have draft scripts prepared for your CEO so videos explaining the situation and what you are doing can be quickly uploaded to YouTube?

The bottom line is, to the extent that new media channels have allowed you to market your business in new ways, those channels also must be part of your crisis communications.

_______

I came across this story this morning and found it interesting, especially the tweets at the end. When the storms that swept across the mid-Atlantic this weekend knocked out one of Amazon’s cloud servers, many of the companies affected used Twitter to keep customers in the loop.

Notice that Netflix apologized for the outage and thanked customers for their patience. Heroku provided a link to its website when customers could get status updates. Pinterest provided a very specific time that it hoped its service would be back online, but – importantly – did not promise customers it would (a good strategy since the actual time the problem would be fixed was likely beyond its control). Good communications such as these tweets are just good PR – they acknowledge customer frustration, tell them where to get more information, and thank them for their patience. It’s how savvy businesses keep a bad situation from becoming a public relations crisis.

An editorial, of course, expresses a point of view, an opinion, an argument. A well-written editorial can not only inform, but make complete sense to someone who knows nothing about the topic about which the editorial is written. And the best editorials can do that in about 600 words. (In fact, when I write an editorial, I always shoot for no more than 600 words – if I can’t make a coherent and sensible argument in that number of words, then I know I am not focused enough. If I have the luxury of using more words, I can always go back and add points that support my argument but are not essential.)

An effective editorial always starts at what Aristotle termed the point of consubstantiality – a point about which both sides agree (spoken arguments in public debate, the true meaning of ‘rhetoric,’ were the editorials of Aristotle’s day). For example, any two people would likely agree that there is too much congestion on the roads in Atlanta. But one person thinks public transportation should be the solution, while the other believes added road capacity makes more sense. A good editorial writer should be able to make either argument, and in a way that makes complete sense – so much sense that you may even change your mind. Changing opinions, after all, is the purpose of an editorial.

I find that a good editorial writer has the ability – if not always to change my mind – to at least help me become educated about a different point of view and the facts that support it. Writers that I find particularly good at doing that include George Will and E.J. Dionne at the Washington Post, Kimberly Strassel at the Wall Street Journal, and Joe Klein at Time. I also like Charles Krauthammer and Kathleen Parker.

You may notice that this list includes an equal number of writers on both the left and right of the political spectrum and ask if I have no political inclinations at all? Well, of course I do (and they are outside the scope of this post) – but that’s my point. These writers consistently craft well-written, coherent arguments that are as enlightening as they are convincing. They make me think and consider different points of view, to be better informed, regardless of whether I ultimately agree with them. That’s the art of the editorial.

Of course, as much as I like writing editorials, not every client needs one, and none that I write are published under my own name. Such is the nature of public relations writing. But when a client needs to make its case in a manner that is high-profile, thoughtful, and attracts an educated audience (and is more than 140 characters), the editorial page is often the place we seek to make it. And if I’ve done my job, 600 words later you’ll be a believer too.

Photo Credit: Garry Knight

Although I’ve had numerous dogs during my life, I’ll admit to still being a bit unclear about the real purpose they serve. Of course I know some breeds are used for hunting and others for herding. I also understand that dogs can provide protection and companionship. But most of those uses for a dog, save perhaps the last, don’t really apply to the typical American dog, or to its utility in a typical American household.

The fact is, dogs chew things up (especially when they are young), go to the bathroom wherever they want (until you teach them otherwise) and cost money throughout their lifespan. So why do people have them? After giving it a lot of thought, I’ve come to the conclusion that the main reason people have dogs is because puppies are cute.

I’ll admit even I am not immune from the inherent cuteness of puppies. Plus they’re playful and happy and cuddly – who wouldn’t want to take one home? And if you’ve ever had a child who fell in love with a puppy, you probably found you had no choice but to take them both home.

Eventually of course, the puppy gets house trained, stops chewing things, learns your routines and grows up. It’s not quite as cute, but you’ve grown attached (or used to having it around in any case) – and there you are, you have a dog.

But while a dog is easier, less stressful and yes, less fun, than a puppy, a dog still requires you to take care of it. It kind of reminds me of social media.

Let’s face it, Twitter, Facebook, blogs, and countless other means of online interaction have become the puppies of the corporate communication world. They’re cute – if you will – fun, playful and people like them. Sitting around the company conference table as you plan to embark on a social media program likely (or hopefully) engenders as much enthusiasm among employees as sitting around the kitchen table planning to get a puppy sparks among children.

But those same children who promised, promised, to take care of a puppy are quick to find out just how much work a puppy really is, just as those charged with maintaining a social media program quickly find it requires a good deal of care and feeding as well – something that can be quite a burden if it’s in addition to an employee’s regular job responsibilities.

Like training a dog, a successful social media program requires commitment, consistency and routine. And a good social media program can even do some of the same things as a dog: hunting (for clients and employees), protection (your brand and reputation), and companionship (helping your customers interact with your company).

Still, if you’re not sure, perhaps its best to turn to a professional: a blog or Twitter feed that hasn’t been updated in months looks as bad as an underfed, untrained dog – and can come back to bite its owner where it hurts – right in the bottom line.

Because of his success in that pursuit, Jobs’ death also highlights a complex intersection of the man and the brand, Apple, and has led some to wonder if the latter can survive without the former.

I first used an Apple product in 1988, in graduate school, when my roommate bought a MacPlus computer. It was a small computer, with a black and white monitor and a 20 MB hard drive (yes, you read that right, the hard drive was 20 megabytes – and at the time, it seemed huge). But the Mac was easy to use, especially for a computer novice like I was at the time. And the Mac was much easier to understand than another friend’s PC (with a 286 processor – remember those?) which could only show you words on its screen, but not how those words would look on the printed page, like the Mac could.

I decided then that when I got a computer, it would be a Mac. And since then I have had several Macs – as well as an iPod, an iPhone, and most recently, an iPad. Call me an Apple nerd (I’ve been called worse), but the fact is, all of the Apple products I’ve owned share those common characteristics that define the Apple brand – they are easy to use, they look good, and they do what they are supposed to do.

For all the adulation that Apple products (rightly) receive for their good looks, I have always thought that it was the ability to “customize” their use to my specific purposes that was most important. Apple marketed its products to highlight that aspect as well – not so much telling you what the device could do as what you could do with it. Even Apple’s TV commercials, as my son once observed, are in the “first person;” they show the device and a pair of hands from the perspective you would see when using it.

A big part of the reason Apple has flourished, especially over the past decade, was that Steve Jobs made a unique brand promise and his company never failed to keep it. As a result, Apple garnered legions of fans and billions of dollars in revenue and profit.

Will Apple be able to keep Jobs’ brand promise now that he is gone? I know the company will try, and I along with millions of others hope it will succeed. The coming years will indeed show to what extent the man and the brand were one, and to what extent they weren’t. Apple’s legacy will be built on the former, but its future success will depend on the latter.

Last month, on Father’s Day, my wife and sons presented me with a new iPad 2. Being the non-gadget guy that I am, this was not something I necessarily wanted – or thought I would get. Of course, I thought the iPad was a cool thing, something I wanted to get maybe someday, but was never sure what I would do with one if I had one (and, indeed, the iPad may be the first device brought to market with no specific purpose in mind). All that went out the window as soon as I turned it on.

Like many people, I had already gotten used to reading the news and sending email on my phone. But the iPad makes doing both so much nicer because the screen is so much larger. It also takes awesome pictures.

But the biggest change I have made in the few weeks I’ve had my iPad is in reading books. The thought of e-books had never appealed to me. I liked physical books, holding one, turning the pages and how paper books often retained that book store smell. Still, I bought an e-book through Apple’s iBooks app – a Christopher Hitchens title I had been wanting to read but never made it to the book store to buy – and downloaded it to my iPad (a process that was so easy I thought I heard my iPad whisper, “Resistance is futile”).

I can now say that reading an e-book is indeed different that reading a physical book. The iPad bookmarks where I stop reading so when I go back the app automatically opens to that page. I can tap a word on the screen to highlight it and then look it up on a pop-up dictionary menu. I can also adjust the brightness. Last night I downloaded three more books. I’m hooked.

But in addition to being a really cool gadget, if you will, the iPad and similar tablet devices are an example of the changing way that people consume, share and interact with information. And while we can argue about whether resisting these trends really is futile, the fact is that technology will continue to make information sharing easier, more efficient and more immediate.

As someone who works in a profession the purpose and goal of which is to share information efficiently and effectively, these technological shifts have also meant shifts in the way our agency works for our clients. Of course we still produce top-notch news releases, but now distribute them via email, Facebook, Twitter and also research key words to enhance their listing placement on social bookmarking websites. In short, we provide information through the channels that people now use to consume it.

As a PR agency, we have a new and exciting arsenal of tools to tell our clients’ stories, and companies that embrace those tools will likewise reap their benefits – increased awareness, a more positive reputation and ultimately, more business and profit.

I’ll admit I am still not much of a gadget guy – though I will also admit to being totally enamored with my newest gadget. But I am open-minded enough to see that technology can improve the way we do things and am willing to embrace those benefits. Are you?

I am not alone. CD sales in the US dropped to 114 million in 2010 from 147 million the year before according to Billboard (and reported by CNN), part of a decade-long trend. iTunes and similar services are certainly a large part of the reason for that decline, but they also serve to highlight an essential weakness in the record industry business model: record companies sell records, but people buy music. Once music was freed from the strictures of physical media (be it a record, tape or CD), people stopped buying them – but they didn’t stop buying music.

The same is true for print media, and especially newspapers. News organizations sell newspapers, but people buy information. When that information was made available on a medium – the internet – that is not only always available, but updated constantly and free to boot, people saw little reason to continue reading – or buying – the paper.

In fact, last fall the Audit Bureau of Circulations reported that the average daily circulation of US newspapers fell five percent in the six months ended September 30, 2010 – and that on top of a decline of 8.7 percent in the six months prior. And unlike the music industry, where people are willing to pay for an individual song, consumers have shown little willingness to pay for individual news stories.

However, as the news industry struggles to reinvent itself and its business model, people have in no way stopped consuming news and information. News websites and online media channels are proliferating, while the blogosphere, Twitter and social media websites provide an additional and immediate dimension to reporting (whether all of this qualifies as ‘news’ is a matter of debate).

Nonetheless, as the news media evolves and moves online, so too must those who wish to make, influence or respond to the news. While in the past, professional communicators and public relations agencies such as ours would send news releases only to newspapers, TV and radio stations (all of which also now have websites), today we also build relationships with bloggers, create Facebook pages for clients, and often create websites for them as well. We Tweet, create YouTube videos and add our (and our clients’) voice to the comments section of online news articles. The model may have changed, but the need, and desire, for information remains constant.

While the music industry has found a model that will sustain it for now – perhaps much to the chagrin of companies whose business it is to sell records – the print news media’s struggle to do the same represents a great opportunity. Are you taking full advantage of the multiple news and information channels that are now available to communicate your message? Or are you still listening to the same old song on a record you bought years ago?

NPR fired Williams for remarks he made on the Fox News show The O’Reilly Factor in which he said he sometimes felt uncomfortable flying on airplanes with individuals who, because of their appearance, were identifiably Muslim. While this was clearly Williams’ personal opinion, in dismissing him NPR cited an editorial policy that prohibits its commentators from expressing opinions on other news programs that they would not be allowed to express on an NPR broadcast.

Pundits on the right have called Williams’ firing a clear case of censorship, if not hypocrisy, by NPR, noting that his comments are protected by the First Amendment (a protection which means the government cannot sanction Williams for his comments; his employer certainly can). Williams, in a subsequent appearance on The O’Reilly Factor, contends that the higher-ups at NPR had been looking for an excuse to fire him ever since he also had become a paid commentator on Fox News. NPR’s unease with Williams working for both networks was well known; it had reportedly asked that he not be identified as an NPR analyst when appearing on Fox.

I don’t believe Williams is a bigot. A respected African American journalist, he also has authored notable books about civil rights and black culture in America, as well as a biography of Thurgood Marshall. Given his background, it may be safe to assume that Williams understands the inherent injustice of judging someone by appearance alone – which is perhaps why his comments about Muslims surprised many.

I’m in no position to judge Williams’ remarks, and frankly, believe the arguments made by NPR and Fox and others are correct in some but not all aspects. What I fear is that these arguments will quickly be reduced to sound bytes and served up with great helpings of opinion and angst, on both the right and left; the debate will become the story and the line will continue to blur.