Blog sobre gestión de crisis

Aquí os dejo el link del interesante Blog de Óscar Rossignoli que trata sobre la gestión y la comunicación de crisis.

http://rossignoli-wwwimagen-empresarial.blogspot.com/

Artículo de Oscar Rossignoli: Una empresa que no comunica no existe

Una institución que no comunica lo que hace, por muy bueno que esto sea, simplemente no existe.

Me ha tocado vivir en mi país experiencias de empresas que nunca comunicaron sus buenas acciones, se dedicaron a trabajar eficientemente y con éxito pero no se percataron que había conflictos de intereses que pudieran desembocar inesperadamente en una situación de crisis.
Hasta cuando sobrevinieron ataques mediáticos tendientes a dañar su reputación corporativa, comenzaron a invertir en comunicar, cuando ya había demasiados adjetivos negativos muy posicionados.

A esto le llamo yo "apagar incendios", tener que ser reactivo cuando se pudo ser proactivo.
Sucede en los gobiernos, a medida que el Estado crece en tamaño, funciones y responsabilidades, la necesidad de un buen manejo de las relaciones públicas se vuelve imprescindible, máxime que los temas que manejan las instituciones estatales algunas veces son difíciles de entender y explicar, sus acciones afectan intereses, muchos de los temas que manejan involucran los sentimientos de la gente y, además, afrontan el advenimiento de lo impredecible.

Un gobierno no se puede dar el lujo de no utilizar estrategias para comunicar sus acciones.

Lastimosamente, muchos funcionarios y autoridades no tienen interés en dar información al público, y, asimismo, muchos relacionadores públicos están más concentrados en guardar o esconder información a los medios que en crear percepciones. Muchas autoridades toman la actitud de huir de los medios por temor, inseguridad o desconfianza.

Cuando una institución que tiene injerencia en la vida pública no comunica nada de lo que hace porque no existe mucho interés en su imagen, vienen las malas noticias y entonces son los medios de comunicación los que empiezan a controlar la agenda y no lo inverso. Las malas noticias influyen, entonces, en la toma de decisiones, que, bajo esa presión, son de mala calidad.

¿Qué podemos hacer para controlar la imagen institucional a través de la comunicación permanente?
He aquí algunos consejos puntuales:

1. Hay que incorporar la imagen como parte de los procesos de planeación organizacional. Por eso es imprescindible redactar un plan anual de comunicaciones para que la imagen sea planificada y controlada a cada momento, desde el inicio de cada año hasta el final.

2. Hay que hacer un correcto y ordenado manejo de la información generada por los medios de comunicación a través del monitoreo diario de noticias.

3. Hay que planear y dirigir nuestra comunicación a través del diseño e implementación de una estrategia de comunicación institucional con rumbo, con sentido.

4. Hay que mantener una relación eficiente con los representantes de los medios de comunicación, y digo eficiente en ambas vías, pues algunos ejecutivos y autoridades tienden a esperar tan sólo una cobertura de prensa positiva y asumen tener el derecho a una cobertura automática de sus noticias siempre.

Ahora bien, de nada sirve decir una cosa si hacemos otra. ¡Una efectiva estrategia de comunicación debe estar basada en realidades! El comportamiento de la organización debe ser congruente con sus objetivos de comunicación, de posicionamiento.

En síntesis: Hay que saber hacer para entonces hacer saber.

http://www.articuloz.com/publicidad-articulos/una-empresa-que-no-comunica-no-existe-608651.html

Un error de Google deja inutilizado Blogger durante 24h

Una avería producida en Google ha dejado a Blogger colgado durante casi 24 horas, desesperando a sus millones de usuarios. Además durante la avería se han liberado datos personales y se han borrado algunos post y comentarios.

En cuanto a Google, no está ofreciendo apenas información al respecto y ha optado por una comunicación lenta y poco transparente.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internet/Google/maneja/ruido/Red/ocultar/problemas/elpeputec/20110513elpepunet_1/Tes

Artículo escrito por Chris Gidez de Hill & Knowlton

Predicting the Perfect Storm

By Chris Gidez
Senior Vice President, Risk Management/Crisis Communications, Hill & Knowlton USA

“… a tempest created by so rare a combination of factors that meteorologists deemed it ‘the perfect storm.’”

Sebastian Junger, The Perfect Storm

In many respects, the Toyota recall has been the perfect storm. A “rare combination of factors” has caused it to be the Tylenol of our time – a definitive case study in crisis management.
The general consensus view is that Toyota may have stumbled out of the starting gate, and this may have compounded the situation. But it was able to recover its balance in short order. Was irreparable damage done? The final chapter in this book has yet to be written, so it remains to be seen whether Toyota will earn kudos or criticism when all is said and done.
However, it is not too soon to dissect the anatomy of this crisis; and in doing so we can see that in many respects its trajectory was clearly predictable, and not all that surprising.
Several months back a client asked me, “Is it possible to predict whether a situation will remain just a mere nuisance, or instead morph into a full-blown, pants-on-fire crisis?”
In fact, by examining various crises that have dominated headlines in recent years we can see a commonality of combustion factors that can cause a matter to ignite. The presence of a larger number of these combustion factors simply increases the likelihood the situation will escalate.

1. Is the problem real? Of course, the first question to be asked is whether the situation poses a legitimate threat to the enterprise. Reality is more dangerous than rumor or speculation.
2. A clearly defined, tangible, measurable risk. When a risk appears real rather than abstract, the issue has a greater likelihood of escalating. Think epidemic vs. climate change.
3. A sympathetic victim or set of victims. Cynical as it may sound, the media are far more interested in conflict where there is a vulnerable party. Children, the elderly and animals are the most attractive to the media.
4. Scale. Together with the need for a sympathetic set of victims, this is perhaps the most significant combustion point. The wider the universe of affected people, the greater the crisis.
5. Topicality and trends. I call this the shark attack syndrome. Each year (typically at the beginning of the summer), there is a news report of a swimmer attacked by a shark. Then another and another. It would seem the memo went out to all sharks – “Attack!” (And let the media know)” In fact, media love trends, particularly when they complement a matter of social interest.
6. Hypocrisy. In addition to being one greatest in his sport, Tiger Woods was happy to play the family card, promoting his affection for his parents, being photographed on the 18th green with his wife and children. With the revelations of his philandering, the media were quick to pounce on the hypocrisy. John Daly would never have suffered such media attention, because there was no disconnect between his behavior and his purported values.
7. Irony. A cousin of hypocrisy. Toyota built its reputation around safety and quality. Would there be as great a firestorm if Chrysler had such a recall?
8. Deceit. Companies, politicians and celebrities caught in a lie simply compound their problems.
9. Compelling images in a YouTube world. What nearly wrecked Michael Phelps’s career in product endorsements was not that he smoked pot, but that someone happened to have a camera to capture the moment and then post it to the internet.
10. Mismanaging the crisis. The tone of a crisis is established in the first few days. Once Toyota stumbled, everything they did subsequently was tarnished by the perception of their early handling of the crisis.
11. Timing. Another way of putting it is, “wrong place, wrong time.” Sometimes matters escalate simply because they occur during a slow news cycle.
12. Someone to throw fuel on the fire. One of the truths about crises is that, like a fire, for them to be sustained there needs to be fuel, and someone able to throw that fuel on the fire. In the U.S, politicians, trial lawyers and the media play this role.

So, what is the lesson here?
We can use these combustion points as yardsticks to guesstimate how severe a crisis may become, enabling us to plan accordingly. The greater number of boxes checked, the more severe the crisis is likely to be.

Crisis Comms Means Knowing When to Hold ‘Em and When to Walk Away

Another day, another crisis, it seems. But when a crisis arises, is it mandatory that a company react publicly?

Chris Gidez, U.S. director for risk management and crisis communication at Hill & Knowlton, takes a look at two recent case studies – Toyota and Taco Bell – to compare and contrast when a public response is appropriate, or even necessary. One of those circumstances: “The company is backing up its words with actions – e.g., file suit, etc.”

Click through for more.

When is it the right strategy to fight back in public?
Two recent and unrelated events brought to mind the hearing scene from the great 1981 film, Absence of Malice.
In the scene, James Wells, a Justice Department official (played by Wilford Brimley) is questioning a number of people about a criminal investigation gone awry.  One of those being questioned is Michael Gallagher, a liquor wholesaler (played by Paul Newman):
Wells:  “Everybody’s just doing their job.”
Gallagher:  “And Teresa Perrone’s dead. Who do I see about that?”
Wells:  “Ain’t nobody to see.”
Having done crisis management for the better part of my adult life, and seeing companies’ reputations sullied, I can relate to the line, “Ain’t nobody to see.”
Too often, companies’ reputations are unfairly damaged – often permanently, thanks to Google – by allegations (sometimes malicious) ultimately proven wrong.
Company executives struggle with the question, “Who do I see about that?”
Traditionally, companies have resisted the idea of joining the public fight; choosing instead to maintain a low profile out of fear of exacerbating the situation, or hoping to prevail in the court of law.  They believe that they must adhere to Marquess of Queensbury rules, even while their opponents steal from the WWE playbook.
But faced with the prospect of a public flogging at the hands of the media, trial lawyers and/or publicity-seeking politicians, more and more companies are rethinking that approach.
The two events that reminded me of this scene were Taco Bell’s aggressive and deliberately public reaction to the class action lawsuit accusing the company of misleading customers about the composition of its ground beef they use, and last week’s report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that ruled out electronics problems as a cause for the reported stuck accelerator problems that led to the infamous Toyota recall last year.
Let’s start with Toyota.
Around this time last year the auto company found itself in the middle of a world-class s**t-storm following the recall of millions of vehicles due to accelerator problems.   Congressional investigators – helped in part by trial lawyers and auto critics – could smell the blood in the water and Toyota executives were hung, drawn and quartered on live television.
The popular scapegoat for the problem was on-board electronics.  And notwithstanding the insistence of the Toyota executives that there was no evidence to suggest the electronics were the cause of any problem, the politicians and the media weren’t about to let go of that theory:

At a February 24 House oversight committee hearing, Rep. Brian Bilbray pressed the question to Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda:

“You stated that you had 100%, you were 100% sure that the difficulties with the pedals, with the acceleration, was not electronic, that it was not going to be involved with the data systems, that it was a physical problem.  Do you stand by that statement?”

At the same hearing, Ohio Rep. Marcy Kaptur (in her own, fractured sort of way) chose to excoriate the company for issues well beyond accelerator safety:

“Mr. Toyoda.  I am not satisfied with your testimony.  I am being very forthcoming.  I do not feel it reflects sufficient remorse for those who have died.  And I do not think you have accurately reflected the large number of complaints that have been filed with Toyota for nearly a decade.  So I as one member am disappointed…  Mr. Toyoda.  How did Toyota lose its way?  You say in your testimony your company grew too fast.  Some smart lawyers gave you those words.  I think what happened was your company went from emphasizing long-term quality values and corporate responsibility to fighting against safety regulations, against insider influence inside this city and your own capital in Japan, and environmental regulations and indeed worker rights and card checks inside your company.”

And even though Mr. Toyoda told lawmakers that he was “absolutely confident” that the electronics of Toyota’s gas pedal systems were not the source of problems, his word evidently didn’t count for much.

At a March 2 Senate Commerce Committee hearing, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said, “We also believe, based on what people have told us, that [perhaps the electronics could be the problem too.”

At a May 20 House Energy & Commerce Committee hearing, Chairman Henry Waxman said, “These assurances were baffling.”  And his colleague, Bart Stupak, added,

“Toyota engaged in damage control almost immediately following our hearing by continually asserting confidence that extensive testing proves the safety of the electronics systems and attacking those who disagree with them. But … the record doesn’t support Toyota’s statements that it conducted extensive testing.”

Fast forward to February 8, 2011, and the results of the NHTSA investigation (carried out in part by NASA engineers):

“NASA engineers found no electronic flaws in Toyota vehicles capable of producing the large throttle openings required to create dangerous high-speed unintended acceleration incidents. The two mechanical safety defects identified by NHTSA more than a year ago – “sticking” accelerator pedals and a design flaw that enabled accelerator pedals to become trapped by floor mats – remain the only known causes for these kinds of unsafe unintended acceleration incidents.”

On top of that, Secretary LaHood now concedes that part of the problem may have been “pedal misapplications.”   In other words, driver error.
And in looking at the tattered remnants of what was once a gold-standard brand, it’s not hard to imagine Toyota executives wondering “Who do I see about that?”
Which brings us to Taco Bell.
After being hit with a class action suit accusing the company of misleading consumers about the nature of the meat it serves, the company decided to hit back – and hard.
Through a special-purpose website, national print ads, social media and other channels, the company denied it was misleading consumers, stood by the quality of its products and said, “Thank you for suing us… We take any claims to the contrary very seriously and plan to take legal action against those who have made false claims against our seasoned beef.”
With this strategy, the company moved the discussion away from the merits of the allegation to the merits of the communications strategy, and in the process won by praise and criticism for its willingness to respond to critics in such a public manner.
But will the company’s strategy ultimately pay dividends?  Has it reassured consumers?  Will it put the brakes on the lawsuit?
It is too soon to answer those questions, but it does raise the broader question, “Under what circumstances is it in a company’s interest to join the public fight?”
Doing so just to make a CEO or employees feel better is not sufficient justification.  But I do believe there are times when it makes sense for a company to join the battle, but only under the following circumstances:
1.  When the risk to the company is real enough, and big enough;
2. When the company is  certain the facts are on 100% its side.
3.  When the awareness of the problem is great enough that it does, or could, have a significant impact on the company’s reputation (big enough to justify taking the risk of raising the profile of the conflict even further);
4.  There is solid research to define stakeholder awareness and attitudes, and the messages have been tested to ensure their effectiveness; and
5.  The company is backing up its words with actions – e.g., file suit, etc.
What was compelling about the Taco Bell campaign is that the company promised to take legal action. In other words, walk the talk.  Complaining alone is insufficient, as it simply raises the question, “If you feel so strongly about being harmed, why won’t you do something about it?” We’ll see if Taco Bell really does back up its words with action.  But in the meantime, the aggressive posture by the company may embolden other corporate leaders to adopt a similar approach.

Facebook vs. Google

En este artículo se pone de manifiesto la rivalidad que existe en dos de las marcas más conocidas del momento:

http://www.marketingdirecto.com/actualidad/social-media-marketing/facebook-orquesta-una-campana-de-relaciones-publicas-contra-google/?utm_source=wordtwit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wordtwit

Error en Facebook

Un error en la red social Facebook ha permitido que los anunciantes puedan acceder a algunos datos personales de los perfiles de los usuarios. Este hecho ha dado lugar a polemicas sobre la seguridad de los datos en esta red social. Facebook confirma que el problema ha ocurrido pero  le resta importancia.


http://www.elpais.com/articulo/tecnologia/error/Facebook/permite/anunciantes/acceder/datos/personales/elpeputec/20110511elpeputec_1/Tes