Providing emergency information beyond social media

OK ... We have clearly established that most PIOs can integrate technology and social media to provide emergency information. Now what happens when elements of our critical infrastructure (CI) become unavailable?

With the perceived threats to our CI (electrical grids, worms/viruses affecting SCADA, DNS attacks, etc...) how prudent is it to put all our eggs (mostly!) on Internet-based communications channels? Or even to think there will be a reliable electrical supply?

We will have to turn to traditional media again to relay critical information. But will they, themselves, be able to deliver?

I often wonder how we'd reach many of our most vulnerable populations (in their own language? in remote areas?) following a large-scale disaster when communications become spotty.

Are our broadcasters ready to take up the slack if we can't use our websites or social media platforms?

In the US, they've prepared for that kind of contingency. Competing media conglomerates are working together, shepherded by the FCC and FEMA, to ensure continuity of operations in the provision of emergency information.

And the FCC, has just adopted new Public Alerting standards in the US.

But where are we in Canada? Some networks have done very good work, both in the public alerting field and the resiliency aspect ... Others, well ....

Some stakeholders are promoting a stronger national public alerting system for Canada but we're lagging behind ... both in public alerting and ensuring media reliability/resiliency during a disaster.

So I ask: how long can we wait?

Social media as emergency preparedness and risk communications tools

Hello Everyone!

You've heard me often say that I believe social media is now an essential tool to communicate with our audiences during a disaster/crisis. That's widely accepted although some die-hards are still out there who believe SM is a fad.

I'm now wondering on some measurement factors when you use SM as emergency preparedness and risk communications tools well BEFORE any incident.

I've found a few articles or blog posts on this issue but would be very interested to hear from practitioners out there.

Here's a presentation I found interesting.

I know there's been some analytical work done by Public Safety Canada on their 72-hours emergency preparedness campaign using social media ...

I think it's time to look into measurement and see how best we can tweak our use of social media to increase preparedness in our communities.

Suggestions? Thoughts ?

Message mapping

Hello everyone ! I've had a few requests for the video presentation by Dr. Vincent Covello on message mapping ...

I've referred to message mapping often and it's slowly being adopted by many in the Ontario government.

So here's the video ... enjoy !

Of the IMS, emergency information and social media

There have been a few blog posts and stories recently on the importance of social media in emergencies ... such as this one: http://incaseofemergencyblog.com/2010/08/09/new-red-cross-study-finds-web-users-would-turn-to-social-media-in-emergencies-expect-1st-responders-to-be-listening-74-want-response-less-than-an-hour-after-their-tweet-or-facebook-post

I've also enjoyed reading about the limitations of the Joint Information Centre and the political aspects of the emergency info work done on the Gulf oil spill by Gerald Baron: http://crisisblogger.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/not-sure-how-the-joint-information-center-can-survive-this/

This had me thinking ... especially after my latest experience planning communications for the security group that helped ensure safe and secure G8 and G20 summits in Ontario in June. The use of social media was a key feature of our plans: http://cops2point0.com/2010/08/09/planning-for-a-social-g20-toronto-police-services/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Cops20+%28Cops+2.0%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

These might appear a bit disjointed but really reflect emerging realities. I believe the whole central tenet of the IMS doctrine is being shaken by social media and, more importantly, by the changing expectations of the public and our audiences.

To sum it up ... while the IMS is based on a fairly hierarchical approach with scalable and flexible structure ...it's still pretty vertical ... When it comes down to providing emergency information, it does not reflect the growing nature of how people communicate with each other today.

Increasingly, communications is done on a diffused, distributed basis. That's certainly true for social media ... It's not top down but horizontal, vertical and diagonal, all at once. There are multiple conversations going on at the same time ... No one stops to listen to someone preaching from the pulpit anymore.

That's even becoming true from traditional media as well ... the consumer can now fashion how he or she gets their news: http://mashable.com/2010/08/10/personalized-news-stream/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Mashable+%28Mashable%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

That's more and more parallel to the social media model. Now, how do you reconcile that with the top down, very structured model embodied in the IMS?

In the domain of emergency information where PIOs have to run everything by the incident command ... how can you keep up with the constant demand for immediate and relevant conversations?

These don't only begin once an incident or disaster occurs but way before when you need to do sound risk communications ... It's not about preaching anymore but convincing ... taking part in people's lives in a productive and effective manner. If you make valid points, provide valuable and implementable info and do so using the right tone ... there's a better chance that your audience will adopt the behaviour your desire them to adopt.

It's even more relevant during the response phase when immediacy and relevance are critical ... Can you do that in the IMS? How easy is it to convince command, particularly a unified command structure where political aspects play a large role, that you need some latitude in what and how you communicate?

We hear many stories on the "cloud" as the way of the future. Is the IMS doomed to be replaced by a more diffused, yet collaborative and participative scheme? The emergency management family keeps growing and is no longer the exclusive domain of first responders, governments and agencies. The private sector, service organizations and increasingly, private citizens, are involved. The Crisis Commons is a good example of that.

If social media and the future of communications is about empowerment, than I think that the way authorities react to emergencies and communicate about them should also reflect a more collective approach.

Yes, there will always be a need for somebody to be in charge. But, for those who provide emergency information, it's absolutely imperative that those in charge recognize that EI is not an afterthought but a critical piece in ensuring that your response is perceived in a positive light,

The only way to do that is engage your audiences, give your PIOs carte blanche, open channels to all audiences ... even those who are critical ... and be fast ... so you can correct misconceptions ... respond to media inaccuracies and help shape public opinion...

In the current IMS, with or without a Joint Information Centre, I think there doesn't exist that ability to adapt to the diffuse and collective world that's social media today. The old way is too directive and does not inspire conversations that can help foster the right behaviour adoption.

It's imperative to get the right people together ... form a community whether based on geography or affinity. Work with them and use the pooled knowledge and expertise to get your messaging out.

Our audiences are diverse and fragmented, so should be our communications channels and philosophies.

Hope this makes sense somehow!

Of leaders, language and crises

So your boss is from Europe ... relatively new in the job ... and bang ... you're in the middle of the largest environmental disaster in the history of the US.

The leader of the free world makes your company his favourite daily target ... the oil gushes on and bad press floods the airwaves ...

Oh ... and you try to "control" the message by having private security firms block reporters from accessing the people you're hiring to help you clean up?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100615/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2612

What's gone wrong?

The perception (see my response to this blog post by Gerald Baron
http://emcrisiscomm.blogspot.com/2010/06/why-journalistic-ignorance-of-nimsics.html) is that everything has gone wrong ... starting with the crisis communications response.

I'm usually a big proponent of bringing the top guy to the front when a crisis occurs. It shows leadership, responsiveness and very often helps to establish some sort of emotional connection. That's the theory at least.

However, you need to do that early in the game ... after it's gone on long enough ... it looks more like an emperor deigning to address his subjects ... and if you're going to do it ... and if he's going to do it ... ensure he stays on message and uses the wright words ... I know there might have been a language barrier issue with the BP Chair of the Board ... but the key PR people should have seen it coming ...

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/824564--bp-sets-up-20-billion-compensation-fund-for-oil-spill-victims

It would have been much better if, earlier in the game, they had identified a key BP leader, preferably from the affected area ... who could talk with some conviction and emotion about their response ... say: we're sorry and look like they mean it ...

Seems to me that the "small people" are those working at BP's PR shop ...

Is it possible to do everything right during a crisis and still fail to attain your communications goals?

This quick post to ask: can you do everything right? Follow all principles of crisis management and communications, and still not get your message across?

I believe we're witnessing a prime example of that with the Deepwater Horizon spill. One of the key leaders in the field of crisis communications is involved with the Unified Command response to this incident and he's getting big doubts about the whole concept despite his belief that they are doing everything according to NIMS/IMS.

http://crisisblogger.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/not-sure-how-the-joint-information-center-can-survive-this/

When do you shift from a reputation management oriented effort to one that's more like a salvage operation?

How do you step back and analyze the outcomes? Can you identify the gaps, the persisting negative perception among your audiences ... even though you are technically doing a good job because you're fully involved in the Unified Command and tapping into all the inherent strengths of the incident management system?

How can you operate as a PIO within the UC if the different command elements (and especially their own superiors) pay lip service to the whole concept of Unified Command.

When does organizational preservation take precedence over the integrated approach?

I'd submit that in the end ... the strength of the UC is strongly linked to the alignment of objectives by each participant. If that changes, the focus could get lost and the messaging could stop being uniform, coordinated and reflective of a collective effort.

In an era where public perception is critical (for better or worse) to the success of any crisis management endeavour, losing or appearing to lose the confidence of one of the key elements of the unified command, is a death blow.

Can you really continue to work together well at the operational level while the people way up the food chain are engaged in a public battle to lay the blame as far away from their front yard as possible?

That seems to be the case with BP and the Obama administration ... the two key players in the Deepwater Horizon UC ... how long before the discord reaches down to the ops planners ... and incident commanders?

How long can they remain unaffected by the constant bombardment of negative coverage and public perception?

It will be an interesting debrief one day from those involved...

That's assuming that well ever gets capped !

On unified command, emergency info and social media

Hello everyone! It's been insanely busy at work planning for the security around the G8 and G20 summits later this month. I'll have more to say on that after they're done. Learning lots and gaining critical experience in the meantime.

What I'd like to bring up today are the challenges brought about by the very nature of unified command in regards to providing emergency information, especially using social media.

We've seen how unified command can be totally out of the grasp of most people. How the concept seems foreign to the large electorate who want to be assured that the top guy is in charge.

First question: how do you adjust the public's perception with reality? How best explain what unified command is? As the emergency management family grows, when private sector entities play a larger role, where does the authority of government lay, particularly for elected officials?

That dynamic of a collegial decision-making and responsibility sharing is hard to comprehend for most. It might be very convenient (as we have seen in the BP Gulf oil disaster) to pretend there is a political leader or element in charge ( at the very top) whereas, in reality, public sector entities are working hand in hand with private firms that play a key role (if not the primary role).

Secondly, within unified command ... where does the approval chain for comms and emergency info products begin? Who's in charge? Do all the members of the UC have to approve everything? How does that work if you're using social media tools? Establishing protocols for doing just that is essential in the operations of the UC.

And how do you integrate different public affairs/communications teams into your crisis communication or incident communication response activities? Different organizations have different cultures. Sore are open to the wide use of social media ... others not so much ... who judges what the best comms approach may be? the best channels to use?

Finally, a third subject for some thinking. We already know the difficulties posed by the incident management system doctrine vis-à-vis social media. Where the doctrine says that all public documents have to be approved by the incident commander.

How compounded is that problem when you're involved in a unified command structure? In an environment where speed and accuracy are critical ... a unified command structure presents some risks on both fronts:

a) do you have many incident commanders that have to approve the materials? Is that going to slow things to a crawl?
b) with many organizations and agencies involved, how do you ensure consistency of messaging and the accuracy of information made available to you by ops people from many fields, in many locations?

Now, that's a lot to think about ! Hopefully, this will generate some comments.

Hope to hear from you soon.

On the future of journalism, new technologies and the opportunities for PIOs

There was a recent meeting of the National Association of Broadcasters and the Radio and Television News Directors Association in the US. It represents a kind of "state of the industry" conference for people in the news biz.
http://mediasurvivalgroup.blogspot.com/2010/04/future-of-broadcast-news.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+newmedia+%28The+New+Media+%26+Crisis+Communications%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

One thing struck me ... a quote from a senior news leader:
"People aren't having a hard time finding what's going on ... They're having a hard time figuring what it means. I don't think the technology is helping us with that." Bob Horner, President of the NBC News Channel.

He was referring to all the mobile technology that makes citizens, viewers, listeners ... gatherers of information. As a former reporter, I can understand the anxiety that prevails in the news industry these days. Their last rampart is their desire (and that's more and more difficult) to be neutral and objective, to adhere to those notions that made journalism in North America a great defender of the Truth.

Now, as a PIO or crisis communicator, I see the Horner quote in a totally different light. If people have the information. If they know what's going on. Our role should be a little different than it traditionally has been.

We're not simply releasing information to the media anymore ... it's still important but more and more ... we have to educate as we go ... help ensure that those who are concerned by an ongoing incident that affects our organization or client, get the meaning of this information.

What the impact will be on them, their family and so on. To do that, you need an established presence on the networks/platforms where your audiences get that information. It's all linked.

That means engaging in permanent dialogues with your audiences even during routine times, pre-incident. That's how you build credibility and presence (they go hand in hand ...), so that when an incident or crisis happens and people want to interpret the information they have, they come to you ...

Many studies indicate the growing importance of online/web information tools:
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Online-News.aspx?r=1

People turn to whom they trust during a crisis: family and friends certainly, but also other trustworthy sources: media and others who've established credibility. That can be (and is more and more so) social media platforms ...

In other words (I'll restate my favourite phrase): Be there and occupy the public space ... if you're not, you'll be irrelevant!

Just thought I'd add this: a good resource for some crisis/risk comms tips: http://www.iufost.org/docs/IUF.SIB.Risk.Communication.pdf

On the future of crisis communications

Good evening everyone!

Just a quick post related to a good discussion started by Gerald Baron on the future of crisis communications.
http://crisisblogger.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/is-there-a-future-for-crisis-communication/

Some good comments resulted ... included one from yours truly.

Now, to sum up ... I think that because organizations and businesses now have the ability to respond and engage with their diverse audiences themselves ... they need some kind of advisor to help them do it effectively.

Furthermore, to be able to respond quickly and effectively, you need a plan, trained people and procedures ... that's work for crisis comms pros.

Add to that the fact that while crisis comms consultants may no longer have to develop news releases during a crisis ... their actual work has shifted to one of coordinator, arranger or even orchestra conductor ... as we help coordinate or advise our clients/command, on the best way to proceed, the best channels to use ... the best messaging to put forward ...

In summary, we're more needed now than ever before precisely because technology has multiplied comms channels ... hard enough for us to keep track ... clients/command could quickly be overwhelmed during a crisis ... cooler heads are needed !

Crisis communicators of the world unite !

Crisis management and moral authority

Yeah, I know it's Easter .... but with all the news and relentless coverage on the Vatican's and Catholic Church's (mis)handling of the sex abuse scandal, how not to pipe up on that topic?

As crisis communicators, consultants and advisors, we're often put in situations where we're handed tough cards to play. Executives have messed up, bad policies have been systematically implemented and followed, and you have to keep convincing the people you work for that what you're proposing is the best way forward.

Are there times when there is just no silver lining? When you should just walk away?

I'd say very, very few. But with the sex abuse scandal ... it's hard to see a way out in terms of crisis communications. Here are a few considerations:

• Leadership and authority ... when your whole legitimacy (and this also applies to government) is based on moral authority, what do you do when this becomes threatened, challenged or even disappears? In the case of the Vatican, centuries of secrecy, mythical invincibility and almost blind obedience, have created an atmosphere of denial, us-against-the-world state of mind and aloofness. How do you change that to convey a real, sincere-sounding message of regret and apology?
• Then there's the issue of confused messaging. Church leaders from around the world (particularly in North America) have apologized many times for the behaviour of some in the clergy ... even the Vatican. But recently, it seems, the message from the top has been to kind of blame the media and blame the victims. That's simply a wrong-headed approach to dealing with a reputation crisis. Nothing positive will come out of that ... only more scrutiny on decades of cover-ups and a policy of secrecy. Anywhere else, that would border on criminality: obstruction of justice and conspiracy.
• At what point do you have to change the face of the organization you're defending? When does your spokesperson lose his/her credibility and only helps to make matters worse? Now, the Pope is not about to resign but has he lost all his moral authority? Has the Church itself? As would suggest some high-ranking clerics from other Christian faiths? As crisis communicators, how would we handle this? If the Chair of the Board or CEO just won't see the light? Do you bail? Or stick around to work with the tools and resources you've been handed to correct the message and the public's perception of your client?
• Finally, how much of an impact have your own personal opinions and considerations on the work you're tasked with? Recognizing and dealing with that question is an essential part of your thinking process. It will help you gauge what mental evaluation your audiences will use to judge the work you're doing. That's critical in helping you shape your reputation-saving campaign, the tools and the channels you'll use.

In conclusion ... I'd personally walk away from this one. Not a matter of faith but a simple professional evaluation. There are, sometimes, lost causes ... in my opinion this is one of them.

I'm interested in your thoughts on this issue.