Category: Issues Management
Posted by CN - September 9, 2011 - Issues Management, Public Affairs, Quick Thoughts, Theory & Practice
A friend asked me this week how to determine when a company should respond to a media inquiry about an issue and when to kick the question to the industry association’s press office. Quite often, the association is in a much better position to handle challenging issues in the press because they can do so without attaching a specific brand to the story. Think about the American Beverage Association’s handling of media inquiries about sugary drinks on behalf of Coke, Pepsi, and Dr. Pepper.
Generally, media inquiries about issues that involve downside or potential for criticism should be referred to the industry association, unless:
- The company has a differentiating position on the particular issue for which it wants publicity (i.e., taking a leadership position supports a concrete business objective)
- The issue affects the company disproportionately to the rest of the industry (i.e., specifically affects the company more than competitors, as might be the case if the company has a majority share of the market or dominance in an important geography), such that not participating would make the company look noticeably absent from the story or create the perception that the company is hiding behind the trade association
When faced with a challenging media question about an industry issue, consider the following to determine whether the company or the association should respond:
- Is this an industry issue or a company issue?
- Could the association provide a credible answer?
- Do we have any interest in leading on this issue?
- Are we differentiated on this issue in a way that requires a response?
- Would we look like we’re hiding behind the association if we defer to them? (How conspicuous would our absence be?)
- How will we be positioned in the story? Best case? Worst case?
- Could it substantially improve our positioning if we were quoted?
- How would competitors perceive us if we were quoted in the story? How about the association?
- Do we set any unnecessary precedents in term of our willingness to respond in the future by responding to this inquiry with a statement or a quote?
- Do we actually have something to say about the issue that’s newsworthy, important to publicize, credible, and quotable? Or are we trying too hard because we feel some media relations obligation?
Finally, it’s crucial to be able to explain these decisions to management. Often, company bosses wonder why the company wasn’t quoted in a story about an important issue. Just as they aided the initial decision, the answers to the questions above could help justify to the CEO how the inquiry was handled.
Posted by CN - July 15, 2011 - Issues Management, News & Analysis
Mattel headquarters in California. (Photo released by Greenpeace via Reuters)
Three new Greenpeace campaigns suggest the major activist organizations are once again targeting global brands to drive awareness about issue campaigns.
In June, Greenpeace held a demonstration against Mattel that included hanging a giant banner on the side of the company’s headquarters. The stunt, which got international media coverage, was part of the group’s campaign against the toy industry, alleging the industry buys packaging from a company responsible for deforestation in Indonesia. The campaign also targets Hasbro, Lego, and Disney.
In Europe, the group launched a campaign against VW claiming the company opposes legislation that would raise auto emissions standards by 2020. The campaign video, a parody of VW’s 2011 Star Wars Super Bowl ad, features the Death Star emblazoned with the VW logo, and a demonstration in London featured street-canvassing stormtroopers.
Screen-grab from Greenpeace's VW campaign video.
On July 12, Greenpeace launched a campaign alleging Nike and Adidas permit their suppliers in China to discharge hazardous chemicals into the Yangtze and Pearl river deltas. The campaign includes a viral video, challenging the companies to ensure their supply chains don’t contribute to water pollution.
Since the start of the recession, these types of campaigns have been rare. Most activist groups have focused on local issues: protesting the siting of a new factory, attacks on local power utilities, a demonstration against a proposed dam, and the like. When donations slow, activist groups retrench just like everyone else, and when voters are primarily focused on the economy, it’s easier to get their attention with issues that are local and tangible.
Likewise, most companies in recent years have dedicated their public affairs resources to legislative and regulatory affairs rather than activist issues. But, these new campaigns suggest it’s again time for issues managers to consider how activists might target company brands. Those who don’t might suddenly find someone using their brand to explain to people why they should quit buying the company’s products.
Posted by CN - October 1, 2010 - Crisis Management, Crisis Preparedness, Issues Management, Litigation Communications, News & Analysis, Public Affairs, Quick Thoughts, Risk Management, Theory & Practice
Today’s CEOs face an unprecedented set of threats that go way beyond the cutthroat competition and organizational challenges normally in the purview of corporate leaders.
- Underlying operating risks can explode into catastrophes with little or no warning.
- Political interest groups and activists attack high-profile brands to drive attention to their causes.
- News reports and scientific studies identify new health risks every day.
- Issues like global warming are changing the way consumers, governments, companies, special interests, and markets behave and interact.
- Governments are dramatically reshaping the business environment, creating political risks and operating pitfalls for companies.
- The public constantly questions whether companies are prepared for disaster.
- Minute-by-minute media reports feed the public’s insatiable appetite for stories of scandal, tragedy, incompetence, greed, and conspiracy.
- Shareholders can turn instantly on companies that don’t create wealth each quarter.
As they face these circumstances, how companies interact with their stakeholders makes all the difference. When successful, they can reassure people and build loyalty, even in bad situations. When they fail, they may alienate customers, employees, or business partners enough that the business can’t survive. After all, companies can’t exist if their customers, employees, and other stakeholders won’t do business with them. And government regulations, whether appropriate or not, can stifle a company’s ability to turn a profit.
Risks, Crises, Contentious Issues, and What Companies Can Do About Them
To minimize the impact of risks, crises, and social issues, corporate leaders need to several things:
- Assign a senior executive formal responsibility for:
- Coordinating all the protective functions within the company
- Building and maintaining a comprehensive corporate perspective about the full spectrum of threats that could affect the business
- Establish a system for listening to stakeholders and anticipating issues and potential crisis scenarios
- Determine and make the appropriate investments in preparedness
- Ensure all employees take responsibility for safety and protecting the company
- Identify opportunities to shape social issues either to the company’s benefit or to minimize the issues’ potential impact
- Retain external crisis management and issues management advisers to provide unvarnished counsel to management
With these ideas in mind, The Crisis Adviser offers an opportunity to delve into these ideas more thoroughly. The Advisory section will include thoughts on current events in the News & Analysis posts, as well as more theoretical posts in the category Theory & Practice. I hope you find it thought provoking and helpful. And if you have any thoughts or questions, feel free to contact me or post your thoughts on the site.
