Navigating and removing the silos of business departments to develop and implement a holistic communications approach is certainly difficult at the best of times. In fact, IBM found that CMOs rate cross-communications as one of their biggest challenges in the coming year.

Questions we ask our clients include “how do you ensure your customer service department is talking with, and sharing intelligence with your public relations team? What capacity do you have to feed in real-time supply chain data to your marketing strategy?”

With the solidification of digital, this cohesive, integrated approach is now more critical than ever.

As I’ve mentioned here before, with the convergence of media (digital, ATL, outdoor and mobile) driving an unprecedented convergence of communications and a Global Village of hyper-connected people, brands can no longer rely on isolation or ‘walls’. This through-the-line communications environment means what happens at band camp, is now public across multiple touch points within a matter of hours.

So, if you have a major IR issue that has driven a large part of your organic media relations and digital conversation, it’s best to connect with your social media management team. Qantas learned this yesterday, and it highlights some interesting issues.

Qantas asked passengers to use the hashtag “QantasLuxury” to enter the competition to win a pair of first class pajamas, but many users decided to use that hashtag for their own purposes, complaining of how they missed catching up with friends, and even missing funerals, due to the recent stoppages.

Needless to say, the hashtag went off like a frog in a sock on too much coffee. Reported by media outlets the world over including Reuters, our little airline downunder created a global social media ‘epic fail’ story in a matter of hours.

Timing is key here. The day after negotiations with your unionized workforce fails, and the issue goes to binding arbitration, is probably not the best time to test your digital loyalty. One week after? Two weeks after? There’s no right answer on the timing, but the recommendation would be to listen.

Understand the sentiment of your stakeholders prior to engaging an innocuous Twitter competition and ensure you are purposeful to your audience.

But wait, it’s not all bad

Let’s flip this discussion; it could be argued that Qantas has managed to test the digital waters and glean a wide stakeholder insight through a simple Twitter hashtag.

As I wrote earlier, digital platforms offer businesses and strategists a wealth of insight simply through the soft data patterns. You can gauge insights in sentiment, reach, propensity to action and issues that matter to your stakeholders and this can become powerful intelligence when you marry the data patterns across your other CRM systems.

It is widely known Qantas has a large Frequent Flyer database that is regularly used to ‘test the waters’ on messages and campaigns. If I was Qantas’ strategist, I’d be bringing their digital team, their Frequent Flyer team and their IR team together around a large table and looking at how we could combine intelligence and craft a strategy to mitigate the wide-spread negativity moving forward.

While the #qantasluxury effort certainly didn’t go the way originally intended, Qantas now has a goldmine of information at its disposal. And let’s be realistic, a Twitter campaign that goes off the rails is not going to be the downfall of an international brand such as Qantas. Yes it has some bite, and might impact on their ability to reposition their brand online after months of negativity, but it needs to be put into perspective.

And it should be used as a learning point that digital activity cannot be viewed in isolation to your wider brand. Because in today’s though-the-line communications, there are no walls. But there are second chances.

The most common criticism levelled at the oil company, the mobile phone brand and the gaming company was that they simply didn’t take meaningful action quickly enough.  Which suggested a certain softness at the top of the organization and that isn’t going to fill shareholders, customers, employees with anything close to confidence.

It was only when the respective CEOs were ejected, apologized on video or bowed their heads at a press conference did it seem those brands were starting to take control of the maelstrom engulfing them.  Up until then they appeared to be resisting the severity, dismissing it as no more than a slight blip in their everyday operations.

Over the last fortnight, three major sporting bodies have all had to deal with similar crises which center on racism in the sports they oversee. However, each has taken a very different approach to the situation and that has had a huge impact on their credibility.

The FA launched an immediate investigation into allegations towards players, which made the organization look strong and forceful, and sent a very direct message out to anyone playing under the FA whether in the Premiership or park football about what is and what isn’t acceptable within the sport.

However, in contrast the Professional Golf Association (PGA) and FIFA decided not to take any action on the back of comments by Tiger Woods’ ex-caddy and Sepp Blatter, and have subsequently been roundly condemned publicly by sports stars and legions of hashtag-happy tweeters (check #blatterout).

Beyond simply not showing appreciation for the sensitivity and wider public sentiment, the lack of response automatically suggests that those organizations are deeming the actions not significant (or, at worst, acceptable). Which is particularly damaging when you consider that both organizations supposedly set the tone for their global sports. And in the instance of FIFA have also spent many years making football more inclusive.

For FIFA in particular it will be very difficult to credibly continue any campaign against racism (or in fact any campaigning) when trust has been lost in the person at the head of the organization, and they are being publicly criticized by powerful figures within the sport. In addition, Sepp Blatter’s attempts to directly combat criticism from players like Rio Ferdinand over Twitter were never going to achieve anything more than ridicule, and in situations like this, taking on one person at a time is fighting a losing battle.

FIFA is a powerful organization, but like a company with huge market share, that power should not be taken for granted.  Within the last 12 months it has had greater problems of its own to deal with, but the key lesson as with all those corporate crises is to proactively manage issues that arise sooner, more decisively and with more integrity. And to show clear understanding for wider sentiment through genuine strength of leadership.

Editor’s Note: This post originally appeared on the Text 100 UK blog.

The attacks launched by LulzSec against Fox.com, Sony, AZ Department of Public Safety, etc., are being described by some security pros as technically impressive and by others as “neither original nor technically adept.”  Of more interest to me than the technical merits of the attacks was LulzSec’s remarkable ability to quickly develop a brand and effectively publicize their criminal activity. They started by basing their name on the Internet meme “in it for the lulz (laughs)” and then tapped into the full power of Twitter through their “The Lulz Boat” handle (@lulzsec), which led to clever and frequent tweets that contained equal parts humor, defiance and legitimate breaking news about the group’s exploits. 

When all was said and done, The Lulz Boat was followed by more than 280,000, including many reputable journalists, had a Klout score of 85 and achieved “Celebrity” status.  And if you skim through reader comments on any number of the articles about LulzSec, you’ll even see some people defending these criminals and applauding their “openness.”  How’s that for a twisted sort of message penetration and advocacy building? 

Reputable companies can learn a thing or two from LulzSec: the power of social branding, the effectiveness of Twitter to proactively shape public opinion, and the importance of staying vigilant against those who might try to sabotage your brand. 

On that last point: the subjective nature of hacktivists such as LulzSec has shown us that no organization is immune to attack.  We’d all be wise to ensure that we are doing what we can to mitigate the impact of a data breach, which includes making sure you’re prepared to intelligently manage communications around a breach (and perfecting your Blue Steel stare). 

For more on LulzSec, check out the following:

Damon Poeter of PC Magazine’s “50 Days of Mayhem: How LulzSec Changed Hacktivism Forever.”  Damon recaps the timeline of LulzSec’s antics and examines the group’s branding efforts.

Dan Kaplan of SC Magazine’s “The Legacy of LulzSec.”  Dan looks at the impact of hacktivism on information security, offering two potential scenarios.

Arik Hesseldahl of All Things D’s “Despite All the Attention, LulzSec’s Hackers Failed.”   Arik assesses LulzSec as “a bunch of misguided young people with too much time on their hands and precious few constructive outlets for their considerable energy.”

Now, normally the 70s optimist or the 80s anarchist in me finds this openness/deconstruction to be a good thing, but with social media, this increased attention to other, “new” areas often means serious issues for organizations. I mean, how many of us knew who Dave Carroll was before we saw United Breaks Guitars. Even though I’m a guitarist myself, I only heard about him after he created a viral crisis for the airline. On the branding side, I bet few of us thought about the Gap’s logo before their attempt to change it blew up online? And similarly, while vegemite is not a common part of my diet (like, never), I sure did hear a lot about it after its rebranding went awry. Finally, closer to home (for me, Singapore), I and probably many others barely paid any attention to the Straits Times’ Twitter feed until it got really interesting a couple of months back.

But now stories like these have become part of our common consciousness, demonstrating the Internet’s ability to turn an ordinary vertical issue into a horizontal crisis that runs lengthwise across silos. That’s the difference between a managed issue and one that spreads on social media. And sometimes the difference between people and organizations thriving … or not.

While it’s sometimes difficult to predict exactly how something will move online, sometimes it’s pretty easy to tell when it’s got a good chance of making that sideways move to new audiences. After all, it’s not that different than the criteria we use for deciding what’s news. Generally, for something to break out of its space and become a retweeted sensation, three things need to happen in order for the rest of us not in the know to take a moment and focus on it:

IT HAS TO BE QUICKLY AND EASILY EXPLAINABLE. Yeah, we know the 140 characters thing, but even allowing Facebook and the rest it’s still just a few sentences max. So while the previously unknown person from someplace we’re not from isn’t of interest, their actions are, because these are both relatable and explainable.

IT HELPS TO BE EXPERIENTIAL. Gossip beats no news. Photos beat gossip. Videos beat everything. Hearing about Christian Bale screaming and cursing a blue streak on a movie set is interesting. Actually hearing the audio recording of him screaming and cursing a blue streak on a movie set is fascinating. And something people want other people to experience (however, while very linkable, this is also not very G-rated, so you’ll have to find it yourself).

IT HAS TO BE HUMAN. And by human I don’t mean in an “awww cute kittens and puppies” way. I just mean human behaviour, good and bad as that may be. Though bad tends to travel further, faster.

While those of us in public relations often feel the need to try and show we can control these issues, we can’t always. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it tends to be quite difficult to convince him to go back in. However, a few strategies may help minimize the pain, or at least give you more time to mount an effective response.

MONITOR YOUR VERTICAL. Really monitor it. With a long history of technology clients, Text 100 has learned to dig into vertical spaces on both client and competitor sides, to stay be on top of everything that’s happening, and to as much as possible, see the spark before it ignites a larger flame. Even something faced by a competitor can create an issue for you or your organization, so be aware, and prepare.

TIERS FOR FEARS. All crises are created equal, but some are more equal than others. Work out the types of problems you expect ahead of time. Decide internally on what would require escalation, and what that process would look like. Decides the roster of people involved (including those outside the comms department), what they will do and how to reach them when you feel things are heading to the next level. And create a tiering system so that you are able to more easily decide how and when to act.

SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE. When something goes “outside,” it’s drawing new audiences in. These audiences are not likely to know all of your favorite places to be online. So use the same format they’re using. If it’s a problem on YouTube, post a video response there. Same goes for Twitter and the rest. While the new spectators may be playing outside of their normal silo, that doesn’t mean they want to have to go far to do it. Make it easier on them, and on yourself, by responding where they’ll see it.

KNOW WHEN TO HOLD ‘EM. And know when to go all in. Some crises will go global; some will not. Some will become worse by fanning the flames. Understand your vertical and the inflection points where it will likely go horizontal. Don’t act for action’s sake — consider likelihood and depth of spread. And then play your chips.

Overall, we may not have full control over a crisis, social media or otherwise. But when we feel the walls breaking down between verticals, there are a lot of things we can do reduce the length of the disruption. And to help things back standing up straight afterwards.

Flickr photo from user a440.

Top trending topics of 2010
The top trending topics of 2010 demonstrate the power of Twitter in driving conversations around various topics, news announcements and events across millions of people. Some of the overall top trends in 2010 include:

• Gulf Oil Spill
• FIFA World Cup
• Inception (the movie)
• Haiti Earthquake
• Vuvuzela
• Apple iPad

Demographic changes
With the new influx of users, Twitter’s demographic changed drastically in 2010. According to the Pew Research Center, Twitter is no longer only perused by the tech-savvy audience and millennials are extremely active. Latinos, African-Americans and urbanites make up the majority of Twitter users that leverage the platform to not only digest news and information but have conversations with brands and friends. As indicated in this chart from TheNextWeb, 67% of followers of a brand on Twitter are likely to buy a product from that brand. This information is powerful for brands, as listening to and communicating with these audiences on Twitter could have a direct effect on company revenue and sales.

Twitter tip for 2011
Dan Zarella, a “social media scientist,” who has authored books on how to get your content Retweeted, has published some interesting findings regarding Twitter. He found that as the amount of self referential tweets increases; the number of followers of an account decreases. Zarella equates this to being at a cocktail event and doing nothing but talking about yourself, which as we all know will drive away potential friends and listeners. The same rule applies to business; if you do nothing but talk about your company you’re only going to attract a certain type of Twitter followers. Mix the conversation up and interact with people, especially about what they want to hear.

By Aaron Grabein

You can see the spikes in the twitterverse last week, and again this week, in the below chart created in Trendistic, and the blogosphere was ablaze as well. According to a blog post from our sister agency, Beyond, data unveiled what “bordered on 80% negativity toward the Gap logo…The responses ranged from people feeling that the logo looked like it was created in PowerPoint, to concerns about the cliché use of Helvetica, to flat out hatred.”

Additional backlash included a parody Twitter account and a Crap Logo Yourself website.

Two days following the new logo launch, Gap attempted to alleviate the situation by  giving its more than 740K Facebook fans the opportunity to submit ideas for a better logo. This was accompanied by a blog post on Huffington Post by Gap President Marka Hansen encouraging the crowdsourcing logo project. Both were good attempts to remedy the situation in theory, but didn’t change the perception that Gap unveiled a new logo that people hated.

Five days later, the clothing retailer reported in a press release that it would restore its original logo “across all channels.”

The issue is not so much the fact that Gap made a change, but the way in which the change was communicated. With any change like this, you need to get buy-in of those that will be affected by it, ensure they understand the rationale, get them on board for the journey, and ensure there are advocates who can help them through the transition. It’s possible that Gap could have mitigated this negativity in the social space over time. But the company should have gotten in front of this earlier, rather than every step being a reaction to influencers.

Take it from Gap, the power of influencers and social media is real.

This icon of chocolate goodness seems harmless. Greenpeace, however, has pressured Nestlé to stop using palm oil in its products, citing deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions and endangered species loss.

They placed a video on YouTube connecting dead Indonesian orang-utan fingers with Nestlé’s famous KitKats chocolate finger confectionary. Nestlé lobbied to have the video removed, citing copyright infringement. Naturally the video popped up all over the web. Greenpeace’s supporters also attacked Nestlé’s Facebook fan page. They used anti-Nestlé slogans instead of profile pictures – distorting the Nestlé “KitKat” logo into Nestlé “Killer”.

Nestlé threatened to delete comments from people who misused their brand. The company’s forum moderator insulted the company’s attackers. Nestlé was portrayed as a company that wanted to stifle criticism – not defend its trademarks.

Ultimately, they apologized for being rude, and stopped deleting posts. But the damage had been done. Nestlé didn’t seem to have a plan when its Facebook channel came under assault. On the upside, they have become a cautionary tale for the thousands of brands on Facebook.

Now if it will please the jury, may I present defence exhibit B – a jar of vegemite.

Vegemite is a pungent dark-brown yeast-extract that antipodeans spread on their toast.  To launch a new cheese flavoured spread, manufacturer Kraft created a public naming competition, subsequently putting the nameless product on shelves. Kraft received 48,000 entries and ultimately selected “iSnack 2.0” as the winner.

This name was met with almost universal condemnation. Thousands of comments flew across Twitter. 35 Facebook pages and 161 Facebook groups were created to condemn the iSnack 2.0 name. A website, “Names That Are Better Than iSnack 2.0”, sprang up. One commentator even suggested that person who had submitted the winning name be tarred with Vegemite and forced to run naked through Sydney “as retribution for his cultural crime.”

Within 72 hours, Kraft decided the i-Snack 2.0 name wasn’t worth defending. A subsequent poll chose Vegemite “CheesyBite” as the preferred name. However sales of iSnack 2.0 rose 47 percent during its controversial first two weeks, not affecting sales of original Vegemite. Marketing stunt or blunder? I guess the lines between genius and madness are blurred.

So, is social media friend or foe?  Does it even matter? In both cases, social channels were certainly used to attack brands. These channels don’t exist because marketers want them to. They exist because the mob wants them to. The real question, members of the jury, is what roles are you and your company playing in social media channels?

While GM likely planned ahead to monitor the flurry of discussion in social media to have a pulse on brand sentiment about this change in leadership and may have even outlined their approach to respond or not respond to top-tier business blogs or comments on the Fast Lane blog, it’s unlikely that they anticipated that a family member’s reaction would captivate social media users and blog headlines. Even more troubling is that this post creates a potential perception problem by suggesting that GM was not being truthful when it announced the resignation and instead fired Henderson after only an eight-month tenure.

Beyond being a great case study for making sure that social media is part of your crisis communications planning process, the incident also underscores the need for a systematic approach to evaluating how your situation will play out, what social media flare ups could occur and the appropriate response.

A useful process that comes to mind here is mind mapping. According to Wikipedia, a mind map is a “diagram used to represent ideas, tasks or other items linked to and arranged around a central keyword or situation. Mind maps are used to generate, visualize, structure and classify ideas, and aid in problem solving or decision making. Mindjet, a Text 100 client, makes excellent tools for mind mapping and visual thinking.

By creating a mind map for your crisis communications situation, you can easily evaluate the divergent paths social media could take. For example, the ROUGH start to a mind map for a plant closing could look like this (click on image for a larger view):

By visualizing the crisis, the stakeholders impacted, the initial social media reaction, your strategy and the potential reaction to your response, it’s easy to see where there might be gaps that need to be better addressed.

I’d love your thoughts on this. Do you incorporate social media strategy as part of your crisis communications plans? If so, what is your process? What tools have you found helpful?

That aside, much of the conversations on Twitter and blogs are on the failure of GM to respond to Sarah Henderson’s post.  The question is should they? Will this post really have an effect on the brand reputation and purchasing decisions of consumers like you or I to buy a GM car? Perhaps a few people, close friends of Sarah and the family that naturally see the events as unfair – Hey! if anyone in my family ever gets fired, my natural tendency will be to protect and stand by the ones I love, I just don’t think I would do it over Facebook, but that is me.  Sarah did, and that raises questions to how a company such as GM, with significant challenges ahead, should react to this type of post/situation.

Should GM address Sarah? Or should the company let it go and let the noise diminish overtime?  Is a statement about family members being off limits the right statement? And was it really the daughter of Fritz Henderson the person who posted the Facebook update? Which brings a whole other set of questions as to validity, credibility and influence of social media platforms, but I will leave that for another post…

Yes, it brings up questions about the decisions made at GM and it brings about important issues as to how to best deal with disagreements that were not intended to become public in the way they have. I say focus on the important stuff; after all there have and will always be disagreements, retractors and angry people. The difference now is that those have a louder voice that can travel fast and through many vehicles, but do they have more influence as they would’ve have otherwise? i.e. at the lunch cafeteria in school?  How would you have responded?

What I found particularly impressive was that this team from a rural area in Clarence, NY, who had never experienced a disaster of this magnitude and found themselves on the front line of a national crisis, seamlessly lead a swift and efficient response that comms teams and experienced crisis professionals across the country are now learning from. By quickly establishing their goals (below) and roles and responsibilities, anticipating the questions to come each day and communicating in one clear voice through their strategic tactics (below), they’ve become an impressive crisis comms example. Need a quick proof point about their effectiveness? The first official press conference about the crash happened within one hour. Contrast this with the rampage at the American Civic Center in Binghamton, NY, where the first official press conference was held 8 hours after the crisis.

But the session did leave me with one lingering question: Was there a role for social media in the response that was overlooked? Social media isn’t always the answer and shouldn’t be a strategy by itself. Yet there are some clear ways that social media could have support and aligned with the crisis comms goals. Below I’ve broken out each goal, the tactic the response team deployed and a potential social media idea:

I welcome your thoughts. Would social media have strengthened or fragmented the response? Have you used social media as part of your response to a crisis?