Tag Archives: Corporate Communications

Reputation management: Royal Caribbean and Haiti

Posted on by

External crises can force companies to make consternating choices.

Royal Caribbean has come under fire for continuing to dock its cruise ships on the Haitian peninsula of Labadee in light of the devastating earthquake. An article in The Gaurdian, later picked up by The Huffington Post and the LA Times travel blog, among other outlets, questions whether passengers should be sunning themselves and enjoying cocktails on the beach when so many are suffering in Port au Prince.

It’s a sticky situation for Royal Caribbean. On the one hand, they’ve used their cruise ships to deliver pallets upon pallets of supplies and drinking water for the residents of Haiti. They’re bringing economic activity to Labadee, where hundreds of Haitians rely on tourism income to feed their families (in fact, it’s probably less a matter of the positive economic impact of the cruise passengers than it is the avoidance of the negative impact should the cruise ship divert to somewhere else and thus leave those who depend on tourism revenues in a lurch). Royal Caribbean has also pledged $1 million in relief to Haiti.

Opinions are flying around the Internet and in the media as to whether RCCL is doing the right thing. Passengers themselves are divided, and some refused to disembark during the Labadee visit and stayed on the ship. Others are glad to be spending their money and be involved with the relief effort. Some have made the argument that Haiti (and for that matter, most Caribbean vacation destinations) was abjectly poor and in need before the earthquake, yet that didn’t stop cruise ships from docking there and passengers from visiting.

It’s a reputation management nightmare. There’s no clear-cut “right answer” that will make all RCCL stakeholders happy. Royal Caribbean made its decision and while many are supportive of their efforts, some are swearing off the cruise line and calling it insensitive, shameful, or even disgusting.

Blogging the company’s rationale

I do admire the way Royal Caribbean has communicated throughout this crisis. The company’s blog, written primarily by the CEO, has been almost entirely devoted to Haiti for the last two weeks. One post details the internal processes the company is using to monitor and manage the situation in Haiti – they’ve even posted a link to a .pdf of their daily meeting notes. Another post addresses the Guardian article and defends their decision to continue operations in Haiti. They’ve posted several photos of relief supplies and discuss a meeting with President Clinton. Both the CEO, Adam Goldstein, and Associate Vice President, John Weis, are posting a few times a day.

Sometimes CEO blogs get a bad rap, and it’s often deserved. They can be dry and uninformative. But having a CEO or company blog in place gives you an instant response platform when a crisis arises. Royal Caribbean had to make a tough call, and through its blog has been able to not only explain and defend its decision in detail but also receive instant feedback by way of comments. Many of the comments support the company’s choice.

I’m sure the RCCL team agonized over what the proper course of action was. I’m still not entirely sure what I would have chosen to do had I been the one making the choice. But I can appreciate that Royal Caribbean was honest, forthright and transparent about its reasons and processes with its customers. I read the posts and can relate to Adam and John as real people who had to make a difficult decision and ultimately are trying to do right by the people of Haiti, their employees, their customers and the public at large.

Did they get the communications piece right?

I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments. Instead of debating whether or not RCCL made the right choice to continue docking in Labadee (those discussions are happening all over the Web at the links I included above), I’m more interested in hearing your reactions to how they’ve communicated their choices and actions during this crisis. What could they or should they have done differently? What risks do they still face in terms of reputation management and how do you think they should address them?

How you can help

My earlier post on how to donate and support Haiti relief efforts

Image via Royal Caribbean’s Why Not blog

Six suggestions for communicating change to employees

Posted on by

Although we’ve all roared into 2010 with optimism that the recession is soon going to be behind us, many companies are faced with difficult choices in order to survive: cutting or outsourcing jobs, consolidating plants or divisions, eliminating product offerings, slashing funds for research and development, divesting a unit, or even restructuring in bankruptcy. All involve lots of change, especially for employees. What can communicators do to keep the wheels on the bus during the upheaval? Here are six recommendations:

1. Set expectations

Explain to employees what’s going to happen when. Layout a timeline of expected milestones and actions. Address critical issues upfront: how are the changes going to affect the things they’re most worried about: pay, benefits, time off, job security? Let them know what will be expected of them: do they need to fill out any paperwork, make choices about benefits or change their work schedules? The more uncertainty you can remove for them, the better.

2. Create a rhythm

Incorporate change communication into regular channels, but also consider special daily or weekly updates to keep employees abreast. Make sure that the frequency matches the amount of information available, however. Don’t schedule daily updates when it’s likely that there will only be new information each week or month. Most employees will be more comfortable knowing they can expect new information at set times versus not knowing when the next update is going to come.

3. Admit when you don’t have information

In many situations (layoffs, divestitures, bankruptcy filings) legal regulations dictate what you can disclose, when, and to whom. Sometimes even communicators themselves aren’t informed of all the details of a situation until it’s well underway, or if they are informed, they’ve signed a nondisclosure agreement and can’t reveal what they know. Other times, information just may not be available. It’s okay to tell employees that. Not every detail of a situation is going to be worked out from the first moment. It may take months before it becomes clear what’s going to happen with a particular product line, department or program. Employees would rather hear that you don’t know something versus hearing a lot of speculation.

4. Enable feedback

Whether it’s weekly roundtable meetings, an anonymous Web form, an e-mail address, or just a good old fashioned suggestion box, ensure that the communication is truly two-way. Give employees the opportunity to submit questions and air out concerns, and then answer them as promptly and thoroughly as possible. Chances are if one employee is asking about a topic, three or four others are thinking about it. Monitoring feedback is also a great way to catch rumors as they surface. Situations that involve a lot of change can be stressful, and communicators can sometimes get so caught up in making sure information gets disseminated that they forget to check the feedback loop and see where the gaps are in what employees are really hearing.

5. Dispel rumors before they get out of hand

Again, sometimes your hands may be tied with what you can confirm or deny about a situation, but to the extent possible, put the kibbosh on outlandish rumors before they get a chance to spread. Easier said than done, of course. If you can dispel something that’s patently false (and even better, replace it with the truth), do so. Fast. And frequently. Even rumors that have been put to bed end up recirculating among different employee groups.

6. Reinforce the positives

It sounds trite, but there’s always silver lining to be found. Maybe your company is still profitable and growing. Maybe your customers love you. Maybe your employees are racking up awards, patents, conference slots or other accolades. Find the bright spots and incorporate them into communication to employees.

Big changes in a company can cause fear and uncertainty among employees, but they can also lead to a stronger organization. Communicators play a major role in helping make the transition smooth and as transparent as possible, but it takes a lot of effort and planning.

Facebook etiquette: To delete, or not to delete?

Posted on by

The following is a guest post from Lindsay M. Allen, a PR and communications pro from central Michigan. I’ve had the pleasure of connecting with her on Twitter and meeting her a few times in person this year. Enjoy. -AM

This post has been brewing for awhile — too long, really (and I bet Amy won’t disagree … ha ha ha). It started when I noticed a brand that is near and dear to my heart (and shall therefore remain nameless) making what I felt was a big ol’ Facebook boo-boo, leading me to ponder when — or whether — it’s acceptable click that “Remove” button on the Facebook pages we are called upon, as professional communicators, to moderate.

Back to the inspiration for this post …

Organization X posted on its Facebook fan page, “(Organization X) has some breaking news to officially announce… Stay posted for details.”

Unfortunately for Organization X, there were several other organizations involved in its “big news,” and the scoop was already floating around out there and being reported on by credible mainstream media outlets that regularly cover the organizations involved, including Organization X. Bottom line: Lots of people already knew the “exciting news” and began posting about it in the comments section under the post.

As I revisited the page several times to see when Organization X would finally, officially post the news, I noticed something. The fans’ comments — all positive, excited remarks about the forthcoming news, which also was positive — were being deleted almost as quickly as they were being posted. It was sort of like a a clay-pigeon shoot, communication-style: The comments kept popping up, and someone kept shooting them down … so quickly that it would’ve been impossible to get accurate screen captures of the situation.

I was stunned by, a little angry at, and quite disappointed in Organization X. But then I realized … Organization X and its Facebook gatekeeper(s) probably aren’t alone.

Really?! Are there communicators who need so badly to control their organizations’ messages that they go so far as to delete positive comments about positive news just because they haven’t posted the news yet (probably because a news release is caught up in the review process and stuck on a manager’s desk somewhere)?!

Most conversations I had with people in the aftermath of the situation yielded one opinion: In cases like these, don’t delete! Arment Dietrich PR CEO Gini Dietrich said one of the things I’d been thinking:

Gini also suggested that any deletion of tweets, comments, etc. could be unethical, but I definitely saw something on another Facebook fan page this fall that made me think that a deletion is sometimes justified:

The folks behind the Kohl’s Facebook page removed Gilbert’s comment, and I can’t say I blame them. Would you leave something like that on your company’s Facebook page? Shelby’s “Wow” comment — presumably posted with a “holy crap; I can’t believe someone posted that” sentiment – echoes the likely thoughts that others had upon reading Gilbert’s comment (myself included).

Regardless of whether it was true, would you want to read something like that about a store where you shop? I don’t know about you, but I’m a fan of Kohl’s on Facebook so I can get news about sales … not so I can read about the company’s employees’ sexual exploits with one another. Someone at Kohl’s must’ve thought that, too, since the comment was deleted.

So, the question remains: To delete, or not to delete? And under what circumstances?

Communications transparency: Seeing through the Brown

Posted on by

It’s not exactly lying if you generally tell the truth but leave out some details, right? Well, my Irish Catholic upbringing would probably argue that’s a sin of omission. It happens all too often in marketing and when it’s inevitably revealed that a company wasn’t being entirely truthful, the reputational damage that ensues can be severe. “Leaving out” important details can be just as bad as outright lying about a product. With the social media mantra of being transparent (can we put that word to bed yet?) people are expecting, perhaps now more than ever, to get straight-up and honest communication from companies and brands.

Which brings me to FedEx. Yesterday I noticed tweets from Mike Germano and Lisa Hoffmann about a new Web site: BrownBailout.com. Check it out. It’s a site that chastises UPS for trying to insert wording in legislation that would somehow change the way FedEx is regulated. I’m not going to go into details about the actual argument presented on the site (something about whether delivering packages predominantly through the air or by ground impacts what type of regulatory act a company falls under). But in general, the goal of the site is to get average Americans to contact their legislators and let them know that they oppose the “Brown Bailout.”

In certain ways, the site/campaign is very well done. It features a video on the home page that spoofs the UPS “white board” ads. The campaign plays up the animosity that many Americans are feeling right now toward bank and auto bailouts (even though I don’t think the issue at hand actually involves any direct infusion of cash from the government to UPS). The site enables sharing across social platforms with ample “share this” links for content. It mixes media such as video, blogs and charts. Visitors can register to get more info sent to them via e-mail. There’s an online petition, a newsroom and voluminous facts and counterpoints presented that are actually quite informative about the differences in the FedEx and UPS business models.

It’s a public awareness campaign, but one of the things the site seems to try very hard NOT to make people aware of is that the site is run by FedEx. In teensy-tiny print on the home page, at the bottom, is a small notice that says “Copyright 2009, FedEx.” I had to dig around on the site to finally get to a press release within the site newsroom that acknowledges that the Brown Bailout campaign is run by FedEx. But I doubt most “average Americans” who aren’t that interested in transparency or marketing would take the time to do that. Many people could very easily visit the site and not realize that Brown Bailout is not an independent organization of concerned citizens but a public relations campaign from UPS’ biggest competitor.

blurredFedEx isn’t exactly being opaque here – you can figure out that the site is run by the company if you hunt around. But I certainly wouldn’t call it transparent, either. Part of me understands – if the site was overtly branded and labeled as a FedEx site, perhaps people would be less interested in or trusting of the information, and probably less likely to take action on behalf of one big corporation in its schoolyard rumble with another. But most of me just feels extremely skeptical about this tactic – my red flags are raised.

What do you think? How should FedEx have handled this campaign? Are you comfortable with the level of disclosure on the site? Are they putting themselves at risk of being labeled as fake or manipulative? Is it a sin of omission?

Image via Flickr user b0r0da