We have been about to post this chapter for nearly a week. The problem is tht the story kept changing. First Kryptonite's spokesperson decided to break its nine-month vow of blog silence, then NASA weighed in with a couople of crisis on its own. Finally Scoble found himself blogging in a crisis as Microsoft sqaured off with allegations of monopolistic maneuvering in the Register, and online tabloid. We found all the rewriting applicable to a central point: In a crisis, speed matters a great deal and nothing lets you communicate faster than a blog. Here's Chapter 13. Please let us know what you think. Robert and I are on to our final two chapters which need to be competed by August 15.
Chapter 13--Blogging in a Crisis
"When written in Chinese, the word "crisis" is composed of two characters-one represents danger, and the other represents opportunity."
—John F. Kennedy, 35th American President
For better or worse, the true power of blogging is clearest during times of crisis. Since 9/11, blogging has played an increasing role in providing fast, valuable, striking and comforting collaboration and information sharing. Time and again during the events in Madrid, London, the tsunami, and many less-spectacular events, “citizen-journalists” have reported from ground zero on personal, often dramatic events that mainstream media could not possibly catch via satellite photos, official spokespeople or a news team on the ground a few days after an event actually occurs. During crises, an increasing number of people-on-the-scene, transmit information through camera phones and handheld devices or go home and upload cam recordings or text of what they saw and experienced first hand. In 2005, bloggers sent out breathtaking and horrifying footage of tsunamis engulfing vacationers in Thailand and stunned London commuters staggering out of transit tubes where terrorists had detonated bombs. The odds of a mainstream journalist, being on the spot of such occurrences are incalculably small.
Citizen journalism can also force media attention on smaller crises. When David Koch, a Wisconsin-based technology journalist disappeared from the top of Grouse Mountain, near Vancouver in May 2005, Naked Conversations turned its blogsite into a space for information-sharing for Koch’s family and friends. Specifically, the family hoped that bloggers could generate enough attention to get the media to report on it and through the media, encourage search and rescue teams to continue their challenging hunt for Koch. During the next week, more than 100 people posted comments on our site, demonstrating expertise on the mountain’s terrain, search and rescue operations, ways to reach and get media attention. Despite the fact that the blog was set up for people wanting to collaborate on a book project, the postings on Koch generated many more comments than any other Naked Conversation posting. The family subsequently started its own weblog, and numerous other bloggers joined in to spread the word. Media attention shot up, not just in Vancouver, but elsewhere. The Wall Street Journal picked up on the story, as did CBS news. According to Gary A. Bolles, a partner in Microcast Communications, a custom interactive media company, who played a connector’s role between family and bloggers, “There's no question that the activity in the blogosphere helped increase the visibility of the search efforts to the traditional media, and I believe that in turn, encouraged press coverage at a time when interest by local and national print and broadcast outlets had started to wane.”
Additionally, bloggers supported the family not just with comments, but with computer equipment and physical space in the Vancouver area. Unfortunately, the story culminated sadly, with Koch’s body discovered in a ravine more than a week after he had disappeared. It’s small consolation, but the extended search did give the family a final answer to an ultimate question.
Businesses in Crisis
These, of course, are not business-related examples of blogging in a crisis. Nor would we be so callous as to argue that what a business considers a crisis equates in any way to acts of terrorism or natural disaster. But, we think they do contain applicable points. In a crisis, blogs play a fundamental role in the sharing and spreading of information and they do it with unprecedented speed. Businesses can jump in fast and effectively control, reduce or eliminate damage. We have already discussed the unfortunate cases of Electronic Arts, Kryptonite and Kensington. One could argue that Engadget’s video of a pen opening the bolt lock cost the company $10 million, or that Kryptonite’s non-participation in the blogosphere did the damage. In either case, the damage to the company’s reputation for years to come is likely to be immeasurable. .Blogging, as we keep saying, has made the world a faster, smaller place. In the new Information Age, words move at a rapid rate. Blogs shape opinions, that once formed, become entrenched. In the case of Kryptonite, rumors and facts have become so muddled together, that trying to sort them nine months later as we tried to do, became a daunting task. It didn’t have to be. If Kryptonite had just joined the conversation when it was occurring, we believe they would be in a better space today, and would not be now attempting to control damage, long after the damage has been done.
The key to all this is speed. Companies need to respond faster than ever before because of blogs. To millions of blog observers Kryptonite moved during its crisis at about the pace it takes a fat tortoise to cross China. We think Kryptonite should have moved faster than a speeding bullet, because if you don’t, the bullet is likely to hit you.
Registering disbelief
As we wrote this chapter, Scoble became involved in a situation than demonstrated how blogs can put a lid on a crisis. Writing in The Register, an RSS enabled news site, reporter Andrew Orlowski reported that Microsoft’s new Internet Explorer browser would block users from using Google or Yahoo search engines, requiring people to use Microsoft’s own MSN Search. Such charges, would be serious for any company, but for Microsoft, it was potentially a crisis of major proportion, because it would imply that Microsoft was defying its well-publicized antitrust settlements with US, European and several state governments. Less than three hours later Scoble posted on his Scobleizer site evidence that the charge was patently false. Throughout the night, other bloggers, trying the beta software, which had been released that morning. While there might be some anomalies with old versions of Google and Yahoo search software, the early beta worked seamlessly with any current search engine and if there were anomalies with earlier versions, during beta, there appeared to be no evidence of intended predatory practices.
For the next 24 hours, fires raged on Scoble’s blog. Accusations and insults were often injected into the conversation, which turned more than a little ugly at times. Technorati found over 1300 links to the Scoble postings by 4 pm July 29.
What happened next is relevant, because nothing happened next. The Register’s unfounded charges did not spread to other media. While other bloggers enthusiastically pointed to the brouhaha, other bloggers did not amplify Orlowski’s charges. When Microsoft executives woke up the next morning, they did not see a damaging article prominently in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal. Microsoft’s stock did not falter the next day and as far as we know, no watchdog at the Department of Justice went running down the hallway to report an infraction to his superior. By Friday night, interest in the controversy appeared to be on the wane.
Scoble and the Internet Explorer team had moved fast. They got their facts into the word of mouth food chain and by aggressively blogging and answering comments almost in realtime, no crisis had occurred. Compare that with Kryptonite’s story and then decide which course would be wiser for your company in a crisis.
The Register is an online publication that prides itself in being hard-hitting and it is not always as embarrassingly wrong as it was in Microsoft’s case. In the summer of 2000, Intel, the world’s leading microprocessor company launched its Pentium III 1.113 GHz processor, promising breakthrough speed for that time. The company’s PR machine wrapped the introduction into much hoopla and the computer industry and mainstream press received the new computer chip with general enthusiasm. Except, two electronic newsletter editors—Tom Pabst, who publishes Tom’s Hardware and Kyle Bennet who wrote for Hard OCP, working independently, both found and reported Pentium III 1.13 compilation problems in the new chip. The precise problem, applied only to a technically arcane Linux application, one unlikely to confront a typical computer user ever. But that is not what Intel said. They flatly dismissed the reports, saying the company had fully tested and benchmarked the processor and denied there was a problem. Besides Intel had spent millions on the launch and they weren’t about to reneg on claims because of two niche publications. Intel had its story and they were sticking to it.
Then The Register, picked up on the controversy and, from there, it moved quickly into the business and technology press. A day or two later, Dell Computer, quietly stopped offering its new computer, based on the processor— and the Register reported that as well. The Wall Street Journal, cited the Register when it reported on Intel’s surprise problems the next day, when the stock started sagging. Less than three weeks after Tom Pabst’s initial report, Intel announced it had replicated the problem, after all. A PR spokesperson described it as a “marginality” impacting too few computer users to require a recall. By then the whole world seemed to know that Intel had launched a new chip and it was faulty. There was a perception problem and Intel’s testing processes came under question. Intel seemed to have taken a “customer be damned” attitude and public fear, uncertainty and doubts were rising fast.
Several weeks after the incident first broke, Intel recalled the processor at great expense. More costly still, was the ding to Intel’s reputation. Intel’s processors, of course, remain inside most of the world’s personal computers, but at that time, many computer makers started talking about not putting all their eggs into one basket and arch rival AMD started making inroads. There were other simultaneous factors at play here, but Intel’s behavior would have long-lasting repercussions to its once infallible image.
NASA’s Blemishes
As we write, in the last week of July 2005, it has been a big news week. Among the issues has been NASA, the American space agency, who postponed it’s first manned launched in two years because of a faulty fuel gauge, then days later has a near-flawless launch marred by mysterious debris “scuffing” the spacecraft took off. NASA is an organization whose image seems to be erupting with more blemishes than a sugar-obsessed teenager.
It hasn’t always been that way. Without dispute, for more than 40 years NASA had the best manned success record of any space exploration organization. But two tragic setbacks changed that. In January 1986, Challenger exploded on its launch pad killing five astronauts. Seventeen years later, the aging spacecraft Columbia overheated during re-entry over Texas, incinerating seven more astronauts. After both tragedies, criticism was immediate and widespread. To its credit, NASA did not just clam up. It expressed sorrow for the loss of human life and sympathy for the surviving families. It gave the details of what had happened. But, in both cases, it positioned itself outside and above the heated and widespread public debate until, they maintained, independent panels could compile full fact-finding reports. In the Challenger’s case, the Roberts Report was published 12 months after the incident. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) took eight months to issue a report in which it asserted that culture--as much as loose tiles—was responsible for the tragedy. This report reinvigorated and amplified criticism. After remaining stoically silent for a year, saying it was waiting for this report, NASA then elected to go silent once more, this time, because it had to study the report. Eventually, NASA officials found their way onto the talk circuit, discussing what they were doing to improve their culture and safety. For those still following the story, it appears they indeed took some significant steps. But in the court of public opinion, it was too late. Most people had made up their minds about NASA long before space agency officials finally got around to speaking. NASA has lost a great deal of public and political support and they may not regain it for a long time to come. How this tainting impacts future budgets and programs remains to be seen.
Could blogging have helped NASA? We don’t know the real insider information, nor did we even attempt to contact NASA to ask. But we see a high level of certainty that organizations will almost always fair better by talking to the public, listening to critics, responding politely and constructively, and the earlier the better. Demonstrating that real people who actually care about quality, service and integrity represent your company can only help. Despite what a lawyer tells you, saying you regret that something bad happened doesn’t make you culpable, but not expressing concerns very often makes people suspect your actions and question company motivations and sensitivity. If you shut down, get defensive or react to genuine questions as if they are assaults, you are likely to accelerate the damage to your image and the ultimate repair bill will be higher.
At the speed of blink
Kryptonite, Microsoft, Intel and NASA all prove a single point: in a crises speed is of the essence and blogs are the best way to get the word out. In his fascinating best-seller, Malcolm Gladwell taught us that we now live in an age of Blink. The author talks about how people often make the right decision in a micro second. Unconsciously, they are using the wisdom of their experience. Gladwell says we do this by “thin-slicing,” taking the few facts that are most important to make right decisions quickly. Too many facts, he argues can confuse a situation, bog down response or worse, lead you to the wrong choice. One example he cited, examined an emergency coronary treatment unit that found triaging patients with chest pains based on just three facts, proved more accurate in identifying heart attacks and saved more lives, than waiting for all the facts to come in before acting. Responding fast saved lives, he argued.
We think it also saves companies and preserves reputations. It may not be part of the crisis process your company has in place, but how to respond in a blink may make the difference the next time an issue smacks you in the face. When the world is talking about you, perhaps unfairly and inaccurately, ignoring, dismissing or challenging accusatory voices, seems all too often to be part of enterprise crisis management procedures. Companies tend to deny the potential repercussions of incidents that start small—such as Electronic Arts did when a disgruntled spouse spoke out against working conditions. It seems to us the prudent course can be hazardous to company reputation. Instead, companies need to respond to criticism in ways that show they want to get at the truth and they want to protect their customers’ interests and well-being. You don’t achieve that by discrediting accusers. Stalling can easily give customers and observers the impression that you are more on the side of corporate profits than customer well-being. Credibility is very much like virginity. Once you lose it, it is very difficult to regain.
What to Say. What to do
But still, the issue remains: what should a company say before all the facts are in, before they can offer a solution, before they are ready to financially commit to making amends, if such amends are in order? How do they deal with the public, while lawyers are telling company officers that to reduce risk they should admit nothing?
Say: “We’re listening. We’re working on the problem. Our hearts go out to those who have suffered. We’ll tell you more as soon as we know more.” Keep your finger on the blog pulse. Assign one person to monitor it at least once hourly, more often when the heat is rising and report to decision makers when something relevent breaks.
Link fast to the angriest, most inflammatory commentary to demonstrate to everyone that you are listening, that you acknowledge what is being said. This doesn’t mean you endorse it, only that you are listening. If you do, then, in most cases, the screams will begin to subside. People realize you cannot solve a complex problem instantly. You just need to demonstrate that you listen and you will respond.
In that way, blogging buys a company what it needs most during a crisis. It buys time, perhaps just a few hours or days. By showing you are listening and responding, people stop yelling at you, just as the folks at Vichy learned. By showing they were listening, the folks at Vichy saved a product that people now love, that might have been scorned as universally as bolt bike locks became. Buying time through blogging, lets a company then execute the systems it has traditionally used to figure out a solution that will minimize damage while retaining customer loyalty and confidence.
1st Couple in Trouble
Back in 2001, Ben and Mena Trott became the blogosphere’s “First Couple.” In their early 20s, and like so many talented technologists, the two suddenly and unexpectedly found themselves laid off. Retreating from Silicon Valley to their hometown of Petaluma, Calif., they rented an apartment to save money and figure out what to do next. Mena started a blog called dollarshort, in part to kill some time during unemployment and “in part to become famous ”and she was frustrated by the glitchy tools of the time. So she asked Ben to build something easier for her to use. It became Movable Type, the most popular authoring toolsets for business blogs, but it was not all smooth sailing. In fact, a single wrong maneuver almost sank the boat.
That came a little later. At first, nothing could go wrong for Ben and Mena. “When we first released our software there was no blogging industry so expectations weren’t what they are today,” Mena Trott told us. “We had to set our own. Ben and I decided that once we started, we’d need to commit to go all the way. Other [software] companies had started then disappeared, leaving users unsupported. We knew that we might have our lives tethered to Movable Type and had to decide whether we were committed to do so. We had no business plan, but we did have a vision to make a tool that everyone could use and it would give them power.”
The day they launched it they got 100 downloads, many from blogging’s most influential people who wrote glowing early reviews, inciting an avalanche of subsequent downloads. A bit later, they started Typepad, authoring software for end users, which was still easier to use. The number of downloads at least doubled about every six months for the next three years. Ben and Mena became Six Apart, Inc. and they moved into modest San Francisco offices. When Pyra, publishers of Blogger, was acquired by Google, Six Apart became the only company focused exclusively on blog authoring tools. By facing the formidable troika of emerging competition from Google, Yahoo and Microsoft, they became underdog folk heroes and everyone in the press sought interviews with them.
Just about then, the crisis hit the fan. Since they had started out, the Trott’s had made clear that to continue to upgrade the software and to support increasingly less technology sophisticated customers, Six Apart would eventually charge users. It had developed the elements of its license policy ad hoc, and when assembled it was as confusing and ambiguous as a Rube Goldberg cartoon. There were corporate customers paying $150 for licenses and supporting 2000 users with it. Ben and Mena felt ripped off in the area. But in their response, they took action that made loyal end user feel, both ripped off and betrayed.
When Movable Type v3.0 was ready for release, the company surprised its customers with a new license policy, one that would make it expensive to group blogs, often shared by consumers, not corporate licensees. Customer response was immediate, negative and nearly violent. More than 1,000 negative blogs, Trackbacks and comments were posted in the first 48 hours. By blind-siding their users, Six Apart had infuriated them and they were threatening to defect en mass. “We knew people were going to complain,” Trott told us, “but we didn't know there would be thousands of people who personally wanted my head on a platter.”
Six Apart appeared to be in a tailspin and observers were quick to predict a crash landing.
The Trotts didn’t panic; nor did they behave defensively and they were anything but dismissive of their critics. They listened very closely and they were present out in the blogosphere where people could see them doing it. Mena’s Corner, her official blog, kept comments open and through Trackback, a visitor could see everything being said about them on the blogosphere, even the unkindest of swipes.
“The responses were really hard for us to take. It was like the first dent in your new car. Until then, everyone seemed to think we were perfect, and now we weren't. “But they did their best to take their emotions out of the equation and listen closely to what was being said. And what they learned was that people really wanted unlimited blogs more than free use.” The new licensing had been directed at corporate abuse. Six Apart had never intended to penalize the individual users, Trott told us. The irony, Trott told us is that, while consumers were up in arms, there were few ripples of protest from business who expressed relief that the company finally had coherent licensing.”
Their second lesson is one that all businesses need to know. People hate unpleasant financial surprises. “We should have explained our issues in advance. We should have talked with our customers before acting,” she reflected.
Finally, Six Apart had to figure out what to do next. “Even with the backlash, we had to continue. We couldn't just say, ‘Oh, never mind’ and change back to the old model. We had to figure out what wasn't going to work, and we needed to start charging for Movable Type.” They spent about a month getting the licensing straightened out and spent a good part of it continuing conversations with customers.
“We had to take our time. We had to get it right,” she told us.
Once it became clear the company was listening, the negative commentary quickly quieted down. Comments became constructive, just as occurred with Vichy. End users showed they were sensitive to the costs of developing and supporting software. Corporate customers have long understood that in enterprise environments freeware is often overpriced, because of the support problems often bundled with it.
Finally, she announced the revised revisions via Mena’s Corner, using a candid, unemotional style. There was little response. The crisis was resolved and Six Apart managed to avoid a fatal stampese of defecting customers. There seems to be little—if any— bitterness among customers and observers say the company’s meteoric rate of growth has not suffered.
What’s good for Six Apart …
We think Six Apart’s handling of a potential disaster will be an MBA case study, for how blogging can deflect or diffuse a crisis. Theirs is the most dramatic case we could find because the crisis actually occurred, and blogging averted a corporate tragedy. It’s more difficult to pinpoint crises that were averted altogether because they just don’t happen.
We think Bob Lutz at GM, has used his blog to effectively cool the heat when he explained the carmakers side of the story on boycotting advertising at the LA Times. How many other crisis have been diverted by blogs that show a company will listen and respond? We just don’t know.
One other example we’ve seen recently is how Dave Sifry, CEO of Technorati, is using blogs to respond to concerns about the quality of Technorati’s service. He, like Mena and others, is answering concerns on his own blog. He added a twist, though. He’s built a relationship with many of the top bloggers who regularly write about search and he emails them to let them all know that he’s posted an update. That’s smart, because it gets quite a few highly-trafficed bloggers to check out his blog, which then amplifies his answers. Everytime he does that we see dozens of links within an hour of his email notice. He also is visible at conferences and builds relationships with many bloggers so that they are more likely to contact him if they see problems. That’s great proactive work that has helped blunt any potential negative blogging that would have happened when the service has had growing pains.
We think the value of a blog in a crisis is immeasurable and rising. It seems to us that today, it is the best tool for a company to have in advance of a crisis, so that relationships with customers are already established and so is trust.
Steve Rubel at CooperKatz PR has devised a crisis management lock box, along the lines of, "In case of emergency, break this glass." The agency works with its clients to anticipate whatever crisis could possibly occur. They then plan and design a "failsafe" blog to be used if the anticipated crisis actually occurs. Clients know who the speakers, the issues that would be addressed and some of the toughest questions the client might face. So far, no such lockbox has been used, he told us in August 2005.
We think the day will come when such blog lockboxes, are simply part of corporate management standard operating procedures. In fact, as we see in the next chapter in the coming days there will be a great deal of innovation coming to the blogosphere.
