There’s nothing like a slow-moving crisis to inflict long-term harm on a company’s reputation.

During the last five months, retailer Best Buy saw how a lack of a clear response and action took its toll on the company. The trickle of news about an inappropriate relationship between the CEO and an employee went from bad to worse. It took down the chief executive, then found its way into the boardroom; the founder and chairman of the company submitted his resignation this week.

According to reports, the crisis began in December when Best Buy founder Richard Schulze confronted then-CEO Brian Dunn about his relationship with the employee, but Schulze never reported it to the rest of the board.

The news of the romance spiraled from there, with an audit committee investigating the incident. During the next few months, the top two executives for the company lost or left their jobs, and the company, looking to regain its footing among competitors, was dealt a huge blow.

Initial media coverage stated that the CEO’s resignation had to do with poor financial results, but the situation got worse with every revelation.

Clearly, announcing an investigation in December would have helped over the long term by rebuilding Best Buy’s reputation. Since the crisis began, Best Buy’s stock has lost one-third of its value.

Here are some crisis response basics that would have more swiftly resolved the matter:

• Quickly activate response strategies and messaging for internal and external audiences;
• Engage in online and offline stakeholder communication;
• Designate on-the-ground staff to support employee teams locally, regionally, and nationally, if applicable;
• Monitor and respond to traditional media and social media around the clock;
• Develop and implement proactive reputation-management campaigns;
• Review and revise crisis procedures and plans;
• Continue to foster relationships with the media and key influencers and audiences.

Though companies can’t always prevent bad news from happening, they can lessen the damage with a quick, transparent response. In Best Buy’s case, a few weeks’ barrage of terrible news would’ve been preferable to this months-long bloodletting.

(This post also appears on Ragan’s PR Daily.)

These days, the same should hold true for CEOs and what they put on their résumés.

In the latest résumé embarrassment, a Yahoo investor called out the company’s chief executive for misstating his academic credentials. An SEC filing, verified by CEO Scott Thompson, stated that he had a degree in computer science. As it turns out, his college said the program wasn’t even offered at the time he attended.

Yahoo continues to be in full crisis response mode since the news broke last week, saying it was an “inadvertent error” and that the company’s board was looking into it. The Yahoo board member who headed the search for Thompson is reportedly stepping down.

Some Yahoo investors are calling for the CEO to resign. What’s so frustrating is that there really wasn’t any need for Thompson to bend the truth; the CEO’s experience at other companies is more important than what degree he did or didn’t earn 30+ years ago.

It’s an all-too-familiar story. Over the last several years, there have been numerous top executives caught “misstating” their résumés, including top bosses at RadioShack, Herbalife, MGM Mirage, and Bausch & Lomb. Even a Massachusetts Institute of Technology dean was caught claiming degrees she never earned.

If the PR world is going to learn from these examples, this latest instance should prompt us to fact-check our clients’ corporate executive profiles, including those posted on LinkedIn.

When I was an editor, we fact-checked public résumés of executives as a matter of course. Not surprising, it would take only one well-targeted phone call to find whether an executive had boasted a bit too much on his or her résumé.

You might want to take a run through your résumé and LinkedIn profile to make sure they are accurate. Chances are there’s something that is not quite right. According to CareerBuilder.com, just 5 percent of workers admitted fibbing on their résumés, but 57 percent of hiring managers say they have caught a lie in a candidate’s application.

Social media might help this problem. Researchers at Cornell University found that college students were less likely to lie on LinkedIn than on their print résumés. Still, the study noted that a whopping 92 percent of college students lie on their résumés.

Some of those students will grow up and join the C-suite. You do the math.

(This post also appears on PRDaily.com)

Nowadays, that has evolved to the state where reporters hardly pick up the phone to talk to sources, let alone cover stories by face-to-face meetings. Interviews are now done via email, Facebook, Twitter, and Skype.

During a recent talk on social media and crisis communication, Dallas Lawrence, chief of global digital strategies for Burson-Marsteller, mentioned a survey indicating that 49 percent of reporters find story sources on Twitter.

For reporters, it takes the hard work out of searching for sources, because they can simply perform a hashtag search on a topic and find numerous sources, then contact one or more of them with a targeted tweet or direct message.

This phenomenon is particularly true with the new generation of reporters who have grown up with social media and texting, said Steve Myers, managing editor of Poynter.org, a site covering journalism issues, news, and trends.

“Maybe some of it is a natural evolution of our industry,” said Myers. “There still feels like there’s something transactional about it: Send questions on email, get answers on email, and put the story together without actually physically talking to someone.”

The email interview lacks the color a phone call can have, and it loses the natural back and forth that comes from a conversation. Plus, there’s no personal relationship building, however slight, when everything is done in written form.

Though Myers conceded it is probably not the best work practice, he adds that some reporters have better results contacting people through email. Sources can take time to craft responses to questions provided beforehand instead of being surprised by them on a phone call.

I work on many statements to provide reporters, but I will always make a point of calling the reporter back, or having them call me before I forward a statement. This way I can talk to them about their story angle and provide additional background that is simply too obtuse to be included in a statement.

I’ll admit that sometimes it feels futile. One reporter recently emailed me seeking a statement. I asked the reporter to call me before I provided one.

The reporter did not call and ran the story ran without the statement. I guess it was too much effort for that reporter to pick up the phone.

(This post also appears on Ragan’s PRDaily)

In the era where citizen journalists rule and breaking news is shared in seconds via Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, can reputations be destroyed as quickly? According to the author of the article, not entirely.  Is it because we’re more forgiving today than 10 years ago when “traditional” media could determine who was good and who was bad? Do we have shorter attention spans, where a crisis one day is quickly replaced by the next corporate disaster the following day? Or, is the answer somewhere in between?

Case in point – the recent JetBlue crisis. It had the makings of a perfect storm – a pilot with a “medical situation” and more than 130 passengers/citizen journalists armed with cameras and video capturing every moment while it happened – only to share their experiences on social media even before the plane landed.

The incident could’ve been disastrous for the company, but it wasn’t. Less than 24 hours after the incident, JetBlue’s CEO, Dave Barger, was thrust into the national spotlight having to explain what happened on national TV, radio and in newspapers. It certainly could’ve been an ongoing crisis and seriously damaged Jet Blue’s reputation. But, the company’s response was spot-on, including the CEO’s interview with Matt Lauer on the Today Show. Barger was empathetic, he repeated his key messages (without seeming overly rehearsed), and most importantly, he was sincere and forthcoming.

While I believe we probably are a little more fickle today and ready to move on to the next the next big thing, I also believe the rules of responding to a crisis have not changed, even if the speed at which a crisis occurs has changed.

Here are some basic crisis response guidelines we provide to our clients:

• Acknowledge and accept responsibility for what occurred
• Plan and implement changes to ensure mistakes are not repeated
• Engage with target audiences throughout the process

Jet Blue was back in the news again last week when the pilot’s attorney said the pilot will plead he was inane at the time of the mid-air meltdown. Did we pay attention to that news or had we all moved on to the next crisis?

~ Barb Jones

The rest of the world learned last week what the PR world has known for some time: The so-called soccer moms of yesteryear now have a strong voice that can sway legislation, product consumption, and corporate and government decision-making.

The power of this group—regardless of whether they work inside or outside the home—cannot be underestimated, and as the political season gets into full swing the public is likely to see more checks and balances offered in real time by the mom blog contingent.

From a crisis communication perspective, the strategy for responding when caught in the crosshairs of mom bloggers is straightforward: Quickly and completely apologize, and change your actions. Anything less will be futile and will simply bring gasoline to the already burning bonfire. And remember to duck, as online conversations always take on a life of their own, even if there’s a heartfelt apology.

Lobbyist Hillary Rosen, herself a mom with an online presence, learned this the hard way when she commented on a CNN program about how presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s wife has “never worked a day in her life.”

Within minutes, the mom bloggers went to work. By the end of the day, after some attempted sidestepping, Rosen was offering a full apology. Even the First Lady of mom bloggers, Michelle Obama, jumped into the fray, ignoring political lines and backing the wife of her husband’s likely challenger in November’s election. She tweeted: “Every mother works hard, and every woman deserves to be respected.”

That was tame. Most comments were along the lines of what @resourcefulmom tweeted: “The next person to tell me it was okay for Hillary Rosen to state that Ann Romney ‘never worked a day in her life’ is getting kicked. Hard.”

To the fray, the mom bloggers added a powerful new member, Ann Romney, Mitt Romney’s wife.

Ann Romney’s new Twitter account was set up Thursday to offer a brief response, and with only four tweets so far, she’s already pushing 40,000 followers. Her first short missive said: “I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work.”

In 2012, women’s votes will matter more than ever, and with social media as a platform for sharing opinions and ideas, “mom bloggers” have a legitimate and forceful voice that speaks to women—moms or not—and inspires action in politics and other arenas. They have a strong voice and are being heard.

(This post also appears on Ragan’s PRDaily.)

Regardless of the issue, the global property and casualty insurance firm focuses on its core value when responding to crisis events. It harkens back to company founder Hendon Chubb, who said, “Never compromise integrity.”

Based on this credo, Mark Schussell, vice president and PR manager for Chubb Group, shared the company’s big-picture crisis-management plan at a recent conference. Given the vast scope of the company—10,000 employees in 27 countries—the approach is simple and straightforward, based on this trinity: Don’t cover up; fix the problem; apologize.

Here’s an outline of Chubb’s protocol:

Plan

• Identify and prepare for potential issues.
• Communicate with the customer service and legal teams.
• Get the facts and prepare statements.

Monitor

• This covers traditional and social media.
• Respond and correct the record.

Respond

• Get in front of the story.
• “No comment” is a last-ditch response.
• Accurately convey your side of the story.

Having slogged through 100-plus-page crisis plans, I can tell you this simple approach makes sense, particularly given the evolving social media nature of bad news. By the time you get through an extensive plan and figure out what to do, the crisis will have escalated beyond control. In a crisis, the best company responses demonstrate on social channels that they are listening and trying to resolve problems.

Taking a page from Chubb, you should listen and respond; the rest is just window dressing.

Then along came social media, and the retailer drastically changed its strategy. Today its brands—Gap, Banana Republic, Old Navy, and Athleta—engage in online conversations. Customers crave this back and forth and want the story behind Gap’s products, Sue Kwon said during a recent conference on crisis communications and social media. Kwon is the parent company’s director of digital media and chief of editorial.

I recently discussed how Gap engaged its 130,000 employees with a straightforward social media policy. Here are some insights into how the company and its chains describe the purpose of its various social media channels.

Facebook:

• To build a community where customers and employees interact.
• To craft online identity, seed conversations, enhance reputation, and distribute exclusive marketing content.

Twitter:

• To talk to customers in real time, share content, answer questions, and lead followers to Facebook, corporate blogs, and YouTube.

YouTube:

• To showcase brand-appropriate video content and improve search engine results.

Corporate blog (aDressed):

• To enhance reputation with conversational posts linked to press releases, leader profiles, and relevant third-party content.
• To post leader messages, highlight corporate culture, and improve search engine results for positive content.

Content on these channels includes company news, pop culture, promotions, and guest blogs. The channels are also used to address customer issues.

Gap’s social media program to encourage customers to voice their opinions came together in full force when the company introduced a redesigned logo in 2010. The social media outcry against the change was vehement and widespread. On its Facebook page, Gap’s president tried to offer some balance by giving some background on the new logo and how well it had tested with customers.

Several days later, with complaints still rolling in, Gap announced on its Facebook page that it was scrapping the new logo: “OK. We’ve heard loud and clear that you don’t like the new logo … So instead of crowdsourcing, we’re bringing back the Blue Box tonight.”

A Lubbock, Texas-based Beef Products Inc. created a response website called beefisbeef.com to offer “truth and reality” to its product, which is unappetizingly being called “pink slime.”

The company also took out a full-page ad in The Wall Street Journal defending its product and is relying on third-party experts to fight the campaign.

The beef product has been around for years, but this month social media became the host for parents outraged over the use of the ammonia-treated filler. Hundreds of thousands of people signed an online petition seeking its ban from schools. The U.S. Department of Agriculture relented and decided school districts may stop using it and supermarkets have pulled products with the filler.

Beef Products’ response campaign takes a page out of the new media world, and includes a helpful informational graphic on its site called “Get the Facts: What You Need to Know About Lean Beef Trimmings.” Check it out here: Get the Facts On Beef

Most notable in the graphic is the fact that other products in a typical hamburger contain ammonia, from the bun to the cheese to ketchup.

Then the company takes on every question with an honest FAQ, and lists links to third-party sources that have taken umbrage with the campaign.

“I am sure the public is not aware of how widespread and potentially devastating the consequences of allowing public misperception to trump sound nutritional science are,” Barry Carpenter, chief executive officer of the National Meat Association, said in a statement posted on the site.

The company’s director of food safety and quality assurance has been quoted by a variety of publications and wire services this week, too. The message he conveys is that the company is open to honestly answering questions about its products, and stands by the fact that it is safe.

“We produce 100 percent quality lean beef. That’s it. That whole thing is a farce. There’s no substance to it,” said Beef Products’ Craig Letch to the Chicago Tribune.

Beef Products has conducted a smart response campaign, but it might continue to get drowned out by the anti-pink slime cacophony. The hard reality is that the public has spoken loudly and consistently. Beef Products confirmed this week that it has suspended operations at three of its four plants, and it is laying off 600 workers.

Thanks once again to the world of social media, everybody now does know about the ammonia-treated meat additive, and they want it removed from their beef products. Following a grass-roots social media outcry that went viral two weeks ago, customers are getting their wish.

“Pink slime” has been discussed for years, but this month the issue caught fire on social media and in online petitions seeking, among other things, to make sure it was not served in public schools. A Change.org petition to get lean beef trimmings out of America’s food supply has garnered almost 250,000 signatures.

The USDA, already under fire for having allowed the product for years, this week announced that it would offer an alternative beef product—one without the additive—for school lunch programs.

Also this week, most large supermarket chains relented and removed meat with the filler from their refrigerated sections. In a note on its Facebook page Thursday, Kroger, the nation’s largest traditional grocer (2,435 supermarkets in 31 states), said:

“We have listened to your concerns that the use of lean finely textured beef—while fully approved by the USDA for safety and quality—is something you do not want in ground beef. You are our top priority and for that reason we have decided to stop purchasing ground beef that contains lean finely textured beef.”

Comments following the announcement thanked the chain for having a change of heart. A day earlier, Kroger was defending the use of the additive, saying that a portion of its customers would rather pay less for meat that includes the filler than for higher-priced products without it.

Over the next 24 hours, Kroger must have realized that they had a long road ahead in justifying the sale of the product, especially once competing supermarket chains had committed to stop selling products containing the additive.

Retail giant Walmart also has issued a statement saying that its stores will soon stock products without the additive, and that its employees will be able to tell customers whether a particular beef product contains “pink slime.”

They did not, however, say that all products containing it would be eliminated.

What is notable about the campaign is not necessarily how quickly it spread, but how quickly the USDA and the affected companies acted—in stark contrast to the slow and tone-deaf response from the Susan G. Komen foundation as its crisis unfurled. In the case of pink slime, companies quickly overcame the usual obstacles to getting rid of a controversial product and made a commitment to their customers, averting a full-blown crisis.

(This post also appears on Ragan’s PRDaily)

The clothier—which operates the Gap, Banana Republic, Old Navy, and Athleta chains—gives each of its 134,000 employees a no-nonsense social media policy, and nowhere does it recommend to “just cinch it.” The policy is broken down into three categories, “Keep in mind,” “How to be the best,” and “Don’t even think about it.”

The guidelines were presented last week by Gap Inc.’s social media team as part of a crisis communication conference, hosted by U.K.-based Ethical Corp. The guidelines are not posted for the public, but highlights were taken directly from the handy, iPhone-size, five-fold brochure given to each employee. The brochure is titled: “OMG you will never guess what happened at work today!!”

The policy should serve as a guide on how a large, multinational corporation can strip away the legalese and provide a real-world manual on social media that keeps the company’s best interests in mind.

Even the warnings are conversational:

“These guidelines are important—because if you don’t follow them a few things could happen: your posts can get deleted, we could lose customers and investors, we could get in trouble, or, worst of all, you could even lose your job … So do the right thing, stick to the guidelines.”

Some highlights:

Keep in mind…

There’s really no such thing as “delete” on the Internet, so please—think before you post.

Some subjects can invite a flame war. Be careful discussing things where emotions run high (e.g. politics and religion) and show respect for others’ opinions.

It’s a small world and we’re a global company. Remember that what you say can be seen by customers and employees all over the world and something you say in one country might be inaccurate or offensive in another.

Respect other people’s stuff. Just because something’s online doesn’t mean it’s OK to copy it.

Your job comes first. Unless you are an authorized Social Media Manager, don’t let social media affect your job performance.

How to be the best …

Play nice. Be respectful and considerate, no trolling, troll baiting, or flaming anybody, even our competitors.

Be yourself. Be the first to out that you are a Gap Inc. employee – and make it clear that you are not a company spokesperson.

If you #!%#@# up? Correct it immediately and be clear about what you’ve done to fix it. Contact the social media team if it’s a real doozy.

Add value. Make sure your posts really add to the conversation. If it promotes Gap Inc.’s goals and values, supports our customers, improves or helps us sell products, or helps us do our jobs better, then you are adding value.

Don’t even think about it…

Talking about financial information, sales trends, strategies, forecasts, legal issues, future promotional activities.

Giving out personal information about customers or employees.

Posting confidential or non-public information.

Responding to an offensive or negative post by a customer. There’s no winner in that game.

As you can see, Gap Inc. has figured out a social media policy doesn’t have to come from the legal department, and that a straightforward, conversational tone probably makes the greatest impact with employees. It covers everything, but it doesn’t beat you over the head.

Check out the entire policy here. Socialmedia@gap

(This post also appears on PRDaily.com)