We were flying Bearskin Airlines – a small, northern-Ontario centric regional airline.  By small, I mean ‘everyone gets a window seat, you better pee before you leave the ground, the inflight entertainment consists of your window’ small.

We approached the registration desk at Ottawa Airport several hours early with “Hi, we’re on the 6pm flight but we were hoping to get the 4pm flight instead.”  Bracing ourselves, we got ready to hear all about a $100 (or higher) change fee.

After all, Air Canada won’t let you change seats without lots of money and headache.  Even if your scheduled flight is delayed, you are pretty much bound to that flight number.

The agent’s response was one word: “Absolutely!”

Thanks to a common-sense customer satisfaction policy and a friendly frontline staff, I got to see my kids last night.  And THAT makes me feel all warm and fuzzy about Bearskin airlines.

Bearskin Airlines.  Absolutely.

(Sorry about the cheesy headline – I couldn’t help myself.)

Just stop for a minute and think about it – what one political quote proved the most damaging to any politician?  I bet you can remember.

(Bit of background: I have been conducting communications training sessions for seven years.  My clients have been in eleven US States and Canadian Provinces, and ranged from farming organizations, politicians, trade associations, manufacturers, charities and public sector organizations.

Every single one of those clients all slips up and creates the same message trap, time and time again.  It’s a message trap that’s brutally simple to slip up on.  I’ll admit it – I teach this stuff, and I find MYSELF making the same mistake time and time again.)

Back to the deadly political message – I bet you came up with one of three examples.

If you’re closer to 50 than 30, chances are good you’ve just thought of this, especially at the 30 second mark:

If you’re younger than 50, (or young at heart), you probably remembered this infamous sequence:

Those are, by far and away, the two most famous examples. There’s one more worth sharing:  When Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin was asked if the Liberal Party of Canada was corrupt, the Conservative Opposition made short work of his answer. (Listen carefully – Martin’s answer is used EIGHT times in only thirty seconds!)

So here’s the relevant question: What do all three quotes have in common? 

Every client I’ve ever had shares the same problem. This one message trap is so brutally easy to fall into, yet so brutally deadly, it’s almost not even fair.

Ready?  In essence, It’s the word “not.”

They all use a negative answer to deny a negative allegation.

Think about the question being asked:

• Mr President – are you a crook?  “I am not a crook.”
• Mr President – did you sleep with that woman? “I did not sleep with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
• Mr Prime Minister – is the Liberal Party corrupt? “The Liberal Party is not corrupt.”

It’s brutally simple to slip up on. Our brains are hard-wired to deny negatives.  What would your first reaction be if someone accused you with “You just drove into that ladies house.”  Of course, you’d quickly respond with, “No, I didn’t!”

Is it true?  Sure.  But here’s the problem.  Negatives sting.  Negatives are memorable.  They last forever. Positives are boring and go away.

Negatives ’stake a claim’ in the negative message. When you respond in the negative, you’re playing defense.  You can’t shake that real estate.

A positive answer tells them what you are. It may not be what a reporter is looking for, but it’s not your job to deliver a soundbite on a stick if it’s going to crucify you.

Even the simple act of denying a negative simply repeats that negative. Which is exactly the last thing you want to do.

Iimagine – how would history be different if the questions were answered like this?

• Mr President – are you a crook?  “I am an honest man, and I’ve done an honest job.”
• Mr President – did you sleep with that woman? “I have been faithful to my marriage, and to the office of the Presidency.”
• Mr Prime Minister – is the Liberal Party corrupt?  “The Liberal Party is full of honest, hardworking people.”

Boring, right?  Exactly.

‘United Breaks Guitars’ became a veritable anthem for all that is wrong with big, corporate North America, ignoring the ‘normal, everyman.’  It became a microcosm of incredibly poor customer service and corporate arrogance.

Which is why this is just so… awkward?  Tragic?  Funny?  You can’t make up what I’m about to tell you folks:  “On a recent trip to Denver to speak to customer service executives, “this Everyman symbol of the aggrieved traveler was treated, well, like just another customer,” Christine Negroni wrote for The New York Times. “United lost his bag.”

Let me emphasize a point here.  United Airlines LOST the one bag they can’t afford to lose.

Seriously – if I was United Airlines, I’d treat Dave Carroll’s bags with slightly more care than the nuclear football. 

Wow.  Just… wow.  Stand by – I sense a third version of his song in the making.

Releasing bad news always comes with a hearty case of the “Oh, Crud!’s” for the communicators.  As someone who’s had to face a hostile or alarmed media audience more than once, my heart goes out to the person responsible for breaking the news.

This is a classic case of a company which hasn’t done anything wrong, but is now instantly thrown into the spotlight.  Not only are their products being questioned, so are their practices, procedures and policies.  It gets even worse if you are one of the ‘afflicted competitors’ – your products get questioned despite the fact you clearly haven’t done anything.

There’s just no getting around it – people are having a few bad days in the turkey industry.  But what can the different players do differently, in order to keep their pain to a minimum?

—–

Ontario Turkey Farmers – Don’t ignore the problem
Given the timing of the announcement (just as we head into the seasonal ‘turkey rush), this is a great time for OTF to welcome the spotlight, and reassure customers that “turkeys are absolutely safe to eat.”  But unfortunately, 18 hours after the initial news release hit the media, their website is silent.  Ignoring aproblem isn’t going to make it go away.   If nothing else, even a link to the news releases prepared by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture or the grower, Hybrid Turkeys, would help, and is a quick, easy fix.

(UPDATE – as of 11am, TFO has updated their website.  And in a fantastic piece of messaging (see below for the alternative,) the key message is a great one: Turkey meat is safe.) Kudos to the Turkey Farmers of Canada.)

Ontario Government – Don’t deny a negative with a negative
The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) has a link on their main page to a news release.  And they come close to solving a critical consumer question – but they fail in delivery.  The easiest, deadliest trap for any communicator is denying a negative allegation with a negative answer.  (Remember “I am not a crook,” or “I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky?” )

What they said: “Food safety is not at risk. No birds or eggs from this facility have entered the food chain.”

What they should have said: “Eating turkeys continues to be safe.  The turkeys from this facility will remain on this farm, and out of the food chain, in order to guarantee consumer safety.”

Why are negatives so deadly?  Negatives confirm the original allegation in the mind of the questioner.  A negative statement is far more memorable than apositive – and that’s exactly what you don’t want when you’re dealing with a crisis of confidence.

Hybrid Turkeys – Playing too close to the chest
I understand why Hybrid doesn’t want the media poking around their barns.  But not disclosing the location of the barn in question does two things, and neither of them are particularly good… a) it gives the media something to ‘whack’ the company with, and b) it casts every facility in their operation under the same cloud.

Here’s a harsh reality:  Nothing upsets a reporter quicker than discovering a news source is withholding information.  Understandably, Hybrid doesn’t want ‘unclean’ tv crews poking around their facilities.

Rather than just not disclosing, Hybrid can create their own “B-Roll” footage – broadcast quality background material showing the facility in question.  Show rows of neat, orderly, happy turkeys.  Show some of the biosecurity measures in place.  A two minute video clip can be made available to reporters, along with the following caveat: “We understand you would like to show the facility in question.  Strict biosecurity measures are in place to protect both the health of the animals, as well as the health of ordinary people.  We respectfully request that non-authorized visitors refrain from visiting the operation in question.  In lieu of your visit, we are pleased to offer background footage of the facility, and are more than happy to answer any of your questions.

Being proactive like that gives the appearance of openness, without the hassle of unauthorized visitors.  It also lets Hybrid release information under THEIR control.

—–

All in all – not a bad job at all.  But implementing a few simple ideas improves a volatile situation, and makes the tough pill just a bit easier to swallow.

I’ve seen countless blog posts and industry articles lamenting the lack of good emergency plans. Here in Canada, one of the Provincial Governments is considering forcing non-government businesses to prepare emergency plans. I have helped organizations large and small prepare emergency plans… but I always say the same thing: “Chances are good that when you need it, this won’t do you any good.”

I have actually heard people gasp, out loud, when I say that. For a crisis communications consultant, crapping on an emergency plan is considered sacrilegious, equivalent to a Catholic Priest skipping his tour of the Vatican and going to the amusement park instead.

Remember, I make my money teaching businesses how to communicate more effectively in the event of a crisis.  So why on earth would I NOT like emergency plans?  The answer, to be blunt?  They are, with few exceptions, a complete waste of time.

What is far more useful is creating a crisis communications mindset. And a crisis communications mindset is nowhere near the same thing as an emergency plan.

If an ‘emergency plan’ causes an organization to sit up, adopt a wholesale rethink of the way they do things and determine how they can do better, that’s fantastic.  I’ll happily eat my words.  Unfortunately, far too often, an emergency plan does exactly the opposite… they fool the company into thinking their bases are covered.

One is a constant, perpetual state of mind. The other is a piece of paper.  One is a way of doing things.  The other is a way that things could, in theory, be done.

Let me help break it down:

- Discovering your building is on fire, you call your managers at 3am since you have their home numbers programmed into your personal cell phone:  crisis mindset.

- Discovering your building is on fire, you drive to the scene, only to recognize that your emergency plan is now ashes:  emergency plan.

—–

- Gathering your top people around to simulate emergencies on a regular basis, in order to best determine next steps: crisis mindset.

- Hiring a PR consultant to help you write a book, which gets put in a filing cabinet: emergency plan.

—–

- Routinely having team meetings so other members of the team know what all the arms of an organization are up to, or simply letting your tool and die workers learn how to operate a different type of machine so they can fill in “just in case:” crisis mindset.

- Not having any real idea what the person in the next cubicle does, or how he or she does it: emergency plan.

—

A crisis mindset means your employees have a fire drill on a regular basis. An emergency plan means you discussed what a fire drill would look like.

An emergency plan poorly thought out is more dangerous than simply not having one. It’s rather akin to hanging empty fire extinguishers on the wall.  All they do is act as wall decorations, while providing a false sense of security.

When Johnson and Johnson decided to institute a nationwide recall of tylenol, that wasn’t drawn up in an emergency plan.  Same with Maple Leaf deciding to recall packaged meats. These are decisions resulting from a crisis mindset – and a steadfast determination to do ‘what is right.’

Formal plans are a great tool. They can spark an intellectual discussion.  They can act as a crutch when you need something to lean on.  Unfortunately, in the event of a true crisis, it’s very hard to run with crutches.

And I truly mean everyone – all three levels of government have promised to ‘explore the issue.’ Several studies have spent several millions of dollars exploring possible routes, timetables, scheduling and logistics.

Why hasn’t it happened yet?  Well, there’s the obvious issue, money.  But I have to wonder if it’s also in no small part to idiotic decisions like this.

Forgive me, but you’ve got the money lined up.  The link could remove 5 million people from the roads each and every year… but “18 conditions stipulated by the Ministry of the Environment could set the plan back.”

One of those conditions?  “The trains must use clean technology that is still in development.”

So to clarify – the Ministry of the Provincial Government responsible for cleaning up the environment says in order to take advantage of new, environmentally friendly transportation, you have to use a non-existent engine.

“John Gerretsen, Minister of the Environment, says he believes the technology SHOULD be complete by 2015.”  Pardon me if I don’t hold my breath.

Does anyone want to take odds on whether or not our grandchildren will be complaining about the lack of high-speed rail between Union and Pearson?

Unfortunately, William lived in Malawi, and had no access to electricity to power a light bulb.  So what did he do?  He built a windmill.

That’s impressive enough for any 14 year old… but he did it using old pvc pipe, a collection of beer bottle caps, some rusty car parts and pieces of tree.  And it worked.

One windmill became three, and William not only was able to read at night, but he was able to pump water out of the ground, saving he and his family from starving to death.  He began to carve for himself a better life, using ingenuity and technology.

That was until his neighbours came by and demanded that he take the windmill down.  It was in the midst of a nasty drought, and his neighbours, heavily superstitious at the best of times, had a very good reason for wanting the windmills taken down… they blamed his windmill witchcraft for blowing away the rain clouds.

It makes us shake our head.  This was clearly a case of technology being used to better peoples lives, being scared away for no rational reason other than “this might be the reason and so therefore, in the interest of being prudent, we’ll remove the technology.”  What we mock as being ridiculous is legitimate logic, according to William’s neighbours.

Thankfully, William persevered.  His windmill has survived, his family has diversified their crops, and William can read at night.  He has expanded his windmill network, and as a result, his little village of 60 houses now has clean drinking water and a better life.

Mull this over the next time someone says the precautionary principal is simply “being prudent.”

The Guelph Storm are a junior hockey team based in the midwestern Ontario, Canada community of Guelph.  For those who are unfamiliar with the various levels of hockey, think of it as a double A baseball team.  They attract several thousand fans per game.

They are easily the most popular team in this city of 100,000 people.  As a result, their season-ticket’s list reads like the Who’s Who of the Guelph business community.

So I imagine some of those businessmen are going to be awfully upset when they find out that their email address is now public information to every fellow season-ticket holder.

The Storm were promoting a charitable luncheon, and did so via email.  Unfortunately, in a classic mistake that happens to the just about anyone (Hillary Clinton’s campaign made the same mistake), the Storm did the unthinkable and publicly listed everyone’s address in the “To” field.  As a result, anyone who received the email can easily see every address.

This is NOT a good way to endear yourself to your most important customers – season’s ticket holders.

So how should they fix it?  To send out another email will run the risk of flagging that very weakness to those who hadn’t noticed it the first time.  In effect, it’s like saying “I’m sorry I have this security flaw in my website.  Please don’t take advantage of it.”

I suspect it may be a moot point.  It’s only going to take one upset person to tip off the local newspaper before the Guelph Storm Management are going to be dealing with a very public black eye – in which case, nothing more than an abject apology is going to suffice.  In the meantime, it’s time to think preemptively.

Perhaps a snail mailed apology, along with a voucher to bring a guest to a future Storm game for free?  Or perhaps a coupon for something as simple as a free hot-dog or snack?  Anyone who hadn’t noticed the original mistake may be happy to receive a freebie, while those who are upset are somewhat mollified.

What do YOU think?

Non-surprising fact: He’s hired a PR firm to help him navigate through the mess that inevitably happens after he killed a cyclist on a Toronto street.

Surprising Fact: They’re doing a horrible job of it.

Look – I have no problem with his PR team.  They’re good people and they do fantastic work.  It’s disingenuous to slam the work of what would be a “rival” PR outfit, and I don’t want to do that, because I mean it – they really do good work.

Which is why what they’re doing here is just so… odd.  I don’t know – maybe Michael Bryant isn’t paying them a lot of money?  Are they being neutered by an overly cautious legal team?  I don’t know, and I welcome the opportunity to hear from them.  But let’s take a look at the Twitter account “Bryant Facts.”

The good:

• recognizing the role that social media has to play in staying out in front of a particular story
• making at least a token effort at counteracting some of the ‘lies and mis-perceptions’ that are out there.

The bad?  Just about everything else…. for example:

• No icon (classic Twitter newbie mistake.)
• Lack of updates (at the time I’m writing this, the Twitter account hasn’t been updated in over 33 hours.  That’s two or three lifetimes.)
• Not engaging the public or engaging in real conversation
• Lack of third party, verifiable information.  If the role of the account is to respond to misinformation, at least point them to the correct information.  Merely saying “Um, no, you’re wrong” isn’t going to cut it.

At the time I write this, Bryant’s blog is actually faring even worse – rather than four updates, it has only three.   And it leaves no opportunity to provide a comment.

What Bryant’s team has done is taken the social right out of social media.  That’s not harnessing the power of social media;  that’s outright neutering it.

Unbelievably, it even brings attention to negative allegations which may not have been noticed before.  For example, one blog post begins with the words “The “narration” in this YouTube clip is one-sided opinion and contains multiple inaccurate assertions.”  (Thanks for pointing out the video.  I hadn’t seen it before.)

What is their version of the truth?  We may never know.  The author doesn’t tell us what the truth is.  There is no verifiable information provided to an information-hungry, albeit skeptical public.

In this very high profile case, hiring ’spin doctors’ carries a risk in and of itself.  Which is why this is just so perplexing… This ’strategy’ leaves the reader with more questions than answers, and sadly, does so in a way that may make the problem even worse.

—————–

(For those who are non-Canadian, or have been hiding under a rock, Michael Bryant is the former Liberal Attorney General and widely considered a rising star in Ontario Politics until he struck and killed a bicyclist in the city of Toronto, Canada last week.  He has been charged with criminal negligence causing death.)

Details aren’t crystal clear, but what appears to be clear is that a cyclist was hanging unto the driver’s side door of Bryant’s convertible, when Bryant wiped him off using a mailbox and a few street-signs.  The cyclist inevitably fell off, hit his head and died.

Bryant had a reputation as a ‘hothead’ prior to the incident, causing many people to instantly wonder if this tragedy was a result of a notorious temper.  In any event, the incident, while undeniably tragic for the cyclist, also appears to have done fatal damage to Bryant’s future political ambitions.

My friend, and crisis communications expert Jonathan Bernstein spoke to the Globe and Mail newspaper about reputation repair, and what steps Bryant needs to take in order to move forward from here.