Protests: The Confidence to Act

There is a type of "critic" who in the face of significant social movements likes to play the role of cynic and doubter, throwing cold water on prevailing ideas.

The best of them, like Andrew Keen, delight in the role of curmudgeon and do so with a kind of tongue in cheek bravura that helps bring clarity to the idea or concept they are challenging. Others appear to resist a dominant idea simply because, well, it is axial to a popular meme.

An influential idea today is that the social web has played a role in the upheaval taking place in the Middle East. Almost on queue, the dutiful and dogged carping began or, if you like, followed in the footsteps of Malcolm Gladwell and his ill-thought out trashing of social revolution. (Paul Seaman: "The reality of revolt is that old-fashioned word-of-mouth communication is the best form of communication in any confrontation with one’s nation state.")

It is true as Evgeny Morozov (a some time carper himself) pointed out in The Globe and Mail, that authoritarian regimes can equally take advantage of the Internet:

(T)he Internet is an excellent platform for inciting revolutionary sentiment – and tracking down wannabe revolutionaries; it is a handy vehicle for spreading propaganda – and revealing government lies; it provides a platform that facilitates government surveillance – and helps people evade it.

Yet, Twitter WAS used as an organizing platform, connector and warning system as this Sysomos infographic (via Mashable) demonstrates

Correct me if I have this wrong, but few social web disbelievers have likely been to war or fought security forces on the streets. If they had, they would recognize the simple truth about the social web and social action: The social web can give people the confidence needed to act.

When protesters take to the streets in Egypt and Tunisia, they do so knowing -- from Facebook walls, Twitter and blog posts and text messages -- they are 'not walking alone', to paraphrase the Liverpool Football Club slogan.

The parallel is why soldiers risk their lives in war. An Army News Services story from 2003 reports on a study about why soldiers fight:

The other role is it provides the confidence and assurance that someone is watching their back. In one infantryman’s words, “You have got to trust them more than your mother, your father, or girlfriend, or your wife, or anybody. It becomes almost like your guardian angel.”

This is as true for people rising up in anger at repression as it is for soldiers in combat.

Young people in particular need to know their friends are with them. And how do they know? Because their social web, SMS and mobile networks give them not just information about a struggle but also faith others will be in the figurative 'foxhole' with them.

Attack your Critics: Good Reputation Rebuilding Strategy?

(Photo credit . . . Wong/Getty; Ngan/Getty)

Public relations academics will be analyzing for years BP's handling of communications during the Deepwater Horizon leak.

While many thought Tony Hayward (". . . Everything we can see at the moment suggest that the overall environmental impact of this will be very, very modest.") was not stellar in the role of chief public spokesperson, the jury remains out about whether his successor Bob Dudley will manage BP's reputation rebuilding strategy any better.

He's not off to a textbook start: In a speech to the Confederation of British Industry, Dudley claimed:

A great rush to judgment by a fair number of observers before the full facts could possibly be known, even from some in our industry. I watched graphic projections of oil swirling around the gulf, around Florida, across and around Bermuda to England -- these appeared authoritative and inevitable. The public fear was everywhere.

So much for taking on the burden of responsiblity as the starting point for a reputation overhaul.

Maple Leaf Foods' Launches "Crisis" Blog

Maple Leaf Foods (not a client) today launched a blog in response to the 2008 Listeria deaths caused by eating its deli meats and, as with much of how the company handled the crisis, it is a very good model for the language and tone of effective messaging . . . frank, honest and contrite. (Although its design is quite lackluster.)

The first post is by CEO Michael McCain and here is how it begins: "Since August 2008 twenty-one Canadians have died after eating Maple Leaf deli meats contaminated with Listeria.  We all watched in horror as the worst food safety crisis in modern Canadian history rolled across the country." Now that's frank and the antithesis of how many companies begin apologies after serious events.

Later in the post Mr. McCain writes "This was by far the most awful event in the one hundred year history of our company.  I can’t properly describe the overwhelming sense of grief and
responsibility we all felt … I felt, personally (emphasis added).  You may remember seeing me on
television back then, apologizing for the tragedy and vowing to develop the most
comprehensive anti-Listeria program of any food company in Canada." He then goes on to outline in details the changes Maple Leaf has made to reduce Listeria findings in its plants.

Even more significant he actually raises three subsequent issues related to Maple Leaf Foods' safety performance that most people had likely forgotten.

Textbook . . .

Ontario Apology Act Passed

Ontario quietly passed Bill 108, the Apology Act, yesterday . . . although for some reason media coverage has been very limited and more detailed information doesn't seem to be available on the website of the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney-General.

According to soonews.ca, "The legislation would allow an individual or organization to offer an apology as part of the dispute resolution process without concern over legal liability. The Apology Act provides that an apology made in relation to a civil matter does not constitute an admission of fault or liability and would not be admissible in a civil proceeding."

What coverage there is focuses on the impact of the Act in particular on medical and other professionals and how it may assist in dispute resolution.

The important question is whether the Act will encourage legal counsel in Ontario to be more flexible in their advice to companies on what they can and can't say when their products or services cause harm. Is it too much to hope that this may open the door for companies to consider more active reputation defense strategies -- starting with expressions of regret and compassion -- rather than relying only on legal-driven refusals to comment for fear of legal liability?