Category Archives: Public Relations

Nov 17

Sunday Spammers

Posted on by

I hate spammers. You hate spammers. We all hate spammers. And yet their numbers seem to grow exponentially with each passing week

I’m contemptuous of Sunday spammers in particular. And I find myself especially peeved by those who don’t bother to conduct any due diligence before spamming you on a day that really should be sacrosanct (for believers and non-believers alike).

One Sunday spammer crossed the line about six weeks ago when he sent our agency marketing team (of which I am a proud, if non-participating, member) a group e-mail containing the salutation:

“Dear Steve and Ed….”

This got my attention since we have been free of anyone named Ed for well nigh on three years. I decided to respond in a way that people who know me will appreciate:

“Dear Dudley,” I wrote to the spammer. “Ed’s been busy of late, but I’m sure he’ll respond as soon as he comes up for air.”

Dudley sent me a quick thank you note.

Then, sure as rain, the agency marketing team received another unsolicited Sunday spam from Dudley the next week.

The salutation read: “Dear Steve and Ed. Just following up to see if you had 15 minutes free this coming Tuesday for a product demo that will absolutely blow your minds!”

Ignoring his hyperbole, I responded: “Hi Dud (I thought we’d reached the point in our spammer/spammee relationship where I could address him by his nickname). As I‘ve already mentioned, Ed handles these sorts of inquiries and will be in touch shortly.”

Dud once again thanked me.

Then, last Sunday, Dudley came knocking for a third time. His unsolicited pitch letter began: “Dear Steve and Ed: With Thanksgiving now just 15 days away, I wanted to lock in a 10-minute product demo that will knock your socks off.”

Not wanting my mind blown or socks blown off, I thought I’d throw Dud a curveball. I wrote: “Thanks, as always, for your follow-up. Unfortunately, Ed suffered a freak injury while raking leaves yesterday and has lost the use of the fingers he’d otherwise use to respond to your once-in-a-lifetime offer.”

I didn’t hear a peep from Dudley yesterday.

Perhaps he was taken aback by the note and wasn’t sure how an inveterate spammer should respond to a spammee reporting a key player having been placed on the disabled list?

I tried to go inside the head of a spammer. Should Dudley take the high road and ask for an address to send flowers to Ed?

Should he offer an immediate 30 percent discount on whatever the hell he was trying to sell in the first place?

It’s a spamming conundrum that demands resolution. Does…

– Dudley continue his spamming next Sunday?

– He make a note to circle back in, say, 30 days of Sunday’s? I mean, how badly could Ed have injured himself with a rake?

– Or does he take the high road and say to himself, “Dammit Dudley. Let’s just remove Steve’s and Ed’s names (as well the agency marketing team’s group e-mail address) from the database and move the heck on? They deserve some peace and quiet.”

Time alone will tell if I scammed the spammer and did my bit to keep our collective Sunday‘s free of at least one unwanted spam in our in box.

Apr 09

Would Anyone Notice?

Posted on by

I have the distinct pleasure of being chairman of the Institute for Public Relations and a member of the Arthur W. Page Society.

This past week each organization convened in Manhattan for the IPR board meeting and Page Spring Conference, respectively.

The issue of the day (or week) was the purpose of purpose. Organizational purpose, that is.

I participated in three different purpose brainstorming sessions that included the best and brightest from the worlds of corporate America, academia and the agency world.

The bottom line is that purpose is still very much a work in progress.

For example, it is still seen by some Wall Street-focused CEO’s as non mission-critical (one participant referred to that baffling phenomenon as “the CEO blind spot”).

Others noted that purpose is still being confused by some CCO’s, CMO’s and CHRO’s with the corporate mission.

Most of the IPR/Page members “get” purpose. It’s intended to answer the question why:

– Why does an organization exist?

– Why do employees show up for work every day?

– Why do stakeholders engage with the entity?

Getting back to the mission vs. purpose confusion, I’d like to use Lowe’s Corporation to illustrate the difference.

The Lowe’s mission is: “Together, deliver the right home improvement products with the best service and value across every channel and community we serve.”

Having written a case study on Lowe’s for the Page Turner blog, I know the corporation’s purpose is “Helping people love the homes in which they live.”

Big difference, no? Their mission tells you what they do. But Lowe’s purpose explains why they exist.

One footnote: Our superb facilitator in the IPR brainstorm suggested every purpose exercise begin by asking one fundamental question: “Would anyone notice if our organization didn’t exist?”

Assuming the answer is affirmative, begin listing the reasons why and you will eventually uncover your purpose.

I recommend you do so at Mach Speed because, apart from the remaining CEO’s with blind spots, those who confuse mission with purpose and a few agency Luddites I can think of who still laugh it off as a fad, purpose WILL define the future success or failure of your business.

Apr 01

Sometimes bad publicity IS worse than no publicity at all

Posted on by

One of the more satisfying aspects of the multidimensional profession otherwise known as public relations is media training. It’s one of the few times when we exchange the seat of power with senior client executives and tell them what to do (or, shall I say, gently suggest what to do?). Media training is equal parts art and science and when practiced to perfection will end up with key client quotes and messages finding their way into articles and highlighted on cable interviews or, in rare cases, actually used as the headline by a leading business publication.

Sometimes, though, the best laid plans of mice and men (and media training) can go awry.

Case in point: The end results of the obviously botched media training of Chinese telecommunications giant, Huawei by the fine folks at Burson Cohn & Wolfe (BCW).

As you’ll read in Clay Chandler’s column, BCW (which just unveiled its new tagline: “Moving People”) was hired to media train Huawei’s two rotating chairmen (now that sounds like a cool gig. I wonder what the non-rotating chairman does when his counterpart is rotating?).

Anyway, BCW’s job was to get these co-rotating spokespeople prepared for the U.S. media and to begin to build (or rebuild as the case may be) some rather tense barbs previously exchanged between the executives and their counterparts in the American business community. This was intended to be a friendship project.

Instead, it seems to have escalated to a modern day version of the Hatfield’s & McCoy’s.

Case in point, check out what Guo Ping, rotating chairman number one was quoted as saying,

  • “The U.S. government has a loser’s attitude. They want to smear Huawei because they can’t compete with us.”
  • Another headline read, “Huawei Executive Rips U.S. Government.”

Ouch.

Not be outdone by his rotating comrade, Eric Xu lashed out at two U. S. Congressmen as being “ignorant” and “ill-informed”. He also added, “There’s no way the U.S. can crush us. The world cannot leave us (China) because we are more advanced.”

I’m guessing those comments didn’t sit too well with Huawei’s chief communications officer. And, knowing how the food chain works in these situations, I have to believe the client is placing the blame squarely on BCW’s trainers.

Here’s what I think happened during the media training sessions: In between rotating chairs, or pens or whatever else they share, the rotating chairmen were undoubtedly paying scant attention to the valiant efforts of the BCW team, They most likely nodded, looked at their watches (or mobile devices) and left before the full session had been planned to conclude. BCW dutifully provided the executives with their message points, “staffed” the interviews and must have died a thousand deaths as the rotating chairmen laid waste to any lingering feelings of warmth between their company and this country.

I’m no geopolitical expert. But, I am a seasoned media trainer. I would not have let those two rotating chairman out of the conference room until the client CCO and we had guarantees (preferably in writing) from the gentlemen that they would avoid using words such as crush and loser in their interviews. Of course, reading between the lines, I’m sure the rotating chairman would have immediately crushed any sort of written script and went on their merry way. But, hey, nothing can save the day like a written trail of e-mails that cover the agency’s back. Nonetheless, I having to believe that BCW is moving people as a result of the high-profile gaffe.

So who’s fault is it when one of the world’s best media training organizations fails miserably to control two of the world’s most prominent telecommunications executives? I know who will most likely fire (or, crush, if you prefer) whom in this scenario. But I ask my loyal readers to weigh-in with their thoughts. What do you do with hard-headed clients who simply will not take your counsel and proceed to call their would-be friends (that would be the U.S. government) losers?

Before I leave the topic of media training, I must share a Golden Oldie with you.

One might position this as the Yin to the Ping/Xu Yang.

The clip’s been shown in many a media training session, but is well worth reviewing. In this instance, a PR firm did such a poor job of over-preparing a hapless Cadbury-Schweppes president that he robotically repeated the same thing over and over and over. And I have to believe the agency handling the media training was summarily fired that very same day.

So here are two instances in which bad publicity was indeed worse than no publicity at all.

Feb 22

Does the D in Digital Stand for Dying?

Posted on by

I’ve read quite a few recent articles in the advertising and marketing trade press suggesting the halo surrounding the magical word “digital” is not only fading, but actually becoming a bit of an albatross.

According to this article in Marketing Week, more and more marketers are disbanding their separate digital departments and teams and folding them into the larger marcom group. Why? Because, just as was the case with social media, digital is no longer perceived as a standalone “thing.” It’s now seen as simply one more channel in the never-ending battle to engage with stakeholder audiences in a holistic way.

And, as the article points out, we all live in a digital world. So let’s move on and get back to calling ourselves marketers and not digital specialists or influencer specialists or CSR specialists, etc. We’re marketers, pure and simple.

This development comes as no surprise to me because, like so many previous cutting-edge products or service offerings, our industry witnessed a Gold Rush mentality on the part of many firms to immediately reposition themselves as being digitally driven. I like to survey the battlefield before deploying my resources. At Peppercomm, we’ve fully embraced digital, but have never elevated it to a pedestal higher than our other integrated offerings.

In retrospect, I think it was the right move because, as Marketing Week columnist Tom Goodwin said, “…using the word digital in the near future will come across as slightly batty.” And, as Mark Ritson, the author of this particular MW column, wrote, “As we speak, most senior marketers are making their power play and ensuring that the head of digital is being shifted horizontally towards the nearest window while they unite the two teams under their direct leadership.” Ouch! Caveat digital specialist.

Based upon this very real trend, it’s only a matter of time before the “digitally driven” moniker becomes a red flag to any corporation looking to engage a fully integrated agency. It’ll be similar to those firms who, in the aftermath of the dotcom bubble bursting, rapidly repositioned themselves as anything but dotcom specialists. I should know since I led Peppercomm’s repositioning.

While I certainly don’t claim to be a futurist, I sensed the digital metamorphosis would peak at some point in the future and be seen for what it is and what it isn’t (while simultaneously hearing digital specialists proclaim the death of public relations).

As the Marketing Week column confirms, we’re entering a new phase of marketing communications in which an old-school Wall Street Journal feature story is just as important as understanding the user experience and properly coding a new website.

The bottom line for me is this: the stakeholder audience will always determine which channel(s) a brand and its agency should use to engage with it and, ideally, convince that audience to consider the brand’s product or service.

So, digital, it was nice to know you. And social media, it’s been a real treat to partner with you through the years. Now let’s wake up before it’s too late and realize that a fully integrated in-house department or partner agency is the business model (and positioning) of the future. Oh, and by the way, thanks to the non-stop, 24×7 crisis world in which we live, public relations has never been more important. Any reports of its death have been greatly exaggerated

Feb 08

Designed to Fail.

Posted on by

It seems that every new day brings with it another egregious self-inflicted crisis caused by racially and gender-insensitive marketers.

The most recent examples are the truly horrific gaffes committed by Adidas and Gucci, respectively;

How could anyone think this was okay?

“There are somethings that just don’t make sense in life; Adidas celebrating black history month with this shoe is one example”

While the in-house marketing team and agency partners are unquestionably at fault for their lack of social awareness, I think the real genesis of these blunders lies with the designers and engineers.

These are the uber cool and uber insulated types who are constantly trying to come up with the hippest, sleekest and most cutting-edge sneakers, sweaters and widgets.

Having worked with designers and engineers alike, I know they live within their own ivory towers. They obsess over trends, technology and ease-of-use, but are oblivious to the larger societal issues rocking our world. As a result, a Gucci designer will create a way cool addition to an existing sweater without realizing that, when the add-on is added-on, it looks like someone in blackface.

And who else but an Adidas designer would come up with an all-white sneaker to celebrate Black History Month? (Note: I’ve alerted Adidas that they’ve just won the coveted Repman Award for the most tone-deaf brand in the world).

So here’s my solution to the problem: immediate diversity & inclusiveness training for product designers and engineers.

It seems to me that, if the designers and engineers are given the proper training, there will be far fewer opportunities for their marketing brethren to create a totally unnecessary cause celebre.

That said, stay tuned for next week’s self-inflicted brand misstep. 😎

Jan 30

Shattering Glassdoor’s Reputation

Posted on by

Achieving five stars on Glassdoor for an organization is the equivalent of a restaurant receiving 3 stars from Michelin Guide.

But based on an explosive Wall Street Journal expose, all that glitters at Glassdoor is most certainly NOT gold.

Here’s Peppercomm Partner Deb Brown’s POV. Personally, I’d give it 4.5 stars:

What happens when your entire business model is questioned? That’s what happened to Glassdoor recently when the Wall Street Journal published an investigative report titled, “How Companies Secretly Boost Their Glassdoor Ratings.” That title has to hurt, especially when on its website, Glassdoor states, “Built on the foundation of increasing workplace transparency…”

Employers flood the ranking site with 5-star postings requested from enthusiastic staffers, leading to unusual spikes, a WSJ investigation found.

To be fair to Glassdoor, employees who are upset at their former or current employer are probably more likely to post negative reviews than content employees posting positive reviews. And when “all” employees are encouraged to write reviews, are they all truthful or feel pressured in any way to write glowing reviews, even though they are anonymous?

Glassdoor does have policies in place and monitors reviews. But, that’s obviously not enough and its reputation is at risk. How can the public trust Glassdoor when looking for a job? How can companies that have accurate ratings compete for talent if their competitors are secretly boosting their ratings?

Glassdoor needs to immediately address this issue. It needs to admit fault, put stricter policies in place and explain how it will enforce them. If Glassdoor is revising its policies, then it needs to create a campaign articulating these critical changes in order to regain trust. The company should use an outside firm to help them develop this and communicate it. The CEO should proactively do interviews, be transparent about what needs to change, and how these new changes will be enforced. The company should also reach out to its most important clients to show it is committed to these changes.

If these claims are true, CEO Robert Holman needs to hold an all-hands meeting with his employees.

In addition, Glassdoor knew this investigative report was coming out since a spokesperson was quoted. The company should have made sure it was completely prepared. If it was prepared, I didn’t see evidence.

And, one has to wonder how Glassdoor employees would rate their employer after reading this story. This reputational issue is both external and internal. If he hasn’t done so yet, CEO Robert Holman needs to hold an all-hands meeting with his employees.

The bottom line is the company is built on the foundation of increasing workplace transparency. Glassdoor can’t ignore the article and must be transparent in how to fix this issue to safeguard – and rebuild – its reputation.

Otherwise, a competitor will see an open door…if it hasn’t already.

Jan 16

It’s a close shave

Posted on by

No matter how one analyzes Gillette’s controversial new campaign “Is this the best a man can get?” it’s fraught with uncertainties. And it most certainly has further divided an already divided country.

Truly the best a man can get?

First, though, a tip of the hat (or razor) to Gillette’s management for having the courage to double down on its purpose and values. But have they? Or is the campaign a mere ploy or stunt as some detractors claim whose only goal is to drive sales?

I think there are several factors to weigh when analyzing the Gillette campaign:

1) Is alienating a significant percentage of the male shaving market worth the risk of taking a stand and saying the right thing? We asked that very question of 50 CCOs and CMOs we interviewed in a joint research study with the Institute for Public Relations.

One CCO, who managed a global manufacturing company’s marketing spend, echoed the comments of most when he stated, “No matter what you say you WILL alienate a percentage of your stakeholders. I’d much prefer to go on record and double down on our purpose in the wake of a societal crisis than remain silent.”

2) Consistency: Nike’s outstanding campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick won countless awards and witnessed a serious uptick in sales. But, as bold as it was, Nike’s campaign was consistent with its track record (pun intended) of partnering with controversial, outspoken athletes. As a result, the campaign was authentic to the core. Gillette has no such track record and, as the WashPo article indicates, has long profiled macho men in previous campaigns. So, there’s no sense of continuity in my mind. The campaign was a complete 180 for the brand. I think that’s why, when the dust settles, Nike’s post-Kaepernick sales increase will far surpass that of Gillette’s.

3) There but for the grace of god go I. Suppose, just suppose, that Gillette management should be accused of a #MeToo scandal of their own?

That scenario played out in the months following BP’s launch of its “Beyond Petroleum” campaign, extolling their multiple contributions to the environment. Sure enough, a few months later, BP found itself at the epicenter of the Gulf oil spill disaster (and became the butt of endless late night talk show host jokes).

When they said, “think outside the barrel,” I don’t think they meant the Gulf Coast.

I do hope that, in Gillette’s case, HR has done its due diligence to ensure there aren’t any 15 or 20-year-old harassment claims against the current executive team. If such an event were to unfold, it would be beyond catastrophic and underscores the risks a brand takes when it creates it own societal crisis by taking a stand on a societal crisis.

We live in a brave new world littered with myriad societal minefields ranging from illegal immigration and mass school shootings to environmental roll-backs and, yes, #MeToo scandals.

Taking a stand in the immediate aftermath of a societal crisis is the right thing for a purpose-driven organization to do.

It remains to be seen if Gillette’s gamble to create a crisis within a crisis will play out the way they hope.

 

 

Jan 09

What Businesses Should Do Before Taking a Stand on Social Issues

Posted on by

It wasn’t very long ago when staying quiet and avoiding controversy were the tried-and-true PR rules for businesses. But the consumer-company relationship is quickly evolving, along with people’s expectations of companies.

A recent study by Clutch shows that 71% of people expect companies to take a stance on social movements.

Because this expectation is so new, many businesses struggle with what to say and when, always being aware of the risks involved.

Best case scenario? They speak out and their stance resonates with the majority of their consumers, resulting in higher revenue, an elevated brand, and greater awareness for the issue.

Worst case scenario? They speak out and their stance alienates consumers to the point of revenue loss and tarnishes their brand.

Staying silent isn’t safe either. Silence might keep the company out of controversary, but if it’s regarding an issue relevant to the company’s brand, it could hurt the company later on.

“It can be a huge competitive disadvantage to stay silent in the midst of a crisis,” said Steve Cody, CEO of Peppercomm.

This, of course, presents an infinite new list of challenges for businesses to navigate in how and when they’ll respond to social issues.

Here are 3 things businesses should do when deciding whether to respond to a social movement.

Know Your Purpose

 Having a clearly defined corporate purpose can help you navigate this new, challenging landscape.

“Your corporate purpose is your North Star for deciding whether to respond to social movements,” Cody said.

Cody said that having a clearly-defined corporate purpose is a company’s best protection against the unexpected.

“If you know your company, you’ll be better able to determine what to say, what not to say, and what you want to comment on,” Cody said. “It will also help you make sure you’re delivering on that corporate purpose to all of your stakeholders.”

Having a well-defined corporate purpose is key, but how should a company do this?

Involve as Many People as Possible

It is good practice to include as many people as possible in the process of defining (or redefining) your corporate purpose.

“This could be everyone from the receptionist, right up to the CEO,” Cody said. “You also want to check with the key stakeholders to make sure they believe in the values you’re considering including in the purpose.”

This process is often not a quick one. Sometimes, it can take companies years to make sure they define a purpose that is inclusive of every culture represented by its employees and holds true to the promises they make in their marketing campaigns.

This on be easier for smaller companies and very complicated for larger, global companies.

However, companies will find that it pays off to invest the time and resources to making sure their corporate purpose is well-defined and inclusive of those that represent its brand.

Predetermine Which Issues Are Relevant to Your Brand

Nike features Colin Kaepernick in its’ “Just Do It” 30th anniversary campaign. Negative reaction to was predictably swift but in just three days, Nike products began to fly off shelves, leading to a 31 percent increase in sales.

While social crises and issues are often unpredictable, there are things companies can do so they aren’t completely caught off guard when a situation occurs, like identifying in advance which issues are relevant to their brand.

By deciding ahead of time which issues are relevant to your brand and will warrant a response, your company can outline a strategy and draft potential responses.

Knowing which issues are relevant to your brand will also help you determine which are not relevant and warrants silence.

Some company CEOs also rely on the power of precedence, in addition to having a well-defined corporate purpose.

If an event or issue isn’t directly related to the brand’s purpose and if the company doesn’t have a history of commenting on similar issues, usually the company is in the clear to remain silent.

Dedicate Time to Defining Your Corporate Purpose

Silence is no longer always the best PR policy as more people expect companies to find their voice and respond to today’s social issues.

Businesses can mitigate the risks associated with taking stances on social movements and issues by clearly defining their corporate purpose and identifying which social issues and movements align with their brand’s values.

Jan 04

“Success has a thousand fathers while failure is an orphan.”

Posted on by

While it’s a day late and a dollar short, I’m pleased to share this infographic with you.

Created in partnership with BrandFoundations, our longtime strategic marketing partner, the list below analyzed the best and worst managed societal crises of the past year

Note: We define a societal crisis as anything ranging from a mass school shooting and the Southern border chaos to trade wars and environmental rollouts. We’ve also included #MeToo crises and self-inflicted wounds. Traditional crises such as product recalls, financial malfeasance and price fixing were not included in the analysis.

As you will see from the infographic, we chose to grade the organizations based on three criteria:

– Speed: How quickly did the organization take a stand on a societal crisis that either aligned with, or was the polar opposite of, their values?

– Strength: Was the stand taken by the organization unequivocal, or could it be interpreted in different ways by different stakeholders?

– Purpose: Did the statement double down on the organization’s stated higher purpose?

Hope you enjoy the graphic. Would love to hear your POV on our POV.

 

Dec 18

9 Tips for Taking a Stand When a Societal Crisis Hits

Posted on by

Social injustice, gender issues, immigration, #MeToo, gun control, and trade wars. These are just a few of the many societal issues about which large and small businesses alike are finding themselves increasingly pressured to stand up and speak out.

We entrepreneurs may think our comparatively small size protects us from the slings and arrows of the hourly news cycle or employees picketing outside company headquarters. But it doesn’t. A Glassdoor survey of 1,000 employees from organizations of all sizes found that 62 percent expect their employers to take a stand on important societal and political issues of the day.

Do I have your attention? I should, since remaining silent or saying the wrong thing could imperil everything from employee recruiting and retention to business continuity and even your exit strategy.

Source: Getty Images

Credit: Getty Images

My firm, Peppercomm, has interviewed more than 150 chief communications officers in the past 18 months, and assembled the nine best tips for preparing, managing, and monitoring a whole host of issues that should (or soon will) be keeping you up at night.

1. Determine your team
Surround yourself with the very best thinkers in your firm. Include the CFO, CHRO, CLO, and CCO, as well as representatives from your various ESGs. It’s essential the CEO herself be part of the group. Set an initial meeting and then re-group every single succeeding month.

2. Determine your organizational purpose
Many organizations have mission statements, but those are short-term, tactical, and only address “what” a company provides (e.g. “Our goal is to provide the highest quality widget in the world”). A purpose explains why a company exists. For example, Lowe’s included representatives from every region and business unit of their organization before deciding theirs: “To help people love the homes in which they live.” A purpose is critical since it will be your North Star in determining if you will or won’t speak out on societal issues (as well as what you will say).

3. Identify every potential issue or crisis
First examine industry issues critical to your organization’s ongoing success. Then, based on your purpose, extend the list to include your values. Do you believe in inclusion & diversity, protecting the environment, stricter immigration policies, etc.? One major airline from Peppercomm’s survey, for example, identified 72 different societal and industry issues it felt would necessitate taking a stance during a crisis.

4. Examine every facet of your internal and external marketing & communications plan

Will your sponsorship of a right-wing radio pundit’s cable show alienate liberal stakeholder audiences? Would you take a position like Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastion, whose company rescinded fare discounts to NRA members following a mass school shooting? Bastion even doubled down when threatened by Georgia lawmakers to drop a jet-fuel tax break by saying, “Our values are not for sale.” Many organizations have already been caught unaware of the adverse impact a single tweet, outdoor advertisement, or stadium sponsorship might cause.

5. Know your audiences
Nike’s decision to hire former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick to be the face of the campaign celebrating the 30th anniversary of its “Just Do It” tagline seemed incredibly risky. But Nike knew its audiences. After experiencing a social media frenzy and an initial 3 percent drop in the stock price, the company rebounded and saw its market value increase by $8 billion.

6. Stress test your stand
Assemble the team to simulate a potential crisis such as a just-announced rollback of environmental protection laws, and gauge the reaction to your stance. In many instances, your team will overlook one key stakeholder audience or disagree which is the most important to communicate to first. We recently simulated a societal crisis for a group of 50 members of boards of directors. Two-thirds felt they should communicate first with employees. The other 33 percent chose shareholders.

7. Leverage the appropriate communications channel
One large retailer that had been attacked by President Trump chose not to respond with a tweet of its own. Instead it went to a trusted beat reporter at an industry trade publication who filed an objective, fact-filled story explaining why the company had made the decision it had. POTUS moved on and the crisis dissipated overnight. Sometimes the best response may be a tweet, a town hall meeting with employees, a full-page advertisement in a national print publication, or all three. You’ll never know if you don’t prepare.

8. When in doubt, double down on purpose

I don’t know the organization’s purpose, but I can assure you Edward W. Stack, the CEO of Dick’s Sporting Goods, overlooked his purpose and customers’ feelings when announcing the retail giant would no longer sell automatic weapons. The stance shocked and dismayed a wide swath of stakeholders. Sales and the stock price have dropped precipitously.

9. Semper paratus
Heed the motto of the U.S. Coast Guard and remain “Always Ready.” The only way to do so is to continually monitor and adjust (as needed) to every one of the above suggestions.

There are no guard rails in this new societal crisis du jour world of ours. The best protection is protection itself. Trust me, you do not want to read a front page article in The Wall Street Journal that includes an email from every employee demanding you immediately terminate your ICE contracts. By waiting until then, you’ve jeopardized the very survival of your organization.