When Things Go Wrong

By Geoff Livingston

The human condition brings inherent fallibility. We often focus our social media marketing discussions on going viral, building a good brand, developing earned media, or delivering return on investment. But what do you do when things go wrong?

Let’s be frank. Shit happens.

Businesses experience negative events. That’s life. It is inherently human, and not perfect. Some of these negative events require the company to communicate with its stakeholders. Others simply leak into the public by discovery (think John Mackey’s astroturfing incident as the CEO of Whole Foods).

Most executives and communicators find these conversations to be the most painful ones. They inspire great fear. The company’s brand reputation can fly or be permanently tarnished in moments like these.

Crisis demands superior, thoughtful communications. Though we love to talk social media, in a crisis these principles hold true regardless of medium. Because great communications involve people, one to one, one to many, but always factual with a commitment to resolving problems or simply acknowledging them in a real and authentic way. It’s no wonder the Tylenol cyanide incident is constantly cited as the classic way to handle a crisis.

Some instincts would have you not communicate. But as JetBlue found out in 2007 when it had system wide outages, waiting to communicate with your community in their preferred medium can create major problems. For its social media fans, the airline produced a late and often jeered at YouTube mea culpa from former CEO David Neeleman.

Others want to look good, dress well, and promise great things. Messaging carries the day! But when you can’t deliver, it backfires. Worse, if human lives are at stake, the company can cause irreparable harm and really hurt people. Remember the West Virginia coal miner crisis which took the lives of 12 miners who were proclaimed to be alive?

Or you can deny something went wrong and just whistle in the dark. I don’t think Exxon will make that mistake again after the Valdez. Heck, they’re still paying for that one.

Personal Experience

I’ve counseled companies through these types of incidents, but got to live through one first hand when we recently announced that Livingston Communications’ would-be acquisition by the Social Media Group was not going to be completed. It was one of the toughest moments of my professional career. Believe me, the thought about not communicating did cross my mind, oh, about a dozen times.

Both SMG CEO Maggie Fox and I agreed that we needed to own it, and just say what happened. We had so many friends who lauded the original letter of intent it would have been impossible to duck and run. So we stated the actual cause of the dissolution: Cultural and management differences that would have created a very difficult and perhaps disastrous acquisition. Looking good was not an option. We addressed our stakeholders; employees, clients, and colleagues, both privately and publicly.

There were other pitfalls. We entertained communication that the companies would continue working together, but because we did not have hard facts to back that statement up, we elected to go with a simple dissolution statement.

It would have been easy to be caddy and blame the other organization, but instead we simply acknowledged that the two cultures were not simpatico, and that we still hold respect for each other. This is true. When pressed we did not air our dirty laundry. We wanted to protect each other’s dignity. Maggie and I wanted to work together for a reason. Really, the due diligence period is a private time between two organizations, anyway.

Though a bummer for both parties, the actual announcement went well. Folks, though disappointed, seem to see the business sense in our decision. Even the trolls were relatively mild mannered.

Perhaps the greatest criticism I received via the back channel was my video. A few people felt I should have shaved, worn a collar, and made a well-lit video. They said that the video made me look beaten down. Indeed I was strongly warned about these pitfalls BEFORE I released my statement.

Perhaps my instincts were wrong, but it was a moment where authenticity and genuine communication was needed, not polished glitz. That was the real Geoff, the one who goes to work when there is no sales meeting, and yes, I was worn down by a tough time. If I looked polished and handsome, would the video have been as effective, or authentic? The sincerity of the moment, the humanity of it, the genuine acknowledgment of things gone wrong carried the day.

____________

Geoff Livingston is CEO of Livingston Communications. In that capacity, he is in charge of strategy and account planning, and media relations support. Geoff has worked as a public relations strategist in the Washington, D.C. region for 15 years. Dubbed a “local blogging guru” by the Washington Post, Geoff’s award-winning book on new media “Now is Gone” was released in 2007. The book has been cited by the Wall Street Journal as a valuable resource for social media.

___________

Related posts:

Social Media Group Acquires Livingston Communications

Comments

[KatFrench]

A thoughtful post, especially for one that clearly hits pretty close to home for you.

In a situation like that, I think there is a tension point between honesty/transparency, and a healthy respect for things (usually details) that are better kept private.

I feel that the way that you and Maggie handled the situation was an excellent example of striving to stay within that admittedly uncomfortable point of tension.

[Christine Needles]

Geoff, thanks for sharing your personal story.

It's true what they say -- for both companies and individuals -- how we respond in times of stress or crisis shows our true colors. Through your video I actually get a sense of who you are and how you are impacted by the situation. I see this as a positive -- slick and polished would have been a disappointment. We are all human beings in the end!

[Trevor Stafford]

Thoughtful, honest and genuine video in my opinion.

[Kami W Huyse]

I think that the video was well done. Slick and polished is not necessary, just sincere and hopeful, which this version was.

[Geoff Livingston]

@kat I liked the way you stated that, the tension between disclosure and the dirty details. The truth is authenticity and transparency does not require loss of dignity or trade secrets.

@Christine Indeed, that's why Tylenol did so well in the 80s with cynanide. Johnson & Johnson showed the world what a class organization they really were, and one a ton of advocates.

@Trevor Thank you.

@Kami Thank you for your help during this time. Kami was a great coach.

[Karen Swim]

Geoff, I do not envy the position in which you were placed. No one wants to ever deal with these kinds of situation. Yet, you faced it head on with honesty and integrity. I could care less about lighting, shadows or clothing choices. I wish you and Maggie both much continued success.

[Rebecca Thorman]

This was a great post, and I think good advice when things go wrong. It's always best to own up - isn't that the lesson we were taught in grade school? ;)

[Carolyn Ann]

I can't help but be a little concerned.

I do believe Mr Livingston is being sincere in his explanation - but this post, and the video, could have addressed the why this was important. If you are, Mr Livingston, going to "kick butt" (I think you said), over the forthcoming years, maybe the lack of merger is enough in itself? I'm guessing you had a try-out period - something that is almost unheard of - and decided that this merger of companies would not work. This is common, as you're probably aware, in the tech field: very few want to be second string. It's the antithesis of being an entrepreneur! All I can offer is "congratulations!" that you found this out now, rather than later when it would be impossible to un-merge, if I may use atrocious English. (Something that appears to be common in business, but provides me with no excuse, I hasten to add.)

I must admit to some interest in the "lessons learned" piece you don't mention. At all. As a Network Manager, in charge of a network that failed at every opportunity - I'm well aware, still painfully aware over 10 years later, that "lessons learned" is not just a part of the post-mortem process that everyone avoids. It's the reason Heads of Departments take time out of their schedules to go see the Network Manager. (Well, I went to see them, but you get the point, I assume?)

In your case, you have a prominent place in the folklore of the IT industry; I'm not sure it's enough to say "I'm sorry, this didn't work", and assume that everyone will be okay with it. Why was it important to say "sorry", in the first place?!?

Valeria, if I may after such an absence be so familiar, recently wrote about the press. One of the differences between "the press" and bloggers is that all too often bloggers assume you've been following them; a newspapers' reporter has an editor who ensures that such assumptions are not made. In this particular case, I must admit to having neither any knowledge of the merger, what it was intended to do, nor why it broke up. "Management differences" can mean a lot; I could tell you of the time I nearly landed a punch on my old boss. That's a real management difference. Why did the merger not work? Why no reference to the other side of the merger?

I do not offer this as an attack; merely as a suggestion that might help you explain things to those who may not be aware of the whole story. You are, I gather from your writings and this video, an arrogant man - but the assumptions you make open you to those charges, and that would be grossly unfair. As I say, please don't take this in any way other than the spirit it's intended: as a constructive criticism.

And I still have no idea what you're talking about. :-)

Carolyn Ann

[Geoff Livingston]

Karen and Rebecca: Thank you for yours support.

Carlyn Ann: Not everything is for public consumption. Many people were aware of the situation, and the original post I provided had links back to the situation.

Regardless, many who read blogs insist that bloggers act like journalists, with factual full reporting. I am not a blogger who caters to them and am OK with being considered arrogant if it means not trashing the people I do business successfully or unsuccesfully with publicly.

[Carolyn Ann]

Thank you for responding, Geoff.

I agree that not everything is for public consumption; that's why I am perplexed that you released so much information, anyway.

My point wasn't that journalistic standards should be adhered to; it was more that your statement had no background; I wasn't sure what you were talking about. I was waiting for the other shoe to drop, basically. And, as you have just said, you're keeping it! (I'm not saying that you should drop the shoe; it's more an observation of how you presented this issue.)

I wasn't suggesting that you are arrogant; my apologies for the too-cute wording. I did note that such charges would be unfair; I just didn't do it very well.

I guess the basic point I was making is that none of us should assume that our readership knows what we're talking about, if the story is spread over a few posts or pages. And that presenting only part of the story doesn't leave the audience wanting more - it just leaves them wondering what they missed, and frustrated. Considering that, I'm not entirely sure what your point was?

Again, thank you for responding.

Carolyn Ann