Every company may face one day a serious crisis, because a “zero risk” factor simply does not exist. So it is important for companies to be prepared to be able to communicate in a quick, efficient and effective way. So, being quick is good, but is this also the case when being too quick?
More than a month ago already (15-02-2010), two trains dashed against each other in Buizingen (Belgium). In less than two hours, a ‘disaster plan’ was announced, and two crisis centres were set up. A press conference was given by the governor and the minister of home affairs, clearly stating the cause of the crash. From a crisis communication point of view, you can say, well done as they acted in a quick and honest way. Nevertheless they oversaw some general guide-lines. One hour after these statements, the CEO of the NMBS (National Company of the Belgian Railways) was not quite amused with the press conference earlier on and put a halt to the governors statements, saying he should not rush to conclusions. Although later on it turned out that the governor was right, he nevertheless ignored some key-rules of crisis communication.
In crisis communication it is all about timing. A crisis has different stages to go through, each stage with different information needs. During the first stadium, the beginning of the crisis, the information has to stay factual : answers to the questions who, what, where, when… Meanwhile, prepare the answers to further questions, such as cause or responsibility for the crisis.
Secondly, speculation about the incident or crisis must absolutely be avoided in the message. It is important to provide the media with exact facts and figures. However, the necessary research to back up statements is often forgotten. So, it is confusing for people, when afterwards, other officials contradict the earlier statements by telling more research is necessary. This can be avoided by consulting all parties involved, before each communicates his own truth. Especially with disasters such as the accident in Buizingen, there is the danger of too many people declaring various statements.
So, a quick and honest reaction can be brought to nothing when not all parties are on the same line.
Source : http://www.standaard.be/artikel/detail.aspx?artikelid=8U2MA30F
