Facebook hits the panic button

The communication spread by Facebook on the probable implementation of a ‘panic button’ was more than confusing. Official statements of the social networking site announced opposite actions within four hours.

The discussion regarding a ‘panic button’ to report suspected paedophiles flared up in October 2009, after the first Facebook-killing. Asleigh Hall, a 17-year-old British girl, was abducted, raped and killed by her brand new Facebook-friend and sex offender Peter Chapman (33). The latter pretended to be 19 years old and gained the trust of Asleigh, who finally agreed to meet up with her online buddy in real life. Whereas Chapman was jailed for life, Facebook didn’t proclaim any measures.

Until March 18^th, when the organisation Child Exploitation and Online Protection (Ceop) presented a effective solution in terms of a police-run panic button on the main page of Facebook. In the early afternoon, Facebook representatives told UK Home Secretary Alan Johnson that the company had “no objection” to installing the software on the website.

The deal seemed to be sealed, but less than four hours later Richard Allen, director of policy for Facebook Europe, suddenly refused to install the ‘panic button’. Instead the social networking site remained vague and stated that it would “develop its existing system”. The big shot at Zuckerberg’s company claimed that the Ceop button might be effective in principle but only “for other sites”, and hence not on Facebook. Another spokesman of the website suddenly came up with the evolution of “Facebooks innovative system”, which had been developed by analysing millions of reports submitted over the years. Yet, the communication used by Facebook raises questions of reliability…

Sources

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technology/

newsid_10060000/newsid_10063100/10063190.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8574727.stm

(Too) Fluent crisis communication

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