Best Crisis Management Programs for PR Consider Multiple Media

By Joshua M. Eudowe
Principal, eA Risk Management Group

The speed with which bad publicity can be disseminated is boggling. The Internet makes it easy for anyone to post statements that have the potential to damage an organization’s or individual’s reputation almost instantly. Unlike traditional news organizations that had reporters dedicated to specific beats, allowing publicists to establish relationships with those most concerned with the activities of their companies or clients, anyone with access to the Internet enjoys the opportunity to allege or disclose nearly any information they choose. Moreover, because these postings can occur at any time of day or night, companies lose the ability they once had to correct misleading or unflattering information during a regular news cycle.

The transparency of the Internet as well as the difficulty in immediately eradicating the flow of false information and libel require publicists to develop acumen in all media. In addition to being capable of monitoring and responding to blogs, publicists and other relevant parties need to understand the dynamics of traditional news media and to cultivate relationships with those whose sympathies might benefit the organization in times of crisis. As such, companies increasingly rely on dedicated employees or agencies to monitor mentions of their names across a wide variety of news sources. Companies with teams devoted solely to watching for potential problems and dealing with it quickly tend to have better results than those organizations with cumbersome processes that include approvals from a wide variety of managers, owners, and counsel.

A team that is well versed in response procedures and familiar with separate issues that might affect a response, such as dynamics between workforces in more than one part of the world or market trends that might impact business, generally achieves greater success in cleaning up negative publicity. A prepared team can then determine the costs of the attack  and move forward with positive statements aimed at changing the conversation from one that hurts the organization to one that redeems it and allows it to restore its public approval.

eA Risk Management Group: Risk Management and Psychology

By Joshua M. Eudowe

As a discipline, risk management relies heavily on the principles of psychology. Although the fields of threat assessment and crisis management frequently focus on maintaining business continuity and coordinating public relations responses, our team at eA Risk Management Group places a particular emphasis on understanding human behavior and managing the way people respond to a crisis.

Our post-incident services includes several procedures that address resultant emotional conditions, including employee counseling for acute and post-traumatic stress disorders, but psychology also plays a crucial part in ascertaining potential risks to corporations, educational institutions, and individuals. At eA Risk Management Group, our highly trained professionals work to identify the probability and potential impact of natural, technical, and human threats. In addition to conducting comprehensive security audits and a full range of risk management analyses, our team performs psychological evaluations, completes employee background checks, and prepares tactical action plans for school and workplace violence and a variety of personal injury threats.

Violent behavior can emerge in virtually any setting; children today may face threats from bullies at school or online, while psychopathic behavior in the workplace can lower morale, create a toxic environment, or even result in physical harm. Appropriate training and education will help strengthen your ability to recognize important warning signs, and we at eA Risk Management Group believe that this psychological element can prove invaluable in mitigating certain risks.

About the Author: Joshua M. Eudowe holds a Bachelor of Science in Finance from New York University’s Leonard N. Stern School of Business and a Master of Arts in Forensic Psychology from The Chicago School of Professional Psychology. A diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Psychology and the American College of Forensic Examiners, he maintains affiliations with the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Experts in Traumatic Stress, and the Association of Threat Assessment Professionals, among others.

Structuring an Apology: PR Approaches for Crisis Management

By Joshua M. Eudowe
Principal, eA Risk Management Group

Any business, no matter how solid or blameless, has the capacity to suffer from bad publicity. Whether the statements made about an organization or person are completely fabricated, based in reality but exaggerated, or actually true, responding rapidly ensures that the group benefits from participating in the conversation rather than simply being at its mercy. While defensive instincts usually kick in when faced with unfair accusations, many prefer to hide their heads in the sand when bad publicity is based on fact. In such instances, however, it proves far more advantageous to act in response to bad publicity quickly and with appropriate levels of regret and determination to repair the problem.

In order to accomplish this goal, crisis management leaders need to understand the components of a strong apology. An effective apology accepts responsibility, is not defensive, and includes compensation for the problem. Apologies are not statements of inferiority matched with subsequent shrinking from the spotlight. An expression of contrition indicates that the individual or company takes the blame for the mistake and plans to do whatever necessary to correct it.

The response should relate to the significance of the failure. If the mistake was small, it makes no sense to supply overblown regrets or compensation. Fix the problem and move on. When negative publicity reflects a big issue, especially one that puts people in danger or hurts someone, the apology benefits an organization most if it happens fast. Such haste shows the public that the responsible party cares deeply about them and the consequences of the mistake. Admit the error without being defensive. Getting in front of the story or pitching it to news organizations and bloggers that may circulate the positive side of the event offers the greatest opportunity to take charge of the conversation. With a good apology, the story changes from what happened to what the organization is doing to fix it.

An apology without remuneration tends to be lifeless and creates the possibility that one’s reputation becomes permanently scarred by an event. People listening to an apology expect to hear evidence that steps have been taken to make sure that the mistake does not reoccur. Society generally wants to hear that an organization or person that has caused pain or suffering or simply outraged public sentiment must be punished to remedy the situation. When drafting a remuneration statement, consider such factors as whether the damage suffered because of the mistake happened to individuals, a community, or an industry. Identify those who may have been hurt and outline plans to compensate them, whether this entails rebuilding or restoring property, providing financial assistance aimed at the restoration of property, or the use of discounts or distributions to reestablish good will.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com.