In the world of corporate communications, maintaining brand integrity is of prime concern. Consumer loyalty, after all, is invariably tied to the perceptions and expectations that have been created in the marketplace. One need only revisit the classic boondoggle that was New Coke for a clear example of what happens when consumers come to expect one thing from a major brand and get another.

As a one-time museologist, I find it fascinating how these same group dynamics can manifest in a much more dramatic, even combative, form when applied to a hallowed institution such as a national museum or other historical venue. On today’s grim anniversary, the National September 11 Memorial and Museum in New York City, due to open in 2013, is defending its decision to display written quotations drawn from so-called “martyrdom” videos made by the hijackers who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, along with witness testimonials.

As reported by Reuters, museum president Joe Daniels told reporters the exhibit would present the facts, focusing on “what happened on that day, why it happened, what does it mean to live in a 9/11 world.”

“Let the perpetrators speak for themselves,” he said, adding, “That’s a powerful and important thing that visitors to this museum need to hear — bearing witness to the actual testimonials of those who committed the atrocities.”

Personally, I applaud the decision by museum officials to stick to their guns despite bitter opposition from victims’ families. But arguing the merits of why it is vitally important for such an important venue to present history in a manner that is as comprehensive, balanced and factual as possible is a little off topic for our purposes here.

What is important is that the museum is presenting a clear and strong message about what it is doing and why. Four years before it even opens, it is establishing in the public consciousness a clear idea of what it is, what purpose it will serve and how it intends to fulfill that mandate by openly acknowledging and addressing the concerns of critics and opponents. It would appear, on the surface at least, that somebody is doing something right in the museum’s PR department.

It is a far more admirable approach than the recent screw up that almost was the reenactment of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, in which an attempt to re-stage this crucial event in the history of the continent on its 250th anniversary died a messy death thanks to vehement opposition from Quebec’s sovereignist lobby.

Even those who thought that reenacting such a contentious event was never a good idea criticized the manner in which it died. As NDP Deputy Leader Thomas Mulcair told CTV in February, “I think that it was a mistake from the beginning and it’s a good thing that it was cancelled. But the problem is it’s being cancelled now for the wrong reasons, because of threats of violence. And it’s never a good reason to cancel something just because you’re afraid.”

A couple of years ago, the Canadian War Museum faced a controversy of its own over an exhibit about the actions of Allied Bomber Command during the Second World War. One particular display panel raised a quite valid point about the limited strategic benefits of a bombing campaign against targets in Germany that resulted in hundreds of thousands of fatalities. Though it was determined that the content of the exhibit was factually correct and simply misinterpreted, the museum nonetheless bowed to pressure from outraged veterans groups and changed the text.

When dealing with material of such a sensitive nature, some measure of controversy, and compromise, is inevitable. But going which ever way the wind blows runs the risk of eroding an organization’s credibility. It’s crucial for any course of action to have been put to an exhaustive test to ensure it fits within the organization’s mandate and has a rock solid defence ready for any PR storm that may arise before it is put into play.

While the ultimate consequences of the National September 11 Memorial & Museum’s decision to exhibit those martyrdom quotations are not yet known, the clear and strong message that museum staff have laboured to convey is certainly the right move.

Technorati Tags: 9/11, Bomber Command, branding, communications, corporate messaging, Joe Daniels, National September 11 Memorial and Museum, Plains of Abraham, public relations, War Museum

The recent debacle surrounding pop singer Chris Brown’s domestic assault of girlfriend and fellow pop singer Rihanna, has been just terrible to behold. I don’t want to write about the finer details of the incident, rather the failed attempt of the guilty party to redeem himself by conducting a high-profile PR campaign showing his remorse at his behaviour and just how and why it completely backfired.

There are lessons for companies to learn from this and other recent PR misfires as there are some universal truths about how not to manage your reputation in the media.

1. Timing is everything

The Rihanna assault took place in February, but we didn’t see or hear anything from the then-accused until much later. The longer you wait to address negative issues, the more likely it is that you’re alienating your audience.

Another prime recent example is Sigg bottles. When the BPA scare hit, people flocked to aluminum or stainless steel water bottles, eager to avoid the frightening side effects linked to the chemical found in plastic drinking bottles. It’s since been discovered that the epoxy liner used in Sigg’s bottles manufactured prior to August 2008, contained the same chemical. The company found out about it in 2006, yet an announcement was only made in late August. The letter from the CEO was poorly conceived in this era of social media and the user community went simply bananas. Twitter, Facebook and the like were busy with angry Sigg customers demanding satisfaction. The company swiftly replied that they had “missed the mark” with their first attempt at disclosure and now are offering customers an opportunity to swap old bottles for new, the company having developed a BPA-free liner that’s been in all bottles since August 2008. Many people, myself included (full disclosure: both my husband and I own Sigg water bottles), feel that the company should have been more proactive in disclosing the information, a lesson learned the hard way amid a media firestorm that could have been avoided.

2. Choose the right channel for your campaign

Chris Brown and Rihanna are pop singers in their early twenties. The vast majority of their fans and supporters are young fans of urban music. Those outside of that market were unlikely to follow this pair and it’s doubtful would even know who they were, were it not for the media attention paid to the case. So, in one regard, it was utterly bewildering that Brown selected Larry King Live, that softball question lobbing septuagenarian, as the media outlet where he would address the case, apologize publicly and beg forgiveness of the masses. The outlet makes perfect sense in that King is well known for barely scratching the surface of the tough issues, never asking the hard questions; in other words, a perfect platform for someone looking to appear to be repentant but not particularly interested in being grilled. The platform, however, also skews way older (average LKL viewers are 65) than the people which Brown truly needs to win back, those likely to purchase his albums.

If, heaven forbid, you need to seek forgiveness from your customer base, or if you’re dealing with a potential crisis that could impact your reputation, make sure you’re using the right channels to speak to your market.

3. Watch what you say

This is the crucial point, and certainly where the Chris Brown redemption campaign fell down spectacularly. As happens with interviews, hours and hours of footage are edited down to soundbites, short segments that may remove context. As a result, it’s very important to stick to key messages and then, in a word, shut up. Brown was captured on film (the episode was taped as opposed to live; CNN must have feared that the vitriolic public would break their phone system, Twitter page and web site with their angry feedback) saying that he “didn’t remember” the incident. This slip of the tongue, as he later characterized it, in his post-redemption campaign, caused the entire effort to backfire, as the ire increased rather than receded, when the public heard this preposterous statement.

4. Actions speak louder than words

In both of the examples I’ve used to illustrate my points in this post, the wrong doers have only one recourse if they hope to redeem themselves - act responsibly and learn from past mistakes. There are no promises that they’ll win back their customers, but redemption only has a chance of taking place should these public figures change their ways for real, and not just offer excuses and apologies. Behave in a way deserving of your customers’ patronage, and the rest may fall into place.

Technorati Tags: Crisis communications, Chris Brown, Rihanna, Sigg

Although no inmedianauts were stranded yesterday when Ottawa-based Zoom Airlines suspended operations as it sought bankruptcy protection in the face of actions by several of its leaseholders and creditors, we very easily could have been. Ever since our Danny Sullivan repatriated himself to his native Scotland and set up office for us in Glasgow a few years back, we have been enthusiastic and regular passengers on this quirky little airline that offered good prices, excellent service and a peculiar schedule that gave us direct, non-stop flights for most of the year between Ottawa and Glasgow. It’s as though Zoom was made for us.

Our best experience happened when we flew Danny on Zoom to Ottawa on fairly short notice when a long-time client hired a new marketing vice president and wanted to talk about an aggressive new program. The veep, who had flown in from San Jose, did not believe that Danny had come to town just for that meeting. Turned out, however, that it cost less and took less time for Danny to get there than it did for the veep!

Zoom was a favoured carrier for my family, too. In the winter, Zoom used to offer non-stop weekend service between Ottawa and St. Maarten that could see a winter-weary citizen of this frozen northern capital get on a plane at about 6:30 a.m. and be frolicking in the warm Caribbean by noon. And three summers ago, we flew Zoom to Scotland for a family vacation in England, Scotland and Ireland.

From a PR and crisis communications perspective, though, Zoom does not seem to be managing this potentially fatal setback nearly as well as it managed its early growth and success. News stories have focused on the suddeness of the shut down, the lack of communication to stranded passengers and the apparent abandoning of their posts by Zoom personnel at airports. This does not create the kind of forgiveness and understanding a company needs to successfully emerge from such a crisis. And that would be too bad for Zoom and those of us who enjoyed flying with them.

Technorati Tags: Zoom Airlines, travel, bankruptcy protection, crisis communications

I was hoping to find the time today to blog about how Canadian packaged goods company Maple Leaf Foods Inc. has been responding to the outbreak of listeriosis linked to one of its meat-processing plants. In general, I have been impressed by the company’s upfront and forthright approach.

However, I really can’t improve on what Dave Fleet has written so I’m happy to provide this link to his post.

Technorati Tags: Maple Leaf Foods Inc., listeria, listeriosis, food poisoning, crisis communications