In dna13’s latest white paper, we make the claim that given the power and potential of today’s tools and apps, there’s no reason not to win even the most complex PR battles.

Granted, the multi-channel universe we live in makes it tougher than ever to know where the biggest threat to your reputation may come from. The front page of the dailies? YouTube? Twitter? But the flip-side is that smart organizations are using the same channels to monitor what’s being said about them, establish relationships with key influencers and followers, and adjust strategies along the way to stay on the winning side of their PR battles.

Basic principles of communication don’t change, notwithstanding phenomena like social media. Truly competitive enterprises always know who their audiences are and what they say and think. And they always find creative ways to tap into those conversations, take part in them, and protect and build their brand awareness and value.  Social media is just the latest in the ever-evolving selection of channels.

BP may have the market cornered these days on PR disasters, but they’re not the first. Think about Nortel’s woes in the past decade. Our latest white paper describes how former Nortel employee April Dunford combined strategic thinking and social media tactics to regain some of the shine on her company’s tarnished brand. How? Through simple and cost-effective and effective steps – careful monitoring of audiences, sharp analysis of data, and positioning her company as a thought leader even in a sea of setbacks and failures.

Monitoring and participating in social media is no longer an option – it’s a requirement.

With the world watching in horror as the crisis continues to unfold, no one should be surprised that the estimated decrease in BP’s brand value is so staggering (it’s congruent with the massive plummet in the company’s stock, after all). Most interesting to us, though, is the report’s calculation that, since June 1st, the average loss surpasses $32 million a day.

Then again, this isn’t surprising either when you consider the events that have transpired since June 1st-namely, BP’s obvious reluctance to provide straightforward answers to the public. In the congressional hearings last week on Capitol Hill, BP CEO Tony Hayward sidestepped questions surrounding the cause of the spill and who was to blame. “I had no prior knowledge of the drilling of this well, none whatsoever,” he said during the hearing, as reported by New York Times.

This air of vagueness that borders on apathy, coupled with his recent weekend of yachting and a comment that he “would like [his] life back,” certainly isn’t helping the company’s efforts to triage its devastated reputation. Then again, neither are the PR and advertising campaigns, which continue to pump out faceless corporate messaging that smacks of ambiguity.

In an era of instant information online and consumer-created content, the public equates brand quality with corporate transparency and personal responsibility. Given BP’s do either, the colossal hits to its brand and bottom line are simply the cost of doing business badly.

This is what came to mind when we heard BP’s latest crisis communications tactic: buying the top search results for “oil spill” on Google and Yahoo, and then linking to its “Gulf of Mexico response” Web page.

Obviously this approach isn’t going to do anything in the way of resurrecting its damned brand and reputation, nor does it intend to. What it does achieve, however, is getting BP’s own messages (as misinformed or hopeless as they may be) to appear alongside the unbranded information currently ranking in the top search results-a tactic that’s so obvious, it’s a wonder that more brands-in-crisis don’t do it.

Granted, managing crisis communications is a moot point when the crisis in question is of this magnitude (as Mr. Stick-aka @BPGlobalPR-so wisely suggested, just focus on fixing the problem, because energy spent on anything else is just wasted). But we think it’s a smart, simple tactic that should be part of every brand’s crisis management toolkit, as it’s the best-and often the only-way to have your message heard when “it” hits the proverbial fan. (Of course, the best crisis plan is actually an issues management/risk mitigation plan, which serves to proactively identify and triage issues before they escalate to full-blown crises.)

What about you? Do you have any examples of companies buying search terms to help manage their messaging in the midst of a crisis? We’d love to hear them!

The owner of the Twitter handle in question, who used the alias “Leroy Stick” to pen blog post on Street Giant last week, launched his satirical tweetstream in the weeks following the oil rig explosion that prompted the worst oil spill in U.S. history. As his profile gained followers (as of this writing, the audience is in excess of 134,000), the media took notice-after all, his highly critical, sardonic tone all but guaranteed the source of the tweets was not an official BP spokesperson (see image below).

With last week’s blog post, Mr. Stick shed some light on his motive for becoming a sharp-tongued brand imposter:

“I started @BPGlobalPR, because the oil spill had been going on for almost a month and all BP had to offer were bullshit PR statements. No solutions, no urgency, no sincerity, no nothing. That’s why I decided to relate to the public for them. I started off just making jokes at their expense with a few friends, but now it has turned into something of a movement.”

He then shifted his vitriol from BP to PR professionals at large, writing:

“I’ve read a bunch of articles and blogs about this whole situation by publicists and marketing folk wondering what BP should do to save their brand from @BPGlobalPR. First of all, who cares? Second of all, what kind of business are you in? I’m trashing a company that is literally trashing the ocean, and these idiots are trying to figure out how to protect that company? One pickledick actually suggested that BP approach me and try to incorporate me into their actual PR outreach. That has got to be the dumbest, most head-up-the-ass solution anyone could possibly offer.”

His sophomoric language aside, he actually raises some interesting questions about the role PR plays in the modern communications environment. If brands’ identities are actually owned and defined by individuals’ own interpretations of them (and Mr. Stick suggests they are), then is there really anything PR/communications can do during a crisis like BP’s? If you agree with Stick, the answer is “no.” So, what do you think? Here’s a final thought from Mr. @BPGlobalPR to consider while you decide:

“The point is, FORGET YOUR BRAND. You don’t own it because it is literally nothing. You can spend all sorts of time and money trying to manufacture public opinion, but ultimately, that’s up to the public, now isn’t it?”

Well, May 31 came and went, and the results are in: The movement wasn’t enough to cause even a blip on Facebook’s radar. According to www.quitfacebookday.com, a grand total of 36,035 people-that’s .009% of the overall user base-pledged to remove themselves from the platform. While it’s unclear exactly how many of those people actually quit, it’s safe to say that the initiative didn’t have quite the impact it had hoped. In fact, according to Forrester Research, Facebook added approximately 10 million users in the weeks following the controversial privacy changes unveiled at the f8 conference. That said, All Facebook uncovered one statistic that may or may not be telling: Web traffic monitoring platform Alexa showed a 3.19% decrease in page views for the month of May.

Regardless of which statistics you take as meaningful indicators of Facebook’s current reputation standing, the aforementioned Forrester blog post did highlight a few potential long-term impacts that could be game changers in Facebook’s quest for world domination:

• “Consumers tightening their privacy settings, resulting in less marketing opportunities and value for Facebook.

• Consumers opting out of sharing with future instant personalization partners (which now include just Yelp, Pandora, and Microsoft’s Docs.com).

• Consumers rejecting future Facebook programs, such as their promised geolocation check-in features.

• Actions by lawmakers and regulators (not just in the United States but elsewhere) to respond to privacy concerns of citizens.

• Encouragement for the development of open source competitors, such as Diaspora, which could someday pose an appealing alternative to consumers.

• And perhaps most importantly, the potential loss of trust and interest among large brands.”

As of right now, we think these forecasts from Forrester are among the most compelling we’ve seen so far. Is there anything you’d add to the list?

But interestingly enough, for as maligned as Exxon was in the years-if not decades-following its infamous “oil letting,” the market reaction was notably slower and less severe than that currently felt by BP. As noted in Wall Street Journal reports, the first two weeks after the 1989 crash, Exxon shares lost 3.9%, but the losses were recouped after four weeks. One possible reason for the disparity, according to Pavel Molchanov, energy analyst with Raymond James: “the fact that there is simply more day-to-day ‘headline risk’ than 20 years ago, a function of the dramatically accelerated flow of information in the market.”

The comment is striking given the challenges companies face in managing their reputations-not to mention any crises that befall them-in the age of 24/7/365, news courtesy of online media’s ubiquity. But that’s not the only difference between now and then: Transparency is now known to be critical, both as a mechanism for crisis management and as a preventative measure. Molchanov actually defended BP’s transparency in the aforementioned Wall Street Journal report, underscoring the monumental challenge at hand:

“‘They’re in many ways a model for how a company needs to act in a crisis management mode – as opposed to Exxon after Valdez,’ said Molchanov. Still, transparency alone isn’t going to turn BP’s stock price around. “It’s hard to fight the tape when the tape is that bad.’”

Do you agree that BP’s behavior has been commendably transparent, all things considered?

Even with the new settings, media criticism is still pervasive, which brings to light interesting questions surrounding the brand’s tolerance for widespread condemnation. After all, for most companies, an issue of this magnitude would be a monumental crisis with long-lasting, debilitating effects on their reputation. But not for Facebook-at least according to an online sentiment analysis conducted by Gregory | FCA Communications, which revealed that, despite the current media and political backlash, consumer sentiment is unaffected (note that Zuckerberg’s mea culpa and the release of simplified privacy settings came after this analysis was done).

The positive sentiment score is certainly surprising given the present volume of criticism. While it would be interesting to see more in-depth, systematic analyses, this snapshot is still compelling. We are anxious to see what happens on May 31-“Quit Facebook Day”- when some 22,000+ users have pledged to delete their profiles from Facebook as an act of protest.

In the meantime, we’re interested to hear what you think of this sentiment analysis. Does it make sense that Facebook has a disproportionately high threshold for criticism, or is there still part of this story that remains to be told?

Nestlé’s recent run-in with Greenpeace over its palm oil-deforestation controversy has already become a modern-day social media crisis case study, joining the ranks of Domino’s, United Airlines and, once upon a time, Dell (whether it will eventually rise from the ashes to become the quintessential digital darling like the latter did remains to be seen). Now, according to a statement from Greenpeace itself, the confectionary company has agreed to activists’ demands, formally announcing a “zero deforestation” policy in partnership with The Forest Trust.

Which can only mean one thing: Greenpeace has its sights set on a new target, and this time, the bull’s eye is on a bank-HSBC, to be exact.

Greenpeace has had its eye on HSBC for some time over its investments in Sinar Mas, the Indonesian conglomerate that sources palm oil for companies like Nestlé. For its part, HSBC’s stance on environmental protection seems pretty clear: According to its Web site, “HSBC has a long standing commitment to protecting the environment and believes it is fundamental to a thriving society and sound economy – upon which business depends.”

Of course, this doesn’t stand up to Greenpeace’s allegations. Our question, though, is how its campaign against HSBC will play out. For Nestlé, as we know, the battleground was the brand’s own Facebook page. But HSBC’s branded social media ecosystem is less cohesive. Its First Direct online banking solution has a social media newsroom and, more importantly, a real-time, public-facing monitoring dashboard. But there isn’t a Masterbrand Facebook page or Twitter profile, for example.

What tactics do you expect Greenpeace to take against HSBC in the social media realm? And will their approach to real-time monitoring and transparency vis-à-vis First Direct apply if the issue reaches critical mass?

Here is a checklist that I devised to help me organize the elements of each SMR CNW puts out that may help you too.  While I have included video, audio and photos on the checklist you can distribute a Social Media Release with as many or as few assets as you desire. All you need is one photo to make it an SMR!

Basics:

News Release Perhaps obvious, but it’s a crucial element to your SMR and deserves the number one spot on your checklist.  Do you have English and French versions?  Are you also issuing a wire version of your release?

Contact Information Include daytime and after-hours telephone numbers, email address and websites for contacts that will be available and ready to respond to your release.

Boilerplate A boilerplate is a short paragraph summarizing an organization or company, included at the bottom of your news release.  Make sure your boilerplate is up-to-date and that you include this information for each organization issuing the news release.

Quotes You can highlight quotes embedded in your news release or craft separate quotes for this section.  If you would like to highlight different quotes, be sure to save them in a separate document and identify this when you submit your assets.

Biographies / Head shots You can include a profile of each executive or spokesperson quoted in your news release.  Be sure to include a short biography and current head shot for each.

Logo Do you have your organization or client’s logo for the release? If there is more than one organization issuing the release, include each one’s logo.

Multimedia:

Video Include a title for each video you are including in your release and the order you would like them to appear.

Audio Same thing for audio. Include a title for each audio clip; if you have more than one, specify the order you would like them to appear.

Photos Identify the title for each photo and include a cutline (a short description of the photo, with a credit to the photographer).  If you are including multiple photos, identify the order they should appear on your release.  Links can also be embedded into the body of your release.

Additional Links What else would a reporter or blogger need to write about your news release?  This is the place to include links to websites, background information, social media properties, additional documents, anything that may be of interest to or helpful for the reader of your release.

Tags Each SMR includes delicious and Technorati tags; this is what puts the “social” in Social Media Release.  Include as many tags as you can think of to make your SMR easily found.  As an example, here are the tags I included in our recent SMR announcing CNW’s acquisition of dna13:

cnw, cnw group, dna13, carolyn mcgill-davidson, kevin o’neil, kirk lapointe, scott anderson, mathew ingram, mediavantage, media, newswire, public relations, pr, media monitoring, news release, press release, communications, breakfast with the media, acquisition, software, startup, ottawa, Toronto

Everything else:

Launch date and time Self explanatory, but when you’re coordinating several files and documents at once it’s easy to forget something simple like the date you want your SMR to go live!

Multimedia distribution rights Make sure you have the distribution rights for your audio, video and photo assets.  YouTube will remove any videos that contain unauthorized use of copywritten material.  Even using a popular song as background music in your video may get flagged by YouTube.

If you’ve issued a Social Media Release how did you keep your assets organized?

Photo credit: xololounge from morguefile.com

Last week, we entertained the idea of turning brands’ Facebook fan pages into customer service platforms via Get Satisfaction’s Social Engagement Hub, the new app that enables brands to integrate the entire customer support experience into their Facebook fan pages. The service’s integration with Facebook introduced interesting questions about the costs and benefits of using the platform to host conversations that can quickly turn ugly.

Well, judging from Nestle’s recent Facebook crisis, companies should be all the more aware of Facebook fans’ ability to turn on a dime and become outspoken critics, using the brand’s very own Facebook page as a soapbox for voicing their discontent.

Just ask Nestle. The company’s Facebook fan page has been overrun by critics in recent days, following Greenpeace’s accusation that Nestle uses palm oil sourced from deforested areas in Indonesia. The sustainability crisis spun out of control as people took to Facebook to condemn the company’s practices, make its fan page … well, anything but.

For its part, Nestle has retreated from the Facebook firestorm, choosing instead to address the issue with a formal statement on its Web site. It’s a defensive move that implies the complete absence of any social media crisis planning/escalation procedure. For Nestle, any reactionary planning will be too little, too late-the damage has already been done. How they choose to rebuild their Facebook presence in the wake in the crisis will be an interesting process to behold.

As for those brands that have yet to come under fire on their own Facebook domains, there is still time to develop a plan that can be deployed in the event of an unexpected blitzkrieg. A few essentials:

• Monitoring: Brands must appoint community managers to monitor and moderate the conversations taking place on Facebook. These individuals will be the first responders when an issue emerges, as they will be most familiar with the fan base-and vice versa.

• Rules of Engagement: Clear policies that outline the rules for participating on the fan page are essential. Companies should establish these up front, noting that inappropriate or inflammatory comments will be removed at the community manager’s discretion. This policy does NOT entitle brands to remove comments that are negative or critical-sorry, Nestle-but it does serve as a first line of defense for crises that may develop out of rumors or false information.

• Detailed Response Protocol: Brand managers should develop a crisis response protocol that outlines the basic steps to be taken the moment an issue emerges. These protocols should identify different degrees of issues-latent, emerging, critical, etc.-and assign corresponding actions for each. This allows teams to hit the ground running with a proactive response, rather than forcing them into a corner while their fans-turned-foes destroy the brand’s reputation on its own turf.

What advice would you give Nestle at this stage in the game? Do you think it will rebuild its Facebook community over time, or will it leave it to the proverbial wolves?

If you’re interested in learning more about proactive crisis response in the age of social media, tune in to dna13′s “Speed Kills” Webinar on March 24th, featuring Ann Aikin from the Centers for Disease Control.