EM Crisis Comm

Recovering from disaster--the Galveston way

2010-09-27T16:31:00.000-07:00

On September 12, 2008 Galveston and the Houston region were hit with one of the most severe and destructive hurricanes in history--Ike. Many comments have been made, including by me, that reflect high admiration for the people, government leaders and responders who had to deal with this event. They showed remarkable strength and resilience.

But now Galvestonians are leading the way with showing us that resilience includes knowing how to recover. And that means celebrating your survival, endurance, strength and resilience. Here's the official video of the Galveston Flash Mob .

Now this kind of thing doesn't happen without some leadership and leadership is the key to resilience. Kitty Allen, a valued client, provided the spark needed to get this going. Here's what she wrote in an email about how this all came about:

I just thought it might be appropriate for Galvestonians, at least, to stop for about 5 minutes and celebrate how FAR we have actually come in 2 short years! Seems to me folks don't celebrate their successes enough and often choose to dwell on the glass half-empty....which is far from inspiring or motivating. Not being a super-slick, professional dancer routine, we wanted to demonstrate that while we might not all be 'in sync,' we ARE working together, going in the same general direction..and with our own individual style!

So, I emailed the Mayor with a quick "Do you think I'm nutz?" communication, explained the concept and included examples of flash mobs around the world...He "got it" immediately and encouraged me to "go for it"...so we did.

Congratulations Kitty, Mr. Mayor, and all you brave Galvestonians. You not only taught us how to endure an event like this with great courage and strength, now you are teaching us how to recover!

Who should manage a spill like the Gulf Spill?

2010-09-23T10:25:00.000-07:00

It's really not so surprising that some elected officials seem to think they could have run the spill better than Unified Area Command. Some actors seem to think they could have done better as well. But what is very sad and surprising is that members of Congress seem to agree with them. At last according to this article from nola.com.

Here's what Louisiana's St. Bernard Parish President Craig Taffaro told a congressional hearing:

"Louisiana law specifically states and grants emergency powers to the local authorities during times of declared disasters," Taffaro said in testimony before the House Homeland Security Committee. But, he said, "instead of embracing the local authorities' involvement and resource capacity, local authority was met with resistance, exclusion and power struggles."

The Deputy National Incident Commander Peter Neffenger correctly explained how the system works under OPA 90, ICS and NIMS. This was a spill of national significance under the direction of the National Incident Commander, Adm. Thad Allen. Unified Command, from the first hours of the response included BP under the direction of the Federal On-Scene Coordinator. I'm not sure about all the organization and changes in this response, but I am very aware that in all drills and events I have been involved in included a state agency as the State On-Scene Coordinator and a local response agency as the Local On-Scene Coordinator. They all formed Unified Command. Obviously all local agencies cannot participate in the ultimate decisions--it would be a nightmare, But they would coordinate their interests through the LOSC who does sit in Unified Command as a representative of local interests. If local representation was not included, it was not because of the lack of that in the plan, it was a failure in execution.

Kevin Costner testifying to Congress about response leadership is essentially a hoot. Are these Congress members so publicity hungry that they invite him in order to get the press there? No wonder their approval ratings suggests only friends and family would vote for them. I don't know how Mr. Costner's machines that were leased or acquired by BP at considerable cost actually worked. I'd like to see a study. But it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume they didn't work but BP bowed to public and political pressure in spending this money.

So, response community, do you think that Billy Nungesser should have been given control of the response? Do you think, as one Republican representative suggests, that the government should develop all the advanced technologies and expertise that decades of experience that BP brought to this event? And would this produce better results than the current system that provides a collaboration with private industry under the absolute supervision of the federal government?

I'm sounding like a stuck record, but clearly the lack of understanding of NIMS-ICS among our elected officials and press corp is a major national problem. If it is not addressed and soon, we risk losing a system that works in exchange for one that will further complicate and encumber what is already a very great challenge. In my opinion, NIMS is worth fighting for--but we have an uphill climb.

Are the Media Your Partners in Emergency Communication

2010-09-16T09:18:00.000-07:00

A couple of years ago I presented at a major conference on crisis and risk communications and several of the highly respected speakers talked about the need to "partner with the media" in communicating with the public about major events. My under the breath reaction was: good luck with that.

Since I got engaged in this crisis and emergency communication business fulltime over ten years ago one of my strongest beliefs has been that we need to first of all focus on direct communication to those people who are most impacted by an event and those whose opinions about us matter most for our future. One of the reasons for that firm belief was my experience in trying to "partner with the media" and the disastrous results that sometimes, very often occurred. In fact, I would have guess that about half of all efforts were disappointing if not outright infuriating.

Now the highly respected firm of Burson-Marsteller has documented this experience. This, in my mind, is one of the most important studies to come out about media relations in general but crisis communication in particular. I would advise a careful look at this study. I haven't looked at the mechanics of the study so can't comment on the way it was done and how solid it is, but I can tell you that it conforms to my own experiences.

For those who want the headline version, if you send your important messages to the media, at best you can expect 50% consistency with your message and what the media actually does with it. But that is better than what happens with it in the blog world, where the consistency drops down to less than 40%.

The implications are clear and should be part of every PIO and emergency manager's information strategy:
1) Go direct--plan ahead of any event to communicate directly through email, phone, text, website, whatever to the public, impacted citizens, elected officials, investors, customers, fenceline neighbors--anybody who is important to your future.
2) Rumor management -- you now know that when you send it to the media and into the social media world is almost certainly will turn into something different than you intended. That means communication is not about sending it out and letting it takes its course, it is a continuing process of distribution, correction, challenging false reports, and providing continuous updates.

Here's the bottom line: So many think that public information management is about sending out a press release and the job is done. That is hopelessly naive and that approach is guaranteed to cause great disappointment and quite likely loss of trust--and maybe loss of job.

Guest Post: San Bruno, a 1999 Event and how the world has changed

2010-09-13T08:39:00.000-07:00

[Editor's note: Another guest post from Bellingham Fire Chief Bill Boyd. This one hits close to home as the event he refers to that happened in 1999 is where I met the good chief as we worked together in responding to the pipeline explosion. This event is also what launched the PIER System and my journey in crisis communication resulting in such things as writing this blog.]

Last night I was sitting at my computer compiling research for a project when my TweetDeck Twitter feed started noting a large fire in the San Francisco area. The comments quickly escalated, with a broad range of observers reporting the same thing. Thinking that there was a major airline catastrophe in the works, I picked a couple of common hash tag words and began monitoring. What this revealed was not only a huge emergency event for the San Bruno community, but also my own emotional baggage from a similar event that occurred in my community in 1999.

Within 20-30 minutes of the beginning of the event, I tapped into online live TV news coverage of the rapidly escalating disaster. The news reporters and tweets were speculating that a gas station had blown up and/or a commercial aircraft had crashed into a neighborhood adjacent to San Francisco International Airport. But, the volume, size and heat generated by the clean burning fire indicated to me that this was most likely a high pressure natural gas pipe line fire. I quickly tweeted my observations, which were re-tweeted and confirmed by others much closer to the situation than me.

Over the next two hours I sat riveted to my computer, reading, observing and sharing information and my perspective and opinion. You see, in 1999, my community experienced a similar disaster. A 16 inch underground pipeline carrying unleaded gasoline ruptured in my city, spewing 230,000 gallons of gasoline into an urban creek, where it was unwittingly ignited by two boys. The ensuing flame front traveled a mile and a half in ten seconds, destroying everything in it’s path, along with the sense of community shared by our citizens. The two boys and another young man lost their lives that day, and the City of Bellingham lost it’s innocence and sense of security. Watching the video and reading the real time tweets from San Bruno took me back to 1999. The emergency responder side of me wanted to get on the next airplane and fly down there to help out. The non-emergency side of me became agitated, impatient and angry that something like this happened to another community. “What the hell happened this time?” was all I could think. Soon thereafter, I decided to disengage for self-preservation purposes and went to bed.

This morning the news and various feeds confirmed my fears and suspicions. An underground pipeline carrying high pressure natural gas had catastrophically failed, incinerating the neighborhood. I was awestruck by not only the devastation, but also the lack of widespread damage, given the lack of water available to firefighters and the strong winds. The San Bruno and assisting fire, police and public works departments did a helluva job in containing a conflagration.

Many lessons will be learned and shared from this event. My initial observations from the “cheap seats”;

San Bruno and assisting public safety/public works/medical care folks performed at the highest level. I am in humbled by their work, and proud to call them peers.
The same goes for the community at large. With the exception of a couple of reports of looting (which is often a rumor in disasters), the altruism of San Bruno citizens warms the heart.
The power of Social Media - especially Twitter - in this event was almost overwhelming. As someone who experienced a similar event just over a decade ago, I not only could understand and predict what was going on, I had a visceral response.
Highly visible events like this generate a lot of SM “noise”. It takes a practiced eye and patience to delineate fact from fiction - and you still may be wrong.
Most folks tweeting from the incident were not directly involved from what I can tell. I am guessing that those immediately affected had much bigger things to worry about.
Twitter postings were coming in faster than I could track. I also suspect that the tweet trend application I use could not keep up with the volume of traffic. I am sure this will discussed at length in the coming days/weeks.
The pipeline company and other responding organizations quickly used SM to get their message out. Whether it was effective or not remains to be seen.

Looking back to 1999, I wish I would have had all of the tools now available. Google Earth, Bing Maps, aerial maps, satellite images, real time weather reports, Twitter, Facebook, and more. The citizens of San Bruno quickly and effectively mobilized to help their emergency responders and neighbors in large part due to the ability to rapidly communicate and rally help in the heat of the moment. I remain humbled.

The Gulf Spill's Biggest Lesson According to our National Incident Commander

2010-09-10T12:27:00.000-07:00

Admiral Allen would qualify for the nation's Incident Commander-in-residence is such a position existed. Having assumed Incident Command responsibility in the disastrous Katrina response and cleaned the situation up there dramatically, then named National Incident Commander for the Deepwater Horizon spill, no one can speak with more authority about major incidences and what we need to learn from them. So what does the Admiral think is the major lesson learned from the Gulf Spill?

This is what was reported from his interview on NPR yesterday: "The biggest lesson he's learned from this and other disasters, Allen said, is that it's important to make sure all of the different branches and levels of government are working together — something that is harder than it might sound."

Obviously, we would have to dive a little deeper to understand what problem he is referring to and what "working together" really means. But here is my speculation: We have a system called the National Incident Management System built on the Incident Command System. It clearly defines the way in which a coordinated response is supposed to run including how coordinated communication among all participating agencies and partners is supposed to be handled. Many elements of this system were implemented during the event and contributed to what will be seen overall, despite the inordinate time it took to kill the well, as an effective response. However, because of lack of understanding or commitment by senior leaders in a number of different key agencies to this system, there were divergent elements introduced that proved to impact effectiveness. I would not presume to put those words in the Admiral's mouth and it is only my understanding and perception.

But if that is true, the major lesson coming out of this tragic and disastrous event is to not abandon NIMS, but protect its use against potential obstacles to its effective use. I am very much hoping that this becomes an important regulatory and even legislative issue in the future as I think it is critically important to our nation's ability to respond effectively to major events. The response community--meaning you, dear reader--needs to get involved in this issue. If we don't understand it and become involved in looking at how to make national response more effective, do we expect the citizen on the street to do it? I hope the Admiral will become increasingly clear in his analysis of what went wrong and propose some specific solutions and ways to ensure compliance. There is much at stake.

What did you think of the media coverage of the Gulf Spill?

2010-08-26T15:08:00.000-07:00

It's fascinating to me to look at how people evaluate media coverage. The evaluation often says more about the person evaluating than the media itself. For example, if someone says they think FOX is fair and balanced, that might give you an indication of their politics, same is true of those who might say that about Keith Olberman.

If you talk to anyone involved in the Gulf spill or the communications operation of that event, mention the media and their eyes will roll and there's a good chance that if they are inclined toward foul and vulgar language they won't be able to hold it in. Universally those involved have seen the coverage as horrific. Biased, inaccurate, nasty, intentionally misleading, etc. That's why it is quite surprising to me to see from the Pew Research Center findings that the public overall feels the media did a pretty good job. My reaction is, what is wrong with those people? But, that again is the difference between an inside and outside perspective.

The Pew study, announced yesterday, is fascinating. I think it is must reading for any PIO or communication leader responsible for crisis and emergency communication. The event was singular, no question, and they make it clear how unusual the spill was in terms of media coverage. But their analysis is undoubtedly the best way to get a grasp on how the media will cover events like this. And, unlike me, they do it without perceptible bias or frustration.

For those not interested in wading through the lengthy report (very worth it, however) here are the eight key points they make (with my own spin on those points)

1) this story was dominant -- by a long ways. Compared to other major disaster stories, none ever came close to the percent of news hole consumed with the incredible longevity.
2) The "blame game" was exceptionally strong --while the leading story line was the containment and recovery operations (47%) and exceptionally high percentage was focused on finding fault or blame (they call it the blame game, not just me) with BP (27%) and the adminisration (17%)
3) The White House had mixed coverage (I wish Pew had better analyzed the changing WH strategies and how that lined up with the media criticism of the WH, but that will be left for others)
4) BP emerged as antagonist -- that is not surprising, what surprises me is that Pew is using the black hat vs. white hat method of analyzing the news, seeing it as cast in entertainment form which it certainly is
5) The spill was mostly a TV story--with surprising differences in how the cable networks dealt with the story vs. major networks (hint--blame game is CNN and cable business)
6) Social media was not nearly as strong as mainstream media in its focus -- again surprising, but if you look at the nature of social media, it is understandable
7) Media outlets websites with interactive features were very important in telling the story
8) Public interest even exceeded the extremely high level of coverage -- the public simply couldn't get enough of this story

Crisis management and resilience thinking

2010-08-25T16:57:00.000-07:00

I came across this post (thanks William) on Homeland Security Watch by Mark Chubb. Chubb is also responding to the article in the New York Times about crisis management, the BP spill, Toyota and Goldman Sachs. I offered my humble opinion about this article and a similar one in Washington Post at crisisblogger.

Unlike my screed about the hypocrisy of the media who play a big part in creating crises and then say, why can't anyone fix these things?, Mr. Chubb's reaction is much more thoughtful. He points out that while Mr. Goodman of the Times seems to think that crisis managers are those people who come and try to clean up after a mess, the real crisis managers are busy far before things go seriously wrong:
Real crisis managers though are closely related to risk managers and emergency managers, both of whom take a comprehensive approach to their fields, which requires them to consider ways of preventing and mitigating harm before things start to become unwound.

He's absolutely right of course. This is why I am enthusiastic as a professional involved in crisis management to the shift in thinking toward the issue of resilience. Crisis response is only one part of the resilience equation. In our way of thinking there are four key elements: preparation, response, communication and recovery.

Preparation is more than coming up with a good crisis plan, although that is important. As Mr. Chubb points out, preparation includes a comprehensive look at all factors that lead to a crisis, including the internal dynamics of an organization, for the purpose of first of all preventing them from happening in the first place.

The lesson to be drawn from the gulf spill for example, is not the PR crisis management is a failure. There is a far more significant lesson. As was said I believe in Apollo 13: what we have here is a failure of imagination. Not just BP, but the entire industry and its regulators clearly did not conceive of an event the size of what has happened in the gulf. It simply was inconceivable. Not it is not. Reality has replaced the necessity for imagination when it comes to preventing and preparing for a major deepwater spill event.

But where is our imagination failing us now? What events could occur in our communities, cities, businesses and organizations that we reject out of hand. Will it require us, like it has the oil industry, to have a disastrous reality teach us because our imagination has failed us.

I know in the drills and exercises that I will be working on in the future, I will not try to make that mistake. It is so easy to rely on the tried and true scenarios. Mr. Chubb has done as big favor by pointing us in directions where we need to look for where the failures are most likely to occur, and that is deep within our own organizations. We should not be afraid to dig deep, ask hard questions, and most of all, let our imaginations fail us again.

At last--Adm Allen Defends ICS

2010-08-23T11:41:00.000-07:00

Adm. Allen at the National Press Club on Friday finally definitively defended the Incident Command System, and explained to the American people why it is important. He also completely acknowledged that it was difficult for the American people to understand the notion of cooperative response between a responsible party and the government.

This is the first important step to helping elected officials, government responders, the media and the public understand what is at stake if ICS and NIMS are thrown out the window as a result of the administration's role in the Deepwater Horizon event.

Adm Allen, the National Incident Commander, went so far as to call it "trust," something that existed in the response early on, but was severely damaged or destroyed by the political necessity of blame avoidance. He explained that because of OPA 90, the government and the industry have been cooperating in response management for the past 20 years: "It is very hard for the public to understand that a responsible party that is clearly responsible for the event itself could somehow be cooperative in the response to the spill. But as a matter of fact, since 1990, that's exactly the way we've conducted oil spill response in this country."

He also points out that the challenge of cooperation is public perception: It's been challenging at times to create that unity of effort given sometimes what appears to be the rejection of the notion [by] the general public," Allen said.

He is absolutely right. Unfortunately, the public perception of the value and necessity of cooperation was severely impacted negatively by political messaging involved in this spill, the ignorance of the media of OPA 90, ICS and NIMS, and the underlying mistrust in the public of government and particularly big oil companies.

You might ask what this "throwing under the bus" of BP has to do with a national disaster response per NIMS? If politics is allowed to play such a role in the communication about any event, Responsible Party-involved or not, every response partner has to worry. Everyone looks behind their back. No government agency is immune from being thrown under the bus to focus and avoid blame. Look what happened to MMS in this event. Gone. What elected official in a major city is going to trust that when it comes to the blame game being played that they will not find themselves in the crosshairs of the White House or the highest office holding the keys to the response? And, as Adm. Allen suggests, trust is at the heart of effective collaborative response.

The response community who understands NIMS and the concept of Unified Command and collaborative emergency public information needs to fight against the kind of political overlordship that we have seen in this response. We don't need a new national response system as David Gergen suggested. We have a great one. We need to make certain it works by preventing it from being co-opted.

An Incident Commander's Incident Commander--Admiral Allen

2010-08-18T13:58:00.000-07:00

As the tide of battle, public opinion and politics begins to turn in the Gulf Spill (see story in NOLA.com this morning about the great job done), it is time to give recognition to a true national hero, Admiral Thad Allen.

If you ask any Incident Commander around the nation to describe what an ideal Incident Commander looks like, I would guess most would pretty much describe the Admiral. For good reason. He not only served as National Incident Commander in this event but also came in to Hurricane Katrina after the cataclysmic failure of local and state government response, took charge and achieved remarkable results. It is no doubt in part due to his leadership there that the Coast Guard stood out among all government agencies with its reputation (and funding) significantly enhanced after Katrina.

In the Gulf Spill, he got involved as National Incident Commander as things were starting to go seriously sideways. BP was failing on multiple tries to stem the flow. Media reports were scathing of the response. The administration, doing its best to avoid the "Obama's Katrina" meta-narrative was doing their best to heap outrage on the Responsible Party, key administration leaders were speaking for the response indiscrimately, and the Admiral clearly understood the vital role that BP needed to play to stop the spill.

I wasn't there to observe the operational side, but I had a pretty good ringside seat on the communications. While I have been highly critical here and in other observations about the abandonment of the NIMS JIC model and of the failures of BP, I have been amazed at Adm. Allen's performance as a spokesperson for the administration and response.

He provided the regular briefings with clearly a very deep knowledge of the complicated technology and engineering challenges the response team faced. He made it clear through both policies and repeated statements that Unified Command was committed to full transparency with only the limits of safety and security interfering. His common question to a reporter after providing a response was "was that responsive?" making it clear he was intent on not ducking anything, not equivocating, not spinning, but providing the unvarnished facts as he saw and understood them.

He was not shy about getting reporters on the right track when he saw them veering onto a rabbit trail or agenda. He challenged them but only by coming back to the facts. He was also not shy about contradicting major administration officials; specifically when Sec. Salazar suggested that BP would be thrown out of the response and Sec. Napolitano adamantly denied that BP was a "partner." The Admiral calmly communicated that BP's technology, expertise and commitment were essential. He was even willing to be so honest, in a political and media atmosphere that wishes only to heap scorn on BP, of commenting that their operational response was very good if not excellent, while also criticizing their reserve and ineffectiveness in meeting the American public's need for effective communication.

President Obama's decision to clear the public stage of all the Secretaries and department heads who wanted to speak about this and rely on the Admiral as the single voice of the response is one of the best decisions he made during this event. The Admiral more than lived up to the president's high expectations for him. I still regret that the Unified Command message was lost and that BP was also thrown off the stage, but our nation could not have had a better, more commanding, more reassuring and completely honest and transparent spokesperson for this event. It appears that President Obama has avoided the "Katrina" label and this event will neither define his presidency nor harm his political future. For that, I think he has no one to thank more than Admiral Allen.

The Web is Dead. Apps Rule.

2010-08-18T09:17:00.000-07:00

Everything is moving onto the web. The web is where it is at. How long have you heard that? Including from me talking about crisis and emergency communications. Now, we hear the web is dead.

In this intriguing article from Wired magazine, Chris Anderson (author of the Long Tail) and Michael Wolf, the rise and decline of the web is documented. The graphic is particularly telling. Let's make it clear, we are not talking about the decline of the Internet as a more or less universal way of transmitting data. That continues to grow. But as the authors point out, the web is not the internet. The web is one of many, many ways to share information on the internet. As critics of this post have pointed out, the web may not be declining so much as other uses of the internet are expanding so rapidly that the web's share of traffic is declining.

What does this mean for emergency managers and PIOs? It means we all need to be thinking more of delivering information to mobile devices and facilitating interaction on mobile devices. Apps rule as the rapidly emerging preferred front end to data sharing on the internet. During Hurricane Ike we discovered that a very significant percentage of the population of Houston-Galveston were relying on their smartphones--charging batteries with car chargers--to get information about the storm and assistance. The Red Cross study which I've commented on here and other bloggers on emergencymgmt.com as well has made it clear that social media is already and will be a critical means of communicating with an increasing segment of the population. And social media is largely about mobility and access through mobile devices--particularly now as the popularity of the iPad will accelerate the introduction of a million knock-offs. Portable internet devices from smartphones to pad computers to embedded devices in almost everything you use will be ubiquitous.

As has always been true in emergency communication, we can't think that the mountain will come to us. We must find our audience where they are and make sure they are getting the information they need where and how they want it.

David Gergen's Call for National Solutions to Emergency Response

2010-08-16T11:38:00.000-07:00

David Gergen is my favorite pundit. I always sit up and take notice when I see him on CNN. I think it is because he admirably served both Democratic and Republican presidents plus the fact that his views are usually wise, insightful and somehow above the din of noise just below him.

Now the Harvard professor and CNN political pundit is calling for an overhaul of the nation's laws regarding emergency response. But his solutions, I hate to say this, are based on a very inadequate understanding of the emergency response procedures already in place--most specifically the National Incident Management System (NIMS).

Gergen says:

- the American people believe the Gulf response was inadequate--agree, but not because we don't have good methods for dealing with this

- he says responders are frustrated -- agree, very frustrated, but primarily because overseers who did not know NIMS/ICS/JIC prevented them from using it

- he says we need a command structure modeled after the military -- exactly right, except we have one called Incident Command System that became NIMS in 2004

- he says: Laws and regulations patched together over the years have given large, often vague and confusing responsibilities to too many players, starting with the feds but also state and local officials and, in some cases, corporations like BP. The result is a chain of command clogged with uncertainty and delays. -- here is where he is very wrong. We have a clear, effective system (NIMS/ICS). The Unified Command structure has been effectively implemented in numerous responses. Oil Pollution Act of 1990 specifically includes the Responsible Party (such as BP) in Unified Command because 1) they have expertise and technology that the feds don't have and 2) they are paying for everything so they should have a say--yet the lead Fed agency always has the most say.

- he says: But if a crisis mushrooms—as the oil spill did—the federal government must take decisive command. Never again should the country’s fate rest with a corporation. He's right--it never should and never did. That was the point of OPA 90--created from lessons learned from ExxonValdez which was a company response. From the first moments of the spill Unified Command was formed, Coast Guard was the Federal On-Scene Coordinator and then a National Incident Commander was named all in accordance with OPA 90. Gergen has bought into the media and political mis-info that said BP was in charge. BP was under Unified Command directives from the very beginning. It's just the administration, attempting initially to avoid the media blame game, convinced everyone that this was BP's spill and the fed's job was to put "their boot on BP's neck", until May 27 when the president said, "actually, we were in charge all along." Right, they were.

- Gergen says: Once we have good plans in place, we must invest far more in leadership training for first-responders. Good news-- the government has spent hundreds of millions, if not billions in training on NIMS (Mr Gergen, please Google NIMS and find out about FEMA's extensive on-line training and the NIMS Five Year Training plan.) The sad thing is, DHS never informed the media, the public, CNN pundits, nor apparently the Secretary and her boss about this.

I join the esteemed Mr. Gergen in calling for a national solution to the problems exhibited by the gulf spill. But the problem is not that we don't have an effective plan in place and training to support it. The problem is that the system and plan we have is not adequately protected against political meddling, and it is not well known by the public, the media and elected officials. It is a problem I deal with in every major urban area in preparing plans for coordinating emergency communications. The biggest issue by far is the very real concern that the mayor, or county judge, or governor will circumvent the Unified Command process and the Joint Information Center which operates under authority of the Unified Command. My answer has always been--sure your mayor can pre-empt Unified Command and its authority under the law, but you run the risk of not getting federal reimbursement under a presidential declaration. That certainly helps to secure compliance with NIMS. But what happens when the highest office of the land, that has no equivalent downside, circumvents NIMS, takes control from Unified Command of the communication function or any function they choose, and turns the response into a politically-driven operation? There is apparently no law that prevents this. This, Mr. Gergen, is where the focus needs to be. We have a great system, a great tool. We need to make certain that it will not again fall victim to political agendas.

The Future of Incident Specific and Joint Information Center websites

2010-08-13T16:00:00.000-07:00

The Deepwater Horizon event has presented the world with the largest, most fully functioning and information-rich incident and JIC website ever. (Full disclosure--my company PIER provides the site). But, what will the future of such websites be? As envisioned by the National Incident Management System and ICS, there would be one voice for the response, one PIO, one JIC, one authoritative source for the response reflecting the combined information and messaging of all response participants including the Responsible Party (under OPA 90).

I have written before here about the role of the Department of Homeland Security and the White House in managing the information flow on the Deepwater Horizon event and the potential implications for NIMS/ICS/ICS. If I and others thought our concerns were overwrought all we had to do was look at the Enbridge oil spill in the Kalamazoo river in Michigan to have our worst fears realized. In this event EPA launched an incident specific site reflecting its activities and Enbridge launched a site detailing its actions. You will note that each calls the event a different name--one of the no nos in ICS/NIMS. You will also note that EPA explains that Unified Command has been established but specifically does not mention that Enbridge is a participant in Unified Command. I don't know, but I suspect they are. But public perception is clearly being molded to believe that EPA, along with state and local agencies, are the ones solely responding to and managing this event. Can't quite see how that squares with OPA 90 and ICS.

The single, authoritative voice for the response is gone, non-existent. The media no doubt are going to each individual agency and player and getting different information and messages about the response.

As this threat to NIMS and its effectiveness in communicating with the public isn't problem enough, there is another emerging threat. Google launched an incredibly impressive "mash-up" of information related to the Deepwater Horizon event. I have to hand it to them (and thanks Phil for showing this to me!) the company that promised to "organize the world's information" has done a masterful job of organizing relevant information about the spill. It should be studied by all of us who need to plan what the response websites of the future will look like.

So why is it a concern? In my ideal world of crisis and emergency response communication the incident website will be the primary, authoritative, fastest and most efficient provider of relevant information about the event to all stakeholders, all audiences. The decision of Unified Command or its superiors in the Deepwater incident to eliminate BP from the official communication and to focus on the administration's role and activities rather than pure response information forced many to turn to BP for the best response information. BP.com received considerably more traffic than the incident website. That is not something BP wanted or intended, but it was a consequence of Command decisions about information. In the Enbridge case, there is no one authoritative voice--each participant telling the story apparently without coordination or an attempt to create that single voice. Now, if other players such as Google decide to take on the task of assembling and presenting information in such a compelling way it will be even more difficult for the Unified Command to establish that unified voice.

What does it matter? In a national emergency clear, authoritative, simple, non-contradictory information will be vital for the public. Without that unnecessary panic, fear, over-reactions may all result. Some may simply choose not to respond due to confusion. The book "The Unthinkable" by Amanda Ripley, plus the work of Dr. Vince Covello, make it very clear that simple, authoritative messages are essential for appropriate public reaction and participation in real emergencies. With Deepwater Horizon and the emergence of this kind of unofficial "mash-up" the ability to provide that kind of authoritative voice may be seriously compromised.

Red Cross Survey Shows Absolute Necessity of Social Media in a Disaster

2010-08-10T09:35:00.000-07:00

Yes, there are still holdouts in the emergency communications business. Still PIOs who think their job is to put out a press release or two and send to the media to communicate about a disaster response. Still some who doubt the importance of an incident website, interactive engagement with stakeholders and the public. And some who still say, "Twitter what?" "Facebook, hunh?"

Research just conducted by the American Red Cross should put any debate about this issue to rest. The essential message is that as more and more Americans turn to the Internet as a source of information, they use the Internet to gain the vital information they need. And this is especially true in serious emergencies or disasters. The sample of 1058 survey participants was drawn from people who volunteered for online surveys, so it cannot be said to represent the entire population. However, it clearly shows the high use of social media (75%) and the high expectation of direct engagement with the response organization through email, text, social media applications, etc.

This information is fully supported by our experience in helping manage communications during the Gulf Spill. 50,000 people added themselves to the mailing list to receive updates, and additional several thousand added themselves to individual state websites managed by BP. About 8000 signed up for text alerts, 40,000 as Facebook fans, 8500 as Twitter friends in addition to the over 2.5 million who viewed spill videos on YouTube and 250,000 who viewed the almost 1000 spill photos posted by Unified Command on Flickr.

Emergency communications is simply not the same game it was just a few short years ago. Today it is about engagement rather than pushing information. It is more about correcting all the wrong or twisted information that gets shared by others, than it is even about being the first source. It is about conversation, not proclaiming. The sooner PIOs and communication managers understand that, the faster response managers and Incident Commanders will understand that.

More sign of the demise of the JIC--the Enbridge Spill

2010-07-30T12:52:00.000-07:00

It is now very clear that the NIMS/ICS/Joint Information Center concept implemented by the government and the oil industry since 1990 is not being used in the Deepwater Horizon response. Particularly from a public information standpoint, the primary value of using that system, mandated by federal law and regulations, was to enable there to be a single voice for the response and that single voice represented in largely equal measure the perspectives of the Responsible Party as well as the lead federal, state and local government agencies.

There is a major oil spill going on in Michigan, involving pipeline operator Enbridge. The press release from the EPA and their response website demonstrate very very clearly that the JIC is dead, even though the response may be handled using other NIMS/ICS protocols.

Why do I say the JIC is dead and how does this vary from the way responses were handled pre-gulf spill? You would never have seen an agency like the EPA loudly proclaiming in a press release that it is in charge--leading some to believe that the response had actually been federalized. EPA wants to leave no doubt that the federal government is running this response--quietly mentioning that oh, yeah, the RP is here too. That is very very different from way this has been drilled and done before. Before, the message was (typically led by RP) that here we stand, company, fed, state, local--we are all in this together. Unified Command and all that.

Secondly, the website. The EPA is running its own website, as is Enbridge. Single voice? Not a chance. In fact, it is likely that we will see info on EPA's response website that throws Enbridge under the bus. Why do I expect that? Deepwater might have something to do with that. What has always happened before is there was a single website with the rules being that the JIC and only the JIC is the authoritative voice. This is what makes the JIC and essential element of NIMS because NIMS/ICS demands that Command be responsible for and have authority over all elements of the response--including communications. When you have each agency involved on its own, its own messaging, its own strategy, its own information flow, there can be no Unified Command authority or control over the information. Another DWH legacy.

But one of the most telling items is the name. Under NIMS/ICS, an incident is supposed to have a single name and it usually the location or something specific to incident. It may seem a minor point but getting one name and sticking to it does several things--avoids confusion and avoids placing blame in the naming process--particularly important because in so many of these events who really is responsible isn't known until the investigation and legal process is complete. Unified Command named the Deepwater Horizon event the Deepwater Horizon event. However, a higher power renamed it: the BP Spill. Now look at this event in Michigan. The EPA calls it the Enbridge Oil Spill. Enbridge calls it "the leak on line 6B."

Yes, the gulf spill (I call it that because, well, since it doesn't seem to have a consistent name anymore I guess anyone can call it what they want), yes the gulf spill has changed our world.

Media Coverage of Spill Moving Into New Phase

2010-07-29T16:08:00.000-07:00

It's been fascinating and often disheartening to watch media coverage throughout the Gulf Spill (again full disclosure for those who may be new to Crisis Comm blog--both US Coast Guard and BP are long time clients). The harshness, negativity, blackhat stories and conspiracy theories have been rampant, along with some outstanding and very enlightening coverage of what is going on. But there have been definite phases of coverage that reveal how long duration events such like this play out in the news media and how the news media itself works.

Today the story is changing dramatically. Where in the past, particularly in early to mid-June when coverage was at its peak, most major blogs and news outlets were competing on how bad they could make it and how evil those behind the spill or failures in the response were. That story line is suddenly shifting. A few relevant examples:

Spill Vanishing. It seems things started turning with this story from NYT, one of the mainstream who did the most to exaggerate the damage (remember the inaccurate report of the huge underwater plume?)

BP Spill Damage Exaggerated. Time Magazine even goes so far as to suggest Rush Limbaugh might have been right.

Yes, but who is to blame for the exaggeration, and who gains from it? The Telegraphic in UK takes this one on. Conspiracy theories are never far behind, even when the story changes from "it's horrible" to "someone screwed up by saying it was horrible."

BP looking better. The Wall Street Journal noticed that things were looking better for BP in all of this and made an article of it.

Maybe it's not their fault. Amid all this is mounting speculation that the blame for this may fall on others.

Maybe it won't matter as much as we thought. Then there is this one from AP suggesting that previous spills may have greater impact on society and legislation.

Don't get me wrong. BP's reputation will be impacted by this for my lifetime anyway, and chances are most of those who may be reading this. The important thing for emergency managers interested in how these things play out in the media and public opinion is to understand what is going on here and why.

A few comments that may help better understand this change as well as coverage thr0ughout this event.

1) Every day the war starts anew. By the war I mean the battle that every publisher and editor faces--how do I get eyes on my screen or paper today? More than that, how do I steal eyes from my millions of competitors? So every day something new has to be created. The story in the Gulf isn't changing much. Bummer for the media. So something has to be new, something has to change and that means that new angles, stories and trends have to be created if not simply uncovered.

2) Good guys don't win wars. By that I mean, good news stories have a hard time in the tough competition for eyes, ears and minds. That's why the blame game exists. Put a black hat on someone and eyes will turn. Hey--I found the guy to blame for all this--and suddenly people will pay attention. Time even put a list of the top twelve candidates to blame. So, now there is good news about the spill--it is vanishing and the damage may not be as great as we thought. So who should be blame for their being good news? It's like they can't help themselves.

3) If you don't like the weather now, hang around for a minute. Sort of like the weather in Denver, media coverage is always changing. (See point one). That means you have to have some patience. It's been understood about celebrity coverage for some time that the media loves to build someone up into some kind of godlike being, and then loves even more to tear them down to human size, or lower. The same is true of events, companies, government agencies, etc. Why? See point two.

4) The herd mentality. In most major stories, there emerges what might be called a meta-narrative. In Katrina it was simple--the feds let us down, particularly President Bush. That story was repeated ad nauseum despite the basic underlying truth that until Katrina, FEMA was never seen or understood as a response organization. The meta-narrative of this spill has been BP is a big evil foreign company that caused the spill and is failing to fix it. Well, half the shareholders are American. Investigation will show the causes. Failure to fix it was true due to the incredible technical challenges. Failure or slowness in paying claims has been essentially untrue and completely exaggerated. But that was the story line and probably 90% of America believes it because it was repeated so often. Now, we may see the story line changing and the herd is following. It seems contradictory that media need a new story and angle every day and then to see such "me too" coverage. But no one seems to want to try and challenge the meta-narrative. So the new angles tend to be minor issues supporting that big overwhelming story, with few if any, challenging the underlying truth of the big story.

I can't wait to see the news tomorrow. "Claims the spill was exaggerated are exaggerated--and we know who to blame!"

Government and the Internet--the plot thickens

2010-07-26T12:18:00.000-07:00

Today the news is that a website, Wikileaks, has published 90,000 classified documents relating to the war in Afghanistan. This website is dedicated to publishing classified and "leaked" documents. The administration is claiming that this act of making public information that was never intended for public viewing could put American lives and security at stake.

On July 19, the New York Times published an important article by Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, titled "The Web Means the End of Forgetting." The primary point is that what goes on the Internet stays on the Internet with much potential harm to those who don't think about what they put there. He makes the intriguing point that while we now live in a global village, sharing almost everything with the 6 billion or more other people on this planet, we have not adopted the village's values of "forgive and forget." The consequences to lives now and in the future will be great.

Last Thursday, July 22, the GAO published a document of testimony titled: "Information Management: Challenges in Federal Agencies' Use of Web 2.0 Technologies." It reviewed the issues arising from government agencies using social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter and such uses impact issues such as the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Freedom of Information Act.

On that same day, an article appeared in Federal Computer Week highlighting the Department of Defense's new social media hub where the hundreds of thousands of fans on Facebook pages for the various military departments can get info about social media use by these departments.

Clearly, there is great ferment here. What we are seeing is a convergence of a very important social value of exceptional openness and transparency combining with the technological means of providing that openness. The British found that transparency included the failure to keep Prince Harry's presence in Afghanistan a secret. The US is finding that keeping military secrets is increasingly challenging. Individuals are finding that off-handed or poorly thought out comments or postings may impact their lives and careers forever.

For government and private PIOs and communication leaders, there are no simple answers to this. The public seems to demand complete, unrestricted transparency, and they and the media will cry "cover-up" and "guilty as charged" as soon as they see the slightest hint of reservation about release of information. But there are obviously dangers and concerns with the release, and what do these new channels and forums mean relating to making certain that records are available in compliance with the law?

The law, technology, social values and agency policy all have to come together in a way that is defensible. We are moving in that direction it seems, but it is a bit like watching sausage being made. It's not very pretty. Until we come to some social and policy consensus, there will be much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth. Jeffrey Rosen's reminder of the role of forgiveness in an earlier and simpler time of village life is important to remember.

Public Engagement--another lesson from the Gulf Spill

2010-07-06T15:00:00.000-07:00

Having done a number of presentations so far on the communications for the Gulf Spill it is clear one of the most surprising and important lessons learned has to do with the way the Unified Command has engaged directly with the public. One of the most profound ways the Internet has changed public information and crisis management is by creating the possibility of and the demand for one-to-one engagement. While the majority of public relations professionals including PIO-types still live in the old media-centric world, more and more are realizing that communications, and particularly crisis communication, is about interactivity, about direct conversation, about engagement with individuals and groups with where they want to be.

The communication leaders of the Gulf Spill response early on clearly understood the value of direct engagement. As one of the communication leaders said during one of the recent presentations, not only does the engagement aid in building understanding of what is actually going on, but also provides real-time view into trending topics, emerging issues, rumors, misinformation and public priorities. These help guide not only the communications, but even some of the response decisions themselves.

The Gulf Spill, like almost every other aspect of this event, has experienced unprecedented direct engagement. The website (full disclosure--a PIER site provided by my company)for Unified Command has received over 53,000 inquiries through the inquiry form and almost all of those have been directly and individually responded to. Forms built into the system have collected claims requests, suggestions, responses to public meetings, and other information important to Unified Command. The fact that the entire system is web-based means that the communicators working on these responses don't need to be in the command center or Joint Information Center but indeed are located all around the country and beyond.

The key to effective crisis response is preparation, and preparation is aided considerably by taking a closer look at the kind of questions and comments people submit via the incident website. In the case of the Gulf Spill, inquiries are sorted into 35 different categories. Many of these are related to specific technical topics such as toxicity of oil or dispersants, progress with containment activities, impact of hurricanes on the response activities, etc. Others are specific to the media including media interview requests or opportunities for embeds. The largest numbers of inquiries are from people who wish to help. These include asking about volunteering, about providing a Vessel of Opportunity, about suggestions or ideas for containing the flow, or for selling products or services. In the case of this event, BP and Unified Command set up a process for evaluating all ideas and suggestions, running them by a highly competent technical review committee to make certain that no valid ideas were ignored. Suggestions have come in to the response command via multiple means--in addition to the thousands through the PIER inquiry form, a special PIER form was set up for this purpose and thousands of calls were received by the call center.

The second largest category of inquiries were negative ones. Again, these have been registered in unprecedented numbers and many of them would not be appropriate to share in most polite company. This is no doubt due to several factors including the nature of the event itself, the longevity of it, and the highly critical media coverage.

The website itself was only one vehicle for managing this public engagement. The spill communicators set up a number of social media channels for both helping communicate the continual flow of information, to monitor the discussion, and to engage with "friends" and "followers" directly. Additional tens of thousands of comments were posted on the response's Facebook page and Twitter page, as well as the Flickr and YouTube accounts used by the Unified Command.

It is increasingly clear that this event will impact crisis communication for a long time to come. The mistakes that have been made, the unremittingly negative press coverage, the political involvement, the demand for live video, the outcries over real and feared access limitations--all these have great importance for crisis communicators and PIOs. But the model that has been set for direct public engagement may be one of the quietest, least obvious and most important lessons of all. Are you prepared to directly engage those who expect it of you? And how will you do it?

Live Video--The Future of Crisis Communication Is Now

2010-06-29T14:49:00.000-07:00

The importance of live video feeds to the Gulf Spill response cannot be missed. It was the subject of news media coverage for days, approx 1.5 million individuals have watched the spill live video feeds on the Internet since they were first provided, and the cost in bandwidth to BP is astronomical. But the real lesson for anyone contemplating the future of emergency and crisis communications is that live video will be a key component of almost every major response going forward.

If you are a PIO or communication leader for an organization involved you may think you have a choice in the matter. No you don't. If the incident is subject to live video it will be provided--either by you or by someone else.

At this point BP is providing as many as 12 live video feeds and more may be added in the future. For the more technical in the crowd, the data is now being measured in petabytes (we're way past terrabytes). The cost of such enormous data feeds must be considered in the planning budgets of emergency response organizations in the future. In the case of an Responsible Party event, in other words oil and shipping industry events, the RP will pay and it will be required of them to provide it.

The role of live video feeds in major events should not surprise us. It is the natural convergence of technological capability wedded to our instant information/entertainment/transparency-driven culture. All news media (including new media) compete on the basis of immediacy. If it isn't happening right now, it really doesn't matter. That's why "Breaking News" is such a big deal on broadcast and why all the major newspapers have instant news alerts and websites that feature "breaking news." It's all about right now. What happened half an hour ago is, well, old news.

In the meantime, video production gets more and more democratized. The last few years have seen a giant revolution in the entertainment as well as news business because of the ready availability of high definition professional level gear at consumer prices. Now we've taken another giant leap in this democratization. Imagine producing a tv quality or even movie quality film--on your phone! I mean shooting, recording, mixing, editing--and distributing. Don't believe me--check this out. A film created entirely on the new iphone 4.

The future isn't coming at us, folks, it's right here. Alvin Toffler, where are you when we need you most?

Is this the best Social Media guide?

2010-06-21T11:57:00.000-07:00

PIOs and crisis communicators have been watching the Gulf Spill with great interest. As some of our friends in the Coast Guard and working in the Unified Command JIC have said, this event may be the first "social media" response. Certainly, social media is being aggressively and effectively used.

One of the leading Coast Guard public affairs managers involved in the spill recently collaborated with me on a spill communications briefing and told the attendees how social media was not only used to help communicate important information, but how monitoring it helped form communication responses and strategies and how it is also being used by the response management to help understand emerging public issues and concerns.

Still, many leading communication managers and PIOs that I talk to are still trying to get their arms around what social media really is, how to implement it in their organizations, how to create policies that both allow use by employees and provide some protection against the many risks.

If you are struggling to understand how to really adopt social media in your organization, here is a great guide put out by Eloqua. Admittedly, this is marketing oriented, but the distance between marketing and public affairs and crisis management is narrowing all the time--social media being one of those reasons for it narrowing. So I think you will find it incredibly useful in understanding what will work and not work in your organization, as well as getting a handle on some of the emerging channels such as Foursquare and Gowalla.

(P.S. -- thanks William for another great find)

Why Journalistic ignorance of NIMS/ICS is hurting the nation

2010-06-15T16:20:00.001-07:00

Here's one of the most egregious examples of journalistic ignorance of the National Incident Management System, the Incident Command System, the Joint Information Center and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990: The Washington Post says the spill has created an uneasy marriage between BP and the government.

For twenty years government agencies at the federal, state and local levels have practiced this marriage with every major oil company and oil shipping company. They've been at the altar for 20 years, well, actually way past the altar. Why? Because they like each other so much? No, because the law required it. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 following ExxonValdez required the government and private company identified as the "Responsible Party" to collaborate in stopping the spill and cleaning it up. The RP pays, the government under authority of the lead federal agency, approves all plans, all actions, and all information. That's the way it has been--until 2010. That's when the biggest event of all called for everything invested in this system to pay off.

But we have been bitterly disappointed. Not by BP, not by the Coast Guard or the other agencies involved. But by the highest office in the land which has chosen for its own political future to put aside the 20 years of productive, cooperative and highly effective investment in a collaborative means of responding to big events. This action, as I have stated here before, is putting the future of NIMS and the JIC very much at risk--I believe putting at risk the ability of our nation to respond effectively to events in the future including major terrorist events. To what end? To avoid this administration being painted with the Katrina brush. It is a high price to pay in my mind. One we may all have to pay for in the long term.

But the political messaging that has overwhelmed the Joint Information Center releases is only made possible because of ignorance of NIMS/ICS and the JIC. This headline from the Washington Post demonstrates it, as does the seriously light weight cover story in the New York Times today.

If the reporter writing for the Washington Post was more informed about Unified Command, he would not be surprised about the forced marriage of BP and the federal government. He would be far more surprised, shocked even, that in this event a relationship that has been worked out through years of smaller events and large drills would be so badly damaged--to the detriment of the response and the victims--by a heavy handed political overlay.

It's long a truism in management that effective teamwork requires mutual trust, respect and open communication. That existed in the early days of the response. The marriage was there, tested and tried by time and effort. But that marriage was destroyed by dictate. The response is not better for it, the gulf is not better for it, BP is certainly not better for it, and I would suggest that the administration is not more respected for it.

The Washington Post, had it been more informed, would not have written about an uneasy marriage. But how a perfectly good marriage, so desperately needed in this response has had divorce forced upon it. The question ahead, and I would hope some better informed reporter would focus on it, is what does this forced divorce mean for the future of collaborative response? That may be one of the most distressing legacies of this very sad chapter in our history.

A Guest Post - A Call for Technology Solutions

2010-06-14T16:47:00.000-07:00

I'm happy to once again offer this spot to my friend Bill Boyd, in this along with him is David Sonnen. Bill is Fire Chief of my town of Bellingham, WA and has contributed several thought provoking blog posts here. This one is longer than most but the call they issue for technology solutions to getting relevant information to responders when they need it is definitely worth considering.

Open architecture for emergency response. A long overdue concept.

Summary: Emergency responders should be able to intuitively and quickly access useful open web-based information to help provide real time situational awareness, information and direction in mitigating wide-ranging emergency incidents. Emergency responders should be able to manage internal collaboration and public discourse from the same system using inclusive and non-proprietary technology solutions.

Imagine, a fire is reported in a dumpster behind an industrial facility in the outskirts of a small city in the middle of the night. A fire engine is dispatched from the local fire department. As they respond, the company officer pulls up a pre-incident plan of the facility on the engine’s mobile data computer (MDC). The plan notes the facility makes "airplane parts", and stores a small amount of hazardous materials on site. No other information is available. The crew arrives to find a police officer casually directing them to the rear of the facility, where they pull up to find a typical sized dumpster with bright red/white flame and white smoke showing from the top. The engine company officer pauses for a moment, thinking the smoke looks a little unusual. He briefly considers contacting the dispatch center to contact the owner of the facility, as he has no way to know what might be in the dumpster. But, seeing that the fire seems to be contained, he orders a hose line stretched to extinguish the fire. Per SOP, both the firefighter and officer are wearing full protective gear, including breathing apparatus. The driver/pump operator charges the hose with water and the firefighter opens the nozzle. Suddenly, a violent explosion picks up both firefighters and throws them 20 feet, showering them with white hot metal fragments. The dumpster peels back like a cheap tin can. Next day, the local paper headlines, "Firefighters Surprised and Injured by Dumpster".

Now, imagine the same scenario, only this time when the engine company arrives the officer, noting the unusual flame and smoke characteristics, turns to his MDC and types; "White hot flame and billowing white smoke, dumpster, airplane parts." The computer screen immediately shows quick links to information that indicates this is not your typical dumpster fire - the contents burning are likely the byproduct of the manufacturing of aluminum airplane parts, and applying water to this type of fire would likely have catastrophic results. The company officer wisely decides to isolate the area, deny entry, call for a hazardous materials team and moves his fire engine away from the dumpster. Soon thereafter, the dumpster melts away, spilling the burning contents onto the concrete where they are quickly consumed. After an hour, all units clear the scene and return to quarters. On the way back, the Captain types a quick note on the unusual situation on his MDC – which automatically updates the department's Facebook, Twitter, and Google Buzz accounts. The local paper doesn't even notice. But a City Council member tweets back, "Nice job".

You may be thinking; what’s the big deal? This information is all over the Internet and easy to find." Yes, there is a wealth of information about hazardous materials, chemical composition, firefighting tactics, after-action reports/lessons learned, etc... But, finding and using this good stuff is another story. Emergency responders should be able to intuitively and quickly access useful web-based information to help provide real time situational awareness, information and direction in mitigating wide ranging emergency incidents. Responders should be able to hold up their end of their conversation with their community -- simply and credibly == in ways that are relevant to their community.

Firefighters encounter unpredictable and deadly situations, requiring rapid size-up, interpretation and action. This environment has many similarities to a battlefield, where field commanders routinely make split second decisions with very limited information. Newly minted officers rely heavily on their training to guide their actions. As they gain experience they compare the situation they are confronted with to their previous similar experiences and base their actions accordingly. In other words, if it worked before it will probably work again. This approach works well most of the time. But, it can also result in complacency or inappropriate actions resulting from an empty slide tray. In these situations an officer needs all the external information they can get, as quickly as they can get it, to rapidly formulate an action plan based on what they see.

The fire service culture honors tradition, honor and sacrifice. While noble traits, they can inhibit innovation and compromise safety. With that said, newly minted emergency responders are well versed in computer skills and likely have tons of experience in using social media tools. Responders in this day and age are used to using Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, Digg, Blogspot, etc.. to communicate and assimilate information. A challenge for technology innovators is to ensure tradition does not overtake innovation for the new breed of emergency responders, and build upon this culture shift.
It is time to evaluate the why and how of emergency responder thought processes in emergency situations, and how web based information technologies – present and future- can support and enhance these thought processes, with the goal of helping lifesavers do their jobs safer and more efficiently. Current web search engines are extremely powerful, accessing millions of data points, depending on the type of query. This type of searching is suitable if you are writing a research paper, looking for an old friend or are curious about how to home brew beer. But, an MDC would serve better as a wheel chock than an effective emergency decision making tool given how information is commonly retrieved currently.

Emergency services depend on technology. But, sometimes our technologies could work a lot better for us than they do. New technology is likely to need years of patching, changing and reissuing (at our expense) before it is really useful. Now we have a thundering herd of new stuff stampeding down the tech road.

We think it would be a good idea to try to get ahead of the thundering herd by giving the technologists a better idea of what we actually need. So, we started writing down the things we know and the things that we would like technologists to think about as they build out new emergency response systems. The lists below are our first cut.

We think that all of us are smarter than a couple of us. We'd like this article to be a starting point for serious discussions about what future technologies should do for our emergency response community and the communities we serve. We think that our professional organizations should focus and consolidate our collective tech requirements.

With that said, here's a list of discussion points.

New things we know for sure

The technology sector has yet to create a widely adopted standard platform for deep web search and filtering user interface tools for the emergency response community. Most emergency response agencies have not embraced use of social media tools, search, or even use basic information tools as currently configured.
Most public sector emergency response agencies cannot afford expensive proprietary information systems.
Information extracted from the Web could be valuable in pre-planning, training, and real-time emergency operations.
Emergency response agencies are concerned about the security of social media sites and the impact on the transparency of government.
Most people use computers and use the Internet. Many use social media to communicate and gather information
Robust, real-time sophisticated data streaming and filtering systems are already being used by specific sectors (Financial institutions and nuclear safety for example).
Open software and open data are easier to adopt and less expensive than proprietary systems.

Questions for discussion

Can most-if not all- emergency response information requirements be met with a single, integrated approach?
Does it make sense to link social media tools that push out information and search tools that retrieve critical information for responder use?
What are some of the categories of information available on the web that may be useful in an ongoing emergent situation?
What search, data access, and filtering barriers do response agencies encounter that hinder their response preparedness capabilities?
What are the requirements emergency responders have to easily access emergent information?
What are the device constraints, if any, to accessing and using dynamic Web-based information in field operations?
What tools currently exist that can be used or reconfigured to assist in searching, accessing, analyzing and publishing dynamic information for field operations?
Can data and/or interface standards contribute to the value of emergency response data?
What are the social and cultural barriers to using effective information in the emergency response community?
What organizational capabilities are in place to promote the effective use of new information technologies? E.g.: ICS, national or regional training/ certification, professional organizations, informal channels.

Design Considerations/ Requirements

The system has to be easier to use than not to use.
Any user experience must be self-re-enforcing. That means that the user will get something of real, tangible value from any use of the system.
User interfaces must be independent of the underlying business logic. This means that any interface can be tailored to an individual's specific, local needs.
While source data may be unstructured and unformatted, the user must see predictable, consistent information in forms that are familiar to each user.
The system must operate in connected, occasionally connected and unconnected environments.
System must screen and secure sensitive data like personal health and national security information.
The system must be freely available to qualified users, and scalable from 1 user to hundreds working in a real or virtual crisis Joint Information Center (JIC).
Much, if not most, information will be in the deep Web behind various forms, firewalls and other barriers. When duly authorized, the system must be able to search and access deep Web sources.
Collaboration will be an important element in the system. Any collaboration tools must be freely available, simple and scalable. Collaboration tools must be compatible with major social media sites.
The platform(s) must be designed in anticipation that various social media platforms will transition in and out of favor. Therefore, the interfaces must be as flexible and universal in capturing current and future social integration media.
The system must capture local citizen comments, opinions and ideas about each local agency. Citizens must be able to become involved, ask questions and participate in discussions about the local, regional agencies or specific incidents. The local agency must be able to easily track trends, manage citizen and media requests and monitor real time dialog from multiple platforms.

Right, now, a huge emergency response effort is underway in the gulf coast to stop a gushing deep underwater oil well and organize an unprecedented and long term cleanup effort. Researchers, scientists, industry, government, safety officials and public relations experts are hard at work trying to stop the spill and limit the resulting environmental and political damage. This response and cleanup "machine" is not only searching out all possible data, research and ideas, it is also monitoring the impact of its efforts on the people, environment, government and the oil industry. The Web 2.0 "Cloud" is undoubtedly being used in intense and unique ways, and while some impacts of this innovation are likely already being identified, others may be not realized and widely known for some time. It is likely discipline specific ad hoc search databases, search tools and filters have been created by command staff and technical specialists to assist them in quickly researching relevant information. Likewise, these tools are providing real time intelligence about public perception, rumors and "ground truth" observations. This type of integration is exactly what is needed on broader basis within the emergency response community. It should not have to take an unprecedented environmental disaster to make it happen, but we can use this opportunity.

The next steps are up to you. As a community and profession, we can work to have better technologies or we can let technologists guess what we need. We challenge those in the technology sector to work with the emergency response community to further refine the questions and concepts listed above to improve public safety. To quote writer William Gibson, "The future is here. It is just not evenly distributed."

David Sonnen is a geospatial technology consultant and writer. His past work includes serving in emergency services and working for a Type 1 Incident Management Team. He has a degree in Forestry. His publications through International Data Corporation (IDC) have been surprisingly accurate in predicting future tech trends.

Bill Boyd is the Fire Chief for the Bellingham, Washington Fire Department. He serves as a incident commander for the Northwest Washington Incident Management Team- a regional Type III all-hazards team. He is a graduate of Western Washington University and the National Fire Academy Executive Fire Officer Program.

Not Sure How the Joint Information Center Can Survive This

2010-06-07T08:43:00.000-07:00

I do not see how the Joint Information Center (JIC), as it has been conceived and implemented the past ten years, will be able to survive the Deepwater Horizon event. If I am right, this will have very significant consequences for how major environmental events are managed in the future as well as how NIMS (National Incident Management System) will be implemented in the future.

To understand the very serious implications of what is happening today, we have to go back to the Incident Command System and how it developed, particularly in the oil industry. ICS began in the early 1970s with the fire services on the West Coast. When a number of fire of agencies came together to fight a fire they found the coordination pretty difficult. Who was in charge? Who was deciding what trucks and resources should be deployed where? How and where did the critical event information come in? What do you do when one battalion chief in a podunk department won't take orders from someone of lower rank who has been given authority in the combined response? And how does everyone know what responsibilities go with each job?

From a media and public communication standpoint, the problem was also serious. Who has the authoritative information? What is the public to think when one fire department PIO says the fire is 200 acres and another says it is 2000 acres?

The answer to this was the Incident Command System with it single command structure incorporating multiple agencies, its standardized jobs and job descriptions, its management principles such as span of control, and its insistence that rank or position outside of the response mean nothing when it relates to making assignments and reporting structure. It was brilliant and effective and has proven so in multiple responses since then. For communication, the same approach applied. The Joint Information Center, made up of PIOs from various agencies participating, established its own organization structure and information flows with the idea being to provide the single point of information, the single voice for the response. It too was effective and incredibly helpful in getting information out--relatively quickly, accurately, and without conflict or confusion.

When the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 was passed after the ExxonValdez event in 1989, the Incident Command System along with the Joint Information Center was mandated for the oil industry. From that point on, the government agencies involved in a response--federal, state, local and tribal--would work in close collaboration with the Responsible Party--legally defined as the owner of the oil, not the one who caused the problem--under the Unified Command structure. Ultimately, it was the federal agency in the response, the Coast Guard for on the water events and EPA for on the land events, that held the trump card because they and only they had the option of "federalizing," the event, that is pushing everyone else aside and taking direct control of all response activities.

OPA 90 further mandated that each company with facilities or vessels at risk of major incidences had to practice an ICS event, and every three years a "worst case scenario" event. I have been involved in planning, managing and evaluating many of these over the past ten years. The industry has spent hundreds of millions, perhaps several billion, in training, drilling, creating plans and driving this system deep into their organizations. As a result of all this work, industry response professionals and agency response managers learned to work together side-by-side in close collaboration. Extensive technology was developed to support the complex operations, technologies aimed at managing the ICS process with all its forms and procedures as well as managing the Joint Information Center and all its processes and requirements. That was the system I created, called PIER for Public Information Emergency Response. The Joint Information Center proved very effective in providing a coordinated information response enabling the media (and increasingly the public directly through incident websites) to get the best possible information, as quickly as possible from a single authoritative source.

Of course, that "single voice" didn't necessarily play to the media's interest in the blame game they inevitably must play. Here were the key players all standing side-by-side, providing the same information, not pointing fingers, not accusing the others, but working in concert in the public's interest to get the job done.

In 2004 the Department of Homeland Security, under a presidential directive to create a national response structure, implemented the Incident Command System as that national response plan. It was one of the smarter things government has done. They didn't reinvent the wheel, instead used something that was working exceptionally well and that many federal, state, local agencies and a few private companies had adopted and trained on already. DHS has invested billions in making this system effective and making certain that agencies at all levels use this system and prepare their responders to work in it effectively.

So far, so good. So why is it threatened?

The Deepwater Horizon event (that is what it was officially named by Unified Command at the beginning and all events require an official and single name), began as a typical NIMS/ICS event. BP, as the largest shareholder of the well with three owners, was named the Responsible Party. That means they were responsible for paying the bill and participating in the Unified Command structure. Unified Command was formed with the Federal On-Scene Coordinator as the Coast Guard and other agencies participating in accordance with OPA 90 and NIMs. A National Incident Commander was named as this was the first Spill of National Significance since that was designated again as part of OPA 90.

As is called for in all the plans, a Joint Information Center was set up as soon as Unified Command was formed. All the agencies came together, including BP, to unify the communications operation using PIER as the communication system that all would operate on. the years of experience that the Coast Guard and BP had with the system was a strong benefit in getting the JIC off to a strong start. Under NIMS and ICS rules, Unified Command has the final authority over all information released. No one involved in the response--no government agency, no private party, no contractor, no research vessel, no one -- is to communicate outside of that structure. It is the only way of insuring a "single voice" and maintaining information discipline. The Sago Mine disaster was one example of where the loss of information discipline was exceedingly painful and caused unnecessary distress when JIC rules were broken. On the PIER JIC website, the logos of all the response agencies were displayed along with BP as the Responsible Party (RP in ICS lingo).

That is, until Sec. Napolitano arrived a couple of days into the event. Suddenly all agency logos were removed, the event was renamed the BP Oil Spill, and the messaging from Unified Command starting taking on a strategic intent to innoculate any federal agency from any blame and to focus all media scrutiny and public outrage on BP. While the logos returned a few hours later, I'm assuming after the Secretary was informed of how the National Incident Management System that her agency promulgates is supposed to work, and the original incident name response, the use of Unified Command for political messaging has never stopped from that point.

As I pointed out earlier, this messaging has gone through a couple of phases. First, the administration tried to avoid any blame by saying it was all on BP and it was the administration's job to hold them accountable and put a boot on their neck. This was in direct opposition to the reality on the ground which was a Unified Command response all along, under the direct control of the coordinated federal agencies. But not a single reporter picked up on this. This shows how hopelessly out of touch the media are with the realities of NIMS and what Unified Command means. No one, none, challenge this strategy by even asking what the National Incident Commander was there for or asking what the role of a Federal On-Scene Coordinator was. Nor did they seem able to put two and two together to ask a question that if BP was doing everything, why are so many people in uniform so visible?

But what the administration apparently didn't anticipate, aside from the fundamental dishonesty of this message, is that the calls would increase for the federal government to take over the response. Why are they letting BP run this thing when it clearly is failing? Why isn't Obama stepping in to take charge. The pressure mounted until on May 28 at a press conference the president announced that well, actually, the federal government was in charge all along. Oh, said the press corp. The first question (and one of the first insightful ones) was if that is the case, why did the EPA send the letter to BP asking them to find different dispersants if the federal government was managing the response, including the use of dispersants all along? Exactly.

In the days since May 28, BP has been pushed from the scene publicly as far as communication is concerned. Now the federal government stands alone in the media appearances. And Unified Command messages have become more and more political in tone even while they continue to do their best to get the relevant information out about the event and the response activities. What do I mean by taking over the Unified Command messaging? Here is the primary release from the Unified Command on June 4:

Speaking alongside federal officials and Gulf Coast governors, the President sharply criticized BP for spending money on a public relations campaign.
“I don’t have a problem with BP fulfilling its legal obligations,” the President said. “But I want BP to be very clear—they’ve got moral and legal obligations here in the Gulf for the damage that has been done. And what I don’t want to hear is, when they’re spending that kind of money on their shareholders and spending that kind of money on TV advertising, that they’re nickel-and-diming fishermen or small businesses here in the Gulf who are having a hard time.”

I have no objection whatsoever to this kind of messaging being issued by the White House media machine--it is perfectly appropriate for the president to say whatever he wants. But to use Unified Command as an adjunct to the White House communication operation means that Unified Command will likely never again be trusted by any private company or public agency that does want its reputation to reside in the hands of the administration.

What makes this doubly troublesome is the fact that BP has been very aggressive in claims management and a Unified Command release a day or two before this reported that BP had to date paid every claim it had been able to process. Not a single claim was denied and the announcement had just been made that BP had agreed to additional loss of income payments going forward. The accusation about nickling and diming was unfair and inappropriate if done from the Rose Garden, but to be done using the communication machinery of Unified Command will likely have long term devastating consequences.

Further, BP's so-called PR campaign is to focus attention on the response website. While the media has been playing the administration's game in lockstep, even while desperately seeking every day for a scoop to further inflame public outrage, those who get their information from the response website do have a substantially different picture of the response than those who get their information only from the media. I discovered this anecdotally when discussing the response. If someone was entirely negative about BP and the response, I asked if they had been to the website or subscribed to the updates. Those who had been to the site regularly were more critical of the media coverage, and those who had not were only critical of the response. Why wouldn't BP in those circumstances want the public to know about this information source. The media was not pointing people to the site. Why would the administration find it a problem to want people to get their information directly rather than filtered through the media whose job is to get eyes on their screen every day on this story? And especially when the administration has highjacked the Joint Information Center and is using it for their political messages?

Yes, I am deeply disturbed about the future of the National Incident Management System, ICS, and the JIC. Since I am personally involved right now in writing plans for several of the major urban areas of the nation for how they come together in a major event to communicate in a coordinated way, it is a very relevant issue. What do I say to the Mayor's office of a major city when they realize that if it is in the current administration's best interest to focus the media' blame game on them to avoid any blame falling on the administration, how can I convince them that they should stay within the information discipline bounds of NIMS? Since I'm also writing plans for other major oil companies, how can those plans be focused on participation in the JIC when it is most likely in a major event for that very tool to be used to an extreme degree against them and even used to criticize their own efforts to communicate how they are responding?

If there are others working on such plans and wondering what this means for your agencies,your regions or your company's crisis communication plans under the National Incident Management System, I'd like to hear from you. Hopefully you can reassure me that it is not a significant issue, that I am reading this wrong, that once the "BP Spill" is over that life under NIMS will return to normal. However, if you are also concerned perhaps we can begin the discussion at some senior policy levels as to how to prevent this catastrophe (not talking about the spill here) from happening again.

Gulf Spill Communications--analyzing phases

2010-06-02T10:17:00.000-07:00

The Gulf Spill will provide lessons learned about crisis communication for many years to come. If journalism is the first draft of history, what does that make blogs such as this one? The scratchpad for the first draft?

Here are a few observations about the phases of communication that can be seen in this response. I have an inside/outside perspective because the company I work for is involved in the operational response and the system I created, PIER, is the communication platform used for the response. Plus, we have a significant number of PIER employees and contractors involved in supporting and helping manage the communications. But, I am outside because I am not directly involved in the response and have maintained some distance, in part to keep some perspective for a strategic role.

Phase I--The Initial Response.
First communication was through Coast Guard District 8 in New Orleans. It was a large but routine search and rescue operation communicated through their public affairs website (also a PIER site.)
BP launched their crisis dark site shortly after the event (also a PIER site). Once Unified Command was formed, a Joint Information Center was established and a PIER site was set up following the template designed by the Coast Guard for such responses. The JIC began the process of information flow--through PIER, through media engagement and through a social media function established as soon as the social media experts from the Coast Guard arrived at the JIC location in Robert, Louisiana. So far, so good.

Phase II -- Politics and the Message
The initial information focused on what should be in a response like this--what is happening with the event itself, and what is the response organization doing about it. Part of that communication is that Unified Command is established and the information proceeds from Unified Command. This changed the first time Secretary Napolitano arrived at the Command Center. The JIC site was stripped of all logos and the incident name was changed from Deepwater Horizon to BP Oil Spill. Information release protocols were changed to enable the White House to review and approve all information prior to release from the event. From an information standpoint, Unified Command approval now flowed from the Incident Commanders, through the National Incident Commander to the White House. The overriding message was not Unified Command and what the coordinated effort was, but that this was BP's spill, it was BP's fault, it was their responsibility and the role of the government was to hold them fully accountable--the boot on the neck message. This deeply troubled me for what it meant for the future of the National Incident Management System and the concept of effective work being done in a collaborative way--ultimately dependent on good and competent people working together in cooperation and some level of trust and harmony. This phase lasted from about May 3 until Friday May 28.

Phase III Federal Response, with BP
The pressure mounted on the administration and despite the strenuous efforts to make certain the blame game was focused fully on BP, it was clear that this was not working in avoiding administration criticism. Questions increased from the media as to why the administration was allowing BP to run the response when they were clearly bungling it. The fact was, of course, that the government was ultimately running the response through Unified Command and that everything done was with the government's input and approval--including use of dispersants, the EPA letter notwithstanding. But pressure rose until on May 28 in a press conference the president stated that the federal government had been in charge all along. Some in the administration suggested that BP would be pushed aside if they did not stop the flow, but this suggestion was modified by the National Incident Commander by correctly saying that BP would continue to be involved because of the expertise and technology that the government alone would not have access to if they were pushed aside. So the message changed quite dramatically from "this is all on BP" to "we are running things and BP is doing what we tell them to."

Phase IV Federalizing, going it alone
We have just entered a new phase. With the move to focus communications about the response and the administration's involvement on a single person (National Incident Commander Allen), BP is no longer significantly in the picture from a communications standpoint. The Commander stands alone, without BP in a Unified Command posture. More significantly, with a criminal probe launched, BP will be severely restricted in what they can and will be willing to say--with a reasonable explanation being that such information would be part of criminal investigation. While technically the response may still be in Unified Command, the Responsible Party has been effectively limited from having a voice.

The political messaging of necessity has to change in this posture and that can be seen already in releases coming from Unified Command, such as the one I am looking at right now that says "Administration Underscores Scientific Response to BP Oil Spill." It is no longer--if you are unhappy with this, blame BP, it is: we are doing and have been doing great work in responding to a very difficult situation."

Phase V --the Future

The media's demand for placing blame and demonizing will certainly continue and the administration will be more aggressive than ever in communicating the on-going effort and the incredible work that has been done by all involved. With the news that efforts to stop the well have been halted to focus on containing the spill until the relief well is dug in August, the attention will shift from staring at the gushing well to more pictures of oiled beaches, marshes, wildlife and even more on the devastation of those families and communities affected. It is my hope that BP continues to communicate, likely now outside of the JIC, about its continuing full-bore effort to contain the spill and all it is doing in the affected communities to listen, respond and try to make the environment and people whole.

There certainly is one overriding lesson for me in this event so far (and thousands of daily small lessons). The overriding lesson is the role of political involvement and messaging. It should not be a surprise, anywhere near to the degree it is. Ten years ago in the Olympic Pipeline event, which really started my involvement in all this stuff, I noticed the convenient marriage between media intent on finding someone to blame and feed public outrage and politicians eager to make themselves heroes. I wrote about that quite a bit in Now Is Too Late. But that was before Katrina, when the blame-game played in concert by all major media (and now gazillions of angry blogs and social media sites) focused on the administration's response--or lack of it. A focus that has never been seen to be seriously in error because at that time FEMA's job was not managing or leading a response, but supporting (primarily financially) those state and local organizations who would do the responding. Now that has changed. Public expectation about the role of the federal government has changed, and fear of long term political damage related to a huge event like this is driving much of the information flow and strategy. I was probably naive to be surprised at how much these factors controlled the communications in a big response. But, if I am surprised again, and if you are, it is our fault, and no one else.

How Can Communication Be Good When the Public Opinion is Bad?--the Gulf Spill

2010-05-25T16:25:00.000-07:00

One of the questions I face frequently in discussing the Gulf Oil Spill and the massive communication effort (full disclosure--we are deeply involved) is how can communication be good when public opinion is so bad? It's a tough and fair question. Particularly when I have spent the past ten years trying to convince people that the key to trust was doing two things: respond well and communicate well.

The truth is, in my opinion and that of many others who know better than I do what they are talking about, is that Unified Command is responding well, and they are communicating exceptionally well (with some qualifications). Judge for yourself: go to www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com, the Unified Command website and register to receive updates. You will get several a day. I have discovered in a very unscientific polling that the people who go to the site (about 2 million people have) and receive updates (about 20,000 have registered to receive them) have a vastly different opinion of the response and what is going on than those who get their information only from the media. And that's why communication can be good and public opinion bad.

Why is public opinion, particularly against BP so horrendous. Four reasons:
1) It is a terrible, devastating event--that never seems to end.
2) Big and powerful organizations and oil companies in particularly are deeply mistrusted and reviled--even before they cause this kind of devastation.
3) The media lives (or dies) on stories that rip eyes from other attractions and affix them tightly onto their screens (tv or computers)--and this means that new stories have to be created every day that feed the outrage and fix blame.
4) The administration, through a paranoia about being charged with a Katrina-like response, is feeding the media's need for an entity to demonize.

One, it's a horrible event. This is the mother of all crises as far as the oil industry is concerned. There is the terrible loss of life (let's not forget the families and friends grieving), a massive environmental catastrophe, economic disruption and devastation across multiple states--and add to this the helplessness we all feel as we watch the oil continue to gush day and night. It's about as terrible as we could imagine--in fact, one of the problems is that we apparently couldn't imagine it at this level, and that feeds our horror.

Two, the distrust of big oil runs deep. Trust in almost anything big and powerful is near all-time lows, and the oil industry is the second worst for trust of any industry (what's worse? the media--check the Edelman Trust Barometer). So if there was nothing but good news from the industry, as there has been about the significant reduction in the last few years in spills of all kinds, it wouldn't matter much because it wouldn't be believed. But when something like this happens, it not only is believed, but it confirms the worst suspicions and prejudices. Yes, the public reacts, they are just incompetent, greedy, lying fools.

Three, the media's desperation for audiences requires attention grabbing headlines. Let's be honest--is anyone going to pay attention to a story that says: hey, under the circumstances these guys are doing a pretty good job. Are they going to want to hear: despite triple redundancy and incredible preparation by people who are really serious about doing the right thing, things have just gone wrong because, you know, accidents happen. No, that won't get people to stop channel surfing or site surfing. It certainly won't cause a story to go viral. But find a chap in Victoria, BC who says he has the answer to BP's problems in capping the well but BP won't pay attention, and it gets front page coverage. Truth is BP has received nearly 10,000 suggestions just by the website and all of them are subjected to a review by a panel of experts to see if there are any ideas of merit. The media is in a tough spot, they live or die by the eyes on the screen, and if innocent people are made to look like idiots, fools or diabolical incompetents, too bad. Am I being cynical--yes, but also realistic. Let me give you one quick example. I saw a headline in USA Today that said that the hurricane season approaching could make the spill much worse. Big bold headline. The much smaller sub-head said: But it could lessen environmental damage. The story went on to present the case for both sides of the argument. I don't blame them one bit for selecting the headline that would feed people's fears and outrage. But I blame the public for buying this and being as naive as we all to take what the media says about this event at face value. Go to the incident site and make your own decisions.

Four, the administration's highly effective effort to control the message. This is a Unified Command event, the first Spill of National Significance since the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (following ExxonValdez) set the pattern for how spills will be managed. All agencies come together to work in Unified Command. The Responsible Party (not the one liable, nor the one who caused the problem, but the owner of the oil is designated the RP) is a voting member of Unified Command and operates the response under the full and complete authority of the response agencies--which include the US Coast Guard, Minerals Management Service, the EPA and about 50 plus other agencies. It is Unified Command working in concert with BP who have been making all final decisions. What, you say, how can this be. How? It is the law, it is how it is supposed to work and how it actually is working. That means that Unified Command approves booming plans, skimming plans, in situ burning, the use of dispersants. But, BP is getting all the blame, yes. Why? Because that is what the political realities call for. I do not blame the administration. Looking back on Katrina and what happened to the Bush administration, this kind of response from the political leaders is fully expected and demanded. The media demands a scapegoat--the black hat has to reside somewhere. In Katrina it was solidly on FEMA (and therefore President Bush). Here, if it isn't on BP, then the likelihood it could and may fall on any and all agencies involved in the response. My frustration is that the media refuses to see this, to understand the law, to recognize that the billions of dollars to implement the National Incident Management System are threatened by the political realities.

The upshot is the situation we have. A group of people (and I know a number of them on both the federal agency side as well as BP) who are doing an incredible job, sacrificing their work, their family time, and in some cases their careers to step into this and do all they can. They are being bashed, trashed and abused. The situation is incredibly horrible and we are all heartsick at the fact that this occurred and also heartsick about what this will likely do to our nation for a long time to come. But, I just wish the public would have a deeper understanding of how this blame game is played, how the politics play out, how the media abuses us all for their purposes, and the high price we all have to pay for these realities. In the meantime, those working on the response should be strongly encouraged to continue doing their best. We need them and their very best work. My thoughts and prayers with all of them and communities and families so deeply hurt by this horrible circumstance.

A Social Media Incident Commander's Perspective

2010-05-18T11:21:00.000-07:00

Here is another guest post from my favorite Fire Chief, Chief Bill Boyd of the City of Bellingham Fire Department. Here he shares his direct experience of how social media plays out in a fire event--one that got him on TV news and the Wall Street Journal. I can tell you from my vantage point, if you are not following the lead of this "with it" fire chief, you are going to get left in the dust:

Recently, my pager awakened me from a deep sleep at 3 A.M., notifying me and my command staff of a large fire downtown. I quickly dressed while listening to the dispatcher’s radio transmissions describing three storefronts were on fire. “Here we go” I thought as I drove to the scene. From a couple of miles away I could see the large thermal column and glow in the sky. I listened to the first in size up, battalion chief strategy and tactical communications. All the while, I envisioned what was occurring and what to expect when I arrived. I knew what to expect, large fire, crews “taxed to the max” and large hose streams in use. On arrival I was confronted with two large vacant commercial buildings with heavy fire showing (pretty spectacular if I might say!). The strategy, as expected, was defensive.

I parked my vehicle and suited up. While doing so I was struck by the large group of onlookers all appearing to be using their cell phones to take pictures, shoot video, text and simply do it the old fashioned way-talk. . It was obvious that even as I readied myself for battle these novice reporters were already reporting on the battle and predicting the future. “It’s going to burn up half of downtown”, “They won’t be able to stop this”, “The building exploded man!” (A true statement; a smoke explosion blew out the windows and lifted the roof just after the first in engine arrived), “I’m sending you pictures as soon as I hang up”, are just some of the comments I heard in my first 30 seconds on scene.
Amateur reporters were sending real time information and opinion about our incident. I had just witnessed a micro view of social media reporting in all its glory.

There was no way we were going to get ahead of the “lookyloos” texting about this event. However, outside of the ongoing superficial accounts of the fire I knew we needed to quickly provide information the amateur reporters did not know; the buildings were vacant, firefighter safety was the number one priority, several fire districts responded to provide fire/EMS protection to the city and crews would likely be extinguishing hot spots throughout the day.

None of this inside information was available to the crowd. However, in my brief time overhearing what was being said, I began thinking about appropriate messaging to validate what people saw and also dispel l inaccurate speculation. Once we confirmed the fire was contained to the buildings of origin, an assistant chief issued a quick media release from the field via PIER, our web-based emergency media messaging tool .

Shortly thereafter, local news reporters arrived and we provided as much information as we could, realizing that given the time of day, they would not be reporting this news for at least a couple of hours.

At the same time, I used my Blackberry to log into my personal Twitter account where I found a direct message from a Seattle T.V. station asking for a phone call to talk about the fire. I immediately returned the call and within minutes was speaking live to the anchors of an early morning news program. This conversation was recorded and repeated an hour later. Ironically, during subsequent replays of my interview they showed my Twitter profile picture as a background! (I was really glad it was a good picture of me in a tie at a friend’s wedding).

Subsequent monitoring of newspaper blogs, Twitter feeds, and other media streams revealed a speculative and rampantly spreading rumor accusing the building owners of setting the fire to collect insurance money and make the property more attractive to potential buyers. A subsequent media release, based on witness interviews, facts and physical evidence addressed these rumors.

By 8 A.M. that morning, pictures of the fire and commentary were already posted on web sites across the country, and the Wall Street Journal had a color picture and caption in the news section the following day.

The lessons learned from this incident are not just related to fire ground strategy or tactics. Equally as important, we noted how fast information is spread in the virtual world and the need to monitor and push out accurate and frequent information as quickly as possible. A well respected emergency response and GIS professional recently commented on one of my blog postings; “Raw information seems to rise, like smoke, from any event. If you’re not providing solid information about a situation, digital smoke will fill any space that you don’t — and flash over.” Well stated.

For now, I’d be happy if we do not make the Wall Street Journal again.

Some observations from a newbie social media IC;
There is a direct correlation between the visibility of the emergency and the number of cell phones/ cameras in use.
Social media is not a “kid thing”. It is THE THING. Minimize the medium and you may be minimized.
My kids are horrified I have a Facebook account. Using it to provide emergency information does not make them feel any better.
Traditional media will never be as fast as a witness with a 3G cell phone camera and a good signal.
Think “140 or less” and call it “texting”, not “typing”.
It is hard to give context in 140 characters. Chose your words and phrases carefully. Get it right the first time.
Learn what “hash tag” and “retweet” means.
If you don’t have a social media presence before the “big one”, your likelihood of social media success in emergency social media communications is just about zero.
Nothing beats a QWERTY keypad on a cell phone.
It is tempting to hire teenagers with texting configured cell phones. No one does it faster or more frequently.
Be prepared for your message to go viral in a heartbeat. This means you need to be ready to keep the messages flowing and point readers somewhere to get detailed information.
It is OK to say “we have no further info right now.”
It is Ok to say “we will post more info as we get it.”
It is not OK to posting nothing for a long time (a long time in the social media world is minutes-not hours)
A viral message is just one “tweet” away.
If you don’t get it right, correct it as soon as you can! Don’t linger, or the error will.
Notice and correct rumors ASAP, especially if they are trending.
Use a Twitter monitoring site (I use TweetDeck) to filter tweets and identify trending messages.
Pictures often convey much more than words.
Posting pictures of victims or patients is not cool and may violate privacy laws. Be careful!
You can convey compassion and sound human in less than 140 characters. “We are concerned” packs a punch.
Your audience can be worldwide in less than 30 minutes.

Deepwater and the Future of NIMS

2010-05-14T09:32:00.000-07:00

Deepwater Horizon (aka the BP Spill) is probably the largest and most visible NIMS event since the system was established by DHS in 2004. Katrina was a NIMS event but NIMS was new then and a big takeaway was that NIMS was effectively implemented. Deepwater is different, in part because the oil companies and federal spill response agencies have been working together in a NIMS environment since the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Then it was called ICS. Every year every oil company facility with risk exposure must run a significant drill with all participating response agencies, and every three years a Worst Case Scenario drill.

So this event has been the first large public and media exposure to what a NIMS event looks like. And as a result, I have some serious concerns about its future. Full disclosure: PIER, the crisis communication technology I created, is being used by the JIC and BP as the platform for managing incident communications. My company is very involved in the response, including assisting Unified Command with communications support. This is the main reason why I have been reluctant to comment on this event.

Why am I concerned about its future? Look at this comment from Secretary Napolitano from Bulldog Reporter: Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano, meanwhile, has taken pains to distance the administration from BP, saying, "I wouldn't characterize them as our partner. I would characterize them as the responsible party," adding that their role provides them with a clear mandate: "They've got to kill this well, clean up the ocean and pay the claims," according to the article.

The basic principle of NIMS is Unified Response. It is why it works. All parties with legitimate roles have a stake in the game, a say in the response through an exceptionally well-structure Unified Command process. They word together, not independently, not at cross-purposes and not getting in each other's way. It works exceptionally well and it is working very well in this case.

However that partnership model is not perceived by the Secretary, and we must presume by the White House, to be in the best interests of the White House. There is clearly great concern that the public will place blame on the administration for the event and for any perceived failures in response if the Coast Guard, MMS and other agencies are too closely linked to the response. Hence, from almost the beginning, the overt effort to make this a BP event. BP for its part has never wavered from its role as the Responsible Party, clearly communicating its responsibility. And the fact the fact that under NIMS, the RP pays the bills is a vitally important message to communicate in an event like this, and one that BP has never wavered from. While it is a matter of compliance that the oil companies cooperate to the degree they do in a Unified Command environment, I am concerned about what all non-federal partners (including other government agencies involved in a cooperative response) will do in future knowing that the basic message to the public about NIMS, which is a unified and cooperative effort, may be sacrificed to political necessities.

The impact on NIMS from this message of non-partnership is one concern. The other is the obvious lack of knowledge about NIMS in the public, in the media, in the elected officials, and possibly even in the White House. There have been numerous examples of this lack of knowledge:
- many cable news shows running viewer surveys asking: Who should pay for this, or should BP be doing more to respond.
- news headlines in Louisiana newspapers saying that Parish Presidents were taking over the lead in the response
- complaints about inaccurate spill volume were blamed on BP without recognizing that it is Unified Command responsible for approving such information
- the majority of news reports focus on BP's response--no doubt in part based on the political messaging referred to above, but clearly it is a Unified Command response

Does it matter that the public, the media and elected officials understand NIMS. Absolutely. The current lack of understanding, combined with the political messaging, in my mind threaten the future of NIMS. Resistance will grow, not only among private companies who now in most cases seem to eagerly participate, but also among other government agencies who could experience the same undermining political message. I believe in NIMS, think it is a great way to manage multi-party responses, and hope the lessons learned from this will result in its strengthening rather than weakening.

Guest Post -- Hazmat for Toxic Comments

2010-04-30T12:09:00.000-07:00

Nearly everyone who blogs gets attacked at some point. If you don't blog but read blogs or other social media you have likely been stunned as I have been by the level of vitriol, hatred, meanness and genuine nastiness of a too-large percentage of those who talk about things online. I blogged about this on crisisblogger not long after I started and the issue of "toxic talk" has been a strong interest--even thought about trying to write a book about it once.

Dave Statter is a broadcaster in DC and a prolific and very successful blogger dealing with Fire and EMS issues--I've referred to it several times in the past. When Dave commented recently on a post on crisisblogger on the issue of toxic comments, I asked if he would prepare a guest post on this subject. Here are his excellent comments-- a great guide for anyone who blogs and for those who use or will use social media in a major emergency.

Hazmat for Toxic Comments

You’re a jerk. You hate volunteer firefighters. You hate career firefighters. You’re a racist. You suck. Everyone should boycott your blog.

Those are some of the printable negative comments I received in the first months of STATter911.com. The blog features fire and emergency medical services news focusing on the Washington, D.C. area where I am a TV reporter.

As the comments trickled in, after starting the site three-years-ago, it became clear I was not immune to the toxic thoughts that plague every website with an open public forum. This virtual vitriol was usually directed at a fire chief or some other public official mentioned in one of my stories but readers were also taking aim at the messenger.

Nasty comments were not something I had given much thought to as a new blogger. In fact, most of the 16,000 plus comments you’ll now find on the site are not vicious. They’re usually just opinions on a fire department policy, the actions of a fire chief or tactics used to fight a fire.
But on the blog -- like news websites everywhere -- there are people emboldened by anonymity who go a step further. They are on the attack. They target the subject of a news story, the blogger and the people who comment. And they do it in a very personal way.

Some top emergency management officials in the country tell me how much they enjoy STATter911.com but can’t stand the comments about themselves or their colleagues.
There are also firefighters, paramedics & public information officers who constantly complain about a negative tone in the comments section.

I agree with them when it comes to the personal attacks. My lofty goal is a respectful exchange of ideas that doesn’t focus on personalities. I know... I’m dreaming.

My guidelines are simple. Any of George Carlin’s seven dirty words (plus a few he failed to mention) will always prompt me to hit the reject button. I do the same when posters decide to be reporters, presenting new “facts” I can’t verify.

But going beyond these limited rules seems a slippery, subjective slope for a free speech advocate like me.

I always challenge those complaining about the comments section to give me workable guidelines that don’t smack of censorship. No one has met that challenge. Like me, they soon realize one person’s view of “crossing the line” is very different than the next.
I have no magic formula to fairly and successfully weed out those comments. But if toxic words on an Internet forum are directed at you -- and your reputation is on the line -- I may be able to help.

Consider what the readers said about me. How do you respond when you are called a racist jerk who sucks?

First, you need to know I’m fair game on my blog. If comments meet the language test, they’re posted. But the negative comments went beyond STATter911.com. My reporting had become a topic of conversation among firefighters on thewatchdesk.com. FYI: No language filter on that site!

Friends in the news media and the fire service urged me not to engage the Statter-haters. They believed it would only make things worse. But I had reputation management in mind. My own. I wanted anyone who Googled Dave Statter to get both sides of the story. It became a bit time consuming, but I responded to each attack. Still, watching others go down in flames trying to defend themselves on anonymous forums gave me pause. Like a hazmat team dealing with a toxic substance I knew to proceed with caution.

I needed a set of rules for this on-line reputation management. They're now my personal SOP and I believe they work.

• I never attack the attackers.
• I try to get beyond their emotions and point out the facts behind the
issues.
• I explain the why and how of what I do.
• I challenge the writer, in a firm but nice way, to back up their claims with
facts.
• I make a maximum effort not to sound defensive.
• I try to infuse a self-deprecating sense a humor into my responses.
• If I find valid points within the emotional rhetoric it’s acknowledged and
corrected.
• I thank them for reading my blog and taking the time to write.

My goal, then and now, is setting the record straight and telling my story. I’m not looking for love. When I started fighting back three-years-ago the first replies were often worse than the original toxic comments. I stood my ground. I repeatedly asked for the facts behind their emotion. Instead, I got something different.

A small number of these overly passionate writers actually thanked me for the response. They understood my point of view and respectfully disagreed. One or two went further. They began an email dialogue and soon became sources for future stories.

When the toxic writers didn’t change their ways, the community often joined in. Forum readers told the offending poster they should put up (the facts backing their point of view) or shut up.
In the end, the flame throwers couldn’t provide any real facts to support their positions. In virtually every case, whether the rest of the community responded or not, the attacks stopped. A few returned for a second or third round in reaction to a new blog story. After getting the same type of responses from me they disappeared.

I stood up to the school yard bullies and won. Very different than grade school where they took my lunch money. Still, this technique may not work for everyone. Here's why:
You have to check your ego at the door and need a thick hide. If you’re easily offended and can’t respond without sounding defensive, don’t engage the enemy. You will be dead meat. My experience is they’ll sense your weakness and pounce harder.
It’s important to find someone you trust to monitor your responses. They can let you know if you’re wandering outside the guidelines. My monitor was a fire service friend who gave very good feedback.
I no longer hear from any of the bullies on thewatchdesk.com. I searched the site while writing this and found it has been a long time since anyone made me the target of a toxic comment.
On STATter911.com the traffic has more than tripled, but the attacks against me have dramatically decreased.

My experience is telling your own story in this very specific way solves a few problems. It neutralizes even the most toxic comments. It puts the facts on the record. It also sets a tone. Attacks on your reputation won’t go unchallenged. And along the way you may earn a little respect.

Now, if we could just get everyone who writes online to focus on the issues and not demonize those they disagree with. Still dreaming.

What's more important--the team or the plan?

2010-04-29T13:57:00.000-07:00

I came across this terrific post by James Donnelly about the importance of the team versus the plan in crisis management. I will admit to placing inordinate importance on the plan, but will also defend myself by saying in numerous presentations I have stated that the very most important part of effective response are the people responding. Ultimately, it is character that matters. After reading The Unthinkable by Amanda Ripley, I'm more certain than ever that character and personality have a lot to do with effective response.

At the same time, Ripley's book also makes it clear that only by drilling and drilling do you get the basic response actions in people's minds solid enough to overcome their initial reactions to the overwhelming sensory explosion of a major event. The plan, then becomes the guidebook for the training--not the recipe book for the response. Train to the plan, respond to the training--maybe that's the way to put it.

How Many Citizen Journalists Can You Spot in This Picture?

2010-04-28T10:03:00.000-07:00

The American Statesman of Austin, TX ran this article on how social media is transforming journalism, using the Austin plane crash as an example. A few things I would like to point out.

Look closely at the photo of the burning building with the crowd of onlookers standing in front. Enlarge the photo and look closely at what those people are doing. My colleague at O'Brien's Tim O'Leary pointed this out to me, because we used a similar photo from the same twitterer, Jeff Lake, as part of the City's communication response. What are they doing? They are being citizen journalists! They are snapping photos, shooting videos, talking on their cellphones, tweeting, texting, microblogging, communicating in a multitude of ways with multiple audiences. They are sharing real-time information about the event. Is the fire burning? What are the rescue crews doing? Are they taking any bodies out? Are their people trapped inside screaming from the windows? These people are the frontline of journalism today. This is where the news media gets its news. And this is how most of us get our news now or will soon get it, directly through info sharing channels on the internet, circumventing the media entirely.

More than citizen journalists, these people are now part of the response team. I don't think most response leaders or planners understand this yet. But much of the valuable information needed by Incident Commanders to make intelligent resource and action decisions is available first and foremost from those nearest the scene and in a position to observe and share. I will be making presentations in the near future on how response management must change forever in the information gathering process because of what you see in that picture.

The same is happening in the big disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The richness of information available from social media (use twitscoop and enter Deepwater Horizon or any other related search term) has been far greater than that coming from the JIC. While the pace of info from the JIC has improved significantly in the last few days, initially if anyone wanted to get good updates about the event in real time, social media was the only way. The event JIC site is now at www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com. You can also see how BP is incorporating the JIC information in their corporate site.

The primary point of the Statesman article is how social media, Twitter in particular, has changed how news coverage is done. This brief paragraph describes it perfectly:
In the newsroom, we first heard about the incident on Twitter. We marshaled our resources right away to cover what was clearly going to be a big story. As our staff members worked the phones and drove to the scene, I headed to Twitter. I asked the 20,000-plus followers of our main Statesman account whether they had seen anything, and I asked witnesses to call our reporter Tony Plohetski. Several people called Tony, and their accounts made it into the online and print versions of our stories. I also asked for photos, and they came pouring in. Twitter users, armed with camera-equipped mobile phones, were there. They responded by sending me dozens of photos from the scene. We were posting these user photos on our site as fast as I could get them.

If every Incident Command and PIO read this and read it and read it, it might sink in that their world has changed. The PIO cannot control the information--because there is relatively little private to the response that won't be known outside the response and shared with the world well before a press release gets issued or a press conference is called. Old news is of no interest to the media or its readers/viewers. One PIO told me that the questions the media were posing in a major event were not what was going on--because they had all that well before the interview--they just wanted to know what role the agency played in the response. A minor issue in the bigger story. No control, only participation. And the participation is relevant only if it is timely. Be slow and you might as well go away. And slow is defined in Twitter terms, not in the the old way of thinking of news cycles.

Oil Rig Disaster--Why Rumor Management is Critical

2010-04-22T08:40:00.000-07:00

One of the big stories going on right now is the explosion of Transocean's Deep Water Horizon oil rig platform in the Gulf of Mexico. With a virtual front row seat to this event (PIER is being used by both US Coast Guard and BP--peripherally involved in the incident), one element of the story shows how important authoritative sources are in quashing social media driven rumors.

From the very first reports, it was communicated that 11 workers were missing. Then the New Orleans Times-Picayune reported that all 11 workers had been found safe. They reported this apparently from a Facebook comment by Parish president Billy Nungesser who said they were safe based on several reports. But, importantly, he also said it had not been confirmed by the Coast Guard.

Here is the story from the Times-Picayune business section as it stands as I write this. Unfortunately, the incorrect story was removed so I can't show you that story. It was replaced by this clarification.

However, you can see the reaction of the readers of the original story still on page with the revised story, and through them you can see the damage caused by a false hope rumor. One begs the Parish President to get his information correct-- "No room for false hope--no room for error here these are lives!" Another says "The Coast Guard doesn't deal in rumors. Where is the prez getting his info? Sounds like he is trying to get on the Today Show."

A few quick takeways from this sad episode:

- A critical, if not the MOST critical, role of the JIC and the incident PIO is rumor management. that means they must always be the authoritative source of the information. It also means they need to monitor social media continually and step on rumors as fast and hard as possible.

- The media will go with any information they have because they compete on immediacy and can't afford to be late. They think they can afford to be wrong (hey, just take the story off the website and replace it with a corrected one), but can't afford to be late. It means that the JIC must expect the republication of rumors from social media by mainstream media as a matter of course.

- False hope rumors are among the worst and most damaging. When lives are at stake, raising hopes is sure to get headlines and even more sure to break hearts. Be very very very sure when reporting good news. The rule really should be if it is bad news make double sure and communicate quick. When it is good news make quadruple sure and then check it again.

- Rumors are most likely to emerge first in the social media. This one apparently came from a Facebook post--could have been direct contact with the reporters by the Parish President, not sure. However, social media enables the virtually instant spread of these rumors whether or not the media picks them up. So, social media monitoring on a constant basis is essential. If your JIC plan does not include a specialist to do nothing but monitor social media, you will, I repeat will, get caught flat-footed and be unable to respond quickly to rumors.

News is Pocket Sized, and why Incident Commanders should care

2010-04-16T10:29:00.000-07:00

Imagine an Incident Commander yelling out today: "I need a steam shovel, a team of mules, and a case of genuine Chinese snake oil."

All of these might be reasonable requests of a different day in responding to a public disaster. Tools change, technologies change, the way work is done changes. But if today's IC doesn't keep up on the current technologies and changes, he or she will not only be ineffective, they will be in the way of those on their team who know better.

This is precisely the situation in many command posts and EOCs today when it comes to public information. The change that has occurred in the past two years is revolutionary, the past 10 years is beyond revolutionary. Yet, most 50 year old plus white guys who run the responses (hey, I'm one so I can say that) still think of the news and public information business in Walter Cronkite terms.

The new study about the news from Pew Internet research is very important in understanding today's news environment. Please read the entire report and pass it on to those in your organization who will be involved in making critical decisions during an event on public information. But I will focus on a few key points and what they mean for how communication is done:

The internet is rapidly becoming the PRIMARY news source for the public.
It already is the primary way that news organizations get their news to re-publish or re-broadcast. But the public is getting their news increasingly directly from the internet. Ask an IC where the public will learn details about the crash, flood, hurricane, or train wreck and they will likely say from newspapers, radio and TV. It is unlikely that they will say: "Internet." But recognizing that the internet has already surpassed radio and newspapers changes everything for public information management. One example: As the PIO, you are pressed for time. You can do the interview with the radio reporter screaming at you for a live on-air, or you can update your website and push an update to your social media sites. What is most important?

News is Participatory--not Push.
Hold the phone. Participatory? Walter Cronkite never invited his audience to share his microphone. That was one way. Right. We turned on the TV at the time the network dictated and listened to the golden voice who determined what was important and in what order. Now all of news is about participation. The millions with cellphone cameras participate in gathering and sharing. News media gathers from everyone and is largely about re-pushing. The internet itself is highly interactive with tons of back and forth interaction. But what do you think an IC is going to say when the PIO comes and says, we are not just going to send out an occasional official press release, but we are going to participate in the discussion about this event. JIC procedures, Command and Control style incident command is not very amendable to participation. Do you see a rub here? Big one.

News is now pocket-sized.
80% of Americans have cell phones, 33% use them to go online, 25% of Americans get news via their cellphones daily. That's about 75 million. As we saw in Hurricane Ike when the Houston region suffered long term power outages, the internet became THE most important way to communicate. How can that be with all that power outage and all those home computers dead? Cellphones tied to the internet, kept alive through car battery chargers. One response I often hear is that, well, it is only the young people who use social media, the internet and smartphones. Not true, of course. But even if it was, all it would do would increase the importance of these young people in the distribution of immediate information. It's what I call the "village phone" effect. If there is one phone in the African village, does that mean only one person gets the information? No, everyone else gets it from the person who answers the phone. If there is only one person in the restaurant who is on Twitter when the big event hits, does this mean everyone else waits for it show up in the newspaper? No, they get it from the person who has the latest information. Those who have news in their pockets have news distribution power--sort of like the media used to have.

Rhode Island DOT--Social Media Comms Case Study

2010-04-12T11:30:00.000-07:00

For those one or two who may still be doubting the validity of using social media (plus, a very active agency website continually updated), here's another good case study courtesy Ragan Communications.

For those who don't want to bother with the link, the gist is this:
- Rhode Island had worst floods in 200 years
- nearly 100 roads closed including I-95
- used Twitter and Facebook plus their website
- Twitter followers increased 3X to 1000 followers
- traffic to website from social media sites jumped (2k hits per day to 83k hpd)
- staff was able to work from home or office 24/7

This is the way it is done folks. Good job RIDOT.

Time to Reflect--What's Important Now

2010-04-02T18:05:00.000-07:00

I'm just getting back from three weeks out of the office--two weeks on vacation and one week doing training and crisis exercises. It certainly has given me time to sit back, smell the roses and think about the big issues of crisis response and communications.

Nothing new or earth-shattering here, but just some thoughts about what is important.

1) Crisis and character. I believe this is one of the most untapped topics in emergency management and crisis response. My thinking was really spurred by Amanda Ripley's book The Unthinkable and now by Jared Diamond's book "Collapse." The role of personality, personal strengths and weaknesses, training, values, priorities all play into how we respond personally when something is really threatening us as well as how the response team works as well as the combined character and values of an organization or community. As I look closer at the issues of community and organization resilience, I find that digging deep into how people, think, react and behave has to be taken into consideration. We need to know this to improve training, drills and exercises. We certainly need to know this in developing public messages and warnings and how they are delivered (Dr. Covello is looking smarter all the time). And we need to be able to communicate some of these critical findings to people in our organizations and communities who by their nature plus position will have everything to do with how we recover.

2) The new nervous system. A discussion today with a group of managers of large country fairs in the region brought home once again some of the importance of what is happening in the information world. It's not enough that we talk about "social media" and how it changes the game for communications. Social media (I prefer to talk about the internet because it encompasses a wider field where the real change occurs) is rewriting rules about response management, common operating picture, situation analysis, warnings, media coverage, resource management, search and rescue and so much more. Every element of response management is being transformed by the internet in all its forms. The best analogy I have is that our organizations, communities, nations and world are gaining a nervous system. It's like an evolutionary step--a giant evolutionary step. Our bodies could not function without a nervous system--a way of detecting the world around us, sensing everything on the outside. Now our organizations, communities and world are getting sensing capabilities that otherwise were unimaginable. But, what would a nervous system with its nerve endings, ears, eyes, nose and sense of touch do without a brain to sort through all the inputs? It would crash with an overload of information. That is the really big challenge ahead as social media (the internet) makes it possible for us to learn more, quicker and more complete than ever before. Response managers will get their best info about the response from outside. But they will get far too much info, and determining what is right, helpful, valid and useful will be a tremendous challenge.

3) Response management is a most exciting challenge. Because of changes in my organization I've been thinking more about the issues of response management in addition to crisis communication. My conclusions: it is about resilience. About the ability to absorb the blows, recover and get back to normal, whatever the new normal is. Organizations and communities that can do that are strong. Those that can't are inherently weak. That means, and this is new to me, that perhaps the most significant way to measure the strength of a team, a person, a company, an agency or a community, is its ability to bounce back. It's resilience. And since emergency management professionals are all about resilience at bottom, it means that they are incredibly important in building real strength--the strength that counts. Makes me feel that this is important business--because, it is.

Is it true that whoever owns the JIC website owns the JIC?

2010-03-11T09:19:00.000-08:00

Way back in 1999, during the Olympic Pipeline disaster and my first major exposure to ICS and the Joint Information Center, JIC websites were just coming into play. Incident information was primarily about feeding the reporters who fed the hungry public and everyone else. That has all changed. The internet is rapidly becoming THE way that the public gets information--and certainly has become the most significant way that key stakeholders get information about an incident. The JIC website in many ways has become the most significant means of communicating with the public, stakeholders, internal audiences and even those involved in the response.

As a member of the JIC way back in 1999, this was already an issue for me. The website used for the Olympic response was the County's website. Only one person had any access which meant that if anything were put on it, it had to go through her. And she would not respond to any requests except those that came from her boss directly. Clearly he wanted it that way, but he was neither the incident commander nor the PIO. The site was branded as the County so communication coming from that was not seen as response information directly.

I developed the PIER System after that with this problem being one of many that it would solve. It would allow access to anyone and everyone authorized as a member of the JIC. It would be "owned" by the response and fully and completely accountable only to the PIO and through the PIO, Incident Command. No one could claim control over other than the official incident organization under ICS and now NIMS rules.

In recent conversations with PIOs from major agencies--from the state to the federal level--it is clear that this incident-ownership and NIMS compliant approach to the JIC website is not clearly understood. There is an on-going battle in many if not most multi-agency responses over who owns and controls the website or websites used from the response. Agency leaders and even more, agency IT leaders, are extremely reluctant to allow anyone but their agency staff to have access to the agency's website even when it is used in a JIC.

A case in point: major wildfires in California. The US Forest Service, CalFire and local fire departments all respond depending on the real estate involved. US Forest Service has InciWeb--a Forest Service proprietary system. CalFire has its own incident website. The fire departments all have theirs. What happens when they form unified command? Who's site becomes the JIC site? Given the IT regulations around each of these, no one except the agency people can manage content on the site, no one from the JIC except agency people have access. That means one agency controls the site content and, given the extreme importance today of the JIC website, controls the information. This doesn't work.

A JIC website absolutely must be a "Switzerland" system. It must allow secure access to only authorized JIC members but it must allow access to all JIC members who have a role in managing the content. It cannot go through a single agency and be NIMS compliant in the same way that agencies cannot dictate that their PIO will serve as the response PIO anytime they are involved. They cannot do that, but they are violating NIMS which specifies that the IC has the authority to appoint the PIO and to select on the basis of qualification and experience without regard to agency or seniority.

The battle over who "owns" and therefore controls the JIC website seems to be heating up. I think that is due to the growing understanding that the incident site is the focal point for media, public, stakeholder and internal information. But whatever website you are planning to use for your JIC, you must insure that only Command through the PIO has control over its content and that to be NIMS compliant and efficient, JIC members from any agency must have full and complete control over it.

The Austin Plane Crash--On the Frontlines of a Virtual Communication Response

2010-03-04T15:22:00.000-08:00

For several in days in February the major news story was the crash of a small plane into a building in Austin, Texas. This is the kind of event that is discussed here on this blog all the time and I was fortunate to have a front row seat of sorts to the public communication and news coverage of this particular event.

The City of Austin, specifically the Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, is a new client having recently implemented our crisis communication system. While the agency’s website was set up on this platform and ready to roll, the agency’s PIO had little experience in working with the system. To make matters worse she, like several others from the office were in San Antonio for the Homeland Security conference.

I was sitting in a meeting in Houston when I was called out and informed that there was a plane crash into a building in Austin. The initial information we received, not from the City, was that the building may have housed FBI offices. The specter of a terrorist attack was immediately raised. We made contact with the PIO who was on her way back to Austin from San Antonio. We quickly informed her of the information that was being broadcast and that was coming via Twitter. She confirmed some of the information from her sources and we placed an initial statement on the City’s OEM website—from Houston.

For the next day and half we continued in almost continual contact and pushed out a total of nine information releases. Since the city staff were out of their offices and away from their normal tools and systems, they could not push the information to their normal media lists. But we quickly built an up-to-date media list of all Austin media and distributed the releases to them. These were in addition to the almost 400 contacts of Austin area agency contacts and other officials that had been built into the platform.

There were several times during the incident that we were able to report back through the PIO new information that was emerging on Twitter. This information would quickly find its way into the news coverage which had geared up with remarkable speed.

The various agencies from the City of Austin soon formed a Joint Information Center using the OEM site as the focus of new information. News reports began to reflect a coordinated flow of information from the City. Clearly the most significant communication came from the several press conferences held at the scene of the crash and fire. But the PIO was able to maintain the relevant information on the website by calling us from the press conference and we would quickly add and update the information on the site. Plus the agency was able to very quickly and efficiently distribute updates on the fast breaking situation to the media as well as to numerous agency leaders and others in the Austin community.

I say “we” because those involved in supporting Austin remotely during this event included Kevin Boxx, VP PIER Systems and Timothy O’Leary, my colleague at O’Briens’s Response Management. Direct support was also provided by Sandra Salazar, PIER’s Project Manager located in Houston who was at a different location than we were. Geoff Baron at PIER’s HQ in Bellingham, WA also provided direct assistance.

Some key learnings from this event:

- Austin Police and Fire have received some strong kudos for their fast and effective crisis communication during this event—both from people within the community and from experts outside observing.

- Virtual communication operation, or the Virtual JIC, does indeed work as has been demonstrated in other events. But this event was particularly telling because of the speed of information flow between the PIO and those on the scene and those operating remotely to keep the updates going.

- Twitter and other social media are no doubt driving the information about an event of this nature. Reports coming from Twitter were almost concurrent with the event as some early “tweets” were from people witnessing the event as it occurred.

- Major media use Twitter and other social media as primary sources of news. When you see “reports” or “eye witness reports” in the media coverage do not think it is that they have talked to someone directly but are likely getting it from the many tweets or posts on the internet.

- The initial reports are virtually certain to be wrong—that is the nature of the internet and witnesses commenting from their perspective and speculating. But it is quite amazing to see how the online community sorts things out and gets to the facts faster than you would imagine.

- Where it used to be that official sources would be the primary focus of the media’s interest a quick review of the media coverage will show that a primary interest of the media is to talk to eyewitnesses—often those same people who are reporting what they see or know (or speculations) via the internet.

- PIOs and public officials have to scramble very, very hard to keep up with, let alone try to get ahead of, this kind of instant information coming from so many sources. As the official source of the news about the event, their primary role becomes rumor management—correct false information as it emerges—rather than focusing on being the first with the news.

Congratulations are due to Candice Wade and the team at Austin for a job well done in very difficult circumstances.

An Incident Commander asks: Does ICS mean Information Communications Standstill?

2010-03-01T16:49:00.000-08:00

I'm so pleased to present a guest post from Bill Boyd, a very experienced Incident Commander and currently Fire Chief for the City of Bellingham, WA. I first met Bill almost 10 years ago when he was the initial PIO for the Olympic Pipeline explosion and I was coming into the command center as a PIO under contract to the pipeline company. Since then I've gained great respect for his ability as a clear-thinking incident commander with considerable experience in major events far beyond responding to fires in our fair city. I've known that Bill has an in-depth understanding of the reality of today's instant information and social media world so I invited him to take advantage of Crisis Comm to speak to fellow ICs and PIOs. And what he says here I wish could be forwarded and sent to every Incident Commander and PIO in the country.

Chief Bill Boyd:

Does ICS stand for “Information Communications Standstill”?

As I am typing this my Twitter monitoring site is logging messages by the second about the huge earthquake off the coast of Chile. I am looking at pictures and comments from earthquake survivors, their relatives and others monitoring this disaster within seconds of being posted. The speed and amount of information being disseminated right now is staggering, and I am contributing to this situation by relaying pertinent information to my followers through Facebook, Twitter and PIER Systems (which also posts immediately to my city’s internet news web site).

This unfolding and widespread crisis highlights the importance of strategic agility, speed and accuracy in disseminating information during a high visibility emergency event. As a Fire Chief and Incident Commander for a regional incident management team, I recognize the need to immediately implement and use all available information tools and resources to push accurate information out to the public. How many of you with Incident Commander responsibility understand this?

The days of a Public Information Officer (PIO) sitting down at a computer and generating a two paragraph media release a couple of times a day, and an interview here and there are gone. If you still think this is all the PIO really has to do then you might as well give them an old typewriter and carbon paper. As an IC, I “define the box” the PIO will operate within (giving them the flexibility and boundaries to immediately release information without me having to approve it). The IC needs to immediately set policy, validate key real time message concepts and then do the most important thing- let the PIO loose to do their job. As an IC in this day and age, I can ill afford to get further behind the information dissemination curve (assuming we are already behind thanks to social media, camera cell phones, etc…).

This also means PIOs must be skilled in creating short messages, and relaying them in the most succinct way (how would you relay an evacuation order on Twitter?). In the major events I have been involved with over the years, this type of messaging was not available. Now, it is the preferred method of communication by many. Yet, it remains foreign to many in the emergency response community.

ICs need to wake up and realize the impact of the explosive growth of social media and the resulting expectation for immediate and accurate information. If the public does not get it from Incident Command they will get it from somewhere else, relay inaccurate information and/or undermine your authority by venting their frustrations about lack of information.

Hey PIOs! How prepared are you in quickly shaping and distributing messages during a dynamic crisis event? If you are still using the “media release” tool as your primary method of distributing information, I suggest signing up for a free social media site and see how people are really communicating news and information. It is time for those of us with incident command authority to not only recognize the power of these tools and the resulting culture change, but more importantly take the steps to establish policy, secure training, and prepare to quickly deploy these tools during a crisis event.

Department of Defense Faces Social Media Reality

2010-03-01T11:40:00.000-08:00

In 2007 the Pentagon block access to a number of internet sites and social media channels. More recently in August 2009 the Marines prohibited members of the Corps from using sites like Facebook, MySpace and Twitter.

Some of the reasons given were understandable (others were bogus). These sites facilitate exceptional levels of transparency and immediacy. Members of the military deal with a lot of information that is best if it doesn't fall into the wrong hands. Any of us concerned about the security of our nations, communities and families have a vested interest in those having high value secrets keeping them secret.

But, this blocking policy was Peter putting his finger in the dike. Banning use of social media channels seemed tantamount to banning email or telephones given that these are great ways of communicating with our enemies. It struck me as it did many others that it represented decisions made at the top by security officials and military leaders who, if not Luddites, were at least out of touch with the real world.

That is all changed. The DoD has just released new policies that don't prohibit use of these social media channels and also open up military organizations to make use of internet applications. It replaces a "head in the sand" ban with reasonable and very important policies about protection of infrastructure and protection of classified information. That is the way it should be. You don't protect the nation's security interest by eliminating channels of communication. Better put the military personnel in closed boxes if you want to do that. But you do want to make it crystal clear to those military personnel and others with access to sensitive information what the consequences are for bad judgment in their use. I trust that there will be soon some very visible examples made of military personnel who have abused, misused or in other ways violated the policy. I hope for our national security purposes the examples are very visible. But congratulations to our nation's military leadership in taking this important and logical step forward.

Earthquakes--an epidemic of biblical proportions

2010-02-26T16:01:00.000-08:00

Someone tipped me off to this chart about historical major earthquake activity. I was thinking about blogging about it when a 6.9 earthquake hit Japan with tsunami warnings. I can't vouch for the accuracy of that chart but it is surprising, even earth shaking.

As Haiti all too clearly demonstrates, earthquakes are one of the hardest events to prepare for, particularly in poverty stricken areas without solid infrastructure and building standards. If there is some kind of epidemic underway, it makes one think about what can or should be done to prepare. Since I live in the Pacific Northwest and the last shaker I was in is still relatively fresh in my mind (Nisqually quake, 2001) there is some urgency to this question.

What does it mean to be resilient in regard to threats from earthquakes? I don't have the technical expertise to deal with predictions, resistance, mitigation, resource management and all the myriad issues involved in emergency response planning. But looking at public communication, there are a number of things that are important in preparing. A few comments and suggestions:

- understand the importance of public information in an earthquake--as in any event, one of the things people will be most desperate for is information. Am I still in danger? How do I find my family? Is everyone alright? Where can I get help? Where do I get food, shelter, water, protection. Where can I get medical help? Who can help with rescues? Etc. Haiti was ill-prepared in this regard as well, but stories coming out of Haiti regarding the lone radio station still operating and the use of social media to share messages heightens the extreme need to take public information into consideration in planning.

- assume everything is gone--operations centers, IT infrastructure, cell towers, people, transportation, everything--but you still have to communicate. Katrina taught us (not well it seems based on the incredible investment in very expensive EOCs) that we can't assume our operations centers and technology will be there when we most need it. To plan based on losing everything you count on is not an exercise in apocalypse but one of practicality. The fact is, if you are there left standing, there are ways to maintain communication. External hosting of communication systems is critical. Geographic redundancy of hosting is critical. Access to people outside of the earthquake area who can use your communication system is critical. Communicating with them--ultimately with satellite phones--is critical. Building a team beyond those you would normally call in is essential. The truth is major events show that things do go on in worst case scenarios, but they can be implemented much quicker and easier if there is planning that assumes far more catastrophic losses than we dare contemplate.

- understand that resilience starts with character and training. I mentioned The Unthinkable by Amanda Ripley in an earlier post. How you respond in an event depends largely on two things--who are really are in terms of character, personality, strengths, etc. Some people are capable of operating in the worst of all possible situations, and some simply are not. You can find that out in part by extreme training--that is very realistic drills and scenarios. These do two things in my mind: help you understand better how you will react and perform, and build mental muscle memory so that certain critical actions become automatic. And this can be lifesaving in a major event.

Effective response even in earthquakes comes down to the people caught in them and the people helping those caught in them. Resilience means building that strength to endure, respond and recover one precious soul at a time, starting with ourselves.

The Unthinkable--What EM pros need to think about

2010-02-18T12:53:00.000-08:00

Perhaps I’m the only one in the crisis and emergency management industry that hadn’t yet read Amanda Ripley’s The Unthinkable: Who Survives When Disaster Strikes—and Why. Now that I have read it I can only say one thing to those involved in any form of crisis or emergency management: read it.

I will tell you why. Those thinking hard and long about emergency management have a tendency to think very top down. We picture ourselves floating in above the chaos below like a helicopter to the rescue or like God or some gods come to save the wretched masses who are helpless and pitiable victims just waiting for us to come and clutch them from disaster. That approach seems inherent in most response plans. It is perhaps unavoidable but I think reading this book will provide a healthy antidote to pure top-down thinking about crisis and emergency management.

The truth is, and I never saw it so clearly as I did reading this book, resilience starts in all of our hearts and characters. Perhaps one image from the book can help communicate this more clearly. When an Air Florida flight crashed into the Fourteenth Street Bridge and then the frozen Potomac river in a snowstorm, only a handful of survivors made it out of the plane. They clung to the plane’s tail, waiting for rescue. They watched as spectators gathered on the bridge and the riverbank. When rescue vehicle arrived with red lights flashing their hopes were lifted even while they tried to stay alive in 34 degree water filled with floating ice. But none of the rescuers could help. There was not the equipment, resources, training, or anything else needed. Even the will. But one sheet metal worker jumped in the nearly frozen water before they even arrived. He never made it to the survivors. He was in the water nearly twenty minutes and only half way there when a brave helicopter pilot swooped in to pick up the five of 79 who survived the crash. The would be rescuer, Roger Olian, was one of two by-standers who jumped in to save them. And the victims credit him with keeping them alive by keeping their hopes up. Olian yelled at them as he struggled toward them. And seeing him do all he could to help them, while the rest stood by kept the hopes and the fighting spirit alive in those few clinging to the plane.

Emergency management planners need what this book has to tell us. We need to understand how people will react during a disaster, emergency or crisis. For example, I found much to my surprise while panic strikes some (and it can be deadly) the most common reaction in situations of extreme fear is paralysis. A kind of mindless lethargy sets in. Which is why flight attendants are trained to yell and scream at passengers and why Rick Lescora, security manager for Morgan Stanley in the Trade Center tower collapse absolutely knew what he was doing.

The truth about resilient people, organizations, and communities is that they do not really depend on us. That may sound disheartening but if so you are probably guilty of top down thinking. Our jobs are to increase that resilience, and we do it so much better if we understand that people have remarkable abilities to take care of themselves as they have remarkable tendencies to take care of each other. Our job is not to push this away in favor of “the professionals,” but our job is to build this, foster this, support and encourage it. One seaside community did a tsunami drill with no fire fighters, police officers or first responders involved. Why? Because disaster history will show that frequently they are not there to help—victims of the disaster itself. Creating and fostering that self-reliance and independence is the first step to building real resilience.

Since my focus is on public information I came away from this book with a far deeper understanding of the critical role that public information plays before, during and after bad things happening. What people know, what has been drilled into their heads, what they understand about an event will frequently save their lives and others around them. That’s how one school girl in the 2004 tsunami who knew the signs didn’t stand around and watch the water disappear, but got her family and others to safety while hundreds of others in the village died. It’s also why clear, concise, loud and repeated messages must get to the public before and during an event.

In Haiti we are witnessing right now the high costs of a non-resilient community. Yes, there are great stories of heroism, sacrifice, courage and incredible personal resilience. And community resilience begins here, in each individual’s mind, heart and personality. One thing is clear regarding Haiti, a brave and resilient people deserve much more from their government and the rest of the world.

It is to the credit of our national emergency planners that citizen preparedness is one of the eight national priorities. I certainly have seen efforts from the local, state and national level to try to help people prepare. But I understand better than ever why most of these efforts are doomed to fail—or at least not meet expectations or the great need for citizen-based preparedness. I see efforts at Citizen Corp and CERT—all laudable and important. But there still is a great gap and Ripley’s story telling will help make that gap clear to almost anyone who reads it.

One thing that this book will do for you if you have not read it is make you understand that you are fortunate to be involved in so important a field as emergency management. The challenges are as great as the stakes are high. But you won’t feel that what you are doing doesn’t really matter.

DHS Monitoring Social Media in Winter Olympics--an operational issue

2010-02-16T15:52:00.000-08:00

As required by law, the DHS has published a Privacy Impact Statement about its monitoring activity--in this case monitoring social media outlets for security reasons for the Vancouver Winter Olympics (of special interest to me since I live only 40 minutes from Vancouver, BC).

What most emergency manager types will find surprising is that they are doing this for operational security purposes as described in the document: The Office of Operations Coordination and Planning (OPS), National Operations Center (NOC), has launched a 2010 Winter Olympics Social Media Event Monitoring Initiative (Initiative) to assist the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components involved in the security, safety, and border control associated with the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, British Columbia (BC). The NOC is using this vehicle to fulfill its statutory responsibility to provide situational awareness and establish a common operating picture for the federal government, and for those state, local, and tribal governments, as appropriate, assisting with the security, safety, and border control associated with the Olympics.

Clearly, understanding what is going on in the discussions on social networks via the internet is of importance in gaining situational awareness. And situational awareness is what the agency is required by law to provide:
The law defines the term “situational awareness” as “information gathered from a variety of sources that, when communicated to emergency managers and decision makers, can form the basis for incident management decision-making.” OPS is launching this Initiative to fulfill its legal mandate to provide situational awareness and establish a common operation picture directly related to the security, safety, and border control associated with the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, BC.

As someone actively involved in developing Joint Information Center plans for major urban areas, this is of significant interest. We are beefing up Social Media monitoring sections in our JIC plans and placing them under the Assistant PIO for Information Gathering. But, how does this connect to Command? Should this section be part of the Situation Status Unit of Planning? More and more the JIC is becoming less and less about pushing out an occasional press release, but becoming an integral part of the operation of the total response.

Don't let bad reporting dampen public/private partnerships

2010-02-08T16:37:00.000-08:00

Public/private partnerships in large disasters are critical. The upside is becoming increasingly clear. But there is a very big dark side to public/private partnerships and Haiti demonstrates some of the hazards for private companies of getting involved.

Steve Duin is a blogger and columnist for the Oregonian out of Portland. Like most journalists writing for local or regional outlets, he reports on the local connection to the Haiti disaster. Here he blogs about two companies, TEC Equipment and Evergreen Helicopters--both Oregon companies and both involved in Haiti. But he puts the white hat on TEC and the black hat squarely on Evergreen.

Why is Evergreen such a bad guy in Haiti? Because they refused (apparently) to help a French search and rescue team fly into Haiti and instead a pilot reportedly quoted them an outrageous price of $7000 an hour to fly them into Haiti on one of their helicopters. Not one to mince words or hesitate to pass judgment, Duin says of Evergreen: "Yikes. Ghoulishly opportunistic to the bitter end. "

Now, if you read the rest of the article, you will find it isn't quite the story that Duin pretends it is in the first part of the article. First he reports that someone else from the company explained that the overheard conversation was not what it sounded like, but a conversation between pilots comparing rates. Second, the president of the company pointed out that Evergreen has been very involved in charity flights in Haiti including moving people in from World Vision and a team of doctors from Texas Tech. It is to Duin's credit that he allowed this information into his story--but only after he told the story the way he wanted to, refusing the allow the facts to get in the way of his pre-conceived story.

Yes, I think the comments are out of line and unfair. But that is not the point here. There are alot of private companies and organizations who stepped up big time to help out in Haiti. But no private company has the capability of meeting all the desperate needs that are there and they do not have the apparently endless financial resources of the American taxpayer to be able to pay for all their good intentions. Clearly those who are there are well positioned to help out even if someone else is paying the bill and likely some or many positioned themselves for that. Does it make them evil if they now make their services, equipment, people and resources available for hire? I don't think so. I'm sure there are a great many more reporters other than Duin who would be eager to find a sordid story of opportunism of which there no doubt will be many. But when reporters jump on this and turn companies like Evergreen into really creepy bad guys who don't care about the people of Haiti but are there just to make a buck, what private company will be willing to respond? No one wants to take the reputation hit of being called a profiteer. No one wants to be accused of ghoulish opportunism.

From what little I can see from this article, Duin owes Evergreen an apology. But more than that, he and other reporters need to understand that their natural tendency to hype the evil that no doubt will be found in the behavior of some bad apples, could have some pretty devastating and unintended consequences for disaster response and recovery in the future. Governments involved in major disaster relief need all the private help they can get. We don't need reporters eager to put the black hats on well-meaning people to scare them off.

Rumor Management--a great JIC and PIO Lesson from American Airlines

2010-02-03T15:22:00.001-08:00

Rumor management is now one of the most important jobs of the PIO and the Joint Information Center. It may indeed be the most important job. That's because the media, the public and everyone else will be getting a lot of their information from all kinds of other sources except you and the JIC. You simply can't beat Twitter, twitpic, Facebook and all those outlets--and increasingly that is where the media gets their info.

But, is that info correct? Certainly not always. So what happens is you have a lot of people, citizen journalists, communicating what they know or pooling their ignorance about the event. Much of what they say will be wrong, mistaken or in some cases, intentionally wrong. So, the PIO needs to monitor, monitor monitor and then be in a position to respond very quickly. But, you say, how do I monitor and how do I respond quickly?

Here is a terrific example of how it works. A rumor spread quickly that American Airlines was offering free flights to Haiti. One wrong tweet got retweeted in mere moments by tweeters with huge audiences. One of them, Rainn Wilson (of Office fame) has 1.8 followers, and of course they have followers who have followers. The point is at the speed of the internet the word went out about the free flights. So, how does American deal with this?

I suggest that this should serve as a model for PIOs and crisis communicators Read the article for details but the highlights are: 1) they moved fast! 2) they used social media to get their message out 3) their social media outreach included the mainstream media and when NYT retweeted their messages the rumors started to die.

It should be clear, if it isn't already, that 1: rumors may happen about your agency and your event 2) they will be spread with lightning speed, or I should say speed of light speed 3) social media will be the primary way they go viral, but the media may report them as facts 4) if you are not prepared NOW to deal with the rumors, there is no way you can react fast enough to keep them from getting firmly entrenched 5) a lie (or rumor) repeated often enough becomes the truth, and that applies to all unchallenged rumors.

So, get prepared.

Social Media as a 9-1-1 Option? Social media in Haiti.

2010-02-02T15:37:00.000-08:00

This blog post from Coast Guard Petty Officer Walter Shinn about how social media has been and is being used in Haiti to help save lives reminded me of a very important issue emerging in emergency management. What happens when people start relying on social media such as Facebook, Twitter, etc. to call for help? In desperate situations such as Haiti, as the linked post shows, it may be the only way, and for humanitarian reasons it is being encouraged and that is the right thing to do.

Shinn reports: To get better information, a Distress Short Message System Short code number, 4636, was set up through the Department of State to allow those in Haiti to send in their distress messages via a text message. This number was then sent to every cell phone on the Haitian network.

A story I blogged about before from Australia is another example. Two young girls fell into an abandoned well and became trapped. Fortunately, they had a cell phone. Unfortunately, they forgot that the numbers on the phone were for making phone calls, and instead of calling 000 (Aussies 9-1-1) they sent a message to their Facebook page that they were trapped. You see, to these 10 and 12 year old girls, that device they carried with them was a text message machine for them to connect to friends. They forgot or never learned that most of the rest of it think about it as a mobile phone, particularly convenient in a life or death situation. Fortunately one of their friends saw the Facebook message and called authorities and the girls were rescued.

So, why is this an issue? Because what happens when people, particularly young people, start seeing social media and the text message machines in their pockets and purses as the way to ask for help? Do police, fire and 9-1-1 centers have an obligation to answer? Should first responders do what they are doing in Haiti and start promoting short codes so citizens can text for help? Should agencies start setting up social media monitoring operations similar to what the Coast Guard auxiliarist did to make sure all social media calls for help are answered?

The Coast Guard themselves asked this question in a blog post last summer, troubled by the potential implications on response agencies when people start shifting to these methods of communication.

This is a very challenging issue for emergency management professionals. But one thing is certain, sticking our head in the sand about it won't make it go away. I'm guessing this is going to become increasingly urgent and there is no simple answer. Twitter is remarkably unreliable, but what happens when people start counting on it to ask for urgent help? And how will the fire department answer the question posed by a reporter when they ask: "If you were monitoring Twitter and you saw this call for help, why didn't you respond? You do monitor Twitter don't you?"

The stories coming out of Haiti right now, good news stories about the role of social media, will only add to the urgency in dealing with this issue.

It's all about building trust--an important barometer

2010-01-27T16:37:00.000-08:00

I wonder how often communicators and PIOs stop and ask themselves: now what am I doing this for? Beyond the obvious answer (to keep my job), there are many possible answers about why to communicate in a crisis or emergency: public safety, response effectiveness, keep elected officials happy, keep elected officials' electorates happy, help your bosses keep their jobs, and on and on. But I think we can simplify by focusing on the goal of building and maintaining public trust. If trust in those we entrust for our health and safety is lost, no response can be effective. Public trust is both an essential means to the end of restoring the community and/or organization to some form of normalcy, and it is an end itself.

Before you start trying to build trust in a major response, it might be good to ask the question: does the public trust me, my superiors, my agency, my elected leaders now? I hate to tell you this but if you are in government or major corporations, the news is not so good. Edelman, the largest independent PR firm, has been conducting a survey every year for the past ten years and have developed what they call the Trust Barometer. Through the years they can tell if the public trust in leaders and institutions is improving or declining. It's been on a steep decline for the past few years. This year there is some sign of hope with some fairly significant improvements. That is only encouraging until you know just how low the numbers really are. I suggest you take a very good look at the report from Edelman, but here are few highlights (or lowlights):

- trust in business in the US jumped 18 points in 2009, but still is only at 54% compared to Brazil, India and China where trust in business is over 60%.
- trust in government in the US is lower than that of business, at 46% with a 16 point increase in 2009. In Russia trust in government is down 10 points this year to 38%.
- trust in the mainstream media is exceedingly low and declining--for television news it is down to 20% from 43 in 2008.
- Media companies and insurance companies are the least trusted, with banks just above them. Technology companies are most trusted.

This subject of public trust deserves much more study in my mind, including by PIOs, government communicators and those in public relations. Personally, I believe the distrust of everything big and powerful (like big business and government) is a result of our education system dominated by a educators who went to school (like me) during the late 60s and 70s--in other words, long term repercussions of the cultural revolution. I also think our media institutions have a lot to do with it since their audience building methods are largely based on sensational stories of blame, fault, and black hatted corporate and government types. It is ironic I think that those who seem so quick to assign blame and fault to others are suffering the worst of the loss of trust.

Whatever the reasons, I think it very helpful to realize that when we communicate in an emergency we don't necessarily have the media as a trusted partner, and that we begin communicating already in somewhat of a hole when it comes to public trust. The result of this should not be, oh dear, now I really have to spin things. Just the opposite. It is to realize that trust is built on two things: doing the right things, and communicating about them well. Communicating well, above all means, with utmost honesty, transparency and credibility. If everyone did that, and communicated directly rather than through those whose primary objective is to secure eyes to a screen, public trust would once again start to build.

Public Private Partnerships in Disasters

2010-01-26T10:35:00.000-08:00

Haiti is just one more mega-disaster that demonstrates the need for public/private partnerships to respond effectively. One study coming out of Katrina identified two organizations that performed exceptionally well in responding to the Katrina disaster: the US Coast Guard and Wal-Mart.

Washington State Emergency Management Department has gained well-deserved recognition for its leadership in working closely with major employers. National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) identified WA EMD's Business Portal as a Best Practice in this article. And FEMA has posted this article about WA EMDs business communication activity relating to major flooding that shut down Interstate 5 as well as potential massive flooding related to Howard Hanson dam.

(Full disclosure--WA EMD uses PIER, the system my company provides, which is why we are quite familiar with the outstanding work of Rob Harper, Mark Clemens and Wendy Freitag at WA EMD.)

Communication is clearly one critical element of building strong public-private partnerships. One of the major problems of managing large events is the ad hoc nature of response team. So you pull together Unified Command with multiple different players representing multiple different agencies. The issue of calling on the resources of private companies to help with logistics, infrastructure, communications, public warnings, etc. does not fall easily into one place. Maybe most of it goes to the Liaison Officer. But that role is typically not prepared with the kind of sophisticated online communication technology that has made WA EMD effective. You simply can't be effective in establishing that kind of effective partnership when things are really hitting the fan. Just like everything else in emergency management, the response will only work well and look effortless if a lot of planning and preparation happened first.

So now is the time for response leaders to get together with major employers and map out a plan as to how their valuable assets will be accessed in an emergency. And how information about the event and the response will flow quickly and easily to the emergency management team in these companies. Only by working this out in advance, as Wendy Freitag did at WA EMD, will it work as smoothly and effectively when the floods hit.

Is Traditional Media or Social Media Most Important in Haiti?

2010-01-25T17:32:00.000-08:00

There are certain to be many studies of the Haiti tragedy relating to public information and how the government and those responding provided (or tried to provide) information about the response. No one can doubt that communication in this impoverished country is one of many of the immense challenges facing responders. But, what is more important in getting information to those both inside and outside of the shaken country? Traditional media or new media.

Two stories that came out yesterday carry two different messages, providing evidence for both sides of the debate. CNN World reported yesterday on the lifeline provided by a single Haitian radio station that stayed on the air despite all odds. In an article from the LA Times, we learn that much of the early information about the quake that reached the rest of the world came from social media. Anything having to do with earthquakes, information flow, preparedness of course is of considerable interest in LA. That juxtaposition was noted in this excerpt from the article:

With most of the area's power and phone lines down, a handful of Haitians used cellphones and some working Internet connections to report, in words and pictures, what they saw of the quake's devastation. California authorities saw the same pattern in the minutes after a quake in Eureka earlier this month.

The role of public information in disasters such as this seems to increasingly discussed and of increasing importance to those in emergency management. On the Emergency Management website Jeanette Sutton posted a very important document on December 11 regarding the role of technologies in emergencies and conflicts. It should be required reading for everyone in emergency management. One simple story stuck out in this paper--about how a school girl had just learned the warning signs of a tsunami and warned her family to get to higher ground saving all their lives. Information saves lives. Information eases pain. Information is critical to effective response and recovery. It's not just about satisfying the curiousity of the TV watcher flipping through news channels while eating a TV dinner. Haiti perhaps better than even the tsunami or Katrina will show just how vital public information is and how much we are all hurt, and particularly those most affected are hurt, when it is not there.

How Haiti will impact fundraising forever

2010-01-22T11:46:00.000-08:00

I believe that the earthquake in Haiti will have a profound and lasting impact in the emergency management world--similar to 9/11 and Katrina. One way will be how money is raised to support a major disaster. As of yesterday according to NPR Americans had given $275 million toward Haiti relief. According to this research just released by KRC Research, almost half of Americans, 45%, have contributed financially to Haiti relief. What is remarkable about this is the number who have contributed via text message.

My congratulations and appreciation goes to the American Red Cross. I'm not sure if they are the first to use this method but what they did and their remarkable success with this new method of fund raising I believe will change the landscape of fundraising not just for disaster relief but for any organization who raises funds. The Red Cross provided a simple short code, 90999, and if you simply text that $10 will be added to your phone bill. Simple, painless and remarkably effective. According to this story just out today, 2.6 million people texted the American Red Cross and contributed $26 million toward relief efforts. While the Red Cross has received over $150 million, this new method has brought a great many new contributors, ones who before had never contributed to the Red Cross and probably to any relief organization, into the fold.

There will be many lessons to come out of Haiti. Communication and its failings will no doubt be one of the main lessons, as it always is in any major disaster. As the KRC research shows, we are all paying attention, many very closely. Our hearts are heavy and we want to help. But we need to be told how to help. It is a critically important lesson to be learned by PIOs who may find themselves at the center of such a disaster. But what the Red Cross has done shows the effectiveness of embracing new methods and in doing so has changed fundraising forever.

Too early for Haiti Lessons?

2010-01-18T16:48:00.000-08:00

Whatever the number of deaths in Haiti, as was said about 9/11 it will be more than we can bear. The suffering goes on for hundreds of thousands or more. If journalism is considered the first draft of history, what is blogging? The first draft of the first draft?

It seems without question that this horrific event will be studied by scholars and students of disasters for years to come along with the Indian Ocean Tsunami. The scale of both of these just defies comprehension. But as the tsunami led to much soul searching about what could have been done to lessen the impact, no doubt the same questions will be asked of Haiti.

If we look at this question from the standpoint of resilience, does any light shine? Resilience includes the concept of "resistance" or what is done to protect, prevent or direct whatever forces that may cause harm away from potential victims. Levees and sandbags are examples of resistance. Earthquakes are very difficult to deal with because so little is currently available to help predict. Resistance then comes down to how we build buildings, cities and infrastructure to resist the damage. A lesson here then is the poorest nation in the hemisphere is likely to be least resistant to this type of event. Which leads to the next issue: response.

Resilience related to response is the ability to quickly respond to save lives, property and move quickly to mitigation and recovery. Again, the poverty of the country fights against it in so many ways. Heavy equipment needed to rescue the trapped, clear the rubble. Limited emergency shelters, pre-stocked supplies. Just limited resources for any effective management to call in. This will be a big issue because if the US assumes the level of response-ability as it is--and must in a moral sense--we must recognize the need to better prepare when the disaster is not on our own shores. It is one thing to plan to respond better for the next Katrina. But will the lesson here be that we must prepare better to assist any poverty-stricken nation so battered by disaster? I think it must be so.

There is of course much to say about the communications as well. Clearly social media is playing a critical role. But it is becoming increasingly clear that response organizations are simply not prepared to effectively establish inter-agency and public communication in a situation of this magnitude with these kinds of challenges in resources. I suspect there will be some soul searching on this front as well.

Will Haiti be the event where responders discover the value of social media?

2010-01-14T07:42:00.000-08:00

First, my heart and prayers go out to those hundreds of thousands suffering unspeakable agony in this disaster. My gratitude also, to those who have already responded and to the people of this great nation who are so eager to help those in need.

It if far too early to draw lessons learned, but one of the major stories emerging from this event so far is the role of social media. As a result, this event may more dramatically bring social media and its role in our society to the attention of emergency managers more than any other event to date. One major reason for this is the use of social media, particularly Facebook and Twitter, as a means of calling for rescue and identifying locations. If you wonder how this is working right now, go to www.twitscoop.com (or any other Twitter search tool) and put this hashtag #rescuemehaiti in the search box. Hashtags are quick ways that Twitter users set up to help filter through all the traffic. You will note that the Twitter users are pleading that this hashtag and a few others that have been set up only be used by families searching for loved ones or those people needing to be rescued.

There are many other ways social media is being used around this event right now. It is being used by family members to find each other. Stories are being told about how family members of missionaries found out their loved ones were OK through their Facebook page.

Here's one UK newspaper report about social media use in this disaster. It highlights organizations such as the Red Cross who have set up a means of contributing to the relief through text messages. Send a text message to 90999 and $10 will be added to your phone bill. Last I heard over $1m had been raised already and I suspect that number will go way up.

Why use social media? For one thing, it may be the only way left for many victims to communicate. Phone, power, everything gone. But if you have a smartphone with a little battery power left, you can get on the internet or send text or email. The internet has proven in numerous incidences like large hurricanes to be the most resilient channel and more and more people rely on their smartphones for internet activity.

I do believe that this event will be studied by emergency management professionals for many years to come. So many lessons to be learned. For example, if we as a nation are going to assume responsibility for response, should we not considered preparing the resources we need in advance such as heavy equipment needed for urban search and rescue, so we can deploy immediately? I suspect some of that has been done already but every news report decries the lack of equipment and resources so desperately needed now in the early hours.

But I believe one outcome of this will be incorporating social media listening in the command center. A critical role of Command is to know what is going on. Now those needing help can tell you directly--even if they don't have the phone number to the Command Post and the phones are down. To hear them, all you have to do is listen.

Google Pulling Out of China--A Clash of Cultures Relevant to Emergency Management

2010-01-12T16:02:00.000-08:00

Google announced today on its blog that it is reviewing its business operations in China and may pull out of service to the country entirely including shutting down its offices. It's been interesting to watch the clash of cultures in this battle and it seemed inevitable to lead to this kind of high noon. Now we will see if anyone blinks.

The clash of culture I am referring to is the transparency and freedom that is inherent in the web culture and the paranoid secrecy of the Chinese government. The impetus for Google's decision is the realization that someone (hmmm, could it be the Chinese government?) has been hacking into the gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists, both those inside and outside of China. Google, whose slogan from the beginning has been "Do no evil" does not want to be a party in any fashion to the invasion of privacy and the harm that may come to these activists as a result of them signing up to have email accounts with Google.

This is hugely significant in my mind on many levels. Here's where a technology giant may end up putting pressure on a government that wants to continue to govern behind closed doors and without the democratic processes adopted by most of the world. I continue to believe that the collapse of the Soviet Union was fed to a large degree by the openness ("perestroika") that was forced on the Soviet leadership with the advances in communication technology and the increasing difficulty of keeping their citizens in the dark. Transparency and the related demand for freedom may force some world-shaking political changes.

But this clash of cultures can be seen as a reflection of the same clash I see in many organizations as it relates to public information management. Is there a tendency in your organization to want to hide bad news and hope that it never comes out? Is there a temptation to "craft a message" instead of telling the facts straight out about uncomfortable situations? Is there an institutional fear (paranoia?) about looking good and never admitting that mistakes might be made? Is there a sense that as long as it doesn't hit the media everything is OK? These are danger signs and indications of a head in the sand mentality. The truth is almost everything of significance to the public comes out in the era of online chatter and transparency. In presentations I've used the example of Prince Harry in Afghanistan. The entire British press corps was in on the secret that the royal prince was in the danger zone as part of his military duty but understandably for security reasons they agreed not to release the info. It came out anyway--on an Australian blog as I understand it. If you can keep a secret with the full support of the media, how do you expect to keep one when they don't and certainly won't agree?

There is a basic policy that most in crisis communication subscribe to: if you have bad news, be the one to tell it and be first with it. However bad the news might be, you have less loss of credibility in fessing up to it than allowing others less supportive of your position to do it for you. In this action, David Letterman was right, Tiger was wrong.

Incident Command Approval--what has to change

2010-01-05T16:08:00.000-08:00

Ask any PIO whose been through a big event, or even a big drill, what the biggest challenge he or she faces and likely they will say: command approval of information to be released. A good PIO these days understands that they have to be fast with getting information out or they might as well go home. The reason is simple--with all the cellphones, direct contacts to media through things like ireport, twitter, facebook and every other social media tool, it is mere minutes before any information of substance will get widely distributed. When the US Airways flight hit the Hudson, the world found out through a Twitter feed and an interview by the major media with the tweeter. In the Virginia Tech shooting, those on the Facebook community of students, identified without error the names of all 32 shooting victims well before the authorities announced them publicly.

The JIC or PIO today not only needs to be fast, but needs to provide a fairly constant flow of information about the event. This is because the news media has changed. All have their websites which provide continuous updates--and they compete on the basis of how fast they are. Plus, stakeholders such as elected officials, other agency heads, community leaders and the interested public have come to expect an almost continuous flow of up-to-date information. If they don't get it from the JIC or PIO, they will, just like the media, get it from someone else.

Given this need for speed and frequent updates, the issue of Command approval becomes acute. It simply doesn't work for members of Unified Command to sit on a release for an hour or even fifteen minutes when everyone else outside of the response is continuing to communicate both accurate and inaccurate information.

Since I am in the communication technology business, I am continually looking for technology solutions to this very big challenge. But the fundamental issue is a lack of understanding by the response leaders of this requirement. That means PIOs need to as much as possible work with their Commanders before a major event to help gain an understanding of why speed and frequency are now critically important. Secondly, PIOs need to gain approval not for press releases, but for bulletized facts. Press releases are simply not the form of information preferred by the media in this day of Twitter-style information. Information releases or incident updates appropriate for stakeholders, agencies, and the media that use bullets of updated facts is much preferred. That means that Command should be asked to approve for release any short, bulletized facts--such as number of confirmed injuries or fatalities, numbers of agencies or people responding. It's much easier for several members of Unified Command to approve a simple statement of fact than to wordsmith a wordy press release. The PIO needs to have flexibility in fashioning the fact into appropriate answers for media responders, applying it to fact sheets, providing it as short information updates ala tweets, or incorporating them into talking points for press conferences, etc.

Ultimately the solution will be making it extremely easy for Command to approve the information for release as soon as verified, then making a very simple, streamlined process to publish it and distribute it to multiple audiences in multiple modes. But, without Command understanding of the importance of this, the PIO and the JIC will be sitting around, pacing the floor, while everyone outside of the response communicates their hearts out. Be fast, be frequent or you might as well go home.

Goodbye 2009--Hello 2010. What's Next?

2009-12-29T13:11:00.000-08:00

We say goodbye to an interesting year in crisis and emergency management in 2009. I won't create my own list of the biggest stories, but a few that stand out in my mind are the H1N1 (aka swine flu), Flight 1549 in the Hudson, the missing hurricanes of 2009, United Airlines breaks guitars, and of course, Tiger Woods. But by far the biggest story in crisis communication and for that matter government communication was the emergence of social media as a critical element of organizations' communications and specifically the meteoric rise of Twitter.

But what about 2010? Prognostication is dangerous, but I'd like to suggest a few topics that I think will emerge into greater prominence in the coming year:

1) Mobility and Virtualization--lost in much of the hype about social media is the plain fact that most people are moving their communications and computing onto ever smaller and more mobile platforms. As I was playing an amazing dogfighting game on my iphone with my adult sons and son-inlaw over Christmas, I was amazed at the computing power we carry in our pockets. Much if not most web access is now through mobile devices, and those younger than me (an increasing percentage of the population) are ever more accustomed to getting whatever they want, whenever they want by reaching into their pockets or purses (or man bags). This means several important things for crisis communication. One is that more and more people will expect more information faster with more frequent updates than ever before. But more than that, web applications are making it easier and easier for teams to perform vital work together regardless of location. Collaboration tools emerging are truly amazing and the winners will be accessible via smartphones. Emergency managers and PIOs alike need to get serious about planning how to operate outside of the EOCs and JICs. The H1N1 pandemic should teach us that--getting people together to tell people not to get together doesn't make sense. And it certainly doesn't when tools make it possible to operate efficiently without congregating.

2) Warnings. We have seen a tremendous increase in the variety of technologies available to warn people of dangers. Yet, for all that is available, little is in use or usable. I expect in 2010 to see several major events where the big issues coming out of them will be this question of victims: why weren't we warned? Analysts and cable pundits will make it clear the systems are there that make it possible. We will see a Virginia Tech or two in the general public sphere that will have similar impact on emergency management. Related to this is the emerging issue of Special Needs. While much lip service is being paid to the idea that our emergency management and communication procedures need to above all protect the most vulnerable, little that I see has been done to implement comprehensive solutions. I suspect it will also take a major national news story that will prompt legislation and exploitive politicians to really wake up the emergency management community to this concern.

3) Bottom up attention. I've had the opportunity of working with both major federal agencies and a lot of state, local, municipal and regional government agencies on crisis and emergency communications. So much of the media's and the public's attention seems to be top down. We tend to expect all the best thinking and solutions to come from DC. This is a little strange since one of the common understandings of crisis events is that all are local. The truth is from my perspective that real solutions are emerging on a bottom-up basis. There is too little substantive discussion between the top and the bottom. One telling example is ESF15--the plan promulgated by FEMA and DHS which unfortunately is not only completely different but contradictory to the way crisis communication and JIC operations are done in the real world experienced by most of us. The NRT JIC Model is by far the best tool agency communicators have and it is being tested and proven in the real world each and every day. Trying to put the JIC model with ESF15 is like trying to create an efficient vehicle by putting an oxcart and a Ferrari together. It is my fond hope that 2010 sees some substantive communication between the federal and state and local agencies around the issue of fast, efficient and proven communication management and technologies.

4) Public and private partnerships. One of the subcurrents of conversation in 2009 is the importance of the private sector in emergency management and community resilience. It starts with the citizen and preparing and empowering them to be part of the solution. But increasingly I see attention being paid by Departments of Emergency Management on how they can incorporate and leverage the resources and expertise that exists in the private sector. It reminds me of one academic study coming out of Katrina that pointed to two organizations that performed superbly in that event: The US Coast Guard and Walmart. From logistics, to management expertise, to direct communication with employees, private companies need to be pulled into the issue of community resilience. This will become even more urgent as public expectations about preparedness and response effectiveness rise while governments continue to fight enormous budget problems. There is a solution--it is in outsourcing. Everything from the inventories of resources needed to the management expertise needed to come in and fully manage large-scale responses. I expect we will see much more discussion this year about best practices related to government response agencies connecting with and coordinating with private companies. It will be a good thing for all of us.

Hey, I just noticed I'm pretty optimistic! Happy New Year everyone.

Merry Christmas--and a look back

2009-12-24T09:51:00.000-08:00

First I would like to wish all of you a very Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

It seems every year the time for pause, reflection, rest and re-focusing gets more and more limited. At this time of the year in particular when we try to recall the reason for the season, the injection of divinity in a small, dirty town in a trouble-filled part of the world, in a place of over crowded abandonment smelling of and probably covered in animal feces, I have this vague sense that all those things we consider so urgent and important probably aren't.

This year has been one of great challenge for many of you, and for me as well. As we faced 2009, we were in the midst of great uncertainty in our own business, in our nation's economic future and what our world was coming to. I am grateful that while an uncomfortable degree of uncertainty still exists about our world, we have survived it-- so far at least-- and there is more reason for optimism and hope than there was a year ago.

Personally, we have gone through some very significant changes. A little less than ten years ago, I spun PIER Systems out of the marketing and public relations firm I owned. The dream was big--to help major companies and organizations to be able to more effectively meet the public information demands when facing big events. As big as the dream was, the reality turned out to be much bigger than I was able to dream. Now numerous federal agencies, state and local government agencies, emergency management departments, Fortune 100 and 500 companies, gigantic non-profits, major universities, hospitals and a myriad other organizations are using this system to enhance their communications both daily and during crises. Dealing with investors, the IT world, the complexities of selling to giant agencies and institutions has been challenging and stimulating and at times, frustrating to the extreme. The shock of the financial collapse in late 2008 and the budget difficulties of many of our public agency clients as well as private companies had significant impact on us as it did most others. But, the year ended with bright new promise as PIER Systems was purchased in late November by O'Brien's Response Management, one of the most respected names in crisis and emergency management. They purchased PIER because they understand very clearly what we have been saying for a long time--that in crisis management two things are essential to building trust: taking the right action and communicating well. They were and are experts in taking the right actions and preparing clients to taking the right actions. But they recognized in what we had to offer the ability to also communicate well. Two halves of the same coin, now joined as one solution.

I apologize if this comes across as promotion for my company or the buyer. I see in this a reflection of what I sense is going on with many of you in reflecting on this year. A year of challenge and change, of continuing uncertainty but mixed with greater hope and optimism than perhaps we dared dream of even a year ago. While the way ahead in terms of economic conditions, improvements in funding, recovery of lost value and all that may not look wonderful, still there is reason to believe that by continuing to trudge forward improvements will come. The world will never be quite the same--that is what a major crisis does to any organization and that is what this financial crisis has done to us, our nation and the world. But good lessons have been and are being learned. And the resilient pick themselves up, learn from the hard lessons, and put their shoulder to the wheel to move forward again.

I wish for you and yours a blessed time of reflection, pause, and if so oriented, quiet worship. Because as soon as Christmas Day is past, we turn immediately to the new year and the challenges ahead. I'll share some thoughts with you then about what I think 2010 means for emergency management and particularly crisis communication.

Merry Christmas!

Need Help Creating a Social Media Policy for Your Employees?

2009-12-22T12:47:00.000-08:00

Creating and managing social media policies is one new unexpected challenge for many organizations. But as the internet and crisis communication blogs fill up with painful examples of how employees using Twitter, or YouTube or Facebook are causing unanticipated crises for many organizations, it is apparent that such policies are necessary. Better now than when prompted by a major reputation problem.

But where do you start to craft such a policy. On my Crisisblogger blog I've provided a number of examples from major organizations as I have become aware of them. No sense reinventing the wheel when good thinking has been done by others in your situation. But I recently became aware of the work that Telstra has done to create not only the policies but some entertaining employee education tools around social media. Telstra is the Australian phone company with 40,000 employees. I'm not sure you can do much better than their "Three R's" incorporated in their policy: Responsibility, respect and representation.

If you do make use of their very good work here, you might want to send them a "G'die and thank you."

Why People Make Big PR Blunders--the Top Ten List

2009-12-17T13:37:00.000-08:00

This year's list of top ten PR blunders assembled by FinemanPR has just been released. Everyone in PR including PIOs and government communicators should study this list carefully and ask the question--how did this happen and how could it happen to me?

Let's take a few examples and I'll share my thoughts about why it happened:

1) Air Force One flyover of Manhattan.
Approved by Defense Department and White House Military office. How did it happen? Everybody seemed focus on getting a great photo for positive PR purposes. Nobody seemed to stop and think about how it would look to see a big jet, let alone Air Force One flying low over Manhattan. I think this is a collaboration problem as much as a "Geez, I never thought of that problem." In other words, someone whose job it is to think about public reaction either was never included in the discussion or was asleep at the switch. This is precisely what happens in a lot of organizations in a crisis and dealing with managers with technical expertise and lawyers--it's amazing how the potential impact on the public slips the attention.

2) Six year old gets sent to reform school for bringing his Cub Scout "weapon" to school.
Yes, the school officials were following policy. So were the concentration camp guards. You don't get in trouble for following policy, right? Wrong. Somebody just has to think a little about how these things can play out. The question should always occur to organization leaders--how is this going to look if it ends up on local TV or an internet blog? A simple misunderstanding turned into the second biggest PR blunder of the year.

3) Goldman Sachs says its doing God's Work, except it has more money than God.

Double problem for Goldman Sachs--stupid comment by the CEO and $16.7 billion (yes, that's right, billion) in bonuses. We ought to be thanking somebody in financial services for making some money, but clearly Goldman Sachs as an organization and its CEO in particular appear to be operating in a bubble. And we thought that Wall Street bubble burst--apparently it is still there and protecting the likes of Blankfein from reality. What's the real problem here? Clearly a CEO who is out of touch with the mood of the nation and the fact that it too has a public license to operate. But I'm also concerned that this organization hasn't incorporated a strong communications leader into its management structure--or if it has, it needs one with a stronger voice.

4) United Breaks Guitars.
That's the name of the song that garnered over 5 million views on YouTube and turned United Airlines customer service operation (never a strong suit) into one of the biggest jokes on the internet. Paying reasonable compensation for damages done would have saved them millions, maybe hundreds of millions in bad PR. Someone wasn't thinking. Worse, when the problem escalated and went viral via the song, they still didn't respond. Lack of monitoring and noticing early warning signals appears to be one major culprit here. I hope their PR department has woken up and realize they live in a dangerous world where speed and appropriate response are essential.

OK--you can read the rest and come up with your own conclusions as to what happened in each of these organizations that went so very wrong. But let me add an 11th to the Fineman list: Tiger Woods, of course. What went wrong there? In my mind, other than a serious moral failing, the arrogance of thinking that he could actually get by with it. Or that his name in history, his celebrity status, his family, his earnings just didn't matter as much as something else important to him. Unimaginable.

Can we conclude anything? In all cases it seems that someone wasn't thinking and paying attention to the right things. With priorities focused on other areas, no one in the position to do anything about it stopped and said, but, wait, what will the public think of this? In some cases it seems, if the question arose the answer was--what does what the public think really matter? Well folks, it matters a lot.

If there is a lesson to be learned it should be that everyone from CEO to customer service manager and everyone in the organization should be taught to ask that question--what will the public think? More importantly, what will those people who matter to our future think about this? What will this look like to our important supporters if this hits the news or the social networks. If the people in the right places play close attention to that question, PR blunders will diminish. I'm quite confident, sad to say, that 2010 will provide another stellar list of blunders.

Resilience? Does it Resonate?

2009-12-10T12:20:00.000-08:00

The term "resilience" has been gaining some currency among emergency management professionals. I have a question for you: does it resonate? Is it a good way of thinking about what crisis and emergency management is all about?

I've been kicking this around ever since having some discussions about it with my friend Dr. Brad Smith, the head of the Resilience Institute at Western Washington University. As Dean of Huxley College, the highly respected college of environmental science at Western Washington University and author of one of the leading textbooks on environmental science, Dr. Smith also heads up the Resilience Institute. I kind of scratched my head when I heard this was the name of the new certificate program in Emergency Management. I wondered, is this just a way for the academic types to communicate that they are on a higher level than the rest of us?

I also read an article on the issue of resilience by Dr. Robert McCreight. In it he tries to address what the term really means and whether it adds anything to our discussion about crisis and emergency management.

The more I think about it the more I think it is significant. Resilience connotes an ability to withstand trauma. As such it includes in that simple connotation a number of key elements of disaster planning and emergency management. Most importantly, it leads one to the ultimate goal of what we do which is to return an organization or community to some form of normalcy. After a major event things will never really be the same, big events always change us and our communities, but what we want when we are in the midst of trauma is to return to normal, even if it is a new normal.

But resiliency above all starts with good planning. To manage an event well and recover quickly with minimal cost, the emphasis needs to be on planning. The Gulf region would have recovered far more quickly if resiliency in the face of a Katrina event had been the goal. You can't stop the hurricane, but you can do a lot of things to make certain that its almost inevitable arrival will disrupt people's lives less. Clear-headed risk assessment, effective infrastructure and resource planning, efficient response management, reasonable mitigation, fast and efficient public communication, well-managed recovery efforts--all lead to an organization or community re-establishing normal life as quickly, efficiently and with as little pain and effort as possible.

Resiliency. I'm starting to like that term. What do you think?

Social Media Makes a Crisis Last Much Longer

2009-12-08T14:02:00.000-08:00

When is a crisis over? When does the communication about an emergency event stop? When should the JIC be deactivated? The common answer is: when media interest goes away. That answer today is very, very wrong.

There are two reasons for this. One, the attention span of today's major media has come to resemble that of a seriously ADHD kindergartener. They arrive almost at the speed of Twitter, and they disappear soon after. That is because today's media lives and dies on one thing alone that is immediacy. If it isn't happening right now, they have no use for it. Tiger's story isn't gone, but he is thanking whatever stars he might be seeing right now that Amanda Knox's story hit when it did. The swine flu story erupted in April and dominated the news--for about a week. Then it disappeared from the media. Did the problem go away? No, while the media was chasing the next thing that happened, the story deepened with accelerating infections. Millions of people were looking eagerly for information but they could not find it on the major media. Sure, it came back late this fall but the story was the failing of those in charge to provide vaccines. That played out and now they are gone again.

The focus of the media on immediacy is one reason. The other reason is that most people are now getting their news and information from the internet, and engaging in conversation in a very public forum called social media. If you think about swine flu as an example, Pew research made it clear that most people were getting their information from the internet. They still are, new ones every day as the infection continues on. But PIOs and communicators tend to think there is no crisis and maybe not even reason to communicate because ABC isn't calling and the news helicopters have gone somewhere else (to Italy right now).

As long as significant numbers of people are hungry for information about the event, common sense suggests that communication activities should go on. If the JIC shuts down, or the communicators say "we're done" it doesn't mean information will not be generated, shared and commented on. It just means that those at the center of it won't be participating.

We had a client who shut down their incident website even though 20,000 visitors were coming to them everyday for information. We asked, Why shut it down? They said, "The news media isn't following this story anymore and they never report what we have to say anyway, so why have a website up?" The logic of that escapes me. If they had 20,000 people showing up at their front door or calling an 800 number seeking information, I doubt they would board up the door or disconnect their phone. If they did, they could hardly be called communicators. But because the news media wasn't tracking any more, they did not see the value of talking to those 20,000 who were asking them to tell them straight what was going on.

A recent environmental event we were involved in demonstrated the difference between social media involvement and mainstream media. It's a story similar to the book The Long Tail. The media coverage in the first hours and few days of the event is strong, then it starts to tail off (depending on what else is happening that is immediate). The social media activity, as measured by the monitoring tools, starts off a little slower in this case. It is just building as the mainstream media starts tailing off. It's peak seems to hit a few days after the mainstream has all but disappeared. Then it slowly tails off.

Even a few weeks after an event is "over," the conversation can still be going strong. This may be the most important time to identify rumors and work on correcting them because those continuing the conversation often have the highest interest and the most long term interest.

This reality of a longer emergency communication cycle creates some real challenges for PIOs who understand it. When do you stop communicating? If you are the PIO of a Joint Information Center, when do you deactivate. The normal rule of deactivating after the ICS structure has stood down doesn't necessarily make sense. The public interest, conversation and debate may go on long after the response efforts have been completed. In my view, there needs to be a plan for deactivation based on public interest and if the response structure is deactivated, there needs to be a way to transition the communication activity to a single lead agency or multiple agencies who still have a reputation stake in the game.

Your thoughts? Email me at gbaron@piersystems.com.

Virginia Tech's Notification Failures and What It Means to You

2009-12-04T11:21:00.000-08:00

The Virginia Tech shooting is one of the most significant emergency events in the past decade. Certainly because of the scope of the tragedy, but from a communication standpoint few events have done more to change the public's expectation of emergency communications and public warnings.

Today's announcement of updates to the investigation findings putting further blame on administration officials for failure to properly warn the campus community will only add to the pressure on all emergency management professionals. Certainly, following the event and the focus on the failure to warn, every student on every campus has the expectation that the administration will have the capability of alerting them via multiple means when an event is occurring that may put them at risk. Administrators have rushed to meet this need and mass notification companies have rushed to fill the vacuum.

But, if students have that expectation, what about the person on the street who looks to you to protect them in a bad event? Do they have similar expectations? Many jurisdictions and agencies have also moved to adopt mass notification technologies--particularly text messaging and automated telephone messaging systems. I am concerned that many are missing some key elements of the public warning requirement but that is another subject for another day.

Consider a scenario in your town, city or community: a major crime spree happens in a building or area. The news media on the scene starts talking to citizens as they are certain to do:
"Were you warned by text message or telephone message or email alerts?"
No.
"If you had been do you think it might have saved lives?"
Yes.
"What do you think should be done about this?" Fire those who didn't protect us.

You may think it a most unrealistic scenario, but so did the administrators at VT. Now they will forever carry with them the stigma of this investigation report. Someone has to be blamed and in this case it came down to failure to warn.

My suggestion: 1) start doing some formal or informal research in your community about expectation of public warnings.
2) Investigate and list all the methods currently available to warn the public about imminent threats and build use of those methods into your plans.
3) Identify the gaps in technology and services and work to fill them (grants are likely available to assist with this particularly if you work with the region, for example UASI funds can be used for these purposes.)
4) Drill and test.

When Political Opportunism and NIMS Collide

2009-12-03T15:22:00.000-08:00

Could it be that Rudy Giuliani did emergency management and communications a great disservice? Particularly in a time when NIMS compliance is big and growing issue?

Ever since New York's Mayor became the calming, resolute face of massive emergency response in the hours and days after 9/11, you cannot be a savvy elected official and not see in any major public disaster the opportunity to shine. For sure, the cameras and satellite trucks will be there. The opportunity to show compassion, strength, resolve and command of the situation provides the basis to rescue a failing administration or put some shine on an already stellar political career. Who could resist such an opportunity?

And what is the problem with that? Certainly the public urgently if not desperately needs the reassurance and physical presence that only a strong, calming leader can provide. The problem is NIMS compliance.

A fundamental element of NIMS is Command responsibility for and authority over the public information released during a multi-agency event. The appropriate spokespeople for the event are those who are making the decisions that are saving people's lives or property and restoring the community to some form of normalcy. Mayors and county judges or executives are not normally incident commanders.

It's a critical issue for PIOs, particularly in a JIC environment when they are coming from multiple different jurisdictions and agencies and have clear operating policies from their agency heads. The policy is usually don't say anything without my approval. And that if the TV cameras show up, it is to be the elected head who will stand on the courthouse steps and give the information.

A particularly egregious example of this situation destroying the communications in a major event was the commuter train crash in Washington DC. The mayor of DC took some very serious heat from the media for trying to be a Rudy in this case and from PIOs from the responding agencies because he ordered them to not do their job and communicate with the public. He wanted to be the spokesperson for the entire event--and in doing so considerably botched the communications.

I know this is a contentious subject and one that causes lots of heartburn for PIOs who try to walk the line between NIMS compliance and keeping their jobs. But the message needs to start getting through to elected officials: NIMS compliance means that it is the Incident Command or Unified Command who is responsible for the public information--not the most senior elected official in the area. Certainly there can and should be room for the calming, commanding presence of an elected leader, but to restrict communicators operating in a JIC and expect them to conform to agency policy when they are in a multi-agency response is wrong and asking for trouble.

The federal government has said that failure to follow NIMS could put reimbursement dollars at stake. That's a mighty big club. But like any club, it only becomes useful when it is used once in a while. It would be interesting to see how this situation changed if the feds decided to make their threats real and enforce the requirement to keep public information under control of Command.

Tiger Woods's crisis illustrates major challenge of crisis communication

2009-12-01T15:15:00.000-08:00

If you've been involved in a crisis or major emergency involving public information, there is a very good chance you were a participant in or witness to a conversation something like this:

PIO: I know it is going to make us look bad, but we have to come out with it.
Response Leader or Executive: Just give them a simple statement saying we are sorry and we are fixing the problem.
PIO: But without providing any details we will just encourage more questions.
Leader: So? We don't have to answer questions.
PIO: If we don't we will look guilty.
Leader: And if we tell them what you suggest we tell them we will be guilty!
PIO: But it still is much better if bad news came from us rather than someone else.
Leader: What if the bad stuff doesn't out at all? These satellite trucks and helicopters can't hang around forever. If we're lucky, some big news will hit and we'll get bumped to the back page.
PIO: Excuse me, there's no back page on the internet.

Well, I could go on. Tiger is not talking. Not to the police, not to his adoring fans, maybe not even to his wife, we don't know. But the longer he doesn't talk, the worse it looks for him. In the meantime, it's a big story and that means lots of people are talking. The more Tiger is silent, the more the professional newsdiggers and now all the unprofessional and amateur newsdiggers are busily doing what they can to get the next scoop--miniscule or major.

One of the comments on Tiger's website after he posted his hopelessly anemic statement said it very well:

Tiger, Not sure of the private nature of your conflict. Pretty sure of the public nature of why people want to hear from you on the issue. They want to believe in you. In a real sense, you've inherited Arnie's Army et al and your supporters WANT to believe in you. My request, as a man who works with ex-addicts and ex-inmates in Idaho, is to come clean. Attorneys are important, honesty more so. It's a heavy burden to carry the PR weight you carry, I am certain. It is a heavier burden to carry, when a person looks like they are shrugging away any other weight that conflicts withwell placed appearances. Be real. The world is looking for realness.

There is an obvious lesson for everyone in crisis management and particularly when you or your organization are responsible for the crisis--environmental spill, industrial accident, health or safety risk to the public. Tell the people what is going on. If you can't say anything because you don't have the information or are prevented by legal restrictions or something is being investigated, then say it. Tiger would be so much better off saying something like: I had that accident because (something stupid he did). I'm terribly sorry for the pain this causing my wife, family and my fans and supporters. I need some time alone with my family and to heal physically and emotionally from this event. I will be fully cooperating with all authorities and answering any questions they have (and then do it for goodness' sake).

I hope for the very best for this incredible young man. It would be so sad to see one of the greatest athletes and talents of all time lose his career and the respect he deserves--particularly if it is mostly because of getting some terrible PR advice.

You're Not the Only One Struggling with Social Media

2009-11-25T14:14:00.001-08:00

Either you are watching all the activity and trends in social media or you, well, you are sticking your head in the sand. There is no doubt that social media (really just a way of describing how people are using the internet to connect with each other and get info) is dramatically changing our lives in multiple ways including how we do business with each other, work together, and communicate with the public. But, if you are having a hard time trying to figure it all out and make sense of it, particularly what it means to doing your job tomorrow, you are not the only one.

Here's a great summary on how our government and Members of Congress in particular are struggling with keeping up with the changes. There are many other sources where you can find how government is using technology including social media. One good twitter source I've found is http://twitter.com/Nextgov.

But there are strong hints all around about what all this means, particularly for those of us in emergency and crisis communications. One is: Go Direct. No need to mess with the middleman--the media. (How appropriate they should be called the media--a medium, like a channeler. Why go through the medium when you can talk direct to the ghost or intended audience?) Here's a blog post about writing press releases, but in the middle of the writer makes this point:

"While there is still value in the press release as a PR or online marketing tactic, there are more effective options for communicating with external audiences. For starters, your blog should be the new place you break news. Look at how organizations like Google or Twitter announce new products or major company announcements – they post to their blogs. Google doesn’t formally issue any press releases. They don’t need to, their audiences subscribe to their blogs.

Blogs are very effective platforms for announcing your news, because they come with built-in analytics and sharing capabilities most traditional news releases don’t (at least not for free). Once you post to your blog, people can easily link to, share, or comment on your post instantly. This is the fastest option for getting your announcement into the hands of people most likely to pass the word along. You’ll also have access to real-time information on your reach through any standard Web analytics package, such as Google analytics."

You don't have to worry about blogging during a crisis event but you do have to have an event-specific website or a Joint Information Center site and you do need to post up to date information very frequently on that which is what blogging is. The point is, why not go direct to your audiences? They want you to and the more you think about the quality of coverage you may have experienced in the past, the more sense it will make to you as well. The good news is social media makes that option not only more viable, but a virtual requirement.

Now Citizen Journalists Have Their Own Channel--YouTube Direct

2009-11-23T13:49:00.000-08:00

Last week YouTube announced that it was launching YouTube Direct, a new service that looks to be aimed at making citizen journalism and even greater factor in our lives.

I've also blogged on this on crisisblogger because I think this is a significant milestone in the inexorable march to a post media, as in post mainstream media, world. Certainly the mainstream media (CNN, ABC, NYT website) etc. will be using this to enlist the aid of 300 million plus citizen journalists out there who happen to be carrying cell phones with video cameras. YouTube Direct makes it easier than ever for them to get the big story videos from them but also enables them to request them. Those looking for attention, notoriety, a boost in a new career can look at what stories the media assignment editors are looking for and go get them for them.

But even more significant than this is realizing that channels like YouTube are becoming the mainstream media. What is available to the media is available to you, me and everyone else who has an interest in whatever is being reported. Faster, more direct and conceivably more easily searchable.

The process of instant access to relevant information is already well established. It is completely changing the rules of crisis communication as has been discussed here and is discussed on any blog talking about the new communication realities. But emergency managers have an even more complex and confusing issue to face: how to respond when the public knows more than you do? Think about that for a minute. Those impacted by almost any major event for which you are preparing will increasingly have instantaneous access to an overwhelming amount of reporting. Everyone is a reporter, everyone is an audience and the distinction between them is disappearing. How will your plans and actions as someone responsible for the lives and health and safety of citizens be changed as a result of the high levels of information available to them?

That's the critically important subject I hope we can explore together here in the next little while.

Warning Messages--Risks of Wimpiness and Wolf Cries

2009-11-16T09:14:00.000-08:00

The article on this website about Flood Control messages reminded me of a presentation by a FEMA executive about the public warnings issued just prior to Hurricane Ike in Galveston. We were presenting together at a crisis communication conference for federal agencies in Washington DC and he was discussing how emergency managers involved in preparing for the imminent arrival of Ike were trying to warn the public to evacuate.

Getting people to evacuate from a major storm like this has long been a challenge. So the discussion was how to motivate people. He showed the messages that were put out to the people along the area most likely to be hit hardest, particularly Galveston. The message essentially said: Evacuate or you will die. The discussion was whether or not this kind of straightforward and very dire message was effective.

There is little doubt that the seriousness of the simplicity of the message helped some people make the decision to evacuate. However, 14,000 people in the Houston area chose to ride out the storm and over 2000 had to be rescued. Approximately 120 lives were lost including about 40 in the Galveston area. So, despite the dire warning, many chose to ignore it and indeed lives were lost.

What troubled me about the message was the impact in the future if such a message were deemed as crying wolf. There is no doubt that the evacuation traffic jams from Hurricane Katrina in the Houston area were very much on people's minds and played a major role in making the decision to evacuate or not. That in itself is a tremendously important lesson for emergency managers. Assuming management of the mass evacuation for Ike was much improved what might have been even more effective is a strong communication effort aimed at letting the public know that evacuation would not be a huge pain to them.

While there was probably justification in some sense of accomplishment that the simple and exceptionally strong warning to the public resulted in lives saved, there should be concern with the fact that many chose to ride out this storm and lived to tell about it. What will be the impact next time when the public sees the warning--heed this or you WILL die?

PIOs and Incident Commanders need to carefully think through the messages distributed to the public in these kinds of events. They need to understand what is going on in people's heads, what reasons they have for taking unwarranted risks and why they will or will not heed the warnings. And one thing they must be careful of is not to damage the credibility of the agencies and the power of future warnings by crying wolf.

An Incalculable Debt--thanks Veterans!

2009-11-11T09:27:00.000-08:00

Happy Veteran's Day everyone. I'm so grateful for this special day as a way for us as a nation and community to express honor and gratitude to those among us who have secured our freedom.

I want to especially thank those World War II veterans who are still with us. They are getting fewer and fewer and those who remain are precious treasures that link us to some of the darkest and perhaps most glorious days of our history. I've been a history buff all my life and particularly WWII history, in part I am sure because my father lived through Nazi occupation in Holland in his formative years. I'm so proud of my grandparents who harbored escapees in their home under the noses of neighbor collaborators, risking the lives of their children--and of course, me and all their grandchildren. My interest in this history became very personal when I was asked by a friend to write the biography of a WWII fighter pilot who was shot down over France. When I met with this sweet and kindly gentleman, I was shocked to find he was one of 82 Americans and 168 total Allied Flyers who were treated to some of the worst of Hitler's brutality in the Buchenwald concentration camp. Nearly starved to death, they survived a massive bombing raid and the horrors of the camp to be rescued by German Air Force officers just four days before Hitler had scheduled them for execution. Joe Moser, the fighter pilot-hero of this story, was then shipped to Stalag Luft III and was placed in the very barracks that the tunnel of the Great Escape was dug a few months earlier. The 10,000 POWs of this camp were marched in 28 degree below blizzard 65 miles to be put on cattle cars and shipped to other POW camps as the Russians were arriving. Still weak from Buchenwald and weighing less than 120 pounds, Joe collapsed and would have died if his roommates had not carried or dragged him to the nearest town.

Joe Moser, at 88, is still alive and well and enjoying a kind of modest celebrity status after the release of his book, A Fighter Pilot in Buchenwald. He's been on CNN, was presented his Distinguished Flying Cross medal 63 years late, and even through out the first pitch at a Yankees Mariners game this August. Unfortunately, one of his squadron mates who was horribly burned in a crash landing of his P-38 and who was also in Stalag Luft III, died within the past few weeks. I was hoping to work with him on telling his story as well. Al Mills, like Joe, was a quiet, humble and God-loving man who contributed so much to all of us not just through their heroics in the war and their gritty courage in surviving their post-crash ordeals, but in helping build America after the war into the great nation we became.

These great men and women who sacrificed so much, who saw so much, who suffered so much are now leaving us. Some say at a rate of 1000 or more a day. Soon they will all be gone. I can tell you that helping bring some measure of honor and respect to Joe Moser at this time of his life has been one of the most meaningful, joyful and emotional experiences of my life. I encourage you, while we still have a very little time, to reach out to every veteran you can, shake their hand, look them in the eye and say thank you. It means more to them than they will ever be able to tell you.

Will Liaison Role Take on More Prominence?

2009-11-06T14:36:00.000-08:00

Those versed in ICS know that there are three Command Staff positions: Public Information Officer, Safety Officer and Liaison Officer. Beginning in 2000 when I was just getting into this whole ICS and JIC world I attended a meeting conducted by a Coast Guard PIO and he talked then about the potential confusion between PIO and Liaison Officer roles. Since then, in many situations I have been involved in, it has become ever more confused.

One reason is the increasing reliance on web-based communications. For those using PIER or any similar communication management technology the potential for overlap is quite understandable. A comprehensive communication management system includes all audiences in its contact directories. That includes media, the public who self register for information, response partners, government officials, response agencies, healthcare facilities, elected officials, response organizations leaders who aren't on scene, etc. One of the beauties of these systems is that you can simply select any or all of the audiences to send to and with a single click send your updates, releases, fact sheets, etc. to everyone, usually through multiple means such as email, fax, RSS feeds, social media channels such as Twitter, etc.

So if it is the PIOs responsibility to communicate to the media and the community and the Liaison Officer's responsibility to communicate with the response agency, government officials, etc., what do they do? Not do it in a single click but do the same thing individually? Do they take turns distributing the information so they each get some work in? Do they run separate systems that they each control? The truth is the technology with its high efficiency, makes completely separate tasks unnecessary and indeed burdensome.

The same is true in responding to inquiries. Using a system like PIER all the inquiries come into the same Inquiry Management panel or are logged in via phone calls. In terms of the answers given and sharing of information, it doesn't matter much if the person calling is a staffer from the Governor's Office or a reporter from the New York Times. But it tends to matter a lot to the PIO and Liaison Officer. So, do you run two completely separate Inquiry Management systems and lose the efficiency and control of central and coordinated communication management?

This problem has dogged us a lot as we have worked with organizations on structuring a response using both Liaison and PI Officers. However a recent major incident highlighted some of these problems and also provided some potential solutions. In this case the PIO and those managing the JIC were almost entirely focused on media response including an occasional press release and daily press conference. That left a lot of critical audiences without the very thing they needed and expected which is a virtually continuous flow of fresh updates about the incident and response. The Liaison function stepped in and began communicating aggressively via email, website and other means with numerous agencies, community contacts, etc. They found it not only helped satisfy the hunger for information of these important audiences, but that information soon found its way through various means into the social networks. And most likely through them to the media as well. That's one of the things about today's networked world--no one really cares by what means they get fresh info, as long as they get it--and that includes the media.

The reality was the Liaison function was providing some of the key functions of the JIC because the JIC was so focused on traditional media response. This may seem normal to some, particularly those schooled in ESF 15 which pretty much limits the JIC to answering media questions and disperses the other critical public information functions to other elements of the External Affairs operation. This does not at all leverage the power and efficiency of today's web communication management which can support multiple audiences in a single step. Nevertheless, if this is how the PIO perceives the role of the JIC in your response, it provides an important opportunity and obligation for the Liaison function to step in and fill the void.

One thing that is certain regardless of who picks up the ball, is that it is critical that those key stakeholders including response partners, agency leaders, elected officials, community leaders, etc. are included in the communication operation. And it is critical that all audiences get continuous updates of response information in the variety of ways they are now expecting. Failure to meet these expectations will almost certainly result in complaints about no communication--even if the obligatory press release is going out as planned.

Five Megatrends--and how they are shaping crisis communication

2009-11-03T13:27:00.000-08:00

I'm once again stealing brilliance from others, but, hey, isn't that what blogging is all about?
Here's a very insightful article about the Five Megatrends impacting marketing. But these are also impacting crisis communication and the way we think, work, socialize and exist together in community. So here is my crisis communications take on these big ideas:

1) Mass collaboration is empowering the public's ability to get vital information.
I've blogged on this before including how emergency managers will react when the public knows more than they do. It is almost a certainty, because the internet and social networking are making it possible for those interested to learn so much, so quickly from so many. This is dramatically changing public information management and how the JIC operates. That is best summarized in repeating over and over: it's not about control, it's about participation. The messaging and information flow will go on, regardless of official's willingness to be part of it. It is participate or be ignored.

2) Constant connectivity in an on-demand world. People want information important to them right now, they want it in the way most convenient and useful for them, and they want it presented so they can quickly get to what is most relevant. That's always been true, but now there are so many choices and options--from traditional media, to social media and everything in between. Mobile devices, particularly those computers you carry in your pockets that you still think of as phones, are making us connected all the time. These are critical now but will become even more so. That means the demand for instant information, presented in the formats accessible by these devices, pushed via text and other alert methods when they want them, are all demands that will only increase.

3) Globalization is making the world a smaller place. McLuhan's global village has become an everyday reality. Anyone who has experienced a major incident in the last while and who has effectively monitored will agree that interested audiences are found all over. No more true than on issues of environmental disasters, health issues, food safety issues, etc. We not only are connected globally through trade, but through public policy interests. That means networks of those with strong interests are deeply in place and new ones can be created instantaneously. Communicators need to think not just about the local media, they need to think about how angry people across the globe may impact their world. It's not a tomorrow thing, it's definitely here right now.

4) Pervasive distrust in big corporations.
This is increasingly true by any measure including surveys and even casual observations of popular culture. Michael Moore's outsized rants only reflect a less extreme but very much ubiquitous attitude. But, if you are on the public side of the equation don't breathe too easy. This distrust, exhibited so stridently in the online world, extends to almost any organization seen to have too much power--and too much means almost any organization more powerful than the individual expressing that opinion. It means that if your organization is seen as responsible for bad things happening, it starts not on neutral ground with much of the populace, but already in a deep hole. Building trust when it is hitting the fan is hard enough, but when you start from a negative position before it even hits the fan, it gets a lot harder. But, that is the reality of the level of trust in our public and private institutions today.

5) A global sense of urgency to fix the problems of our world.
Well, what Adam Kleinberg is really referring to here is the global green movement. Yet his wording is right because there is a huge shift in values underway. Anyone spending time reading blog comments and observing the online conversation can see it. It is related to item 4 above, the green movement, healthier foods, simpler living, more relaxed (I would say grungy but I'm an old guy) fashion styles, and government doing more and more for us. Yes, it is political--ultimately everything is, but the political views need to be seen in light of the values that lay beneath them--that's why I like the way Kleinberg expressed this. The critical point for emergency management is that we must always remember that it is those people out there, in the hinterland, the amorphous crowd, who will ultimately decide the success or failure of your response. Perception is reality. And they will judge by their values, not yours. It's an important role that communicators need to play is helping evaluate all response plans and activities from a perception and values standpoint. The future and reputation of the response leaders as well as the response agencies is at stake.

EPA Includes ICS Training as part of punishment in San Francisco

2009-11-02T09:34:00.000-08:00

The San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency is being fined by the EPA for spilling 940 barrels of diesel oil into a stream that flowed into San Francisco Bay. That's 40,000 gallons. What is interesting is that in addition to the $250,000 fine (seems like might be a different level of fines for government agencies spilling fuel than private companies) is that the EPA is requiring SF Muni to get ICS training. This will "improve coordination and communication during future incidents of this nature."

In talking with some hospitals recently I am quite surprised that NIMS and ICS are not more widely adopted in this sector. In fact, outside of a some major response agencies such as Emergency Management agencies, the US Coast Guard, etc., widespread understanding, training and adoption are very mixed. I'm also finding that there are continuing problems in a variety of agencies with understanding some of the core concepts of NIMS--a primary one being Command authority and responsibility. Things just don't go very well when there is a lot of freelancing or when members of the JIC or response pick and choose when to respect the Command role and when not to.

Overall I would say that establishing the National Incident Management System and accomplishing the training levels, adoption and use that we now have vs. five years ago is a major accomplishment for DHS. But, there is still is a long ways to go and I would encourage communicators and emergency managers alike to strongly encourage private organizations, non-profits, and all government agencies such as SF Muni, to get on board as soon as possible.

Does your agency have written social media policies?

2009-10-28T19:33:00.000-07:00

On my other blog, crisisblogger, I've been tracking social media policies from various organizations as I see references to them develop. I recently found a great list of organization's social media policies and a number of useful templates. You can find that list here.

But a commenter on that blog asked a question as to whether I had seen emergency management agencies social media policies. Truthfully, I haven't. I've seen a number of EPIP's and EPIA's from large jurisdictions but none that I have seen really reference social media policies. As I recall there are some references to it in the brand new National Response Team JIC Model. I am also working on developing some of those policies as part of NIMS compliant EPIA and crisis communication plans for a couple of major metropolitan regions and large government agencies.

But, if any of you Emergency Management readers out there have any social media policies you have developed for your agencies are willing to share them, I'd be happy to use this forum to help spread the best practices.

What do you do when the public knows more than you?

2009-10-27T10:55:00.000-07:00

A comment by Garry Briese of the Center for New Media and Resiliency at the All Hazards All Stakeholders Summit in Los Angeles raises a question I've been discussing with emergency managers and PIOs. What changes when the public or the people you need to deal with know more than you do--and you're supposed to be in charge?

Briese said in an article on this Emergency Management website: "by the time first responders have arrived at the scene of a crisis, thousands of e-mails and photos about the event have been shared by citizens but the first responders are, for the most part, in the dark until they get there."

It reminded me of a discussion I had with an emergency manager after a keynote presentation I gave at the KEMA conference. I was speaking about the instant news world fed by social media, emails, blogs, Twitter and all that and it's impact on emergency communication. The responder told me that just the other night he had responded to a multiple fatality accident involving teen drivers. By the time he got to the hospital, the parents of the victims were already at the hospital.

As Flight 1549 showed, a single person with a Twitter account and a cell camera can tell the world the story well before the news media gets around to it and well before the news media has a chance to even call the responders or the company. Those impacted by an event can get alerted in seconds or minutes, and thousands can know details before the responders get the information through traditional channels and before they can get their response operation going.

This has very significant implications for emergency managers and communicators alike. I'll be exploring this important topic more in upcoming posts, but here are a couple of implications to take seriously now:
1) communication starts immediately--it's not something you can put off until you get the response organization going. Like it or not, communication with the public, key stakeholders, the media, higher ups in government, elected officials--all will start virtually instantaneously with the event. With that in mind, now is a very good time to get with any and all PIOs who may work with you and simply ask the question--how are we going to deal with it when it hits the fan and everyone is wanting to talk to us and get info from us right now?
2) Rumor management is job 1. The new realities of social networking and sharing of information about an incident means that a lot of things are going to be communicated about an event that are not true. Nothing new here--people have always got things wrong initially about almost any big event. It's just now the errors are magnified so much because of how far and how fast they go. It's tough to stuff the bad information back in the box once it takes wings on the internet. And since so many people are going to be sharing info about an event, the biggest job isn't necessarily getting new info out (it will be old in a lot of cases by the time you get it out) but making certain what is out there is accurate. That means your PIOs have to be equipped to monitor the media and online conversations. There are lots of tools for doing that--if there is interest among this blog's readers, I'll prepare a list and share them. But it is essential to monitor and monitor almost immediately, then essential to respond very quickly with the correct information.

H1N1 Swine Flu--the First Web 2.0 Health Crisis

2009-10-26T12:15:00.001-07:00

We can learn alot about the state of emergency management communication by observing closely the public information around the H1N1 Swine Flu outbreak.

Along with Stephen Davidow, I wrote an article on pandemic flu communication for the leading public relations industry publication, the PR Strategist. I'm also conducting two webinars this week, one on pandemic communications for PRSA and the other for Progressive Healthcare Conferences on Twitter, Social Media and Healthcare Crisis Communication.

Here are a few quick observations about public information and the current outbreak:
1) What did the media do? First, in April, they scared the bejesus out of everyone, then they dropped the subject like a hot rock, and now the story is all about not enough vaccine. OK, that's an over simplification but not entirely wrong. The point is to help you understand that their job is not to provide vital public information about an important topic like this, but to get eyes on the screen or on their website, or sell papers. Only what is immediate has any real media interest. And if it is scary or creates FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) it is going to get some play. But if a balloon boy story shows up, the flu story will go away quickly. The point is the media will come and go and do what they need to do to create audiences. In the meantime, they may help or hurt the effort of agencies to get key messages across to the media.

2) People are getting their best information from the internet. Yes, people heard about it from local news, particularly local TV news, but a Pew research study showed that audiences indicated the best information they got about this situation is from the internet. They are getting it from all kinds of sources. When my wife got quite sick from H1N1 I found Microsoft's "H1N1 Swine Flu Response Center" very helpful. Much more so than the CDC which I and many others have been praising for their outstanding information flow and use of social media. I found on YouTube helpful instructions on how to cough without spreading germs. As commented here before, people are increasingly using the internet's unofficial sources to get info, not necessarily relying on your agency or the official voices. This is really nothing new in that people have always talked to each other about things important to them. But now rather than just in the coffee shop or in the hallways outside your office, they are talking to each other online. Word of mouth gone crazy.

3) Is there too much information? One thing I discovered in this incident is how much your perspective changes depending on your personal involvement. As an observer of agency communication and media communication, I thought overall there was a lot of good information out there. Maybe too much even. After all, it was affecting people in other states, countries, communities. My wife was with me on a business trip when she got sick and got quite sick in a hurry. Suddenly I found I just couldn't find the urgent information I needed. Simple questions like: how do I know it is the swine flu? When should I call the doctor? Is there anything I can do on my own? Why did I not get it and several others in my family did? The point is that my perspective changed, my questions changed, my urgency changed. I found what worked for me and what didn't. What that means is that communicators need to either be awfully good at putting themselves in a victim's shoes to understand the urgency and content of the questions that will need to be answered. Or, they need to be victims themselves or talk to those who are.

Five Ways Social Media is Changing Emergency Management

2009-10-19T11:20:00.000-07:00

I just read a great post on 5 Ways Social Media is Changing our Daily Lives by Soren Gordhamer. I encourage you to read the post but here are the five changes he identifies:
1) How we get our news
2) How we start and do business
3) How we meet and stay in touch with people
4) What we reveal
5) What we can influence

While Gordhamer applies his analysis to our daily business and social lives, these same points have profound implications for emergency management. It is clear that with the internet in general and the wide-spread adoption of social media, the world of emergency management and public information management will never be the same. Looking at these points from an emergency management and communication perspective, it becomes clear just how much our world has changed.

1) How we get our news.
US Airways Flight 1549 made it clear that social media, internet talk and particularly Twitter, are used by the media as their first indication of events to cover—Twitter became the new global police scanner and news coverage has never been the same. 23 million people are signed on to receive Twitter feeds from government entities according to govtwit.com. So while it is true that the media is relying more and more on social media to get their content to grab audiences, those audiences are more and more going direct to the internet. How did those desperate to know who the shooting victims were in the Virginia Tech get their information? If they were part of the Facebook community, they got the names of all 32 shooting victims—without error—well before the authorities announced it according to Jeannette Sutton of the University of Colorado.

Emergency management leaders and Public Information Officers need to understand that these changes are irreversible and profound. With 350 million people walking around with sophisticated electronic news gathering equipment in their pockets tied directly to major news outlets, it is virtually impossible to be the original source of what is going on. At the same time, those people communicating about their knowledge and reactions to the event can create instant news networks bigger than almost any national broadcaster—and do it in minutes. How the public gets its news is changed forever and the old ways of providing public information via a press release a couple of times a day and a press conference are rapidly disappearing.

2) How we start and do business.
Emergency managers may not be concerned about starting a business, but this points to profound changes in how emergency management business is done. Mobility and virtual operations is the key. Something like 60% of web access these days is through smart phones. The incredible capability of new generation smart phones, led by Apple’s iPhone, means that the power of the computer and full access to the internet with all its tools will ride in your pocket. I have visited numerous EOCs across the country the last few years and marvel at the millions poured into many of these. In part because while in the LA area for example they have spent millions making them earthquake proof, how will the staff get there when the infrastructure is destroyed? The power of the internet with increasingly sophisticated applications means we can work collaboratively to get the necessary work done. At PIER we’ve been credited with creating the concept of the Virtual JIC and operating virtually as a team is now being built into the most advanced regional communication plans. In a pandemic it will be essential. However, too little emergency management operational planning yet focuses on virtual operations—it will come and come faster than many think.

3) How we meet and stay in touch with people.
While this is about our personal and social lives, does it apply to emergency management? We can learn from each other much more easily, we can build and maintain networks of those who can help us when we need it most, with virtual operations (see above point) we can make use of the experience and talent when it is most needed. Even more importantly, during an event we can maintain close contact with those people who matter most for our future. It’s what I encourage every PIO and emergency manager to think about in advance. Who are those people whose opinion of you or your organization matters most for its future? Key customers? Major donors? Or Senators sitting on the Appropriations Committee? The mayor or county executive? The local EPA contact? It doesn’t take too much to identify those who if you get seriously sideways with will cause you endless problems. Internet technology provides unprecedented opportunity to communicate interactively with these key people. Those who miss that opportunity and rely on the media to tell their story to these people for them will most likely deeply regret it.

4) What we reveal.
Transparency is part about the values of our culture today—particularly the social media set, but also about technology. There are few secrets in this age of everybody connecting to everybody. It means emergency managers and PIOs have to take a whole new view of public information. You don’t control it, no matter how much wishful thinking you apply. Any body and everybody will be talking about your event and communicating what they know. If there is bad news, it will likely come out. The questions are not if, but when, and not about releasing but participating. Those viewed to be hiding or sitting on relevant information are instantly branded as anti-social. Transparency, starting with a clear understanding of what the public has a right to know, starts at the policy level and needs to be carried out through the whole organization.

5) What we can influence.
The internet and social media technology provide emergency managers and PIOs with unprecedented opportunities to interact quickly and directly with millions. The ability to circumvent the traditional media channels and to participate in the widespread discussion about the event is simply astounding and new. But few are prepared to embrace this opportunity, sticking instead to an outmoded understanding of how the public gets its information. For those, I point them to the opposite and downside of this issue of who can influence what. Are there individuals out there who want your response to fail? Are their political opponents of your elected leaders who would gladly seize on any opportunity to make you and your leaders look bad? If so, they too have unprecedented opportunity to wield influence. With the right content, almost anyone can create an audience of hundreds of thousands or even millions in mere minutes. (Example Dave Carroll who wrote the United Breaks Guitar song with 5 million views.)So even if you opt not to take advantage to be a major influencer, you still have to be prepared to counter those who are not as squeamish about this as you. You have no choice in that—unless you want to the world to go by without you.

Complete NIMS Guide--now appearing on your iphone

2009-10-14T15:36:00.000-07:00

Just found out about this new NIMS Guide available as an iPhone app. It is a Field Guide to the Incident Command System published by Informed. The cost is $9.99. It provides 125 pages of NIMS definitions, job descriptions, etc. Very handy for those addicted to iPhones like I am and who find more and more of my life located on this little flat computer in my pocket.

I just got it and gave it a quick run through and my initial impression is that it is useful if you need a Field Guide handy. But, it definitely needs work. The pages kept wanting to go back page by page to the starting point all by themselves and the only way I could stop them was by keeping a finger on the screen. It didn't flip to more readable horizontal, and expanding the pages for easier reading was clunky. I kept touching on the outline at the front expecting it to open up to the section I was identifying--a perfectly normal and expected way to navigate on these apps, but it didn't go anywhere. The only way to get through the document was to scroll through page by page--not the handiest way when you are in the middle of an event.

So, while I'd rather have this on my iPhone than not, you might consider waiting for an upgraded version which I hope will come soon. In the meantime, this is a nice start.

H1N1 Communications--the impact of personal experience

2009-10-13T08:29:00.000-07:00

It's funny how things change when you get personally involved. Like H1N1 communications. I've been talking to clients, building websites and making national presentations on H1N1 communications. Then my family got hit. Two of my adult children, three of my seven grandchildren and now my wife, who was hit hardest of all. She was accompanying me on a trip to several speaking engagements when she got hit hard. Spending three days in a hotel when you have a fever and terrible sore throat is not a lot of fun.

What it showed me however that as much communication and miscommunication there has been around this outbreak, there are significant gaps in public information. One of the keys to effective crisis communication is anticipating the questions and having the answers readily available in ways that people want to get them. But I discovered a number of questions for which answers were not so readily available:
- how do I know it is H1N1 and not seasonal flu?
- how do I know when to call the doctor?
-how will the doctor know that it is H1N1?
-I know that people are dying from this but how do I tell how serious it is?
- If it is not much different than the regular or seasonal flu, why is there so much hype and concern about it?
- If I don't need to go to the doctor, what can I do at home to treat it?
- Why should we go to the doctor and sit in the waiting room infecting others when what they told us could have been told over the phone?
- Why are they insisting on social distancing except when it comes to going into the doctor's office?
- Why did the little kids get over it so quick and my wife have it for over a week?

I could keep going on. One thing is clear, in an environment of fear the hunger for information becomes intense. And the patience with anything other than what is sought and needed right now is very limited. It makes all of Dr. Vince Covello's teachings about risk and crisis communication very relevant.

Now with personal experience I went back and looked at how some were dealing with the much needed information. As mentioned by many, the CDC continues to do a great job with communicating about this. But they are struggling with a common problem and that is there is so much information, how do I quickly find what I am looking for. My most urgent need was to find out the answer to my first question which is how do I know if this is swine flu? (By the way, I find myself and everyone referring to it in normal conversation as swine flu while when talking more officially I try to do the politically correct thing and refer to it as H1N1--fact is, in real life, this is swine flu--much apologies to the pig industry.) Going to the CDC website specific to this outbreak, I have to search for a bit to find my answer to that question.

Much better in terms of my most urgent questions is the new Microsoft website called H1N1 Response Center. It should be carefully studied as a model for providing important information for urgent communication. All over it, including from the very beginning is a big orange button that says "Take flu self assessment." I did, and very quickly came to the answer I was looking for.

This site was launched just a few days ago and you might ask why is Microsoft positioning itself as an expert in this outbreak. It may very well have to do with the announcement they made a few months ago about a new product relating to notification and crisis communication. I found out about the new site watching a news story on Fox News where they had a doctor discussing this new site. She absolutely ripped it one side and down the other. Her point was that you shouldn't rely on a website for health advice--you should call your doctor.

You will note if you take the flu self-assessment that if the answer is yes, the response is to call your doctor. But I couldn't disagree more with that doctor on Fox. The web is one of the most important tools for people educating themselves and also helping themselves. Whether the profession likes it or not, it will be an increasingly important way for people to get access to much needed health information. This should be welcomed by the profession, not fought. In this case, and now with personal experience, I think I would disagree with Microsoft's direction to call the doctor. There should be more conditions put on it that regarding how high the fever, length of time with fever, etc. When we called the doctor over the weekend, he told us the necessary basics, lots of rest, lots of fluids, Ibuprofen for fever and an antihistamine for the congestion. And, he said, if breathing becomes an issue, come in right away. Turns out the biggest problem in healthy people is pneumonia. That was a very important piece of information that is not so readily available.

There are lots of lessons learned here but I'll focus on the main one: personal experience helps you plan the communication response. We can't all have nor do we want to have personal experience in being a victim of earthquake, hurricane, terrorist attack or swine flu. But we can think through very carefully, use our imagination, and talk very intentionally and intently with those who are or who have been victims. In doing so we will prepare much more effectively.

What PIOs and Commanders Can Learn from David Letterman

2009-10-05T17:02:00.000-07:00

For those who may not know, David Letterman on his Thursday night show revealed to his studio and national audience that he had numerous affairs with the women employed by him in his office. He was forced into this embarrassing confession by an extortion plot. A CBS news producer, deep in debt, had requested $2 million from the tv host for him to keep silent.

PR pundits have declared David's confession a text-book case of crisis communication and public relations management. Some have even suggested that the whole story will have big benefits for CBS, especially as they fight a ratings war with Jay Leno's new show.

There are certainly some positive lessons to be learned from this event useful for those in crisis communication. The most obvious one is if there is bad news to tell, tell it yourself. Don't wait, don't let it leak out slowly, control the message, the timing and everything about it. That can be hard to do and you can see from the confession itself that it was hard for Letterman to do.

But, frankly, I'm disgusted with the PR professionals who are swooning over David's wonderful confession, and also a little disgusted with the idea that a salacious story like that involving celebrities always creates good news for those concerned about ratings. After all, it was while employed as a host for a CBS show that David carried on his numerous activities with staff. Is this the image that CBS wishes to communicate, that it is good news to have one of their celebrities caught publicly in this kind of behavior?

Let's not forget that we are talking about a man, now married, who it appears might have been carrying sexual harassment to entirely new levels. I suspect the story on this might not be done. All it will take is for one of those women to ever so gently suggest that the sex was less than consensual or that she felt any sort of pressure related to her job. We seem to have dual standards about moral behavior. This is painfully evident in Hollywood right now as the luminaries flock around one of their own, despite his conviction for sex with a 13 year old. If you are a famous funny man, the rules for sexual harassment, let alone rampant promiscuity, don't seem to apply.

While noting the positive of what Letterman did in confessing his "creepy" behavior to an adoring audience, let's note that he violated the first rule of building trust. The two rules are: do the right thing, and communicate well. He communicated well, but he clearly did not do the right thing as it relates to his personal behavior. He acted like a creep. Fact is, his behavior shows he is a creep. At least in the moral judgment of most of the world outside of Hollywood and network executives who seem to think that ratings cover a multitude of sins.

Lessons learned--if you've done creepy things, do as Letterman did and come out with them fast. But if you want to be trusted, don't do creepy things.

EPIAs and Regional Communication Plans

2009-09-28T15:57:00.001-07:00

I am nearly wrapping up draft one of one of the biggest projects I've had in a long while--an EPIA or Emergency Public Information Annex for one of the nation's largest metro areas. It sets out in excruciating detail how the nearly 200 independent jurisdictions and agencies in this region will come together in a NIMS compliant Joint Information Center to communicate with the community and the world when things go really really wrong.

While I've written quite a few crisis communication plans they have tended to be for individual agencies. Certainly some, such as in the oil industry, anticipate coordinating closely with other response agencies and organizations. But it is a different matter when you have a number of very independent agencies in the region need to come together to speak with one voice.

A few quick learnings as I have gone through this process:

1) NIMS--I am more respectful than ever of the underlying wisdom of the NIMS requirements. Particularly the decision that was made early on to adopt the ICS system and its well established and practiced methods. Yes, it has gotten big, bureaucratic, and complex in many ways, but the core underlying principles are exactly what is needed to prepare and to respond effectively. It is most troublesome to me when some of the leading agencies who are responsible for NIMS are the most cavalier about the wisdom in it and prescriptions it offers. That is their worry, not mine. For me, making the plan as thoroughly NIMS compliant as I can means that it has the best chance of success.

2) Cooperation, collaboration and coordination are not in the nature of human beings--at least not government agencies. The natural flow of things is for agencies to operate independently and so they have for many many years. Yet, the problems of this kind of independent operation have been demonstrated far too often. There are two essentials to overcoming the inherent resistance to cooperate. One is to have a clear plan that has the force of federal reimbursement behind it. The second thing is the next point.

3) Plans are one thing, actions another.
This plan will be scrutinized, evaluated, tested, drilled and communicated. But all that without the certainty that it will be followed when it really hits the fan. Only time and. God forbid, a major disaster will determine that.

4) Change comes faster than my fingers can type.
I've been amazed at the pace of change in the world of public information management in the months that I have been working on this draft. Sometimes my fingers can't keep up. So, what happens now that the draft begins the process of evaluation, review, editing, testing and communicating? It reminds me of one of the big dilemmas of a PIO in a major incident: by the time they get a draft of a release written, edited, and approved by all members of Command, the info is very much out of date. What do you do? Stop that one and get a more up-to-date release? NO, because if you do that, you will never get a release out. Sending out outdated information when the situation changes as fast as it does is the only choice you have. The same for drafting a plan in this environment. So I'll work on draft two while draft one gets batted about.

5) The Four Ps really do work.
A few years ago, when I started seriously working at crisis communication planning, I developed the 4 Ps of crisis communication preparation: Policies, Plans, People and Platform. I could remember 4 ps and they seemed to encapsulate all the essential elements and mostly in the right order. I found this very useful. For example, by putting all the critical policy statements right up front it should (we'll see) take away much of the argument and nit picking about each individual tactical element of the plan. Because each of those should related to accomplishing a policy statement. If there is argument about "why would you want to send a release out that often" for example, all that is needed is to point back to the policy statement that underlies it. Then the question is: do you agree with the policy statement and if so, do you have a better suggestion as to how to accomplish it? The 4 Ps also make it clear that it really is all about the people who are going to do the work and whether or not they have the training, background and skills needed. But they can't operate without the "platform" which includes the physical facilities and equipment and the increasingly important technology platforms needed to manage the communication function.

Since there are no doubt a number of others in this business tasked with this kind of challenge I am interested in forming a kind of work group or special interest group around this. Or maybe doing a series of webinars where we could dive into the details of this kind of planning. If you have interest in this, please let me know by shooting me an email at gbaron@piersystems.com

Augmented Reality--Emerging Technology for Emergency Management

2009-09-24T11:06:00.000-07:00

The focus of this blog is emergency management and crisis communication. You don't have to read too many posts to realize that technology changes are driving this bus. Emergency management professionals and communicators alike face the challenge of keeping up with emerging technology. All we have to do is look at how email, instant messaging, search engines, social media, cellphones, cell cameras, etc. have all dramatically changed how crisis communication and emergency management itself is done. Twitter is just the latest of many innovations to turn urgent public communication on its head.

But, what's next? There are a great many innovations that look to further change the rules of the game. Telephony blended with internet communication management is one of them--virtual call centers are about to erupt. The use of video is not new, but will become even more significant with the common and easy use made possible through the new generation of smart phones powered by 3G data networks. But, now I want to introduce you to a new innovation that I think may have real significance for public warnings and emergency communication in the future: Augmented reality.

You will be hearing more and more about augmented reality (AR) in the future. The concept is relatively simple. Video equipped smartphones can capture video images of whatever you are seeing--your surroundings in the typical applications. So, say you are standing on a street corner in New York City and you use your iphone's camera to look around. Augmented reality takes a layer of data and overlays that on the image, corresponding it to GIS information it has from your location and where you are pointing your camera. What data? Well, one version has you playing 3D Pacman on the streets of NYC. A brand new one just out is called Bionic Eye and it overlays more helpful information such as where the nearest subway stop is located and how far and which direction is the nearest Starbucks. Have a look at this video demo yourself. If you want, just go to YouTube and enter "bionic eye."

OK, nifty, cool and all that stuff. What does this have to do with emergency communications? Plenty. One rule of innovation is: what becomes possible becomes expected or demanded. Once FedEx showed you could get a package around the country in a day, it quickly became demanded and expected. Once Virginia Tech students realized that technology was there to alert them to a shooting in a classroom building, not only that campus but every campus in the country got the technology to do instant text and phone alerts. Once members of the public realize the technology is available to help them find the nearest tube station or coffee shop, how will you answer the question of where they can find a shelter in a storm, the fastest way to evacuate, location for clean water, nearest medical facilities with empty beds, closest location to get flu shot, etc, etc, etc.

I know many would just as soon the technology bus slow down a little. It's not, and that means we all have to keep moving.

The Risk and Response to Fake Twitter Accounts

2009-09-22T09:10:00.000-07:00

It is very clear that more and more emergency management professionals and PIOs are adopting Twitter as one of an increasing array of options to communicate during a major event. There are very good reasons for this, but there are also dangers. The risks include liability if/when used for calls for help (see previous post), unreliability (Twitter is frequently down), spammers, fake Twitter accounts, and information discipline (reviews, approvals and NIMS compliance).

The issue of fake Twitter accounts is potentially significant one and it affects everyone in emergency management and communication regardless of whether or not you have a Twitter account. In fact, having a Twitter account is one of the best ways of combating this risk. In presentations I've pointed to organizations such as ExxonMobil and Los Angeles County Fire Department who have been victims of fake Twitter accounts. Now there is this story about the Washington Capitals hockey players victimized by fake accounts.

For those not familiar with Twitter or how this can happen, Twitter is a web site where anyone can sign up to own an account. For example, you can go to Twitter.com and register for twitter.com/yourname and as long as no one else has "yourname" you got it. Then you can post messages via text, email or website to that website and others can get your messages automatically sent to them when they register to "follow you." It was designed primarily for friends and family to keep up with each other and in fact about 50% of Twitter posts, called "tweets" are about what sandwich the tweeter is eating or how much she is enjoying her triple grande caramel machiatto.

Following high profile use of Twitter by government agencies such as Los Angeles Fire Department, it has now become very common for government agencies to use Twitter and to prepare to use it in major emergencies. But, whether you intend to use it or are using it or never heard of it, the fake Twitter accounts could impact you directly. At a drill not long ago with a metro area, as a member of the simulation cell (or "truth") for the JIC, I threw in an inject where a fake Twitter account was set up with the name of the response agency and started posting false information about the number of fatalities in the plane crash scenario. The JIC in this case did not even plan a website, particularly in the early hours of the response, and this inject caused some real consternation. The question was, how do we combat this false information when those receiving the tweets have no way of knowing it is not coming from us?

One answer might be: "Ignore because no one uses Twitter and everyone knows that what happens on the internet isn't true." The reality is that the media use Twitter alot, in fact Twitter for the media has become the new police scanner that is fed by millions rather than a few police dispatchers. Numerous news stories have begun (US Airways Flight 1549 for example) have been started with a tweet and have been fed by multiple tweets. It is simply not something that can be ignored. In the case of a fake Twitter account posing as a voice of the response, in this hurry-up world of instant news coverage, the media will go with the information and ask questions later.

So, what can you do?
1) Understand that this is real, and a potentially serious threat to your response and the communication about it.
2) Get a Twitter account now and start using it--because as the above story indicates, the best defense is your own account with the real information and where you can inform those following that the other is false
3) Use your website--your website should be the final authoritative source of info and your tweets and all else should feed back to it. This only works if you keep it fully updated to the minute.
4) Monitor and respond--rumor management is becoming one of the most important jobs of PIOs and that means instant monitoring and super fast response to false information. That's why you need a Twitter account you control plus a website that you fully control and can continually update. Plus, you need the monitoring tools, both free and subscription, that are essential today.
5) Watch for and press for Verified Accounts--Twitter seems ridiculously slow in responding to this challenge. I think it may be seen as violating the openness and freedom that the internet crowd so highly values. But there are signs they are working toward a Verified Account approach--the LAFD site states that it is verified but not sure what that means yet. When/if this is available, jump on it so you can reserve your right to represent your agency directly.

Learning from emergency managers and what happens when Facebook replaces 9-1-1?

2009-09-17T11:42:00.000-07:00

Just returned from spending time with 200 emergency managers at the Kansas Emergency Management Association conference where I was honored to be the keynote speaker. Thanks to Chuck Magaha, in-coming president and Andy Bailey of the National Weather Service for the invite. Since I usually deal mostly with PIOs and communicators, it was a wonderful opportunity to hang out with emergency managers and try to see information management from their perspective a little more. I was very pleased with the response and their openness and interest in the dramatic changes taking place in public information management.

One of my key messages was in this instant news world and world of social networking, it is critical to be fast but you cannot really be fast enough to beat the way information is spread today. Several came up to me after the presentation with real life examples of this. One told me that the night before the conference he had responded to a double fatality accident of teenagers driving out in the country. Before the authorities were able to gather the information needed to notify the parents, they found that the parents were already at the hospital. The information networks just work too fast for authorities to keep up with them.

Another issue we briefly touched on was the emerging issue of liability and public expectation around use of social media such as Twitter to call for help. I raised this issue on Crisisblogger a while back when the Coast Guard blogged about the issue, asking the question: are we expected to respond if someone Twitters that they are in need of rescue? Then, this morning the story about what just happened in Australia came to my attention. Two young girls, ages 10 and 12, got caught in a drain. Instead of dialing Triple Zero (Australia's 9-1-1) on the cellphone they had with them, they texted to their Facebook page. Some friends saw it, called the authorities and the girls were rescued. I explored this issue a little further on today's Crisisblogger, but I suspect this issue of liability to respond and more importantly, public expectations about using these new forms of communication for cries for help will not go away soon. I don't think we will be able to shrug it off easily. I'll be watching for the media outcry that may come when someone complains "well, I asked for help but they wouldn't respond." More to come on this issue, for sure.

Is Building Public Trust a Battle?

2009-09-14T13:01:00.000-07:00

I'm preparing for my presentation to 200 emergency managers at the Kansas Emergency Management Association conference. This is a great opportunity to address Incident Commanders and response leaders who bear the ultimate responsibility in an event, including over all communication. I'm focusing on the tremendous changes in technology--most around the internet and social media--and how these changes have completely changed the rules of the game of public information management and the operation of a Joint Information Center.

My title is "Winning the Trust War," and frankly I'm a little apprehensive to describe the challenges of public information management in such dramatic terms, but I'm finding it difficult to avoid this analogy. I wanted to draw attention to how technology changes have brought dramatic changes to how battles are warfare is conducted--using the examples of Agincourt in 1415, the Civil War in 1865 and of course, the atomic bomb in 1945. Too many great leaders learned too late the meaning of these profound technology changes.

But warfare or a battle implies a clearly defined enemy and on this basis can the analogy be applied to communicating during a crisis or major disaster? Public trust during and after an event is dependent on two things: an effective response and effective communication about that response. Have either one without the other and trust will be lost. Looking at it this way failure of trust is either a failure to respond adquately or a failure to communicate adequately about the response. Not exactly a battle. But, communicating about a response can begin to resemble a battle when their are "enemies" who are opposing your efforts to build trust. And this is frequently the case--to frequently.

I've been to many emergency management conferences where they talk about making the media your partner in public information. Great idea, however, it should be very clearly remembered that it is not the media's role to support your efforts and to have the public trust you. In fact, frequently their real job interferes with your goal and then they can and do become an opponent. All news media (including serious bloggers) have to work very hard to get an audience. When you depend on ad revenue, it is a life or death matter--and the mainstream media have been losing this battle making them all the more intent and desperate. The way they compete is on the basis of speed and attention-getting stories and headlines. Too slow, and you lose the audience. Too boring, you lose the audience. Is it any wonder then that CNN on Sept 11, 2009 would report globally that shots were being fired by the Coast Guard when all they knew about was a private radio channel going "bang! bang!" The need for speed is too great, the need to build audiences more important in a case like this than their own credibility.

The other way to build is to make certain what you report is news worthy. Tell me, what is more "news worthy" in the sense of getting audience attention--a headline that says "Government responders doing an outstanding job" or "Public needs being ignored"? I know if my job and cable channel were on the line, which story I would opt for.

I'm not saying that the news media are irresponsible or that they don't provide a valuable service and that they cannot be great partners in emergency communications. But I am saying that one needs to be careful and clearly, very clearly understand, that their job is not your job and your job is not their job. Yours is to build trust, theirs is to build an audience--and those two goals sometimes conflict.

There is one other way in which response communication can resemble a battle and that is when there are active and aggressive opponents to your effort to build trust. Let me ask a simple question. Are there people in your community or around the world who could stand to gain by embarrassing or damaging the trust of your agency or any high profile individual publicly associated with it? I'mn guessing there might be, even if it might be rival politicians. I know of one excellent response whose public perception has been forever tainted by very high level attacks of elected officials who used this incident to try and embarrass their political opponents. And what would the media do in such a situation? Well, this is the kind of "controversy" that can help sell papers---oops, I mean get traffic to the news website.

No, not every JIC faces a battle, or every emergency involve active opposition. But to pretend these situations don't and can't exist is naive. Understanding that building trust can be like a battle, it becomes critically important to understand how technology has upset the rules of the game. And that's what I hope to communicate in Topeka on Wednesday.

A 9/11 Legacy--Coast Guard exercise and lessons for those planning drills

2009-09-11T09:34:00.001-07:00

Today marks the somber anniversary of eight years ago. And many were greeted this morning with breaking news about shots fired near President Obama's motorcade as it crossed the Potomac. Flights at nearby Reagan National were put on ground halt status, FBI and Secret Service put on high alert.

There, were of course, no shots fired and the scare was caused by a routine Coast Guard exercise that happened to coincide with the president's travel plans. The scare was in fact caused by CNN scanning a Coast Guard radio channel used for training purposes where they heard reports of ten shots fired. Now the Coast Guard is on the defensive trying to explain why an exercise was conducted there at that time was actually routine, why it was not communicated to other authorities, and how the training exercise got picked up by the news media and misinterpreted. They are saying the only thing they really can say at this point which is that the incident is being reviewed.

We're all a little bit jumpy, aren't we? CNN certain seems to me to be jumpy and unwilling apparently to accept any culpability in this scare. What happened to verifying before you report? It is no longer part of the reporting game and can't be when you compete against everybody with a smart phone, cell camera and Twitter account. They will almost certainly continue to take the position that if they were fooled by overhearing training radio talk it was someone else's fault for allowing them to be fooled. I may not be happy with their lack of acceptance of their responsibility in it, but that is the reality that emergency managers and particularly drill planners have to face today.

So the message is, in this jumpy environment, be careful with your drills and exercises. Be aware of how creating a realistic scenario can be interpreted. The military needs to be careful when the exercise their forces in mock attacks that they don't scare the bejesus out of the population. I was in a cross-border drill one day that involved a scenario of an anthrax release at the international border crossing. All drill participants were in a hotel near the border without any use of internet or phones or any contact with the outside world. But a couple of drill participants went to the restroom during a break and were discussing the scenario. They were overheard by someone in the restroom who was not part of the drill and soon there was minor panic in the hotel. The lesson: even while you are in the restroom preface everything with: THIS IS A DRILL.

It's tough to simulate distribution of public and media information while keeping the information tight--but it is essential. Again, clearly label everything and all info, including that intended to stay behind closed doors as a drill. There are some good and effective ways of simulating mass distributions including through Twitter and other social media. The key is to plan it well to be as realistic in interaction with the outside world as you can without making the big mistake of getting caught on CNN and making national news.

The most important lesson is to understand that in today's hyper news environment the rule is report now, blame others later. So, be careful out there.

LA Fires and Honda show risks of social media use

2009-09-10T17:10:00.000-07:00

As mentioned earlier, last week I had a front row seat to the LA fires while working in the area and staying in Pasadena. It was interesting to see first hand the work of some of the agencies involved, the local media coverage and the criticism of some prominent elected officials and others of the public information management and the media coverage.

But what intrigued me most was some comments sent by a respected associate and PIO concerning the Forest Service's use of social media as part of their public information efforts. A Facebook page was launched and from what I can see effectively used as part of the communication effort for the Station Fire. But I was asked specifically about the nature of some of the comments on a site like this and given that some of the comments are in the nature of what I have called "toxic talk" the question is using sites like this appropriate.

While it is a little old now, it reminded me of something else going on in social media along with the fires and that was the announcement of a new model of Honda cars. Honda, like everyone else these day, is employing social media to communicate about anything and everything including this new model called the Accord Crosstour. Problem was, apparently at least some commenting on their Facebook page decided it was a very ugly vehicle.

I've commented frequently on crisisblogger on "toxic talk," and this phenomenon is certainly one of the risks of using social media. The question is since there is this percentage of the population who seem to be exceptionally angry, rude, full of negative opinions and no compunction about using disgusting language, why should we give them a platform to use to poison others. I'm sure Honda folks were thinking twice about social media as a result of the trash talk.

This kind of experience will no doubt cause some to steer away from using social media. In my mind, that misses the point and represents head in the sand. The conversation goes on and the question is whether or not to participate. And the conversation will go on whether or not it is your Facebook page or Twitter page or any other opportunity you allow for comment. If it is not in your backyard, it will be somewhere else and that itself raises an important question.

At the same time, if it is your backyard in my mind you have a right to control what happens there. I have deleted inappropriate and disrespectful comments from my blog site and have no problem explaining to those who visit that this is my house and I want them to respect my rules. Saying that, it is important to understand that the value system of many who use social media is different than mine in some respects. They are not easily offended with bad language, they seem to revel in "lively" discourse and above all the respect complete freedom and openness of expression.

I don't think the risks of social media as seen in these examples will or should keep emergency management operations from using them. I do believe it is right and appropriate to moderate comments and state the basis for the moderation. Tell the rules but try and understand the values that your audience holds and not just your own. Give a little, but also hold the line.

Live from the Station Fire in Los Angeles

2009-08-31T13:48:00.000-07:00

I find myself in a hotel in Pasadena where from the street I can see the flames from the Station Fire leaping into the sky. I'm in LA for a series of meetings with government agencies about emergency communications--so it's pure coincidence to be here at this time. But it does provide a unique opportunity to watch the dynamics of media coverage, PIO and JIC work, and local reaction.

1. Comment from an evacuee: The hotel I am in has opened its doors to evacuees and a little while ago I overheard one talking to someone on his cellphone. He said, I'm not paying any attention to the media because they are always getting it wrong. They don't know what is going on." I'm not saying that's true, just reporting what one observation was.

2. Media sensationalism. Hey, this fire is pretty spectacular, scary, dangerous and deadly (two fire fighters died last night in a vehicle accident). Personally, I'm very afraid for Mount Wilson, not just for the millions in communications equipment, but for the potentially devastasting historical loss. Last year I visited the Mt. Wilson observatory where Einstein once hung out, where Edwin Hubble discovered our expanding universe and where the Big Bang theory became accepted. To lose this historic treasure would be tragic. But, watching the tv and newspaper reports is disheartening to see how substance has been exchanged for anything that will glue eyes to the screen or get someone to pick up a newspaper out of the stand. I emailed a picture of the Pasadena Star-News in the news stand to my crisisblogger blog to make the point. You will see what I mean when you read the headline. TV is no better. I am stunned by the lack of content about the fire and what is being done about it. But the video from helicopters, the reporters standing with flames leaping behind them, that is all impressive.
(Later note: can't really believe the careless of some of the reporting. One onscene reporter consistently reported the fires as having burned 140 acres instead of 140,000 acres as of today (9/2) but was never corrected by any of the anchors.)

3. PIO. There certainly have been examples of stand up interviews by both fire captains and PIOs. Some good things observed, some not so good. Best thing was seeing Capt Tom Brady in full fire fighting gear, obviously dirty from the ash and smoke, giving some reassuring messages about homes being protected. Great job. Worst was a Cal Fire PIO who when asked was going to happen next to fight the fire went into considerable detail about the change in Incident Command team, the new operational period, the return of the previous team to their normal jobs and the transition to a new team. The reporter kept coming back and trying to get an answer as to what this had to do with fighting the fire. Important lesson here: while your job as PIO may be to talk about the response actions, most are not too interested at this stage of an event of getting a behind the scenes look at the operation of the EOC or Command Post. He needed to say who was in danger, if anyone, what was being done now and in the immediate future to protect people's lives and property, and what actions were being taken to get this darn thing under control. He needed to say these things even if the reporter was asking stupid questions. But, the reporter was asking the right questions and was getting the wrong answers. PIOs need to be thinking about what is important to the public, and not what will play well when the interview is played back to Command. Not saying that was the case here. I think it was more a matter of a PIO being too close to the response in thinking and not close enough to the public--a very easy mistake to make.

Three Events that Changed Our World

2009-08-26T17:31:00.000-07:00

I've been working on several webinars, keynote addresses and seminar presentations coming up--not surprisingly all are in one way or another dealing with the issue of social media in crisis and emergency communications.

I have found myself focusing on three key events of the last few years that I have think have dramatically changed our world. Like most events that are seen as catalysts in history, in retrospect it is easy to see the factors that contributed to the changes and they seem inevitable. But still, it was those events that brought some invisible changes to the surface and accelerated the adoption of innovations and the underlying factors.

OK--so what are they? What three would you point at as having a dramatic impact on the world of public information management, crisis communication and emergency response communication? Don't cheat--think about your answer first.

Here are mine: Virginia Tech, Flight 1549 and the California fires beginning in May 2007.

Since I need to keep this post brief, I will just introduce these and ask you to comment as to why you think these events were particularly significant. I can tell you in most of these situations, the real reason for the significance may not be immediately obvious. More to come on this.

Twitter and Social Media in Drills

2009-08-18T16:05:00.000-07:00

Just working on some planning issues with a colleague on one of the major national-level drills being planned for 2010. There is a debate going on about incorporating social media into the drill or not. Clearly some would rather not for understandable reasons--the sound of worms escaping from cans is clearly audible.

My position is clear: if the purpose of a drill is to create a realistic practice situation, you cannot possibly do a communication or Joint Information Center (JIC) drill these days without social media. Period. For the simple reason that almost any conceivable significant event will not only involve social media, the communication side will largely be driven by social media.

Reasons: 1) the media all monitor Twitter and social media for what's happening and no more so than during a major event. They will be reporting mostly what they find online.
2) 300 million or so "citizen journalists" with cell phones and cameras are increasingly the first reporters of major events (witness USA Airways Flight 1549 reported by Twitter user)
3) Social media is a primary component of how communities affected by an event come together, support each other and get the latest info--not from official sources but from each other (check out J. Sutton's papers on this website for proof)
4) Social media including problem tweeters and bloggers will be the source of significant work required of the JIC

Emergency managers have a huge problem in dealing with this. They typically know almost nothing about social media. And they don't like to deal with things they don't know anything about. Especially when their abilities are being publicly tested in a drill. Keep the circumstances controlled.

PIOs and communicators themselves are having a heck of a time trying to get their arms around it. Where do you find the consultants and experts who can help figure out how to deal with this stuff, let alone how to plan a realistic exercise that incorporates these things? It's a lot easier to stick your head in the sand and pretend these issues don't exist. But, then, the real world jumps up to bite you in a real event and everyone looks at each other and says, why didn't we know about this? Why didn't we prepare for this?

Russian Power Plant Disaster

2009-08-17T09:41:00.000-07:00

Emergency managers and communicators the world over are likely watching the disaster unfold at the Sayano-Shushenskaya plant in Siberia. As I write this there are 8 confirmed deaths and 54 are missing. It is Russia's largest hydroelectric plant and feeds power to large aluminum plants in Siberia.

Why is this disaster important for emergency managers and PIOs today?

1) A few years ago such a disaster in a remote part of the world like Siberia, with news coming out of Russia, would be relatively unknown. We live in a global village and we can view video of such an event bringing it even closer to home. Lesson: Local events instantly become global events--and that means your disaster will too.

2) Hydroelectric power plants execs and PIOs need to prepare right now for the inevitable question from their local and even national media: Could this happen here? What impacts would be created if it did? Would you also not know where 54 workers were? What environmental damage would occur? What are you doing to protect lives and the environment? Every event of this magnitude brings attention to the risks of all others in the same or similar categories. When Virginia Tech shooting occurred, nearly every president of every college and university was asked if they would be able to alert students and faculty of the danger on their campus. This resulted in text notification business skyrocketing. Lesson: Prepare to answer questions for a Russian event as if it happened to you.

3) Where are the 54 workers? What is astounding to me is that at this hour they do not know how many are dead or missing because they do not know the location of 54 workers. If this happened in the US and I was a reporter, this is where I would focus in. What do you mean you don't know where they are? It instinctively looks like inadequate safety. Whether justified or not, managers of large facilities with many employees are having to account for them all the time in all conditions. I know one facility that has planned on putting RFID devices on plant staff to know their precise location all the time. In the near future, these will be tied to proximity-based notification alert systems so that those in danger will be given immediate instructions. Lesson: Employee security is a huge deal. Lesson: Know how you would answer this question and be prepared to be grilled by the media, families, investors and employees on what you are doing to protect employees and account for them at all times.

4) Environmental and economic damage. While the focus here is on the loss of life, this is one of those dreadful events that involves three significant outcomes together: loss of life, significant environmental damage and significant economic loss. In other words, worst case scenario. This virtually ensures that whoever is responsible will be dealing with the aftermath of this for a long, long time to come. After today, there may be no more international media on it--even as the death toll likely will mount. That's because today's media is completely focused on the immediate. They will be off onto some other global disaster or celebrity death. But the communication job, the repairing of trust, the legal issues, the long term impacts for those involved will go on for years and years. Lesson: the media comes and goes, but the job of recovery goes on and on.

It's All About Trust

2009-08-11T10:41:00.001-07:00

I was asked today to provide some comments about crisis management and crisis communication for an eastern European management magazine. There were some good questions that ultimately came down to a simple question: what works? What strategies do organizations employ that enable them to come out of a crisis in the best shape possible.

Here is my answer to that fundamental question--in about a short of form as I can make it:

First, it is important to understand what "success" in coming out of a crisis looks like. A major crisis affects an organization similar to how a major personal crisis affects an individual. It changes us sometimes in very profound ways. CEOs and executive leaders of businesses tend to think about the impact of a crisis on the value of their brand and their share value. If this is the focus, then the goal is to emerge from a crisis with the brand enhanced, the reputation of the company improved as a result of the crisis and the share value stable or increasing after the crisis.

What does that take? An important study from Oxford University in the 1990s demonstrated the impact of crises on share value. They looked at why some company's share value went down and never recovered and the share value of others was not affected long term by the crisis. The key difference was the perception of the character of the company as seen through the actions of its leaders. This is very important. Essentially the question in shareholder's minds is: do I trust these people to make the right decisions? Right decisions about protecting the safety and well-being of people, the environment and other things I hold important? And do I trust them to protect my interest as a shareholder? For government agencies the issue is similar except their "customers" are the ones who make funding decisions. After Katrina, some agencies lost funding. Others, like the US Coast Guard, received substantial additional funding because of the perception of competence coming out of the event.

This is why I believe that trust is the most important thing to focus on in preparing to respond to a crisis, in managing the response, and in the recovery phase. Trust is dependent on two things: right action and effective communication.

What is right action and who will decide what is right? It is not management who will decide whether what was done in the crisis was right or not. Employees and the families will decide. Major shareholders will decide. Government regulators will decide. Reporters and journalists will decide. Customers will decide. Congress members our Council members will decide.

These are key stakeholders and one of the most important things in preparing for a crisis is to ask the question: who are the people whose opinion of us matters most for our future? These people should be the whole focus of thinking and preparation. What will these people consider right action? There is no better, simpler way of answering this than the age old wisdom: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In other words, right action is determined by their values, by their ideas of right and wrong, and their view of management's concern for others.

Right action alone does not result in trust. Because if no one knows about it, it is the same as if it never happened. Again, focusing on those key stakeholders, it is critical that in a crisis they be kept closely informed of the events and the leadership's response to those events. Leadership must be visible, and they must be seen making the right decisions. In today's instant news world where more and more get their people through the Internet in very direct ways, it is absolute essential that organizations establish a direct line of communication with their key stakeholders. They must be very, very fast. If they are not, the story will be told by others and it may not be true. They must communicate directly--not like the old days when it was assumed that communication goes through the media. And they must be transparent. In this day of so much access to information, it is difficult if not impossible to hide bad news. And to do so, or even to look like you may be hiding bad news, is to lose all credibility and trust.

The lessons of crisis management are really obvious--through the good stories and bad stories. We all want those in responsible positions to be open, honest and truthful. We want them to make good decisions. We want to be able to trust them and know that when we depend on them, we are in good hands.

Are you in government? Do you tweet?

2009-08-05T14:38:00.000-07:00

I'll be presenting a national webinar on Twitter in Government Communications for Government Educator on Sept 1. (More info if interested). I work with quite a few government communicators--some who tweet, some who don't and some who say, "Huhn?"

I'd like to go beyond telling about these communicators whom I am already familiar with and try to get a better reading on how government communicators are using Twitter, what their experience is and what they are thinking about it. This was made more urgent by the announcement yesterday of the Dept of Defense having big concerns about all social media and the Marines outright banning it (see my previous post here).

So, if you are a government communicator I need your help. Please complete this very brief survey. If you are not a gov communicator but know of one or two or more, please forward this link on. Any who participate and request the results will get copies of the report.

If you'd rather not do the survey but want to let me know your thoughts on this, you can reach me at gbaron@piersystems.com.

Social Media in Government

2009-08-04T14:08:00.000-07:00

Government communications has been changed forever. That's true of emergency response and crisis communication as it daily media, public and stakeholder communication. Everyone I know involved in government communications is struggling with Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Flickr and all the other social media channels. Today, that struggle hit major media including this story on Wired's site. And late today (Tuesday) news from CNN that the Marines have banned Twitter.

Of course, security is a huge issue. The government is spending tremendous money in trying to protect against cyber attacks. Recently we saw North Korea launch a ham-handed attack against Federal websites. But to attempt to ban social media channels for security reasons is tantamount to requiring all broadcast channels to shut down because of concern that an enemy will find a way to assume control and take over our world through propaganda. OK, maybe the analogy isn't appropriate, but the point is that the security wonks have been spending too much time in their cubicles and haven't gotten out into the real world lately.

The White House, as an example, has as many or more secrets as our Department of Defense. In fact, when you think about it, all the big secrets are going to end up there. But the Obama administration has led the charge in adopting new channels including all the ones I mentioned. Truth is, a couple of weeks ago, the talk on Twitter was that the White House announced a press conference on Twitter at least a half hour before they got around to letting the media know through normal channels. Maybe the security people in the Pentagon ought to get out of their offices and have a chat with their counterparts at the White House.

The world is changing. Those security folks need to understand that in the recent H1N1 flu outbreak, the public used the internet to get information more than most traditional channels, and they found information coming via the internet the most complete and most helpful. The CDC won kudos among the public and communication experts for its excellent use of numerous social media channels to distribute vital information. Similarly, the US Coast Guard, FEMA and other government agencies have adopted social media as key elements of their communication processes. DOD will as well. The directive of Secretary Gates to the security team: keep us secure without throwing us back into the dark ages. It's your job to find out how.

By the way, thanks to Tim O'Leary of O'Brien's Response Management for alerting me to this issue.

How fast is the news?

2009-07-31T16:08:00.000-07:00

Just had an interesting discussion about the speed of news today--a continual and favored topic of mine. We were talking about the New York Times News Alert--their email alert system where you can sign up and get quick emails about breaking news stories. But I also signed up for a Twitter news alert called Breaking News On or twitter.com/bno. Since I'm not on Twitter all the time (thank goodness) I also signed up for their email alerts. What I found is that BNO consistently beats NYT by as much as a half hour with their email alerts.

Most of you reading this--if you got through all the junk about email alerts and Twitter and all that--are saying big deal. Most people will go home, pick up their newspapers or watch the evening news and what difference does the half hour make? Well, a lot actually. But the person I was talking to was 32 years old (my son actually) and he said, if they miss it by a half an hour I want to know what else they are missing and if I can really trust them?

The truth is all news organizations today compete on the basis of speed. If they are not covering what is happening right now, they lose their audience. If they lose their audience they lose their advertising revenues and they go out of business. But, if they are not immediate they also lose their credibility. Isn't it amazing that a 19 year (that is who runs BNO) sitting in a dark room with a whole bunch of computer monitors can consistently beat the major news organizations with breaking news. They beat LA Times on the Michael Jackson story by half an hour.

But, pity the New York Times and your local daily. They have to compete not only with a dedicated and nimble 19 year old, but with literally millions of citizens out there with cell cameras and videos and who know how to post to their blog, YouTube or Flickr in an instant. That's where the news is coming from these days. Want to know what that 19 year old is scanning for all that news? Yes, the internet and all the news stories that emerge virtually instantaneously.

The implications for crisis management is immense. When the big event happens, anyone who observes becomes not just a journalist, but the media itself. They are the broadcaster. In literally seconds or minutes at most, what they broadcast is picked up by the likes of BNO and their competitors. Then, about 20 minutes later, the NYT and LAT will be sending an email alert out to the world. If it is big enough, the cable channels, local channels and every news site worth its salt will be sending the news about your big event. And what will you be doing? Trying to assemble your PIOs and trying to form a JIC.

When communication causes more problems

2009-07-28T14:22:00.000-07:00

One of the biggest questions facing crisis and response leaders is when communication can cause more harm than good. For example, some companies are aware of a bad situation brewing but it hasn't hit the papers--yet--and may not. If you go out and talk about it, you may bring attention to something that might quietly go away. But, if you don't and it explodes, one of the first questions you will have to answer is why didn't you tell us about this.

I'm generally going to fall on the side of communicating early and often, because I have seen that is one of the most important things in building trust. I'm also going to strongly support the idea that if there is bad news to be told, tell it yourself rather than letting someone else (like the media) tell it for you.

That being said, sometimes organizations speak out when they should just be quiet. One case in point recently is Horizon Realty. When an upset tenant tweeted (that's using Twitter for those who may not know) a complaint, the company sued for $50,000. Problem is the twitterer-complainer only had 22 followers, so at the most a handful of people would have seen her complaint. Now, due to their own stupidity, the rest of the world knows about it and knows her complaint as well. To make things a whole lot worse, their spokesperson said, "we're a sue first, ask questions later sort of organization."

Hmmm, sometimes it's just better to be quiet. For more on this, I've also blogged at crisisblogger.

My Links

2009-07-27T15:38:00.000-07:00

Here are a few links that may be of interest:

My Blog: www.crisisblogger.com
Here I blog about crises, the media and public information environment, what I'm learning from others, and an occasional more personal note. Been doing this for over three years.

PIER System: www.piersystems.com
PIER is a web-based communication management system used by lots of agencies and companies for crisis communication, daily public affairs, employee security, business continuity and other purposes. I designed this system and created the company in 2000. Currently serve as Director of Strategic Services focusing on consulting, training, crisis planning, EPIAs, drills and exercises.

My crisis communication book: Now is Too Late2: Survival in an Era of Instant News
I've been told its a valuable guide to the instant news world and how to deal with it. Hoping to complete a brand new version...sometime.

My marketing and public relations firm: www.baron-co.com
Twenty seven years old and still going strong. Now under the capable leadership of Jason Glover and Chris Bothell.