What Is a Social Media Communicator’s Duty in a Crisis?

I think that a business or organization should be upfront and direct during a crisis. However, I don’t see any reason the person behind the organization’s account has to maintain the same level of commitment on his/her personal account. As a social media writer, I strive to be upfront and direct when representing the organization I work for. But personally, my followers don’t always care about what’s going on within this organization. If I tweet about it once or twice, I feel that I’ve done my duty and may return to my normal “business as usual” tweets. If my followers do want more information on the situation, they’re welcome to follow my organization’s account.

As I’m thinking how to comment, I’m wondering how many other PR-type Mgr/Dirs/VPs are involved in the chain of communications:  are there directors of Public Relations, Media Relations, Community Relations, Corporate Communications, Exec VP Communications, etc.involved?  Specifically, I’m wondering who (if not Kate) is responsible for digital content and connections with traditional TV/radio/print media — is that Kate’s role, or someone else’s? I’m assuming it’s someone else’s, a dedicated media relations person that connects with traditional media via all tools, including SM.  Does Kate interact with traditional media, too, or just citizen and iReporters?

It can be beneficial to try to move the initial confrontational conversations offline by giving the disgruntled or offended party access to someone they might not normally get access to. In this case the Syracuse President might hold a student forum, minus media (though with camera phones etc. today, this strategy might backfire). Of course, extreme care would have to be given so a student shout down does not occur. A closed door meeting sans cellphones with the leaders of the representative student leadership movements would be a good atmosphere (Frat/Sorority Presidents, Student Club Presidents, etc.). Generally these leaders understand civil discourse.

Definitely shut down any postings that are not directly related to the crisis at hand. Have a monitor “group” or aggregate complaints and answer the overarching complaint rather than trying to one off responses to each poster. You will get buried and make no headway. If things are really flying, they should bring these groupings to you and, as manager, you should release both responses AND press releases that answer the aggregated complaints.  Getting these out to mass media can stem the tide a bit.

Above all, make sure the situation is being rectified throughout. There is no worse communicative mistake than a lie. To say, “we are working on it” when nothing is really happening is a PR disaster. Admit mistakes (when legally feasible), and reveal steps being taken to remedy the situation which reveals current due diligence.

In writing and movies and storytelling, there’s always the question of point of view. Social Media!!

One of the challenges is being mindful of the implications of the retweet — the passing along with comment of your message.  In cases like this — or any piece of negative news, you need to be sensitive to how the “haters” are going to twist your messages, particularly those who aren’t customers (or alumni in this case) and just want to stir things up.

I think you also have to build strong relationships in advance of the crisis with your legal team AND your senior leadership — many of whom are terrified (and most likely ignorant) of social media.  This is not the time to convince them that it’s time to tweet or post on Facebook.  And nothing they see once the crisis begins is likely to convince them otherwise.

In the big picture, I think you need to figure out (1) how to explain the “why” behind your decisions in 120 characters (keeping in mind the retweet); (2) how to convince your own people (employees, core constituents) that your position or decision is “right;” and (3) recognize that in the immortal words of countless police shows on TV, you DO have the right to remain silent and sometimes that’s the best way to go.

I don’t know what my alma mater did — but I will say they clearly did more or learned from what Penn State did — but I’d also suggest doing LOTS of “what if” planning and create social-media (and other PR) responses around those worst-case scenarios.  Syracuse has also done the right thing by having the Chancellor be the face of the crisis response; I think companies deal best with these situations when there’s one very senior person as the face of the organization.

Great conversation starter and some fantastic comments. 

As someone who partially manages a Twitter feed as a Board Member for a local chapter of a national organization in addition to my own personal account, I frequently feel the pressure of balance between the two. Although my personal Twitter account is just that: personal, many, many people know my position and it is listed in my personal profile, so I must always remain mindful of my personal connection as well. Even if I were to remove that position from my Twitter profile, the knowledge of my connection wouldn’t go away. 
I personally deal with this by staying on topic and keeping out of the fray (generally speaking) on items that aren’t relevant (politics for example). That’s not say I don’t have opinions, I just choose to keep my Twitter stream “on-topic” while mixing in some personal items that connect me to others. Unlike Kate, I’m fortunate that the organization I represent is unlikely to experience anything like what’s happened in this example, but it bears discussion about where the lines are crossed, its more and more difficult to keep our statements separated from work and professional. My own policy about crossing the line between the two accounts is to keep it seperate (though they are undeniably connected) and I do so by doing some of what Kate did here: sharing official info FROM the official account. Its more of a “gut check” than a hard/fast policy. Does that leave me open for criticism at sometime in the future? Absolutely, but the truth is that every situation is different and asKate mentions, they were quite strategic in their approach – I applaud them.  I also happen to agree with the strategy of also releasing additional non-crisis related information throughout the day. I think its fine to acknowledge that while there is a crisis, other important (and positive) activities are taking place. 

Depending on what @JustKate:disqus ’s goals are (keeping her personal account as an individual vs. becoming the voice of an organization through her personal account), I’d say that it bares repeating that a simple “These opinions are my own and do not represent that of my employer” in the Twitter account can go a long way. Granted, as communication professionals, we must remain mindful that in times of crisis, eyes will be upon us and we should tread lightly. That said, I think Kate sharing the information coming from the official Syracuse account was entirely appropriate – its something that she has a personal and professional interest in and that’s the essence of transparency. She could disclose that she has said professional interest, but even without that, it is not inappropriate to share the official statement. I probably would have laid off the 4SQ tweets, but then again, its her personal account and this is her personal life and it isn’t as if her checkins were of a questionable nature. 

Great conversation for all. We will all come across challenging SM circumstances in our careers and discussions like this help us all be prepared a little more. 

So here’s what I learned by taking a lot of mental notes by being a blogger at the Nestle Family Blogger event a few years ago that blew up on Twitter. Everyone MUST be on the same page, or things get dicey. That is, personal and business get merged into one very quickly (as you noticed). This also isn’t a time for business as usual. A brand/company/university etc must slow communications to a halt before tweets and Facebook updates are resumed. Someone in charge must give direct, succinct and clear marching orders to the communications team. It’s serious business and should be treated as such. In crisis situations all communications on all media must be in tandem to show a united front. It just makes things easier in the long run.

Frankly, what Kate did (or didn’t) isn’t that important. It is more important what she made other people do. She should have made people communicate, not issue official statements. It’s a one way broadcast with no human connection. A press release for the traditional press.

Get the chancellor and coach to come on Facebook and explain, in human terms, what’s happening… AND have them respond to questions directly.

I’m a Syracuse alumna and as a member of their community, I am impressed with how SU has handled the Bernie Fine issue. The letter from Chancellor Cantor told me exactly what we needed to know as far as what actions they were taking. It is clear, concise and there is no question about what will and won’t be tolerated. There is nothing else Facebook or Twitter updates could add to that letter.

College should be on social media to further their primary business purpose which is to educate and provide services to their students. Classes and campus activities didn’t stop because ESPN reported the story so why should social media be disrupted? And who cares what the head of social media does with her personal account as long as it’s not unprofessional? SU has a tremendous online brand and people are going to go there first for updates on any official issue. 

@twitter-16879661:disqus You’re actually right. All organizations that are using social media should have guidelines in place. These will be used to help determine managers or communicators like Kate their official job description. The same set of guidelines can be used to assess how well–or poorly–they managed events such as Syracuse U’s crisis. 

Thanks for very interesting article.I really enjoyed reading all of your posts. It’s interesting to read ideas, makes you think more.