The eternal back-and-forth over last year's TV ratings on the part of Mediapulse, the Carlos case, or even the unsightly reporting series on the incidents at the University of Zurich - such crisis situations can easily destroy the good image of a brand. However, a disaster is always also an opportunity; for improving the corporate structure, the product, the media presence, the crisis management. But how does the "Master of Disaster" face the media? If there is a Bruce Lee of crisis communication at all. Most readers shake their heads in amazement when they read their daily newspapers - not so much because of the crisis, but rather because of the media drama that results from it. However, if you look at the trouble spot from the inside instead of from the reader's perspective, connections become clear: different interests of the board of directors, for example, suppression mechanisms, a panic fear of possible misconduct, legal restrictions and further trouble spots discovered at the wrong time. These are by no means all the difficulties in dealing with crises. The most difficult aspect is that there is often no strategy and no general corporate attitude that could consistently shape communication in the event of a crisis. There is also far from enough research into the thorough analysis of past crises. And when crisis communication experts from the fields of research, training and consulting talk about their experiences and views, it becomes clear that there are divergent approaches to crisis communication, which already contradict each other in the question of whether a prefabricated concept for crisis communication makes sense.
Crisis Communication Strategy - A Contradiction in Terms?
Hans Klaus, former head of information for Federal Councilor Ruth Metzler-Arnold and now a senior partner at the Klaus-Metzler-Eckmann consulting firm, is convinced that experience and tact play a key role in crisis communications. It would be fundamentally wrong to follow only prefabricated concepts, he says. Roland Binz, vice president of the Association for Crisis Communication, is also not a fan of standardized procedures. "Today, modern crisis communication must be flexibly geared to the individual case and the needs of those affected," he says. The demands on crisis communication have changed fundamentally in recent years. On the one hand, experience in dealing with stressful situations and, on the other, the ability to anticipate possible media developments and anticipate them through communication are crucial. But concepts and guidelines could also be helpful, according to Christian Pieter Hoffmann, assistant professor of communications management at the University of St. Gallen. He sees their relevance primarily in the prevention of a crisis. They are important for preparation in the event of a crisis. Because in such cases, they would provide orientation. But since every crisis is different, guidelines must be handled flexibly. Experience is particularly helpful here, he says, in keeping one's nerve and maintaining an overview. "Experiencing a crisis for the first time can quickly become overwhelming," Hoffmann explains. Expert knowledge alone is therefore not always enough, especially when experience is lacking. For this reason, among others, Hans Klaus is not a proponent of agencies that offer crisis communication "like fresh croissants". These in particular often lack the necessary experience, he says somewhat worriedly. "The coordination of complex management processes under high pressure is best handled if you have experience, but a significant part can also be acquired through practice," Andrea Frei Gschwend of Farner Consulting also writes in response to an e-mail inquiry. Experience is therefore central to good crisis communication. But not all experts believe that approaching crisis communication without a preconceived concept is the right solution. Frei Gschwend explains her position in this regard by saying that a clear approach can reduce, if not eliminate, errors. She believes that clear leadership is needed, especially in communication, and that this leadership is visible to the outside world. "Structures and processes serve this leadership, as long as the procedure is planned, introduced and regularly practiced," she writes. Good crisis communication is not only based on content, it also works thanks to clear processes that have to be well thought out and practiced. Farner Consulting understands crisis management as a staff work process. "This systematically follows the management rhythm: regulation of the right to information, internal clarification of the facts, development of language rules, information proactively, but only on the basis of verified facts," she explains. Preparation and clear processes do not contradict flexibility and rapid reaction, but on the contrary improve the ability to act in the event of a crisis, for example through the formation of quick reaction teams. In addition, it is then also important to ensure normal operations, provide psychological support to those affected, inform staff and other stakeholders internally, and monitor issue development in both traditional and social media. "Those who adhere to such processes make fewer mistakes and weather a crisis with media pressure better," Andrea Frei Gschwend is convinced. Mistakes can also happen in crisis communication, Hans Klaus states. This is difficult to avoid. More important than an absolutely secure and detail-obsessed crisis communication is a quick reaction, authenticity and informing with empathy - also to avoid possible speculations, which could quickly lead to further trouble spots when the crisis breaks out. "I think preparedness is the key," Oliver Schroeder, director of studies and media trainer at MAZ, on the other hand, is convinced. You have to be prepared for the crisis. Everything else should then be looked at on a case-by-case basis. "We try to put crisis communication into grids - and that's okay, to make it manageable," says Schroeder. Unfortunately, that doesn't always work. Even when it comes to conveying information, there are different interests, such as those of the individual stakeholders. That's why you have to know: "No matter which grid we have, no matter which processes we have, every crisis is a bit different and always requires this quick thinking with the right people in order to make the right decisions," he says, briefly summarizing the difficulties of crisis communication. That is the great challenge. Experts in crisis communication therefore take different approaches as to whether and when clear guidelines and structures can be helpful. According to Christian Pieter Hoffmann, concepts and guidelines can indeed be helpful, especially in the prevention of a crisis. As long as they are handled flexibly. Andrea Frei Gschwend understands crisis communication as a staff work process that follows the management rhythm and is visible to the outside. She is of the opinion that these should be planned, introduced and regularly practiced, especially in order to avoid mistakes. According to Hans Klaus, it is more important to react quickly, be authentic and provide information in an all-encompassing manner than to be absolutely sure and error-free in crisis communication. "Without preparation, things don't work or tend to go wrong," Oliver Schroeder is convinced. A uniform attitude on how to proceed during a crisis cannot be found among professionals. There is more of an agreement when it comes to the attitude toward targeted public information through the media. But what role do the media actually play in the process of crisis communication and what attitude does a crisis consultant take toward them?
Media: "The most important asset in the crisis?"
Hans Klaus represents a philosophy that is "quite divergent from classical school opinion. What we learn at universities has long been outdated, he says. "Today, what the Tages-Anzeiger writes about UBS is no longer as important as it used to be," he says, waving it away. Companies such as UBS, CS, Roche, etc. are globally networked and active on a thousand channels; "is the relevance of an article in a local daily newspaper really still the same?" he poses the question. Nevertheless, Klaus is convinced that those involved in a crisis situation should be kept out of the media drama as far as possible. Because a person involved always has a colored opinion, which does not benefit transparency. Klaus cites the University of Zurich and the various interests of those responsible as an example. "Crisis management failed in this case. There was too much maneuvering for too long, and to this day there is a mess in communication. Such an approach is damaging for the university in the long term," says Klaus. The only way to win in this case is through speed and full transparency.
Do the media, and their perspective on the situation at hand, really have so little relevance? At least, according to Andrea Frei Gschwend, there are clear principles in contact with the media. The slow trickling out of - in the worst case, still unsecured - information, for example, is like pouring oil on the fire. Christian Pieter Hoffmann is also convinced that good preparation would be particularly valuable here. After all, natural mistrust increases even more in times of crisis. In addition, the facts are usually still unclear. This is one of the reasons why media communication is particularly difficult in times of crisis. "This also includes existing relationships with trustworthy journalists," Hoffmann emphasizes. Personal relationships have to be built up before the crisis. They are an important asset in a crisis: relationships with journalists, but also with NGOs, shareholders and online communities. Authenticity plays a special role in personal exchanges, he said. "Personal relationships: yes," Hans Klaus also says, "because with one, journalists would be more inclined to report in a balanced and fair way. " Exclusive stories, for example, are usually counterproductive, especially in crisis communication, he says. Media must be informed absolutely equally in terms of content and the time circumstances, says Klaus. Roland Binz also recommends that, as a rule, all media should be treated equally: Preferential treatment, instrumentalization of media and exclusive plugging of stories belong to the old school, he says, which rarely has a lasting effect. "On the contrary, those who favor individual media or actors with information negligently risk all the harsher backlash, " he explains. Moreover, he adds, it proves worthwhile to take critical questions from journalists seriously, even if they appear to be exaggerated. It's not a matter of giving an exclusive interview or other mumbo-jumbo stories, Oliver Schroeder also emphasizes. Rather, he says, it is simply advantageous in a crisis to know which media will conduct fair and information-based reporting. "I find it difficult, especially in crisis communications, to say: you should have, you should have," he interjects. But still, a company would have to invest in resources in advance, especially in the public sphere. For example, in the social media area. Schroeder cites Nestlé as an example of this. After the Kit Kat disaster and the Greenpeace palm oil spot on YouTube, a digital acceleration team was set up: About 10 specialists focus on digital and social media analysis. "You simply have to have the money, i.e. the people and resources," Schroeder emphasizes. Not all midsize companies have realized this yet or are willing to free up those resources to prepare for crises, he adds. "Because it's not done with a crisis manual and a written crisis communications concept."
Ursina mason
In a nutshell:
Not everything is a crisis that attracts media attention or requires communications advice. "It is very important to distinguish a crisis situation from an exceptional and difficult situation in a company," emphasizes Hans Klaus. A crisis situation, he says, is when a company or part of a company is threatened existentially by the situation. Or, for example, when a company gets into financial or legal trouble because of it, such as various Swiss financial institutions in the USA. Accidents or other sensitive events do not always lead to crisis situations for the company. However, Klaus adds, difficult situations in companies often develop into veritable crises because a calm and experienced outside perspective is lacking in dealing with the situation. A surprise resignation of a board president or CEO, for example, is far from being a crisis. If good management and transparent information are provided in such "normal" situations, crises can almost always be avoided. Crisis management and crisis communication belong together; you cannot separate one from the other.
For Oliver Schroeder, crisis communication has long since become part of everyday life. Because the time of peace, as he calls it, already contains the issues that can become a crisis. "We live in a permanent, crisis-ridden time," he defines more precisely. There is, of course, also the acute crisis, in which case action must be taken immediately along the crisis. But in this day and age - especially with social media, where everyone can communicate and exchange information instantly - Schroeder believes that you are permanently in a potential crisis. Sometimes it breaks out and you have to prepare for it. Whether a crisis develops depends not only on the actions of the company, but also on the environment. There are self-inflicted crises, for example, but also unpredictable crisis situations, such as a rampage. For Schroeder, this means: "Before the crisis is after the crisis. Oliver Schroeder collects communicatively critical situations in "passing", which he discovers in everyday media life and which inspire amazement, head-shaking and reflection (mediencoach.ch). However, these are rather marginal remarks and less analyses. They are therefore not intended to do justice to any scientific claim or professional advice. They are intended merely as food for thought.
