Judgment is that strange word that needs a “poor” or a “good” in front of it to make sense and really be descriptive of the word. Still, either can be subjective. What some consider poor judgment might be seen differently by others and vice versa.

But along comes a judgment call that creates such a tempest as in Go Daddy’s CEO Bob Parsons’ most recent elephant killing expedition in Africa, that the word “poor” in front of that particular judgment call does not apply, for Parson’s “poor” judgment in this case has been brought to another level.

As if killing an elephant “for the good of the hungry villagers,” according to Parsons was not enough, he had to produce a graphic video and then later rant in the face of fierce criticism about “how right he was to do the hunting and killing” and that most critics know in “their hearts that he was right to do it” — for the ‘cause’.

So how exactly did Parsons and his team expect this to go down? Did they not consider the consequences of an arrogant middle-aged American stepping in to help villagers, not with funds, nor education, nor farming tools and skills, but by actually doing the killing? Worse, apparently, it’s not the first such expedition, for according to Parsons he goes each year to Zimbabwe to hunt problem elephants. But this year, it was videoed — and to what purpose exactly?

If some advisor in Parsons’ team concocted this idea as a publicity gimmick, they need to be looking for another job. If Parsons himself wanted this, then he needs to surround himself with reputation managers who can see poor judgment in the making and have the wherewithal to dissuade and persuade him from taking such actions. If Parsons just likes to hunt, a good advice would be to do it very, very privately indeed and forget about attaching some “good cause” to his actions.

Or, as his Entrepreneur interview which took place before the “hunt” clearly shows, if he revels in courting controversy, let him also recognize that as a CEO of a billion dollar company, he cannot take on the persona of a renegade who defies responsibilities to his stakeholders as well as public opinion.

Parsons should have taken note of his own quote in that interview when he said, “You need to know exactly where you stand in a business at all times. Measure everything, because everything that is measured and watched, improves.”

Too late for PR crises experts to work their magic on this one…

There is that old “no-brainer”… Judgment calls come before actions taken — with considerations given to potential consequences from all angles.

Hello!

With the disastrous and colliding events taking place in Japan continuing to eclipse all other considerations and rendering everything not related to such devastation meaningless, I took a moment to reflect on a top-scoring slogan that came to mind, used not so long ago for AT&T’s long distance phone service — “reach out and touch someone.”

How far our communication systems have evolved was starkly evident during the recent Tsunami disaster when phone communication systems crashed all around and when it took a different medium than phone systems, as in social media — to “reach out and touch someone.”

According to The Telegraph, “mobile carriers over the weekend were limiting voice calls on Japanese networks with NTT DoCoMo limiting up to 80 percent of the voice calls in Tokyo and elsewhere.”

As such, the swiftness with which services such as Google’s “person finder” were organized in response to the earthquake, as well as the services of Twitter, Skype, Facebook, Google (News Alert) and Mixi, (Japan’s most popular social networking site), which miraculously worked well throughout the emergency, remains a matter of wonderment. It was primarily through these services that information about friends and relatives seeped through, domestically and internationally, and that the “lucky” relatives were reunited.

Just consider the Tsunami of 2004 that hit Indonesia and its surroundings. The power to connect people directly was in its infancy and the search for survivors was still mostly relegated to phone communication systems, which at best offered intermittent connections. Also many Londoners discovered during the July 2007 terrorist incidents that mobile phone networks were unable to cope, as hundreds of thousands of customers tried to call or send a text at the same time. As to the Haiti earthquake of 2010, with most having little or no Internet access, social media only partly made up for the lack of information coming from the affected area, with CNN playing the largest role.

At a moment in time, when we are overcome with the destructive force that Mother Nature inflicted on Japan, with as yet unknown consequences affecting global economies and impacting market needs worldwide, there is still something meaningful to reflect on – the continued ingenuity of man, to find the means, with which to “reach out and touch someone.”

It’s that human element that we can count on most…

Taco Bell is now really over the top in employing defensive tactics to counter that Alabama lawsuit that claims an independent test of the fast food chain’s beef filling was actually only 35% beef, which begs the question as to what’s in the rest of the 65%.  In fact, this subject has been invaluable material for late night pundits in the last week, who ranted and joked at the company’s expense – as an example: the head writer for the Letterman show chuckled, “we’re all finally going to find out where the Taco Bell Chihuahua went.”

Given the ongoing merciless dialogue, one can only wonder at the choices that the fast food chain made in going on the offensive with an ad blitz to counterattack the claims, taking out full page ads in newspapers across the country featuring a headline that read, “Thank you for suing us” in big, bold letters.

Really?  I don’t get the purpose.  Apparently, the somewhat sarcastic shock tactic was meant as an attention grabber to set the record straight as to the “real” story about the beef ingredients of the filling, which the ads claimed are “88% beef and 12% Secret Recipe.”  I got confused with the math because the ads went on to claim that, “ours is 100% beef USDA inspected, “with water and spices added that bring the mixture’s beef quotient down to 88%.” That’s the 12%  “secret recipe?”

Unlike McDonald’s who has always marketed their “secret recipe” and Coke’s well-known “secret sauce,” this is the first we hear of Taco Bell’s “secret recipe.”

Anyway it did not convince.

Taco Bell’s next try was to shore up its reputation with the launch of a “Talk” campaign which sounds like a right move, meant to engage and reassure taco lovers.  Except that the campaign features Taco Bell’s own employees, restaurant managers and franchisees.

Not convincing. What would employees say other than sing the company’s line?

I would suggest to Taco Bell that, rather than using ads (or controlled media) to counterattack questionable claims, consider a PR solution and turn to stellar examples such as:

• Domino’s Pizza playbook, and the tactics used when responding to its own PR fiasco when a video surfaced on YouTube showing disgusting and filthy antics from a server. Domino’s response was a bold campaign showing open frankness in conversations, all over the social networks, with a “mea culpa” and aiming to do better – all of which netted the company an almost 12% increase in sales in the third quarter of 2010.
• Toyota’s crisis book with the Prius, when it was accused of safety issues.  Toyota retained an independent third party study to prove whether or not the car was in fact safe and was cleared of all safety suspicions involving that car.

Most credible would be for Taco Bell to retain a third-party independent testing lab to come up with its own conclusions.  And should the beef come up short, stop the misguided claims and embark on a campaign that engages and reassures as to taste, price, convenience and health safety.  Surely taco lovers (including me) would be appreciative.  And should the beef indeed contain the 88% that they claim – problem solved.

I would caution that a bit of media training for its CEO would go a long way for the company’s reputation.  A video posted on YouTube has the CEO quoted, in defense of the company’s recipe as, “Taco Bell = 12 pounds of food for 3 dollars. I don’t care what’s in it, everything we eat is apparently gonna give us cancer and/or kill us anyway.”

We introduce our next guest blogger of our monthly series on the 25th of every month, in celebration of our 25th anniversary this year, Michael Pranikoff, emerging media director for PR Newswire.

Michael Pranikoff, Global Director of Emerging Media at PR Newswire, is responsible for educating PR Newswire staff and customers about the role emerging media in marketing / communications.  Michael is also involved in the development of products and services for PR Newswire in the area of emerging media.  Michael joined PR Newswire in 1998. Prior to joining PR Newswire, Michael worked for MacNeil / Lehrer Productions which produces the PBS NewsHour. Michael graduated from Syracuse University.  Michael maintains profiles across many social networks and social media outlets, connect with him at http://card.ly/MichaelPranikoff.

As I write this, I’m speeding though Germany on the high-speed ICE train from Hamburg to Berlin.   I just finished a two-day tour of speaking and throughout this time, I’ve been working on a piece about managing corporate identity in a crisis situation.

Speed has been the underlying theme to just about everything in the past few days.  The speed of our communications and the reactions to those messages are faster – and travel further — than they ever have before.

Since the 1950s, when the first press release ran across a wire service (PR Newswire – my employer), the pace of communications has been rapidly changing.  Just 20 years ago we all were just getting acquainted with email.  Today, we can’t go anywhere without it.

It’s important we listen effectively and react or communicate quickly and efficiently.  Unfortunately, that seems like an impossible thing to do for many organizations.

In my discussions around the world with communications professionals, there is always a sense of frustration at how long it takes to get a message together and push it out the door.   I’ve heard countless stories about how a news release is written, sent around for approval, and two days later it’s returned as a completely different version  with a few more messages and several hundred words longer.    If this is really the process, then how do we react in a crisis situation?

We’ve all seen examples, where it takes days for a company to react to a situation publicly.  Does this sound familiar? This just won’t do anymore.   Communications professionals today must be empowered to communicate quickly. In order to do that, we must earn the trust of the corporation.

One way to gain this trust is to design a program that makes it easy for our peers and superiors to see that we know what we are doing.  Design a flow chart that shows the steps to take when responding to something, the channels to use, and when to step back and examine further.

The best example of this that I’ve seen comes from an unlikely source – the United States Air Force.   In reality, it shouldn’t be surprising that they would come up with a process. What is more surprising is that they’ve been so public and transparent with it, and I applaud them for it.

There are still other stunning examples of companies and organizations that have been responded quickly and effectively to kill a potential crisis situation.  Last year, the Transportation Security Administration was able to thwart a potentially damaging story in a matter of hours when a mommy blogger posted a story entitled “TSA Agents Took My Son”.  In less than half a day – lightning speed for almost any organization – TSA was able to research the situation and use proper channels (in this case, their blog) to combat this false story.

As my high-speed train starts to slow down to approach Berlin, I’m reminded that while we need to quickly react and respond today, TSA shows us that it only works when the right analysis has been done.

Having a process will immensely help, and I encourage everyone to think with L.A.S.E.R precision: Listen. Analyze. Strategize. Engage. Repeat.

Among the torrent of comments and opinions on Facebook, Twitter, blogs and relentless reporting in mainstream media that followed the dramatic exit of flight attendant Steven Slater, 38, who snagged two beers before he popped the emergency exit chute and slid out of the aircraft — came the challenge to PR professionals as to what would be their response if they were JetBlue.

Couldn’t resist, so here goes…

Same response as that of JetBlue — curt, funny, a bit irreverent, true to brand, direct to their customers via their blog and yes, 48 hours later.  While it is true that this goes against the grain of every crisis communication principle, I would start by asking what were they supposed to respond to… the rage of a single individual, who had an irrational moment caused by unrestrained anger that triggered him to lose all sense of reason?

An official statement from the corporate office would have given this incident way too much credence.

Past just the brazen surprise of it all, the extended news of this incident got tied to the airline’s cutbacks, which made Slater just a victim of the state of affairs, a part of “an overworked, overwrought and exhausted crew,”  thus making a case, or excuse, for Slater’s disruptive behavior.

Nonsense.  They teach kids to “use their words” in lieu of having temper tantrums.  Good advice for Slater.

Finally came a voice of reason from the Seattle Times, when Peter Loeb wrote, “The point here is, once again, the public is playing victim in this JetBlue incident. Praising Slater for totally unprofessional behavior condones conduct that decimates what’s left of our service-based economy.”

And even better, Loeb went on to say, “Put Slater off the payroll. I am sure he will delight in his 99 weeks of unemployment.”

Indeed.

But disruptions like this one have a cultural appeal.  According to The New York Times, “he has become a paparazzi chum, a working person’s James Dean. Fans have set up a Steven Slater Facebook page, shout-outs are pouring in from every corner of the Internet, and at least three Slater ballads are making the rounds on YouTube.”

Somebody is likely to offer him a book deal, a reality show, and get him on the road of talk shows. Yes, he may get off JetBlue’s payroll, but our American culture will most likely turn him into a folk hero and that will bring him compensation well past his JetBlue salary.

The good news is that it will surely be short lived, for even folk culture cannot sustain the total lack of substance.

Remember Joe the Plumber?  Probably not.  Things like that have a tendency to fade into oblivion.

Associated Press

Almost a year ago, on April 17 of ’09, in my blog titled, Bringing Brands Down Without A Safety Net… I wrote about Domino’s nightmare customer-generated video, showing disgusting and filthy antics from a server in preparing a pizza.  The video exploded virally on YouTube, causing unspeakable damage to the 50-year old reputation of the company.  As it turns out, the story had a happy ending, with Domino’s ultimate brand pivot — as they reformulated recipes and opened up a first-ever transparency communication on social networks.

Now it’s food giant, Nestlé’s turn to battle social media wars, as Greenpeace-backed environmental activists used social media in the last two weeks, to attack Nestlé over its purchase of palm oil for use in their KitKat candy bars and other products.  As reported by Emily Steel of the Wall Street Journal, the protestors “have swamped Nestle’s Facebook page with negative comments, used Twitter as a loud speaker and, posted a negative video on YouTube.
The activists claim that, “Nestlé is contributing to the destruction of Indonesia’s rain forest, potentially fueling global warming and endangering orangutans.”  Yet according to Nestle, only 1.25% of all the palm oil Nestlé used last year was from the Indonesian firm.

Not much chance that Nestlé will be responsible for destroying any rain forest in the near future.  Clearly much ado over nothing, but that’s not the point.  It’s out there, regardless.

Look, attacks on brands by individuals or consumer groups are not new. The “genie is out of the bottle” and there is no stuffing it back in anymore.  Companies will have to live with the fact that social media has offered all those who wish, a speaker’s platform with a “mega-bullhorn,” giving credence to all, without thought as to “from whose mouth it cometh.” Social media channels have enabled the volume to be turned up and the speed to quicken as to damaging rhetoric, leaving brands exposed and naked, with little recourse how to halt the onslaught.

Nestle’s contemporary dilemma has elicited various responses from professionals.  Some have suggested that Nestlé should temporarily shut down its Facebook page. Some have suggested they should cut down any two-way communications for now. Others have encouraged the company to post changes that will abate the protests, which it did, but the din continues. Nestlé itself had asked YouTube to take down the videos, but unfortunately only after the videos had spread virally beyond control.

I would offer that preparedness might be the answer. It always was so, but traditionally crises plans were more geared to accidents, product failures, whistle blowers or general company disasters, such as manufacturing delays.  A crisis communication plan clearly should include social media “attacks” from consumer groups, replete with a multi-media planned response approach.

I would add that a policy of ongoing transparency, coupled with daily interaction and consumer engagement can, with any luck, catch a disgruntled comment that can get an immediate response, well before it spirals out of control.  May be time consuming to do, but necessary…

The Army had it right – Be Prepared.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 is a textbook example of a major PR crisis communication failure. With no effective systems in place to respond responsibly in the face of the environmental disaster that ensued, Exxon’s delayed response damaged their reputation for years to come.

->Back to 25 PR Defining Moments

->View the Complete List

It took 18 months, hundreds of billions of dollars in Federal loans and a Gallup poll that found consumer confidence in financial institutions at the lowest level since the poll began asking the question 34 years ago, to have banks get into gear and do something about their much-tarnished public image. Apparently the wheels turn slowly with financial institutions…

Here’s how it went: financial institutions continued their staid and true messages of stability and longevity for the first few months of the financial crisis; this was followed by “no message is the best message,” clearly a stance that never works; then messages slowly evolved into a defensive blame game, which quickly turned around into rounds of apologies; and now, finally, recognition seeped in that something needs to be done about re-building public trust of their industry.

It took 18 months and the public remained indignant.  Just consider the arrogance of it all…

According to Nathaniel Popper’s report in the LA Times, some banks are now forging new ground in connecting to the public. The surge in marketing has taken banks into uncharacteristic new territories. Bank of America has staffers responding to customer complaints via Twitter; banks such as Citigroup and Bank of America are having their respective CEOs trotted out to make personal appearances at individual bank branches; uplifting ad campaigns are launched such as Citigroup’s, in which CEO, Vikram Pandit says, “It’s clear that we made some mistakes coming into this environment, and we have to acknowledge that.”  Bank of America has actually moved away from same old traditional ways by adding a new website that centers on public perception of the bank, rather than products or services.

But nothing has really begun to pierce the intense public anger.

Although the recent moves reflect a recognition that a different approach is needed to contend with the public’s ongoing outcry, I project it to be a long road ahead.  For example, just last week in my blog of February 24, titled Chase Bank – The Latest Poster Child For Customer Service Ills, I noted that customers calling the Chase #800 number were getting the same old run around, without change, in their search for a solution to their query.  Announcing management, operations and staff changes, as did Citibank and Bank of America, is not sending any message.  It is simply news and not likely to tweak up the trust factor until the news evolves into a positive result.

Public Relations counselors would do well to encourage financial institutions to take a page out of the original Community Reinvestment Act passed in 1977 (which requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits) and become active in neighborhoods in which they do business, where they would be seen as partners in rebuilding communities. They could also send a strong message of “caring for a community” by taking an active interest in community education; behave as leaders in the communities by partaking in city councils; and become conversant with customers on social media networks. Investing resources into such a program would “buy” them the much-needed trust — sooner than later.

As a direct example, the Los Angeles Unified School District is in deep financial trouble.  Just today it announced a 4,000-teacher/staff/administrator layoff. The implications to the future of education of children are disturbing.  Would it not be a great slot for any of the bigger banks to fill?  What a hero the bank would be…

I have to add that I take exception to the quote in the LA Times report of CEO of Financial Marketing Solutions, Tim Pannell saying, “We need some really genuine, believable pathos — look you in the eye and say, ‘We acknowledge the troubles, we understand maybe we could have done things differently’.”

Pathos may make everyone feel better, but actual customer engagement will effect a change.

As if Toyota does not have enough troubles, along comes Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood…

Apparently, during testimony before a Congressional panel Secretary LaHood was asked as to what guidance he would give to Toyota owners affected by a series of recalls.  Not one to ever mince words, reminiscent of President Harry Truman’s folksy style, LaHood said, “If anybody owns one of these vehicles, stop driving it. And take it to a Toyota dealer.”

Feels like sound advice to me.  You better believe it that if my car had the possibility of brake troubles the only driving I would do is to the dealer.  Toyota itself has urged drivers of recalled cars to do so.

But unfortunately the media heard only three words –“stop driving it” and a PR storm erupted as those words, now out of context, ricocheted over the airwaves, print publications, news wires and Internet, unfurling an all around  “hissy fit.” Toyota expressed “dismay,” and the Chief of Staff at the White House, Rahm Emanuel, felt obliged to come to Mr. LaHood’s defense, saying that “the President thinks Ray’s been a great secretary,” and adding that “when the Secretary misspoke, he immediately realized he’d said it.”

Misspoke.  LaHood did try to modify his words, saying “What I said in there was obviously a misstatement,” adding that he meant to say, “If you own one of these cars, or if you’re in doubt, take it to the dealer.”

Sounds like semantics to me.  Same message, softer edges…

In any case, this has once again made the case for being scripted in the first place – and sticking to it.

Look, as communication professionals, we agonize about the possibility of a client breaking with carefully crafted messaging that is painstakingly dissected for any potential risks. In the case of LaHood, being in the position of transportation authority, the risk of going “off message” is that his words can further damage the already tarnished Toyota image with consumers and be “officially” seen, per his position, as escalating fears of safety causing even the White House to issue a statement of confidence in the Secretary.  But, damage done.  Backtracking rarely works.

Here’s my advice: change the old adage of “Think before you speak” to “Read before you speak.” Helps to stay on message…

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Today, the agency introduces a new channel on the corporate blog called “Digital Trenches,” which will feature tactical suggestions and guidance on trending digital communications and marketing topics including search optimization, social media, mobile marketing, online media and the blogosphere.

What a week!  Apple finally raised the curtain on its greatly anticipated new tablet, the iPad, sending the Internet aglow for 24 hours, only to have some public nonsense erupt about the use of the word “pad,” which could easily have been but a nonsensical blip, had it not made the front page of The New York Times on January 29; President Obama delivered a much anticipated State of the Union, which instantly flared national emotions, from pride to fury; an American icon turned up as Italian; a German car company unleashed a storm through its Green Police ad campaign; and finally, Toyota delivered an expensive “Mea Culpa.”

1 Blip: Could anyone ever have thought that the name of the new Apple tablet, iPad, would evoke awkward associations with feminine hygiene products? According to Michael Cronan, a naming consultant in Berkeley, Calif., whose company has helped come up with brand names like TiVo and Kindle, “many naming experiments show that women tend to reflexively relate words like “pad” and “flow” to bodily concerns.”

C’mon.  Apple’s marketing team must be incredulous.  Happily their response was no comment.

2 Blunders: McItaly and Green Police.  An American export icon turns Italian, and a German company brings up reminders of the Third Reich.  Unreal.  Along with apple pie, the golden arches of McDonalds are recognized internationally as very American indeed.  And, along comes McItaly, so named because it apparently will use only Italian ingredients.  When McDonalds showed up in Moscow in the early ’90, the company also used only Russian ingredients but it did not become McRussia.  Speaking of diluting what a brand stands for…. According to The Guardian‘s Word of Mouth foodblog, Matthew Fort, the burgers are a “monstrous act of national betrayal.” Couldn’t agree more.

Audi’s misstep in picking an environmentally friendly name for their Super Bowl social media campaign, as in “Green Police,” without first checking it out, was a huge marketing blunder. Readily available research would have revealed that the name was used in Nazi Germany to refer to the German Order Police.  Whether or not consumers will know their history enough to connect the dots, does not justify such oversight. An apology is in order.  And also maybe a new marketing team that gets that research can forestall damage to a company’s image.

1 Headache: the $550 million operating cost headache for Toyota, as it recalled 5.6 million vehicles in the United States alone, swallowed production shutdowns and searched for fixes to have the problem go away, sooner than later.  However, much like the Johnson & Johnson Tylenol recall of the ‘80s, which left the company unscathed because of its strong and open responses, Toyota is doing what is right in an effort to keep the public trust. Its president has issued a Mea Culpa apology and company communiqués continue to update the public.

And finally the one word that is rarely heard, if at all, in political speeches — Decency. President Obama used this word in his State of the Union address, citing the, “fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people, that lives on.”  A word to be remembered…

Thank God it’s almost — Monday.