The Contagion experience- Crisis Comm reflection 4

I have the worst memory when it comes to movies. Seriously, I should have taken notes during Contagion. What I do know, is that I have washed my hands more since I have seen that movie than any other time my life. Yikes, germs have never been so terrifying.

From a crisis management perspective, this film was beyond interesting... it was overwhelming. The impact of an epidemic like one in the film was unimaginable. And as the plot went on and more people became infected, the crisis snow balled- making any crisis communication professional stutter in disbelief.

However, in the very initial phases, immediately following the death of Gweneth Paltrow’s character it seemed there were overt and thoughtful crisis management meetings. These brought to light complications based on the interests of the multiple agencies involved, but the largest complication was the unknown.

Early on, there was no knowledge of where the epidemic began, how exactly it was bring spread, and what could stop it. Instead, there were a few deaths that were loosely linked and no understanding of what could be the root of the disease. At this point, there was a lot to consider for the players at the table. They had choices to make- and each of these involved some amount of risk and a different group of stakeholders.

If the news were to go live that there was a possible epidemic looming then panic and frenzy could ensue. This could potentially be more dangerous than the germ. The professionals at the CDC devised a plan to try to separate infected persons from the healthy. A few schools were closed, offices, etc. People were encouraged to stay home if they were not feeling well.

Unfortunately, this was not enough. As time went on panic did set in. There were paracrises beginning as food the supply dwindled. Looting and violent crime increased as people’s desperation to survive increased.

What I found most interesting about the film was the downplay of the mass media involvement. Aside from a few seconds of footage, there was very little mention of the affect the mass media would have. There was one rogue blogger whose coverage of the outbreak and the cure became central to the plot, but CNN, CBS, Fox News, etc were all seemingly uninvolved. If this were a real event, I contend that the panic would have set in much sooner.

Seeing the frenzy over the limited supply of vaccines and forsythia brings back memories of recent gas shortages in Charlotte. Lines at the pump went on for blocks. People filled up their vehicles and spare tanks as well. Where did the sense of panic come from? The mass media.

I really enjoyed this film. It petrified me, but gave me a different perspective on handling crisis communication. Weighing overwhelming options and doing the best thing is not always easy. Likewise, it is not easy to prepare for a crisis of this nature. While contagious epidemics in general are worthy of plans, the unexpected characteristics of one type of epidemic can change the crisis management plan completely.

CMT Preparation- Crisis Comm reflection 3

While reading Coombs Ch. 5, I was reminded of my former job on the property management team at the Bank of America Corp Center. As the management company for the world headquarters of the bank, we had to be poised to handle any number of crises.

Yearly we had an external agency come in and offer our team emergency preparedness training for natural and man made disasters that could impact the building- and more importantly, the tenants. We took this very seriously. It was a week's worth of crisis management training, in which we created plans in case any of these scenarios were ever to happen. Luckily, the plans have not been used to date. From bomb scares to tornadoes, we had to create communication and evacuation plans to manage the crisis.

We did a lot of role playing as a way to practice. Through these drills, we learned who relied more on instinct versus some of our team who were much more analytical and felt that following set instructions was best. It was quite interesting to see- even in these types of practice drills who works better under pressure and who seemed overwhelmed. These drills offered us the chance to work as a team to execute our crisis plan-something that isn't always easy to do.

Interestingly, my current role allows me to see the works of crisis preparation in a different light. While working for the property management company gave me the insight into planning for one type of crisis, working in corp. comm has given me an insiders view into handling organizational misdeeds and challenges.

This form of crisis also requires team work. Our media relations reps work together to craft messages that align with the company voice. There have been times when untrained persons have given the media information. This resulted in more chaos and a bigger mess to clean up.

Having a CMP is critical, but you also have to be prepared for those who don't follow it. There can always be a rogue team member- or someone outside of the team who can add impact by not understanding the plan or the nature of the crisis. it's quite scary to think of the limits of what we can really prepare for. We may have the first steps in place, but until the actual crisis unfolds, the team may not know what they are up against.

I have learned in my experience the importance of remaining in contact as a team during the crisis. Having a designated hub where the team can post themselves, or making mandatory time for meetings (virtually if necessary) will be a very critical practice in dealing with crisis. Remaining on the same page as a team isn't necessarily easy, but it is essential to making your CMP work.

To Panic or Not to Panic? - Crisis Comm Reflection 2

There are more crisis than I can wrap my head around. It seems that pretty much every piece of news these days is some type of crisis. But is it? Have we as a society gotten trained to await bad news and be prepared to live in fear that we manifest crisis situations? Or, do we just not respond to any news that isn’t bad news?

Everything is about shock value. What Howard Stern once used as his platform to fame has become every news medium’s standard for getting viewers and readership. News of everyday happenings, like for instance a story of an environmental clean-up of a highway is spun to tell of the story of the “crisis” behind the clean up. Imagine the news report… “The stream next to the highway is so polluted that the ecosystem is at risk. Fish are dying. The water flows into our sewer system and is creating a hazard for our drinking water.”

Even just the report of the weather gets morphed into a potentially high risk event. Floods, blizzards, and droughts are constantly being used as propaganda to switch us as recipients of the news into crisis mode.

How does this affect our society’s ability to perceive a crisis? Are we able to filter genuine risk from inflated hype?

A few weeks ago a local news channel reported a story about the company that I work for. It was a partially true story, however, it was spun to generate fear, anxiety, and a sense of threat within the community. The story could have majorly impacted the public perception of the company. Our communications team needed to take action- in both a public response as well as with the channel that ran this report. It required using a crisis management plan, however, there was no real crisis.

I feel that the modern day media has created a problem for crisis management. While the threat may be quite real in some cases, we need to be able to differentiate between a legitimate crisis and a news manifested crisis. I found this article to offer insight into who the media is serving and why. It's an interesting perspective when thinking about crisis comm. and how the public is bieng informed.

Crisis communication- reflection one

When I think crisis, I think September 11, 2001. It was the largest (man made) crisis I have lived to see thus far; and one that’s impacts are still reverberating through our society. As a country, we will never be the same. It changed our national identity, and for many, it changed their individual identities as well.

In our early readings and class discussions, there has been a heavy emphasis on the nature of crises as being perceptual. I will first say that 9/11 forever changed my perception of what a crisis is and is not. Seeing planes fly into buildings, the desperation in people flinging themselves from 100 stories in the air and massive towers tumbling to ground was totally beyond my comprehension until to that day. The scale of both the loss as well as the evil it would take to construct such a plan is still mind boggling.

I had the fortunate experience of spending last weekend in NYC during the 10th anniversary of 9/11. In walking the streets of NYC, and watching the almost constant coverage that was aired on Sunday, I relived the sense of crisis that started that morning ten years earlier and lasted well into years later.

We have been in a post-crisis country since Sept 12th 2001. In the days and weeks that followed that day, up until now, the 10 year anniversary politicians and subject matter experts have explored the atrocities from many angles. We have heard the stories of the heroes of that day, from those who lived, and accounts of what happened to those who were lost.We have heard theories on conspiracy and charges of a negligent government. We saw leadership from a mayor raise up out of the ashes; and the leader of our nation take a more backseat approach. Did he perceive the crisis the same way we did?

The American people could not expect or prepare for that kind of situation. We can only hope that the governing body we rely on would have some sort of plan. Did they? Not really. On a local level, the cities of New York, D.C., andShanksville all managed to construct an immediate response to the crisis. They did well. From triage units to rebuilding a reputation, Rudy Giuliani succeeded in bringing New York back from a devastation unlike any other.

On a national level Americans saw very little in terms of a crisis management plan. Sure, we got ourselves a homeland security team and tightened security measures at airports. And, we even waged a war on terrorism and have watched soldiers fight that war for nine years. However, was the faith of the stakeholders ever restored? Not so much. Were Americans made to feel any safer? I don't think so. Instead we were barraged with media reports on threats of anthrax and other unimaginable scares. Where was the attempt to communicate a sense of safety?

What we have learned from post 9/11 America is that the government could and should have been prepared, to some extent. There are a variety of theories on how much was known by our president and his cabinet, but regardless of those claims, however erroneous they may seem to some, there needed to be a national crisis communication plan that restored our (the stakeholders) faith in our own country. America had been attacked before. We have seen terrorist threats and plots acted out. There should have been a long-term crisis management plan to assist the country in a time of such confusion and fear.

I would argue that we have been in a state of fear since then. Our ideas of security have been redefined and our faith in leadership has been continually tested. A crisis management plan could have unified the country, for longer than a month. It could have reinvented our country as "the home of the free and the land of the brave", a reputation once earned and respected.