Aurora Theater reopening a crisis management failure

The Aurora Theater that was the scene of last year's tragic shootings is scheduled to reopen on January 18th. As part of the reopening ceremonies, Cinemark is hosting a "special evening of remembrance" the night prior and has invited the families of the shooting victims to attend. The reopening is supported by the majority of the community and will be attended by the mayor and the governor of Colorado. Grief counselors will be on hand. So why is this a failure of crisis management?

It's a question of perception, as are most crisis management problems.

Victims' families claim that this is the first they have heard directly from Cinemark. The company did offer to pay for funeral expenses not covered by the Crime Victim's Compensation Fund but did this through contact with the funeral homes, not the victims' families. Cinemark has made no apology nor offered any condolences to the victims' families.

Contrast this with the actions of Warner Brothers and others associated with the movie that was playing during the shooting. Warner issued a statement of condolence and cancelled several gala events associated with the movie, revised it's marketing campaign, and promised a substantial donation to Colorado's Community First Foundation. The director, cast and crew sent condolences and the star, Christian Bale, privately visited the survivors in hospital.

By failing to issue a formal statement immediately empathizing with the victims and their families, probably on the advice of attorneys fearing a lawsuit, Cinemark committed a classic crisis management blunder. They then made things worse by creating the appearance of using the victim's families to gain publicity of for the reopening. The timing of the invitation to the families, two days after Christmas, was thoughtless and the method, email, insulting.

Cinemark's failure is reminder that you're never wrong in expressing sympathy. Do it immediately and do it publicly. You don't have to make statements that can come back to haunt you in court but staying silent could cost you dearly in the court of public opinion. Potential jurors read papers and listen to the news.

The triumph of evil? Not on our watch.

My apologies for being missing in action for so long. It's been a hectic few weeks between teaching a graduate class in Portland and doing keynote speeches at the All-hazards Summits sponsored by Emergency Management magazine. But that's merely an excuse – I've actually been suffering from an uncharacteristic bout of writer's block.

I don't really believe in writer's block – if I'm having trouble writing it's usually because I haven't fully developed an idea or, more likely, I'm just being lazy and not getting started. But this has been different. I've been wrestling with my feelings about the recent shootings in Oregon and Connecticut and trying to think of something to add to a discussion that has been getting way too emotional and too focused on the issue of gun control. In the end, I just can't find the words.

However, I take heart from the season. Most religions of which I am aware hold major celebrations at this time of year. Despite their different beliefs, if you look closely, the theme is the same – the triumph of light over darkness. For centuries the midwinter feast has celebrated the belief that even in the deepest winter there will be a spring and that somehow life will go on. People are never more at their best than when confronted by disaster. You can either believe that in your heart or read the research – it's true either way.

So wherever you fall in the debates that are taking place right now, don't let the actions of two disturbed men obscure the fact that there are millions of people around the world doing something to make it a better place. Be one of them – do an act of kindness, give to a charity, help someone who needs it, support a cause you believe in. Remember the quote attributed to Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Crisis communications: Walmart gets it right.

It's always easy to find examples of poor crisis communications. Some organizations seem to go out of their way to appear deceptive and unsympathetic. It's nice to see someone do it right for a change.

This past Sunday, two Walmart employees and a contract security officer were involved in an altercation with an alleged shoplifter who died, possibly as the result of a chokehold applied by the security officer. Walmart spokesperson Diana Gee made the following statement:

No amount of merchandise
is worth someone’s life. Associates are
trained to disengage from situations that would put themselves or others at
risk. This is truly a sad
situation. We don’t know all of the facts right now. We’re in the
process of working with law enforcement to determine all of the facts and
cooperating and providing any information we have to assist in the
investigation.

Let's break this down a bit: 

• No amount of merchandise is worth someone’s life. – Shows empathy with the victim
• Associates are trained to disengage from situations that would put themselves or others at risk – Staff are trained to avoid these situations; leaves open the possibility that the employees were acting outside the scope of their duties.
• This is truly a sad situation.- Reiterates empathy for the victim.
• We don’t know all of the facts right now.- No speculation, no blaming the victim, no overt attempt to protect the company.
• We’re in the process of working with law enforcement to determine all of the facts and cooperating and providing any information we have to assist in the investigation.- Cooperation with authorities, commitment to the facts.

This statement is right out of the crisis management playbook and it works. There is no speculation, no attempt to assign responsibility, no language obviously designed to protect the company. Instead we are presented with empathy and a firm commitment to finding the facts.

Walmart also followed its statement with swift action: the two employees have been suspended with pay pending the outcome of the investigation and the contract officer will no longer be providing services to the store. This combination of immediate, thoughtful action and straight talk is a winner when dealing with crisis.

Thanks to the good folks at the Consumerist for bringing this incident to my attention.

Hurricane Sandy – before and after photographs

Over the years I've seen the impact of disaster up close both personally and professionally. One the the things that has always impressed me is the sheer power of Mother Nature when she cuts loose. I've seen heavy vessels moved inland and small vessels stuck into the sides of buildings after hurricanes and typhoons. I've seen heavy winds rip the roofs off buildings. It's truly awe-inspiring.

This power to change our landscape is clearly demonstrated in a series of before-after aerial photographs by the USGS of the East Coast struck by Sandy. However, these pictures are more than just a record of the power of nature. They are valuable tools for a variety of purposes such as damage estimation and studying the effect of pre-disaster mitigation measures. The also reaffirm that some places were not intended for human habitation.

We rely heavily on work done by the USGS, particularly here in California where earthquakes are a daily occurrence. We are equally dependent on NOAA's many services. Unfortunately, both agencies have suffered severely from budget cuts over the past several years. Yet another example of government's penny-wise and pound-foolish approach to disaster management…

My thanks to my friend Art Taber for sending me the link to the USGS site. 

Hurricane Sandy and community resilience

One of the most common disasters myths is that people are incapable of taking care of themselves after a disaster. Despite historical examples and decades of research, we have based much of our planning on the concept of a strong central authority that directs disaster relief efforts. However, as the relief effort on the East Coast is demonstrating, humanitarian aid in large-scale disasters is complex and extremely difficult to centralize.

What both history and research shows us is that people are resilient and in the absence of government assistance will still try to organize themselves and begin the business of restoring their communities. Traditionally, this has not always been efficient or supportive of overall community interests because people frequently acted in isolation.

The advent of social media, however, has been a game-changer. Where non-governmental relief efforts were isolated and limited to the resources on hand, they are now have acccess to a world-wide community of tech-savvy supporters. Take, for example, the members of Occupy Wall Street who have turned their organizing efforts to coordinating the collection and distribution of relief supplies through a system of volunteers.

The truly interesting point for me is that this type of volunteerism can be focused and targeted through the use of social media. One of the reasons we have always discouraged in-kind donations is the difficulty of sorting and distributing these one-off donations. Small, localized efforts, however, can be very effective at identifying individual needs and disbursing donated goods to where they can do the most good. They work at the micro-level that is too granular for traditional government relief efforts.

What I see evolving is more equal partnership between government and volunteers. The question is will we be able to adapt our plans to take advantage of this resource or remain bound by the myth that government must coordinate all facets of disaster relief?

Insurance in disasters: Have you read your policy lately?

I have litany of reasons why people don't prepare. It ends with, "If it's that bad, they government will take care of me." Unfortunately, this is not the case as many people on the East Coast are finding out as they recover from the recent superstorm.

The truth is that most of the money used in rebuilding does not come from the government but from insurance. FEMA's Individual Assistance Program supplements but does not duplicate insurance coverage. There is also a cap on the amount of assistance the program can provide.

The problem with insurance is that insurance companies are fairly adept at sliding out from under claims at the time of disaster, largely because policy holders don't read their policies and have no idea what's covered and what is not. For example, following Hurricane Andrew in 1992, many policies now include a hurricane deductible based on a percentage of the coverage limit. Since Sandy was technically not a hurricane when it struck the East Coast, it will be interesting to see if insurance companies try to invoke this deductible as a tactic to get policy holders to settle to avoid lengthy litigation.

Even more worrisome is that policies typically exclude floods, mudslides, mold, fungi, and wet or dry rot, all of which are going to be present in the wake of the superstorm. Anyone that was not carrying flood insurance at the time of the storm is in trouble.

The point here is that a single policy may not protect you in a disaster. You need to consider the risks, the cost of replacing your home or property, and the options available to you. There's no time like the present to review your policy with your broker and make sure your coverage is adequate. Despite what you think, the government is not going to bail you out.

Hurricane Sandy and rumor control

One of the problems we see consistently in disaster operations is that of bad information being passed informally as rumors. This is particularly problematic in this era of immediate electronic communications. Rumors spread rapidly via tweets and social media pages.

We have traditionally dealt with this by having a "rumor control" function within our public information group that monitored news broadcasts and put out corrected information via the news services. However, the times are a'changing and our rumor control staff have a lot more to monitor than just news broadcasts and more ways to quickly correct misinformation.

FEMA is doing some interesting things to deal with this problem in the Sandy relief operation. In addition to the normal media channels, they are providing information directly to the public via a website designed specifically to correct bad information. Rumors are posted on the website with the correct information and links to either more information or relief services.

The page also offers the reader the opportunity to follow FEMA through a variety of social media sites where they can get current information.

This combination of traditional news releases, social media and a website certainly broadens the dissemination of information and goes a long way towards correcting bad information. Having a website pre-prepared that can be updated and made live during a crisis is concept that has been around for awhile but for some reason does not seem to be used as much as you would expect. If you haven't considered adding this to your crisis management tool box, maybe you should do so now. It's simple, cheap and effective and will definitely speed up your crisis communications.

The L’Aquila verdict: Should we be concerned?

Bernardo De Bernardini, one of the scientists convicted of manslaughter by a court in L'Aquila on Monday. Photograph: Filippo Monteforte/AFP/Getty Images

Tuesday's blog discussed the conviction of a group Italian seismologists on manslaughter charges stemming from their assessment of earthquake risk prior to the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake. However, in addition to the scientists, the government official who used the assessment to brief the public was also convicted. Taken together, this type of legal action could have a chilling effect on both the experts that assess risk and the public officials who rely on those assessments.

Security technologist, Bruce Schneier, sums it up well in a recent blog:

As someone who constantly makes predictions about security that could potentially affect the livelihood and lives of those who listen to them, this really made me stop and think. Could I be arrested, or sued, for telling people that this particular security product is effective when in fact it is not?

One of our principal tasks as emergency managers is the assessment and prioritization of risks. We base that prioritization on both the advice of experts and our training and intuition. While we hold ourselves professionally accountable for those decisions, the possibility of facing criminal charges even when acting ethically and competently would clearly hamper our ability to do our jobs.

And less you think, "it can't happen here," Schneier points out that there have already been attempts to bring civil suits against weather forecasters for erroneous predictions that resulted in death or economic loss.

So how do we defend against this? Well, you really can't nor should you lose sleep over it. Our job has always carried an element of risk and high levels of accountability. Your best defense is to act with the highest ethical and professional standards. The Italian case raises concerns but we would be negligent if we let it affect our duty to give our best professional advice to those we serve.