“Welcome to the Hotel California?” : A crisis communications case study

The Cecil Hotel in Los Angeles Photo: CNN

Here's an interesting case study in crisis communications:

You are the owner of a hotel. For several days you've been receiving complaints that the water tastes funny. Some guests have commented that the shower will run black for a few minutes then clear. Water pressure has been dropping.

You assign a maintenance worker to check the system. In inspecting the water system, your worker discovers the naked body of a 27 year old guest that has apparently been decomposing in your cistern since her disappearance was reported two weeks previously.

At this point you have very few facts but you recognize that this is a significant reputational crisis and you need to take action immediately. The situation isn't helped that your hotel has a dark history – murders (in the 20's and 30's) and suicides (one in the 60's) have occurred in the past and at least two serial killers have been guests in the past.

So what do you do? Specifically, what message do you give to the guests who have stayed with you in the past few weeks? What can you offer them by way of compensation?

I look forward to your answers!

(By the way, you really can't make this stuff up – this is an actual event. See the story here and the history of the hotel here.)

Prepare for 72 hours! Really?

A question came up recently on the Emergency Management Issues Facebook Page regarding the basis for the 72 hour preparedness model. It's always fun to see the reasons people come up with to explain it. I know – I've done it myself. The simple fact is that there really is no empirical basis for preparing for 72 hours as opposed to say, 96 or 120 (3, 4 and 5 days).

The earliest we can trace the 72 hours preparedness model is to a Red Cross brochure from 1928 that my colleague Rocky Lopes has in his possession. My colleague Valerie Lucus-McEwen has also traced it back to the Cold War and Civil Defense planning. The origins of the model are lost in the mists of time.

So why do we continue to tell people they must be prepared for 72 hours (or three days, which is easier for them to visualize)? The answer is that we assume that someone, somewhere had a good reason for coming up with this idea and that, since we're all using it, it must be correct. We simply accept that it is a "good thing" without questioning whether it is the "right thing".

Now there's a lot to be said for consistency of message and any preparedness is better than no preparedness but the fact is, as I've said over and over, one size does not fit all. Three days of supplies in one location may be appropriate but may be woefully inadequate in another. Water needs change based on climate. The best approach is to tailor the message to local conditions, which would be difficult but not impossible. The message of stockpiling supplies also doesn't resonate with the people most likely to suffer most in a disaster: those with limited economic resources.

Now I'm not suggesting that we abandon our preparedness message or that trying to keep our message consistent is a bad thing. I do think, though, that it's time we question the way we have traditionally done things, whether it's planning or community preparedness. The one-size-fits-all approach often results in mediocrity. We owe our communities better.

Social media leaves little time to react to crisis

There's an interesting article in this morning's San Francisco Chronicle that restates what experts like my colleague Johnathan Bernstein have been saying for years: social media has almost eliminated the time you have to react to a crisis.

In the article, Chronicle writer Carla Marinucci describes how the proliferation of social media sites has created a new environment. Social media sites and, in particular, Twitter, have the ability to almost instantaneously shape public opinion. This is changing how media relations firms respond to crisis.

The message is clear and is not new: if you are still using the old ways of getting your story out, you have already lost your battle to maintain your organization's reputation in a crisis.

My old friend and colleague, the late Dave Fowler, taught me ages ago that one of the problems is that we train our media staff in public relations but not in crisis communications. This was in the day when we were transitioning from the standard twice-daily press briefings to the new world of constant news feeds. CNN was the game changer then and those of us who understood this did a better job of communicating our side of the story.

Times change and crisis communications has become even more complex and more critical. So give some thought to how you're preparing your media team. One person who handles press releases was never sufficient and will definitely not meet the needs of a modern crisis. Identify a team to support your regular media staff and provide training in crisis communications. When reaction time is measured in minutes, you don't have time to do this when it really counts.

Is mandating mitigation fiscally prudent?

Levee failure California Delta 2004 Photo: California Dept of Water Resources

A good friend offered this comment on my recent blog on San Francisco's push to mandate mitigation:

NY did not mandate mitigation & Congress just rewarded them with BILLIONS. Not fiscally prudent to mandate/mitigate.

His point is well-taken and highlights one of the major problems with mitigation – it's ultimately about money (well, what isn't?). Our programs provide very limited funding for pre-disaster mitigation – much of our funding is provided after the fact which limits the benefits from mitigation. From one prespective it would seem fiscally prudent to wait to fund mitigation until you can use Federal dollars instead of local tax dollars.

However, such thinking ignores the opportunity cost of waiting until after a disaster to take action to reduce your losses. A 2005 study by the Multi-hazard Mitigation Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences, Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: An Independent Study to Assess the Future Savings from Mitigation Activities, found that ever dollar invested in mitigation saves society $4. The study also found that every Federal dollar invested in FEMA mitigation grants saved $3.65. This changes the cost benefit analysis consderably.

However, no matter how logical the argument for pre-disaster mitigation, we are still faced with the attitude that deciding to spend a dollar now in times of tight budgets is reality – potential savings are theoretical and besides, we all know "that won't happen here!" It's this same thinking that has resisted mitigation efforts on the East Coast barrier islands or the levees in California. For some reason, it always seems easier to fund rebuilding after the fact than to fund pre-disaster mitigation.

So it may well be fiscally prudent to bet on surviving a disaster and getting the Feds to pay but I think it's a sucker's bet and extremely short-sighted. Even if you win, you lose.

UMXYRZQSYQQE

Join me this Wednesday on EM Forum to talk about planning assumptions

San Francisco proposes mandatory mitigation

Typical San Francisco soft-story building. Photo: Lea Suzuki – The Chronicle

One of the problems with retrofitting properties to make them safer is motivating people to actually do the work. Building code changes are generally not retroactive which means that a building owner need not comply with new standards unless remodeling projects are extensive enough to trigger the application of the new code.

Case in point is the City of San Francisco which for years has worked to eliminate soft-story buildings that are prone to collapse in an earthquake. (Soft-story buildings are wood-framed, multi-story units that have either a garage or retail space that result in the removal of some of the building supports.) Since the program has been voluntary and the incentives to comply minimal, very few building owners have been willing to foot the expensive retrofit that involves installing a reinforcing steel frame. The City estimates that retrofitting the 2,800 most vulnerable buildings would cost $260 million but could save as much as $1.5 billion in earthquake damages.

Mayor Ed Lee has taken the unusual step of submitting legislation that would mandate the retrofitting of buildings of at least three stories and containing five or more dwelling units. Surprisingly for San Francisco (where politics is a blood sport), the Mayor seems to have the support of the Board of Supervisors (which functions as our city council) and the San Francisco Apartment Association, which represents landlords, even though funding details have not been worked out. Tenants groups are not yet onboard over concerns that the costs will be passed directly to tenants in a city where rents are already astronomical.

Mandating mitigation is politically risky and there's sure to be a lot of pushback on the Mayor's proposal. The success of the project will rise or fall on the answer to the age-old question, "Who pays?" There will no doubt be considerable discussion and compromise. But it is the right thing to do and it seems that the elected officials in San Francisco are willing to step up to the task.

For more information, see the story in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Zero tolerance doesn’t work

Does your organization have a "zero tolerance" policy? Whether it's for drugs or harassment or violence is a bit irrelevant. Organizations create such policies to demonstrate that they take the particular problem seriously and will take whatever measures are necessary to prevent or curtail it. However, there's a problem with zero tolerance policies. Blind enforcement sooner or later produces the potential significant reputation damage.

A zero tolerance policy is supposed to take the guesswork out of decision-making when confronted with the inappropriate behavior. Instead it can seriously limit managerial discretion by making facts irrelevant and disallowing common sense.

Case in point is the recent suspension of a 5-year old student at school in Pennsylvania for making "terrorist threats". While the article I read on ABC News website did not specify the nature of the threat, it apparently involved a shootout with a Hello Kitty bubble gun blower. Fortunately, the young lady did not have the bubble gun with her at school or I suspect she would have been arrested for having a weapon on school property. Instead she was suspended for 10 days and forced to undergo a psychological evaluation (which showed that she was perfectly normal and posed no threat to her classmates). She now has a permanent entry on her school records which affects her ability to transfer schools and that may result in a lawsuit.

What's wrong with this picture? Zero tolerance for weapons and threats of violence sounds good but surely an adult should be able to distinguish between school yard play and a real threat. Even if there seemed to be a problem, a word to the parents might have been sufficient. Instead, I suspect that inflexible policies mandated the school officials' actions and created a reputational crisis out of what should have been a minor incident. 

By limiting decision-making and forbidding the application of common sense zero tolerance policies can do more harm than good. They are an attempt to take the easy way out by making all situations equal. The simple fact is that all situations are not equal and administrators must be able to base their actions on the circumstances of each. As is so often the case in crisis management, one size does not fit all.

Who is really responsible for risky building practices?

Photo: Mario Tama, Getty Images

It was interesting to see the emphasis on climate change in President Obama's inaugural address. A few years ago those of us who expressed concern over the predictions were viewed with considerable scepticism. Now we may be seeing the beginning of a national debate that will focus not on the reality of climate change but rather on what we're going to do about it.

One issue is already surfacing and it is the same issue we face after any major disaster: do we rebuild or cut our losses? In an excellent article (Fiercer storms are coming – is it wise to build in their path?) in last Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle, Carolyn Lochhead considers how government has contributed to community vulnerability by subsidizing risky behavior and encouraging building in disaster-prone areas. The rush to restore infrastructure immediately after disaster ensures that debates over whether or not to rebuild are largely put on hold until it is too late. In many cases, construction and continued rebuilding in at-risk areas not only creates a drain on taxpayer dollars but actually strips away the natural defenses that would reduce potential damage to other parts of the communities.

But the other side of the coin is the impact on communities if we do not rebuild after a disaster. Objectively, one can argue that homes on barrier islands should not be rebuilt but who pays for the cost of relocation? How do you tell a homeowner who has built according to local building codes and bought insurance subsidized by the government that they are now responsible for paying for damages? What is lost when a community such as the Ninth Ward in New Orleans is scattered across the country and not allowed to rebuild?  These are the questions that makes mitigation such a complex issue.

I believe it high time we had this debate about personal responsibility for risky behavior. It will not be popular but in the light of the increasing risk to coastal and riverine communities, we need to rethink how we build and how we rebuild after disaster.

Costa Concordia anniversary shows little sympathy for survivors.

Last Sunday was the one year anniversary of the capsizing of the Costa Concordia off the western coast of Italy. As you may recall, the cruise ship was sailing too close to shore, struck a rock, and rolled on it's side, killing 32 people. The ceremony, a tribute to those who died, was by all accounts a solemn and meaningful occasion. Unfortunately, it was marred by the absence of the survivors.

Prior to the ceremony, the ship owner Costa Crociere SpA sent a letter to the 4200 survivors saying that they would not be welcome. Costa justified its action by stating that the focus of the ceremony was on the dead not the living and that the small island could not accomodate that many visitors. Survivors suggest that it was more out of concern that disgruntled former passengers, many of whom are involved in lawsuits against Costa, would use the occasion to make their case to the media.

I sometimes think we should create an award for truly dumb crisis management moves. This would certainly rank way up there. Costa is being accused of condoning or possibly even ordering the actions that led to the wreck. Keeping survivors away from a commemorative ceremony certainly does nothing to dispel the idea that you have something to hide.

Add to this the complete lack of sympathy in such an action. Survivors need closure. Talking with others who have shared your experience, shedding tears for the dead – these are therapeutic actions. Many survivors are still suffering survivor's guilt or are experiencing nightmares or other symptoms of traumatic stress disorder and could possibly have been helped by attending the ceremony.

Did Costa have options? Certainly: set up temporary housing, pay locals to provide lodging in private homes, charter flights and house people at other locations, provide a ship for lodging (well, maybe THAT wouldn't have been such a good idea!). Chances are that not all 4200 and their families would be there. But even if they were, so what?

I've pointed out many times that showing sympathy for the victims of your actions is critical to succesful crisis management. Unfortunately, Costa obviously hasn't got the message.

Oil tanker collision reinforces rapid response

Photo: Pamela J Boehland, U.S. Coast Guard / SF

A near miss on another oil spill in our beautiful Bay as an empty oil tanker scraped one of the fenders protecting a tower of the Bay Bridge on Monday. Fortunately, the hull was not ruptured and no contamination took place.

What was interesting was the rapid reaction from all the agencies responsible for dealing with this type of event. Federal, state and local resources were dispatched immediately to the scene to make sure that any potential spill was contained. This is in stark contrast to the Cosco Busan incident in 2007 that spilled 53,000 gallons of bunker fuel into the Bay. All agencies were roundly critized for a slow and uncoordinated response.

There's nothing like a real event to test your plans and show up weaknesses. I can generally tell the level of experience of an emergency manager by his or her willingness to activate their response organization. People new to the profession wonder if they'll get into trouble for activating without a good enough reason. Experienced professionals know that if you even think you need to activate, you do it. It is easier to stand down an organization than to try to activate it after a crisis has gotten away from you.

We've also learned to take advantage of these false starts. You get to test notification systems and hazard assessment processes at a minimum. If it looks like you'll be standing down, run a short tabletop exercise based on "what if this had been worse" scenarios. One of my favorites was to take a worse case scenario and ask my team to identify what would have been our top three operational priorities, a twenty minute or so exercise that paid tremendous dividends in real events.

So the next time you're unsure about activating your team, do it!