Hellerman Communications Founder and President, John Hellerman, recently co-authored an article for McKnights Senior Living with Michele High, CDP, ADC on “how to mitigate risk and damage in a crisis.”

What follows are their 11 main takeaways, recommendations to manage communications in the media during a crisis or major litigation.

Essential to any crisis situation is the organization’s efforts to fix the underlying problem causing it.

1) Designate one person to act as a spokesman for the organization. This is rarely ever the community’s lawyer. The spokesman is usually the CEO, executive director or other top executive. Top executives, however, are not always the best spokespersons. Sometimes, technical experts or third-party allies are best. Deciding who speaks is critical and says a lot about how serious the company considers the problem. Do not have the CEO respond to a minor problem — the press will think it is more important than it is. Do not have mid-level spokespersons talk to the press if a tragedy occurred (for example, health effects, loss of life, etc.) because the company will look callous.

2) Develop message points based on facts. When responding to questions, remember to communicate the truth (as much as needed to fulfill the public’s need to know) and to comfort all affected audiences by exuding compassion and an understanding of their concerns.

3) Media-train the spokesperson. Next to planning (and especially in its absence), media training is the single most important factor in dealing with a crisis.

4) Communicate to internal audiences first. Making sure internal audiences hear the story from organization leaders before hearing it from the media builds and enforces trust. Internal support is critical, because this audience often is used by the news media to perpetuate unflattering messages.

5) Educate the media. The media are the intermediaries between the organization’s story and the public, and the more they know and understand the issues at stake, the better off the organization will be. Messages should demystify complex arguments and provide as much information as possible to create an on-going, beneficial dialogue.

6) Fix the problem. As the saying goes, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” Essential to any crisis situation is the organization’s efforts to fix the underlying problem causing it. Additionally, the company should approach the “repair phase” as an opportunity for a new position in the marketplace. For instance, if the community has a horrible record of hiring, promoting or retaining minority employees, then the community should create new policies to ensure future success and take the lead amongst its competitors in the market as an innovator. This is more than “spinning” the negative story to the press. It is providing a material solution for the problem to save and even promote the brand.

7) Think creatively. Look for alternative methods to solve problems, not necessarily through a dialogue in the press. What are the politics of the situation? What position do the effected parties hold in the community? Does the company employ a lot of people? Who do they know, and how can those relationships be leveraged? For instance, the publisher of a small-town newspaper also might sit on the board of the town’s senior living community. If a crisis breaks out that threatens the community’s reputation, is it possible that the relationship can be leveraged so that the local paper provides balanced rather than negative coverage?

8) Aggressively argue and prove your case. Take the initiative rather than surrender it. One of the biggest mistakes businesses make in crisis situations is that they “go dark” and let their critics define the issues and determine the implications.

9) Use independent experts and third-party allies to help the media and public understand the issues at stake.

10) Manage your expectations. The mindset should be balanced versus negative coverage, not favorable versus negative coverage. This is a very important distinction. Expectations of management must be tuned to the fact that in most crises the best coverage to hope for is balanced, the alternative being negative. Given the difficult circumstances of most crises, favorable coverage of a company experiencing one is extremely rare.

11) Hire professionals to plan for, identify and mange crisis communications situations. Many times, companies defer to their crisis communications activities to their legal counsel. Unfortunately, the results can be devastating. The law may save a company in the courtroom, but companies need the public to use and trust their services after the crisis (or successful litigation) is over. Communications strategy should supplement and support the legal strategy and at the same time remain independent. Therefore, in a crisis situation, once the lawyers are in place, hiring professional communicators should be the very next step.

Having a rival pick off a group of partners is never a welcome occurrence, but how a law firm handles such an event can help mitigate further damage. Skillful communication about such departures – both internal and external – is crucial.

Watching colleagues depart en masse can be an alarming experience, and can spur  lawyers who remain to reassess their own status within the organization. According to a Law360 article, firm leaders need to act immediately: assemble the remaining partners, lead an honest discussion about what difficulties might lie ahead, and be attuned to attorneys’ concerns.

Honesty and openness doesn’t necessarily mean focusing on the negative aspects.

Legal consultants offer the following components of an open and effective communications strategy following a law firm raid:

1. Stop the Bleeding: Conduct damage control, but be aware that the audience might be composed of both partners who are eyeing their own departures and partners who are inclined to stay.
2. Get the Story Straight: Whether departures reflect deeper problems, it’s important that leaders present a clear picture of what’s going on and what it means for the firm. Experts warn against efforts to downplay the impact of departures, as this likely would be met with skepticism.
3. Don’t Just Talk, Listen: Leaders should hold discussions to determine what factors are the source of discontent. Mary K. Young, a strategist at the Zeughauser Group, emphasizes that listening to the concerns of others is key to “creating more glue” to keep a firm intact.
4. Be Honest, But Be Positive: Honesty and openness doesn’t necessarily mean focusing on the negative aspects – leaders should also recognize that “mobility is part of the game,” according to the Law360 article.
5. Take Stock: Once the departures have taken place, leaders should reassess the firm’s future – and perhaps realize the former attorneys ultimately may not have been a good fit.
6. Recruit: Actively recruit new talent – but make sure the timing is right and not too soon after the departures.

As we’ve detailed previously, we find ourselves in an era of high-profile firm mergers and high-stakes lateral acquisitions. Executing a sound communications strategy is critical to finding and keeping lateral talent. For firms facing the aftermath of attorney departures, skillful and strategic communication is just as important.

Malaysia Airlines was criticized for its slow and fumbling response to the disappearance of flight MH370 four months ago. Now, with the shooting down of flight MH17 over Ukraine, the question is whether Malaysia Air went too far in the other direction by posting updates on social media as the story was breaking.

A crisis tweet needs to stress the company will investigate the situation and show compassion.

PRWeek posed the question to John Hellerman, who said that while Malaysia Air could have made other appropriate choices, the decision to share information on Twitter was an “entirely reasonable” one. Other crisis communication experts agreed:

Most communications experts PRWeek spoke to say the speed [at which] media now operates forces the hand of an airline in this situation. Yet, like a traditional message to the media, a crisis tweet needs to stress the company will investigate the situation and show compassion, they note.

Malaysia Airlines’ tweets in the aftermath did just that—they provided information on the airline’s response and demonstrated compassion for victims. Additionally, Malaysia Air noted on twitter that MH17’s “flight route was declared safe and unrestricted” by relevant regulators. The latter may be a self-serving tweet, but it also provided some much-needed clarifying information in the wake of the tragedy.

Other tweets from Malaysia Airlines included:

Malaysia Airlines has lost contact of MH17 from Amsterdam. The last known position was over Ukrainian airspace. More details to follow.

— Malaysia Airlines (@MAS) July 17, 2014

[#MASalert] With immediate effect, all European flights will be taking alternative routes avoiding the usual route http://t.co/HUIWQXl7dx

— Malaysia Airlines (@MAS) July 17, 2014

Our focus now is to work with the emergency responders and mobilize its full support to provide all possible care to the #MH17 next-of-kin.

— Malaysia Airlines (@MAS) July 18, 2014

Thank you for all your support. Our thoughts and prayers are with #MH17 passengers and crew and their family members.

— Malaysia Airlines (@MAS) July 18, 2014

Law firms and law schools have been having some difficult conversations lately: breakup conversations. As the legal job market continues to shrink, law firms and law schools have been faced with tough decisions about separating with attorneys and professors, respectively. However necessary they might be, breakups are difficult, uncomfortable, and stressful for all parties involved. Harsh words are often spoken, and once they are it’s almost impossible to take them back.  Go about them the wrong way and you could end up damaging your own reputation (as Albany Law School has had to learn the hard way).

Departures, like breakups, are really all about messaging. Institutions never want to appear to be vindictive or bitter towards departing employees. From a PR standpoint, it’s important to remember that those on the outside—who haven’t seen the messy details of the relationship up close—are naturally more likely to sympathize with an individual who has just lost her livelihood than a faceless entity.

There’s something about being negative towards colleagues that turns people off.

In order to avoid significant public embarrassment or a Fatal Attraction-type situation, institutions should follow these “departure etiquette” tips and maybe, just maybe, both parties can move on unscathed:

1) Be Short & Direct. Employers need to be brief, upfront, and direct.  Letting people go is unpleasant, and it’s best not to drag it out.

2) Be Honest. Recently, Albany Law School came under major fire when it attributed its layoff of tenured professors on the school’s troubled financial situation, only to have the dismissed profs bring in an independent account to counter that the school was “in very strong financial condition.” Institutions need to be open and honest about their reasons for letting employees go, in order to avoid increased controversy.

3) Listen. Employees who are blindsided with dismissals are undoubtedly going to have some strong feelings about the situation, and while it might be awkward, they should be given the chance to speak their minds directly to decision makers.

4) Avoid Trash Talk. In order to maintain an appropriate level of professionalism throughout the departure process, it’s best that institutional leaders avoid any kind of personal attacks on dismissed employees, internally or externally.

5) Buy Some Good Will (sometimes literally). There’s something about being negative towards colleagues that turns people off. It’s the reason why job applicants instinctively know (or should instinctively know) not to speak ill of their former employers. The same principle applies to employers who ask for comment about former employees. Short of putting their own reputations on the line (by, for instance, giving glowing recommendation letters to those they know to be bad employees), they should be as positive about their former employees as possible. It makes both parties look better, and at very little cost buys a measure of goodwill from former employees who don’t need any encouragement to become bitter. External praise is a small but important complement to whatever monetary compensation (through severance or other measures) the firm or school can afford. Nothing is easy when it comes to breakups, but sometimes a healthy amount of goodwill can avoid much more expensive—and embarrassing—public feuds.

Situation: A senior lawyer from a top tier firm is currently the subject of rumors circulating in the press, claiming that he, as well as some other well-known business personalities, are involved in child pornography. Up to this point, the media has been focusing on the other personalities in the group. However, two young lawyers have just approached the Managing Director, claiming that they have uncovered child pornographic material on one of the firm’s computer files while working on that partner’s matters. Advise the Managing Partner as to how he should handle the situation.

Advice: A crisis situation presents enormous threats and represents significant risk to the company’s reputation, operations, market share, sales, employee morale, and overall financial performance. There is little room for error and response time must be quick. That is why planning and preparing for a crisis is so important.

This is a classic managerial blunder: companies fail to respond to problems in a timely matter. To explain, emergencies MUST be dealt with immediately.

Smart companies will establish early warning alerts to identify problems likely to escalate in intensity, cause unwanted outside attention, damage the company’s public image or reputation, or damage the bottom line in any way. Companies involved in situations such as the one described must act – they must not hesitate to make decisions. They must identify and respond to early signs of impending problems instead of denying that they exist. In this case, the rumors that were already circulating should have tipped off senior management to begin crisis management and communications procedures.

This is a classic managerial blunder: companies fail to respond to problems in a timely matter. To explain, emergencies MUST be dealt with immediately. Problems, on the other hand, need to be addressed rapidly (but not necessarily immediately), as those problems that linger or are not rectified usually lead to emergencies.

So in walk the two young lawyers with evidence about the partner’s illegal activity and the Managing Partner is seemingly caught flat-footed. Here are three things he should do:

Isolate the problem. Perceptions must be controlled because public opinion is all about perception, NOT reality. Therefore, public and internal communications must establish perceptions first. The public is a very skeptical. More and more frequently, companies and governmental agencies are “guilty until proven innocent.” Arrogance, saying “no comment” and/or responding with terse denials about questioned ethics are seldom, if ever, successful crisis communications strategies.

This is about one partner and his outrageous and illegal behavior, not about the firm, any of its other lawyers and how they practice or serve clients.

The problem for the firm seems to be that a firm computer houses the illicit and illegal material and that certain personnel were exposed to that material while working on firm business.

Fix the problem as quickly as possible (i.e. immediately).

Assuming that the material on the computer is indeed child pornography, notify the police and turn the evidence over to them.

Terminate the partner.

Use the crisis as an opportunity to do better. For instance, the firm should offer help and counseling (but not his job) to the fallen partner.  It should consider donating money or pro-bono services to child welfare groups in the community, etc.

Communicate. In the court of public opinion the defense MUST always take the stand. The press is driven by their need to tell a story. Failure to provide a coherent explanation about matters under question means the press will fill their stories with messages detrimental to one’s own. Do not stay silent.

Develop appropriate message points based on the facts. When responding to questions from the media, remember to communicate the truth (as much as needed to fulfill the public’s need to know), and to comfort all affected audiences by exuding compassion and understanding of their concerns.

Communicate to internal audiences first – especially in this situation where people will be incredulous about the news of their partner’s behavior. Making sure internal audiences hear the story from organization leaders before hearing it from the press builds and enforces trust.  Internal support is critical because this audience is often used by the news media to perpetuate unflattering messages. The Managing Partner wants everyone to know that management understands the matter is shocking and unfortunate and that it has dealt with the situation decisively.

Designate one person to act as a spokesman for the organization. RARELY ever should that be the firm’s lawyer (if it has retained one). Most likely in this instance it should be the Managing Partner, although a senior female partner would also send an appropriate message of concern and disgust. As a point of explanation, top executives are not always the best spokespersons. Sometimes technical experts or third-party allies are best. Deciding who speak is critical and says a lot about how serious the company considers the problem. Do not have a Managing Partner respond to a minor problem – the press will think it is more important than it is. Do not have mid-level spokespersons talk to the press when there is a tragedy (i.e. health effects, loss of life, etc.) – the company will look callous. Make sure the spokesperson is media trained. **Such training is perhaps the single most important factor in dealing with a crisis.

Educate the media – they are the intermediaries between the organization’s story and the public. Demystify complex arguments and provide as much information as possible in order to create an on-going, beneficial dialogue.

If managed properly, the resulting stories should be all about the individual with brief mentions that he was a partner at the firm of x, y, and z and has since been terminated. Any other information about the firm in articles should have to do with its shock and disgust at the partner’s behavior, its sympathy for the children and their families and its efforts to help in the community.

In a world where news travels across social media platforms 24/7, one poorly composed message can tarnish a company’s reputation. Social media platforms like Twitter have transformed the way news is shared. News of a crisis now spreads to wider audiences than ever before and at lightning speed, making crisis management an increasingly significant and time-sensitive endeavor. Although the reach and speed of social media adds fuel to the flame of any given crisis, it also provides the opportunity to respond quickly and directly to clients and customers. To help LMA members prepare for any social-media-fueled crises headed their way (and to prevent others from ever happening), HC’s own John Hellerman and Abbie Fink of HMA Public Relations presented some tips and best practices at a recent webinar hosted by LMA’s Social Media SIG Group.

No matter what the crisis, it is vital to be prepared.

John and Abbie discussed everything from a now-infamous memo on how female lawyers should present themselves in the workplace to a Kenneth Cole tweet that used unrest in Cairo to drive sales. With these examples came takeaways including:

1. Train Your Employees: You have to be aware of the fact that companies are held hostage by the quality of the people responsible for their social media feeds. Set up a social media policy and extensively train your employees.
2. Contingency Plans: Companies must have contingency plans in place. These plans prove to be helpful even if they are not followed exactly. Having a plan in place will allow your company to take quick and effective steps toward resolving the crisis at hand. Although the need for planning seems obvious, many companies fail to adequately prepare for crises.
3. Use Your Fan-Base: As John said, “clients and customers are your best defense.” In order to survive a social media crisis, you must build your relationships with clients, customers, and important influencers in the field. If you have a preexisting relationship with your followers, they will be more willing support you in times of a crisis. Do not be afraid to use your fans and committed network. 
4. Think Before You Tweet: Before sending a tweet, make sure the message is appropriate. Many crises occur due to lack of focus, especially when companies are managing multiple accounts on social media management tools. 
5. Take a Deep Breath: In the midst of a crisis, take a step back. Consider whether or not a crisis truly exists before moving forward. Depending on the situation, figure out whether you need to pursue an aggressive response (apologizing across platforms, retweeting all reactions, etc.) or a more subdued response. Crises are very stressful and can look worse when you are in the middle of it.

No matter what the crisis, it is vital to be prepared. Have a plan, anticipate your followers’ reactions, and stay true to your brand, but, most importantly, rely on your clients and customers to help you through it.

For more on John’s tips, check out the handout here.

Grading the Statement is a periodic feature on Sound Bites in which we judge the effectiveness of news releases and other public statements.

In the Where’s Waldo? series of books, young readers are challenged to find a wackily dressed Waldo character in crowd scenes from various locations around the world. But in Thea Stilton and the Blue Scarab Hunt, an adventure book for young readers from Scholastic, readers were looking hard for an entire country – Israel – and not finding it. In a map of the Middle East at the front of the book, the territory that Israel covers is identified as being part of Jordan.

For Scholastic, publisher of the Harry Potter series and other popular titles, the omission of Israel could have been disastrous. The error would have been controversial enough on its own. Adding potential fuel to the flame, however, is the fact that Palestinian children’s books have routinely omitted Israel from maps. According to a recent study, in fact, 96% of Palestinian textbooks do not mention Israel in their maps.

For that same reason, Scholastic was smart not to say too much. The longer it spoke on the topic, the greater the chance it would dig itself into some kind of hole.

The Times of Israel spotted the omission and asked Scholastic to comment, presenting the publisher with a communications challenge.  Let’s see how they did. From the story:

Kyle Good, a senior vice president for corporate communications at Scholastic, told The Times of Israel in an email that her company would stop selling the book until the error was amended in the book’s next edition.

“The President of Trade Publishing who was on a plane yesterday returning from Europe has confirmed for me this morning that we are stopping shipments on this title, making the correction and going to reprint.  We regret the error,” Good wrote.

The response succeeds on several levels. First, the Scholastic communications team decided to put their response in writing – an email – rather than doing it over the phone. Given the intense feelings that accompany any discussion of Israeli geography, and the potential for any statements on the subject to be interpreted (or misinterpreted) in a variety of ways, it was wise for Scholastic to respond in writing, giving itself the time to carefully craft the exact message it wanted to convey.

For that same reason, Scholastic was smart not to say too much. The longer it spoke on the topic, the greater the chance it would dig itself into some kind of hole. Instead, the company succinctly got across its two key messages: (1) its regret over the error; and (2) what remedial action it is taking.

By acknowledging the error without getting into excuses or rationalizations, the company avoids unnecessary debate and any sense that its regret is not sincere. The third piece of information we get in the statement – regarding the whereabouts of the President of Trade Publishing – is not absolutely necessary, but serves a good purpose. It underlines to the Times reporter (and the reader of the story) that although the company is not providing a detailed explanation of the omission, the company takes the matter seriously and is giving it attention at the highest levels.

A commendable response from the Scholastic communications team to an issue that could have turned ugly.

Grade: A-

Freshfields recently conducted a survey of more than 100 senior crisis communications professionals from 12 different countries, including the U.S. The report demonstrates persuasively that many corporations are not prepared to handle potentially damaging “digital age” crises.

What Freshfields means by “digital age crisis” is, really, “Twitter-age crisis.” One of the report’s big takeaways is how quickly Twitter and other social media platforms can spread news of a crisis – according to the report, more than a quarter of crises spread internationally within a single hour and over two-thirds do so within 24 hours.  While the border-jumping nature of social media is part of the reason HC co-founded the international Crisis & Litigation Communications Alliance some years ago, this is not to us the most interesting part of the report. Today, everyone understands that a tweet from Edward Snowden can be read just as quickly in the United States as it can be in Russia.

The key is preparation. A corporation cannot be ready to act quickly and effectively in response to crises unless it has planned to do so.

More revealing were the findings on how long corporations typically have to prepare for a crisis-inducing story (a long time, in most cases) and how long it takes them to formulate a response (also surprisingly long). From Freshfields:

Yet businesses are not moving fast enough to contain a crisis when it breaks despite having between a few days and several months’ notice to plan a response in almost six out of 10 (58%) cases. On average it takes 21 hours before companies are able to issue meaningful external communications (signed off by their legal advisers) to try and manage the issue and more than 48 hours in a fifth (18%) of incidents.

With at least a few days notice of a crisis story, corporations (and their legal advisors) should be ready with responsive action in far fewer than 21 hours.

What can companies and counsel do to improve these numbers, and ultimately save themselves the long-term damage to their stock prices that, according to the Freshfields survey, occurs in more than 50% of crises?

The key is preparation. A corporation cannot be ready to act quickly and effectively in response to crises unless it has planned to do so.  It’s an obvious concept that virtually everyone would agree to, and yet as the Freshfields report demonstrates, the corporations that adequately plan for crises are surprisingly rare. (A full 50% of survey responders said that their employers were not adequately prepared for a crisis.) One reason for this failure of planning, we believe, is that corporations understand the concept, but not the specifics. They may have a difficult time visualizing what “planning for a crisis” actually looks like, and thus push it off to another day.

It’s nothing too exotic, and in fact HC helps our clients with it all the time. A crisis-planning effort would include, for instance:

• Develop a protocol for crisis response: The protocol should assign specific responsibilities to key communications personnel and c-suite executives. And although parts of it will be adapted in any real-life crisis situation, it’s always better to start with a game plan.
• Running simulations: Dry runs give crisis responders the space, time, and practice to identify weaknesses and help fine-tune the company protocol.
• Enhanced social media expertise: A company may be great at building followers and running incentive campaigns over social media, but the skills needed to handle a crisis are different. Companies should train those who run their social media accounts on what to do in a crisis situation, or alternatively establish a procedure to hand over control of the accounts to others in times of crises.
• Relationship building with influencers: One of the best things that companies can do to prepare for a crisis down the road is to build solid relationships now with the most important media outlets and influencers in their field. If the first time you come to them is in the midst of a crisis situation, it will be hard to establish the trust necessary to turn a story your way.

Those are just a few specific steps that any company can take to get itself prepared for a crisis. And as the Freshfields survey shows, that preparation is more important than ever in the digital age.

Grading the Statement is a periodic feature on our Blog in which we judge the effectiveness of news releases and other public statements.

Russells Solicitors had a plum assignment. As legal counsel to J.K. Rowling, the British firm was party to the publishing secret of the millennium: the author of the beloved Harry Potter series had written a new mystery novel under the pen name Robert Galbraith.

For Rowling, the exercise allowed her to “take my writing persona as far away as possible from me,” as she told The Guardian in an interview. It was a liberating experience, until the secret leaked. The source: a partner at Russells.

The firm’s apology appears sincere, however, by immediately identifying the culpable partner and his wife’s friend by name, the firm is making an obvious effort to distance itself from the leak.

The firm released a statement accepting full responsibility for the incident…and simultaneously throwing the partner and his friend under the bus.

Below is Russells Solicitors’ statement, with our commentary in bold:

We, Russells Solicitors, apologise unreservedly for the disclosure caused by one of our partners, Chris Gossage, in revealing to his wife’s best friend, Judith Callegari, during a private conversation that the true identity of Robert Galbraith was in fact J.K. Rowling.

The firm’s apology appears sincere; however, by immediately identifying the culpable partner and his wife’s friend by name, the firm is making an obvious effort to distance itself from the leak. Unfortunately for Russells Solicitors, the firm can’t have it both ways in this instance. It had a choice between accepting full responsibility and laying the blame on an individual partner and/or an outsider of the firm. By attempting to take both routes, it hasn’t succeeded in either.

Whilst accepting his own culpability, the disclosure was made in confidence to someone he trusted implicitly.

The firm repeats its misstep here. It claims that the attorney accepts responsibility, but then qualifies this acceptance of responsibility so thoroughly—immediately emphasizing that he only told Galbraith’s identity to someone he trusted, and did so in confidence—as to be meaningless.

On becoming aware of the circumstances, we immediately notified J.K. Rowling’s agent. We can confirm that this leak was not part of any marketing plan and that neither J.K. Rowling, her agent, nor publishers were in any way involved.

To close, Russells Solicitors notes the (laudable) proactive steps it took after learning that the leak had originated at the firm. These final lines also go a further step and silence the world’s suspicions regarding any role that Rowling, her publishers, and specifically their marketers, had in the leak. And it does so in brief, plain language that is neither defensive nor self-congratulatory. A positive ending to an otherwise mixed message.

Grade: B

Tuesday Tweet is a weekly look at interesting fodder from our Twitter stream. Follow us at @HellermanComm.

Today’s tweet comes from Beltway colleague Brian Lustig, who posted some timely thoughts about social media and corporate apologies on his blog. Timely, we say, given the firestorm over Lowe’s recent Facebook-issued apology regarding its decision to pull advertising from a TLC show.

Brian makes some good points, including the observation that social-media platforms are not always the best for CEO mea culpas. Social media seems to offer greater message control than, say, a morning-show interview (after all, you can tweak that statement or video to your heart’s content before pushing it out over social media). But as Brian notes, that control is somewhat illusory, as social-media environments also encourage sharing and commenting from the public. While that makes social media a great place to offer up content displaying your professional expertise, when used for an apology over a sensitive issue, it can also leave a corporation with 28,000 politically charged comments from angry customers.

The appropriateness of social media for any given corporate apology depends on the particular circumstances of each case. Brian is certainly correct, however, that companies should always take into account the degree of formality they’d like to approach the issue with (social media is almost inherently informal), the anticipated reaction (open comment sections and politically sensitive subject matter don’t go well together), the appropriate corporate source (the bigger the issue, the more likely the message needs to come from the CEO), and whether a large enough percentage of a customer base has been affected to require a public message.