Stop the Presses

In reading the recent tragic news about the Crandall Canyon mine collapse in Utah, I was reminded of an editorial written in the West Virginia Gazette right after the Sago mine collapse. ‘Mine Safety: Deaths Preventable‘ asserted that the Sago Mine tragedy ‘…was not a surprise–both because the mine had a disturbing safety record, and because the Bush administration in Washington has been undercutting mine safety.’

The editorial concluded with a warning:

‘The demand for coal is currently high, and so is the price. That creates an incentive for companies to return to marginal mines that weren’t worth running in leaner times. It creates an incentive to reopen mines with safety problems and to try to scratch some profit out of them. It also creates the incentive to cut costs, take shortcuts, to err on the side of danger instead of caution…Until the nation gets serious about enforcing safety rules, miners and their families will continue to suffer to satisfy the nation’s energy appetite.’

Nineteen months after the West Virginia editorial was published, six miners were trapped in the Crandall Canyon mine in Huntington, Utah.

As the tragic story of the Utah mine collapse continues to unfold, mine owner Bob Murray has returned to serve as company spokesman. From a crisis communications standpoint, Murray made a strong start–he immediately flew to the scene, assessed the situation and served as the human face of the crisis, communicating directly to family and media. But, to be kind, Murray also made a few missteps along the way:

• He did not apparently have a crisis communications team in place ahead of time and appeared not to have one in the early days of the crisis: When he was in the air flying to the crisis, his crisis communications team could have been on the ground preparing his messages and implementing the communications strategy. Mr. Murray, along with UtahAmerica Energy and Intermountain Power Agency (co-owners of the mine), deserve no end of sympathy for their efforts and empathy. It is the very fact of how tragic and difficult a crisis this is that speaks to the need to have these professionals in place and to be trained and ready before a crisis occurs.
• He held on to his own theory: Mr. Murray initially theorized that an earthquake had caused the mine collapse; then, he insisted on sticking with that hypothesis even as evidence mounted to the contrary.
• He attacked the media: Mr. Murray lashed out at the Associated Press and Fox News for allegedly reporting false information. It’s never a good idea to pick a fight with people who, proverbially, buy ink by the barrel and pixels by the pound. Particularly when it turns out that they are right.

That fact is that coal is becoming increasingly difficult to mine, and that government-imposed safety regulations won’t take effect quickly enough to prevent future disasters. As Sago and Crandall Canyon have made headlines, they’ve also shown the American public the ugly, tragic face of mining’s current standard operating procedure. Not happy with what they see, the public may soon begin to pressure the mining industry to change the way that they do things–and with this increased public scrutiny, business as usual, whether in Washington, DC, with the media, or in local venues, may not be enough to protect mining companies in the ever-important court of public opinion.

The mining industry is reaching a tipping point; they are moving yet another step closer to transforming from local heroes–local employers that offer jobs and benefits and put food on many families’ tables–to national villains. There is still some way to go before the tipping point but, as the industry moves toward this point, there is all the more reason to have crisis plans, teams, training, and a proactive media approach integrated with a government relations strategy in place now, before the next crisis. The mining industry needs to show leadership today or else it can expect to be cast as the culprit with each new disaster.

You needn’t be in the mining industry to benefit from the lesson. No matter what your industry, you must track and observe trends and prepare and redeploy accordingly.

In America, there are two groups you just don’t mess with: Our children and our pets. Both of these groups are seen as being vulnerable, helpless and in need of our protection. That’s one of the reasons why the Vick story has sparked such vehement public outrage.

And it’s also why the recent Mattel toy recall has garnered emotional headlines. Allegations of lead-based paint in toys Mattel imported from China have caused everyone from moms to the Texas Attorney General’s office to sound the alarms.

But Mattel’s brand, and its reputation among American families is strong, thanks in part to the unwavering leadership and integrity CEO Bob Eckert has provided for many years. The Mattel brand will survive–the real danger here is to other toy manufacturers whose trust bank isn’t as flush as Mattel’s. The reality is that a similar situation with a lesser-known (and less trusted) toy manufacturer could spell the end of their business.

With Eckert’s leadership, resolve and resources, Mattel’s brand will be fine, even if its stock takes a temporary downturn. One word of caution to Eckert, however–the fact that his brand is one of the biggest and most well-known in the industry makes his company a prime target for a class action suit, should one arise.

Mattel is doing a good job of keeping the lines of communication open. If they continue to run to the crisis, they increase the chances of being able to avoid long-lasting brand damage.

A quick thought about recent global news chronicling the ‘outbreaks’ of foot and mouth disease around the UK.

In this case, ‘word of mouth’ is much more dangerous than ‘foot and mouth.’ When consumers hear ‘foot and mouth’, they immediately jump to ‘mad cow disease’ and then begin to panic. The reality is that the two are distinctly different.

From a recent ENS story:

The [UK] Health Protection Agency advises that foot and mouth disease is not a direct public health threat.

The [UK] Food Standards Agency considers that foot and mouth disease has no implications for the human food chain. Because the virus that causes the disease is sensitive to stomach acid, it cannot spread to humans through consumption of infected meat.

It’s up to those in the industry–and the associations that represent them–to help educate the public that foot and mouth disease isn’t a true human health risk, but does present an economic one.

The two most storied brands in pharmaceuticals and rescue & relief are going toe-to-toe. Johnson & Johnson and the Red Cross have peacefully shared the iconic red cross symbol for more than 100 years–until now. J&J is suing the Red Cross for trademark infringement, claiming that the charity has violated their original agreement of 1895 by licensing use of the red cross logo on products in direct competition with the drug giants’.

From an intellectual property perspective, I’m sympathetic to Johnson & Johnson’s situation. When a company allows their brand to be diminished–whether by a well-known non-profit or cutthroat competitor–they’re opening the door for others to follow suit. It’s well within their rights (and their responsibilities to their shareholders) to protect their intellectual property and their brand.

But when we move from a business perspective toward a communications perspective, it is critical that companies consider the potential for fallout. J&J tried to avoid the suit. They asked the Red Cross to settle the dispute by mediation. They even offered to allow the Red Cross to pick the mediator. But the Red Cross, for all of its great work, knew that they held the sympathetic trump card and apparently never responded to J&J’s gracious offers. J&J, feeling trapped between setting an unfortunate intellectual property precedent and a public relations free fall, moved the legal wheels forward, and decided to suffer the slings and arrows of the marketplace. (This strategy is the opposite of the way McDonald’s chose to handle a sticky situation recently.)

Unfortunately, J&J didn’t just file an injunction, demanding that the Red Cross stop using the logo as part of a fund raising scheme through deals with other companies competing products. They didn’t just demand that the Red Cross void its current competing licensing contracts and refrain from creating new ones that would violate the 1895 agreement. What they did do was sue for costs and punitive damages–and when they did that, they created a symbol–a target really–that moved the story from ‘a company protecting its intellectual property’ to ‘a greedy company suing America’s sweetheart of a charity’.

It’s well within J&J’s legal rights to request that the Red Cross destroy all existing products that fall outside of the 1895 agreement, and to forward all profits from the sales of these products to J&J. But that doesn’t mean it is right from a brand-building and communications standpoint.

For more than a century, J&J’s products have benefited from the Red Cross’s iconic brand of rescue and relief. Given a choice of first aid products side-by-side at the drugstore, we choose the one with the red cross logo. That symbol tells us that the product will have just what we need to protect our family’s well-being. And that means that J&J has benefited as much from the Red Cross’s use, as the Red Cross has benefited from J&J’s century-long benevolence.

The Bottom Line: When it comes to your company’s decision to litigate against a sympathetic and valuable adversary, make sure that the lawyers work with marketing, public relations, and other communications and brand professionals so that every possible consequence is considered.

Perhaps J&J could have just closed its checkbook to the Red Cross–they had made $5 million dollars in donations over the past three years, which trumped the money the Red Cross was making from the new, competing licensing agreements.

But if they had to litigate, remember, damages claims send their own separate message to communities. J&J has a great brand; I hope this situation doesn’t tarnish it.