Corporate Eye

...compare, compete, excel

Bridget Wright

Bridget Wright

Chevron: Corporate Communications in a Controversy


What do corporate giants do when they find themselves in a challenging PR situation and in a financial quandary? They have to be very, very careful on how they handle the situation and with what information they divulge to the public. Opinions may vary, facts may be questionable, but any company will want to be represented in the most fair, and in the most accurate way as possible. 

Yes, when a company finds themselves in a negative light, they want to tell their side of the story too. This is primarily why corporations have dedicated media relations departments and journalists, specifically to share information about their company. Chevron found themselves in a “situation” regarding the incident in Ecuador, and has been sued, forcing them to pay damages for allegedly contaminating the Amazon rainforest. Obviously, Chevron has another side of the story, and they want the public to know about it.

Media Representation

In many cases, corporations have a very hard time getting the media to listen, let alone believe, their side(s) of a story. But in this case with Chevron, they decided that they would forgo any risk of getting their side wrong, so they hired their own “voice” to represent them. Curious? Not if you want to portray accuracy and fairness from your own company’s perspective.

Representing your corporation in the media can be tricky. It seems that if there is any bad news circulating, it seems to get worse once it gets into the hands of the media.

Does this mean that the media is wrong or bad? No!

Does it mean that the media doesn’t accurately report their stories? Absolutely not!

What it does mean is this: everyone, including the media, has an opinion about a story and even about a set of facts. Their job is to present their opinion, or rather, their side(s) of the story in whatever light of information that is available. In other words, just because the facts are there doesn’t always mean that an entity will receive fair and accurate reporting. Remember that dedicated media relations department mentioned earlier? Well, this is where it becomes beneficial to the company.

Your Own Voice

Chevron, surely by being somewhat overwhelmed, enlisted the services of their own PR person, Gene Randall, to present their side of a controversial story. Mr. Randall, who is also a former CNN correspondent, acted on behalf of Chevron and gave a report about the Ecuadorian situation a couple of weeks just before a negative report was given by CBS’s 60 minutes.


Although both reports are conflicting in nature (in facts and opinion), Chevron’s whole goal was to be able to represent themselves in the way that is going to benefit their company and further their mission. Is that alright? Isn’t that what companies are supposed to do?

The Solution: What Chevron is Doing

What do you do if your corporation is attacked in the media? How do you approach a sensitive subject with tact and professionalism, but still convey to your market what really happened without a complete conflict and breakdown in communications? You must protect your corporate entity at all costs. A company’s reputation is like an individual’s reputation. They can be scarred and ruined with bad, incorrect or misleading ideas or information.

Chevron is using a variety of techniques and channels to get their side of the story across in a number of different ways:

1. Videos

The video above is on YouTube, so it would appear in any searches on this topic in that channel. Having this video available allows for both the positive and the negative sides of the story to appear together. Also, Chevron has a dedicated site  (http://www.texacoinchevron.com) that allows them to publish their side of the story.

2. Twitter it!

Chevron has an official Twitterer (@Chevron_JustinH), who is presumably monitoring this topic closely. Also, the search results for a variety of searches with keywords of Chevron, Texaco and Ecuador return with both sides of the story. This indicates that Chevron may have search optimisation experts who are working to ensure that their side of the story is highly ranked.

These things to me sound like a fair, responsible company who is working to ensure that equitable and balanced treatment is enacted, for both parties.

What Else?

Yes, there are times when the corporation will be wrong. And yes, there are times when the media will have gotten it wrong too. But if a company ensures that they have systems in place to represent them accurately, positively or negatively, then the challenging part is under control. They can then concern themselves with other things like marketing and customer retention and running the corporation. There will always be opinions flying. Just make sure the facts are there and accurate, and there will be no worries over who said what.

What else could Chevron have done or should do to further publish their side of the story? I would love to know your views on how you feel that Chevron is communicating their position in this controversy. But, be nice.

Twitter May Finally Pay Off for Businesses – Naked Pizza is First

The now infamous Twitter, a social networking tool that allows you to micro-blog your thoughts and status in a mere 140-characters or less, may finally be able to show a tangible profit for some businesses.

What do you think is a good way for a business to maximize the use of the Twitter platform with visible results? Many debates exist over this, some wondering whether or not Twitter is a farce, a waste of time, an ingenious marketing tool or the greatest thing to have been invented since the Internet. Each has their own opinion of course, but what really matters is whether or not the businesses are profiting (in dollars or in branding) from their Twitter experience.

The Naked Pizza Company has a killer idea that they’re using for Twitter: recently it has started to track Twitter-spurred sales at the register. In a test run April 23, an exclusive-to-Twitter promotion brought in 15% of the day’s business. (Full Story)

Using the Twitter platform, they are able to tell exactly how much in sales can be attributed to the Twitter action. Are they on to something? Perhaps! With a 15% increase in their business sales for the day that the test run began, I would definitely say so.

In 140-characters or less, Twitter is starting to show some signs of profit for some for-profit businesses. For a while, it may have seemed that they were going to be a charity tool for most, simply giving away things (links, articles, information) without asking for anything in return. But, that may be still happening too…

Instances like this is where having a Twitter account is substantially rewarding and tangible. But, is there an instance when its not? Sure!

This post from Adage.com on the prayer-Twittering situation has gotten a few folks wondering what the point of Twitter is and how it applies in this case. A point well-taken in the article is where they mention the possibility of over 4 million heeding the Cardinal’s advice and overloading the Twitter space. That’s something to consider. Given that there still is not a (public) monetizing plan in place for the social site, so an additional (possibly) few million could do what to the system? And leave us all (with real businesses) unable to Tweet? Heaven forbid!

How do you think Twitter is best served? As a for-profit entity or strictly as a social media platform to “bring everyone together?”

Does Your Corporation Need a Twitter or a Facebook Page?

There is something quite interesting going on in the social community network that doesn’t quite make sense to me. I write a lot about social media and media relations, discussing how phenomenal these platforms are and how great for business they are. I focus a lot on the effects of effectively strategized efforts can have on a business’ sales and exposure. It works. It’s good for business. Everybody’s doing it. Or are they?

While on one of my social platforms the other day, an acquaintance found me and in almost a giggly nature, asked me how is it that I had a Facebook page. They were surprised that I even knew what Facebook was. Really? I thought most all business people knew what the highly effective online platforms were. After all, that is the gas that powers our online business engines, right?

Reaching the Masses

Honestly, Facebook and Twitter is not for a certain demographic or a particular social group, specifically. Although there are certainly some demographics that make up the bulk of their membership, it is not completely indicative of who makes up their community. Quite frankly, these social platforms can’t afford to be picky, as their business is driven from word-of-mouth and social buzz. So really, you want to make sure people are talking about you and your business’ products or services.

Staying Connected

But, back to social platforms. I am just about addicted to my Facebook and Friendfeed pages and find myself checking them at every chance I get. I’ve even downloaded the app to my iPhone so that I can check my updates and correspond with my “friends” even when I’m at my children’s soccer practice. I’ve gained new business, answered questions, resolved issues and even bid on new writing  jobs all while multi-tasking from my iPhone. As a freelancer, we must stay connected to the heartbeat of the writing industry and be prepared at every available opportunity. As business owners, they too must be connected and prepared to make decisions.

Since I have a business, and a small business no less, wouldn’t it make sense to me to market, advertise and drum up business everywhere I go and to everyone that I talk to? Of course it does! Therefore, the use of these social platforms has become a daily lifestyle for me and has added a new depth to my online writing services. And quite frankly again, I feel that I’ve only begun to scratch the surface of connections and possibilities.

Do large businesses do the same? Do corporations talk with and keep in touch with regular, everyday people?

Do all corporations have a Twitter account, a Facebook page or even a MySpace account? If not, they really should.

Scobleizer also wrote a rather compelling piece on his blog that talked about some of these very same things. After all, why have a business or a corporation if you’re not going to market them or create buzz about them? I think corporations err when they don’t extract as much as they can from an available resource.

What do you think about corporations using social media platforms? Does it enhance or detract from their images and goals?

How Major U.S. Networks Stack Up: CBS, NBC, ABC Compared

Corporate media is a popular and busy animal. Never a dull moment, there is always something to report, something to analyze,  good news to share and rumors to dispel.  And since there is always something to be shared at all times, I curiously went to three of the major U.S. television network sites to see how they fare in reporting the “media” part of media relations to the public and to the online world. Here’s what I found:

CBS

Grade: B-

The main CBS home page for media relations was very easy to find. Now initially, I almost became frustrated because I couldn’t find the link to get to the media information, but after more scanning I located it. I found out too that the reason that I could not readily find the link was because it was buried within more links. Not a problem though, and actually quite alright. When I clicked on the links within the media section, I immediately saw that there were more links within each sub-section of the media’s section. I like the way that they organized the sub-folders and how it guides you to where you need to be exactly.

The CBS site gives a journalist everything he needs to make a story. Good links, easy-to-navigate pages and clear directions on how to find everything.


cbs1

NBC

Grade: B-

The site at NBC was a little more difficult to navigate, as things weren’t quite readily accessible as you would imagine. Although I’m sure it must be there somewhere, I simply cannot find the dedicated media section for the network. I actually sent an email to the website developers department to see if they can give me some guidance on locating the information. I’m sure someone will contact me right away, since I’m assured that the media relations section has to be buried away somewhere.

Now, what I did like about the NBC site though was the value of information that is on the site. The links that were seemingly connected to media (or news) were full of information, just enough to get a good story. But, you have to work for it. Hard.


nbc1










ABC

Grade: A

The ABC site has links and information that pointed directly to their media relations sections. There was (and is) a press release and dedicated media section that provided a wealth of information and articles for reporting and researching. Again, good information and easy to find for journalists and bloggers.


abc1








All three of the networks offered some good and some not-so-good elements that make their media relations efforts workable. How do your media relations links look for your corporation? Are they easy to find? Will guests become frustrated when they visit? How can you improve your site?


The Power of a Good Name: Oprah and KFC

When a business or corporation finds itself in financial challenges, it must be creative in finding ways to dig themselves out of it. Whether that’s increasing prices, offering give-aways or reducing their workforce, they must find some sort of avenue to save money and stay in the black.

Being creative? Is that just a way to avoid good old-fashioned hard work? Can anything take the place of solid, applicable, good business principles when it comes to growing and sustaining a company?

One thing that many businesses do in an effort to increase sales is to lend a name to their product or service. As in the recent case with KFC (YUM Products Brand), the company decided to ask Oprah to lend her name to them as they launched a new product line of grilled chicken. Yes, that’s right, GRILLED chicken. The fried-foods powers are dabbling in the healthy eating approach. And, they may have Oprah to thank for it.

How effective will this be for the chain? It’s hard to say right now. They are experiencing growing pains and still working out some of the kinks. It’s simply overwhelming for sales when a celebrity, any effective celebrity, endorses the product and says, “I, too,  like it!”. Can your company benefit from such a boost?

When I first began my speaking and communications consulting business, I enlisted the help of a well-known public speaker in my niche audience. I had them to write articles for my newsletter and asked them to put their name on some of my marketing material. The result? People loved my work and wanted my services too. Only thing was, was that they wanted to get to the name-endorser MORE than they wanted my services. I was a victim of celebrity overload!

How can your business effectively use the name or services of a celebrity or well-known person in your market? Should corporations rely on the celebrity to boost sales, or do they risk getting swamped under all of the attention the celebrity brings and NOT in the product or service that they’re offering? What do you think?

Corporate Blogs, Watch What You Say: Stifling the Corporate Voice

In the throes of a social media and social networking online business world, we all know the importance of watching what you say and to whom you say it. It is as immediate as your keyboard the things you say and how quickly they can appear with your name attached.

Places like Twitter and Facebook are veritable breeding grounds for wayward opinions and thoughts on the status of business. There are many websites, blogs and blog authors who very readily and willingly share their opinions on how things are and how they should be as they see it. Within these aspects of opinions lie a relative truth and how things really are. There is so much room for things to become jumbled, misunderstood and even conveyed incorrectly.

Who is then responsible for this misinformation?

Who is then responsible for the information that the readers take and use according to directions?

As a corporation, do you have in place any safeguards to ensure that the information that you are sharing with your readers is correct, accurate and pertinent?

In many online sectors, there is a stifling of sorts to keep at bay any unbridled or wayward opinions that may damage the company. Take a look at this article about how one company must watch their Twits or suffer at the hands of the SEC (Security and Exchange Commission). If all of our Twits, wall posts and links are going to be saturated with politically-correct lingo and verbiage, where then is the true spirit of good journalism and fair reporting? If all of our online discourses have to pass a “test”, how will readers know what is and what isn’t good stuff? Are we to be bought or stifled at the expense of being fair or worse, borderline?

What do you think is the place for corporate stifling? Does it even have a place in our online community?