△ MENU/TOP △

Holtz Communications + Technology

Shel Holtz
Communicating at the Intersection of Business and Technology
SearchClose Icon

Dark blogs: a bad idea for crisis communication

More and more, I hear communicators counsel their organizations and clients to maintain a “dark blog” in the wings, ready to be activated in the event of a crisis. Whether this is actually a good idea falls into that “it depends” category.

Blogging software, stripped of the elements that make it a blog (like comments and trackbacks), can be used to provide rapid updates as the crisis progresses through its various stages. If that’s the intent of a dark blog, fine.

If, however, the dark blog is designed to provide a genuine, authentic voice engaged in conversation about the crisis, this is an awful idea. The blog will have absolutely no credibility. It will have no established voice. No community will have formed around it.

Establishing a corporate blog before a crisis, on the other hand, allows an organization to build community along with some banked goodwill and trust—assuming the blog is done right in the first place. That storehouse of goodwill and trust can be used in a crisis with an audience already inclined to believe what the corporate blogger says and, to some extent, to support the organization in its trying time.

Consider the minor crisis Southwest Airlines experienced when the ejection of a scantily-clad passenger from a flight became public. Imagine starting a blog in order to engage in a dialogue with the customer base and the flying public over the issue.

Instead, Southwest Airlines President Colleen Barrett used the existing “Nuts About Southwest” blog—with its regular core group of readers and its established credibility—to issue an apology:

We always want to apologize if we offend any of our Customers, and we also support our Employees abilities to make decisions.  We are apologizing to Kyla, in typical Southwest style, and I hope you will click here to read about it.

The post was greeted with more than 140 comments (as of today). While the comments represent a mix of opinions, they are mostly courteous and well-thought-out, the way people talk when they are engaged in a conversation with someone they know. The ability to engage directly with those whose opinions are strongest can defuse a lot of the hostility some people may feel. The fact that they can do so on a company blog makes people feel like their opinions matter to the company. And a number of the comments do applaud Barrett for the apology, like this one:

While I think this apology should have come much earlier than it did, I???m glad to see that SWA has apologized for it???s error, and publicly admitted to the mistake.

Good job!

It does make sense to include social media—and, at this stage, blogs in particular—in your crisis communication planning. If you’re looking for an argument to support introducing a corporate blog, the benefits of two-way communication with critical audiences during a crisis could help you sell the idea. But don’t fall prey to the suggestion that launching a blog at the time of a crisis is a sound strategy.

Comments
  • 1.Great post, Shel. It's really community relations 101, isn't it? It's always best to invest in relationships ahead of time, so that you have some equity you can draw on in times of need.

    Ron Shewchuk | September 2007 | http://ronshewchuk.blogs.com/

  • 2.Good post, Shel.

    I agree that nothing beats engagement up front. Having said that, I don't see a problem with turning a blog on during a crisis. If nothing else, it will be a much more flexible comms platform than your average corporate site (http://psnetwork.org.nz/blog/2007/07/22/alternate-blog-uses/ ) as I posted recently.

    I also think it is worth mentioning that, once the dark blog is switched on, trackbacks & comments can have a legitimate role to play - in terms of transparency and responsiveness.

    Jason Ryan | September 2007 | New Zealand

  • 3.Good distinction between blog: the technology/format and blog: the conversation. In Crisis 101, the old addage goes that the best time to address a crisis is way ahead of time. That speaks to the potential value of conversational social media like blogs to build bridges between customers/constituents and company staff (bridges between people rub off on the institution).

    That being said, we use a lot of tools associated with social media for crisis management when that crisis does hit - listening to what consumers are saying about the brand or issue in consumer generated media, creating tag collections of relevant content throughout the Web to get folks inside the company smarter and to help journalists get aggregated information on the subject, audio and video sharing, collaborative wikis for the crisis team to communicate behind the scenes, and often a crisis site - which may or may not be built on a blogging platform - to be able to collect everything we know about a crisis in one spot and also communicate our POV to the public.

    John Bell | September 2007 | Washington

  • 4.James, companies have a rather large kit filled with communication tools that achieve these goals other than blogs. My concern is that saying, "We haven't been willing to engage in a conversation up until now, but now that we're in trouble, we'd like to be your conversation buddy" sounds disingenuous. A blog will probably invite just critics. In the absence of an existing blog, I might use a comment-less blog for timely news distribution and a comment submission form or some other channel to make the conversation two-way.

    There are plenty of examples of companies that already had corporate blogs and were able to use them when crises hit, running the gamut from GM to BigHa. Pretty good argument for having a blog instead of waiting for a crisis to launch one.

    Shel Holtz | September 2007 | Concord, CA

  • 5.Sure, it's not ideal to launch a blog in the thick of a crisis -- it won't have that audience or community built up and it likely would seem disingenuous.

    But in the long run, it's better late than never. As long as the blog doesn't fade away when the crisis at hand fades, it's a net gain, I'd say.

    Mike Keliher | September 2007 | St. Paul, MN

  • 6.Shel; It's much more complicated than technology vs. conversation. Surely having a blog ahead of time would be the most beneficial. But having a place to quickly get out information, say in your media room, that is built on a blog platform is also beneficial. How conversational that gets will surely depend on the crisis at hand and how the communication is handled. I don't think that so-called "dark sites" are a cure-all, but at the same time they can't be painted with a broad brush as bad in every case either.

    Kami Huyse | September 2007

  • 7.Baby steps. Baby steps.

    If you can use the "Dark Blog" as an excuse to get your IT department to actually let you install blogging software, it is a win.

    Certainly a specialized application such as this one is more likely to get initial buy-in, and gives you a great excuse to get more people trained and comfortable with the interface.

    This is a Baby Step you can take RIGHT NOW, and follow up with appropriate milestones like vetting a corporate blogging policy, then the actual creation of a Branded Online Conversation.

    FUD is your friend.

    Baby Steps...

    Ike | September 2007 | Birmingham, AL

  • 8.Sorry I haven't been engaged in this conversation -- I've been traveling with barely enough time to check email.

    Here's the problem (based on my experience in several organizational crises): The reaction to a crisis by the injured parties and risk-averse publics is emotional, not rational. At the point the crisis is in full swing, the emotions tend to fit into the "angry" category. Along comes the company, which has remained closed to conversation, fully engaged in one-way top-down delivery of messages, suddenly saying, "Okay, folks, now that we're in deep, deep trouble, we'll start a dialogue." The dialogue would not be a constructive one, as it would be if the conversation were already taking place. It would be hostile, strident, vitriolic ("Oh, sure, NOW they want to talk...") -- and provide plenty of fodder for the media that would continue to have a significant negative impact on the organization's reputation.

    I would counsel using all other tools at the company's disposal (there are plenty, including those that foster dialogue) and then, after the crisis has receded, open a blog with the promise, "Based on our recent experience, we want to establish an ongoing dialogue with the public..." assuming that such a statement was utterly sincere. But I would still counsel against starting a blog in the thick of a crisis.

    I would, as noted in my post, recommend a blogging utility be employed as a rapid news update tool.

    Shel Holtz | September 2007 | Concord, CA

  • 9.Shel; I think we mostly agree here. The "dark" sites I am building with my clients keep that reality (the emotional/angry mob) firmly in mind. We are using the blog platform as a tool for information (as you suggest) rather than a fully engaged blog. In fact, we don't even call it a blog. However, like Ike says, once the technologies are in place, it makes it very simple to start engaging the corporate enterprise in a conversation about how these tools can be extended and expanded. Maybe even before the crisis hits.

    Kami Huyse | September 2007

  • 10.Kami - I've fought the internal battle within my shop.

    There are several people hung up on "Disaster Blogs", and I've always insisted on calling them "Online Disaster Newsrooms."

    It's a case of managing expectations...

    Ike | September 2007 | Birmingham, AL

Comment Form

« Back