PR Efficiency in Times of Trouble 15 May

PR Efficiency in Times of Trouble 15 May 2013 Parus b/c 1 st Tverskaya-Yamskaya, 23 bld. 1 125047, Moscow

Crises might be inevitable, but their destructive impact does not need to be § 90% of crisis situations can / should be identified in advance § Considering in advance the predictable 90% will give you more time to focus on the unpredictable 10%. (And time is a very scarce resource in any crisis) § Once in a crisis situation, it comes down above all to how well and how quickly you can anticipate what will happen next

Crises move quickly…you need to move faster than they do § What are the facts? § Scope of crisis – local, regional, national, global § What are the stakeholder implications? § Which facts are public? § What is the public reaction so far? § What public response/communication necessary (dependent of level of crisis e. g. immediate reaction to mining accident/explosion) § What rumours have spread? § How can/must rumours be counteracted? § What immediate communication is necessary? § What medium/long-term communication is necessary (long-term effect)? § What are the potential triggers for further news flow?

Understanding the multiple audiences, their needs and expectations § Management, executives and employees of company § Partners/contractors § Investors/shareholders § Government § Industry associations § Communities § Media (as a channel of influence)

Motorola: crisis at the Russian border § $17 million worth of phones confiscated at the border in Russia; initial accusations that the phones were contraband, then that they were unsafe § A little-known entity called Rus. GPS then came out of the woodwork and accused Motorola of violating its patents § The company knew all claims to be untrue, and was able to back this up. Though this didn’t immediately help § Ironically, the confiscation of the phones came soon after Motorola had taken the decision to move to direct imports, thereby eliminating the potential for grey scheme corruption

Motorola: managing multiple audiences with conflicting views There were several key audiences involved, all were important, many had conflicting views on what they wanted Motorola to do and say ‒ Shareholders ‒ Russian Government ‒ Retail partners (Svyaznoi, Euroset, etc) ‒ Employees And all events playing out under the watchful eye of a very interested group of journalists – in Russia and abroad

Motorola: managing multiple audiences with conflicting views What the audiences thought and wanted to hear… § Shareholders needed convincing that this was a manageable issue and did not present a material threat to the company § On the other hand if the issue could not be managed, shareholders would want to know that the company was prepared to take action / including exit the market § But the Russian Government doesn’t take well to investors that threaten to leave the market § Meanwhile Motorola’s retail partners in Russia believed they would get caught in the cross-fire, and so wanted to see Motorola fight (to protect itself and, in turn, its partners) § Employees needed reassuring that “all was well” § And media needed to be managed!

Motorola: let the crisis begin Crises would generally be easier to manage if they could be managed behind closed doors. This is generally not possible. So inevitably, on a Friday at 18: 00, Motorola receive a call from a journalist at Kommersant, who intends to write the whole story for Monday morning’s paper. Journalist to Motorola: “Will you please comment on the phone seizure” Motorola to journalist: “We will call you back” What would you do?

Motorola: a successful crisis communications campaign § A very carefully worded script of the company’s position was developed, reflecting or at least sensitive to all the different stakeholder views. This became the basis for all further internal and external communications. § Avoided making any statements born out of emotion that deviated from the script § Depoliticize the story as much as possible; any sense that this was a U. S. vs Russia dispute would work strongly against Motorola § To the extent that media were writing on this story, it was important that they showed the dispute to be black and white – with Motorola clearly in the right – without going down the sensational routes (Moto vs RFG, Moto Russian business under attack, Moto threatens to pull out of Russia, etc) § But overall, it would have been unhelpful for Motorola to be seen to be lobbying its position through the media or drawing additional attention to this issue. A set of Q&As, facts, background info was prepared to limit media interest in covering the story § Motorola management and spokespersons around the world were briefed on this issue and the company’s position, to avoid any potential for mixed messages. (One careless statement anywhere in the world can be a major setback)

Motorola results. Were we efficient? § Almost all the phones were returned (apart from a small quantity of C 115 s that were “destroyed”) § Motorola was able to go on to invest further into its business in Russia (flagship store in GUM) § The issue was resolved broadly off the radar of Motorola’s shareholders; investor concern kept to a minimum § Heralded as an unprecedented victory for business in Russia

Tverskaya Yamskaya 23/1, Moscow 125047, Russia Tel: +7 495 363 2844 M: Communications www. mcomgroup. com Citypoint, 1 Ropemaker St. 11 th floor EC 2 Y 9 AW Tel: + 44 20 7920 2330