Introduction
The life of modern human society is often accompanied by dangerous incidents and crises that might affect single people and might be comprehensive and global in their scope. Needless to say, crises can be the results of human activity as well as of natural origin. The extent of the danger of each of these crises is argued about by scholars but the fact that both crisis types need adequate management and communication strategies is doubtless. This paper focuses on the consideration of the advantages and failures of the strategic communication plans used by Maple Leaf and the US Federal Emergency Response Agency (FEMA) to deal with the Listeria Crisis and Hurricane Katrina respectively. Therefore, this report considers the main factors that conditioned the strategies’ failures in the crises mentioned and further offers an alternative strategic communication plan that might help avoid the considered mistakes in the future.
Hurricane Katrina and Maple Leaf Listeria Crises Comparison
Background
The contexts in which the topic of the current report will be developed are the two disasters, natural and man-made ones, which shook American society not so long ago. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 is reported to have taken 9,000 lives and caused damage equivalent to almost $100 billion (Barnes, 2008). The Maple Leaf Listeria Crisis happened on August 23, 2008, and resulted in numerous people reporting food-borne illnesses (Maple Leaf, 2009). The company was forced to shut down its manufacturing facilities and recall its recent products from all markets, which cost Maple Leaf the estimated sum of $20 million (CBS, 2008). Strategic communication plans for the two crises differed drastically, as FEMA failed to provide sufficient information to the public and any help to Katrina victims, while Maple Leaf introduced a relatively successful strategy that allowed the company to at least fight for restoring its positive image.
Roles and Priorities
In more detail, FEMA was in charge of managing the tragedy of 2005 in New Orleans. The role of the organization was to react to the hurricane’s consequences and provide help to its victims in the first hours as this time is critical. However, FEMA failed in this role and gave reason to call it a public relations embarrassment (Kolstein, 2006). Maple Leaf, on the other hand, assessed its priorities in the crisis in a proper way and attributed much importance to public relations. The fact that the company did not hide or deny the Listeria outbreak and publically apologized for its consequences added considerably to its international and domestic image and respect (Adams, 2008). Thus, it becomes evident that Maple Leaf performed better in identifying its role in crisis management and assessing communication as its priority.
Key Stakeholders
The reason for this difference in the quality of approaches to crisis management and strategic communication might be found in the key stakeholders of both FEMA and Maple Leaf. The former is a government-run agency that deals with all emergency cases in the United States (Kolstein, 2006). FEMA is a non-profit organization, and this might be the factor that reduced the motivation of its employees when they faced the need to urgently react to Katrina and communicate the tragedy to the public. At the same time, Maple Leaf understood that its key stakeholders, apart from investors and the Board of Directors, are its customers. Drawing from this, Maple Leaf felt the need to establish communication with these key stakeholders which allowed the company to save its face in the potential thunderstorm of public outrage.
Overarching Strategy and Goals
The consideration of the overarching strategies by FEMA and Maple Leaf might also be of help in identifying the reasons for crises and different responses of the companies to them. The two major overarching strategies in crisis management, according to Wilson & Ogden (2008), are training and public relations (p. 176). Drawing from this, FEMA reportedly failed in both of them during the Katrina crisis as Kolstein (2006) argues about the FEMA being unable even to access the territory hit by the hurricane, which evidences the lack of training, and timely communicate the tragedy extends to the public. On the contrary, Maple Leaf trained personnel made proper decisions timely, stopped the performance of the company’s plants, recalled the Listeria-hit products, and publically apologized proving the better training and public relations strategies being adopted in this company.
Primary and Secondary Tactics
The primary and secondary public relations tactics might have also caused the discussed failure of FEMA and help Maple Leaf overcome its crisis properly. The primary and secondary public relations tactics include access and collection of the needed data and the communication of those data to the respective agencies and public (Claywood, 1997, p. 194). Thus, FEMA did not manage to access the territory hit by Katrina four days after the hurricane and, as Barnes (2008) argues, could not provide the data on victims in the area to any federal agency. As contrasted, Maple Leaf had its primary and secondary tactics at the proper level, which allowed the company to access the crisis data, make decisions on their basis, and communicate both, the data and decisions, to the public.
Timeline and Resources
The use of time and resources in handling Hurricane Katrina and the Maple Leaf Listeria crisis was also drastically different. Barnes (2008) reports that during the first five days after the hurricane hit there were no communicational opportunities between the city and the federal authorities. The city government was also out of reach, and the FEMA workers that accessed the flooded areas could not properly communicate with the rest of the world. Although there is no fault of FEMA in this condition, the improper use and rejection of internationally provided resources might be considered as one of FEMA’s improper policies while managing Katrina’s effects.
Maple Leaf in the critical situation needed only a day to collect Listeria outbreak data, react to them by stopping its manufacturing facilities and recalling the products. The resources the company used to deal with the crisis included the company’s funds of about $20 million and the powerful media campaign launched to inform the public on the problem and apologize to all potential victims of Listeria-infected products (CBS, 2008).
Measurements and Evaluations
The procedures involved in measurement and evaluation processes were also different and respectively had different efficiency levels. For example, FEMA is reported to have needed about 5 days to access the territory flooded as a result of Katrina hit and measure the extent of the damage caused (Kolstein, 2006). Respectively, in the context of the damaged communications and transportation issues, such a long time needed for preliminary assessment and reaction to the hurricane was a huge mistake that resulted in numbers of people having no accommodation and food for living until the federal help arrived in New Orleans. Maple Leaf in the critical situation proved to be effective in instant reacting, as according to Adams (2008) and CBS (2008), it took only one day for the company to measure and evaluate the crisis effects and take respective management steps.
Recommendations
Research Focus
Based on the above presented comparative analysis, the strategic communication plans and the overall crisis management strategies implemented by FEMA and Maple Leaf to handle Hurricane Katrina and Listeria crises respectively can be assessed as completely different in their success. Thus, the following recommendations will mainly concern FEMA and its PR policies and techniques regarding crisis management. Therefore, the research focus of the following recommendations will mainly include the stakeholder strategy, priorities assessment, overarching strategies, public relations tactics, use of time and resources, and speed of reaction and decision making, which is critical during a crisis.
Stakeholder Strategy
The stakeholder strategy should be more flexible and better equipped with the training and practical activity opportunities. In other words, to be prepared for the strategic communication and other public relations activities in case of a crisis or another emergency, the company should be more aware of the needs of its key stakeholders and, what is of primary importance, the company should realize who those key stakeholders are and how their interests are related to the company’s interests. Such a clear stakeholder strategy will allow for the development of mutual communication between these stakeholders and will also enable the company to address its key stakeholders in case of need in resources or funding. Of course, the company will be completely responsible for its stakeholders for the success of its performance (Wilson & Ogden, 2008, pp. 128 – 130).
Tactics and Messages
The primary and secondary public relations tactics should also be improved for better performance in critical situations. First, it is necessary to improve the data collection procedures in respect of their speed and efficiency. To do this, the company should provide its employees with the respective training and establish contact with other organizations that have, or might have, access to data that can be of help during a crisis. As well, the company should promote and develop its positive image in public. This can be achieved through developing the media strategy and establishing contacts with the mass media. This will also involve the formulation of the company’s messages that should be formulated in a manner concentrating on the need to help people in emergency and make public relations one of the company’s basics (Claywood, 1997, p. 197).
Success Measurement
It is also natural that a company dealing with crisis management and public relations should have a clear and properly developed strategy for measuring the success of its activities. As the company deals with strategic communications planning and public relations in emergencies, there should be a standard of success established by this company based on the previous research in the area and the reports highlighting the performance of other companies from the same area of activity. More specifically, the success measures should include the reaction time and the comparative rates of successful performances of the company when it managed to prevent the emergency and when it had to deal with its consequences (Claywood, 1997, p. 121).
Legal and Ethical Considerations
The company’s strategic communication plan should be compiled in strict compliance with the legal requirement of the country. Thus, the company should reveal the information it obtains about the possibility of man-made or natural disasters and inform the public about it as soon as such information is received (the only exception being the legally agreed concealing of the information to avoid panic and unpredicted consequences) (Wilson & Ogden, 2008, p. 130). The legal responsibility of the company should also concern the area of the privacy policy, which is also a part of ethical consideration for this strategic communications plan. Accordingly, in the process of communicating the crisis-related information and retrieving the data about crisis victims, the company should follow the requirements for privacy, politeness, and political correctness in dealing with people of various races, ethnic groups, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences.
Conclusions
Summing up the data presented in this report, it is necessary to restate that crises and disasters, either man-made or natural, are integral parts of human life. Crisis management techniques and the importance of public relations and communications in it should be properly considered by any organization dealing with crises effects. The examples of FEMA and Maple Leaf allow seeing how important the proper organization of the PR and crisis management activities are for the overall settlement of the crisis. FEMA failed to fulfill its duties and direct functions while fighting Hurricane Katrina’s effects on the city of New Orleans as the emergency help and communication of the tragedy extent were carried out with great delay and not properly. On the other hand, Maple Leaf proved to have properly developed PR department and crisis management policies, which allowed this company to identify, assess, and start managing the Listeria outbreak within a day after it happened. The above recommendations focus on the necessary improvements in FEMA PR and strategic communication plans that will allow avoiding failures similar to the one related to Katrina in the future.
References
Adams, C. (2008). The Maple Leaf Food Crisis: One Month Later. Web.
Barnes, N. (2008). FEMA: Hurricane Katrina Case Study – Communications Focus. Web.
CBS. (2008). How Maple Leaf Foods is handling the Listeria outbreak. Web.
Claywood, C. (1997). The handbook of strategic public relations & integrated communications. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kolstein, L. (2006). FEMA – A Public Relations Embarrassment. 2009. Web.
Maple Leaf. (2009). Food Safety at Home. Web.
Wilson, L. & Ogden, J. (2008). Strategic communications planning: For effective public relations & marketing (5th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.