I was thinking this morning that fire is very similar to a crisis within an organization. In most cases, if left alone it will spread and burn with even more intensity than if it is dealt with early on. It may at some point burn out but at what cost?
Fire is composed of four elements: heat, fuel, oxygen and a chemical reaction. In the case of crisis:
- the heat is the breaking news of the situation. This is what sparks interest. With news and social media adoption, there is more heat than ever.
- the fuel is anger, outrage, and disappointment. Social media has created a long tail of fuel for crisis.
- the oxygen is the LACK of action or communication by the parties involved with the crisis. Does the organization or player have a statement?
- the chemical reaction is the right combination of factors to ignite a public outcry. Was it domestic violence? Is the passing offense off track?
What’s interesting is that the way a fire spreads is very similar to the way a crisis can spread, especially now with the participatory web. Fortunately there’s a lesson here because the way a fire can be dealt with is actually very similar to the way that a crisis can be dealt with.
There are really two main ways to put out a fire.
- Fight the fire with water (except with a grease fire, but forget about that for a moment). By introducing water to fire the heat is removed. Therefore if the story never breaks in the news crisis can potentially be avoided.
- The other way to fight the fire is to remove one or both of the two main sources of fuel: oxygen and combustable material.
Removing the fuel
Perhaps the best way for an organization to deal with crisis to remove the fuel. In the case of fire, one way is to remove oxygen. In my example, the oxygen is the LACK of action or communication. When Tiger Woods stayed out of the spotlight and refused to acknowledge the situation, the fire burned out of control. It wasn’t until everything was out in the open that Tiger commented, by that point it was too late. On the contrary look at how Vince Young handled his strip club fight incident. Vince Young addressed the media directly, apologized, took accountability for his actions and the world moved on…fairly quickly.
Removing the fuel means acknowledging the situation and apologizing and taking action. This is a concept similar to the motherly advice of “kill ’em with kindness.” It’s disarming when you are furious with someone, screaming at them, berating them and they simply say, “you’re right, I was wrong and you deserve better than this from me.” It’s difficult to stay angry once an apology has been made and action has been taken.
The Social Media Implications
The only thing that makes this conversation different today than 10 years ago is Social Media. Information travels and spreads more quickly than ever before in human history. Think of crisis 10 years ago as a forest fire, think of a crisis today as a fire in a gasoline soaked paper factory. Twitter, Facebook, Blogs and other social websites have made the necessity to act even more pressing. This is an example of how Social has changed Public Relations. The playing field is more volatile than ever before. It’s important for Professional Sports teams and athletes, as much as any other organization, to factor social media into the crisis response.
What do you think, is the fire – crisis analogy an appropriate one? What else do you think?