Photo credit: IMO -
https://www.flickr.com/photos/imo-un/50237544366/
inconsistency isn’t serious, but the failure to coordinate information and messaging eroded trust in those who were supposed to be responding to the situation. This is one of the reasons that the US uses a Joint Information Centre (JIC) and a lead public information officer (PIO) to focus the communications for major incidents.
The tone of the communication should have matched the audience. Two key things were often missing. Firstly, empathy for those directly impacted expressed in a way that resonated. It should be noted that the owners apologised publicly, but the tone of the apology was more suited to a Japanese audience (where the owners are based) than to a Mauritian or global audience. Also missing were quotable key messages which would have helped ensure a share of the media coverage for those responding. Those who were leading the response and actually knew what was going on were quoted less than critics and local volunteers who reportedly cut off their hair to use as an absorbent in a desperate attempt to clean up the oil – which made a great headline.
Accurate information and context should have been better distributed. Throughout the incident leading media outlets reported many of the simple facts incorrectly, including frequently referring to the vessel as a tanker. A tanker is scarier than an empty
dry bulk vessel and this is just one of many facts that weren’t reported correctly. Some may see this as a sign of sloppy journalism (and that’s partly true), but it’s also a sign that no one was communicating effectively with the journalists and that’s the fault of the parties involved and of our industry at large.
The company should have focused on how others were impacted (not themselves). On 11 August as 1,000 tons of oil were leaking into the sensitive marine environment, Reuters news agency quoted the charterer as saying, “it doubted whether the incident would have a large enough impact on its earnings to warrant issuing a disclosure.” I fully recognise that the charterer has an obligation to its investors, but this sort of statement has no place in crisis communications, even if, and perhaps especially if, it’s true – those who are suffering don’t want to hear that the company involved is unimpacted.
The(limited) social media strategy should have matched the tone of the medium. Nas Daily, a Facebook influencer, posted a video focused on shipping. Full of sound bites, key messages and personality (all the things that the communications response to the incident were missing), the video was viewed millions of times. Nas Daily did not focus on the shipping companies, but rather on the flag state of Panama saying: “People chose
Panama because it’s too easy” – implying that companies can get away with lax safety standards. To their credit, the Panama Ship Registry responded on social media, but unfortunately they fell into a common trap – they did not respond with empathy (only one paragraph half way through the statement expressed regret) and instead focused on denying the allegations made -- “the shipping industry is not unsafe, ships…are not dangerous” Let’s not forget the quote attributed to 19th Century German chancellor Bismarck who said “never believe anything until it has been officially denied.” Within our industry we know that Panama is a well-respected flag, but sadly the tone of the response will not have helped portray this to Nas Daily’s audience. When attacked on social media, any response must not appear overly defensive (even if such is justified).
Communicating effectively for an environmental disaster is incredibly difficult. It depends on multiple groups working together and understanding the cultures and perspectives of the audiences that need to be reached. Yes, it’s easy for me to sit at my computer and criticize. That is not my aim. My aim is to say to everyone in our industry, we must all do a better job of communicating about our industry because, if we don’t, people will believe Nas Daily when he says: “Ships – they are more dangerous than we think”.
The Report • December 2020 • Issue 94 | 73
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116
