Results from a Klenk & Hoursch survey on crisis comms. The data was also used at a crisis communications congress in Frankfurt, Germany on October 18th. Also included in the presentation are outcomes from group discussions during the cogress.

1. Speed Café
Speakers: Uwe Wache, Tobias Müller
Frankfurt, October 17, 2013
SPEED CAFE
Klenk & Hoursch
1

2. Speakers
Uwe Wache,
Managing Partner
Klenk & Hoursch
Tobias Müller,
Director
2

3. Our company
– Agency is among the TOP 10 crisis
communication specialists in Germany
(Pfeffer PR ranking, as of April 2013)
– Extensive experience in the implementation
of online platforms / own Klenk & Hourschbased tool for online crisis management
– Extensive expertise in crisis communication in
the social media environment
– Numerous clients in the field of DAX-30 and
Fortune 500
– Crisis prevention and crisis management
Klenk & Hoursch
3

4. Practical experience shows:
The main barriers that stand in the way of effective crisis communication are
very similar in most companies and organizations!
Klenk & Hoursch
4

5. Barriers / Definitions
Lack of Experience: Many companies have not yet experienced a major crisis. They are lacking experience.
Therefore, they underestimate the issue.
Lack of Management Commitment: The Board’s agenda does not include crisis communications. They focus on
growth, market share and profit. Especially crisis prevention does show a low priority – it is not comfortable to talk
about one’s own weaknesses.
Costs / Insufficient Resources: Processes, counseling, workshops and trainings do cost money. Money for
which there is no immediate return on investment. Therefore, the issue remains chronically under-exposed.
Lack of Processes: There’s a lack of clear policies, guidelines, alarm procedures, decision-making and approval
processes.
Lack of Exchange across Departments: Successful crisis communications require a smooth and trustworthy
cooperation across the company’s different departments and disciplines. This, however, often does not work.
Legal Aspects: Crisis prevention and scenario planning often is restricted by legal experts. They often have a very
restrictive understanding of what should and can be documented within the company.
Lack of Awareness of the Issue in the Company: Often companies lack a basic understanding of the issue’s
importance. The issue is not on the agenda because it is not being adequately perceived as such.
Lack of Market Transparency: Companies that do not want to build internal resources can hire specialists.
However, there are not many of these and the market is not very transparent.
Klenk & Hoursch
5

6. Poll: What in your view are the main barriers to
efficiency in crisis communication?
88 participants
– Participants of the SCM
conference (25)
– Communication Managers / Crisis
experts in Germany (27)
– International Communication
Managers / Crisis experts (36)
Klenk & Hoursch
6

7. SCM-Conference Participants (25)
20
18
14
15
14
13
11
10
8
0
Klenk & Hoursch
8
7
2
0
1
0
11
8
5
4
5
11
7
5
0
10 10
5
1
4
4
1
4
1
2
Do not agree
Rather not agree
Rather agree
Fully agree
3
0
7

8. SCM-Conference Participants: 4 Main Barriers
– Lack of experience in dealing with crises is
the main barrier to effective crisis
communication (rather agree / fully agree:
92% )
– Established processes are missing (rather
agree / fully agree: 79%)
– Lack of exchange across departments (rather
agree / fully agree: 75%)
– Costs / insufficient resources (rather agree /
fully agree: 67%)
Klenk & Hoursch
8

9. Communication Managers / Crisis experts (27)
in Germany
20
15
15
11
0
Klenk & Hoursch
12
12 11
10
4
0
7
4
1
10
9
6
5
4
2
0
14
13
11
9
8
87
5
14
2
0
3
1
Not agree
Rather not agree
Rather agree
Fully agree
8
4
1
9

10. Similarities / Differences
Results are close to those of the SCMConference participants
Lack of experience (85% agreement), missing
processes (78%) and too little knowledge
sharing across departments (74%) are perceived
as the main barriers to effective crisis
communication
Differences:
Lack of awareness / lack of basic understanding
are ranked higher (56% agreement)
Costs / insufficient resources are ranked lower
(44% agreement)
Klenk & Hoursch
10

11. Communications Manager / Crisis Experts (36)
International
20
18
15
17
15
15
13
12
10
5
18
15
17
16
14
13
11
5
4
22
1
1
2
1
13 13
9
8
7
2
12
Do not agree
Rather not agree
Rather agree
Fully agree
6
4
1
1
0
Klenk & Hoursch
11

12. Similarities / Differences
Evaluation significantly more critical than in
Germany
More barriers are perceived as relevant:
Missing processes (89% agreement), lack of
commitment of GF (89%), experience deficits
(83%), insufficient exchange (81%), lack of
awareness / lack of basic understanding (81%)
and cost / insufficient resources (78%)
Differences with the results in Germany:
Specifically the commitment of the board, legal
aspects, cost / lack of proper resources and
lack of awareness / understanding of basic
rated significantly more critical than in Germany
Klenk & Hoursch
12

13. The Task
What can be done to effectively reduce the critical barriers that
stand in the way of efficient crisis communication in companies
and / or organizations?
Objective: Development of three core ideas.
Klenk & Hoursch
13

14. More in Detail
Speed Café
1. Lack of experience: Many companies have experienced no major crisis . They lack
experience . Therefore, they underestimate the subject. With which communication
measures this gap can be reduced?
2. Lack of commitment of management: crisis communication is not on the agenda of
the Board. There is growth, market share, profit. Crisis prevention has low priority –
who wants to talk about weaknesses. How do you put the issue on the agenda of the
board?
3. Lack of processes: the lack of clear guidelines, alarm procedures, decision-making
and approval processes. How can this best be developed and made ​mandatory in the
organization ?
4. Insufficient exchange across departments: Successful crisis communication
depends on smooth and trusting cooperation between the various divisions and
disciplines. This often does not work. How to sensitize the relevant internal decision
makers to more cooperation (e.g., communication, risk management, corporate
security, legal, etc.)?
Klenk & Hoursch
14

15. Group 1: Remove the lack of experience
1. Perform a full exercise / crisis simulation with a defined crisis team to close
the experience gap and improve performance / gain new insights.
2. Establishment of interdisciplinary rounds / expert circles in order to get a
broader view to think through scenarios and combine partial experience.
3. Install media monitoring (preventive) to permanently deal with potentially
difficult issues and to build sensitivity and experience / expertise in the
organisation.
Klenk & Hoursch
15

16. Group 2: Eliminate missing Commitment
1. Research on comparable crises at competitors to make the damage
potential of crises more "touchable” for the management / the board: What
happened? What damage was caused? What if it had happened to us?
What could happen to us?
2. Development of an internal "sales strategy": Who in the company also has
an interest in better crisis preparedness? What alliances can be built to
become more persuasive?
3. Development of a concrete plan of action: What should be done? What
would it cost? Who would would be in charge? What overarching goal do
we want to achieve?
Klenk & Hoursch
16

17. Group 3: Reduce the deficit process
1. Establishment of a working group of executives and corporate
communications specialists to define the structure of crisis communication.
2. Development of a training concept for all relevant areas, to increase
sensitivity and boost process reliability.
3. Development of a toolbox / instructions for the internal and external
communications for crisis situations and conducting simulation / alarm
exercise to test toolbox / instructions for practicality.
Klenk & Hoursch
17

18. Group 4: Fix lack of Exchange
1. Provide crisis communication with clear structures, roles and responsibilities
and get approval from the board to ensure liability.
2. Development of a concept that outlines the cost of improved prevention and
budget distribution among the involved departments (e.g. communication,
corporate security, risk management, business continuity etc.).
3. Development of guidelines with respect to relevance and value of crisis
prevention and active presence in the context of comprehensive
"readiness". Establishment of a functioning early alert system for the
involved divisions to ensure fast initial response.
Klenk & Hoursch
18

19. http://www.klenkhoursch.de/home_en.html
Klenk & Hoursch
19