-1.svg "Close Icon (3)-1")
.svg "Close Icon (3)")
- Share
-
The disastrous Census experience (#CensusFail) of last week highlighted once again the tension between just how far technology has come, and just how precarious relying on it can be. Data security, privacy and the role of technology in our lives were again in the spotlight.
These issues aren’t confined to the Census. In fact, we saw them raised over and over again in the context of insurance and re-insurance at the recent SwissRe Dialogue Series conference, “Rising to the Resilience Challenge”. The challenges (and opportunities) big data presents were canvassed extensively, including the tensions between the ability to collect more data (ie census information and even wearables) and the question of cyber security, and privacy. Technology may give us the means of collecting endless data, but just how much are we all prepared to hand over?
This point was demonstrated very clearly when it was revealed that the government was intending to store personal data from the Census for longer periods of time, and that it would be stored online. Furious debate about privacy, data protection and cyber security was ignited, and such was the strength of feeling that high profile public figures, like Nick Xenophon, stated publically that he would be withholding his name when he filled in the form, regardless of the risk of prosecution.
At the same time, quite apart from the discussion about technology and data, there are lessons to be learned from a communication perspective as well. What really surprised us at BlueChip was just how much the management of the event could have benefited from a good crisis communication plan. As the old saying goes, failing to prepare is preparing to fail, and there’s no question that the possibility of the site being unable to cope, hacked or subject to a denial of service in some other way should have been considered in advance. Regardless of the level of confidence in the provider or the level of pre-testing.
It’s important to consider all eventualities, because while you might not be able to control the fact that the site has collapsed, how you respond to that collapse and what you say is very much within your control.
So what would a better crisis communication plan have looked like?
Firstly, preparation is vital. Consider all the things that could go wrong, then equip your people with a coherent narrative to cover it. Decide who your spokespeople will be and make sure they are media-trained. Where the Government went wrong was that David Kalisch, the head of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), told the media the site had been “hacked” whereas the Prime Minister and the minister responsible for the census, Michael McCormack, both explicitly said the site had not been hacked. Mmmm, not a consistent message there.
The language you use is also important. For example, use of words like “hack” by the ABS served only to inflame fears about data security and privacy. And with data security high on people’s minds thanks to the likes of Senator Nick Xenophon in the days and weeks leading up to August 9, one would expect careful scripting of when it would be appropriate to use the word “hacked”.
The timing of announcements is also key. Hacked or not hacked, it would have been better to wait for more information about the source of the problem than to comment prematurely. Or at least to agree the roll-out of a consistent message and by whom.
Ultimately, it’s always easy to see how things could have been handled better with hindsight. But the truth is that the role of a crisis communication strategy is to consider all the possible outcomes and to have an agreed escalation plan that is well documented and understood by all the key players. Without one you’re inviting social media pundits to label you a #fail.
