Skip to main content

Hurricane Sandy: was anyone doing PR during this thing?

So Hurricane Sandy hit and it was a mess. While the President and Gov. Chris Christie did their tour of ground zero was it enough to contain a potential PR disaster?

At first it looked like it might be, but in the proceeding days what we've seen is a string of media reports that have made everyone associated with the disaster, from FEMA to the media itself, cast in a negative light.

Some of the highlights include:

Staten Island residents rip in to the Red Cross




View more videos at: http://nbcnewyork.com.



View more videos at: http://nbcnewyork.com.


Michael Moore went on CNN and ripped in to them for their coverage of Hurricane Sandy.


I have to admit, it's pretty absurd that the media is telling people to 'leave' while at the same time the reporter telling people to leave is not leaving himself.  The unspoken message from the media is that if it's safe enough for them to be there, it's probably safe enough for you too (which was NOT the case, as we are finding out with over 65 people dead so far).

Perhaps the biggest PR disaster of hurricane Sandy has been the two-to-six hour lines to get gas...


And in NYC there were reports of people dumpster diving....



On a more humorous front (depending on your perspective towards this kind of thing) a couple of pranksters decided to have fun with the media...




The prize for Biggest Idiot during Hurricane Sandy though goes to....



Take Away

So what's the PR take-away from hurricane Sandy?

Overall I'd have to say that the government and government-funded rescue operations took a hit. Despite knowing the hurricane was coming and knowing the damage it was going to cause, it's clear that they did not ramp up resources to help the community in the aftermath.

Only yesterday did President Obama announce that they would be shipping in additional gasoline.

What will people remember from Hurricane Sandy? Most likely they will remember the videos I've posted above.... the pain and suffering folks are enduring as well as the high-jinx of a couple knuckle-heads.

PR Strategies and Tactics
What could governments (federal and municipal) have done differently?

My only suggestion would be to take a page out of the Iraq war PR handbook. Embed reporters with rescue operations. Let the media see what you are doing and let them communicate that story to the world.

Why there has been zero coverage of the rescue operations is beyond me. All we are getting out of the media are pictures of the carnage and next to no video of the efforts under way to help folks.

Corporations step up

Corporations have stepped up to help out with the aftermath of Sandy, but they too have received little coverage. You really have to be searching for stories on this to find them:

Hurricane Sandy: Corporations donate millions

It's sad to say, but that's the only story I found on corporate involvement.

Now, you might be thinking, why didn't the corporations promote their involvement?  The simple answer is that corporations hate publicizing their good deeds for fear that they will be seen as opportunistic, so they always give quietly during a crisis.

This is why it's the job of the government and operations like the Red Cross to publicize the response from the corporate community. The benefit is that it can motivate others to give and help accelerate the recovery process.

Why the government / Red Cross did nothing to promote the corporate response to Hurricane Sandy is, yet again, another PR puzzle and dropping of the ball.

K.I.S.S

Even a 'keep it simple stupid' PR strategy wasn't deployed. Take the gas line ups. While there are police managing things at the end of the line (ie. at the gas station), essentially ensuring that chaos doesn't break out, you've got line-ups two-miles long which are a perfect opportunity for PR involvement.

You could have a municipal representatives walk the line and provide those waiting for gas with information... whether that be safety info, contact info, resource info (where to get clothes, food, etc).

My point is you take a situation in which people's anger and frustration is building (ie. sitting in a line for two-to-six hours to get a tank of gas) and you turn it into something positive.  Not only would the media cover it, but the public themselves would get a sense that at least you are 'trying' to help them at every turn.

So there you have it. Biggest storm to hit the East Coast in something like a hundred years. On the PR front it's hard to give anyone high marks.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Featured Post: Where Can You Buy My Books?

Interested in purchasing one of my books? Below are the links that will take you to the right place on Amazon. A Manufactured Mind On Amazon On Kobo On Barnes and Noble On iTunes Obey On Amazon On Kobo  On B&N  On iTunes  The Fall of Man Trilogy Days of Judgment (Book One) On Amazon On Kobo On B&N On iTunes System Crash (Book Two) On Amazon On Kobo On B&N On iTunes A Fool's Requiem (Book Three) On Amazon On Kobo On B&N On iTunes

E-cigarettes: A PR battle Health Canada cannot win?

So I've now been using an e-cigarette (e-cig) for two months and thought I'd talk a bit about how I see the upcoming battle between Health Canada and e-cigs going. First though, let's do a quick overview of what exactly an e-cig is. Basically an e-cig vaporizes liquid that contains nicotine. The vapor is then inhaled. People who use e-cigs are called vapers (not smokers). Because the liquid is atomized (ie. vaporized), not burned the way tobacco is, vapers do not consider themselves 'smokers' in anyway. An e-cig is comprised of basically three components: The tank - this is the component that holds the juice (sometimes referred to as e-juice or e-liquid). The atomizer - this a coil and wick unit that atomizes the juice. When the coil is heated (from the battery) it atomizes the juice that has soaked into the wick. The battery - batteries for e-cigs come in various capacities (some last 8 hours, others 40+ hours, depending on their size).  The ba...

More evidence of the Internet Revolution

Bell ushers in new era with CTV deal  So Bell has purchased CTV.  Not really that big a deal under normal circumstances, except when you realize why they did it... Driving convergence this time, the Internet-enabled mobile devices such as smart phones and computer tablets are threatening home television’s lock on viewers. Bell, like its rivals, wants to offer more content to its subscribers, however they receive the signal. Viewers are increasingly interested in watching their favourite shows on their phones while they ride the bus or sit in the park, and the cable and phone companies that have served as middle men between viewers and broadcasters were in danger of being marginalized. You know what sort of worries me about this kind of acquisition? It's clearly an attempt to own (control) content. When they say marginalized what they really mean is service providers being nothing more than dumb pipes - providing connectivity to the internet and nothing more. As ...