With those additions to the picture — and the considerable number of positive emails we’ve received — continuation of this discussion seems justified.The jumping off point was Waggener Edstrom’s survey indicating financial-service institutions are not communicating — or are not communicating well — with their several constituencies.
To that, we restate that a heavy emphasis on crisis communications tactics is in order. These, of course, include messaging with candor, timeliness, clear explanations and, in this case, differentiation are among financial institutions.
These are not “happy letters,” as one writer feared some institutions could uselessly resort to.
Quite to the contrary, this must be truly strategic communications. Such a program requires clear understanding of stakeholders’ interests, fears and anxieties; thoroughly addressing issues that undermine credibility; and effectively communicating candid corporate positions in media suitable to each constituent audience.
Further, executing such a credibility recovery program requires a continuing drumbeat of regular communications. A one-off or short-term effort will not ease the anxiety, will not begin to rebuild confidence, and will not stabilize the brand. Anything less than a thoughtful, thorough, continuing communications program will only exacerbate the fears and frustrations of the stakeholder on one side and diminish institutional credibility on the other. [AIG is an exception because we believe credibility of that brand is all but extinct — at least for this generation.]
Commercial and retail borrowers, working and retired investors, small businesses, and retail consumers are among the stakeholders who have a common interest in this situation — financial security. They must trust that their money is safe or that the loans won’t be called.
However, each stakeholder group has a unique perspective and a unique language; those constituent differences must be clearly recognized and convincingly addressed. One size certainly does not fit all.
This blog is not the place to present a communications campaign. However, we can say that it is important for financial industry leaders — many of whom seem to be frozen in the headlights when it comes to communications — need to understand that a communications vacuum will be filled by the worst possible visions of individuals — and the media — if they are not satisfied by credible facts.
And for this counter-attack on credibility, the only appropriate leaders are the financial services CEOs and their C-level teams.
No comments:
Post a Comment