Subscribe

Disaster communications do's and don'ts

By Rayhaan Joseph
Johannesburg, 23 Nov 2012
Over-communication in the time of a disaster is better than under-communication, says Telkom's Charlie Brits.
Over-communication in the time of a disaster is better than under-communication, says Telkom's Charlie Brits.

Disasters in business do happen, and businesses need to be properly prepared to deal with the after effects from the negative events that occur in their organisations.

This is according to Telkom's Charlie Brits, who addressed last week's ITWeb Business Continuity 2012 conference. Brits presented a case study of Telkom's Yeoville Exchange Disaster of 2010 in which a municipal transformer exploded and how the incident was dealt with by the telecommunications company.

Brits took the delegates through the process undertaken by Telkom after news of the disaster became public knowledge and the communications and recovery strategy that followed.

Particular importance was given to the communications strategy utilised following the Yeoville Exchange Disaster. Brits highlighted that Telkom's strategy was reactive in nature.

This reactive communications strategy, Brits said, resulted in Telkom having to continuously respond to rumours and accusations.

The company issued three press releases and embarked on an extensive communications campaign with the public, which included official letters to impacted customers, as well as direct calls to impacted customers.

Brits pointed out that a critical lesson that was learnt was that over-communication in the time of a disaster is better than under communication. Members of the public need to be constantly made aware of all developments and how these developments could affect them.

She added that the aim of post-crisis communication needed to be the restoration of the company's image. This, she said, would assist in revamping an organisation's image and should be targeted at both internal and external stakeholders.

In addition, Brits highlighted the importance of using simple language in disaster communications. "People wanted to know, in simple terms, what had happened and how the situation was being dealt with."

Members of the public want to be addressed in an honest and direct manner, Brits concluded, adding that corporate speak is not comforting and serves only to alienate the public.

Share