人生·无常

从昨天早上，最初的无意看到一面子书朋友的帖子，所以开始时，觉得从马来西亚雪邦前往中国北京的MH370航班在起飞2小时后，在快跨入南中国海，突然失去讯号非大事，但是随着一直插播最新消息，导致电视节目延后10分钟，而今天一个早上都是几乎每个频道都是无广告的进行关于MH370航班的访谈。

MH370航班失去讯息后，到底去了哪里？暂时还解不开的悬案。有人否认这件事情的发生。飞机通讯故障？坠机了？已在空中爆炸？被hijacked？（但是今早看访谈时，排除这个可能性，因为若发生的话，code会被更改）现在在陆地还是海洋？若在陆地的话，会在森林，还是如铁达尼号沉入海里了？（现在有好几国已经有所行动，对昨日马来西亚的政府倍感失望，已经大难临头还开什么会！）时空旅行而换了时代？政府先前推卸责任：不再我的区域，不管我的事？幸好已经有好几个国家，如中国、美国、马来西亚、菲律宾开始进行搜索。由于想到班机会返回马来西亚的可能性，所以增加搜索范围。印度与印尼人也分不清……人数报道也错误！153位中国人，写到53！护照也添了几份悬疑。虽然不清楚是否是谣言，但是都是目前搜索到的资料。

在今天一整个早上都留守着访谈，看到马航的危机处理方法，还有在记者会上的霸道（他向记者说：“因为现在太多人了，所以要说出你们自己的名字，还有机构的名字”）你们还害怕什么？若把你们知道的都说出来，还需要心虚吗？对他们这种态度，只可以用失望2个子形容。

昨晚也看到慈济人前往机场关怀不幸者的家属。说到慈济，身为其中一员，我除了关注这新闻，我也不晓得我能够做什么。就此此时，让我回想起之前参与过的慈青活动时，看到一部短片，顺便在此分享。希望看了短片后，体会到人生的无常，并开始珍惜时间。
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhfzNbutCLw

Crisis management

Crisis Management: Is a New Prescription Needed?

Strong brands are built on experience and trust. Product issues that threaten consumer safety put these brand foundations in jeopardy. The way in which Johnson & Johnson responded to the Tylenol poisonings in 1982 is widely held, even today, as a model response to crisis. But is the playbook used by Johnson & Johnson more than a generation ago still adequate for brands facing crisis in the Internet age?

In 1982, Johnson & Johnson's Tylenol was the brand leader in the U.S. analgesic category. Then seven people died in suburban Chicago after taking Extra-Strength Tylenol capsules laced with cyanide, and many experts, including ad man Jerry Della Femina, predicted the demise of the brand. Thanks to Johnson & Johnson's deft handling of the situation, Tylenol not only survived, but regained market leadership, providing a textbook example of crisis management. But the world has changed since 1982. If the Tylenol poisonings occurred today, would the principles that guided Johnson & Johnson 25 years ago be sufficient?

What Worked for Tylenol First things first
The first principle invoked by Johnson & Johnson in 1982 was to make public health and safety their overriding priority. Not knowing if the tamperings occurred before or after the product left the factory, the company recalled all 4.7 million capsules from the affected lot. Tylenol advertising was suspended, and people were urged to refrain from using any Tylenol capsules they had on hand. Within a week, the recall was extended when, to reduce the possibility of copycat crimes, Johnson & Johnson issued a nationwide recall of all Tylenol capsules, withdrawing 3 1 million bottles at a cost to the company of $100 million.

Get out front
Johnson & Johnson also drew praise for acting quickly, without holding back. When the early news came out that Tylenol might be linked to the deaths in the Chicago area, they did not try to deny the connection, but instead pledged to work with law enforcement on the investigation. In the earliest stages of the crisis, they had no real facts to share, but made company spokespeople available to the media. As the nature of the problem became clear, they put the product recalls into effect, and pledged that Tylenol capsules would stay off the market until procedures could be put in place to make the packaging more resistant to tampering.

Contrast this with the response of Snow Brand in Japan in 2000, when nearly 15,000 people suffered food poisoning after consuming dairy products made by the company. Rather than facing up to the problem, which was traced to bacteria on the production line in one factory, Snow Brand initially downplayed the incident and limited the extent of its product recall. When the company eventually had to admit that it had underestimated the scale of the contamination, it faced negative publicity and threats of criminal charges that led to the temporary closure of 2 1 production plants.

Communication is key
The Japanese tradition of relying on non-confrontational face-saving responses surely contributed to the reticence of Snow Brand in the face of their contamination crisis. Johnson & Johnson, on the other hand, operated in an environment with well-developed public relations channels, and management made the decision to use those channels to share their story. Not only were company spokespeople available to the news media, but the company wrote letters to physicians and set up a toll-free hotline for consumers. The honest and forthright manner in which the company responded to the situation is thought to have protected the brand from further damage and paved the way for its recovery.

Snow Brand, on the other hand, was not forthcoming with any communication of action they were taking to safeguard public health. Thus consumers had no reason to believe that the company could be trusted to remedy the situation. The result was a left-right blow to the company. According to the Associated Press, the fallout from the initial contamination cost over $900 million, but that was only the beginning. When market share dropped by one-third (from 45 percent to around 30 percent), the reduction in future income forced the company to close plants and lay off workers.

But Is It a Different World Now? Clearly the course of action followed by the maker of Tylenol led to a good outcome for the brand, while the route taken by Snow Brand led that brand into an ever-deepening crisis. The three principles that guided Johnson & Johnson were:

• Put the public's welfare first.
• Act quickly and decisively.
• Communicate with openness and sensitivity.

But the world has changed - not just since 1982, but even since 2000. When crisis looms today, companies must deal with additional complications: 24-hour news networks, consumer-generated media, and a reduced level of public trust in corporations. In addition, in today's business environment, management must maintain a relentless focus on shareholder value. Thus it would take a courageous CEO to call for a recall on the scale of Tylenol's. Not only were all capsules recalled nationwide, but Johnson & Johnson offered to replace any Tylenol product discarded during the crisis, with no proof of purchase required. This step cost Johnson & Johnson dearly in the short term, but, as demonstrated by the Snow Brand debacle, there is no toll-free road out of a crisis. The choice companies face is between paying sooner and paying later.

Why are companies slow to respond?
Companies may be slow to respond to a crisis for a number of reasons. Senior management may simply be unaware of a problem (Japanese workers are not the only ones who are reluctant to deliver bad news to their bosses), or they may not distinguish quickly enough between a routine product issue and one that may lead to disaster. But when companies refrain from comment even after the reality of a negative situation is clear, it is likely to be due to the ever-growing threat of litigation. In their 2006 Litigation Trends Survey Findings, Fulbright and Jaworski LLP report that 89 percent of the companies surveyed had at least one suit brought against them in 2006 (up from 75 percent in 2005).

Even companies that do all the right things in the face of a crisis end up facing legal action. In 1996, when contaminated apple juice bottled by the Odwalla company killed one young child and sickened dozens of others, the company recalled the product, expressed its regret, promised to cover all medical costs, and subsequently restructured its entire production process. While these actions probably saved the company, Odwalla still faced a number of personal-injury lawsuits that reportedly cost the company tens of millions of dollars.

When the crisis struck, Odwalla was a company both well known and well liked, with a reputation for being progressive and socially responsible. This reputation, along with the speed and transparency of Odwalla's actions, helped to reduce the threat of litigation, enabling the company to survive and prosper. If the company had not acted as it did, with openness and honesty, future equity-driven sales would have been significantly reduced. Management teams faced with a crisis must weigh the short-term cost of action against the long-term cost of inaction, both in terms of future sales and shareholder value.

Communication Is More Complex Human nature has not changed. In a time of crisis, when people are uncertain and fearful, they will seek information and reassurance. But today people use new and different tools to find news and connect with others. If a company's senior management is not familiar with the new communicative power of the Internet and consumer-generated media, they may underestimate the speed with which bad news can spread.

The recent recall of Dell batteries is a case in point. Last summer, a press release issued by Dell announced the recall of 4.1 million lithium-ion batteries that were at risk of catching fire. A wave of publicity ensued in both traditional and social media. The traditional media tended to view the recall in a positive light, but many of the comments in blogs and other online forums were negative.

What is ironic is that stories of exploding laptops had been circulating in the press and online since 2003. Dell was just one of the brands affected, and the batteries in question were actually manufactured by Sony. But when Dell, the biggest computer manufacturer in the world, announced the largest consumer electronics recall ever, it drew the spotlight squarely onto itself. Sony, by contrast, remained on the sidelines until Apple announced its own recall later in the year.

Dell did the right thing by initiating the recall before someone got hurt. But many Dell owners and potential customers heard about the battery recall indirectly, through sensational stories shared by friends, colleagues and online acquaintances. Dell should have better managed the distribution of the story through the social media to ensure that their message was heard firsthand.

Three Key Questions Companies thinking about crisis management need to consider three important questions as part of their planning.

What is at stake if a crisis happens?
For many consumer packaged goods, the majority of sales result from the appeal of the brand name, rather than qualities inherent in the product or the company's business processes. For example, Millward Brown Optimor calculates that between 65 and 80 percent of sales in the bottled beer category derive from the emotional connections beer drinkers have with their brands. With this in mind, what might a crisis cost your company in terms of sales and shareholder value? The higher the reliance on branding to drive sales, the more quickly a company needs to act to defend its asset.

Is our crisis radar working properly?
A crisis management plan can be effective only if it is put into action at the right time. This timing will depend on the quality of a company's monitoring and escalation procedures. Monitoring systems (which should include listening to online chat) need to highlight emerging threats as quickly as possible. Escalation procedures should ensure that senior management is informed immediately. Company personnel must have the motivation and incentive to follow these procedures.

How can we deal with new forms of communication and social media?
The emergence of e-mail, mobile phones and social media has facilitated the dissemination of news in an uncontrolled fashion, opening up the potential for innuendo, bias and misreporting. Companies faced with a crisis still need to communicate quickly, but they may also need to prepare the ground to win over the citizen journalists.

Identify and engage influential members of the blogging community ahead of time, just as you would with the traditional media. Then, when crisis occurs, enlist them to help spread the word, not by providing them with a prepared text, but by offering them access to all relevant information. Their independent and considered communication will be worth just as much as that of the traditional media when it comes to allaying consumer fears and frustrations.

Conclusion Product issues that threaten public safety can catapulta company into the spotlight in a matter of hours. If in a time of intense scrutiny, the public perceives that a company is not behaving honestly and responsibly, the potential downside is enormous. A brand that has formed deep and abiding relationships with its users will be better positioned to weather a storm than one that enjoys little consumer loyalty. If consumers perceive that the brand (and the company that owns it) is caring, honest, and genuine, they are likely to be open to hearing from that company when trouble strikes.

It is noteworthy that neither Johnson & Johnson nor Odwalla had a crisis plan. Instead, executives from both companies looked to their mission statements to guide their actions. As Odwalla's CEO Stephen Williamsons explained, "We had no crisis management procedure in place, so I followed our vision statement and our core values of honesty, integrity, and sustainability. Our number-one concern was for the safety and well-being of people who drink our juices."

The rules of handling a potential crisis have not changed. If anything, the three basic principles of response have become even more important. While the threat of legal action and short-term costs may make many company boards think twice about addressing an evolving crisis until they have the full story, their delay may jeopardize the future income stream from their brands. Offering help and support, making amends for inconvenience, and providing something of value to retain the goodwill of customers will go a long way to assuaging public discontent. Hold back and your company may suffer even more than settlement costs.

雪印乳业（日本）觉得不错，在此分享

Companies in Crisis - What not to do when it all goes wrong

Snow Brand Milk Products Co.

One of the most feared scenarios for any food products company must be an outbreak of food poisoning associated with its products. For Snow Brand, Japan's premier dairy foods company, 2000 was the year when that nightmare came true, in fairly spectacular fashion. The company is still struggling to recover, and has suffered from further problems (see update at bottom of page).

What happened

Large numbers of people, mostly in western Japan, suddenly came down with food poisoning after consuming milk or related products made by Snow Brand. As events played out, it transpired that over 15,000 people had been affected.

The problem was traced to bacteria on the production line of Snow Brand's Osaku factory that processed low-fat milk. The bacteria concerned was staphylococcus aureus, and it was located in a valve which, although it should have been cleaned regularly, had not been. Inspections of the plant condemned hygiene standards as being appalling.

What did the company do?

By all account, it initially sought to downplay the incident, and gave the impression of being more concerned for its reputation and standing than it was for the victims of the outbreak.

For instance, the company made an attempt to limit the extent of the product recall it would have to make. The Osaka city public health centre issued a recall order for two products, whilst requesting that the firm voluntarily recall other products. This the company was reluctant to do. After the city officials pressed the point, the company grudgingly agreed to the recall, but then requested that the recall order not be announced, but the company could be seen to be doing it voluntarily. The city publicised both the recall and the request.

The company was also held to have sought to cover up information about the full nature of the incident. Snow initially claimed that the valve where the contamination was found was used rarely - in fact it transpired it was used almost every day. They also claimed that the area of contamination was small, about the size of a 10 yen coin - subsequent examination found it to be rather larger than that. Snow asked authorities not to issue official recall.

The overall impression - as judiciously reported by the media at the time - was that the poisoning was the end-product of a company rife with corporate arrogance. The President, Tetsuro Ishikawa tried in vain to win support, and was eventually admitted to hospital suffering from the stress of the incident. The end result was that he, and seven executives, resigned in atonement for what had happened.

Cost and benefit

The consequences for Snow Brand have been dramatic and awful. Sales for the company have plummeted as consumer confidence has evaporated. The company was pushed to close five of its factories - including the offending site from the poisoning - and has recently increased this figure to eight.

The company's bottom line is grave testament to the impact it has all had. Snow Brand reported a consolidated net loss of 52.9 billion yen (about $430 million) for the fiscal year ending in March.

Snow Brand enjoyed a market share of around 45 percent before the incident. In the immediate aftermath, it plunged into single figures, and has gradually - with new promotions - recovered up to around 30 percent. It is still languishing well short of its previous level.

The fight back

A key component of the fight back has been for the company to revamp its approach to its social responsibility.

In the first instance, the new President of the company, Kohei Nishi, made clear statements of regret - acknowledging the mistakes of the past and the determination to move forward.

Improving quality assurance is, needless to say, a key part of the restructuring plan. But at least as importance is a reform of the corporate culture. Steps to be taken in this area include:

• Renew corporate philosophy - making the corporate charter a guarantor of more responsible corporate behaviour.
• Promote customer-focused management - particularly allowing for the two-way flow of information and feedback
• Enhance corporate governance - particularly to appoint outside directors and to increase the speed of decision making
• Restructure risk management function - and conduct practical training

Conclusion

The features that made Snow Brand's initial response to the crisis a failure was that they responded too slowly, failing to move quickly towards a full product recall and to communicate with the public. When it did communicate, it dwelt much more on the impact on financial performance, and not so much on the suffering of the people who had consumed its product.

First, Snow Brand did not move quickly enough; it should have acted faster to assemble the facts and act on them, both in the form of moving toward a product recall and in terms of communicating with the media and the public. Three days passed before either of these happened, following numerous reports and inquiries from public-health centers.

Second, Snow Brand had no structure in place to accurately respond to a crisis, including no method of getting information to top management. Therefore, management was unprepared when it finally did speak to the media and was not armed with all the facts.

They also made the huge mistake of seeking to cover up the bad news. Once such a situation has arisen, all the facts will eventually be revealed, and early and voluntary disclosure by the company is the only way to move forward. Snow's reluctance in this area meant that not only did customers fear that the products would be unsafe, they also did not trust the company to seek to ensure that it would be otherwise.

The message of the company is that it has learnt its lessons and is ready to move forward. History of other such incidents suggests that this will take some time, although the resignation of the previous leadership enables a line to be drawn to some extent.