nielsenandcompany.com | the blog

People choose to use the word ‘crisis’ when describing highly distressful matters. “We have a financial crisis.” “We have a production crisis.” “We have a crisis in our organization.” “We have a PR-crisis.” “We have a _____-crisis.” Feel free to fill in the empty spot, but before doing so, check out what happens when you do so.

Although ‘crisis’ may seem as a fitting description for the individual, or a very effective way for newspapers to sell more copies, it is a very ineffective word when dealing with the matter at hand due to its vagueness and its negative emotional impact. ‘Crisis’ connotates and creates fear, and fear is the most effective vehicle in disabling the individual’s potential of finding and implementing solutions.

Although consultants at nielsenandcompany.com don’t mind you - nor our competitors - using the C-word, we prefer to describe whatever our clients are facing as “a sequence of events or situations creating a pressure for stakeholders that can be defined as stressful, extraordinary or critical”. Such a definition does not sell newspapers - “The company is facing a series of stressful, extraordinary and critical situations due to accusations regarding child labour” - but it takes away the unprecise definition the C-word brings with it.

As a consequence the definition reduces the emotional pressure the C-word normally instigates, hence providing a better environment for finding a solution. Our client starts to understand that we as a team face a series of issues to deal with and we can get to work solving one issue after another. And of course, we can give the customer an exact price in providing solutions for each issue instead of a lump sum for a ‘crisis’ they perceive having no control over.

—

Feel free to download and check out the free preview of Fix It! A book focussed on your company when preparing against and dealing with corporate risks, issues and crisis.

Fix It! Preview Edition

If you would like to buy and read the book, click here. Please remember that if you are a registered customer at nielsenandcompany.com, you can claim your free copy.

Yes, what’s up with Ericsson?

I got the question on the phone from a friend of mine a couple of weeks ago. He was driving through Sweden while talking to me.

- Their five year plan has expired, I replied, using my gut feeling in combination with my knowledge of Ericsson the last 10 years. - They probably haven’t updated it.

- What do you mean?

- Obviously they predicted some problems in 2001, which made them create a 5 year plan remedying the problems based on an analysis of current status. The plan commenced rather immediately. I remember a lot of friends with leading positions at Ericsson that had to go during that period. The problems hit real hard the year after, 2002, and Ericsson stuck to the plan making the cure a little easier. A “qualified” guess is that the cure hasn’t been updated all along. Now we see 2007, and here goes…

- Sounds like hindsight if you ask me.

- Sure, hindsight it is. When dealing with hindsight, I promise that we’ve got 20/20 vision as all other consultants. But you asked me a question regarding current status and not Ericsson’s future. A better question from you would have been: What’s the next move from Ericsson?

- Uhh?

- Let’s go back to 2001 and 2002 and see if we can learn from history where they can go. In 2001 and 2002 the mobile phone industry was experiencing a fierce positioning. They still do. But nevertheless, Ericsson made some strategic choices that were successful when dealing with restructuring. But probably, during the process which included saying good bye to some of their employees, some advisors went the same way hence making it difficult for Ericsson to keep up with an ongoing positioning and re-posititioning. Actually I think they haven’t been doing their homework with their stakeholders the last couple of years. Stakeholders meaning their markets and their customers. Yes…I am not only talking about the stakeholders as the ones bringing them money financing their next move, the ones suing them right now, but the stakeholders buying their…

Our phone call dropped. Still the phone industry hasn’t solved the issue when the person you are talking to is driving into a tunnel in the middle of nowhere.

We are writing a report with the working title: “Where were we without advertising?”

The report will among other things raise issues dealing with financial, public, social, psychological as well as philosophical matters. The report will constitute a white-paper for the advertising industry when working with opinion creation.

Before we set the structure, we would like some biased/unbiased input. Suggestions and comments are welcome.

Dear John

I have a friend with a really good web 2.0 project that I am seeking finance for. We have received a lot of good feedback on the functionality and the looks of the site, and now I want to go forward seeking finance. How should I go about it? PS. We haven’t really started the project yet.

Dear oh dear,

your friend should first of all ask whether he or she is committed to the project or not. If the person is not so much committed that he/she will start up or continue without finance, the person should quit wasting other people’s time presenting it. Besides business opportunities, investors look for personality and commitment. If your friend is not interested in investing his commitment or personality in the project before seeking financing, it is a dead project.

My best suggestion would be that the person in question commit before seeking finance, for example by starting the project, trying it out, checking customer interest and then get back to me.

—

Previously posted in the Facebook-group Dear John, 24 August. The reason for re-publishing it in our own blog is that we still get wannabe-entrepreneurs telling about their great idea. Their problem is that they haven’t the ambition or the drive to go on or even start up without finance on products and services that doesn’t need an early stage-financing. Think about it: if you were true to your heart, would you as a VC invest in some project or somebody not willing to commit? I wouldn’t.

Yesterday some representatives from our Stockholm-team visited the first European presentation of the new 3D-generation.

Although there were some minor technical issues during the presentation that needed to be resolved and that there may be some minor ethical issues to be sorted out during product launch, we can promise you that there will be some nice 3D going your way during 2008 - wherever you are in the world.

PS. We should consider substituting the concept of 3D with 4D. Most of the time nowadays, we are actually talking about four dimensions: Height; Width; Depth; and Time. DS.

Yes, what’s up with Carnegie?

The last couple of weeks they have been accused for a lot of issues dealing with how their organization execute the company mission (or to be more specific: how specific roles have executed their own mission which was in conflict with the company mission). Now Carnegie has decided to dig deep in order to clean up their act and get results. The company will probably dig deep in its wallet, but will the company dig deep in itself?

According to an article in Dagens Media, the leading Swedish media on communications issues, the Swedish PR-agency JKL is commissioned to clean up the Carnegie Brand. In the very same article, the agency presents the fact that it will take time. Guess it is billable time, so congrats JKL. Well done. You deserve it.

But the time factor or the billable hours are not the most interesting fact with this news story, it is the use of Carnegie’s organization and extended organization - read: consultants. In fact JKL and Carnegie have according to both parties been working together for a long time. As an innocent bystander it is impossible to know or evaluate what they’ve done together. It must have been good, if not they wouldn’t have been working together. But when comparing the offer JKL puts forth on their website with the mess Carnegie actually experienced, shouldn’t it have been expected that also JKL knew something about the mess before it went public? To put it in plain English, if they were aware of it, what did they do?

Normally, the best company healing process is where the turmoil-maker or the one knowing about the turmoil is participating in the clean-up, but is this a normal case?