Нов български университет

Boryana Gosheva, PhD student, NBU

 

Summary. The end of trust

The decade has witnessed a profound erosion of trust in all types of institutions, including governments and corporations. Even as North America and Europe prepare for a prolonged double dip financial crisis, we have seen social unrest in Bulgaria, Turkey, Greece, UK and Spain; a grassroots movement to occupy public spaces across the United States to protest against capitalism; right wing terrorist attacks in peaceful Norway; a series of regime changes across the Arab world. Not to mention China, Brazil, India. Trust in corporations, too, is at an all-time low, as a result of astronomical executive salaries paid by banks and companies, even as they were being bailed out by public funds.

There is also anger against the inability of governments and corporations to show the will to solve some most pressing problems: the short-sighted dependence on fossil fuels that threatens to undermine our planet’s ecosystem; the tradeoffs between economic progress and the good quality of life, like urban pollution and lifestyle diseases; and the barriers to achieve the full human potential, with more than half the world’s population still struggling with poverty, malnutrition, disease and illiteracy.

 

Delegation of authority – new sources of power

At the same time, people have new sources of power, as individuals and communities. First, people are beginning to believe that governments and corporations have failed them and only they themselves can come up with innovative solutions to the world’s most pressing problems. Second, people are leveraging social media platforms to create new public spaces for discourse and dissent that are irrevocably reshaping the global news ecosystem; organize themselves into distributed communities with a shared purpose and a shared vision for a better future. Third, people are demanding that governments become both more transparent and less intrusive with their citizens; that government and corporations work together to create an ecosystem that enables civic participation. Marc Zuckerberg underlined these shifts during the 37th G8 Summit in Deauville, Paris: “People being empowered is the trend for the next decade: that’s the core social dynamics… People have the ability to voice their opinion, and it changes the world, as it rewires it from the ground up”.

 

Every crisis is global, social, viral and virtual

The social web is playing an important role in these shifts around trust, power, risk and crisis. Specifically, it’s important to master three interplays shaping crisis in the “new normal”: the interplay between mainstream media and social media, the interplay between local and global dynamics, and the interplay between crisis planning and response. First, the boundaries between mainstream media and social media are blurring as online influencers are linking to media stories and news organizations are quoting online influencers. Second, no crisis is truly local in our interconnected world, as memes or hashtags can spread globally in seconds on the social web, yet local considerations must be factored into crisis planning and response. Third, it’s critical to plan and prepare for crisis scenarios, but it’s even more important to respond to emergent crisis situations authentically, without over-reliance on scripted messages and workflows.

So, in a world where every crisis is global, social, viral and virtual, it’s critical to tap into the tools and insights from across our global network, in real time. It’s important to think about the interconnections between trust, power, risk and crisis. For that purpose, it’s crucial to start by looking at the role of social media in societal upheavals in the West, including the terrorist attack in Norway, the riots in London and the Occupy Wall Street movement that started in the US.

Occupy Wall Street or those “99%”

The global movement of the “indignants”, or “the other 99%”, against the excesses of capitalism, especially financial institutions.

Even if mistrust of governments and corporations has been developing over the past decade, the continued financial crisis, in combination with the emergence of a new mindset, in a context of social media explosion, has dramatically transformed public opinion. And, in fact, far beyond public opinion, it’s better to start questioning the “public acceptance” of the sociopolitical and economic systems, and be prepared to deal with bigger crises in the coming times.

The movement started in Southern Europe, particularly in Greece and Spain. Then the USA joined the movement, dubbed Occupy Wall Street. Hundreds of Americans have been camping there for weeks, and thousands are following their example across the country. The protesters are using social networks, blogs and websites -- such as Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Together and Ad Busters -- to connect people all around the country. The way Occupy Wall Street defines itself is insightful. Occupy Wall Street calls itself “a horizontally organized resistance movement employing the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to restore democracy in America”. It relies on an approach it calls a “people’s assembly” to “facilitate collective decision making in an open, participatory and nonbinding manner” and welcomes people from all colors, genders and beliefs to attend its daily assemblies. Never have the ancient Agora and the digital one been so closely interconnected. The Occupy Wall Street movement is a really interesting hybrid of “traditional” and social media, “real” and virtual gatherings.

“The other 99%”

If the first “indignés” were activists, most of the newcomers are young employees and graduates. It looks like a whole generation is joining a deep and wide “value-for-all” movement here, best expressed by the “we are the 99%” group: “We are the 99 percent. We are getting kicked out of our homes. We are forced to choose between groceries and rent. We are denied quality medical care. We are suffering from environmental pollution. We are working long hours for little pay and no rights, if we’re working at all. We are getting  nothing while the other 1 percent is getting everything. We are the 99 percent.”

But these young people have three things in common. First, they don’t trust institutions anymore. That’s the end of trust in corporations. The destruction of wealth is rarely lethal. But the destruction of confidence, brand equity and reputation among financial institutions and public bodies is terribly damaging. Second, they have new power, and they know how to use it. They are in control. And the more it goes, the more they realize the power they have in their hands. Third, they demand purpose, and shared value. Financial institutions, like other corporations, need to not only rediscover their social purpose but also put it at the core of how they engage with their stakeholders. There is no value creation without solid profits. But profits cannot be the only criteria of value creation. The “corporate” side of organizations is more and more important. People expect companies, brands, institutions, to commit to core values, among which transparency, sustainability and accountability are central.

Norway Attacks

On the day of the Norway attacks, Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg tweeted the following message: “Today, we have been hit by two savage and cowardly attacks. Tonight, we all stand together, taking care of each other”. In another tweet, he acknowledged Russian President Vladimir Medvedev who had expressed his support of the Norwegian people. A few days after the attacks, Mr. Stoltenberg also posted a picture of himself on Facebook: it showed him with his iPad looking at his newsfeed. The entire press corps has praised his leadership and his approval ratings have gone through the roof. Mr. Stoltenberg’s seasoned use of Twitter shows not only that leadership begins at the top but also how critical honesty, transparency and timeliness are in crisis situations. Moreover, we can see how important social networks have become. This crisis intersects social media from all angles: from the killer’s motives to people’s attempts to save lives and remember those who perished

A new social influence

It’s been amazing to follow this role model for intersection of social media and traditional media. For his part, Rune Thomas Ege, a journalist at VG, Norway’s largest newspaper, was among the first to tweet eyewitness reports of the attack. He was tweeting in Norwegian, but was soon asked by people in different countries to tweet in English. Upon doing so, he soon gathered more than 3,500 new followers. The websites of several foreign newspapers picked up Rune’s tweets in their Twitter feeds. Even though he had been at the bombsite he quickly moved to Utøya and continued to tweet from there, while writing for the newspaper. Due to his tweets he was soon contacted by news services from all over the world to give comments and report on TV. It can be argued that Rune, by his use of social media, set the agenda for many of the world’s leading news agencies; He was used as a reporter for news organizations in 14 countries, including BBC World, SKY, ABC, CBS, and as far as way as Australia and Chile.

The tweet “Do Not Call People on Utøya”

The first signs that something was truly wrong on Utøya, where 69 people were assassinated, came on Twitter. People on the island used Twitter, Facebook and SMS to inform their loved ones about the shooting as it happened. As it became clear what was going on, people started to call their loved ones on Utøya. The people on the island tweeted, pleading for people not to call, because it would attract the attention of the killer, and reveal the places where people were hiding. Others followed up and spread the message: “Do not call people on Utøya, they are hiding”. So action created counter-action in the social media sphere.

Only one day after the killing on Utøya the first eyewitness accounts appeared on blogs. Prableen Kaurs, the 18–year-old deputy leader of the Oslo Labour Party youth organization, wrote about the “Hell at Utøya”. Such blog posts gave people the possibility to share thoughts, feelings and analysis. In just a few days, people used social media to organize gatherings and memorials, such as rose marches in numerous towns across Norway. Online support groups were established for victims who survived.

The Norway Attacks are such a great lesson for crisis management and PR. Elected officials, the police, corporations, activists and everyday people can all use social media for good - when they chose to do so. It comes down to honesty, transparency, and timeliness. It’s what everybody wants to see in a crisis.

Deconstructing the Role of Social Media in the UK Riots

Since the London riots there are many individuals, groups, organizations and the media dissecting every detail to understand where it all went wrong and what drove so many people to “revolt”. Amidst the many discussions and debates there has been much finger pointing and unfortunately many have called out social media as a key factor in enabling the widespread, coordinated chaos many of us witnessed firsthand over the summer 2011. Between Saturday 6th and Thursday 11 August 2011, thousands of people rioted in several London boroughs and in cities and towns across England. The resulting chaos generated looting, arson, and mass deployment of police. The events were also called "BlackBerry riots" because people used mobile devices and social media to organise. True flashmob.

Almost all the revolutions recently were formed on the back of a desire to make a change. Whilst social media didn’t create such desire, it did show disparate groups and individuals that they were not alone whilst helping them act “as one”. It enabled them to coordinate and deploy a much wider, far-reaching effort. This, at its heart, is what has helped social media become so widespread so quickly - the ability to connect with like-minded individuals over shared goals and interests.

Actually, there is no only one best practice in how to use social media in a crisis situations. Restricting access in times of chaos is simply a knee-jerk reaction that needs extensive consideration. Both Twitter and Facebook provide real-time, always on dialogue. If you switch off access in one country or region, others would find out and that in turn would create a crisis for the government or organization enforcing the shut down. A possible answer of this question is being social and trustworthy in times of non-crisis,

David Cameron has sung the praises of the new e-reform system allowing UK citizens to propose new legislation and even Gordon Brown’s government got No. 10 Downing Street on Twitter. But how much of this is just show? How many politicians can readily say that they understand and regularly use social media?

In the social media space, credibility and transparency are the greatest assets to play. They can make or break a politician or an organization just as they can make or break a brand. But it’s important to be engaged with social media to understand its power. By spending time building up credibility and acting in a transparent manner, governments will develop positive relationships with online influencers who will be willing to speak and act on the government’s behalf simply because they believe.

When plugged in, governments gain greater visibility and a better understanding of what is happening at the grass roots. Subsequently they will be better informed and more able to react in a way that benefits all those involved. It’s clear that the governments need to connect with their “Little Monsters”.