The author's points about responding quickly to or using social media are right on target. Kudos.

But to suggest that ANY company take one to two DAYS to respond to mainstream media seems suicidal. NY Times calls with a story they are doing for tomorrow's print edition -- but it will be on their website tonight. NBC News calls for a story they are airing on Brian Williams' show -- five hours from now.

And you wait TWO DAYS to respond?

By then the Times story, with "company officials refused to comment" or "company officials did not return" calls has been all over their site, picked up by Huffington Post et al, gone viral via social media, and your company's reputation is toast.

Thinking of mainstream media as only the printed edition or the main news shows misses the point that they all operate and increasingly put more emphasis on their online news sites, which move as quickly as any blogger.

Research by Harris and PRSA found that the influencer audience -- biz execs, government leaders and staffers, pundits, etc. -- are far heavier consumers of traditional print media than the average consumer, and this influencer audience does just that -- influences. So you can send your message out via Twitter and Facebook "till the cows come home," to use a down-home phrase -- but if all the influencers see on NBC or NYTimes or CNN or WaPo website is "company refused to comment," you're done significant damage to your reputation.

We advise our clients that they need an initial response statement -- even if it has to be (for lack of available facts to the PR team) "We are aware of this situation and are directing all appropriate resources to investigate what has happened -- we'll share more details as we have them," within ten minutes of the first media call.

Then "become the dominant produder of news about your crisis" -- using first and foremost, your own website (which is where interested or curious parties will go first). Social media should also be used proactively.

As to the thinking that you can't get a press release approved or IT to post it -- those are hurdles to be worked out in advance of a crisis, with senior management and IT buy-in, so there is no lag time whe the crisis actually happens. Approval is approval - whether it's two sentences for Twitter, a one-paragraph statement or a lengthier release -- companies that are truly prepared for crisis know how to make it happen. And waiting for IT to post?? Senior PR exec must have ability to post approved info immediately with no waiting for anyone from IT.

Witness the story of Chicago's powerful Ricketts' family. NY Times breaks story yesterday (May 17) that Papa Ricketts is considering bank-rolling a racist anti-Obama ad campaign. WITHIN hours, Ricketts' sons who were involved issued statements trying to clarify; third son who needs Chicago city funding for Wrigley Field denounced the effort (sorry, Dad), and they were in full damage control mode. Those comments were on news sites including NY Times, walking back the story as fast as they could.

If the one-to-two day response advice had been followed, today they'd still be working on a statement, Times follow story would say "refused to comment/didn't return calls" and they'd be out with some way-too-late statement tomorrow -- for the Saturday editions, long after public awareness of their transgression had peaked and public opinion solidified.

Sometimes we get so focused on the speed of Twitter and Facebok et al, that we forget how the mainstream media have adapted and become online info providers as well. (not to mention TV's "break news" alerts, where "the company had no comment" means, to consumers, the company is gulty).

Way too much said here -- but this is a critical issue and confusing companies by saying they have "days" to respond is a subject that needs to be clarified. (right away -- wrote this 10 minutes after I read the story).

Kathy Lewton
Lewton, Seekins & Trester