Brand crises are not rare events. Unfortunate circumstances and the surrounding media coverage have put companies such as Jack in the Box, Taco John’s and Domino’s in the news. And in an age when professional athletes now serve as brand names, Tiger Woods’ public-relations fiasco dominated headlines earlier this year.

Such mentions prove that even well-known, established brands are fragile. But how these businesses respond in the wake of crises can determine their reputations and the survival of their brands. In fact, crisis response may change the crisis itself. Consider, for example, recent dilemmas for Toyota and BP. Despite your endorsement or reservations of either company, both can teach us a lesson or two about managing crisis communications.

Toyota

When Toyota was faced with safety defects, such as faulty gas pedals and brake software, the national brand confronted a public-relations mountain to climb. Like most crises, Toyota’s was twofold: fix the problem and win back customers’ trust. To Toyota’s credit, it stopped all production to focus on the problems at hand. After it recalled more than eight million automobiles, resulting in $54 million per day, Toyota worked with local dealerships to fix the vehicles.

Then, in an effort to handle public scrutiny, Toyota hired a PR firm. Internally, the company pulled its national advertising in lieu of messaging from top executives and via social-media outlets, which enabled quick responses from corporate and the ability of consumers to go right to the top. Still, some think Toyota failed by ignoring customers’ pleas to reexamine safety issues early on and by not acting soon enough.

While Toyota has still not cleared the hurdles (it has faced more than 300 state and federal lawsuits), it posted a fiscal-year profit of $2.2 billion in March 2010, following a $4.4-billion loss the previous fiscal year. While part of this gain was due to shrinking worldwide production and a lowered break-even mark, Toyota still posted better-than-expected sales in select markets in the midst of the company’s worst crisis.

BP

More recently, events in the Gulf of Mexico have created public backlash and a black eye for BP. The irony is that BP stands for “Beyond Petroleum” (a rebranding campaign to shed the Amoco brand name), yet the company is now behind the worst oil spill in U.S. history, to date. Some critics are giving BP props for the way it has tackled the issues. For example, BP CEO Tony Hayward has been hands on and publicly accessible, seen walking the beaches and posting various commentaries via written and online media. BP has also embraced social media: up-to-date Twitter feeds (including wildlife-rescue information) and a YouTube channel featuring interviews with Hayward.

Furthermore, BP has transformed its home page into an online newsroom titled “Gulf of Mexico response,” which includes:

• Press releases
• Online videos
• Briefings
• Extensive contact information
• Multimedia, including live video streaming from the ocean’s floor and video updates from Hayward
• “Find the status of a beach” search
• Suggestions box for stopping the leak
• Extensive contact information

Others, however, believe managing a crisis from a corporate home page will only intensify a brand’s damage. These skeptics are calling the spill a “case study in failed crisis communications.” Standing behind the mantra that you can never over communicate in a crisis, they claim that BP was slow out of the gates.

And despite Hayward taking “full responsibility” for the disaster, his apology came nearly 40 days after the initial explosion, which is being perceived as “too little, too late.” Hayward followed up his apology by publicly stating, “I’d like my life back,” which drew more criticism because he made the spill about him, his life, his inconvenience, rather than focus on the victims. Then, U.S. citizens, for the most part, grew resentful when Hayward focused on his life in the United Kingdom by attending a yacht race last weekend, a competition in which his boat participated.

To make matters worse, Hayward drew more criticism by declaring in a TODAY interview, “It wasn’t our accident, but we are absolutely responsible for the oil, for cleaning it up.” While BP owns the oil, not the rig (offshore drilling company Transocean), some are upset that this comment is a game of splitting hairs or hot potato in which figureheads pass blame and distinguish where fault lies. But as BP’s reputation and public image become forever connected to this disaster, more people and organizations (e.g., President Obama and the U.S. EPA) are referring to it as the “BP oil spill,” while BP is calling it the “Gulf of Mexico oil spill.”

Will BP ever be able to disconnect itself from the haunting image of oil-soaked wildlife washing up ashore and resurrect its reputation? For many, while BP publicly committed to a quick, positive outcome, technical failures and delays on following through have painted the company as incompetent, resulting in growing skepticism and a lack of public confidence.

Plus, not helping BP’s credibility is the fact that many in the public feel misled by inaccurate information at the outset regarding the spill’s severity and the number of barrels leaking daily. Factor in the global impact and legal actions by fishing companies, environmental groups and state-tourism associations, and it will take some clever strategizing and execution to save BP. In fact, a new study from General Sentiment reported that since June 1, BP has lost more than $32 million per day in brand value.

While Exxon recovered from its 1989 oil spill, it took many years. And it did so in a relatively pre-Internet society; today, consumers have easy access to media, news and videos in real time, while the power of social media helps messaging to spread quickly and virally. Furthermore, consumers today are more environmentally conscious and empowered than ever, controlling the messaging through user-generated content and the power of ratings and reviews.

Crisis Communications Top-10 List

From internal and public-facing crises to minimal or large-scale issues, none of us hopes to be in a crisis. But the best strategy is to not ignore the potential for one to happen. In other words, “hope for the best, plan for the worst.” After all, great brands require great response; they don’t bury their heads in the sand.

The key is to have a plan — a future brand strategy — to help you recover from any public-relations nightmare and to reposition yourself in the marketplace. But like any catastrophic event in history, a crisis does not have to be the end; it is merely a defining moment — a catalyst for change — that great companies will use to achieve brand reinvention.

Here are a few tips to help your company communicate in and manage a crisis:

1. Respond immediately. Try responding through the latest platforms (e.g., social media) to connect with the public in relevant, timely ways.
2. Confront the bad news head on; don’t bury it (or your head in the sand).
3. Continuously and quickly sympathize with the victims and their families.
4. Don’t speculate about solutions or outcomes that you cannot guarantee.
5. Practice honesty and openness.
6. Be visible; don’t hide.
7. Engage with those who oppose in a non-confrontational manner.
8. Take accountability = avoid blaming.
9. Realize that it will get worse before it gets better.
10. Fix the problem first, then your reputation. In other words, plug one hole to prevent the dam from collapsing.