At first glance, the free WIFI service at Starbucks seems like a great idea for mobile professionals. Starbucks’ free Internet service is a response to growing competition – McDonald’s upgraded coffee offerings and free WIFI, which have proved to be popular in the economic downturn.
Starbucks announced the service effective July 1, 2010.
But the WIFI offering by Starbucks has prompted a security warning and checklist from a go-to Internet security guru, Dr. Stan Stahl of Citadel Information Group in Los Angeles. His commentary is entitled, “Free WIFI at Starbucks – Reminder of Cybersecurity Risk.”
“While most of the common risk is eavesdropping, one cannot overlook the risk of computer compromise,” writes Dr. Stahl.
His five security recommendations:
1.No online banking or other eCommerce
2.No e-mail containing sensitive information except via an approved encrypted link from PC to Mail Server
3.Keep anti-virus or host intrusion software up-to-date
4.Make sure software patches are up-to-date
5.Use VPN (virtual private network) for access to office
Respectively, here are Dr. Stahl’s Web site and blog addresses: www.citadel-information.com, www.citadelonsecurity.blogspot.com.
From the Coach’s Corner, Dr. Stahl’s expertise is also quoted in these Biz Coach columns:
■How to Protect Yourself from the Internet Crime Wave
■Strategic Planning: List of Informative Web Sites
■Web Security Checklist and Warning about Mobile Banking
■5 Safety Measures to Thwart Mounting Social-Network Attacks
■How China-Google Controversy Might Affect Business, Government Security
- Terry Corbell
- Seattle, WA, United States
- With more than 30 years experience in best-practices management and the media, Terry Corbell provides proven solutions for maximum profits as a business-performance consultant and business-coaching columnist. He has published 500+ Biz Coach columns on some of the nation's leading media Web sites. He provides full-service confidential business solutions to increase revenue at CMS Associates LLC, an excellent company with an outstanding record of success since 1992. Prior to his consulting career, he worked in various industries in management, sales, and in the media as a top-rated broadcast journalist. And, yes, he is available as a keynote or motivational speaker.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Monday, May 31, 2010
BP Crisis Management – How to Avoid PR Misfires
About every 20 years, there’s a major oil-spill disaster. None has been handled well, PR-wise.
On Jan. 29, 1969, an oil spill involved Union Oil off the coast of Santa Barbara, CA. On March 24, 1989, it was the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska. And following an explosion on April 20, 2010, it was the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Dr. Peter Drucker’s quote, “Arrogance is being proud of ignorance,” obviously was not intended for the most-recent public relations debacle facing BP, but it sure is applicable. The results are a case study for worst-practices in crisis management.
BP has inadvertently created a PR situation synonymous with herding cats. It’s been fighting to clear up two quagmires – its oil mess and its rapidly deteriorating image.
It’s important to understand the need for a comprehensive risk analysis. First impressions demonstrating empathy and competence are vital. It didn’t appear BP was prepared to successfully deal with such a catastrophe. A good old-fashioned SWOT analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats with worst-cases scenarios would have sufficed.
For possible insights into BP’s corporate mindset, a former CEO of Royal Dutch/Shell’s U.S. subsidiary, Shell Oil, has some illuminating realities. In the strategy+business management magazine, CEO John Hofmeister’s article, “Why We Hate the Oil Companies,” explains how some corporate oil CEOs dysfunction. He indicates they earn their reputations for arrogance and blow opportunities to create the right image.
“Retailing fuels is basically a secondary exercise from the oil company’s point of view, a way to get rid of the product it has spent so much time and money producing,” he writes. “This makes the retail side the least valuable part of the business, more often a nuisance than a value creator.”
BP’s “Beyond Petroleum” branding has not helped.
Since the spill occurred, despite BP’s best efforts, the company has not been front and center of the media. And when it has been in the media, it’s not a pretty picture, such as offering $5,000 to potential plaintiffs not to litigate in anticipated lawsuits. Nor has BP been seen as compassionate and aware of their social responsibility. Nor has it appeared eager to roll up the proverbial sleeves to work with government to minimize the ecological damage.
In responding to a question about BP’s safety record in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, BP CEO Tony Hayward said:
“I think we’ve made enormous strides as a company in the last three or four years with a remorseless focus on safe, reliable operations. Ah, this wasn’t our accident. This was a drilling rig operated by another company. It was their people, their systems, their processes. We are responsible not for the accident but we are responsible for the oil, dealing with it and cleaning the situation up.”
However, here are my recommendations:
1.He should have been mindful of all his operations. In the middle of the disaster recovery efforts soon after his interview on ABC, another negative headline was published: “Washington state fines BP $69K for violations.”
2.His initial comment should have been a strong note of empathy regarding the need for due diligence in safety.
BP’s Web site mentioning a minimal number of advisories per day with links to Twitter and Facebook are insufficient. Why?
This is a war – a war to save the environment, the livelihoods of families depending on fishing, and the company’s reputation. Where are the pictures of a hardworking CEO, in oil-stained work gear, directing crews like Gen. George Patton in World War II? Where are images of him conferring in teamwork-style with government representatives?
Furthermore, published revelations in this typical headline, “U.S. exempted BP rig from impact study,” looks terrible for BP and a federal agency. The article indicates BP lobbied for an exemption in order to avoid an environmental impact analysis. The waiver was reportedly rubber-stamped by the Minerals Management Service of the Interior Department.
The Obama Administration has also received criticism for its initial tepid handling of the accident, including this commentary: Government scholar Paul Light calls on Secretary Napolitano to step down.
To minimize the damage, BP should have immediately accomplished five tasks:
1.Issue regular, frequent progress reports
2.Control the pictures (even some on the Web site appeared to be canned or generic)
3.Transparency
4.Display empathy as a concerned corporate entity comprised of authentic people diligently making a good-faith effort to solve the problem
5.Stopped lobbying for environmental waivers.
To be sure, this is no way to run a railroad – or an oil company or government claiming to have environmental credentials. Aren’t there classes on how to be environmentally conscientious, take safety precautions, or perform best-practices in crisis management?
From the Coach’s Corner, for any company following a disaster, here’s a column to enable business continuity: “19 Tips to Protect Your Core Assets from a Disaster, http://www.bizcoachinfo.com/archives/1291.”
On Jan. 29, 1969, an oil spill involved Union Oil off the coast of Santa Barbara, CA. On March 24, 1989, it was the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska. And following an explosion on April 20, 2010, it was the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Dr. Peter Drucker’s quote, “Arrogance is being proud of ignorance,” obviously was not intended for the most-recent public relations debacle facing BP, but it sure is applicable. The results are a case study for worst-practices in crisis management.
BP has inadvertently created a PR situation synonymous with herding cats. It’s been fighting to clear up two quagmires – its oil mess and its rapidly deteriorating image.
It’s important to understand the need for a comprehensive risk analysis. First impressions demonstrating empathy and competence are vital. It didn’t appear BP was prepared to successfully deal with such a catastrophe. A good old-fashioned SWOT analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats with worst-cases scenarios would have sufficed.
For possible insights into BP’s corporate mindset, a former CEO of Royal Dutch/Shell’s U.S. subsidiary, Shell Oil, has some illuminating realities. In the strategy+business management magazine, CEO John Hofmeister’s article, “Why We Hate the Oil Companies,” explains how some corporate oil CEOs dysfunction. He indicates they earn their reputations for arrogance and blow opportunities to create the right image.
“Retailing fuels is basically a secondary exercise from the oil company’s point of view, a way to get rid of the product it has spent so much time and money producing,” he writes. “This makes the retail side the least valuable part of the business, more often a nuisance than a value creator.”
BP’s “Beyond Petroleum” branding has not helped.
Since the spill occurred, despite BP’s best efforts, the company has not been front and center of the media. And when it has been in the media, it’s not a pretty picture, such as offering $5,000 to potential plaintiffs not to litigate in anticipated lawsuits. Nor has BP been seen as compassionate and aware of their social responsibility. Nor has it appeared eager to roll up the proverbial sleeves to work with government to minimize the ecological damage.
In responding to a question about BP’s safety record in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, BP CEO Tony Hayward said:
“I think we’ve made enormous strides as a company in the last three or four years with a remorseless focus on safe, reliable operations. Ah, this wasn’t our accident. This was a drilling rig operated by another company. It was their people, their systems, their processes. We are responsible not for the accident but we are responsible for the oil, dealing with it and cleaning the situation up.”
However, here are my recommendations:
1.He should have been mindful of all his operations. In the middle of the disaster recovery efforts soon after his interview on ABC, another negative headline was published: “Washington state fines BP $69K for violations.”
2.His initial comment should have been a strong note of empathy regarding the need for due diligence in safety.
BP’s Web site mentioning a minimal number of advisories per day with links to Twitter and Facebook are insufficient. Why?
This is a war – a war to save the environment, the livelihoods of families depending on fishing, and the company’s reputation. Where are the pictures of a hardworking CEO, in oil-stained work gear, directing crews like Gen. George Patton in World War II? Where are images of him conferring in teamwork-style with government representatives?
Furthermore, published revelations in this typical headline, “U.S. exempted BP rig from impact study,” looks terrible for BP and a federal agency. The article indicates BP lobbied for an exemption in order to avoid an environmental impact analysis. The waiver was reportedly rubber-stamped by the Minerals Management Service of the Interior Department.
The Obama Administration has also received criticism for its initial tepid handling of the accident, including this commentary: Government scholar Paul Light calls on Secretary Napolitano to step down.
To minimize the damage, BP should have immediately accomplished five tasks:
1.Issue regular, frequent progress reports
2.Control the pictures (even some on the Web site appeared to be canned or generic)
3.Transparency
4.Display empathy as a concerned corporate entity comprised of authentic people diligently making a good-faith effort to solve the problem
5.Stopped lobbying for environmental waivers.
To be sure, this is no way to run a railroad – or an oil company or government claiming to have environmental credentials. Aren’t there classes on how to be environmentally conscientious, take safety precautions, or perform best-practices in crisis management?
From the Coach’s Corner, for any company following a disaster, here’s a column to enable business continuity: “19 Tips to Protect Your Core Assets from a Disaster, http://www.bizcoachinfo.com/archives/1291.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)