a)      What research has been done to check that the social media channels currently used by the company during ‘business as usual’ operations will be suitable for disaster communications?

b)     What plans are in place to assemble a crisis social media team with the required skills, experience and availability to coordinate social media two-way communication? What are the “business as usual” protocols already in place that can be drawn upon and enhanced in the disaster response? What are the clear distinctions from the “business as usual” use of social media? Will the crisis social media team be sufficiently freed up from normal responsibilities to attend to the tasks in crisis mode?

c)      How will the social media team coordinate with other members of the internal crisis management team?

d)     What are the ethical guardrails in place to guide use of social media by the company during the disaster response? Is the social media policy adequate to cover these concerns?

e)      How will the company use social media to honestly and accurately share difficult news, including mistakes and failures in company responses to the crisis?

f)        What are the simple communication protocols (e.g. a specific hashtag) that can be adopted to promote the effective use of social media in the disaster response by the company?

g)      How will the company engage with legacy media sources through the utilisation of social media?

h)      How will misinformation and disinformation be countered during the disaster response with accurate information? Who will do this? How is this being done now, in precrisis mode (refer to ‘General Stakeholder Engagement’)?

i)        How will two-way communication be enabled, including listening to and responding to questions and concerns raised by conversations between and with consumers (Conversations block in the Honeycomb Framework)?

j)        What level of availability will there be for the crisis social media team to engage with consumers and media? How will this be communicated on social media platforms to provide clarity of expectations (Presence block in the Honeycomb Framework)?

k)      How will reliable data being provided by consumers through social media be used in an aggregated form in decision making? How is this being down now, in precrisis mode?

l)        How will privacy concerns be addressed when working with consumer information provided via social media (Identity block in the Honeycomb Framework)?

m)   What training will be offered to the social media crisis team, store managers and other senior managers who will coordinate the disaster response and contribute to social media communications? How does this training differ from training for communication in situations other than disasters?

n)      How will the company simulate various scenarios for a disaster response precrisis and test the implementation of the social media plan, including effective coordination across the disrupted area?

o)      How will the impact of social media communications on stakeholders be evaluated following the disaster, to capture opportunities for improvement in the social media communication plan for future disasters?

p)     Who are the key external stakeholders who have been invited to give input on the disaster social media communication plan (refer to ‘Situational Stakeholder Engagement’ and Relationships block of the Honeycomb Framework)?

q)     How will the disaster social media communication plan maintain the reputation of the company during the crisis and following it (Reputation block of the Honeycomb Framework)?

r)       What are the measures that will be applied to evaluate the success of the disaster social media communication plan?

Most large companies will have a social media policy and/or communications policies and processes which determine the rules of engagement. The same 'rules' (who, what, how) that apply for every day engagement would likely be relevant in a crisis situation. The question then would be, how does this model change, if at all, to accommodate the different types and frequency of updates, for example.

The honeycomb framework should be used to consider the specific situation of the crisis communications, and reflect how information might be shared between users and so how comms should be tailored to maintain some control over this, how reputation might be impacted (based on what and how information is shared after it is posted by the company). Conversations could also be considered - in line with sharing and reputation - to determine how the information remains factual once it is out in the world.

• A clear social media crisis communication plan.

• Trained staff who know who is responsible for posting and responding.

• Approved message templates for store closures, IT failures and supply problems.

• Processes for checking information before it is posted.

• Enough staff to monitor questions, rumours and misinformation.

• Backup communication systems if normal technology fails.

• Regular crisis simulations and reviews of what worked.

• A multichannel approach that also uses websites, email, SMS, radio and store notices.

Using the Honeycomb Framework, I would check whether the organisation can share information quickly, hold conversations with customers, protect its reputation and maintain relationships with customers, employees, suppliers and emergency services.

Strong everyday social media engagement would also give me confidence because it shows the organisation already understands its audience and can communicate clearly. However, specific crisis training and planning would still be necessary.

1. Crisis social media policies

Request evidence of:

A documented crisis communication plan that includes social media.

Approval and escalation procedures for crisis messaging.

Clear roles and responsibilities for communication teams and executives.

Guidelines for responding to misinformation and rumours.

2. Trained and resourced staff

The study identified a lack of trained personnel as a key barrier.

Request evidence of:

Dedicated staff responsible for crisis communications.

Training records for social media and crisis response teams.

Regular crisis simulation exercises involving social media.

3. Monitoring

Request evidence of:

Social media monitoring tools and dashboards.

Processes for identifying emerging issues, customer concerns and misinformation.

Reporting mechanisms that provide real time insights to management during a crisis.

4. Information verification processes

The case study highlighted challenges with crowd sourced information and misinformation.

Request evidence of:

Procedures for verifying information before publication.

Protocols for assessing customer reports and user-generated content.

Examples of how misinformation would be corrected quickly and transparently.

5. Multi channel communication readiness

Social media should complement, not replace, other communication channels.

Request evidence of:

Integration between social media, websites, email, SMS and traditional media.

Pre-prepared communication templates for various crisis scenarios.

Contingency plans if social media platforms are unavailable.

6. Measuring and reviewing performance

Request evidence of:

crisis communication effectiveness.

Post-incident reviews and lessons learned.

Regular testing and continuous improvement activities.