COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN

A potential water contamination crisis caused panic in Philadelphia. Experts say vague, late, and “very confusing” communication played a significant role.

The water crisis that never exactly materialized is officially over.

But before Philadelphians could breathe a collective sigh of relief, we had emptied just about every shelf in the city of any form of bottled water, gallon jugs, and other kinds of drinking water. That panic was in no small part caused by messaging that public relations specialists described as vague, late, and “very confusing.”

Mayor Jim Kenney’s administration has defended its communications about the threat of a chemical spill from a Bucks County plant into a Delaware River tributary contaminating the city’s tap water supply as transparency. The decision to put out the first alert Sunday came down to weighing public health risks, officials have said.

”You’re making decisions with the best information you have at that moment,” Philadelphia Health Commissioner Cheryl Bettigole said. “And the best information we had at that moment was that this is probably an extremely low risk, but people might end up with some contaminant in our water.”

But public relations professional Meaghan F. Washington said that minute-by-minute approach could have contributed to unease.

She pointed to the ever-evolving messaging about when exactly tap water would become undrinkable, like a ticking doomsday clock that kept resetting, and the Sunday morning advisory that residents might, maybe, want to consider switching to bottled water because, by 2 p.m., taps could be running chemical-laden water.

Officials moved that timeline twice within hours before holding a public briefing Sunday where Deputy Managing Director Mike Carroll told people they did not need to buy bottled water and could continue to drink from the tap.

“During crises like this, it may feel best to give minute-to-minute updates, but it could also make residents feel unsettled,” Washington said. “Announcing that the purchasing bottled water was no longer needed the following day, along with updates on the water evaluation and how they plan to fix everything, might've been received well from the public.”

The city also failed to put out advisories in any language other than English until Monday — one day after the first alert went out.

And Mayor Jim Kenney remained silent for three days after the chemical spill, until he spoke on Monday to defend the city’s response to the scare.

“When we weren’t sure, we had to give people some advisory so people would be safe,” Kenney told reporters. “If we had held on to the information, you would be asking me why we didn’t say anything.

“The guidance was a suggestion if you feel more comfortable, buy … bottled water,” Kenney added. “I don’t think this is rocket science, here.”

It was hydrology, though and many Philadelphians were confused when they tuned into a city press briefing streamed live on Facebook to hear city officials talking about “raw water,” “intakes,” and a “potential for contamination” that was “diminishing over time.”

“How do we believe you guys when earlier you guys said something different,” wrote Karin Aye in the livestream’s Facebook comments.

“With other water-related crises happening around the country – such as Flint, Mich., and East Palestine, Ohio – there’s been a feeling of mistrust and being left in the dark by government,” said Washington, who owns Francis Goodwin Public Relations.

The Inquirer selected five moments from Sunday evening’s press briefing and asked Washington and Hugh Braithwaite of Braithwaite Communications to analyze the city’s response. Here’s what they had to say.

The city gave too little, too late

Mike Carroll

Deputy Managing Director

“On Friday evening there was a spill from a Latex product manufacturing company in Bristol Township, Bucks County, this was shortly before midnight on Friday, March 24.”

Braithwaite — [I]n the world of crisis management, that was about 23 hours too late. In crises, speed counts. Today, the public expects any organization in crisis to publicly respond in fewer than 90 minutes – especially when it involves a potential or immediate health risk.

They should have tried, “We will share an update at 3 p.m.” vs. “We will share news as we receive it.” This way, even if there is no update and experts let the community know that there has been no change, residents can be confident work is being done around the clock.

Washington — For the sake of transparency and having the public's trust, best practice would've been to inform residents soon after city and regional government officials had been notified whether contaminants were found or not.

Failure on two levels

Mike Carroll

Deputy Managing Director

“As a result of the spill, the Philadelphia Water Department shut intakes at the Baxter Water Treatment Plant, which draws its water from the Delaware River. We were able to evaluate that we have water that is within the plant that could last us into this morning. But overnight we needed to open the plant to bring in raw water from the Delaware River at 12:15 a.m. and we kept that open until 5 a.m. this morning … so that we can evaluate the water that comes in and correct our approach as necessary.”

Braithwaite — This statement fails on two levels. First, specificity. The public has no technical context for how a water system works. But they do know what closing and opening valves means. If the public’s biggest fear is about contaminated water, casually stating that you opened the plant in the middle of the night to bring in “raw” water only stokes those fears.

The statement also shows contradictory judgment that reduces the public’s confidence in the agency’s leadership. With no explanation, they reference that their initial evaluation showing they could keep the plant closed was wrong. The statement also leaves it to the public to determine who the “we” is.

The final fail of this statement comes in the common mistake of what we in crisis communications call “repeating the negative.” The theory holds that statements that repeat or amplify the problem or issue tend to make things worse. By referring to the water intake as “raw water” the statement conjures up a horrific visual that only reinforces the public fear. Where is all the phrasing about healthy clean water that’s still coming into our homes?

Washington — From a communications standpoint, this could come across as very confusing. I think clearly explaining with a step-by-step process on how they plan to remedy the situation could alleviate any misinterpretation of what was said.

Instill confidence amid uncertainty

Mike Carroll

Deputy Managing Director

“Out of an abundance of caution this morning, at about 10:15 a.m., we did an on-camera press event and we recommended that residents may choose to switch to bottled water while we got a better handle on the situation. … This morning we felt comfortable, we had information that people could continue to use water until this afternoon and that we would update them this afternoon with more information. ”

Braithwaite — The primary goal of any public response is to instill confidence and trust amid uncertainty. This statement reinforces the uncertainty. … Using more concrete and specific language would have greatly improved the public’s trust and confidence that the issue was managed the right way.

‘Vagueness is always the enemy’

Mike Carroll

Deputy Managing Director

“Our hope is that we can report to people tomorrow at some point in the evening that the concern has fully passed, but again I want to reiterate {that} through tomorrow people can be absolutely comfortable using their tap water.”

Braithwaite — Vagueness is always the enemy of effective crisis communications. … In instances like this, where public health is on the line, the city should be addressing the public’s fear and emotion with certainty, consistency, and commitment – not vague terms like “hope,” “at some point,” and “comfortable.”

Washington — Here is when they [should have presented] the step-by-step process I mentioned earlier.

‘Shifting blame backfires every time’

Mike Carroll

Deputy Managing Director

“[T]his situation reminds us that we should follow the best practice that all households and residents should try and maintain two days of water on hand in their house. This situation is just one of many situations where it would be important to have drinking water on hand.”

Braithwaite — This statement represents a “crisis is over” position. The problem is that it’s being delivered in the midst of the crisis. This is exactly the wrong time to share generic long-term best practices while the public is focused on the immediate safety of their families. To make matters worse, the statement pivots responsibility to the public to “maintain two days of water on hand in their house.” Shifting blame like this backfires every time.

Washington — [Carroll] could've led with the water being safe through Monday but also welcome people to purchase bottled water until they hear from the city or water department with additional updates.

Staff writer Maddie Hanna contributed to this article.