No company is immune to a big ole whammy.

Even Google, a well-established company that’s had a number of accusations thrown its way over the years.

The search giant’s latest business-related accusation comes from a Kenyan search engine.

Forbes‘ latest headline is the type of one-liner that can make any CEO cringe and send unprepared crisis communication teams in to a frenzy: Google Accused of Being Evil… in Kenya.

In Kenya, Google is being accused of breaking into a local competitor’s database and soliciting unwarranted items for a price, all in an effort to expand its business and grow its directory. Mocality, Kenya’s largest online directory, is accusing Google of offering a false business partnership designed to lure Mocality’s customers to Google.

According to Mocality, Google was advertising Mocality as a website developer, when it does not develop websites whatsoever. Mocality says it became suspicious of the influx of calls demanding customized websites and investigated what was behind it. The company reportedly found that a team of people from Google IP addresses was breaking into Mocality’s system and cold-calling its clients without permission, offering business owners a customized website for a “small fee.”

Mocality is particularly upset because the company has been paying Kenyan businesses to join its directory for years. And now, under Mocality’s accusations, Google comes in and asks the businesses to pay?

Not good.

Google needs to nip this crisis in the bud immediately by addressing the accusations.

To date, Google has not commented on the issue and with each ticking second more speculation is building. At this point, the public is left wondering if any of Mocality’s accusations are true or if it is all a big hoax. These are the type of seemingly minute fires that can turn in to a raging mess in no time.

When a crisis beckons, it’s critical to address the issue at hand, apologize and/or defend and move on. By taking zero action, the likelihood of social and media damnation increases and harmful speculation is a near guarantee.

Being a reputable well-prepared company, we anticipate that Google is organizing its facts and preparing to make a solid statement. If they don’t in the coming days, the speculation train will keep rolling along.

With an ever-increasing amount of political scandals surfacing it makes you wonder if creating a scandal has become a prerequisite for holding political office.  While this is obviously not the case (officially) it doesn’t change the fact that more and more politicians find themselves battling scandal through crisis communications.

Political scandals may no longer come as much of a surprise to the public, but they still have an effect and need to be managed. We don’t condone any of the scandalous behavior, but we do evaluate the situations. Some politicians handle their scandals pretty well and others not so much. Let’s take a look at a few recent scandals.

Someone should tell former Nevada Senator John Ensign that gasoline fuels a fire, it does not put one out.  In crisis communications, honesty and transparency is key.

In 2009, it was revealed that Ensign had an affair with the wife of an aide, had his parents pay the couple off and reportedly used his position to get the aide a lobbying job. Rather than owning the events and apologizing or leaving it alone and hoping for it to blow over, Ensign denied the allegations.

When the scandal finally blew up, it was twice as big as what it could have been. An affair, still inappropriate and unacceptable, is one thing. Exchanging money for silence and breaking federal laws is another. There is not much crisis communications can do for you when you are the target of a federal investigation. In spring of 2011, the intense scrutiny of the scandal finally forced Ensign to resign from his seat in the Senate.

The twist of irony in the Ensign scandal can be summed up by his remarks during the 1998 Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky scandal.

“[Clinton] has no credibility left,” Ensign said.

In literature, that would be called “foreshadowing.”

Some politicians do know how to handle a crisis.  Whether truly sincere or not, they come across as though they are. Past New York Congressman Christopher Lee was revealed to be flirting with a woman on Craigslist and sent her shirtless pictures of himself. It was not a huge scandal, but Lee recognized his mistakes immediately. He immediately resigned his position in Congress and gave a direct, sincere mea culpa.

“I have made profound mistakes and I promise to work as hard as I can to seek forgiveness,” Lee said.

By doing this, Lee reduced the intensity of future headlines.   He may even be able to seek public office again.

When you are the subject of scandal – sexual, political or otherwise – you need to get out in front of it, respond immediately and sincerely apologize. From there, who knows what will happen, but your chances of public and social redemption are much greater than if you cover it up, stay quiet or hide out.

Having a crisis communications plan is like having insurance. You wouldn’t wait until you get in a car accident to buy vehicle insurance and you wouldn’t wait until you have to go to the emergency room to get health insurance. The stability and long-term health of your company should be no different.

While we hope you never have to use it, it’s essential that every company develop a crisis communications plan. A crisis, which we define as an event that draws intense negative media attention and interferes with normal business activity, could happen to any company at any time. Without a plan, companies are left frozen in indecision when a crisis occurs.

Establishing a crisis management approach should be derived from the vision and values of the company. As a company, you must define your objectives, audience and goals. You have to know how you ultimately want to be perceived by the public before developing a plan to get you there.

No company is perfect. Every day you make decisions and take risks. A risk audit should be performed to know your risks and actively prepare for them. It is sometimes easier to have an outside third party do this, such as a public relations agency, crisis communications agency or legal group.  Knowing where your weaknesses are, your company can brainstorm possible scenarios and responses.

It’s important your company avoid the “that won’t happen to me” mentality. It doesn’t matter how careful or meticulous you are, some things are just out of your control. As the old saying goes – prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

The Public Utilities Commission of Nevada approved a 3.4 percent rate increase proposed by NV Energy. The increase went into effect July 1, 2011.

Consumers do not like rate increases, but this one was a particularly tough pill to swallow.  That is because the reason NV Energy gave for proposing the rate increase was that profits were down. For years, NV Energy had been encouraging consumers to conserve energy.  Now, NV Energy was trying to justify the rate increase as an attempt to recover losses due to increased energy conservation.

The public viewed the rate increase as punishment for heeding their advice.

NV Energy did some things right. They did not try to hide anything (their meeting was open to the public), they were fairly transparent about the matter and their spokespeople were open to discussion.

In the court of public opinion, consumers found it hypocritical that the power company raised prices because energy was being conserved. NV Energy representatives said that the money from increased rates will be invested in energy efficiency programs that will ultimately save consumers money in the end. This is a good try by NV Energy, but consumers didn’t seem to buy it. After all, NV Energy first justified the rate increase to recover money lost.  How will the consumer ultimately save money and NV Energy recover losses at the same time?

The public response was swift and angry.  Consumers formed a “Shame on NV Energy” website, Facebook group and Twitter page.  NV Energy did not have much of a social media presence online and as a result, communication online spread like wildfire and NV Energy took quite a beating.

The better course of action for NV Energy would have been to create an online forum and respond to the consumers rather than skirt the issue. That is why it’s critical to have social media channels in place before the crisis occurs.  At the very least, if you are going to give the public a truth that hurts, be prepared to deal with a whirlwind of online criticism.

It’s not exactly World of Warcraft, but the online wars between social networks can be fierce. Just how brutal the battle has become became apparent when Facebook reportedly hired a PR firm to pitch a negative story about their number one competitor – Google.

According to a report in USA Today, Facebook hired PR giant Burson-Marsteller to develop a story suggesting Google violates user privacy.   Burson-Marstellar circulated emails alleging that Google collects personal information and shares it without users’ knowledge or consent.  According to reports, the firm pitched the story to influential bloggers and reporters but didn’t disclose who was behind the story.

The story took a turn when one blogger began asking questions.  The blogger wanted to know why a PR firm was looking to place negative stories about Google. Suddenly the negative attention was squarely on Facebook .

Facebook representatives claim that no “smear” campaign was authorized or intended. They just wanted third parties to verify that they do not approve of Google’s use of personal data.

In our view, Facebook needed to make its point about Google in a more serious and transparent way.  There is nothing wrong with discussing privacy issues and bringing up your competitors record on the matter.  Companies have been comparing themselves to the competition for years, but it’s the manner in which Facebook did it that backfired with the media.

Facebook could have handled the story better by announcing their own stronger privacy protections, which they could claim in contrast to those of the competition.

The key to communication is honesty and transparency.

In 2010, approximately 4.9 million barrels of oil spilled into the gulf over a three-month span as British Petroleum (BP) struggled to stop the leak. Looking back at how BP handled the largest accidental oil spill in history, there is only one way to describe it – not well at all.

In our view, besides being completely unprepared for what happened, BP used faulty communication tactics to inform the public of the spill.

First, BP was over-optimistic and over-reassuring in the beginning when uncertainty still prevailed. When you are in a crisis, especially one of this magnitude, it is best to acknowledge it. It’s better to communicate to the public that you realize the severity of the situation.  It’s even better be able to say, “It’s not as bad as we thought” after your company has carefully evaluated the crisis. It’s never good to be dismissive when real damage is obvious to everyone.

In a crisis, it’s important to be honest and transparent.  Don’t deny, or refuse to acknowledge that you could have done something wrong.  Apologize sincerely.

Besides contrition, a company in a crisis needs to show compassion. This is what BP struggled with the most. BP’s CEO, Tony Hayward, demonstrated just how out of touch he was with the crisis when he made the statement, “There is no one who wants this over more than I do. I’d like my life back.”

The public is far less forgiving of a CEO who is self-involved and unwilling to admit wrong-doing.  Hayward’s repeated dismissal of the public’s concern resulted in distrust of the company’s ability to handle the situation.

BP was determined to fix the problem, but they couldn’t convince people of that. The public saw BP in one of two ways, either stupid or evil, and neither one helped their reputation. The company’s communication missteps really hurt the company.

The most important lesson from this case study is the importance of communication, both what is said and how it is said.