Will you pay more for extra safety measures and less venue disturbance?

I'm all for businesses that take extra steps to keep customers safe. But it's clear that not enough organisations have adjusted quickly enough to terrorism realities.

Take my experience at a recent football match. The venue sensibly introduced an extra layer of security scanning after news of a foiled terrorist plot in Sydney.

But there was no warning it would take longer to get into the ground. There were no barricades to encourage queues to form; hundreds of people merged into one line and got nowhere. There appeared to be no extra security staff compared to usual matches.

Too many people were stuck on the concourse trying to get in. It was dangerous and there was almost no room to move if anything bad happened. Some patrons were angry and a crowd announcer did his best to urge patience. It was too little, too late.

Of course, waiting an extra 20 minutes to get into a ground is a small price if it improves patron security. Just as extra precautions at airports, time consuming as they are at times, are worth every minute if they reduce safety risks and save lives.

Perhaps the sporting venue learned of the elevated risk only that morning and had little time to respond. Or the hands of ground staff were tied by agreements between club and venue.

Perhaps customers should be prepared to pay higher ticket prices, or a surcharge when a security risk is elevated, to fund extra safety measures and staff, and minimise venue delays.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten this week suggested the federal government should put more money and resources in airports, to maintain extra security and minimise passenger convenience – a reasonable idea after longer-than-usual delays at Sydney and Melbourne airports.

My argument is not with extra security. Rather, it's about how companies implement, manage and communicate obvious security changes to customers. And whether companies are putting on sufficient extra resources, and incurring cost, when risks are elevated.

If it's going to take longer to get through sporting venues, or other places where masses of people congregate, so be it. The tragic Manchester Arena bombing this year reinforces the threat's magnitude and devastating consequences.

But you cannot have thousands of people dangerously stuck in queues because organisations are not sufficiently prepared when extra security is required. Every venue should have contingency plans and be able to implement them at short notice.

In conjunction with authorities, companies need to take greater ownership of safety issues.

In the earlier football example, the venue could have asked patrons, via text, to arrive at the ground earlier and be prepared for long delays. It could have suggested patrons bring a bag only if necessary, to reduce checking times and get more people through express lanes.

The venue could have worked with nearby transit authorities to better manage crowd control. The rail station could have informed patrons to go to the ground's western side when the eastern side was gridlocked with patrons who could not get in.

Extra gates could have opened. Extra security staff could have been hired. Special gates for families with young kids who were being crushed in the crowd would have helped. Free water could be provided, especially on a hot day when some in this crowd might have fainted.

My point is: companies need to work with their customers on this issue. People will respond when they can see that companies are responsibly doing everything they can to keep people safe. They'll help companies identify suspicious behaviour and keep people safe.

It's when there's poor communication that problems and extra safety risks emerge.

Airports have shown what's possible. They have mostly done a good job of getting patrons used to security-related delays. We arrive at airports earlier and know what to expect.

Is more safety education needed at train stations, major shopping centres or other public spaces, without going overboard?

Again, do not read this as a critique of security arrangements or the good work of authorities on terrorist-related issues. Also, I know many large corporates do significant planning on terror-related risks and that most of it is behind closed doors.

Nor should one overreact to the minor convenience of being crushed in a crowd for 20 minutes in the interests of safety when terror threats are elevated. Such inconveniences are rare and authorities usually do a good job of managing them.

But companies can always do more on this issue. More to ensure they have done everything they reasonably can to ensure customer safety. And more to minimise customer disturbance when safety standards are raised and delays are inevitable.

My concern is one does not know which companies are on top of this issue and which are not. There are national guidelines to protect critical infrastructure from terrorism, but what of the guidelines to protect commercially owned assets and their customers?

It's not good enough for venues to ask patrons to experience long delays in safety's name when the delay is partly because of poor planning or lack of resources. Or because the company's board is not on top of the issue from a risk-management perspective.

Public safety is too important to take half-hearted in this sad climate of terror. When mid-size sporting grounds cannot get their act together after years of a terrorist threat, it suggests more Australian companies can lift their game on this issue.

Follow MySmallBusiness on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn.