Posts Tagged ‘Reputation Management’

1. Litany of apologies, but no humility

   Published on Wednesday, April 13th, 2011
   If you watched Close Up last night you’ll know all about the problems encountered by wheelchair-bound Tanya Black and Dan Buckingham in trying to take a Jetstar flight to the Capital.

   You see, Tanya and Dan ended up ditching their tickets and flying hassle-free with Air NZ.

   There are many aspects of this episode that deserve scrutiny, from staff training to the airline policies, but we think there’s one lesson that can be quickly learned by any aspiring spokesperson.

   Jetstar’s CEO David Hall fronted up to the programme, but despite his litany of “unreserved and absolute” apologies and admissions that his airline did not get it right, he failed to stem the flow of damage to the Jetstar brand. How come?

   Although having pretty much all day to work through with his advisor(s) how this might best be dealt with, he came on Close Up in promotional-mode, when the situation required humility.

   How much of a difference it would have made had Hall referred to Tanya and Dan by name and apologised to each as individuals, rather than referring to them as “those passengers”.

   How much of a difference it would have made if he started the interview the way it ended by saying: “where we fail, I take personal responsibility”. Unfortunately by this stage, judging by social media postings, viewers were totally enraged by his wooden performance.

   Television is an emotional medium, and in issues such as this, spokespeople have to respond emotionally, rather than as a defensive talking head.

   Frankly when two people are treated the way Tanya and Dan were by Jetstar, most of us are not remotely interested in Jetstar’s messages about their “absolute commitment to providing low fares, all-day, hassle-free travel for all our passengers, including those with wheelchairs”.

   We want to see genuine humility, but apparently, Jetstar doesn’t “do” humility. Cheap and nasty are what people are saying.

2. Why the media won’t get this particular Tiger by his tail

   Published on Thursday, December 3rd, 2009
   It’s been interesting to watch the sports media trying to take the Tiger Woods story to new levels – despite his almost complete silence on the matter, until this morning, that is, when he offered further comment. Until now, in the absence of any new information, the story had become one about him not talking to the media. 

   In fact, coverage had descended to a debate amongst various journalists around how he and his camp are handling the matter and if this might be the right or wrong approach. 

   It is a bit like a kiwi rugby fan watching an All Black game and offering what usually sounds to me like very useful advice on their performance.  Why don’t the real coaches do the same thing if it is so obvious? 

   Of course the Tiger coverage and AB commentary are symptoms of only seeing the situation from one perspective – from the outside looking in. Very few people know the full story, but even more importantly, only those on the inside know what the overall strategy is.  So what’s really the end-goal here? 

   In the case of issues being played out in the media – the response, or lack thereof, may have very little to do with that strategy, or it could be a key plank in the strategy. Likely we will never know.  Most important are the people directly affected, and the task of the issues manager is ensuring their needs are met. 

   In managing any issue, the needs of all of the stakeholders and key audiences need to be considered. Sure, media are critical, but they may be one of many.  Similarly corporate reputation is important, but not at the expense of others. (In Tiger Woods’ case, I suspect his wife could be slightly more important. But then again, I don’t really know.)

   As PR professionals we might enjoy exercising our grey matter by sharing our views on how an issue is being handled, but we must accept that if we are not directly involved, what we say is pure conjecture.

    As 2009 winds down and the “year in review” stories begin to roll out, there is sure to be plenty of “informed” comment on how different organisations and individuals have fared.  However, we should keep in mind that much of this is an individual person’s view, and most likely one that is not fully informed.

3. Do the hoki-toki

   Published on Tuesday, November 24th, 2009
   We’ve all heard plenty about the potential threat to the reputations of business and brands posed by new online tools.

   These networks, coupled with the ability of Google to draw a crowd on any topic, can spread bad news far and wide. It’s simple: pick an issue, mix in some influential commentary, and then watch the trending and traffic stream based around the keyword take off. Instant crisis.

   We were interested to note a new development which could help balance the communication ledger somewhat, and help turn a possible crisis into an opportunity to communicate.

   The fascinating new tactic has been termed ‘media accountability’ by its leading proponent, New York PR man Jim McCarthy.

   We’d been keen to hear your views on this. So follow the link:

   http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/11/new-public-relations-beating-back-bad-press-with-google-adwords/