Crisis 101: Why burying one's head in the sand won't work
One of the most disconcerting feelings that any public relations practitioner can have, is one where they see a crisis mishandled by those affected by it. It does not matter whether it is a competitor or a distant entity. It is just like how a doctor would react when a medical case deteriorates due to negligence or inertia.
It is easy to dismiss inaction when a reputation comes under threat for ignorance on the part of those who are supposed to superintend over it. If one only knew the value of a reputation being torn to pieces.
A colleague put it this way: “A mother who knows the pain of giving birth will feel the pain when another woman’s child is harmed in any way. So, it is with a reputation in the throes of a crisis.”
Vincent Magwenya of Conversations media and Communications says that reputation is not just about what people are saying about your brand through traditional media or in the comfort of their own homes. During a crisis, user-generated content and the online reputation of a brand is put under the spotlight.
It has become a jungle out there ever since social media moved from being just a fad to be a clear and present danger to companies and the way they do business.
In a challenging business environment, if the Board and CEO are not talking about reputation risk, the largest, scariest and least manageable risk they ever faced, then one should worry.
Communicators are armed with a new way of thinking, one that goes beyond crisis planning to give senior management an approach that pulls together numerous leaders from multiple functions to assess and act, reducing the likelihood and impact of potential negative events, says Anthony Johndrow, CEO of Reputation Economy Advisors.
Therefore, it befuddled the mind that huge corporations put purposefully and expensively built reputations on the line by maintaining what they erroneously ‘strategic silence.’
When an organisation chooses to bury one’s head in the sand I the face of a crisis, it’s a sign that either does not have a crisis management plan in place or that they simply do not value responding timely in the age of social media.
Here is the scenario: The manufacturer of a very popular fruit drink, decides to change the ingredients of its products in a way that greatly alters its taste and the perceptions of it multitudes of consumers. Never mind that the said drink is not only iconic but an age-old institution.
The miffed consumers readily take to Twitter to complain about the unpleasant aftertaste the products of this company left in the mouth. As the crisis continues to simmer, the widely read section of those conversing on social media goes on to speculate about the new ingredients and how they could possibly adversely affect the health of consumers.
All the while there is a deafening silence from the manufacturers. This allows the narrative to get a life of its own and morph into several assumptions, some without sound scientific backing. The alarmist pitch in with their version, quoting outdated studies made in the last century about the harmful effects of the added ingredients.
Soon enough, a hashtag movement to boycott the products is hatched. The outrage is now blown out of proportion and is duplicated on many other social media platforms such as WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram.
Another telling dimension added is when some of the pundits begin touting the difference between the products under siege with those of a competing company. The deafening silence is maintained by the company under siege.
Strategic communicators can only speculate what could be going on behind the scenes. But first, let us look at what is wrong.
Fundamental changes are made to the composition and utility of a popular product leaving out the most critical stakeholder in the whole equation; the consumer. At what point was the consumer consulted about impending changes, and if they were, how was this done and the representation of such a sample?
Secondly, if any change was indeed necessary and inevitable, what kind of campaign was embarked upon to educate and inform the consumers about this. For all we know, the changes could have been well justified. Yet in the absence of some form of pre-test exercise, one would not have anticipated the level of backlash experienced when consumers felt they were ‘ambushed’ by the manufacturer.
By maintaining ‘strategic silence,’ the manufacturer lost the narrative to speculators, scare-mongers and possibly planted influencers to stock up the fire. A simple acknowledgement of the concerns could have done a lot to allay the fears of the consumers which could prove unfounded if empirical evidence was shared.
Earlier on, I alluded to an attempt by concerned PR practitioners to lift the corporate veil thrown around the sweltering crisis. One assumption is that the company could be paralysed by protocols. Being a mere subsidiary of a larger corporation, sterner issues are the responsibility of the global office level, perhaps.
Despite this being the age of fast online communication, which got them in this mess in the first place, one would have expected swifter action to douse the inferno. But again, this might seem to global corporation HQ, to be a storm in some forgettable Third World backwater.
Such a ‘tiny’ crisis cannot surely ignite a worldwide scare since the products in question are only consumed by a minuscule fraction of consumers in comparison. It will surely die away, they assume.
Yet we are speaking about the image of the iconic drink, one that generations have sworn by. One of the few positive things that this country can boast about as truly ours.
On the other hand, there could be a degree of hand-wringing on the part of local management. It’s not our problem, we are just a subsidiary. Let the big boys (and girls) take care of it. We are all safe and sound with our hands deep in the sand.
For us, PR practitioners it's an opportunity lost. A sad case study that illustrates that sticking one’s head in the sand not only is costly but shows a blatant disregard for the genuine concerns of faithful consumers.
Meanwhile, we expect the global parent company to respond, eventually. That will be the subject for another day, and the one about the circumstances when 'strategic silence' is necessary.
Lenox Mhlanga is an associate with Magna Carta Reputation Management Consultants. Magna Carta PR will be hosting a one-day seminar on Reputation and Crisis Management on 28 June at Meikles Hotel, Harare at which he will be a speaker along with Conversations Media and Communications CEO Vincent Magwenya. Enquiries at [email protected]