Active Engagement as the Best Way to Handle a PR Disaster
It certainly has not been a good week for Boeing. After one of its planes was blamed for the fatal crash of an Ethiopian Airlines flight from Addis Ababa to Nairobi, renewed allegations that the model, Boeing 737 MAX, is technically flawed resurfaced, leading to a worldwide grounding of the model. While airlines and national governments quickly halted the use of the model, Boeing itself and American authorities were slow to react to the Ethiopian disaster, only grounding the planes after more than 60 countries made the move. The slow reaction has led to a global backlash against the company.
What Boeing displayed in the aftermath of the Ethiopian Airlines disaster is a classic case of failure to properly handle a public relations problem. During the rage against Boeing 737 MAX after the crash in Ethiopia, the Boeing leadership remained largely silent, with muted assurances that the planes are safe to fly even as other countries received praise on social media for caring the most about passenger safety. When Boeing pulled the plug on the planes, the company did so unceremoniously, with little coordination with mainstream media to issue formal apologies or announce definite plans to technically revamp the problematic model.
The failure of Boeing leadership to quickly react to its PR disaster stands in great contrast to another prominent disaster that happened this week. When a ring-wing anti-Muslim gunman shot up two mosques in the New Zealand city of Christchurch, the local leadership was quick to jump to the media to voice their anger toward the gunman. Knowing that the motives of the gunman are clear and well-articulated in his written manifesto, the New Zealand government made sure to quickly capture the mainstream discourse on the matter, shifting away from horrors of migration to messages of multicultural tolerance.
By so clearly stating that New Zealand will not stand for violence against an often-neglected and misunderstood minority, the government has inadvertently allowed other people, both Kiwi and others, both famous and the normal, to freely express similar thoughts. At the same time, any sympathies for anti-Muslim thoughts and doubts about migration from the Muslim world are quickly marginalized and quashed. The successful PR campaign of the New Zealand government in dominating the media discourse on the Christchurch disaster shows that speed and activeness are essential in winning against potential PR problems.
Of course, it needs to be noted that there is a fundamental difference between the Ethiopian Airlines disaster and the Christchurch mosque one. In the former, Boeing is directly impacted as its profitability is hinged upon the popularity of its most widely used aircraft. Going too strongly against the plane itself might sow doubt among potential buyers that Boeing products are not nearly as reliable as they seem, leading to decreased sales that end up hurting the company's bottom line. In comparison, the New Zealand leadership has only political browny points to gain when railing against a much-hated right-wing extremist.
But setting aside the obvious incentives to act in a particular way, it is still beneficial for Boeing to learn from the New Zealand government in their respective recent disasters. The power of social media is such that without quickly taking charge of the dominant narrative, rumors and negative sentiments spread by individuals online can quickly get out of hand, forcing the main actor into a passive and defensive position from which it cannot be extricated. At that point, the main actor has no choice but to become a vulnerable punching bag for the general public, as its voice is buried under the increasing amount of coverage against it.
The only way to prevent the situation is to quickly get the mainstream and social media on its side at the earliest stage of a disaster unfurling. To make sure the public understands that the disaster is being taken seriously, the very top of the organization (i.e. the president, chairman, CEO) need to work with the in-house PR team to devise a unified message that is clear, easy to understand, and leaves a lasting impression on potential audiences. Then it is about quickly spreading the message as widely as possible before any opposing messages can hijack the conversation.
Such a strategy to actively engage is precisely what the New Zealand government did and the exact opposite of what Boeing has done. The contrast has shown that the key to recovering from a PR disaster is not how to resolve it, but how to communicate with potential listeners and watchers about the potential resolution. In a world where everyone can quickly opinionate on any topic through their smartphones and computers faster than a snap of a finger, that communication needs to be fast, transparent, and dominant. Any signs of a waver, ambiguity, and flip-flopping will be eaten up by the aggressive audience ready to pounce on any sign of weakness.
What Boeing displayed in the aftermath of the Ethiopian Airlines disaster is a classic case of failure to properly handle a public relations problem. During the rage against Boeing 737 MAX after the crash in Ethiopia, the Boeing leadership remained largely silent, with muted assurances that the planes are safe to fly even as other countries received praise on social media for caring the most about passenger safety. When Boeing pulled the plug on the planes, the company did so unceremoniously, with little coordination with mainstream media to issue formal apologies or announce definite plans to technically revamp the problematic model.
The failure of Boeing leadership to quickly react to its PR disaster stands in great contrast to another prominent disaster that happened this week. When a ring-wing anti-Muslim gunman shot up two mosques in the New Zealand city of Christchurch, the local leadership was quick to jump to the media to voice their anger toward the gunman. Knowing that the motives of the gunman are clear and well-articulated in his written manifesto, the New Zealand government made sure to quickly capture the mainstream discourse on the matter, shifting away from horrors of migration to messages of multicultural tolerance.
By so clearly stating that New Zealand will not stand for violence against an often-neglected and misunderstood minority, the government has inadvertently allowed other people, both Kiwi and others, both famous and the normal, to freely express similar thoughts. At the same time, any sympathies for anti-Muslim thoughts and doubts about migration from the Muslim world are quickly marginalized and quashed. The successful PR campaign of the New Zealand government in dominating the media discourse on the Christchurch disaster shows that speed and activeness are essential in winning against potential PR problems.
Of course, it needs to be noted that there is a fundamental difference between the Ethiopian Airlines disaster and the Christchurch mosque one. In the former, Boeing is directly impacted as its profitability is hinged upon the popularity of its most widely used aircraft. Going too strongly against the plane itself might sow doubt among potential buyers that Boeing products are not nearly as reliable as they seem, leading to decreased sales that end up hurting the company's bottom line. In comparison, the New Zealand leadership has only political browny points to gain when railing against a much-hated right-wing extremist.
But setting aside the obvious incentives to act in a particular way, it is still beneficial for Boeing to learn from the New Zealand government in their respective recent disasters. The power of social media is such that without quickly taking charge of the dominant narrative, rumors and negative sentiments spread by individuals online can quickly get out of hand, forcing the main actor into a passive and defensive position from which it cannot be extricated. At that point, the main actor has no choice but to become a vulnerable punching bag for the general public, as its voice is buried under the increasing amount of coverage against it.
The only way to prevent the situation is to quickly get the mainstream and social media on its side at the earliest stage of a disaster unfurling. To make sure the public understands that the disaster is being taken seriously, the very top of the organization (i.e. the president, chairman, CEO) need to work with the in-house PR team to devise a unified message that is clear, easy to understand, and leaves a lasting impression on potential audiences. Then it is about quickly spreading the message as widely as possible before any opposing messages can hijack the conversation.
Such a strategy to actively engage is precisely what the New Zealand government did and the exact opposite of what Boeing has done. The contrast has shown that the key to recovering from a PR disaster is not how to resolve it, but how to communicate with potential listeners and watchers about the potential resolution. In a world where everyone can quickly opinionate on any topic through their smartphones and computers faster than a snap of a finger, that communication needs to be fast, transparent, and dominant. Any signs of a waver, ambiguity, and flip-flopping will be eaten up by the aggressive audience ready to pounce on any sign of weakness.
Comments
Post a Comment