The way a crisis is handled will have a significant effect on your organisation's relationship with the public and the media for a long time afterwards. Management must not bear a grudge in ongoing dealings with the media even after serious criticism. It is rarely personal and the crucial thing is to rebuild your organisation's public image.
If the crisis has involved a product recall or a contamination, the recovery may need advertising support as the media can quickly move on to other issues.
Blaming others - and not accepting some responsibility - is a mistake for any organisation. In an extreme case, a takeaway food outlet involved in a significant salmonella outbreak claimed criticism of their food handling practices was racially motivated.
Media organisations have long memories and extensive filing systems - be prepared to have your negative past revisited in future stories. However, unfair or damaging stories should not be allowed to be perpetuated without challenge. The opportunity must be taken to make the point about how the situation has been remedied and the positive progress that has been made.
Learn from the experience of others
When the Exxon Valdez spilled its oil off Alaska in 1989, the company did not say anything for a week. It later did a commendable $2 billion clean-up job, but the damage was done in those first few days. Its lack of proactive communication turned into a case study one commentator titled "How to Spend Billions and Still Get a Black Eye".
But there are many examples of companies who have redeemed public confidence in their position - and more - through skilful recovery operations. The textbook example of good crisis management and recovery was Johnson & Johnson's handling of the Tylenol contamination in the United States.
Seven people died in 1982 after taking headache tablets laced with cyanide. The company acted quickly to remove product from the shelves and came back into the marketplace with a tamper-proof pack. There was evidence that consumers even switched over to the brand because of the safety precautions. In 2000, Johnson & Johnson was ranked number one in a major survey of reputations of American corporations. It is worth noting that the company was less successful in its defence of toxic shock syndrome associated with tampons, declining to place warnings on its packaging for several months.
Also in the United States, Pepsi did a complete recall of its product following a poisoning scare involving some of its bottles. While the company was unsure whether it was a widespread or limited case of tampering, they did more than they needed and ongoing brand damage was kept to a minimum. By contrast, in 1991, Perrier attempted to downplay the accidental benzine contamination of a batch of its bottled water due to a faulty filtering system at its plant. The company finally responded to public concerns with a worldwide product recall, but lost more than 85% of its market share and its brand image has never fully recovered.
In Australia, while Kraft utlimately handled the peanut butter contamination and recovery extremely well, they got off on the wrong foot by not treating the issue seriously enough to use the CEO in their media response. By doing so, they were perceived to be protecting the Kraft brand.
QBE use its CEO effectively after its share price plummeted following the World Trade Centre attack, reassuring investors that the company would only suffer a short term set back.
Strategies that are at first effective can backfire. Ansett used its CEO extensively in an advertising campaign after its planes were grounded for maintenance by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, but the CEO's high profile looked weak when the company went into receivership months later.
This is the sixth article in the series from Minter Ellison's publication 'A Legal Practitioner's Guide to Relations with the Media'.
Disclaimer
A Legal Practitioner's Guide to Relations with the Media was prepared by the Minter Ellison Legal Group. It is not intended to be fully comprehensive nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal advice. Profession advice should be sought before applying the information to particular circumstances. Whilst care has been taken in the preparation of the guide, no liability is accepted for any errors it may contain. Liability is limited by Solicitors Scheme under the Professional Standards Act 1994 (NSW).
Other articles in this series:
1: A legal Practitioner's Guide to Relations with the Media: An Introduction
2: The PR Imperative: A legal Practitioner's Guide to Relations with the Media
3: Policies to minimise media risk: A legal Practitioner's Guide to Relations with the Media
4: Crisis Management: A legal Practitioner's Guide to Relations with the Media
5: When Charges are laid: A legal Practitioner's Guide to Relations with the Media
6: Rebuilding after the crisis: A legal Practitioner's Guide to Relations with the Media
7: Pre-publication advice for potential plaintiffs: A legal Practitioner's Guide to Relations with the Media
8: To sue or not to sue - plaintiff's options post-publication: A legal Practitioner's Guide to Relations with the Media
9: Winning in court: A legal Practitioner's Guide to Relations with the Media
10: A legal Practitioner's Guide to Relations with the Media: A summary
November, 2001
|
