Why? That's all we want to know.
First of all, let me say that the topics this month are not ones I'd normally choose to write about - especially not as I write this from 40,000 feet up in the air on a Boeing 767. I'm not sure if it's the millennium, or the overall increase in air traffic, but it does seem to me that airplane crashes are moving ahead of earthquakes and natural disasters as the most frequently covered crises of the moment. But since we've already tackled TWA and Swissair, and it's too soon to weigh in on EgyptAir, (other than to say that the statement by the CEO to resign if his airline was at fault was the biggest statement by a CEO that we've seen all year), we thought this month we'd compare Bombardier Aerospace, the manufacturer of the private jet in which golfer Payne Stewart and five others died in October, and The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. which made the plane in which JFK Jr. made his fatal flight in July. Coverage of both crashes was media intensive with the overarching question of "why?" framed over and over again.
But the big difference between the two stories was the cooperation of the manufacturers. Piper was out in front of the questions with facts, spokespeople and background information. Bombardier was invisible for days after the Stewart crash. Was it simply a difference of corporate culture, a large Canadian conglomerate vs. a much smaller U.S. private company.
I ask because, inquiring minds want to know "why?"
Katharine Paine is president of Delahaye Medialink. She can be reached at 603/431-0111.
|
The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. |
|||
|
Criteria |
Grade |
Comments |
Advice |
|
Extent of coverage |
C |
It had to be Piper's worst nightmare. It's always hard on the company when a plane goes down, but to have one go down with a Kennedy on board, and not just any Kennedy, but JFK's son, was the worst of all worlds. Coverage was intense, and nothing Piper could have done would have made it any less. |
When you're up against the odds, and there's a celebrity involved in your crisis, prepare for the worst, then double it. Get your messages out as best you can, be helpful and forthcoming, and ride out the storm. You won't minimize your coverage. |
|
Effectiveness of spokespeople |
A |
Piper spokespeople were available and provided answers, but generally were not quoted with great frequency. |
Don't worry too much about getting your spokesperson out there; worry about getting the facts and the information into the hands of the reporters. It's not important that you get quoted, just that the reporters get what they need. The sooner they have it, the sooner they'll shift the attention away from you. Remember that success in a crisis is how soon it goes away. |
|
Communication of key messages |
B |
The major message seemed to be that the Piper Saratoga was a complicated aircraft to fly. Thus, the focus of the investigation and reporters' questions quickly moved from the plane itself to the pilot. Because Piper was forthcoming with details, the reporters didn't need to speculate. |
Reporters will always publish the answer. In this day and age of instant, continuous deadlines, whether it's proven, verified, or corroborated, is irrelevant. The best you can do is to give them as many facts as you possibly can. |
|
Management of negative messages |
A |
Is "Complicated" a negative message? Possibly from inside Piper's marketing department, but to us on the outside, the plane itself seemed to be well positioned in every story that mentioned it. |
By providing reporters as much data as they can possibly need, in whatever form they need it, you can in fact shift the focus and the spotlight away from your company. A negative marketing message may help you in a PR crisis. |
|
Impact on customers |
B |
Most of the stories described the Piper Saratoga as a "complicated aircraft" which may have deterred a few novice flyers from purchasing one. On the other hand, since most of the stories positioned the plane as a "hot rod" it probably didn't do the plane's reputation much harm with enthusiasts. |
Sticking to key messages and being responsive enabled Piper to position itself perfectly during the whole crisis. As a result, I have a much better understanding of the Piper plane, and what the different models offer. And the articles about why private flying is taking off, so to speak, left me seriously considering it - and I'm terrified of heights! |
|
Impact on investors |
B |
Private company. The issue becomes its impact on sales. |
Piper has thousands of folks that are pretty well invested in their Piper aircraft. See above. |
|
Impact on employees |
A |
My guess would be that while employees would have been shocked and sorrowed by the event, the coverage at least painted Piper in a favorable light. |
Don't forget that employees are reading every word as well. And when the media portrays the product in a reasonable light, it can't help but improve morale. Coverage on the Web closely mirrored the print and broadcast publications so inconsistency was minimal. |
|
Overall score |
B+ |
A well managed crisis overall. It went away quickly, and had little long-term impact |
Provide the answers as quickly and completely as you can. |
|
Lear/Bombardier Aerospace |
|||
|
Criteria |
Grade |
Comments |
Advice |
|
Extent of coverage |
D |
Lear featured prominently in all stories, and the investigation quickly turned to a mechanical malfunction focusing even more attention on the plane's manufacturer. |
Reporters will dig up anything they can in that vacuum that occurs between the time a plane goes down and the time of the first press conference. The sooner a company can fill that vacuum with information, the better. |
|
Effectiveness of spokespeople |
F |
Very few quotes were published. |
The virtual absence of Bombardier spokespeople in the initial news coverage was surprising given the crisis. |
|
Communication of key messages |
F |
The major message was that "the Lear malfunctioned," hardly what you want the world to hear, over and over and over again. |
It's no wonder that Lear's messages didn't appear because spokespeople didn't appear...and that's the best way to communicate messages failing all else. |
|
Management of negative messages |
F |
Lots of questions were raised about the plane's safety record because the first speculation was about mechanical malfunction. |
but don't simply throw someone out there. Lack of trained spokespeople always makes a bad situation worse. |
|
Impact on customers |
F |
I'm sure some of their customers will have second thoughts based on the press coverage, so I'm sure some of their customers were also questioning their decision. |
A good marketing department should know precisely what attributes are most important to its customers. Those attributes should be protected in a crisis. To say that something was "inspected" beforehand is never good enough. It simply raises questions about the quality of the inspectors. |
|
Impact investors |
F |
I see lawsuits "waiting in the wings," and if I were an investor, I'd be nervous. |
Unfortunately, blame invariably follows a crisis. It has to land somewhere, and where blame can be suggested, lawsuits frequently follow. This is what investors believe, anyway. But there are many cases (Odwalla, Tylenol) where companies have come forward, accepted responsibility, handled the crisis honorably and not been sued, also causing the media coverage to drop off quickly. |
|
Impact on employees |
D |
Employees seldom fare well in a crisis, and hearing your company name mentioned over and over in the death of a celebrity is not exactly an uplifting moment. |
The company should be doing everything they can to ensure that the employees have all the information - even if the media do not. It's much better that employees hear it from management than from the local news. |
|
Overall |
F |
By not having spokespeople available to the media, Lear left itself open to speculation. As a result their brand may be seriously tarnished. |
No matter what the crisis, people want to know why it happened. Even if you don't have the answers, provide as much data as you possibly can. |