This is the first installment of a new feature called “Reputation Risk or Ruin?” For this column we are partnering with Talkwalker, using their AI media analysis tools to study the depth and extent of media coverage of crises in current events.
Years ago, when most content analysis was done by humans, I conducted a deep dive into the crises for all the clients we had, as well as into those of their competitors. I found that if a crisis was addressed quickly and appropriately, (e.g., the company quickly issued a credible apology, and indicated that they had promptly taken some action), then the crisis would be out of the headlines in one or two news cycles, and generally there would be little long-term impact. But when companies did not act quickly or appropriately, (e.g., blamed the customer, or did something else stupid when it came to handling the crisis), the negative coverage went on and on and on… Sometimes for months.
Catch it quickly or suffer slowly
Based on those findings we began to use the increase or decrease in volume of crisis coverage at 72 hours as an indicator of whether the company was handling the crisis well or badly. If, after the first 72 hours, the volume continued to increase, then the negative coverage was going to go on for a while. But, if, after the first 72 hours, the volume started to decline, then the worst was over. This 72-hour rule—catch it quickly or suffer slowly—proved to be quite accurate in predicting the time-course of a range of crises.
That was two decades ago. Today we have sophisticated media monitoring tools that can tell us so much more than just the volume of coverage. So, for our new Reputation Risk or Ruin? column we are going to expand upon our 72-hour concept and dig more carefully into what messages or actions (or lack thereof) influence the course of a crisis. For several years I’ve been doing this informally in my Image Patrol column for PRNews. Thanks to Talkwalker we can now test it with up-to-date news and social media analysis tools.
Ethiopian Air’s March 10th Boeing 737 Max crash
For our first Reputation Risk or Ruin? column we’ve chosen to examine Boeing’s coverage and reputation following Ethiopian Air’s March 10th Boeing 737 Max plane crash that killed all 157 people on board. Boeing at first asserted that their planes were safe and the pilots had been trained. But links to an earlier crash, as well as complaints about the aircraft on a pilot’s forum, quickly shifted the blame to the design of Boeing’s plane.
Initially, Boeing issued a series of brief statements expressing sympathy and standing by its planes. Then, after a week of virtual silence, its CEO, who should normally be the face of any crisis, finally made an statement. This was only after media reports that he’d been frequently on the phone with President Trump urging him to not ground all 737 Max planes. It wasn’t until March 18th, eight days after the crash, that Boeing started to try to control the narrative. By then it was too late.
The chart below shows the sentiment and volume of articles over time. The data summarizes 2.4 million items of content from Twitter, Facebook, and news media over the past few weeks:
The crisis began on March 10th and continued to intensify until March 13th, when airlines around the world began to ground their fleets of 737 Max planes and Boeing issued a statement promising a fix for the plane’s software by April. Coverage then dropped off, but Boeing was still in the headlines significantly more often that it normally is. As of late March the crisis is anything but over.
Boeing’s response was heavily influenced by their B2B and engineering culture. The CEO was virtually invisible, their response focused on Boeing’s engineering and safety record, and it lacked much expression of empathy for the victims and their families.
As a result, negative coverage ticked up around the 18th, and then again on the 21st, when news stories broke about problems with the plane’s approval process, Boeing’s influence over the FAA, and similarities with an earlier crash. As of this writing, the crisis still shows no signs of lessening. Consumers are now seeing the impact on their travel plans, the “travel disruption” stories continue, and there are currently congressional hearings looking into the FAA and the Boeing crash. All of which will generate negative headlines for Boeing for weeks to come.
Boeing’s reputation: risk or ruin?
As an indicator of the level of public interest in the issue, we used Google Trends to see whether people were searching for more information. As you can see by the chart below, the interest level is far above normal, another indicator that this crisis will likely inflict long-term damage.
The current Boeing crisis lends credence to my old 72-hour concept. It’s clear that this crisis was not addressed quickly, that coverage was still rising after 72 hours, and that this crisis isn’t going away anytime soon. As of this writing, coverage continues above-normal and is more negative than positive. Proving once again that poor crisis response, and over-reliance on lawyers instead of communicators to shape your strategy, will only prolong a crisis.
The ruinous issue for Boeing’s reputation will be loss of trust. Travel sites now make it easier for passengers to find out what aircraft they will be flying on, and many passengers are changing their plans rather than fly the 737 Max. Pilots are furious over the lack of communication and training from the company, and legislators and regulators are already looking more closely at everything the company does. How soon Boeing can restore that trust will depend on how long it will take the traditionally tight-lipped B2B company to become more transparent, authentic, and empathetic.
∞
(Photo thanks to LLBG Spotter on flickr.)
