Category Archives: crisis communications

AussieMite’s Social Media Crisis Management Revisited

Published on 11th June 2013 by . Leave a Comment

We revisit the embattled Australian company’s situation after the flames die down

The hallmark of an intelligent business isn’t that it never encounters trouble, but rather how it manages to continue on afterwards.

In a recent blog post, we blasted AussieMite‘s abrasive social media crisis management for stakeholder backlash against an ad campaign. The company was certainly under siege, and although it was largely a result of their own decisions, it’s frankly not a position we enjoy seeing any organization in.

Of course we (and many other bloggers) did our thing, turning the situation into a case study and publishing our opinions. It looks like something clicked for the people at AussieMite, because suddenly tweets to both supporters and detractors contained far less vitriol. The company even reached out to thank us for sharing advice on next steps, and linked to an article where they explained their position in full:

 

 

In the (admittedly, unfortunately titled) Drum article, AussieMite director Elise Ramsey gave the public more of a personal view on her side of the situation, sharing what she’s learned from the situation, and apologizing again to those offended:

“The good thing is, I’ve been amazed that out of the thousand people I have personally emailed and said sincerely sorry for any offence caused, who have emailed me pages of dialogue saying: ‘Why would you do this you have offended our entire religion’, I have taken the time to email them all personally and responded very quickly, and they have really appreciated that, and said: ‘thank you, we support Australian businesses and support smaller companies and acknowledge that you are doing the right thing – we will buy your product and continue to support you’.

“If anything, that has been the best thing that could have happened. I am grateful that the people who were hurt and offended were open to us, saying to us ‘you have done the wrong thing, we acknowledge that’.”

Another feather in the company’s cap is its refusal to drop blame on the ad company behind the controversial video. This tactic has been used countless times by big name brands, and it always leaves a foul taste in our mouths. You approved the ad, you take the responsibility, and that’s exactly what AussieMite did.

Did this crisis hurt AussieMite’s reputation? Sure did. Is the company on the road to recovery? You bet!

In the end, a whole lot of people heard of the brand who never had before, and as long as the folks in charge cement their commitment to not making such a mistake again, they should be just fine.

The BCM Blogging Team
http://www.bernsteincrisismanagement.com/

Leave a Comment

NSA Snooping Creates Reputation Crisis

Published on 8th June 2013 by . Leave a Comment

New revelations create negative backlash for organizations involved

At first, you might think the revelation, oh, sorry, “allegations” that the National Security Agency and the FBI have been tracking info on everything from phone use habits to e-mails and social media messaging would be a major crisis for the organization. Thing is, what reputation do they have to worry about? The NSA and FBI directors do not hold elected office, their true measure of worth to the people in charge is the quality of information they deliver, and like it or not they’ve been delivering a heck of a lot of it.

The nine

How about these tech companies, though? You know, the nine accused of allowing the government to tap into their servers? Among their ranks are the biggest names in the business; Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL and Apple all stand accused, and the Washinton Post has proof in the form of a slide, reportedly direct from the NSA:

Unlike the NSA and FBI, these companies do rely on the public for their livelihood, and a quick search through any social media site will show that consumers are pissed.

Rock and a hard place?

One ABC News article, by Joanna Stern, posed the highly-believable theory that these companies are caught between a rock and a hard place, using the similarities of each organization’s statement on the issue to launch into a discussion of their position:

The similarity in all the statements is clear. All mention that they would only comply with orders for requests about access to information if forced to do so under the law and that they do not provide “back door” or “direct” access to their servers and to user account information.

Experts believe that commonality in statements could mean a few things. The first is that the companies simply can’t talk about this to begin with.

“If these companies received an order under the FISA amendments act, they are forbidden by law from disclosing having received the order and disclosing any information about the order at all,” Mark Rumold, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told ABC News.

The fact is, regardless of what you feel is right — if you’re a U.S. company that receives a direct court order to comply with the FBI and NSA, and to keep mum about it at all costs — then that’s what you have to do.

What to do when you can’t speak out

The only crisis management for this one may be from the inside, with the companies involved working alongside government agencies to hammer out a solution that will work best for all involved. Looking on the bright side, at least for most companies on the list (sorry AOL and PalTalk), they are industry leaders, and provide some of the most-used services on the planet.

No matter how upset some users may be, at the end of the day they aren’t getting a better search than Google, their next virtual meeting will use Skype, and they’ll be posting pictures of their cat on Facebook before the night is over, giving these companies a far bigger cushion to fall back on than most can even imagine.

The BCM Blogging Team
http://www.bernsteincrisismanagement.com/

Leave a Comment

AussieMite’s Social Media Crisis Management #Fail

Published on 5th June 2013 by . 1 Comment. Click to add yours.

Horrible handling of Twitter comments leads to further reputation damage

It seems like we just discussed one big marketing blunder down under, but unlike that example, in this case the organization involved turned what was already a reputation ding into a full-blown mess.

Drawing negative attention

The makers of AussieMite stirred up a hornet’s nest when they commandeered an ad depicting a Communion wafer being dipped in their savory spread in the midst of a church ceremony. Predictably, offended Catholics took to social media to voice their displeasure, which is where the company should have realized it was in trouble. Instead, whoever runs the @Aussiemite Twitter account went on the defensive, breaking just about every rule of social media crisis management in the process with both original posts and replies.

Here’s a small sampling of the implosion in progress:

No, you don’t need your eyes checked

Yes, the people at AussieMite really were not only completely unapologetic and rude to already-angry stakeholders, but also brought up the issue of child abuse by Catholic priests as some sort of hackneyed, backwards defense. Compounding the situation, AussieMite as a brand is barely a year old, and has only the most minimal of fan support to lean back on.

We initially thought that whoever was running the account would be sacked and blame laid at their feet, but the company was apparently just fine with what’s been going on because @Aussiemite continued to post in similar tones for days, and continues to publicly demand news sites pull embedded video of the ad.

Our advice?

Get in control of all of your social media accounts and rein in whoever’s been posting. In fact, right now not posting at all is probably the right call. If AussieMite stops adding fuel to the fire, this story could be all but blown over by the end of the week. Of course there will be holdouts, especially from offended religious groups, but the amount of negative public attention the brand is attracting would be vastly decreased, and given time (and a lack of further rage-inducing ads) it just won’t matter to most consumers.

The BCM Blogging Team
http://www.bernsteincrisismanagement.com/

1 Comment. Click to add yours.

Pacer Player’s $75k Homophobic Remark

Published on 4th June 2013 by . Leave a Comment

Put language policies in place to support reputation & crisis management efforts

Thanks to the efforts of civil rights groups, and the sheer amount of attention that’s able to be focused on issues because of social media and the ‘net in general, the use of offensive language by public figures is being punished, swiftly.

Take the example of Roy Hibbert, starting center for the NBA’s Indiana Pacers, who just ate the better part of $100k as a result of his wording during a post-game news conference. ESPN.com has the story:

The NBA has fined Roy Hibbert $75,000 after the Indiana Pacers center used a gay slur in one answer and a profanity in another during his news conference Saturday following Game 6 of the Eastern Conference finals.

Hibbert ended a response to a question about his defense on Miami Heat star LeBron James with “no homo.”

The NBA responded less than 24 hours later, announcing Sunday in a release that Hibbert was fined for “using inappropriate and vulgar language.” The fine was handed down after Hibbert issued an apology Sunday morning, saying in a statement that he sincerely has “deep regret over my choice of words last night.”

How can you prevent your organization from running into crises related to the use of slurs, racist remarks, and other unacceptable speech?

You need a policy.

Obviously, the NBA’s policy is to give players a major warning in the form of fines for tens of thousands of dollars, while yours would probably involve something more like a suspension and mandatory sensitivity training.

The point is that you need established guidelines for what type of language is unacceptable,  predetermined punishments for violating said guidelines and training (to include periodic refresher training) to ensure the policy is remembered. That way, you can’t be percieved as acting rashly by the party being punished, and any offended parties can clearly see that such behavior is unacceptable to your organization and will not be tolerated, making crisis management for the whole situation as clear-cut as possible.

The BCM Blogging Team
http://www.bernsteincrisismanagement.com/

Leave a Comment

Canseco Strikes Out with Oddball Crisis Management

Published on 30th May 2013 by . Leave a Comment

Aggressive online behavior is a major no-no

Last week, controversial ex-MLB slugger Jose Canseco took an oddball approach to crisis management after discovering he was under investigation in the alleged rape of a Las Vegas woman.

Canseco immediately took to Twitter to discuss the situation, repeatedly sharing the full name (which we have removed) of his accuser:

canseco accusation name removed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Canseco has continued to tweet about the case, including discussing a pair of polygraph tests and referring repeatedly to the victim’s family:

 

 

 

While transparency is certainly a buzzword today, Canseco’s gone too far here. Sharing that he’s taking a polygraph, sure, we can see the logic in that. Constantly tweeting his accuser’s name, and pulling her father and children into what is, regardless of the truth, an ugly situation? That’s aggressive behavior, and reflects poorly on his character both in the court of public opinion and a court of law, which is where this case is likely to end up.

The BCM Blogging Team
http://www.bernsteincrisismanagement.com/

Leave a Comment