Toyota’s Crisis Communication Still Running on All Cylinders

I’ve been resisting the urge to jump into the ring on the Toyota recall. There seem to be more people commenting on the PR response than on the mechanical issues which caused the problems in the first place. One more voice probably won’t add much more to the conversation, but maybe I can add some “halftime commentary” at this point in the game.

What’s going right:

1) Toyota entered the crisis with a strong, positive reputation for customer service and quality.  They invested in their brand through performance, not just advertising.

2) Toyota came out strong, admitted they had a problem, and put their reputation on the line promising to make things right.

3) Toyota mounted an aggressive, multi-faceted campaign to communicate directly with their key audiences. They didn’t circle the wagons and “go dark” as I imagine their legal team advised them to do.

What’s going/gone wrong:

1) Toyota’s CEO should have been out front in the US market much earlier, then handed the responsibility over to his US leadership.  His staying in Japan only fuels the fires against foreign companies. His first appearance should have been a remote interview from one of his US auto plants.  The Wall Street Journal reports that ‘Toyota’s secretive culture may have contributed to this posture.

2) Toyota didn’t put out much in the way of their own “visual aids” when the crisis broke, leaving networks to develop their own, often inaccurate, computer graphics.

3) Toyota dealers are now “tossing their Teddys in the corner” as the Brits might say, by pulling ads from ABC. They are protesting the volume of negative news stories. Pulling ads only gets you more bad press and makes you look childish.

I’m still in a wait-and-see position on Toyota. If I were a betting man, I’d bet the brand will survive. They started from a position of strength.

Time will tell, of course.  Most consumers and investors will forgive mistakes; though few will forgive lying or hiding safety information, as some are now charging.  Toyota needs to be on-guard against these negative charges, counter-attacking them wherever they appear, combining truth with integrity and performance.

Don’t trot out the CEO just yet: Survey shows outside experts are more-trusted sources

An annual survey of trust by Edelman Public Relations shows that company CEOs might not be the best spokespersons for your organization. Only 40 percent of respondents in the international survey reported they found company CEOs “credible” or “very credible.” On top were “academics or experts” and “financial or industry analysts,” with 64 and 52 percent respectively. On the upside, CEO credibility is on the rise in the U.S., up to 26 percent from last year’s dismal 17 percent.

Interestingly, when asked about the credibility of different sources for information about a company, respondents gave high marks – 41 percent – to “conversations with employees.” However, employees ranked below CEO’s and “people like me” when asked about the credibility of certain spokespersons.

Speaking of spokespersons, corporate spokespersons didn’t do well on the survey again this year with only 32 percent rating them as credible sources of information. Only social networking sites and advertising came out worse.

Haiti Quake Illustrates Crisis Communication Cycle

Press reports coming out of Haiti tell of hope and hopelessness, heroic rescues and somber burials.  The disaster hit us hard here in Colorado Springs.  Some of our neighbors were victims.

Predictably, though, news coverage and commentary are now turning away from the victims and towards arguments about who is to blame and what should be done next.

The reporting reflects a cycle I have seen in most disaster coverage over the past 20 years. It is important for organizations to understand this cycle; especially if they are on the front lines of the next crisis.

The first reports from a fresh disaster are usually sketchy as news organizations scramble to determine whether the story will be big news or worthy of only a bulletin at the bottom of our TV screens. Proximity, familiarity and scale are normally the determining factors. Fires in California affecting 1,000 people or floods in Italy affecting a million will normally merit more coverage than landslides in Bangladesh affecting 10,000 people.

The next stage is the emergence of the first photos and video from the disaster along with on- scene reports from victims.  I was surprised by how quickly cell phone interviews with survivors made it out of Haiti, accompanied by cell phone video and Skype reports.  I expect the speed and quality of “survivor video” will continue to increase with every new disaster.

If the disaster merits on-scene reporting, news organizations begin the mad dash to be the first on the ground, live.  The most prominent reporters will cover the disaster themselves for a few days before passing their microphones to the second-string.

As this transition happens, coverage also transitions from the scope of the disaster to reports of rescue and relief efforts moving to the scene. There is great hope on display in the photos and video of skilled responders boarding planes loaded with relief supplies. It appears everything will be fine.

Then, the mood changes. The second-string reporters on the ground are under tremendous pressure to produce compelling stories by deadline.  Overwhelmed first-responders are too busy to cooperate, so reporters go looking for victims. Hopeless-looking and pleading for help, the victims, not the rescuers, become the story.

At this point, the anchors back at their news desks start asking the “hard questions” about why aid isn’t getting through.  After all, we saw video just yesterday of aid being loaded. Why hasn’t that aid reached the victims our news teams found this morning?” The complexity of a rescue and relief effort is too much for news organizations to understand.

Many news organizations truly think their pressure will improve the rescue and relief efforts underway.  News coverage begins to feature remote interviews with family members, begging for help to find their missing loved ones. Aid agencies complain they are being impeded by red tape.  It all looks like chaos.

Then, as relief agencies get a foothold, victims get help. The initial rush of relief supplies gets distributed and the situation stabilizes. The second-string reporters begin to pull out, aid slows and the press turns to parceling out blame.

“Who is to blame?” becomes the story.  Politicians, disaster planning experts, environmentalists, and more victims and their families dominate the coverage.  This is where we see on the news today.  After this phase, coverage normally dies out, relegated to the back pages and think-tank analysis while relief efforts and rebuilding go on, almost unnoticed.

It is important for organizations dealing with disaster or planning for the next crisis to understand these phases.  They can be found in most crises, from international disasters like Haiti, national-level events like Hurricane Katrina or in local crises like the New Life church shooting. Proper crisis communication planning before a disaster should incorporate these phases, predicting what resources will be needed and what messages will be required.

Check your crisis plan.  You never know when you might need it.