How to Avoid a PR Disaster: 10 Tips for Businesses

PR Disaster 

Introduction 

Business enterprises operate in a highly competitive world where they must always look for ways of remaining ahead of their competitors. Besides, the organizations need to deal with the challenges that they face promptly to be able to protect their reputations and keep stakeholders informed (Watson & Noble, 2007). Therefore, public relations (PR) has emerged as an important business tool that can be used to protect an enterprise and ensure that it overcomes everyday challenges in the market. In a time of crisis, time may not always be on the side of the business and its managers. The argument is based on the fact that a crisis usually creates a vacuum and an information void that can get filled quickly in one way or the other (Stacks, 2010). The longer an organization takes to communicate, the more likely it may find itself struggling to deal with the issue at hand and inform the relevant stakeholders. That is what happened to Boeing after the second of its 737 max planes crashed in Ethiopia killing all the 157 people on board. The Ethiopian Airline crash was the second one after another plane belonging to the Lion Air had crashed four months earlier killing all the passengers. In total, the 737 max crashes had claimed the lives of about 350 people in a matter of months. In the first days after the crash, Boeing made significant communication missteps that adversely affected its PR campaign. The mistakes have also had a long term impact on the credibility and reputation of the company. This paper aims to explore the PR campaign that was undertaken by Boeing after the crash to identify the mistakes that were made. Besides, the paper provides vital alternatives that can be used in dealing with such issues. 

Boeing is the world's largest manufacturers of aircraft. Over the years, the organization has managed to expand its market share even with the stiff competition coming from other companies such as Airbus. Also, the enterprise has been creating revolutionary aircraft designs that attracted a wide range of airlines around the world. One such plane was the Boeing 737 max which was the company’s bestselling aircraft. Many airlines around the world were operating the plane while others were waiting for Boeing to fulfill their order request. However. In 2019, the company was left struggling to explain how its fastest-selling and the latest plane had caused crashes and led to the deaths of many passengers. The first crash involved the Lion Air 737 Max which crashed off the coast of Indonesia in October 2018 (Solomon, 2020). Four months later, another plane belonging to Ethiopian Airlines crashed shortly after taking off from Bole Airport killing all the people on board. How Boeing responded to the issues raised more questions than answers. 

Boeing Chairman and CEO Dennis Muhlenberg issued the first official statement on March 7, 2019, about three weeks after the Ethiopian airline had crashed. First, the chairman stated by sending condolences to the families and loved ones who had lost people in the Ethiopian Airline crash. The CEO went on to state that Boeing was working with the investigative agencies and other relevant authorities to obtain information that would help in determining the potential causes of the crash. Dennis Muhlenberg remarked that safety remained the number one priority at Boeing and that the organization had instituted the installment of additional software updates to enhance the safety of its products (Solomon, 2020). Even with the safety and regulatory agencies working to determine the cause of the accident, the CEO went ahead to state that the organization was in the final stage of developing and updating the pilot training protocol for the MCAS technology. The CEO also stated that the company was offering technical assistance at the request of the National Transportation Safety Board. The first statement was issued through PR Newswire with the second follow-up statement being issued by the CEO on April 24, 2019. The second statement was also released through PR Newswire with a video on the same being posted on Twitter. In the second statement, the CEO acknowledges the fact that the MCAS software may have played some role in the two crashes involving the 737 Max planes. 

Several problems can be identified in the PR campaign that was undertaken by Boeing following the crash. The first problem was that Boeing took a long time before issuing statements regarding the accident. The delay meant that other people and groups were free to control the narrative and shape public perception of the incident. The media was allowed to dig deep into the accident to determine potential design failures that may have caused the crash. In the end, Boeing was not able to shape the public opinion regarding its 737 Max plane (Solomon, 2020). The situation worsened when governments around the world decided to ban the plane. The second problem was that Boeing failed to provide sufficient information about the two crashes. Instead of striving to inform the public, Boeing kept silent until more than 40 nations decided to ground the plane. When the top leadership began to act, it was already late and the damage had already been done. The final main issue is that the organization disseminated statements through electronic means. The method gave the impression that the top managers of the organization were not ready to face the media and answer questions about the crash. Taking the above three issues into consideration it is evident that the main issue in the Boeing PR campaign was poor communication. 

Analysis of the Situation 

The SWOT analysis tool provides a basis for evaluating the PR campaign that was adopted by Boeing. The first step entails examining the potential strengths of the strategy that the organization adopted. One of the strengths of the approach is that it allowed the organization to gather detailed information regarding the crash before issuing statements. Second, the executives were shielded from the prying eyes of the media which was striving to get a detailed account of the design issues that may have led to the crash. The other factors that should be considered are the weaknesses of the approach (Solomon, 2020). The first weakness is that the organization took a long before launching the PR campaign. Secondly, the company did not give sufficient information regarding the crises. Third, the use of electronic methods to disseminate information showed that the CEO was not ready to give information regarding the issue and to answer pertinent questions. Fourth, the PR method adopted did not allow the organization to take a proactive approach in dealing with the crises. Finally, the PR approach that was adopted entailed denying the possible role of software issues in the design yet the same problem had been experienced four months earlier. There are certain opportunities that the organization should have exploited to enhance its PR campaign. For example, Boeing should have responded immediately after the crash since it knew that the software in the new aircraft was a major issue of concern. Second, the organization should have taken a proactive step and asked airlines to ground the planes pending further investigations. Finally, the CEO should have organized for a press conference instead of releasing statements via PR Newswire. Finally, it is important to consider the threats that the organization faced by using the poorly structured and implemented PR campaign. First, the organization risks losing its credibility and integrity. Second, the chances of the company damaging its reputation were high. 

Alternative Strategy Solutions 

Three possible alternatives should have been adopted. The first strategy solution would be taking a proactive approach when responding to such a crisis ( Watson & Noble, 2007 ). In this case, Boeing should have taken the initiative to ground its planes without waiting for governments and regulators to make the decisions. Furthermore, the organization should have committed to the public immediately after the crash. This particular strategy is advantageous since it would have shown that the organization was concerned about the safety of crew and passengers. Besides, it would have supported the statement that the CEO was making regarding the commitment of the company to safety (Solomon, 2020). The strategy will be perfect if it is assumed that the regulatory agencies will also listen to Boeing and not victimize it by taking the proactive step to ground the planes. The main shortcoming of this approach is that it may lead to media attacks and motivate the public to question the company’s safety records. The second strategy would be for the organization to join the investigative agencies in press conferences and respond to concerns raised by the media. The approach is advantageous since it would have shown that the organization was transparent and concerned about the safety issues linked with the 737 Max. The main shortcoming, however, is that the company would appear to be taking a leading role in finding answers to a problem that involved its planes yet the work should be done by investigative agencies. Finally, Boeing may have opted to give controlled media responses based on the information that members of the public were seeking. The approach provides an avenue for the organization to shape public perception regarding the issue. However, some people and the media may feel that the organization is not willing to open up and address the problem. 

Recommendation 

The most appropriate approach in the present case is taking a proactive approach to responding to the crisis. First, the Boeing executives should have made themselves available to answer questions raised by the media in press conferences immediately after the crash. Secondly, the organization should have asked airlines to ground all the 737 Max planes. The primary objective is to send a message that Boeing was concerned about passengers and the safety of all those who operated the new plane. Besides, the approach would have given the organization the chance to seek additional information about the crash without appearing to be distancing itself from the problems that had been experienced. While implementing the plan, the organization should be open and partner with the regulatory authorities to determine the cause of the crashes and identify through which such incidences can be prevented in the future. This particular response strategy is deemed appropriate because of three primary reasons. First, it would allow the organization to communicate with the public and the media in a timely and effective way throughout the crisis period. Secondly, it will help in shaping the general public view and narrative regarding the accidents involving the company’s best-selling aircraft. Finally, the approach can be used as the basis for supporting the statements that the CEO had made regarding the values of the company and their commitment towards ensuring that all Boeing planes are reliable and safe. 

References 

Solomon, A. (2020). Boeing’s responses to its 737 MAX crashes lacks empathy & timeliness . https://www.commpro.biz/boeings-responses-to-its-737-max-crashes-lacks-empathy- timeliness/?print=pdf 

Stacks, D.W. (2010). Primer of public relations research . Guilford Press. 

Watson, T., & Noble, P. (2007). Evaluating public relations: A best practice guide to public relations planning, research, and evaluation . Kogan Page.