PR Firm strategy needed to regain the public trust?
Paxing All Over The World
kiwi grey
Agreed - a fine place to start BUT masculine default is to say, "It wasn't me!" The masculine is usually the corporate default. We see this start in very small children when caught out. Once that line has been taken it takes very large cohones to walk it back. In corporate life? The only retraction tends to happen in court or by 'out of court settlement with no admission of guilt'.
It is a problem that has bevilled corporate, political and family life for (I suspect) as long as homo sapiens has been around. In recent times - VW had this problem as they took a short cut on testing and had to be hauled through court. They were very lucky as no direct deaths could be pinned on them. Look back to the 1970s Ford Pinto and check if the corporate behaviour was the same.
As many have pointed out, the biggest single change is the Internet. An example is that, I was not sure which American car was famous for catching fire in the 1970s but it only took a minute for a search and Wikipedia to confirm which it was. I agree that many do not know what a/c they are flying on (Mrs PAXboy among them) but there will be younger generations, children of, or friends of - who will know.
Lastly, what the boys at B's top table forgot was that - currently - the USA is not liked so much around the world as it was 25 years ago. The reasons do not matter but 'American' is no longer desirable to so many and the sheer arrogance and effrontery of the Board confirms that. I say 'not liked' but 'loathed' is probably closer to the mark.
Tragically, The Tombstone Imperative (book by Andrew Weir) still rules .
If I was the PR agency asked to help Boeing out in this situation, the advice I would give would include:
- Make some very public sacrifices, and I don't mean at the 'program manager' level, I mean right at the top of BCA - possibly the whole BCA executive team. That might be enough to save the Boeing Corp CEO & board
- Ignore your lawyers' advice, admit liability and offer each victim's family enough money to make them not take Boeing to court. Openly cancel the share repurchase scheme to pay for it.
- Walk away from the MAX, it is irretrievably tarnished. Resume NG production.
- Make a big splash of starting the NSA program, and expedite it.
It is a problem that has bevilled corporate, political and family life for (I suspect) as long as homo sapiens has been around. In recent times - VW had this problem as they took a short cut on testing and had to be hauled through court. They were very lucky as no direct deaths could be pinned on them. Look back to the 1970s Ford Pinto and check if the corporate behaviour was the same.
As many have pointed out, the biggest single change is the Internet. An example is that, I was not sure which American car was famous for catching fire in the 1970s but it only took a minute for a search and Wikipedia to confirm which it was. I agree that many do not know what a/c they are flying on (Mrs PAXboy among them) but there will be younger generations, children of, or friends of - who will know.
Lastly, what the boys at B's top table forgot was that - currently - the USA is not liked so much around the world as it was 25 years ago. The reasons do not matter but 'American' is no longer desirable to so many and the sheer arrogance and effrontery of the Board confirms that. I say 'not liked' but 'loathed' is probably closer to the mark.
Tragically, The Tombstone Imperative (book by Andrew Weir) still rules .
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When there is very little financial upside in being transparent and honest, then, as Charlie Munger asserts "show me the incentive, I show you the outcome"
Until a watershed occurs and society accepts that there are other virtues, far more important than increasingly large profits from a finite planet, then companies, politicians and the society in which they exist will require 'brand experts' to tell them what and what not to say. All said with the best legal minds ensuring no admission ever results in a financial loss through litigation.
Until a watershed occurs and society accepts that there are other virtues, far more important than increasingly large profits from a finite planet, then companies, politicians and the society in which they exist will require 'brand experts' to tell them what and what not to say. All said with the best legal minds ensuring no admission ever results in a financial loss through litigation.
In times of Universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act-George Orwell.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Subterranea
Age: 70
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compared to the loss of lives which no money can buy and to definitely prevent a similar accident from ever happening again, it would be a very small change.
Different times and circumstances but outcome the same (two aircraft crashed, no survivors): reminds me of the L.E.A.P. actions Lockheed took with regards to the L-188 Electra. Once the true cause was revealed regarding the "whirl mode", no half measures were taken to solve the problem.
Different times and circumstances but outcome the same (two aircraft crashed, no survivors): reminds me of the L.E.A.P. actions Lockheed took with regards to the L-188 Electra. Once the true cause was revealed regarding the "whirl mode", no half measures were taken to solve the problem.
This is getting way beyond PR but there are some interesting observations here:
https://leehamnews.com/2019/05/27/po...up/#more-30181
To a person, the journalists are appalled at Boeing’s handling of the communications and messaging, and of Muilenburg’s various statements.
Also to a person, we believe the corporate lawyers, not the corporate communications team, are calling the shots in the messaging.
One reporter likened Muilenburg’s we-own-it, no-the-pilots-did-it approach to his own MCAS.
First, Muilenburg’s nose would rise with the we-own-it approach.
Then his nose would fall with the-pilots-did-it claim.
Then repeat, over and over.
There was general eye rolling that Boeing would engage “celebrities” to help rebuild the MAX brand.
I suspect that Muilenburg will have to go. I'd also recommend hoisting some of the political window-dressing off the board and adding some engineers from critical-risk industries. If I was in charge, too, I'd be thinking of whether to tell the lawyers to get lost and establish a massive fund for victims' families. It might be cheaper than what might come out of discovery.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/05/27/po...up/#more-30181
Muilenburg’s MCAS
I was at the Airbus Innovation Days last week with more than 130 global journalists. Naturally, the Boeing MAX crisis was the subject of a lot of sideline talk among us.To a person, the journalists are appalled at Boeing’s handling of the communications and messaging, and of Muilenburg’s various statements.
Also to a person, we believe the corporate lawyers, not the corporate communications team, are calling the shots in the messaging.
One reporter likened Muilenburg’s we-own-it, no-the-pilots-did-it approach to his own MCAS.
First, Muilenburg’s nose would rise with the we-own-it approach.
Then his nose would fall with the-pilots-did-it claim.
Then repeat, over and over.
There was general eye rolling that Boeing would engage “celebrities” to help rebuild the MAX brand.
I suspect that Muilenburg will have to go. I'd also recommend hoisting some of the political window-dressing off the board and adding some engineers from critical-risk industries. If I was in charge, too, I'd be thinking of whether to tell the lawyers to get lost and establish a massive fund for victims' families. It might be cheaper than what might come out of discovery.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots are very quick to criticise the appauling standard of journalists who report more often mis report aviation issues but are more than happy without any knowlage of the communications industry jump in with both feet making wlid assumptions.
Boeing will be engaging corporate communications experts, these people are the very opposite of PR people.
PR is all about hyping a product and selling, Corperate communications is about getting the correct and sometimes quite low key message in front of the public and counteracting the hysterical reports in the press that you get after any crisis that goes public.
What the corperate communications people will try to do for Boeing is a slow and subtle improvement of their public image, this has to be based in truth otherwise it will backfire very badly and further damage the brand image.
Boeing will be engaging corporate communications experts, these people are the very opposite of PR people.
PR is all about hyping a product and selling, Corperate communications is about getting the correct and sometimes quite low key message in front of the public and counteracting the hysterical reports in the press that you get after any crisis that goes public.
What the corperate communications people will try to do for Boeing is a slow and subtle improvement of their public image, this has to be based in truth otherwise it will backfire very badly and further damage the brand image.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: MTL
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is getting way beyond PR but there are some interesting observations here:
https://leehamnews.com/2019/05/27/po...up/#more-30181
To a person, the journalists are appalled at Boeing’s handling of the communications and messaging, and of Muilenburg’s various statements.
Also to a person, we believe the corporate lawyers, not the corporate communications team, are calling the shots in the messaging.
One reporter likened Muilenburg’s we-own-it, no-the-pilots-did-it approach to his own MCAS.
First, Muilenburg’s nose would rise with the we-own-it approach.
Then his nose would fall with the-pilots-did-it claim.
Then repeat, over and over.
There was general eye rolling that Boeing would engage “celebrities” to help rebuild the MAX brand.
I suspect that Muilenburg will have to go. I'd also recommend hoisting some of the political window-dressing off the board and adding some engineers from critical-risk industries. If I was in charge, too, I'd be thinking of whether to tell the lawyers to get lost and establish a massive fund for victims' families. It might be cheaper than what might come out of discovery.
https://leehamnews.com/2019/05/27/po...up/#more-30181
Muilenburg’s MCAS
I was at the Airbus Innovation Days last week with more than 130 global journalists. Naturally, the Boeing MAX crisis was the subject of a lot of sideline talk among us.To a person, the journalists are appalled at Boeing’s handling of the communications and messaging, and of Muilenburg’s various statements.
Also to a person, we believe the corporate lawyers, not the corporate communications team, are calling the shots in the messaging.
One reporter likened Muilenburg’s we-own-it, no-the-pilots-did-it approach to his own MCAS.
First, Muilenburg’s nose would rise with the we-own-it approach.
Then his nose would fall with the-pilots-did-it claim.
Then repeat, over and over.
There was general eye rolling that Boeing would engage “celebrities” to help rebuild the MAX brand.
I suspect that Muilenburg will have to go. I'd also recommend hoisting some of the political window-dressing off the board and adding some engineers from critical-risk industries. If I was in charge, too, I'd be thinking of whether to tell the lawyers to get lost and establish a massive fund for victims' families. It might be cheaper than what might come out of discovery.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What the corperate (sic) communications people will try to do for Boeing is a slow and subtle improvement of their public image, this has to be based in truth otherwise it will backfire very badly and further damage the brand image.
That it has taken so long to even begin a discussion on what is the 'right' thing to do, tells the observer just how twisted, perverse and misaligned the modern corporate actually is.
It ought not need an outsider to re-direct a company. An outsider is needed because the moral compass of society is broken, and the corporation is merely a reflection.
I did indeed some consulting for companies where trust of customers have been shattered for some reasons. The rundown is rather simple (yet hard and unforgiving):
1. It must be said frankly that 80% of the focus must be to deliver a perfect product. Resolve any flaws and test test, test it until it is more than perfect.
2. Find out who are the opinion leaders (in this case there are two levels = a. airlines, b.PAX of airlines) for the public.
3. Show the opinion leaders what have been done, how good, effective and safe the product is now and get genuine trust of them.
4. Let the opinion leaders speak out on their behalf and check how it works with a. + b. public with surveys.
5. Now the product in question must go into real life and show reliability and class. Use opinion leaders again to speak about it.
6. Don't even try to use classic marketing and promotion if opinion leaders didn't "approve" your product as a worthwhile solution yet.
1. It must be said frankly that 80% of the focus must be to deliver a perfect product. Resolve any flaws and test test, test it until it is more than perfect.
2. Find out who are the opinion leaders (in this case there are two levels = a. airlines, b.PAX of airlines) for the public.
3. Show the opinion leaders what have been done, how good, effective and safe the product is now and get genuine trust of them.
4. Let the opinion leaders speak out on their behalf and check how it works with a. + b. public with surveys.
5. Now the product in question must go into real life and show reliability and class. Use opinion leaders again to speak about it.
6. Don't even try to use classic marketing and promotion if opinion leaders didn't "approve" your product as a worthwhile solution yet.
