EL CONSORCIO DE CENTROS EDUCATIVOS

The analysis performed on the two companies’ strategic and communicative efforts in managing the crises has given us interesting insight. Before drawing any conclusions, we consider it worthy to mention an obvious difference between the two crises regarding perception of responsibility for the events. In Domino’s case, the incident that led to the outbreak of the crisis, namely the actions of the two employees, was not perceived as being primarily the company’s fault and thus Domino’s – which also had a favourable reputation – benefited of a somewhat supportive public. This does not mean, of course, that Domino’s had an easier task in managing the crisis, as stakeholders were still expecting partial admittance of blame, clear corrective actions and openness to dialogue. In United’s case, however, the incident that sparked the crisis was different in nature and was entirely perceived as the company’s fault. Coupled with the fact that in recent years United had acquired a reputation for poor customer service, it was evident that the airline would have to deal with a criticizing audience right from the start. This meant that United was expected to show full transparency and honesty in its crisis approach if it wanted a good chance of regaining public trust.

Looking back at the overall strategy used by Domino’s Pizza in its crisis management approach, we consider that the company made proof of good strategic efforts to successfully end the crisis and preserve a favourable reputation. The popular fast-food chain took most measures that Gonzalez-Herrero and Smith’s model recommends, and its strategy was met with mainly critical acclaim by the general public and corporate communication practitioners for several reasons. First, Domino’s decision to use its CEO to personally address stakeholders was very well received by the public and media and was one of the initial obvious attempts to connect to stakeholders on a non-corporate, more personal level. As Stock (2008) mentions, although unfortunately few companies choose to do so, using the CEO to address the public is a good first start in regaining public trust. Moreover, the company’s unconventional decision to name the official apology video using bad grammar (“Disgusting Dominos People – Domino’s Respond”), just as the two employees had named theirs, was another attempt to reach stakeholders in the same non-corporate manner.

84

Second, Domino’s took effective actions during and after the crisis using resources from both the offline and online environments. In accordance to any traditional crisis management theory, the company took quick action to find out who the perpetrators in the videos were, took legal action against them, made sure that no customer had in fact received the food and sanitized the restaurant, all through close cooperation with internal (employees) and external stakeholders (web users, police, health department, etc.). Online, Domino’s took many actions recommended by theory: placed visible crisis-related links on own online resources, sent out personal messages to supporters, engaged stakeholders for feedback, kept them up-to date and combined the use of traditional media with new media.

Third and probably most important, Domino’s acknowledged the power of social media to reach stakeholders and emphasized heavily on online communication. Even though it was already planning to use social media for everyday activities, the company understood that it had to hurry the process and created accounts on popular social media platforms sooner in order to combat the crisis’ effects. This ensured contact with all stakeholder groups in the same online environment in which the crisis had developed. With the same intention, Domino’s chose to not only place a public apology on their website, but also on YouTube, to directly reach the same people that had viewed the videos of the two employees.

From a communicative point of view, Domino’s successfully chose an adequate response strategy by admitting blame, apologizing, promising corrective action and thanking stakeholders for their support. However, the approach was successful not only because the company chose the right tactics, but also because it made proof of transparency, informality and openness. A clear example was the apology video, in which Patrick Doyle, Domino’s CEO, filmed an unrehearsed apology in one take (Peeples & Vaughn, 2009). “The credit we’re getting and the comments we’re seeing [show] that we didn’t hide and we haven’t been ‘corporate’, but responding like real people”, stated McIntyre about the video (PR Week US, Apr. 2009). The fact that Domino’s innovative communication approach had been efficient was made clear when the crisis died shortly after the company’s response. McIntyre discussed the end of the crisis in The Consumerist: “During the first week when this happened, awareness and chatter about Domino’s just spiked. It was unprecedented. But then 24 hours later, bang! It fell right back down to normal levels. There was an incredible spike. People look at it [video], heard about the story, made their comments and went on.” (The PR Strategist, Aug. 2009). A confirmation that Domino’s had effectively responded to the crisis

85

came a few months later, when Tim McIntyre, Domino’s VP of Communications, was named Crisis Manager of the Year by PR News (The Realtime Report, Dec. 2009).

Although Domino’s was generally praised for the way it managed the crisis, it did however make two significant mistakes in their approach. In our opinion, as well as that of many PR practitioners, Domino’s waited too long to respond to the crisis and did not effectively use search engine optimization for their YouTube apology video. The decision to initially not respond to the crisis hoping to contain its effect was, according to many communication experts, an unfortunate one and the 48 hours it took Domino’s to respond to the crisis was too long in today’s world of constant online communication. At first, Domino’s underestimated the power of social media and permitted the prank video to receive more than one million views in two days, which may seem like a lifetime in the online environment. Just as the chief marketing officer of the social media firm Lotame put it, in social media, “if you think it’s not going to spread, that’s when it gets bigger” (The NY Times, Apr. 2009).

Apart from the slow reaction to the crisis, the other main problem with Domino’s response was the apology video’s ranking in Google search after its YouTube upload. As observed by a US search engine marketing firm, the video did not initially appear on the first page, which led the president of the firm to comment “how effective can a crisis response be if it doesn’t show up on the first page of a Google search?” (Upsize Magazine, Aug. 2009). The company was also criticized for not having purchased ads to cancel out the negative reinforcement in Google results. “If you searched for ‘domino’s and disgusting’, the whole first page of results dealt with the incident. One link screams ‘Never Eat At Dominos Again’”, observed a brand strategist from Nielsen Online (TimeUS, Apr. 2009). According to Gonzalez-Herrero and Smith (2008), the use of SEO is an important action that every organization should take, especially when dealing with an online crisis.

Looking back at United Airlines’ efforts to deal with its reputational crisis and taking into account the mostly negative feedback received from stakeholders, we consider that the airline made proof of an overall poor crisis management approach, although we did notice several good points in the company’s strategy. Unlike Domino’s, United responded much faster to the crisis and issued its first statements on Twitter and mainstream media during the first 24 hours of the events. In this regard, the company seemed to understand right from the start that the crisis would spread fast and that a quick official response was required. In addition, United made a good decision by choosing to use Twitter and the blog of a popular consumer

86

advocate as communication channels online, although unfortunately social media use did mainly stop there. From a crisis communication perspective, United initially chose a good response strategy, by admitting blame, apologizing to Carroll and promising to take corrective actions. Although considering the evidence that the musician had presented and the negative corporate reputation, the airline had no choice but to choose this response, as not using these tactics would have probably had dramatic consequences for its reputation.

Despite having taken some good choices, United did too little when compared to the many important aspects it had overlooked. One of the major weak points of the company’s strategy was its inability to effectively use social media in combating a crisis that was developing primarily online. This was one of the main reasons for which United got criticized by many PR and social media specialists, as observed by the Social Media Today professional network in a cover of the incident: “companies need to take videos and their online response very seriously. [United] did speak to reporters, […] but key social media channels were neglected” and “United Airlines did follow the first rule of crisis communications by apologizing and trying to make amends. It's their failure to leverage and integrate their online channels that is at issue” (Social Media Today, Jul. 2009). Even though it had already created an official YouTube channel in July 2008, United did not mention it on its website and did not use it during or after the crisis. Nor did it use the United Facebook fan page, which even though was unofficial would have represented an excellent opportunity to engage the over 9.000 users who were searching for answers. Using at least the most popular social media platforms, United could have engaged stakeholders, who were actively expressing their opinions on Facebook, YouTube, blogs and Twitter throughout the crisis. One month after the upload of the first video, media and marketing online magazine Sparksheet analyzed United’s YouTube profile to find out if the airline had engaged its profile visitors and reached the following conclusion: “No airline today needs a first-class YouTube presence more than United Airlines. […] So far United Airlines has failed to respond in kind and its YouTube channel is littered with comments from angry musicians vowing to boycott the airline. We know we’re not the only ones waiting to hear an equally tuneful apology performed by musically-inclined United employees” (Sparksheet, Aug. 2009).

The second major mistake United made was to adopt response tactics towards the end of the crisis that differed from initial ones, which led to an inconsistent overall communication

87

strategy. In addition, the way the airline responded to the crisis was heavily criticized for lack of transparency, honesty and openness. Although at first United admitted blame, apologized to Carroll and promised to improve its customer services, it also used a tactic of attack (confronting the person or group who claims that a crisis exists) when the company’s spokesperson tried to deny the existence of a crisis by criticizing Carroll for “singling out” a United employee and for repeating himself in his second video (Elliott, 2009). The statement was negatively received by most internet users, who expressed their discontent with the company’s response in web comments: “Mr. Carroll has every right to DRILL THIS MATTER HOME. Resolved or not”, “No, I don’t think Dave Carroll has finished making his point yet”, “United needs to sit back, shut up, and fix their problems. Then they can say ‘we have had enough’.” (Elliott, 2009).

Because United had a long-running poor reputation for customer service, it was absolutely necessary for the company to show full transparency and openness in dealing with the crisis. However, although many signs were showing that the public was expecting specific details regarding United’s promised strategy to change customer service policy, no details were ever given: “When then Ms. Urbanski will United publicly disclose these changes? It is extremely easy and convenient for you to say this and not act or pretend to act” (National Post user comment, Aug. 2009). Even when directly asked about the strategy during the only interview she gave regarding the crisis, United’s VP of customer service only gave an ambiguous, standard corporate answer (Elliott, 2009):

Q: “How, exactly, would a video like this be incorporated into training?”

A: “It will provide all of us – regardless of where we work or in which department – with an example of how we can be more empathetic to our guests when situations suggest we should. In our business, how we conduct ourselves is important, and our employees understand that treating each other and our guests in a courteous and respectful manner is a vital part of running a good airline”.

Furthermore, United’s response demonstrated the company’s inability to assume responsibility for the true problem that led to the crisis, and thus stakeholders were very vocal in stressing this out on many occasions, as one online comment out of many similar ones clearly shows: “BUT miss Urbanski, you still miss the point. It wasn't THAT an accident happened, it was how the customer was dragged around for over 9 months before being told

88

‘sorry-now scram’.” (National Post user comment, Aug. 2009). The general public and media were also critical of the airline’s choice of words and language in several statements, accusing it of treating the serious incident lightly. For example, the United spokesperson’s expression “has struck a chord with us” to relate to the impact of the video, which was quoted in many mainstream and social media channels, was considered sarcastic and a “too-punny- to-be-accidental response” (CRM Magazine, Jul. 2009). The same spokesperson’s tactic of praising Carroll was also criticized on several occasions, along with her intention to show that the musician had in fact become her friend: “I think it is bold of you to assume that you are now ‘BFF’s’ with Dave Carroll […] How about stepping up to the plate and acting like a grown up mature adult for your airline and post a real Press Release on your website.... do a news conference and stop hiding” (National Post user comment, Aug. 2009).

By making the above observations we have hopefully managed to answer the paper’s first research question. In order to present answers to our second research question, we propose several additional actions that, according to theory and field professionals, the two companies could have integrated into their strategies. Although the overall crisis approach of Domino’s Pizza was praised by the public and the media, anyone would agree that there is always room for improvement. With this in mind, we believe that a broader social media presence right from the start would have definitely helped Domino’s stop the crisis even faster. If the company would have implemented their already planned social media strategy sooner and adapted it to combat the risks of an online crisis, it could have gained valuable time and it could have responded officially in the first 24 hours. A proactive media monitoring service together with an intense activity on all relevant social media platforms would have helped the organization anticipate and dissolve the issue faster. For example, the web director of Node, a social media and reputation management firm, suggested that Domino’s could have used a web content monitoring service, such as Google Alerts, to monitor what was being said about the company on blogs, YouTube, Twitter or other social media platforms (Upsize Magazine, Aug. 2009). Many PR and marketing professionals mentioned the creation of a blog on Domino’s website, which can always “serve as a powerful rapid response vehicle” (TimeUS, Apr. 2009). Finally, Domino’s should have used SEO more effectively to ensure that the CEO’s apology video appeared on the first page in search result, ahead of the two employees’ videos.

89

United’s crisis approach, however, was nearly unanimously criticized and was perceived by many as being just another corporate effort to shed light away from the real problems of the airline, namely poor customer service. An obvious first suggestion is that Domino’s should have made better use of social media, especially since it already had four corporate online channels active (website, Twitter, YouTube and Facebook), three of which were completely ignored. The company should have made constant use of all of these and additional tools to inform stakeholders, including sending out press releases and placing links on its website to other crisis-related sources. Internally, United could have promoted active communication to detect any similar incidents, using for example internal wikis to allow close collaboration between all employees. Given the fact that all of Carroll’s videos had been uploaded to YouTube and that this was the main platform that popularized them, thus triggering the crisis, it was evident that United should have placed a video apology (just as Domino’s did) on the same popular video-sharing site. This was also stressed by the president of the Social Media and Online Consultancy Group Harbrooke, who stated about the incident: “Don’t just tweet your apology. Make a YouTube video as response to Dave’s first video, and have your CEO (yes, your CEO) say he’s sorry about the treatment and the run around” (Greenstein, 2009).

A social media expert of the Social Media Today professional network commented on United’s crisis: “I would advise them to examine their YouTube Channel for content and their response policy for comments.” (Social Media Today, Jul. 2009). This statement leads to our next recommendation (which lies in strong connection to the first), namely that United should have placed strong emphasis on stakeholder engagement during and after the crisis. After the first video surfaced, tens of thousands of web users started writing comments regarding the incident, many of them sharing similar negative experiences with the airline (just one week after its uploaded, the first video counted over 13.000 comments on YouTube alone) (Social Media Today, Jul. 2009). The airline should have created a social media team to respond to stakeholders, using both personal text replies and mass video messages. Another statement on the same Social Media Today network advised United: “have more videos on what you are doing to improve service and instructional videos on what to do if your baggage is damaged or lost, […] use this experience as way to monitor and respond to customer service complaints, and reach out to the people who tweeted” (Social Media Today, Jul. 2009).

90

A final suggestion is aimed at United’s response strategy, which was accused of being too corporate, dishonest and not transparent enough. United Airlines should have kept using its