Kim Leslie’s PR Blog

The White House, a place that should be a pinnacle of good PR, could have responded better after Michaele and Tareq Salahi crashed Obama’s first state dinner party. No one noticed the couple was out of place as they went through security and posed for pictures with the president.

The couple was being considered for the upcoming reality show Real Housewives of DC and may have attended the dinner as a publicity stunt. Records show that they were not invited and not on the guest list.

So how did they get into the dinner? The couple did not have an invitation to present at the gate, and claimed it was in their car. Yet, the Secret Service let them through. The Secret Service has publicly apologized, but they are not the only ones at fault.

White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers should be taking the fall for this mess. Rogers was supposed to be checking guests in, but put herself on the guest list, instead of the staff list. She refuses to testify, and stated that it was not her fault, since none of her staff were even there at the doors!

The White House should be presenting a united front and message, with one spokesperson citing all of the parties who are at fault. No one should be letting Rogers speak, and a good explanation for exactly why this happened and who was there to let the couple in should be presented to the public.

In addition, the White House keeps focusing on the fact that the couple posed no threat to Obama as they went through the same security screening as all of the other guests. That’s great, but everyone is still asking why the couple made it inside the White House in the first place.

For these reasons, the White House practiced bad PR in this situation. Next time, using PR tactics such as presenting one message, one statement of what occurred, and having one spokesperson would be more effective.

In early 2005, Eastern Health discovered errors in its hormone receptor tests for breast cancer patients. Patients who had been tested from 1997 through 2005 were affected by the errors. At least 27 patients died due to the errors out of the 386 who received inaccurate tests.

Immediately, the company’s President should have begun apologizing to patients through the media and the company should have begun implementing its crisis communication plan. Instead, Eastern Health practiced bad PR.

Eastern Health delayed telling affected patients and the public about the errors through the summer of 2005. The company would have waited even longer, but the media beat them to it by revealing the story in October 2005.

It took the company until the summer of 2008 to send apology letters to all patients affected. The company should have also immediately accepted responsibility for its actions and informed all patients that they could be affected. Eastern Health did not let its patients know there was a problem and they might be affected.

To further complicate the disaster, Eastern Health’s Director of Communications, Susan Bonnell, begged a national PR firm for advice on how to handle the situation. She revealed that the company did not have a crisis communication plan to adequately handle the testing errors.

Eastern Health’s own PR person did not know how to handle the crisis, could not handle the crisis, and decided to reveal this to the public.

Following Jennifer Hudson’s Oscar win for Best Supporting Actress in Dreamgirls in 2007, she described American Idol as her “stepping stone.” Simon Cowell was outraged by her comment and explained that many other American Idol successes purposely turn against the TV show which opened every door to their current achievements.

After Cowell’s comment, Hudson went on to say: “If I’d been any better at my job when I was at Burger King in my middle teens, I wouldn’t be here either, so should I thank them, too?” Hudson worked at Burger King when she was 16 and sang while working.

Instead of responding with criticism, Burger King took the opportunity to practice good PR for their company. Burger King used PR through their spokesperson to respond to Hudson’s comments. The company announced that it would be giving Hudson a prepaid Burger King Crown Card that will be reloaded for life.

Through this PR tactic, Burger King generated positive coverage of its company, communicated to its employees (an important stakeholder) that it truly cares about their success, and showed that it can turn a negative comment into a positive opportunity for good PR.

While this PR tactic may not be appropriate for every company, BK’s PR was in line with a statement on their company website about corporate responsibility. The company states that its corporate responsibility approach is stakeholder driven in four main areas: food, people, environment, and corporate governance.

BK’s response to Hudson’s comment reflects their commitment to two key stakeholders: food and people. Good job BK!

In 2002, Southwest Airlines came under fire for its policy of charging overweight/obese passengers for an extra seat. Since then, other airlines such as United have begun charging as well.

Southwest’s defense of its policy, called “Customer of Size,” was met with both opposition and appreciation from the media and bloggers. Some complained that Southwest was discriminating against larger customers, while others were overjoyed that the airline was finally listening to customer complaints about sitting next to overweight customers on flights.

Southwest’s response to media and online criticism, especially blog posts, is an excellent example of good PR. Despite criticism and media backlash, Southwest has successfully gained support for its policy from customers of a normal weight and the courts. The airline has had the policy since 1980, and has only been sued five times over it. Every time, Southwest won.

In addition, the airline demonstrated good PR in its response by posting a detailed Q & A on its website. The page explains the “Customer of Size” policy, how such a customer is defined, the reasons for the policy, and the protection the policy has under the law. The airline cites various laws and explains that they have not violated any of them with the policy.

The page defines a “Customer of Size” as one who cannot fit in a seat with both armrests lowered. The company explains that their employees will take every step to use discretion when explaining to passengers that they must pay for an extra seat and is not trying to embarrass any passenger.

Customers are charged a discounted rate for the second seat if they paid a discounted rate for their first ticket, or are charged for a child’s fare for the second seat if they paid full price. Southwest also refunds customers who have to pay for an extra seat after the flight if the flight is not full. What a deal, the site states that most customers receive a refund after their flight.

Finally, the airline justifies its policy because of numerous customer complaints of having a larger seatmate encroach onto their seat. The airline believes the seating situations are unsafe and uncomfortable for the customer who paid for their own seat. Southwest did not ignore the complaints of its customers, and has approached the situation in a sensitive way that is legally supported.

For these reasons, Southwest Airline’s policy  is an example of good PR.

The August 2000 Firestone Tire recall is an example of PR, but not a good example. The recall, announced by Bridgestone Corp., producer of the Firestone Tire brand, was the second largest tire recall in U.S. History. Reports about the tires alleged that that the treads peeled off the tires of SUVs travelling at high speeds. The tire manufacturer used PR to respond (ineffectively) to public scrutiny concerning the safety of its tires. Bridgestone attempted to capture people’s attention during the recall by communicating information about the tires to important publics.

The recall cost the company substantially, but not just financially. The cost of replacing all of the tires combined with the cost of lawsuits from defective tires did not compare to the loss of brand loyalty and customer trust. Gary Crigger, Bridgestone’s Executive Vice President, commented on this issue. “Obviously there will be a large financial impact on the company, but that’s not our subject for discussion today. The issue is our concerns for customer safety and customer confidence in our brand.”

Despite the company’s efforts to ensure customer satisfaction and new tires for all, a CNN article found that many were disappointed with Bridgestone’s initial response and believed the company’s actions were flawed. For example, once the recall was announced, the company did not have tires ready for replacement at many of its dealerships. Merely apologizing for the inconvenience the recall caused, and for the deaths of those who had faulty tires was insufficient. In addition, CNN reported that the company, as well as Ford Motor Company, knew about the problem for 8 years prior to the recall. This angered customers and tainted the Bridgestone/Firestone name for years.

Further, Bridgestone’s company philosophy did not align with their PR tactics and actions during the recall. The philosophy on the company website states, “Only through concrete action can we earn the trust that becomes the basis for our pride in our companies and products. Only when that pride motivates us to become ever better, can we continue to earn and retain the trust of the community.”

Next time, Bridgestone will need a new PR approach, one that includes its values.