Tim Nudd over at Adweek blogs about a PR nightmare for Greyhound, following (hard to believe this is true) the gruesome murder of a passenger onboard a long haul trip in Canada (I told you Canada was dangerous):
A traveler aboard a Greyhound bus repeatedly stabbed and then decapitated his seat mate, pausing during the savage attack in central Canada to display the head to passengers who had fled in horror
Tim's not wrong. Greyhound certainly has seen a spike in activity as shown in this Technorati chart.
English posts that contain Greyhound per day for the last 30 days.
Tim's post title is "Worst Nightmare for Greyhound" and I guess I agree with him, but for very different reasons. Whilst there's no question this is a prime "crisis communication" candidate (and it's one of the steps we - at crayon - include in our "committment to conversation" methodology), the real problem here is not what was being said in the blogosphere (more on that later), but what was NOT being said i.e. Greyhound joining the conversation.
Truth be told, Greyhound probably followed the crisis communication handbook to the letter. They "cooperated" with the investigation (d'uh), provided counseling to the passengers and released the typical statement:
The incident near Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, was tragic. Our condolences go out to the victim's family, and Greyhound Canada will continue to cooperate fully with the RCMP on their investigation to determine why exactly this horrible event occurred. Intercity bus has been and remains the safest mode of transportation in the country.
What they didn't do was figure out a way to respond to each and every blogger who commented on the story. Yes of course, there was going to be a pretty solid theme about safety and security, from "how did this happen?" to "how do we prevent this from happening again?" Yes of course, there were going to be comparisons with 9/11. Yes of course, there were going to be widespread fears expressed about traveling by bus again...and specifically Greyhound.
The comments weren't exactly 100% focused on Greyhound, however when it comes to fear and future lost business, Greyhound had no choice but to come along for the ride. You'll also see that the Bus Driver was a hero in terms of containing the tragedy.
Bottom line: This is a classic case where the brand simply had no choice but to represent itself and its position in a very volatile, but manageable scenario. Without the brand's involvement and participation, the conversation (think of it as a spark or even a fire) had no framework or frame of reference (the ability to contain it), and therefore had every chance of becoming a raging forest fire.
PS It's not too late...
Recent Comments