Blog :

Crisis Communications: Is it too little, too late for United Airlines?

Crisis Communications: Is it too little, too late for United Airlines?

Just a couple weeks after a public outcry following United’s refusal to let two children board a flight as they were wearing leggings, the world looked on in horror as a video went viral showing a 69 year old man being dragged bloodied and seemingly unconscious from an airplane – for no other reason than refusing to give up the seat he had reserved and paid for.

What unfolded in the following 72 hrs will no doubt go down in history as how NOT to handle a crisis situation. The reputational damage to United Airlines is already huge with many individuals and businesses threatening a boycott, Chinese media accusing racism and questions asked at the White House press conference. Whilst United’s share price was not initially hit on Monday by close of markets on Tuesday it had lost 4% equating to around $1.4 billion in market capitalisation. If you add to this the cost of long running legal proceedings and the accompanying negative media coverage the damage will run deep.

From a communications point of view the ill-thought-out response from United and its CEO, Oscar Munoz, is unfathomable. The initial statement from Munoz completely lacked any humanity, centred around United not the affected customer, was not a proper apology, didn’t accept responsibility and used a combination of corporate and legal language guaranteed to ostracise the average consumer.


Talking about the incident as ‘upsetting’ to ‘all of us’ at United immediately focused the statement around the business rather than the individual. The phrases ‘re-accommodate’ and ‘reaching out’ were immediately seen as corporate euphemisms completely lacking in any compassion for the customers involved and the company has been widely derided on social media.

The statement was followed by a leaked email from the CEO to United staff in which he said “I emphatically stand behind all of you, and I want to commend all of you for continuing to go ahead and beyond to ensure we fly right” and described the passenger as “belligerent” this compounded the crisis into an even worst scandal scenario.

By Wednesday morning, a new statement had been issued with much more conciliatory tone (maybe the lawyers had finally let the PR people into the room?) and the CEO did an exclusive interview with ABC News. However this could be viewed as a bit too little, too late, although there was an admission of guilt, an apology and commitment to never let something similar happen in the future there were a few slips into corporate language and phrasing that would certainly grate with a UK audience. Munoz refers to “my messaging” (classic PR jargon), United staff as “our family” and the incident as “a bad moment” and a “systems failure”. Perhaps most revealingly was the very long pause after the interviewer asked him whether the passenger was at fault before Munoz said “no”. If United truly want to resolve this situation they not only need to say they are sorry but be seen to really mean it.

If nothing else, this whole incident is a good prompt of some of the basic rules for handling a crisis situation:

  • Time is of the essence
  • Express empathy
  • If you have made a mistake – own up and take responsibility
  • Don’t submit to the urge to be defensive – blaming others gets you nowhere
  • Talk as if talking to your grandmother – in polite plain English
#Legsit – Is national outrage actually what the Daily Mail wanted?

#Legsit – Is national outrage actually what the Daily Mail wanted?

This morning’s “legs-it” headline is shocking and has, quite rightly, caused a wave of condemnation from every sphere of the UK. The throw-back to 1950’s everyday sexism has shocked even the most ardent Daily Mail detractors with the first edition seemingly unabashed by its adherent headline, and the second edition trying to soften the blow by saying it was columnist Sarah Vine’s “light-hearted verdict on the big showdown”.

In the minutes and hours since it hit our newsstands a lot has been written about how this is an objectification of women; how demeaning it is and how two of the, arguably, most powerful women in the UK have been reduced to shallow comments about their bodies detracting from the extremely important constitutional debate they were discussing.

The centuries-old tradition of British journalism is to distinguish ‘fact’ from ‘opinion’, to investigate and analyse as cornerstone of our democratic society. Whilst there is a tacit understanding from the public that certain papers reflect differing political views, the expectation is still that the news is reported. The Daily Mail seems to have completely forgotten this, devoting two whole pages to writing about how the two leaders looked rather than what was discussed.

Perpetuating the myth that a female’s self-worth is based on her looks and the continual sexualisation of women is something the media has been striving to address, however it seems every couple of steps forward is matched by a step backwards.

So what fuels the Mail to run a headline like this? Is it an alpha-male fear that there are now more and more women in positions of power and are taking decisions which will impact all of us? I doubt it.

What motivates Sarah Vine to opine on other women in this way? Woman are frequently reminded of the damage done by passing judgement on their fellow females. Does she genuinely believe it or is it just a case of self-publicity for the Vine / Gove household? She’s been on record saying “that you shouldn’t judge people by their clothes, or where they live, but by who they really are” surely this should also apply to judging people by their bodies.

As much as we might all be disgusted by the views pushed in the Mail, it can’t be denied that there are some intelligent people working there, the proprietors of one of the UK’s biggest newspapers didn’t send it out last night without realising there would be a backlash. Could this all be a cynical marketing stunt? In an era where traditional media consumption is falling, the motivation to drive publicity is immense. More people are talking about the Daily Mail today than they were last week, it has been discussed relentlessly on TV, the radio, other newspaper websites, on Twitter and elsewhere. The ‘Daily Mail’ brand is being amplified and its controversial reputation is being promoted nationally.

With the old traditions of journalism at risk, the rise of extremist views and provocation for the sake of clicks, is the media on the dawn of an even more perilous time than we anticipated?