American Airlines recently had it’s own viral video problem. Nothing on the scale of United dragging a bleeding man off a plane, but still atrocious. For American, we can all stipulate that when a flight attendant is hollering at a customer, saying “come on, hit me!” after said flight attendant allegedly pulled a stroller violently from a mother holding a baby then things have probably gone to a place that makes crisis communications professionals — and most of humanity — cringe. Yet, there is something to learn from how American handled a tough situation well.

Understanding what United did wrong in its now famous PR fumble for the ages is key to understanding what went right for American:

1. United justified itself with rules rather than responding with empathy
2. United focused on itself, not the customer, in the CEO’s first statement
3. United blamed the victim in an email to employees rather than be accountable

What United should have done was:

1. Show empathy
2. Focus on the customer
3. Take responsibility

Perhaps no surprise then that American did in their response exactly what United should have done. Here’s the American statement, worth quoting in full:

We have seen the video and have already started an investigation to obtain the facts. What we see on this video does not reflect our values or how we care for our customers. We are deeply sorry for the pain we have caused this passenger and her family and to any other customers affected by the incident. We are making sure all of her family’s needs are being met while she is in our care. After electing to take another flight, we are taking special care of her and her family and upgrading them to first class for the remainder of their international trip.

The actions of our team member captured here do not appear to reflect patience or empathy, two values necessary for customer care. In short, we are disappointed by these actions. The American team member has been removed from duty while we immediately investigate this incident.

American showed empathy

They acknowledged up front they had “seen the video” and “started an investigation,” but importantly didn’t wait to go further. The next sentence of the statement established empathy further — and focus on the customer — by declaring what they saw didn’t reflect their values or the way they expect customers to be treated. In short, the statement immediately aligned with the lay public’s reaction: this is wrong and something needs to be done about it.

Note, American threaded the needle by giving themselves some wiggle room in referring to what they saw in the video that was in the news, while still investigating the facts. That placates the lawyers who rightly will want to know if there are additional facts (and video) that mitigate or change the situation. Not likely in this incident, but an important consideration in managing legal risk in crisis communications, while also showing empathy and regret that the customer obviously had a bad experience.

American focused on the customer

Building on the empathy already established at the start of the statement, American responded directly to the customer saying they were “deeply sorry,” while notably declaring they had given her a first class upgrade for the remainder of the trip and were “taking special care of her and her family.” That statement assures the troubled viewer of the video that American is making things right.

Significantly, the sentence preceding the description of what American was doing to remedy things for their customer said “[w]e are making sure all of her family’s needs are being met while she is in our care.” [emphasis added]. That’s a subtle yet powerful statement of empathy and focus on the customer. A passenger is getting in a metal tube to be transported by a trained crew roughly 30,000 feet in the air to another part of the world. Yes, any customer is likely to feel that they’re “in your care,” not just part of a transaction. Acknowledging that fact was wise and effective.

American took accountability

From the start to the end of the statement American owned what was visible to any video viewer: a customer experience had gone south, with an employee of the company making a shockingly bad representation of the organization. As such, that employee rightly went under the bus: “removed from duty while we immediately investigate this incident.” All the more laudable on American’s part because they’ll inevitably have to fight the employee’s union, which already blamed the airline and passengers.

American’s timely public statement coincided with the airline visibly taking accountability on Twitter (where United notably flubbed), taking ownership in 140 characters, including linking to their statement:

Make that taking complete accountability:

The news media coverage of this incident with American, with its still troubling video, was nothing of what United endured. American protected its image in part by getting out quickly with an acceptable response before the media storm grew. That’s a stark contrast to United’s need for repeated statements over several days.

That speed to response allowed the company’s statement to be unattributed on its website and attributed to spokesperson Leslie Scott in direct media inquires. That’s a subtle yet huge communications win in protecting American’s reputation. You only want to use a senior executive’s voice, especially the CEO, when absolutely necessary in crisis, because the reputational risks escalate exponentially if those statements and/or interviews don’t accomplish the desired mission.

Example: I was VP of Corporate Communications at Premera Blue Cross when it announced a significant cyberattack in 2015. We knew the announcement would receive intense media attention nationally and locally, especially coming on the heels of another such announcement by Anthem Blue Cross just weeks prior. We, with input from some great outside advisers, deliberately chose to put me out front for the flurry of expected initial media inquires, even though the (still) CEO is a great communicator.

Thus, we still used an executive spokesperson for a non-stop stretch of media interviews over a couple days, but held the CEO in reserve. He taped a public video statement, was quoted in our press release, and announced the news internally, but did no live media interviews on the topic. We also owned the issue up front, apologized, and provided an immediate solution for customers. The result: the worst of the media storm was largely over in a couple news cycles, with no CEO interviews needed.

That’s exactly what American accomplished, sparring senior leadership from having to take on the risk of tough media interviews in a crisis, which is a credit to the American Airlines team. Don’t think that’s important? Ask Oscar Munoz at United.

In sum, an exceptional performance by the American Airlines team to respond quickly and effectively, mitigating the initial PR problem and protecting the company and the brand from imminent additional damage. While it’s easy to pick on United’s mistakes, it’s more instructive to have a positive case study from an industry peer so readily at hand for contrast.

Originally published at my LinkedIn page.

United’s now famous April 10th PR meltdown over Flight 3441 will be a case study in how not to respond to a crisis. You can bet United’s competitors are watching and dissecting what worked and what didn’t to incorporate into their own thinking.

No matter how the Flight 3441 incident turns out for United over time, they made three serious mistakes in the first 24 hours of their PR response that all organizations and communications professionals can learn from and consider for the future.

1)     United justified itself with rules rather than responding with empathy

This error was immediately egregious on Twitter, where the constraints of 140 characters combined with a lack of empathy to make for an inadequate first line response to protecting the brand.

While expressing a hint of regret, apologizing for the “overbook situation” is vague and the tweet as a whole demonstrates a horrific lack of empathy for a passenger that was dragged off the plane bleeding. A basic sense of humanity via an expression of regret for a bad customer experience, no matter who is at fault, is a wise starting point for a very public-facing customer brand.

Notably, this approach to immediate social media responses isn’t uncommon for United. They responded just as poorly to the recent – though less horrific – controversy where several passengers were denied boarding while wearing leggings.

This was one of a number of United tweets on this issue that referred to the rule, not any empathy that a passenger was inconvenienced (and other customers flummoxed). Yes, 140 characters isn’t a lot to work with, but thread a couple tweets or find a way to otherwise express regret and sympathy. A corporate Twitter account is a brand platform, not just a customer service vehicle.

2)     United focused on itself, not the customer, in the CEO’s first statement

The statement leads with how United feels, when interested members of the flying public – and equally aghast journalists covering the story – expected a basic sense of humanity and regret that things ended the way it did. Focusing on themselves is a subtle hint United is still an inward-facing corporate culture, rather than the customer-facing corporate cultures that are thriving today (think Amazon). That’s an understandable reality given a messy corporate merger that required a lot of internal attention (and evoked negative customer responses like this), but it’s a serious problem.

Then there is “re-accommodate;” now a thriving point of mockery on Twitter and destined to live in the annals of ignominious crisis communications responses. That word choice indicated lawyers and/or executives better at business than PR were winning internal crisis messaging battles. No communications professional worth half of what United can pay would use that word by choice.

“Re-accommodate” rendered the feint apology in same sentence moot, while the rest of the text showed little real empathy or serious introspection that United understood something horrible had happened that would make their current and future customers very angry with them unless they addressed it transparently and sincerely.

3)     United blamed the victim in an email to employees rather than be accountable

The leading message in the CEO’s email is standing up for his employees. Supporting the team is an important step for a leader, especially in an environment where organizational culture has challenges. But, there was a better way.

Assuming the employees did “follow established procedures,” there comes a point where as a leader you have to say: “we followed all the rules…and it still resulted in a bad outcome for our customer. We’re going to take a hard look at how we do business to make sure our customers get the experience we hope to provide every day.”

I worked in health insurance for years. We found a lot of procedures designed to provide an efficient internal solution but didn’t produce the desired customer experience. It’s not rocket science to identify, but acting on it requires leadership.

The second message in the email was to blame the victim, declaring him “belligerent and disruptive.” That might have worked in the era before social media and smart phone videos. It doesn’t now. A 69-year-old, bespectacled doctor was dragged bleeding from one of your company’s airplanes, United. The lay viewer isn’t going to believe he’s at fault, especially after he properly took his assigned seat during the boarding process and was only then told to get off because one of your employees needed the seat instead.

After all that, the CEO’s vague talk of “lessons we can learn” and treating customers “with respect and dignity” at the end of the note were near worthless because the rest of the email was so bad.

What it all means

It’s fair to speculate some of United own employees reacted adversely after seeing the news coverage of their employer and contrasted that with their CEO’s email. Or a rough Tuesday on Wall Street for United woke up the executive team. Or the communications professionals started winning the internal messaging war. Whatever the sequence or combination, someone at United wrote an infinitely better response for the CEO today, declaring the incident “truly horrific,” expressing “deepest apologies,” and saying “no one should ever be mistreated this way.”

More importantly for any attempt to heal the company’s reputation, the CEO pledged to “make it right” and review all the applicable policies and procedures involved in the sequence of events.

Outstanding.

Except it was more than a day and several news cycles too late, after large swaths of the flying public saw the news, saw United’s initial responses, and have already soured on the United brand. Instead of doing the right thing on day one, United will have to win back the customers it lost with its first 24 hours of bumbling. That’s going to cost them.

What happens to United is anyone’s guess. But, learning from their experience provides a good place to start for leaders and communications professionals finding themselves in a similarly unenviable crisis in the future:

• Show empathy
• Focus on the customer
• Take responsibility

Simple rules to avoid a lot of trouble in this era of fast-moving modern media.

United’s now famous April 10th PR meltdown over Flight 3441 will be a case study in how not to respond to a crisis. You can bet United’s competitors are watching and dissecting what worked and what didn’t to incorporate into their own thinking.

No matter how the Flight 3441 incident turns out for United over time, they made three serious mistakes in the first 24 hours of their PR response that all organizations and communications professionals can learn from and consider for the future.

1)     United justified itself with rules rather than responding with empathy

This error was immediately egregious on Twitter, where the constraints of 140 characters combined with a lack of empathy to make for an inadequate first line response to protecting the brand.

While expressing a hint of regret, apologizing for the “overbook situation” is vague and the tweet as a whole demonstrates a horrific lack of empathy for a passenger that was dragged off the plane bleeding. A basic sense of humanity via an expression of regret for a bad customer experience, no matter who is at fault, is a wise starting point for a very public-facing customer brand.

Notably, this approach to immediate social media responses isn’t uncommon for United. They responded just as poorly to the recent – though less horrific – controversy where several passengers were denied boarding while wearing leggings.

This was one of a number of United tweets on this issue that referred to the rule, not any empathy that a passenger was inconvenienced (and other customers flummoxed). Yes, 140 characters isn’t a lot to work with, but thread a couple tweets or find a way to otherwise express regret and sympathy. A corporate Twitter account is a brand platform, not just a customer service vehicle.

2)     United focused on itself, not the customer, in the CEO’s first statement

The statement leads with how United feels, when interested members of the flying public – and equally aghast journalists covering the story – expected a basic sense of humanity and regret that things ended the way it did. Focusing on themselves is a subtle hint United is still an inward-facing corporate culture, rather than the customer-facing corporate cultures that are thriving today (think Amazon). That’s an understandable reality given a messy corporate merger that required a lot of internal attention (and evoked negative customer responses like this), but it’s a serious problem.

Then there is “re-accommodate;” now a thriving point of mockery on Twitter and destined to live in the annals of ignominious crisis communications responses. That word choice indicated lawyers and/or executes better at business than PR were winning internal crisis messaging battles. No communications professional worth half of what United can pay would use that word by choice.

“Re-accommodate” rendered the feint apology in same sentence moot, while the rest of the text showed little real empathy or serious introspection that United understood something horrible had happened that would make their current and future customers very angry with them unless they addressed it transparently and sincerely.

3)     United blamed the victim in an email to employees rather than be accountable

The leading message in the CEO’s email is standing up for his employees. Supporting the team is an important step for a leader, especially in an environment where organizational culture has challenges. But, there was a better way.

Assuming the employees did “follow established procedures,” there comes a point where as a leader you have to say: “we followed all the rules…and it still resulted in a bad outcome for our customer. We’re going to take a hard look at how we do business to make sure our customers get the experience we hope to provide every day.”

I worked in health insurance for years. We found a lot of procedures designed to provide an efficient internal solution but didn’t produce the desired customer experience. It’s not rocket science to identify, but acting on it requires leadership.

The second message in the email was to blame the victim, declaring him “belligerent and disruptive.” That might have worked in the era before social media and smart phone videos. It doesn’t now. A 69-year-old, bespectacled doctor was dragged bleeding from one of your company’s airplanes, United. The lay viewer isn’t going to believe he’s at fault, especially after he properly took his assigned seat during the boarding process and was only then told to get off because one of your employees needed the seat instead.

After all that, the CEO’s vague talk of “lessons we can learn” and treating customers “with respect and dignity” at the end of the note were near worthless because the rest of the email was so bad.

What it all means

It’s fair to speculate some of United own employees reacted adversely after seeing the news coverage of their employer and contrasted that with their CEO’s email. Or a rough Tuesday on Wall Street for United woke up the executive team. Or the communications professionals started winning the internal messaging war. Whatever the sequence or combination, someone at United wrote an infinitely better response for the CEO today, declaring the incident “truly horrific,” expressing “deepest apologies,” and saying “no one should ever be mistreated this way.”

More importantly for any attempt to heal the company’s reputation, the CEO pledged to “make it right” and review all the applicable policies and procedures involved in the sequence of events.

Outstanding.

Except it was more than a day and several news cycles too late, after large swaths of the flying public saw the news, saw United’s initial responses, and have already soured on the United brand. Instead of doing the right thing on day one, United will have to win back the customers it lost with its first 24 hours of bumbling. That’s going to cost them.

What happens to United is anyone’s guess. But, learning from their experience provides a good place to start for leaders and communications professionals finding themselves in a similarly unenviable crisis in the future:

• Show empathy
• Focus on the customer
• Take responsibility

Simple rules to avoid a lot of trouble in this era of fast-moving modern media.

Originally published on my LinkedIn page.