A review of the top ten public relations crisis events in 2018 (Part 2)

The second part of the top ten crisis public relations events (groups) in 2018, that is, another five cases, are:

6. The Chongqing college entrance examination "political review" incident and the Zhejiang weighted scoring incident;

7. Yu Minhong publicly discriminated against women;

8. Country Garden series of collapse accidents;

9. Quangang concealed the carbon nine leakage incident;

10. Great Wall and Geely accused each other of being “black PR agents”.

Next, let us present in detail the inventory of the five cases in the second part of the top ten crisis public relations events (groups) in 2018:

——Case 06——

Chongqing College Entrance Examination "Political Review" Controversy and Zhejiang's Weighted Scoring

"CCTV's 'First Lesson of the School Year' was criticized by the whole nation" is just an incident in which media organizations are the main body of the public opinion crisis event. The Chongqing college entrance examination "political review" storm can be regarded as a case in which government agencies and media organizations become a pair of CPs in the same public opinion event. Through a simple review of the events, we can find that there are two points worth noting in this matter: one is the rapid reversal, and the other is that denial is a slap in the face. Of course, these two points are closely related, and the connection lies in the "fact" element of the three elements of crisis management.

The key information in the first round of responses from the Chongqing Municipal Education Examination Institute include two points: First, Chongqing strictly follows the spirit of the Ministry of Education and has always been in line with the documents of the Ministry of Education without any changes; second, regarding the political review, the reporter misunderstood the "assessment of ideological and political aspects and the review of actual performance", which was a one-sided misreading and misunderstanding by the media. In fact, there is nothing wrong with the first key information, the problem lies with the second point. Therefore, from the perspective of the contact point, the problem with the public opinion handling of this incident lies in the "general press spokesperson operation system", which is manifested in the improper performance of the gatekeeper role. As Chongqing Institute of Education said in its second round of response, "the information released by our institute is not expressed in a standardized and accurate manner, and the review is not strict..." The warning significance of this incident is that the more drastically the media and communication environment changes, the more a basic work for any organization to carry out public relations communication, public opinion response and crisis management: information gatekeeping, as well as the role and strength of the "gatekeeper", should not be ignored or weakened, but should be further valued and strengthened.

For example, a few days ago, a startup company adjusted its business layout in some cities based on market feedback. In theory, this is one of the company's very normal business practices. However, the company adopted a quiet adjustment approach because it was worried that the media would report it as "encountering business difficulties" after the information was made public. However, some media still paid attention to this situation. During the interview, the company's adjusted business manager, customer service center, and corporate public relations gave the media three different statements of information. As a result, the media interpreted it as "operational difficulties" or even "layoffs" in their reports. In fact, in such a situation, if companies can proactively formulate a unified message tone and actively communicate with the media, they can actually seize the initiative better. This is a typical situation where the role of “gatekeeper” needs to be strengthened.

In addition to Chongqing's college entrance examination "political review" controversy, there is also Zhejiang's weighted scoring incident. Because they both belong to the education field and involve relevant government departments, they are studied together as a group of crisis public relations events in 2018. The difference is that the problem with the weighted scoring incident in Zhejiang lies at the contact point of "policy supervision system and operating rules", which is manifested in the illegal use of the weighted scoring rule leading to wrong decision-making. This is undoubtedly a serious consequence for the behavior of the government department in charge, which involves the vital interests of many families and candidates and has wide public attention.

The Zhejiang weighted scoring incident is not only a warning to government departments, but also for enterprises, especially new economy enterprises that have developed rapidly in recent years. They also need to pay more attention to the factor of "policy supervision system and operating rules", such as the industry access and lack of qualifications faced by Internet companies in making cars. There are two reasons for this. First, most of the business operations of these companies are in the field of innovation, and they face problems with lagging policy supervision or regulations. When public opinion risks or crises occur, they are prone to encountering a lack of standards as a basis for judgment, and fall into a situation of emotional judgment. Second, these companies themselves have relatively shallow accumulation and still have a large number of developing problems internally. There are many opportunities to trigger public opinion risks or crises, and it is easy to produce a chain reaction, which will not only involve other internal contact points, but may even drag down the entire industry.

——Case 07——

Yu Minhong openly discriminates against women

Today is an era where controversy is prevalent. This is a significant manifestation of the Internet's decentralization in the dissemination of public opinion. Yu Minhong's public statement that "the degeneration of Chinese women has led to the degeneration of the entire country" aroused the outrage of women. This can be regarded as a concentrated interpretation of this controversy from the perspective of values, and also gave many people a vivid lesson in value dispute management.

The reason why it is vivid is not that Yu Minhong apologized quickly, but that he accurately used a "ladder" to apologize quickly, and this "ladder" is the All-China Women's Federation. In fact, using a "ladder" is one of the smart ways to handle crisis public relations. The most worth learning from Baidu's previous handling of the crisis of the "Wei Zexi" incident was that it accurately and successfully used a "ladder": the joint investigation team, which became the key to its escape from the vortex of the "Wei Zexi" incident. Without a "ladder", neither Yu Minhong personally nor Baidu as a company would be able to achieve the crisis management results we can currently see simply by actively admitting mistakes, apologizing, and making corrections.

In addition, there are actually many specific forms of value dispute management. The "Chief Enabler" summarizes several more representative situations, which can provide reference and guidance for more precise and accurate value dispute management:

<1> The phenomenon of taking sides in public relations and brand stories. For example, regarding the “Tomato and Egg” advertisement of China Merchants Bank, some people think that the story of this advertisement expresses warm emotions and the selfless love of parents, while others understand that the story carries the complex of “mama’s boy” and “giant baby”.

<2> The collective gap between legal standards and moral boundaries. For example, in response to the "Brother Long hacked people and was killed" incident in Kunshan, Jiangsu, and the child being robbed in Beijing's Dahongmen shopping mall, a considerable number of the public inadvertently expressed doubts about the legal standards, which accumulated into corresponding emotional expressions.

<3> The inherent defects of the business model and the choice of capital. For example, the famous investor Zhu Xiaohu’s “not investing in people born after 1960” caused dissatisfaction among some entrepreneurs, and recently Kai-Fu Lee’s “buying a car investment theory” was publicly responded to by Li Xiang with swear words. They all have a bit of the uncomfortable feeling of being “despised”, but in fact, they are just the choice of capital.

<IV> The proposition of unifying organizational and individual values ​​is facing collapse. The BlueFocus “dismissal scandal” mentioned in “Chief Empowerment Officer’s Top Ten Crisis Public Relations Events of 2018 (Part 1)” is one such incident. Another example is the famous saying “I go to work for money. Don’t talk to me about ideals. My ideal is not to go to work”.

<Five> The "executive black hole" phenomenon is basically a disaster area for the founding and executive teams of companies. In addition to Yu Minhong's "female degeneration" remarks mentioned above, there are also cases such as Pinduoduo founder Huang Zheng's "copycat does not mean fake" theory and Volvo Asia Pacific President Yuan Xiaolin's "mistress" analogy, which can all be regarded as such situations.

——Case 08——

A series of collapse accidents occurred in Country Garden

Using the contact point review tool to analyze the "series of collapse accidents in Country Garden" incident, we can identify the "products, services and their carriers" as the element with major problems. The response measures taken by Country Garden not only failed to resolve the risks, but instead aggravated the crisis level of the damage point of "business philosophy and values." There is another question that may be a potential risk that many people, including Country Garden, may still ignore. That is, under the elements of "policy supervision system and operating rules", will the regulatory authorities intervene in the investigation of a real estate company that has experienced multiple consecutive collapse accidents? At present, this risk factor has not actually been eliminated and has become an unavoidable obstacle in crisis management.

Therefore, after Country Garden held a media apology meeting, the "Chief Empowerment Officer" had a somewhat "watch the fun" point of view: focus on the key issues, it is better to say less than more, it is better to do something than to say less, Country Garden needs the determination and sincerity to tear down a few buildings!

Unfortunately, Country Garden obviously did not intend to make such a decision, nor did it have such sincerity. Instead, it chose a way of responding by expressing grievances to gain sympathy. In fact, behind this kind of complaint, there is a strong attempt to defend and a fluke dominated by controlling thinking. Especially in the press conference at the cusp of the storm, the intention of "bribery" by adopting high-standard material hospitality standards is really a bit "obvious", and the consequence is naturally not surprising: the media conference has almost become a meeting that actively provides negative materials.

Although Country Garden also vowed to ensure the quality of housing construction and played a series of "public welfare combination" cards in succession, it tried to repair the public's distrust. However, whether the adverse effects brought about by the continuous collapse incidents can be resolved from the root remains a question. After all, so far, Country Garden has not announced the cause of the collapse accident. Perhaps companies wishfully believe that these problems can be completely turned around as time goes by, but the reality is more likely that once any other public opinion incidents occur, all the "underlying negativity" will be "dug out" again and written into new reports as "supplementary materials."

However, from another perspective, it can be said that the "series of collapse accidents in Country Garden" was a realistic crisis drill for the entire real estate industry. It is understood that after this incident, not only Country Garden, but all real estate companies have stepped up the construction of public relations systems. Look at it positively and regard this as another contribution made by Country Garden to the industry.

——Case 09——

Quangang concealed the carbon nine leakage accident

The carbon nine leakage in Quangang, Fujian, and the subsequent chemical explosion in Zhangjiakou, Hebei, were two serious safety accidents in 2018. According to media reports, "Quanzhou Mayor Wang Yongli reported that after investigation by the investigation team, the company involved in the Quangang cracking carbon nine leakage accident had serious production safety risks and violated regulations when the leakage occurred." The actual amount of carbon nine leakage in the accident was as high as 69.1 tons, which not only caused air and water pollution in the accident area, but also brought corresponding impacts to the production of surrounding companies and people's lives. According to China's Ministry of Emergency Management, "Preliminary investigation has determined that the direct cause of the November 28 explosion in Zhangjiakou City, Hebei Province was a leak in a vinyl chloride gas tank at China National Chemical Corporation Hebei Shenghua Chemical Co., Ltd., which spread to the highway outside the factory and exploded when it encountered an open flame." The accident caused 23 deaths and 22 injuries.

In addition to causing serious losses and exposing problems in the safety production management of related companies, the emergency responses to the two accidents also have many similarities. The most typical point is that there are attempts to conceal, cover up or deny the truth.

There is a deep-seated reason behind this behavior: the relevant companies, like Country Garden, not only have serious problems in the prevention mechanism of crisis management, but are still accustomed to using "control thinking" to consider problems after accidents occur. They do their best to conceal the truth, restrict media interviews, delete related reports, and naively believe that they can make the problem smaller or even disappear. However, this ultimately backfired, delaying the opportunity to take correct measures and recover losses, and making it difficult for the relevant responsible persons to escape more severe punishment. In these two accidents, several responsible persons were also punished accordingly.

In fact, the reason is very simple. It involves public safety and human lives. We must give up control thinking and fluke mentality, actively face the real situation of the accident, take correct measures, and strive to reduce the loss of life and property; at the same time, do a good job of information disclosure, guide the media to report relevant developments in a timely and accurate manner, stabilize people's hearts, and avoid the spread of panic. This is the only correct way. Only in this way can the relevant responsible persons have the opportunity to be forgiven and seek a reduction in punishment.

However, even if we take a step back, any post-accident handling, no matter how correct or perfect, can at best reduce the losses to a lower level, which is bad. The best case scenario is that no accidents occur or fewer accidents occur. Therefore, the first choice is to implement risk prevention awareness into daily life and before risks occur. Fundamentally speaking, good crisis public relations is based on proactive "prevention" first, and passive response only when necessary. It is not difficult to find that for companies recognized as service leaders such as Haidilao and China Merchants Bank, public relations will be much easier to deal with because their service reputation is a solid defense system; if they encounter crisis public relations, it will be easier to deal with because their service reputation can exert a strong crisis resolution capability.

——Case 10——

Great Wall and Geely accuse each other of being "black PR"

In 2018, there were endless conflicts between companies, the media, individuals, and individuals... The most noteworthy one was the one between Great Wall and Geely accusing each other of "black public relations". This incident can be regarded as a successful example of crisis public relations handling cases this year.

Why do I say so?

Let’s first look at the basic context of the incident:

Step 1 Screenshots of Geely’s “troll army” discussing how to attack competitors appeared on the Internet;

Step 2 Great Wall issued a statement saying that it had been subjected to a large number of malicious attacks and slander for a long time, and had reported the case and reported it, directly accusing Geely of engaging in "black public relations";

Step 3 Geely denied the accusation, conducted an internal investigation, reported the online screenshots to the police, and sued Great Wall;

Step 4 Many independent automobile companies responded to Great Wall and initiated the establishment of the "China Automobile Industry Self-Discipline Alliance" with it to fight against Geely;

Step 5 The police announced that they had arrested people who produced and spread information related to the "Geely Water Army";

Step 6 Geely and Great Wall held talks and issued a joint statement saying that the previous related issues had been investigated by the police and that someone had impersonated a Geely employee and fabricated false information, leading to misunderstandings. They also expressed that both parties were willing to eliminate misunderstandings, withdraw related lawsuits, establish multi-level communication channels and dialogue mechanisms, and take joint actions to seek opportunities for cooperative development.

As of the deadline for this review, Great Wall's high-end sub-brand WEY held its second anniversary press conference, with heads of many domestic independent automobile companies, including Geely Chairman Li Shufu, jointly supporting it. This situation is not only unprecedented in the automotive industry, but also rare in other industries. The "Chief Enablement Officer" believes that this shows that a crisis that was originally between two companies in the industry and was even threatening to go to court was not only successfully resolved, but has also been transformed into an unprecedented cohesion and unity of industry forces. This is what many public relations professionals desire: “turning crisis into opportunity” or “turning crisis into opportunity”.

Why is this possible?

Let's go back to using the touchpoint review tool to analyze this incident. It is first reflected in the "competitive partners and their relationships" factor. The damage can be viewed from several levels: at the very least, it will affect the reputation and business development of the two companies, and at worst, it will cause the entire Chinese auto brand to fall into division; from the root and long-term perspective, it will ultimately be of no benefit to consumers. It can be said that it is possible to lead to a lose-lose situation.

Fortunately, the companies involved were able to eventually eliminate the conflict and get on the track of dialogue. Behind this is the keen strategic insight and grand vision of the company's top decision makers, and is also inextricably linked to the professional efforts of the public relations team.

There is another background that needs to be explained about this incident: the two companies involved, especially the top leaders of both sides, are very low-key and pragmatic. However, after the incident, the top leaders of both sides, especially Geely Chairman Li Shufu, personally intervened, convened an internal investigation, and expressed corresponding attitudes. It can be said that it was this action that provided direction and laid the foundation for the subsequent changes in the matter.

In comparison, another corporate dispute this year was not so pretty. Tencent and ByteDance accused each other of "black public relations," which basically manifested itself as a round-by-round war of words of "you punch me, I kick you back," and they were always out of the realm of shaking hands and making peace, and building up their strength.

There are actually many similar CPs involved in verbal battles, such as Mobike and OFO. Regarding this phenomenon of companies, especially competitors, accusing each other of being "black PR", the "Chief Enablement Officer" once said a few words to a public relations director of a certain company who was full of grievances. I would like to share them here as a conclusion to this year's top ten crisis public relations events:

Source: Chief Enablement Officer (ID:chiefuller)