In Crisis...Dunkin' Donuts

Last week, Dunkin’ Donuts pulled an ad featuring Rachael Ray after conservative pundits equated a scarf she was wearing to a keffiyeh, a (very common) traditional male Arab headdress, which Michelle Malkin so eloquently called "jihad chic." With a firestorm brewing in the blogosphere and the threat of a boycott, the company nixed the ad at near lightening speed. I'm not going to debate the merit of such a foolishly broad generalization, like calling everyone that wears a keffiyeh a terrorist. Instead, let's talk Dunkin' Donuts crisis communication strategy.

When it was first brought to their attention, the company tried to explain that the scarf wasn't a keffiyeh. Not long after, the online chatter got so loud, Dunkin' Donuts pulled it and released this statement:

In a recent online ad, Rachael Ray is wearing a black-and-white silk scarf with a paisley design. It was selected by her stylist for the advertising shoot. Absolutely no symbolism was intended. However, given the possibility of misperception, we are no longer using the commercial.

Were they that afraid a "boycott" would affect long-term sales and reputation? Did they think, as the Brand Man notes, that by pulling the ad they would avoid major negative publicity? Often times, when a company is under attack, it is easy to get caught up in all of the incoming stimuli (e-mails, calls into consumer care, etc.) and not step back from fray to look at the big picture. Of course, I don't know what tools Dunkin' Donuts has in place to monitor all of their stakeholders (and it is way easier to do an analysis of a crisis after the fact) but the company acted like it had only a limited picture of online discussion and public opinion.

In the end, the company received significantly more media attention after they took the ad off the air; some of it critical of the decision. Taking the temperature of the rest of the blogosphere (and TV punditry), they would have found the public overwhelmingly in their favor. Instead, they seemed to cave to a small but very loud constituency. They may have fared better addressing the information in the blogosphere first and then, when discussion turned mainstream, leveraging public annoyance about the accusations against the ones who started the issue in the first place.

Putting it on Paper: PR News' Crisis Management Guidebook

We were very happy to receive word last month that an article I co-authored with my mentor, Erik Mueller (who just started a great new job in New York), made the cut into PR News' Crisis Management Guidebook. The book came out just this week and features articles written by some great crisis experts - people whose blogs/articles I try to read on a regular basis - like Richard Levick and Jim Lukaszewski. The Guidebook runs the gamut of crisis management, from crisis planning, to response and recovery. Crisisblogger has a great post today about the Guidebook.

Our article is titled "Hoax Busting: Managing Gossip and Rumors Online," and draws upon our group's experience counseling companies though some major issues on the web, including some pretty malicious e-mail hoaxes. Sometimes an e-mail hoax or online rumor can, at first, be easily passed over or fly under the radar; however, some can turn into serious accusations that can spread like wildfire and erode reputations. While it's important to treat each situation individually and not overreact, we developed a two-tiered system, leveraging internal, reactive response resources and proactive outreach. Here are four recommendations from the article:

• Engage in a web-based response
  
• This may seem like common sense, but a new media rumor needs to be addressed with new media techniques. Sending a press release or engaging traditional media may be necessary in some situations, but in general, make use of your own web page, increase your visibility by engaging in SEO/SMO
  techniques, etc.

• Enlist employees as advocates
• Keep them informed and engaged. If it's a popular e-mail hoax, chances are they've probably been alert multiple times by their friends and family.

• Create an integrated consumer response
• Many consumers inquiring about a hoax (via phone, e-mail, etc.) will be loyal users of your product or service. Therefore it is critical to respond to every inquiry with consistent messaging that dispels the rumor and focuses on the facts. In some cases, you may want to consider asking consumers to help further debunk the hoax by having them send an e-mail clarifying the confusion to those who initially sent it to them.

• Dispatch the "Truth Squad"
• While every situation is different, it may be beneficial to engage some of the popular hoax-busting web sites, like Snopes or Truth or Fiction, to ensure the hoax is debunked in a credible, third-party place. If the rumor is prevalent enough online, having a company representative transparently debunk the rumor on important/influential blogs or forums (and directing readers to a posted credible explanation) may go a long way in setting the record straight.

Of course, extensive, ongoing monitoring of the blogosphere, customer service channels and other avenues is key to formulating a measured response. Not every negative thing said about a company online necessitates a response, so it's important to get a handle on how prevalent a hoax is before determining a full response plan. This monitoring can be easily incorporated into a regular issues program to make response and strategy a structured and effective process.