My Blog

There are times when I love my job and truly believe in the merit of PR. When I try to explain the nature of my job to older folks who can’t quite grasp the concept, I do away with terminology like "key messages" or "crisis management". Learning from past experience, what you think sounds fairly simple may as well sound like Zulu to another (lawyers, take heed). And so I put PR very simply as "the eyes, ears and mouthpiece of an organization."

But, unfortunately, there are times when the mouthpiece isn’t linked to the brain, when all PR merely stands for is Phony Representation. And these are times when I feel jaded and disillusioned because if I wanted to peddle lies, I would have gone into advertising. Or politics. At least they would be much more financially rewarding. And heck, if you’re going to go to hell, you might as well enjoy the trip there.

Anyway. The reason for my ramblings is a recent case that should be a future textbook study for local PR students on how not to manage a crisis.

In a quick summary of the Bausch & Lomb eyecare scare, cases of contact lens-related fungal eye infections had been widely reported in Singapore and Hong Kong. Cases had been linked to the use of B&L’s ReNu contact lens solution which led the company to voluntarily suspend sales of the product in both countries.

This, of course, led to a panic among Malaysian users of ReNu, especially after the Tun Hussein Onn Eye Hospital listed 14 cases of infective keratisis.

Based on this data, the Ministry of Health ordered the withdrawal of all ReNu products from the shelves although they gave no time frame for the recall.

3 days later, B&L released a press statement with a rather defiant stance. What they said was that they would not withdraw their products unless they had official instruction from the MoH. So basically, what they really meant was that they weren’t going to recall their products, even if there was the potential danger that people using them were going to have mushrooms sprouting from their eyes, unless they were forced to by the government. What heartwarming corporate values.

Of course I know a product recall involves massive losses and the admission that there is something wrong with your product. There are more implications involved than what we can see on the surface - imagine being the CEO and having to explain this to a room full of shareholders as your stock prices plummet. But I think the negative impact is only short-term. Companies that are seen to place consumer well-being over corporate profits will raise their bottomline in the long run.

But what if there truly is nothing wrong with the product? What if the eye fungal infections weren’t caused by ReNu at all? There are many, many causes for such infections, after all. And is taking responsibility for something that isn’t even your fault, in the first place, the right thing to do?

Well, that was the same problem faced by Johnson & Johnson when several people died after consuming Tylenol in a classic study of good crisis management. J&J could have dismissed them as isolated incidents that stemmed from product tampering in an attempt to absolve themselves from any blame. But instead, they put consumer safety first by having a massive recall of all Tylenol products from the market with a retail value of more than US$100 million. But you bet your pill-popping ass it was worth every penny because until today, Tylenol is one of the best selling aspirin products in the world.

J&J also set up a toll-free consumer hotline and worked together with the government, the FBI and the Food and Drug Administration. Compare and contrast that with B&L who said they had confidence in their products, dismissing data from the leading eye hospital in the country.

If they’re so confident in their products, why not take a leaf out of Pepsi’s book and show it with supporting evidence? When Pepsi was hit with a potentially damaging crisis after someone discovered a syringe in a can of Pepsi, the soft drinks maker hit back by producing video news releases of their bottling process to assure the public that it was virtually impossible to insert any foreign substance in the cans.

And the answer is yes, taking responsibility even when it’s not your fault is the right thing to do. Because it shows the company is being pro-active, as opposed to being defensive and merely playing the blame game.

When Procter & Gamble’s newly launched Rely tampons were linked to toxic shock syndrome by the Center for Disease Control, P&G’s initial reaction was one of denial. They challenged CDC’s findings as inconclusive which led to a barrage of negative publicity. But they later made up for their screw-up with exemplary actions that, more importantly, showed a sense of social responsibility.

Post-Enron, the buzzwords for companies everywhere are all about "transparency" and "accountability". And public relations should exist not just to communicate those very messages to a sceptical public, but to act as the ethical conscience of the organization. It’s not just about saying the right thing but doing and saying the right thing.

After all, there are only two choices an organization has when shit happens. It can either go in and get its hands dirty to clean it up. Or it can cover it up. And if they choose the latter, they’d better be able to live with the stinking mess of it.

This entry was posted on Sunday, April 9th, 2006 at 4:30 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.