How Ten and ABC turned the Roseanne tweet fiasco into a reputational win
As both Ten and ABC in the US bar Roseanne from the airwaves following a racist tweet, Inside Out PR's Nicole Reaney explains how both broadcasters turned a potential crisis around.
It took just one tweet for an international ratings victory to be axed within hours of its display. Roseanne Barr reinvented her fame with the return of her show in March – drawing in an audience of 22 million in the US alone (blazing ahead of Will & Grace’s return at 10 million).
But in one reckless tweet that has spread throughout the globe, the ABC swiftly axed the show, with Ten replicating the decision here in Australia.
Reputations are built on values, and how those values are expressed – verbal and non-verbal cues. Action and inaction. How the public perceives positive reputation is through an organisation’s demonstration of its values and integrity, transparency and consistency. This is all tested and witnessed when a reputational incident transpires.
So far the ABC has been able to uphold its reputation with the potential to turn this incident into an image enhancement opportunity for themselves.
The swiftness of reaction time and a definite decision to axe within a short period of time has helped retain public perception and isolate the incident to Roseanne herself.
Often it’s tempting for organisations to protect potential financial loss, but choosing to stand by corporate values despite monetary impacts has factored in to reputational perceptions here.
Reportedly the show brought in US$45m to the ABC in the US, boosting to a forecasted US$60m next season. Putting short-term financial priorities aside, and evaluating longer term image credibility has worked in the network’s favour.
No doubt the issues management strategy in place defines protocol against various reputational risks. Often at the time of an issue, decision making is delayed due to internal bureaucracy or the absence of leaders with decision-making authority.
This hinders an organisation’s attempt to retain or restore its image through clouded statements that prolong a company’s stance on the matter. The ABC was definite and efficient in its delivery.
While a company may have formal protocol in place, what is often missed is the communication of brand values, corporate ethics and importantly, stance, to wider employees and stakeholders. Brands are continually at risk by the trail of people affiliated directly and indirectly.
Roseanne is no stranger to controversy, and her social trail would reveal to any organisation collaborating with her that they do so with the risk of adverse exposure.
Did the ABC share its code of conduct and values, as well as any breaching consequences to Roseanne ahead of this situation? How many organisations prepare for ‘talent’ risk to avoid the situation in the first place?
These situations are occurring more and more. Last month it was rugby player Israel Folau for his social media comments that caused public fury. Rugby Australia’s (RA) response has so far appeared to be light-weight without demonstrable action, with the hope of a fleeting ‘yesterday’s news’ situation, like so many organisations do.
And as brands engage more influencers, the sheer volume of stakeholders that can impact brands rises. As brands leap into ambassador and broader influencer programmes there is a call for diligence in anticipating, moderating and managing brand affiliations.
As for Roseanne herself, she has made a formal apology and requested her fans to stop defending her. Reportedly, she earned $21m for acting, directing and producing the nine episodes of Season 10. Upon its renewal for Season 11, it was rumoured that the forthcoming season would have included 13 episodes.
In this tempted world of sharing every thought without due consideration, perhaps this might be a lesson to many. Given the moral and financial impacts of her tweet, Roseanne will struggle to recover in the short term.
Actors, production crews and more have been affected and many have also voiced their disdain.
Nicole Reaney is director at Inside Out PR.
Also known as the definition of virtue signalling
User ID not verified.
No, more like the definition of facing consequences for your actions.
User ID not verified.
Excellent piece nicole. It is refreshing to see a company act so swiftly and definitively to declare its stand. In an era of scandals, exploding thermomixes, deception and royal commissions into corporate behaviour, its rare. I suspect they knew this day was coming and hence was able to act fast. Edelman trust research shows that consumers are not that enamoured with celebs fronting brands, so rather than trying to demonstrate certainbrand values by celeb alignment, perhaps they should simply eeer actually demonstrate them! Interesting times eh?
User ID not verified.
I’m with Facepalm.
There is no defending Rosanne’s tweets, the woman is off her rocker, but this high horse nonsense that has accompanied it is ridiculous.
Does anyone seriously think that the overwhelming majority of Australians would’ve had negative thoughts about Channel 10 if they showed the remaining episodes???
99% of the world’s population would think Rosanne was out of order and thought poorly of her. Only 1% of loons (mostly media types) would’ve attacked ABC / Channel 10 for continuing with the show, the rest of us just want to watch TV.
User ID not verified.
… except the people now running television networks are not “television people” but accountants and salesmen who always think “bottom line” and are swayed by the vocal PC brigade into making rash decisions. Sigh, bring back Kerry Packer!!!
User ID not verified.
Spurious to use the ABC/Ten response to Barr’s tweet to argue Rugby Australia should have taken a stronger stand against Israel Folau. Barr’s tweet was clearly racist and offensive. Folau was expressing a sincere belief based on a faith he shares with millions of other fundamentalist/evangelical Christians around the world. Speaking as an atheist who voted for marriage equality, I defend Folau’s freedom of speech and freedom of religion: he does us all a favour by honestly expressing his views so others can examine and discuss the reasons and issues underlying his views, rather than letting them fester as thoughtcrimes.
User ID not verified.
@ex ABC
Don’t worry, you’ll always have the racist-woman-beating Eddie McGuire to entertain you.
User ID not verified.
Not sure it would have had the same impact for Channel 10, but I imagine ABC were pre-empting boycotts from advertisers that would have prolonged the negative publicity and potentially shut the show down anyway.
Local ratings meant the show wasn’t the same hit here as US, so Ch10 just had less to lose.
User ID not verified.
Would just like to point out the double standards here.
Roseanne, a woman who made a stupid mistake with her big mouth gets her show immediately axed, leaving hundreds unemployed.
Countless men in the entertainment industry continue with worse behaviour online and on-air, yet there’s no consequences for them aside from a slap on the wrist and a day of bad PR.
User ID not verified.
Roseanne Barr was always racist, ABC only culled the show when it was no longer under the surface for them. ABC deserves no clap on the back for this.
User ID not verified.
So ten showed moral fibres by cancelling a show that was cancelled and not coming their way anymore. Good on em!
User ID not verified.
This article is typical race exploitation, the type you could only get away with in Australian PR. I-spy racism is an easy sport for organizations to fluff up their race virtue feathers and continue with deep rooted institutional racism.
Channel Ten, appears today, both on-air and in the workplace as a white enclave only. If CBS continues to allow this they will be complicit in this sinister type of racism. How in a country as diverse as Australia do we end up with a original program line up that is so eerily white? Only a conscious policy from up high up could allow this. Lets hope CBS corporate policy will bring a more representative Network Ten.
User ID not verified.