The Qantas apology: Good PR or an over-reaction that will frighten flyers?

Valid questions here regarding the benefits of proactive issues management by the Qantas PR team. The question you pose whether it is justified or just amplifying the issue to a group of customers who (by all chances) weren’t probably affected, is one most strategic PRs ask in situations like this.

In my humble opinion, I’m really supportive of this proactive and transparent approach. For brands who are facing an issue, it is really important to be on the front foot in mitigating negative coverage (trad media, social media etc) before it becomes a crisis.

When the decision is made to go on the front foot, it’s made with a thorough evaluation of the reach, impact, sentiment and chances of becoming a crisis: Qantas no doubt would have gone through this process and listened and watched their customers and the public talking about it and determined the issue isn’t too hot, it isn’t high on the risk matrix, and we can put our side forward in a ‘friendly’ environment, to who matters most – their customers.

Good on Qantas for having the courage to address the issue before it was amplified by someone else or another incident occurred, and it became a crisis.

If they hadn’t addressed these latest issues, would we be then questioning why they hadn’t?

Thanks for flagging this one. This looks like a good example of a company that is only just starting to understand the opportunity provided data-driven communications.

Open communications, great. Poor use of database though.

It shouldn’t have been that hard, between Easter and the end of the week, to work out how to send an email only to those affected. Or even to segment it into people who might be affected in different ways. With those not directly affected being given a more upbeat, less detailed story.

If they’re actually being honest and not downplaying the safety issues then I’m very appreciative of their honesty and any fears I had would now be relieved.

Problem is, how do I know they’re being honest?

Transparency, accepting responsibility and acknowledging that a company is going to do something about it works for me as a PR person and a member of the general public. While it didn’t affect me personally in this instance it was good to know for future interaction with this brand/company. I thought it was a great effort at putting a face to a massive organisation. Well done Qantas

The list of the planes with issues was a really bad move. I agree with you Tim, I only recalled one incident but with this message they made sure that I’m not missing any ‘unusual set of events’… As a FF member I’m a bit more concerned than relieved; it was a good idea but not too well executed I think…

Every single time there is a story in the news on Qantas safety issues, turning back planes, cracked windscreens, etc, the Qantas “spokesperson” publicly denies a safety issue. I would have thought having to turn a plane back due to engine failure a “safety issue” and I am amazed that they don’t. Obviously they know aircraft better than I do, but crikey, a little bit of responsibility, transparency and truthful communication would assuage my fears. I’m sure if a Qantas jet crashed and killed everyone on board, they would still deny it was a safety issue. Perhaps the above is a turning point, perhaps not.

Now I understand why all Qantas ‘issues’ have been blown out of proportion lately – a PR team at its wits end.

After months of appearing to shun the media in a hope they would somehow disappear, resulting in over-hyped coverage of the smallest problems, they have done a 180 and seem to now be testing a ‘bore everyone so they become disinterested’ strategy, with mundane updates as to which planes they are servicing today now part of its pr plan.

I’m with Karalee in the transparent and proactive approach, Tim with the “holy shit, sparks were flying, you lost tyres but we’re sweet – WTF” and JamesW on the (extremely) poor use of database.

Would it not have been a simple SQL query to pull out “customer name” x “xxx city” x “xxx date” and then offer some sort of compensation/value/voucher – which may not be enough in the customer’s eyes, but surely more than a blanket response.

“As one of our valued customers, I wanted to get in touch with you directly…” Lovely sentiment Mr Joyce, but if you really wanted to get personal you would have taken the additional effort to do so.

I still fail to see why/how companies, especially multi-nationals, see consumers as unintelligent numbers, rather than employing simple customer service methods to deliver true value.

Happy Monday!

As a non “industry” person, but avid observer … this is an interesting one.

As a frequent business traveler, and thus a Qantas FF, I was surprised to see the e-mail. My immediate reaction was that it was overkill, and far more destructive than proactive & beneficial. The Qantas reaction is not the story here …

Bottom line is that the tabloid media (i.e. Fairfax & News Ltd) have conducted a (mostly) Qantas targeted link-baiting campaign designed to gather clicks for the past few years. The unfortunate downside to this is that the “information” disseminated via these articles is highly sensationalised, and predominantly inaccurate from an aviation safety point of view. Qantas were always going to be pushed over the PR edge by this sustained campaign of stupidity.

Rupert 1 – Qantas 0.

Like most I was unaffected by the QF problems over Easter. But I was aware of a series of problems over the past month or two. When i received the email my first thought was “Geoff Dixon wouldn’t send this, must be the ‘new’ proactive approach of Alan Joyce”. Good luck to him, he’ll need all the best PR spin money can buy if they do ever suffer a serious accident!