United Airlines | Amendola Communications

When looking for a company to illustrate bad PR, United Airlines is an easy choice.

From 2009’s lesson in the power of viral video (“United Breaks Guitars”) to suffocating puppies, United can be counted upon to do the wrong thing and then make it worse through horrible PR.

Perhaps its worst blunder came in 2017 when a bloodied passenger refused to be bumped and was dragged off a flight. After the video went viral, then-United CEO Oscar Munoz called the passenger “disruptive” and referred to the forcible eviction as “re-accommodating the customers.” It took a firestorm of criticism before Munoz issued a more sincere-sounding apology, but by then the damage was done.

I wasn’t privy to what happened at United that led to such horrible PR decisions, but I do know who could have prevented them – Angry Arnold. That’s my term for the outsider reality check missing from too many corporate responses to PR crises. Here’s how it could have worked at United:

The moment the passenger video went viral, United’s PR team should have designated one of its highest-ranking members as Angry Arnold. He should have been put in a room with a laptop and the following instructions: “Forget you work for United. You’re just one of the flying public and you freaking hate United. It’s lost your luggage, delayed your flights, charged you for carry-ons and forced you to squeeze into ever-shrinking seats. And, by the way, it’s making obscene profits. Now, watch on repeat this video of a dazed passenger being dragged down the aisle.”

Angry Arnold would have been left in isolation to grow ever more furious at United while the rest of the PR team worked with the C-suite to write that self-serving statement from Munoz. When it was done, they could have slid it under the door to Angry Arnold and waited for his reaction.

And he would have kicked down the door, screaming, “Are you f*@%%^ kidding me? Blaming the passenger? ‘Re-accommodating’ customers? What kind of bull*$#@ is this?”

And then United would have known Munoz’s statement wasn’t going to fly with the public.

It’s not just United that could have used an Angry Arnold to save itself from itself. So could Southwest Airlines, Facebook, Wells Fargo, Uber, and other companies that have compounded their problems by responding weakly to PR crises.

That’s because Angry Arnold’s job is to take the perspective of the public that, ultimately, will decide how well the company weathers its PR crisis. If he doesn’t buy the company’s response, neither will customers, vendors and the media.

Too often, crisis PR is captive PR. Everyone on the internal team wants to help the company in its moment of danger, but, paradoxically, that prevents them from doing the best job at it. They’re hunkered down in the corporate bunker, trying to manage the crisis without admitting fault or being too hard on the company or its leaders. Lawyers get in the mix, counseling against admitting error and watering down language as only they can. As a result, the initial response is often inadequate and defensive and makes a bad situation worse.

Angry Arnold does not have that captive perspective. He’s not going to cut the business any slack or worry about making the CEO sweat. He wants the company to come clean, fix the problem, take steps to make sure it doesn’t happen again, punish those responsible, provide restitution, and beg for forgiveness.

Of course, it’s not easy to turn an internal PR employee into an Angry Arnold. He or she might be reluctant to offer frank opinions or go against the C-suite consensus, and might struggle to achieve that critical, independent perspective.

That’s why many companies benefit from using an outside agency for crisis communications and PR. While still loyal to the client, an agency has the independence and perspective to better assess what needs to be done to satisfy the public, customers, stakeholders etc. while also protecting the client.

Unleashing Angry Arnold is no fun. He bruises egos, calls for heads to roll and forces companies to do things they don’t want to do. But he should be a necessary part of any crisis PR team, even if he’s a trusted outsider.

Remember, the C-suite and the PR team are not going to determine if the crisis is handled correctly or not. The public and customers will, and listening to Angry Arnold is the best way to gauge their reaction.

If you had a goal of demonstrating how NOT to handle crisis communications, you couldn’t find a better template than the actions of United Airlines after a flight crew forcibly removed Dr. David Dao from Flight 3411 from Chicago to Louisville to accommodate its own need to get four of its employees to Louisville for another flight. It’s definitely cost the airline a lot of goodwill (something most airlines have in short supply already) and could end up costing them hard dollars as passengers stay away from United for a while, either out of protest or fear the same fate could befall them.

In this guest post, James Foster, Director of Marketing and Sales Operations at Amendola Communications client ePatientFinder, looks at what happened, the fallout that’s occurred so far, and what United should have done instead – the real template for handling a crisis. You can read the original post, along with other great ePatientFinder content, here.

In looking at the fiasco that is unraveling for United Airlines, I am reminded of the Stanford Study done back in 2005 that still holds a lot of weight. United would do well to remember the lessons learned, given that, as of this writing, the stock prices are down 4%.

Stanford Graduate School of Business associate professor Larissa Tiedens and her associates studied businesses from 1975 through 1995 and looked at companies that took responsibility for a bad year [or event] and showed they realized better stock performance than firms that blamed external uncontrollable factors. “Only explanations for negative events mattered, but those explanations mattered a lot,” says Tiedens.
Tiedens continues, “Executives who blame external, uncontrollable causes for problems may seem less trustworthy. ”

What does United CEO Oscar Munoz do in the case of #uniteddragspassengergateofftheplane ? He doubles down and blames the victim, calling him “disruptive and belligerent.” He then “blamed” the process and the policy by saying “employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this.”

This is blaming everything but yourself and your company and not really accepting the ownness of the fault, even if the passenger had acted like a jackwagon (do you blame him for over-reacting? [It appears the passenger has had some issues and was previously a doctor but that does not excuse the treatment he received]).

Passengers that talked about the victim show that he was calm and not abusive.

“He was very polite, matter-of-fact,” Powell said. “I could hear pretty clearly. He was acting appropriately annoyed. I was 100% with him I wouldn’t have gotten off the plane either.”

Removal after Boarding
United did what it called “involuntary denial of the boarding process.” Here is the problem, the passengers were already boarded, seated in their plane, and ready to go. Anyway you try to justify it, if words matter, then how do you deny boarding after boarding has already occurred?

Hindsight is 20/20, but is having another flight delayed worse than the PR nightmare that they are dealing with currently? Passengers are used to having canceled flights even last week Delta and Southwest experienced canceled flights, but that’s not what people are talking about today. The narrative today is that passengers would rather have a flight canceled then get a beat down by United. That paints a pretty bad picture.

What to do?
The prevailing opinion about “what to do” during a crisis is undoubtedly that the company should own up to what happened and be transparent about the entire situationat least that’s what most customers would tell you. So I’ve compiled a learning list of what to do or what not to do:

Own up to the mistake, and ignore the lawyers (as shown above, defuse it through transparency). If you’re going to get sued, being more transparent and open will weigh into what happens, and usually for the better.
Make things right for the passenger, I mean really right. He took a beating; you owe him for the public embarrassment. I’d go farther and make things right for the other people on the flight subjected to the incident. It may not stop you from getting sued, but it will certainly help your public image.
Admit that your process and policy are flawed, change it, and after the incident subsides, invite the public to participate in the solution if applicable. This is an opportunity to improve and come out the situation stronger for it.
Control the conversation. Right now United has lost total control: On Tuesday, the top trending topic on Twitter in the U.S. was #NewUnitedAirlinesMottos, with users suggesting slogans such as “not enough seating, prepare for a beating.”
Don’t release app updates during PR nightmares. Wow really: Drag and drop feature?

Clearly, this situation spiraled out of control. Even the security officers have been suspended because in a time when the public has a massive distrust of the TSA, and airline security over-zealousness, they do exactly what we expect them to do, and over-react. This situation is evolving or really, devolving, on a minute-by-minute basis so only time will tell how United pulls itself out of this PR hole it keeps digging deeper.

[Editorial note: Oscar Munoz has issued a 2nd apology and taken more of the blame. How much damage has been done, again, only time will tell.]