Cyclops Copes with an ARC

Crises in sport have many unique elements including fans and sponsorships.  Probably the most unique feature of sport crises is the athlete reputational crisis (ARC).  These are crises driven by inappropriate behavior by athletes.  ARCs can be intentional or unintentional and related to on-the-field or off-the-field concerns. 

*Sato, S., Ko, Y. J., Park, C., & Tao, W. (2015). Athlete reputational crisis and consumer evaluation. European Sport Management Quarterly, 15(4), 434-453.

esports is part of sport and has all the trapping with fans and sponsors.  Kana “Tanukana” Tani was fired by Cyclops Athletic Gaming after she said men under 5 feet 7 inches did not have human rights.  Tanukana was a star playing Tekken.  But her comments on a livestream (an important element in esports, ended all of that.  Tanukana issues a series of apologies, mostly on Twitter, that were considered insincere.  There was even an attempt to say she just misstated her love for talk men and one the claim the meaning of “human rights” was different in gaming.  Cyclops has sponsors including Red Bull and Alienware.

Here is the statement by Cyclops:

regarding inappropriate remarks during distribution by the belonging players

Thank you very much for always supporting CYCLOPS athlete gaming.

On February 15, we confirmed that there was an inappropriate statement during the distribution of “Tanu kana” players belonging to the team “CYCLOPS athlete gaming” operated by our company. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience and concern caused to our fans, sponsors, and everyone involved in this matter.

We take it very seriously that the remarks made by “Tenu Kana” players during distribution lacked awareness and responsibility for their position as professional players.
We deeply apologize for the misreeous supervision of the Company, which is managing this matter, and for causing such a situation and causing us to feel uncomfortable due to our careless remarks.

We will take strict measures regarding the future disposal of the relevant players.
We would like to ask for your continued support as we will conduct compliance training and other activities throughout this team, strengthen our management system, and thoroughly prevent recurrence.

broadmedia esports co., ltd.

Questions to Consider

1.  What makes this situation an ARC? 

2.  Why would Cyclops feel the need to terminate her contract?

3.  Would any response have been able to prevent Tenukana’s contrac termination?

4.  Why are sponsors so important in sport crises?

5.  What makes sport team so sensitive about inappropriate comments by athletes?

Spotify is in a Paracrisis, not a crisis yet

Spotify is facing the reality of reputation management in a polarizing (politicized) environment.  It has always been the case the stakeholders react differently to reputation building efforts (Zavyalova et al 2016; 2017).  Some see the efforts positively and the reputation is enhanced while others can see the efforts negatively and the reputation is diminished.  We live in a time when so many actions are viewed through a political lens (politicized) meaning people view it through their political ideology.  At the heart of Spotify’s current problem with Joe Rogan is COVID-19, a health issue that is highly politicized.  Politization breeds polarization as people take sides that reflect their political ideologies.  We see this process unfolding on Spotify.  Many stakeholders support Neil Young and are dropping Spotify.  But others are attracted to Joe Rogan and support Spotify.  The money (Spotify has invested $100 million in Rogan) suggests Spotify will go with Rogan.  Is Spotify losing money?  The answer is yes but Spotify regularly losses money so that is not a reliable indicator of a crisis in this case.  This is similar to Peleton, another company that regularly losses money. 

That is the nature of business and the current environment, not a crisis.  Nor is this new.  Boycotts have been around in business for over a century.  The question is should we call it a crisis?  My answer is no, this is a paracrisis, a risk Spotify must manage in public.  As organizations are forced to engage with social issues (polarizing concerns), paracrises will be common.  Playing Rogan’s podcast always was going to lead to some social issue being raised (in this case COVID-19 and misinformation) that would polarize Spotify subscribers.  This was a known risk for Spotify.  Management chose to accept the risk as part of an effort to appeal to a particular subscriber base.  A segment Spotify management considers to be lucrative.  The decision was driven by business strategy, not ideology.  But the decision brought ideology into the conversation.  Management must live with the dissensus it has created and decide how to navigate this paracrisis that could become a crisis.  COVID-19 misinformation is horrible because it does result in people making poor and often deadly decisions regarding their health and the community’s health.  That is what creates added pressure on Spotify’s management.  But calling it a crisis at this point is a misapplication of the term.  Right now, the situation is a paracrisis and Spotify is choosing to retain Rogan (a business-driven decision).  Only time will tell if the situation escalates into an actual crisis or simply remain a point of contention involving Spotify’s reputation.  Organizations will increasingly face paracrises like these are their actions will become politicized and polarizing.  These are difficult choices as reputation and strategy become intertwined and give rise paracrises.  But managers must be ready to cope with such situations.

References

Zavyalova, A., Pfarrer, M. D., Reger, R. K., & Hubbard, T. D. (2016). Reputation as a benefit and a burden? How stakeholders’ organizational identification affects the role of reputation following a negative event. Academy of Management Journal, 59(1), 253-276.

Zavyalova, A., Pfarrer, M. D., & Reger, R. K. (2017). Celebrity and infamy? The consequences of media narratives about organizational identity. Academy of Management Review, 42(3), 461-480.

Questions to Consider

1.  What is needed to move Spotify’s situation from paracrisis to crisis?

2.  What role does social media play in creating a breeding ground for polarization?

3.  What evidence is there that Spotify’s decision was more strategy than ideology?

4.  What other examples can you think of where an organization’s actions created both positive and negative reactions from stakeholders that attracted so much media attention?

Raith Rovers Face Wrath of Sponsors and Staff

The Raith Rovers are a Scottish professional football team based in Kirkcaldy, Fife. They compete in the Scottish Championship as part of the Scottish Professional Football League. Like every football club, Raith Rovers look to sign new players to become more competitive. In the recent transfer window, a time period when players can be signed, the club signed a striker named David Goodwillie. Goodwillie had been a prolific goal scorer at his previous club, a key attribute for a striker. However, Goodwillie was ruled a rapist in a civil case in 2017. There was an immediate, negtive reaction from some of the fan base. That included well-known fiction crime writer and Raith Rovers supporter Val McDermid. McDermid is also a sponsor with a patch on the team’s jersey. She vented her anger on Twitter. As the BBC reported:

“Ms McDermid said: “The thought of the rapist David Goodwillie running out on the pitch at Starks Park in a @RaithRovers shirt with my name on it makes me feel physically sick.”

She added that she had “ended my lifelong support” of the club and cancelled next season’s shirt sponsorship “over this disgusting and despicable move”.

“I’ll be tearing up my season ticket too,” she said.

The signing “shatters any claim to be a community or family club”, and that Goodwillie’s presence was a “stain on the club”.

“Goodwillie has never expressed a shred of remorse for the rape he committed,” she added.”

Tag Games, another sponsor, requested its name be removed immediately from away shirts.

Internally, staff began to resign. The resignations included two directors and the club’s supporter liaison officer. At fisrt eh signing was defended as a Football decision. The BBC reported:

In a statement, the club said they had signed Goodwillie because he was “a proven goal scorer”.

It said his “foremost consideration” was “his footballing ability”.

“While acknowledging the gravity of what happened 10 years ago, as a club we fully support and encourage rehabilitation, and many factors influenced our signing. But first and foremost, this was a football-related decision,” it said.

The statement added that it respected the differing views about Goodwillie’s signing and that it had divided opinion, adding that it wanted to rebuild trust with loyal fans and commercial stakeholders.

Just a day later the team released this statement:

Statement on Raith Rovers FC

POSTED ON FEBRUARY 1 2022 AT 07:54

“We are surprised and deeply disappointed that Raith Rovers FC are happy to send such a clear message of disregard to survivors of rape and sexual violence in signing David Goodwillie.

Fundamentally – though it seems Raith FC do not agree – women’s lives are more important than men’s talent or careers. Footballers are role models – particularly for young people – and it’s not okay to have someone in this position who has been found by a senior judge to be a rapist.

We wonder whether those who took this decision thought for a second about how it may look or feel to survivors to have to watch someone judged to have committed rape be celebrated and applauded.

This was a bad decision that sends entirely the wrong message, and it should be withdrawn.”

Clearly the signing created problems from the Raith Rovers. The initial defense of the signing changed quickly to not using the player. It would seem the negative reactions and ensuing media coverage, including debates on Twitter, motivated the change in position.

Questions to Consider

1. Would you consider this a paracrisis or a crisis? What is the reasoning for your choice?
2. Why do you think the initial reaction was to defend the signing? Why might the club argue the signing was positive?
3. What role do you think sponsors had in changing the decision?
4. What role do you think the resignations have in changing the decision?
5. How big of a factor was McDermid and her celebrity status in the situation?
6. How would gauge the effectiveness of the final response? What criteria do you apply when making the evaluation?

Rio Tinto Stealing Thunder

Rio Tinto is major firm in the global extraction industry with a strong presence in Australia and 60 operations in 35 countries. The company began the investigation last March by hiring former Australian Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick to undertake the external study and report. Online surveys were used to collect the data from 10,300 people. That represents about 25% of the workforce. Here is a headline from the report:

“Feb 1 (Reuters) – Global miner Rio Tinto (RIO.AX)(RIO.L) on Tuesday released a report showing a culture of bullying, harassment and racism across its operations, including complaints of actual or attempted rape or sexual assault by 21 women.” (https://www.reuters.com/business/rio-tinto-report-finds-disturbing-culture-sexual-harassment-racism-bullying-2022-02-01/).

Clearly the findings were bad for Rio Tinto when you have a combination of harassment, bullying, and racisms. Stealing thunder argues that an organization should be the first to disclose a crisis. The report is a crisis because it reveals serious internal problems with Rio Tinto and the culture it has created. In this crisis, Rio Tinto is the source of the crisis information because it is posting the report online and discussing the report. Below is part of Rio Tinto’s news release about the report:

“MELBOURNE, Australia–(BUSINESS WIRE)– Rio Tinto today published a comprehensive external review of its workplace culture, commissioned as part of its commitment to ensure sustained cultural change across its global operations.

The review, which was carried out by former Australian Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick, identified disturbing findingsof bullying, sexual harassment, racism and other forms of discrimination throughout the company.

The review is part of the work being undertaken by Rio Tinto’s Everyday Respect task force, which was launched in March 2021 to better understand, prevent and respond to harmful behaviours in the workplace.

The eight-month study saw more than 10,000 people share their experiences, views and insights via an online survey, as well as through more than 100 group listening sessions, 85 confidential individual listening sessions and close to 140 individual written submissions.

The report, which outlines 26 detailed recommendations, will inform work being carried out to improve how the company prevents and responds to discrimination and unacceptable workplace behaviour. Rio Tinto will implement all recommendations from the report, with a focus on three key areas:

• A commitment from the company’s leadership to create safe, respectful and inclusive working environments to prevent harmful behaviours and better support people in vulnerable situations. This includes increasing diversity within the company.
• Ensuring the company’s camp and village facilities are safe and inclusive. This includes making sure the company is applying the same safety and risk processes that it uses to prevent harm in operations to create a safe environment for all employees and contractors.
• Making it as easy and as safe as possible for all people to call out unacceptable behaviours, highlight issues when they happen and receive support. This includes introducing early intervention options and improving how the company responds to formal complaints in the workplace.

The actions are a response to the report’s findings which show in the last five years:

• Bullying and sexism are systemic across Rio Tinto worksites, with almost half of the people experiencing bullying;
• 28.2% of women and 6.7% of men have experienced sexual harassment at work;
• 21 women reported actual or attempted rape or sexual assault;
• Racism is common across a number of areas, with the survey indicating people working in a country different to their birth experienced high rates of racism, and that 39.8% of men and 31.8% of women who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander in Australia experienced racism.

The full report can be viewed here: https://www.riotinto.com/-/media/Content/Documents/Sustainability/People/RT-Everyday-respect-report.pdf

Rio Tinto Chief Executive Jakob Stausholm said, “The findings of this report are deeply disturbing to me and should be to everyone who reads them. I offer my heartfelt apology to every team member, past or present, who has suffered as a result of these behaviours. This is not the kind of company we want to be.

“I feel shame and enormous regret to have learned the extent to which bullying, sexual harassment and racism are happening at Rio Tinto.

“I am determined that by implementing appropriate actions to address the recommendations, and with the management team’s commitment to a safe, respectful and inclusive Rio Tinto in all areas, we will make positive and lasting change and strengthen our workplace culture for the long term.

“I am grateful to everyone who has come forward to share their experiences as we go about this vital work.””

You can follow the link to the actual report which contains graphic stories from employees describing the problem. Rio Tinto has begun taking action to deal with the problem. The report has attracted massive media coverage because of its shocking nature.

Questions to Consider:

1. Is this an example of stealing thunder? Why or why not?
2. What type of crisis is Rio Tinto facing in this situation?
3. What crisis response strategies are being used by Rio Tinto?
4. Based on what you know about crisis communication theory, how would you rate Rio Tinto’s crisis response. What are your reasons for that rating?

Do We Now to Imagine “Crises?”

Ellie Kemper has been criticized for a racist event she was part of in her teens. Critics demanded and received an apology. At worse this is a paracrisis yet it seems people need to invent crises. Elli Kemper is an actress who is very entertaining. Why should something she was involved in as a teen demand and apology. Has she done something recently or during her acting career to indicate she is racist? No one has said that, see this story for those supporting her: Tituss Burgess shares support for Ellie Kemper after she apologized for ties to ‘racist’ debutante ball (yahoo.com). There are enough serious and real concerns to warrant our attention. Kemper has explained what happened and indicated she now knows why that event is problematic. It is a part of the distant past for her and should be for others. Social media seems to want to image or manufacture crises, especially around celebrities. How about spending time on actual problems and potential crises. Go read the report “Primed for Pain” to learn about accident rates at Prime warehouse, as an example (PrimedForPain.pdf (thesoc.org)). Or learn more about the Internet disruption Fastly created with a bug in its updates. These are real and impact people’s lives in a meaningful way. Perhaps it is just the celebrity culture that breeds these paracrises but the people researching character assassination would suggest otherwise (Private Site (wordpress.com)).

Being Tone-Deaf through Silence

A common criticism of organizational leadership is that that are tone-deaf. In this case, tone-deaf means they are unable to properly read the situation and act/communication is what most people would consider an inappropriate manner. Being tone-deaf means an organization lacks understanding. Part of the job of public relations is to prevent tone deafness. PR people are tasked to understand situations, primarily by understanding stakeholders, and informing other managers about the situation. That does not mean other managers will not ignore the sage advice resulting in the claims that the organization is “tone-deaf.” Consider the recent case of Starbucks creating a policy to prevent employees from wearing “Black Lives Matter” merchandise. Starbucks was vilified for being tone-deaf—unable to read the current racial situation in the U.S. I would guess the communication people at Starbucks were are of the situation and understood how their stakeholders felt about the need to be part of the larger anti-racism movement.

We are witnessing a redefinition of tone-deaf for organizations. Tone-deaf can now be applied to silence and not just messaging and actions that are out-of-step with stakeholders and society in general. An organization can be tone-deaf through silence. Porter Novelli’s white paper on “The Business Imperative for Social Justice Today.” Their data shows 64% of people find it unacceptable for companies to be silent on social justice issues and 56% feel a company is out of touch if it does not talk about social justice issues. Clearly there is an expectation for organization to speak on social justice issues. In the not too distance past, organizations avoided the controversies associated with social justice claiming that talking about such issues was not part of their responsibility as a business. As Porter and Novelli stated: “Americans are increasingly looking to companies to engage in these issues.” Now an organization can be tone-deaf by being silent as well. The organizational silence becomes another marker that identifies an organization as tone-deaf. To avoid being tone-deaf through silence, organizations must be prepared to draft and to present their statements on social issues. Public relations should be part of that management team that identifies emerging social justice issues (issues management) and helps to prepare position statement on those issues. The Porter Novelli data indicates an organization does not have to make a brilliant statement or be expert on the subjects but must make an attempt to be a part of the discussion. Public relations can provide part of the data required to construct “competent” social justice issue statements. Ideally those statements are followed by or coupled with actions the organization will take on the social justice issue. Again, public relations can help to plot the courses of action as well through the insights gained from relevant stakeholders. Being tone-deaf through silences is an emerging risk (paracrisis) that managers will need to take more seriously now. Ignoring this new risk will create reputational damage and the chance the paracrisis develops into an actual crisis.

Questions to Consider:

1.  Why is silence no longer an option for companies faced with social justice issues?
2.   How has social media contributed to being tine-deaf through silence?
3.   Why would being  tone-deaf through silence be considered a paracrisis rather than a crisis?
4. How does this discussion exemplify the close connection between issues management and crisis communication?
5. How does this discussion exemplify the close connection between risk communication and crisis communication?

That is Anti-Racism? Serie A Error

December 18, 2019

People might want to re-think Starbuck’s effort of discuss race after the massive failure of Serie A to combat racism.  If you are not a football fan (soccer), Serie A is the top league in Italy and a power in European football.  Renaldo currently plays in Serie A for Juventus.  The league has had problem with racism including inappropriate fan behavior.  Fans have racially abused players, especially players with African heritage.  Even some newspapers have been accused of racists headlines about football players.  Like other European leagues, Serie A has decided to combat racist attacks on players.  The problem with the Serie A effort was many felt the images selected fed into rather than combatted racism.

An artist was selected based upon his past work.  His works involve images of monkey.  Here is the artist’s description of the “No to Racism” posters:

“I’ve always been painting monkeys for five to six years, so I thought I’d make this work to teach that we’re all apes, I made the western monkey with blue and white eyes, the Asian monkey with almond-shaped eyes and the black monkey positioned in the centre, where everything comes from. The monkey becomes the spark to teach everyone that there is no difference, there is no man or monkey, we are all alike. If anything we are all monkeys.”

The problem is that many fans use monkey sounds as their racists attacks on football players.  There was a negative reaction when the posters were revealed including prominent teams in Serie A such as AC Milan and Roma FC:

An you had this headline at the BBC:

Serie A anti-racism campaign: Monkey artwork condemned by AC Milan and Roma

“Art can be powerful, but we strongly disagree with the use of monkeys as images in the fight against racism,” said an AC Milan statement.

“Anti-discriminatory body Fare said it was left ‘speechless’ and the campaign looked like a ‘sick joke’, while Kick It Out added the use of monkeys was ‘completely inappropriate.’ (https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/50820915)

Just after the announcement, Serie A decided to drop the campaign.  Here is the statement:

Serie A chief executive Luigi De Siervo . “I express sincere apologies for the artwork that was presented yesterday, I realised it was inappropriate. What cannot be questioned is the strong and constant condemnation by Serie A against all forms of discrimination and racism, and we are committed to eradicate this from our beloved league. The league is working on its official anti-racism campaign, which cannot be identified with Simone Fugazzotto’s work, and will be presented by the end of February.”

Questions to Consider:

1.  Was this situation a paracrisis or a crisis?  Explain your reasoning.
2.   What made the poster so bad as an anti-racism statement?  Consider how people will interpret the images if they know nothing about the artist.
3.   How would you evaluate the effectiveness of the response?  Why do you think it will be effective or ineffective?
4.   What role did AC Milan and Roma FC play in this case?  How does the rhetorical arena theory (RAT) help to capture the communication dynamic that emerges?

Not Just Firing the Problem

What began as a petition on Organise (a workplace platform) in 2018 eventually resulted in the March 4, 2019 resignation of Ted Baker CEO Ray Kelvin. Kelvin had been on voluntary leave since December of 2018. The problem was sexual harassment and people feeling uncomfortable in the workplace with forced hugging from the CEO among the complaints. Ted Baker hires Herbert Smith Freehills LLP to investigate the allegations. The investigation continued after the resignation.

 

Often a CEO or other top executives “resign” or are fired as a symbolic action to reassure everyone that the situation is fine. But such symbolic resignations dodge the potential source of the problem and seek to escape organizational accountability by blaming one or a few bad apples that have been removed. In other words, the problem is the person and not the system. The are times when that really is the case. One or a few people exploit an organization for their own gain. Other times the system is what seemed to be the problem. At Ted Baker, employees did not feel HR took their complaints seriously. Ted Baker recognized this systemic failure in the lines: “As a board of directors, we are committed to ensuring that that all employees feel respected and valued. We are determined to learn lessons from what has happened and from what our employees have told us and to ensure that, while the many positive and unique aspects of Ted’s culture are maintained, appropriate changes are made.” There is a recognition the system has flaws though falls short of accepting responsibility for the problems (often the case when litigation is pending). The full text of the resignation message is at the end of the post. Ted Baker did not just fire the problem but recognized.

 

In April, the investigation was concluded but focused only on the HR issues. Here is a summary:

 

Ted Baker has renewed all training for employees on HR policies and acceptable workplace conduct, and has maintained an independent confidential whistleblowing hotline.

It will also improve the plc board’s oversight on company culture. Sharon Baylay will continue her role as non-executive director for engagement with the workforce.

Later this year, Ted Baker will conduct an employee survey to assess views on the improvements made and gain further suggestions. It has already begun a refresh of its HR policies in line with current best practice

Executive chairman David Bernstein said: “We are determined to learn from this process and, moving forward, cultivate a better environment for all employees. where they always feel respected and valued. We are implementing changes and improvements and are committed to developing best-practice HR policies and procedures that reflect the Ted culture we are looking to develop and enhance in the future.

“One of Ted Baker’s greatest strengths is its people. I would like to thank our team for their co-operation and input during this process and for their continued hard work and commitment. I am confident that this skilled and dedicated team will continue to drive the Ted Baker brand forward.”

The focus is on learning from the failure. The voices of the employees are honored without getting into specifics. Steps are being taken to improve both training and reporting of abuses. There were changes to the system beyond the removal of the CEO. Though it is indirect, Ted Baker does publicly take responsibility for failing the employees and is plotting a course to prevent a repeat of the problems in the future (corrective action). Hence, the company does address its responsibility for the problem to a degree and not just place all the blame with the CEO. It is often the easy way out to use the individual-group dissociation and blame a person instead of the system.

 

 

 

Ted Baker Plc

(“Ted Baker” or the “Group”)

 

Resignation of Chief Executive Officer

 

Ted Baker plc announces that Chief Executive Officer Ray Kelvin has resigned with immediate effect.

Mr. Kelvin took a voluntary leave of absence from his role as CEO of Ted Baker in December 2018, after allegations of misconduct were made against him. Since that date an internal Independent Committee has been in the process of investigating those allegations. The Committee commissioned the law firm Herbert Smith Freehills LLP (“HSF”) to investigate the allegations and the company’s policies, procedures and handling of HR-related complaints.

Mr. Kelvin has denied all allegations of misconduct. He has, however, today agreed to resign with immediate effect from his position as Chief Executive Officer and as a director of Ted Baker plc.

Acting Chief Executive Officer Lindsay Page has agreed to continue in this role.

The board has asked David Bernstein to act as Executive Chairman to provide additional support to Lindsay.  David has indicated that he will continue in this position until no later than 30th November 2020, by which time a successor will be appointed.

The investigation will continue, with the primary focus of the remainder of the investigation being on Ted Baker’s policies, procedures and handling of complaints. It is expected that HSF will conclude its investigation at the end of Q1 or early in Q2 2019.

Executive Chairman David Bernstein said: “Ray Kelvin founded the business 32 years ago and has, together with the fantastic team around him, been the driving force behind it becoming the global brand it is today. As founder and CEO, we are grateful for his tireless energy and vision. However, in light of the allegations made against him, Ray has decided that it is in the best interests of the company for him to resign so that the business can move forward under new leadership.

As a board of directors, we are committed to ensuring that that all employees feel respected and valued. We are determined to learn lessons from what has happened and from what our employees have told us and to ensure that, while the many positive and unique aspects of Ted’s culture are maintained, appropriate changes are made. Sharon Baylay has agreed to act as the designated non-executive director for engagement with the Ted workforce. Led by Lindsay, we are confident that the strong and experienced team we have in place will build the Ted culture and move the business forward.”

 

Questions to Consider

1. What are the ethical implications of blaming a person or persons instead of recognizing a systemic problem?

 

2. How could Ted Baker have improved its crisis response? Specify why the changes would make the response better?

 

3. Is it a problem that the CEO was not investigated further once he resigned? Why or why not?

 

4. What issues might arise by including the line about the CEO denying all allegations? How might that affect how employees react to the resignation message

When is a Crisis really a Crisis and really not a Crisis?

Crisis managers always need to keep an eye out for new developments.  The problem is that many new ideas are really not so new and what is called a crisis is not always a crisis.  We can call this latter concern “crisis confusion” because it creates confusion about what exactly is a crisis.  A good example of crisis confusion is the term “brand safety crisis.”  A brand safety crisis is a function of digital platforms and denotes a situation where a firm’s advertisement appears alongside inappropriate content.  For instance, your advertisement appears by a message that is recruiting terrorists.  That is a real example.   The problem is the negatives from the inappropriate content can be transferred to the firm thereby damaging your form’s reputation.

 

Cleary a brand safety crisis is not good for your firm but should we call it a crisis?  We need to think more clearly about what is happening.  How many people are likely to see your firm’s ad near the inappropriate content (exposure)?  The answer would be very.  And if people are seeking the inappropriate content, they are unlikely to see the ad placement as negative.  The more likely scenario is someone finds out about the placement near inappropriate content and shares that information with others.  Did your firm asked to be placed by the inappropriate content (control and intent)?  The answer is no, the platform is responsible for how ads are placed near content.  Are significant number of your stakeholder going (1) know about the inappropriate content and (2) let that information affect their relationship with the organization (impact)?  Again, the answer is likely to be no.  For the firms placing ads, the brand safety crisis is a paracrisis, a faux pas to be more precise.  The inappropriate ad placement is a crisis risk that should be easy to management in front of your stakeholders.

 

Brand safety crises are much more a concern for digital platforms, such as Facebook, than for the firm buying the ads.  Firms being placed by inappropriate content is going to cost the platforms customers and revenue.  Thus, we can consider a brand safety crisis a crisis for the platforms running the ads.  The inappropriate content placements are flaws in how the platforms place ads that needs to be corrected.

 

Questions to Consider

 

1. Why could brand safety crises be considered faux pas?
2. What is the worst case scenario for a firm involved in a brand safety crisis? How big of a crisis risk is that for a firm?
3. What type of crisis is a brand safety crisis for the social media platforms placing the ads?
4. What type of crisis response do the social media platforms need to successfully deal with brand safety crises?

Paracrises, like Art, can be in the Eye of the Beholder

Austria’s Semmering resort is hosting a women’s Ski World Cup event.  I the past, both the resort and other ski events have used artwork for artist Christian Ludwug Attersee to promote events.  Semmering hired Attersee to do the promotional poster for this event.  Attersee sometimes uses nude images in his works such as a nude man skier.  In 2018, Attersee’s poster had a nude female skier as the centerpiece.  The woman is jumping over animal heads with a moon with eyes in the background.  Some are seeing the image as art and others are seeing it as offensive.  Those offended by the poster have taken to social media to complain thereby creating a paracrisis for the resort.

 

The criticisms have an important contextual element:  the Austrian ski association has been dealing with allegations of sexual assault and rape of Austrian female skiers involving at least one well-known coach.  One of the most vocal critics on Twitter is former Austrian Olympic skier Nicola Werdenigg who has revealed she was raped at age 16 while in the ski program.  She has called the poster “sexist” and unnecessary.  Others have defended the work as art noting Attersee has used nude images of skiers in the past.  The Austrian ski federation said it would not take the poster down without the artist’s consent and the Semmering resort said it regreted any offense that was created and it never meant to hurt anyone’s feelings.  Attersee has defend the work saying: “a work of art for the public, in which the strength, independence and self-confidence of women is shown positively.”

 

Questions to Consider:

1. What type of response is the resort using to the paracrisis? How would you judge its effectiveness?
2. What type of response is the Austrian ski federation using to the paracrisis? How would you judge its effectiveness?
3. Why is the context of the sexual assault relevant to the assessment of this paracrisis?
4. What unique considerations does Nicola Werdenigg’s criticism on Twitter bring to the case?
5. What type of paracrisis this case and why did you select that category?