COMMUNICATIONS BLOG SERIES
Responding to Public Tragedies Without Being Directly Involved as Public Relations Practitioners
January 18th, 2024
The topic of organizations and their public relations practitioners taking stances on public tragedies offers forth a double edged sword. On one hand, taking a stance on these issues pleases audiences who agree with the organization, encouraging them to purchase products or participate in their services; on the other hand, audiences who disagree with the organization’s stance are less likely to buy their products and participate in their services.
While this paradox seems simply understood, the intricate factors that create this paradox are more complex. As social and traditional media platforms have made it easier for the general public to access information, further allowing audiences to educate themselves on social issues such as public tragedies, audiences are choosing to support brands that align with their personal beliefs in regards to these conflicts. This creates a “trickle down effect” which relies on the audiences’ individual perception of public tragedies. Organizations who provide their opinions in regards to public tragedies are communicating to their audience that they BOTH agree and disagree with shared public values relating to certain topics, or conflicts of interest. As a result of this communication, regardless of how it is presented, audiences are bound to interact with an organization’s goods or services as the brand aligns to their own personal values and ideologies. That is to say that if the audience disagrees with a brand’s stance on a particular public tragedy, they are less likely to interact with the goods and services that the brand provides, while reversely those who agree with the brand’s stance are more likely to interact with the products and services that are provided.
As organizations initially choose to take a stance on a public tragedy, there is inherently going to be an influx of praise and criticism associated with that stance. There are then audiences who do not attribute organizational ideologies to the utility of a product or service. These audiences are loyal to the value of the product or service being provided by a brand, rather than the brand’s ideologies or initiatives. As a result, these audiences could theoretically provide a balance in managing the reputation of a brand when organizations do choose to respond to a particular public tragedy. Utility-based audiences neutralize negative sentiment related to a brand in speaking to the value of the product or services that the brand provides, meaning that organizations that have established these audience-bases are more likely to succeed in protecting their reputation proceeding societal criticism related to a particular organizational ideology or action.
In other words, I believe that the ways in which the public perceives the products and services produced by a brand are equally as important as the ways in which the public perceives an organization’s ideologies and actions in regards to public tragedy. Furthermore, organizations who have established their products or services as a well known commodity or experience are more likely to be able to sustain criticism related to their political and social ideologies. Accordingly, entities who have established these audiences can be more bold in stating their thoughts or taking action, in that these entities products and services serve more utility to the general public than their political or social opinions.
This train of thought is supported by the societal dynamics of “boycotting” or “cancelling” a particular brand. In a 2019 interview with Paper Magazine, Kaepernick stated that the 2015 shooting of 26-year-old Mario Woods at the hands of San Francisco police officers is what inspired him to kneel during the national anthem, stating “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color” (Wyche, 2016). Nike’s support of Collin Kaepernick during the societal backlash of his national anthem protests led to societal criticism of the brand. Nike launched a campaign approximately two years after Kaepernick first kneeled, highlighting his dedication to his personal beliefs. The campaign featured the phrase “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything”, offering forth the idea that not only did Nike support Kaepernick’s actions, they encouraged similar actions (Guerrero, 2020). Appealing to the sacrifices of the audience levels the playing field in terms of ethnical, experiential discrepancies related to interpretating the campaign, as all humans have had to sacrifice at one time or another. In response, younger audiences of non-white ethnicities were more likely to receive the campaign positively, than older, white audiences who perceived the campaign negatively (Vizard, 2018). Supplementally, 67% of Nike customers are white, 18% of Nike customers are Black, Hispanics represent 19% of Nike customers and Asians account for 5% of Nike customers. In accessory, “18 to 34-year-olds comprise 30% of the U.S. population, but they represent a whopping 43% of Nike buyers. On the other hand, people 65 and older account for 19% of the population, but represent only 6% of Nike customers…Nike consumers are 7% less likely to be Republicans than the general population, and 3% more likely to be Democrats.”(TMZ, 2018). These three articles paint the picture that those who criticized the Kaepernick campaign were likely not fans of Nike to begin with, meaning that Nike’s primary audience remained largely unbothered, or supported the campaign. Kaepernick’s personal brand was hindered in that NFL teams were afraid that his ideologies and actions would be attributed to their team, further impacting the economic success of the team. To this day, Kaepernick has not been provided the opportunity to step back into the position of an NFL quarterback, while Nike continues to make billions of dollars in revenue annually.
Media platforms then capitalized on oppositional reactions to the Nike-Kaepernick advertisement in covering NFL teams’ response, the public’s response and Kaepernick’s response. Covering these related topics allowed for the discussion to remain relevant to society a full two years after Kaepernick kneeled during the national anthem. While those who support Kaepernick call for him to receive another opportunity on the field, recognizing that he is still a skilled quarterback, others label the athlete as “woke”- stating that the athlete should stick to his job and not societal commentary. I will say that the extent to which people will go to downplay those have differing beliefs is rather extreme, as portrayed by Consumers’ Research Annual Woke Alert.
In conclusion, the Collin Kaepernick kneeling situation depicts in detail how brands whose products or services are valued more than their ideologies are, are more successfully able to counteract negative sentiment related to the brand’s opinion on a public tragedy.
Responding to Recalls as a Public Relations Practitioners: Tesla Recall
January 24th, 2024
Since 2016 the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] has sent investigators to the sites of 35 crashes caused by the automatic steering functionality of Tesla electronic vehicles. As 17 of the 35 crashes resulted in fatal injuries, the NHSTA decided to inquire further into the automatic steering functionality of Tesla electronic vehicles [Tesla EVs], deciding to conduct a formal investigation which began in 2021. It is important to note that the automatic steering function that is provided in Tesla EVs does not act as an autopilot and rather utilizes a set distance from the car in front of you and steering support to keep the car from veering off course (Wallace, 2023). Following the conclusion of the investigation in June of 2023, the NHTSA found that the Tesla automatic steering function had caused a total of 737 accidents since 2019 and further posed a significant threat to the safety of Tesla consumers internationally (Gregg, Lerman, Siddiqui, Thadani, 2023). The NHTSA stated that “when the automatic steering function is engaged, drivers might misuse the combined driving function, increasing a risk of accidents” (The Guardian, 2024). In response to the NHSTA report being released, the United States, Canada and China initiated the recall of approximately 4 million Tesla EVs between December 13th, 2023 and January 5th, 2024 (AP News, 2024). See a more in depth timeline of Tesla’s automated steering function conflicts here.
Tesla’s communicative response to the NHTSA’s findings and accompanying recalls align with their previous attempts to shift the blame of automatic steering functionality failures onto the consumer. In a Tweet created on December 27th, 2023, a full two weeks after the NHTSA findings were released; Tesla chose to respond to a Reuter reporter’s interpretation of the NHTSA’s report, rather than the NHTSA report itself (X, 2023).
The Reuters article stated that Tesla had communicated to the NHTSA that the failures and defectivity of Tesla systems and parts were attributed to “driver ‘abuse’”, which gave reasoning to the headline “Tesla blamed drivers for failures of parts it long knew were defective” (Reuters, 2023). Thus, Tesla’s Tweet focused on attacking the credibility of the article while protecting their own reputation, providing supplemental information as to how the company prioritizes customer service, their employees and stakeholders abroad. No where did the Tweet address the victims or families of those who had experienced injuries and fatalities as a result of the automatic steering function malfunctioning, rather, the reply focused on discrediting the negative perceptions attributed to the situation, while encouraging positive perception of the brand. Additionally, prior Tweets created by Musk relating to the automated steering function, as well as the process of recalls, further suggest that Musk and thus Tesla, does not agree with the NHTSA’s assessment, nor their system of carrying out a recall. It is also interesting that Tesla decided to communicate their service principles transparently, rather than the safety regulations that Tesla employees are expected to follow.
Tesla’s actionable response to the NHTSA’s findings and accompanying recalls was slightly more impactful than their communicative efforts, but not by much. Tesla stated that they would implement a free of cost update delivered “over-the-air”, meaning that the cars would not have to be physically recalled. The update “will include increasing [the] prominence of visual alerts, simplifying engagement and disengagement of Autosteer and additional checks upon engaging Autosteer” (Shepardson, 2023). Wallace goes on to explain that, “Unfortunately, our [Customer Report’s] experts’ preliminary evaluation suggests the fix is insufficient, with the software not going far enough to prevent misuse or driver inattention. For example, CR’s testers were still able to use Autopilot after covering the in-car camera, and drivers can still use the feature if they’re looking away from the road” (Wallace, 2023). There is also a personal hesitancy in trusting a software update that is expected to address approximately eight years of functionality issues. Providing a solution that is not physically seen and rather delivered electronically makes it hard for the consumer to trust that a change has been made in the quality of their vehicle.
While Tesla does not physically state that it is the consumer’s fault in causing automatic steering related issues to occur, a late 2022 Twitter exchange encapsulates Musk’s perception that he believes it is the consumers fault that these accidents take place. In a Tweet created on December 31st, 2022, a user states “users with more than 10,000 miles on FSD Beta [Tesla’s former name for the automatic steering function] should be given the option to turn off the steering wheel nag,” in which Musk replied “Agreed, update coming in January” (X, 2022). The consumer’s tweet implies that those with over 10,000 miles driven using the automatic steering function should have the option to turn off the safety mechanism which encourages drivers to pay attention to the road (Beckford, 2023). In agreeing with this assessment, Musk is subliminally implying that automatic steering problems occur at the hands of the driver, rather than at the expense of the technology used in Tesla EVs. Musk doubles down on this assessment in announcing updates to Tesla EVs being released in January of 2023, specifically attaching these updates to the idea that those with over 10,000 miles accumulated utilizing the automatic steering function will be able to turn off the safety feature. This update of course relies on the experience that the driver has in utilizing the automatic steering function, implying that those who are more experienced are less likely to get into accidents. This Twitter thread takes place in response to a 2022 recall in which the NHTSA ordered Tesla to recall 36,000 U.S. vehicles under similar circumstances (Shepardson, 2023).
There is a part of me that feels that the public is responsible for causing this crisis and I agree with Musk’s perception, however, his response to these accidents occurring makes it seem as though Tesla is using society as a test dummy.
There is a point to be made in placing the blame on the public. Choosing to purchase a Tesla with the intent to use the automatic steering function should come with the responsibility of learning how to use it, rather than trusting the technology. In the same way that you don’t get in a car and drive the first time you ever get into a car, you don’t trust an automatic steering function to steer properly without taking precaution. If the public wants to experience advanced technology that provides a more luxurious experience, they have to be prepared to learn and furthermore, not become complacent in the luxuries that the technology provides. Forgetting to turn off the automatic steering function isn’t necessarily the fault of the creator, rather than the user. In the same way that we have the capability to remember to take our keys out of the ignition, Tesla drivers should be able to remember to turn off the automatic steering function. This example offers forth the question of how much responsibility should be placed on the public in relation to malfunctioning technology that leads to a recall.
This is not to say, however, that a problem does not exist and should not be addressed. Just because Elon Musk knows how to efficiently operate his own creation, does not mean the rest of society does. Faulting the consumer for their knowledge of the product speaks to the quality of the product. If Teslas are intended to be a more advanced, luxurious option to electric driving, then there should be equally as advanced safety regulations for that technology. Trying to shift the blame to the consumer two weeks after a report comes out implying that your product is causing people to be injured or die is definitely not an effective approach to crisis communications.
First of all, Tesla should have responded to the NHTSA report as it was released, addressing the findings and speaking to the company’s next steps in addressing those findings. What Tesla could have done is take the time to send representatives to the individuals and families of those impacted by faulty automatic steering functions, while initiating a total recall at the same time. Visiting these families and individuals would allow Tesla to base reparations on the needs and desires of the victims who were affected. Additionally, a malfunction that results in the death of your consumers should be addressed physically, in real time. It feels as if initiating a digital update was the lazy approach to appeasing a regulatory organization, rather than making up for the harm caused by faulty automatic steering systems. Tesla could also work on simplifying owner’s manuals and vehicle instructions to make information relating to operating Tesla EVs more accessible to the general public. As information is more easily understood it is more easily acted upon, which would theoretically reduce accidents relating to automatic steering functions. Furthermore, while Tesla’s response attempts to shift the blame from themselves to the consumer, it is likely that employees are experiencing conflicting emotions as to who is actually causing the problem. As a result, Tesla should offer internal counseling services to provide an outlet for their employees to express themselves confidentially. In doing so, the employee environment will benefit in knowing that higher-ups care for their emotional well being.
Tesla’s response did not address the product recall in a way that would enhance the company’s reputation, however, because Tesla’s products are highly valued by society, the company will withstand the storm. Although stock prices are down at the moment, prices are bound to increase again as Tesla navigates recalls that apply more pressure on the company. I predict that there will come a point in time where Tesla is forced to address the issues related to their automatic steering function in physically recalling their EVs. Through this process, Musk and his team will likely go above and beyond fixing the issues related to automatic steering functions, reattracting his consumer base to the product.
Analyzing David Dobrik’s Apology Videos
TW: Sexual Assault
January 30th, 2024
Please watch the video above before reading this entry.
The recent trend of YouTube entertainment entities and influencers taking to the platform to apologize for their role in societal conflicts has established authenticity at the forefront of YouTube crisis communications. Though there has not yet been a guidebook created as to how YouTube entertainers and influencers should navigate crisis communications, David Dobrik’s first response to the sexual allegations brought forth in 2021 is much less effective than his second response to the situation.
The above video provides Dobrik’s initial response posted in March of 2021 addressing to two sexual assault allegations posed towards his YouTube production crew known as the Vlog Squad. Though the allegations were not made towards Dobrik specifically, one woman claimed that she drank to the point of blacking out, engaging in nonconsensual group sex involving Dominykas “Dom” Zeglaitis, also known as Durte Dom in November of 2018 (Tenbarge, 2021). To make matters worse, the victim was part of a video vlog uploaded to Dobrik’s channel portraying the events leading up to the sexual assault titled “SHE SHOULD HAVE NOT PLAYED WITH FIRE!!”(Tenbarge, 2021). A second victim, former Vlog Squad member Seth Francois, claimed that he was tricked into kissing another member of the Vlog Squad, who was wearing a mask, after being told that he was kissing model Corina Kopf, which was also nonconsensual, videotaped and uploaded to Dobrik’s channel. As the creator and leader of Vlog Squad, Dobrik felt inclined to respond to situation, reasonably so. I feel the need to explain the situation because as you have probably noticed at this point, Dobrik’s initial response to the situation is extremely vague.
Dobrik’s first response to the sexual allegations posed towards the Vlog Squad lacked authenticity in avoiding the facts of the situation as it was reported or alleged. From the start to the end of the video, Dobrik carefully crafts his words to avoid stating the names of the people involved and the details of what happened. His opening remarks regard the consensual agreement held between video participants and himself in producing a video in a further attempt to argue that he had the consent of both participants before uploading the videos that the victims were featured in. Rather than starting with an apology, or at very least acknowledging what happened, Dobrik offers his brand’s defense to the situation. Doing so acts as an attempt to discredit the situation as it was alleged by the victims in implying that both parties consensually agreed to their likeness being portrayed on his channel in the ways in which they were depicted. He goes on to “acknowledge” that people can “change their mind” in providing consent, in which he will likewise remove the video in question from his channel. This is another attempt to discredit the validity of the situation in subliminally implying that the accusers are making their accusations based on the portrayal of their character on the channel, rather than the fact that the acts that the victims participated in were produced without their consent.
Following this brief, yet unsuccessful defense tactic Dobrik takes a moment to address “The Seth Situation”. Dobrik dives into the topic by apologizing to Seth Francois and further explaining that he wants to make videos “where everybody in it, whether you’re participating or watching, is enjoying and having a good time and I missed the mark with that one and I’m really sorry.” In choosing to avoid the specific details of the situation involving Francois and continuing to offer an apology, Dobrik is unintentionally encouraging the audience to look more into the situation on their own. In doing so, the audiences' perception of the situation is based on Dobrik’s hesitancy to accept responsibility, as well as what is reported in the media leading to negative perceptions of Dobrik’s brand.
Dobrik then goes on to address the situation involving Dom, appropriately named after the fictional, sex addicted character that he plays in being featured on the channel. Dobrik states “..the other people I no longer film with I chose to distance myself because I don’t align with some of the actions and I don’t… stand for any kind of misconduct and I’ve… been really disappointed by some of my friends,” implying that Dobrik has taken personal and professional distance form Dom. Dobrik concludes his response in expressing his personal intentions in creating videos and promises to act on what he has learned from this situation in the future. Dobrik intentionally avoids using Dom’s name, or referencing the female victim who has come to be known as “Hannah.”
Dobrik chooses to focus his efforts on the idea that the videos that he produced were filmed with the victims consent in an attempt to evade responsibility. Dobrik intentionally crafts his response to address the victim’s consent as it relates to being involved in the video in an attempt to cast their decision making abilities in a negative light. In remaining vague in providing details of the situation, yet focusing on the consensual aspect of the victims being featured in the video, Dobrik is subconsciously implying that the victims also provided consent to participate in the events that took place in the video. In reality, however, the victims provided consent for their likeness to be displayed in the videos, rather than consenting to participating in the actions that took place against them. As you will soon find out, this strategy was taken as a result of Dobrik initially defending Dom’s innocence in the situation.
Please watch the video above before reading the rest of the entry.
After he released his initial response, Dobrik lost hundreds of thousands of subscribers, as well as deleted five videos resulting in the loss of 66 million views. 13 brands decided to cut ties with Dobrik as a result of the sexual allegations being released, forcing Dobrik’s hand to address the situation for a second time (Mendez II, 2021). Five days after releasing his first response video, with tears in his eyes, Dobrik reappeared on camera in his second attempt to take responsibility. Though the strength of the second response is reduced by the fact that it took him two attempts to get it right, the second response is a much more effective crisis response than the first.
This time around, the video featured a trigger warning letting viewers know that Dobrik will be discussing sexual assault. In terms of diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility, providing a trigger warning allows those who may be emotionally conflicted in engaging with the content to make the decision not to engage in advance. This embodies the idea that Dobrik is aware of the sensitive nature of the conversation, adding credibility to what he is about to say.
Dobrik first apologizes for his lack of authenticity and compassion displayed in his original response, which is strategically the right thing to do in choosing to acknowledge that the way he went about initially responding was wrong. He goes on to state that he will not delete his initial response as a reminder of a learning experience, which offers an underlying tone of authenticity to the conversation. Following this brief apology, Dobrik states that he fully believes the woman who brought forth the allegations against Dom, further explaining and thus acknowledging the details of the situation in totality. Dobrik finally takes responsibility for his role in “creating an unfair power dynamic” which compromised the personal values and safety of the victim and her friends who were involved. He offers forth the idea that he should have guaranteed the safety and comfortability of everyone involved and is wrong for not doing so. Dobrik also comments on defending Dom against prior allegations made against him publicly and in private, stating that his initial response to the allegations were “fucking gross.” He offers forth apologies to the victims in recognition of his actions.
Concluding his second response, Dobrik takes a moment to reflect on the lessons he has learned in avoiding taking responsibility for his role in the crisis occurring. He states that going forward, he is taking a break from social media due to the lack of infrastructure provided for creators to be able to communicate about the potential implications of messaging and content creation. Combining this belief with the idea that it would not be appropriate for him to continue to upload content at the same rate that he had been prior to the allegations being made, Dobrik vows to learn from his mistakes during his social media hiatus.
The effectiveness of this response is greatly reduced due to the timeline in which it was produced. If this response was the first response to be produced, it is likely that David Dobrik would be equally as popular today as he was in 2021. While the second response does effectively communicate accountability in recognizing the details of the event and further offering an apology, the authenticity of this response is still questionable. One could argue that the second response was merely a result of a failed first attempt and not actually the true expression of Dobrik’s emotions. In faltering the first response, Dobrik compromises the perceived authenticity of the messaging and content that he produces, which is why he is not as prevalent in the YouTube community today as he once was. In summary, while the second response was effective in partially neutralizing publics’ negative perception of the David Dobrik brand, there are still ill feelings towards Dobrik as a result of the fact that the public feel he was not authentic in his initial response.
In accessory, both of Dobrik’s responses attempt to utilize tactics featured in Coomb’s Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) in order to address this crisis. Dobrik’s initial strategy to adjust the information as to benefit his own agenda supported his attempt to attack the credibility of the victims involved. He constantly reminds the audience that he is historically bad at apologies in an attempt to justify his initial response. In the second response, however, Dobrik demonstrates to the audience that he is trying to integrate what he has learned into his life in stating that he is going to personally reach out and apologize to the victims that he did not believe prior.