Gil Stauffer, a company specialising in removals, receives a complaint from a potential customer via Twitter, as a public reporting channel under the hashtag #shameful.

onbranding has analysed the situation from several perspectives related to communication and business impact (quantitative and qualitative). This does not happen in every case we have analysed over the years, but it is a common denominator in several similar situations. The risks of silence for fear of overreacting: in some cases, companies choose the “strategy of silence” in response to a customer service issue in public channels.

HOW THE CONTROVERSY ESCALATED

• In the hours following the mention, the controversy breaks out on social media, focusing on Twitter, blogs (5 posts to date), 1 mention on Wikipedia, more than 1,300 upvotes on Menéame, and several appearances on review sites.

• The type of content found online is negative to neutral:

  • They have old negative reviews from users across various channels, such as review sites, social networks, forums, and classified listings.

GIL STAUFFER’S RESPONSE

• Gil Stauffer has not issued an official statement to date through any communication channel.

Today, 2 February, we include Gil Stauffer’s official response via Twitter: http://ow.ly/i/4sZ4B. We are very pleased that the company has issued a first official statement. Correcting course means wanting to improve.

WHY DID IT ESCALATE?

• There are several reasons why an issue (conflict) can turn into a crisis.

  • We recommend using the PAS Protocol for action in these situations.

    • Prevent (Have a response protocol, including spokesperson responsibilities)

    • Alert (Pass the information to the area of the company that is responsible or a stakeholder)

    • Support (This step is where successful crisis management lies)

      • Possible actions that can make a situation worse

        • Failing to respond appropriately and in time in line with the action protocol

          • Not providing solutions

          • Not listening

        • Silence (in some cases)

        • Overreacting (this does not mean that responding to the situation necessarily risks it getting out of hand)

• Not knowing your counterpart well (especially on the Internet, where it is a channel for amplification and dissemination)

  • It is not the same if the author of the criticism is anonymous, has no knowledge of the Internet, or, on the contrary, is an influential user with knowledge of the medium and the ability to mobilise others; as is the case with Rosa Asensio.

  • This can be identified through a mapping of users, influencers, and communities, prior to launching the Online Presence Plan or at the moment the issue arises.

    • Note: this does not mean that an anonymous comment, complaint, or criticism should be ignored (all users are important), but if the criticism comes from an influencer, it may be an additional reason for amplification.

THE RISKS OF SILENCE FOR FEAR OF OVERREACTING

• This does not happen in every case we have analysed over the years, but it is a common denominator in several similar situations. The risks of silence for fear of overreacting.

• Sometimes, some companies choose the “strategy of silence” in response to a customer service case in public channels, for example social networks. But it stops being a strategy and becomes an “act of silence” with no clear objective, neither carefully thought through nor shared with the rest of the people in the company involved in resolving it.

Sometimes we forget that silence also communicates, and the recipient of that silence may draw their own conclusions, such as:

• you do not know what to say

• you do not have a solution

• you have backed down

• you are in the wrong

• silence implies consent

• etc.

The main risk of silence is RUMOUR. Rumour arises from a lack of information; when that information does not exist, the recipient “deduces” it—in other words, makes it up.

Another risk of silence is that others are talking. They are speaking badly about us; another company has offered to deliver our poor service; other professionals highlight us as bad practice, etc.

• Why choose silence?

  • One reason is fear of overreacting—the illusion that everything will end as it began, as “an opinion” and, “with luck”, nothing will have happened here or it will be forgotten in a few days. “We are not losing money, are we? Then it has not affected the company.” But any corporation has an intangible asset: reputation and the perceptions we generate among all our audiences, including customers.

• Does this mean Gil Stauffer has lost all its reputation?

  • No, not with all its audiences. It is clear that Gil Stauffer cares about its reputation, as they state in their first response, but this reaction does affect the relationship they may have with those directly affected, friends, family, social media influencers, competitors, potential customers…

LEARNINGS AND USEFUL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION MANAGEMENT WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS

• This is a SERIOUS corporate reputation case. A poor response to customer criticism is harmful to the company for various reasons:

1. These criticisms allow us to improve. If we are not aware of them, we cannot respond appropriately.

2. If we respond poorly to comments from dissatisfied customers, there are two options: they say nothing more (so we will not know what is happening) or they criticise us more harshly.

3. Criticism on the Internet will be difficult or impossible to remove and will remain indexed in search results forever.

4. The business will suffer in the medium and long term. It undermines the TRUST of potential customers who may want to request a simple quote.

5. Ultimately, it leads to the loss of customers and, consequently, to
   revenue and company growth.

6. It can also affect current customers, who may lose their connection with the company due to this poor management and the public opinion surrounding it.

7. Widely used in politics, competitors or the opposition can take advantage of this situation of weakness and turn it into an opportunity, as has happened on this occasion.

• Therefore, it is advisable to PREVENT these types of situations through:

1. Assertive management of negative comments: try to resolve their problems genuinely, as good incident management will translate into better business management overall.

2. Encouraging customer criticism: the more we know about our users, the better service we can provide. A company that “shows up” and responds to criticism will be better regarded.

3. Professionalising the Community Manager role. The person representing us on social networks must be prepared to do so professionally and with an understanding of the needs their role addresses.

• CRISIS MANAGEMENT: once we are already in a reputational crisis situation. The best way to proceed will depend on many factors, including the organisation’s interests and objectives and the scale of the consequences, so it is advisable to seek a specialised consultant who can advise on how to proceed.

OPPORTUNITIES

• Worth highlighting is the response from the removals company @mudanzasIPROM (a direct competitor of @GilStauffer) to Rosa Asensio.

You can consult the rest of the report here; we will continue improving it and updating its data from here.

[slideshare id=”30669833&doc=gil-stauffer-crisis-analisis-twitter-silencio-onbranding-140131090039-phpapp02&type=d”] or

Report on Gil Stauffer’s legal shortcomings – Brief analysis of the main channel of its online communication