Public Relations and Crisis Communications

Public Relations is an essential component to almost any business or public entity. One of functions that public relations fills is assisting in moments where unexpected or unfortunate things occur, necessitating crisis communications. The following paper discusses crisis communications and analyzes it in action in the wake of a tragic event at Walt Disney World.

            Walt Disney World is known as the place “Where Dreams Come True”, and is known for its world class entertainment offerings, the cleanliness of its parks, the friendliness of its employees the safety of all of its offerings and its magic. But I believe that even Disney magic and its public relations professionals are hard pressed to overcome certain obstacles in crisis communication because of the ever-present threat of lawsuits. In the last half of 2009 and the beginning of 2010 the theme park giant has been challenged by several accidents, predominantly in transportation, that has rocked people’s perception of the company’s safety. 

This paper will look at how the world’s most respected entertainment company utilizes public relations in crisis communications and how the legal system in some ways ties a company’s hands. To do this we will look at what public relations is, what crisis communications is, and analyze the company’s response to a few of the crises that have arisen of late.

To begin an analysis of how public relations operates during one of its most challenging situations it is best to first define exactly what public relations is. While many people are familiar with the term of public relations, not many would be able to give a concise definition of this field in which companies in the United States have spent more than $5 billion in 2009 (Cameron 4). There are many definitions and thoughts on the field, but the definition that I like to use comes from Effective Public Relations where Scott M. Cutlip, Allen H. Center, and Glen M. Broom define it: 

“Public relations is the management function that identifies, establishes, and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and the various publics on whom its success or failure depends” (Cameron 5).

That is a nice and succinct definition of the field, but there is one more definition that I want to add because it identifies public relations also as a process, which I think is very important to consider. “Public relations is a process involving numerous subtle and far-reaching aspects beyond media coverage. It includes research and analysis, policy formation, programming, communication, and feedback from numerous publics” (Cameron 4).

From these two definitions I believe a full picture can be built: public relations is both a function and a process that goes on continually within companies and organizations of all types, whereby professionals in the field are constantly evaluating a company’s position in the eyes of the public (or more accurately, publics), gathering information which they can use to promote the company’s image, mission or product, and can then be better prepared to defend it when necessary. It is a very diverse field and its operation depends greatly on the client. Public relations will operate much differently if their client is an individual, company, or even non-profit organization, but there will be similarities in some of the methods of operation.

Public relations professionals utilize numerous methods, or channels, of communication in order to deliver their messages. One of the most famous methods, the press release, is stylistically very similar to something that a journalist would create, and it uses many of the same conventions of journalistic writing, albeit with a different intent, namely to promote or defend their client. However even though the public relations professionals are not journalists, there still exists the requirement for ethical practices, something very important that I will delve into in the next section. It is important to note though that the press release, whether in print or electronic form, is just one of the channels that is utilized by the profession. There are literally no limitation on what channels can be used, whether it be print, television, radio or some other media form. The challenge becomes utilizing the best form of communication in order to deliver the desired message to the desired audience. And one of the best ways to do this is to utilize a partnership with the news media so that a public relations professional can take advantage of the media’s delivery system already in place.

That brings us to the practice of media relations. Companies are often weary of the media because of the ever present threat of negative publicity, and this has caused some companies to shun direct involvement with the media. This has proven to be ineffective and cause problems that the company had not anticipated. This has lead to the importance of utilizing public relations as the go-between for the company and the media, in the practice of media relations. “(PR professionals) must interpret their companies and clients to the media, while showing their chief executives and other high officials how open, friendly media relations can serve their interests. One major interest that executives have is corporate reputation, and this is often tarnished or enhanced by the type of media coverage that an organization receives” (Cameron 369).

The best way to consider media relations is ideally as a mutually beneficial partnership between a company and the media. Public relations practitioners at a company provide the media with access to information and high-ranking employees who make for desirable interviews, and this provides the company with a platform to deliver their message or respond to issues. Trust plays a huge role here, as the media needs to know that the information they are being provided is accurate and truthful. The media wins by getting a story and information straight from the source, and the company benefits from being able to deliver their message and by making sure the information being reported is accurate.

The importance of media relations becomes very important during crisis communications. What is a crisis? It can be anything from an accident large or small, a natural disaster or even terrorism. “Kathleen Fearn-Banks, in her book Crisis Communications: A Casebook Approach, defines a crisis as a “major occurrence with a potentially negative outcome affecting the organization, company, or industry, as well as its publics, products, services, or good name”” (Cameron 49). 

At one time or another every company will face a crisis, and it is because of this that a company must have a plan in place for how to deal with it. Just as public relations is a process, there is a process to dealing with a crisis that will be followed so that the company speaks with one voice and the message being delivered is clear and consistent. In Cameron’s Public Relations Today a comprehensive list of strategies is given for dealing with crisis. Some of those suggestions include: “Take responsibility; an organization should take responsibility for solving a problem. Be honest; don’t obscure facts and try to mislead the public. Provide a constant flow of information. Communicate with key publics” (Cameron 50).

There are a few more thorough crisis communication strategies that may be used such as those created by W. Timothy Coombs. The two that I want to highlight are what he considers to be “accommodative strategies” which he says emphasize image repair: 

“Corrective Action: The organization takes steps to repair the damage from the crisis and to prevent it from happening again. Full Apology: The organization takes responsibility and asks forgiveness. Some compensation of money or aid is often included” (Cameron 51).

For the last few pages I have explained a bit about what public relations is, how it is used, and given some definition to what constitutes a crisis and a few ways in how it may be managed. Now let’s apply that information to how it is used in practice by looking at the Walt Disney World Resort (WDW) in Orlando, Florida. As part of the Walt Disney Company, WDW enjoys a fantastic reputation as a highly desired vacation spot and is known for its entertainment, cleanliness, friendliness and safety. That perception of safety has recently come under fire, however, thanks to a series of unfortunate accidents beginning in July of 2009 with a much publicized monorail accident.

In the early morning of July 5, 2009, two of Walt Disney World’s monorail trains collided, killing the 21 year old driver. The accident made world-wide headlines and dozens of articles were generated that day and in the following weeks. My research indicated that the Orlando Sentinel newspaper, which covers WDW extensively, was the first paper to carry a full statement. Sara K. Clarke’s article, “Disney World monorails crash, killing 21-year-old Disney employee” ends with a complete statement from Walt Disney World spokesman Mike Griffin:

“"Today, we mourn the loss of our fellow cast member. Our hearts go out to his family and to those who have lost a friend and co-worker. The safety of our guests and cast members is always our top priority. The monorail is out of service and we will continue to work closely with law enforcement to determine what happened and the approximate next steps” (Clarke 5 July 2009). 

The only other thing Griffin confirms in that article is the approximate time of the accident. No speculation is engaged in by the spokesman, and they indicate that more news must be gathered before they speculate. In the statement there is no admission of guilt, only an expression of sadness and support to those affected and an affirmation to the company’s efforts to safety for guest and employee alike.

It is interesting to note that in the early articles immediately following the accident that any statements from WDW are very restrained and revolve largely around working with authorities to find out what happened. The statements are only snippets of larger articles that include details that the reporters are gathering on their own. Disney public relations officers do not respond directly to other assertions gathered by the reporters. I also mentioned earlier that the Orlando Sentinel covers Disney a great deal, which leads me to believe that they have a good working relationship with WDW’s media relations division. This might explain why the headline in the above article is very factual and even subdued, a bit different than an article that ran in Great Britain’s Daily Record on July 6. That paper runs an article from Matheus Sanchez entitled “DISNEY TRAIN CRASH HORROR: Driver killed on theme park monorail.”

One day later, on July 6, in the Boston Globe newspaper, Disney’s spokesperson Griffin for the first time confirms the name of the fatality in the accident, something that the newspapers had already begun to do on the day of the accident. In that Associated Press article:

“Disney's senior spokesman, Michael Griffin, identified the driver as 21-year-old Austin Wuennenberg. Griffin would not discuss how long Wuennenberg had been with Disney or the circumstances surrounding the crash. Disney officials also declined to discuss how the monorail system operates. "They are extremely rare," Griffin said of accidents at the park” (Boston Globe, 2009).

Here in this article Mr. Griffin is sticking only to confirmed facts, waiting almost a day before identifying the fatality. It is interesting to note that he does not share more details about the deceased, as well as not going into detail on the operations of the monorail. I believe that while he might be holding back on information on the deceased out of respect for the family, I think both of the withheld things are in order to attempt to not fuel speculation before a more comprehensive picture of the accident was revealed. Already during this time there were various theories on what had happened regarding the accident, and stating how long Wuennenberg had worked on the monorail could possibly be used to state that he was ill-trained or a novice pilot. Likewise it would not be helpful to discuss monorail operations when it would likely just be used to speculate on how exactly the accident happened. It seems sensible to not speak on that and to let more investigation take place.

            Two days after the accident, on July 9, it was announced that the National Safety and Transportation Board (NTSB), a federal agency, would investigate the accident with the monorails. In an Orlando Sentinel article covering this development, a fuller picture is painted of how the accident happened, with Disney confirming certain details of what happened: “Disney confirmed Monday that the accident happened while one train was being transferred off its Epcot line for the night and said it had already taken several precautionary steps. Among them: Ensuring that multiple employees verify track-switch positions before signaling trains to proceed” (Garcia & Powers, 9 July 2009).

            In the same article, with regards to both the NTSB and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) investigating the accident, Disney indicated a willingness to work with both agencies: “"We look forward to talking with them, as we are with the other agencies who are investigating," Disney spokesman Michael Griffin said.”

            The statements in this article go along very well with some of the crisis communication strategies that were discussed earlier. Through its spokesperson the company is confirming information once it has verified it internally (not withholding facts) and with it the company is providing new information and keeping a steady flow of information coming out of it. This information would start to slow a bit almost a week after the accident when the first public indication is given by the deceased monorail pilot’s mother that she intends to file a lawsuit against the company.

            A July 15^th Orlando Sentinel article states that the woman intends to sue the company, and discusses a failed court petition on her behalf that would force Disney to preserve evidence from the accident and allow her access to a wide-ranging suite of evidence with regards to the crash. The implication in the suit is that the company would seek to destroy or otherwise hide evidence in the case. This garners a more defensive reactionary statement from the company:

            "Given the ongoing investigation and a potential claim, we are taking appropriate measures to preserve relevant documents and materials," said Walt Disney World spokeswoman Kim Prunty” (Clarke, 15 July 2009).

 

In this instance I think it is a smart move for the company to utilize a different spokesperson to give a more defensive response. There is attack or anything of the sort in the message, but it actively asserts that the company has no intention of doing anything to destroy or withhold any evidence in the case.

Moving away from the monorail accident, it is important to note how much Disney was using existing media sources to relay information about this accident. A few more accidents would take place that year, and the year would also see the creation of an official Disney Parks blog created on the Disneyparks.com website. Having followed the blog almost since its inception, I’ve seen it used for a wide range of purposes: everything from promoting new products and events to showcasing photography and video imagery and special milestones. There has also been a good focus on charitable and environmentally conscious efforts of the company and its employees. But what I found very interesting is that it has been utilized in two instances in what could certainly be considered crisis communications.

            On March 23^rd, 2010 the blog gave an update regarding a bus accident involving WDW that produced a few injuries. But it would make a much different post regarding the unfortunate accident in April of 2010 that saw a young boy who was biking on WDW property struck and killed by a Disney bus. An Orlando Sentinel article on April 2^nd would include a statement from the president of the Walt Disney World Resort, Meg Crofton. But before this article was published, her statement appeared on the Disney Parks Blog:

            “This afternoon, we experienced a tragic accident on our property. We are deeply saddened by what happened and are doing everything we can to provide resources and support to the family. The circumstances of the accident are under investigation by the Florida Highway Patrol and we are working closely with them to gather the facts. Our hearts and prayers go out to the family, and all of our Cast Members join me in extending our deepest sympathies.”

            It seems a bit unusual at first that a media format such as that blog, which primarily has been used for product promotion, news and Disney-fan community gathering place, would be used as a channel for crisis communications. But through the study of public relations I see why this was actually a very wise choice. A story such as this tragedy will gain a lot of media attention and has sensational factors attached to it, especially considering that it took place in the heart of Disney “magic”. So what better way to put out a message towards one of its key publics, Disney fans, than their own blog? And within the message is no active defense of the company but rather a simple expression of sadness over the turn of events, and again a willingness to work with investigators toward a resolution. It exists as a true example of restrained, but active effective crisis communications.

            Over the course of this paper we have looked at several definitions of public relations, and then focused on the practice of media relations. From there we looked at how one of the world’s largest companies utilizes public and media relations to deal with a specific form of crisis communication: responding to deaths in relation to the company. And in those instances it seems that through the systems of investigation that must take place and the specter of lawsuits, the only thing to be done in many instances is express grief and support, and pledge to support and cooperate in investigations.

           

References

Bianca Prieto, Jason Garcia, Walter Pacheco, & Willoughby Mariano. (2  April). Boy killed in Disney bus accident in Fort Wilderness is identified: 9-year-old from St. Petersburg died at scene, officials say. McClatchy - Tribune Business News.  Retrieved April 24, 2010, from ProQuest Newsstand. (Document ID: 1999711371).

Jason Garcia.  (22  December). Monorail crash: Disney did not follow manual. McClatchy - Tribune Business News.  Retrieved April 24, 2010, from ProQuest Newsstand. (Document ID: 1934693321).

Jason Garcia.  (2009, August 19). A series of tragedies. Orlando Sentinel,A.1.  Retrieved April 24, 2010, from Orlando Sentinel. (Document ID: 1837801401).

Sara K. Clarke.  (15  July). Mother of Disney monorail pilot expects to sue Walt Disney Parks. McClatchy - Tribune Business News.  Retrieved April 26, 2010, from ProQuest Newsstand. (Document ID: 1788439151).

Jason Garcia, & Scott Powers. (7  July). Botched attempt to shift train to may have caused fatal Disney World accident. McClatchy - Tribune Business News.  Retrieved April 26, 2010, from ProQuest Newsstand. (Document ID: 1779828751).

ASSOCIATED PRESS.  (2009, July 6). Walt Disney World employee killed in monorail crash. Boston Globe,p. A.2.  Retrieved April 26, 2010, from ProQuest Newsstand. (Document ID: 1777246191).

Sara K Clarke.  (5  July). Disney World monorails crash, killing 21-year-old Disney employee. McClatchy - Tribune News Service.  Retrieved April 26, 2010, from ProQuest Newsstand. (Document ID: 1776999381).