You can understand why some are concerned about the growing influence of robots in our lives when you consider United Airlines’ thoughtless response to a customer complaint.
Pushing for efficiency Chris Chmura’s flight had left twenty minutes early, leaving him at the gate feeling somewhat confused. His initial complaint was down to the behaviour and service of the gate worker who had failed to deal with the problem caused by the airline. When the Florida reporter issued his complaint United Airlines’ customer service department fell short of what it promised to deliver – instead issuing an unmoving response. The decision to add robots to the customer care team may be a step too far, and consequently have gone some way to damaging the brand image.
The major problem is the gulf between United Airlines’ promises of great customer care compared to the actual delivery of their service. If they truly promise to ‘provide great customer service’ then surely, they’d not have allowed this spell checking gaff, suggesting that his name is relatively similar to ‘Mr Human’, nor would they be so impersonal. The choice to not spell check, or even look over the response points to a lack of a strict external and internal communication policy.
With little human intervention, what should have been a straightforward apology and correction has now been forgotten and escalated into a much bigger debacle, with the company being ridiculed for its inability to deal with a simple problem.
The idea of a customer services department reliant on its computers to confidentially deal with issues overshadows the original problems highlighted by the baiting reporter, but what’s more alarming is that Chmura has blown up a bigger problem, failure to successfully communicate with its customers in an appropriate and diligent demeanour.
Words are cheap and United Airlines has definitely proven that by saying “Mr Human, your email clearly expresses your disappointment and I would like to extend a sincere apology for any negative impression that may have been created.” How can a computer be sincere?
In all the communication error made by the airline points to a larger problem, and has gone some way to scarring the brand. If you’re going to make promises, make sure you keep them otherwise your brand will appear hollow.
That’s why a guarantee is so binding – a contractual promise that pays out if you fail to deliver rather than a few well meaning words and a discretionary compensation.
Where is the brand custodian at UA? Why aren’t they putting up a stauncher defence?
Is this a world class company?
Chris Chmura isn’t the only angry felt passenger…
Will.i.am tweeted: @iamwill I’m flying to china and @united just gave my seats away…wtf
Robert from El Cajon, California: ‘The United flight #5422 was delayed when a crew member did not make it to work.’
Jeff of Tomball, Texas: ‘My mother-in-law who is 72 was supposed to have a direct flight with United Airlines leaving from Houston to San Francisco today. We get there. The flight’s been cancelled to 10am… So we wait till 10 then the flights cancelled to 1:15pm… the customer service is non-existent with this company.’
Would YOU trust to fly UA?
Filed under: Crisis and issue management, Kinetic Communications, Reputation | Tagged: Crisis and issue management, Kinetic Communications, public relations, Reputation, Twitter | Leave a comment »
What to do if someone makes a defamatory comment about you by Rebecca Sloan
Rebecca Sloan of Kinetic Communications
On Tuesday 30th November, I ran a talk on measuring and managing corporate reputation in the 21st century for Birmingham’s Women in Business Association (WiBA).
One topic of particular interest to attendees was how to handle a defamatory comment made online. In response, I’ve compiled a basic factsheet to help you identify when a comment is ‘fair’ and when it’s crossed the line into defamation. (NB this is only a guide. Legal advice should be sought before pursuing a claim).
A basic guide to defamation:
A statement about a person is defamatory if it tends to do any one of the following:
1) exposes him to hatred, ridicule or contempt;
2) causes him to be shunned or avoided;
3) lowers him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally; or
4) disparages him in his business, trade, office or profession.
The defamed person does NOT have to prove that the statement is false or that he has been damaged in any way. He needs to show only that the statement tends to discredit him.
What’s the test for defamation?
The test for juries is whether, under the circumstances in which the statement was published, reasonable men and women to whom the publication was made would be likely to understand it in a defamatory sense.
What the claimant must prove
To succeed in an action for defamation, a claimant must prove three things about the statement he is complaining about:
1) it is defamatory
2) it may be reasonably understood to refer to him.
The claimant must prove the words of which he complains of identify him as the person defamed. The test of whether the words identified the person suing is whether they would reasonably lead people acquainted with him to believe that he was the person referred to. It is not necessary that the entire world should understand the libel; it is sufficient if those who know the claimant can make out that he is the person meant.
3) it has been published to a third person.
NB: every repetition of a libel is a fresh publication and creates a fresh cause of action.
Who can sue?
1) Individuals
2) Corporations – if the comment is capable of injuring its trading reputation or if the company has a corporate reputation distinct from that of its members which is capable of being damaged by a defamatory statement.
Exceptions: associations, such as a club, cannot sue unless it is an incorporated body but words disparaging an association will almost invariably reflect upon the reputations of one or more of the officials who, as individuals, can sue.
Please note, although this guide will equip you with a basic knowledge of defamation, it is by no means an expansive guide. Always seek legal advice before pursuing a claim. Alternatively, if you’d like to discuss this in further detail beforehand, then get in touch!
Filed under: All, Crisis and issue management, Evaluation, Reputation | Tagged: defamation, defamatory comment, Kinetic Communications, legal advice, PR, public relations, remove, sue, Women in Business Association | Leave a comment »