blog.brandprotect.com

Rules of engagement: How JetBlue handled their “Flight attendant” issue

  

 Email Article  

Tweet  

  

  

We all heard the story. A flight attendant had a very bad day. A passenger was yelled at, oh and an emergency exit slide may have been deployed. The incident this past summer involving JetBlue and flight attendant Steven Slater appeared to have been taken directly off the pages of a workplace sit-com script. It instantly became one of the most trafficked stories of that week as millions logged on to revel in the comedy of the tale, while others joined various social media discussions involving the airline to either show their support for Mr. Slater or to question the airline directly via JetBlue’s corporate twitter page.

No matter how people went about looking for details of the incident, JetBlue was handcuffed by wanting to lessen potential damage to their brand while cooperating with an ongoing federal investigation. Similar to another incident which happened on South West airlines, JetBlue opted for a measured response issued on their blog followed up by vigilant monitoring of their Twitter traffic. Being limited in what information is permissible to be disclosed could be a hindrance in attempting to quell any potential media firestorm, but in this instance JetBlue provided an excellent example. By applying a sense of humor along with redirecting any potentially negative comments to the blog with links via Twitter, JetBlue managed a volatile situation calmly and with excellent forethought.

When assessing what would be an appropriate measured response, a brand should always keep in mind the audience it is intended for. Would JetBlue have attempted to utilize the same sense of humor when addressing share holders or their boards of directors?  Chances are good they wouldn’t. However, applying this sense of humor to a response issued on a social media site can potentially yield positive results. Inherent in the design of Twitter, “followers” are able to access a running log of previous action taken by an account. Which means that any action or response issued can be followed and can create new discussions that are not pertaining to the issue that was originally being talked about. In an article on Tnooz.com, this point is illustrated by showing the JetBlue response to a question issued by CNN correspondent Brooke Baldwin:

@BrookebCNN, the twitter handle of CNN correspondent Brooke Baldwin, tweeted Aug. 12: “Hey Jet Blue — am hearing that you are giving $100 vouchers to the passengers on Monday’s Flight 1052. True?”

And, JetBlue tweeted back: “@BrookebCNN it’s not uncommon to give vouchers to customers that have an experience outside the norm – including things as simple as no TV!”

In this example an answer to the question was not on the terms of the person and the opportunity to alter the perception about the question was taken. By redefining gross employee misconduct as “an experience outside of the norm” and drawing a comparison to a common customer service complaint, JetBlue DID in fact answer the question. Vouchers may have been issued, but now the issue wasn’t about admitting fault or attempting to make amends, it was simply standard practice.

It is imperative to know your audience. When wading into the waters of the social media community it is imperative to know the language and the demeanor of the people who may be listening. Resolving a potential PR disaster sometimes requires a degree of levity, mixed with the ability to respond to these issues expediently and on your terms.