Greyhound’s PR Dilemma after Decapitation Highlights Bus Security Issue
August 2, 2008 by Eric Eggertson
Filed under Marketing
The reflective Greyhound emblem shone brightly in the still photos and video of the scene where a bus passenger repeatedly stabbed a young man before cutting off his victim’s head and then leering at other passengers and police.
The media coverage repeatedly referred to the bizarre attack “on a Greyhound bus,” further tying the company’s name to the incident.
I heard a Greyhound rep commenting about the difficulty to providing security for bus services, compared to airline security, but that was almost two days after the gruesome killing.
Garrett Saunders found Greyhound’s crisis response lacking, suggesting the company should have quickly had somebody on the ground, ready to comment.
Greyhound, according to Saunders:
1. Did not offer a local spokesperson to be physically present for questions, and instead redirected all calls to their American office via interviews.
2. Read from a scripted response that contained no new information and was a waste of time
3. Displayed [a] lack of emotional sincerity in the tone of their response
4. Posted no information or [news] release on their Canadian or American website
5. Did not conduct a press conference to reiterate their tangible involvement in this tragedy.
The bizarre nature of the crime seemed to catch Greyhound and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police off guard. Horrific doesn’t begin to describe the shocking, out-of-the-blue butchery on the Trans Canada highway near Portage La Prairie (I was on that stretch of highway just last week.)
Greyhound has spent the last decade trying to appeal to business travellers and women, offering reserved seating close to the driver for those who worry about the dark recesses at the back of the bus.
If a single incident could epitomize the worst case scenario for everyone worried about bus travel, this would be it.
In one random attack by someone who would seem to be in some sort of delusional state, the attempts to reposition bus travel as safe has been set back a decade. But rest assured, Greyhound is hard at work reassuring the public. Three days after the incident, you can find this important update on the Greyhound website:
We can all sleep easier tonight.
I think they, like the rest of us, were horrified and unsure what to say. They hoped that if they didn’t say anything, nobody would connect them with this tragedy and their buses would still be seen as a safe way to travel.
Yeah, it sounds ridiculous. But I still understand why they thought this. I don’t think it’s right, but I understand the underlying hope.
As PR professionals, students, and members of the general public, we see public relations disasters like this occur all the time. Public relations professionals dread the unexpected tragedy that undoubtedly casts negative perceptions toward the organization or institution that will ultimately suffer from the bad publicity. We must have highly structured and well-thought-out organizational crisis plans in order to quickly address the problem before the company’s image is tampered forever. In this case involving Greyhound, the public relations department, or lack there of, simply refused to show responsiveness, responsibility, and results.
The lack of a timely response on Greyhound’s behalf shows the lack of preparation and anticipation in the event of a crisis. This issue should have been addressed immediately after the incident with press releases and a press conference. However, the tragedy was simply ignored for three days.
Greyhound never took responsibility for its actions. Greyhound should have been admitted that security on Greyhound buses is an issue. Simply saying “We take full responsibility for the lack of security on our buses” would have at least let the public know that the problem has been acknowledged.
Lastly, Greyhound refused to explain what would be done to resolve the issue of security. However, without even speaking publicly until three days after the incident, it is clear Greyhound and its public relations team must implement a crisis plan before the next psycho decapitates another innocent passenger.
Megan:
Yeah, I know the impulse to lay low, but companies owe it to their customers and to the public to step forward and offer their explanation.
I feel Gray Hound’s first mistake was waiting three days. As a student of PR, a lesson I am learning is that “Time is of the essence,” no matter how cliché the statement. Taking to long to communicate can make a corporation or company seem cold and uncaring, especially in times of crisis. Responding in a timely fashion would not only shed a more sincere and blank light on the company, but would have shown an eagerness to learn and grow from its inadequacies. Knowing, and understanding your audience, is another lesson I have learned. Gray Hound failed to account for the high amount of shock, grief and fear still surrounding the situation. Loyal customers were looking for an apology and assurance that they are safe commuting with Gray Hound. Potential customers were looking for a strategy to avoid a future crisis, and the public in general waited for Gray Hound to take responsibility. A company that has the ability to look at their mistakes, admits to them, and learns and grows from them, is a company with humanity. No well-written press release or letter from the president could be an ample substitute.
Ryan and Carleen:
Well said.
The onus was clearly on Greyhound to respond quickly and effectively. In the absence of that, people fill in the blanks with their own assumptions about how much the company cares about the safety and peace of mind of their customers.
I thought, right after hearing this, that Greyhound would have a serious crisis management case on their hands.
Their statement was standard (”This is an isolated incident…”) but as PR pro’s we know that Greyhound will have to focus on the issue that troubles it’s audience: SAFETY.
This disaster provides the opportunity for Greyhound to rebrand itself (granted, their focus has been on safety in the past, though primarily it’s been on cost and comfort). This is a tough one and it certainly doesn’t help that they waited so long to release a statement.
A massive error here. I can’t argue with there claims about the difficulty of securing and monitoring bus services. There are far too many services to have a security guard on each service.
I’m curious as to what measures readers would recommend Greyhound take to secure their travel service? Do they employee conductors, with security backgrounds, to monitor different services throughout the day, at least giving a presence?