Crisis Communication at Domino’s Pizza
In April 2009, Michael Setzer and Kristy Hammonds posted a “viral” video on YouTube. “The video showed one of the employees putting cheese in his nose while preparing sandwiches for delivery” (Clifford, 2009). Within a few hours, more than one million viewers had already viewed the video on YouTube.
Although the employees revealed that they did not deliver the contaminated food to the customers, the company chose to fire them and opened felony charges against them (Clifford, 2009). It is agreeable that the incidence damaged the company’s reputation. After the executives at the organization learned about this damaging video, they decided to keep calm instead of acting immediately (Clifford, 2009).
Although the executives confirmed that they were doing everything possible to handle the situation, the outstanding fact was that they took more than 48 hours to respond. That being the case, it is agreeable that the organization’s reaction was quite slow and unacceptable. “The company chose to create a new Twitter account to address the customers’ comments” (Clifford, 2009).
This communication strategy was unnecessary because the company was facing a major threat from the consumers and its competitors. The executives at the organization realized that it was necessary for them to have done something more than just responding to the situation alone. That being the case, the organization should have responded immediately and aggressively instead of hoping that things would settle down after a short time.
By so doing, the company would have addressed the issue in a proper manner and inform the customers about the actions taken against the two culprits (York, 2009). Finally, the company should have apologized for the situation and promise its clients that it was dedicated to continually delivering the best food products in the future.
Crisis Communication at Global Village
The second case explains how Global Village in Dubai failed to implement the best safety measures and precautions. On 24th of January 2013, an Emirati by the name Faleh Hasan Al Habsi died after a metal piece landed on him. Faleh was walking with his cousin at the time of the accident. “After the accident took place, the wheel continued to turn for almost half an hour” (Gokulan, 2013).
The victim was only 37 years old and a father of seven children. From the nature of this case, it would be agreeable that the organization did not embrace the best communication strategies to safeguard the lives of the people who visited the “village”. After the accident took place, the organization did not undertake any immediate measures to address the matter.
Afterward, the officials at the organization failed to comment on the matter for some time. However, the company stated that there were investigations to examine the nature of the accident. At the same time, the people and other humanitarian organizations called for safer measures to make the amusement park secure for all the visitors (Gokulan, 2013).
From this case, it is quite clear that the organization should have taken the best safety measures before the incident took place. As well, it would have been necessary to ensure every employee was concerned about the safety of every individual visiting the park. It was also necessary to ensure every wheel and the entire environment was safe for every person.
The organization should also have communicated to every individual about the accident and respond immediately after it had taken place. This would have made the place much secure and eventually increase the confidence of the visitors.
Reference List
Clifford, S. (2009). Video Prank at Domino’s Taints Brand. The New York Times, p. B1.
Gokulan, D. (2013). Residents shocked over Global Village accident. Khaleej Times, p. 1. Web.
York, E. (2009). What Domino’s Did Right (and Wrong) in Squelching Hubbub over YouTube Video. Advertising Age, p. 12.