When the BBC’s Panorama programme apparently showed Primark’s use of child labour in Bangalore, the retailer’s reputation took a serious hit. With the recent BBC Trust report concluding that footage of boys checking stitching on Primark products was “more likely than not” “not genuine”, it is now the BBC whose reputation is under the microscope. Indeed this is especially challenging for the BBC whose brand is associated with trust, integrity and high editorial standards. As we have seen in previous incidents, when a crisis strikes at the heart of an organisation’s brand essence, it has the power to do more damage than would otherwise be the case.
Primark meanwhile has taken the opportunity to seize the communication agenda and lead the post-report debate (in contrast to the policy of non-engagement advocated by a recent Economist article). Central to this is its microsite “Primark and Panorama; the true story” . It includes: YouTube footage created in a reportage style which seeks to reveal the alleged falsehoods in Panorama’s original programme
- a detailed statement in response to the BBC Trust’s ruling (and a link to the full report)
- a timeline of events
- an ethical trade factsheet
- the opportunity for people to post comments to the site
- a “contact us” section for bloggers, the media, NGOs and other interested parties
The site serves as a template for other businesses wanting to pro-actively manage issues, rather than simply react to them. Primark clearly made a decision to treat the publication of the report as an opportunity to surround stakeholders with materials and messages supportive of its position. Using an online platform to host these materials and messages means that anyone interested in the Primark perspective can use it as a “one stop shop”. Note also how Primark has made good use of search engine marketing to guarantee prominence for its point of view: search for “primark panorama” with Google and at the top of page one is a sponsored link to the microsite. Without this core resource, Primark would still have been represented in the post-report discussion, but in a less prominent way.
I applaud Primark for the way in which it has exerted control of the communication agenda, but would also sound a word of warning to other businesses before replicating its response in totality. In communication there are grey areas between influencing, spinning and manipulating. By failing to allow comments to be posted to its YouTube footage and by claiming that the BBC Trust had found that the footage was “fabricated” when the actual ruling fell short of stating this, Primark could be accused of over-stepping the mark.
It’s also worth noting that the company’s robust and strident response carries an element of risk as it means that any future transgressions will be an even bigger story than would otherwise be the case. With this in mind, Primark needs to plan both operationally and reputationally for the fact that it is a highly visible media target.
Finally, I would observe that an organisation’s crisis communication response needs to be in keeping with its usual tone of voice. That’s why Ryanair can be bullish in response to a problem whereas Virgin Atlantic would tend to be more empathetic. The way in which Primark has communicated following the Panorama programme mirrors its positioning as a down to earth, straight forward brand, underlining the fact that for crisis communication to be truly effective, it must be authentic.
