RIM - Blackberry - How not to do a crisis interview

This morning's interview on the Today Programme by Stephen Bates, UK Managing Director of Research In Motion (RIM), the makers of the Blackberry smartphone, demonstrates nicely how not to do a crisis interview and how delivering practised 'key messages' can sound so cringing.

Blackberry's service crashed at the start of the week and while the fault was eventually fixed, the backlog of messages created chaos.

Right at the start, Evan Davies handed over to the business presenter, Simon Jack, with a comment how Blackberry users 'like us' had been paralysed. Evidence if you needed it that RIM has been upsetting journalists who are customers and humans too.

Bates goes straight into the first question ("is this problem sorted?") with a technical discussion of what went wrong with some jargon - "throughput" and "RIM infrastructure" - thrown in for good measure. He's not thinking about his audience who don't care about the technical problems of Blackberry - he has an inside-out perspective, not the other way round as it should be. If members of the audience are Blackberry users, what they want first off is an apology and a sense of when this will be resolved; if they are not Blackberry users then it's unlikely they will be at the end of this interview!

Answering a follow-up question, he gets down into detail. We are told about "stabilising the network throughput" and "core switching within the RIM infrastructure". He should be addressing the question simply with "A backup system failed and we've sorted it but the important thing is that ......." thus moving to some positive content. He has already left it too late to exert control over the interview and failed to engage the audience emotionally.

The next question is about how RIM is "testing the patience of customers" and referencing the social media storm that has engulfed RIM (21st century - think social media!). We finally get an apology but it doesn't sound sincere, not least because at this point he rushes to tell us his obviously pre-prepared 'key messages' about Blackberry as a product.

Apologies need to demonstrate remorse and repentance to be credible. And be personal. It could have been easily done: "As you can imagine, I have a Blackberry phone too and so have been unable to use it. Therefore I fully understand our customers frustration and I am truly sorry for this service failure. But we have sorted the problem and as soon as the backlog of messages is cleared in x time they can expect the normal great level of service that makes Blackberry such a crucial phone for 70 million customers".

Halfway through this three minute interview, and the exasperation of the journalist is clear. He takes issue with everything Bates says (e.g. "well you're not there yet", contradicts him and a little later interrupts Bates' claim that Blackberry is reliable with "you'll forgive me but this has not been a reliable system"). At least someone is on the audience's side here!

Then the inevitable question - repeated when Bates avoids it - about compensation. By avoiding the question, Bates sounds evasive but he makes it worse with his attempt to 'bridge away' to what are obvious corporate key messages about Blackberry's popularity and utility. I'm guessing that he was media trained before the performance. If so, it was badly done.

And then, surprise, surprise, the inevitable question about the competition (what with the iPhone 4S going on sale today) which is again ignored as Bates bridges back to some more clunky, corporate key messages.

So what techniques should you adopt for crisis interviews? First express concern and reassurance - apologise if necessary. Empathise; be human. Second, be clear about the action taken or being taken in the context of what the positive outcomes will be for those affected. Third, offer perspective - yes, your positive messages but make them emotionally engaging, not a list of what you consider your achievements to be. Its your brand narrative you should be bridging to - not corporate messages.

Andrew Caesar-Gordon

Blueprint For An Apology

As reported in the Huffington Post this week, on Tuesday Vanity Fair magazine released an excerpt of their upcoming Johnny Depp cover article, hoping to generate buzz ahead of it hitting newsstands. In the short passage, the actor made a rare misstep, comparing participating in photo shoots to being raped. "Well, you just feel like you're being raped somehow," he said. The statement raised eyebrows and drew criticism, leading Depp to quickly issue a statement of apology and regret.

"I am truly sorry for offending anyone in any way. I never meant to. It was a poor choice of words on my part in an effort to explain a feeling," Depp said in the statement. "I understand there is no comparison and I am very regretful. In an effort to correct my lack of judgement, please accept my heartfelt apology."

As one commentator wrote on the Huffington Post's forum under the story:

"Bad analogy, Mr. Depp, but that apology is HOW an apology should be made. First, he apologized "for offending anyone", not the mealy mouthed "IF I offended anyone". Clear difference being that he acknowledged that what he said was offensive. Second, he said he "never meant to" offend anyone. No intent, no "I was misquoted" or "misunderstood".

Third, he admitted to a "poor choice of words" to try to explain a feeling. Not, "you didn't understand what I was trying to say". He said, in essence, "what I said was wrong". Fourth, he acknowledges that his feelings in this matter are in no way comparable to the feelings of a rape victim. He did not try further explain the unexplainable. Finally, he expressed the desire to "correct my lack of judgement" and, again, apologized.

Couldn't have put it better myself. Which is why I haven't tried!



Andrew Caesar-Gordon