Latest Articles » Ex-mortgage broker trumps airline 12-to-1 in PR stakes

Ex-mortgage broker trumps airline 12-to-1 in PR stakes

The 30th anniversary of the Erebus disaster will be remembered as much for Air New Zealand's public relations misjudgement as for its culpability in the original tragedy.

The airline arranged and paid for six seats for victims' immediate family members on a United States Air Force cargo plane to Antarctica.

The charter flight organisers had asked former mortgage broker Mike Pero to front their proposal, something he did with finesse and some forethought, running the idea not only past the airline but also John Key.

The Prime Minister's well-honed intuition for his constituents' reaction was confirmed when his reported response to Pero's text message was: "Hi Mike. In principle that might work. Would be great if it did."

Air New Zealand also indicated it had no problem with seats on the planned charter flight being sold to victim's families. But later it reversed its stance, accusing the charter flight organisers of "commercial opportunism of the lowest kind and deeply disrespectful".

The airline's response was apparently determined by the views of some of the relatives of the 257 people who lost their lives 30 years ago.

Air New Zealand said it had been "inundated with correspondence from Erebus families expressing extreme disappointment in Mr Pero". A company media release offered a selection of comments it said it had received from families:

"Disgusting is not even a strong enough word"

"It is appalling"

"The dignity of this anniversary is being compromised"

"This is a crass and opportunistic stunt"

"His timing is ambush marketing of the worst variety"

With this kind of reaction, widely reported by the media, you might expect public opinion to swing against Mike Pero and for Air New Zealand. However, exactly the opposite occurred.

When a newspaper invited comments on its website with the question "Was the proposed Erebus charter flight 'disrespectful'?" it too was inundated, not with criticism, but with support for the proposal.

Comments are still flowing as I write this, with those backing Mike Pero outnumbering Air New Zealand supporters 12 to 1. Talk-back radio and letters-to-the-editor have shown similar trends.

So why did Pero pull back from the idea and say publicly "I don't want to do this any more", even though a charter flight may yet go ahead?

He probably misread the environment (as did Air New Zealand) - mistaking negative media coverage and the criticisms of a few as indicative of wider public opinion.

In any circumstance where strategy may need to be reconsidered in light of response, it is important to read the situation correctly. It is a lesson all businesses should learn.

Assessments of public opinion by those closest to or most affected by an issue are likely to emphasise the negative aspects of what they see and hear. Add the fact that small or selective samples do not necessarily reflect a wider audience, and there is potential for a significant misreading of public opinion.

Whatever the assessment of opinion, in most public relations challenges there are usually the twin questions of whether to respond, and if so, how.

Will a delay in response make matters worse? Will "fronting up" only prolong the scrutiny? Is it better to take a stand or refrain from comment?

The answers depend on the circumstances, and of course, on an accurate assessment of all audiences' initial and likely views.