Reputation Risk – BBC

The recent damaging events at the BBC are reminiscent of the reputation damage caused earlier this year by BA when it opened the new terminal 5 at Heathrow. Both BBC and BA incidents escalated into events that required Crisis Management. Could either have been avoided and what are the lessons for those who would prefer to prevent reputation damage rather than repair it?

Firstly both the BBC and BA enjoy a reservoir of trust among the public. This may or may not be justified but it exists courtesy of association with British in the brand name and national values inherent in this: dependable and reliable quality. Although BA long ceased to be under state control it carries the union flag around the world in a quasi-ambassadorial role. The BBC is the state broadcaster which enjoys enormous respect for its news output worldwide, if not its entertainment output in the home market. A first condition for containing reputation damage is the existence of goodwill in the bank. Fortunately both the BBC and BA started with this, but it went downhill from there.

In both cases, for BA and BBC the reputation damage was self inflicted, there was no third party to blame and the so there was little sympathy from their respective audiences. The cause of the crisis was entirely under their own control, it highlights internal system failure of control and communications. Also in both cases the response to the damaging event was tardy, management failed to comprehend the event severity for several days during which a containable incident unfolded into a crisis. Was this due to chain of command or was it due to perception of problem? It doesn’t really matter, speed of response is critical to arrest the decline of trust.

A further similarity between the two damaged institutions is the role played by management. In the case of BA staff cut backs led to a vacuum of expertise in operational logistics, the people who knew how to run a passenger terminal had left before the launch of T5. Problems they might have foreseen were missed by less experienced managers. Subsequent baggage handling delays and lost luggage caused enormous embarrassment for the airline. Conversely at the BBC the damage was caused not by too little but too much management. Despite layers of management to edit broadcast content, a pre-recorded radio show went out with indecent and offensive content. Management was seen as unfit for purpose.

The final similarity between the two crises relates to operational scale. Both organisations were sufficiently large and unwieldy with an unhealthy detachment from customer expectations. An airline doesn’t have to do much to keep passengers happy, but handling their bags is a pre-requisite among a short list of essentials. Air travellers will put up with delays and security checks but baggage handling is a basic competence that they rightfully expect. The BBC as a public service broadcaster has a remit to ‘inform, entertain and educate’ however the entertainment delivery became confused: tastes change and younger audiences expect more controversial material than their parents. You could argue that understanding this and accommodating it should also be a given competence of the BBC.

How then can these crises be avoided? Is a contingency fund for crisis management really necessary? An organisation that recognises and manages risk to reputation should never need to deploy such a fund. The key to avoiding reputation damage is to understand what your stakeholders expect of you. If you deliver against this, employing a mantra of ‘No surprises’, then there should never be an incident capable of causing reputation damage. Yes there is a methodology for risk mitigation but reputation damage is caused by a relationship break-down, because reputation is a relational concept. Where there is an expectation gap then risk exists and there is potential for damage.