It’s been all over the news: Last week the Lexus GX 460 was given
the extremely rare “do not buy” rating by Consumer Reports. On the
heels of Toyota’s PR disaster surrounding recalls over cases of
unintended acceleration, the once-esteemed carmaker has stepped in it
again.
Toyota’s response was typical: A calculated
surprise that betrayed a more general confusion. The initial statement
offered to the media read, in part, “Lexus’ extensive vehicle testing
provides a good indication of how our vehicles perform and we are
confident that the GX meets our high safety standards.” This textbook
case of corporate blah-blah-blah was followed up with a promise to
retest all its SUV’s and Crossovers, while its PR staff worked overtime
giving reporters vague answers to questions about the situation, most
of which boiled down to, “We don’t know.”
Frankly, from someone who watches marketing and PR responses as
carefully as I do, this was a bigger train wreck than the problem
itself. Toyota did manage an admission by the end of the week and we
can consider this a step in the right direction — at least the company
seems to have learned something from the $16.375 million fine levied
earlier this month by the NHTSA, punishment for its failure to notify
the agency of “sticky pedal” defects. A recall of the GX was then
issued on Monday, and regardless of the alacrity displayed by the
engineering side of the business, I still think Toyota hasn’t mastered
the art of professional crisis management as well as it should by now.
I have written a few times in this blog about steps that could be
taken by Toyota to mitigate these issues before they spiral out of
control. I keep watching to see if its response strategy will improve,
yet I’m still waiting. Toyota and Lexus still have the same, lame
Facebook pages that boast over 160,000 aggregate fans, but are rarely
updated — a missed opportunity. The Toyota Twitter account has gone
from 18,000 followers last month to just over 20,000 as of today, but
by comparison Ford has nearly 30,000, and Southwest Airlines blows them
out of the sky at 1,000,000. Toyota does have information on the recall
on its Web sites and seem to make it easy to contact the company with
questions or issues, but this is pretty basic stuff. Where’s the real
outreach to a public that has grown legitimately skeptical?
If Toyota simply asked for people’s thoughts, ideas on how to better
engage with them and re-assure them — even if it decides not to take
the advice — I think the company would be well on their way to
shedding some of their cold, closed, uncaring, image. I hope they are
at least tracking public reaction via social listening tools, a simple
first step towards being proactive.
As part of my current work as a marketing consultant I meet with
agencies and vendors that work for Toyota. Just the other day I was
with such an agency that serves some of Toyota’s markets outside of the
U.S. In discussing this issue with them, I kept coming back to, “Why
are they not being radically transparent?”
The response from the agency was that the powers that be in Japan
do not allow U.S. management to do so. Certainly, I can understand the
legal implications of providing too much information. These days it
seems like everyone is suing Toyota. But I still believe that the
long-term cost of all this ill will is going to be far more expensive
than a little more transparency, even if that may result in a few more
short-term dollars spent in settlements.
“Radical transparency” means going above and beyond the expected
levels of communication and response, in a way that is audacious and
shocking in its clarity. For instance, a couple of years ago, Jet Blue
found itself in the hot seat for stranding flyers on one of its planes
for an obscene amount of time. It responded in a way that was so out of
character for corporations that the reconciliation effort spawned huge
positive sentiment, overshadowing the initial consumer anger. First Jet
Blue published a full-page letter of apology in major newspapers taking
complete responsibility without trying to offer excuses. They it
committed to drastic improvements and backed it up with something they
called the “Jet Blue Customer Bill of Rights.” Then it began to publish
regular results on its improvements and setbacks. Good or bad, we knew
it was trying, knew how and what it was doing to improve, and as
customers we felt kept in the loop.
I witnessed this issue first-hand a decade ago. The Ford Explorer
tire debacle began while I was at Ford and I watched it unfold. Ford
struggled with these same issues of transparency, and that situation
wasn’t even as cut-and-dry as what Toyota has been dealing with, as
Firestone was seen as at least equally culpable. It’s no secret that
Explorer sales have struggled each year since the crisis.
Today we live in a world where opinions flow instantly and can gain
a volume and intensity that’s downright dangerous, much more so than
Ford experienced in 2000. Social networking platforms like Twitter have
forever changed the rules for crisis management. In the situation
Toyota — and now its revered Lexus brand — faces, where the blame is
clear and concern is valid, there’s no reason to think things will wind
up any differently. I just hope that someone in Japan realizes that
protecting its closed-off culture in a world that’s embraced open,
radical transparency will never inspire or engender trust. But then
again, should yet another disaster come their way, perhaps the third
time will be the charm.