The New York Times reports a spokeswoman for GM Canada declined to comment on a Canadian investigation into a crash’s potential link to the car company’s ignition defect controversy.
When facing a crisis, companies must better prepare themselves for tough questions. If you can’t comment, explain why. Do you need more time to gather the facts? Does the company include a policy preventing you from discussing a particular issue?
The Times wrote, “She did not respond to a question on whether the company was aware of other possible crashes in Canada related to the defective switches. ‘GM Canada takes our communications with Transport Canada seriously,’ she said. ‘Our investigation into the ignition-switch issue is ongoing and we are working diligently to reach affected customers.’
Those quotes are clunkers. Was GM worried readers thought the company took communications casually? Did it believe we mistakenly thought it had stopped the investigation? And, given what some customers experienced, your best adjective for them is “affected”?
We understand the importance of repeating key messages, but provide the public information that actually is … well … information. For GM, who is following up cases outside the United States? What is the procedure for looking into these cases? When can you provide more details? And if this is the time for true transparency, why not respond to a question about other crashes?
GM’s long-term reputation is up for grabs. My goodness, give us some quotes that sound real, show a little sympathy and give us the impression you’re at least trying to answer the questions like a human, not like a robot with preprogrammed messages for anyone who calls.