A New York Times article raised accusations about Takata, which makes airbags, and the company released a statement that we believe includes some disappointing public relations tactics.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration urges owners of certain vehicles to act immediately on recall notices to replace defective Takata airbags.
The Times article reports Takata, according to two former employees, conducted airbag tests in 2004, did not alert federal regulators about possible danger, discounted results and ordered technicians to delete data and dispose of airbag inflaters.
After the Times report, U.S. senators called on the United States Department of Justice to open a criminal investigation.
The Times reports Takata declined to comment for its article but later issued a statement. The Times published portions of the company’s statement. We could not find the full statement on Takata’s website, but a website called Automotive News says it published the statement in full. The statement we read on Automotive News’ website disappointed us by stating:
- “While the Company will not comment on the details of anonymous allegations, the allegations contained in the article are fundamentally inaccurate.”
We recommend companies address the allegations instead of attempting to dismiss them with vague words such as “fundamentally inaccurate.” When companies genuinely cannot comment, they should explain why. Does company policy prevent discussion of on-going investigations? Does the company need more time to gather facts and doesn’t want to share inaccurate information? Manage a situation head on because some readers will interpret words such as “fundamentally inaccurate” as carefully chosen, verbal window dressing with loopholes.
- “Takata takes very seriously the accusations made in this article and we are cooperating and participating fully with the government investigation now underway.”
These words are practically a textbook template for companies engaged in crisis communications. But we consider such sentences to be empty. How many companies don’t take similar accusations seriously? How many companies refuse to cooperate and participate in government investigations? Put in less intelligent terms, we shout, “Duh!” (This reminds us of banks with signage stating, “24-Hour ATM.” You want credit for not closing the ATM at 6pm?) In general, the public and media will not provide companies brownie points for these statements, which can backfire because they don’t address the immediate questions. Either exclude these statements or provide further detail of exactly how the company is cooperating and participating.
- “The company continues to work closely with automakers and federal regulators to address the issues related to airbags and to provide the replacements needed.”
Duh! Too many businesses continue to disappoint us with how they handle tough questions. Furthermore, we recommend employing techniques that encourage companies to provide interviews to the media instead of statements that can’t answer follow-up questions and leave crucial details unclear.