Reflecting on Crisis Communications in 2024: Lessons Learned

The year 2024 was marked by a series of high-profile crises that underscored the importance of effective communication in times of turmoil. This article has selected three incidents to evaluate their response effectiveness and methodologies. While many crises occurred in 2024, the chosen incidents represent diverse sectors and showcase varied responses.

These incidents include the California Pizza Kitchen mac and cheese debacle, the CrowdStrike coding error, and the US Secret Service’s response to President Trump’s shooting. Each incident highlighted unique challenges and responses. This article explores these events, examines the communication strategies, successes, and failures, and extracts critical lessons to improve future crisis management efforts.

Case Study #1: California Pizza Kitchen Mac and Cheese Debacle

California Pizza Kitchen (CPK) faced a significant crisis when a customer named Riley shared a TikTok video about receiving only cheese instead of macaroni and cheese. The video quickly went viral, amassing over 4.5 million views and thousands of comments. Here’s an analysis of how CPK handled the situation from a crisis communications perspective.

Swift Response

CPK quickly acknowledged the issue on social media, responding directly to Riley’s video with a comment: “We are going to make this right — don’t worry!”. This immediate response demonstrated their commitment to addressing the problem promptly.

Engaging with the Audience

To further address the issue, CPK released a response video on TikTok featuring their senior director of culinary development, Paul Pszybylski. In the video, he humorously demonstrated how to prepare macaroni and cheese. He announced a special offer: half-price mac and cheese for all customers for the rest of July. This approach engaged with the audience and turned the negative situation positive.

Taking Responsibility

CPK didn’t shy away from taking responsibility for the mistake. They issued an apology letter to Riley, sent her a big box of macaroni noodles, and provided two gift certificates—one for a year’s supply of mac and cheese and another for a year’s supply of pizza. This gesture showed accountability and a genuine desire to make amends.

Social Listening

CPK leveraged social listening to monitor the situation and understand public sentiment. By actively listening to the comments and feedback, they could craft a response that resonated with their audience. This practice helped them pivot the crisis into a media win.

Human-Centric Approach

Instead of a business-centric response, CPK focused on a human-centric approach. They prioritized the customer’s experience over their reputation, showing they genuinely cared about them. This approach helped rebuild trust and demonstrated their commitment to customer satisfaction.

Lessons Learned

1. 1. Swift Accountability: Respond quickly to issues to maintain control of the narrative.
   2. Take Responsibility: Own up to mistakes and show genuine remorse.
   3. Engage with the Audience: Use social media to interact with customers and address their concerns.
   4. Be Generous: Go above and beyond to make amends and show your commitment to customer satisfaction.
   5. Human-Centric Communication: Focus on the customer’s experience rather than just the company’s reputation.

CPK effectively managed the crisis by following these principles and turned a potential PR disaster into a positive outcome. As public safety social media managers and PIO’s you can easily take these concepts and apply them to certain (not all) community concerns, crises, and mistakes that may arise.

Case Study #2: Crowd Strike Blue Screen of Death

The CrowdStrike failure on July 19, 2024, was a significant incident that affected millions of Windows users worldwide. Crowdstriked distributed a faulty update to its Falcon security software, causing widespread problems with Microsoft Windows computers running the software. The crash resulted in over 8.5 million systems crashing that could not be rebooted. Here’s an analysis of how CrowdStrike handled the situation from a communications perspective:

Initial Response

CrowdStrike’s initial response was sluggish, triggering swift reactions from customers and industry observers who questioned how a leading security provider could experience such a significant failure. The delay in timely communication from CrowdStrike only heightened the frustration, as clients were left in the dark about the extent of the problem and when a resolution might be forthcoming.

When news of canceled flights and grounded airlines broke — among other widespread impacts — CrowdStrike CEO George Kurtz was quick to appear on televised interviews that morning. With noted humility, he outlined the company’s position on the incident and responded to immediate media questions. But then, silence.

Crisis Management Needs to be Re-tooled

CrowdStrike’s delayed response was not only slow but also lacked empathy during this crisis. Delta Airlines alone estimated the cost of the outage at $500 million. This significant financial impact underscored the seriousness of the situation.

In an attempt to address the frustrations, CrowdStrike offered $10 UberEats gift cards. This gesture, however, was perceived as trivializing the incident and the substantial damage caused by the outage. The problem with the gift cards followed when Uber flagged the use of the cards as suspicious, and many were unable to utilize them because so many of the cards were being used.

The prevailing thought on offering compensation to affected customers or the workforce is that it should be proportionate to the suffering caused by the company’s initial failure. Additionally, the delivery of compensation should be seamless, user-friendly, and glitch-free. To achieve this, CrowdStrike would need to collaborate closely with third-party vendors or partners to ensure a smooth process and regain customer trust.

Media Engagement

CrowdStrike did engage the media later to provide updates and clarify the situation. They explained the technical aspects of the failure and the steps to prevent similar incidents in the future. However, their delay in communicating with the media showed they lacked transparency. Organizations must provide accurate and prompt information to the public and the media during a crisis to enable a coordinated response.

Lessons Learned:

1. Swift Acknowledgment: Respond quickly to incidents to maintain control of the narrative.
2. Transparency: Keep stakeholders informed with regular updates and clear explanations.
3. Detailed Support: Provide comprehensive support and instructions to help resolve issues.
4. Media Engagement: Proactively engage with the media to manage public perception.
5. Continuous Improvement: Review and improve processes to prevent future failures.

CrowdStrike’s handling of the failure highlighted the need to rework its crisis communications plan to ensure a swift response, transparency, and a commitment to continuous improvement. This approach would help mitigate the impact of such incidents and maintain public trust.

Case Study #3 – Secret Service Communications Failure

The attempted assassination attempt against President Donald J Trump on July 13, 2024, sent shockwaves across the country. This review is not on the response or activities at the Butler, Pennsylvania field but on the Secret Services’ communications failures when speaking to Congress and the news media. The first communications failure was when then Director of the Secret Service, Kimberly Cheatle, did not effectively communicate information in a manner that is expected of a premiere federal law enforcement agency.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) questioned newly appointed Secret Service Director Rowe about a social media post released by the Director of Communications of the Secret Service, Anthony Gugliemi. The question became about a questionable statement about resources requested by the then-Trump Secret Service detail.

In cases where a federal agency like the Secret Service faces criticism for communication lapses, the issues often stem from a lack of transparency, delayed responses, and insufficient internal communication. An effective communication strategy in such scenarios includes:

• Transparency and Speed: Quickly address issues, clarify misinformation, and provide regular updates. Director Cheatle did not go to the shooting location in Butler, PA, to observe the actual site of the shooting. During direct testimony in front of a congressional hearing investigating the assassination attempt, Director Cheatle leaned heavily on the investigation as a tool to withhold information. Director Cheatle’s comments, “There is still an ongoing investigation…” fueled speculation on the failure to deploy adequate resources and manpower, further fueling conspiracy theories.
• Messaging: In her initial statement, Director Cheatle called the assassination attempt “the most significant operational failure in decades.” She emphasized, “In no way should this be seen as assessing blame on our local, state, and federal partners.” She added, “We will not wait for the investigation to make changes in our security process.” These messages were direct and pointed. However, during a Fox News interview on July 16, 2024, she stated, “We will be transparent both internally with my team and externally with members of Congress and the American public,” which seemed contrary to her demeanor at the Congressional hearing. In an interview with ABC’s Pierre Thomas on Good Morning America, when asked about the sloped roof, Director Cheatle explained, “The sloped roof was the reason agents were not stationed there; you know, there’s a safety factor to consider, and we wouldn’t want to put someone in harm’s way on a sloped roof.”
• Taking Responsibility: Director Cheatle ultimately took responsibility for the security lapses by stating, “The buck stops with me…” That message was straightforward and very convincing. Ultimately, Director Cheatle resigned several days after her testimony on the hill.

The lessons learned here it would seem that the Secret Service was not prepared for the potential possibility that a protectee might be shot or, worse, killed. Their level of transparency, when asked direct questions, was sorely lacking, and the finger-pointing in the ABC interview that the roof was slopped, so that meant it was not safe to be on, was contradictory to the counter sniper teams who were on a similarly sloped roof, behind President Trump.

As communications professional Michelle Johnson stated in her article for PRNewsline.com, “Rather than outlining a clear path to address security gaps, Cheatle’s testimony focused on the nascent stage of the investigation. Acknowledging preliminary findings and outlining immediate actions would have demonstrated accountability and prioritized public safety,” Johnson said.

Conclusion

Each of these incidents was unique in its own way. Did you notice a similarity trending in the review process? Accountability, responsibility, and transparency were all words that we heavily identified as important from a communications perspective. To gain and maintain trust, those three tenants should be at the core of any good crisis communications plan.