Holy Smokes Batman! Sometimes It's Best to Stay Silent!

Holy Smokes Batman!

Sometimes It’s Best to Stay Silent!

 

I don’t know the actual truth of what went on here, but I do know one thing; it’s always best to know when to shut up, especially when protecting your brand reputation.

 

So over the weekend a cinema screened a movie. Three quarters of an hour into the movie, it was stopped, reset, and the movie started again. In an open hall of customers.

 

A rather surprised customer went on to social media to highlight what had happened. Not the fact that the movie was disrupted; rather that it was restarted due to some ‘VIP’ customers. Ignoring my personal disdain for those who think in terms of us and them (plebs v’s VIPs) – the show must go on.

 

The post started receiving interest, and of course it spiralled from there.

 

First the cinema (or the chain, it’s still unclear) offered refunds plus free tickets, and apologised for the inconvenience.

 

That was an excellent first move. Before even investigating, the brand took ownership, and rightly so, even if it were only at the “locational level”. Affected customers were treated well given the ‘scenario’ that supposedly happened, this was a very suitable response, and frankly, should have stopped there.

 

But, no!

 

The brand simply doesn’t know when to let sleeping dogs lie.

 

Today, they issued a statement, which is not only contradictory to customer observation, but was in fact 24 hours late, the contents of which actually riled up broader customer anger – many netizens calling the brand out for such “BS” as things didn’t quite add up.

 

Sometimes, it’s best to know when to STFU and move on, as things had settled and attention was being drawn to other unrelated things in society. This incident, effectively, being a “flash in the pan” – literally all that it deserved to be – a minor hiccup with no real brand-defining consequences, and certainly, NFA required!

 

Unfortunately, the brand, in misguidedly thinking it was defending itself, actually stoked the fire of discontent by issuing a statement, more than a day after the incident I add, to claim that their customer was wrong and that it was a technical failure.

 

The problem is, by claiming your customer was wrong, given your very customer base (ie; mass), you are certainly going to invite questions and contestation; which certainly happened this afternoon.

 

Now, the small issue has become much bigger, with netizens in general challenging the accuracy of the brands statement, and others calling for the identification of the so-called VIP’s to be made known to the public.

 

Now, I don’t know what really happened, but I do know the cinema industry, not to mention the technology in the projection room (thanks, Dad), and what I know best is communications.

 

In this case, the brand should not have issued today’s statement (both conceptually, and with the English used) – it was totally unnecessary, and simply accelerated an already contained situation. The matter had almost died a natural death, and in the bigger scheme of things was really unimportant. Now, it is at the centre of attention for many more customers, and their dissatisfaction towards the brand is being shown. That in turn creates more work for the brand to smooth things over, and has led to this scenario being disproportionately scaled.

 

My key point, when addressing a reputational issue, knowing when to close the door on the narrative is important. A reputational issue can arise not because of the issue itself, but because of an over-reaction to it. May this brand learn that sometimes less is in fact more!

 

Na na na na na na Orchan, I mean, Batman!