The story of the Shepherd children is one of the saddest news stories for some time and Thomas Cook's handling of the situation has left their reputation in shreds. Yesterday Jeremy Vine called it "The worst PR in the world".
Thomas Cook has always been on the back foot in this tragic affair but it could have done so much better with some more thought and a properly devised and implemented crisis plan.
Last week the children’s parents who had booked the family’s holiday through Thomas Cook were finally awarded £350,000 for their loss. But their mother, speaking after the inquest said she would always hold Thomas Cook responsible for the deaths, adding they “could and should have identified that lethal boiler.”
Just when it seemed that things could not have looked worse for the travel company the revelation came that it had received something in the region of £3.5 million compensation itself. “It is disgraceful that after all we’ve been through, Thomas Cook are still putting us last in the equation,” said the children’s parents. They accused Thomas Cook of making money from their children’s deaths.
In fact the company only received £1.5million, it later revealed, and that money is to be donated to the UN children’s charity Unicef. A kind thought but slightly desperate.
Then there was the question of a letter sent by Thomas Cook to Mrs Woods and Mr Shepherd. The company said that chief executive Peter Frankhauser had written to the couple with an apology. But the parents said in their statement: “We haven’t had this so called letter of apology. We have been shown it by the press and feel it is an appalling continuation of Thomas Cook’s PR exercise. It’s not an apology for their wrongdoing but a general offer of sympathy. It does not address the central issue that their Safety Management System failed and it does not apologise for that.”
Thomas Cook’s media operation clearly went wrong in so many places. First and foremost they should have offered some sincere sympathy if not an outright apology at the very start of the case. Technically you would only apologise if you are to blame for an incident. Here, the jury found that Thomas Cook’s health and safety audit of the hotel was inadequate, but accepted the company had been misled by the hotel about its gas supply. Either way, playing the blame game would not help anyone here. Instead a natural and human apology for what they have done wrong, ideally offered in person and in private to the bereaved parents would have to show Thomas Cook to be more caring.
Perhaps Thomas Cook felt constrained by legal advice? Maybe they were advised not to make an apology for fear it could be perceived as a complete admission of guilt? Whatever the case one thing is clear – Thomas Cook needed to show more genuine care and compassion.
Sending a letter makes the company look as if it’s frightened to engage on a sincere and human level, while revealing some of the letter’s contents before ensuring that it had reached Ms Woods and Mr Shepherd was foolish and incompetent.
What else could Thomas Cook have done? We always advise organisations in a crisis situation to show care and concern but also to demonstrate that they’re taking action. Here Thomas Cook could have announced that it was carrying out a major review of all their related activities to help ensure that this tragedy never happens again.
The £1.5million compensation that Thomas Cook did in fact receive is probably quite justified in contractual terms but the message it sends is deeply unjust and unpleasant. The company was also very slow correcting the original story that quoted £3.5million. This should have been done within hours of publication. This led Mrs Woods and Mr Shepherd to say, quite understandably: “What parent would not be heartbroken by a worldwide multi-billion-pound organisation making money from their children's deaths?”
It certainly doesn’t look good that a Sunday paper had to reveal that the company had received any money at all. It’s often the last thing that an organisation in crisis wants to do but proactively releasing other facts that could be damaging does have its advantages. By grasping the nettle like this, it means that the information can all be released in one go rather than creating a paper trail with the story dragging on over days or even weeks. It also makes the organisation releasing the information look more open and honest – two qualities that are essential in these situations.
As the summer holiday season approaches, the case may or may not have an impact on Thomas Cook’s business but one thing is certain - its reputation has been shredded.
Media First are media and communications training specialists with nearly 30 years’ experience. To find out more about our highly practical communication courses, contact us here. Don't forget to subscribe to our blog.
