Sport Scandals and Sponsorship. The Audacious Move by Saxo Bank Supporting Suspended Alberto Contador

This post is a reaction to the surprising sponsoring decision taken by Saxo Bank as an epitome of an audacious counterintuitive marketing movement that, even if highly risky, may be very rewarding.

If you wish, you can download here the report version of this post (pdf document)

 1. The context

For those not familiar with the story, we outline the basic facts of this sponsorship case.

Saxo Bank is a Danish financial institution created in year 1992 basically oriented to brokerage and trading operations. Saxo Bank launched its international expansion by 2001 as one of online trading references.

Saxo Bank entered into the field of sport sponsoring by year 2008, becoming the title sponsor of the cycling team managed by Danish champion Bjarne Riis. In August 2010 Saxo Bank announced their decision to extend the deal one year more, and incorporated Alberto Contador as new team leader.

Alberto Contador is one of the main references in the current cycling sphere. He has won the Tour de France three times (2007, 2009 and 2010), which is the main international competition. He has won the Giro d’Italia (2008, 2011) and the Vuelta a España (2008)

Few weeks after signing, in September 2010, it was publicly disclosed that Contador was under investigation as some traces of clenbuterol were found in one of the antidoping controls during the Tour de France 2010. Alberto Contador was judged first by the Spanish Institutions (Spanish Cycling Federation). Before sentence was dicted, the Spanish Prime Minister gave a surprising public statement saying that he considered that Alberto Contador was clean. The main leader of the opposition, Mariano Rajoy (now Prime Minister) also publicly supported the athlete considering him innocent of the charges. Finally, the Spanish Commission acquitted Alberto Contador.

The World Antidoping Agency (WADA) and UCI considered that the tribunal received unfair political pressure and decided to made a recourse and judge the case again. After a long and costly judicial battle, the Agency declared Alberto Contador convicted for doping (6 February 2012) and imposed a 2 years ban to be counted since the traces were discovered. It implied the disqualification of all wins obtained since then, including 2010 Tour de France and 2011 Giro d’Italia.

This decision produced a huge international impact in the sport related media. It received also massive media coverage in Spain. Even if not scientifically driven, online surveys with massive participation showed that 85% of respondents in Spain considered this sanction to be unfair. In general, international media and professionals received the decision with satisfaction. In France, the case was followed with interest. The polemic raised when of the TV comic programs, ‘Les Gignols de l’Info’, from Canal+ made spoofs spreading the doubt of doping practices to other Spanish sport champions like Rafa Nadal, Pau Gasol or Iker Casillas. This overreaction by French media reflects the international feeling that laws and political will in Spain are not committed enough to fight against doping practices.

 2. Implications for the sponsorship deal

The anti-doping sanction has provoked a huge negative media impact. It tarnishes the Alberto Contador’s prestige and trust. It has also directly financial implications for the athlete, as he cannot recover all legal expenses assumed for his defense. He was called for a multimillion fine linked to his salary by both WADA and CAS. Contador lost also his contract with Saxo Bank team. The ban expires in August 2011, and Contador is free to establish new contracts with other teams. Additionally, the sponsorship deal with Hugo Boss was also cancelled.

A convicted doping case in sports like cycling, athletics or swimming becomes always a notorious scandal in terms of media coverage if it refers to a leading sport discipline champion. This is the case. Negative media coverage about cheating explodes.

Potential negative brand impact of doping scandals are higher in cycling sponsorship as main sponsors are typically title sponsors. This implies that in almost every news about the athlete there is also an explicit mention of the team, and of the sponsoring firm. Here, Contador and Saxo Bank.

We have provided in previous empirical analysis of doping cases in Tour de France 2008 and 2009 how the revealed doping cases produce massive media impact and how it directly reaches the sponsors. We show some examples of our findings below in this post, in the Annex section. You can access to full reports (in Spanish) in our site Economics, Sport and Intangibles research group (ESI, a section of MRI Universidad de Navarra).

3. Saxo Bank surprising marketing reaction

Under this reputation crisis circumstances, all reputation management protocols call for a rapid and bold reaction from sponsoring firms. All propose the application of the contractual clauses allowing a termination of the agreement. This should be made without delay after the sanction is imposed, and in a public way, normally through a press release.

And suddenly and surprisingly, we learn that yesterday Sunday 12 February, many newspapers in France, and among them L’Equipe, the leading sport newspaper in France, published an ad by Saxo Bank showing Alberto Contador wearing the bank logo.

I find this case so exciting, that I presented it alredy to my students in my course ‘Sport and Brands’ and discussed it as counter example case.

The amazing part of the story was that the content of the message was not against Contador or presenting excuses to costumers and clients for this misbehavior.

The ad, as shown in the figure, states:

 ‘Les opportunités surviennent souvent après une crise. Chez Saxo Bank, nous sommes aux côtés de nos clients dans le succès comme dans les étapes difficiles et c’est aussi vrai pour nos coureurs’

(Opportunities often present themselves in times of crisis. We support clients in their moments of success and also of difficulty, and this is equally valid for our riders).

This is clearly an audacious movement, and set new rules to be applied in sponsorship management under exceptional circumstances.

This means that they have turned into supporting Alberto Contador, even if the sanction is accepted. And Saxo Bank marketing team choose to show this story in France where Contador has been probably the most attacked by media and public opinion.

It is a tremendously risky decision, but our perception is that they have chosen the winning touch.

And with this decision they tell us that in this period of financial turmoil and economic crisis, Saxo Bank is not searching with greed for every cent of their customers, but understand and support them in their situation of economic distress.

As for the sponsoring deal itself, this decision shows that they consider this deal not only as a direct business ROI driven strategy, but also a commitment for a sport tarnished and punished by public opinion, but nevertheless a sport, and a demanding one.

We feel that this message will create a lot of empathy and will be translated into an increase of brand equity for Saxo Bank.

Later, we will provide results concerning our empirical analysis of media and social media reaction to this marketing startegy.

Audacity pays.

4. How Strong is Saxo Bank commitment towards cycling, Riis Cycling Team and Contador?

The unexpected ad supporting Alberto Contador in France creates surprise, which is one of the variables that marketers can choose to design an advertising campaign with strong and deep impact in viewers.

Shocking ads is a tool chosen by brands that need an increase of brand awareness and recognition and don’t need to preserve brand equity quality. It can also be used by brands targeting customers that are comfortable and like innovative, aggressive or appealing messages and brand values. Finally, shocking messages can be chosen by well established brands wanting to show commitment for some cherished values and are asking costumers and viewers for a personal reaction.

The marketing strategy followed by Saxo Bank is shocking. It creates bold reactions. The question is to which extent is reveals pure provocation and opportunism or if, by contrast, it shows a true support for a fallen (innocent?) hero as means to present their own corporate values.

We cannot provide a sharp answer. But we can try to grasp pieces of evidence by checking out how serious is Saxo Bank commitment towards Alberto Contador and the cycling team, Riis Cycling.

First consideration is that Saxo Bank entered into the cycling sponsoring only in year 2008, in a three years long contract. This is nevertheless not strange, as this financial institution started its international expansion only after year 2001. They announced in year 2010 their intention to stop supporting cycling, after the storm doping years 2008-2010 in cycling. They reverse this decision when they announced the signing of the two year contract with Alberto Contador by August 2010.

What about current presence and treatment by Saxo Bank with this partnership with cycling, after the two years ban to Contador for doping was announced?

If we check the main page of official Saxo Bank web site, we do not find any reference at all to Contador and cycling Team Saxo Bank. It shows clearly their profile fully oriented to brokerage. The internet label of their site is ‘Forex Trading Online / Trade FX, CFDs, FX Options at Saxo Bank’. This is, a financial institution linked to speculative financial transactions.

You need to move into second layer sections to find information about Saxo Bank engagement outside their core business. In their ‘Saxo World’ section there is a reference to sponsorships, and we find the first visual reference to Alberto Contador as the image Saxo Bank uses for all sponsorship programs. This design is for sure previous to the current ban situation (we did not check it before, nevertheless), but it has not (yet?) hidden and substituted by other sponsored examples (like education or arts).

Both main page and this page suggest that Saxo Bank does not consider sport sponsorship as an strategic tool, but that they do not feel shame in being Alberto Contador’s sponsors.

If we move to national adpated sites, we do not find a direct mention to Contador in es.saxobank.com main page. By contrast, the ad published in French newspapers do appear in the main page of the French site fr.saxobank.com. We do not reprint them here to save space.

Then, if you access sponsorship section you find that currently (14 February 2012), Alberto Contador is the main reference used as company ambassador of all sponsorship programs, and also of the sponsoring deal with Team Saxo Bank. Now, these two pieces of evidence show that Saxo Bank is showing pride to count with Alberto Contador.

All in all, we experience mixed feelings. It is clear that they have not abandoned at all the visibility of they provided to Alberto Contador partnership, as flagship of their sponsoring activities. But we are unsure if this responds to a straight decision and strategic commitment with cycling and Contador, or if it is just a matter of lack of reaction and reviewing of the corporate communication management.

 5. Tracking the communication crisis protocol followed by Saxo Bank

We can try to gather additional pieces of evidence about the underlying sponsorship policy followed by Saxo Bank and the role of the ad published in French newspapers by gauging the crisis protocol followed by Saxo Bank.

Corporate reputation crisis emerge normally unexpectedly. Extraordinary specific things happen randomly and by definition they cannot be planned. Risks of suffering extraordinary specific events are no null, and thus a crisis protocol can be designed in advance of the occurrence of every single harming event. There is no justification for a performing corporation for not having designed the appropriate response to apply for every single event which risk of occurrence is no cero. It’s a matter of expertise, cumulated knowledge, lessons learned from experiences suffered by others and finally a matter of imagination. Dramatic events from 11 Sep 2001 in new York to 13 March 2011 in Japan tell us that there is no limit for assuming the weirdest scenarios. And it is relatively costless to define and design the best response to provide for each single case.

There are also some reputation crises that are completely expected and identified previously, even if nothing can be done to avoid the emergence of the crisis. A legal sentence affecting corporate interests is one of these cases.

Alberto Contador’s conviction for doping substances was a perfectly scheduled reputation crisis, for all affected parties. This was one of the possible outcomes of the judicial process.

In this perfectly controlled framework, any professional corporate communications department should have a perfectly defined communication strategy and plan. We understand that Saxo Bank decisions after doping sanctions could not respond to spontaneous and ex post analysis of the situation.

Our intention is thus to identify the position taken by Saxo Bank in regard of Alberto Contador by showing and analysing main official and public communication steps followed by Saxo Bank since 6 February 2012.

First result is that there is no a formal press release launched by Saxo Bank about this issue. This is apparently a no issue in Saxo Bank headquarters.

Even if there is no an official statement, we count with quasi official documents: Twitter messages in the official corporate account. We find there some mentions to the case the day after the sanction was announced. There is a series of three direct tweets plus a Retweet from an Alberto Contador Twitter account. They are sequentially united in time and in content. Here they are (to be read from bottom upwards):

What can we learn about Saxo Bank position from the reading of these messages?

We find a direct support to the cycling team, and a commitment to stay financially engaged with Bjarne Riss team. They also show compassion for Alberto Contador situation, and they even advocate ‘personally’ the innocence of the rider.

These messages also show that at that moment Saxo Bank did not consider to continue the contractual partnership with Alberto Contador. This decision was at best suspended if we consider that no reference to the issue reflects a calculated ambiguity, waiting for a best moment to announce the continuation after the media shock was absorbed.

It can be noticed also that, in contrast with main website, main Twitter site is clearly exposing Alberto Contador image in the front page. This is a clear signal of commitment supporting Alberto Contador, but as we did not check it before the shocking ad took place, we do not know which images were used in the right aftermath of CAS sentence.

In the first published tweet, Saxo Bank representative show full support to Bjarne Riis and redirect to the press release published by him. This is the content of the message of cycling Team Saxo Bank manager.

Interestingly enough, it drives to a site where the respondent is Riis Cycling and no Team Saxo Bank: the name and the logo of the financial institution is again not directly linked to the doping affaire.

The content of the message shows that this official press release by Team Saxo Bank (through team owner Riss) was launched the same day that the sentence was given. As for the content, we do not find any direct mention backing Contador as continuing full member of the team.

Then came the sport side response to the sanctions, in the press conference by 7 February, already mentioned in Bjarne Riis press release.

As for Alberto Contador statements we have (See the English version of the speech in the official Alberto Contador site.

1. He insists in his innocent on the charges for doping substances use.

2. He announces his decision to continue as professional cyclist after ban expiration.

3. He thanks team and sponsors by the support received:

I want to thank my team for the great support they’ve given me and continue to give me, always based on truth, and the sponsors as well, for trusting me and remaining confident. I will keep giving 100% for them in every race, always.

This statement suggests that in Alberto Contador views, he won’t be expelled from Team Saxo Bank and from his own side, he intends to stay in the team after ban expiration. But both aspects are not explicitly said.

We find in Bjarne Riis statement a public support to Alberto Contador (See the English version of the statement).

 (…). Last but not least, throughout this case we chose to fully support Alberto Contador, until things would prove, that this should be different.

Today I would like to say that we continue to fully support Alberto based on the ruling from CAS. The ruling states that it is very unlikely this has anything to do with conscious cheating. The most likely reason is instead accidental intake of a supplement. This is very important for us. So our trust in Alberto is intact.

I do not know you, but this is statement is quite confusing for me, as it combines ‘fully support’ (unconditional in the Spanish version) with a trust relying in the fact that “the most likely reason is instead accidental intake of a supplement. This is very important for us”. It is ambiguous and unclear the extent of the support of Team Saxo Bank to Alberto Contador.

Two days after, by 9 February came another reaction and contact with media by Saxo Bank management. Co-CEO Lars Seier Christensen gave an interview to El País journalist, and was published. As it did not appear as formal official note (we have shown that there is no such a document), it could suggest a subtle way to preserve corporate reputation in case that global public opinion turned negative not only against Alberto Contador but also to his sponsors. If a leading representative presents the company views through a newspaper interview, it could always leave room for a subsequent amendment of corporate views signalling a misunderstanding of company representative position by the interviewer or bad words chosen by the Co-CEO and founder.

You can check here the original news in El País, in Spanish, or you can refer to the English translation of it, provided and published by another official communication channel from Alberto Contador, AlbertoContadorNotebook.info.

What is the new information we gain concerning Saxo Bank commitment and support towards Alberto Contador?

Before it, we need to signal a really amazing statement by the sponsor:

I don’t think that doping is the big problem in cycling. It’s a calamity that impacts our rider, that has been very unfortunate given the circumstances. In spite of it, the doping problems are very small today compared to what they were, for example, in the 90´s.

It is really hard to give an explanation to this views, as they come by the title sponsor of a team currently suffering a terrible reputation crisis, in the context of a sport discipline severely damaged in terms of credibility and public opinion support. This lack of trust is not due to scandals in the 90′s, but to the repeated and dramatic positive doping cases affecting top cycling champions and Tour de France winners in the last five years (Lance Armstrong 1999-2005, tested positive but not sanctioned, Floyd Landys 2006, Rasmussen and Vinokourov 2007, Alberto Contador 2007, 2009, 2010). This is really a killing series of scandals for any sport discipline. Really, astonishing statement by Saxo Bank CEO.

As for the matter that we are analysing, we find again a personal support to Alberto Contador, as Mr Christensen affirms that he is convinced that Contador is innocent. He confirms that Saxo bank maintains its financial commitment with the team. There is a question concerning the impact of this scandal of Saxo Bank reputation, but Christensen answer refers to sport team performance impact.

We have also an interesting element concerning the sponsorship goals pursued by Saxo Bank. Again, this is not an official position, but it is clearly a qualified statement. Lars Seier Christensen says:

We’re a bank with clients all over the world and it’s difficult to reach into every part. There aren’t many things that reach as far as an international sport, and cycling is one of the most international sports, with the most competitions in many countries. It’s not perfect, because there are countries where cycling isn’t followed much, but compared to others, it’s a good investment. Contador opens a way for us to Spain and Latin America. We’ve just opened an large office in Madrid. It’s a good way to promote the bank and it’s less expensive that other sports, like Formula 1.

The interpretation of the statement is quite clear. In terms of brand management, the main objective of the sponsorship deal with cycling is basically to increase brand awareness: use cycling media exposure as a tool for making Saxo Bank brand known in new markets, specially in Spain and Latin America. As pointed out before, if your company is using sponsorship as simple media coverage tool and not as a true co-branding experience (combination and association of brand values), you are not looking for improving reputation. This implies the company is less sensitive and careful with the brand value profile of the sponsored sport brand and does not care specially about the eventual positive or negative events affecting the sport brand. You look basically for quantity of news more than quality of news. This additional element is relevant for understanding the decision taken concerning the advertisement in French newspapers.

We can compare this candid statement by Saxo Bank CEO with the official reasons presented by the company about their sponsorship strategy. Here are some excerpts:

As a leader in online trading and investment, Saxo Bank has long cherished innovation, integrity and high performance. That is why the Bank supports initiatives in a number of important areas – education and entrepreneurship, arts and literature, as well as sport and health – that celebrate the extraordinary performance of the individual as well as any successful union of human beings in a voluntary, cooperative endeavour. These initiatives enrich the community and develop the innovators of tomorrow.

In this section, you can learn more about the projects, organisations and events that Saxo Bank sponsors, and how they embody Saxo Bank’s core values. By supporting these outstanding initiatives, the Bank enhances its brand and reaches both existing and new clients at home in Denmark, and around the world. Saxo Bank’s sponsorship commitments, like its relationships with clients, are based on trust and the belief that winning comes through working together.

Sponsorship at Saxo Bank

Saxo Bank has a long-standing association with sports and healthful living. The initiatives sponsored in these areas reflect Saxo Bank’s passion for winning and endurance and promote some of its key corporate values, including Independence and Pride.

Like the Riis Cycling team, Saxo Bank is a consistent winner, regularly taking home the industry’s top awards for its online trading platforms. Supporting the world’s best cycling team is a natural choice for Saxo Bank, one that is perfectly in line with its brand and values. The team’s success – achieved through dedication, drive and team spirit – mirrors Saxo Bank’s commitment to providing clients with the best in platforms, products and services.

As a Danish company, Saxo Bank is doubly proud to support Bjarne Riis, who has rightly been called Denmark’s best sports brand.

Sponsoring Team Saxo Bank is based not only on a desire to support the best in sport, it’s also a sound commercial decision. As one of today’s most popular and watched sports, cycling has a huge audience around the world. “The team has the international reach and name recognition that means we will be able to get our message out to most of our client groups around the globe. We love the sport and believe that, together, we will be winners,” said the Bank’s co-founders and CEOs Kim Fournais and Lars Seier Christensen in a joint statement in June 2008.

Team Saxo Bank

We find in these corporate statements a combination of interest in increasing brand awareness (last paragraph) with commitment to local stakeholders (supporting a Danish based team) plus a development of some corporate brand values. They mention success and leadership, collaborative efforts, pride and integrity.

Coming back to the interview in El País, there is an indirect reference to Alberto Contador sporting future:

He’ll be back in time for the Vuelta, and he’ll be even more committed than normal to doing a good race. What’s happened has happened, and it’s sad, but that’s the way things are. It’s not the end of the world, we’ve got other good riders.

For me this statement is not clear enough concerning professional and contractual ties between Contador and Saxo Bank. Honestly, I do not know if this means that contract conditions before sentence still hold or not.

And then nothing else, till the strong committed ad was published in leading French newspapers, three days later, by 12 February 2012.

What have we learnt about Saxo Bank views after this quite long journey analysing corporate reaction to the perfectly scheduled reputation crisis?

I do not know what are the conclusions that the reader of this post may reach. I think that it appears clear that they confirm their commitment to financially support cycling Team Saxo Bank (Riis Cycling). As for Alberto Contador, my perception, frankly speaking is that I really do not know for sure what they wanted to do.

I think that our analysis proofs well enough that there is a lot of ambiguity concerning the extent and practical implications of the commitment of Saxo Bank towards Alberto Contador future. When support and sympathy comes, it is always a ‘personal’ view. When the company speaks about Contador, it is always through non official channel or using logos other than Saxo Bank.

Does it mean that Saxo bank communication team was not able to choose the correct wording and have created unwillingly a confusing message? Hey, come on! Saxo Bank counts with a professional communication and marketing team. They cannot make this kind of mistakes.

I am really persuaded that this communication crisis ambiguity has been planned and perfectly executed. In fact media coverage concerning the relationship between Saxo Bank and Alberto Contador show perplexity, because it ranges from a ‘Saxo Bank confirms that contract has ended’ Velo Nation, to ‘Contador can race for Saxo Bank after doping ban’ Business Week

Is this conscious and calculated ambiguity cynical? No, this is communication crisis! The company has the right and the duty to protect and preserve its reputation as far as it is based in sound business practices. There was a strategic decision taken by Saxo Bank: to continue the sponsorship deal with the Danish based cycling team. This posed the main communication management restriction. There was then a doping case from a team member. This convicted athlete is a champion and a leading reference in the sport discipline. He remains as a national hero in Spain, but sanction has been received in general with satisfaction in cycling world outside Spain. Saxo Bank communication team had the impossible task to try to protect all their commercial interests. Clearly supporting banned Contador pushes your brand values into the territory of companies comfortable with cheating practices, and this is probably not a nice value association for a financial corporation. Accusing Alberto Contador of cheater and launching severe press releases showing disappointment and divorce with him would transform Saxo Bank as another one of the declared enemies of Alberto Contador supporters and broad public opinion in Spain. This would kill their current aspirations to develop their business in Spain. Only by using a well calculated and wisely used ambiguity, the company could try to survive to this reputation crisis. And yes, they did it. They surfed the crisis. There were no strong voices coming from any side attacking Saxo Bank views and decisions on this problem. They solved the dilemma by working actively in not solving it. For me this is a 10 out of 10 mark in reputation crisis management.

Is this communication strategy unfair? I do not thing so, as far as they keep really in ambiguous waters. It would be unfair if you are really pushing all people to perceive and believe the opposite thing that you are really telling, as this would be deceit.

All in all Saxo Bank deserves praise for the astonishing initial management of the reputation crisis. But, whatever the degree of ambiguity of the statements made, they all contain promises that create new commitments, even if they are not formally written, on purpose.

This is the context preceding the publication of the aggressive ad. It was published by 12 February 2012, it was designed by the marketing team or an advertising agency the days before. Let’s analize the content of the message, bearing in mind all the information collected.

6. Walking the line. When every single word may potentially induce a crisis

Designing the ad to be published about a script ‘sponsor-doping-banned-still sponsoring’ in newspapers from a country where sanction has been praised and becoming source of mockery is a kind of hard task. Is something like Indiana Jones trying to capture the golden idol hidden in a cavern in the Amazones jungle. You reaches the idol hall, and you know that every step may be your last move if you get distracted and do not step over the secure tile.

There is no place for missteps. If you appear as pure provocative, loving and wanting outcry and outraged reactions, you become a Ryanair CEO histrionic style, and a crying louder marketing brand. This would be in complete contrast with the subtle communication policy followed by Saxo Bank in this crisis. If you present a low profile advertising approach where no clear position is taken, any one of both sides will understand the movement and will remain unsatisfied with Saxo Bank role. This would just reignite the debate about Alberto Contador ban decision, with now the sponsoring brand in between. This is again at odds with the steps taken till now.

And then it came the actual audacious proposal by Saxo Bank.

A way to proceed for assessing the message given is to decompose it. Let’s strip it out into different perception levels: showing, suggesting, telling and explaining.

1. Showing

What is this ad showing ?

The image chosen is what makes impossible to skip away for readers familiar with the case, and creates an immediate need to stop for watching the ad in detail. The image contains three main elements. First, this is an Alberto Contador ‘solo show’. This is also Alberto Contador playing the sport, in a winning moment caption. Secondly, this is a Saxo Bank behind and with Alberto Contador visual story. This image shows that Alberto Contador is with Saxo Bank and that Saxo Bank is with Alberto Contador. Almost all visible Saxo Bank logos are from Alberto Contador sportswear. Third component of the image is ‘After a crisis’ (Après une crise). This is the core statement of this ad, so strong and powerful that becomes an intrinsic part of the image showed to newspapers readers.

2. Suggesting

What does the overall picture and leading written message is suggesting to a majority of people watching this ad? Perception received comes probably from the global impact coming from the image, plus the content of the main message, labelled as follows: ‘Opportunities appear often after a crisis’ (Les opportunités surviennent souvent après une crise). My understanding is that many people collect the following storyline from the visual message:

a. We at Saxo Bank completely acknowledge that Alberto Contador has been caught and sanctioned. Even if it is still unclear if this is cheating or accidental contamination, we know and assume that we have a problem. (Crisis).

b. We are perfectly aware that this crisis is harming our interests as main title sponsor. We are paying a price for something that we are completely innocent (Contador alleged doping happened with Astana, and he was hired by Saxo Bank when the doping case was not disclosed). It is our right, protected by contractual clauses, to stop financially supporting Riis Cycling team, and end our sponsorship story.

c. We have considered all the elements on this complicated issue, and we have come to the conclusion that we should not abandon this Danish based team, as our business commitments are not always driven by pure commercial reasons. We know that we will miss our leading rider this year, and that we won’t be able to run the Tour de France this year. We accept the risk of continuing supporting a team in failure and crisis.

d. Alberto Contador is the world image of our team. Showing our strong support to Alberto Contador as solo visual reference in this ad is the way we had to explain you that we will not abandon our cycling team.

From this suggested story (if you share with me the existence of main points), it emerges another implicit but strong commitment: we are strongly backing Alberto Contador as the franchise reference in our Team Saxo Bank.

Reaction for some readers in France would probably move from an initial movement of anger as considering an ad with banned Contador as a provocation, followed by surprise and attraction to know more about the story after seeing also the main text.

3. Telling

The story of this ad and the effect it creates in people seeing and reading is completed by the reading of the main text included in the ad. This is a second movement that many but not all people do when watching the ad.

As already shown above in this post, full text says:

‘Les opportunités surviennent souvent après une crise. Chez Saxo Bank, nous sommes aux côtés de nos clients dans le succès comme dans les étapes difficiles et c’est aussi vrai pour nos coureurs’

(Opportunities often present themselves in times of crisis. We support clients in their moments of success and also of difficulty, and this is equally valid for our riders).

The financial institution is proposing a surprising and probably unexpected consideration to many readers: many of us have bad times, and sometimes because of our own fault. Once we accept it, how heartwarming is to know and feel that there is still someone behind supporting you.

In the context of the current economic and financial distress, such a message coming from a financial institution is something rarely heard. This message is also more direct for traditional customers of Saxo Bank, as traders using Saxo Bank financial products have had probably uneasy times in these times.

As brand reputation and trust to financial institutions is poor, this message has been seen non credible by some readers. Even in this case, it has probably not been perceived as offensive for being considered cynical. The way the text has been formulated makes that few will feel a strong negative reaction to this ad, and other will experience sentiments of sympathy to the message and to the brand behind the message.

But when going into the detail of the message, it comes the intriguing part of the story.

Full text confirms almost every one of the main suggested items, but not all of them.

It completes the message by explaining that this support after crisis is like the support they want to provide to their clients.

But the missing point is that when explained, it shows that this support to cycling refers to the team riders, but not directly to Alberto Contador future. They are not supporting Contador, but the team.

If our analysis is correct, we conclude that even after this apparently strong and risky campaign supporting Alberto Contador, it does not kill the calculated ambiguity followed by Saxo Bank during this entire reputation and communications crisis.

4. Explaining

Some readers of this post may consider that the author (me) is obsessively focussed in a kind of conspiracy theory.

In order to clarify issues, we count with an additional element for assessing the ad, and it refers to the explanations given to it by their authors.

This explanation of the message was published as a press release by the French branch, Saxo Banque, one day after its publishing. It was given by Pierre Antoine Dusoulier, President of Saxo Bank Western Europe. Quoting some excepts, he says:

« Nous avons été très attristés par cette décision concernant Alberto Contador. Il nous paraissait important de démontrer notre soutien à notre équipe cycliste tout en rappelant que nous sommes aussi aux côtés de nos Clients pour les accompagner face aux aléas des marchés financiers.

La campagne, parue hier dans L’Equipe, a pour objectif de rappeler qu’après les périodes de crise, des opportunités peuvent se présenter sur les marchés financiers, comme dans le sport.

Notre intention a bien sûr été de rebondir de manière positive face à cette situation pour rappeler que Saxo Banque propose une plateforme de trading en ligne destinée aux investisseurs actifs et que nos experts restent aux côtés de nos Clients quelles que soient les situations de marché. »

L’équipe Saxo Bank ne se retirera pas de la compétition et envisage de réintégrer Alberto Contador à l’équipe, une fois sa suspension achevée, le 5 août prochain.

Saxo Banque France Press Release 13 Febraury 2012

They confirm only and exclusively their support to their cycling team: “It is important for us to show our support to the cycling team”. As for Contador, there is just a “we consider to accept again Alberto Contador into the team after the ban expires”.

So, the official company position shows simply a decided support to the team, and a weak disposition to negotiate hiring Alberto Contador when he is free to ride again: currently, he is out of the team, and he remains out of the team. At this stage, he just deserves ‘personal’ support and sympathy… and the right to use his image to show Saxo Bank commitment to cycling, not towards him.

If this is so, a clear question emerges: Is Alberto Contador being used by Saxo Bank for its commercial purposes as a part of a private deal? Or even worse, if Contador being used and somehow cheated by creating a false image of support?

How has been perceived the ad by readers? How to measure it?

These are important questions, as they provide the mirror of the entire story explained in this post. Up to know, we have provided an analysis of the crisis and how Saxo Bank has reacted to it. Crucial point as always is to assess how stakeholders have reacted to Saxo Bank movement.

Because of our very last considerations, whatever the reaction that the ad has provoked, we feel that Saxo Bank has created a new dilemma, still pending to be solved.

If general reaction is that public opinion dislike this marketing movement as it is seen as a way to support cheaters, Saxo Bank has failed, as it moves from ambiguity area to be rejected by many considering that cycling requires new foundations.

If people don’t trust the message as they do not consider Saxo Bank as a credible ‘I will support you when you need me’ institution, but they are not outraged, they have no gains with the ad, but it has not worsened things.

If people  praise this move because they do not consider the ad offensive and it shows an incredible capacity to find opportunities behind problems, or they love to see that Saxo Bank still supports de clean members of the cycling team, this is a perfect and astonishing marketing and branding success.

If people praise and become Saxo Bank lovers because the company is supporting Alberto Contador against all adversities and with an incredible sense of courage, then my guess is that Saxo Bank is again entering back into troubles. And this is because Saxo Bank is not saying that with its ad, in spite that these people thing so. This may be a source of serious trouble, because those people praising Saxo Bank now can be extremely disappointed if facts do not follow according their interpretation of the advertising campaign.

So, let’s check reactions.

7. Impact, reactions

The analysis of media reaction will show us how this audacious marketing movement has been understood.

The main variable of analysis chosen here is content analysis of the title of the news chosen by the media. It provides the basic information concerning the editorial position (positive-neutral-negative) of the journalist. This newspaper choice is highly influential, as it provides to the readers a key of interpretation of the news content. The influence of titles of news increases nowadays with social media, as this is the only content that will appear in messages by Twitter users publishing the news in their account. A similar thing happens with Facebook personal pages.

First we check  reactions in French newspapers. This is the country where the ad has been published and France is the most sensitive public opposed to Alberto Contador practices. We should expect here the most severe media reviewers towards this marketing movement.

Contador – dopage: Une étonnante pub Saxo Bank dans L’Equipe ! (Contador – Doping: An astonishing ad by Saxo Bank in L’Equipe)

Sportune.fr 12 Febraury 2012

Saxo Bank surfe sur les déboires de Contador (Saxo Bank surfes with Contador problems)

20 Minutes (Switzerland), 12 Febraury 2012

Saxo Bank fait sa pub sur l’affaire Contador (Saxo Bank makes its ad using Contador’s case)

Club Vélo 101, 13 Febuary 2012

Affaire Contador : Saxo Bank se paye une pub dans L’Equipe (Case Contador: Saxo Bank spend its ad in L’Equipe)

Communication Entreprise, 13 February 2012

Contador Star de la Pub (Contador Ad Star)

RMC Sport, 13 February 2012

Newspapers in France show basically surprise at this unexpected movement. They consider that Saxo Bank has taken an opportunity in this affaire in a smart way. Checking the content of news published by 12 Febraury, before the note by Saxo Banque France was released we find that journalists understand that Saxo Bank is giving unconditional support to Alberto Contador:

… Saxo Bank n’est pas pour autant rancunier avec «El Pistolero» et lui apporte même un soutien inconditionnel. (Saxo Bank does not show rancorous to ‘El Pistolero’ and backs him unconditionally)

20 Minutes

… L’occasion, pour Saxo Bank, de soutenir son champion, malgré sa suspension pour dopage. (This ad is the opportunity for Saxo Bank to show support to its champion, in spite of doping ban

Sportune.fr

In the opposite camp, Club Velo 101 finds that Saxo Bank is using Alberto Contador scandal to gain additional notoriety.

The other news use the official interpretation provided by Pierre Antoine Dusoulier. They comment mainly the audacity showed by Saxo bank, but they do not refer to support to Alberto Contador.

Reaction in France media can be considered globally positive for Saxo Bank interests, as the ad is viewed rather aggressive and innovative, but not provocative or outrageous. First obstacle overcome. But we do not forget that even in France this ad has been by some as an explicit and unconditional support to Alberto Contador.

As for reactions in news providers published in English, we count with two examples of specialised newspapers in cycling. Here the news titles:

Saxo Bank show support for Contador

Cycling News, 13 February 2012

 Cycling Sponsor Gets Warm and Fuzzy

Road Cycling, 13 February 2012

 Again, both articles praise the marketing movement and interpret it as a strong support to Contador. See for instance an excerpt from Road Cycling article:

(…) Stating the obvious, times are tough for many people. Yesterday I was reading that in Southern California 44% of homeowners are “underwater” – owing more on their house than what its actual value is. Towns have been ravaged by foreclosures. And it’s just not here in the U.S. As a result people look at the banks as the enemy just waiting for the moment to screw them over and toss them out of their home.

Instead, Saxo Bank places this warm and fuzzy ad that’s basically saying, “Hey, we all know no one’s perfect and we all make mistakes. But guess what? We’re still here for you.” Wow, whoever created that campaign was a genius. So now we have this image of a faceless corporate entity that isn’t quite so callous and only interested in the bottom line. They care about people and are willing to stick with them through thick and thin.

Road Cycling

Finally, we look at Spanish media reaction to Saxo bank ad.

Saxo Bank apoya a Contador a través de un anuncio (Saxo Bank supports Contador with an ad)

El Mundo, 12 February 2012

Contador recibe el apoyo de su patrocinador en la prensa francesa (Contador receives support from sponsor in French media)

El Correo, 12 February 2012

Again, media understand the ad using Alberto Contador image as a strong commitment from sponsor Saxo Bank towards him. The financial entity is praised for taking this courageous decision.

As an illustration, we show the analysis of the 26 comments by readers of El Mundo article about Saxo Bank ad. In 35% comments there is an explicit praise to Saxo Bank for supporting Alberto Contador so openly and courageously. In total, 88% of all comments show direct or indirect support to Contador, while some 12% consider that WADA and TAS did the correct job by convicting Contador for doping.

In our view, basically all newspapers that have reacted to Saxo Bank ad consider it not as a simply proof of support towards the team, but more explicitly to Alberto Contador. As we have shown before, even if this message is clearly suggested by the marketing strategy followed, it does not correspond to the official explanation given by the company representatives.

8. How to assess the impact of Saxo Bank ad?

In a sense, it may be judged as an astonishing success, in line with the audacity of the people in charge with this decision. There are almost no negative reactions against Saxo Bank in the media we have checked. There are many times signs of surprise, but they do not turn into declared indignation.

Saxo Bank collects an immense success among readers that have understood and liked the message that was really portrayed by the financial institution: we will not abandon the team, even or because it is facing tough times. This is a perfect score in this case, because readers view in a positive way what Saxo Bank is doing in sponsorship in the midst of a crisis. They love the movement made by Saxo Bank and understand the proposal in the same way as designed by Saxo Bank. Saxo Bank increases brand value among these people, and takes advantage positively from a crisis that many could predict that it carried only bad things for the company.

Saxo Bank ad has also produced a very positive response among Alberto Contador followers who consider him a clean rider who has received an unjust sanction. They salute the support shown by Saxo Bank by using Alberto Contador image showing support to cycling, and doing this not in Spain but in France, main focus of attacks to Contador. Saxo Bank could obtain also notable profits from this improvement of brand perception among Spanish aficionados. Remember that one of the reasons presented by Saxo Bank CEO to enter into cycling sponsorship was to increase visibility and expand business activities in Spain and Latin America.

The positive impact of this ad in Spain could be viewed as a first sight as an extraordinary opportunity for increasing the presence of Saxo Bank in Spain. We fear that the expectations created will be by contrast a source of notorious problems for Saxo Bank in the near future. If our analysis was correct, this ad pretended to show support to the cycling team, but not to Alberto Contador, who continues to be expelled from the team. Saxo Bank has created a false image of support to Contador, which opens the room for immense disappointment if future facts do not follow current expectations. Saxo Bank will have soon the opportunity to show practical support to Contador, for instance concerning the payment of the fines associated to the conviction of doping. If they do not support financially Contador, the rider can show publicly his distress. Also, currently there are few probabilities that Contador will renew with Saxo Bank after ban expires, as this team risks to be not accepted in Tour de France 2013, which is the major sportive aspiration for Contador. All in all, we feel that this positive reaction among Spanish people concerning Saxo Bank ad is based in a misleading message, and this short term victory will be a source of problems in the near future.

9. Another similar case that went wrong

Even if we can consider Saxo Bank as an innovative reaction to a sponsorship crisis, there exist some other remarkable examples.

Tiger Woods experienced a phenomenal reputation crisis provoked by the disclosure of repeated marital infidelities. Some leading sponsors terminated abruptly the contracts once the golfer admitted misbehavior, like Accenture, General Motors, AT&T and Gatorade. In the other side, Nike and Electronic Arts continued sponsorship.

Nike took and step further, as they created a specific commercial directly related with the marital crisis, in a sense in a very similar way as Saxo Bank has done with Contador. This was a voice recording of passed away Wood’s father Earl. As Nike labelled the official video ‘Earl asks his son Tiger a few questions before Tiger’s return to golf’. Such a message was a controversial ad by design, as every one could expect vividly reactions for and against the use and interpretation of this message for commercial purposes. Even if this marketing decision is extremely risky, some could expect that being perceived as controversial didn’t necessarily drive to provocation and outrage. In a sense, they were proposing an ad approach like Benetton. Being a risky and audacious company proposing uneasy ad messages could fit with the brand perception looked for by Nike branding department.

This is the ad.

Video went viral quickly and reached 3 million views in a matter of few days.

You can watch here a first reaction analysis by ad expert, Barbara Lippert from AdWeek. Marketing decision is labelled as controversial, emotional, powerful, cynical, polarizing.

But that time audacity did not pay. It eventually became an awful story for Nike interests. If this video was upload by Nike Golf by 6 April 2010, media commented, less that two week after, that this video provoked a shock to Elin Nordegren. Tiger Wood’s wife ‘Elin was violently angry over this commercial and thought it was a cheesy thing to do’ (ABC News, 14 April 2010). Sources commented that the way Woods was managing the family crisis by using sponsors pushed her to fill for divorce. The couple officially divorced on 23 August 2010. Of course, this adverse reaction was one of the possible outcomes of the ad, but the one Nike did not want to provoke at all, also considering their own brand interests.

The final impact of this risky ad finally punished Nike brand. This Youtube video has received a share of 47% negative votes. Users comments show also that many viewers dislike what Nike made, or laugh about the combination Tiger Woods – Nike (‘Just do it’). It has also been the source of various spoofs and parodies.

The story is that taking risky marketing decisions is risky. Sometimes it pays (Saxo Bank), but normally it turns wrong (Nike).

What I learned from this crisis

1. If you are not the source of the crisis, hide your brand

To my view, Saxo Bank mastered the tricky process of being always present during the different stages of the crisis before and after sanction to Alberto Contador, while preventing to become one of the active protagonists of the story. Playing a secondary role in a crisis is allowed if you are not one of the parts directly being at the source of the crisis. Saxo Bank suffered from this doping conviction, but it was not responsible of it at all, as the doping case emerged when Alberto Contador was part of team Astana, and he was hired by Saxo Bank Team when this case was not made public. If you are one of the potential victims in a controversial crisis, the best place is to take a secondary role but defending your own interests. Saxo Bank brilliantly managed to be present and show their position during the different stages of the communication crisis, while being able to limit brand exposure by designing a mechanism of informal channels of communication and bypass press releases.

2. Timing

Controlling the correct timing is one of the key factors in managing a communications crisis. My perception is again that Saxo Bank did an excellent job concerning time management of their audacious irruption in the crisis with the ad. It was published by Sunday 12 February 2012, almost one week after the sentence was made public. The right aftermath of a crisis is crucial, and many communication crisis experts ask for a quick initial reaction. We have shown that in this case, the best thing for Saxo Bank interests was to choose a low profile strategy during the first hours and days after Contador was convicted. Initial reaction in a controversial case like this one implied an explosion of comments and reactions for and against CAS decision. Showing the aggressive ad in the midst of the initial period of bold reaction by both camps would probably be considered as provocative and intolerable by one of the parties. When the initial media fever decreased a new story emerged with the original Saxo Bank ad. Launching it one week after the sentence was announced allowed people interested in Contador case to listen to its content with less noisy debates around, but still with capturing the interest of an ongoing crisis.

3. In a controversy, don’t choose a camp… if you can

2 years ban to Alberto Contador for doping substances creates controversy because of the allegations presented by Alberto Contador’s legal team. Defending team argue that clenbuterol was there not because cheating and doping practices, but because of an accidental consumption of contaminated meat. CAS does not identify the cause of the presence of clenbuterol in Contador’s blood. This decision open the door for strong opposition to this ban from Contador’s followers convinced of his innocence, paired by the certainty by many others that clenbuterol revealed that Contador is guilty of doping practices. In this framework, Saxo Bank was confronted to a perfect dilemma, as whatever decision they took would generate dissatisfaction. Saxo Bank was actually able to find the perfect solution with their ‘Opportunities often appear after a crisis’

4. In a crisis, if you suggest something, you create new commitments

Saxo Bank took the decision to maintain sponsorship ties with the cycling team. Then they took the decision to show this commitment publicly by announcing it in ads in French newspapers. The third decision Saxo Bank took was to increase the visibility and reaction to this decision by choosing a photo of Alberto Contador as means to channel the message. Choosing banned Contador was not an obliged step and was not the expected one. If Saxo Bank wanted just to show support to Riis Cycling team riders, they had the much easier option to show more anonymous riders showing clearly Saxo Bank logo. Even if the text explains that Saxo Bank support goes to team riders and not to Alberto Contador, the use of the image of Contador is suggesting to a vast majority of readers a support to both team and Contador. And this creates a new commitment to Saxo Bank managers that was not active anymore after the Spanish cyclist was found guilty of doping substances use. In normal times it can be argued that they are not responsible for what people understand from their ad or statements, but for what they explicitly declare and assume. But a communication crisis is not a business as usual. The intensity of the flow of news, media attention and public opinion attention makes that every move made by the affected company has consequences beyond rights and duties. We consider that Saxo Bank has assumed some responsibilities towards Alberto Contador by using his image in the ad showing support to the cycling team. In terms of corporate reputation preservation, they are somehow obliged to act in consequence in the near future, if they do not want to lose much of the brand equity gained during this crisis.

5. Reputation crisis does not always mean reputation loss

Related posts in our blog

You can check below some other examples of our analysis about sport and sponsorship crisis, corporate reputation crisis or communication crisis.

Social Media: A Reputation Killing Youtube Video for FedEx

(* See also our new post Measuring YouTube Video ‘Guy Throwing My Computer Monitor’ As A Reputation Disaster, and Why UPS Should Not Laugh At This)

 

FedEx. Reputation management in the Transparency Age. How to react and restore this present colossal reputation crisis? Impossible mission. The reputation damage for FedEx will be huge and durable. Of course, it will be very interesting to follow the communication crisis pattern followed by FedEx. But our judgement of this reputation crisis is that FedEx will pay the hard price.

The story: Youtube user goobie55 bought a computer monitor. It was delivered by FedEx. Goobie55 had a video camera in the house entrance. It recorded how FedEx worker ‘delivered’ the very fragile box: throwing it from the street. As goobie55 points out in his/her Youtube video “The sad part is that I was home at the time with the front door wide open. All he would have had to do was ring the bell on the gate. Now I have to return my monitor since it is broken”.

This 21′ video isthe epitome of awful negative advertising: this is high quality recording, it is very short, it shows constantly the FedEx logo, the video captions that we show below show also that the fragile computer content of the box was evident, it finally clearly shows that the FedEx worker does not attempt to ring the bell of the property.

This is a 21 second duration video. It was upload 19 December 2011. Two days after, it counts with 1,7 millions views. For sure, the number of views will explode in the incoming days, at it has become a viral video. Liking rate of this video is 95.4. Viewers like this video, and of course not because they appreciate this FedEx quality express deliver.  There are already some 9.000 outraged comments.

This is Transparency Age. Social media magnifies little but disgusting mistakes. Waste of time if companies try to deny or justify them. Impossible to fight against the viral dissemination of this new source of brand reputation. Companies will have to decide if they are positive and thankful to these opportunies offered by the new channels providing information about customers feelings and complaints, and react introducing improved product and service standards. Really, this video is telling to FedEx management that something can be improved in terms of service delivering. This was a 20 seconds delivery, and we don’t know if FedEx job protocol rewards more quantity delivered than quality. If they understand this, Fedex cand improve long term quality service and customer satisfaction.

As for possible responses in this communication crisis, we feel, in line with our basic analysis, that only a message asking for pardon to all costumers plus a determination to improve delivery standards, training and control will be considered by the video viewers.

We showed in other post in this blog how KFC Malaysia reacted to a food tampering video scandal by also using social media (Youtube and Facebook) for explaining Kentucky Fried Chicken position and measures. Our assessment in that case was that even if unintended, KFC management was fuelling the viral diffusion of the video and, thus, we doubted about the communication strategy, praised by other observers. See here the KFC food tampering blog post.

In this FedEx crisis we are persuaded that the social media impact of this video will be massive. The  scenario is so terrible for the corporate brand and reputation team at FedEx, that there is almost nothing to lose in this crisis. They would nevertheless still worsen the present nightmare situation if the follow the denial approach or the ‘this is just a regrettable isolate case’.

Video images

  

  

Video ’FedEx Guy Throwing My Computer Monitor’

Update: 22 December 2011

As expected, number of Youtube views is currently exploding. We count now 4,1 million views, just 3 days after its upload. As for comparision, views of the KFC Food Tampering video in Malaysia has received som 400.000 visits in six months.

We have an official reaction from FedEx. Here it is:

FedEx Response to Customer Video

December 21, 2011

FedEx team members work very hard every day all around the world delivering millions of items on time and in perfect condition. The one delivery shown on the video is completely at odds with our training and policies. We have apologized to the customer and secured a replacement delivery. We’re pleased to have resolved the situation and the customer is satisfied.

As a result of this absolutely, positively unacceptable delivery, we are redoubling our efforts to keep things like this from happening in the future. In this specific case, we are following our established disciplinary process, which is intended to protect the privacy of team members. We can say that the employee is not interacting with customers during this process. Additionally, we look at this as a great learning opportunity. We have already used the video internally to remind all of our team members that every single package is the most important one.

We take pride in having a low damage claims rate and are very upset by this incident, which is so at odds with our Purple Promise to make every FedEx experience outstanding.

FedEx website http://www.fedex.com/us/update4.html

And another official reaction from Matthew Thornton, FedEx Senior Vice President of US Operations

Along with many of you, we’ve seen the video showing one of our couriers carelessly and improperly delivering a package the other day. As the leader of our pickup and delivery operations across America, I want you to know that I was upset, embarrassed, and very sorry for our customer’s poor experience. This goes directly against everything we have always taught our people and expect of them. It was just very disappointing.

However, from the customer’s perspective, I am pleased to let you know that the matter has been resolved in a very positive way. We have met with the customer face to face and they already have a replacement monitor at no cost to them. They have accepted our apology and say they are fully satisfied with what we’ve done in response to this unacceptable delivery. They’ve made it clear, though, that they prefer not to be identified in any way, and in this case as always with customers, we fully respect their privacy.

I know you recognize that this absolutely does NOT represent the professionalism and dedication of the 290,000 FedEx team members worldwide. It is one person and one package. While many people are publicly speculating about what will happen to the employee, FedEx takes care to protect team members’ privacy as well as our customers’ privacy. We do take this matter extremely seriously, and have initiated action in accord with our disciplinary policy, while respecting privacy concerns. Without going into detail, I can assure you that this courier is not delivering customer packages while we are going through this process.

This matter is an unfortunate exception to the outstanding service FedEx team members deliver every single day. Our customers know and value that service. We have been doing this almost 40 years, and if we weren’t doing it right, we wouldn’t have gained the widespread respect we have enjoyed. As a matter of fact, we have a very simple motto we try to live by – the Purple Promise: “I will make every FedEx experience outstanding.”

While this delivery fell way short of those high standards, we are already using it as a learning opportunity. We’ve shared this video internally to remind everyone that every single package is important to you, our customers, and that actions like this are totally unacceptable. We are also going to build this into our training programs as a constant reminder of the importance of earning — and keeping — your trust with every single delivery. We hope that you, like the customer involved in this incident, will see it as an unfortunate exception that proves the rule that our company cares for its customers.

Official FedEx Blog http://blog.fedex.designcdt.com/absolutely-positively-unacceptable

This statement is also presented as Youtube video. Now it counts with 4.000 visits.

FedEx Response to Customer Video

Grand Resort Tennessee As ‘The Dirtiest Hotel in America’ by TripAdvisor. Dealing with Social Media Reputation

Grand Resort Hotel in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee had the umpleasant honor to be declared by TripAdvisor as the dirtiest hotel in America, according to users reviews. Public release of top 10 hotels in this negative list was announced in January 2011. The content is still available at TripAdvisor site.

The approach is clearly shocking. Knowing that TripAdvisor site receives some 40 million visits per months of interested travelers, it can be assumed that appearing in the Top Worst 10 list implies devastating reputation implications.

Nine months after appearing in the list, Grand Resort owner has decided to sue TripAdvisor, contending that it “acted irresponsibly by creating and publishing such a list without validating or investigating whether such a claim is truly warranted” (Press Release) .

“Greeneville, TN attorney John T. Milburn Rogers announced the filing of a $10 million lawsuit against TripAdvisor.com for awarding the Grand Resort Hotel & Convention Center in Pigeon Forge, TN as the dirtiest hotel in America in January of 2011″, for compensatory and punitive damages.

Roger’s stated “his client’s business has been undermined by multiple reviews on TripAdvisor and by being labeled the “Dirtiest Hotel in America” by the consumer review website” (Press Release).

Kenneth Seaton, Grand Resort owner, accuses TripAdvisor of “maliciously and wrongfully contriving, designing and intending to cause respected customers to lose confidence. The dirtiest ranking, he says, caused “great injury and irreparable damage” after focusing the attention of national media including CNN and NBC on the hotel’s alleged failings. (The Telegraph, 21 oct 2011)

“(TripAdvisor) published its allegations combining and confederating together with others by maliciously and wrongfully contriving, designing and intending to cause respected customers to lose confidence in the (Grand Resort) and to cause the public to cease and refrain from doing business with the (Grand) and to cause great injury and irreparable damage to and to destroy the (Grand’s) business and reputation by false and misleading means,” reads a portion of the lawsuit (The Mountain Press, 18 Oct 2011, local newspaper from Pigeon Forge).

This position is in sharp contrast with initial reaction by Grand management to TripAdvisor list, nine month ago, as it appears in the local newspaper:

“The hotel’s management group, Grand Resort Hotel Group, issued a response to the ranking after TripAdvisor offered a preview of the list Monday and prompted stories by media outlets.

‘We (The Grand Resort Hotel Group) acknowledge and accept full responsibility for the current situation and would like to state that this issue is being taken very seriously,’

the statement reads.” (The Mountain Press, 25 Jan 2011).

This is a very interesting case to analyse, as it creates a double reputation crisis. This first one, evident, suffered by Grand Resort Hotel due to TripAdvisor reviews, and the second one, suffered by TripAdvisor as being accused by Grand Resort Hotel of flawed and malicious practices in the elaboration of the worst hotels list.

In this post we want to analyze the reputation crisis suffered by Grand Resort Hotel. We will eventually discuss later the possible reputation effects suffered by TripAdvisor.

We will study in this post some of the critics raised by the attorney defending Grand Resort interests.

Like in all our posts in this blog, we develop our analysis based in empirical data. Here, instead of analyzing news content, we choose social media content analysis. We select the most obvious source, at the origin of this reputation crisis: the reviews published by TripAdvisor users about their experience at Grand Resort Hotel. According to public disclosed figures in TripAdvisor site, there are 283 users’ reviews published between August 2003 and 21 Oct 2011.

We have analysed all 283 reviews and translated qualitative content into quantitative results, that we present here.

First result concerns the timeline intensity of the reviews made since 2003.

Data refers to number of reviews published during the precedent 12 months, with monthly measurements (12 months moving average).

We find that reviews till mid 2007 were about 20 per year. It has increased to 30-40 per year between 2007 and 2010. The intensity of reviewing is increasing since TripAdvisor list was launched, at the beginning of year 2011. Anual rate is currently at some 75 reviews.

First result is then that the publication of the list has had a direct impact in the number of reactions by Grand Resort Hotel clients. This upward evolution may nevertheless probably not be considered explosive and devastating by itself.

Additional relevant information is needed.

One crucial issue in this crisis is to evaluate to which extent the publication of the list has negatively influenced perceptions of Grand Resort actual clients. If true, besides the increase of reviews, we should observe a substantial drop in the ratings given to the Hotel after the publication of the list.

The time evolution since 2003 of the ratings given by TripAdvisor is shown in the next figure.

Data for every month is calculated by the average rating during the last 12 months. Rating scale at TripAdvisor is 1-5:

1. Terrible; 2. Poor; 3. Average; 4. Very Good; 5. Excellent

Initial records by 2004 (calculated with 2003 ratings) show values around 1.5. This is an overall value close to a global consensus of TripAdvisor reviewers on maximum disatisfaction. It even dropped at the beginning of 2005 to a minimum of 1.3 points. Initial reaction to Grand Resort costumers was thus clearly negative. Grand Resort experienced a relative recovery during 2006 as it reached its maximum in the series: 2.7 points in may 2006. Still, this is a global rating between Poor and Average. From these heights it suffered a continued depreciation in year 2007, reaching a bottom of 1.4 points in July 2007.

New manager was appointed by March 2008. Ratings improved slighly to a new peak of 2.1 in November 2008. From that moment, there is a continuous loss of reputation according to TripArvisor ratings. By January 2011, when the shameful list was released, average rating reached 1.5 points. Since then, overall perception has worsened, moving around 1.3 points, with a sligh recovery in the end of the series.

Many things can be learnt from the timeline evolution of TripAdvisors reviewers.  The first one is that Grand Resort suffered from a clear negative reputation among travelers contributing in TripAdvisor publishing their experience during their stay at Pigeon Forge, already since 2003. This situation was well known by Grand Resort management, was their representatives reacted several times to negative comments given explanations during year 2008.

In this sense, is it possible to argue that ‘the Dirtiest’ list has unduly destroyed Grand Resort Hotel reputation, as claimed by attorney Roger?

to cease and refrain from doing business with the (Grand) and to cause great injury and irreparable damage to and to destroy the (Grand’s) business and reputation by false and misleading means.

The answer is no if we refer solely to Grand Resort Hotel clients referring their experience in TripAdvisor site. Barely nothing has changed before and after the release of the list, as their overall perception was definitely negative. This assertion can be confirmed by showing global rating results before and after January 2011. We do it in the following figures.

There are 176 reviews about Grand Resort between August 2003 and 24 January 2011. 68% of them rate Grand as a terrible experience. Another 11% consider it as poor. In the other extreme, 6% consider Grand Resort experience as excellent, and another 8% consider it as good.

As for reviews after being named the ‘Top Dirtiest Hotel in the United States 2011′, ratings considering Grand stay as terrible increase to 76%. In the other side, some 13% consider it as excellent. The main impact is that reviews tend to polarize, but the global picture remains quite similar.

This is confirmed when we compare global average rating before and after the ‘Dirtiest list’. Global average rating between August 2003 and January 2011 was 1.75. The rating between Feb and Oct 2011 is 1.70 which is barely the same.

Thus, we cannot conclude that TripAdvisor has devastated Grand Resort reputation, as it was as poor before than after.

One of the main arguments presented by the attorney is that the ‘dirtiest list’ is based in reviews reviews ‘that they cannot authenticate’. Furthermore, Rogers consider that many reviews can be fake or manipulated by solliciting companies:

Rogers stated that due to the large amount of negative reviews as well as fake 5-star positive ratings provided by soliciting companies, the attention is now focused on the actions and negative effects of companies such as TripAdvisor.

The lawsuit alleges that growing negative practices and the role of TripAdvisor and other online websites are creating false images of businesses across the globe and giving false pretenses about good businesses. These websites and companies now make it possible to post positive reviews for one’s own business as well as negative for the competition.

With the results that we provide it is probably a hard task to state that TripAdvisor reviews are globally false and misleading, as overall results are based in a sufficient number of different advices (283 reviewers) and that negative perception is quite stable in time. It is really hard to assume that Grand Resort has suffered from a sustained reputation attack by competitors since 2003.

This is not to say that TripAdvisor reviews are representative of average  clients perception of Grand Resort stay. Probably other sources provide a different picture and probably internal surveys conducted by Grand Resort Hotel management provide a different and eventually more balanced perception.

But all this does not invalidate the relevance and usefulness of contributions and reputation-making by TripAdvisor reviews. We also consider that other alternative ratings from other sources showing a better Grand profile will not suffice to label TripAdvisor ratings as ‘misleading’.

The main issue in this affaire is to be labelled as “the dirtiest hotel in United States”. So, besides global ratings, we need to analyze also reviews concerning cleanliness. TripAdvisor started operations by allowing comments concerning the hotel experience, plus a global assessment with the mentionned scale 1-5. To know why a client gave a rating it was required to read the content and reach a conclusion from a qualitative analysis. By 2005 TripAdvisor included the possibility to evaluate numerically also relevant aspects of the hotel experience. Some elements of the ‘survey’ have been altered during the time, but the question concerning “cleanliness” has been present always since 2005. This additional information is at the source of the “Dirtiest Hotels” list.

Now we show the evolution of Grand Resort rating on ‘cleanliness’ and we compare it with global ratings.

The analysis show a strong relation between global rating and cleanliness perception. Till mid 2009 cleanliness ratings tended to be slighly better than global rating, but since then they follow the same path.

We learn from this figure also that bad reputation of Grand Resort on cleanliness is not produced by appearing in the ‘Dirtiest list’, as ratings were below 2 points mark (Poor) since mid 2009. As ratings reached almost absolute minimum (1 point, Terrible) by year 2010, appearing in the list could not worsen the bad reputation at least among TripAdvisor reviewers. What TripAdvisor has made is to let know people from outside the web site what TripAdvisor reviewers perceptions are.

In the following figure we present the same data about cleanliness data, but presenting yearly data.

If we exclude data from year 2008, when new management was put in place, there has been a continuous decrease on reputation about cleanliness since year 2005. It has moved from 2.2 points in year 2005 to a mere 1.27 rating by 2010. This extremely poor performance made Grand Resort lead the ‘worst list’ 2011. Our data tells us that reviewing perceptions are consistently negative as for cleanliness during all the period (2008 excepted). As pointed out before, it is really difficult to argue that this result correspond to misleading practices organized by competitors.

Ratings are not that much different in present year 2011. Up to this date, 2011 cleanliness rating is 1.59. The situation is somewhat better than the precedent fatal year. Even if it reflects a poor reputation, it would suffice to avoid topping next year ‘dirtiest list’.  Still in the current year 74% of all reviewers judge cleanliness as terrible (1 point), while it reached 84% of all cases a year ago. The main difference is that in year 2010 the maximim rating in cleanliness was 3 out of 5. In year 2011, 8 reviewers have given a 4 or 5 rating. This probable reflect a reaction movement among some Grand Resort guest to TripAdvisor list. For instance, 2 of the positive ratings where published the day after the list pas published.

Social Media: from Enemy to Ally

Continued in the second post of this series: Dealing with negative social media reputation

 

‘KFC Malaysia Food Tampering Scandal, Youtube and Facebook’, and other recent contributions in our ‘About Media & Reputation’

We open a new series of posts by sharing with you a selection of the contributions published in our daily ‘About Media & Reputation’.

‘About Media & Reputation’ is created by a selection of contributions coming from people I follow at Twitter. Those are mainly experts in brands, reputation and crisis communication. My own Twitter account is @NewsReputation. This publication is powered by paper.li.

We present here a selection of the contributions. We do not necessarily endorse the content in their approach or quality.

Main article is about a reputation crisis propelled and controlled afterwards by social media channel. It was published in our edition of 20 October 2011, “Crisis Communication: KFC Malaysia Food Tampering Scandal and How Facebook Saved the Day”, from cwfong.blogspot.com.

In Jun 11, Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) Malaysia was faced with a potential social media crisis when videos of food tampering by their kitchen staff started circulating on the Internet. As part of its crisis response strategy, KFC Malaysia established a page on its Facebook wall to tell its side of the story and restore consumer confidence.

You can check here the two disgusting videos showing food tampering.

As explained in the article, KFC management reacted using the same tools, and launched a video explaining their views and decisions.

They also opened a new section in Facebook KFC Malaysia, ‘KFC Responds’

We show an example of a TV news covering the affaire. Thanks to KFC response, the core of the news is not focused on the food health scandal, but on KFC management reaction, and on the corrective measures taken by the company.

CW Fong & Associates praise Kentucky Fried Chicken reaction, as an example of well managed reputation crisis:

Like many other crisis communication experts, I attribute KFC Malaysia’s success in avoiding a crisis to its timely, open, truthful, Internet present and broadly communicated crisis communication plan – what I have termed the 5 essential elements of a crisis communication plan

There may be eventually a source of concern with this communication crisis success story. And this is not a CW Fong statement but my own feeling: becoming a reference in how to deal a with social media rooted crisis using social media tools, puts you as a crisis management reference (look, KFC is in my blog, and in CF Fong & Associates site, and in the TV news  presented in this post). This may be new reputation problem for KFC. This crisis was mainly local Malaysian issue, even if it went viral. Now I know about the story through reputation experts. But the bad news is that I discovered the ugly video at the source of the scandal (and I am increasing its visibility, BTW), as it is an essential part of the story. And for me, not as an expert, but as a potential fast food consumer, my perception about KFC quality standards has not really increased. Sorry for Kentucky Fried Chicken.

As for the measures taken by the company to avoid future scandals and restore reputation, we find that they are mainly oriented to a ‘this will never happen again’ strategy (cameras in the kitchens, additional supervising kitchen staff). These measures are urgently needed to restore trust. But this episode hits KFC not only on product quality issues. It also reinforces the bad reputation of fast food companies on labor conditions. Even if this working misbehavior was an exception, it clearly reflects an attitude of lack of professionalism, commitment with the company and absence of passion for work. This attitude is probably in line with the job and salary conditions in this sector. KFC management announces also a ‘process of reviewing our recruitment and training’. It is really hard to imagine that much can change in workers’ motivation and commitment if basic job conditions offered by KFC are not substantially revised. Even if this crisis is considered a success story by many experts in terms of crisis communication and mitigation, it is far from being solved and it is not a zero cost crisis.

PS: I further develop my thoughts on this case thanks to the dialogue with readers in the ‘comments’ section of this post.

Annex 1. See also another case of fast food company crisis
Ratatouille’s friends loving fast food Quick Belleville Paris. An astonishing ‘c’est la vie’ response to a serious reputation scandal.

Annex 2. Other articles in paper.li (not related with food scandal)

Other contributions from 20 October edition:

  • ‘Four Tactics to Use Reverse SEO to Mitigate a Corporate Crisis’, by Julie Ann Rose, what-is-business.com
  • ‘Anticipate, Manage and Resolve a Crisis With PR News’ Just-Published Crisis Management Guidebook’, digitaljournal.com
  • ‘How to Handle a Crisis’ by Aileen Pincus, Business Week
  • European Crisis Competence Barometer
  • ‘How to build your personal brand within a company’ by Jessica Kleiman, The Globe and Mail
Selected contributions in 19 October edition:
  • ‘Crisis Communication: The Role of Employees’, Associatedcontent.com, from CW Fong & Associates
  • ’5 case studies — Social technology impacting management’, Businessesgrow.com
  • ‘Limited use of sharing buttons shows people’s desire to share links privately’ by Jeff Sonderman, Poynter.org
  • ‘The worst-ever advice about social media’ by Russell Working, Ragan.com

(…)

7. Automatically incorporate blog posts onto Twitter.

Jenny Leonard, editor of Futurity, notes a push to automatically link blog or newsletter posts to Twitter and Facebook. “As a colleague once told me, ‘Automation is not social; it’s the opposite of social,’” she says

(…)

2. Put the intern in charge of social media.

Stephanie Johnson, director of public affairs at Advocate Health Care, says social media is essential, so “you need a team that is invested in staying on top of these changes and adapting new elements that may benefit your audience.”

Don’t pawn it off on the kids.

Selected contributions in our 18 October edition:

  • ‘BlackBerry Brand Damaged – What’s Next in Crisis PR?’ by Ronn Torossian, Business Insider
  • ‘Service restored, but BlackBerry may never repair its reputation’ by Juliette Garside, The Observer
  • ‘Tell us: Does the death of Dan Wheldon change your mind about race setups?’, USA Today
  • ‘The Worst Thing to Put on Your Company Website’ by Michael Hess, Bnet.com (about captcha use)
  • ‘From a single hashtag, a protest circled the world’, by Ben Berkowitz, Reuters
  • ‘Twitter Will Beat Google+ And Facebook With Simplicity, Says CEO’ by Matt Lynley, Business Insider

The Image of FHFA Lawsuit Against 17 Banks

(Note: as Bank of America is in the news for additional mortgage related lawsuits, we put in the frontline this analysis posted before)

The precedent post showed which banks are more present in the media in relation with the multibillion lawsuit of the US Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) against 17 major American and international banks.

Now we show results about the images portrayed by the media when covering the FHFA lawsuit.

This is a new tool of analysis that we present in this blog. It has been developped at our research center MRI Universidad de Navarra, and it has been applied to other studies.

Image analysis show striking results for media reputation analysis. All analysis presented in this reputation crisis blog is entirely based in news content analysis from newspapers. Image analysis is also based in newspapers articles. What we do here is to identify all photos used by the journalists to illustrate the news published about any kind of issue or event.

We collect all available photos used, and we regroup them into relevant categories. The final step is to present the results. We can show the numerical results or a graphical representation of it. The reputation collage is the resulting image emerging from all photos chosen by journalists.

This tool is probably very relevant in terms of reputation analysis. Appearing in the news in a reputation crisis may damage the media perception of the affected people, company or institution. This damage increases substantially if the news appearence is not recluded into the body of the article, but appears in the headlines. But it is probably even more damaging if the indicted actor appears in the photo illustrating the news article.

News photos are many times the result of a hard work of media professionals, as they are picked as means to show the “soul of the article”. In many cases, especially when dealing with reputation crisis or scandals, the image chosen come as a result of a journal editorial decision. The impact of a photo is many times stronger than the impact of the content of the text.

We present the result concerning images showed to explain the FHFA lawsuit. As explained in the precedent post, the case we analyze here is ver nice in terms of reputation analysis, as it concerns as much as 17 different companies. The journalist or the editor needs to take a choice if she wants to show the image of a particular bank. As explained, the bank appearing in the photo of news about the FHFA pays a hard price in terms of loss of media reputation, as it creates an association with misleading business behavior, linked to the present economic crisis suffered by many right now.

First reputation collage refers to photos used in news from US newspapers about FHFA lawsuit, published between September 1 and 7.

Main image reference is a picture of a bank. We have shown a unspecified bank image, but they refer all to specific companies. The next collage will show the details of which banks are chosen as examples in the news. Second image reference in importance are photos about the stock markets, normally showing distress and images of falling stock indexes. They are concentrated in news from Monday September 5, when sued banks suffered substantial losses in European markets (Labor Day in the United States). Third and fourth images used to explain the core of the news are images about housing foreclosures and about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We find also image references to experts/analysts, money, the justice and President Obama.

As announced, we show in the following reputation collage the images concerning the names of banks used in the photo news. This result is the key element concerning the measurement of the reputational impact of the current legal crisis experienced by sued banks. It also answers to the question of which among all banks is paying the reputation bill.

Our empirical answer is quite clear: the crisis is up to now being strongly associated to Bank of America, as it is by far the reference picked by journalists or newspaper’s editor to illustrate the lawsuit. Second bank in terms of presence in news photos is JPMorgan Chase. We find also a significative presence of images about Goldman Sachs. There are only marginal appearences of other banks: Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup and First Horizon. Other banks do not even appear as photo news.

This clear result suggest a kind of Winner-take-all rule, that in the field of reputation crises becomes a curse: in a set of several affected companies by an scandal or a crisis, media tend to concentrate image attention to the one appearing as the most exposed to the scandal, in a disproportionate way compared to all other affected companies.

It is true that Bank of America has been sued by the largest amount of sellings to Fannie and Freddie. But while they support less than a third of all eventual sanctions linked to selling mortgage securities, it completely controls media choices as image to be shown to present the FHFA lawsuit news.

US FHFA Sues 17 Financial Institutions on Mortgages Securities: Who Pays the Reputation Bill?

(See also the post about the news image of FHFA lawsuit)

US Federal Housing Finance Housing (FHFA) sued 17 firms “to recover losses to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac” (see Press Release) by Septemeber 2, 2011. FHFA is a federal agency acting as “the regulator and conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the regulator of the 12 Federal Home Loan Banks”, which official Mission statement is to “Provide effective supervision, regulation and housing mission oversight of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks to promote their safety and soundness, support housing finance and affordable housing, and support a stable and liquid mortgage market”.

In accordance with its mission, FHFA launched a lawsuit against 17 firms based on”FHFA’s conclusion that some portion of the losses that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac incurred on private-label mortgage-backed securities (PLS) are attributable tomisrepresentations and other improper actions by the firms and individuals named in these filings. Based on our review, FHFA alleges that the loans had different and more riskycharacteristics than the descriptions contained in the marketing and sales materials provided to the Enterprises for those securities” (Press Release).

One day before, New York Times announced the imminent suing action. Apparently, it came as a surprise legal movement to many people in the market. In this article, the journalist mentionned that a “more than a dozen of big banks” where in the list. But New York Times mentionned only four of them: Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank “among others”.

Article by NYTimes provoked a substantial drop in mentionned companies in Friday 2 September trading (Bank of America -8.3%, JPMorgan -5.3%, Goldman Sachs -4.5%, Deutsche Bank -5.9%). Names of other affected companies came only after the market closed.

Today, Monday 5 September, affected companies in Europe have suffered a major fall, pushing all European stock markets into red. American companies are not trading today due to Labor Day. This was a specific Black Monday by European companies sued by US Federal Agency: Deutsche Bank -8.9%, Credit Suisse -8.1%, RBS -12%, HSBC -3.6%, Barclays -6.7%, Société Générale -8.6%.

The crisis we consider in this post is very interesting to us, as it is a common legal action against 17 different financial institutions. The amount of purchased made by Freddie and Fannie to each institution varies notably. Some affected institutions are American and other are European, (Plus Japanese Nomura). Finally, New York Times did only mention four of them.

The lawsuit has had an immediate tremendous financial impact. Billions of dollars of equity value have wiped away from stock owners’ pokets. This is a natural investor’s reaction to the anticipation of the losses linked to the legal process and the eventual financial fines. What we have observed today is nevertheless probably an irrational overreaction that could be corrected.

FHFA has not provided  numbers about the amount of losses they expect to recover: ““is is premature and potentially misleading to estimate what recoveries would be”. Some analysis estimate that the total sanctions to 17 entities coud reach $30Bn. Keefe, Bruyette & Woods estimate that it could cost as much as $60Bn to banks.

Financial expert John McDermott from Financial Times estimates that total amount of losses expected to recover by FHFA are $40Bn, with Bank of America expected to pay $12Bn, JPMorgan $7Bn and RBS $6.3Bn. The detail of the estimations for each bank are presented in the table.

Other analysists consider that $6Bn fine is more probable. In this latter case, these losses would represent barely 4% of total profits of these firms (Seeking Alpha, Sept 5 2011).

Whatever the extent of the direct financial impact of the lawsuit in terms of litigation costs and final finalcial sanctions, we understand that this case of a US Government Agency against 17 prominent national and international financial firms will be mainly a matter of tremendous reputational costs. This federal agency is in a sense pointing out these companies as key actors in the 2008 financial crisis that costed many sacrifices to US taxpayers and that finally became an economic crisis with the consequence of massive unemployment. A long, public and contrversial judicial process in the midst of the present renewed financial and economic crisis would become a constant media affaire with highly exposure linked to the sued institutions.

News linked to this lawsuit could be all of them severely damaging to banks reputations, as they are understood as being in the hart of the present crisis. This judicial process could render ineffective any other positive reputational efforts and expenditures assumed by the companies in sporsorship or CSR actions.

As already pointed out, the attractive aspect of this reputation crisis is that it is puting 17 companies in the same group, while the level of formally suing responsibility varies enormously, in a ratio 1 to 50. Would the public opinion and investors treat each bank differently or would they treat all of them equally as responsible for the crisis?

Media coverage to this lawsuit will provide us a lot of relevant information about the extent of the reputation damages for each one of the 17 indicted firms. As we have shown in precedent posts and in our research group reports (MRI Universidad de Navarra), we count with a number of tools that may provide useful information and knowledge for firms, practitioners and academia.

We show first in the following figure the amount of Mortgage Securities sold by each sued institution to Fannie and Freddie, in billions of US$, according to Wall Street Journal. We include under the umbrella of Bank of America $6Bn sold directly by BofA plus $26.6Bn by Countrywide Financial and $24.8Bn by Merrill Lynch/First Franklin Financial. Both firms were acquired by Bank of America.

We find that Bank of America, JP Morgan and RBS represent some $120Bn of products sold to Fannie and Freddie, or 61% of all liabilities of all 17 banks. We should note that RBS was not mentioned in the NYTimes article, while it identified Deutsche bank and Goldman Sachs.

The following figure presents the first results concerning the media coverage analysis. We compare the share of all purchased from each financial institutions, against the media coverage received in relation with FHFA lawsuit, in US newspapers. We identify in bold lines the institutions that were identified in NYTimes news.

US media coverage indicates that, as it could be expected, the distribution of news do not follow exactly the extent of expected legal liabilities: institutions that sold “small” amounts of financial products receive a substantial amount of media attention. While the 5 firms with lower financial implications have sold “just” $8Bn representing 4.2% of all funds, they receive a media coverage equivalent to 22.4% of all news about the lawsuit. The top 5 firms by liabilities suppose 76% of all sellings but only 45% of all media impact.

This is a natural result in terms of media coverage, as many newspapers mention all 17 affected companies or at least many of them. Even of the financial liabilities are indicated in the news articles, this balance of news appearances irrespective of liabilities produces paradoxically a negative reputation shift punishing the less affected companies. This result clearly favors the main involved firms: Bank of America, JP Morgan adn Royal bank of Scotland.

A second element emerging from the figure is a first assessment of the reputational impact of being mentioned in the original news at New York Times. Except for Bank of America, all other companies mentioned in the article suffer from a media impact premium in comparison to companies not present in this article. Just compare media impact of JP Morgan vs RBS, which are similar in liabilities. We also observe that Goldman Sachs reveives much more media attention than average, like Deutsche Bank. Citigroup appears also as outlier. Even if the group was not included in the list, it was directly mentioned in the article as a bank being sued by the same kind of financial practices. UBS was also mentioned in the article, but it is not included among the banks issued as UBS reached an agreement some weeks ago with federal authorities.

In the following figure we look just at banks mentioned in New York Times article. We show the relationship between funds involved and media coverage received in US newspapers between Friday 2 and Monday 5. As expected, media coverage of news that mention New York Times (NYTimes News) as source are roughly similar to all four banks, independently of the amount in charge. If we include all news in relation with the FHFA case between Friday 2 and Monday 5 (FHFA news) we see that Bank of America becomes main media reference (share of 28%) while the foreign bank receives lower attention in US newspapers than deserved by funds involved.

A complementary check is to look at banks explicitly mentioned in the headlines. Of course, being in the headline of a news implies a stronger negative reputational impact than just being mentioned in the content of the news. We have selected the headlines of news referring directly to New York Times filtration. Hre we find that newspapers tended to choose Bank of America (56% of all cases) followed by JP Morgan (38%).  Goldman Sachs appeared marginally and Deutsche Bank did not appear in the headlines.

The following set of figures shows media coverage of FHFA lawsuit by countries. Precedent analysis used results using US newspapers. Now we analyze how local media abroad is covering this crisis.

We show the share of news received by each single financial institution. We compare it to mortgages securities sold and against global media coverage. This allows to identify local media treatment specificities. We use bold line marks for identifying banks receiving specific local media attention departing from global trend.

US Newspapers count for 50% of all current news about FHFA lawsuit. This makes that its profil is similar to global coverage. One of the particualrities of US media coverage is that they under represent European continental banks (DB, CS, SocGen), while this does not happen with British firms.

Media from countries in Europe with local banks in the list focus their media coverage in their local affected institution. This is also a natural result, but with our analysis we provide empirical data enabling to estimate its extent.

This result has eveidently serious implications in reputation terms. Key market for any company is the local market, especially if this is a big market. Local market represents many times the biggest share of relevant stakeholders: owners, workers, consumers and relevant public legistation. Reputational issues in the local original market are extremely important for global brands. And this current crisis is linking main local banks to the origin of the economic and financial crisis, that is currently attacking also all these three markets: Britain, France, Germany.

Next figures is media coverage from countries that do not have local banks sued by FHFA. We find that media from Spain follow global media trend, except for Barclays and Nomura, that receive more media attention.

Media from apparently directly unaffected countries like Brazil and India follow basically global media trend.

The Shocking Reputation Irresponsibility by German Authorities on E Coli Crisis: How to Kill Innocent Cucumbers from Spain

(You can download here a pdf version of this post, with additional images analysis. In English, or check the abstract in Spanish, resumen en castellano).

Germany is suffering a major health alert due to a highly lethal epidemic produced by a new strain of e Coli bacteria. The outbreak is geographically located in the North of Germany, in Hamburg. As the number of affected people is increasing, the spread of the infected cases in new countries makes it an European crisis.

In the next table we show the distribution of E Coli officially reported cases by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. ECDC reports daily the number of cases in EU countries. Right now (5 June 2011), there are 2263 cases, with 22 deaths, in 12 countries in Europe. Germany counts with 2163 cases (95.5% of all cases) and 21 deaths. In terms of direct health crisis, this is currently a German affair.

ECDC started to report the E Coli outbreak by 25 May 2011, alerting that: “On 22 May, Germany reported a significant increase in the number of patients with haemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) and bloody diarrhoea caused by Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC). Since the end of April, 138 cases of HUS have been reported”. References to the source of the outbreak where the following one: “The source of the outbreak is under investigation, but contaminated food seems the most likely vehicle of infection. There is currently no indication that raw milk or meat is associated with the outbreak.” (ECDC Epidemiological Update 25 May 2011).

Germany accuses cucumbers from Spain

One day later, Ms Cornelia Prüfer-Storcks, Health Senator from the State-City of Hamburg alleged that cucumbers imported from Spain were the source of the epidemy.

We reproduce here a snapshot of the press release launched by the Hamburg Senate by May 25

From this statement an official heath alert was transmitted to all relevant institutions. The wording of the accusation is extremely direct: “The Hamburg Institute for Hygiene and the Environement (HU) of the Health and Consumer Protection Authority(BGV) has clearly identified a cucumber from Spain as being infected by E. Coli. Samples of two other cucumbers from Spain and another cucumber of unknown origin also tested positive for E. Coli. ‘We are now looking specifically at cucumbers as the source of the outbreak’ said Health Senator Cornelia Prüfer-Storcks” … “This success also greatly facilitates the work of health authorities” (Health Alert by Hamburg Senate).

The day after a press release by Hamburg Senate accused more specifically two exporting Spanish firms:

Hamburg Senate mentioned Press Releases can be download here (pages 17 and 19).

This declaration, in the wave of the initial stages of the increase of reported E coli cases provoked a panic against cucumbers and other vegetables produced in Spain, as well as against cucumbers from any country in Europe. Prizes plummeled, ban of importation of Spanish products emerged in several countries … and media coverage exploded.

In the other side, Federal Health autorities followed a much more prudential path. In line with Hamburg healath authorities, they found out that consumption of vegetables was linked to the infection. They launched a health alert by 25 May, “Against this backdrop RKI and BfR recommend, by way of precaution, not to consume raw tomatoes, cucumbers and green salads, more particularly in Northern Germany, until further notice … The consumption of one or more of the mentioned foods would explain a large number of the HUS cases but it cannot be excluded that other foods play a role as an infection source, too” (BfR Press release 26 May 2011). In this case, no direct mention to cucumbers from Spain was made, and no more health alerts were sent in the following days.

Five days later, by 1 June 2011, experts came to the conclusion that analyzed cucumbers from Spain were not linked at all to this lethal E Coli strain (BfR Press Release 1 June 2011)

In the daily update provided by ECDC, the European disease surveillance body, has no departed from the initial lack of specific identification of the source of the contamination. Today, the wording is as follows: “The source of the outbreak is under investigation, but contaminated food seems the most likely vehicle of infection” (ECDC Epidemiological Update 5 June 2011). No reference has been never made to cucumber or any other specific vegetable.

In sharp contrast no formal correction of the initial statements against cucumbres from Spain came from Hamburg Senate and Ms Cornelia Prüfer-Storcks. In fact, Prüfer-Storcks has inisited that even if cucumbers are cleared as source of the contagion, she acted in the correct way.

As it can be noticed, in the press release by the Hamburg Senate anouncing that cucumbers did not contain the lethal toxin, no mention at all is made to their Spanish origin.

The content of this statement was crucial for the reputation and economic interests of Spanish farmers as Hamburg Senate and its Health responsible was the origin and the epicentre of the massive media explosion.

Apparently, some other top officials from Germany ask for “comprehension” to Spain as they are undergoing a severe health crisis and the wrong accusations came inside this framework of emergency and uncertainty.

All this evolution of the events is surprising to me as scholar how Germany is tackling the cucumber crisis and its impact on reputation and media impact: we have a clear case of wrong allegations against products from a specific country, potentially having devastatings economic effects in the affected industry and no political reponsibilities emerge, and no even apology is asked for. Imagine that instead of accusing cucumbers from Spain the chosen victims were Franch cheese, or the big mac from McDonalds, Kellogg’s cereals or milk from England. In all cases, even if the accusations are false and negated few days after, the reputational and commercial damages would be colossal and mostly irreversible. This is probably what it actually happening to cucumber production in Spain and also in other countries in Europe, and vegetables exports in general from Spain.

Media impact of German accusations

This is a unduly cucumber crisis inside a true health crisis with a dramatic impact for an industry in a country completely unrelated with the source and responsible actors of the health crisis.

We want to show in this post how devastating is this false accusation against vegetables from Spain in terms of media coverage and reputational impact.

As we tackle crisis through its impact in media, we are able to measure how harmful this accusation by a German public authority has been for Spanish farmers. We want to proof whith measurable data how serious is the problem caused by false accusations by a German politician.

First element appears in the following map. We show media coverage worldwide given to each country in Europe in relation with the E Coli crisis. Data is calculated by the newspapers articles where each country is explicitly mentioned in news directly related to the Hamburg E Coli outbreak. We translate this raw information into a Media Impact Index. A country with a value 1 of the Media Impact Index means that this country appears in news about E Coli crisis in the same amount that the average of 160 countries from all over the world monitored by us.

Not surplisingly, Germany is the leading media reference, with an Index value of 46 points. It appears in the news about E Coli some 46 times more than the average of all countries. Second country most visibly associated to the outbreak is Spain, with 32 points. Spain appears in 2/3 of all news where Germany appears in relation with the E Coli crisis. This is the measure of how massive has been the media reaction and impact to the false accusations by German authorities.

Third country most present in the news worldwide is Sweden, with an Media Impac Index value of 14.6 points, less than half the presence of Spain. The Netherlands and Denmark present a similar level of media attention than Sweden.

The map results show that media attention is distributed geographically in circles around Germany the epicentre. The exceptions are Spain and Russia. Russia references are not linked to locally reported cases, but because their decision to ban the imports of all vegetables and fresh products from any country from Europe.

We show an example of how media covered the accusation against cucumbers from Spain. Later in this post we will provide more systematic information about the media impact of the wrong accusation.

This is the cover page of German tabloid Bild, by 27 May 2011, the day after Ms Cornelia Prüfer-Storcks identified Cucumbers from Spain as the source of E Coli outbreak in Germany.

The title “Todes-Keim Kommt aus Spanien!” can be translated as “Killer germ comes from Spain!”. Bild is the leading newspapers by circulation not only in Germany, but also in Europe. It takes the sixth position worldwide, with an estimated daily circulation of 3.87 million newspapers (World Association of Newspapers)

Which is the pattern followed by media to refer more or less to a specific country in relation with the E Coli outbreak?

If media coverage was relevant as a tool for understanding crisis, we should find a strong relationship between reported cases of E Coli ill people and deaths and media coverage by countries. Countries departing from the general pattern should be explained by other non health causes.

First media reference is also first country by number of E Coli cases. Germany presents a media impact index of 46 points and suffers wth more than 2100 reported cases, 95% of all cases.

Next figure shows the relation between cases and media coverage received by other 11 countries with reported cases. We find in general a positive relationship between media coverage and cases. The Netherlands and Austria receive more media attention in relation to cases, while Sweden could have more media attention according to number of cases (even if Sweden is the media reference among these 11 countries if we exclude Spain). Spain is a clearly departing observation, as there is no relation at all between media attention received and number of cases reported (just one, who visited Hamburg).

The coefficient of correlation between cases and media attention of all 11 countries is 0.21 (out of a maximum value of 1.0). If we drop the Spanish observation from the sample, the correlation jumps to 0.70. Spain is clearly an outlyer in the relation E Coli cases & media attention. Also, if we include Germany in the correlation, the coefficient is 0.78 with Spain, and 0.93 if we exclude Spain. Correlation would further increase if we include in the sample countries with no reported cases, that also count with low levels of media attention, as reflected in the map.

Media interests for Spain in the E Coli crisis does not come from the expansion of the outbreak to Spain, but because of the false allegation that products from Spain where responsible from the crisis.

The intensity of media coverage by countries

We have clearly shown that media attention to Spain in the E Coli crisis is not due to personal casualties in Spain, but due to a wrong accusation of being the responsible for the entire health crisis. We have also demonstrated that the media impact of this allegation has have massive effect, as Spain is the second country most linked to the crisis in the news, being present in two thirds of news where Germany is present.

Now we will provide some additional information about how media from different countries in the world have reproduced this false responsibility of Spanish agricultural products in E Coli health crisis.

The next series of figures show for several selected countries how much local media is covering E Coli crisis and to which extent there are direct references to Spain in news about E Coli case outbreak.

We open the analysis with the set of countries more sensitive to the issue, as they are countries counting with officially reported cases of infected people by E Coli. It can be assumed that in all these cases the mentions to Spanish products as source of their healh problems is taken extremely seriously and affect strongly consumers behaviour and views about fresh products from Spain.

According to our data, 29% of all news published by German newspapers about E Coli case mention Spain. As media attention to the issue is currently massive in Germany, this 29% represent a huge number of some 7,000 articles mentioning the cucumbers form Spain as cause of the epidemy. This number shows how powerful has been the echoes of Ms Prüfer-Storcks accusations and how vast is the dammage for Spanish economic interests. Mentions to Spain in other affected countries in Europe range from 18% (Poland) to 67% (France) of all news about E Coli.

The high ratio of mentions to Spain in French media can may be explained by the fact that France is the second market in Europe in cucumber exports, after Spain. French farmers are evidently also negatively affected by the crisis, even if they were not directly accused as country of origin. But as the cucumber is attacked, it is probable that media in France needs to insist each time that problems come from Spanish cucumbers and not from French ones, referring to Spain as many times as needed.

As anecdotical evidence of how France was suffering with the attack to cucumbers, we show the cover page of French newspaper Libération the day after it was announced that cucumbers from Spain were not responsible for the E Coli outbreak. As we will explain below, the difference in media treatment and in reputational impact is that when the cucumbers were accused as responsible, Spain appeared as visible source in the newspapers, while when the accusation is denied, media explain that cucumbers are cleared, but they do not mention in the same extent that Spanish cucumbers are cleared.


Following figure shows the impact of the cucumber accusation in other countries in Europe with no reported cases by today. Minimum level is reached in Portugal (30%), and maximum implication to Spain is reached in Turkey (80%), Ireland (61%) and Romania (59%). In all these cases, the percentages are really high. Those countries, even if they probably refer negatively to Spanish cucumbers in a less passionate way, they are also very important for Spanish commercial interests, as Europe is the main market for agricultural exports from Spain.

Final two figures of this series show the impact of the references Spain in the framework of the German E Coli crisis in non European countries. All these countries see right now the crisis as a non direct health problem in the short term.

References to Spain in US newspapers reach a share of 44% of all news about the E Coli crisis. References to Spain in Latin American countries are higher than international average, moving around the 70% ratio. Cultural linkages to Spain show that the ongoing crisis in Europe is portrayed in many American countries under the view of the problems that Spain is facing.

References to Spain are also consistently high in countries from Asia and Oceania. They range between 40% to 55%, with peaks of some 70% in Malaysia and the Philippines.

The overall picture from the last four figures show us that the accused cucumbers from Spain have been one of the main news content driver for explaining the German E Coli outbreak by local media, not only in the most directly affected countries in Europe. In fact, in countries outside Europe the references to Spain are even higher and are present in a majority of news about the health crisis. It can be argued that negative news about Spanish perishable products are not that relevant for the Spanish agriculture insdustry, as distance make them no relevant commercial partners. But in any case, the tarnished image about the quality and the security of the products from Spain will move to other Spanish products and brand country for many minds.

Spanish cucumbers as responsible in newspapers from Germany

We have shown in the first figure about the impact of the wrong allegations against Spanish products that media in Germany published some 7.000 different articles mentioning Spanish products as source of the health crisis. This is some 28% of all news abouth E Coli in Germany. In many countries the degree of presence is even higher, but it is clear that German being the epicentre of the epidemy, media coverage is massive there and many issues are covered in the news.

German newspapers play a key role in this reputation crisis affecting Spain. German public opinion was shocked by the rise of the number of affected people without understanding the origin of this crisis. Finding the source of the infection is vital for restoring public opinion serenity. If preliminary results indicate that the source of the epidemy can come from abroad instead of being produced by local vegetables, it can be expected that media privileges and provides a lot of media attention to foreign responsible food. This information offers relief and confidence concerning local agricultural products and exacerbate anger against exported food.

We show now an example of how different newspapers in Germany have used more profusely the option “cucumbers from Spain are causing our problems”.

Next table show the example of some selected newspapers. First data column shows the total number of different articles referring to E Coli crisis (labeled as EHEC in Germany). Second column shows the percentage of all articles that also mention explicitly Spain. Third column shows the percentage of all news mentioning the cucumbers as source of the crisis.

The leading German international media reference is probably Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. We have identified 57 different articles about the E Coli crisis. In 44% cases they also mention Spain, and in 56% they refer to cucumbers. Die Welt mentions Spain in 34% news, Handelsblatt in 16% cases and Der Spiegel in 51%.

We show again the example of tabloid Bild as example of how the epidemy crisis is treated by presenting the cover pages since cucmbers from Spain were accused as responsible for the infection.

We indicate with a green arrow the days were the  Coli crisis appeared as main cover news. First cover is 27 May, when Spain is directly accused (with no ambiguity). Edition by 30 May suggest that the source could come from Africa. We have marked with a circle the day after labs cleared cucumbers from Spain as source of Hamburg outbreak. In this case, no mention at all is made about Spain. Last cover page corresponds to the next formal accusation by German authorioties that the source may be soybean sprouts. This time the the suspected vegetables are locally produced in Germany, in a farm some 80 kilometers away from Hamburg. Now, the title chosen by Bild is: “Pathways to killer-bacteria. Was it contaminated sprouts?” Compare this title as question with no reference to German origin to the previous suspect: “Killer germ comes from Spain!”.

Where do the news come from?

We have provided some information about the source of the news with the figures that showed the share of news about E Coli that also mentionned Spain, by countries. We provided there the information about how many news where published in each country.

We show now the aggregate information in the following figure. As mentioned, some 25.000 different press articles referred to Spain when covering the E Coli crisis.

The distribution goeas as follows: some 33% of all worlwide news were published by German newspapers. This is the country at the origin of the health crisis and suffers 95% of all registered cases. The accusation to Spanish cucumbers came from local German authorities and as we have explained and showed, it was expected that the degree of public anxiety would be translated into a massive media coverage of the allegations again Spanish products.

Second country by number of news references is Spain, the affected coutnerpart. It has produced 21% of all news. Many of them were also accusatory, as during six days the cucumbers were presumed to be the responsible of the outbreak.

Media from countries affected directly by E Coli outbreak because they count with reported cases represent 14% of all news. Media coverage from these countries is expected to be also negative for Spanish image and interests, as public opinion share the anxiety about the causes of the outbreak.

Our results indicate that some 78% about the E coli crisis accusing Spanish products come from media based in Europe. United States and Canada published some 15% of all news and the remaining 7% comes from Latin America, Asia and Australia. This information tells us that at this stage the German E Coli outbreak is perceived as an European health alert, and not yet a global alert attecting media attention all over the world. By 8 June, only 4 cases where identified in the USA, out of 2747 registered cases.

In terms of impact for the reputation of Spanish products this European profile of the crisis is not specialy beneficial. Main negative image media coverage comes from Europe, and it is precisely European markets that buy Spanish cucumbers and all other fresh vegetables.

In the previous figure we showed world distribution of news about E Coli referring to Spain. Now we compare this information agains the world distribution of news about E Coli mentioning Germany.

The figure shows that media in Germany provide a wider relative number of news mentioning Spain in the E Coli crisis than those mentioning Germany. In Spanish media the share is similar: they write about the source of the problem, Germany, as well as the consequences for Spain. In media from countries affected by infected people, they provide more room to Germany than to Spain.

The whole picture shows how intense has been in Germany the identification of Spain as source of their health crisis. And Germany if the first market for Spanish agricultural products, with a 25% market share.

Just as term of comparison, we add a figure where we include the relative distribution by regions of all news related with the e Coli crisis, in comparison to those mentioning either Germany or Spain.

How much is 25,000 news accusing cucumbers from Spain?

We have shown in our analysis how the accusation by German authorities against cucumbers from Spain as source of the outbreak has had a huge impact inside the E Coli media coverage, as Spain is the second country most mentioned in relation with the crisis after Germany, while Spain only counted with one reported case.

Using our techniques we have identified some 25,000 different news articles referring to the Spanish cucumbers all over the world. We have shown also the share of total news about the crisis directly mentioning Spain, which ranges between 20% and 80%.

All this raises a directly related question: How harmful is this negative media campaign for Spanish farmers? How massive is really for media perceptio about Spain?

The way used by some media consulting firms is to translate the media coverage received in terms of millions of euros that an equivalent advertising campaign should cost. This figure will probably come soon.

Another alternative way that we propose to show the extent of the reputation damages is to comapre the media impact of this current crisis against the media impact of some previous events. As the mission of Media, Reputation and Intangibles center MRI Universidad de Navarra is to monitor media coverage and treatment of relevant events, we count with a number of terms of comparison. We have shown a number of these analysis in previous post of this blog.

We propose in this post to compare the magnitude of the negative media coverage caused by E Coli crisis to Spain against the positive media impact produced by recent events.

First comparison is the media impact of Spanish cucumbers against the media coverage given to the UEFA Champions league title recently won by FC Barcelona against Manchester United.

Scoording to our results, global media coverage of the E Coli cucumbers from Spain has been 60% higher than the news after the FC Barcelona victory.

We propose a visual analysis of the relative media attention given to both events by countries in Europe.

We have identified four groups of countries. First, countries were news published about the cucumbers form Spain double or more the number of articles about FC Barcelona success. They are red contour countries. Leading country in this group is Germany, with a value 3.1. Number of news about E Coli cucumbers of Spain triple news about FC Barcelona success. Second contry most sensitive is Russia, with a value 2.6: Russia banned fresh vegetable products from Russia. Austria and Bulgaria are also in this group.

The second group contains countries where media coverage about Spanish cucumbers is higher than news about the Champioons League final, but less than twice. Interestingly enough, Spain is in this group. It also includes other affected countries by the crisis or German neighbours like Sweden, Switzerland or Poland.

Thier and fourth group of countries are those that have covered more widely the UEFA Champions league final than the accusation to cucumbers from Spain. If we compare the results of this map with the one showing the countries mentioned in news about E Coli we find that they overlap with countries lowly related to E Coli. Italy, France, Britain, Portugal and Norway published at least twice the nuber of news about FC Barcelona success in comparison to mentions to actual health crisis and Spanish linkage.

Next map shows the same analysis applied to some selected countries outside Europe. We have shown that up to now the German health crisis is mainly an European oriented issues, as almost 80% of all news about e Coli outbreak come from media located in countries from Europe.

Media interest in countries from America and Asia is lower. It could also be expected that the media coverage to UEFA Champions league is lower also in many countries, as this is a football competition played solely by teams from European countries, even if they count with football players from countries outside Europe, mainly from South America and from Africa.

Lower media attention to both E Coli crisis and FC Barcelona success makes unsure the final result concerning the relative impact of each event.

Our media monitoring shows that apparently China is following E Coli crisis more profusely than the football competition. This is also for the Philippines. Other countries in group 2, providing more media attention to E Coli are United States and Canada. In all these cases local football tradition is poor and local media fllow more intensivelly other sport competitions.

In the other side, there are some countries that deserved much more media attention to FC Barcelona winning than to present German outbreak. There are some countries that published more than twice the number of news about FC Barcelona than to e Coli. This is mainly Latin America countries: Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Peru. This finding is interesting as we observed that countries from latin America where also those showing a higher ratio in the world of mentions to Spain when covering the E Coli crisis. Clearly E Coli crisis is capturing just minor media attention in these countries.

Our results indicate that in other countries like India, New Zealand and Australia the media coverage to e Coli is lower than UEFA Champions league, even if the range among countries with low football tradition.

To close the analysis about how relevant is the media coverage given to the attacks to cucumbers from Spain, we compare now media coverage to this issue against media coverage provided to other recent relevant events in Spain, in terms of media impact.

We will compare the extent given to news about cucumbers from Spain in the e Coli crisis:

versus the media coverage given to the following events related to Spain:

1. FC Barcelona UEFA Champions league title won to Manchester United (May 2011)

2. Rafa Nadal wins Roland Garros 2011 (June 2011)

3. Flamenco declared intangible heritage of Humanity

4. Golf champion Seve Ballesteros dies (May 2011)

5. Pope Benedict XVI dedicates Gaudi Sagrada Familia in Barcelona (November 2010)

6. Alberto Contdor wins Giro d’Italia 2011 (May 2011)

7. International Film Festival San Sebastián (November 2010)

8. ETA announces permanent ceasefire.

9. Movimiento 15-M emerge during Spanish local and regional elections (May 2011).

Now we show media coverage given to each single event, by relevant countries and regions. The aim of this exercice is not to analyze the media power of each event, but to show the place given to the current E Coli outbreak.

Value 100 in each table corresponds to media coverage received by the average of all events monitored, excluding the E Coli episode.

First table shows media coverage given by Spanish newspapers. Media coverage given to cucumbers in the E Coli crisis is the second event most followed by the media, right after the coverage given to Movimiento 15-M.

Second example is media views from German newspapers to Spanish related events. The conclusions emerging from the results are clear: current health crisis outpaces all previuos event in terms of media attention. Spanish cucumbers take a value 1,500. Second event most published in German newspapers is FC Barcelona success, but at a long distance, as it takes value 470. Third event most followed is the visit to German Pope Benedict XVI to Barcelona, but it takes a value of 113 points. It means that German media coverage to Spanish cucumbers are some 13 times higher than the news about the Sagrada Familia consecration.

We have at MRI Universidad de Navarra the data about the media impact of events monitoring newspapers from almost every country in the world. We present the results of another country, to be used as term of comparison with the behaviour followed by the media directly affected by the Spanish cucumber crisis (media from Spain and Germany). We have selected United States as it is a powerful market in terms of media impact, and has not been directly concerned by the E Coli crisis.

Our results show that this current crisis is the single event most widely covered by the media in the United States. It takes a value 350. Second event is the coverage of Rafa Nadal participation in Roland Garros in all stages of the competition. Third event are FC Barcelona Champions League and the coverage of Seve Ballesteros death.

This result is an indication on how harmful is the current crisis for the commercial interests of Spanish farmers oriented to exports in Europe.

The final figure shows a global result with the media coverage worldwide to each event, but excluding news from Spanish newspapers.

We find again that the recent event with the highest media impact is the accusation to Spanish cucumbers of being responsible for the German E Coli outbreak. It takes value 330. Second event is FC Barcelona success. Third event is Rafa Nadal at Roland Garros 2011. But if we consider only the media coverage of the winning game against Roger Federer it dropts to fourth place, with a value 110.

Providing comparative analysis offers a better view of the extent of the harmful impact of this present crisis in the international trust and reputation of Spanish produced vegetables. There are some media consulting firms that propose to directly translate media impact into economic impact. The idea is that media impact is the equivalent to an advertising campaing, but for free. Consulting firms monetize media exposure in equivalent euros that should be paid to newspapers to get this space. This approach is highly questionable in scientific and practical terms, as the conexion between media exposure and “free advertising campaign” or willingness to pay is far from direct.

In the framework of the present crisis, translating media impact into economic impact would reflect the cost of an advertising campaign denigrating cucumbers from Spain.

bearing in mind that we at MRI Universidad de Navarra consider that it is not correct to translate directly media impact into economic impact, we want to show nevertheless an illustration of the estimation of the economic impact of an event included in the list shown, in order to provide a comparison with the impact of the attack to Spanish cucumbers.

Kantar Media tracks media impact. It is part of Kantar Group, a market research company. They have published a report about the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Spain and Sagrada Familia in November 2010.

According to their results, they have identified some 6,000 news about the event (3,567 in newspapers, 1,269 in TV and 1,190 in TV). Kantar estimates that this media exposure is equivalent to 66.5 million euros, the amount that would be needed to spend in advertising “to promote the places visited by the Pope and obtain a similar media impact” (Kantar Media Press Release 11 November 2011).

Kantar Media says that Pope’s visit had an advertising impact of some 66 million euros. Now, if we compare media impact of both events, our data indicate that the negative reputation media impact of the E Coli crisis on Spanish cucumbers has had a global media impact (including news from Spain in both cases) thatis 3.5 times higher. If we consider only international news (excluding news from Spanish newspapers), the media impact of references to Spanish cucumbers is 6.8 times higher than references to Pope visit to Spain.

10 June 2011: End of official warning against the consumption of cucumbers, tomatoes and lettuce.

As explained in the beginning of this post, German Federal authorities launched an alert by 26 May suggesting not to consume raw tomatoes, cucumbers and green salads.

By 10 June 2011, a joint statement issued by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), the German Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) and Robert Koch Institute (RKI) “recommend abstaining from eating raw sprouts”. They also “jointly conclude that the current general recommendation to abstain from eating cucumbers, tomatoes, lettuce in northern parts of Germany does not need to be upheld” (Joint Press Release by German Authorities about EHEC, 10 June 2011)

This official press release officially discard cucumbers as source of the current E Coli outbreak. Other food sources are now strongly suspected to be the origin of the infection: bean sprouts.

Hamburg Senate has published also a press release announcing that alert againts cucumbers, tomatoes and lettuce has been dropped. Once again, there is no mention at all to previous formal accusation by their authorities against Spanish cucumbers. No mention at all is meda to Spanish products (Hamburg Senate Press Release, 10 June 2011)

Now the German outbreak is officially linked to German cultivated sprouts. Cucumbers are completely cleared, as well as tomatoes and lettuce.

The crucial question for farmers is to which extent this severe health food crisis will be linked in public opinion minds to sprouts or to cucumbers.

Media coverage plays a major role in creating and modifying image and reputation. Up to this point, cucumbers from Spain have received a massive and global media coverage creating an extreme negative perception.

It has to be proven by the facts that this crisis will be linked by the media and the people to German sprouts instead than to Spanish cucumbers. This requires to measure German and global media coverage to bean sprouts in comparion to media coverage given to ccucumbers. It requires also to measure the media coverage given from now on to cucumbers as being not responsible of the crisis, and compare it to previous negative media exposure. It finally requires to check in the short term and in the mid term the actual degree of trust shown by German and other European consumers towards cucumbers and other vegetables from Spain. We will monitor all these issues at MRI Universidad de Navarra.

The idendification of soja srpouts as source of the outbreak opens a new reputation crisis. This will affect all sprout producers, as now the accusation is formal and apparently scienfically supported.

This new crisis will probably seirously affect the reputation of organic food, as guilty sprouts came from an organic farm. This new crisis will reopen the debate between organic food defenders and genetically modified crops advocates. Media coverage of this current crisis will play probably again a major role. This issue will probably be the subject of a future post in this post.