A snappy bumper sticker can help move a product, a candidate or an idea.  Better is a track record of delivering on the promise of the phrase.  Best is when every action of a company is aligned behind it.  Toyota has long stood as a leading example of the best.  Look no further than this from the LA Times:

“For its part, Toyota has come to stand for utter reliability, financial prudence and a certain intelligently independent style. From that perspective, the Prius hybrid represents an America in which personal mobility and personal responsibility are happily compatible.”

But that, of course was before the slow recall of millions of its vehicles for problems on both sides of a really bad penny: sudden acceleration and delayed braking.  A comment at GlobalPost.com showed just how steep a climb the car company faces:

“A few American voices are emerging in Toyota’s defense, but the overriding sentiment is one of anger — mixed with disbelief — that a company synonymous with quality and reliability has come unstuck in such devastating fashion.”

The question now is whether the company can regain its footing no matter how much time or investment.  Much like the tanker Exxon Valdez, the unsinkable Titanic and Union Carbide in Bhopal, Toyota is on the verge of becoming a noun, not a name.

“This book is a Toyota,” said Robert S. Norris, the author of “Racing for the Bomb” and an atomic historian. “The publisher should recall it, issue an apology and fix the parts that endanger the historical record.”  Norris was quoted in a NY Times article revealing that a celebrated best-seller on the Hiroshima bombing was based on lies and self-promotion.  Say it to yourself:  “This book is a Toyota.”

It is one of a few, early instances of the shift of Toyota being an emblem for what’s wrong, but it makes the company’s climb steeper back in to the good graces of the market.  What will come next likely will be a rallying of support, over-communication of changes made in design and manufacture, and better deals on the cars.

But to regain its market-leading standing, Toyota will have to successfully perform in full view of the public over generations.  In the competitive marketplace that autos represents today (see: India, China) that may be too much of a big, hairy, audacious goal.

Share

The massive Toyota vehicle recall has been described as both a savage hit to the company’s reputation and bottom line.  It has also pointed out the fact that not all context is the same.

In the normal course of a product problem, the kind of release issued by well-respected online automobile advisor, Edmunds.com, would have had real effect.  Here is the lead of the release:

“Edmunds.com, the premier online resource for automotive information has obtained and reviewed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) complaint database.  A key finding: despite being the subject of intense scrutiny of the company, Toyota ranks 17th among automakers in the overall number of complaints per vehicle sold.”

Based on market share, consumer complaints put Toyota ahead of Honda and BMW.  The problem is that the Toyota story — a high-quality, low-defect, long-lasting automobile manufacturer — has been tarnished not because of the sudden acceleration and slow-braking, but because of the company’s response.

It is thought to have delayed its decision to recall and then did it in a piecemeal fashion.  Toyota’s is not an engineering problem, but one of its image.  NHTSA data is no match for having jilted its consumers.

Here is how one blogger deflated the Edmunds.com trial balloon:

“So, what does all of this mean? That’s debatable. Consider that these issues, which were reported to NHTSA by consumers themselves and entered into an database that’s not checked for accuracy, are not weighted for severity. So, a seemingly trivial issue counts just the same as one that could lead to a serious accident or death.”

The real damage was described well in The Washington Post:

“One thing that has probably changed forever is the idea that the Japanese have superior quality,” said David E. Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich. “Toyota is a great company and they’ll go on, but that historic concept of superior quality is probably gone forever.”

Mr. Cole may have some hometown interest, but his point is well-made (no pun intended).  If Toyota is to regain its standing (Edmunds.com projects a one percent drop in U.S. market share as a result of this mess), it will have to deliver on its original promise, one customer at a time.

Share

The recent snowstorms in Washington, D.C. led to more than closed schools, postponed events and shovel-sore muscles. The unusually cool atmospherics became a hot metaphor in the argument against climate change. After all, how could the climate be warming and there be all this snow?

The back-and-forth was captured in a story on Fox News:

The battle between science and politics also was the subject of a recent NPR  “On the Media” story on the now-debunked link between a measles vaccine and autism.  Here is what Dr. Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal, The Lancet, had to say:

“We used to think that we could publish speculative research which advanced interesting new ideas which may be wrong, but which were important to provoke debate and discussion. We don’t think that now.  What we don’t seem able to do is we don’t seem able to have a rational conversation in a public space about difficult, controversial issues, without people drawing a conclusion which could be very, very adverse.”

The most disturbing part of what Dr. Horton said, because it seems to be true, is “we don’t seem able to have a rational conversation.”  For communications professionals this is at best a caution, at worst, a call to arms.  Most of our work is focused on adding context to the actions of our clients.

But context — be it scientific, medical or financial — requires an ability to see in three-dimensions.  How can we succeed when our public discourse is locked in black-and-white?  It demands we be more precise.

When the LA Times took another look at the D.C. snowstorm it did just that:

“Increased snowfall fits a pattern suggested by many climate models, in which rising temperatures warm the world’s bodies of water, leading to more evaporation.  Climate scientists say the amount of atmospheric moisture has increased, which they predict will bring more rain in warmer conditions and more snow in freezing temperatures.

‘All you need is cold air and moisture to meet each other’ to make snow, said Jay Gulledge, senior scientist for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. ‘And with global warming, the opportunities to do that should be more frequent.’”

The misunderstanding and misuse of the word “warming” in the “global warming” warning undercuts its value as context.  Perhaps “change” as in “climate change” is more effective, but, based on Mr. Michaels said to Fox News, that may be lost, too.

The  most effective argument at a time when science is so willingly dismissed may not yet have been made.  But just because the task of adding depth and perspective to political, social and commercial conversations has gotten difficult doesn’t mean it cannot be fought and won.

Share