“Your call is important to us, please stay on the line and you will be attended to shortly.”

Remember this message? Companies with call centre support use this while callers wait to get connected and have their queries answered. However, the wait usually is so long that more often than not, it proves that our call or rather we (stakeholder) are not important to them.

I got the exact the same feeling when I heard the latest conference call organised by FT AMC recently.  In the call that lasted for almost an hour, I didn’t hear anything that I logged in to the call for!

They titled the conference call as “Organisation Update” and indeed it was all about them and nothing about the investor or advisors/ distributors who eagerly waited to understand what just hit them. As an investor in Franklin Templeton Funds and as a professional who focuses on reputation and crisis, I was disappointed by their highhanded approach.

Why do I say so?

The first rule of communication is – While you must cover your key message, tell them what they want to hear too, else you will lose attention. In an hour-long call, the first 25 minutes were about the solidity and greatness of the fund house. They even covered their capabilities in the equity space before actually moving on the debt funds. Even that was about how well organized they are but did not even once delve into the details of the 6 funds that sent investors’  emotions reeling. My house is on fire, I call the fire brigade and if they spend 20 minutes talking about how they have been successfully dousing the fire in the past, will that help me? Their repeated reassurance that the fund house is well placed yielded that kind of emotion.

Talking about emotion, empathy is the second most important aspect of any communication. This seemed completely missing. Making a mistake is human. But not accepting or even acknowledging it indicates that there is no remorse or even concern. People trusted you with their money; at the very least have the decency to acknowledge that you did not meet their expectations. But what came across as ‘you don’t care’ or ‘this is how I am, take it or leave it’.

Multiple times in the call they mentioned “We apologise” and every time they did so, I thought now they will come to the main issue. Alas! The apologies were for poor sound quality and not being able to let the audience ask questions. Even not expecting that 10k stakeholders will want to know what will happen is part of lack of empathy. The choice of words like “disappointment” could have helped. At least the tonality could reflect acknowledgment or disappointment, but I found all that missing.

I didn’t find any new message in the call that lasted for 60 minutes when compared to the notice or message they issued conveying the winding up of the funds that took 60 seconds to read. If they were not going to cover more details then why waste time? They knew well that people had questions; the least they could have done is let the first 10 questions be asked publicly. By not letting people ask questions and only blowing their own trumpet at a time when they failed to live up to expectations, strengthens the prevailing negative perceptions.

Finally, what appalled me is throughout the call the company gave no insight on their risk management process and what are they doing to strengthen it. No one is asking for a guarantee, no process is 100% foolproof but a display of intent to make sure this will not be repeated was completely overlooked. On the contrary, they blamed everything on COVID-19. Passing the blame doesn’t absolve you, instead it positions you as irresponsible. This is exactly where companies lose control of the narrative and their reputation takes a considerable hit.

This is not the first time that they have experienced such a situation; remember JSPL and Amtek Auto investments? Hence the doubts on their credibility and capability are certainly at an all-time high.

What lessons must companies learn about crisis communication?

Without getting into technical aspects of the fund management (as that’s not my forte and that’s why I trusted a fund manager), I believe they could have handled communications much better to save themselves such a reputation loss. On the messaging front, acknowledging the issue, expressing the disappointment, and then conveying the solidity of the group that would not let down the investors’ expectations should have been the order. This should have been drafted in advance by a professional, rehearsed well by the spokesperson and then communicated by one or maximum two well-trained speakers.  Secondly, empathy in tone is a must for bringing in solidarity with the stakeholders. Remember, a smile can be heard in your tone on the other side of the call. It is important to be mindful of body language and tone even if people on the other side can’t see you.  Finally and most importantly, acknowledge the plight of your stakeholders. Your investors are worried, and your advisors and distributors are embarrassed and possibly ashamed. Just a passing mention of their concern will not comfort them. They have to be at the centre-stage and addressing their apprehensions should have been the focus.

Any negative situation has three parts – the problem itself, the communication around it and the emotions associated with it. Most people accept that problems happen, but the gap in other two can convert an incidence into a crisis denting the reputation.

• Mitu Samar
• Mitu is the founder of Eminence (eminenceonline.in), a reputation consulting firm. Prior to this, she has worked with various financial services companies including asset management companies. She actively consults companies and CXOs on building, establishing and protecting their reputation.

• Connect with her on Twitter- @mitusamar and LinkedIn – Mitu Samar Jha