It would be incorrect to presume these companies don't have detailed playbooks already, and haven't had them for a long time. I know at Google Chauffeur, before it was Waymo, we had a detailed series of plans over what to do in a crash, over 15 years ago. Their playbook is much more involved today, and I don't think other companies are that different.
The problem is that just as vehicles will make mistakes, so will reaction teams. No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy. No matter how much you write "don't panic" in large, friendly letters on the cover of the playbook, there will be panic.
That doesn't mean they can't get better, and I suspect they want to. But it's not for lack of realization of the need, I would say.
Thanks for the comment, Brad. I absolutely agree that every company, particularly the big ones, have extensive plans. That's a given - especially looking at the amount of resources being poured into the growth and reach of PR, communications, and adjacent teams at Waymo and Zoox, for instance.
My major argument here is that to maximize the potential for growth and success, the framework for how crisis response operates needs to be orchestrated as a direct extension of existing brand architecture and not as a separate, reactive strategy and distinct set of behaviors, resultantly. Continuity here is hugely important in my opinion.
This 'Crisis Playbook' perfectly mirrors the shift we saw in healthcare 20 years ago. For decades, hospitals relied on a 'Deny and Defend' model that only served to fuel public distrust and lead to 'nuclear verdicts.' The tide didn't turn until pioneers like the University of Michigan adopted radical transparency—proving that proactive disclosure actually reduces liability.
In the AV space, the legal risk of silence is now far greater than the risk of transparency, provided the industry has the objective data and video to back that honesty up. Excellent analysis.
Thanks for the comment and the reference to the evolution in the healthcare world, John. To echo you, I think 'radical transparency' needs to be accompanied by exceptional explanation and, therein, lies an opportunity to solidify brand messaging and further engender public trust.
It would be incorrect to presume these companies don't have detailed playbooks already, and haven't had them for a long time. I know at Google Chauffeur, before it was Waymo, we had a detailed series of plans over what to do in a crash, over 15 years ago. Their playbook is much more involved today, and I don't think other companies are that different.
The problem is that just as vehicles will make mistakes, so will reaction teams. No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy. No matter how much you write "don't panic" in large, friendly letters on the cover of the playbook, there will be panic.
That doesn't mean they can't get better, and I suspect they want to. But it's not for lack of realization of the need, I would say.
Thanks for the comment, Brad. I absolutely agree that every company, particularly the big ones, have extensive plans. That's a given - especially looking at the amount of resources being poured into the growth and reach of PR, communications, and adjacent teams at Waymo and Zoox, for instance.
My major argument here is that to maximize the potential for growth and success, the framework for how crisis response operates needs to be orchestrated as a direct extension of existing brand architecture and not as a separate, reactive strategy and distinct set of behaviors, resultantly. Continuity here is hugely important in my opinion.
This 'Crisis Playbook' perfectly mirrors the shift we saw in healthcare 20 years ago. For decades, hospitals relied on a 'Deny and Defend' model that only served to fuel public distrust and lead to 'nuclear verdicts.' The tide didn't turn until pioneers like the University of Michigan adopted radical transparency—proving that proactive disclosure actually reduces liability.
In the AV space, the legal risk of silence is now far greater than the risk of transparency, provided the industry has the objective data and video to back that honesty up. Excellent analysis.
Thanks for the comment and the reference to the evolution in the healthcare world, John. To echo you, I think 'radical transparency' needs to be accompanied by exceptional explanation and, therein, lies an opportunity to solidify brand messaging and further engender public trust.