News broke earlier this month that Amazon were selling a how to guide for paedophiles on its online bookstore, however after receiving a bit of a backlash in the media and on Twitter the book was promptly removed. Various journos were looking for comment but were faced by an Amazon media blackout. Claudine Beaumont of the Telegraph displayed her displeasure, she Tweeted ‘Utterly hacked off at Amazon press office. They’ve stonewalled journalists all day on this ebook story. Why bother employing PRs?’ Rory Cellan-Jones of the BBC responded by Tweeting: ‘totally agree re Amazon…but bet they’ll be on the phone about an e-Christmas any minute…’.
It’s not particularly surprising that journalists were ignored, as this is a controversial story and Amazon’s higher ups were no doubt concerned that by responding they could make the situation worse. By not commenting they may have also hoped to take the sting out of the story and push it down the news agenda.
Amazon’s communications team have to assess whether ignoring the journos and the story would do more damage than responding to the story. But as the festive season is fast approaching Amazon needs to get as much media coverage as possible in order to drive sales. But by angering the media they will be doing themselves no favours among within media circles and may find it tough to sell in their news to these journalists.
Now, it’s sometimes a PR’s role in a crisis to make sure nothing is said to make sure a situation doesn’t become worse, and fair play to Amazon’s communication team if this was the plan, as they did it pretty well. But now as the media has moved online and social media has exploded is it not better to be involved in the bad news debate about your own brand, rather than ignoring it and hoping it goes away? Is the silence worse than wading in and potentially saying something that could do damage to the brand?



