November 27, 2007

Taser International in perspective: Weapon or safety device

From Common Sense PR

Taser Death a PR Test for RCMP and Manufacturer

by Eric Eggertson on November 16th, 2007

Canada’s national police force wants us to hold off on deciding whether police were too quick to taser an upset immigrant at Vancouver International Airport.

For Canadians, shock was the reaction to seeing the short video released this week of Mounties zapping Robert Dziekanski about 25 seconds after arriving at the international arrivals area. The Polish immigrant spoke no English and had spent 10 hours waiting to meet his mother, who had been trying to get airport staff to help her locate her son.

A plea by the RCMP for people not to make up their minds until they’ve heard from all sides about the incident predictably fell on deaf ears, as the video made the rounds of news agencies and online video sites. The RCMP request was doubly suspect because they delayed returning the video to the Victoria resident who shot the footage.

A better response from the RCMP would have been to emphasize their difficult role in protecting the public and suspects from harm. Asking people not to react to the video is like telling people not to breathe.

Taser X25 Product PhotoMeanwhile, the manufacturer calls it "an unfortunate incident." A look at the Taser International website uses the company’s mantra about "reducing officer and suspect injuries" and reminds us that a Taser is a "non-lethal" containment device. They’re starting to try out the phrase "less-lethal", while also gearing up their "scalable force" options for military use.

The coy use of every possible word except "weapon" to describe a Taser shows you how the company wants to play up the safety angle, while downplaying the danger to life.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

POSTED IN: Marketing, Persuasion, Crisis Communications, Reputation Management, Spin, Ethics, PR

2 opinions for Taser Death a PR Test for RCMP and Manufacturer

No comments:

ShareThis