The first rule of crisis communications is: protect your brand.
When faced with a highly media-covered crisis, crisis communicators work to minimize damage to the brand.
The less coverage the better.
But should Amazon be treating the violent kidnapping of employee Alexander “Sasha” Trufanov like a classic crisis communications scenario, rather than exhausting all means and resources to free him?
Instagram / troufanov_family
Amazon has certainly been successful in its efforts to distance journalists from the matter.
Shortly after the New York Post reported in November that Sasha, an employee at an Amazon lab in Tel Aviv, had been kidnapped by Hamas on October 7, I Free Media outreach to provide interviews to Sasha’s friends.
I reached out to local media outlets and major financial news organizations in Seattle.
Time and again, we were told they declined to be interviewed about the story, citing the “sensitivity of the situation” and deferring to Amazon’s insistence that drawing attention to Sasha’s plight would put him in further danger.
For public relations professionals, including those at Amazon, the only thing better than a positive story is countering a negative one.
Amazon operates in places around the world with a wide range of political leanings.
If Amazon is perceived to be siding with Israel, will protesting employees occupy its Seattle headquarters?
Will Prime customers who are sympathetic to terrorist groups boycott it?
Could AWS data centers in the Middle East be attacked?
Could it hinder efforts to win business in terror-sponsoring countries?
Executives are likely making a cynical, dirty calculation: weighing the reputational and business risks to the brand against the life of just one of its 1.6 million employees.
Local Seattle media and financial publications have been doing their own calculations.
Amazon is Seattle’s largest employer.
Its executives are a source of information and the company is also a major advertiser.
So when members of Amazon’s PR team call media outlets trying to stifle coverage “to keep Sasha safe,” it’s easier to cave than to ask tough questions.
I spoke with a reporter from a major financial news outlet late Friday night (who had helped save Sasha’s life by using his cell phone on the Sabbath) and explained at length why Amazon’s insistence on secrecy made no sense.
The secret has been revealed.
The Post and many other publications also reported extensively on the issue.
surely, all The hostages have been widely reported and there has been a concerted government effort to free them.
Amazon’s claim that further publication of his plight would put his life in further danger is nonsense.
I pointed out that Hamas had released some hostages as a sign of gratitude to President Vladimir Putin.
But reporters were unwilling to challenge Amazon and ask whether the company had flaunted its business connections through its ties to countries allied with Hamas, including Qatar.
Did Amazon make a deal with every global corporate hostage insurer to free Sasha?
Amazon must be spending a lot of money on this insurance for its executives.
Sasha is not an executive, but was the vendor hired for a one-off project?
So far, there is no evidence that Andy Jassy, Jeff Bezos, or any senior Amazon executives were working behind the scenes on Sasha’s behalf.
If the silence strategy was appropriate initially, it’s time for a change, especially after Sasha has been locked underground for nearly eight months.
We found that drawing attention to individual hostages was beneficial.
The first Hamas hostages to be released, Judith and Natalie Lanan, were the highest-profile American casualties since October 7.
Last week, the families of five young Israeli women released a video recorded by Hamas in an attempt to make their daughters a top priority.
Many families have secured the services of the world’s major telecommunications companies.
This week, Amazon released a well-crafted crisis communications statement: “We continue to do everything in our power to bring Sasha home safely.”
The word “focus” is completely ambiguous.
That could suggest actions such as dedicating Amazon’s resources to working toward Sasha’s release, or it could simply mean garnering daily social media mentions of his case.
The statement says nothing.
Most companies have refrained from speaking out about the October 7 atrocities.
These brands are not involved and therefore have the privilege of remaining on the sidelines.
They are following the first rule of crisis communication.
Amazon doesn’t have that luxury.
The company’s employees are held captive by a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, who have violently kidnapped them and killed their families.
Where is Amazon?
David Weissman is vice president of media strategy at Gova10 and previously worked in crisis communications for a Fortune 30 company.
