Perodua in public battle with customer: Can it redeem itself?

Car company Perodua has denied that it did not take appropriate action after a woman took to social media to complain that her newly purchased Perodua Bezza stopped working the same day that she received it and has seen its brand sentiment plummet following the incident.

Facebook user Nagakanni Subramaniam took to the platform this week to say that she bought a Perodua Bezza at 11am on 17 October 2023 at a car dealership in Segamat, Johor and that by 7.40pm, the car was unable to start.

She further explained that after visiting a Perodua service centre, the mechanic told her that the car’s engine was broken which prompted her to request for a replacement.

Don't miss: BDS Malaysia brand sentiments plummet as McDonald's sues for boycott damages

However, after almost 3 weeks later, a customer sales executive informed her that the car’s engine appeared to be damaged by a foreign object such as sugar that was not used by the manufacturer.

Subramaniam denies bringing any food or drinks into the car with her in the eight hours that she had the new car and that she did not tamper with the engine.

Subramaniam also said that customer service asked her to apply for a new loan to get a new car while she was still paying off the monthly car loan instalments of RM537 for her damaged one. After over two months of the situation being unresolved, Subramaniam decided to take to social media to receive a response.

Perodua’s PR misstep

In response, JH Rozman Jafar, chief operating officer for Perodua Sales said that Perodua has been in constant communication with Subramaniam since October last year.

“Since then, we have taken several actions to resolve the matter including by offering her a courtesy car and we have proposed to buy back her car,” he added.

Perodua also denied allegations that no action has been taken to resolve the issues and said that it has told Subramaniam that her case was being prioritised, according to the statement.

Subramaniam then took to Facebook to respond to the statement. She said in Malay that she wanted to correct some misinformation. She clarified that while Perodua did take action to resolve the matter, its solution was for her to submit a second car loan and buy a second car.

This was done without a definitive agreement to say that the company would buy back the first car and that she will not have to pay the first loan. She added that it has been over two months, and the car company has not provided her with details about purchasing the car back, repaying the loan and more.

She added that the issue was a simple one. She bought a car, the car was damaged, she has not been able to get a replacement and yet she is still paying for the car monthly. She added that Perodua should not make a media statement to just explain the situation but that they should offer a solution as she is not looking for a fight.

Impact on Perodua brand image

Despite its efforts, brand sentiments for Perodua have since plummeted. According to media intelligence firm dataxet:nama, sentiments for the brand were approximately 74% negative following the incident with some individuals calling for a boycott of the brand.

Conversely, only 2% of respondents expressed support for Perodua and believe that individuals such as Subramaniam only aim to undermine Perodua's credibility, potentially orchestrating a sabotage to tarnish the brand.

The remaining 25% had neutral sentiments and engaged in more humorous discussions about sugar and cars.

While conversations relating to Perodua spiked on 2 January, the day of Subramaniam’s Facebook post, English keywords associated with Perodua prior to the incident included words and phrases such as “awesome”, “the best”, “original” and "interesting".

Following the incident, English words such as “statement”, “investigation” and “communication” stood out.

Can Perodua redeem itself?

With its brand sentiments down and the company embroiled in a very public back and forth with a customer, can they redeem themselves and was this public relations crisis avoidable?

Especially in situations where customer grievances are on public display, a statement or apology that may appear self-serving or inauthentic could end up escalating the matter instead of controlling it, according to Syed Mohammed Idid, general manager, strategic communications and stakeholder engagement at West Coast Expressway.

By denying a customer’s claims without addressing specific concerns, Perodua may end up damaging its reputation for customer care as the current statement comes across as defensive and lacking empathy, he said.

“It creates an impression of being more concerned about brand image rather than customer satisfaction,” Idid added.

While brand sentiments are not in Perodua’s favour, the brand can better leverage social media to turn things around during a crisis by showing empathy and being transparent with its consumers, according to Ashvin Anamalai, CEO of DNA Creative Communications.

“Perodua missed an opportunity to show empathy by acknowledging the customer's frustration and by outlining a transparent plan to resolve the issue swiftly,” said Anamalai.

He also said that offering a clear explanation of the investigation process, discussing potential solutions, and ensuring open communication would have projected a more customer-centric image.

“Right now, it's not just about fixing a car; it's about mending the relationship with the customers,” he added.

However, as seen from Subramaniam response to Perodua’s statement that appeared to be unable to accurately reflect what actually happened, such a public statement also questions why Perodua did not address the issue with the customer first.

“Remember, in crisis situations, empathy, transparency, and proactive communication are key,” said Idid.

He explained that the brand should have addressed the issue privately and directly with the customer first instead of issuing a public statement in an attempt to control the situation which may erode trust and draw unwanted public scrutiny.

While both Idid and Anamalai emphasise transparency in a communications crisis response to help a brand redeem itself, Anamalai pointed out a shortcoming in communications strategies that do not have predefined solutions for possible issues.

“Proactive measures, such as anticipating potential issues and having predefined solutions, can minimize damage,” he said. “Being well-prepared not only aids in resolving the current crisis but also sets a foundation for future incidents, demonstrating the brand's commitment to continuous improvement and customer satisfaction.”

A+M has reached out to Perodua for more information.

Related articles:
Social media can be a 'double-edged sword' during a crisis. How can brands better leverage it?
How Zara's apology for its controversial campaign 'gaslit' consumers
Sorry just isn't enough when handling a crisis on social media