Case Study: SeaWorld’s Response to “Blackfish” and Employee Behavior

Background

This lesson focused on the role of trust in ethical behavior, ethical decision-making models and the way professionals perceive their obligation to clients and stakeholders. There is, perhaps, no better case study for this conversation than that of SeaWorld and their response to “Blackfish,” a documentary about the treatment of Orca whales by the organization.

While there is a significant amount that could be discussed regarding this campaign, for the purposes of this lesson we will provide a brief overview of the situation and focus in on a specific situation within the campaign.

Dilemma

In 2013, Blackfish was released for public viewing. The documentary focuses primarily on Tilikum, an orca whale that rose to fame in 2010 after killing his trainer during a live show. The documentary was designed to highlight the treatment of Orcas in captivity and the consequences of forcing these powerful animals to entertain thousands. In the years that followed the popular documentary, SeaWorld experienced many consequences including a drop in revenue, park attendance and partnerships with other organizations. As a result, SeaWorld launched a robust campaign to respond to criticisms including committing to $100 million in construction to double the Orca tanks, $10 million to conservation efforts for Orcas in the wild, in addition to efforts like #AskSeaWorld, designed to engage directly with key stakeholders and a dedicated website focused on responding to key points in the documentary. Many of the campaign efforts were criticized and the social media hashtag resulted in some problematic online interaction.

Course of Action

The primary focus for this case study, however, is on one specific tactic that took place in early 2016. Even though nearly three years had passed since the launch of the documentary, the organization was still facing severe impact due to damaged reputation. In February 2016, media reported that SeaWorld had sent employees to pose as animal rights activists to protect the company from “credible threats.” Following the media coverage of these undercover employees, SeaWorld released a statement that the board directed an end to the practice of employees posing as animal rights activists, but maintained that these efforts were meant to “maintain the safety and security of company employees, customers, and animals in the face of credible threats that the company had received.”

In acknowledging that actions should align with values and ethical commitments, SeaWorld’s chief, Joel Manby, issued the following statement:

We recognize the need to ensure that all of our security and other activities align with our core values and ethical standards. As always, the security and well-being of our employees, customers and animals remain at the forefront of our business practices.

Consequences & Moral of the Story

With the long history of accusations against the organization’s integrity and transparency, this specific tactic significantly damaged the on-going campaign to repair the organization’s reputation.

Works Cited

Allen, K. (2016, February 29). “SeaWorld Admits Employees Posed as Activists.” PR Daily. Retrieved from: http://www.prdaily.com/crisiscommunications/Articles/SeaWorld_admits_employees_posed_as_activists__20249.aspx

Bromwich, J. (2016, February 2016). “SeaWorld Admits Employees Posed as Animal Rights Activitists.” NY Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/business/seaworld-admits-employees-posed-as-animal-rights-activists.html?_r=0

Titlow, J. P. (2015, August 4). “SeaWorld is Spending $10 Million to Make You Forget About ‘BlackFish’.” FastCompany. Retrieved from: http://www.fastcompany.com/3046342/seaworld-is-spending-10-million-to-make-you-forget-about-blackfish