Enel, an electricity distribution concessionaire in São Paulo, reached a reputation index 2.93a lowest grade ever recorded by . The average reputation for the period between December 9th and 15th was 3,4revealing that even with the recovery in the days following the blackout that affected millions of people in greater São Paulo, the company remained in crisis territory. But the crisis did not start with the blackout. It started much earlier.
On December 9th, before the cyclone that would leave millions of consumers without power, Enel already had a reputation for 3,84 – was no longer good. Then, on December 10, a historic wind hit São Paulo, leaving more than 2 million consumers without electricity. Enel’s reputation collapsed 2,93a drop in 0.91 points in a single day. This is the tipping point: the moment when chronic dissatisfaction turned into massive rejection.
Developments in the following days reveal a company in forced recovery, but still far from restoring confidence. On the 11th, the reputation rose to 3.17. On the 12th, to 3.45. On the 13th, to 3.65. On the 14th, to 3.77. And on the 15th, to 4.1. The trajectory suggests that the company is trying to recover, but the memory of the disaster remains.
Continues after advertising
What makes this development particularly revealing is that it don’t start from scratch. Enel was not a reputable company that suffered an accident. It was a company with an already compromised reputation that suffered a collapse. The score of 3.84 on the 9th was already a warning sign. The blackout was just the catalyst.
The scope of the catastrophe: numbers that speak for themselves
Data analysis reveals the magnitude of the crisis. With a average of 2,037.7 views per mentionEnel is being seen by millions of people. In just 14 days, the company generated 14,125 mentions on social media, with 58% of them being negative (8,255 mentions).
Negative mentions, although with a slightly lower average number of views (1,379.6), still represent a colossal reach: only criticisms of Enel are being seen by approximately 11.4 million people. Engagement, measured by the number of interactions per mention, is 46.4 on average. While neutral mentions have the highest engagement (55.8), negative mentions still generate 41.9 interactions per mention, indicating that the audience not only sees the reviews, but reacts to them actively.
Continues after advertising
What makes this crisis even more remarkable is its concentration on X/Twitter: 99% of mentions come from social media, indicating that the crisis is viral and organicnot guided by traditional media. Enel is not being criticized because the press says it should be criticized. It is being criticized because millions of affected people are talking about it simultaneously.
The word cloud: anger translated into data
Analysis of the X/Twitter word cloud reveals what the public really thinks of Enel. Dominant keywords are complaint, blackout, hatred, crisis, failure, hostility, dissatisfaction, MORE, disorder, inefficiency, neglect, damage e because.
There is no room for nuance. The narrative is one-sided: Enel is incompetent, hostile and indifferent to the suffering of consumers. The presence of words like “hatred” e “hostility” indicates that the crisis transcended technical dissatisfaction and became emotional rejection of the brand.
Continues after advertising
The context: recurring blackouts, ignored fines and falling reputation
The December blackout was not an isolated accident. Enel faces a history of recurring failureswith five blackouts in two years. Even more worrying is the history of fines: the company accumulates R$404 million in fines from Aneelwith 85% of this amount invested in the last three years.
Of the five fines imposed since 2020, only two have been paid. Two were prosecuted and one remains under appeal. The message this sends is clear: Enel not only fails in its obligation to supply energy, but also challenges regulatory authoritiestaking legal action instead of accepting the penalties.
Procon of São Paulo, in response to the December blackout, fined Enel R$14.2 to R$14.3 million due to distribution failures, prolonged interruptions and lack of information to consumers. The federal government, in turn, threatened revoke the concession of the company if it does not fulfill its contractual obligations.
Continues after advertising
The meaning of the drop to 2.93: the reputation abyss
The drop of 0.91 points in a single day (from 3.84 to 2.93) is not just a number. It is the digital translation of a collapse of trust. The score of 2.93 places Enel in practically unknown territory when it comes to monitoring . There is no company monitored by the platform that has reached this level.
The fact that reputation started at 3.84 and dropped to 2.93 demonstrates that the blackout did not create the crisis, it only made its size tangible. The chronic dissatisfaction with Enel – the previous blackouts, the unpaid fines, the poor service – was there, accumulated. The December 10 cyclone was just the breaking point.
In the following days, reputation began to recover, gradually rising to 4.1 on the 15th. But this recovery is misleading. It does not represent a real improvement in the company’s operational situation. It only represents the audience fatigue in keeping anger at its maximum peak. The reputation of 4.1 on the 15th is still lower than the 3.84 on the 9th, before the blackout.
Continues after advertising
Conclusion: the crisis that no one can ignore
Enel is not just facing a reputation crisis. Face a massive and viral rejection that transcends numbers. The company has become synonymous with incompetence, and this perception is being amplified by a public that not only criticizes, but demands changes.
The evolution of reputation from 3.84 to 2.93 and then to 4.1 tells a story: that of a company that was already in difficulty, that suffered a catastrophic collapse, and that is now trying to recover in an environment of total distrust. The 2.93 reputation is no accident. It is the logical consequence of years of accumulated failures.
For Enel, the issue now is no longer about restoring its reputation. AND survive as a company.
