Part #1: Reflect When a crisis occurs at a company negatively affecting public p
ID: 461312 • Letter: P
Question
Part #1: Reflect
When a crisis occurs at a company negatively affecting public perception, public relations specialists must be prepared to quickly respond to minimize the damage to the company's reputation. Think of a recent (within the past two years) public relations crisis that you do not think was handled properly and respond to the following prompts:
1. Describe the public relations crisis and the steps the company, organization, or public figure took to address the crisis.
2. Why do you believe the crisis was not effectively handled?
3. Review the public relations tools discussed in the chapter. How would you have used at least three public relations tools from the chapter to more effectively manage public opinion during this crisis?
Part #2: Apply
Public relations isn’t just required in a time of crisis but is an essential element in an integrated marketing communication strategy. Respond to the following prompts for your focus product or service as a car dealership
4. As discussed in the chapter, there are as many as twenty key publicsupon which public relations may focus (see Figure 15.1). Identify at least four publics upon which public relations activities for your focus product or service should focus. As part of your response, explain why you selected these publics.
5. Considering the needs and interests of these publics, develop at least two ideas for public relations activities that would help to generate goodwill with these publics.
6. Select and justify at least three of the public relations tools discussed in the chapter that you would utilize to create awareness for your PR activities.
Explanation / Answer
1. Describe the public relations crisis and the steps the company, organization, or public figure took to address the crisis.
The tri-part view of crisis management identified earlier serves as the primary organizing framework for this entry. However, the revised entry has new a section that reviews some lines of crisis communication that increased in prominence over the past few years and offer useful advice for practitioners.
Emerging Crisis Communication Research Lines
In a change from the original entry, it is helpful to present two crisis communication research lines that have been very important since the writing of the original entry. Those crisis communication research lines are internal crisis communication and stealing thunder.
Internal Crisis Communication
There is a growing interest in the internal aspect of crisis communication with a focus on how management communicates with employees about a crisis. Internal crisis communication is important because it helps to mitigate the stress crises produce for employees and to illuminate how employees can become ambassadors (an asset) during a crisis (Frandsen & Johansen, 2011). In general, the internal crisis communication research has found managers neglect communication with employees during a crisis. For instance, Johansen, Aggerholm & Frandsen (2012) found that 67% of Danish organizations had explicit policies for external crisis communication while only 31% had similar polices for internal audiences. Only 40% of organizations thought employees could be external ambassadors during a crisis while 47% thought employees could be effective internal ambassadors (Johansen et al., 2012). The conclusion was that organizations were not maximizing the utility of employees for crisis communication. The Danish researchers argue for a “communication model where employees are viewed not as passive receivers but also as active participants who take their own communicative initiatives trying to make sense of crisis situations; and who to a certain extent can be mobilized communicatively by the organization in crisis” (Johansen et al., 2012, p. 273).
Research in Italy illustrated the underuse and the value of internal crisis communication. Surveys and interviews with managers and employees found that managers felt they have been effective at crisis communication with employees while employees felt the crisis information was of poorly quality and were negative toward the internal crisis communication they experienced (Mazzei & Ravazzani, 2011). Additional research found that Italian managers relied heavily on evasion of responsibility and showed a general underestimation of the value of internal communication during a crisis. Managers generally failed to communicate corrective actions and accommodative actions to employees. Interestingly, that is the exact information employees wanted and needed. If employees are to face a crisis positively, the employees require information about actions the organization was taking to address the crisis—corrective and accommodative actions (Mazzei & Ravazzani, 2014).
A case analysis of an industrial accident at an Italian organization revealed the value of effective internal crisis communication. After a fatal accident, the employees were mostly positive toward the organization in their communication with very little negative communication. The positive employee reaction was attributed to the organization’s internal crisis communication efforts before and during the crisis. Prior to the crisis, managers had promoted the organization’s investment in safety—pre-crisis there was a risk communication effort relevant to the crisis. During the crisis, managers used the Intranet to clarify the company’s position, to remember the workers, and to reinforce the organization’s commitment to safety (Mazzei, Kim & Dell’Oro, 2012). While more research is needed, it appears that effective crisis communication must include internal communication efforts to keep employees properly informed and to convert them into ambassadors for the organization. Employees are an important asset and communication channel that too many organizations squander during a crisis.
Stealing Thunder
Stealing thunder is a concept crisis communication researchers have imported from law. In law, attorneys steal thunder by identifying a flaw in their own case before their opposition states the weakness (Williams, Bourgeois & Croyle, 1993). In a crisis, research consistently demonstrates that a crisis does less reputational damage if the organization is the first to report the crisis. The same exact crisis does less damage when the organization first reports it than when the news media or another source is the first to report the crisis (Arpan & Pompper, 2003; Claeys & Cauberghe, 2012). Stealing thunder is a matter of timing involving the disclosure of information about a crisis. As researchers note, stealing thunder is counterintuitive. Managers think it is better not to disclose a possible crisis because you do not disclose negative information if you do not have to because there is a chance others may never learn about the problem if the organization does not report it. Not reporting a crisis is dangerous. When organizations do not disclose problems them know exists, it creates the impression they do not care about the safety of their stakeholders. Consider how upset stakeholders were when they discovered GM management knew there was an ignition switch problem but did not disclose that to customers or the government.
Stealing thunder demonstrates the value of crisis communication timing for reputations. An interesting study compared the effect of timing (stealing thunder) and crisis response strategies. The research wanted to determine which of the two factors had a stronger effect on organizational reputations or if the two could be combined to increase the reputational protection value of crisis communication. The study compared situations whether or not an organization engaged in stealing thunder and if the crisis response was recommended by Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) or violated the SCCT recommendations. The results found that if the organization stole thunder, the type of crisis response had no effect on reputation. It seemed that stealing thunder provided all the reputational protection the organization could gain from crisis communication. However, when there was no stealing thunder, the recommended crisis response strategies were better at protecting reputations than the non-recommended crisis response strategies (Claeys & Cauberghe, 2012). The study shows just how powerful stealing thunder is as a crisis communication resource.
One interesting but tentative line of crisis communication research related to stealing thunder examines a channel effect for social media. A channel effect is when people react differently to the same message when it is delivered through different channels. The channel itself is shown to alter how people perceived and react to messages. Some researchers have argued that social media can have a channel effect for crisis communication (Schultz, Utz & Goritz, 2011; Utz, Schultz & Gloka, 2013). These studies suggest that some crises messages are perceived differently delivered via social media verses traditional news media. However, the pattern of the results is consistent with stealing thunder as well. Because stealing thunders can also explain the research results, I have labeled the channel effects for social media as tentative, in need of additional study, and part of stealing thunder. The channel studies do reinforce the value of organizations using social media as part of the mix of channels used to deliver a crisis response.
2. Why do you believe the crisis was not effectively handled?
The BP Oil crisis is a classic example of reputation management misfiring. The event itself, which was the biggest off shore oil spill in US history, was a tragedy and environmental disaster only exacerbated by the way the crisis was handled.
BP’s lack of apparent empathy and compassion was personified by former BP CEO Tony Haywood who famously said in an interview “I’d like my life back”, evoking a huge backlash of public resentment and anger.
Of course this wasn’t the only PR mistake BP made during the crisis. Their website had scant information on this situation with only minimal links to Facebook and Twitter. Also offering potential plaintiffs $5000 not to issue lawsuits showed a serious lack of understanding.
The horsemeat scandal in 2013 famously spawned a whole host of jokes, info-graphics and memes across the internet, illustrating just how influential social media channels can be when it comes to the public’s perception.
According to the Telegraph some of the stand out twitter quips included:
The story revealed beef products sold in major retailers (including Tesco, Iceland, Aldi, Lidl, Ikea, Asda and Co-op) contained horsemeat, rocking the European supply chain, with abattoirs, suppliers, manufacturers and retailers all implicated.
When advertising agency Ogilvy created a cartoon of Malala Yousafzai for a mattress advertising campaign they quite figuratively shot themselves in the foot.
The poster campaign showed the young school girl being shot in the face by the Taliban, falling onto the matress and then returning to health under the slogan “bounce back”.
Ogilvy’s press spokesman apologised to Yousafzai and her family.
“The recent Kurl-On ads from our India office are contrary to the beliefs and professional standards of Ogilvy & Mather and our clients. We deeply regret this incident and want to personally apologise to Malala Yousafzai and her family.” (The Guardian)
The case of Nestle is a well-cited example of how not to handle a crisis.
In early 2010 Greenpeace launched a campaign highlighting Nestle’s palm oil sourcing practices, rolling out a Take a Break viral ad campaign featuring an office worker gnawing on an Orangutan’s finger instead of a Kit Kat Bar. The tag line was Kit Kat Killer.
Nestle’s Facebook page was overrun with people begging Nestle to stop using palm oil and killing the orangutans. Rather than acknowledging the comments Nestle deleted many of them and posted the following message.
“To repeat: we welcome your comments, but don’t post using an altered version of any of our logos as your profile pic—they will be deleted,”
3. Review the public relations tools discussed in the chapter. How would you have used at least three public relations tools from the chapter to more effectively manage public opinion during this crisis?
For a communicator to handle a crisis effectively, he or she needs to be looking around the corner to see what a company’s potential threats and crises are, and have infrastructure set up in advance. So said Dallas Lawrence, chief global digital strategist for Burson-Marsteller, at PR News’ One-Day Bootcamp for Emerging PR Stars in Hollywood, Fla., held on Monday, March 18.
Lawrence provided 13 lessons for crisis preparation and management.
Lesson 1: Know and engage key conversations drivers early and often.Twitter is a conversation tool and not just a one-way medium. “In times of crisis, we need to think about the key influencers following the issue and engage with them to get them information as well," Lawrence said.
Lesson 2: Actively monitor not just your reputation, but also the activities of your protagonists.
Lesson 3: Develop clear, effective and platform appropriate messaging. In other words, be where your crisis is happening. “If your crisis is happening on YouTube, make your response a YouTube video,” Lawrence said. “Have the capability to shoot that video. If it's Friday at 5:00 and you need to shoot a video of your CEO, do you know the logistics of being able to do that?”
Lesson 4: Own your brand in social before someone else does. “Less than one-half of the Interbrand Top 100 Companies have registered their brands on Pinterest.”
Lesson 5: Leverage the power of Twitter. "Forty-six percent of journalists use twitter for sources," Lawrence said.
“I routinely track down potential interviews by sending out a tweet. Most recently, we came across a number of Toyota car owners who fell under the recent recalls.” —Chris O‘Conell, ABC Newsanchor/reporter
Lesson 6: People want to hear from people, not logos. Figure out right now who is going to be communicating for you in a crisis, and make your Twitter picture something other than just your logo in order to humanize your brand, Lawrence said.
Lesson 7: Integration is key. “Video is incredibly powerful, but it’s useless if you don't share it in a variety of ways with your audiences,” Lawrence said. “This isn’t Kevin Costner in ‘Field of Dreams’—If you build it, they will not just come.”
Lesson 8: Be sure you know what you're talking about during a crisis. “The only thing worse than saying nothing is saying the wrong thing,” Lawrence said. Yes, you must move quickly during a time of crisis, but that doesn't give you a reprieve from fact-checking anything you plan to tell the public.
Lesson 9: When you blow it, own up to it: “When Ashton Kutcher tweeted his outrage after Joe Paterno got fired, he had to admit that he really knew nothing about the subject. Lawrence said that, while that was an avoidable scenario, Kutcher did properly tweet afterwards, "As of immediately I will stop tweeting until I find a way to properly manage this feed. I feel awful about this error. Won’t happen again."
Lesson 10: Consider humor. “If your product is killing people or animals are washing up on shore humor might not be right, but if it's an embarrassing moment for an individual, it could be,” Lawrence said.
Lesson 11: Integrate paid and earned. “Paid does have a role if it's integrated and used effectively,” Lawrence said. “With Twitter, when an earned media story is won and you want to increase its visibility, it’s an extremely effective way to amplify your messaging.”
Lesson 12: Have clear employee rules and train for social engagement. “Make sure they know the rules of the road so they don't make the kinds of mistakes we've all seen before,” Lawrence said.
Lesson 13: Don't forget your secret weapon. Your employees can be your most powerful allies online, if you engage and arm them in time. “Who has the biggest investment in the survival of a company? The people who get a paycheck.” Lawrence said.