企业品牌的声誉和品牌危机管理.docx

企业品牌的声誉和品牌危机管理.docx

《企业品牌的声誉和品牌危机管理.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《企业品牌的声誉和品牌危机管理.docx（13页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

企业品牌的声誉和品牌危机管理

标题：

Corporatebrandreputationandbrandcrisismanagement

原文：

Forsomeyears,thewhat,why,andhowofrecognisingandaddressingbrandcrisis–particularlycorporate/organisationalbrandcrisis–hasoccupiedmyresearchattention（notetoreader:

“corporate”and“organisational”areusedinterchangeably）.Numerouscorporateandnon-profitentitieshaveprovidedpublicclinicalexperiencesofconfrontingseriousreputationalcrises.ExamplesoverrecentdecadesincludeExxon（theValdezoilspillincident）,UnionCarbide（theBhopalexplosion）,Perrier（benzenetraces）,Tylenol（deathsfromtaintedpills）,theUSCatholicChurch（priestsexabuse）,MarthaStewartOmniMedia（executivemisbehaviour）,ArthurAndersen（accountingscandals）,theInternationalOlympicCommittee（briberyissues）,andmanyothers.Allfacedthreatstotheirbrandsfromdeteriorationinconsumerandbusinesscustomerapprovalandfromdeclineinpublictrust.

Whilesomeweremoreproductbrand-rooted（e.g.Tylenol）,allfoundtheircorporatebrandaffected,andeffortstorescuethebrandwereundertakenatthecorporatelevel（e.g.JohnsonandJohnsonforTylenol,marketedbyJ&J'sMcNeilLaboratoriesUnit）.Thustheseincidentsprovidearichsourceofinsightintothecorporatebrand.Theyillustrateakeydimensionofcorporate-levelmarketing.

“Canweasaninstitution,havemeaningful,positiveandprofitablebilateralon-goingrelationshipswithcustomersandotherstakeholdergroupsandcommunities?

”.Thatwasacentralquestionofanorganisation'scorporate-levelmarketingorientationposedbyJohnBalmerandmyselfinourtreatmentofanintegratedapproachtomarketingattheinstitutionallevel（BalmerandGreyser,2006）.

Weheld（amongotherpoints）thatcorporatemarketingisindeedaboardroomandCEOconcern.Inreflectingoncorporateidentityandreputationintimesofbrandcrisis,onerecognisestheimportanceofcorporate-wideorientationandtheresponsibilityoftheCEOandcompany-widemanagers.

Sourcesofreputationaltrouble

Letmeofferananatomyofthekindsofreasonsbrandscanbeinreputationalcrisis,howtoknowthatthesituationisserious,andwhatstepscompaniescantrytotaketopreventorifnecessarytoovercomesuchcrises.

Reputationaltroublescancomeinmanyforms,fromawidevarietyofcausesandfrommanypublics.Somehavebeensudden,suchaswhensevenpeoplediedinasingledayfromtaintedTylenolcapsules,whentracesofbenzenewerefoundinbottlesofPerrierandwhenanexplosioninaUnionCarbidefacilityinIndiakilledmanyhundredsofpeople.Othersweretheresultofproblemsthatfesteredoverlongerperiods,suchasthepriestsexabusescandalaffectingmanyCatholicarchdiocesesintheUS,theaccountingscandalthateventuallyruinedtheonce-respectableaccountingfirmofArthurAndersen,orthebriberyscandaloverselectionofhostcitiesthattarnishedthereputationoftheInternationalOlympicCommittee.Someoftheprotestorconcerncomesfromadvocacygroupswithacause,somefromdisaffectedconsumers/customers,somefromgovernmental/regulatoryentities,andsomefromthegeneralpublic.

Organisationsmustrecognisethe“what”oftheissuegeneratingthereputationalthreats,aswellas“who”theinvolvedpublic（s）is/are.

Hereisacategorisationofdifferentcausesofcorporatebrandcrises,withsomeexamplesandsomebriefexplanations:

1.Productfailure –Tylenol,Perrier,Firestone（tiresimplicatedasthecauseofmanydeathsincaraccidents）,theChernobylnuclearplantdisaster,Intel'sPentiumchip（flawedcalculations）,PeanutCorp.ofAmerica（salmonella）.

2.Socialresponsibilitygap –Nike（non-USlabourandquestionableworkingconditions）.

3.Corporatemisbehaviour –ArthurAndersen,Enron,Exxon（oilspillinAlaska）,Merck（allegedsuppressionofearlyclinicaldrugtrialsofVioxx）,Siemens（corporatecorruptioninmultinationalfraudandbribery）,Hewlett-Packard（Chairmanindictedforspyingonboardmembersviaquestionableinvestigativemeans）,IOC/SLOC（scandalsregardingbidcities）.

4.Executivemisbehaviour –MarthaStewart,DennisKozlowski（Tyco）.

5.Poorbusinessresults –Polaroid（failuretoadapttechnologically）,CircuitCity（giantretailerwhichletgomanyofitsmostknowledgeablestorestaff）,andmanyothersparticularlyin2008.

6.Spokespersonmisbehaviourandcontroversy –KobeBryant（starNBAathleteandendorserofbrandswhowasaccusedofrape）.

7.Deathofsymbolofcompany –Wendy's（fastfoodchain）founderandTVspokespersonDaveThomas,the“faceofthebrand”.

8.Lossofpublicsupport –LouisXVIofFrance（guillotinedandmonarchyfell）,EdwardVIIIofEngland（forcedtoabdicatetheBritishthrone）;bothlosttheirabilitytobeseenbytheirpeopleas“asymbolofnationhood,”centraltothe“monarchiccorporatebrand”（Balmer etal.,2006）.

9.Controversialownership –VenezuelaandCITGOintheUSA（vigorouslyanti-USVenezuelanpresident）.

Assessingtheseriousnessofthesituation

Whatmadesomeofthesecriseslife-threateningtotheorganisationsinvolvedwasthattheyaffectedwhatIterm“theessenceofthebrand”,i.e.thedistinctiveattribute/characteristicmostcloselyassociatedwiththebrand'smeaningandsuccess.Whenthisoccursacompany'smarketplacepositionanditsbrandmeaningareseriouslychallenged.Iftheessenceofthebrandisnotcentraltothesituation,theproblemismorelikelytobeovercome,albeitstilltroublesome.

Herearefourkeyareas,withsomebriefcomments,thatorganisationsshouldexaminetoanalyzeanemerging（oremerged）issuethatmaythreatenitsbrand'sreputation:

1.Thebrandelements:

oBrand'smarketplacesituation,e.g.marketshareorcorporatefavourability（priortocrisis）.Theweakerthesituation,themoredangeroustheproblem.

oBrandstrengths/weaknesses.Themoredifferentiated（vsotherentities）,thebetteritisfortheaffectedcompany,unlessakeydifferentiationisthesubjectatissue（see“integrityofathleticcompetition”below）.

oEssenceofthebrand'smeaning（seeexamplesbelow）.

2.Thecrisissituation:

oSeriousnessofsituationatoutset.Iftheproblemprospectivelyaffectsmanyconsumersorsomeseverely,e.g.salmonellainfoodleadingtodeaths,theseriousnessishigher.

oItsthreattobrand'sposition/meaning（seetextexamplesin“consequences”below）.

3.Companyinitiatives:

oImpactonbrandandproblemsituationofcompanybehaviour/actions,especiallycommunications;thiscanbeexaminedattheplanningstageas“likely”impact.

4.Results （afterinitiativesand/orpassageoftime）:

oEffectivenessofinitiativesintermsofrecovery/relaunch,restoringbrandmeaning,andfavourabilityormarketshare.

Actioninbrandreputationalcrises

Whatcanandshouldcompanies/organisationsdowhenthreatenedbybrandcrises?

Wheredoescommunicationsfitin?

Myprincipalrecommendationrelatestosituationsof“badnewsaboutthecompanyandthenewsisreallytrue”.

Inthefaceofcrisis,especiallywhenitisrootedinaproblemthatisorwillbecomevisible,Ibelieveanorganisationshouldadmitthetruth,evenifembarrassing.Also,itshouldforthrightlytrytoaddresstheproblem,evenifitinvolveschangingcorporatebehaviour.Anditshouldsupporttheinitiativewithcrediblecommunications.Thesearethebest（butstillbumpy）roadstopossiblebrandrehabilitationorrescue..Communicationsalonecannotdothejob

Substance–i.e.behaviour–iscentral（e.g.thequickrecallofTylenolfromdistribution）toaneffectivedefensiveprogram.Analliedcommunicationseffortcanbeimportantandhelpful.However,themessagemustavoidservingasa“remindercampaign”,especiallyiftheunderlyingproblem/allegationisnotwidelyknownbyrelevantpublics.

CrediblecommunicationswereanissueforWal-martinitsearly2005corporatecommunicationscampaign“Wal-Martisworkingforeveryone”.Themessagewasaresponsetocriticsofitswagesandbenefitsforitsworkersanditsimpactsonthecommunitieswhereitsstoresarelocated.Someobservers（includingmyself）raisedthequestionofhowthismessagecouldbeeffectivewhenthecompanywasbeingwidelycriticised（withextensivemediacoverage）forreportedlyclosingastorewhereemployeesweretryingtoorganiseaunionandwhenthecompanywasbeingsued（againwithsubstantialmediacoverage）fordiscriminationagainstwomenemployees.Inmyviewthecompanyeffortatcommunicationsandthisspecificmessage/themewerenotlikelytobeeffective.

Sometimesevenanycommunicationscanbequestionable.CITGOfounditselfinareputationalbrouhahaintheUSinlate2006whenVenezuela'spresidentattackedPresidentBushattheUN（CITGO'sparentisaVenezuelanpetroleumcompany）.AmajorretailgasstationoperatorendeditsrelationshipwithCITGOasasupplier,allegedlyconnectedtothewidelypublicizedpoliticalattack.AlthoughonlyamodestproportionofAmericansweresaidtoknowoftheownershiplinkage,CITGOdecidedtoundertakeacommunicationscampaign,“CITGOsetstherecordstraight”,emphasizingthecompany'scorporategoodcitizenshipandroleasamajorUSemployer.Soonthereafterthecompanyreturnedtoitsongoingimage-buildingcampaign.Someexpertsagreedwiththeeffort;somethoughttheresponsecommunicationsshouldhavecontinued,andsomesaidnon-advertisingcommunicationsshouldhavebeenused.However,othersarguedthatthecampaignfueledmorepublicawarenessoftheunderlyingproblem,andshouldnothavebeenundertaken（NewYorkTimes,November1,2006）.ThesituationsubsequentlysettleddownasAmericanslookedatgasolineasaproduct,ratherthanatitsownership.

AsIhavesuggested,forthrightcorporateactionoftenisthemostsensi