such as the one Toyota experienced are business disturbances with potentially negative outcomes that
stimulate extensive media coverage and marketplace
scrutiny. The goal of a communication strategy in
the face of a crisis should be to prevent severe damage to the brand’s reputation and eventually to
restore consumer trust.
Drawing on scientific research on persuasion, we
have assembled a comprehensive crisis communication framework that highlights when specific
communication strategies should be used to help a
brand recover from a crisis and restore trust and
brand image with customers. While other stakeholders, such as investors, need to be considered as well,
we focus here on practices in response to customers
and consumers in general. And here’s an amazing
thing: Recovering from a crisis in the “right” way may
sometimes even improve brand image. By the same
token, using the “wrong” communication strategy
could damage the brand beyond repair.
Events that precipitate crises are, for the most
part, unexpected by consumers. If there is no pattern of crisis-prone behavior, then consumers are
likely to start thinking about the event and why it
happened. 3 When a crisis hits, consumers reading
or hearing about it likely ask themselves a predictable set of questions:
■ Is this true?
■ Who is responsible?
■ Was it intentional?
■ Will the brand do this again?
■ What does this event say about the brand?
Consumer responses to these questions are, in
part, based on the brand’s communications before,
during and after the crisis.
Navigating the Crisis
With this understanding of the public mind-set, we
can provide communication strategies that help
consumers answer the questions posed above in a
variety of real-world situations. We evaluate the
situation along three dimensions:
■ The truth/falsity of the accusation of wrongdoing — that is, is the crisis real?
■ The severity of the crisis.
■ Whether customers (existing and potential) have
forged a strong personal identification with the
brand.
Our research has generated a comprehensive crisis
communication framework that offers the manager an
arsenal of communication strategies in different types
of situations. (See “About the Research.”)
Is the accusation true? The first question to ask is
whether the information provoking the crisis is objectively true, and based on solid facts. Did Toyota
really know about its flawed pedals and stuck floor
mats or potential problems in the electronic system
before the fatal accidents happened? Did the company really try to avoid a large-scale recall, hoping
that the issue would blow over? Even if the company
believes the accusation is false, managers need to
view the accusation from customers’ perspectives.
Customers’ beliefs regarding the validity of the event
provoking the crisis are likely to be based on whether
they themselves or someone they know experienced
it, or whether they learned about it from a credible
source — e.g., a government agency like the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Strikingly
credible, for example, was the repeatedly broadcast
911 call by Chris Lastrella when the accelerator in his
Lexus got stuck and the car crashed, killing him and
the three other occupants of the car in which he was
a passenger. At the same time, hearing about an event
repeatedly, even if the repeated messages are from
sources of dubious repute, will make consumers believe that the event was real. 4 If consumers identify
closely with the brand, however, they are likely to
question the validity of the transgression in order to
protect their positive connection with the brand. 5
Is the crisis severe? Crisis severity lies in the eyes
of the beholder, in this case the consumer. From the
company or brand management’s standpoint, the
incident that sets off a crisis could seem minor. Yet,
it could be magnified by circumstances or by media
buzz. Nestlé S.A., for example, underestimated the
perceived severity of the situation after traces of ink
were found in its baby milk formula in various European countries in 2005. Chairman and CEO Peter
Brabeck-Letmathe publicly called the problem a
“storm in a teacup.” According to Nestlé, and later
confirmed by the European Commission, there was
no danger to health from drinking the milk. But in
the eyes of consumers and the affected countries’
food safety agencies, the problem was dire — and
from a communications standpoint, that was the
perception that mattered.
