MIT Sloan Management Review

Toyota puts maximizing its profits ahead of its customers’ safety, so these types of accidents were inevitable and will be in the future. Or they could consider this event a one-time transgression. If consumers believe there is a recurring pattern of transgressions, they are likely to abandon the brand altogether.

It’s important to realize that no amount of polishing the halo can inoculate a brand against future severe crises. The massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill in April 2010 from an offshore oil rig owned by BP p.l.c. provides a sad illustration. For many years, BP had been attempting to rebrand itself as a company that also invests heavily in alternative energy. The Gulf spill strengthens associations of the BP brand with “Bad Petroleum.” The image of a green, virtuous, “Beyond Petroleum” company was blown to pieces with the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon and the seemingly unstoppable gushing of oil into a cherished natural environment.

The “Not Just Me” Response In many cases, a company’s transgression, while real, is not something unique to the brand under attack — the same thing could happen to any other brand. If consumers understand this, they are less likely to generalize from the crisis to other aspects of the brand. Consumers need to be provided with information to consider whether the crisis-provoking event was unique to the brand. For example, could market conditions have provoked this crisis for any competing brand as well? Cues should be provided that help consumers construct a narrative that absolves the brand of sole responsibility for the event. This message can help consumers put the transgression in perspective and lead the way to brand forgiveness.

Take, for example, the case of Dell Inc. and its laptop computer batteries. In 2006, reports of combusting Dell laptops spread rapidly. The computer maker acknowledged the threat to its customers’ safety and voluntarily recalled 4. 2 million laptops. More importantly, it pointed out that the cause of the explosions was malfunctioning batteries — and that those batteries were manufactured by Sony Corp. Just a few weeks later, other computer makers also started recalling laptops that ran on Sony batteries, vindicating Dell’s early recall as the right thing to do, and making Dell appear particularly service oriented and concerned about customers’ safety. In the end, most

COURTESY OF CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

of the public blame was laid not on Dell but on Sony, which was accused of taking too long to accept responsibility, disclose information and coordinate the global recall. The “not just me” response should be especially effective with identified customers. These customers are prone to counterargument and just need to be provided with ammunition in the form of informational cues.

Note that consumers are likely to blame the brand for the transgression if there is no easy alternative entity on which to pin responsibility. Most auto parts, for example, are produced by suppliers unaffiliated with the carmaker. However, if the crisis is severe, as in the Toyota case, pointing fingers is unwise because consumers are less likely to shift the blame. They are inclined to attribute responsibility to the company that they expect to ensure the quality of the end product.

A company’s track record is also a factor in whether consumers hold the brand responsible for a problem. Brands that have a history of similar crises are more likely to be held responsible for the critical situation. 12 On the flip side, consumers are less likely to blame the brand for the transgression if the brand has a favorable reputation, if consumers trust the brand or identify with it.

Inoculation This is the only strategy that requires anticipating a crisis. The idea is to prepare consumers for a negative event by communicating a small dose of the accusation together with counterarguments that refute it — and to do this before the accusation breaks. Inoculation is particularly effective if the crisis is likely to be severe and likely to receive a lot of media coverage. If you believe that even identified consumers will begin to question your brand when the news hits, then it is wise to adopt this preemptive strategy. Anticipate the criticism and prepare consumers with counterarguments prior to the attack. The inoculation message acts like a vaccine and prevents the “crisis virus” from attacking the brand. Consumers are fortified by the message and ready to counterargue when the crisis hits. Inoculation is useful even if the crisis-provoking event is true — in this case, the role of the message is to make consumers believe that the crisis is not as severe as it will be made to seem in the media.