Fashion designer Tommy
Hilfiger used multiple
strategies to counteract
rumors that caused a
boycott of the brand,
including appearing on
“The Oprah Winfrey Show.”
shown in a study of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Consumers who read an advertisement by the retailer that
contained messages like “Wal-Mart is accused of
paying employees poverty wages, but … our average
wage for full-time hourly store associates is almost
twice the federal minimum wage” were less likely to
believe an accusation on the wage issue than consumers who had not received this kind of statement.
Interestingly, the inoculation even spilled over
to other accusations, and made people less likely to
believe assertions about Wal-Mart having nothing
to do with the company’s wage practices. 13
The “Yes, but …” Response Management can reduce the power of accusations by augmenting a
“come clean” approach with a forthright explanation
of the reasons for the crisis, along with an argument
that downplays the damage done. Justification is especially needed for customers who do not identify
with the brand, because they will not generate these
excuses for themselves. Unless persuaded otherwise,
these customers are likely to believe that the transgression was intentional and that the brand is to
blame. Further, they may believe that this is the “true
face” of the brand and that similar events are likely to
occur again. Providing reasons why the transgression occurred could make these customers’
attributions of blame less severe and help keep them
in the brand franchise.
Rebuttal The communication strategies discussed
above all apply when the crisis is truly the consequence of something the company has done wrong.
But there are also instances in which the brand is not
at fault. In this case, the lack of response by the company might be interpreted as a confession. If the
crisis precipitated by such a false accusation is severe,
the company under attack must defend itself with a
point-by-point rebuttal of the spurious allegation.
In 1993, for example, PepsiCo Inc. was confronted
with multiple claims that it had sold cans containing
foreign objects such as syringes. The issue quickly escalated into a national news story. With a crisis plan
for product tampering in place and the support of the
Food and Drug Administration, which had found no
health hazards related to the claims, the crisis was
brought to an end within eight days. Pepsi’s most
vivid communication instrument was a video news
release that showed the process of a can-filling line,
which persuasively demonstrated that it was impossible for objects to enter the cans during production.
The video was broadcast by the media, including
those outlets that had originally spread the claims.
This example shows the relevance of speed, which
is greatly boosted by good preparation, persuasive
depiction of disproof and the importance of the support of a trusted third party (in this case, the FDA).
The rebuttal response can also work for crises
that are not in reality very serious, but that are in
danger of being perceived as severe — especially by
customers who lack a strong identification with the
brand. Consumers who do identify with the brand,
in contrast, are likely to spontaneously question the
validity of an attack and can generate their own
counterarguments. They are less apt to need help to
counterargue when the crisis is not severe.
The rebuttal response requires good preparation.
If the disproof cannot be presented persuasively, it
might just appear defensive and backfire. If the rebuttal is directed at the source of the attack, it can be
communicated in the form of a “vilify the accuser”
response, which we describe next.
Vilify the Accuser If a false allegation is severe, it
might be necessary not just to lay out a defensive argument but to go on the offense. The idea here is to
decrease the credibility of a claim by discrediting the
source of the accusation. This strategy should be used
with caution, because it could backfire if it is viewed as
being unfair or defensive. Even in minor cases, vilifying the accuser could be useful in communicating to
less-identified customers (though it would be unnecessary with highly identified customers).
During the Toyota crisis, a Southern Illinois University professor claimed that he could induce
unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles without
leaving any trace, thereby suggesting flaws in the
cars’ electronics. Toyota discredited the professor’s
research report and called it a manipulation that
could be contrived only in the laboratory. The company supported its rebuttal with its own research,
conducted by an expert and backed by a statement
from a Stanford University professor. Toyota prepared a detailed video demonstrating its findings
and discrediting the source of the allegation, and
effectively spread the vilification in the news media.
