How To Save Your Brand In Times Of Crisis

MIT Sloan Management Review: How To Save Your Brand In The Face Of Crisis Gita V. Johar, Matthias M. Birk and Sabine A. Einwiller,08.06.10, 04:19 PM EDTWhen bad things happen, companies need the right strategy for talking their way out of a mess and avoiding a calamitous pummeling of their corporate image.In 2009 and 2010Toyotawas the target of much adverse media attention after a series of accidents due to sudden acceleration incidents and brake faults that led to deaths and injuries. TheToyotabrand's reputation took a battering.Toyotamanagement had a choice: Be resigned to this fate or use communication strategies to recover from the crisis.Drawing on scientific research on persuasion, we have assembled a crisis communication framework that highlights when communication strategies should be used to help a brand recover from a crisis and restore trust and brand image with customers. Here are some examples of those strategies, which are best used in synergistic combinations:Come clean.If the brand is truly at fault and the crisis is severe, the only viable option is for management to apologize quickly, express sympathy with the aggrieved parties and accept responsibility. Accepting responsibility is often inhibited by legal considerations; however, management has to weigh the long-term effects of brand damage against potentially shorter-term monetary damages due to litigation.All the bad news has to be communicated quickly and, if possible, all at once. In a severe crisis the company's top manager has to step up and serve as the first spokesperson. Corrective action may be necessary as well. In the case of a product recall, this involves detailed instructions about how to get the product replaced or fixed.TheToyota(TM-news-people) crisis exemplifies the detrimental effects of neither acting nor communicating swiftly and openly when faced with a severe problem. Despite the fact that there were indications of safety problems for a long time, Toyota did not openly acknowledge them until it was heavily pressured by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Furthermore, a remedy to fix the problem could not be offered swiftly, and when it was offered, customers complained that the fix did not work.Polish the halo.When an apology becomes necessary, the brand may also need to bolster its image so that less identified customers do not become even more negative toward the brand or transfer their negative beliefs about certain features to other features of the brand-- the "spillover" effect. One way to prevent spillover is by polishing the brand image.Toyota has followed this strategy. In the context of coming clean, the company started a campaign to bolster its image by launching a TV advertisement stressing its commitment to fixing the problems and reminding consumers of Toyota's long tradition of safety and quality.It's important to realize that no amount of polishing the halo can inoculate a brand. The massive Gulf of Mexico oil spill in April 2010 from an offshore oil rig owned byBP(BP-news-people) provides an illustration. For many years, BP had been attempting to rebrand itself as a company that also invests in alternative energy. The Gulf spill strengthened associations of the BP brand with "Bad Petroleum."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
Inoculation.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.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.Rebuttal.When the brand is not at fault, the lack of a crisis response by the company may be interpreted as a confession. The company under attack must defend itself with a point-by-point rebuttal of the spurious allegation.In 1993, for example,PepsiCo(PEP-news-people) was confronted with multiple claims that it had sold cans containing foreign objects such as syringes. The issue 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. This example shows the relevance of speed, persuasive depiction of disproof and the support of a trusted third party (in this case, the FDA).Vilify the accuser.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 can backfire if it is viewed as being unfair or defensive. Even in minor cases, vilifying the accuser can be useful in communicating to less-identified customers (though it should be unnecessary with highly identified customers).Denial.This approach makes sense when the following hold: The accusation against the brand is not true; target consumers identify with the brand; and those consumers do not perceive the crisis to be severe.Conclusion.The goal of communication during a crisis is to diffuse the episode's negative impact. The company embroiled in such a crisis should aim to explain to consumers why the problem arose and why the brand should not be viewed more negatively as a result of the event. Companies have to manage consumers' attributions of blame, as well as their thoughts about the future of the brand, by providing them with a clear narrative that answers their questions about the crisis. By choosing wisely from the communication arsenal we have described, companies can avert backlash from consumers and perhaps even strengthen the brand when a crisis hits.This article is adapted from"How to Save Your Brand in the Face of Crisis,"by Gita V. Johar, Matthias M. Birk and Sabine A. Einwiller, which appeared in the Summer 2010 issue ofMIT Sloan Management Review.Copyright © Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2010. All rights reserved