企業(yè)品牌的聲譽和品牌危機管理

標題：Corporatebrandreputationandbrandcrisismanagement原文：Forsomeyears,thewhat,why,andhowofrecognisingandaddressingbrandcrisis-particularlycorporate/organisationalbrandcrisis-hasoccupiedmyresearchattention(notetoreader:"corporateand"organisationalare'usedinterchangeably).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.They川ustrateakeydimensionofcorporate-levelmarketing.“Carweasaninstitution,havemeaningful,positiveandprofitablebilateralon-goingrelationshipswithcustomersandotherstakeholdergroupsandcommunities?”Thatwasacentralquestonofanorganisation'scorporate-levelmarketingorientationposedbyJohnBalmerandmyselfinourtreatmentofanintegratedapproachtomarketingattheinstitutionallevel(BalmerandGreyser,2006).Weheld(amongotherpoints)thatcorporatemarketingisindeedaboardroomandCEOconcern.Inreflectingoncorporateidentityandreputationintimesofbrandcrisis,onerecognisestheimportanceofcorporate-wideorientationandtheresponsibilityoftheCEOandcompany-widemanagers.SourcesofreputationaltroubleLetmeofferananatomyofthekindsofreasonsbrandscanbeinreputationalcrisis,howtoknowthatthesituationisserious,andwhatstepscompaniescantrytotaketopreventorifnecessarytoovercomesuchcrises.Reputationaltroublescancomeinmanyforms,fromawidevarietyofcausesandfrommanypublics.Somehavebeensudden,suchaswhensevenpeoplediedinasingledayfromtaintedTylenolcapsules,whentracesofbenzenewerefoundinbottlesofPerrierandwhenanexplosioninaUnionCarbidefacilityinIndiakilledmanyhundredsofpeople.Othersweretheresultofproblemsthatfesteredoverlongerperiods,suchasthepriestsexabusescandalaffectingmanyCatholicarchdiocesesintheUS,theaccountingscandalthateventuallyruinedtheonce-respectableaccountingfirmofArthurAndersen,orthebriberyscandaloverselectionofhostcitiesthattarnishedthereputationoftheInternationalOlympicCommittee.Someoftheprotestorconcerncomesfromadvocacygroupswithacause,somefromdisaffectedconsumers/customers,somefromgovernmental/regulatoryentities,andsomefromthegeneralpublic.Organisationsmustrecognisethe"what'^ftheissuegeneratingthereputationalthreats,aswellas“who”theinvolvedpublic(s)is/are.Hereisacategorisationofdifferentcausesofcorporatebrandcrises,withsomeexamplesandsomebriefexplanations:Productfailure-Tylenol,Perrier,Firestone(tiresimplicatedasthecauseofmanydeathsincaraccidents),theChernobylnuclearplantdisaster,Intel'sPentiumchip(flawedcalculations),PeanutCorp.ofAmerica(salmonella).Socialresponsibilitygap-Nike(non-USlabourandquestionableworkingconditions).Corporatemisbehaviour-ArthurAndersen,Enron,Exxon(oilspillinAlaska),Merck(allegedsuppressionofearlyclinicaldrugtrialsofVioxx),Siemens(corporatecorruptioninmultinationalfraudandbribery),Hewlett-Packard(Chairmanindictedforspyingonboardmembersviaquestionableinvestigativemeans),IOC/SLOC(scandalsregardingbidcities).Executivemisbehaviour-MarthaStewart,DennisKozlowski(Tyco).Poorbusinessresults-Polaroid(failuretoadapttechnologically),CircuitCity(giantretailerwhichletgomanyofitsmostknowledgeablestorestaff),andmanyothersparticularlyin2008.SpokespersonmisbehaviourandcontroversyKobeBryant(starNBAathleteandendorserofbrandswhowasaccusedofrape).Deathofsymbolofcompany-Wendy's(fastfoodchain)founderandTVspokespersonDaveThomas,the“faceofthebrand”.Lossofpublicsupport-LouisXVIofFrance(guillotinedandmonarchyfell),EdwardVIIIofEngland(forcedtoabdicatetheBritishthrone);bothlosttheirabilitytobeseenbytheirpeopleas“asymbolofnationhood,“centraltotl"monarchiccorporatebranQBalmeretal.,2006).Controversialownership-VenezuelaandCITGOintheUSA(vigorouslyanti-USVenezuelanpresident).AssessingtheseriousnessofthesituationWhatmadesomeofthesecriseslife-threateningtotheorganisationsinvolvedwasthattheyaffectedwhatIterm“theessenceofthebrand"i.e.thedistinctiveattribute/characteristicmostcloselyassociatedwiththebrand'smeaningandsuccess.Whenthisoccursacompany'smarketplacepositionanditsbrandmeaningareseriouslychallenged.Iftheessenceofthebrandisnotcentraltothesituation,theproblemismorelikelytobeovercome,albeitstilltroublesome.Herearefourkeyareas,withsomebriefcomments,thatorganisationsshouldexaminetoanalyzeanemerging(oremerged)issuethatmaythreatenitsbrand'sreputation:Thebrandelements:oBrand'smarketplacesituation,e.g.marketshareorcorporatefavourability(priortocrisis).Theweakerthesituation,themoredangeroustheproblem.oBrandstrengths/weaknesses.Themoredifferentiated(vsotherentities),thebetteritisfortheaffectedcompany,unlessakeydifferentiationisthesubjectatissue(see"integrityofathleticcompetition"below)oEssenceofthebrand'smeaning(seeexamplesbelow).Thecrisissituation:oSeriousnessofsituationatoutset.Iftheproblemprospectivelyaffectsmanyconsumersorsomeseverely,e.g.salmonellainfoodleadingtodeaths,theseriousnessishigher.oItsthreattobrand'sposition/meaning(seetextexamplesin“consequences"below).Companyinitiatives:oImpactonbrandandproblemsituationofcompanybehaviour/actions,especiallycommunications;thiscanbeexaminedattheplanningstageas“l(fā)ikely"impact.Results(afterinitiativesand/orpassageoftime):oEffectivenessofinitiativesintermsofrecovery/relaunch,restoringbrandmeaning,andfavourabilityormarketshare.ActioninbrandreputationalcrisesWhatcanandshouldcompanies/organisationsdowhenthreatenedbybrandcrises?Wheredoescommunicationsfitin?Myprincipalrecommendationrelatestosituationsof“badnewsaboutthecompanyandthenewsisreallytrue”.Inthefaceofcrisis,especiallywhenitisrootedinaproblemthatisorwillbecomevisible,Ibelieveanorganisationshouldadmitthetruth,evenifembarrassing.Also,itshouldforthrightlytrytoaddresstheproblem,evenifitinvolveschangingcorporatebehaviour.Anditshouldsupporttheinitiativewithcrediblecommunications.Thesearethebest(butstillbumpy)roadstopossiblebrandrehabilitationorrescue..CommunicationsalonecannotdothejobSubstance-i.e.behaviour-iscentral(e.g.thequickrecallofTylenolfromdistribution)toaneffectivedefensiveprogram.Analliedcommunicationseffortcanbeimportantandhelpful.However,themessagemustavoidservingasa“remindercampaign"especiallyiftheunderlyingproblem/allegationisnotwidelyknownbyrelevantpublics.CrediblecommunicationswereanissueforWal-martinitsearly2005corporatecommunicationscampaign-Maatisworkingforeveryone”.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,forthrightcorporateactionoftenisthemostsensibleroute.Merck,thethird-largestUSpharmaceuticalmanufacturer,sufferedanattackonitsreputationbecauseofitsactionsregardingVioxx,apainmedication.ItwasrevealedthatseveralyearsbeforethecompanywithdrewVioxx(2004),itsinternaldocumentsraisedquestionsaboutrisksofstrokesandheartattacksassociatedwiththedrug.Obviouslythiswasaserioussituationforthecompany'sreputationespeciallysincethecompanywasdefendingthousandsoflawsuitsoverinjuriesanddeaths,claimedbypatientsorsurvivingfamilymemberstobeattributabletothedrug.Threeyearsafterthewithdrawal,havingwonmanybuthavinglostsomeofthecases,Merckmadea$4.85billionsettlementonsome45,000cases(BostonGlobe,November9,2007)Merck'sactionwasexpensive,butallowedthefirmtomoveonwithoutahugeresidualfinancialcloud.Merck'sbehaviourhelpedaddressaseriousthreat.AnunusualcorporateactioninthefaceofcriticismwastakenbythemajoraccountingfirmKPMGin2005.UnderattackbytheUSGovernmentforthecreationandsaleoftaxsheltersclaimedtohavecosttheTreasurybillionsoftaxdollars,KPMGadmitted“unlawfulconduct."Whatwassaidtoliebehindthemovewasthecompany'sfearofcriminalindictment,whichinthecaseofArthurAndersenhadbeenamajorstepleadingtoitsdemise(NewYorkTimes,2005).Iftheorganisationtrulybelievesthatbadnewsaboutitisfalse,thereisanopportunitytocorrectthemisimpression.However,thecommunications(e.g.corporatestatements)mustbesupportedbyevidenceandhaveaclearringofcredibility.WhenAudiwasconfrontedwith“suddenunintendedacceleration”problems,itsinitialresponsesattributedtheblametodrivererror.Thisbecameamatterofconsiderablepublicdebate,wellcoveredbymedia.Later,despiteconsiderableinternalengineeringinvestigation,Audiwasgenerallyconsideredneverabletopinpointtheactualcauseoftheproblem.Ittooknewengineering(e.g.automaticgearshiftlocksnowwidelyemployedintheindustry)andthepassageofseveralyearsofmuchlowersalesforthebrand(whosenameisonallmodels)tomountacomeback.Twoothersituationsexistbeyond“thdoadnewsistrue”and"th&adnewsisclearlyfalse”,namely“thegoodnewsistrue”and“thegoodnewsisactuallyfalseMyadviceinthefirstsituationistofeelgoodandworkhardtomaintainwhateveractionshaveyieldedwhatrelevantpublicsconsidergoodnews.Communicationscanbehelpfultothecorporatecauseiftheinformationissupportedbyexternalcredibleresearch,suchas“votedbestcompanytoworkfor”.Thisofcourseputstheonusonanorganisationtomaintainthedistinction.Inthesecondcase("goodnewsisactuallyfalse"a,corporationneedstofixtherealityquickly(especiallyifonarelevantreputationaldimensionsuchasasafetyissue)andhopeitcankeepalowprofileuntilthesituationisremedied.Aspartofanorganisationalplanningexercise,onemightaskthesequestionsabouttheorganisation'sbrand:Whatdoyouthinkistheessenceofyourcorporatebrand'smeaningtoconsumers,tothetrade,tootherkeystakeholders?Whatcouldcauseyourbrandtoundergoabrandcrisis?Howseriouslywouldthisaffectthebrand'sreputation?How?Why?LessonslearnedFrommyexperiencesandstudyofmanycrisissituations,letmeofferfourlessonsinveryabbreviatedform:Letusstartwithalookinthemirror.Understandyourorganisation'sidentityasothersseeit—notwhatthecompanysaysitwantstobe.Thelatterisimportant,butperceptionsarecentral.Knowthebrand'smeaningtokeystakeholders,andwhatcouldthreatenitscore.Andmonitorpublicapprovalandsupportofthecompanyunderdifferentscenariosoftrouble-e.g.astrike,anenvironmentalproblem,etc.Inshort,understandtheorganisation'sbrandessenceandwhatcouldseriouslythreatenit.Potentialreputationalproblemsarelegion.Theycomeinmanyforms,andfrommanypublics(stakeholders).Butnotallaffecttheessenceofthebrand.Inallinstances,theorganisationmustunderstandwhatandwhomitisdefendingagainst.Intheeventofbrandreputationalcrisis,focusonforthrightnessincommunications,andontrulysubstantivecredibleresponsesinbehaviour.Thesearethemostlikelyavenuestorescueabrandincrisis.Theymayrestoretrust,althoughthatisnotguaranteed.Themostimportantactionsinareputationalcrisis,however,canbetheonestakenovertimetobuilda“reputationaleservoirastrongfoundationforthecorporatereputation.Insomecrises,acompanycandrawdownonthatreservoir.Rememberthatbecauseacorporatebrandisaswideastheorganisation,theCEOistheultimateguardianofthecorporation'sreputation.出處：StephenA.Greyser.Corporatebrandreputationandbrandcrisismanagement[J]ManagementDecision.2009.47(4),PP.590-602標題：企業(yè)品牌的聲譽和品牌危機管理譯文：這些年來，什么是品牌危機以及如何認識和處理品牌危機，特別是企業(yè)或組織的品牌危機，是我研究的重點。眾多公司和非營利機構(gòu)提供了面臨嚴重聲譽危機時危機公關(guān)的臨床經(jīng)驗。近幾十年來的例子包括?？松ㄍ郀柕掀澥托孤┦录?，聯(lián)合碳化物（博帕爾爆炸），佩里耶（苯痕跡），泰諾（毒丸從死亡），美國天主教教會（牧師性虐待），瑪莎斯圖爾特OmniMedia（行政不當行為），安達信（會計丑聞），國際奧林匹克委員會（賄賂問題）等等。他們的品牌已經(jīng)受到了威脅，表現(xiàn)在消費者和企業(yè)客戶認同度的下降和公眾的信任度的下降。一些產(chǎn)品的品牌根深蒂固（如泰諾），并都具有企業(yè)品牌的影響力，在公司層面上努力地進行挽救企業(yè)品牌（如泰諾強生公司，由強生公司麥克尼爾實驗室的單位銷售）。因此，這些事件向企業(yè)提供一個了解品牌方面知識的豐富來源。它們說明了企業(yè)營銷的關(guān)鍵方面的內(nèi)容?！拔覀兛梢宰鳛橐粋€機構(gòu)，積極地維持顧客及其他利益相關(guān)群體的雙邊利益和社區(qū)關(guān)系是有意義的嗎？"。這是由約翰和我用我們的一套綜合的治療方法在一定制度水平上提出的關(guān)于企業(yè)組織的營銷導向的核心問題。（巴爾默和Greyser,2006年）。我們認為的企業(yè)營銷的確需要一個董事會和首席執(zhí)行官的關(guān)注。在反思企業(yè)形象和品牌信譽危機的時候，就應該認識到全公司定位的重要性及行政總裁和公司級管理人員的責任。聲譽麻煩的來源讓我來提供各種品牌聲譽危機的產(chǎn)生原因的解析，如何知道情況的嚴重性，以及公司可以嘗試什么步驟以防止和克服這種危機。聲譽麻煩可以有許多形式，從各種各樣的和許多公眾中變現(xiàn)出來。有些是突如其來的，例如當七人在一天之內(nèi)死于污染的泰諾膠囊，當苯的痕跡在Perrier的瓶子中被發(fā)現(xiàn)，當在印度一家聯(lián)合碳化物公司的工廠爆炸導致數(shù)百人喪生。另一些人的問題影響是更長久的，例如牧師的性侵犯在美國的影響，會計丑聞最終斷送了一度受人尊敬的會計師事務所安達信，或主辦城市的選擇中的行賄丑聞使得國際奧委會的聲譽受損。一些抗議或關(guān)心來自于團體，也有來自于心懷不滿的消費者或客戶客戶的、一些政府或監(jiān)管機構(gòu)和一些大眾企業(yè)必須認識到什么問題威脅到了企業(yè)聲譽以及誰公開的。這里是一個企業(yè)品牌危機的不同成因分類與一些例子的簡要解釋：1、產(chǎn)品故障-泰諾，佩里耶，凡世通（事故車輪胎牽連的許多死亡的原因），切爾諾貝利核電站災難，英特爾的奔騰芯片（有缺陷的計算），美國公司的花生（沙門氏菌）。2、社會責任的差距-耐克（非美國勞工和工作條件問題）。3、企業(yè)不良行為-安達信，安然，?？松ㄊ驮诎⒗辜勇┯停?，默克（Vioxx的涉嫌鎮(zhèn)壓的臨床藥物試驗的早期階段），西門子（企業(yè)貪污賄賂犯罪跨國詐騙），惠普（經(jīng)董事會起訴從事間諜活動通過問題的調(diào)查手段成員），國際奧委會/土壤活性有機碳（有關(guān)申辦城市的丑聞）。4、行政不當行為-瑪莎斯圖爾特，丹尼斯科茲洛夫斯基（泰科）。5、業(yè)績不好的結(jié)果-寶麗（未能適應技術(shù)），電路城（零售業(yè)巨頭這讓許多工作人員前往其最熟悉店），并于2008年許多企業(yè)尤為如此。6、發(fā)言人行為不檢和爭議,科比-布萊恩特（NBAS牌代言人明星運動員被告強奸）。7、公司的死亡象征-溫迪（快餐連鎖）的創(chuàng)始人和電視發(fā)言人戴夫托馬斯，關(guān)于“面對品牌”8、支持喪失公共-法國的路易十六（斷頭臺和君主制下降），英國的愛德華八世（英國被迫放棄王位，都失去了他們的能力被人看到他們?yōu)椤耙粋€國家地位的象征，”中央對“君主的企業(yè)品牌”（巴爾末等，2006）o9、有爭議的所有權(quán)-委內(nèi)瑞拉和CITGO（大力反美的委內(nèi)瑞拉總統(tǒng)）。評估局勢的嚴重性是什么使這些危機威脅到一些組織的生存，是他們影響了我所謂“品牌的本質(zhì)”，即獨特的屬性或特征是與品牌的內(nèi)涵和成功密切相關(guān)。當發(fā)生這種情況發(fā)生時公司的市場地位和品牌內(nèi)涵都面臨著嚴重的挑戰(zhàn)。如果品牌的本質(zhì)不是中心環(huán)節(jié)，那么問題更容易被克服，盡管仍然麻煩。這里有四個關(guān)鍵領(lǐng)域的一些簡短的評論，即組織應研究分析一可能威脅到其品牌的聲譽的新的或已出現(xiàn)的問題：1、該品牌兀素：品牌的市場情況，如市場份額或（危機前）的企業(yè)的有利情況。較弱的情況及更危險的問題。品牌優(yōu)勢或劣勢。越是的與其他實體有區(qū)別，越能更好的影響公司，除非是在關(guān)鍵的問題上有分歧。品牌的本質(zhì)意義。2、危機情況：一開始就有嚴峻的形式。如果這一問題提前影響到了許多消費者或者更加嚴重，例如，在食品中的沙門氏菌導致人的死亡，這樣的問題就更加嚴重。威脅到品牌的地位或本質(zhì)。3、公司倡議：影響公司的品牌和問題行為或行動，特別是通訊，在計劃階段有可能的影響可以被檢查到。4、結(jié)果（實施措施一段時間之后）：恢復或重新啟動有效的措施，恢復品牌內(nèi)涵，和有利的市場或市場占有率。在品牌信譽危機中的措施當品牌危機威脅到公司，公司能夠和必須做些什么？哪里適合交流？我的主要建議涉及到的情況是“公司真正的壞的消息”。在面對危機，尤其是當它已經(jīng)是一個問題或?qū)⒊蔀閱栴}時，我相信一個組織應當承認這個事實，即使尷尬。止匕外，它應該直截了當?shù)貒L試解決這個問題，哪怕這意味著這是改變企業(yè)的行為。并且它應支持有效交流的主動權(quán)。這是最好的（但仍是坎坷的）康復治療或救援品牌的道路。交流溝通是不能單獨就能完成的工作。實質(zhì)-即行為-是一個至關(guān)重要的（例如，從快速召回分布的泰諾）有效的防御計劃。一個相關(guān)聯(lián)的溝通工作也很重要和有益的。但是，這一消息必須避免成為一個“提醒活動”。特別是如果基本問題或指控沒有被相關(guān)公眾所熟知?？尚诺膫鞑ナ俏譅柆斣?005年初發(fā)動“沃爾瑪是為每個人工作的”的傳播活動。該消息是對工人的工資和福利有不滿和對沃爾瑪所在這區(qū)的一些影響的回應。一些觀察家（包括我自己）提出當該公司因為媒體報道員工們試圖組織工會關(guān)閉商店和公司因為歧視女職工被起訴而廣受批評時如何才能讓這一消息變得有效果。在我看來，公司在傳播方面的努力和這個特定的消息或主題不太可能是有效的。有時甚至任何傳播都可以讓人懷疑。當委內(nèi)瑞拉總統(tǒng)在聯(lián)合國抨擊美國總統(tǒng)布什時2006年底美國的CITGO發(fā)現(xiàn)他的聲譽受損（CITGO勺母公司是一家的委內(nèi)瑞拉是有公司）。一個主要的零售加油站經(jīng)營者結(jié)束了他與CITGO的供應商關(guān)系。據(jù)稱這已經(jīng)和政治攻擊有關(guān)聯(lián)了，CITGO決定進行一項宣傳