企業(yè)品牌的聲譽(yù)和品牌危機(jī)管理-畢業(yè)論文

標(biāo)題：Corporatebrandreputationandbrandcrisismanagement原文：Forsomeyears,thewhat,why,andhowofrecognisingandaddressingbrandcrisis–particularlycorporate/organisationalbrandcrisis–hasoccupiedmyresearchattention(notetoreader:“corporate”and“organisational”areusedinterchangeably).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.Theyillustrateakeydimensionofcorporate-levelmarketing.“Canweasaninstitution,havemeaningful,positiveandprofitablebilateralon-goingrelationshipswithcustomersandotherstakeholdergroupsandcommunities?”.Thatwasacentralquestionofanorganisation'scorporate-levelmarketingorientationposedbyJohnBalmerandmyselfinourtreatmentofanintegratedapproachtomarketingattheinstitutionallevel(\o"b4."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”oftheissuegeneratingthereputationalthreats,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),CircuitSpokespersonmisbehaviourandcontroversy

–KobeBryant(starNBAathleteandendorserofbrandswhowasaccusedofrape).Deathofsymbolofcompany

–Wendy's(fastfoodchain)founderandTVspokespersonDaveThomas,the“faceofthebrand”.Lossofpublicsupport

–LouisXVIofFrance(guillotinedandmonarchyfell),EdwardVIIIofEngland(forcedtoabdicatetheBritishthrone);bothlosttheirabilitytobeseenbytheirpeopleas“asymbolofnationhood,”centraltothe“monarchiccorporatebrand”(\o"b5."Balmer

etal.,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:Brand'smarketplacesituation,e.g.marketshareorcorporatefavourability(priortocrisis).Theweakerthesituation,themoredangeroustheproblem.Brandstrengths/weaknesses.Themoredifferentiated(vsotherentities),thebetteritisfortheaffectedcompany,unlessakeydifferentiationisthesubjectatissue(see“integrityofathleticcompetition”below).Essenceofthebrand'smeaning(seeexamplesbelow).Thecrisissituation:Seriousnessofsituationatoutset.Iftheproblemprospectivelyaffectsmanyconsumersorsomeseverely,e.g.salmonellainfoodleadingtodeaths,theseriousnessishigher.Itsthreattobrand'sposition/meaning(seetextexamplesin“consequences”below).Companyinitiatives:Impactonbrandandproblemsituationofcompanybehaviour/actions,especiallycommunications;thiscanbeexaminedattheplanningstageas“l(fā)ikely”impact.Results

(afterinitiativesand/orpassageoftime):Effectivenessofinitiativesintermsofrecovery/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“Wal-Martisworkingforeveryone”.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(\o"b21."NewYorkTimes,November1,2006).ThesituationsubsequentlysettleddownasAmericanslookedatgasolineasaproduct,ratherthanatitsownership.AsIhavesuggested,forthrightcorporateactionoftenisthemostsensibleroute.Merck,thethird-largestUSpharmaceuticalmanufacturer,sufferedanattackonitsreputationbecauseofitsactionsregardingVioxx,apainmedication.ItwasrevealedthatseveralyearsbeforethecompanywithdrewVioxx(2004),itsinternaldocumentsraisedquestionsaboutrisksofstrokesandheartattacksassociatedwiththedrug.Obviouslythiswasaserioussituationforthecompany'sreputationespeciallysincethecompanywasdefendingthousandsoflawsuitsoverinjuriesanddeaths,claimedbypatientsorsurvivingfamilymemberstobeattributabletothedrug.Threeyearsafterthewithdrawal,havingwonmanybuthavinglostsomeofthecases,Merckmadea$4.85billionsettlementonsome45,000cases(\o"b6."BostonGlobe,November9,2007)Merck'sactionwasexpensive,butallowedthefirmtomoveonwithoutahugeresidualfinancialcloud.Merck'sbehaviourhelpedaddressaseriousthreat.AnunusualcorporateactioninthefaceofcriticismwastakenbythemajoraccountingfirmKPMGin2005.UnderattackbytheUSGovernmentforthecreationandsaleoftaxsheltersclaimedtohavecosttheTreasurybillionsoftaxdollars,KPMGadmitted“unlawfulconduct.”Whatwassaidtoliebehindthemovewasthecompany'sfearofcriminalindictment,whichinthecaseofArthurAndersenhadbeenamajorstepleadingtoitsdemise(\o"b20."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“thebadnewsistrue”and“thebadnewsisclearlyfalse”,namely“thegoodnewsistrue”and“thegoodnewsisactuallyfalse”.Myadviceinthefirstsituationistofeelgoodandworkhardtomaintainwhateveractionshaveyieldedwhatrelevantpublicsconsidergoodnews.Communicationscanbehelpfultothecorporatecauseiftheinformationissupportedbyexternalcredibleresearch,suchas“votedbestcompanytoworkfor”.Thisofcourseputstheonusonanorganisationtomaintainthedistinction.Inthesecondcase(“goodnewsisactuallyfalse”),acorporationneedstofixtherealityquickly(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“reputationalreservoir”,astrongfoundationforthecorporatereputation.Insomecrises,acompanycandrawdownonthatreservoir.Rememberthatbecauseacorporatebrandisaswideastheorganisation,theCEOistheultimateguardianofthecorporation'sreputation.出處：StephenA.Greyser.Corporatebrandreputationandbrandcrisismanagement[J]\o"ManagementDecision."ManagementDecision.2009.47(4),PP.590-602標(biāo)題：企業(yè)品牌的聲譽(yù)和品牌危機(jī)管理譯文：這些年來(lái)，什么是品牌危機(jī)以及如何認(rèn)識(shí)和處理品牌危機(jī)，特別是企業(yè)或組織的品牌危機(jī)，是我研究的重點(diǎn)。眾多公司和非營(yíng)利機(jī)構(gòu)提供了面臨嚴(yán)重聲譽(yù)危機(jī)時(shí)危機(jī)公關(guān)的臨床經(jīng)驗(yàn)。近幾十年來(lái)的例子包括?？松ㄍ郀柕掀澥托孤┦录?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(guó)天主教教會(huì)（牧師性虐待），瑪莎斯圖爾特OmniMedia（行政不當(dāng)行為），安達(dá)信（會(huì)計(jì)丑聞），國(guó)際奧林匹克委員會(huì)（賄賂問(wèn)題）等等。他們的品牌已經(jīng)受到了威脅，表現(xiàn)在消費(fèi)者和企業(yè)客戶認(rèn)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(jìn)行挽救企業(yè)品牌（如泰諾強(qiáng)生公司，由強(qiáng)生公司麥克尼爾實(shí)驗(yàn)室的單位銷售）。

因此，這些事件向企業(yè)提供一個(gè)了解品牌方面知識(shí)的豐富來(lái)源。它們說(shuō)明了企業(yè)營(yíng)銷的關(guān)鍵方面的內(nèi)容?！拔覀兛梢宰鳛橐粋€(gè)機(jī)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(yíng)銷導(dǎo)向的核心問(wèn)題。（\o"b4."巴爾默和Greyser，2006年）。我們認(rèn)為的企業(yè)營(yíng)銷的確需要一個(gè)董事會(huì)和首席執(zhí)行官的關(guān)注。在反思企業(yè)形象和品牌信譽(yù)危機(jī)的時(shí)候，就應(yīng)該認(rèn)識(shí)到全公司定位的重要性及行政總裁和公司級(jí)管理人員的責(zé)任。聲譽(yù)麻煩的來(lái)源讓我來(lái)提供各種品牌聲譽(yù)危機(jī)的產(chǎn)生原因的解析，如何知道情況的嚴(yán)重性，以及公司可以嘗試什么步驟以防止和克服這種危機(jī)。聲譽(yù)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(lái)。

有些是突如其來(lái)的，例如當(dāng)七人在一天之內(nèi)死于污染的泰諾膠囊，當(dāng)苯的痕跡在Perrier的瓶子中被發(fā)現(xiàn)，當(dāng)在印度一家聯(lián)合碳化物公司的工廠爆炸導(dǎo)致數(shù)百人喪生。

另一些人的問(wèn)題影響是更長(zhǎng)久的，例如牧師的性侵犯在美國(guó)的影響，會(huì)計(jì)丑聞最終斷送了一度受人尊敬的會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所安達(dá)信，或主辦城市的選擇中的行賄丑聞使得國(guó)際奧委會(huì)的聲譽(yù)受損。一些抗議或關(guān)心來(lái)自于團(tuán)體，也有來(lái)自于心懷不滿的消費(fèi)者或客戶客戶的、一些政府或監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)和一些大眾。企業(yè)必須認(rèn)識(shí)到什么問(wèn)題威脅到了企業(yè)聲譽(yù)以及誰(shuí)公開的。這里是一個(gè)企業(yè)品牌危機(jī)的不同成因分類與一些例子的簡(jiǎn)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(zāi)難，英特爾的奔騰芯片（有缺陷的計(jì)算），美國(guó)公司的花生（沙門氏菌）。2、社會(huì)責(zé)任的差距

-耐克（非美國(guó)勞工和工作條件問(wèn)題）。3、企業(yè)不良行為

-安達(dá)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(yàn)的早期階段），西門子（企業(yè)貪污賄賂犯罪跨國(guó)詐騙），惠普（經(jīng)董事會(huì)起訴從事間諜活動(dòng)通過(guò)問(wèn)題的調(diào)查手段成員），國(guó)際奧委會(huì)/土壤活性有機(jī)碳（有關(guān)申辦城市的丑聞）。4、行政不當(dāng)行為

-瑪莎斯圖爾特，丹尼斯科茲洛夫斯基（泰科）。5、業(yè)績(jī)不好的結(jié)果

-寶麗（未能適應(yīng)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(zhēng)議

，科比-布萊恩特（NBA品牌代言人明星運(yùn)動(dòng)員被告強(qiáng)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(duì)品牌”8、支持喪失公共

-法國(guó)的路易十六（斷頭臺(tái)和君主制下降），英國(guó)的愛德華八世（英國(guó)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€(gè)國(guó)家地位的象征，”中央對(duì)“君主的企業(yè)品牌”（

\o"b5."巴爾末等，2006

）。9、有爭(zhēng)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(píng)估局勢(shì)的嚴(yán)重性是什么使這些危機(jī)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(dú)特的屬性或特征是與品牌的內(nèi)涵和成功密切相關(guān)。

當(dāng)發(fā)生這種情況發(fā)生時(shí)公司的市場(chǎng)地位和品牌內(nèi)涵都面臨著嚴(yán)重的挑戰(zhàn)。

如果品牌的本質(zhì)不是中心環(huán)節(jié)，那么問(wèn)題更容易被克服，盡管仍然麻煩。這里有四個(gè)關(guān)鍵領(lǐng)域的一些簡(jiǎn)短的評(píng)論，即組織應(yīng)研究分析一可能威脅到其品牌的聲譽(yù)的新的或已出現(xiàn)的問(wèn)題：1、該品牌元素：品牌的市場(chǎng)情況，如市場(chǎng)份額或（危機(jī)前）的企業(yè)的有利情況。

較弱的情況及更危險(xiǎn)的問(wèn)題。品牌優(yōu)勢(shì)或劣勢(shì)。

越是的與其他實(shí)體有區(qū)別，越能更好的影響公司，除非是在關(guān)鍵的問(wèn)題上有分歧。品牌的本質(zhì)意義。2、危機(jī)情況：一開始就有嚴(yán)峻的形式。

如果這一問(wèn)題提前影響到了許多消費(fèi)者或者更加嚴(yán)重，例如，在食品中的沙門氏菌導(dǎo)致人的死亡，這樣的問(wèn)題就更加嚴(yán)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(wèn)題行為或行動(dòng)，特別是通訊，在計(jì)劃階段有可能的影響可以被檢查到。4、結(jié)果（實(shí)施措施一段時(shí)間之后）：恢復(fù)或重新啟動(dòng)有效的措施，恢復(fù)品牌內(nèi)涵，和有利的市場(chǎng)或市場(chǎng)占有率。在品牌信譽(yù)危機(jī)中的措施當(dāng)品牌危機(jī)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(duì)危機(jī)，尤其是當(dāng)它已經(jīng)是一個(gè)問(wèn)題或?qū)⒊蔀閱?wèn)題時(shí)，我相信一個(gè)組織應(yīng)當(dāng)承認(rèn)這個(gè)事實(shí)，即使尷尬。此外，它應(yīng)該直截了當(dāng)?shù)貒L試解決這個(gè)問(wèn)題，哪怕這意味著這是改變企業(yè)的行為。并且它應(yīng)支持有效交流的主動(dòng)權(quán)。

這是最好的（但仍是坎坷的）康復(fù)治療或救援品牌的道路。交流溝通是不能單獨(dú)就能完成的工作。實(shí)質(zhì)-即行為-是一個(gè)至關(guān)重要的（例如，從快速召回分布的泰諾）有效的防御計(jì)劃。一個(gè)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(gè)“提醒活動(dòng)”。特別是如果基本問(wèn)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(dòng)“沃爾瑪是為每個(gè)人工作的”的傳播活動(dòng)。該消息是對(duì)工人的工資和福利有不滿和對(duì)沃爾瑪所在這區(qū)的一些影響的回應(yīng)。一些觀察家（包括我自己）提出當(dāng)該公司因?yàn)槊襟w報(bào)道員工們?cè)噲D組織工會(huì)關(guān)閉商店和公司因?yàn)槠缫暸毠け黄鹪V而廣受批評(píng)時(shí)如何才能讓這一消息變得有效果。在我看來(lái)，公司在傳播方面的努力和這個(gè)特定的消息或主題不太可能是有效的。有時(shí)甚至任何傳播都可以讓人懷疑。當(dāng)委內(nèi)瑞拉總統(tǒng)在聯(lián)合國(guó)抨擊美國(guó)總統(tǒng)布什時(shí)2006年底美國(guó)的CITGO發(fā)現(xiàn)他的聲譽(yù)受損（CITGO的母公司是一家的委內(nèi)瑞拉是有公司）。一個(gè)主要的零售加油站經(jīng)營(yíng)者結(jié)束了他與CITGO的供應(yīng)商關(guān)系。據(jù)稱這已經(jīng)和政治攻擊有關(guān)聯(lián)了，