Document Design - Volume 2, Issue 3, 2000

This paper explores some of the presuppositions that underlie the analytical practice in crisis communication studies. Drawing from a wide-ranging corpus of contributions to the field, it distinguishes seven ‘fundamentals’ or basic assumptions. Next, the paper argues that these fundamentals provide evidence of a homogenizing approach to crisis communication for which the label ‘reductionism’ is proposed. The third and final part indicates new directions for further research in the field.

Organizations prepare for crisis communication by designing, implementing, and evaluating procedures, scenarios, and emergency measures. In addition to crisis communication, risk communication is a concern for many organizations as well. Risk communication is viewed as an interactive, multi-actor democratic process. Traditionally, risk communication is seen as a linear, top-down, elitist, expert-to-public approach. In this paper, the relation between crisis communication and risk communication is described. In addition, a model is presented based on the notion that crisis communication should be proactive, and focusing on the management of the relation between the organization and its relevant stakeholders or the organization’s reputation. The new thinking on the risk communication process is essential for an organization’s crisis and reputation management.

This article presents empirically based research on the use of future technology for crisis management. In particular, it sets out to challenge ideas of future technology by contrasting them with examples from current practice with new, high-tech systems in emergency rescue centers and military command and control environments. The following three dichotomies are singled out: to start with, that between commitment and information storage;secondly, that between silence and transparency; and finally, that between mimetic representation and interpretation of representa- tions. Our research points to a contradiction between current system design for crisis management systems and actual work practice. Generally speaking, it is suggested that the information technology is becoming both a burden and a saver.

Consumers who have suffered as a result of a product defect can claim compensation from the producer. By placing a product recall notice, producers can reduce their liability. Ideally, such a notice should protect the image of the company as well as warn consumers. The problem is that a clear warning may damage the image of the company that placed the notice. This study reports on experiments carried out among 128 female shoppers to gain insight into how a recall notice should be worded in order to protect the company’s image and, yet to be clear. Split-run tests were carried out to determine whether Minimisation (minimising the danger of the defect) and Bolstering (stressing the company’s good traits) contributed positively to the image of the company and whether inclusion of pictures, a list format, a reader-oriented approach, Minimisation, and Bolstering contrib- uted positively to the clarity of the notice. Likert scales were used to determine which heading drew most attention and through which channels consumers prefered to be informed about a product recall. According to our respondents, a recall notice including Minimisation strategies protects the company’s image more than one without such strategies. A recall notice is consid- ered clearer when it includes a picture, when it contains elements to highlight the structure of the information, and when it does not include Bolstering. According to our respondents, the most attention-grabbing heading is ‘Waarschuwing’ warning), and they prefer to be informed about product recalls through newspapers and television.

When companies decide — or are forced — to publish a product recall notice, their aim is to give consumers clear information on how to handle the problem and to warn them of a possible danger. On the other hand companies try to preserve their corporate image in order to guarantee a (commercial) relation in the future. This article deals with the question whether politeness strategies lead to differences in the appreciation, acceptance and perception of product recall notices. In two experimental studies we evaluated the effect of positive and negative politeness strategies in different conditions. The results show that the use of elaborated negative politeness strategies positively influences the appreciation and acceptance of the message, and has a positive effect on the perception of the corporate image. However in a context where the product recall warns of a severe risk, writers of product recalls should use politeness strategies more cautiously. In this context the use of politeness strategies even seems to have a negative effect on the acceptability of the recall message.

A company can consider a disastrous incident from several perspectives. The pervasive ones are ‘Who did it ?’ and ‘How could it happen’ How the public reacts to these perspectives has been determined in a field experiment. Subjects read a direct-mail letter in which an international chain of hotels commented on two recent fires from either the who or the how perspective on their causes. Evaluative responses to the text versions interacted with gender; persuasive effects depended on both gender and value-relevant involvement. Gender determined the direction of the preference; men reacted more positively to the how version, women tended to do so to the who version. Involvement determined the magnitude of these differences; the more concerned about personal safety, the greater the differences. These results can be understood in terms of certain moral beliefs and behaviors derived from crisis management theory.