When your organization is accused of a major error precipitating a crisis of confidence, your reaction could be:
- No response. You might fear that saying anything would prolong attention to the damaging incident.
- Denial. If there’s clear evidence of misperceptions or false reporting, you could say the error did not actually occur.
- Apology. This might work well if your organization has previously maintained a highly positive reputation in the marketplace and the apology is accompanied by a commitment to correct for prior oversights.
- Justification. Say that this incident is not at all representative of your organization’s actions, the standards which were violated are overly strict, there was a greater good to be balanced against the transgression, or another statement designed to dilute the error into a broader context.
- Scapegoat. Blame somebody else.
The last of these might seem to be the slimiest. Yet in a set of studies at California State University-Long Beach and University of Lyon, scapegoating worked better than the other alternatives for salvaging the organization’s reputation. The major advantage was in decreasing negative word-of-mouth set loose against the offender.
Reducing negative WOM lessens the duration of a consumer boycott following a crisis of confidence. You want to stop a boycott as soon as possible. The longer it lasts, the harder to counter it with specificity. Researchers at Germany’s University of Kiel find that the arguments consumers give for a boycott are often devised afterwards to rationalize the decision and convince others to join in.
The researchers do recommend using scapegoating only when the blameworthy one is powerful and the organization states how those parties will be held accountable. Scapegoating an underdog risks backfiring. People, especially in countries like the U.S., have an affinity for the underdog.
As with the apology, failure to commit to corrective action makes scapegoating worse than an empty gesture. If the miscreant is a particular employee, omit news about the details of a reprimand, though. Consumers affected by a major error want the responsible person to be bawled out. Researchers at Florida State University found that a promise the employee will be punished is among the most influential ways to keep from losing a damaged consumer.
However, the researchers also found that the consumers want punishment delivered out of their presence. They want harshness, yet don’t want to witness the harshness. They also want the employee to be granted the respect of privacy.
Reducing negative WOM lessens the duration of a consumer boycott following a crisis of confidence. You want to stop a boycott as soon as possible. The longer it lasts, the harder to counter it with specificity. Researchers at Germany’s University of Kiel find that the arguments consumers give for a boycott are often devised afterwards to rationalize the decision and convince others to join in.
The researchers do recommend using scapegoating only when the blameworthy one is powerful and the organization states how those parties will be held accountable. Scapegoating an underdog risks backfiring. People, especially in countries like the U.S., have an affinity for the underdog.
As with the apology, failure to commit to corrective action makes scapegoating worse than an empty gesture. If the miscreant is a particular employee, omit news about the details of a reprimand, though. Consumers affected by a major error want the responsible person to be bawled out. Researchers at Florida State University found that a promise the employee will be punished is among the most influential ways to keep from losing a damaged consumer.
However, the researchers also found that the consumers want punishment delivered out of their presence. They want harshness, yet don’t want to witness the harshness. They also want the employee to be granted the respect of privacy.
Successfully influence the most prosperous & most loyal consumer age group. For the specific strategies & tactics you need, click here.
Click for more…
Skedaddle from a Skittles No-Win 
No comments:
Post a Comment