Public Apology and the affect on credibility.doc

27 Pages·2011·0.65 MB·English

Public Apology 1

Public Apology and the affect on credibility: Are words enough?

Ryan Glass

COMM 495-003

Instructor: Kate Archard

December 16th, 2008
Public Apology 2

TITLE: The affect of public apology on an organization’s credibility: Are words enough?

AUTHOR: Glass, Ryan

SUBJECT TERMS:

Apology
Credibility
Tylenol Crisis
Odwalla Juice Crisis
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

ABSTRACT:

The following paper is a detailed research study created to determine the affect that
public apology has on an organization during a public crisis. The goal of the study was a created
to determine if the words of apology are enough to solve a public crisis. Three different
organizations were used as case studies: Tylenol, Odwalla, and Exxon. Each organization was
representative of a different category of apology. Tylenol representing an organization not at
fault for an incident, apologizing, and it not affecting their credibility; Odwalla being a
organization at fault for an incident, apologizing, and it not affecting their credibility; Exxon was
representative of an organization being at fault for an incident, apologizing, and it affecting their
credibility. The research was conducted through a qualitative content analysis of the three
different organizations. This was done by creating a set of questions while using two different
exert opinions of how to handle a crisis, and how not to handle a crisis as a guideline for the
research questions to be created. The overall findings of the research determined that the actions
of the organization need to represent the apology that the organization released in order for the
public apology to be successful and not affect the organizations’ credibility.
Public Apology 3

Introduction
The research question that needs to be explored is the following: When should a company
use public apology during a public crisis and how does the use of apology affect a company’s
credibility? Defining apology as: Written or spoken expressions of the organization’s regret,
remorse, or sorrow for having made the error. With credibility being defined as: Worthy of
having confidence or trust in the organization. This question will be answered by using case
studies within the past 30 years, which will allow for a more accurate answer to this research
question.
When and organization is in the midst of a public crisis, the route to handle the situation
is different for each company. In order to develop a “best methods” guide, it is required that
multiple case studies from the past are analyzed and used as precedents (Seeger, 2003). In some
situations, such as the 1982, Tylenol crisis, when an unknown individual poisoned Tylenol
capsules with cyanide, resulting in multiple deaths, apology was the best method for the
company at the time (Pauly; Liese, 235).
However, in cases such as the Pepsi hoax public apology was not the best approach to
use. When the story first broke, it was originally believed that people actually did indeed find
inanimate objects inside the cans of there Pepsi drinks. Pepsi, being almost positive that
something such as that could not happen, immediately denied the claims (Lyons, A5).
In another case, where an organization was at fault, and should have apologized, the
company denied any responsibility for the event. This event was the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.
The company originally refused to apologize or accept responsibility. When they finally did
apologize, they stated they were sorry for the event, but still refused to accept blame for it. This
angered the public even more then the incident (Wilcox, 263).
Public Apology 4

The problem with this, is it can cause too much confusion for organizations in the midst
of a public crisis about deciding whether or not to apologize for their crisis. It also causes issues
about if the apology will affect the credibility of the organization. For this reason, it is also
important to study the way the company apologized, as well as the actions the company used to
show they were sorry, opposed to just saying they were sorry. The way the apology is presented,
as well as the company’s actions to solve the problem is really what matters.
In order to truly study how the use of public apology will affect an organization, it is
important to study multiple case studies. Studies in which public apology succeeded, as well as
case studies where public apology failed. It is also important that these case studies are
scrutinized to the fullest, and compare and contrast how these case studies were similar and
different from one another. Along with if each study had certain circumstances that may of
helped, or prevented an apology from being a more successful route.
This is an important topic to study for multiple reasons; the main one being that every
company has, or at least should have a crisis communication group. The use of Public Relations
is an important tool that is utilized by all organizations at one point in time or another. In most
common circumstances, Public Relations strategies are almost always utilized during or
immediately after a crisis in a company. This is another reason why it is extremely important to
research the way a company handles a situation after a publicized disaster. By understanding and
examining multiple case studies, it will help others to understand fully the best way to handle a
public crisis, without sacrificing credibility of a company.
Is the two word phrase: “I’m Sorry,” the best way to handle a situation? It acknowledges
an error on the speaker’s behalf, as well as accepts blame and responsibility for an incident. For a
large sum, these two relatively easy words are extremely challenging to say. As a well known
Public Apology 5

organization with a widely publicized crisis, is saying these words the best way to solve a crisis?
More importantly, are saying the words enough?

Review of Literature:
A crisis is defined as “any situation that is threatening or could threaten to harm people or
property, serious interrupt business, damage reputation, and/or negatively impact stock value”
(Bernstein, 40).
When studying crisis communication procedures, case studies are an imperative source
when deciding the best procedure. The use of case studies not only allows for a detailed glimpse
into an organization’s past, but it also provides a guideline of the future for other organizations to
use (Jaques, 192). Jacques studied the use of case studies, and how they can be beneficial during
times of crisis communication. The study found that not enough managers of organizations use
case studies. His research found that case studies are primarily used by students and scholars,
and not enough by practitioners in the organizational field. The overall finding was that if more
practitioners were more involved in case studies, then it would help facilitate more affective
performance levels of their organizations.
Benchmarking is an important part of crisis communication. The process of
benchmarking entails identifying industry standards, through a focus on industry leaders, as well
as recognized experts in a specific field (Seeger, 233). Seeger used this approach while
conducting research on the best ways to handle a crisis of an organization. By using
benchmarking of different organizations, he was able to develop his own list of the top ten most
affective ways an organization should handle a crisis.
Learning from other corporation’s mistakes, can allow for an organization to profit
greatly in the future if they ever find themselves in their own public crisis (Bernstein, 40).
Public Apology 6

Contrary to Seeger’s study, Bernstein used real life events to develop his list of the eleven
biggest mistakes an organization can do to make a crisis worse.
When it comes to studying case studies there are some that will forever be considered
benchmarks on how to, or how not to handle a crisis (Laplant, 32). Famous benchmarks
discussed by Laplant during her study included the Tylenol Crisis, and the Dow Corning Crisis.
The Tylenol crisis being described as a perfect example of a benchmark where an organization
handled a crisis successfully, while the Dow Corning crisis being its counter; a perfect example
of where a crisis was handled unsuccessfully by an organization.
Case studies will play a crucial role in the research of this project. Some of the different
case studies that will be researched during this paper will be the following: the Tylenol Crisis,
the Exxon Valdez crisis, and the Odwalla Crisis.
The Tylenol crisis resulted when five people in Chicago unexpectedly died. Their deaths
were all linked to the consumption of Tylenol. It was later found out, that an unidentified culprit
tampered with the Tylenol Extra Strength packaging; inserting cyanide into the Tylenol capsules.
The company was not to blame for the incident, as the tampering occurred after it had left the
manufacturer (Associated Press, A12).
The Tylenol crisis has become a famous benchmark when studying crisis communication.
It has been continuously used as a model of how to handle a public crisis (Pauly; Hutchinson,
232). Their study praised the way Tylenol handled their crisis, and their study showed it should
be used a model.
Others however have criticized the idea that Tylenol should be used a model for other
organizations (Fishman, 371). Fishman praised the way Tylenol handled their public crisis,
however described the circumstances of their crisis as rare. His study argued that because
Public Apology 7

Tylenol was not at fault, they were never truly blamed. Since a large majority of organizations
that have a public crisis are usually to blame essentially, the Tylenol case cannot be used as a
model of how to handle a crisis (Fishman, 731).
The Exxon Valdez Crisis began when an Exxon oil tanker went aground in the Prince
William Sound of Alaska. Millions of gallons of crude oil were spilt in the water, killing wildlife
and polluting hundreds of miles of coastline in Alaska. The captain of the ship, Joseph
Hazelwood was found with unusual high levels of alcohol found in his blood. Furthermore, it
was found that the third mate of the ship was not licensed to be in charge of the vessel, and was
in command during the time of the spill. This not only violated the company policy, but also the
federal regulations enforced by the coastguard (Shabecoff, A1).
The Odwalla crisis began in 1996 when reports began indicating traces of E. coli bacteria
found in Odwalla unpasteurized apple juice products (Martinelli;Briggs,443). Over 50
individuals had fallen ill because of the E. coli contamination. A 16 month year old girl died
after a two week struggle in the hospital. The girl had consumed one of the bottles of apple juice
that was later recalled. She died of kidney failure due to the E. collide contamination (Associated
Press, 14). The Odwalla organization was found at fault for this, because they originally had
refused to pasteurize their products out of fear of it affecting the tastes of the products.
During each of these organizational crises, each company, at one point or another
eventually issued an apology for the actions that resulted with their public crisis. For this reason
they are important to study. The use of public apology during crisis communication has become
one that is now being routinely “overused” (Coombs; Holladay, 252). Coombs and Holladay,
studied the role apology plays today in Crisis communication. They also then did a cross analysis
of Apology, with other crisis communication methods that could be used instead. Also, they
Public Apology 8

studied the affect that the apology itself has on the public after an organization uses apology as
their crisis strategy.
Their research was conducted in a classroom setting, with a 167 different samples, aging
from 18 – 56. Each participant was given three print new stories regarding a public crisis of an
organization, and then filled out a research instrument to gage their responses towards the
incident, and feelings of the organization after the incident had ended. The research instrument
they used was a questionnaire. Their findings showed that in all cases, a negative word of mouth
incantation would be left for the organization, hurting the company image (Coombs; Holladay,
255).
A different study used qualitative data to determine the different stages of crisis
communication. The study itself used 15 different case studies. The study was unique, because it
didn’t so much focus in on the actions of the organizations, but the time tables they followed,
during their crisis, and how the time tables later affected the crisis in a positive or negative
manner. The findings showed that a crisis can be broken down into three states: prevention,
response, and recovery (Hale, Dulek, Hale, 112). It also found that the “response” stage is the
most important, because it is when the decisions are made that affects whether or not the public
approves of how the organization is handling the crisis (Hale, Dulek, Hale 112).
It is important that these studies are reviewed because they help determine how public
apology affects the credibility of an organization, as well as if the words of an apology are
enough to handle a crisis. These journals can be used to determine the different arguments for or
against apology. These journals are extremely reliable because they have all been based on
previous research done in this area, and have also been peer reviewed by multiple scholars.
Public Apology 9

Method:
The research method used was a qualitative content analysis of multiple case studies.
This was the best method to be used because it is a necessity to study past events of real
organizations in order to answer the research question: How can public apology affect an
organization’s credibility during a public crisis?
Before choosing the organization, I knew I could only choose organizations that used an
apology as a response to their incident. I also knew that it was imperative to choose
organizations that were representative of all the different categories of apology and credibility.
For this reason, before choosing any organization, I created three different categories that must
be filled as criteria for the case studies to be selected.
The categories were the following: An organization which was at not fault for the
incident, but they issued an apology as a response to the incident anyways, and the apology was
successful; an organization that was at fault for the incident, issued an apology, and the apology
was successful; and the last being: an organization was at fault for the incident, issued an
apology, and the apology was unsuccessful.
I defined the criteria that the categories are created of in the following way. I defined
apology as a public statement being released by the organization expressing remorse of the
incident, and looking for acceptance from the public. Next, I defined the term “being at fault,” as
the actions of the organization being the actual reason for the incident’s occurrence. Last, I
defined successful as handling the incident without major flaw or criticism from the public,
during/ after the incident.
After creating the criteria that needed to be filled by the case studies, I then began
searching for case studies that met set conditions. I did this by beginning with simple search
Public Apology 10

engines, such as Google and Yahoo. I searched terms, such as “Crisis Communication Case
Studies; Organizational Crisis; Failed Public Apologies; Successful Public Apologies” By doing
this I found many interesting case studies that could be used as potential studies. I slowly created
a list of the different studies that showed up that could potentially be used to fill the criteria that I
created.
Once my list was complete, it included the following public crises: Ford recall/Firestone
recall, Martha Stewart insider trading scandal, Jack in the Box crisis, Tylenol Crisis, Odwalla
juice crisis, the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Praise the Lord scandal, TWA crisis, and the ValuJet
crisis. I then began to research each into extreme detail. I did this by searching through multiple
databases, and finding articles and journals that discussed many of the success and failures of
each organization’s public crisis. I also began researching through databases such as Lexis Nexus
to find old press releases from the organizations, as well as newspaper articles during and shortly
after the public crises. These proved to be extremely beneficial because they help allow for
insight of how the organizations were being portrayed by the media.
After compiling information on the listed organizations above, and reviewing the
information found on each of them, I then narrowed my selection down to the three case studies
that met the criteria the best: the Tylenol crisis, the Odwalla juice crisis, and the Exxon-Valdez
oil spill.
The Tylenol crisis is representative of an organization who was found not at fault for
their incident, but apologized for it anyhow. They are also representative of what is considered to
be a “successful apology.” The Odwalla juice crisis is representative of an organization who was
to blame for their public crisis, apologized for the incident, and also had a successful apology.