Module 2

Crisis Communication

Defining ‘Crisis’ and Types of Crises

Defining ‘Crisis’
A crisis, also referred to as catastrophe, calamity, predicament and emergency, is intrinsic to
life, be it human, nature, political or corporate. No two crises are similar, but there is one thing
common in all crises, that is, they need to be resolved, else the ramifications can be severe. A
crisis can be defined as an adverse event, a great and sudden calamity that needs immediate
addressing. Famines, droughts, cyclones, earthquakes, tidal waves, flooding, insurgency,
terrorism, wars, epidemics, corporate warfare, employee agitations, project closures, product
recalls, and scams and so on qualify to be called as crises.
According to Paul Argenti, a crisis is a major catastrophe that may occur either naturally or as a
result of human error, intervention, or even malicious intent. It can include tangible devastation,
such as the destruction of lives or assets, or intangible devastation, such as the loss of an
organization’s credibility or other reputational damage. The latter outcomes may be the result of
management’s response to tangible devastation or the result of human error. A crisis usually
has significant actual or potential financial impact on a company, and it usually affects multiple
stakeholders in more than one market.
A crisis can create three related threats: (1) public safety, (2) financial loss, and (3) reputation
loss. Some crises, such as industrial accidents and product harm, can result in injuries and
even loss of lives. Crises can create financial loss by disrupting operations, creating a loss of
market share/purchase intentions, or spawning lawsuits related to the crisis. As Dilenschneider
(2000) noted, all crises threaten to tarnish an organization’s reputation. A crisis reflects poorly
on an organization and will damage a reputation to some degree. Clearly these three threats
are interrelated. Injuries or deaths will result in financial and reputation loss while reputations
have a financial impact on organizations.
A company’s role as either the perpetrator or the victim in a crisis is the distinction upon which
public perception often hinges. The general public’s attitude toward the company is more likely
to be negative for crises that could have been avoided, such as the oil spills of the Treasure or
the Exxon Valdez, as opposed to one that the organization really had no control over, such as
the destruction of countless hotels and resorts when the December 2004 tsunami struck
Southeast Asia or the devastating hurricanes that befell the Gulf Coast in 2005. In all situations,
however, stakeholders will look to the organization’s response to the crisis before making a final
judgment.
While all crises are unique, they do share some common characteristics, according to Ray
O’Rourke, former managing director for Global Corporate Affairs at the investment bank Morgan
Stanley. These include (1) the element of surprise —such as Philip Morris finding carcinogens in
its filters or Pepsi learning of reports of a syringe found in a Diet Pepsi can; (2) insufficient
information —the company doesn’t have all the facts right away, but very quickly finds itself in a
position of having to do a lot of explaining; (3) the quick pace of events —things escalate very
rapidly (even before Exxon’s crisis center was up and running after the Valdez incident, the
state of Alaska and several environmental groups were mobilized); (4) intense scrutiny —

1 
 
executives are often unprepared for the media spotlight, which is instantaneous, as answers
and results normally take time.
What makes crises difficult for executives is that the element of surprise leads to a loss of
control. It’s hard to think strategically when overwhelmed by unexpected outside events. In
addition, the media frenzy that typically surrounds a crisis can shift attention from the business
as a whole to the crisis alone. Part of the problem in dealing with crises is that organizations
have tended not to understand or acknowledge how vulnerable they are until after a major crisis
occurs. Lack of preparation can make crises even more severe and prolonged when they do
happen.

Types of Crises
Hill and Knowlton, a leading PR consultancy in the USA, has classified crises into the following
four segments:
1. Actual disasters such as fires, explosions, accidents, earthquakes, floods, famines
and so on. These can be termed as exploding crises.
2. Controversial or scandalous incidents, involving companies, individuals,
governments and so on. These are referred as immediate crises.
3. Anticipated crisis due to premeditated decisions such as closure of a plant,
discontinuance of a service, retrenchment and so on. Crises falling in this category
are classified as building crisis.
4. Continuing crisis: When an organization, a product or a service is under long-term
attack from some stakeholders such as special interest groups, media, judiciary,
consumer group and so on.
The National Disaster Management Authority in India has defined disasters/crises as under:
 Natural sudden disasters: Earthquakes, cyclones, tidal waves, tropical storms,
volcanic eruptions, landslides, floods.
 Slow impact disasters: Droughts, famine, environmental degradation,
deforestation, pest infestation.
 Man-made, complex emergencies: Industrial, displacement, terrorism, food
scarcity, food insecurity and so on.
How would one know that there is a crisis? All crises are not sudden such as an earthquake, an
accident or a Tsunami; there are crises that simmer for some time before they explode, such as
employee attitude, absenteeism, drug use at workplace, lifestyle behavior, or a long-drawn case
with an inquiry committee that is being waited upon. A management, corporate or political party
which does not have the ‘sixth sense’ about dormant critical issues is doomed to face larger
crises anytime soon. Early corrective action often helps in solving the problem when it is at a
nascent stage. It saves time, effort and resources, both manpower and financial, besides
reputation. Organizations need to have a disaster management plan in place that is patterned to
fit the organization’s own potential exposure to calamity. For instance, the plan of a nuclear
plant would be very different from that of a steel plant because the potential risk areas are quite
different in the two cases.

2 
 
Grunig’s Principles of Crisis Communication
Each crisis is unique and needs special handling, keeping in view the enormity of the crisis,
stakeholders involved and who would be in charge of crisis management. Another thing that is
common among all kinds of crises is the important role played by communication at various
stages of managing a crisis. A crisis is best handled when those in charge understand and
appreciate its legal, human and ethical aspects.
James Grunig posits four principles of crisis communication:
1. The relationship principle: An organization can withstand crises if it has well
established relationship with key stakeholders.
2. The accountability principle: An organization should accept responsibility for a
crisis even if it was not its fault (he cites the example of a product recall that has
been threatened or tainted by an extortionist).
3. The disclosure principle: In a crisis, an organization should disclose all it knows
about a crisis or problem. If it does not have immediate answers, it must promise full
disclosure once it has additional information.
4. The symmetrical communication principle: In a crisis, the public interest should
be considered as equal in importance to the organization’s intent. Public Safety, for
example, is at least as important as profits. Therefore the organization has no choice
other than to engage in true dialogue with stakeholders and to practice socially
responsible behavior when a crisis occurs.

Role of Communication in Each Crisis Phase

Stages/Phases of Crisis Management

3 
 
Crisis management is a process designed to prevent or lessen the damage a crisis can inflict on
an organization and its stakeholders. As a process, crisis management is not just one thing.
Crisis management can be divided into three phases:
(1) pre-crisis, (2) crisis response, and (3) post-crisis
The pre-crisis phase is concerned with prevention and preparation. The crisis response phase
is when management must actually respond to a crisis. The post-crisis phase looks for ways to
better prepare for the next crisis and fulfills commitments made during the crisis phase including
follow-up information.

PRE-CRISIS PHASE
Prevention involves seeking to reduce known risks that could lead to a crisis. This is part of an
organization’s risk management program. Preparation involves creating the crisis management
plan, selecting and training the crisis management team, and conducting exercises to test the
crisis management plan and crisis management team. Both Barton (2001) and Coombs (2006)
document that organizations are better able to handle crises when they (1) have a crisis
management plan that is updated at least annually, (2) have a designated crisis management
team, (3) conduct exercises to test the plans and teams at least annually, and (4) pre-draft
some crisis messages.

SPOKESPERSON
A key component of crisis team training is spokesperson training. Organizational members
must be prepared to talk to the news media during a crisis. Media training should be provided
before a crisis hits. The Crisis Media Training Best Practices are shown in the table below.
Table: Crisis Media Training Best Practices

1. Avoid the phrase “no comment” because people think it means the organization is guilty and
trying to hide something

2. Present information clearly by avoiding jargon or technical terms. Lack of clarity makes
people think the organization is purposefully being confusing in order to hide something.

3. Appear pleasant on camera by avoiding nervous habits that people interpret as deception. A

4 
 
spokesperson needs to have strong eye contact, limited disfluencies such as “uhms” or “uhs”,
and avoid distracting nervous gestures such as fidgeting or pacing. Coombs (2007a) reports on
research that documents how people will be perceived as deceptive if they lack eye contact,
have a lot of disfluencies, or display obvious nervous gestures.

4. Brief all potential spokespersons on the latest crisis information and the key message points
the organization is trying to convey to stakeholders.

Public relations can play a critical role in preparing spokespersons for handling questions from
the news media. The media relations element of public relations is a highly valued skill in crisis
management. The public relations personnel can provide training and support because in most
cases they are not the spokesperson during the crisis.

COMMUNICATION CHANNELS
An organization may create a separate web site for the crisis or designate a section of its
current web site for the crisis. Taylor and Kent’s (2007) research finds that having a crisis web
sites is a best practice for using an Internet during a crisis. The site should be designed prior to
the crisis. This requires the crisis team to anticipate the types of crises an organization will face
and the types of information needed for the web site. For instances, any organization that
makes consumer goods is likely to have a product harm crisis that will require a recall. The
Corporate Leadership Council (2003) highlights the value of a crisis web site designed to help
people identify if their product is part of the recall and how the recall will be
handled. Stakeholders, including the news media, will turn to the Internet during a crisis. Crisis
managers should utilize some form of web-based response or risk appearing to be
ineffective. A good example is Taco Bell’s E. coli outbreak in 2006. The company was
criticized in the media for being slow to place crisis-related information on its web site.
Of course not placing information on the web site can be strategic. An organization may not
want to publicize the crisis by placing information about it on the web site. This assumes the
crisis is very small and that stakeholders are unlikely to hear about it from another source. In
today’s traditional and online media environment, that is a misguided if not dangerous
assumption. Taylor and Kent (2007) and the Corporate Leadership Council emphasize that a
web site is another means for an organization to present its side of the story and not using it
creates a risk of losing how the crisis story is told.
Intranet sites can also be used during a crisis. Intranet sites limit access, typically to employees
only though some will include suppliers and customers. Intranet sites provide direct access to
specific stakeholders so long as those stakeholders have access to the Intranet. Dowling’s
(2003) research documents the value of American Airlines’ use of its Intranet system as an
effective way to communicate with its employees following the 9/11 tragedy. Coombs notes that
the communication value of an Intranet site is increased when used in conjunction with mass
notification systems designed to reach employees and other key stakeholders. With a mass
notification system, contact information (phones numbers, e-mail, etc.) are programmed in prior
to a crisis. Contacts can be any group that can be affected by the crisis including employees,
customers, and community members living near a facility. Crisis managers can enter short
messages into the system then tell the mass notification system who should receive which
messages and which channel or channels to use for the delivery. The mass notification system
provides a mechanism for people to respond to messages as well. The response feature is
critical when crisis managers want to verify that the target has received the message.

5 
 
The below Table summarizes the Crisis Communication Channel Preparation Best Practices.

Table: Crisis Communication Channel Preparation Best Practices

1. Be prepared to use a unique web site or part of your current web site to address crisis
concerns.

2. Be prepared to use the Intranet as one of the channels for reaching employees and any
other stakeholders than may have access to your Intranet.

3. Be prepared to utilize a mass notification system for reaching employees and other key
stakeholders during a crisis

CRISIS RESPONSE
The crisis response is what management does and says after the crisis hits. Public relations
plays a critical role in the crisis response by helping to develop the messages that are sent to
various publics. A great deal of research has examined the crisis response. That research has
been divided into two sections: (1) the initial crisis response and (2) reputation repair and
behavioral intentions.
INITIAL RESPONSE
Practitioner experience and academic research have combined to create a clear set of
guidelines for how to respond once a crisis hits. The initial crisis response guidelines focus on
three points: (1) be quick, (2) be accurate, and (3) be consistent.
Be quick seems rather simple, provide a response in the first hour after the crisis occurs. That
puts a great deal of pressure on crisis managers to have a message ready in a short period of
time. Again, we can appreciate the value of preparation and templates. The rationale behind
being quick is the need for the organization to tell its side of the story. In reality, the
organization’s side of the story are the key points management wants to convey about the crisis
to its stakeholders. When a crisis occurs, people want to know what happened. Crisis experts
often talk of an information vacuum being created by a crisis. The news media will lead the
charge to fill the information vacuum and be a key source of initial crisis information. (We will
consider shortly the use of the Internet as well). If the organization having the crisis does not
speak to the news media, other people will be happy to talk to the media. These people may
have inaccurate information or may try to use the crisis as an opportunity to attack the
organization. As a result, crisis managers must have a quick response. An early response may
not have much “new” information but the organization positions itself as a source and begins to
present its side of the story. Carney and Jorden (1993) note a quick response is active and
shows an organization is in control. Hearit’s (1994) research illustrates how silence is too
passive. It lets others control the story and suggests the organization has yet to gain control of
the situation. Arpan and Rosko-Ewoldsen (2005) conducted a study that documented how a
quick, early response allows an organization to generate greater credibility than a slow
response. Crisis preparation will make it easier for crisis managers to respond quickly.
Obviously accuracy is important anytime an organization communicates with publics. People
want accurate information about what happened and how that event might affect
them. Because of the time pressure in a crisis, there is a risk of inaccurate information. If
mistakes are made, they must be corrected. However, inaccuracies make an organization look
inconsistent. Incorrect statements must be corrected making an organization appear to be

6 
 
incompetent. The philosophy of speaking with one voice in a crisis is a way to maintain
accuracy.
Speaking with one voice does not mean only one person speaks for the organization for the
duration of the crisis. As Barton (2001) notes, it is physically impossible to expect one person to
speak for an organization if a crisis lasts for over a day. Watch news coverage of a crisis and
you most likely will see multiple people speak. The news media want to ask questions of
experts so they may need to talk to a person in operations or one from security. That is why
Coombs (2007) emphasizes the public relations department plays more of a support role rather
than being “the” crisis spokespersons. The crisis team needs to share information so that
different people can still convey a consistent message. The spokespersons should be briefed
on the same information and the key points the organization is trying to convey in the
messages. The public relations department should be instrumental in preparing the
spokespersons. Ideally, potential spokespersons are trained and practice media relations skills
prior to any crisis. The focus during a crisis then should be on the key information to be
delivered rather than how to handle the media. Once more preparation helps by making sure
the various spokespersons have the proper media relations training and skills.
Quickness and accuracy play an important role in public safety. When public safety is a
concern, people need to know what they must do to protect themselves. Sturges (1994) refer to
this information as instructing information. Instructing information must be quick and accurate to
be useful. For instance, people must know as soon as possible not to eat contaminated foods
or to shelter-in-place during a chemical release. A slow or inaccurate response can increase
the risk of injuries and possibly deaths. Quick actions can also save money by preventing
further damage and protecting reputations by showing that the organization is in
control. However, speed is meaningless if the information is wrong. Inaccurate information can
increase rather than decrease the threat to public safety.
The news media are drawn to crises and are a useful way to reach a wide array of publics
quickly. So it is logical that crisis response research has devoted considerable attention to
media relations. Media relations allows crisis managers to reach a wide range of stakeholders
fast. Fast and wide ranging is perfect for public safety—get the message out quickly and to as
many people as possible. Clearly there is waste as non-targets receive the message but speed
and reach are more important at the initial stage of the crisis. However, the news media is not
the only channel crisis managers can and should use to reach stakeholders.
Web sites, Intranet sites, and mass notification systems add to the news media coverage and
help to provide a quick response. Crisis managers can supply greater amounts of their own
information on a web site. Not all targets will use the web site but enough do to justify the
inclusion of web-base communication in a crisis response. Taylor and Kent’s (2007) extensive
analysis of crisis web sites over a multiyear period found a slow progression in organizations
utilizing web sites and the interactive nature of the web during a crisis. Mass notification
systems deliver short messages to specific individuals through a mix of phone, text messaging,
voice messages, and e-mail. The systems also allow people to send responses. In
organizations with effective Intranet systems, the Intranet is a useful vehicle for reaching
employees as well. If an organization integrates its Intranet with suppliers and customers, these
stakeholders can be reached as well. As the crisis management effort progresses, the channels
can be more selective.
More recently, crisis experts have recommended a third component to an initial crisis response,
crisis managers should express concern/sympathy for any victims of the crisis. Victims are the
people that are hurt or inconvenienced in some way by the crisis. Victims might have lost
money, become ill, had to evacuate, or suffered property damage. Kellerman (2006) details

7 
 
when it is appropriate to express regret. Expressions of concern help to lessen reputational
damage and to reduce financial losses. Experimental studies by Coombs and Holladay (1996)
and by Dean (2004) found that organizations did experience less reputational damage when an
expression of concern is offered verses a response lacking an expression of concern. Cohen
(1999) examined legal cases and found early expressions of concern help to reduce the number
and amount of claims made against an organization for the crisis. However, Tyler (1997)
reminds us that there are limits to expressions of concern. Lawyers may try to use expressions
of concern as admissions of guilt. A number of states have laws that protect expressions of
concern from being used against an organization. Another concern is that as more crisis
managers express concern, the expressions of concern may lose their effect of people. Hearit
(2007) cautions that expressions of concern will seem too routine. Still, a failure to provide a
routine response could hurt an organization. Hence, expressions of concern may be expected
and provide little benefit when used but can inflict damage when not used.
Argenti (2002) interviewed a number of managers that survived the 9/11 attacks. His strongest
lesson was that crisis managers should never forget employees are important publics during a
crisis. The Business Roundtable (2002) and Corporate Leadership Council (2003) remind us
that employees need to know what happened, what they should do, and how the crisis will affect
them. The earlier discussions of mass notification systems and the Intranet are examples of
how to reach employees with information. West Pharmaceuticals had a production facility in
Kinston, North Carolina leveled by an explosion in January 2003. Coombs (2004b) examined
how West Pharmaceuticals used a mix of channels to keep employees apprised of how the
plant explosion would affect them in terms of when they would work, where they would work,
and their benefits. Moreover, Coombs (2007) identifies research that suggest well informed
employees provide an additional channel of communication for reaching other stakeholders.
When the crisis results in serious injuries or deaths, crisis management can also include stress
and trauma counseling for employees and other victims. One illustration is the trauma teams
dispatched by airlines following a plane crash. The trauma teams address the needs of
employees as well as victims’ families. Both the Business Roundtable (2002) and Coombs
(2007a) note that crisis managers must consider how the crisis stress might affect the
employees, victims, and their families. Organizations must provide the necessary resources to
help these groups cope.
We can take a specific set of both form and content lessons from the writing on the initial crisis
response. The below Table provides a summary of the Initial Crisis Response Best
Practices. Form refers to the basic structure of the response. The initial crisis response should
be delivered in the first hour after a crisis and be vetted for accuracy. Content refers to what is
covered in the initial crisis response. The initial message must provide any information needed
to aid public safety, provide basic information about what has happened, and offer concern if
there are victims. In addition, crisis managers must work to have a consistent message
between spokespersons.

Table: Initial Crisis Response Best Practices

1. Be quick and try to have initial response within the first hour.

2. Be accurate by carefully checking all facts.

3. Be consistent by keeping spokespeople informed of crisis events and key message points.

8 
 
4. Make public safety the number one priority.

5. Use all of the available communication channels including the Internet, Intranet, and mass
notification systems.

6. Provide some expression of concern/sympathy for victims

7. Remember to include employees in the initial response.

8. Be ready to provide stress and trauma counseling to victims of the crisis and their families,
including employees.

REPUTATION REPAIR AND BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS

The below Table provides a list the basic crisis types and their reputational threat.
Table: Crisis Types by Attribution of Crisis Responsibility

Victim Crises: Minimal Crisis Responsibility

Natural disasters: acts of nature such as tornadoes or earthquakes.

Rumors: false and damaging information being circulated about you organization.

Workplace violence: attack by former or current employee on current employees on-site.

Product Tampering/Malevolence: external agent causes damage to the organization.

Accident Crises: Low Crisis Responsibility

Challenges: stakeholder claim that the organization is operating in an inappropriate manner.

Technical error accidents: equipment or technology failure that cause an industrial accident.

Technical error product harm: equipment or technology failure that cause a product to be
defective or potentially harmful.

Preventable Crises: Strong Crisis Responsibility

Human-error accidents: industrial accident caused by human error.

Human-error product harm: product is defective or potentially harmful because of human error.

Organizational misdeed: management actions that put stakeholders at risk and/or violate the
law.

9 
 
Review the intensifying factors of crisis history and prior reputation. If an organization has a
history of similar crises or has a negative prior reputation, the reputational threat is intensified. In
general, a reputation is how the stakeholder perceives an organization. A reputation is widely
recognized as a valuable, intangible asset for an organization and is worth protecting. But the
threat posed by a crisis extends to behavioral intentions as well. Increased attributions of
organizational responsibility for a crisis result in a greater likelihood of negative word-of-mouth
about the organization and reduced purchase intention from the organization. Early research
suggests that lessons designed to protect the organization’s reputation will help to reduce the
likelihood of negative word-of-mouth and the negative effect on purchase intentions as well.

POST-CRISIS PHASE
In the post-crisis phase, the organization is returning to business as usual. The crisis is no
longer the focal point of management’s attention but still requires some attention. As noted
earlier, reputation repair may be continued or initiated during this phase. There is important
follow-up communication that is required. First, crisis managers often promise to provide
additional information during the crisis phase. The crisis managers must deliver on those
informational promises or risk losing the trust of publics wanting the information. Second, the
organization needs to release updates on the recovery process, corrective actions, and/or
investigations of the crisis. The amount of follow-up communication required depends on the
amount of information promised during the crisis and the length of time it takes to complete the
recovery process. If you promised a reporter a damage estimate, for example, be sure to
deliver that estimate when it is ready. West Pharmaceuticals provided recovery updates for
over a year because that is how long it took to build a new facility to replace the one destroyed
in an explosion. As Dowling (2003), the Corporate Leadership Counsel (2003), and the
Business Roundtable (2002) observe, Intranets are an excellent way to keep employees
updated, if the employees have ways to access the site. Coombs (2007a) reports how mass
notification systems can be used as well to deliver update messages to employees and other
publics via phones, text messages, voice messages, and e-mail. Personal e-mails and phone
calls can be used too.
Crisis managers agree that a crisis should be a learning experience. The crisis management
effort needs to be evaluated to see what is working and what needs improvement. The same
holds true for exercises. Coombs (2006) recommends every crisis management exercise be
carefully dissected as a learning experience. The organization should seek ways to improve
prevention, preparation, and/or the response. As most books on crisis management note, those
lessons are then integrated into the pre-crisis and crisis response phases. That is how
management learns and improves its crisis management process.
The below Table lists the Post-Crisis Phase Best Practices.
Table: Post-Crisis Phase Best Practices

1. Deliver all information promised to stakeholders as soon as that information is known.

2. Keep stakeholders updated on the progression of recovery efforts including any corrective
measures being taken and the progress of investigations.

3. Analyze the crisis management effort for lessons and integrate those lessons in to the
organization’s crisis management system.

10 
 
Role of Communication
The success of crisis management depends on effective communication in each of the three
phases of crisis management:
 Pre-crisis Phase: Preparedness, Mitigation and Prevention are the key steps/actions in
this phase of crisis management. In the pre-crisis phase relating to natural disasters,
alerting the people on preparedness is important. Local governments as soon as they
get data from the metrological department verily announce to people about impending
cyclones, rainfall, tidal waves and so on. They make arrangements to evacuate them.
After the disaster has occurred, informing people about relief, rehabilitation, medical
facilities, compensation, and so on is important. Involving people in rescue operations
and communication will result in ownership of operations. One can watch some impactful
disaster preparedness campaigns in various media, mounted by the Disaster
Management Authority in India. On the other hand, in case of man-made crises, the
strategy cannot always be pre-empted, especially in cases of frauds and scams.
 Crisis Phase: In this phase, as the damage is already done and is irreversible, what
becomes important is how those in charge respond to the crisis and the victims.
Response, Recovery and Development would be important in this phase. Consider the
Message Action Plan discussed later in this module while communicating.
 Post-crisis Phase: Often, after a crisis has taken place and some visible rescue and
recovery steps have been taken by the crisis managers, the interest of general public
and especially media drops as it gets busy in covering other news. However, post-crisis
is an important phase that requires not only looking at Relief, Recovery and
Rehabilitation but also sharing information. Any lackadaisical attitude can sully the image
of the organization such that it may take a long time and effort to repair.

The Importance of Crisis Communication

Every crisis poses a test about how an organization would respond to an emergency, how it
takes care of the people who are affected and how it is going to rebound after a crisis. When an
organization is undergoing a crisis, its leadership is constantly in public gaze and on the media
radar, so the resilience of the top management and its action plan to avoid similar kind of
disaster is important both from the perspective of the organization and its stakeholders. While it
may take some time to know the reasons behind the crises, communication cannot wait. In
almost every crisis, confidence of the alleged victims and those who empathize with them needs
to be restored. The following are critical in a crisis situation:
 Enormity of the disaster / loss of human life
 Perceived abettors and victims
 Perceptions about the crisis
 Media coverage / media stand
 Action plan to deal with the crisis on hand

Each category of crises, whether it is man-made or natural, requires careful handling, especially
when life is involved. When a crisis has occurred, the damage to reputation may be a reality, but
honest intentions coupled with effective communication would help it tide over its image problem
eventually. Communication takes the center-stage from the perspective of various stakeholders.

11 
 
Everyone wishes to be told the truth – the employees, the shareholders, the suppliers, the policy
makers, the financial institutions, and above all, the media. One can say that the success of
crisis management impinges on:
 How the organization responds to the victims
 If it is communicating what it is doing, and how it shall rebound

Guidelines to Communicate During Crisis

Suggested Steps for Communicating During a Crisis
Step 1: Get Control of the Situation
The first step is for the appropriate manager to get control of the situation as soon as possible.
Such control involves defining the real problem with the use of reliable information and then
setting measurable communication objectives for handling it. When a crisis erupts, everyone in
the organization should know who needs to be contacted, but in large organizations, this
knowledge is often unrealistic. Therefore, the corporate communication department can initially
serve as a clearinghouse. The vice president for corporate communication at the head office
should know the composition of crisis teams and can then turn the situation over to the
appropriate manager.
Step 2: Gather as Much Information as Possible
Understanding the problem at hand is the right place for communicators to begin dealing with a
crisis. This understanding often involves managing information coming from many sources. As
information becomes available, someone should be assigned to mine that information: If it is an
industrial accident, how serious is it? Were lives lost? Have families already been notified? If the
incident involves an unfriendly takeover, what are the details of the offer? Was it absurdly low?
Have any plans been made for the company to defend itself? Many corporations have been
criticized for reacting too slowly during a crisis because they were trying desperately to gather
information about the incident. If it is going to take longer than a couple of hours to get the right
information, a company spokesperson should communicate this delay to the media and other
key stakeholders right away to make it clear that the company is not deliberately obstructing the
flow of information.
Step 3: Set Up a Centralized Crisis Management Center
At the same time managers are getting in touch with the right people and gathering information,
they also should be making arrangements for creating a crisis center. This location will serve as
the platform for all communications during the crisis. Organizations also should provide a
comfortable location for media to use during the crisis. All communications about the crisis
should come from this one, centralized location.
Step 4: Communicate Early and Often
The organization’s spokesperson needs to say whatever he or she can as soon as possible.
Particularly if the crisis involves threat to lives and property, communicators should try to shield
stakeholders from panic by allaying some of the probable fears that people will have about the
situation. Employees, the media, and other important constituencies should know that the crisis
center will issue updates at regular intervals until further notice. Even if they retain public
relations firms to assist them in handling a crisis, companies need to put good inside people on
the front lines of crisis communication and should encourage managers to adopt a team
approach with others involved. Above all else, avoid silence and delayed responses.

12 
 
Step 5: Understand the Media’s Mission in a Crisis
Members of the media work in an extremely competitive environment, which explains why they
all want to get the story first. They are also more accustomed to a crisis environment in their
work. What they are looking for is a good story with victims, villains, and visuals.
Step 6: Communicate Directly with Affected Stakeholders
Using the media to get information out is good, but it’s more important to communicate with your
employees, sales staff, organized leadership, site security, operators, and receptionists, as
these will be the media’s best sources of information in the crisis. External stakeholders need to
be contacted as well. These include customers, shareholders, communities, suppliers,
emergency services, experts, and officials. All available technologies should be employed to
communicate with them, including e-mail, voice mail, faxes, direct satellite broadcasts, and
online services. Before communicating, companies also should consider which constituencies
are top priority.
Step 7: Remember that Business Must Continue
To the managers involved, the crisis will most certainly be uppermost in their minds for the
duration, but to others, the business must go on despite the crisis. In addition to finding suitable
replacements ahead of time for those who are on the crisis team, managers must try to
anticipate the effects of the crisis on other parts of the business. For example, if an advertising
campaign is under way, should it be stopped during the crisis? Have financial officers stopped
trading on the company’s stock? Will it be necessary for the organization to move to a
temporary location during the crisis? These and other questions related to the ongoing business
need to be thought through by managers both on and off the crisis team as soon as possible.
Step 8: Make Plans to Avoid Another Crisis Immediately
After the crisis, corporate communications executives should work with other managers to
ensure the organization will be even better prepared the next time it is faced with a crisis.
Companies that have experienced crises are more likely to believe that such occurrences will
happen again and also will recognize that preparation is key to handling crises successfully.

The Message Action Plan

A crisis is best handled when those in charge understand and appreciate its legal, human and
ethical aspects. The person or department in charge of communication has a very important role
to play in crisis management. In fact, communication is the most important ingredient in the
crisis management mix. There are many stakeholders that the organization needs to reach out
to through more than one media with informative messages i.e. one needs to focus on:
identifying stakeholders, identifying channels of communication for reaching out to various
stakeholders and articulating the flow of information.
From the perspective of corporate communication, the message action plan in a crisis,
according to Lawrence Warner, should include the following, ‘public’s message elements,
communication techniques, responsibilities, time and schedule commitments, and accountability
factors’. The stakeholders need to be listed in order of importance. The critical ones must be
reached on priority. The concepts need to be communicated to the TA, keeping in view the core
message. The techniques of communication will include the decision about various channels,
both paid and unpaid. Provision must also be made for budgeting and evaluation and feedback.
In a crisis situation, free media coverage through the traditional route of press releases may not

13 
 
suffice. The crisis team might think it prudent to buy space and put across its viewpoint, without
the fear of its curtailment, as may happen in case of the press release.
This can be expanded as below:
 Identify the key decision makers
 Determine the effect a crisis can have on stakeholders – Identifying stakeholders –
who/whom? A list of whom to notify should be ready
 Allow open mindedness and creativity in tackling the problem.
 Assign different teams to handle each crisis phase - Assigning different teams helps the
organization put the best people in charge of handling the crisis and communications. It
also allows the organization to get a cross-section of employees involved.
 Identifying channels of communication – how and when to communicate to different
stakeholders? Consider the effectiveness of the communication channel the company
selects to convey the message. Perhaps the mass distribution of a memo would be too
impersonal for a message to employees in a time of crisis. The company might consider
personal or group meetings or a “town hall” gathering instead. The choice of
communication channel often can reflect how sensitive a company is to its stakeholders’
needs and emotions.
 Flow of information – what is to be communicated?
 Plan for centralization. Establish one authentic springboard of communication so the
information is accurate and consistent. Planning for centralization can help strip away
layers of bureaucracy, keep lines of communication open throughout the organization,
and dissipate conflict, all of which are especially critical in a crisis.

The Importance of Sharing Information

Corporate communication is a ‘staff function’ that advises the top management on information
management both in routine and critical times. In the aftermath of a crisis or even while a crisis
has not subsided, getting hold of information and as fast as possible is very important for media.
Due to fierce competition among various channels and in print media, every channel/newspaper
wishes to give the ‘breaking news’. Therefore, it is important for the corporate communication
practitioner to understand that media will get information somehow, so it is in the interest of the
organization to share the official version and be heard constantly. Ducking or not sharing
information can be harmful to the organization. The 24-hour channels can be seen as a problem
or an opportunity. Internet, especially the social networking sites, and live chat rooms have
brought about a paradigm shift in how the organizations must change their communication
strategies and media options. Mass media is among the best tools to share information quickly
and efficiently. The official version of the organization needs to be placed on the Web
immediately after a crisis has occurred along with the action plan of the organization to mitigate
the crisis. The information needs to be updated as soon as new facts about the emergency
emerge. It is not uncommon that no sooner a major crisis strikes, many blog sites emerge, and
not all would say complementary things. Tracking the social networking sites, addressing the
concerns of the people, and thanking those who stand by the organization are important for
managing the reputation of the organization. Allegations, fault finding and charges of
insensitivity are commonplace in a crisis, which the crisis team should take in its stride and in no
way get bogged down by criticism that may even be unwarranted from the point of view of the
team. People ultimately would appreciate the display of maturity, sensitivity and empathy
coupled with honest intentions to manage the crisis keeping the human concern uppermost.

14 
 
Guidelines to Handle Media During Crisis
Whenever an organization is faced with a crisis, it has to communicate with a number of
stakeholders to share its perspective and also to respond to the information needs of those
stakeholders. Media, which represents the public voice, is the most critical stakeholder to
handle in times of a crisis. It is generally said of media that they feast on crises. Bigger the
crises, the better they feel, because it gives them the opportunity to showcase their alertness in
bringing issues in the public domain, pull up authorities and get closer to their viewers/readers
and, gain TRPs. Below are some points to consider when handling media during a crisis:
 Have you already made a decision? Rumors will damage your reputation. Your silence
can be misinterpreted.
 Never give it to the inexperienced professional to handle media or any other stakeholder.
 Continuous flow of information. Regular updates through right channels and platforms.
 Limit the number of spokespersons – mostly keep it to 1
 Give complex information in simple language – especially to the media
 Entertain each media request separately
 Keep your employees well informed.
 Remember that business must continue.
 

Activity: Case Study

Get a background of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill by visiting the below link:
https://www.history.com/topics/1980s/exxon-valdez-oil-spill

Now read the below news article on this crisis and relate it to what you learnt in this module:
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/04/21/business/exxon-s-public-relations-problem.html
Exxon's Public‐Relations Problem 
By John Holusha 
April 21, 1989 
 
The Exxon Corporation's reputation was bound to suffer after the Exxon Valdez ran aground off Alaska 
and dumped 250,000 barrels of oil into Prince William Sound. But experts in public relations say that 
Exxon seriously worsened the damage to its public standing by failing to seize control of developments 
after the spill and establish itself as a company concerned about the problems it had caused. 
 
Over the last decade, business has painfully developed some clear rules of thumb on ''crisis 
management,'' or how companies should handle a sudden, unexpected episode like the tainting of 
Tylenol capsules made by Johnson & Johnson or the rupture of an Ashland Oil storage tank that spilled 
oil into the Monongahela River near Pittsburgh. A company must not only deal with the emergency but 
also do so with the entire nation, if not the entire world, looking on.  
 
 
 

15 
 
Some Cardinal Rules 
 
Exxon violated some cardinal rules of crisis management, practitioners of this new specialty say. They 
predict that the Exxon Valdez episode will become a textbook example of what not to do when an 
unexpected crisis thrusts a company into the limelight. 
 
To be sure, Exxon's biggest problem remains that the tanker ran aground, and that efforts to stem the 
flow of oil into the sea and then contain the spread of the spill were very slow. Beyond that are 
accusations that the tanker's captain might have been drinking before the accident. 
 
But how Exxon responded afterward has heightened the criticism of the company, the nation's third 
largest by sales, behind only General Motors and Ford. Many people predict that the entire oil industry 
will pay the price in the dashing of any hope of winning Government permission to explore for oil 
reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. That possibility now seems much less likely in the near 
future, given the public outcry over the spill. 
 
The crisis‐management experts say Exxon failed to follow several well‐established procedures: 
 
* The biggest mistake was that Exxon's chairman, Lawrence G. Rawl, sent a succession of lower‐ranking 
executives to Alaska to deal with the spill instead of going there himself and taking control of the 
situation in a forceful, highly visible way. This gave the impression that the company regarded the 
pollution problem as not important enough to involve top management. In contrast, Ashland Oil's 
chairman, John R. Hall, went to the scene of the Ashland spill last year and took charge. 
 
* Exxon decided to concentrate its news briefings in Valdez, a remote Alaskan town with limited 
communications operations, complicating the problem of disseminating information. Even Oil & Gas 
Journal, hardly an industry critic, complained. ''Exxon did not update its media relations people 
elsewhere in the world,'' the journal said. Instead, it ''told reporters it was Valdez or nothing.'' 
 
* Top Exxon executives declined to comment for almost a week after the spill, increasing the impression 
of a company that was not responding vigorously. 
 
* Public statements by the company sometimes contradicted information from other sources. At one 
point, an Exxon spokesman said damage from the spill would be minimal, while others watching the 
industry said the damage was likely to be substantial. 
 
* An advertisement that Exxon ran in newspapers around the country 10 days after the spill appeared 
too late, and although the company apologized for the spill, it did not accept responsibility. To some 
readers the ad seemed platitudinous and failed to address the many pointed questions raised about 
Exxon's conduct.  
 
An 'Unmanaged Crisis' 
 
''What we have here, in my opinion, is a classic unmanaged crisis,'' said Gerald C. Meyers, a former 
chairman of the American Motors Corporation who is now a crisis‐management consultant. ''As phony 
as it sounds, sending the chairman to the scene would have shown genuine concern for what happened 
there.'' 
 

16 
 
Exxon officials defend their handling of the incident, saying the first priority was getting the remaining 
million barrels of oil off the tanker. Asked why he did not go to Alaska, Mr. Rawl, at a news conference 
this week, said: ''I'm technologically obsolete. Getting me up there would have diverted our own 
people's attention. I couldn't help with the spill; I couldn't do anything about getting the ship off the 
rocks.'' 
 
But this emphasis on operations overlooked public reaction to the largest discharge of crude oil in the 
nation's history, crisis experts say. 
 
''By now, companies have learned that they cannot predict when a disaster will happen, but they know 
that it can happen,'' said Stephen A. Greyser, a professor at the Harvard Business School. ''They should 
have had a plan that would have provided substantial information quickly and would have given the 
impression they were on top of the facts. Instead, 10 days after the accident they ran some newspaper 
advertisements.''  
 
A 'Window of Opportunity' 
 
By then, it may have been too late for Exxon to regain any public relations ground. ''All crises have a 
window of opportunity to gain control of 45 minutes to 12 hours,'' said Paul Shrivastava, director of the 
Industrial Crisis Institute, a nonprofit research institution in Brooklyn. 
 
Exxon first dispatched Frank Iarossi, president of the Exxon Shipping subsidiary, to Valdez, where he 
served as chief spokesman. He was followed in a few days by William Stevens, president of Exxon U.S.A., 
another subsidiary. It was not until March 30, six days after the accident, that Mr. Rawl made his first 
comments about the incident. He finally went to Alaska on April 14, three weeks after the event. 
 
Mr. Meyers, the crisis‐management consultant, contrasted Mr. Rawl's approach with that of Mr. Hall, 
Ashland Oil's chairman. 
 
''He was a little slow out of the blocks, but after a day and a half he began to move heaven and earth,'' 
Mr. Meyers said. ''He pledged to clean everything up, he visited news bureaus to explain what the 
company would do, he answered whatever questions were asked. Within 24 hours he had turned the 
perception from 'rotten oil company' to 'they are pretty good guys.' ''  
 
Exxon Inward‐Looking 
Exxon may not have been well prepared for the glare of publicity in part because it has been increasingly 
inward‐looking in recent years. Emphasizing cost cutting and pushing decision making down to operating 
levels, Mr. Rawl has rarely spoken to the press, securities analysts or business organizations. 
 
Mr. Rawl's muted presence in the Alaska crisis has also been contrasted with the actions of Warren 
Anderson, the former chairman of the Union Carbide Corporation, after toxic gases leaking from a Union 
Carbide pesticide plant killed more than 3,000 people in Bhopal, India, in 1984. Within days of the 
disaster, Mr. Anderson flew to India to demonstrate his involvement and concern. 
 
Elliot R. Cattarulla, Exxon's vice president for corporate and public affairs, said that comparing the 
Valdez incident with previous disasters is not fair. ''Each crisis is unique,'' he said. ''In this case we had to 
deal with a four‐hour time difference and a small town in a remote place. We opted to get information 
to the media there without filtering it through operating companies in Houston or New York.''  

17 
 
 
Understatement of Problem Seen 
 
But industry watchers say even the unfiltered information was often unsatisfactory. ''Exxon's statements 
were erratic and contradictory,'' said Richard Golob, publisher of Golob's Oil Pollution Bulletin. ''A 
spokesman said there would be minimum environmental damage. Anyone who follows these things 
knows that cannot be true.'' 
 
The company's argument that state and Federal officials were responsible for delays that allowed the oil 
to spread far and wide only hurt its credibility, critics say. ''The company's own advertisement, 10 days 
after the fact, was an apology, but not an acceptance of responsibility,'' Professor Greyser said. 
 
The accident and the company's reaction to it have already had consequences for the oil industry. Plans 
to expand drilling into the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge have been shelved in Congress and some 
members are calling for new laws increasing Federal involvement in oil spills. 
 
A version of this article appears in print on April 21, 1989, Section D, Page 1 of the National edition with 
the headline: Exxon's Public‐Relations Problem. 

Case Study: Pepsi-Cola’s Syringe Crisis (1993)

In June 1993, a man in Washington State reported that, after drinking half a can of Diet Pepsi
the night before, he had discovered a syringe in the can the following morning when he shook
out the rest of the contents into the sink. This claim was the beginning of a major crisis for
Pepsi-Cola.

The CEO of Pepsi-Cola North America, Craig E. Weatherup, did not let the surprise of the crisis
overwhelm him when he was contacted at home by FDA Commissioner David Kessler and
informed of the situation. His first action was to engage Pepsi-Cola’s four-person crisis
management team—made up of “experienced crisis managers from public affairs, regulatory
affairs, consumer relations, and operations” —to swiftly deal with the unfolding situation,
including opening lines of communication with FDA regulatory officials, the media, and
consumers.

Internally, Pepsi prevented organizational chaos by updating employees with daily advisories to
over 400 Pepsi facilities nationwide. Weatherup had decided not to recall the product—despite a
flood of new reports to the FDA of dangerous objects found in Pepsi cans. When television
networks contacted the company looking for a response or any formal statements, Weatherup
realized that the crisis was rooted in the disturbing imagery of syringes in cans—and decided to
supply the media with an equally “visual” response. Weatherup had his staff prepare video
footage of the canning process at Pepsi that showed how it would be virtually impossible to
insert a syringe into the cans. Additionally, Pepsi later distributed a grocery-store surveillance
tape of a woman stealthily dropping a syringe into her Pepsi can. After the footage appeared as
the lead story on three major networks, no new reports of syringes were made.

Weatherup also made several television appearances throughout the day, on The
MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour and Larry King Live. In his last appearance, FDA Commissioner
David Kessler accompanied him. Both men stressed the implausibility of the claims and the

18 
 
criminality of making false statements (five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines). Pepsi’s
highly visible work with the FDA in investigating the crisis boosted its credibility in the public eye.
Additionally, without an investigative reporting team of its own, Pepsi found that the government
agency was invaluable to the company during the crisis. The FDA established a center in 1989
to provide the agency with a team of forensic science experts who can respond immediately to
all tampering incidents and provide expert advice and scientific evidence to FDA officials. It was
an FDA investigation that provided the evidence used to convict a tamperer who had falsely
claimed to find a mouse inside a Pepsi can when she opened it. Several days later, the FBI
arrested four individuals for making false claims, and the contamination scare appeared even
more like the hoax it turned out to be. In the end, 20 arrests were made, and the crisis was
resolved.

Pepsi-Cola did not stop there, however. To ensure that consumers knew that the tampering
claims were false, Weatherup took out an ad to address the concerns of employees and
customers. As he explained, “On Monday, Pepsi will run full-page advertisements in 200
newspapers around the country, including the Washington Post . The ad reads: ‘Pepsi is
pleased to announce . . . nothing. As America now knows, those stories about Diet Pepsi were a
hoax. Plain and simple, not true.’ It ends with an invitation: ‘Drink All The Diet Pepsi You Want.
Uh Huh.’” Pepsi-Cola remains one of America’s leading soft drinks, demonstrating that negative
publicity and crisis situations can be overcome when the crisis is successfully handled.

In Pepsi’s handling of the crisis, what is notable is that in addition to showing concern for the
public and demonstrating resoluteness in getting to the bottom of the problem, Pepsi also
skillfully leveraged two other critical stakeholders—the government and the media—to help it
combat the bogus tampering claims and win back the public’s trust.

Key Sources:
Corporate Communication – Jaishri Jethwaney
Corporate Communication – Paul Argenti
Institute for Public Relations https://instituteforpr.org/

19