1 / 16

Image Repair Strategies

Image Repair Strategies. Why apologia tactics often fail. Simple Denial. Key Characteristic: Did not do act (or act did not occur, or act isn't harmful).

Télécharger la présentation

Image Repair Strategies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.


Presentation Transcript

  1. Image Repair Strategies Why apologia tactics often fail

  2. Simple Denial • Key Characteristic: Did not do act (or act did not occur, or act isn't harmful). • Example: In response to the charge of marketing for special pricing a company spokesperson announced “Coke does not charge McDonalds less than it charges other companies.” • Comment: The public discounts any denial

  3. Denial by Shifting Blame • Key Characteristic: Claiming that it was someone else who did the misdeed. • Example: After a major scare over the discovery of cyanide deaths, a company press release claims that Tylenol did not put poison in the capsules, but instead some crazed individuals did. • Comment: The public discounts any denial

  4. Evade Responsibility: Provocation • Key Characteristic: Claiming that the act was in response to another's offense. • Examples: 1. Defendant claims he only hit the victim after the victim hit him. 2. Company leaves town because of increased labor costs. • Comment: Claims of initial offenses are distrusted without evidence. Responses to provocations are seen as a weakness.

  5. Evade Responsibility: Defeasibility • Key Characteristic: Claiming the “contract” or situation is null and void because of a lack of information or ability • Example: Employee claims not to have received the email about an important meeting. • Comment: Seen as begging the question about why the person failed to assure being self informed.

  6. Evade Responsibility: Accident • Key Characteristic: Claiming that the event was merely an unintentional accident. • Example: “Gee, officer. I just did not see the other car until it was too late.” • Comment: Seen as begging the question about why the accused failed to assure proper care and safety. Accused is still held liable for any problems or damages.

  7. Evade Responsibility: Good Intentions • Key Characteristic: Claiming that the event was the an unintentional consequence of a well intentioned effort. • Example: A company accused of running up unneeded additional expenses claims that the problem was the result of a larger desire to better serve the customers. • Comment: Seen as begging the question about why the accused failed to protect the rights of the victim.

  8. Mortification • Key Characteristics: Apology. Admit responsibility. Express regret. Accept demand for restitution and punishment • Example: A political candidate acknowledges a history of personal failures and accepts responsibility for making amends • Comment: The accused tend to want clear parameters on punishment and restitution. Public tends to willingly forgive over time after appropriate amends.

  9. Reduce Offensiveness:Bolstering • Key Characteristic: Attempt to shift attention to the good characteristics of the accused. • Example: A student accused of plagiarism responds with describing his or her contributions to the classroom environment. • Comment: The public dislikes this expected and easily detected tactic.

  10. Reduce Offensiveness:Minimization • Key Characteristic: Claim that the ‘problem’ is overstated or normal. • Example: After a major oil spill at sea, the oil company claims that damage to the environment was minimal and even ‘natural.’ • Comment: The public strongly distrusts an accused making assertions that victims did not really suffer.

  11. Reduce Offensiveness:Differentiation • Key Characteristic: Claim that the act is falsely labeled • Example: Joy rider claiming that the car was not “stolen” but only “borrowed.” • Comment: Responses vary with public willingness to ignore offense. When done with finesse, the public will willingly accept and appreciate the new label.

  12. Reduce Offensiveness:Transcendence • Key Characteristic: Claim that the act is less important than larger and more immediate matters • Example: Corporation claims that exporting jobs is justified by the public demand for low prices. • Comment: Responses vary with the vested interests of the public.

  13. Reduce Offensiveness:Attack the Accuser • Key Characteristic: Attack the accuser for having a suspect motivation. • Example: An employee claims that a supervisor’s accusations are actually an attempt at distracting others from his or her own incompetence. • Comment: The public tends to dismiss such shifts in issues as desperation ploys.

  14. Reduce Offensiveness:Compensate • Key Characteristic: Without admission of wrong doing, the accused shifts from a defense to dealing directly with the perceived damage and offering compensation. • Example: A theme park manager says “We are sorry for the discomfort you experienced. Here are two ‘front of the line passes’ for your next ride. • Comment: Tends to silence victims but may create a sense of injustice in the minds of third parties.

  15. Corrective Action • Key Characteristic: The accused announces a plan to solve or prevent any probable recurrence of the problem. • Examples: 1.An over-the-counter-drug company announces a new seal and packaging that will allow detection of tampering. 2. A person with a perceived problem places himself or herself in a rehabilitation program. • Comment: Corrective action is to most effective image-repair tactic. The public cares more about repairs than they care about who actually did what or when.

  16. References Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration discourse.  Albany: State University of New York Press. Benoit, W. L. (1997). Image restoration discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 23, 177-186.

More Related