The Circle of CEOs

I know we had it just recently and we all heard Elon Musk ‘stepped back from responsibilities’, just after he breached the bro level. I’ll miss you deeply, bro. One love, and such.

But CEO communication is here to stay (Conte, Siano & Vollero, 2017), so better be ready to make some amicable friends in the future. And I might got one for you right here. Because, luckily, not all CEOs are crisis communication landmines waiting to test their company’s third world level CSR-strategy's response time. Yet, other employees might be just as explosive.

Taking on from my colleague Tyler Pilgrim’s blog about the successful management of crisis communication in the case of the Roseanne controversy, in this post I want to shed more light on this case from a CEO communication angle.

Hold my beer… while I Tweet..???

To make it short, old lady slurred some majorly racist and conspirational bullshit, and later claimed to be high on sleeping pills and booze. While you’d expect racism and Clinton conspiracies from your average edgy 4Chan user suffering from a flaming tinfoil hat, these comments by Roseanne’s lead actor herself erupted in an acute crisis for the TV channel ABC. However, within hours the organisation reacted and announced the majorly successful show will be immediately cancelled, due to the tweets violating the values, ethics & morals the organisation strives to represent.

The Chosen One

While it remained a side note in Tyler’s blog, for my CEO-Communication-infested mind it became clear that ABC Entertainment’s CEO Channing Dungey is the chosen one. She is the true bro, or better the ‘amicable friend’ (Men & Tsai, 2016) social CEOs strive to be. She was the one taking a strong stance on the issue, tweeting the cancellation of the show due to racism. Dungey, being black, was authentic addressing racism in the United States - thus truly humanizing and personalizing (Tsai & Men, 2017) the crisis, embodying the message of the organisation’s ethics valued higher than revenue.

The results were clear, while many fans were sad about old lady, the support the organisation received much applaud for their stance.

If this decision remains an economic one, is going to be hard to answer. In fact, just as I’m formatting this post, I see numerous articles (e.g. Breitbart, and other rather conservative outlets) popping up referring to an anonymous ABC executive questioning the organisation’s decision. However, the sheer fact that this executive prefers to remain anonymous shows the power of the organisation’s stance on this issue, and him being able to comprehend that he is subordinate to this positioning.

For now, this closes the circle of CEO communication for me. After breaching the bro level with Elon, I’ve found a true amicable friend in Dungey. And I hope, I could show how essential I believe CEO communication to be, and inspire you to have an eye out whenever CEOs jump into the spotlight. And that, in the end, you should extend that communicationplan.xls, it’s worth it, and you'll love it.

PS: Thanks @ Tyler for the inspiration.

References:

Conte, F., Siano, A., & Vollero, A. (2017). CEO communication: engagement, longevity and founder centrality: an exploratory study in Italy. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 22(3), 273-291.

Men, & Tsai. (2016). Public engagement with CEOs on social media: Motivations and relational outcomes. Public Relations Review, 42(5), 932-942.

Tsai, W. H. S., & Men, L. R. (2017). Social CEOs: The effects of CEOs’ communication

styles and parasocial interaction on social networking sites. New media & society , 19 (11),

1848-1867.

The time when Pepsi left a bad taste in our mouths

As an American living abroad, I’m often told by my European colleagues that I’m too quick to label something as being politically incorrect. Spending most of my adult life in San Francisco, a liberal melting pot, it’s in my veins to tread cautiously when it comes to social issues. Brands advertising in the United States should be aware of this sensitivity, something that wasn’t so clear as pointed out by my colleague Ilse Weergang in her blog post ‘Acontroversial Pepsi ad starring Kendall Jenner’. Ilse covers some areas in which Pepsi failed to deliver from a crisis management perspective, but I would like to cover some additional aspects that I also feel could have been optimized.

If only Pepsi had been monitoring the public’s reaction

As a rule of thumb, all large organizations should be monitoring social media to see if a crisis is developing, especially after launching a large national campaign. As public discourse has migrated to social media, it’s crucial for companies to monitor where their customers are discussing opinions [1]. If only Pepsi had been monitoring closely, they may had changed their mind in defending their actions. If this had been the case they would have seen Tweets like this and this and they would have known the defensive route was not the crisis mitigation effort to employ.

Image courtesy of Twitter.com

Pepsi should have addressed the crisis where it was unfolding

It is also quite perplexing to me that Pepsi did not address the situation where the crisis was unfolding, on social media. While Pepsi ultimately did not make the right choice in their crisis mitigation efforts, it would have been nice for the brand to be more vocal on a social outlet. One suggestion I would give would be to have someone in high rank, such as a CEO, to address the issue at the source directly on Twitter. Pepsi’s CEO remained silent for quite some time before making a publicstatement. Research has shown that a CEO’s image on Twitter can influence the brand to the public [2]. If Indra Nooyi, Pepsi’s CEO, had commented immediately on social media it may have bought the company more time in addressing the crisis at hand. She also mentioned that ‘companyis known for diversity’, had she done this quickly on Twitter it may have unfolded differently.

Pepsi should have aligned their strategy with Kendall Jenner

While I’m sure Pepsi has no control over Kendall Jenner’s own PR actions, it was clear that the two teams did very little together in order to manage the crisis. Jenner remained silent even though her name was dragged through the mud along with Pepsi. When Jenner did finally voice her opinion, she took a very different strategy, she took the role of the victim, a strategy used in which organizations remind the public that they are too a victim and not to be blamed [3]. It would be advised to all organizations going forward when working with an influencer, a joint crisis mitigation plan should be developed in case something backfires.

Image courtesy of Buzzfeed

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the author:

Tyler Pilgrim is a Communication Science Research Master’s student at the University of Amsterdam. Tyler is originally from the United States (No, he didn’t vote for Trump), but has been on this side of the pond since 2015. You can find him on Twitter here: @the.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

[1] Sung, M., & Hwang, J. S. (2014). Who drives a crisis? The diffusion of an issue through social networks. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 246-257.

[2] Tsai, W. S., & Men, L. R. (2016). Social CEOs: The effects of CEOs’ communication styles and parasocial interaction on social networking sites. New Media & Society,19(11), 1848-1867. doi:10.1177/1461444816643922

[3] Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate reputation review, 10(3), 163-176.

Kendall Jenner would very much like to be excluded from this narrative*

Screenshot taken from @BerniceKing's Twitter account

You’d be hard pressed to find someone who hasn’t seen or heard about Pepsi’s controversial campaign where the company co-opts social justice protests, with particularly tone-deaf allusions to the Black Lives Matter movement. You really have to go out of your way for Bernice King (daughter of civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr.) to comment on your advertisement. All in a day’s work for members of the Kardashian-Jenner family.

PepsiGate

The Pepsi crisis has been covered in more depth with a specific focus on crisis management. Opinions on Pepsi’s response to the backlash vary, and I’d say it ultimately depends on which aspect you focus on, be it defending (👎) or pulling (👍) the ad – Ilse Weergang and Kim van Loon, respectively. But let’s back up. Pepsi isn’t the first brand to have hijacked a social issue. Pepsi isn’t even the first cola company to do so. In 1971, Coca Cola debuted a similar campaign depicting peace at a time of protests against the Vietnam War. If you didn’t see it on Mad Men, I’ll include it here. In fact, let’s have a look at both commercials. 

 

 

I’d like to buy the world a … frame

Okay yes, Coca Cola had the good fortune to run this ad in a world without Twitter, I know. However, other coverage on the Pepsi ad has been quick to make the comparison, stating that Coca Cola succeeded where Pepsi failed. But – barring the effect of scathing tweets – why?

Weergang and van Loon both refer to framing effects, particularly how Pepsi’s ad suffered from negative frames constructed by the public. However, if media content includes the proper cultural resonance and narrative fidelity, the message should be interpreted as intended [1].  

The devil is in the details

Frankly, in a society rife with racism and police brutality against people of colour, the image of a privileged, white woman walking up to a police officer and handing him a Pepsi to resolve a conflict doesn’t exactly scream ‘truce’. Though, one might (rightly) say that Coca Cola’s utopic message isn’t narratively sound either. It all comes back to public perception. A recent study shows that how media content depicts a CSR-message determines the public’s evaluation of the company. A strategic depiction results in “stronger company hypocrisy and negative communication intentions towards the company;” a double-whammy for Pepsi [2].

Why would the public perceive Pepsi’s ad as a strategic CSR-message? Adding insult to injury, Pepsi positioned their product as the ‘treatment recommendation’ to the conflict [1], intentionally constructing a narrative that trivialises social activism efforts. Intent is important here, as it implies that this crisis could have been prevented. This incurs severe feelings of anger and blame, which go on to drive the public response [3]. In contrast, Coca Cola positioning their product as a “tiny commonality between all peoples” can be considered as much less problematic.

So, did Coca Cola know something then that we’d do well to remember now? And is there really any way of knowing how well received the ad would be in today’s socio-political climate? 🤷‍♀️ But then maybe that’s the point: keep cultural contexts in mind, all ways, always. 

* With special thanks to Taylor Swift.

                 

[1] Van Gorp, B. (2007). Bringing culture back in: The constructionist approach to framing. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 60-78.

[2] Shim, K., Chung, M., & Kim, Y. (2017). Does ethical orientation matter? Determinants of public reaction to CSR communication. Public Relations Review, 43(4), 817-828.

[3] Zhou, Z., & Ki, E. J. (2018). Does severity matter?: An investigation of crisis severity from defensive attribution theory perspective. Public Relations Review, 44(4), 610-618. 

                

Fairouz Kasri is a Persuasive Communication Master’s Student at the University of Amsterdam. She plays various roles in the management of projects at SWOCC, the Dutch Foundation for Fundamental Research on Brands and Brand Communication. She’s passionate about ABBA, politics, pop-culture, women’s rights, and youth leadership development.

A re-visit to the Pepsi Ad starring Kendall Jenner

On September 28, I wrote a blog on the Pepsi Ad starring Kendall Jenner. A similar blog was posted byKim van Loon. However, it seems that we don’t see eye to eye whether Pepsi responded correctly or not. To give you a quick freshen up. Below you can watch the Pepsi Ad. And if you want to read more about the backlash the ad got, please check my previous blogpost.

                                         Pepsi Ad starring Kendall Jenner. Credits: YouTube – Kendall and Kylie

What we agree on

In both our blogs we reflected on the role of the audience, stating that nowadays the audience can frame news. In de case of the Pepsi ad, this meant that the audience added a negative connotation to the content. This negative frame was then viewed by many other viewers, which created a crisis situation (vander Meer, 2018).

One way of quickly figuring out the responds of the audience is by checking Twitter. Twitter provides with an excellent way to keep up with real-time updates and thus feedback to your content (Eriksson,2018). In the case of Pepsi, twitter was used a lot.

Where we disagree

Where we disagree on is the response given by Pepsi. Kim van Loons blogpost states that Pepsi did well by responding with an apology within 24 hours. But that is not what Pepsi did! Their first response backed up their ad. Obviously, this respond cannot be found on the Pepsi website anymore, but here are two sources: 1 2.

So, their first response was to deny that there was a crisis situation. According to Coombs(2015) denying any responsibility to a crisis situation, is a way to respond to a crisis. However, in this case, it is not. Denial is used when there is a misinterpretation which links an organization to a crisis, for example a name mix-up. In the case of Pepsi, that is just not the way to go.

Pepsi’s second response indeed was the right response. They apologized and stated that they didn’t intend to create controversy. However, they also added an apology to Kendall Jenner to their statement. I think apologizing to Kendall Jenner is a good thing, but it should have been done in private. Adding the Kendall Jenner Apology created backlash and could have created a brand-new crisis. It is safe to say that the goal for Pepsi with the apology was definitely NOT to create a new crisis.

Concluding advice

A lot can be learned from the way Pepsi handled the crisis. Even though they responded quickly, they did not respond adequately. I would strongly advice Pepsi, and any organization for that matter to respond quickly but wisely. I believe it is better to respond in 36 hours with the right respond, than to respond within 24 hours with the kind of response that only adds fuel to fire. Obviously, the Pepsi ad is an excellent example, but this advice could be used by PR professional everywhere.

About:

Ilse Weergang has a BA degree in Musicology, and is currently enrolled in a MA Entertainment Communication. She likes to make and listen to music and she enjoys the outdoors.