Public Relations Crisis Communication

A New Model

Lisa Anderson-Meli, Swapna Koshy

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000029314
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Negocios y empresa
• Subtopic: Relaciones públicas

This book explores the definition, nature and context of public relations crises; it also examines and defines the main elements of public relations crises and positions it in the context of the current communication sphere.

Public Relations Crisis Communication: A New Model investigates existing group communication theories, including organizational culture, critical theory of organizations, media ecology, public rhetoric, and cross-cultural communication theory to establish their relevance in the context of the new model of public relations crisis. Key concepts from existing public relations crisis theory are also discussed and validated in order to establish prevailing thought. Through a case study of Malaysia Airlines MH370, involving a textual analyses of press communications on the Malaysia Airlines website, this book scrutinises prevailing theory and definitions. Most valuably, this book proposes a new definition and model of public relations crisis, alongside a suggested extension to existing crisis communication theory in the form of a hierarchy of publics to be addressed during crises. This will help to address divergent publics with differing priorities in public relations crisis communication.

This book is of interest to students, teachers, researchers and practitioners of public relations, communication, media and marketing, as well as professionals in the aviation industry and international relations.

1 Public relations crisis communication

Developing a conceptual framework

Defining public relations

Ever since Edward L. Bernays in Crystallizing Public Opinion (1923) substituted ‘propaganda’ with the more positive term ‘Public Relations’ coined by Thomas Jefferson (Davis cited in Gonçalves, 2014, p. 100) a multitude of definitions and interpretations of the term have been generated. These include Aristotle’s early work on rhetoric to the nineteenth-century war-related propaganda and more recently the professionalisation of public relations as a management function.

The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) surveyed its members from 2011 to 2012 with the aim of updating their 1982 definition of what constituted public relations. The definition that was agreed upon is “public relations is about influencing, engaging and building a relationship with key stakeholders across a myriad of platforms in order to shape and frame the public perception of an organization” (PRSA, 2019).

Regardless of whether public relations is viewed as an activity, profession and/or scholarly pursuit, and whether it is defined as positive, normative or pejorative, it ultimately concerns itself with the specific relationship between an organisation (in all its guises) and its publics (in all their forms). While this may initially appear tautological these relationships are not static, and it is the manifestations and machinations of organisational-public relationships that often engender debate. Notwithstanding this it is imperative that the operational negotiations surrounding public relations do not detract from its core principle; that is, the ‘doing’ of public relations should not mire a definition of what public relations ‘is’. It is essential to note that the activity of public relations necessitates communication, the two are inexorably linked; it is through communication that relationships transpire. Therefore, we can establish the definition of public relations, at its most basic level, as the manifestation (communication) of the relationships between an organisation and its publics.

Public relations crisis explained

As the focus of this book is public relations crisis communication it is also necessary to define public relations crisis, the associated terminology of crisis management and the various actors or elements involved.

It is ironic that the word crisis is derived from the Greek ‘krisis’ meaning decision or judgement (Maditinos & Vassiliadis, 2008). The considerations an organisation is confronted with during a public relations crisis include: deciding what to say, if anything; when to say it; who to say it to; and, with today’s communication landscape, how to say it. These decisions are the key to successful public relations crisis communication and have been visited and revisited by various scholars, public relations practitioners and those that advise them in order to determine what is variously described as best practice. However, as with the definition of public relations the above questions are concerned with the ‘doing’ of public relations crisis communications and not essentially what public relations crisis ‘is’.

A starting point for the definition of public relations crisis is Fink’s observation that “a crisis occurs when an event increases in intensity, falls under the scrutiny of the news, media or government, interferes with normal business opportunities, devalues a positive public image, and has an adverse effect on a business’ ‘bottom line’” (Fink cited in Butterick, 2011, p. 62). Fearn-Banks (2011, p. 2) stresses on the distinction between a crisis and a problem – a crisis disturbs the regular flow of business and therefore cannot be deemed a ‘normal’ part of day-to-day operations. Faulkner cites Selbst’s definition of a crisis as

any action or failure to act that interferes with an [organisation’s] on-going functions, the acceptable attainment of its objectives, its viability or survival, or that has a detrimental personal effect as perceived by the majority of its employees, clients or constituents.

Selbst 1978 cited in Faulkner, 2001, p. 136

Interestingly, Anthonissen (2012) highlights the involvement of the media, who, he argues, exaggerate and publicise incidents within hours of their occurrence.

Some theorists identify unpredictability as a feature of crises; hence, ‘crisis planning’ would be an oxymoron (Coombs, 2012). Brown refers to probabilism, reassurance and risk management. However, when discussing predictability, he accepts Coombs exclusion of natural disasters as statistical outliers, noting the assumption that a human crisis can be “discovered, prevented, contained, controlled” is a dubious one (Brown, 2015, p. 22). It is inaccurate to view all events as completely unpredictable given the very rationale for crisis management is based on a degree of inevitability. While it is agreed that there can be an element of ‘surprise’, for example, predicting when an event will occur may not be possible, the justification for crisis management relies on preparedness. The argument follows that if a crisis is discoverable it can be preventable; if it is not preventable, it can be controlled or minimised; if it cannot be controlled, it can be resolved. The use of communication to prevent, minimise, control and resolve crises is the cornerstone of public relations crisis management.

Though all the definitions discussed earlier have elements of validity their focus is narrow and therefore problematic for public relations professionals who seek to effectively quantify what constitutes a public relations crisis. Nonetheless, from various definitions it is possible to determine important rudiments that provide the basis for a workable definition. From Fink’s (2011) definition it is clear that there are multiple factors that can lead to a crisis, from Norton’s (2013) that it is necessarily negative, from Fearn-Banks’ (2011) that it is an a-typical occurrence, from Selbst’s (1978 cited in Faulkner, 2001) that it must impact the organisation and its publics and from Anthonissen’s (2012) that it occurs in the public arena.

Heath’s (2012) work catalogues over 20 definitions highlighting the emphasis on various aspects of crises. He agrees with Coombs’ observations that “if stakeholders believe there is a crisis, the organisation is in crisis unless it can successfully persuade stakeholders it is not” (Coombs, 2012; p. 6). This explanation of crisis is an improvement on previous attempts as it refers to stakeholders. However, it does not address the origin of stakeholder perceptions or the provocations of crises, although whether these are significant is questionable.

Related to the aforementioned provocations of crises there is also a tendency amongst theorists to view various events, incidents, issues and crises as synonymous; however, this is confusing. Faulkner’s (2001) delineation of crisis and disaster where the latter is defined as being inflicted on an organisation is reminiscent of Anthonissen’s (2012) typology of events and Ulmer et al.’s (2015) division of intentional and unintentional crises. These descriptions and classifications do not assist in terms of defining a public relations crisis but aid in describing the provocations.

An organisation is confronted daily by events (or incidents) that have the potential to become issues or crises. Regardless of the type of events/incidents they are not the same as an organisational issue or crisis though interrelated. If every event or incident was defined as a crisis, organisations would be paralysed and constantly engaging in crisis communication.

Building upon the earlier definitions of public relations crises an improved explanation of what a public relations crisis ‘is’ has been proposed below:

A public relations crisis is triggered by an event, issue or incident and is the critical breakdown of relationship between an organisation and one (or more) of its publics, threatening the organisation’s existence and warranting an organisational response.

Considering Coombs’ (2012) addition of stakeholders in the definition of crisis communication it must be noted that the relationship breakdown is perceived by the concerned public and becomes evident via negative connections or communications. By affirming Coombs’ focus on the public’s perception of crisis as a definitional requirement the importance of publics can be ascertained.

It is essential to set these relationships in the context of the new communication status quo, which means they no longer exist in isolation. The relationships between an organisation and its publics are no longer distinct or homogenous. Due to the very nature of the new communication sphere, they are increasingly interrelated. This relational convergence is evidenced in the communication domain where one relationship schism can trigger another in an ongoing cycle.

In an attempt to generate a workable definition of public relations crises the distinction between event, issue, incident and crisis is illustrated in Figure 1.1. The ‘events’ or ‘incidents’ listed below, while not definitive, have been divided into internal or external, but could also be described according to the degree of human involvement. What is important to note about the figure is that the incident or event is not the issue or the crisis, it merely constitutes a potential trigger.

Figure 1.1 Event/incident, issue and crisis.

Contextualising public relations crises

Given the above definition it is now necessary to examine the contextualisation of crises and the method scholars and commentators have used to frame crises in order to aid understanding and formulate theory.

The most commonly used contextualisation is the application of crisis stages. Norton (2013) identifies three stages of crisis management: pre-crisis, crisis response and post-crisis evaluation. Coombs (2012) agrees with this referring to the second stage simply as crisis, while Griffin (2014) identifies five stages: prediction, prevention, preparation, resolution and recovery. This is similar to Fearn-Banks’ (2011) five stages of detection, prevention/preparation, containment, recovery and learning, which combines stages two and three of Griffins and adds learning as the fifth and final stage. It is important to note that this method of contextualisation has generated great criticism. Frandsen and Johansen (2011) critique the staged approach as too procedural pointing out that it does not consider overlapping or multiple crises occurring at the same time. However, applying a procedural approach does not exclude multiplicity; it simply provides a framework for managing the variables at differing points in a crisis timeline. Further, as each stage informs the proceeding one, the stages are necessarily interrelated and therefore overlap.

Other commentators overlay the above with a classification of crisis. For example, Maditinos and Vassiliadis (2008) cite Parson’s categorisation of immediate, emerging and sustained crisis as well as Karagiannis’ classification of crises according to human involvement, be it direct, indirect or no human involvement. Also included is Sausmarez who divides crises according to whether they are natural or man-made. However, if we accept that the event or incident is a potential crises trigger then Karagiannis and Sausmarez are offering event descriptions rather than crises contextualisation. Further, if it is acknowledged that a public relations crisis is the acute relationship schism between an organisation and one or more of its publics (incorporating the severity of possible outcomes noted in the earlier definition) then it follows that public relations crises have an inherent human factor.

However, Parson’s (cited in Maditinos and Vassiliadis, 2008) categorisation of immediate, emerging and sustained crises is relevant particularly in relation to this book’s definition as illustrated in Figure 1.1. That is, an immediate crisis can be seen to occur when the incident/event causes an immediate acute relationship schism. An emerging crisis can be seen as a link between a public relations issue and a public relations crisis, in that a crisis emerges from poor public relations issue management. Finally, a sustained crisis refers to poor public relations crisis management (communication) where the organisation is unsuccessful in communicating through the crisis and becomes mired in constant crisis communication. The salient point is the human involvement at each point in the model as evidenced by Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.2 Immediate, emerging and sustained crisis.

It is therefore logical that the ‘resolution’ phase or ‘crisis’ phase is critical in determining a positive outcome and avoiding a sustained crisis. Pearson et al. (1997) refer to the damage containment phase as garnering the most investment by organisations. The term ‘containment’ should be approached with caution given its potential for relativity and inaccuracy. Griffin’s (2014) notion of resolution where relationship reparation is the priority is a more apposite submission. During this resolution phase organisational communication is most heavily scrutinised, with the comportment of communication viewed as indicative of the organisation. As referred to earlier in this chapter, four key factors stand out in the response phase: what to say, when to say it, how to say it and who to say it to – this is the sum total of an organisation’s crisis communication.

From the suggested definition of public relations crisis, it is obvious that particular elements are omnipresent: the event, the organisation, the public (or publics) involved and the communication sphere, where interaction between the organisation and their publics takes place. In order to understand the environment of public relations crises all of these elements must also be defined in order to establish how they interact and impact public relations crises.

The difference between events, incidents, issues and crises

While the complexity and nature of events and incidents is not the focus of this book it is clear that in the context of this discussion references to events or incidents simply denote an occurrence that takes place at a certain time and or place that has the potential to impact an organisation, the organisation’s publics and the relationships that exist between them. It must be remembered, however, that these impacts can lead to public relations issues or public relations crises.

It is essential to distinguish between a public relations issue and a public relations crisis, and this has been graphically represented in Figures 1.1 and 1.2. The distinction is clear by virtue of the severity and potential impact a public relations crisis has on an organisation’s relationships. A crisis necessarily requires ‘all hands on deck’ to ensure the relationships under threat survive. The critical factor is the severity so that a public relations crisis requires an organisational response, whereas a public relations issue in spite of the challenge it presents for an organisation can be managed by an individual department or team. Coombs (2012) also acknowledges this distinction by observing that the term ‘crisis’ should be reserved for serious events.

It is worthwhile noting a further clarification of the term ‘organisational response’ in the context of public relations crises. Organisations continually respond to events and/or incidents. However, these responses are not necessarily public relations crisis responses. Organisational responses to events or incidents can be contextualised by the absence, or presence, of an acute relationship schism, and its presence necessitates public relations crisis communication.

The organisation defined

Organisational type is a factor influencing a specific organisation’s public relations crisis communication. The organisation has remained a central focus of both public relations crisis communication research and practice, parti...