AbstractToday, corporate crises inherently pose a threat to brand reputation. Multiple stakeholders, online influence and the interconnectedness of reputation with major social issues raise the stakes for crisis teams. The level of complexity has perhaps never been so great, and with it, the need for data‐driven decision‐making. In practice, research, analytics, and intelligence experts are full members of corporate risk and crisis teams from planning, to response, to evaluation. These professionals develop the insights to fuel smart, timely decision‐making by surfacing insights to ameliorate crises. Additionally, they are responsible for measuring and evaluating progress and performance improving the brand's readiness for future issues. Insights, intelligence and performance measures drive conclusions necessary to determine what, if any, brand damage has occurred, how to fix it, and how to prepare better for the next time.
AbstractAt the onset of a crisis, an initial organizational statement sets the tone for subsequent discussion. While existing literature provides strategic guidance, it offers limited insight into the message‐level execution of such statements. This study synthesizes insights from literature and trade publications to complement strategic literature by proposing a practical set of 'crisis essentials' which practitioners can leverage in composing an initial crisis statement. Upon identification of these elements from scholarly and industry literature, two online surveys presenting a hypothetical crisis scenario are released to Gen Z stakeholders and crisis communication practitioners in the United States; respondents rate the relative importance of each element. Gen Z was selected as the stakeholder population of interest due to their high activity on social media, their role as the talent which will be entering the workforce and eventually leadership roles, and the more limited existing analysis of this segment. Comparative analysis is conducted, based on two online surveys among adult individuals from these two populations, to evaluate whether gaps exist in stakeholder expectations and practitioner approaches. Findings reveal: the proposed elements (e.g., statement of the crisis, attribution, expert quote; 11 in total) were of nonzero importance to both Gen Z stakeholder respondents and crisis communication practitioner respondents, essentials related to the assuring stakeholders (e.g., action steps) were rated more highly than informational essentials (e.g., timeline), and importance ratings across survey samples were generally consistent. Practitioners should consider each of these proposed essentials when developing communication materials, and that while stakeholders expect sufficient information to understand a crisis event, they ultimately care about what the crisis means for the future of the organization. This study, grounded in crisis communication theory, provides a relevant, practical contribution to the implementation of effective strategic crisis communication in situations concerning Gen Z stakeholders.
