reaction to chapter 4 & 6
For a public relations practitioner, effective risk and crisis communication skills are now more of a fundamental ability rather than a special field of practice. Along with the popularity of new media that arm individuals with powerful communication tools; blogs, cell phones, wireless Internet, and so forth, the speed of "trouble" travels far and fast compared to the past. Furthermore, because of these advanced technology, what started as a simple dew drop may result as a hurricane if they are not handled professionally. People have better access to information, and the skeletons cannot stay in the closet forever anymore. In this extent, it is important to know the initial actions you need to take during a risk situation. This is where the tips from our textbook come handy.
While it seems pretty obvious, L&M illustrate the importance of "knowing the audienc." Basically, risk management starts from audience analysis because that is where communication initiates. The book goes as far to state that by properly analyzing the audience, "you will be in a position to know how to apply any of the other principles" (p.100). Additional factors indicate the need to diversify methods in order to meet segmented audiences, simple and explicit messages to utilize understandings, honest and compassionate communication methods to reconcile the audience, and consistent messages sent out to build credibility (p.100~p. 103). The text also identifies certain factors that "constrain care, consensus, and crisis communication" (p.47). Because a communication process is a two-way road, it is essential to consider both roadblocks of the practitioner and the audience. Both sides need to be confirmed in order to resolve a risk situation.
In April 2006, a chemical compound which is commonly known as benzene was found in a popular vitamin drink in Korea. The Korea Food & Drug Administration tested 5 different vitamin drinks on the market and found out that all of them had benzene in it. About half of the products had sufficiently more than the limited amount of the chemical compound within beverages. Of course this was reported to the media, and naturally people were outraged. Immediate crisis communication took place. Manufacturers of the products recalled all drinks on the shelves. They wrote a letter of apology to the public and promised a higher level of concern towards the productÂs health issues. However, this was not enough to resolve peopleÂs outrage. Sales dropped dramatically and the whole vitamin drinks market practically wiped out of business at that time. During the same period of time, other bottled drinks such as orange juice and energy drinks also dropped in sales simply because they contained contents in the same containers. The initial reaction to this incident would be pretty similar among public relations practitioners; they should have seen it coming. If a risk is directly related to people's health, it is bound to cause a dramatic effect. However, if you take a closer look to the situation and analyze what went through the mind of the manufacturers, the crisis situation faces a whole new level.
Benzene is prohibited from table use since it causes cancer and dramatically affects the hematosis systems. However, it is almost inevitable for beverages to contain this component during the process chain. There is a certain amount of benzene needed to threaten our health, and the portion is so minimal in the vitamin drinks, the manufacturers decided that it was better not to mention it on the face. This was considered a smart choice among the Âdecision makers since there is no point on alarming the public when nothing really is the matter. A more important factor was that this was a "vitamin C drink." Not only did these drinks meet the well-being trends of Korea, it really did do good things for your body. Compared to the advanced economical and technological status of the country, the awareness and education level regarding vitamin C effects and the importance to take supplements is among the lowest of OECD membership countries. The vitamin C drinks were highly welcomed by nutritionists, since it contained 500mg of vitamin. This is more than the required daily intake which means one drink a day will take care of the worries of the shortage of vitamin C consumption among Koreans. In other words, the risk was in presence along the whole process, and they knew about it. The manufacturers decided to carry this risk along the road since the drinks were making so much money and also because it gave more than it had of risk. Clearly, the judgment was wrong since as mentioned above, the vitamin C drink market practically died and people are resistant to take pills because it seems to be "too much of a medicine." It appears that the current situation rather seems to be a crisis.
Risk and crisis no longer stare at you in the face; they hit you from every angle, and they hit you fast and hard. My ultimate take after reading chapter 4 and six all comes down to one big question. Is there really a guideline? I assume that practitioners who have had some educational background in public relations would have the least knowledge to deal with risks and crisis, but we see crisis almost on our daily basis. How is this happening?
While it seems pretty obvious, L&M illustrate the importance of "knowing the audienc." Basically, risk management starts from audience analysis because that is where communication initiates. The book goes as far to state that by properly analyzing the audience, "you will be in a position to know how to apply any of the other principles" (p.100). Additional factors indicate the need to diversify methods in order to meet segmented audiences, simple and explicit messages to utilize understandings, honest and compassionate communication methods to reconcile the audience, and consistent messages sent out to build credibility (p.100~p. 103). The text also identifies certain factors that "constrain care, consensus, and crisis communication" (p.47). Because a communication process is a two-way road, it is essential to consider both roadblocks of the practitioner and the audience. Both sides need to be confirmed in order to resolve a risk situation.
In April 2006, a chemical compound which is commonly known as benzene was found in a popular vitamin drink in Korea. The Korea Food & Drug Administration tested 5 different vitamin drinks on the market and found out that all of them had benzene in it. About half of the products had sufficiently more than the limited amount of the chemical compound within beverages. Of course this was reported to the media, and naturally people were outraged. Immediate crisis communication took place. Manufacturers of the products recalled all drinks on the shelves. They wrote a letter of apology to the public and promised a higher level of concern towards the productÂs health issues. However, this was not enough to resolve peopleÂs outrage. Sales dropped dramatically and the whole vitamin drinks market practically wiped out of business at that time. During the same period of time, other bottled drinks such as orange juice and energy drinks also dropped in sales simply because they contained contents in the same containers. The initial reaction to this incident would be pretty similar among public relations practitioners; they should have seen it coming. If a risk is directly related to people's health, it is bound to cause a dramatic effect. However, if you take a closer look to the situation and analyze what went through the mind of the manufacturers, the crisis situation faces a whole new level.
Benzene is prohibited from table use since it causes cancer and dramatically affects the hematosis systems. However, it is almost inevitable for beverages to contain this component during the process chain. There is a certain amount of benzene needed to threaten our health, and the portion is so minimal in the vitamin drinks, the manufacturers decided that it was better not to mention it on the face. This was considered a smart choice among the Âdecision makers since there is no point on alarming the public when nothing really is the matter. A more important factor was that this was a "vitamin C drink." Not only did these drinks meet the well-being trends of Korea, it really did do good things for your body. Compared to the advanced economical and technological status of the country, the awareness and education level regarding vitamin C effects and the importance to take supplements is among the lowest of OECD membership countries. The vitamin C drinks were highly welcomed by nutritionists, since it contained 500mg of vitamin. This is more than the required daily intake which means one drink a day will take care of the worries of the shortage of vitamin C consumption among Koreans. In other words, the risk was in presence along the whole process, and they knew about it. The manufacturers decided to carry this risk along the road since the drinks were making so much money and also because it gave more than it had of risk. Clearly, the judgment was wrong since as mentioned above, the vitamin C drink market practically died and people are resistant to take pills because it seems to be "too much of a medicine." It appears that the current situation rather seems to be a crisis.
Risk and crisis no longer stare at you in the face; they hit you from every angle, and they hit you fast and hard. My ultimate take after reading chapter 4 and six all comes down to one big question. Is there really a guideline? I assume that practitioners who have had some educational background in public relations would have the least knowledge to deal with risks and crisis, but we see crisis almost on our daily basis. How is this happening?
posted by Min at
1/16/2007 09:01:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home